Friday, February 13, 2009

John Witherspoon On Reason, Revelation & Politics

John Witherspoon was both an orthodox Christian and a philosophical rationalist, a man of the Enlightenment. There is evidence in the historical record of Witherspoon giving orthodox sermons. However, as President of Princeton University (then The College of New Jersey) when he taught James Madison and many other Founders political theory, Witherspoon turned to the teachings of the Scottish Enlightenment, not orthodox Calvinism. And that's because Calvinism spoke little to what the American Founders accomplished politically.

I blogged more about that here.

I must note that the "rationalism" he embraced, even if termed "enlightenment rationalism," Witherspoon thought entirely compatible with and complementary towards revelation. In this sense he was not unlike Aquinas. Witherspoon in his Lectures on Moral Philosophy wrote "[t]here is nothing certain or valuable in moral philosophy, but what is perfectly coincident with the scripture."

Here is how Witherspoon, in those Lectures, explained his view on how reason and revelation were supposed to work together:

If the Scripture is true, the discoveries of reason cannot be contrary to it; and, therefore, it has nothing to fear from that quarter. And as we are certain it can do no evil, so there is a probability that it may do much good. There may be an illustration and confirmation of the inspired writings, from reason and observation, which will greatly add to their beauty and force.

The noble and eminent improvements in natural philosophy, which have been made since the end of the last century, have been far from hurting the interest of religion; on the contrary, they have greatly promoted it, Why should it not be the same with moral philosophy, which is indeed nothing else but the knowledge of human nature?


Further, Witherspoon noted:

I am of opinion, that the whole Scripture is perfectly agreeable to sound philosophy; yet certainly it was never intended to teach us every thing. The political law of the Jews contains many noble principles of equity, and excellent examples to future lawgivers; yet it was so local and peculiar, that certainly it was never intended to be immutable and universal, It would be more just and useful to say that all simple and original discoveries have been the production of Providence, and not the invention of man.

On the whole, it seems reasonable to make moral philosophy, in the sense above explained, a subject of study. And indeed let men think what they will of it, they ought to acquaint themselves with it. They must know what it is, if they mean even to show that it is false.


On the very first page on Lectures, Witherspoon explains what "moral philosophy" is:

MORAL Philosophy is that branch of Science which treats of the principles and laws of Duty or Morals. It is called Philosophy, because it is an inquiry into the nature and grounds of moral obligation by reason, as distinct from revelation.


As noted above, when it came to political theory, there is no evidence that Witherspoon taught his students at Princeton the Bible or Calvinism. Rather he taught them this "moral philosophy" discovered by reason, as distinct from revelation, that was, Witherspoon asserted, ultimately compatible with the scriptures.

But make no mistake, compatibility with the Bible (and it's debatable whether Witherspoon's enlightenment political teachings WERE compatible with scripture) does not mean the Bible was from where Witherspoon's political teachings derived. As historian James McAllister summed it up:

The answer to the question regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoon's teaching about the law and liberty is: almost nothing ... his theory of society and civil laws was based not on revelation but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and experience.

-- James McAllister, “John Witherspoon: An Academic Advocate for Religious Freedom” in A Miscellany of American Christianity, ed. Stuart Henry (Durham: Duke University Press, 1963), p. 218.

28 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

We must keep in mind that McAllister's is merely a scholarly opinion, not authoritative truth. For instance, one's view of man---either "fallen" [biblical] or intrinsically good [Rousseau]---is already coloring the proceedings. Witherspoon favored the former.

Many folks are surprised when it turns out that Christianity has a long history of applying reason to moral problems. As it was with Aquinas, Witherspoon proposed to "meet the infidel on his own ground." Since reason and revelation must [!] meet in the same place, as Witherspoon notes, reason will convince the infidels of their errors!

This essay on John Witherspoon seems well worth it for context. It begins on p.61, takes a small dig at Mark Noll on p.67, and gets to its thesis on p. 68. The Scottish Enlightenment figures in well with American "common sense" as opposed to some of the more theoretical assertions of the "Enlightenment" in France.

Also worth noting is that "moral philosophy" in the 1700s included politics, economics, social psychology and just about everything that today is subspecialized in today's "social sciences." Locke, Adam Smith and Montesquieu would also be "moral philosophers."

bpabbott said...

Tom: "We must keep in mind that McAllister's is merely a scholarly opinion, not authoritative truth"

? ? ?

The claims of scholars are generaly much better approximations for truth than the claims of authority.

What is it you mean by "authoritative truth"?

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon: As noted above, when it came to political theory, there is no evidence that Witherspoon taught his students at Princeton the Bible or Calvinism. Rather he taught them this "moral philosophy" discovered by reason, as distinct from revelation, that was, Witherspoon asserted, ultimately compatible with the scriptures.

It depends what you mean by political theory. Witherspoon believed civil rights come from the Bible. He also believed religion and law cannot be divided. The Bible was king with Witherspoon. Man's reason is from God, not the enlightenment

Jonathan Rowe said...

He also believed religion and law cannot be divided. The Bible was king with Witherspoon.

Actually John Witherspoon in "Lectures" asserted that the Bible MUST be divided from politics. If he believed "religion" and "law" could not be divided, it was "natural religion" discovered from reason alone that would be the source of "law."

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon: If he believed "religion" and "law" could not be divided, it was "natural religion" discovered from reason alone that would be the source of "law."

Law from reason alone? I don't think so. You posted it yourself, Witherspoon believed reason is inferior to revelation:

"There may be an illustration and confirmation of the inspired writings, from reason and observation, which will greatly add to their beauty and force."

-Rowe's post of Witherspoon's Lectures

bpabbott said...

OFT: >> Witherspoon believed reason is inferior to revelation:

"There may be an illustration and confirmation of the inspired writings, from reason and observation, which will greatly add to their beauty and force."<<

OFT, You appear to have no understanding for logic, or the English language.

That quote indicates that reason *may* illustrate and confirm relevation.

Whether Witherspoon favors one over the other is not evident for this quote.

Our Founding Truth said...

That quote indicates that reason *may* illustrate and confirm relevation.>

Witherspoon said reason has to confirm revelation. They both come from the same source.

bpabbott said...

OFT:"Witherspoon said reason has to confirm revelation. They both come from the same source."

And when they are not congruent, what did Witherspoon favor? ... reason, or relevation?

"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable."
-- John Witherspoon

"may be" ? ... What did he mean?

"To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the subtance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, "The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, p. 265, "Sermon Delivered at Public Thanksgiving After Peace"

"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state - it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, "The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 101, "Civil Society", Lecture XII

The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 17 May 1776:

"There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.…

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigour, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed.…

That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.…

It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.
"

The part bearing repitition is ...

"It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier."

No mention of a revealed authority.

Our Founding Truth said...

If you think an orthodox Christian like Witherspoon believed reason superior over Sola Scriptura, good luck convincing anyone.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Nice to see you using quotes, Ben. This natural law via reason thing and where revelation fits into the equation is very tricky. It takes a sympathetic listener to even begin to penetrate what they were going for, a unity of revelation and reason.

The main reason is that "natural law" theology/philosophy is admittedly vague and remains unsettled to this very day. Thomas Aquinas has many critics on the philosophical level and few defenders. Still, he was the main influence on Rev. Richard Hooker, whom all the Founders read, and John Locke, too.

My own view is that a belief in "natural law" still remains a belief and not that the existence of "natural law" is a fact, and that proposition is evidenced by our contemporary disagreements. However, the belief by the Founders in the existence of a "natural law" is, I think, fundamental here.

That the Founders apparently believed in a providential [One] God, and also believed in the existence of a "natural law," whatever it may be, is my baseline. The Trinity stuff, eh.

That even the theological outlier John Adams believed that Christianity came from God and not man's reason, and that he thought the Bible "is the best book in the world," well, that notion is far beyond our realm of agreement, our lingua franca, at this time.

And far beyond your Kevin Phillipses, I think. No, we're not going to reestablish the Puritans in 2009, Kevin. Pish-posh. The Puritans [and their heirs] disestablished themselves! Theocracy in America is no real threat and hasn't been since the 1600s, you twit. [Phillips, not you, Ben.]

Although some folks hereabouts are impatient to move on past the Founding, I think we should hang with this blog's own Founding purpose for awhile.

Despite the assertions of various scholars as to what was what, it's virgin territory in its way, and I think we're doing worthwhile work here. Let's kick it around some more.

Tom Van Dyke said...

And as for you, Brother OFT, you made some very tidy arguments at the beginning and might have been content with them, but crossed over the line once again. Sola scriptura was not an operative dynamic at the Founding. Not even John Witherspoon, who is your theological ally, argues sola scriptura and if you've been following Jonathan's argument and some excellent quotes, you would acknowledge that.

You'll either learn the lingua franca of this blog and the national discussion, or you're going to disqualify yourself from all this, the only forum anywhere that gives you the time of day.

C'mon, Jim. Are you hearing this discussion atall?---Witherspoon proposed to "meet the infidel on his own ground."

The Rev. John Witherspoon was one of the most intelligent, well-read, sensitive, religious and influential men of the Founding, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. He chose to reach out via reason because he was confident his beliefs---scripture---would hold up under the scrutiny of reason.
It would be wise to take a page from his book, reading or writing.

We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.---G.K. Chesterton

Our Founding Truth said...

Tom: You'll either learn the lingua franca of this blog and the national discussion, or you're going to disqualify yourself from all this, the only forum anywhere that gives you the time of day.

Give me a break! You should check yourself if you are a part of this pathetic management; allowing profanity on this blog! Disqualified? How funny. I'd get more props cursing.

Regardless of the language Witherspoon used at Princeton, reason comes from the Bible, not the enlightenment.

Reason written on the heart is biblical, Moses, as I've discovered, wrote about it in the Torah. If someone doesn't like the language Witherspoon used at Princeton, that's their problem; there is no contradiction in any of his writings.

"God grant that in America true religion [Christianity] and civil liberty [Civil Rights] may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue, tend to the support and establishment of both." [bold face mine]

-Witherspoon, "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, you have good arguments in there which I hope you'll keep developing. The essay I linked to gives Witherspoon a lot of influence in the Founding.

As for the cursing, management seems to have missed it, and I hope they'll tend to it. Neither am I happy about the religious bigotry of at least one of our commenters, nor their personal attacks when they get frustrated that they have no intelligent counterarguments.

But that is the way of the internet. Personal attacks signal they have run out of ideas, if they had any in the first place.

bpabbott said...

OFT: "If you think an orthodox Christian like Witherspoon believed reason superior over Sola Scriptura, good luck convincing anyone."

I've met the burden of supplying proof. Where is your's?

I'll also point out that I have no desire to pervert the intended meaning of the founders words. If I find them objectionalble, I'll critique them directly ... I will *not* attempt to spin them into something incongruent with their intent.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "This natural law via reason thing and where revelation fits into the equation is very tricky. It takes a sympathetic listener to even begin to penetrate what they were going for, a unity of revelation and reason."

I agree completely. I remain uncertain as to what the founders meant by natural law. I suppose some thought of natural law as being synomymous with physical laws (an impirical view).

Others certainly had a more spiritual perspective. Which would include a sentient law giver. Ironically, "sentience" indicates the ability for subjective perception, but those who plead for such a law giver often imply an objective source ... shrugs.

Tom: "[...] some folks hereabouts are impatient to move on past the Founding"

I think the motive here is the interaction bewteen the curent law and the founders intent. Much of the restrictions the founders intended of the federal government have been become constraints upon other forms of governance. In the context of current events (school prayer, abortion, intelligent design) it is impossible to ignore the effect of the 14th amendment.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The concept of "natural law is pretty straightforward: that there exists an objective, not subjective, natural moral order. It applies to man and how he should live, not to planets and gravity and stuff.

The question is how it applied to God, scriptures, etc. Hugo Grotius [and the Schoolmen] argued that even if there were no God, the natural law would still be "in force."

Locke seems to disagree; the question is whether the Founders understood him to be disagreeing with Grotius against natural law itself, or if they understood Locke to be going a religious step further, that God is the lawgiver, enforcer, etc.

Since even Jefferson himself says God is just and fears "supernatural interference" as punishment for the offense against the natural law that was chattel slavery, it seems to me the latter view of Locke was the Founders'.

Our Founding Truth said...

Since even Jefferson himself says God is just and fears "supernatural interference">

Where did he say that?

bpabbott said...

Tom: "The concept of "natural law is pretty straightforward: that there exists an objective, not subjective, natural moral order. It applies to man and how he should live, not to planets and gravity and stuff."

I find a contradiction in your comment. Certainly planets and gravity and such obey natural law and are objective.

Personally, I think there is an objective means to determine morality, I also think that means is the same that reveals the laws governing gravity, the planets, and such (although the time need and resources required are very different).

Thus, I'm confused by your comment.

Do you imply that gravity is not natural? ... not governed by natural law? ... or somemthing else?

Jonathan Rowe said...

It applies to man and how he should live, not to planets and gravity and stuff.

I think as FFs like Jefferson understood the concept, it applied to both. In the modern era, we might "understand" that the "laws of nature" or "natural law" teaches NOTHING regarding how man shall live and ONLY applies to "planets and gravity and stuff." But to Jefferson and the other rationalist FFs, both were the same: Science and morals were one and the other. The same laws that told us how to live also told us of Newton's discoveries and that God was unitary not triune in nature and that arguably many of the unbelievable things recorded in the Bible did not occur as the "sacred text" records.

Tom Van Dyke said...

OFT,

http://books.google.com/books?id=M2t2AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA227&lpg=RA2-PA227&dq=jefferson+memorial+supernatural+interference&source=web&ots=cKny-_0YoM&sig=nrzGo3x7qAcImcaTiLdMN40hnIE&hl=en&ei=BuOYSenBIqCSsQPPyJSMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result


Ben [and Jon], since I've been straddling the understandings of Locke and natural law between how they are perceived by scholars today and how he and natural law were understood by the Founders, I may have introduced some confusion. I hope these clear it up:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3983

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Our Founding Truth said...

I looked at that comment by Jefferson. He rejected the supernatural, so he was probably mistaken or he means by natural processes, which isn't supernatual. Check it out again.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The quote is consistent with providentialism. We're speaking of natural law here. I don't think you're quite following the argument. It's tricky, I admit, to put our 21st century sensibilities back into the 1700s. But in their way, even the least orthodox of the Founders had more "fear of the Lord" than we do today.

Our Founding Truth said...

The quote is consistent with providentialism.>

That's what I thought as well. God's Providence (Sovereignty) is a little different than God's immediate intervention of the Law of Nature. Providence is different than God doing a miracle, no?

bpabbott said...

OFT: "God's Providence (Sovereignty) is a little different than God's immediate intervention of the Law of Nature. Providence is different than God doing a miracle, no?"

How is "God's Providence" different than a miracle? Neither is the result of the laws of nature. If any effect is the product of a supernatural cause, then I think it qualifies as a miracle ... or at least magic.

Our Founding Truth said...

How is "God's Providence" different than a miracle? Neither is the result of the laws of nature.>

Look up the definition of both.

bpabbott said...

OFT: "Look up the definition of both."

Divine Providence: "In theology, Divine Providence, or simply Providence, is the sovereignty, superintendence, or agency of God over events in people's lives and throughout history."

Miracle: "A miracle is a sensibly perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker."
[emphasis is mine]

Sounds the same to me. Each are the effects of supernatural causes. The only quality that I see distinguishing to two is that a miracle would be perceptually obvious. Meaning the difference is of the degree of human perception. However a perception is not an attribute of the event, but of the observer.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jefferson believed in Providence, and used the term "supernatural interference."

However, he did not believe in "miracles." Make of that what you will.

Jefferson's theological epigone John Adams did believe in miracles, however, as evidenced by his March 2, 1756 diary entry. We shall make of that what we will, too, probably nothing. This correspondent yields the floor...

Jeffrey Dean said...

Modern American Christians notoriously seek to make the founding fathers members of their exclusive "club" simply because of their religious upbringing and like to paint America as some "Christian" nation who has "fallen" from it's Biblical foundations.

One comment here stated that human rights has it's origins in the Bible, ignoring the painfully obvious fact that most of the "Bible" belt states were slavery states and most of the strides of the oppressed in this nation in the history of civil rights have been struggles of the oppressed against the opressive "Bible believing" so called Christians. They want us to forget this.

Incidentally, one commentator here seemed to suggest that the notion of man as morally "fallen" is Biblical. I can easily disprove this notion using many scriptures!