Mercersburg Theology — A Warning from History

In the middle of the 19th century a theological war broke out in the small German Reformed Church in America. What sparked the fierce controversy in this small haven of American Protestantism was a new movement known as Mercersburg Theology. At its center were its two chief theologians — John Williamson Nevin and Phillip Schaff, who began their careers and launched their movement as professors of the German Reformed Church Seminary in Mercerburg, Pennsylvania. At particular issue were their ideas about “the church question”, the sacraments, and the role of the Scriptures in the Christian life. Nevin, an Old School Presbyterian and former star pupil (and onetime substitute) of Princeton’s Charles Hodge, and Schaff, a theological import from Germany, brought about a revolution that drove the German Reformed Church to high-church liturgy and a synthesis of European Romantic and Hegelian theology. Not coincidently, Hodge became one of Nevin’s fiercest critics, publishing a number of extensive critiques in the Princeton Review.

From the late 1840s–1870s, a theological and liturgical battle was fought that pushed most of the Old School Reformed pastors out of the denomination. Many felt that Mercersburg’s revolution pushed the German Reformed Church perilously close to Rome, if not married the worst vices of Rome to the most serious flaws of Protestantism. In fact, a number of theological students of Nevin and Schaff made very public conversions to the Roman Catholic Church; even Nevin himself left the seminary for several years to contemplate whether his theology dictated that he must “cross the Tiber”, known as his “five years of dizziness”. The Mercersburg School even termed their revolutionary theology as Protestant Catholicism. Mercersburg would face opposition from virtually every segment of the American Reformed Church as diverse as the Princetonian Presbyterians to the Dutch Reformed. Even from some European Protestant theologicans rose their voices in opposition to Mercersburg. In the end, the German Reformed Church was rent asunder and the remnants exist today only as the United Church of Christ (UCC), perhaps the most theological liberal organizations on the planet (who recently added the pseudopigraphal Gospel of Thomas to their biblical canon; Dan Brown would be pleased I’m sure). The UCC today proudly boasts of its Mercersburg heritage.

So why is this important to us today? For those in the Reformed world, the interest is that Mercersburg is undergoing a revival. From a few remote outposts of Reformed Protestantism you can hear talk about “Christocentric” theology over “bibliocentric” theology; you hear others identify themselves as “creedal Christians” of “Christian Catholics”; some encourage us to emphasize the role of the Incarnation over the Cross in the Atonement; denying any understanding of the “invisible church”; an emphasis is made of “union with Christ”, while downplaying or rejecting the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; another buzzword used is “organic” Christianity and the “objectivity of the covenant”; others quite boldly state today that “Christianity is the heresy of heresies.”

Many of these individuals (James Jordan, Jeff Meyers, Mark Horne, Rich Lusk, et al.) hold positions in supposedly conservative Reformed denominations, such as my own church home, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Mercersburg Theology has also been a last gasp defense for a number of Federal Vision advocates who still want to keep up the pretense of being Reformed, pointing to Mercersburg Theology to justify their Reformed credentials. With that in mind, understanding what Mercersburg Theology is can be very helpful for those who react suspiciously to the buzzwords bandied about by Mercersburg’s modern supporters, but aren’t quite sure what this dark theology actually advances.

One peculiar note to Mercersburg is that many of its fiercest early defenders eventually became its loudest later detractors. What follows is the introduction to B.S. Schneck’s Mercersburg Theology Inconsistent with Protestant and Reformed Doctrine, (1871), pp. v–x. Dr. Schneck was one of the pastors forced out of the German Reformed Church because of its embrace of the new revolutionary views. This introduction is actually a letter from an unnamed German Reformed pastor, who admits to being an ecclesiastical supporter of the revolutionaries in the Mercersburg controversy, addressed to Schneck, who had been one of the sponsors of Nevin to his theological chair. But as the catastrophic effects of the Mercersburg revolution could be seen, this unnamed writer was forced to admit the error of his silence and begged to his colleague, Dr. Schneck, to sound the alarm. This is a warning from history to any PCA minister or member who believes that the errors of the Federal Vision should be taken lightly or to those who wish, like Dr. Frankenstein, to revive the corpse of Mercersburg Theology.

(For more on Mercersburg, check out this sermon, A Perverted Gospel or, the Romanizing Tendency of Mercersburg Theology, by prominent German Reformed pastor Jacob Helffenstein, who came from one of the most illustrious families in the GRC. This sermon was his farewell to the church that he loved, but which had abandoned the precious doctrines of grace. Also check out the Theological Issues page (about half-way down) from the website I edit, Paul’s Perspective, for additional article on the topic. I hope to have the full text of Schneck’s volume online soon, as well as other materials, past and present, related to Mercersburg Theology.)

INSTEAD OF A PREFACE.
[THE following letter from an esteemed ministerial brother tells all that is necessary to be said in the way of motive for preparing the following work, This letter and its author, therefore, must he regarded as sharing the chief responsibility in an undertaking which, in itself, had no attractions for me in any view of the case.]

“REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER:

“Like yourself, I have taken no part in the unfortunate controversies which have been going on for years in our Church. Honestly believing that matters were not so grave and serious as some supposed, and confiding in the oft-repeated declaration that our professors and others were misunderstood, I was led to exercise to the utmost that charity which ‘hopeth all things and believeth all things.’ And so I was even disposed to defend these brethren. In ecclesiastical affairs I also stood by them. Yet I had to acknowledge to myself all the while that in defending their teachings — for instance, against Messrs. Bomberger, Good, Williard, etc. — there was often a want of manly candor and an effort to avoid meeting the weightier points in dispute. Thus, when proofs were furnished from history by those brethren against some of the doctrinal teachings by the professors, those proofs were as often not noticed. When Reformed standards were quoted as against the professors on some of the gravest questions, that was quietly passed by. But when a little flaw in an opponent was thought to be discovered, then there was a loud trumpet sounded in regard to it, winding up with what looked very much like gauzy cunning, by telling the reader that ‘such was the way with every thing which came from that side, and hence it was not worth while to notice the opponents.’ Thus, some Western writer, it seems, had said something in reference to the present or revised liturgy (‘Order of Worship’), and called it the ‘new Order of Worship’ (or perhaps ‘New Order of Worship’). That was a life-and-death question! To put the word new before the title was an offense of very grave magnitude; and so the Western man is pounced upon with ludicrous ferocity, and duly informed, ‘as in such cases made and provided,’ that if a man does not study and duly know the proper and authorized title of a book, he is incompetent to write on the merit of the book, or for that matter, I suppose, on any other subject. Now look at it. The revised Liturgy (‘Order of Worship’) is the ‘new,’ as compared with the former or first Liturgy by the committee, and has been so called over and over again by its own friends in the Messenger, and has been so called even by Dr. Nevin himself, the chief author of the book! (See Vindic. of Lit., p. 51, etc.) Now, such and similar things have all along been noticed by myself and others with pain, but I refrained from dwelling upon them. So also the late effort to cast reproach upon Dr. B., Dr. G., and others, in connection with the conversion of several of our ministers to the Roman Catholic Church, had a most painful effect upon my mind; and several others, ministers and laymen, I found, were impressed in the same way. I looked at it in this way. Here are several men who were among the leaders of the Mercersburg theology. They wrote fiery articles about it, and some of them bitter articles against some of the best and most useful men in our Church, — men whom, although I differed from them in some things, I could not but respect and honor. For years it had been believed that those recent converts were traveling towards Rome, but when it was sometimes hinted at, not only those men themselves denied it but our professors and others publicly denied that the theological system of Mercersburg could lead any one to that ‘citadel of safety.’ But one and another at last did get there, and then they said, frankly and openly, that the teaching at Mercersburg led them step by step thitherward. And when now the opponents of Mercersburg pointed to these confessions (Geo. D. Wolff’s confession, for instance), the professors et al. raise the mordio cry of: Our opponents (Dr. B. et al.) are ‘leagued with the perverts’ – ‘Wolff writes articles for the anti-Liturgical men,’ etc. I confess to you, dear brother, that such disingenuous treatment, even of my opponents as well as theirs, is more than I could stand, and made me hesitate-falter. I now concluded to examine more closely into the merits of the general question at issue, to endeavor to get, if possible, to the bottom of things. I said to myself, You have not studied these subjects as you should have done; you have taken things on trust. And I had not fairly gotten into the matter before my paper brought me the bold — I feel like saying daring — attacks upon the most precious and consoling truth in the Christian system, and which is so fully and clearly set forth in our Catechism, You know to what I refer, — to the doctrine of the Atonement. . . .

“On further reading, I found that the same antagonism had also been shown against other cardinal truths, — justification by faith, for instance; but not so boldly, more negatively than positively. I began now also to understand the frequent thrusts, innuendoes, and slighting remarks in regard to the Scriptures (making an ‘idol of them,’ and saying that, apart from the living minister (priest), they were of no more account than the Koran!); to doctrines, etc., as if they were of very little account; and speaking of others, who ‘believe that they are justified by faith, that they believed in what was justification by fancy or feeling,’ and more than insinuating that all real inward operations of the mind were shams in a religious way, — the experimental piety, in other words, ‘of reigning Protestantism’ was branded as a ‘false spiritualism, as ‘Phrygian Montanism,’ ranting, demented ‘fanaticism — as an order of ‘nature,’ — in short, bad as Sinbad the Sailor. . . .

“My heart is full as I write. I think of the glorious truths which you and I have preached, and without which we would not know what preaching was for, or of what worth it was. I think of the dying Christian whom I have seen clasping these truths to his heart as the only balm for his spirit, the only cordial for his fears. I think of the blessed martyrs, not only in Apostolic times, but in later centuries, who, rather than bow down and worship saint and crucifix, chose rather to go to the stake or the fire, warmed within and armed for the ordeal by the experimental truth of Christ and Him crucified as a living power in their hearts; and I rose up from my study-chair, and, whilst pacing the room in the dead silence of night, I solemnly vowed to be bound by personal and social ties no longer in this matter, but, if need be, brave the unfriendly looks of some otherwise dear brethren; for truth is higher than friendship.

“For at least ten years had I waited to find out where exactly those new views would lead us, — ten years trying to understand these brethren, fondly hoping, like not a few others, that the fog would clear away and bring us a brighter day. But the day came not. ‘You do not understand them,’ had been iterated and reiterated until I became wearied with the phrasing. I said at last, ‘Why cannot Dr. Nevin and his pupils write in such a manner that intelligent men can understand them?’ We can understand Neander (awkwardly as he often did express himself). We can understand Hengstenberg, and De Wette, and Ebrard, and Dorner, and Nitzsch, and Hodge. We can understand the teaching of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles. Why, then, after a practice of more than twenty years, can these men not write so that other mortals can understand them? If a man has something to say and wants others to know it (without any reserve on his part), he generally can make himself understood. It is said not to be learning, but the want of learning, that renders men unintelligible. Dr. Hodge had to say of his old friend Dr. Nevin (on the appearance of the latter’s introduction to Dr. Schaff’s ‘Principles of Protestantism,’ and that was as long ago as A.D. 1845), that he found it difficult to understand him. Surely, if such a man could not, it is not to be wondered at if men of ordinary calibre cannot. If a preacher of the gospel cannot make himself understood, it is usually said, either that the truth is not clear to his own mind, or that he does not venture to speak out courageously what is in him. Is it not so?

“But I think that of late we do understand these men tolerably well. When the articles on ‘Early Christianity,’ ‘Cyprian,’ etc., appeared, Dr. Nevin was merely attacking the form of Protestantism, pulling down, ignoring (I cannot help being reminded of ‘Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint’); then came the attack against the ‘Sects’ (Dr. Schaff called it ‘eine Sektenschlacht’), harsh, bitter, as if the pen had been dipped in bitter fluid: so I thought when I first read it, with all my respect for the writer. Such thoughts as these came into my mind: Doctor, who gives thee authority to strike thy fellow-servant, redeemed by the precious blood of the same Saviour? Is it not the spirit of the two disciples whom the Divine Master rebuked for calling down fire upon their fellow-sinners? And then, art not thou a sectarist thyself? Where is thy apostolical succession, unbroken down to this present? And where is thy ‘Church’? . . .

Then came the tinkering with the 80th Question of the Catechism, which also at that time affected me adversely. It was pronounced unfortunate that the ‘mass’ should be called an ‘idolatry,’ and of course all ‘we boys’ took up the refrain, according to the German couplet, —

‘Wie die Alten sungen
Zwitschern die Jungen.’

Next the ‘Creed’ had to be tinkered; the Greek word hades must be put in the place of hell. Cui bono? The universal Church, Catholic and Protestant, have used this last term. Every intelligent layman knew its import. Who gave, moreover, a few men the authority to produce a dissonance in the repeating of the Creed? A synodical president must tell us, too, that the Reformers went too far in their work, etc., etc. . .

“Now, my dear brother, all these things have been much on my mind; and, to bring the matter to the point which is the aim of this long epistle, let me say that I regard it as the duty of some one to speak forth calmly, but decidedly and intelligibly, so that all may understand what are the doctrines of the Church and what are not. And I have it in my mind to say you are the person. Your age and experience, your former position as a public man, and your known conservatism, seem to single you out before others to do just this work. Resides, although you were the first man who, twenty odd years ago, sounded the first ‘bugle-blast,’ as ‘Irenæs’ lately told us in the Messenger, yet you have not taken any part, so far as I know, in the controversies for years. You are known, moreover, to have been the friend personally of our professors; known to have first mentioned, and had proposed through another, the name of Dr. Nevin as professor in our seminary (prompted by your ‘better half’), as the lamented Rev. John Cares in his lifetime said, who during the special Synod in Chambersburg was an eye-witness of the fact in your own house. Then, too, you have, so far as I know, no reason to be dissatisfied with the Church’s treatment of yourself; for she has in her time loaded you with a considerable share of duties and onerous burdens, which some men would perhaps count as so much honor. All this and more, it seems to me, fits you for this needed work, whether it be agreeable to you or not. Remember, dear brother, that the path of duty is not always the path of self-choice or of pleasure. Think of what I say, and do as God may seem to bid you. I refrain from a peroration. But this one thing I will yet add, which I omitted to say in the right place: you have no prejudices against you of any moment, for the reasons already stated, neither can you be accused of seeking ‘your own’ in coming before the public. You have no ambition to gratify, no personal animosities to cherish or avenge. To you many will listen who would not listen to others, because these have aroused prejudices against themselves by their active participation in controversy, to which I firmly believe they were not led by unhallowed motives. But my sheets are full, and you are weary. God direct you, bless you! . . . .”