From the Change of His Professorship, 1840, to the Death of Dr. Archibald Alexander, 1851
At the suggestion of Dr. A. Alexander and the Board of Directors the General Assembly, in May, 1840, made a readjustment of the chairs in the Seminary, in view of the advancing age of the Senior Professor. Dr. Alexander’s title continued thenceforth till his death Professor of Pastoral and Polemic Theology. Dr. Hodge was transferred to the chair formerly occupied by his venerable teacher. Dr. A. Alexander, and his title was made Professor of Exegetical and Didactic Theology. And Dr. J. A. Alexander became full and sole Professor of Oriental and Biblical Literature. At the death of Dr. Alexander Polemic Theology was added to the title of Prof Hodge. In the meantime he retained to the day of his death his exegetical lectures to the Junior Class on the Pauline Epistles. While Dr. Addison Alexander took beside the Old Testament, the historical books, and the entire literature of the New Testament.
This change, which was one of the capital and most advantageous turning points of Dr. Hodge’s life, was not only not sought by him, but regarded at first with decided aversion.
DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER,
Princeton, May 11, 1840.
My Dear Brother: — How did you hear so soon of my being made Dr. Alexander’s adjunct? The thing is not done yet, nor is it likely to be done in a hurry. It must pass the Assembly unanimously, or lie over for a year. That no one should object to it I should consider well nigh miraculous. I have felt it to be my duty to be perfectly quiet, and to make no intimation of my own wishes on the subject. For two reasons — First, because I do not think my wishes ought to have anything to do with the business. I ought to be willing to do just what the church bids me. The second reason is, that I would not presume to put my wishes in opposition to those of Dr. Alexander. I think he ought, so far as I am concerned, to be allowed to do just as he pleases. To yoti, however, I may say in confidence, that I would give five thousand dollars, if I had them, to be let off. The new arrangement knocks all my plans in the head, and will increase my official labors for years to come fourfold. You must not say this to anybody, because, having given my consent to be disposed of as they see fit, it would be unfair to raise any obstacle, either directly or indirectly. I live in great hopes that it will fall through without any agency of mine. And then I shall have a clear conscience as well as a merry heart.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
This feeling is remarkable in consideration of the fact that, from our point of view, his natural qualifications for the attainment of eminent excellence and usefulness in the new chair were far greater than any he possessed for the attainment of the same rank in the old one. Yet, it was surely not the least of the many singularly favorable providential adjustments of the conditions of his life that he should have been required, by official duty, to exercise himself for twenty years in a department of theological study to which his natural tastes did not dispose him. Thus, in a way in which for him it was alone possible, he was led to make acquisitions in the original languages of Scripture
/ET. 42.] CHANGE OF PROFESSORSHIP. 323
and in the science and practice of Biblical exegesis, which are professedly the basis of systematic theology, and yet are the qualifications in which the vast majority of speculative theologians have been more or less deficient. Consequently, it is confidently believed that very few of the eminent authors of our classical theological literature have equalled the subject of this memoir in the consistency in which they carried out their common principle of making the faithful and natural interpretation of the inspired Word the basis of all doctrinal induction, and in the Scriptural form and spirit, as well as substance, of their systematic writings.
For the first eight or nine years of his work in the new department Dr. Hodge’s method was such that he was enabled to accomplish the best results of his life in class instruction. Dr. Alexander continued to read his former theological lectures to the classes until Dr. Hodge had his course prepared. The first lectures the latter wrote were those on the Church, which were delivered during the winter of 1845-6. The first lectures forming parts of the theological course proper were written on the topics of the “Will” and the “Second Advent,” and were read to the class the same year. In the meantime he met both the Middle and Senior Classes twice a week each, Tuesday and Thursday, or Wednesday and Friday afternoons respectively. Before the first meeting of either class for the week the Professor assigned a topic and a corresponding section of Turrettine’s Institutes of Theology in Latin for previous study. When they met the hour was occupied by a thorough discussion of this subject in the form of question and answer. In this form of discipline his chief excellence as a teacher was brought into play. He questioned with consummate skill, forcing the pupil to do his own thinking, drawing him irresistibly to the conviction of the truth, or overturning his false positions with an inevitable rcductio ad absurdnm. As the truth was thus evolved, or as the Professor finally amended the result in his own words, the students eagerly wrought to fix the whole in their note books. - At the same time the Professor gave them a list of questions on the topic, numbering from twenty-five to forty, answers to which, written out in full, were to be read to him at the 1
-V meeting of the class nine days afterwards. These answers were elaborated out of materials drawn from Turrettine, and the notes taken in the class-room, and from any other
source rendered accessible by the Seminary library. The highest enthusiasm was excited, and the most earnest diligence. The students built up to a degree their own systems of theology, and were vigorously exercised in criticism, construction and expression. Many carried away from the Seminary from two to six quarto volumes of manuscript filled with the results of this exercise, which, having afforded them the most profitable discipline in the past, continued to supply them with digested and arranged material for preaching which lasted during several of the early years of their ministry.
About 1847-8 he began to lecture, at first in connection with the questions and answers written by the pupils, and
—afterwards without them. For years, although he re-wrote his lectures several times, he was harassed with the inevitable experience of lecturers, in having his lectures systematically taken down by stenographers, and subsequently copied from hand to hand and given back to him verbally
- at recitation. Long afterwards, for the few years that he taught after his “Systematic Theology” was published, his teaching became much more satisfactory to himself, when he used his work as his text-book and devoted the entire time allotted to his class in the old effective exercise of drill by questions and answers.
In 1 841 the American Sunday School Union published his “Way of Life.” This is a duodecimo of 380 pages, in
>ET. 43.] “THE IVA Y OF LIFE.” 325
which his design is to set clearly before the minds of educated youth the great truths involved in the Gospel method of human salvation. The book is eminently luminous; its characteristic attribute is light suffused with love. The doctrines of Evangelical Protestantism are clearly and fully stated, yet in non-technical language, and with such simplicity and self-evidencing power that the compiler of these memoirs has constantly advised his theological students to read the “Way of Life” on the subjects of “Conviction of Sin,” “Faith,” ‘“Justification,” “The Sacraments and Profession of Religion,” and “Holy Living” in connection with the discussion of the same topics in the “Systematic Theology.” It is so richly and definitely theological that Dr. Archibald Alexander, after reading the manuscript, while expressing his cordial approbation of it, declared his conviction that the Publishing Committee of the Sunday School Union, consisting of the representatives of all evangelical denominations, could not agree in giving it their imprimatur. Yet, in fact, no suspicion even was manifested, except by the representative of our then freshly antagonized New School brethren, and his apprehensions were easily set at rest, and the book was adopted unanimously. It was immediately reprinted by the London Religious Tract Society, and was subsequently translated into Hindustani. Thirty-five thousand copies have been circulated in America, and the author’s heart has been often filled with grateful joy from information of its having been, in many specific instances, owned of God in the conversion and edification of souls, alike in America and in Europe and in Asia.
His own account of it is thus given in the Preface:” It is one of the clearest principles of divine revelation that holiness is the fruit of truth; and it is one of the plainest inferences from that principle that the exhibition of the truth is the best means of promoting holiness. Christians regard the Word of God as the only infallible teacher of those truths which relate to the salvation of men. But arc the
326 ‘’ THE WAY OF LlFEr [1841.
Scriptures really a revelation from God? If they are, what doctrines do they teach? And what influence should those doctrines exert on our heart and life?
“The Publishing Committee of the American Sunday School Union have long felt the want of a book which should give a plain answer to these questions, and be suitable to place in the hands of intelligent and educated young persons, either to arouse their attention or to guide their steps in the way of life,”
The Nezv England Puritan (March, 1842,) said of it:” We know not where the evidence of the divine origin of the Scriptures is presented in a way so well adapted to take effect upon the mind. It wins while it convinces. Here, in our opinion, is the sterling excellency of Dr. Hodge. While his mind is endowed with such clearness that it can throw a blaze of light upon any given subject, his heart is impregnated with such benevolence towards his fellow-men that almost every one who comes within the sphere of its attraction becomes a willing convert to his opinions. While he convinces the judgment, he carries captive the will.
“But the evidence of the divine origin of the Scriptures is not the best part of the volume. The author was most at home on the doctrines, and there he ls prvmis inter pares. No one, we think, can read the volume under consideration from the 53d to the 245th page — almost two-thirds of the whole work — without coming to the conclusion that nowhere else within the same compass, out of the Sacred Record, can he find so much to instruct and to satisfy his mind and to edify his heart. The chapter on Justification especially pleased us.”
Yet, it is true that the expositions of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, of the Nature and Necessity of the Public Profession of Religion and of Holy Living are as exquisitely executed and as precious as any other parts of the work.
DR. ALEXANDER TO DR. HODGE.
May II, 1841.
I have read the greater part of your manuscript and find nothing from which I feel disposed to dissent. Indeed, your views of the subjects treated correspond very exactly with those which I entertain.
On the subject of faith, while there is a substantial agreement, there may be some slight shades of difference. For example, I make no difference between a saving and a justifymg- faith. I think that you make a difference with Dr. Owen.
The chapters are entirely too long. It is of much importance that in such a work the chapters should be of moderate length. The first chapter ought undoubtedly to be divided into three. But even where the same subject is continued, it is better to have it divided. I find that in my own reading I am often turning to see how many pages remain before the termination of the chapter.
As you have written the book for the Sunday School Union, it is useless to offer any remarks on that subject, otherwise I would strongly recommend the Board of Publication. It struck me as doubtful whether the S. S. Union could publish all that you have written without offence to some of their friends. For, to say nothing of Arminians who patronize that Institution, there are few of the New School ministers who believe in the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, which is made prominent in your book. I would not have you, on any account, to alter a word for that reason, which would be disloyal to the truth. This is the great defect of the Institution, that they cannot teach the whole truth, but only that part of it in which all their patrons are agreed.
Yours, &c., A. Alexander
BISHOP JOHNS TO DR. HODGE.
Baltimore, Feb. 15, 1842, If I were to write to you, my dear Charles, as often and as much as I muse about you, you would have to complain of the tax upon your time and your purse. Fortunately for you, my musings end where they begin, in my own mind and heart, and whilst they afford me no small amount of pleasure, inflict nothing upon you. If you desire to know how it comes to pass that they insist on expression now, understand that you alone are answerable for it. I have been reading your book, and it is not in me to refrain from communicating the proud satisfaction with which I have perused it. Will you believe it? — I was silly enough to feel all the while as if I had a hand in it myself, and my enjoyment was increased by a fiction, which I had no disposition to resist, that I was somehow honorably concerned in the production. One thing, however, is certain, I shall use it as freely as if it were all my own, and shall find it serviceable to myself in a way in which it cannot be a help to its author. I have sent it out into my congregation with an unqualified endorsement, and hope soon to find it in every family under my care, I am sure it will be received with as much favor by the evangelical portion of our communion as among your own people, and do great good where, perhaps, you little anticipated it.
The fifth chapter I read with peculiar satisfaction. It is so simple, so clear, so scriptural, I do not see how any one who bows to the authority of the Word can except to a single sentence, or how a sinner, conscious of his own guilt, can fail to acquiesce in it as indeed the Way of Life. The succession of arguments is stated conclusively, and the Biblical illustrations are most happily set forth and applied. * * * *
The passage from page 184 to the bottom of page 186 strikes me as the best of all the good things in the book. It has furnished me with a new form of presenting the subject to such as seek salvation, and I hope to be able to employ it for the guidance and relief of anxious minds.
I admire the calm dignity with which you have written from the beginning to the end, yet with quite as much earnestness as is necessary to rouse and retain the interest of the reader.
On the whole, those who don’t know you personally will form a very good opinion of you from this book, and to those who do, it will disclose nothing to disturb such impression.
Now let me write a little about the Doctor (Hugh Hodge). I suppose you know he has had my dear wife under his care ever since I was with you in September last. * * Hugh received me with a brother’s interest, and has rendered us such services, and in such a spirit, that, apart from early and long cherished affection, he has bound me to himself by the strongest obligations.
Truly your brother, J. Johns.
The publication of the “Way of Life” was the occasion of his receiving from his old friend, Ludwig von Gerlach, then President-Justice of the province of Magdeburg, the following letter:
LUDWIG VON GERLACH TO DR. HODGE.
Magdeburg, August 8, 1847. My Dear Sir: — By these lines a friend wishes to be recalled to your memory, who twenty years ago was connected with you in Christian fellowship, and who has never met you since that time, nor expects to meet you on this side of eternity. It is your tract “The Way of Life,” which has led me to call on you by this probably unexpected letter; for during an official journey through the province of my jurisdiction, I have read this work; and my feeling of union with you in faith and profession of the great fundamental truths of religion, has by this reading, become so strong and so lively, that I cannot forbear to express it, and to thank you for the spiritual blessing you have conferred on me by this book. These feelings are the more powerful on my mind on account of the difference of my present tendency from that of your tract. For this very minor difference is shedding a brighter light on the essential unity, which our blessed Saviour, by His grace, His word, and His Spirit, has established between us; and which, I trust. He will maintain through time and eternity. The development of Germany, in a religious and in a political respect, makes the Christians of our country to long after catholicity, and perhaps after the essential truth of what you would call “sacramental religion.” It is not the way of salvation, which is now the prominent subject of our minds, but rather the high articles of the Divine Majesty, which occupied so much the primitive Church, and about which there was no difference of opinion between the contending parties of the 16th century. Being surrounded by Atheists and Pantheists, we strive to establish a consciousness of the essential unity of all Christians, Romanists not excepted; and the great fact of the %vJioIe Church being the body of Christ is foremost in our minds. It will not do with us to take it for granted that the Bible — the “sacred volume,” — as the English-speaking Christians call it — is a whole (ein Ganzes) without inquiring how it came to be such, for the New Testament no where exhibits the idea of the New Testament as a book. And we cannot suppose, as you perhaps are entitled to do, that our inquiries are standing vis-a-vis of this book, and examining it as a whole. They oblige us to take higher ground, and to develop the ideas of authority and of inspiration, etc., in order •<to establish on firm ground the, for us, all important doctrine of the Church. But all this shall only give you an idea of the feelings with which I have thankfully perused your excellent tract, which exhibits in a very clear way and with great force those blessed doctrines, which constitute the true Way of Life, and in which it is delightful for me to think that you on that, and I on this side of the ocean so heartily coincide. God grant that this coincidence be a pledge that we shall be united for ever before the throne of grace.
You know that my brother Otto is now” Hof-prediger ‘’ of our king. I am president of the court of justice of this province. During the summer of 1844 I was in England, Scotland and Ireland, chiefly to study the law-institutions of those countries. But even this voyage has not prevented you, as you see, your being troubled by the very bad English of this letter, since I have very little occasion of speaking this language.
I remain, through the Lord’s grace, your very thankful.
Von Gerlach.
P. S. — I do not know if you are reading the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. If you do you will find in the papers of June 1847, an article on the “Indivisibility of the Church,” from my pen, which may give you some idea of the questions — very important ones I trust — now occupying our German minds.
The chapter of your tract on baptism and the Lord’s Supper is the only one from which I must dissent on any essential point. Your doctrine of the sacraments, as it seems to me, does not quite do justice to tha “objective content and import” of these ordinances, but subjects them too much to the state of mind of the recipient, whom they are destined to justify and to sanctify. It is not clear to me, how, according to your doctrine, you can avoid rejecting pedobaptism. I hold the sacraments to be in their nature, the actual means, not only signs and seals of grace, though the grace, by man’s sin may be converted into curse.
DR. OTTO VON GERLACH TO DR. HODGE.
Paris, July 27, 1842.
My Dear Friend: — A long time has again elapsed since I last wrote to you. Meanwhile I have passed four months in England, “the country of your forefathers,” as you remarked when leaving Berlin. When there I was upon point of following my inmost desire and visiting North America, and again, as I can truthfully say, seeing you my friend, who has become so dear to me.
The bearer of this letter is your fellow-countryman, Mr. Prentiss, from the State of Maine. He is one of the worthiest and most estimable Americans I have ever met. He is acquainted with all the particulars concerning my journey in England and will relate them to you.
While in London I had many thoughts of you, and I also purchased your “Way of Life.” In fourteen days I hope to be in Berlin again. I am residing there now in very great activity, which also yearly increases. Our king has not only introduced a general tolerance, but he will also elevate the standard of the established Church, in order that it may manifest its own wants. Advisory synods have already arisen in a greater part of the land. It is untrue that he wishes to introduce the English Episcopal Church, as is urged against him especially in France. He has, indeed, a liking for certain of its institutions, but not, however, for the organization as a whole. Moreover, generally speaking, he will not introduce anything into the Church by virtue of his kingly authority, but only upon decision of the Church itself. That the bishopric in Jerusalem should point toward this is therefore false. I disapprove of some things in this organization so much that I can only regard the present situation of our Church on the whole as most highly gratifying and rich in blessings — for which all Christians, who, like myself, are not English Episcopalians, and do not wislr to become so, ought to thank God. On the whole I hope that the Christian life will progress, as indeed the sorrowful condition of our great cities especially causes terror. In this respect we can now learn much in England, for it is truly wonderful how many churches have arisen there.
Indeed, if Puseyism should be more widely spread, a terrible crisis might threaten the English Church, and I believe that this tendency, although in a more moderate form, is spreading considerably. Theological learning is lacking very greatly in English evangelical works, and therefore the people cannot withstand the evidently ignorant, but yet more influential and important men of the Puseyite sect. I spent several days at Oxford in dispute with Dr. Pusey. He is a very poor, weak man. How much would I have to say to you in regard to all this. Yet I must draw my letter to a close.
Pray let me hear from you again as occasion may present itself. In sincere love I remain, as ever,
Your friend,
Otto Von Gerlach.
Though he subsequently received some letters from Tholuck, yet from this time his correspondence with his Christian German friends practically ceases. Time and distance, and occupation with new scenes and persons made active intercourse impossible. Yet the affection was immortal, and in his very last days the photographs of Ludwig von
332 ARTICLES IN THE” PRINCETON RE VIE IVr [1840-51.
Gerlach, of Tholuck, and of Bishop Johns were around his desk and kept in constant recognition, while those of many friends of more recent acquisition were pushed aside for them.
HIS ARTICLES IN THE “PRINCETON REVIEW.”
During this decade he wrote no book except the “Way of Life.” But his pen was more active than at any other period of his life in writing his lectures on the Church and on Theology, his articles in the Princeton Review, and innumerable letters in answer to applications made for his opinion, or aid to others in forming their opinions on all conceivable subjects.
His contributions to the Princeton Reviczv during this period were: 1840 — Presbyterianism in Virginia; Dr. Hill’s American Presbyterianism; New Jersey College and President Davies; The General Assembly; Discourse on Religion by Mr. Coit.
1 84 1 — Bishop Doane and the Oxford Tracts (with Prof. J. A. A.).
1842 — The Theological Opinions of President Davies* Milman’s History of Christianity; The General Assembly; Rule of Faith.
1843 — Rights of Ruling Elders; The General Assembly.
1844 — General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (with Prof J. A. A.); Claims of the Free Church of Scotland; The General Assembly; Abolitionism. 1845 — Beman on the Atonement; Thorn well on the Apocrypha; Schaff’s Protestantism; The General Assembly.
1846 — Theories of the Church; Is the Church of Rome a part of the Visible Church? The General Assembly; Neil’s Lectures on Biblical History; The Religious State of Germany; The late Dr. John Breckinridge; The Life and Writings of Dr. Richards.
1847 — Finney’s Lectures on Theology; The Support of iET. 38-46.] SLA VER Y. 333
the Clergy; The General Assembly (with Dr. Hope); Bushnell on Christian Nurture.
1848 — The Doctrine of the Reformed Church; The General Assembly; Dr. Spring on the Power of the Pulpit (with Prof J. A. A.).
1849 — The American Board, Special Report of the Prudential Committee; Bushnell’s Discourses; The General Assembly; Emancipation.
1850 — The Memoir of Walter M. Lowrie; The General
Assembly; Prof Park’s Sermon.
185 1 — Civil Government; Remarks on the Princeton
Reviciv; The General Assembly; Prof Park and the
Princeton Review.
The most important of these may be classified as follows:
SLAVERY.
I. The articles ‘’On Slavery,” April, 1836, and “On Emancipation as accomplished in the West Indies,” October, 1838, and “On Abolitionism,” October, 1844, and “On Emancipation as proposed by Dr. R. J. Breckinridge in Kentucky,” October, 1849 form an important class. The first and the last of these were included in a selection from his articles, and published in a volume in 1856, and again in 1879, under the title of “Essays and Reviews,” by Charles Hodge.
It was his most conspicuous and uniform characteristic, all his life, and in every region of thought, to make the inspired Word of God, and neither his intuitions, nor his sentiments, nor the opinions of mankind, the absolute rule of his thinking and of his convictions. Hence he was equally out of sympathy with the pro-slavery men who regarded the institution divine and to be perpetuated as good in itself, and with the “Abolitionists,” who held the holding of slaves to be a sin in itself, to be in every case visited with Christian condemnation and ecclesiastical discipline.
He was, on the other hand, in hearty sympathy with the many Southern Christians who strove to follow the will of Christ under the providential conditions He had imposed upon them, and with the Colonization Society, and with the noble efforts of Dr. R. J. Breckinridge and his coadjutors in the work of emancipation in Kentucky. This position he maintained, in all respects unchanged, to his dying day. His own explanation of his position on these delicate points is given in his “Retrospect of the History of the Princeton Review,” written in 1871: “The conductors of this Review have always endeavored to adhere faithfully to the principle that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Therefore, when any matter, either of doctrine or morals, came under discussion, the question with them was, ‘What saith the Lord? ‘Nothing that the Bible pronounces true can be false; nothing that it declares to be false can be true; nothing is obligatory on the conscience but what it enjoins; nothing can be sin but what it condemns. If, therefore, the Scriptures under the Old Dispensation permitted men to hold slaves, and if the New Testament nowhere condemns slave-holding, but prescribes the relative duties of masters and slaves, then to pronounce slave-holding to be in itself sinful is contrary to the Scriptures. In like manner, if the Bible nowhere condemns the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, if our Lord himself drank wine, then to say that all use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage is sin, is only one of the many forms of the infidelity of benevolence. It is as much contrary to our allegiance to the Bible to make our own notions of right or wrong the rule of duty as to make our own reason the rule of faith.
“It is well known that both slavery and intemperance were matters of national importance, and awakened earnest and continued controversy. As to slavery, so far as the North was concerned, it was universally regarded as an evil, which ought in some way to be brought to an end. The
^T. 38-46.] SLAVERY. 335
difference of opinion related to the means by which that end was to be accompHshed. The Abohtionists, so called, maintained that all slave-holding, as inconsistent with the inalienable rights of man and with the law of love, is sinful; and, therefore, that immediate and universal emancipation was an imperative duty. Another necessary consequence of the assumption that ’ slave-holding is a heinous crime against God and man,’ is that no slave-holder could properly be admitted to Christian fellowship. As the people of God, under the Old Dispensation, were allowed by law to purchase slaves, and to hold those of heathen origin in perpetual bondage; as slavery existed among the Romans, Greeks and Jews during the apostolic age; as neither Christ nor his apostles denounced slave-holding as a crime, nor taught that emancipation was an imperative and immediate duty; and as, beyond doubt, the apostles admitted slave-holders to the communion of the Christian Church, the conductors of this Reviczv, from first to last, maintained that the doctrine that slave-holding is in itself a crime, is anti-scriptural, and subversive of the authority of the Word of God.” The principles maintained in the articles above named are, (i) That slavery is, as defined by Paley, ‘An obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant.’ It involves the deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master. (2) The slave, according to this definition, is the property of his master. But property is merely the right of possession and use. The rights therein involved differ according to the nature of the thing possessed. A man has the right of property in his wife, his children, in his houses and land, his cattle and servants. Property in a horse does not involve the right to treat it as a log of wood; and property in man does not involve the right to use him as a brute. He can be used only as a rational, moral and immortal creature can, according to
336 SLAVERY. [1S36-44.
divine law, be rightfully used. All the rights conceded to him by the Word of God must be faithfully regarded. (3) The master, therefore, is bound to provide for the intellectual and moral education of the slave. Every human being has the right to be taught to read the Word of God, and learn the way of salvation for himself Secondly, the master is bound to respect the conjugal rights of his slaves; and this forbids the separation of husbands and wives. Thirdly, he is bound to respect their parental rights, and this prevents the separation of parents and their minor children. Fourthly, he is bound to give them a fair compensation for their labor, which supposes the right on the part of the slave to hold property. Any laws inconsistent with these principles are unscriptural and unjust, and ought to be immediately abrogated. (4) The consequences of acting on these principles would be the speedy and peaceful abrogation of slavery, the gradual elevation of the slaves to all the rights of free citizens. This is the ground taken in the article of 1836. In the conclusion of that article it is said: ‘It may be objected that if the slaves are allowed so to improve as to become free men, the next step in their progress is that they will become citizens. We admit that it is so. The feudal serf first became a tenant, then a proprietor invested with political power. This is the natural progress of political society, and it should be allowed freely to expand itself, or it will work its own destruction.’
“The great popular mistake on this subject — a mistake which produced incalculable evil — was confounding slave-holding with slave laws. Because a despotic monarch may make unjust and cruel laws, in order to keep his people in a state of degradation, that his power may be secured and rendered permanent, it does not follow that an absolute monarchy is ‘a heinous crime in the sight of God and man.’ In like manner, because the laws of a slave-holding State may be unscriptural and wicked, it does not follow that slave-holdin“- is itself sinful.”
>ET.47-] BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT. ‘^’^*J
II. The articles on the “Rule of Faith,” “Beman on the Atonement,” “Bushnell on Christian Culture,” and “Professor Park’s Sermon, entitled ‘The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings,’” all of them attracted general attention, and built up his reputation as a sound theologian and an effective controversialist. They were all reprinted in America and Great Britain in the volumes entitled “Princeton Essays” and “Essays and Reviews.”
The article in review of Beman on the Atonement was published in Scotland under the title — “The Orthodox Doctrine regarding the Atonement vindicated by Charles Hodge, D. D., &c.,” with a Recommendatory Preface by the Rev. Dr. Cunningham, Prof. McCrie, Drs. Candlish and Symington.
In the Free CJiwch Magazine, 1846, there is a notice of that volume by Dr. W. M. Hetherington, as follows: “It would be difficult to mention another treatise of the same size in which so much useful information will be found, both in regard to the nature and to the extent of the Atonement. Dr. Hodge is already most favorably known in this country by some theological works as remarkable for the profound learning they indicate as for the dignified simplicity with which themes of sacred learning are discussed in them. One prevailing feature of his writings is the evidence they constantly supply that his orthodoxy is not merely a passive impression, but the attainment of a mind vigorously exercised in the search of truth.. This treatise gives a lucid summary of the most important points bearing on present controversies respecting the Atonement, is written in a strain of calm power and dignity, and successfully combats the sophistries through which so many authors attempt to refute the old and orthodox doctrine, not by fair arguments against it, but by an utter caricature of the doctrine itself.”
III. His article on the “Claims of the Free Church of Scotland” was written in the .spring of 1844, just after
338 SUSTENTATION. [1847.
the first two visits of Dr. Wm. Cunningham to his house. It was regarded by that eminent Free-churchman himself as a faithful exposition of the principles of that body, and as an efficient plea for its moral and material support. Upon his return to Scotland Dr. Cunningham read copious extracts from this article, in connection with his report to the General Assembly. The moderator, Dr. Gordon, in thanking Dr. Cunningham and his colleagues in the commission said among other things: “I think he (Dr. C.) has produced in the extracts which he has read from the living American divine, who, of all others of whom I have read, I do most honor and esteem, evidence that the feeling which he (Dr. C.) has awakened by the simple exposition of our principles is already working for good in America itself”
IV. His article on “Civil Government” and the transcendently important principles he held as to the relation of the Church to the State, and of the State to the Christian Religion, will be more appropriately discussed when we come to his articles on the state of the country and of the Church, written during the civil war.
V. His article on the “Theories of the Church,” and that on the “Rights of Ruling Elders,” form part of a series covering the entire department of ecclesiology, which, although written and delivered as lectures to his Seminary classes during the decade embraced in this chapter, were nevertheless, for the most part, not published until ten years afterwards, when they led to considerable discussion and to the exhibition of much diversity of opinion.
SUSTENTATION.
VI. The article on the “Support of the Clergy,” July, 1847, was a review of “An Earnest Appeal” to the Free Church of Scotland on the subject of “Economics,” by Thomas Chalmers, D. D. At the same time Dr. Hodge made his sermon as Moderator at the opening of the General Assembly at Richmond, an earnest appeal to the
^T. 49.] SUSTENTA TIOAT. 339
American Church in behalf of the. great principles fought for by Dr. Chalmers in Scotland, and subsequently by Dr. McCosh and Dr. Jacobus by means of the “Sustentation Scheme” in America. Dr. Hodge is thus proved to have been the first and the most persistent advocate of this most necessary reform in our ecclesiastical administration. Nineteen years afterwards, in an article on “The Sustentation Fund,” January, 1866, he reiterates this plea with increased force of argument and intensity of conviction. He defines a “Sustentation Fund” to be — “A sum raised by annual contributions to carry out the two principles, first, that every minister of the gospel, devoted to his work, is entitled, by the command of Christ, to a competent support; and secondly, that the obligation to furnish that support rests upon the Church as a whole. That is, that the Church, in her organic unity, is bound to provide an adequate support for every man whom she ordains to the ministry, and who is qualified and willing to devote himself to her service. The soundness of these principles we have endeavored to establish.” These principles he always held to be not only true, but of the greatest practical importance, and that their practical execution was especially demanded by the conditions of the American Presbyterian Church. He sympathized with all his heart with the gallant struggle to carry those principles into action by Dr. Jacobus and the Sustentation Committee, and he lamented the failure of that enterprise as a great ecclesiastical disaster.
VII. In his articles on the General Assembly, the most important subjects of permanent interest discussed were the “Validity of the Baptism of the Roman Catholic Church,’’ the “Quorum,” and “Elder Questions,” and the “Marriage of a Man with the Sister of his deceased Wife.” The “Quorum” and “Elder Questions” will fall properly under the consideration of his articles on the Church and its officers, which is reserved for a future page. As to the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife, he argued, both on the floor of the AssembHes of 1842 and 1847, and in his articles on the Assembly for 1842, 1843 and 1847, that such marriages are forbidden in Scripture, and therefore unlawful for Christians, to be forbidden and made the occasion of discipline by the church courts; but, on the other hand, that they are not invalid, and that the parties to them should not be separated and might, after a period of suspension, be restored to the communion of the church.
The General Assembly which met at Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1845, suddenly fulminated by a vote of one hundred and sixty-nine to eight, non liquet eight, the new and anti-Protestant doctrine that baptism administered by a Roman Catholic priest was not Christian Baptism. Dr. Hodge always lamented this as a great blunder, as well as an untrue decision of injurious consequence. In his article on “The General Assembly” for that year, and in his article “Is the Church of Rome part of the visible Church?’’ published April, 1846, he vigorously combated that decision. He held that the papacy, the institution, not the person, is anti-Christ,* and that the order and teaching of the Romish Church is in many respects corrupted and overlaid by false and soul-destroying abuses and errors. Yet he held and believed that he proved ( i ) that the great body of people constituting the Roman Catholic Church do profess the essentials of the true Christian religion, whereby many of them bear the image of Christ, and are participants of His salvation. (2) Hence that that community, however corrupt is a part of the visible Church on earth, the field with the wheat mixed with tares. (3) That the essentials as to “matter” and “form” of Christian Baptism’ are observed by the Catholic Priest, when he administers that sacrament. (4) And hence it was to be recognized by
♦Systematic Theology, Vol. iii. pp. 812-823.
^T. 48.] ROMISH BAPTISM. 34I
all loyal to the great Head of the whole Church as Christian Baptism. (5) That the Reformers and great Protestant theologians had universally and uniformly held and practically recognized Romish Baptism to be Christian Baptism, irregular and deformed by superstitions, but still valid. (6) That this truly Protestant position had been held by the great body of the Protestant Churches to the present time.
He was the author of the Answer to the invitation addressed by Pius IX., in his Encyclical to all Protestants “to return to the one only fold,” on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, held in Rome, 1869- 70. This response, signed officially by Drs. M. W. Jacobus and P. H. Fowler, the Moderators of the two General Assemblies of 1869, was certainly surpassed as to lofty dignity, knowledge, charity, steadfast and ecumenical orthodoxy, and power by none, and equaled by very few of the many answers on that occasion addressed by Protestants to the Head of the Catholic world.
On the occasion of writing this address to the Pope he received the following letter from Dr. William Adams, now President of Union Theological Seminary, New York:
DR. WM. ADAMS TO DR. HODGE.
New York, June 17th, 1869. My Dear Dr. Hodge: — ;I have received from Dr. Musgrave the manuscript of your reply to the Pope. It is admirable every way. I see not how it could be improved. You were right in judging that objurgation was impertinent to the occasion. Every thing is put in the simple, pointed, dignified manner becoming a Christian scholar and theologian.
You may be sure that you have done an excellent service in consenting to prepare this paper. It will do good at home, in other churches besides that of Rome, and I beg you to accept my sincere thanks as one of the Nominating Committee. With cordial esteem,
Your friend and brother,
William Adams.
111 August, 1872, he was asked by letter his opinion as to the propriety of granting tracts of land along a railroad for the purpose of building Roman Catholic churches. He answered: ‘“Others say that inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church teaches truth enough to save the souls of men (of which I have no doubt); inasmuch as it proclaims the divine authority of the Scriptures, the obligation of the decalogue, and the retributions of eternity; and inasmuch as it calls upon men to worship God the Father, Son and Spirit, it is unspeakably better than no church at all. And therefore, when the choice is between that and none, it is wise and right to encourage the establishment of churches under the control of Catholic priests. For myself, I take this view. The principle cannot be carried out that no church is to be encouraged which teaches error.” *
He closes his argument in the Princeton Review, April, 1846: “It is said we give up too much to the Papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer — Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says we favor intemperance unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery unless we say slave-holding is a sin; and a third, that we favor Popery unless we say the Church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They give the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. It is a great mistake to suppose that Popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity, it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded by enticing and destructive error.”
* Presbyterian, August loth, 1S72.
^T.48.] MODERATOR. 343
There is no more characteristic passage to be found in his whole writings. And in these opinions he agreed with all his brethren in Princeton, with the Reformers, the great theologians of the past and the Scotch theologians of to-day.
MODERATOR OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
He was a member for the first time of the General Assembly of 1842, having been hitherto prevented from attending by his lameness. He was again sent as a delegate to the General Assembly which met in the loth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, May, 1846, when he was elected Moderator. He attended as a commissioner the next Assembly in Richmond, May, 1847, and opened its sessions with a sermon in which he advocated the erection of a Board of Sustentation for the more uniform and systematic support of the clergy.
HIS LETTERS TO HIS BROTHER, His letters to his brother during this period, from 1840 to 185 1, continued frequent and regular, and were filled with all the details of family life. All he thinks and feels, all his anxieties with respect to his children or the church or the country, all the symptoms of the children’s successive sicknesses, all the events which marked the stages of their mental or physical growth are minutely recorded.
TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, March 13, 1840. My Dear Brother: — My remark about my horrible poverty, in my last, was not intended as a hint. When very bad off, I shall go beyond hinting. It is true, I had not a cent in the world, nor have had for some time. But then here is the Bank; and what is a Bank worth but to let people overdraw? Ours is good-natured enough to let us suck out fives and tens through a straw; a check for a hundred or two they might endorse “No Funds!” — but they would hardly insult a gentleman for five dollars. Still, this is ugly business, and I feel much better since I received your hundred dollars, for which, therefore, I am much obUged to you. I will give you an order on my publisher for payment. You surely need not open your eyes at a poor author; for when was an author otherwise than poor, unless he wrote novels.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
TO THE .SAME,
Princeton, April 28, 1840. M — (a daughter visiting her uncle) tells me that you laughed much at my sending her two dollars. I can remember the time, old .fellow, when the sight of two dollars would have made you laugh with a very different emotion. You do not know what it is to be a Presbyterian Abbe, with seven children. Only think of seven mouths, seven pair of feet, seven empty heads, and worse than all seven pairs of knees and elbows. Don’t take this for a begging letter; for Friday is the first of May, when I expect to be as rich as Croesus for a week.
Your brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, June 18, 1841. My Dear Brother: — The conduct of the House of Representatives, in Washington, is enough to put one out of conceit with Republicanism. The Southern members act like a set of big boys, and the Northern ones are just as foolish. The fuss they make about the right of petition is just as unreasonable as the commotion about abolition. It has always, however, been so. Commotion, noise, nonsense, and at times violence are the price of liberty, and on the whole are better than the stagnation of despotism. Wise is the beau ideal of Southern gasconade.
Your brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, Sept. 17, 1841. My Dear Brother: — I thank you for sending the papers at this unprecedented crisis in our affairs. It seems to me there can be but one opinion either as to the President’s conduct, or as to the duty of the Whigs. Mr. Ewing’s letter contains irresistible evidence of its truth, and is confirmed by all kinds of collateral evidence. Assuming the truth of its statements, Mr. Tyler is not only a weak, but a dishonorable and dishonest man. Now that this humiliating fact has been disclosed, people begin to look at his past history. And the
JET. 43-] CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIS BROTHER. 345
singular fact, which had escaped notice, that not one of the Virginia delegates at the Harrisburg Convention voted for his nomination to the Vice-Presidency shows that they knew more about him than others did. Still, it is probable that it was not until his head was turned by his being made President that his principles were found to be too weak to stand the temptations of that exalted station. Dr. Benjamin Rice told me that he remembers when he (Tyler) became Governor of Virginia, people lifted up their hands and said “Think of John Tyler being Governor of Virginia!” His messages, especially the first veto, show him to be a man of inferior mind, and his conduct to his Cabinet and his party show him to be mean and dishonest.
It seems to me that if the Whigs would only act on moral instead of party principles, it would be a great blessing to the country and the best course for themselves. Let them give the President a fair hearing and every opportunity of clearing himself from the overwhelming charges of Mr. Ewing. If he can do it, then all is well. If he cannot, then let them say to him, “We are done with you. Not one of our party will accept or retain office under you. We will do what we can for the country, but we will not condescend to serve under you.” If the other party would pick him out of the gutter let them do it. But I do not believe they would. On the contrary, I believe he would be forced to resign in less than six months.
Thinking that this is the plain course of duty, I feel greatly mortified at the conduct of Mr. Webster. I am glad he retains his place for the time being, but his reasons for doing so condemn him. His saying that there was no sufficient reason for the resignation of the Cabinet, and by implication that his colleagues did wrong in giving up their places, shows that his state of mind on the whole subject is entirely different from that of his friends. I have sufficient confidence in the moral feelings of the community to be confident that if Mr. Webster joins himself with Tyler he will sink with him. The load of infamy which attaches to the latter is enough to weigh down all that associate themselves with his fortunes. I cannot have any respect for any man who accepts a place in the new Cabinet; and shall be astonished if Mr. Legare or Judge Maclean accept their appointments.
As to the charge against Mr. Ewing, of revealing Cabinet secrets, it seems to me to be entirely unfounded. The obligation to secrecy cannot extend to all cases. It is limited by the nature of the object for which that secrecy is enjoined. If a President should be plotting treason, his Cabinet arc bound to disclose it. And if it is necessary to the vindication of the character of a Minister to relate what passed in the Cabinet, I am not sure that he has not a right to do it. But Mr. Ewing does not need the advantage of either of these grounds of defence. Mr. Tyler commissioned him and Mr. Webster to communicate his views to Mr. Sergeant, and to Mr. Berrien and others. Mr. Ewing, therefore, has revealed no secret; the main facts were communicated by the President’s message. This seems to be a full vindication, without resorting to the example of the President himself, through whom Cabinet secrets are said to have found their way to Benfteit’s Herald! Taking it altogether, the whole affair is the most extraordinary event in our history, and the issue, I fear, depends very much on Webster. If he separates himself from the Whigs, who will and ought to repudiate the President, on him will rest the responsibility of the schism in the Whig party. And the result will probably be defeat to. them with certain disappointment and disgrace to him.
Here is a letter of real politics, which, when connected with morals and the character and interests of the country, is a subject second only to religion in importance.
Your brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, Dec. 15, 1844. My Dear Brother: — You ask me for a dish of politics. I could only give you a plate of picked bones. The Whig party seems to have made a great mistake; either they have not patriotism enough to give up personal objects for the general good, or, what is probably the case, they have not been able to identify themselves with the masses. In this country the Democratic party must always be the strongest, and it is only on extraordinary occasions, and for a short period, that the Whig, the Conservative, the Federal, or by whatever name the mass of the intelligence and property of the country may be called, can get the upper hand. Such an occasion occurred in 1840. The fruits of that triumph were lost mainly by the treachery of Tyler, partly by the passion and selfishness of the Whigs. I am afraid, when they found that Tyler was unfaithful, they determined to make his administration as unpopular and as disastrous as possible. If the country, at the end of his term, is prosperous, there will be no crying necessity for a change of policy, and for Mr. Clay; but it everything is going to ruin, as under Van Buren, then a change will be demanded. I fear this is the ground of their opposition to the Tariff, which passed by a bare majority, and especially of their refusal to adopt the exchequer bill of Tyler (/. e., of Webster). It seems evident that an addition of 1,15,000,000 to our currency, in
^T. 46.] CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIS BROTHER. y
the form of paper of equal value in all parts of the country, would be an inestimable benefit. But the Whigs refuse, and by doing so will break their own heads.
Your brother, C. H.
TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, March 26, 1844. Afy Dear Brother: — The papers make a great stir about Texas. I cannot believe it is possible to get two-thirds of the Senate to vote for the annexation. Should such a thing happen, it would be a great crime and a great calamity; but I think the North ought to submit. We have agreed that any treaty made by two-thirds of the Senate shall be the law of the land, and we ought to abide by the contract. After the annexation of Louisiana and Florida, the constitutional question must be considered fixed. The cases are not alike; but they are not essentially different.
I rejoice greatly that O’Connell has been convicted. If the law and justice would fully sustain the sentence, I think it would be a great good to give him a life estate in Australia.
Your affectionate brother,
Charles Hodge.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, April 4, 1844.
My Dear Brother: — There is, financially speaking, always a shallow spot with me during the month of April. If my salary is paid, I can generally get over it; if it is not, I am very apt to stick fast. As not the half of the salary due the ist of February last has been paid, I am in the latter predicament just now. I must either submit to the mortification of begging time — &c., or to that of borrowing from you. The latter, though something, is much the less trial of the two.
I have yet to learn the art of paying without being paid. All this is a prelude to my saying that I wish you to lend me a couple of hundred dollars, or one, if convenient. If you have it not on hand, say so. For it is not a case of necessity, but of feeling. I must pay certain calls which have already come in; but I can, on an einergency, get the money from the Bank, but that I, of course, do not like.
Your brother, C, H.
TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, April 22d, 1844. My Dear Brother: — I told you some time ago, in reply to what you said about Mr. Barnes’ pamphlet — “The Position of the Evangelical Party in the Episcopal Church,” — that, judging from the extracts which I had seen, I disapproved of its whole design and tendency. Since then I have read it, and my first impression has been confirmed. I wrote a notice, of a few pages length, of it in the Repertory, which has the full concurrence of all the gentlemen here, and which I hope you will read. That notice, I am sorry to say, has given immeasurable offence to the ultra-Presbyterians of Philadelphia, and if you see the Presbyterian you will see two columns and a half of a reply to it. I am very sorry for this, as it evinces a very unnatural state of mind in the Philadelphia brethren. What the notice says they would all have said six months ago. And if a man whose feelings are so strongly Presbyterian as Dr. Miller approves of it, it is very plain that it is only a morbid state of mind that leads to this outcry. Mr. Hope, poor fellow, has, as he writes me, been almost persecuted to death for it already.
Your brother, C. H.
TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, May 28, 1844.
My Dear Brother: — I have just been reading Bishop Hughes’ smart, but not very prelatical letter to the Mayor of New York. He confounds two very different things: opposition to foreigners, as foreigners, governing the country, and opposition to Papists, as Papists. It is true that most of these objectionable foreigners are Papists, but the opposition to them is as foreigners. It is also true that they are mostly Irish, but the opposition is not to them as Irish. I think this whole struggle will do good, and that a majority of all parties will soon unite in calling for an alteration of our naturalization laws. Bishop Hughes artfully represents the American party as leagued to deny liberty of conscience, and to infringe on the rights of a particular class of citizens. But what right have the paupers of Europe to be citizens of America? We must take care of ourselves, or we shall have all our affairs under the control of the mob of foreigners who swarm our cities.
We are all well as usual; nearly through the pangs of house-cleaning. It is with difficulty I have kept the invasion of tubs and buckets
out of the study.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, June 20, 1844.
My Dear Brother: — We returned day before yesterday from the North, having had a very pleasant journey of two weeks and five days. We went first to Newburgh, where we spent Saturday, Sunday and part of Monday. Thence to Netherwood (the residence of James Lenox, Esq.,), where I remained till Wednesday, when I went to Poughkeepsie to attend the Synod (Dutch Reformed), as a delegate from the General Assembly, leaving Sarah, who was in bed with a sick head-ache. At the close of the week I returned to Netherwood and remained until Tuesday, and then, agreeably to an invitation from the Rosevelts, took Sarah to Poughkeepsie and spent that day there.
The country up the North river greatly exceeded our expectations, and Sarah was greatly delighted. Newburgh has a beautiful situation, and the views in the neighborhood are extensive and picturesque in a high degree. Mr. Lenox’s situation, Netherwood, is very delightful and very highly improved. He is a man of very uncommon taste. His brother-in-law has a cottage on his place; another brother-in-law, Mr. vSheefe, owns the next seat up the river, and Mr. Sheefe’s mother the one above that. The four families are so near and so united as to form a compact society for themselves. Poughkeepsie also surpassed our expectations. The view from Colle<Te Hill is one of the finest in all that region of country.
It is impossible that people could be kinder than we found them everywhere, at Newburgh, Netherwood, Poughkeepsie, Albany and New Haven. Your brother, C. H.
TO HLS BROTHER.
Princeton, Dec. 16, 1844. My Dear Brother: — I believe that we have not exchanged lamentations over the result of the election. I feel more for Mr. Clay than for the country. For I presume the general policy of the Government will be substantially the same under Mr. Polk. Mr. Clay, however, has finally lost the great object of his natural ambition, and lost it by the votes of foreigners and Catholics, aliens and enemies really of the country. Jn New York, the silly Abolitionists decided the State, and that again decided the country. The course which Tyler and Calhoun have been pursuing is so extreme that I hope it will lead to a split in their own ranks and induce the Northern and Western Democrats to unite in putting them effectually down.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, April 17, 1846. My Dear Brother: — I felt really alarmed at the speech of John Quincy Adams in the House, declaring his opinion not only that our title to Oregon was good to 54.40, but that we ought not to cojnpromise on 49. Now, as he and every President since Jefferson has offered that compromise, it does appear to me a piece of pure wickedness to refuse to accept that offer now; to refuse to accede to our own terms, and that with the certainty that war must be the consequence of such refusal. Great Britain has not the power to give up the country beyond 49. The public sentiment of the nation and of the world would be so against it that it could not be done, any more than we could give up the country south of the Columbia, which England has offered over and over as the boundary. I greatly fear that, unless Providence over-rule the folly of our rulers, we are destined to the miseries of a wicked war.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, Dec. 25, 1846. Afy Dear Brother: — Give the love and gratulations appropriate to this season from all our circle to all yours. We are getting to be pretty old men, though we do not know it, and, I suppose, really enjoy life in the consciousness of useful and conscious exertion more than when we were younger. The kinds and sources of pleasure change as we advance in life, but the maturer are always of the higher grade, and therefore few men would be willing to go back and live life over again; they would rather live onward and continue to grow in knowledge and in the power to do good. It is a great thing to be content to be less than others, provided we do our best. Self-depreciation is a more amiable, but scarcely a less hurtful failing than self-exaltation, or rather self-glorification.
Your brother C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, Dec. 29, 1847. My Dear Brother: — It is true, I am fifty years old, and that the meridian of life is past. The years that remain must be few and less fitted for exertion or usefulness. On the review of such a period, a painful feeling of having accomplished so little, of having acquired so much less than we see we might and ought to have done, is, per-
.ET. 49-] CORRESPONDENCE. 35 1
haps, stronger even than the feeling of gratitude for all the goodness and forbearance of God. I feel that almost all the usefulness of my life is to be crowded into the coming ten years, should I live so long. If I am to accomplish anything it must be within that period, and yet how much reason is there to fear that, should they be granted, they will slip by much as any preceding ten years have done.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
FROM PROFESSOR BIGGS TO DR. HODGE.
Cincinnati, Jan. 7, 1847.
My Dear Doctor Charles: — You had almost forgotten, I suppose, that the little man whom you first knew in the blue frock coat in Nassau Hall is still among the living. Once in a while I hear something of your own dear self, and then I feel a stirring up of things of bygone days — such as watching from the window of No. 18 your movement down the campus, cross the road and down the lane, to the white house with the little white fence in front, opposite to which lived the far-famed Sam Plum. Charley, d’ye mind the days we spent in the white house together? (Mrs. Bache’s). Oh! ho! what times have passed o’er us since then! But, indeed, they have been times of mercy, such as my most sanguine hopes could not have imagined. Here I am an old man, grey-headed, with nose spectacle bestrid, and a house full of men and women children! What is still more wonderful, I am just about as fit for service as ever. * * * *
I preach in the vicinity of my old stamping grounds. Lane Seminary, where I have as part of my audience some of the students from the Seminary, with several others from the families belonging to the Seminary Church. This looks a little like bearding the lion in his own den. It is rather amusing as I pass out on Sabbath morning from the city to meet Dr. Beecher coming in to supply the “1st Orthodox Congregational Society of Cincinnati,” and sometimes Prof. Stowe.
You remember our old redoubtable Vice-President Slack! I have the felicity of seeing his ex-ship quite often. He has what he calls his Gothic mansion on one of the most elevated points about our city, very conspicuous indeed, most romantically difficult of access. He is pretty much after the old stamp, except as time has corrugated his squatty face. He sojourns on the heights in elevated retirement. He is a good old man, nevertheless, and loves to recount his Princeton glories.
Our old friend, Wm. M. Atkinson, spent a few days with us
352 DR. WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM. [1844.
recently. We had quite a refreshing time of it. He is a huge body of divinity, beats me some twenty or thirty pounds.
Your affectionate brother,
Thos. J. Biggs.
Bishop Johns wrote to “Charley” about the same time: “Biggs — Thomas J.!! What would I not give to have you both here at once! But I suppose that is out of the question.” And again, in April of the next year, he writes: “I received a full and affectionate letter from Biggs. I am afraid he will not live long. This sudden revival of early feeling is ominous.”
FRIENDSHIP AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. WILLIAM
CUNNINGHAM.
In December, 1843, Doctor Hodge formed one of the most signal friendships of his life. The Rev. William Cunningham, D. D., afterwards Principal of the New College, Edinburgh, visited America at the head of a delegation of the Free Church of Scotland. He was then thirty-eight years of age, at the fullness of all his powers, recognized everywhere as beyond question the greatest logician, polemic and theologian among the leaders of the second heroic age of the Church of Christ in Scotland. He always recogrtized Charles Hodge, then just forty-six years old, as occupying precisely that position in the American Presbyterian Church of this age. The meeting and the rapid friendship generated between two men having so much in common, meeting for the first time and for a brief season, was very beautiful to witness and very memorable. A Princeton witness of that first meeting, quoted by Dr. Rainy in his life of Cunningham, wrote at the time:” You know Brother Hodge is one of the most reserved of men, nor is a first acquaintance with him generally very assuring or attractive to strangers. But I remarked with what warmth and cordiality he met Dr. Cunningham, as if he had met an old friend from whom he had been long separated.
^T. 46.] DR. WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM. y3
And it was so with Cunningham, too. The two greatest theologians of the age were at once friends and brothers. They seemed at once to read and know each the other’s great and noble mind.”
After Dr. Cunningham’s lamented death, just eighteen years afterwards. Dr. Hodge wrote as follows: “He was twice (it was really three times) at Princeton, and on both occasions made my house his home. He was a man you knew well as soon as you knew him at all. He revealed himself at once, and secured at once the confidence and love of those in whom he felt confidence. I do not recollect of ever having met any one to whom I was so much drawn, and for whom I entertained so high a respect and so warm a regard as I did for him, on such a short acquaintance... His visit was one of those sunny spots on which, whenever I look back on my life, my eyes rest with delight.”
Dr. Cunningham wrote to his wife at this time: “As I have not much public business till next week I have come out to spend a few days in Princeton. I have had great pleasure in the society of the theological professors here, who are all men eminent for their talents and learning, and are known in Britain by their writings. I am staying with Dr. Hodge, a very admirable and interesting man, whose wife is a great grand-daughter of Dr. Franklin.” The compiler of these Memoirs was repeatedly assured in Scotland that his father’s pre-eminent position in the respect and confidence of the Scotch Presbyterian Churches dates from the period of Dr. Cunningham’s return from his visit to America, and that it was characteristic of Dr. C. to give free expression to his high estimate of him as a man and a theologian. Dr. Rainy affirms in his “Life of William Cunningham, D. D.,” p. 462, that the great Scotchman “felt for Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, a very great regard as a man, and in his theological opinions generally a greater confidence than in those of any (other) divine now living.”
I can well remember those memorable days, the pleased excitement of our father, as he lay back upon his easy chair listening to Dr. Cunningham as he strode gesticulating through the study with his long arms laying down the principles and narrating the story of the great Free-Church Exodus, or when our father walked with him in the larger parlor, or once or twice, when the February sun shone clear in the paths around the house, laying down the principles and narrating the story of the great controversies, as to slavery. New England theology and voluntary societies, in which his own part had been not insignificant.
DR. HODGE TO DR. CUNNINGHAM,
Princeton, March 21st, 1844.
.... Dr. Burns preached a delightful sermon in our chapel last evening. I believe we are all disposed to let him abuse us and our domestic institutions as much as he pleases, if he will only preach the gospel as purely and spiritually as he did last night.
I cherish the recollections of your visit with great pleasure and feel an interest in your success and welfare which is constantly increasing as my knowledge of you and your cause increases.
I should be much gratified to hear from you at any time. As Dr. Miller has insisted on your going to his house when you again visit Princeton, I feel at liberty to beg that you will send to me any of your brethren who may join your deputation, should they come thus far
south.
With great affection and respect,
Your friend and brother,
Charles Hodge.
DR. HODGE TO DR. CUNNINGHAM.
Princeton, March 30, 1844.
My Dear Sir: — We have had 500 extra copies of the article on “The Claims of the Free Church” struck off. I send you a copy by this mail. If, after reading it, you think it likely to be useful, I will place at your disposal any portion of the 500 you wish. I can send them to Mr. Carter in New York, to abide your order.
I was greatly interested in the copies of the Witness which you left with me. I think he has most effectually answered the Record, and I regret that we were misled into saying what we did in our January number by the last named paper. Professor A. Alexander wishes me to subscribe to the Witness, and begs me to inquire of you how payment for it can most conveniently be made. Is there anybody in this country authorized to receive payment on its behalf, and who would order it for him?
I should be very glad to hear from you and learn how you get along among the “Yankees.” I do not use the word in Mrs. Hodge’s sense of the term. I know if they get their eyes open they will put us Old School Presbyterians to shame. I sincerely hope they may.
The whole family join in the assurance of kind remembrance. Affectionately and respectfully,
C. Hodge.
DR. CUNNINGHAM TO DR. HODGE.
Boston, 9th April, 1844.
My Dear Sir: — I have received your two letters, and am much obliged to you for the accompanying papers. I am grieved to be under the necessity of informing you that, in consequence of letters which I received from Scotland by the last steamer, urging me most strenuously to be present at our own General Assembly, I have felt it to be my duty to resolve on leaving this country on the ist of May, and that, of course, I must leave Dr. Burns to go to Canada alone, and Mr. Lewis and Mr. Chalmers to attend your General Assembly. I greatly fear that I shall not be able to visit Princeton again. I intend to visit New Haven or Hartford on Sabbath next, Albany on the 2 1st, then make a run to Niagara, get to New York on Saturday the 27th, and leave it for Boston on the 29th. So far as my own personal feelings and inclinations are concerned I would have been most happy to have spent two months more in this country, where I have been received with so much kindness and seen so much to interest and to gratify. I felt quite dull the other day after having taken my berth in the steamer, although I was going home. I will not soon forget the kindness I have received and the gratification I have experienced; and the time I have spent in your society at Princeton will always occupy a prominent place in my recollection of America.
I will henceforth consider myself entitled to call you my friend, and will be most happy to have occasional correspondence with you. I will consider it my duty to begin this correspondence and write to you soon after reaching home. I have read with great pleasure your article for the Repertory, and would like very much to see it circulated for the benefit of our cause. I would like very much to have a parcel of the articles addressed to me at Albany, to the care of Dr. Sprague. and I would like to have some of them to take home with me, as I am sure they will be read with great interest by my brethren. I fear that in other respects I must request you to take the trouble of disposing of them in the way you yourself may think best fitted to promote the object in view, except I would like a small parcel of them addressed to Mr. Chalmers, care of the Rev. Mr. Blagden, Old South Church, Boston.
The cause has been taken up cordially here by the Congregationalists and the Baptists. I don’t know what may be the result in a pecuniary point of view, but as I have not heard of any very large subscriptions from individuals, I fear the sum total will not come to a great deal.
Give kindest regards to Mrs. Hodge and all the members of your family, to Dr. Miller, to Dr. Alexander and his sons, and believe me, my dear sir, Very sincerely yours,
Wm. Cunningham.
In order that the allusions to the Abolitionists in this correspondence may be understood, it must be recollected that Dr. Hodge and the great mass of the American Christians with whom Dr. Cunningham came in contact, were not pro-slavery men, ‘but held, as Dr. R. J. Breckinridge told Dr. Cunningham in a letter, dated Nov., 1844: “(i) That slavery is a great evil, and ought to be somehow and sometime brought to an end. (2) That it is not a sin, in the proper sense of the word, and, therefore, cannot be a proper ground of expulsion from the Church.” ‘’ On the other hand,” says Dr. Rainy, in his ‘Life of Wm. Cunningham,’ p. 221, “some of the American Abolitionists (’ technically so called,’ as Dr. Breckinridge says,) seeing some likelihood of troubled waters, came across to fish in them. That party included, as is very well known, a number of persons who were not particular in their choice of weapons. They villified the Free Church as associating with slave-holders for the sake of pecuniary gain, and raised the cry of ‘Send back the money.’ As their antecedents became known and their methods of warfare observed, they lost their influence and vanished again.”
DR. CUNNINGHAM TO DR. HODGE.
Edinburgh, 15th of July, 1844.
My Dear Sir: — I arrived safely in Edinburgh on the 16th of May and found my wife and children in the enjoyment of good health, and the affairs of the Free Church in a very flourishing condition. We have had a very interesting and gratifying meeting of the Assembly. We are now delivered wholly from the unpleasant contentions with unchristian men, in which we had been so long engaged, and are, I think I may say, devoting ourselves with united energy and zeal to the improvement of the important facilities for the promotion of true religion, with which in providence we are favored.
I regretted that I had not an opportunity of revising the Witness report of the statement I made about my visit to America. Reporting here is not nearly so perfect as in London, and the report of what I said is neither very accurate nor complete.
I succeeded in preventing our Assembly from doing anything on the subject of slavery, except appointing a committee to consider it, and I shall do what I can to get them to do as little as possible. I suppose I must submit to being branded by the Abolitionists as having been corrupted by the money and hospitality of slave-holders.
I most earnestly wish, however, that the churches of the United States could be stirred up to do something more than they have been doing of late years in regard to slavery, at least to the extent of seeking the abolition of what all condemn, such as the prohibition of instruction and the separation of families, for, although we generally profess here to hold anti-slavery principles, I believe that it is these atrocious slave laws and their immediate practical results that chiefly excite our indignation, not only against those who practice them, but against all who may be supposed to connive at or tolerate them. I would fain hope that the proceedings of the Methodist Conference in regard to Bishop Andrews, which I have just read in the Presbyterian, indicate a growing sense of the necessity of the churches bestirring themselves in this matter. Dr. Burns has, since his return, been lecturing in different parts of the country upon his visit to America, and upon the whole has not, I understand, been guilty of any very great indiscretion. He has usually introduced the subject of slavery, and told some stories of church members being sold, the husband separated from the wife, and the mother from her children. I will continue to do what I can to preserve peace, as I am satisfied that nothing we can do will have any beneficial effect, and because I cannot see that there rests upon us any obligation to testify upon the subject irrespective of a testimony being likely to do good.
By the kindness of a friend I have got the use of a very comfortable and beautifully situated country house, nine miles to the south of Edinburgh, where I expect to have three months of uninteirupted study to prepare for the labors of our Theological Seminary in November. I would fain hope that the decisive votes in your Assembly will put an end to your contentions about the Elder question, and leave you at leisure to prosecute the important objects you have taken up in regard to churches and schools.
Just before leaving America I received a few copies from home of a book for young people, called ‘• Witnesses for the Truth,” and I sent one to Mrs. Hodge through Mr. Carter, which I hope she has received.
The Duke of Sutherland has yielded to the force of public opinion and gives us sites, and the Duke of Buccleugh, under the pretence that he thought the Lord’s Supper would be desecrated by being administered in the public road, offered to the people of Canonbie permission to meet in a field on the occasion of the communion, which was last Lord’s Day. We think he will scarcely venture to drive them back to the road again.
No part of my statement gave more satisfaction to the General Assembly than the extracts 1 read to them from your article.
W. C.
I would like very much to hear from you when you have a little leisure. Any thing addressed to me at Edinburgh will reach me. I will ever retain a grateful sense of the kindness I received from you, and a lively recollection of the pleasure I enjoyed in your society-Be so good as to present my kind remembrances to Mrs. Hodge and the young people, to Dr. Miller, to Dr. Alexander and his sons, to Dr. Carnahan, Rice and Maclean, and Messrs. Henry and Dod, and believe me to be sincerely and affectionately yours,
Wm. Cunningham.
DR. HODGE TO DR. CUNNINGHAM.
Princeton, Sept. 13, 1844.
My Dear Sir: — All your Princeton friends were very happy to hear of your safe return to your native land and of the cordial welcome everywhere extended to you. We have rejoiced in the abundant manifestations of the divine favor granted to the Free Church during the past year, and in the inviting prospect of usefulness which is spread out before her.
Here there is little new or interesting. I am afraid that little will be done in behalf of the Free Church in virtue of the recommenda-
^T. 46.] CORRESrOKDENCE. 359
tion of our last Assembly. It was a mistake merely to pass resolutions expressing sympathy with your body and urging congregations which had not done anything to make a collection in aid of your funds. If a particular day had been appointed, and all the churches, without any distinction, whether they had done anything or not, called upon to make a collection on that day, I think something better might have come of it. However, you have a better dependence than the distant and feeble churches of America.
We shall be happy to make the arrangements which you suggest with regard to periodicals, etc.
We have all felt a good deal agrieved by the articles in the IVitness on American Slavery. It is very evident that they were not written by the editor of that paper; but we are surprised at his publishing them. They are unjust, inaccurate, injurious to the American churches, and of evil tendency in all respects. If the Abolitionists of Great Britain wish to do us any good, let them first define what slavery is, making due discrimination between slave-holding and the varying laws by which, in different countries, slave-holding is regulated. And then let them prove that slave-holding, not the slave laws of this or that State, but slave-holding, is contrary to the Word of God. It cannot do us any good to tell us that it is wrong to be cruel, to be unjust, to separate husbands and wives, parents and children, or to keep servants in ignorance. Our churches do not sanction any of these things, though our laws often do. Instead of really arguing the question, and affecting the conscience through the understanding, such men as the writers in the Witness take up reports of this or that case of cruelty, and hold it up as an indication of the character of whole classes of men in this country. They might, of course, as well cite passages from the reports of the commissioners on your mines to show the character of the Free Church of Scotland.
I know, my dear sir, how much superior you are to all such things, and I would not write thus to you if I did not know that you are well aware of the respect which we all have for your principles and conduct in reference to this subject. But I really feel concerned for the effect such articles are likely to produce. It is the want of sense, as much as the want of justice, manifested in such effusions and in the proceedings of some of your emancipation societies that tries our patience. I see Dr. Burns is very desirous, in his anti-slavery speeches, to bring to his support “his respected friend, Dr. Cunningham,” as much as possible; and to represent himself and you as standing on the same ground on this subject. In the estimation of good people here, there are few things less alike than Dr. Burns and “his respected friend,” and it will require hard pulling to get them together. I hope you have seen in the New York Observer a notice of the article in the Witness. That notice is from the pen of Dr. James W. Alexander, who lived many years in Virginia.
I hope you will often write to me, or to some of your friends in Princeton. We shall never forget the pleasure we derived from your visit. Will you present my regards to Dr. Gordon, to whom I look up with the deepest respect. I once (1828) had the pleasure of hearing him preach, but had not the advantage of an introduction to him during my short visit to Scotland.
I see by the Witness that you are down on the Erastians with a heavy hand. They will think you have let your hair grow during your visit to America. All your friends here, including all the members of my family, unite in assurances of affection and respect.
Your friend and brother,
Charles Hodge.
DR. HODGE TO DR. CUNNINGHAM.
Princeton, Jan. 29th, 1845.
My Dear Sir: — ... I thank you sincerely for the number of the North British Review containing the article on the United States. All your friends in America feel under obligations to you for that manly defence, and all the more that they see you suffer for it. I notice with pain the pecking of the Record, which is noticeable only as revealing the animus of the editor. High-churchmen are accused of loving the Church more than Christ or Christians, and the Record really seems to love aristocracy more than men. It can see no good, or rejoice in nothing good, where there are not kings and nobles. I have never noticed an expression of satisfaction at the evidence of the power of the Gospel in this country, but a uniform disposition to rejoice in all our infirmities and vices.
I rejoice to see that your New College meets with so much favor. We all cherish the recollection of your visit as something we can never let die out of our minds. I hope you will brighten the chain occasionally by letting us hear from you. Mrs. Hodge and my children beg that you will not forget them. * * *
Very sincerely your friend and brother,
Charles Hodge.
DR. CUNNINGHAM TO DR. HODGE.
Edinburgh, 26th April, 1845. My Dear Sir: — I have to thank you for two letters, and to apologize for not answering them sooner. For the last six months I have been occupied very thoroughly with the duties of a first session in our Theological Seminary. I had made very little written preparation before the beginning of the session, as for nearly five months I have, besides other duties, to compose each week three lectures of fifty minutes each. The session, however, is now over, and we have a vacation of six months. I sent you lately two numbers of the Witness containing a report of a discussion in our Presbytery on “American Slavery,” which has, I think, put down “Abolitionism” in its technical sense, so far as the Free Church is concerned.
I read with much interest the article on “Abolitionism” in the Repertory. It contained some important truths, which, in this country, when judging of the American churches, we are far too apt to overlook. But I am not satisfied of the soundness of some of its principles. I cannot see how any human being can justly and validly lose his own personal, natural right to control his time and labor, unless the element either of his own consent or of penal infliction for a crime proven be brought in. I cannot but think that every man is entitled to escape from slavery if he can, an idea decidedly confirmed by the decisions of the Mosaic Law about runaway slaves, and as the master’s right and the slave’s obligation must be correlative, it would seem that the slave’s right to run away disproves the master’s right to retain him in slavery. But I have no doubt that where slavery exists and is established by law, individuals may innocently occupy the position of slave-holders, because in the actual circumstances in which the community and they themselves and the slaves are placed the greatest benefit which it may be in their power to confer may be to purchase a slave and to exercise to some extent the power which the law may give them over him. And it is very certain that no power on earth is entitled, in the face of Apostolic practice, to prescribe it as a law to the Church of Christ that they shall not admit slave-holders to ordinances or even to office in the Church. I think too much stress has been laid on both sides on a specific answer to the question “Is slave-holding sinful?” With the views I entertain upon the subject I could answer this question either affirmatively or negatively, cum distinctione, according as it might be explained and applied. There is surely a class of cases which are intermediate between things indifferent and those which are in their own nature, and in all their circumstances, morally right or wrong.
The country is involved in a great excitement at present in consequence of Sir Robert Peel’s resolution to endow permanently the College at Maynooth for the educating Popish priests. He adverted the other night in the House of Commons to the possibility of a war with the United States as a reason for reconciliating the Irish Papists.
Let us hope and pray that the Lord may avert so fearful a calamity.
We have suffered a great loss in our Theological Seminary by the death of Dr. Welsh, at the age of fifty-one. He was Professor of Church History, and a man very highly esteemed and respected among us. He had published the first volume of a church history, which, however, is by no means a fair specimen of what the work was to have been had he been spared to complete it. His death will probably lead to some remodelling of our arrangements in the Seminary, and it is not altogether unlikely that I may be appointed to succeed him; tiot, however, as Professor of Church History, but of Historical and Polemic Theology. Dr. Chalmers continues to enjoy good health, though he does not now take much part in the management of the ordinary business of the church. His strength is failing a good deal, and he is very anxious now to retire from public life and active duties. He is not likely to continue to take the regular charge of a class in the Seminary for more than one or two years longer.
I am going to visit Sutherland for a fortnight before the Assembly. The Duke of Sutherland, as I anticipated when in America, was shamed into giving sites for our churches; but he resolved, since we had carried off the wholfe adult population, to try to bring back the young men to the establishment, and has refused to give us sites for Free Church schools. The people won’t send their children to the establishment schools, and there are no others in that part of the country. As he made 24,000 pass a winter without churches, he has made their children pass two without school-houses. But he seems now to feel that he must yield on this point, too; and I expect to be able to report to the Assembly that the matter has been adjusted.
It will always give me the greatest pleasure to hear from you. I will write again (D. V.) after the Assembly. Give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Hodge and the members of your family, and to your colleagues, and believe me to be, iny dear sir,
. Sincerely and affectionately yours, Wm. Cunningham.
DR. HODGE TO DR. CUNNINGHAM.
Princeton, January, 1846. My Dear Sir: — If my negligence in writing to you entails on me the penalty of not hearing from you I am severely though justly punished. I beg you, however, not to let justice grow into severity and lead you to keep silence even after I have performed my epistolary duty. If writing is a disagreeable work to you, consider that reading is very agreeable to us.
Since I last wrote two things have occurred in our Church, the one a public and the other a more personal affair, which have been peculiarly interesting to me. The former is the decision of our General Assembly, pronouncing baptism as administered in the Romish Church to be invalid. This decision took us all very much by surprise. I think a decided majority of our ministers, over fifty years of age, are opposed to the decision, and a large proportion of our more intelligent laymen. All the brethren connected with the College and Theological Seminary are in opposition, and if the Repertory still reaches you, you may have noticed in the number for July, 1845, i argument against the decision. * * * I beg you to let me know your own views and what you take to be the sentiment of your church as to the decision of our Assembly.
The other and more private event to which 1 alluded is the death of Mr. Dod, Professor of Mathematics in our College. I suspect you hardly saw enough of him to get an insight into the man. He was one of the most highly gifted of our ministers; the best public debater, I think, in our church, and one of the best of our controversial writers. I greatly relied upon him in all times of emergency. He died on the 20th of November, after a week’s illness. His death-bed experience was very remarkable. He had for some years been so absorbed in literary and professional pursuits that he appeared less before the public as a minister and a religious man than his friends wished; and there was a latitude of remark and a freedom in speculation in which he was apt to indulge which produced an impression as to his Christian character which was not altogether favorable. His intimate friends, however, never doubted his piety, and when he came to die, which in his case was a slow process, continuing from Tuesday evening until Thursday afternoon, he evidenced a calm, intelligent. Scriptural faith, without any emotional excitement, which filled every one about him with surprise. He was just as completely Albert B. Dod, in all his intellectual and social peculiarities, in his cheerfulness, even playfulness, in his clear and strong discriminating sense, as when in perfect health. I had often known of men’s dying in peace or in triumph, but to see a man dying cheerfully in the full possession of his intellect, in calm, unexcited confidence in Christ as his God and Saviour, was to me a perfectly novel sight. His death is the greatest loss I have ever sustained in the death of friends.
I learn by letter just received from the Rev. Thomas McCrie, of Edinburgh, that some friends there think of republishing the Review of Beman on the Atonement, published in the Repertory, for January, 1845, In my answer to his letter I ventured to suggest some
364 DEATH OF PROFESSOR DOD. [1845.
reasons for thinking it better that the Review should appear without a name. You know a man can talk very “big” when he is speaking behind a curtain, and in the name of a whole class of men — the Old School party for instance — when he would feel rather foolish if the curtain were suddenly drawn up, and only one little fellow seen standing there. This, however, is only a personal affair. I am willing you should do what you think is most likely to be useful. At all events, leave out the compliment to Dr. Cox in the last paragraph, about his co(jpia and yvutrc, which none but an American can understand.
Mrs. Hodge and the whole family unite in begging you not to forget them. Your friends in America have a great hankering after you, and despite of the claims of the Free Church, would be glad to get you permanently among us. The good people in this country have such a notion of Lord Palmerston’s pugnacity that they are all rejoicing at the return of Sir Robert Peel to power. Can a greater sin be imagined than England and America going to war about Oregon? I question whether Dr. Chalmers even knows where Oregon is.
Your affectionate friend,
Charles Hodge.
DEATH OF PROFESSOR ALBERT B. DOD.
On the 20th of November, 1845, the subject of this Memoir met one of the chief bereavements of his life. Professor Albert B. Dod had married his cousin, Miss Caroline S. Bayard and was, with the exception of his brother and Bishop Johns, the most intimate friend he ever had. As narrated above. Professor Dod spent several evenings every week in his friend’s study, where he formed by far the most brilHant and inspiring of the remarkable set of conversationalists who met there constantly for the discussion of all questions of interest to educated men. Nine years after his death Dr. Hodge wrote an account of him for Dr. Sprague’s Annals, affirming: “I have not yet ceased to mourn his departure as a personal loss.”
He describes him as: —” Rather above the ordinary standard in height, somewhat inclined to stoop; rather squareshouldered; but active and graceful in his movements and carriage. His head was unusually large; his forehead broad, but not high; his eyebrows massive and projecting;
>ET. 47.] DEATH OF PROFESSOR DOB. 365
his eyes hazel, brilliant and deep-seated; his countenance intellectual and pleasing. His disposition was very cheerful and amiable, which rendered him with his extraordinary conversational powers, particularly agreeable as a companion. His reputation as a talker threatened at one time to eclipse his fame in higher departments. But this was only the sparkling of a really deep and rapidly moving stream.
“He had a taste for literature and the fine arts, and considerable fertility of imagination, and was, I think, disposed to estimate these gifts at a higher value than his more solid mental qualities. To me, it always appeared that his understanding, his power of clear and quick discernment, of analysis and lucid statement, and of logical deduction, was the leading power of his mind, to which his reputation and usefulness were mainly due.
“It was that gave him his success and power as a teacher. There was nothing that he could not make plain. He delighted in unfolding the rationale of all the processes of his department, and to elevate his pupils to the study of the philosophy of every subject which he taught.
“To this clearness and discrimination of mind is also to be referred his fondness for metaphysics, and his skill in the discussion of subjects connected with that department. Those of his writings which excited general attention are on topics of this character. His mind was ever on the alert, and teeming with thought and suggestions. It was a common thing for him when he entered my study, to say: — ‘I was thinking, as I came along, of such and such a question,’ announcing some problem in mental or moral science. Indeed, I do not know that I ever was acquainted with a man, who so constantly suggested important topics of conversation, or kept the minds of his friends more on a stretch. His consciousness of power in debate, no doubt, contributed to the formation of this habit, for the pleasure of discussion was in his case so great, that he would often start paradox-
2^66 DEATH OF PROFESSOR DOD. [1S45.
ical opinions, either for the sake of surprising his hearers, or exercising his skill in defending them. The talent to which I have referred, was conspicuously displayed in all public assemblies. Had his life been spared, I doubt not, he would have established for himself the reputation of one of the ablest debaters in our church.
“His best and most effective sermons are distinguished by the same character of mind. His voice was melodious and his delivery free and untrammelled by his notes, which were generally written out in full. Though his preaching in the latter years of his life was generally addressed more to the understanding than to the affections, yet he had great emotional power, and could, when roused himself, control in an uncommon degree the feelings of his audience.
“I regarded him as one of the most gifted men of our church. His having chosen an academical, instead of a pastoral career, kept him in a measure aloof from our ecclesiastical courts, and turned his attention to science rather than to theology. But I have a strong conviction that he had in him rich stores of undeveloped resources (he was only 41), which, had it pleased God to prolong his life, would have rendered him one of the most eminent and useful ministers of our church.”
As described above in Dr. Hodge’s letter to Dr. Cunningham, Prof Dod’s death-bed experience was very remarkable. All his peculiar intellectual and social traits and habits were in full play to the last. When unexpectedly and instantly brought face to face with death, he took up every question of pressing personal interest and settled them in their order. First, his family, of wife and seven little children, unprovided for. These he committed to God in an act of absolute faith, which the heavenly Father has not disappointed. And this matter remained thus permanently disposed of Then he took up the relation of his own soul to God. “As soon as the object of faith was presented to him in the free, full and explicit declarations of Scripture, he
^T. 49.] DEPARTURE OF HIS CHILDREN. 367
seized it with a clearness and strength which left no doubt in his own mind whether he had faith or not. As promise after promise was repeated to him, he said with emotion: ‘I thank you for that,” God bless you for that.” I know myself to be nothing and less than nothing, and God all in all. And Christ precious. I know no other God but him.’ The text was then repeated: ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Son of God, is born of God.’ ‘Thank you for that,’ he replied, and attempted to raise his friend’s hand to his lips.”
That friend was Dr. Hodge, who remained with him all the long period of his death struggle, and who wrote an account of it which he read at the funeral, and which was subsequently printed in a pamphlet. It was at this funeral that Dr. Hodge made one of his few but nevertheless intensely characteristic bursts of eloquence, described by Dr. Paxton in the last chapter of this book.
MARRIAGE AND DEPARTURE OF HIS CHILDREN.
Two years after this, in the late summer and autumn of 1847, Dr. Hodge’s immediate family began to have its first experience of the inevitable separations which await us all. Up to this time there had been no parting. Neither parent, nor either of the eight children had died. Their education also in school and college had been conducted together and at home. But now at once the eldest son went to India as a Missionary, and the eldest daughter went to Danville, Kentucky, as the wife of the Rev. Wm. M. Scott, Professor of Ancient Languages in Centre College, and afterwards Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at Chicago.
Such an experience makes an epoch in any family, leaving it changed forever. Our family was never completely regathered on earth again, for before the son returned from India, the Mother was making the beginnings of the home in heaven. The parting was the occasion of the utter pour-
368 DEPARTURE OF HIS CHILDREN. [1847.
ing forth of the treasures of love of both parents’ hearts. To us these are unspeakably precious, but they are too sacred to be given here. From this time for years our Father’s letters to his brother had but one burden, his children and their welfare, and then the memory and the virtues and the love of their sainted Mother. He writes to his brother, September 14th, 1847, “To marry a daughter I find to be a very different thing from marrying a son. It is a complete sacrifice of self to the good of your child, and it is right it should be so, but it is most peculiarly painful. How little we know of anything but by experience. Whoever sympathizes with parents on the marriage of a daughter? Men congratulate me, when I can hardly help feeling they do it in designed mockery. Still we had M — . for two and twenty years, and that is a good deal, and though she is not now, and never again can be to us what she once was, she is still our precious child. I trust we shall be happy in her happiness.”
His never failing friend, Bishop Johns, wrote to him, Richmond, April 17th, 1848. “We rejoice with you in the intelligence of A.’s safe arrival and in his health and comfort in his new field. Distance, dear Charles, is a small consideration. To have a child so devoted and employed should overtop all else. And to have a daughter wedded to a faithful minister of the gospel, who will be her guide to heaven, as well as her affectionate companion by the way, is a privilege with which the heart of a Christian parent may well be contented. Forget oceans and miles in your gratitude. All unite in most affectionate regards to you and yours. In the beginning yet of our friendship, yours truly. J. Johns.” Is not that beautiful? They were past fifty years old, and in the twenty-eighth year of their ministry, “and in the beginning yet of their friendship!”
iET. 52.] DEATH OF HIS WIFE. 369
THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE. During the summer of 1849 s. Hodge had visited her daughter in Kentucky, and had returned in September, as her husband reported to his brother “wonderfully well, fatter and stronger than before her journey, and in excellent spirits.” She became ill however later in the same month with a disease which, in the judgment of her physicians, while involving crises of imminent danger, yet upon the whole admitted a strong expectation of ultimate recovery. His beloved brother visited their home as frequently as possible during the first week of December, and contributed much to prolong life, and to sustain hope. The bereaved husband left this minute in his record book. ^’On Tuesday, the 1 8th of December, in the afternoon, she sank so low that we feared she could not live until sundown. She was sweetly humble and resigned. I asked her, Do you love the Lord Jesus? She said: ‘I hope so.’ I asked, do you trust in him? ‘Entirely.’ Is he precious to you? ‘Very.’ She afterwards often answered the same questions by saying: ‘Inexpressibly.” He is my all in all’ She expressed the greatest penitence and self-condemnation in view of herself and life, but the most peaceful confidence whenever she thought of the blessed Saviour.*** Afterwards, towards the end of that week and the beginning of the next, she improved. During these days she frequently requested me to pray with her, and was never weary of the repetition of hymns, especially of the hymns “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds,” and “Jesus, lover of my soul.” But Monday night, at another violent crisis in her complaint, she began to sink, and about half past four o’clock on Christmas morning she softly and sweetly fell asleep in Jesus. She evinced throughout the most perfect composure and resignation. She said she knew she was dying. Spoke of her children, said she could not see them now and added: ‘I give them to God.’ She responded in full appropriating faith to the promises of Scripture repeated in her hearing,
370 DEATH OF HIS WIFE. [1849.
and over and over again expressed her full and entire confidence in Christ, and her overwhelming sense of his value and of the love of God in the gift of his dear Son.
“Her death was calm, peaceful and holy. She was full of humility, faith and grateful, admiring love to God. Her children, save the eldest, were all about her. They all were renewedly given by her to God, and around her sacred remains they all knelt in consecrating prayer to God.”
She had lived with her husband, his joy and crown, twenty-seven years and a half She had borne for him eight children, three daughters and five sons, all of whom, by God’s singular mercy, lived to mature age, and have been gathered with their parents into the number of those who profess Christ.
The sorrowing husband caused this inscription to be graven on her tomb:
SARAH BACHE,
WIFE OF
REV. CHARLES HODGE,
DEPARTED THIS LIFE,
DECEMBER 25TH, I849,
AGED 51 YEARS.
AN HUMBLE WORSHIPPER OF CHRIST,
SHE LIVED IN LOVE AND
DIED IN FAITH.
TRUTHFUL WOMAN, DELIGHTFUL COMPANION,
ARDENT FRIEND, DEVOTED WIFE.
SELF-SACRIFICING MOTHER,
WE LAY YOU GENTLY HERE, OUR BEST BELOVED,
TO GATHER STRENGTH AND BEAUTY
FOR THE COMING OF THE LORD.
A GRAIN OF WHEAT IS NOT QUICKENED EXCEPT IT DIE.
This is indeed the outpouring of a bereaved husband’s heart. But it is all true. And now, when, after twenty-
.ET.52.] DEATH OF HIS WIFE. 371
nine years, we, their children, lay our father by our mother’s side and read this inscription on her tomb, we all say “Amen!”
BISHOP JOHNS WRITES TO HIM.
WiLLiAMSBURGH, March 19, 1850.
My Dear Charles: — If all the letters which I have penned in thought had been forwarded you would know how much you have been in my mind. Yes, both sleeping and waking, I have been with you — not, indeed, as you now are; for it requires an effort to realize that your house is not as 1 always, except at my last brief visit, joyed to find it — but as enlivened and cheered by the presence of the blessed one who has from the first been so identified with us that it seems impossible for me to think of either of you without seeing both. I am so willing to allow the illusion which the happy association of many past years produces, that I can scarcely bring myself to the conviction that my dear Charles is bereaved, and alone in his desolate home, and that I am no more to receive the cordial greeting and gaze on the bright countenance of Sarah. That one sentence in your letter, “since their blessed mother entered heaven,” pressed for a while the truth upon my consciousness, and in my strong sympathies for my afflicted brother I found the experience of the time ot my own like visitation very vividly renewed. Yes, dear Charles, they are together “in heaven,” and may we but be successful in training to a meetness for the same mansions the precious children they have left us, the hour is not far off when we shall rather think of their sainted mothers as there than encounter the struggle of leaving them on earth. My solicitude for the spiritual welfare of my children increases as my opportunities of being useful to them shorten, and this anxiety is, of course, more intense in the case of those who thus far have given no indications of the new birth into righteousness. Nothing seems so strongly to stir up my feelings in prayer as the effort to intercede for them with God. But a few days before the receipt of your letter I was, I think, more than usually engaged in this way with tenderness toward them, but I fear small faith and hope. Is my almost “extremity” to prove “God’s opportunity?” How wishfully I wait for further intelligence! Oh, for more of that “great faith in the baptismal dedication of children, and of that believing prayer,” of which you speak! The confidence is authorized, and in exercise, how great the comfort!
I have written to my dear boy (in Princeton College) the overflowings of my heart for counsel. Should he be sufficiently interested to
372 IA TH OF HIS WIFE. [ 1 850.
desire it, I have commended him to you as to a father, and it is to me cause of great thankfulness to know that he is so near one who will “naturally care for his state,” and truly show him the way of salvation.
Do let me hear from you, for I shall be anxious to learn something of the good work which I trust the Lord has begun in the College. How the tidings carry me back, as well they may, with gratitude and praise to the never-to-be-forgotten scenes of our own College course there. But for the gracious dispensation of those days, giving effect to parental instruction and example, what and where should / have been. Bless the Lord, O my soul!
I need not say, my dear Charles, that all here join me in love to you and yours. J. Johns.
After this many months were almost absorbed by this great sorrow. In every way he gave it full course, dwelling upon it in his imagination, and indulging unrestrained the physical expression of it. He wrote to his brother on the 1 2th of November, 1850, the anniversary of his (the brother’s) marriage in New York:
“This is the 12th of November. During my days of happiness the anniversary of my marriage generally passed without special notice; every day was as the day of our espousals. But now that day is invested with sacred interest. As you are still happy, and pressed forward with the full tide of life, you may let this day pass with scarcely more than a few ejaculations of thanks to God for his goodness. It is now one of my anniversaries. I know the history of my Sarah for this day twenty-two years ago, and can recall her appearance as she then was distinctly before me. The night before we spent in New Brunswick. In the morning we went to New York in the steamboat. We put up at Bunker’s. I know the room we occupied. I know where Sarah sat at dinner, and what she ate. In the afternoon Miss Boyd came to aid her in dressing. I can see her as she sat by Margaret (his brother’s bride) on the sofa in the evening, and how she smiled when I called her ’ old Mrs, Hodge.’ It is thus I can recall her by associating her
JET. S3-] DEATH OF HIS WIFE. 373
with particular times and places. The general recollection is painfully vague; these definite associations are poignantlyvivid. And yet I assiduously cultivate them as part of the homage due her memory. No human being can tell, prior to experience, what it is to lose out of a family its head and heart, the source at once of its light and love.”
In December, 1850, his brother lost, by a rapid and uncontrollable disease, his third son, James Bayard, a beautiful and beloved Christian youth of seventeen years. After his return to Princeton from the funeral Dr. Hodge wrote:
DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, Dec. 16, 1850.
My Dear Brother: — You were kind in writing to me when God’s hand Tiad touched the apple of my eye, and you expressed what were no doubt wise and pious sentiments, but I felt you did not and could not understand the case, and that such counsels had but little power over a broken heart. I do not feel disposed, therefore, to say anything of the kind to you and sister Margaret.
There is no help in such afflictions but in God. He alone can reach the heart. Earthly friends speak only to the outward ear. Their sympathy, I know, by experience, is consoling and gratifying. It is viewed as a tribute to the departed, an acknowledgment of the greatness of our loss, and is therefore to be valued and cherished. That sympathy you have from a very large circle, and prayers constant, numerous and fervent are going up to God in your behalf, and in behalf of your dear children. It was never meant that we should not sorrow after the most cherished objects of our affection. Our duty is to take care that we “sorrow after a godly sort,” for “the sorrow of the world,” such sorrow as the world or worldly people have, “worketh death.” Pious sorrow, that is, sorrow mingled with pious feeling, with resignation, confidence in God. hope in his mercy and love, is every way healthful to the soul; while melancholy is irreligious, and is a cancer to true peace and spiritual health. The great means of having our sorrow kept pure is to keep near to God, to feel assured of his love, that he orders all things well, and will make even our afflictions work out for us a far more exceeding and an eternal weight of glory.
Christ is our God. When we speak of keeping near to God, we mean God in Christ, and God as reconciled and made propitious to us by his blood. And Christ is near to us, and dwells in us, and shows us His love, and works all grace in us by the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a mere speculative doctrine, it is an essential part of the Christian’s practical faith, the truth on which he daily lives. If, therefore, God will graciously give you and Margaret the Holy Ghost, He will thereby give you Himself, and open to you the infinite sources of peace and consolation that are to be found in Him. To give our grief this pious character, I think it must be expressed, not hidden or kept in one’s own bosom. At least, it seems to me much more consistent with Christian feeling to give proper expression to our sorrow, and to talk of those whom God has taken to heaven, than to cast the pall of silence over all that concerns them.
I was, therefore, truly rejoiced to find that dear M. had the heart to talk freely of Bayard. As he cannot be forgotten, so he ought not to be remembered merely in silence. He and his death and his present blessedness can bear to be talked about among those who loved him and still long to manifest their affection for his memory.
I began this letter with the intention of saying nothing that could be considered like counsel, but I fear I have run into this mistake-We cannot tell how what we say will affect the exquisite sensibilities of a bereaved heart, and therefore must hope that what we write will be taken as an expression of love, though it may be, as such expressions often are, more or less painful.
Your affectionate brother,
Charles.
DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, May 28, 1850.
My Dear Brother: — I am sorry to hear that your fears respecting Mrs. Chauncey have proved so well founded. I feel for him, but there is no help but in God. If God comforts him he will be comforted, but vain are all human comforters. I will try to write to him, but my experience teaches me not how to write, but that letters of condolence, though not without their value, are powerless. I have received many and value them highly, not merely as expressions of kind feeling towards myself, but far more as evidence of regard for my blessed Sarah. Still, I have never read any of them a second time.
I feel also for you. I know how much you suffer from the loss of patients, not only from sympathy, but from a feeling of responsibility. You should remember, however, that it is appointed unto all men once to die, and that no degree of skill, and no assiduity of attention,
>ET. so.] DISTURBED HEALTH. 375
can avert the shaft of death. You have great consolations, as well as great trials. How often are you the means of saving life! How often do patients and friends look up to you as their greatest benefactor! You cannot have this exquisite satisfaction without paying the tribute of occasional sorrow when a.11 your efforts fail.
Your brother, C. H.
DISTURBED HEALTH.
During this period, and for some years later, Dr. Hodge’s health continued in an uncomfortable, though hardly in a precarious condition. In the summer of 1848 he met with an accident which proved to be the starting point of a long sequence of disturbances in his nervous and circulatory systems. His letter to his brother on the occasion will explain the case:
DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, July 14th, 1848 — Friday.
My Dear Brother: — I had made my arrangements to preach on Sunday next at Netherwood (Mr. Lenox’s place), and therefore was to leave home last evening for New York, so as to be able to take the morning boat up the North river for to-day. They had tea at six o’clock that I might be ready for the cars. While we were all at table something was said to produce a laugh, just as I had my cup at my mouth, and some of the tea got into my larynx, producing a violent fit of coughing. I rose to leave the table, and took a step or two towards the door, and then I remember nothing until I saw the family around me in alarm raising me from the floor. They say I staggered to the wall, and fell, striking my head against the sofa. I remember nothing of the staggering or falling, or of the blow. The unconsciousness was only for a moment, for as they raised me to a sitting posture I spoke, and asked what had happened. I was aware I was coming out of unconsciousness, and had forgotten the antecedents. They told me I had choked, and then it all came back. They were all a good deal alarmed, and begged me not to leave home. The hack was at the door, and the whole occurrence seeming perfectly intelligible, the spasm of the larynx producing suffocation, and that momentary congestion, I determined to go, taking Wistar with me to New York for company. When, however, I got to the depot I felt unwell and determined to return.
We sent for Dr. Schanck. He took the same view of the matter
376 DISTURBED HEALTH, [1848,
that I had done, and advised, what I had already ordered, a hot bath for the feet and cold water for the head. I thought he would have taken a little blood, and think it would have been better had he done so. I felt no inconvenience through the night, beyond a slight headache and a heaviness about the chest, inducing frequent sighing. I feel well this morning, except this little headache.
I am not free from concern about this dispensation, as I think it shows a great tenderness about the brain. I never could bear to have my head jarred, nor exposed to heat, especially in the back part of it. I am not certain, however, the difficulty is not in the chest, as I so frequently feel oppression there.
I am so well that I expect to leave home at noon, so as to take the night boat up the river. The Lord our Saviour reigns, and we are in his hands, and not a hair of our heads can perish without his notice. Your brother, Charles Hodge.
Again he writes to his brother, as soon as he returns to Princeton, on Wednesday, the 19th of July:
My Dear BroiJier: — As Dr. Schanck advised my going up the North river, I left home on Friday morning, and reached Hampton, five miles above Newburgh, about half-past nine that evening. I had a very pleasant journey, and the fresh evening air on the river I thought did me good. I reached Mr. Lenox’s the next morning about eight o’clock. My head has been gradually improving. On Saturday it ached constantly on the back or top, and I had a good deal of new nervous feeling — not giddiness but feeble {nervation, so that my step was unsteady, and at times I experienced the initial sensation of fainting. I kept quiet and did not attempt to preach on Sunday. Monday I felt better. I left Netherwood about noon yesterday, in the day boat, stayed last night in New York, and reached home at noon to-day. I find that writing a few short letters is as much as my head will bear.
I found your kind letter awaiting my return, and shall be careful to follow your directions.
Your brother, C. H.
The nervous disturbance occasioned by this accident was subsequently confirmed and aggravated by the severe and protracted emotional excitement he went through during the year, which followed the death of his wife. This effect was doubtless dependent upon the fullness of his habit of body, the constitutional changes, incident to his time of life, and the long confinement which had resulted from his lameness. For years he suffered from fulness and dizziness of the head, and constant restlessness. He was frequently bled and otherwise depleted, and necessarily lived far more in the open air than at any other period of his life. Consequently from 1848 to about 1855 o ‘5^ was his least productive period, so much so that it then often seemed as if he might fail to gather the complete harvest of his previous labors. It was now that he formed the habit of seeking recreation and of amusing the hours of his necessary rest by a moderate reading of novels, and by playing backgammon, and in the summer season croquet on the lawn before his study windows. /
DR. CHARLES HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, Jan. 25, 1849. My Dear Brother: — Were it not for what you say I should feel a good deal concerned about my head. That there has been a great change since my attack last summer there is no doubt. And sometimes the disturbance and pain are so great that I can do nothing. Often, after three or four hours’ woi-k, I am obliged to put by everything and go into the open air. All this is new and strange for me. I have been relieved in a measure by observing that the pain was partly external at times — that is, the scalp on the top of my head is tender to the touch. It may all be neuralgia, but it unfits me for the labor I could once sustain.
Your brother, C. H.
TO THE SAME.
Princeton, June 18, 1851. My Dear Brother: — This is my wedding day. This day, and not far from this hour, twenty-nine years ago, my blessed Sarah gave me her hand in pledge of life-long love and devotion. That pledge she sacredly redeemed. For twenty-seven years God spared us to each other, and no man had ever more reason than I have had to rejoice in the unwavering affection of a most superior woman. My feelings now are in some respects very different from what they were this time last year, but in others they remain unchanged. No day has intervened that I have not often and literally shed tears to her memory; no week has passed that I have not been twice or oftener to her grave. And yet I think of her now with less of that dreadful sense of bereavement which then oppressed my spirit. I turn my heart towards her with much of the same feeling with which a Romanist, who stops short of idolatry, looks up to his patron saint. No one can know, prior to experience, the mystery of those affections which are interwoven with the whole tissue of our lives, and whose objects God
has exalted to heaven.
Your affectionate brother, C. H.
DEATH OF HIS SENIOR COLLEAGUES. And now, within less than two years of one another, Dr. Hodge’s two senior Colleagues were removed, leaving him to occupy the position of senior professor, with its attendant dignity and responsibility for twenty-seven years. Dr. Miller died January 7th, 1850, and Dr. Alexander died October 22d, 185 1.
It is natural that every institution which has attained to a history should possess away back in its past, if not a heroic, at least a golden age, when the remote forefathers dwelt in a world of love and purity, not known to their degenerate sons. But the holy character and mutual love of the first three professors of Princeton Theological Seminary is not a myth, nor is it certified to us only by a dim tradition. Many of their cotemporaries have left their written testimony, and many of us, their children and pupils, survive to testify of what we have known ourselves. For many years I witnessed, as a member of one of their families, their going in and out together, and since then I have had a wide experience of professors and of pastors, and I am certain, I have never seen any three who together approached these three in absolute singleness of mind, in simplicity and godly sincerity, in utter unselfishness and devotion to the common cause, each in honor preferring one another. Truth and candor was the atmosphere they breathed, loyalty, brave and sweet, was the spirit of their lives.
Dr. Alexander bore testimony to Dr. Miller, that he had
^T. 52.] DEATH OF HIS SEXIOR COLLEAGUES. 379
“never known a man more entirely free from vainglory, envy and jealousy.” His students regarded him as the most perfect illustration of the Christian graces they had ever seen. Dr. Hodge often narrated how, ‘In the summer of 18 19, Dr. Alexander delivered to the then Senior class a lecture, which so impressed his pupils, that Dr. William Nevins said to his classmates that it was a shame they should enjoy such instructions and do nothing to secure the same advantage for others. He, therefore, proposed that we should endeavor to found a scholarship, to be called ‘The Scholarship of the Class of 18 19.’ To this the class assented, and a committee was appointed to inform the Professors of our purpose. When the committee waited on Dr. Miller, Nevins with his characteristic naive frankness told him the whole story, and dwelt on the enthusiasm cherished by the students for Dr. Alexander. Dr. Miller having heard him through, expressed his pleasure in view of what the class had done, and then lifted his hand and said, ‘My young friend, I solemly believe that Dr. Alexander is the greatest man who walks the earth!’ When we left the Doctor’s study, Nevins said to his associates on the Committee, ‘Well, if Dr. Alexander be the greatest, Dr. Miller is surely the holiest that walks the earth! ‘We were boys then; but this incident serves to show how Dr. Miller was regarded by his pupils.” Dr. Hodge also says of Dr. Miller “Some men are good in one respect and not in another. — Dr. Miller was thoroughly good; good in every respect, because he was good in principle.... The fact that for over thirty years he was intimately associated with colleagues to whom he never said an unkind word or exhibited an unkind feeling, is proof enough of his habitual self-control.”
In the last year of his life Dr. Miller wrote a letter to Dr. Henry A. Boardman of Philadelphia, which ought never to be read except through tears. Its existence is a proof of the singular favor with which God regarded the old Princeton. We preserve it, and again and again we publish it as an inestimable record of God’s goodness to our Fathers, and of the religious character of the heritage they have left us.
DR. MILLER TO REV. H. A. BOARDMAN, D. D.
Princeton, Feb. 28, 1849.
I thank you, my dear brother, for the kind expressions which you employ on the prospect of my retiring from office. I am, indeed, nearly worn out. Far advanced in my eightieth year, I have outlived all my relatives, and all my own expectations, and am compassed about with so many infirmities that I am persuaded a longer continuance in office would be in no respect just, either to the Seminary or myself. Yet, in looking forward to retirement from official labor, and especially to that day which is near at hand, when I must “put off this tabernacle,” I desire to bless God for the humble hope which I am permitted to entertain, that I have so good a home to go to, where there will be no more infirmity, and especially no more sin; but perfect union and conformity to Him who, though He was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.
I desire to unite with you, my dear brother, in thanksgiving to the great Head of the Church, that our beloved Seminary has been made so useful to our Zion, by training so large a portion of the ministry under the same teachers; and I hope I have some sincere gratitude that I have been permitted to occupy a place, and take some humble part in this hallowed work. But I can truly say that the sentiment which most strongly and prominently occupies my mind is that of thankfulness that the Lord has been pleased to unite me with colleagues so wise, so faithful, so much superior to myself, and so eminently adapted to be a blessing to the Church. I consider it as one of the greatest blessings of my life to be united with such men, and pre-eminently with my senior colleague, whose wisdom, prudence, learning and peculiar piety have served as an aid and guide to myself, as well as to others. I desire to leave it on record, for the eye of intimate friendship, that in my own estimation my union with these beloved men has been the means of adding to my own respectability and my own usefulness far more than I could ever, humanly speaking, have attained, either alone or in association with almost any other men. I desire especially to feel thankful that I ever saw the face of my venerated senior colleague. He has been for thirty-six years, to me a counsellor, a guide, a prop and a stay, under God,
MT. 52.] DEATH OF HIS SENIOR COLLEAGUES. 38 1
to a degree which it would not be easy for me to estimate or acknowledge.
The union in our Faculty has been complete. And the solid basis of the whole has been a perfect agreement on the part of all of us in an honest subscription to our doctrinal formularies. There has been no discrepance — no pulling in different directions.
Hoping to see you in a few days, I am, my dear sir, your friend and brother in Christian bonds,
Samuel Miller.
In his article on the Memoir of Dr. A. Alexander, in the January No. of the Princeton Rcviciv for 1855, Dr. Hodge says: “Having incidentally mentioned the name of Dr. Miller, we may be permitted to pause and in a sentence pay our humble tribute to that sainted man. He could be appreciated only by those who knew him intimately, who saw him day by day, and year in and year out, in all circumstances suited to try and to reveal the true character. We have never heard any one who enjoyed such means of knowing him, speak of him otherwise than as one of the holiest of men. May the writer be further pardoned for obtruding himself for a moment, so far as to say, that during twenty-nine years of intimate official association with these two venerated men, he never saw the slightest discourtesy, unkindness nor acerbity manifested by the one towards the other; and that he never heard a disparaging remark from the one in reference to the other. Thank God, Princeton Seminary has a history! The past is safe. The memory of the two eminent men who were its first professors, and who gave it character, rest over it as a halo, and men will tread its halls for their sake with something of the feeling with which they visit the tombs of the good and the great.”
That Dr. Hodge was worthy by the endowments of Providence, and by the gifts of grace of his place in that circle of the first three professors, and to be associated with the colleagues he ardently loved and venerated, will be shown hereafter by the testimony of those surviving colleagues, who SO long delighted in him as their friend and academic head.
The relation which Dr. Hodge sustained to Dr. Archibald Alexander has been plainly disclosed in the foregoing memoranda. He was noticed as a school-boy, and made a companion of rides and of distant journeys. He was chosen as an assistant, and for two years made an inmate of the family. He was chosen as a colleague, and habitually and intimately consulted and counseled in all the public and private interests of either. He was chosen to be his successor in the chair of Didactic Theology, And now, when the aged saint came to die, his disciple and successor was summoned (October 12th, 185 1), to his side. Dr. Alexander held out his hand and called him his son. In another interview he transferred to him the account book of the scholarships, and told him what he wished to be done in respect to them, and handed him a white bone walking-stick, carved and presented to him by one of the chiefs of the Sandwich Islands, and said, “You must hand this to your successor in office, that it may be handed down as a kind of symbol of orthodoxy.” When he dismissed him from the first interview he said, “Now my dear son, farewell.”
I saw my father when he returned from that interview, standing in his study in an agony of weeping, exclaiming, “It is all past, the glory of our Seminary has departed.” At the funeral he walked with the sons, claiming to be a true son also.
DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.
Princeton, Oct. 15, 1851. My Dear Brother: — We begin to be very much concerned about our dear venerated Doctor Alexander, Four weeks ago he was seized with a debilitating sickness, and although the violence of the attack has abated, his stomach seems to be giving out, his appetite is gone, so that food is unpleasant to him, and he is very feeble, should he live to April he will be eighty years old. Last week he drove out several times, and I thought he was getting well. On Sun-
^T. 53.] DEATH OF HIS SENIOR COLLEAGUES. 383
day afternoon he sent for me. I found him lying on the sofa in his study, and when I came near to him he put out his hand and said, “My dear son, I have a few things to say to you, to which I wish you to listen without making any reply.” He then went on to say “that those around him thought he was improving, but his own strong persuasion was that his end was drawing nigh; that he was going just as Mr. Samuel Bayard went, from utter failure of the stomach; that he had thought much on the subject and had arrived at the conclusion that it was best for him to leave the world now. He had done his work. After eighty he had never known a man to be useful, and he did not think it desirable for him to live and drag on a few years more a burden to himself and others.” He said, “I wish you to know my views of my case now, and I want to speak to you while I have strength. I consider it one of my greatest blessings that I have been able to bring you forward, and now, my dear son, farewell. You will not see me again.” I was, as you may suppose, greatly humbled and affected by this address from the man to whom I owe so much. I sank on my knees by him and kissed his hand. He told me to pray. I did so for a few sentences. He said, with emphasis, “Amen,” and again giving me his hand said, “farewell.”
This is for your eye alone. Burn this letter. I should be deeply mortified that this record of the parental tenderness and partiality of the old gentleman should ever be seen. It is forty years next spring since I first, as a boy, attracted his notice. He has ever since acted to me as a father, and God has given me grace to love and revere him as a child would such a father. I believe I have never offended him, or hurt his feelings. I cannot prevent this solemn interview having a very strong impression upon my feelings as to the prospect of his recovery, though I know he is often disposed to take gloomy views.
Every thing is covered with gloom here now. It is a sad season of the year — the hour of desolation is drawing near again, — and the prospect of the patriarchal head of our Church and Seminary being taken away makes us feel very sad. The nearest circle to Dr. Alexander is his family, the next the Seminary, the next his thousand living former pupils, and next the ministers and members of the Church. He is the centre of all, and the same feeling, decreasing of course according to its diffusion, pervades the whole.
Your brother, Charles Hodge,.