This Day in Presbyterian History

The Cause Of The Doctrinal Trouble In The Northern Presbyterian Church

(from the series, “Exploring Avenues Of Acquaintance And Co-operation”)
By Chalmers W. Alexander
Jackson, Miss.
[THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL 8.13 (1 November 1949): 9-11.]

This was the eighth in a series of articles by Chalmers W. Alexander under the heading, “Exploring Avenues of Acquaintance And Co-operation.” Chalmers Alexander was a noteworthy ruling elder serving the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, MS.

What has been the principal cause of the doctrinal disturbance in the Northern Presbyterian Church?

Origin Of The Doctrinal Disturbance

In order to understand fully the answer to that question it is necessary to look back briefly over some of the events which took place in the early history of Presbyterianism in America. By the close of the eighteenth century, the Presbyterian Church in this country found itself working side by side with the Congregational Church in trying to build churches and furnish ministers for the nation’s expanding population, which was spreading throughout the Middle West. And in 1801 a plan of union was adopted whereby the Presbyterian General Assembly and the General Association of the State of Connecticut (Congregational) should work together, rather than in competition.

“Old School” Theology Versus “New School” Theology

This union of 1801 marks the earliest discernible beginning of the decline of what we now refer to as the Northern Presbyterian Church, for the Congregational churches adhered to the liberal “New School” theology. This liberal “New School” theology differed from the Presbyterian, or conservative “Old School,” theology in several important points of doctrine.

The conservative “Old School” theology of the Presbyterians rested solidly on the teachings of the Holy Bible as they are outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The liberal “New School” theology differed from its teachings, for instance, with reference to the extent of the guilt of Adam as it is imputed to his descendents, and with reference to the Calvinist doctrine of the definite atonement of Christ.

The New England theologians, who were the trainers of the Congregational ministers, were not inclined to consider very seriously the principles which meant much to the Presbyterian ministers who, for the most part, came from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Consequently friction developed between the two denominational groups, and in 1837 they severed their relationship.

The Presbyterian Groups Separate

But prior to 1837, the liberal “New School” theology of the Congregational Church had been embraced by some of the Presbyterian ministers. Accordingly, within a few months after the separation of the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, there occurred a separation between the conservative “Old School” and the liberal “New School” groups which now existed in the Presbyterian Church.

The “New School” Presbyterian group, among other things, had founded Auburn Theological Seminary, at Auburn, New York. (It was from Auburn, New York that the heretical Auburn Affirmation was later to be published.) And this liberal “New School” group had also founded Union Theological Seminary in New York City, which is today one of the nation’s leading centers of extreme Modernism.

When the Civil War took place in this country, the synods of the South withdrew from the “Old School” group of Presbyterians in the North, and founded our own Southern Presbyterian Church. And from its founding until the present time our Southern Presbyterian Church has always adhered to the conservative “Old School” theology.

The Merger Of 1869

After the close of the Civil War, in the North the conservative “Old School” Presbyterian group reunited in 1869 with the liberal “New School” Presbyterian group, in spite of the fact that the great Princeton theologian, Dr. Charles Hodge, left a sick-bed to oppose the merger.

As a result of the merger of the conservative “Old School” and the liberal “New School” Presbyterian groups in 1869, that which Dr. Hodge and the other Conservative leaders in the Northern Presbyterian Church had feared now began to take place. From the date of that merger until the present time, the liberal “New School” theology has been a disturbing factor in the ranks of the Northern Presbyterian Church.

This disturbance and trouble arose, of course, from the fact that the merger of 1869 had taken place upon the basis of a common administration, and not upon the basis of a creed which meant the same thing to both Presbyterian groups. Thus, in 1869, the Northern Presbyterian Church had willingly surrendered the greater principle of Christian doctrine for the less important principle of church administration. “To it the system of government had become of more importance than the system of belief,” as Dr. William Crowe, one of the very clear thinkers of our denomination, has so well expressed it.

Two Divergent Groups In The Church

As a result of this merger of 1869, there now existed within the Northern Presbyterian Church two distinct and divergent groups. One, the “New School” group, adhered to the liberal theology which was being taught at such institutions as Union Theological Seminary of New York City. This Seminary, founded earlier by the liberal “New School” Presbyterian group, had been taken into the merged Northern Presbyterian Church in 1869 without any requirement being made that it first change its position in theology to conform to the teachings and doctrines summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. (Some twenty-three years later, in 1892, Union Theological Seminary of New York City was to terminate its relation to the Northern Presbyterian Church because of the action of the General Assembly of 1891 in refusing to confirm as Professor of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, Dr. Charles A. Briggs, who was found guilty of heresy and was later dismissed from the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church by the General Assembly of 1893, but who was to remain a professor in good standing at Union Theological Seminary of New York City until his death in 1913.)

The second group in the Northern Presbyterian Church, or the conservative “Old School” group, continued to adhere to the theology which had come from Paul the Apostle down through John Calvin of Geneva, John Knox of Scotland, and, in this country, through the great Princeton Seminary theologians.

As Princeton Theological Seminary (hereinafter referred to as Princeton Seminary) has played such an important part in the life of the Northern Presbyterian Church, it will be informative to consider what effect the liberal “New School” theology has had upon it since that Seminary was reorganized in 1929.

But first let us glance at some of the history and achievements of that institution prior to its reorganization in 1929.

The Early Character Of Princeton Seminary

Princeton Seminary was from its beginning the great center of conservative “Old School” theology in America. Founded in 1812 at Princeton, New Jersey, it was the oldest seminary in the Northern Presbyterian Church. Its foundation rested squarely on the fully inspired Word of God as it is summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Because of its sound theology, and because of the profound scholarship of its faculty, Princeton Seminary acquired a world-wide reputation as a great center of Christian learning. It became known as the outstanding seminary of the Northern Presbyterian Church.

The faculty of Princeton Seminary had always been composed of great men, all of whom adhered strictly to the conservative “Old School” theology, and all of whom held to the doctrines of the Holy Bible as they are outlined in the Westminster Standards.

Among the Seminary’s earlier faculty members there had been such theological giants as its first professor, Dr. Archibald Alexander, and the other Alexanders, and Dr. Samuel Miller, and some of the members of the famed Hodge family. And in more recent times such master theologians as the following were on its faculty: Professors Benjamin B. Warfield, Robert Dick Wilson, William B. Greene, Geerhardus Vos, William Park Armstrong, J. Gresham Machen, Oswald T. Allis, Casper Wistar Hodge (the fourth member of that great family of theologians), and Cornelius Van Til.

Princeton Seminary Scholarship

Some conception of the very unusual ability of these men as Bible scholars can be gained by considering one of them, Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, for a moment.

Dr. Warfield had received his A.B. and his M.A. from Princeton University and his Th.B. from Princeton Seminary. Then he had studied abroad at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Heidelberg, and the University of Leipzig. He was for many years the Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary.

Dr. Warfield is considered by many very able Bible scholars to have been the greatest theologian that America has ever produced.

The late Dr. John DeWitt, himself a great scholar, once remarked that he had known intimately the three outstanding theologians in the Northern Presbyterian Church of the generation preceding Dr. Warfield, namely, Henry B. Smith, William G. T. Shedd, and Charles Hodge, and that he was certain that Dr. Warfield knew more than any one of them, and that he was disposed to think that Dr. Warfield knew more than all three of them combined.

Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge succeeded Dr. Warfield as Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton Seminary after the latter’s death in 1921. Dr. Hodge received his A.B. and his Ph.D. from Princeton University and, after a year’s study abroad at the University of Heidelberg and the University of Berlin, he had finally taken his B.D. from Princeton Seminary. In speaking of his predecessors in the Professorship of Systematic Theology (two of whom had been his grandfather, Dr. Charles Hodge, and his uncle, Dr. A. A. Hodge, both of whom had been world famous), Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge spoke of Dr. Warfield as “excelling them all in erudition” and as being “one of the greatest men who has ever taught in this institution.”

At the time of Dr. Warfield’s death, Dr. Francis Landey Patton, who had formerly served as President of Princeton University and later as President of Princeton Seminary, stated that under Dr. Warfield’s leadership “the department of Systematic Theology has been built up and has attained a position in this Seminary which it never had before and, so far as my knowledge and information go, exists nowhere else.”

And Dr. Samuel G. Craig, the able Editor of Christianity Today, one of the sound church papers in the Northern Presbyterian Church, wrote in 1934: “For instance, I am sure that at the time of his death there was no man in the world-—I make no exceptions—who knew more about the New Testament and what has been said against its trustworthiness than Benjamin B. Warfield. Again I am sure that at the time of his death there was no man in the world—here too I make no exceptions—who knew more about the Old Testament and what has been said against its trustworthiness than Robert Dick Wilson. Yet I am sure that Dr. Warfield would have said about the New Testament what Dr. Wilson said about the Old Testament: that no man knows enough to say that it contains errors.”

In fact, in his monumental volume entitled, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, which the Inter-Varsity Magazine, of London, calls “the ablest defense of the conservative view of the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture that has appeared in the English language,” Dr. Warfield expressed the same view of the Bible’s full trustworthiness which was held by Dr. Robert Dick Wilson.

Dr. Warfield’s view of the inspiration of the Bible and his position in theology were shared by all of his associates on the Princeton Seminary faculty. That able theologian, Dr. John Macleod, Principal of the Free Church College, of Edinburgh, Scotland, has stated that Dr. Warfield, in speaking to him of Dr. Warfield’s associates on the Princeton Seminary faculty, once remarked that, “We are all of one mind.” All of the members of the Seminary faculty were conservative “Old School” theologians who believed that the only consistent system of doctrine and belief taught in the Holy Bible was clearly summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

Under the leadership of Dr. Warfield, Princeton Seminary stood like a Rock of Gibraltar which, since its founding, had withstood all of the Modernist attacks of unbelief. When perplexing problems of theology were under discussion, Bible-believing Presbyterians everywhere knew that the right answers to the problems could always be found at Princeton Seminary.

Of all of the theological seminaries in the Northern Presbyterian Church, Princeton Seminary alone now stood firmly and consistently for the orthodox position in theology. Its faculty was not in any way contaminated by the liberal “New School” theology. And Princeton Seminary was pouring into the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church each year from forty to fifty orthodox young ministers, constituting one-fourth of each year’s total supply of new ministers in that denomination.

A Movement To Reorganize Princeton University

Now for some time there had been a movement under way to try to reorganize the great Princeton Seminary.

The purpose of the proposed reorganization of Princeton Seminary was to make that institution inclusive not only of the conservative “Old School” theology which had always been taught there, but of the liberal “New School” theology as well.

Because of the movement to try to reorganize Princeton Seminary, a fierce struggle had taken place for several years behind the scenes in the Northern Presbyterian Church. By this time the Northern Presbyterian Church consisted of three different groups: a strong, outspoken orthodox group, an active Modernist group, and a so-called “middle-of-the-road” group. This so-called “middle-of-the-road” group was trying to hold on to the Holy Bible and to the Westminster Standards, and at the same time not oppose the Modernists. Many of this so-called “middle-of-the-road” group wanted “peace at any price,” even if it had to be purchased at the cost of serious compromise with error in Christian belief.

Finally, in 1929, in spite of a valient and courageous fight by many of the orthodox group in the Northern Presbyterian Church, those who wanted to reorganize Princeton Seminary won the struggle.

Two recollections on the Rev. Dr. Archibald Alexander, first professor of the Princeton Theological Seminary. The first of these is found on page 1 of THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, vol. 48, no. 45 (10 November 1869), though the author of the piece is identified solely by the pseudonym “Memor.” The second account is drawn from RECOLLECTIONS OF USEFUL PERSONS AND IMPORTANT EVENTS, by S.C. Jennings, D.D. (1884), pp. 99-100.

For the Observer and Commonwealth
REV. DR. ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

Dear good old Dr. Alexander! How we loved him in New Jersey! Many a time have I seen people stop and look at him as he passed—even those who had never seen him loved and admired. The true Christian knew why. In the pulpit he was very different from many of the present day, but we all felt that he was indeed a minister of Jesus Christ unto us, and in the sacred desk, and at the communion table we seemed to be brought near to God and to Heaven. In this respect few were his equals and this power is a great gift. Many living servants of God know that they feel his influence to this day and thank God for it. Sabbath afternoon we met in the lecture room for conversation up on some subject before announced. Any student said what he wished, and they spoke freely, moderately and well. But our spiritual feast was when Dr. Alexander and Dr. Miller, and young professor Hodge, as he was then, sitting in their chairs would give us the essence of their matured thoughts. At the time I admired and relished it, but in riper years only could I really appreciate our privilege. There was no apparent effort, but the spring of living thought seemed to pour forth spontaneously. In this exercise Dr. Alexander excelled, and I thought could condense more ideas in a few sentences than any man I ever met. He was so devout and spiritual and earnest that we felt his words. “Pray”—on one occasion, he said, “pray on. And if in the closet alone with God you desire to remain longer and God seems indeed to be there,—Pray on; and if your heart inclines you to tarry longer—pray on and hour after hour—hour after hour. It is a heavenly gale, and you may make more advances than you have in a year, ‘Pray on.’ ”  —Memor.

The Christian Observer 48.45 (10 November 1869): 1.

“Between the years 1824 and 1827, Drs. Alexander and Miller and Professor Hodge were (in the Presbyterian Church) the only public instructors of theological students. Dr. Alexander commenced this work in 1812. Twelve years afterward he was still vigorous in mind. In body he was rather small, with some gray hairs. As he sat in the recitation room, reclining his head upon his hand, small, piercing eyes looked upon the students, ready to approve their performances; or, when need be, to correct their mistakes. He appeared rather reserved, and yet in private was very paternal, exercising his thorough knowledge of human nature with great skill.

“A peculiarity in him was the clearness of his style in teaching and preaching. His great learning enabled him to use the very words—mostly of Saxon origin—by which his hearers comprehended the truth easily. This example of his should be imitated by young ministers of our time. While he adapted language to his subject, as when he wrote his volume on the Canon of Sacred Scriptures, and that on the Evidences of Christianity, his manner of preaching was more like his admirable book of Christian Experience—clear, practical and searching. There was no going outside of the themes of the Bible to find something new and entertaining. He condemned unprofitable speculations in the class room, and never practiced them in the pulpit. In his lectures on pastoral care to the students, he recommended special seasons of labor to promote revivals, wisely chosen, with the choice of proper persons to give aid in the preaching. I remember when there was a revival at Princeton, he went to give instruction to the young.”

Jennings, S.C., Recollections of Useful Persons and Important Events within Seventy Years. Vancefort, PA: J. Dillon & Son, 1884. Pp. 99-100.

The following short article appeared on the pages of The Charleston Observer in 1840, reprinted there from The Presbyterian, a Philadelphia paper.  The article was written in response to actions taken in the Presbyterian Church at that time, correcting the error of disuse into which the diaconal office had fallen. This was a noted problem in the first half of the nineteenth century that only began to be seriously addressed in the period following the Civil War. 

We are pleased to observe that the injunctions of the General Assembly, relative to the appointment of Deacons in our several Churches, has attracted attention, and in many instances, has led inferior judicatories to take immediate measures to supply the glaring defect which is so general, and has been so long continued.  The disuse into which the office has fallen, has arisen from a wrong impression, that it may properly be dispensed with in any Church which has no poor dependent on its charity, or where the Elders without inconvenience, can attend to the poor.  In reply to this, we refer to the requirements of the Church, which are imperative on the subject. 
The Deacon is an officer who is spoken of as an indispensable part of a rightly organized Church, and if he may be set aside by such a plea, as the one above alluded to, with the same propriety may the Ruling Elder be dispensed with, on some similar plea. 
The Deacon is a spiritual officer in the Church of Christ, and while it is his peculiar duty to be the almoner of the Church to its poor, it is surely not his only duty.  Is he under no obligations to accompany these charities with kindly visits, religious conversation, and prayer?  Is he not to give counsel to the widow in her affliction, and instruction to the orphan?—He may be a co-adjutor to the Elder, and aid the Pastor materially in the well-ordering of the Church. 
The office of the Deacon was not designed to be a temporary one ; there is not one intimation in Scripture to this effect ; and although it originated in the peculiar wants of the Church at the time, yet those wants will always exist in a degree sufficient to justify its continuance.
—The duty of the Churches, therefore, is clear: they should forthwith choose suitable men to fill this office.—The Presbyterian.

[The Charleston Observer, 14.40 (21 November 1840): 1, col. 6]

Words to Live By:
Rev. James B. Ramsey wrote one of the best short articles I can point you to on the office of the deacon. You can read that article, here. Among other things, he said:

But, it may be asked, of what use are deacons to take care of the poor in churches where there are no poor, or but two or three ? That, indeed, is a sadly defective state of the church where there are no poor ; there must be something very deficient in its zeal and aggressiveness, if amidst the multitudes of poor around us, and mingling with us, there are none in the church itself. . . . Is it not evident that any church that fails to gather in the poor, fails in accomplishing one great design of the Gospel, and in presenting to the world one of the most convincing proofs of the truth and power of Christianity ?

Always a Timely, and Needed, Reminder

[from The Charleston Observer 14.40 (21 November 1840): 1, col. 5-6.]
by “Y.E.K.”

Called to a great work he needs your prayers; “He is an ambassador for Christ; a steward of the mysteries of God, to declare his course; to preach the Word, instant in season, and out of season.” he stands in the place of the Divine Redeemer, to publish His message of mercy, and to urge its acceptance upon mankind. He is appointed to proclaim the mind of the Most High, to declare His law, to utter His threatenings, to speak His promises, to press His claims, to do it truly and faithfully. To accomplish this, he “must give attendance to his preaching, to exhortation, to doctrine, not neglecting the gift he has received with prophecy and the laying on of hands of the Presbytery, meditating continually on these things, that no man may despise his attainments.  This is to be done too, in opposition to the views of many who would have him always among his people; and in preaching a thorougly extemporaneous man, and also in the midst of multiplied and various calls upon his time and attention. He must also “be an example to the flock in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity; in doctrine, showing uncorruptness; in meekness, instructing them that oppose themselves, holding fast the faithful word.”

What knowledge, wisdom and grace, are requisite for all this? How must the heart glow with the love of God! What humility, and patience, and kindness are necessary!  What firmness and decision, tempered with what meekness and love! How must the minister be rooted, and grounded in the truth! What spiritual discernment ppossess, what unquenchable love to souls! What a heavenly mind—a Christ-like temper and a holy life; and who shall possess these without large measures of the Spirit of truth and grace? and this is a gift bestowed in answer to prayer.

Then Christian, pray for that gift to thy minister. Remember too, his work is trying. He is tried, among other things, by the carelessness and inaction of the church—by the apathy and unbelief of his impenitent hearers. Perhaps at the very moment some are complaining of his lifelessness, and look abroad for foreign aid, he is mourning in his closet the spiritual dearth among his people, and beseeching the God of heaven to revive his work, and to render his labors, though he feels personal unworthiness, more efficient and successful.  As he surveys the fruitlessness of his field of labor, his heart almost faints within him. What need of supporting grace.  Christian, seek it in his behalf by prayer.

Think too, of the diversity of opinion and feeling among his people. Lift up your eye. Behold the eager anxieety to catch at something new and strange.  Mark the jealousy and suspicion which exist between brethren. What shall he do? How keep his heart right, and pursue the right course? How stand amid conflicting views, unawed by fear; unwarped by prejudice; meek though bold, and speak the truth as it is in Christ? Who needs your prayers, if he does not need them?

Then think he is a man, liable to the errors, and frailties and sins of men. He is not infallible. He is not all-wise, nor all-prudent, nor all holy. A human being, is he called to these duties and trials. An angel might sink under them, what shall he do?—How much grace does he need? Then what need of prayer in his behalf? Christian, cease to dwell upon his imperfections and proclaim his foibles; go to your closet, and if you can pray, pray that God would anoint him anew for his work. Should you and your brethren do it, you might expect him to be far holier, far wiser, far more efficient and successful. Then, too, your own improvement and happiness call upon you to do this. The connection between the labors of your pastor, and the welfare of the Church is intimate and obvious. You in fact allow it. Therefore you provide for those labors. You erect houses of worship, you employ preacher, you attend to hear. To build up the Church what need that preaching be correct, spiritual, discriminating, earnest; that it be in demonstration of the spirit and with power.

Could the preacher come each Sabbath laden with knowledge, imbued with love, and attended by the Holy Ghost—could he go thus from house to house, and meeting to meeting, how much might be accomplished. Souls would be fed and nourished. The thoughtless be aroused, the fearful encouraged, the doubting confirmed.  Many would arise to new activity in the divine life. Sinners too must feel its influence. God hath constituted the preaching of the Gospel His power and wisdom unto salvation.  Infinite consequences are depending. That Gospel is a savor of life or of death. With God’s blessing it may raise the soul from sin to holiness. It may save it from hell and bear it to heaven. Here is the grand reason after all, to pray for ministers. Their personal difficulties and trials are of small account.—It is that the Gospel may have free course and be glorified; that it may hasten on its way, making glad the city of our God, and bearing salvation to the lost.

If you would love that Gospel, if you would see it triumph, if you love the souls it was given to save, and him who gave it, never forget to pray for your minister. “Finally brethren, pray for us;” then the word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified.

She was Called “Stockade Annie”
by Rev. David T Myers

The woman had run off two surveyors with a shotgun. But one cannot stop the federal government from possessing your land to make it an Army installation, even if your family had owned it since 1835. They took possession of it and in 1942, Fort Campbell was quickly set up and in business on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. Anna Barr may have lost that fight, but eventually she was in control of Fort Campbell! But we are getting ahead of ourselves in this remarkable true story.

Anna Barr was born on this day of November 7, 1875. One of twelve children, she was tutored at home until age twelve, when she transferred to a “public” school. The popular, but headstrong young Southern belle, met and married at age 31, John Christy Barr, of New Orleans. The latter had been called into the ministry and specifically the Presbyterian ministry in his home town. For the next thirty years, both of them would serve the Lord as pastor and pastor’s wife at Presbyterian churches in that town.

While the church experience would sour her on “organized religion,” nothing could take away her love of God and the good news of salvation which she had received in her heart and was desirous of spreading that good news of eternal life around her. And this is where she began to be known as “Stockade Annie,” of our title. Bereft of her husband by death in 1942, and without children, her “family” would be the soldiers of Fort Campbell in either the stockade or hospital for the next several decades.

To accomplish that, she stated to the commanding general that she needed a pass into the installation. When one did not come readily, she demanded one. And eventually she received it, from him and all succeeding commanders. For the next twenty-three years, she witnessed by means of gospel tracts, Bibles, and most of all, by her personal presence beside her military family. It might mean holding the hands of a soldiers all night in the hospital, or reaching through the bars of the jail of those in trouble with the life changing message of the gospel.

When the Vietnam War came upon our country, she stood at the airport handing out Bibles and New Testaments to her “boys” as they headed over to that war torn country. Opposed to the war, she once tried to see President Nixon to influence him to stop the war, but an open door to the White House was not granted to her. Every Fort Campbell commander knew who she was though.

At the ripe old age of 90, Mrs Barr went to meet her Savior and Lord. It was said that a military funeral was granted to her, with military honors, even though she was only a member of the army of the Lord. Today, in the Don F Pratt Museum just outside of the installation, there is a special remembrance of Stockade Annie’s (Anna Barr) ministry to spiritual needy military men and women at Fort Campbell.

Words to Live By:
Calling all mothers of our subscriber list, don’t think that your ministry is gone in your retirement years. Consider Anna Barr’s example. Talk to your pastor regarding any ministry inside or outside your local congregation which needs your loving and faithful service for Christ. Then prayerfully, give of your spiritual gifts and time to that ministry. Far from simply building a remembrance on earth of your time and talents, your loving service for Christ will be remembered in eternity.