Christocentric Reformed Theology in Nineteenth-Century America: Key Writings of Emanuel V. Gerhart

By Emanuel V. Gerhart

Knowledge of the ideas of the theologian Emanuel V. Gerhart is essential for understanding nineteenth-century American theology. Gerhart was one of the first to introduce a complete systematic Christocentric theological system to Americans. His Institutes of the Christian Religion developed the ideas of European theologians and promoted the effort to systematize Mercersburg theology. Gerhart embraced German idealism rather than Scottish philosophy in his scholarship. As a mediating theologian, he attempted to reconcile historical Christianity with modern culture. His lectures, essays, and texts addressed the religious challenges and intellectual issues of his day from a Christocentric perspective. Together they were a major contribution to the Mercersburg Movement in particular and American theology in general from the antebellum period to the progressive era. His publications were devoted to a range of disciplines that included education, philosophy, and theology. This volume portrays Gerhart's core theological ideas as found in his main texts and offers introductory commentaries and gives the historical background for his intellectual contributions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jul 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9781725250888

Book preview

General Introduction

The Life and Work of Emanuel Vogel Gerhart

by Annette G. Aubert

Emanuel Vogel Gerhart (1817–1904) is an important figure in both American Reformed and Mercersburg theologies, yet to date scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to his life and work. Although not as famous as John Williamson Nevin (1803–1886) or Philip Schaff (1819–1893), his influence was extensive during a lifetime marked by intellectual wealth, skills in creative synthesis, and theological and philosophical developments. In his assessment of Gerhart’s work, Heidelberg College President George Williard (1818–1900) compared him to the early Reformers: We had in respect [to Gerhart] anticipations almost equal to those of Melanchthon when he started out upon his work of reforming the Church.¹ Today he is known as an educational intellectual and apologist for the Mercersburg movement.²

Gerhart emerged as a leading teacher and scholar in the German Reformed Church during a period described by some as a secular age in American religious history.³ In addition to serving as the first president of Franklin and Marshall College, Gerhart also held positions as professor and president at other academic institutions associated with the German Reformed Church. In lectures, papers, and books, he addressed the central religious and intellectual topics of his time, as well as issues in education and philosophy. A prolific writer, Gerhart made important academic and ecclesiastic contributions to the Mercersburg Movement from the antebellum period to the progressive era.⁴ He was one of the first American theologians to publish a systematic Christocentric theology, and to systematize Mercersburg Theology. For these reasons, Schaff described Gerhart as a Christocentric theologian like Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Karl Theodor Albert Liebner (1806–1871), Johann Peter Lange (1802–1884), and Nevin.⁵ Gerhart lived during a period in which theologians were willing to mediate between traditional and modern ideas when writing new dogmatic works. For his part, Gerhart synthesized the ideas of St. Augustine and John Calvin with those from Mercersburg and the Mediating School.⁶ In the field of dogmatics, he left his mark in the form of Christocentric and constructive theological insights found in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1891)—a work Schaff described as the fruit of the Mercersburg movement.⁷

Gerhart was a respected theologian within the German Reformed Church in particular and in nineteenth-century American Protestantism in general,⁸ with some peers describing him as a great inspiration to the Mercersburg movement. Theodore Herman, a Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in Lancaster, called Gerhart the great instructive genius of the Mercersburg movement.⁹ Gerhart’s reputation was not confined to Mercersburg circles: his work was also acclaimed by other Americans. The American Lutheran theologian, Revere Franklin Weidner (1851–1915), for instance, described Gerhart as the best representative of German Reformed Theology in the United States, and positioned his dogmatic work alongside that of Calvin, Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard (1818–1888), Heinrich Heppe (1820–1879), Alexander Schweizer (1808–1888), and Johann Peter Lange (1802–1884).¹⁰ His European peers also praised Gerhart, noticing and positively reviewing his work, particularly in Germany.¹¹ In the words of one nineteenth-century contemporary, Gerhart took a long, active, and honorable part in the great intellectual movement which gave Mercersburg a name in the universities of Europe.¹²

Gerhart’s status as a background figure in contrast to Nevin and Schaff is in great part due to his working not during the controversial age of the Mercersburg movement, but during the more creative stages where he focused on classroom teaching and academic writing.¹³ Those studious efforts bore exceptional scholarly fruit in the contexts of nineteenth-century debates on issues tied to modern American culture and religion. He labored during a time in which the country was awash in a sea of faith and voluntarism was emerging as an important characteristic of American religion.¹⁴ The freedom to express faith in highly personal forms resulted in an America religious scenario that was both voluntary and fragmented, as well as in rapidly changing sectarian boundaries that captivated the attention of many American citizens.¹⁵ Gerhart used a mediating approach when responding to clashes between American religion and culture. He agreed with the Mercersburg portrayal of American Protestant religion as un-historical, un-Christological, and un-sacramental, and he worked hard to address those imperfections and deficits.¹⁶ What motivates this collection of writings is a desire to illuminate Gerhart’s achievements in a manner that also offers a broad overview of nineteenth-century intellectual and cultural developments in American religion.

Childhood, Education, and Development

Emanuel Vogel Gerhart was born in Freeburg, Pennsylvania in 1817, during a period of cultural and intellectual revolutions on both sides of the Atlantic. In the Old World, notable developments that emerged during the end of the Napoleonic Wars included the creation of the modern university, the emergence of German idealism, and the rise of modern Protestant theology—all significant factors in changing religious and philosophical landscapes.¹⁷ In Europe, the desire for independence prompted new nationalist movements and Romanticism developed in response to Enlightenment concerns, while in North America a Second Great Awakening flourished in step with voluntarism, the rise of Unitarianism, and European migration.¹⁸ Instead of rejecting Protestantism, Enlightenment figures attempted to mold it to fit the realities of a modern culture, while publicly promoting a moral religion. In the United States, Jeffersonian admonitions to keep Christianity simple and moral competed with the Enlightenment idea of a liberal humanistic faith . . . [dedicated to] deeds not creeds.¹⁹ Also during the late eighteenth century, the German Reformed Church in America distanced itself from its oversight of the mother church in Holland as part of its effort to accommodate existing freedoms in a new nation. One problem that resulted was an insufficient number of qualified individuals for pastoral offices—there were many instances of undertrained pastors failing to enforce acceptable theological standards involving either the church or the Heidelberg Catechism.²⁰

Born into a religious home at a time when religion was considered important, Gerhart grew up surrounded by new forces shaping American society and Christianity. His family had immigrated to the US from Alsace in 1730, and his father, Isaac Gerhart (1788–1865), was one of the country’s first Reformed Church ministers.²¹ His mother, Sarah Vogel Gerhart (1790–1861), was raised as a French Lutheran. After many years of home schooling by his father, the sixteen-year-old Gerhart enrolled in and excelled at the Classical School of the German Reformed Church in York, Pennsylvania. Organized according to the German education model, the school was considered advanced among American educational institutes of the period. One of his teachers at York (also the school’s principal) was the German immigrant scholar Frederick August Rauch (1806–1841), who was trained in classical literature, in natural history, and in mental science,²² and who introduced Gerhart to German ideas and philosophy. At the school Gerhart studied Greek, Latin, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science.²³ The emphasis placed on the German language supported the reading of works by Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832), and Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805), which introduced Gerhart to Romantic and Enlightenment ideas. The school was reputed for teaching literary and scientific skills to help prepare students for seminary education.²⁴

In 1835, Gerhart along with the rest of the school’s student body and faculty moved to Mercersburg, a town in south-central Pennsylvania, where it was renamed Marshall College. After his 1838 graduation, Gerhart continued his studies at the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church at Mercersburg, where he met the professors who shaped his theological and intellectual views. It was at this seminary that Gerhart learned more about the idealist philosophical ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–831) (an intellectual hero of Frederick Rauch). While Rauch introduced Gerhart to German idealist philosophy, it was Mercersburg professor Lewis Mayer (1783–1849) who helped Gerhart to understand Lockean empiricism and church history. Known as a Hebrew scholar,²⁵ Mayer taught biblical Hebrew and church history at Mercersburg, and authored a book entitled The History of the Reformed Church. He served as the first editor of the magazine Messenger of the German Reformed Church, and published works on theology, hermeneutics, and church history.²⁶ Even though he strongly disagreed with some of Mayer’s theological views,²⁷ Gerhart later praised his former professor’s work and followed up on some of his research interests. In 1863 he wrote, The labors of Dr. Mayer waked up the attention of the church to the necessity of a higher standard of intellectual and theological culture.²⁸ Like his professor, Gerhart would eventually write two texts on the history of the German Reformed Church.²⁹

Upon Mayer’s departure from Mercersburg, John Williamson Nevin—who would become one of the leading figures in the Mercersburg movement—accepted a position as Professor of Theology. Nevin had studied under Charles Hodge (1797–1878) at Princeton Seminary, and during his ten years of teaching at Western Seminary in Pittsburgh, he experienced a major shift from Old School Calvinism.³⁰ After reading the work of German church historian Johann August Neander (1789–1850) and accepting his positions on organic development, Nevin abandoned Hodge’s inductive method and adopted ideas from German mediating theologians.³¹ It was likely Nevin who introduced Gerhart to mediating theology, and who convinced him that any theological system is best understood in terms of the cardinal principle of the Incarnation.³²

To appreciate Gerhart’s work, it is important to understand the influences of Nevin and Rauch, whose ideas can be found throughout Gerhart’s manuscripts. A major and consistent theme in his texts is the application of Christocentric principles and idealist philosophy when working in the fields of theology, philosophy, and education, among others. His studies at various Pennsylvania-based schools and seminary prepared him well for the precise application of a Christocentric approach in his lectures and writings.

Gerhart, Dorner, and Other Mediating Theologians

Gerhart’s theological approach was shaped by a synthesis of his Mercersburg professors’ views and ideas from continental Europe. Unlike some of his American peers, Gerhart never studied in Europe, but he did have access to European texts, and he studied them extensively. His specific familiarity with German texts led him to engage with the ideas of Schleiermacher and other German mediating theologians. His familiarity with German scholarship is clearly evident in his Institutes of Christian Religion, in which he makes more than thirty references to Isaak August Dorner (1809–1884). Dorner had studied at Tübingen under F. C. Baur (1792–1860), and taught at several universities before his final position at the University of Berlin in 1862. As one of the most important German mediating theologians (one known particularly for his communication with members of the Mercersburg movement),³³ Dorner searched for a balance between revelation and subjective experience, as well as between traditional theology and modern philosophy.³⁴ As part of his effort to join theology with philosophy, Dorner applied Hegelian dialectics and Schleiermacher’s religious ideas to examine the Christian revelation.³⁵ Dorner was convinced that theology and philosophy enjoy joint progress across historical periods, and that neither is ever finally completed.³⁶ Similar to other mediating theologians, Dorner emphasized a Christocentric approach to dogmatics.³⁷

Gerhart and Dorner clearly had much more in common in terms of theology, with both emphasizing Christology and the Incarnation. Even before David Strauss (1808–1874) published The Life of Jesus (1835) (in which he presents Jesus as a myth),³⁸ Dorner believed that responding to Christological questions was a vital task for theologians.³⁹ In the spirit of nineteenth-century scholarship, Dorner derived his motivation to create a mediating theology from the Gospel of John and the Incarnation.⁴⁰ Gerhart benefited from Dorner’s work in Christology and his developmental approach to the Incarnation.⁴¹ In Institutes of the Christian Religion, Gerhart distinguished among three developing periods in the life of Jesus: from his conception and birth to his death and burial, . . . from his death and burial to his resurrection from the dead, and from his resurrection and ascension onward, embracing the state of exaltation in the glory of the Father.⁴²

Gerhart’s extensive engagement with the ideas of mediating theologians influenced his decision not to circumvent the Protestant ideas emerging from Germany, but instead to establish specific interpretations and to adopt them for his own work. His familiarity with mediating theology gave him the requisite knowledge to write a new dogmatic work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in which he made it clear that he considered mediating theologians as mentors and authoritative voices. One deserving special attention is the Danish theologian Hans Lassen Martensen, a student and professor at the University of Copenhagen, a Lutheran bishop, and a speculative mediating theologian. As a student, he was initially influenced by traditional Lutheranism, but then discovered the ideas of Hegel and Schleiermacher, and developed his interests in mediating theology when studying with other German thinkers. Martensen’s Christian Dogmatics (1849) exerted an important impact due to its quick translation into English. In his dogmatic methodology, he attempts to be a loyal adherent of the church’s dogma, even though in his own system the dogma is often times also very quixotically interspersed with modern speculative conceptions.⁴³ Gerhart frequently cited this book in his own work; in his discussion of the Trinity he credited Martensen as an important source for his ideas.⁴⁴

The enthusiasm with which Gerhart engaged with European mediating theologians and the way in which he transmitted their ideas to Americans suggests that he should be understood as an American mediating theologian. He was clearly interested in integrating mediating ideas into the theological system that he wished to share with American readers and students. Gerhart believed that mediating theology was the best approach to dealing with issues of post-Enlightenment culture . . . [especially] the post-Enlightenment conflict between religious pluralism and [modernism].⁴⁵

The Early Church and the Reformation

Gerhart welcomed mediating theology’s new emphasis on Christology, but he also appreciated the teachings of the early church. In the first part of the nineteenth century, theologians on both sides of the Atlantic (including members of the Mediating School and the Oxford Movement) were actively reading works written by the early Church Fathers that focused on Christology and atonement. In his manuscripts, Gerhart relied on St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons and a disciple of Polycarp) to help him express his anthropology and atonement doctrines, and he argued that the connection between the Incarnation and atonement was a key theological concept among the early Church Fathers.⁴⁶ The importance of the Incarnation was central to Irenaeus’s notion of atonement, which insisted that the Incarnation is the most important starting point for reconciliation between God and humans.⁴⁷ Not only did Gerhart clearly agree with Irenaeus on this point, he also saw a strong link between it and the German mediating theologians’ ideas on the Incarnation.⁴⁸ This is one of many examples of Gerhart’s willingness to synthesize modern and traditional theological systems.

Gerhart also engaged with Reformation ideas and authors. He believed that the task of constructing theology in the nineteenth century was similar to the task of the Reformers, who relied on medieval teachings while formulating new theology. Thus, Gerhart turned to Martin Luther when working on a mediating theology paradigm.⁴⁹ He also drew on the work of John Calvin to help him express his views, going so far as to use the same title as Calvin did for his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). Gerhart relied on Calvin the Reformer when doing the groundwork for establishing a modern Christocentric dogma—evidence of his understanding that certain (but not all) theological ideas need to be altered in light of modern concerns. While speculating on ways that the Reformers might support his mediating approach, Gerhart expressed both appreciation for and criticism of certain aspects of Reformation theology. He was convinced that Reformation beliefs should not be taken as the last word on Christian truth,⁵⁰ and like other members of the Mediating School (especially Carl Ullmann), he believed that the Reformers focused too much on Christ’s atonement and not enough on his person.⁵¹ As Gerhart continued to analyze Reformation theology in light of modernity, he concluded that some of its arguments were incomplete, especially in light of modern scientific theological methods. Gerhart agreed with assertions made by Schleiermacher and other mediating theologians that during each new age the church must amend the universal truth in a mould of its own.⁵²

As an adherent of the Mediating School, Gerhart believed there was a place for modern theologians interested in revisiting and reconstructing older ideas, and he liberally shared his thinking about a progressive approach. In Institutes of the Christian Religion he wrote:

The scientific labors of all Christian thinkers from Clement and Origen onward through the Middle Ages I appreciate and honor, especially the great ideas of Augustine, which as reproduced and matured by John Calvin, mark a mighty epoch of progress in evangelical theology and practical religion. But the Reformation did not propose to break the bondage of Romanism in order to replace it by a Calvinistic yoke. It laid claim to freedom of thought no less than freedom of faith, a freedom which has been fruitful of progress in freedom of faith, a freedom which has been fruitful of progress in spiritual culture and divine science.⁵³

Gerhart’s approach was clearly in line with those of other Mercersburg theologians such as Schaff. Schaff, who was educated in Germany and a student of Neander, believed that the understanding of Christian religion is gradual and progressive.⁵⁴

Captivated by the notion of development, Gerhart enthusiastically adopted an organic method over what he referred to as a mechanical approach.⁵⁵ At several points in his discussions of the organic method he affirmed Hegel’s historiographic views, yet he also addressed ideas that were similar to those expressed by Schleiermacher, who considered theology an organic principle, and who described progress in Christianity as a religious development.⁵⁶ Similarly, Gerhart argued in support of a shared organic characteristic between history and theology:

[T]heology rises and sinks, advances and recedes, diverges into false currents and returns to the main channel, with the general ethical movement of humanity. It sympathizes with the valid progress of history; also with all its contradictions, convulsions, and conflicts. These modifications and changes, however, are not a wild, unmeaning, and fitful play of disconnected and irresponsible powers, but they are comprehended in that continuous organic process which belongs to the divine idea of human life.⁵⁷

Gerhart suggested that this organic characteristic can be seen in the revelation of the divine-human life of Jesus Christ, beginning with his incarnation and ending with the final consummation—Christ’s second coming. In this manner, Gerhart promoted Christianity as an idea that was continuing to develop.⁵⁸ Gerhart’s explanation of theological development was clearly influenced by the philosophical movement of German idealism.

Gerhart as Philosopher

Scottish philosophy was dominant in shaping American Protestant theology in the nineteenth century, though German idealism clearly influenced some American professors during its first decades. Among those Americans were Mercersburg professors. Given the close ties between Mercersburg professors and German idealist thinkers, it is no surprise that Gerhart was affected by Hegel’s theories emerging from Europe.⁵⁹ He was primed for those theories thanks to the time he spent with the German immigrant scholar Rauch, who was well versed in Hegel’s ideas.⁶⁰ Rauch’s influences eventually helped shape theology and other academic programs at Mercersburg.

In later decades, Gerhart’s published texts and lectures contained evidence of idealist philosophy embedded in the concepts of organic development and historical consciousness. Although he never wrote directly about Hegel, he did apply Hegelian methods to his analyses of topics in history and theology. Hegel’s analysis of the origin and development of Christianity had significant implications for Gerhart’s notion of the Christian religion being the living development.⁶¹ According to this view, for Gerhart, Christianity is a living development.

Gerhart was one of very few American theologians interested in the idea of organic development as associated with Hegelian methodology.⁶² In addition to applying the concept of development to doctrine, he also argued that the Bible must be interpreted from the organic relation . . . [of the] new spiritual manifestation of Christ.⁶³ Yet Gerhart especially employed Hegel’s development views when addressing the relationship between history and theology. By applying idealist philosophy, Gerhart was able to step back from predominant Protestant theological assumptions based on common sense philosophy and Baconian methods.⁶⁴

Another obvious sign of Gerhart’s interest in German idealism was the 1858 publication of his college textbook, An Introduction to the Study of Philosophy (1858)—a project he took on with encouragement from Schaff. The text, which was dedicated to the memory of Rauch, emphasized philosophical concepts expressed by Joseph Beck (1803–1883), a German Spätaufklärer (a late Enlightenment figure). Part of the book is a translation and expansion of the German work by Beck. Gerhart divided his text into two parts: a summarized outline of philosophy, and a summary and an explanation of logic. In this philosophical text, Gerhart argued that true philosophy and Christianity should not be separated, since they are internally and necessarily connected.⁶⁵ The textbook served as a novel introduction to metaphysics for American students.⁶⁶

Gerhart’s An Introduction to the Study of Philosophy received mixed reviews in the US. The New Englander wrote that Gerhart’s ideas were very much after the German fashion, especially in terms of phraseology and modes of thinking.⁶⁷ In an 1859 issue of The Mercersburg Review, Ursinus College president John Bomberger (1817–1890) predicted that the work would provide theology students with a proper sense of the importance of the discipline, and described it as not so much a mechanical cramming of the mind with isolated propositions and dead facts as a quick apprehension and appropriation of verities in their true organic relations to each other, as vital parts of a living whole.⁶⁸

Gerhart as Pastor, University President, and Professor

Gerhart’s key contributions, however, were not to the field of philosophy, but to church ministry and theological education. Two of Gerhart’s earliest academic positions were as a teacher at a Mercersburg seminary for women, and as a tutor at Marshall College. He held both while completing his own theological training and continued the tutor position immediately following his graduation. The teaching position was Gerhart’s first introduction to the women’s seminary movement, which began during the American Revolutionary period.⁶⁹ Prior to accepting a permanent academic position, he entered the ministry in 1842 and served as a minister at Gettysburg for six years. In 1849, he accepted a position as a German Reformed Church missionary agent in Cincinnati. According to James Good, membership in that church doubled during Gerhart’s tenure.⁷⁰ Two years later he accepted an offer to serve as Professor of Theology and President at the Heidelberg College and Theological Seminary in Tiffin, Ohio, one of several schools created to meet the demand for Reformed Church ministers throughout the Midwest. Under Gerhart’s guidance, Heidelberg experienced an increase in student admissions and the construction of several buildings, including a library. Gerhart taught courses that today might be considered cross-disciplinary—a common practice in nineteenth-century German seminaries, where professors taught across multiple theology subfields.⁷¹ Gerhart’s courses included theology, church history, apologetics, biblical studies, logic, ethics, psychology, natural philosophy, and the German language. On top of this teaching load, Gerhart was active in community affairs, preaching, and writing projects.⁷²

In Ohio, Gerhart encountered a religious crisis associated with the eagerness of German immigrants to inject a strong sense of rationalism in their churches—an example of the transplantation of a prevailing ideology from Germany to America. Before Gerhart’s arrival, the Cincinnati Reformed Church attempted to establish a semi-rationalistic catechism, which clashed with the Heidelberg Catechism in which Gerhart was trained. The Ohio Synod accepted both a sinless perfection position and the use of anxious benches—ideas shaped by a combination of rationalism and beliefs deeply embedded in American culture. Gerhart directly criticized rationalism in his 1851 inauguration address (entitled Hold Fast the Form of Sound Words), arguing that insidious errors of rationalism have sapped [the church’s] foundations and put out her light.⁷³ While stressing the need for confessional adherence, Gerhart asserted that a primary concern must be to understand, appreciate and hold fast the form of sound words in faith . . . especially as found in the Heidelberg Catechism,⁷⁴ which he described as detecting every species of error.⁷⁵ He also asserted that the Heidelberg Catechism shunned what he called high-toned Calvinism. His Heidelberg defense shows that he was loyal to his Mercersburg training.

Other sections of his inaugural address provide glimpses into Gerhart’s emerging theological outlook. By emphasizing the person and work of the God-man Jesus Christ, he showed his growing interest in a Christocentric approach in which all doctrines stand in a logical relation to the grace of God in Christ . . . [who is the] first ground and the ultimate end of revelation.⁷⁶ He described Christ as occupying the center around which all the parts of the organic whole revolve.⁷⁷ Hinting at his later systematic work, Gerhart used his address to assert his belief that the God-man Christ is the central fact that gives its peculiar cast to the enunciation of all parts of the Christian system.⁷⁸ Thus, we see that Gerhart’s Christological beliefs were already established when he left Ohio to return to Pennsylvania.

During his time in Ohio, important developments were taking place in the Eastern Synod of the German Reformed Church, with heated debates on the Mercersburg Theology of Nevin and Schaff, especially their ideas on new liturgical customs and church restoration. One key topic was their perceived need to replace older liturgies such as the Palatinate liturgy with newer ones. The Eastern Synod established a committee in 1855 to address this question, and Gerhart was invited to participate as a representative of the Western Synod. Over the course of sixty-three committee meetings, Gerhart took a centrist position in preparing (with help from Schaff and others) a Provisional Liturgy⁷⁹ (an attempt to reestablish a Eucharistic liturgy) that addressed what was believed to be a growing want of the Reformed Church.⁸⁰

Gerhart expressed his concerns and impressions about developments at the Eastern Synod of the Reformed Church in a strictly confidential 1852 letter addressed to Bomberger of Ursinus College. While he described what he felt to be a new energy, spirit, and life in the Reformed Church, he also asserted that a cloud . . . overhangs our Church. He eventually joined others in expressing strong criticisms of Schaff and Nevin, going so far as to assert that Nevin favored Catholic theology over Protestantism.⁸¹ However, he did not let this particular disagreement stop him from expressing his great respect for Nevin, nor from working with him on later tasks.

In 1853, Marshall College started the process of merging with Franklin College, and two years later Gerhart was offered the position as the first President and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy of Franklin and Marshall College (after Nevin and Schaff declined similar offers). Gerhart wrote in his 1854 acceptance letter, The trust which, in accordance with the unanimous voice of your Board, I have consented to assume, I feel to be solemn and difficult.⁸² Gerhart was well qualified for the position, but he accepted with hesitation. He served as president during the Civil War and into the Reconstruction period, leaving the college with more secure economic and academic foundations.⁸³

Two texts that Gerhart published and wrote during his tenure at Franklin and Marshall were The Inner Life of the Christian (1856) (a collection of Frederick Rauch’s sermons) and An Introduction to the Study of Philosophy with an Outline Treatise on Logic (1857). Rauch’s Inner Life of the Christian was a volume that Gerhart had edited, and that received praise as a text containing much excellent matter . . . pervaded by a catholic and enlarged spirit.⁸⁴ Also during his tenure at Franklin and Marshall, Gerhart accepted an offer to work with Schaff as co-editor of The Mercersburg Review. Gerhart used the journal to publish book reviews and some of his most important essays. Along with other writers, Gerhart also used the journal to push back against rationalism and to express ideas associated with Anglo-German evangelical theology.⁸⁵ As Gerhart’s reputation grew, his work was acknowledged by his peers at other schools, and in 1857 he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Jefferson College, a Presbyterian school.⁸⁶

In 1868, Gerhart was offered the chairmanship of the school’s Systematic Theology department, as well as the position of president of Mercersburg Theological Seminary. He served Mercersburg in these capacities until 1904. In his inaugural lecture, entitled The Historical Element in Theology, he conveyed a theological perspective very similar to the one expressed by Schaff. He used Hegelian terminology to describe history as a developing phenomenon, and then applied the same developmental concept to theology. In his address, Gerhart argued that no particular status of theological science can be fixed and permanent, and expressed his belief that each new age must produce a purer and fuller development, and a better articulation of the revealed truth taught and believed in all previous periods of Church history.⁸⁷

Gerhart maintained a full teaching schedule at Mercersburg. Three hours each week he taught a junior-level theological encyclopedia class in which he addressed topics such as prolegomena, dogmatics, natural religion, the nature of Christianity, and specific Christian dogmas (their sources, nature, and organic connections).⁸⁸ Twice per week he gave expository lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism,⁸⁹ and taught Christian dogmatics to senior students. He started many of these classes with lectures on Christology (including the Incarnation, atonement, and the offices of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King), and then addressed topics such as pneumatology, the Church and the sacraments, soteriology, and eschatology.⁹⁰ For other classes he prepared lectures on the Christ-idea and theology proper.⁹¹ Among the advanced graduate courses that he taught was a required systematic theology class in which his required reading list reflected his personal preferences for the ideas of specific theologians such as Dorner, Schaff, Calvin, Augustine, and Athanasius. This list reflected his concern for synthesizing old and new dogma, as well as his emphasis on Christology. Specific titles on his reading list included Dorner’s The Person of Christ (from Clark’s Edition, volume one), Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, and Athanasius on the Incarnation, edited by John Henry Newman. He also required his graduate students to read Augustine’s Enchiridion and Calvin’s Institutes.⁹²

Gerhart as Theologian

Beginning in the 1840s, Gerhart published thirty-three articles on topics ranging from atonement, Christology, anthropology, dogmatic theology, and the sacraments to issues involving the German Reformed Church. It was during his time at Lancaster that he wrote what many consider to be his most important work, the aforementioned Institutes of the Christian Religion. Other significant texts on dogmatic theology emerged from his understanding of ideas originating in European universities. Similar to German professors and his colleague Schaff, Gerhart displayed great interest in prolegomena and dogma, and published Prolegomena to Dogmatics in 1891. Gerhart was familiar with nineteenth-century Protestant theological encyclopedias that were intended to serve as pedagogical and methodological tools, as well as scientific texts for introducing the study of theology and its various departments.⁹³ In Prolegomena to Dogmatics he defined theology as a science to which all other sciences are, more or less, auxiliary and tributary.⁹⁴

In Prolegomena, Gerhart presented a method for organizing theology, one that emphasized a Christocentric approach. He used this method in Institutes when arguing that the primary principle guiding Christian dogmatics should be the divine-human nature of Jesus Christ—that is the Christ-idea.⁹⁵ With this bold stroke, Gerhart moved away from traditional theology while offering a principle upon which all doctrines could be constructed.⁹⁶ In an essay on The Creed and Dogmatic Theology, Gerhart argued that all theological views need to be analyzed in the light of the Incarnation,⁹⁷ since the Incarnation, and not the moral teachings of Jesus, was the essential truth of the Christian faith.⁹⁸ This idea clearly reflected the belief among Mercersburg faculty that the divine human person of Jesus Christ is the primodial truth of Christianity, both of revelation and redemption.⁹⁹ According to Gerhart, a correct theology depends upon a sound Christology.¹⁰⁰ In the Institutes’s introduction, Schaff wrote that Christian theology begins from the historical Christ, and he gave his full support to Gerhart’s assertion that Christology provides the key for theology.¹⁰¹

The positive reception given to Gerhart’s Institutes reflects broader considerations in addition to the general orientations of nineteenth-century reviewers. It was initially described as a new work of Systematic Theology, with one reviewer for The Baltimore Methodist describing its promise to enlarge the knowledge and stimulate the thought of studious and earnest men in all our denominations.¹⁰² Similarly, a writer for The Standard (Chicago) predicted that Institutes would eventually become of great benefit once it fell in the hands of the leaders of Christian thought.¹⁰³ The Religious Telescope described it as a work of rare merit . . . a valuable addition to the science of Christian theology,¹⁰⁴ and the Yale Review called it the first volume of an elaborate treatise on Christian theology.¹⁰⁵

Unlike the Anglo-Saxon theological approach based on Francis Bacon’s inductive method, Gerhart applied the German notions of academic theology and theological science, as well as the a priori principle. Unlike his counterparts at Princeton Seminary, Gerhart embraced some of the new nineteenth-century European ideas linked to innovative religious movements. As a mediating theologian, Gerhart not only accepted the core dogmatic approach of the Christ-idea as a theological starting point, but also expressed support for a scientific theology in response to post-Enlightenment challenges. Like Schleiermacher and his successors, Gerhart rejected seventeenth-century scholastic dogmatic texts, arguing that they were poorly matched with modern scientific and theological requirements.

Given the nineteenth-century interest in dogmatic method, Gerhart purposefully pursued a new theological foundation that was clearly separate from those employed in earlier periods.¹⁰⁶ In his lectures and publications, Gerhart expressed his concern for replacing old scholastic dogmatics with a new dogmatic divinity in order to create an original systematic approach to Reformed theology.¹⁰⁷ His peers at Princeton Seminary did not seem to be interested in embracing new theological ideas—for example, they continued to use the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, a seventeenth-century text written by Francis Turretin, as a primary textbook until the 1870s. Based on his belief that Christian dogma is always changing, Gerhart concluded that that text should be considered obsolete.¹⁰⁸ He offered a novel method to address what he perceived to be the epistemological challenges of post-Enlightenment culture.¹⁰⁹

Gerhart on the Church

By the mid-nineteenth century, the American church could be characterized as a mix of modern revivalism and sectarianism, with little interest in church doctrine. Gerhart disagreed with American dogmatics and its Baconian-based methods and, like Schaff and Nevin, he was troubled by what he viewed as un-churchly trends. He believed the core problem was the church’s failure to use a Christological foundation, and he spelled out his concerns in an 1860 essay published in the Reformed Church Review.¹¹⁰ Arguing that an unchristological theology has begotten an unchurchly spirit,¹¹¹ he expressed his eagerness to introduce a different understanding of the church to American Protestants, one highlighting the church’s organic nature, unity, and catholicity.¹¹²

Gerhart avoided attempts to define the church in terms of a code of laws or as an exterior institution, preferring instead to describe it as Christ’s mystical body and to use the biblical image of the kingdom, one that presupposed a spiritual economy.¹¹³ In Institutes, he described the Christian church as an organized form of the kingdom of God that could be compared to a living reality, implying a spiritual rather than natural church.¹¹⁴ The kingdom image that Gerhart used originally came from Andrew Martin Fairbairn (1838–1912), a Scotsman who was a student of both Dorner and August Tholuck (1799–1877). The influence of Fairbairn is clear in Gerhart’s assertion that the Kingdom is the church expressed in terms of the mind and person of its Founder; the Church is the Kingdom done unto living souls and the society they constitute.¹¹⁵ Gerhart also employed sower, seed, and mustard tree images to capture what he felt were the living realities of the church, but he believed that the best image describing the natural organism was the notion of the Adamic race, which he declared was begotten of Christ and in Christ by the Spirit.¹¹⁶

The organic process was a vital element in Gerhart’s perceptions of the church, supported by his appreciation of Romanticism and Idealism. He embraced the Romantic notion of an organic view of nature, as well as an Idealist description of the church as a body whose history resembles the history of an individual man.¹¹⁷ In the same vein, Gerhart described the church in terms of its infancy and its growth and development toward a maturity of manhood. Consistent with his mediating approach, he argued that the church must change doctrines to remain in agreement with knowledge of the Christian truth.¹¹⁸ Accordingly, Gerhart saw a need to modify the orthodox confessions of the Reformation¹¹⁹ to fulfill nineteenth-century church requirements. Yet Gerhart never resolved modifications to the confessions, and there is no evidence that he attempted to write a new one, preferring instead to rely on the Heidelberg Catechism.

In a Protestant culture that he considered non-sacramental, Gerhart championed a sacramental theology and argued that any church deprived of the sacraments could not be considered a church.¹²⁰ In Institutes he wrote, When we speak of the Church after a scriptural manner we include sacraments; when we speak of the sacraments we presuppose the Church.¹²¹ Gerhart believed that the sacraments are not empty forms, but important signs and seals of God’s covenant with his people. Gerhart viewed both the Lord’s Supper and baptism as means of grace.¹²² In volume two of Institutes, Gerhart described the Lord’s Supper as being aligned with Calvin’s views and Reformed confessions. Similar to his Mercersburg peers, his opinions diverged from the Zwinglian concept of the Lord’s Supper that was dominant in American Protestantism at the time. While he accepted the Lord’s Supper as both memorial and spiritual nourishment, he particularly emphasized its status as a means of grace in the way it spiritually "nourishes God’s people.¹²³ Gerhart wrote, The Lord’s Supper commemorates the mediatorship of Him who is Redeemer and Saviour; it seals to believers the forgiveness of sins; and with His crucified body and shed blood He Himself feeds and nourishes them to everlasting life."¹²⁴ This statement is evidence of Gerhart’s great respect for Calvin and the Reformed confessions—he extensively cited Calvin’s Catechism of Geneva (1542/45) and Book IV of Institutes. To support his argument, he also borrowed from other Reformed confessions, including the First Helvetic Confession (1536) and the Belgic Confession (1561).

Gerhart was especially interested in the sacrament of baptism. In addition to Institutes, he dealt with this topic in three other essays: The Efficacy of Baptism (1858), Holy Baptism (1868), and The Doctrine of Baptism as Taught in the Heidelberg Catechism (1873).¹²⁵ In Institutes he described baptism as consisting of two elements: natural (water) and supernatural (the gracious work of the triune God, which conveys spiritual benefit[s]).¹²⁶ Gerhart believed that spiritual significance could only be achieved through a mystical union of these elements via a Holy Spirit baptism. Like Augustine, Gerhart viewed baptism as signifying adoption into Christ’s kingdom—that is, membership in the Christian church, a membership characterized by forgiveness and blessings.¹²⁷ According to Gerhart, baptism by itself was not a converting ordinance, and the exercise of faith was necessary for all baptized individuals.¹²⁸

Conclusion

On April 28, 1904, Emanuel Gerhart slipped while entering a building at the Lancaster Theological Seminary. The bag of books he was carrying likely prevented a serious head injury. Though he proceeded to give a classroom lecture and a few days later attended the baccalaureate sermon given to the graduating class, he experienced a precipitous decline in health that resulted in his death just a few days later on May 6.¹²⁹

His death meant that the German Reformed Church had lost an important leader, an able administrator, and a distinguished educator and theologian. The importance of his passing was acknowledged in the New York Times,¹³⁰ and in other obituaries he was described as a key individual in American theological studies.¹³¹ Yet he remains a neglected figure. While he never achieved the status of Nevin and Schaff, he nevertheless made important contributions to American education in general and religious studies in particular. Working in a seminary in Pennsylvania, he built a strong reputation among his peers and expressed views that received a national audience. Above all, Gerhart was one of the most important figures to preserve the Mercersburg legacy due to his willingness to push back against the religious and cultural trends of nineteenth-century America.¹³²

For all of his devotion to a Christocentric approach, Gerhart remained sufficiently broad-minded to engage with important figures in North America and Europe, and to challenge certain aspects of popular American religious trends. He finally visited Europe late in life, as a representative to the 1896 Pan-Presbyterian Alliance meeting at Glasgow.¹³³ Back in the US he served as president of several academic organizations associated with the German Reformed Church, and his prominence in Reformed circles grew in step with the number of books and essays that he published. His efforts seem to embody the motto, The Reformed church, always reforming (Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda). His commitment to key Mercersburg and mediating theology principles is apparent in his dogmatic work, in which he gave American Protestantism its first text outlining the details of a Christocentric theology. The author in this collection hopes that scholarship on the life of Gerhart will continue to reveal his strong contributions.

1

. Williard, The Student Life of Dr. Gerhart,

2

.

2

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart: Apologist for the Mercersburg Theology,

485–500

. Herman, The Theology of Professor E. V. Gerhart,

213

.

3

. Jordan, "Secularism and Empire in the United States,

1780–1900

,"

1–14

. Taylor, A Secular Age,

374

. In America, important figures such as Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Elihu Palmer attempted to undermine the Christian religion. Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America,

140

. On secularization in America, see Verhoeven, Secularists, Religion and Government; Modern, Secularism in Antebellum America; Schlereth, An Age of Infidels; Nelson, Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations; May, The Enlightenment in America.

4

. For helpful literature on Mercersburg theology, see Evans, A Companion to the Mercersburg Theology; Littlejohn, The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity; Nichols, Romanticism in American Theology.

5

. Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic,

364

.

6

. For treatments of mediating theology, see Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology,

62–94

; Aubert, Mediating Theology; Gockel, Mediating Theology in Germany,

301–18

; Holte, Die Vermittlungstheologie.

7

. Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic,

343

. According to Sydney Ahlstrom, Gerhart’s dogmatic work represents a theological summary of the fundamental principles of Mercersburg Theology. Ahlstrom, Theology in America,

271

. For a fine discussion on Christology as a core idea in dogmatic systems, see Muller, Emanuel V. Gerhart on the ‘Christ-idea’ as Fundamental Principle,

97–99

.

8

. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary,

351

.

9

. Herman, The Theology of Professor E. V. Gerhart,

213

.

10

. Weidner, Introduction,

270

,

275

.

11

. The Academische Revue includes a positive review of Gerhart’s Institutes. Bibliographie: Bücherbesprechungen Theologie,

377

.

12

. Kremer, Rev. Emanuel Vogel Gerhart,

573

.

13

. Herman, Theology of Professor E. V. Gerhart,

213–14

.

14

. Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith,

3

,

291

.

15

. Wood, Radicalism,

332

; Noll, foreword to The Mystical Presence, xvii.

16

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

172

.

17

. Herman, Theology of Professor E. V. Gerhart,

216

.

18

. Johnson, History of the American People,

289

.

19

. Gaustad and Schmidt, Religious History of America,

134

.

20

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

2

.

21

. Acts and Proceedings of the Eastern Synod,

20

.

22

. Gerhart, Frederick Augustus Rauch,

1999

.

23

. Gerhart’s student notes from his years at York provide a glimpse of the courses he enrolled in. "Gerhart Emanuel Vogel (

1817–1904

), Lecture Notes While a Student."

24

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

8

; Klein, A Century of Education,

25–30

.

25

. Harbaugh, Fathers of the German Reformed Church,

3

:

161

.

26

. Heiner, Life of Rev. Dr. Mayer,

11

.

27

. Gerhart believed that Mayer went too far in downgrading the supernatural aspect of miracles. According to Philip Schaff, Mayer had been under De Wette’s semi-rationalistic influence and had no churchly sense. Good, History of the Reformed Church,

2

,

84–85

.

28

. Gerhart, The German Reformed Church,

29

.

29

. Gerhart, The German Reformed Church,

1–78

. Gerhart, The German Reformed Church in America,

249–77

.

30

. Nevin, My Own Life,

76

.

31

. Nevin, My Own Life,

139

. Nichols, Romanticism in American Theology,

43

.

32

. Nevin, The Mercersburg Theology, vi.

33

. Based on his interest in an Anglo-American religion, on one occasion Dorner expressed to Schaff his opinion that if German theological ideas were going to make an impact in England and Scotland, it must happen via the United States. Schaff, Germany,

380

.

34

. Stegmüller, Isaak August Dorner,

3

:

522

.

35

. Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology, 90

.

36

. Binkley, The Mercersburg Theology,

35

.

37

. Dorner, A System of Christian Doctrine,

1

:

50

.

38

. For literature on David F. Strauss, see Beiser, David Friedrich Strauss; Harris, David Friedrich Strauss; Graf, Kritik und Pseudo-Spekulation.

39

. Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre. Welch, Protestant Thought,

1

:

273

.

40

. Barth, Protestant Theology,

563

,

571

.

41

. Binkley, The Mercersburg Theology,

35

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

777

.

42

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

777

.

43

. Baur, Church and Theology,

377

.

44

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

320

. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics,

112

. See also Barrett, Hans Lassen Martensen.

45

. Aubert, An American Mediating Champion,

7

.

46

. Aulén, Christus Victor,

58

.

47

. Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology,

137

. Saint Irenaeus, The Treatise of Irenaeus of Lugdunum . . .

5

.

17

.

1

(

2

:

114–15

). Fantino, La Théologie d’Irénée,

205

.

48

. See Dorner, On the Proper Version,

132

.

49

. Hornig, Lehre und Bekenntnis im Protestantismus,

166

. Gerhart, Institutes,

1

:

72

. Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology,

115

.

50

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart: Systematic Theologian,

17

.

51

. Hodge, What Is Christianity?,

122

.

52

. Gerhart, Prolegomena,

112

.

53

. Gerhart, Institutes,

1

:viii.

54

. Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic,

30

.

55

. Gerhart, Prolegomena,

100

.

56

. Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung,

34–35

.

57

. Gerhart, The Historical Element in Theology,

140

.

58

. Gerhart, Institutes,

1

:

140–41

.

59

. According to James Nichols, the Mercersburg theologians were the first in America to champion the new German idealism. See Nichols, Romanticism in American Theology,

3

. In his philosophic discussion of European influences on Mercersburg, Linden DeBie argues that the most important aspect of the school was not its connection with Romanticism, but its relationship with German idealism. DeBie, German Idealism in Protestant Orthodoxy,

11

. See also, DeBie, Speculative Theology,

1

.

60

. Rauch transmitted the ideas of Hegel to his students. Professor Mayer of Mercersburg was unlikely to have agreed with those ideas due to his emphasis on Scottish Common Sense philosophy.

61

. Welch, Protestant Thought,

1

:

87

,

94

. Aubert, Protestantism,

510

. Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology,

113

.

62

. Hodge, Systematic Theology,

2

:

533

.

63

. Gerhart, Prolegomena,

100

.

64

. For other opponents to Baconian methods, see Noll, America’s God,

249

,

252

.

65

. Gerhart, Introduction to the Study of Philosophy, vi.

66

. Bomberger, Introduction to the Study of Philosophy,

99

.

67

. Notices of Books,

210

.

68

. Bomberger, Introduction to the Study of Philosophy,

99

.

69

. Nash, Women’s Higher Education.

70

. Good, Prof. E. V. Gerhart,

4

.

71

. Purvis, Theology and the University,

152

.

72

. Yrigoyen, "Emanuel V. Gerhart: Apologist for the Mercersburg Theology,"

488

.

73

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

14

.

74

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

27

.

75

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

18

.

76

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

17

.

77

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

17

.

78

. Gerhart, Hold Fast,

22

.

79

. Maxwell, Worship and Reformed Theology,

154

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

30–31

.

80

. A Liturgy: Or Order of Christian Worship, iii.

81

. The Reverend John H. A. Bomberger,

180–82

.

82

. Dubbs, History of Franklin College,

271

.

83

. Dunn, A History of the Evangelical and Reformed Church,

69

.

84

. Quarterly Review of American Literature,

186

.

85

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

39

.

86

. Smith, History of Jefferson College.

87

. Gerhart, The Historical Element in Theology,

146

.

88

. Annual Register of Franklin & Marshall College,

70–71

.

89

. Annual Register of Franklin & Marshall College, 71

.

90

. Annual Register of Franklin & Marshall College,

68

.

91

. Annual Register of Franklin & Marshall College,

66

.

92

. Annual Register of Franklin & Marshall College,

75

.

93

. Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic,

9

.

94

. Gerhart, Prolegomena,

4

.

95

. Gerhart, Prolegomena,

5

.

96

. Gerhart, "Review of Unity of the Scripture,"

169

.

97

. Gerhart, The Creed and Dogmatic Theology,

220–21

.

98

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

78

.

99

. Gerhart, Mercersburg Theology,

1474

.

100

. Gerhart, An Introduction to the Study of Philosophy,

99

.

101

. Schaff, introduction to Institutes of the Christian Religion,

1

:xi.

102

. Institutes of the Christian Religion—Some Comments,

101

,

73

.

103

. Institutes of the Christian Religion—Some Comments,

73

.

104

. Institutes of the Christian Religion—Some Comments,

87

.

105

. Stevens, Current Literature,

279–80

.

106

. It was Schleiermacher who started the process of creating a new foundation for theology, see Chapman, Theology and Society,

32

.

107

. See Gerhart, Dogmatic Theology,

461–80

. Gerhart’s dogmatic theology and prolegomena lecture notes are located at the Evangelical and Reformed Historical Society, Lancaster, PA.

108

. Gerhart, Institutes,

1

:

22

.

109

. Bolt, introduction to Prolegomena, vol.

1

of Reformed Dogmatics, 20

. In his prolegomena, Bavinck confronted the profound epistemological predicament following Kant.

110

. I rely here especially on Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology.

111

. Gerhart, Cantate Domino,

145

.

112

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

105

,

120

.

113

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

489

.

114

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

459–60

.

115

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

460

.

116

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

462

,

464

.

117

. Gerhart, Mercersburg Theology,

1474

.

118

. Gerhart, Mercersburg Theology,

1474

.

119

. Gerhart, Mercersburg Theology,

1474

.

120

. Yrigoyen, Emanuel V. Gerhart and the Mercersburg Theology,

162

.

121

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

555

122

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

555

123

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

486

, emphasis added.

124

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

486

.

125

. Gerhart, The Efficacy of Baptism,

1–44

; Gerhart, Holy Baptism,

180–228

; and The Doctrine of Baptism as Taught in the Heidelberg Catechism,

537–72

.

126

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

558

.

127

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

558

.

128

. Gerhart, Institutes,

2

:

563

.

129

. Obituary Record,

2

:

102

.

130

. Death List of a Day.; Rev. Emanuel Vogel Gerhart,

9

.

131

. Kremer, Rev. Emanuel Vogel Gerhart,

565–67

.

132

. Hatch, Democratization,

166

.

133

. Obituary Record,

2

:

101

.

Part 1

Historical and Methodological Prolegomena

Document 1

Inaugural Address: The Vital Principle of College Education

Editor’s Introduction

Faith and College Education

After John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff in turn declined offers for the position of President of Franklin and Marshall College, in 1854 the school’s Board of Trustees selected Emanuel Gerhart as its leader. At the time, Gerhart was still serving as Professor of Theology at a seminary in Tiffin, Ohio, and though he expressed reservations, he agreed to return to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Some historians have speculated on the potential advantages of his decision given his Midwestern location during the Mercersburg conflict in the East.¹³⁴ Regardless, the trustees’ selection was likely based on Gerhart’s reputation for talents and abilities beyond most of his contemporaries.¹³⁵ In accepting his appointment as president, Gerhart remarked: Whatever I am, intellectually, morally, or spiritually, I owe, next to my parents, to this College.¹³⁶ As its first president (1855–1866), he is remembered for his many personal sacrifices in support of the school, especially during the Civil War and in terms of fundraising for the college’s first buildings.

Gerhart’s inauguration took place on July 24, 1855. The day’s events included an introductory talk by Rev. Samuel Bowman about the value of a rigorous and religious education. This was followed Gerhart’s address on The Vital Principle of Education, in which he presented his educational agenda. In the nineteenth century, the function of inaugural addresses was for newly hired administrators or professors to express their visions and guiding principles, and Gerhart took full advantage of his opportunity.¹³⁷ The primary purpose of this address was to convey his vision for an educational approach that emphasized faith without completely rejecting a human-centered education. Even though Gerhart adopted certain German philosophical ideas for his views regarding education, his overall approach to the topic sharply contrasted with the existing German university model, which Wilhelm von Humboldt described as live for science.¹³⁸ By contrast, Gerhart believed in faith as a fundamental facet of education.¹³⁹

Gerhart’s statement reveals how his views on college-level education were informed by his Mercersburg theological training. While two of the essential college education principles he described (worldly affairs and the second human consciousness) could be viewed as standing outside of religion, he identified a positive faith in Jesus Christ as the most vital principle. As a mediating theologian, Gerhart believed that the foundations of intellectual development must be constructed on the person of Christ, who in his view represented the basis of all realities and the vitality of literature, philosophy and religion.¹⁴⁰ In stressing this principle as essential for education, Gerhart clearly rejected a dualist worldview, and by making these a priori claims, he introduced his American audience to a discourse traceable to idealism.

Gerhart rejected common sense philosophy as a starting point for education—perhaps a reaction to what he observed in nineteenth-century American culture. Thanks to his teacher Frederick Rauch, he was familiar with the European education system and therefore aware of alternative forms to the US model. Over the course of his life, he injected some features of German idealism into his vision for education, and expressed agreement with the idea that all sources of knowledge must be derived from a single principle.¹⁴¹ While not mentioning any specific source, Gerhart apparently shared the German idealist philosopher’s Friedrich Schelling’s (1775–1854) belief that only one principle govern[s] all reality.¹⁴² A key concern for Gerhart was applying a single guiding principle to education, and he accepted a Christocentric theology as the most suitable. During a period in which rejection of faith became a dominant presupposition in nineteenth-century German academic circles, Gerhart made every effort to maintain an interior association between the person of Jesus Christ and all scientific disciplines. While he acknowledged value in other academic systems, he argued that they were only truly profitable if guided by a Christocentric principle.

It is easy to see how Gerhart’s preoccupation with Christian education influenced his attempts to reconcile science and religion. In this respect, he agreed with German and Princeton Seminary peers who reluctantly considered the relationship between science and religion in terms of conflict. In his inaugural address, we see how Gerhart tried to promote both science and religion. By advocating a bridge between the two, he could still defend an a priori Christocentric scheme¹⁴³ by arguing that in Christ, every branch of Science complete[s] itself.¹⁴⁴

134

. Good, History of the Reformed Church,

297

.

135

. Dubbs, History of Franklin College,

270

.

136

. "Gerhart, Emanuel Vogel (

1817–1904

): Biographical Information."

137

. Kovalyova, Presidential Inaugural Addresses,

41

.

138

. Howard, Protestant Theology,

131

.

139

. Aubert, An American Mediating Champion,

22

.

140

. Gerhart, Addresses Delivered at the Inauguration,

11

.

141

. Gerhart, Addresses,

20

. Schelling, Grounding,

128

.

142

. Schelling, Bruno, or, On the Natural,

6

.

143

. Lee, Karl Barth und Isaak August Dorner,

20

.

144

. Gerhart, Addresses,

20

.

Inaugural Address

The Vital Principle of College Education

¹⁴⁵

It has been said, the highest study of man, is man himself. To some minds the proposition may come with the force of a self-evident truth. But the question arises, Is man the highest being? Is reason the source of truth? Is logical reasoning the principle of sound philosophy? Does human will determine, or even modify any department of natural or moral science? To every question an answer must be given in the negative. The proposition must give way to another that is at once both philosophical and Christian. It is this. The highest study of man, is God; God in nature, God in man, God in history, and, above all, God in Christ. Here is the fundamental truth. All beings possess only a relative existence. God is absolute. All conceptions and ideas are limited in their nature and relations. The idea of God and its postulates are all-embracing and eternal. To the apprehension of these man struggles to rise, turning away instinctively from all others as inadequate to the satisfaction of the first and strongest aspirations of his being. To look at any department of nature, therefore, or at man himself, as involving subjects of reflection that can fix or satisfy the innate longings of reason, implies the controlling influence of a radical falsehood.

In acknowledgment of this general view have the majority of Colleges and Universities in Europe and America been established. To what extent they have always been true to their obligations, it is not now our place to enquire. I pass on to add, that the same idea has originated and given a distinctive character to the College, of which the Board of Trustees has now formally constituted me the President. Hence, though I could not but with diffidence pass through the significant ceremonies of this day, I nevertheless experience a sensible pleasure in assuming a trust that I feel to be in accordance with the most solemn vows that, as a minister of the Gospel, bind my conscience.

Franklin College was created by the Legislature as far back as the year

1787

, with special reference to the interest of education and learning among the German population of the State. To secure this object, the charter provided that the Board of Trustees should be composed always of three equal interests or divisions, one representing the Lutheran Church, another the German Reformed Church, and a third, the community at large, on the outside of these two long established German confessions. Owing to circumstances which the Board had no power to control, the original purpose of the institution could never be carried into full effect. It remained at most a grammar school or academy rather than an actual college; and in this character its advantages, in the nature of the case, became local altogether, instead of general. It belonged to Lancaster more than to the German interest of Pennsylvania. In the meantime, however, its funds were increasing in value, and forming