¹ Miller, Perry (ed.), America: a sketch of its political, social and religious character, Cambridge 1961, 11.Google Scholar

² ‘Influence of Eminent Piety on the Intellectual Powers’, in Edwards, B. B., Writings, Boston 1853, ii. 472.Google Scholar

³ Ellis, George E., ‘The New Theology’, The Christian Examiner xxvii (1857), 339.Google Scholar

⁴ Quoted in Tiffany, Charles C., A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., New York 1895, vii. 486Google Scholar.

⁵ See Hutchison, William K., The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, Cambridge 1976, 21–30, 41-8;Google ScholarAhlstrom, Sydney E., ‘Theology in America: a historical survey’, in Smith, James Ward and Jamison, A. Leland (eds), The Shaping of American Religion, Princeton 1961, 285–8; andGoogle ScholarGura, Philip F., The Wisdom of Words, Middletown 1981, 35–74.Google Scholar German idealist philosophy actually had little direct influence on American thought until after the Civil War. In mid-nineteenth-century America, the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling were mediated through the English channels of Coleridge and Carlyle. See Miller's, Perry introduction to American Thought: Civil War to World War I, San Francisco 1954, xiGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Cf. Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church, I, 1829-1859, London 1966, 544–58.Google Scholar

⁷ See Mead, Sidney E., The Lively Experiment, New York 1963, 54; andGoogle ScholarHudson, Winthrop S.American Protestantism, Chicago 1961, 131–4.Google Scholar Both criticise nineteenth-century theology for its obscurity and superficiality.

⁸ See Kuklick, Bruce, Churchmen and Philosophers: from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey, New Haven 1985;Google ScholarPerry, Lewis, Intellectual Life in America: a history, New York 1984, 229–35;Google ScholarDouglas, Ann, The Feminization of American Culture, , paperback edn, New York 1978, 143–96.Google Scholar Kuklick, whose treatment is the most judicious, is concerned primarily with the status of theology in relation to philosophy. Consequently, he regards the crisis at mid-century as the point at which philosophy and theology went their separate ways; see 209-14. Conversely, Douglas and Perry argue that the ideas of Park and Bushnell demonstrate the triumph of emotionalism and sentimentalism within theological circles.

⁹ Schlesinger, Arthur M. Sr, ‘A critical period in American Protestantism, 1875-1900’, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings lxiv (1932), 523–48;Google ScholarCarter, Paul A., The Spiritual Crisis of the Gilded Age, Dekalb 1971;Google ScholarMcLoughlin, William G., The Meaning of Henry Ward Beecher, New York 1970,Google ScholarMeyer, Donald H., ‘American intellectuals and the Victorian crisis of Faith’, in Howe, Daniel Walker (ed.), Victorian America, Philadelphia 1976, 59–77;Google ScholarSzasz, Ferenc Morton, The Divided Mind of Protestant America, 1880-1930, 1982Google Scholar.

¹⁰ ‘Dogma and Spirit’, in Smith, H. Shelton (ed.), Horace Bushnell, New York 1965, 54.Google Scholar

¹¹ This is suggested by Cheynqy, Mary Bushnell in Life and Letters of Horace Bushnell, New York 1880, 32.Google Scholar On Bushnell's struggles at Yale, see Cross, Barbara, Horace Bushnell; minister to a changing America, Chicago 1958, 4–11; andGoogle ScholarMunger, Theodore T., Horace Bushnell: preacher and theologian, Boston 1889, 19–29Google Scholar.

¹² , Munger, op. cit. 25.Google Scholar

¹³ For a brief summary of Taylor's theology, see , Ahlstrom, ‘Theology in America’, 254–60Google Scholar.

¹⁴ , Munger, Horace Bushnell, 53.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bushnell, Horace, Twentieth Anniversary: A Commemorative Discourse, Delivered in the North Church, of Hartford, May 22, 1853, Hartford 1853, 8–9.Google Scholar

¹⁶ , Cheyney, Life and Letters, 191–2;Google Scholar, Smith, Horace Bushnell, 25–6; andGoogle Scholar, Munger, op. cit. 113–15Google Scholar.

¹⁷ , Gura, Wisdom of Words, 51–5;Google Scholar, Smith, op. cit. 25–9; andGoogle Scholar, Cross, Horace Bushnell, 21–30Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For Gibb's influence on Bushnell, see , Smith, op. cit. 36–7, 80-1Google Scholar.

¹⁹ On Bushnell's theory of language, see , Cross, op. cit. 93–115;Google Scholar, Gura, op. cit. 58–71; andGoogle ScholarFiedelson, Charles, Symbolism in American Literature, Chicago 1972, 151–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ , Bushnell, ‘Dogma and Spirit’, 63.Google Scholar

²¹ , Smith, Horace Bushnell, 29–34.Google Scholar On importance of sound doctrine in the conversion experience, see Edwards, Jonathan, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, II: Religious Affections, ed. Smith, John, New Haven 1959.Google Scholar H. Shelton Smith supports his argument by citing Bushnell's 1872 sermon, ‘The Immediate Knowledge of God’, where Bushnell says that rational knowledge is presupposed in all , faith, Sermons on Living Subjects, New York 1910, 114–28.Google Scholar Bushnell's position in this sermon seems to contradict his earlier ideas on religious knowledge and language and may explain why Cross asserts that Bushnell abandoned his semantic theory in his later writings, Horace Bushnell, 113.

²² , Bushnell, ‘Dogma and Spirit’, 66–7.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Bushnell, H., ‘Christian Comprehensiveness’, Mew Englander vi (1848), 84.Google Scholar

²⁵ , Bushnell, ‘Dogma and Spirit’, 63.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 62-3.

²⁷ Mrs Smith, Henry Boynton (ed.), Henry Boynton Smith: His Life and Work, New York 1881, 15.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 32.

²⁹ Stoever, William K. B., ‘Henry Boynton Smith and the German theology of history’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review xxiv (1968), 70–1.Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘The Relations of Faith and Philosophy’, in Smith, H. B., Faith and Philosophy, New York 1877, 3.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 4.

³² Ibid. 11.

³³ Ibid.19.

³⁴ Ibid. 18. See also , Smith, ‘The Idea of Christian Theology as a System’, in Faith and Philosophy, 125–66Google Scholar.

³⁵ ‘Relations of Faith and Philosophy’, 33.

³⁶ Ibid. 35-7. For Smith's orthodox concerns, see Karr, William S. (ed.), Introduction to Christian Theology, New York 1883Google Scholar.

³⁷ Marsden, George M., The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience, New Haven 1970, 162–3.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cecil, Anthony C. Jr, The Theological Development of Edwards Amasa Park: last of the ‘Consistent Calvinists’, Missoula 1974, 3.Google Scholar Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), who studied with Jonathan Edwards, and Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1827), who studied with Hopkins, were both New England pastors and trained many other ministers in the ‘Edwardsian’ tradition. Both claimed to be the direct theological heirs of Edwards, but both made Arminian concessions regarding the extent of human ability. For different perspectives on Edwards's followers, see Haroutunian, Joseph, Piety versus Moralism: the passing of the New England theology, New York 1932; andGoogle ScholarFoster, Frank Hugh, A Genetic History of the New England Theology, Chicago 1907Google Scholar.

³⁹ Memoir of Nathaniel Emmons, with Sketches of His Friends and Pupils, Boston 1861Google Scholar ; ‘Memoir of the Life and Character of Samuel Hopkins’, in The Works of Samuel Hopkins, D. D., Boston 1852.Google Scholar Park also contributed countless entries to the Schqff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. For a complete list of his historical works, see , Cecil, Theological Development, 297–303Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ ‘New England Theology’, Bibliotheca Sacra (hereinafter cited as BS) ix (1852), 173–80.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Although Hopkins and Emmons modified Edwards's views of the nature of the will, their position was still far more Calvinist than that of Taylor's, Nathaniel W. New Divinity, , Haroutunian, Piety versus Moralism, 254Google Scholar.

⁴² , Cecil, op. cit. 75–7.Google Scholar

⁴³ Park, E. A., ‘The Theology of the Intellect and That of the Feelings’, BS vii (1850), 534–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Park took exception to the Calvinist doctrine s of original sin, the immediate imputation of Adam's sin and the substitutionary atonement and called them expressions of the feelings, while New Divinity distinctions - such as all sin consists in sinning; the power to the contrary is essential to free agency; and ability limits responsibility - he attributed to the intellect, ibid. 535-8. For the evolution of these doctrines in New England, see Smith, H. Shelton, Changing Conception of Original Sin: a study in American theology since 1750, New York 1953Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ , Park, ‘Theology of the Intellect’, 540–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Bushnell, H., ‘Our Gospel a Gift to the Imagination’, Hours at Home x (1869), 164.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Quotation from Archibal d Alexander , Hodge, Life of Charles Hodge, New York 1880, 521. Hodge's views on Transcendentalism, ‘The Latest Form of Infidelity’, are included inGoogle ScholarMiller's, PerryThe Transcendenlalists: an anthology, Cambridge 1950, 233–4.Google Scholar For the complete text see Hodge's, C.Essays and Reviews, New York 1856, 87–128.Google ScholarHis What is Darwinism? New York 1874, has been regarded as a proto-fundamentalist reaction to evolution byGoogle ScholarBozeman, Theodore Dwight, Protestants in an Age of Science: the Baconian ideal and antebellum American religious thought, Chapel Hill 1977, 174ff.Google Scholar For a different assessment, see Moore, James R., The Post-Darwinian Controversies: a study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1800-1900, Cambridge 1979, 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ , Ahlstrom, ‘Theology in America’, 266.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The controversy ran as follows: (I) Park, ‘The Theology of the Intellect and That of the Feelings’, BS vii (1850), 533–69;Google Scholar (2) , Hodge, ‘The Theology of the Intellect and That of the Feelings’, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (hereinafter cited as BRPR) xxii (1850), 642–74;Google Scholar (3) , Park, ‘Remarks on the Princeton Review’, BS viii (1851), 135–80;Google Scholar (4) , Hodge, ‘Prof. Park's Remarks on the Princeton Review’, BRPR xxiii (1851), 306–47;Google Scholar (5) , Park, ‘Unity and Diversities of Belief even on Imputed and Involuntary Sin; with Comments on a Second Article in the Princeton Review’, BS viii (1851), 594–67;Google Scholar (6) , Hodge, ‘Prof. Park and the Princeton Review’, BRPR xxiii (1851), 674–95;Google Scholar (7) , Park. ‘New England Theology’, BS ix (1852), 170–220.Google Scholar

This long-winded debate merged into one that had never been resolved in the 1830s on the nature of original sin, the imputation of Adam's sin and free will. For a brief summary of that controversy, see Scovel, Raleigh Don, Orthodoxy in Princeton: a social and intellectual history of Princeton Theological Seminary, 1812-1860, Ann Arbor 1971, 182–215.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hodge, C., ‘The Theolog y of the Intellect and That of the Feelings, Article I’, Essays and Reviews, 540–3.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Merrell R.Davis, ‘Emerson's “Reason” and the Scottish philosophers’, New England Quarterly xvii (1944), 209–28; andGoogle ScholarTodd, Edgelley Woodman, ‘Philosophical ideas at Harvard College, 1817-37’, New England Quarterly xvi (1943), 63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵² See ‘The Latest Form of Infidelity’; ‘What is Christianity?’ Brpr xxxii (1860), 118–61; andGoogle Scholar‘The Princeton Review and Cousin's Philosophy’, BRPR xxviii (1856), 331–87Google Scholar.

⁵³ For a good summary of this tension in Princeton Theology, see Hoffecker, W. Andrew, Piety and the Princeton Theologians, Philipsburg 1981Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ , Hodge, ‘Bushnell's Discourses’, BRPR xxi (1849), 295–6;Google Scholar, Smith, ‘The Relations of Faith and Philosophy’, 42–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ See Lord, David N., ‘Review of Prof. Park's Theologies of the Intellect and of the Feelings’, Theological and Literary Journal iii (1850), 177–234;Google ScholarWallace, David A., The Theology of New England (intro. Daniel Dana), Boston 1856;Google ScholarPond, Enoch, Review of Dr. Bushnell's ‘God in Christ’, Bangor 1849; andGoogle ScholarGoodrich, Chauncey A., What Does Dr. Bushnell Mean?, Hartford 1849Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ , Wallace, Theology of New England, 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Orthodoxy in New England’, Southern Presbyterian Review vii (1853), 58.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ‘New England Theology’, Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register ix (1852), 357.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ , Ellis, ‘The New Theology’, 336–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Noll, Mark A. (ed.), The Princeton Theology, Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Warfield, 1812-1921, Grand Rapids 1983, 19.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See , Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse, 43, 77–80;Google Scholar, Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers, 216–21; andGoogle ScholarWilliams, Daniel Day, The Andover Liberals: a study in American theology, New York 1941Google Scholar.

⁶² , Bushnell, ‘Dogma and Spirit’, 76–7.Google Scholar

⁶³ , Hutchison, op. cit. 101–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ , Munger, Horace Bushnell, 372.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Clark, W. C., An Outline of Christian Theology, New York 1898, 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ , Hodge, ‘What is Christianity?’ 161.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Warfield, B. B., The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Philipsburg 1948;Google ScholarGreen, W. H., The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, New York 1902Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism, New York 1924.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ , Cecil, Edwards Amasa Park, 155–205.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ‘The Achilles in Our Camp: An Acute and Inspiring Characterization of the Late Dr. Edwards A. Park’, The Congregationalist lxxxviii (1903), 840.Google Scholar

⁷¹ , Williams, The Andover Liberals, New York 1941, 19–21.Google Scholar

⁷² , Stoever, ‘Henry Boynton Smith’, 86.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid.

⁷⁴ Loetscher, Lefferts A., The Broadening Church: a study of the theological issues in the Presbyterian Church since 1869, Philadelphia 1957, 97.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Stearns, Lewis F., Henry Boynton Smith, Boston 1892, 198–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse; and Marsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American Culture; the shaping of twentieth-century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925, New York 1980Google Scholar.