John Witherspoon, Philosophical Rationalist
Jonathan Rowe on Jan 11th 2008
John Witherspoon was an important Founding Father. He was President of Princeton University, then The College of New Jersey and taught James Madison, and many other Founders. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister (in fact the only signer of the Declaration who was a minister). Witherspoon indeed remained an orthodox Christian when he preached from the pulpit. Yet, when he taught principles of politics, he left his Calvinism at the door and instead turned to the Scottish Enlightenment.
Witherspoon imparted his political philosophy to his students at Princeton through his Lectures on Moral Philosophy. Those lectures lack orthodox Christian content and are naturalistic and rationalistic in their approach. As it were, likely Witherspoon the naturalist and rationalist, not Witherspoon the Calvinist influenced James Madison et al. As Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden point out in “The Search For Christian America,” though Witherspoon, in Scotland, defended orthodoxy against Enlightenment thinkers David Hume and Francis Hutcheson, in his Lectures he “turned instinctively to the books of his erstwhile theological opponents, Hume, Hutcheson, and other philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment.” pp. 88-89, see also Gregg Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” PhD Diss., p. 278.
In other words, like the theistic rationalists whom he influenced, Witherspoon attempted to synthesize Christianity with Enlightenment rationalism, but managed to do so while remaining an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. As Dr. Frazer points out, the difference between Witherspoon and the theistic rationalists was that Witherspoon confined his naturalism and rationalism to the realm of politics and morality, not theology. When such naturalism and rationalism was applied more generally to theological matters, it led Madison et al. to abandon orthodox Christianity for theistic rationalism. Ibid. p. 280.
As Witherspoon begins his Lectures:
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.
Witherspoon then defends the use of reason in religion, but concludes that if applied properly reason and revelation will always agree:
Hence arises a question, is it lawful, and is it safe or useful, to separate moral philosophy from religion ? It will be said, it is either the same or different from revealed truth; if the same, unnecessary—if different, false and dangerous.
[...]
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?
[...]
I do not know any thing that serves more for the support of religion than to see, from the different and opposite systems of philosophers, that there is nothing certain in their schemes, but what is coincident with the word of God.
Some there are, and perhaps more in the present than any former age, who deny the law of nature, and say, that all such sentiments as have been usually ascribed to the law of nature are from revelation and tradition. We must distinguish here between the light of nature and the law of nature: by the first is to be understood what we can or do discover by our own powers, without revelation or tradition : by the second, that which, when discovered, can be made appear to be agreeable to reason and nature.
So what we’ve seen is Witherspoon, in these Lectures, elevates the discoveries of reason to the same level as scripture — infallible, states that reason and revelation will always agree, but proceeds to construct his political teachings on reason alone without citing verses and chapters of scripture at all.
As Noll, Hatch, and Marsden put it:
Witherspoon did not derive his politics from the Bible. He did not think the Christian God had a specific role to play in public life, where the rule of nature prevailed. And he did not worry about assuming an Enlightenment perspective on political matters. Noll, et al., 90-91
Witherspoon’s rationalistic perspective certainly profoundly differed from Francis Schaffer’s.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bookshelf, The Bureau
Leo Strauss said something along the line that theology and philosophy must be open to each other’s challenges. Witherspoon takes up a tradition of playing on the other fellow’s home field, as Aquinas did. Remember, Aquinas also offered that revelation, if true, must be reconcilable with reason, and so nothing is lost in playing on reason’s home ground.
Neither is a victory in front of revelation’s own home crowd very useful. Gotta take your game on the road.
Now, if you judge my own writing here & there on the internet, you’d find me arguing from theology extremely seldom, except to clear up misconceptions by the philosophically-minded who haven’t done their homework on the actual content of Christian theology. One might think I’m a secular progressive!
Which this Christian Nationist did, as you recall, Jon, along with you and Dr. Frazer and a number of your colleagues.
So, when we notice certain Founders’ canons lack a critical mass of religiosity, we shouldn’t take their silence as conclusive. They would know full well that making theology-based arguments to the untheologically-inclined would hurt their case. For example, I also seldom mention Leo Strauss in any neutral forum because the left has demonized him as the godfather of the neo-cons, making Strauss as helpful to my case as Mark Fuhrman was in the O.J. trial.
It must also again be noted that the Constitution would never have been signed and ratified by those who found it in major conflict with their religious beliefs. A silence like that would have been unacceptable to any man of conscience. Reason and revelation—except for the intractable sui generis that was slavery—were sufficiently reconciled by leaving to the states all sorts of religious prerogatives.
[BTW, the author of the link above, James J. Goswick, scored on a number of points, particularly with many quotes indicating that "religion" to the Founders most often referred to sectarianism, the competition between various denominations of Christianity for political power. The use of the term "religion" in its 21st century sense by those who want a "neutral"---read "atheistic"---public square misses and misuses the original intent of the First Amendment.]
Jon, I don’t know enough about Witherspoon, but I wonder if you’re forcing an either/or when a both/and is just as plausible. I refer you back to my “Two books approach” posting on this blog, just over a month ago.
Indeed, Witherspoon can be viewed as downright Thomistic in these Lectures.
Jim,
I think you are right that it isn’t and either or. I really like your approach to evangelical Christianity, but, and I hope this doesn’t offend you, I might term your beliefs “liberal” evangelicalism or “moderate” to say the least. Certainly, the approach put forth by Francis Schaffer distinguishes from yours, Witherspoon’s and Roman Catholics’.
No offense. I actually think there are several things to like about Francis Schaffer. And I teach Sunday School at a conservative evangelical church. So let’s say I’m a conservative-moderate-liberal or perhaps a liberal-moderate conservative. LOL.
Seriously, I kinda wonder what I am. I have some other blog posts in mind that I plan to post here on our blog. But those pieces are much harder to write than most of what I write about (politics and ideological marketing), in part, because even though I have a tradition from which to draw for every thing I (provisionally) believe, I know of no one who puts it all together the same way I do. And to make matters worse, I still feel terribly uninformed about so many things.
BTW, Tom Van Dyke’s comment about those of us who believe in revelation, “taking our game on the road,” really resonates with me.
I don’t believe I’ve ever written anywhere that I believe in revelation, Jim, but thx for the props.
Ahh, you’re a hyper-corrector. LOL. I was referring to your comment above. Please, clarify how you would like it described in a sentence or less.
Jim, although I’m always willing to argue for the possibility of Christianity, what I believe or don’t is irrelevant and tends to gum up the works, so I leave it out.
Playing on the other fellow’s field. You know. Besides, as a putative Roman Catholic, I might find myself arguing for the possibility that John Calvin is right about this or that, even if I don’t agree with a word. The inquiry must remain open.
That’s interesting Jim; maybe when all is said and done, you will have coined an original Christian theology.
[...] A response to this. [...]
[...] James Madison, like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and probably George Washington and other of America’s key Founders, was a theological unitarian. Though Madison studied under the Calvinist minister John Witherspoon at Princeton, Madison never credited Witherspoon as a religious influence. And the sometimes repeated notion that Witherspoon turned Madison into a Calvinist is otherwise without merit. Witherspoon himself flirted with rationalism and chiefly taught his Princeton students, in his political lectures, rationalism and naturalism, not Calvinist orthodoxy. [...]