1. Cole, Stewart G., The History of Fundamentalism (New York, 1931)Google Scholar. Furniss, Norman F., The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven, 1954).Google Scholar

2. The most famous advocate of this position has been H. Richard Niebuhr. He has written, “… fundamentalism was closely related to the conflict between rural and urban cultures in America.… Furthermore, fundamentalism in its aggressive forms was most prevalent in those isolated communities in which the traditions of pioneer society had been most effectively preserved and which were least subject to the influence of modern science and industrial civilization” (Niebuhr, H. Richard, “Fundamentalism,” Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, V, 527).Google Scholar

3. “The Bible conference … represented fifty years of conservatives' effort to maintain their Christian witness in a cultural situation that was slipping from their control” (Cole, op. cit., p. 35). “The principal cause for the rise of the fundamentalist controversy was the incompatibility of the nineteenth-century orthodoxy cherished by many humble Americans with the progress made in science and theology since the Civil War” (Furniss, op. cit., p. 14).

4. Gray, James M., “The Deadline of Doctrine Around the Church,” Moody Monthly (11, 1922), p. 2.Google Scholar

5. Happily there are a few exceptions which ought not to be passed over in silence: Hudson, Winthrop S., Religion in America (New York: Scribner's, 1965)Google Scholar, and Smith, H. Shelton, Handy, Robert T., and Loetscher, Lefferts A., American Christianity (New York: Scribner's, 1963), Vol. II.Google Scholar

6. Neatby, W. Blair, The History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, 1901)Google Scholar; and Turner, W. G., John Nelson Darby (London, 1944).Google Scholar

7. Scofield Reference Bible, ed. by C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909)Google Scholar. For a systematic discussion by one of Scofield's disciples, see Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology (Dallas, 1948).Google Scholar

8. Kraus, C. Norman, Dispensationalism in America (Richmond), 1958), p. 67–8.Google ScholarPubMed

9. Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 44 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Fuller, Daniel P., “The Hermencutics of Dispensationalism” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Northern Baptist Seminary, 1957).Google Scholar

10. Many historians have become quite familiar with references to premillennialism without ever becoming acquainted with the dispensational system of which it frequently a part. Not all premillennialists were dispensationalists, but every dispensationalist was a premillennialist. Some of the best-known works of dispensationalists have been tracts on the premillennial return of Christ. Three of the most influential were Blackstone, William E., Jesus is Coming (2d. ed., New York, 1886)Google Scholar, Brookes, James H., Maranatha (5th ed., New York, 1878)Google Scholar, and Gordon, Adoniram J., Ecce Venit (New York, 1889).Google Scholar

11. The ecelesiology of dispensationalism is so individualistic that each individual becomes his own church; his own sanctification is the only holiness the church can know. Through this emphasis holiness teachings became linked to the Fundamentalist movement. The English Keswick movement, which entered the U. S. through Moody's Northfield Conferences, made a great impact upon dispensationalism and Fundamentalism generally.

12. The very character of dispensationalism has thus made the identification of its adherents difficult. It is obvious, with this type of group, that one must work very carefully in identifying individuals as dispensationalists. There is a great temptation to label men on less than adequate evidence. But despite the difficulties, dispensationalists are identifiable. Other than outright avowals of dispensationalism, I have loooked for remarks in correspondence and published materials in which the subject expresses his debt to known dispensationalist authors, gives evidence of dispensational theology or falls into the characteristic vocabulary of the dispensationalist.

13. Smith, David E., “Millenarian Scholarship in America,” American Quarterly, XVII (Fall, 1965), 535 ff.Google Scholar

14. “Modern Millenarianism,” The Princeton Review, XXV (01, 1853, 68.Google Scholar

15. For an early reference to the connection between inspiration and literalism, see “Inspired Literality of Scripture,” Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, II (1850), 297–307Google Scholar; and for a contemporary reference to the same point, see Ryrie, op. cit., p. 86 ff.

16. Darby, , Letters (London: Stow Hill Tract Depot), passim.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. One historian of the Brethren stated—without citing evidence—that Darby preached in the pulpit of Brookes, James H. (Ironside, H. A., A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement [Grand Rapids, 1952], p. 196)Google Scholar. Robert Cameron wrote that he first met Darby when he was conducting Bible readings in a “humble kitchen” in New York city (Watchword and Truth, XXIV [12, 1902], 327).Google Scholar

18. The works of other Plymouth Brethren, such as William Kelly and C. H. Mackintosh, were well known among U. S. millenarians. Probably even more influential were the works of Samuel Tragelles, B. W. Newton and George Müller, all of whom had at one time been associated with Darby but had broken with him over, among other issues, prophetic interpretation. Though these three rejected Darby's emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ and insisted that events predicted in prophecy, such as the return of the Jews to Israel, must precede the second advent, they nevertheless retained a dispensational stance. That the rejection of the “any-moment” return of Christ is not a sufficient grounds for discriminating between dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist premillennialists has not been well recognized. Kraus falls into this mistake (cf. Dispensationalism in America, p. 99 ff.).

19. Darby, , Letters, II, 228.Google Scholar

20. Darby, , Letters, II, 304.Google Scholar

21. Darby once wrote, “… one had to insist on the first principles of grace. No one will have it as a rule in the American churches. Old school Presbyterians, or some of them, have the most of it” (Darby, , Letters, II, 193)Google Scholar. Cf. also Kraus, op. cit., pp. 57ff.

22. Two qualifications ought to be noted. German-speaking Methodists seem to have been attracted to dispensationalism in undue proportion to their numbers within Methodism, and the nineteenth century secession from the Protestant Episcopal Church. the Reformed Episcopal Church, also seems to have been especially susceptible to dispensationalist penetration.

23. Sources for this conference are extremely varied. Addresses from the conferences were published occasionally (Brookes, James H., Bible Reading on the Second Coming of Christ [Springfield, Illinois, 1877]Google Scholar; Lakeside Studies, Proceedings of the 1892 Niagara Conference [Toronto, N. D.] and The Second Coming of Our Lord, Papers Read at a Conference Held at Niagara, 07 14–17, 1885 [Toronto, N. D.])Google Scholar. An account of the origin of the conference can be found in Needham, George C., The Spiritual Life (Philadelphia, 1895), pp. 18 ffGoogle Scholar. James H. Brookes edited a periodical which made cryptic references to the conference regularly from 1876 on, and it is in this source that the Niagara creed was first published (The Truth, IV [1878], 452–8). The best place to catch a glimpse of the workings of thc conference is the July, 1897, number of The Watchword, where narrative statements concerning the progress of the conference are combined with virtually a complete list of the sessions and sermons.

24. Williams, David R., James H. Brookes: A Memoir (St. Louis, 1897)Google Scholar and Kraus, op. cit., p. 36.

25. Alumni Catalogue of Union Theological Seminary (New York, 1926), p. 101Google Scholar. He participated in virtually every Bible conference of the aineteenth century, including the Niagara, the Prophetic Conferences of 1878, 1886 and 1895, and the Northfield Conferences.

26. His obituary appears in Northfield Echoes, II, 8 ffGoogle Scholar. Gordon, Adoniram J., How Christ Came To Church: A Spiritual Autobiography (Philadelphia, 1895)Google Scholar makes clear Gordon's conversion to dispensationalism.

27. Moorehead was a close friend of both Erdman and Brookes, and acted as one of the corresponding editors of The Truth. He participated in the 1878, 1886 and 1895 Prophetic Conferences. See also Kraus, op. cit., p. 101.

28. Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology (New York, 1874)Google Scholar. The best general treatment of this subject is Loetscher, Lefferts A., The Broadening Church (Philadelphia, 1957)Google Scholar. See also Livingstone, William D., “The Princeton Apologetic as Exemplified by the Work of Benjamin B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen: A Study in American Theology, 1880–1930” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1948).Google Scholar

29. I have analyzed the accuracy of their assertion in my article, “The Princeton Theology,” Church History, XXXI (09, 1962).Google Scholar

30. Hodge, , Systematic Theology, I, 14 ff.Google Scholar

31. J. Gresham Machen, illustrating the state to which this kind of rationalism was finally carried, once wrote, “Christian doctrine, I hold, is not merely connected with the Gospel, but it is identical with the Gospel” (Stonehouse, Ned B., J. Gresham Machen [Grand Rapids, 1957], p. 376).Google Scholar

32. I am not ignoring the Lutheran and Reformed dogmatic tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I have shown in my article in Church History, XXXI, that Princeton began as the offspring of that tradition and developed from that point, in the course of the nineteenth century creating something unique. As will be illustrated when discussing The Fundamentals later in this paper, the Princeton doctrine of inspiration has become the common property of dispensationalists and Calvinists alike.

33. The first reference to the original autographs in the Princeton Theology occurs in 1879 (Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology [New York, 1879], pp. 66 and 75).Google Scholar

34. See Warfield's review of Torrey, R. A., What the Bible Teaches (Chicago, 1898)Google Scholar in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, (1899), 562Google Scholar, and his review of Nathaniel West, Studies in Eschatology, in Ibid., I, 513–4, Many of James H. Brookes' books were reviewed in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review. Chaff and Wheat, a defense of verbal inspiration, was reviewed without either much praise or blame (Ibid., III, 369). God Spake All These Words, another defense of inspiration, was reviewed quite favorably (Ibid., VI, 573). Mystery of Suffering is described as a good book badly printed (Ibid., I, 705). The Christ received a very favorable review (Ibid., V, 554).

35. The proceedings of the conference were published (West, Nathaniel [ed.], Premillennial Essays [Chicago, 1879])Google Scholar, The New York Tribune gave tbe conference good coverage on October 25, 28, 30, 31, and November 1, 1878.

36. “We confess that we look with some anxiety upon the spread of the view represented at the so-called Prophetic Conference held in New York last week” (Watchman, [11 7, 1878], p. 356)Google Scholar. See also the Christian Advocate (October 31, 1878) and the Standard (November 7, 1878).

37. Watchman (November 14, 1878), p. 364.

38. There was considerable name-dropping during the conference sessions, and messages of greeting were read from foreign scholars (West, Premillennial Essays, passim). Samuel H. Kellogg, in an article which appeared immediately after the conference, also cited a great many European scholars in support of premillennialism, including Frederic Godet, Franz Delitzch, Thomas R. Birks, Karl A. Auberlen and Johannes Van Oosterzee (Kellogg, Samuel H., “Premillennialism, Its Relation to Doctrine and Practice,” Bibliotheca Sacra, XLV [1888], 234–74).Google Scholar

39. Ibid.

40. Needham, George C. (ed.), Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, 1886)Google Scholar. Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord Delivered at the Prophetic Conference, Allegheny, Pa., December 3–6, 1895 (Pittsburgh, N. D.), Addresses of the International Prophetic Conference Held December 10–15, 1901, in the Clarendon Street Baptist Church, Boston (Boston, N. D.). Coming and Kingdom of Christ (Chicago, 1914).Google Scholar

41. Pierson, A. T. (ed.) The Inspired Word (New York, 1888).Google Scholar

42. For the Baltimore conference see Dixon, A. C. (ed.), The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit (London, 1891)Google Scholar. For the Brooklyn Baptist conference see Needham, George C. (ed.), Primitive Paths in Prophecy (Chicago, 1891).Google Scholar

43. Munhall, L. W. (ed.), Anti-Higher Criticism (New York, 1894).Google Scholar

44. Pierson, A. T., “The Story of the Northfield Conferences,” Northfield Echoes, I (06, 1894), 1–13.Google Scholar

45. Northfield Echoes, I, 6Google Scholar. I do not know exactly who are meant by “the usual war horses,” but, from a check of the names most commonly appearing in the first three conferences, I would deduce the most likely men to be A. J. Gordon, A. T. Pierson, J. H. Brookes, and G. C. Needham.

46. Ibid. Those leading the S. V. M. conference were Moody, Gordon, Brookes, Nathaniel West, William G. Moorehead, W. W. Clark, A T. Pierson, and D. W. Whittle. Although I cannot do any more than refer to the subject, it is apparent that a thorough study of the origins of Fundamentalism ought to investigate the degree to which dispensationalism influenced foreign missions and the Bible institute movement. That dispensationalists were responsible for the foundation of most of the early Bible institutes, especially the Moody Bible Institute and the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, is already clear.

47. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Chicago, [1910–1915]).Google Scholar

48. Milton did put up some of the money, but never showed much interest in the project other than that. (Lyman Stewart to J. M. Critchlow, April 14, 1911, Lyman Stewart Papers, Bible Institute of Los Angeles).

49. Lyman Stewart frequently expressed a desire to see his fortune turned into “living gospel truth” by which he apparently meant printed works of some kind. He contributed $1000.00 toward the publication of the Scofield Bible (L. S. to C. I. Scofield, July 21, 1908, Lyman Stewart Papers).

50. Stewart wrote to J. W. Baer, President of Occidental College, to which Stewart was contributing for the support of the Bible department, that he believed that “… a man who does not have a grasp of dispensational truth cannot possibly rightly divide ‘the word of truth’” (L. S. to J. W. B., October 8, 1908, Lyman Stewart Papers). He was a member of the Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.

51. A. C. Dixon was born in Shelby, North Carolina, in 1854, educated at Wake Forrest College and ordained into the Baptist ministry in 1876. He served pastorates in Baltimore, Brooklyn and Boston before becoming pastor of Moody Memorial Church in 1906. He left the Fundamentals project in 1911 to become the pastor of Spurgeon's Tabernacle in London. His life is described in Dixon, Helen C. A., A. C. Dixon (New York, 1931)Google Scholar, and his dispensationalism is evidenced in his papers (A. C. Dixon Collection, V-5, Southern Baptist Historical Commission Archives).

52. For Torrey, see McLoughlin, W. G. Jr, Modern Revivalism (New York, 1959), pp. 366 ffGoogle Scholar. For Harris, see Wallace, W. S., The Macmillan Dictionary of Canadian Biography (3rd ed., London, 1963).Google Scholar Louis Meyer is not known, to me outside the Lyman stewart Correspondence.

53. Lyman Stewart to A. C. Gaebelein, December 5, 1911, Lyman Stewart Papers.

54. The five articles and their authors are: Moorehead, William G., “The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ as a Proof of Inspiration,” Vol. IIIGoogle Scholar; Gray, James M., “The Inspiration of the Bible,” Vol. IIIGoogle Scholar; Bishop, George S., “The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” Vol. VIIGoogle Scholar; Munhall, L. W., “Inspiration,” Vol. VIIGoogle Scholar; and Pierson, A. T., “The Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to Inspiration,” Vol. VIIGoogle Scholar. I have already noted that Moorehead, Munhall and Pierson were leaders in the Niagara Group. George S. Bishop (1836–1914), a Princeton Seminary graduate, is identified as a dispensationalist by Kraus, (Dispensationalism, p. 93)Google Scholar. James M. Gray (1851–1935) was a Reformed Episcopalian clergyman who began his career working in A. J. Gordon's Bible Training School. He was named Dean of the Moody Bible Institute in 1904 and acted as one of the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible. He gives clear expression of dispensationalism in his writings (see, for instance, “God's Plan in This Dispensation,” Light on Prophecy [New York, 1918], p. 129 ff.).Google Scholar

55. Among the nineteen authors, ten have already been discussed: A. C. Gaebelein, G. S. Bishop, A. C. Dixon, W. J. Erdman, James M. Gray, Wm. G. Moorehead, L. W. Munhall, A. T. Pierson, C. I. Scofield, and R. A. Torrey. Three others were members of the Plymouth Brethren in Britain or the U. S.: Robert Anderson, Philip Mauro and Algernon J. Pollock. Charles G. Trumbull was editor of the Sunday School Times, which became a dispensationalist paper under his leadership. Wm. Henry Griffith Thomas (1861–1924) was a Canadian Anglican who was a professor at Wycliffe College in Toronto in 1910. He was one of the founders of the dispensationalist Dallas Theological Seminary and would have served on its faculty if death had not prevented him. Henry W. Frost, a director of the China Inland Mission, was a disciple, according to his own testimony, of H. M. Parsons, one of the founders of the Niagara Conference. In his Fundamentals article, he claims relationships to James H. Brookes and other dispensationalists. The last two identifications are less certain, but there is some circumstantial evidence that Melvin G. Kyle, Professor of Biblical Archaeology at Xenia Seminary and one of the editors of the Sunday School Times, and George F. Pentecost, a close associate of Moody, were also dispensationalists.

56. Among American authors, fifteen were Presbyterian, eleven Baptist, three Dutch Reformed, three Congregationalist, four Methodist, two Episcopal, two Reformed Episcopal, and one Plymouth Brethren.

57. L. S. to Milton Stewart, March 3, 1911, Lyman Stewart Papers.

58. Lyman Stewart himself said as much in a letter in which he also expressed some dissatisfaction with some articles published in the Fundamentals (Lyman Stewart to George S. Fisher, June 30, 1911, Lyman Stewart Papers).

59. See for example, Furniss, , The Fundamentalist Controversy, pp. 13, 16, 50, 72, 119, 121, 122, 130Google Scholar, and passim.

60. Loetscher, , The Broadening Church, p. 98.Google Scholar

61. Cole, , History of Fundamentalism, p. 34Google Scholar. For Niagara, see note 23 above. The World Conference on Christian Fundamentals affirmed nine points in a doctrinal statement in 1919 (Sunday School Times, June 14, 1919).

62. Furniss, op. cit., pp. 103 ff.

63. Both Riley and Pettingill were conveners of the dispensationally dominated 1918 Conference on Prophecy held in Philadelphia and gave several addresses there which reveal their dispensational theology (Light on Prophecy). For a dispensational address by Shields, T. T. see The Fundamentalist, 07–08, 1923, p. 4Google Scholar. Although I cannot substantiate his assertion, William Carver, Professor of Missions at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, asserted that the other two barons of the Union, John R. Straton and J. Frank Norris, were dispensationalists and worked throughout the South spreading dispensationalism in close collaboration with C. G. Trumbull and the Sunday School Times (Carver, William O., Out of His Treasure [Nashville, 1956], pp. 76 ff.).Google Scholar

64. Loetscher, op. cit., especially chapter XV.

65. Presbyterian Guardian, June 22, 1936.

66. Carl Mclntire, leader of the new schism, clearly aligned himself with dispensationalists in the Presbyterian Guardian, November 14, 1936.

67. Presbyterian Guardian, 03 13, 1937, p. 217.Google Scholar