Reason and Faith at Early Princeton: Piety and the Knowledge of God

Piety and the Knowledge of God

O. Anderson

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137443298
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Cristianismo

Teaching piety and the highest good have been goals from the beginning of the Academy. Princeton University and Theological Seminary had their start in these same ideas. This book explores the concepts of reason and faith at early Princeton by looking at how this institution was shaped by a pursuit of piety and the knowledge of God.

William Tennent, Jr.

1

Context and Goals of Early Princeton

Abstract: Princeton University, originally the College of New Jersey, was founded out of the need to train ministers for the Presbyterian Church. William Tennent Sr. met this need by starting the Log College that occupied an official position of training ministers. As schools in New England increasingly departed from Reformed Orthodoxy, Presbyterians were hesitant to send students to these colleges for training. When the First Great Awakening created a revival in religious piety the need for a college to train ministers became clear. The founding purpose of the college was to train ministers in piety, which requires knowing God and the duty that God requires of humans. From the beginning the knowledge of God was mixed with the beatific vision in the afterlife.

Anderson, Owen. Reason and Faith at Early Princeton: Piety and the Knowledge of God. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137443298.0005.

Cicero: We must investigate where that supreme good that we want to discover is to be found. Pleasure has been eliminated from the inquiry, and pretty much the same objections hold against those who maintained that the ultimate good was freedom from pain. Indeed no good should be declared supreme if it is lacking in virtue, since nothing can be superior to that.¹

Princeton University was founded to teach its students vital piety, to train ministers for the church, and to provide a liberal arts education more broadly. These were understood to lead to the supreme or highest good, the glory of God. Princeton Seminary was later founded to take over the role of training ministers for the church with a continued emphasis on piety. The Seminary’s first professor, Archibald Alexander, specified that it was intended to avoid the errors of deistic rationalism on the one hand, and religious enthusiasm not grounded in truth, on the other. Because of these goals Princeton University and Princeton Seminary have a unique place in the history of education in America. It is arguable that they represent a high-water mark in Christianity and education in the United States.

Their position at that pinnacle is because of their relationship to historic Christianity and knowledge. If we understand historic Christianity to be “continuing in the teaching of the Apostles” (Acts 2: 42) and the work of the pastor/teachers to equip the Church to be built up in the knowledge of God (Eph 4: 11–13) then we can trace a line of this work as it is summarized in the creeds/confessions that represent the work of the best minds coming together to address a challenge in a manner consistent with the teaching of the Apostles. This is true for the first council in Jerusalem where the challenge was the relation of being saved to the signs of the covenant (in that case circumcision, although it applies to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as well), or councils such as Nicaea and Chalcedon that deal with the dual nature of Christ and the Trinity. But it is also true for the Reformation and the doctrines of soteriology taught by Luther and Calvin. Through a century and a half of great dispute the doctrines of the Reformation came to expression in the Westminster Confession of Faith. This Confession was the last of the Reformed Confessions and summarized the work of the Reformation after much discussion.

Benjamin Warfield (a Princeton Theologian) argued that the Westminster Confessions stands as the pinnacle of the Reformed Confessions because of its uniting all of the Christian life in the chief end of man as the glory of God. This is in contrast to other Reformed creeds such as the Heidelberg Catechism, which focuses on man’s comfort. The Westminster Confession was an influence in the New England Colonies as early as 1648, and was made the official doctrinal standard for the Presbyterians that started Princeton by the Adopting Act of 1729. Part of the present study is to think about this Confession’s content, its influence on early Princeton, and its role at the University and Seminary since their beginnings in 1746 and 1812.

The Westminster Confession begins with epistemology (the study of knowledge). It affirms that humans can know God through the light of nature (reason), creation, and providence. However, the Scriptures are needed for the knowledge of redemption. Its affirmation of general revelation (what all persons at all times can know about God) and special revelation (redemptive revelation) gave Princeton the foundation on which to argue both against those who claim reason rejects the Bible (deistic rationalism) and those who claim reason cannot successfully be used to know God (enthusiasm).

This idea of a foundation has a prominent role in the present study. Foundation is closely connected to purpose. The founders of Princeton made it their purpose to teach piety, train ministers, and provide a liberal arts education. This purpose was founded on their belief that piety is closely attached to the chief end of man. Furthermore, it was their belief that work toward this highest goal is done through the Church. In contrast to other human institutions, the church is the redemptive institution and therefore is unique in its reliance on both general and special revelation to teach the knowledge of God. Finally, their goal of providing a liberal arts education is founded on their belief that reason can be used to attain knowledge in the various fields of human study.

It is in this context that the importance of Princeton can be measured. It stands in a unique relationship to historic Christianity and general revelation. While acceptance to Harvard originally required that the student make the glory of God the aim of studies and life, by the early 1700s Harvard was believed to increasingly be abandoning that purpose and orthodoxy itself. This led to the founding of Yale. However, as a Congregationalist school, while it held the Westminster Confession in regard it was not adhered to in the same way that the Presbyterians were able to do at Princeton. Presbyterians were obliged to send their students to a New England school with Congregationalist theology for them to get degrees that allowed them to be licensed for the ministry.

This increasingly became a problem because of both cost and inconvenience, as well as emerging theological differences. This came to expression in the case of David Brainerd. He was a student in favor of the revivals that were occurring in New England. He was overheard making a negative comment about the lack of grace in one of the Yale instructors. He was expelled and this caught the attention of Jonathan Dickinson. As a Presbyterian minister in New Jersey, Dickinson was interested in the state of education for prospective ministers. He attempted to get Brainerd reinstated but was not successful.

One of Brainerd’s concerns with Yale had to do with an emerging conflict between what came to be called the “New Lights” and the “Old Lights.” The former were in favor of revivals that had been occurring and the work of preachers such as George Whitfield. Such preachers sometimes questioned whether local ministers were actually Christians. This raised tension with those who came to be called the “Old Lights.” The Old Lights were doubtful about whether the revivals would have a beneficial and lasting impact, and had concerns about the revivals teaching errors about salvation and the means to salvation.

Brainerd caught Dickinson’s attention because of his role in the New Light revivals. He believed that the time had come for a Presbyterian school that would train ministers consistent with the New Light emphasis on teaching the Gospel and instilling vital piety. In his letter explaining the purpose of the school that was being started, he stated the three goals mentioned already: educated ministers, vital piety, and a liberal arts education.

Dickinson did not have to start from scratch. William Tennent Sr. had moved to Pennsylvania and been licensed for the ministry. He recognized the need for a school that would train Presbyterian ministers in both piety and New Light revivalism. He started a school in his house that was derisively called the “Log College” by those who had graduated from Harvard or Yale. It could not offer actual degrees but its students went on to become prominent ministers. When it was discontinued in the early 1940s, Dickinson put together a board that included William Tennant Jr. and other graduates of the Log College. Under their supervision he became the first president and only professor of the College of New Jersey. In the next chapter we will look more closely at the teachings of the Tennents and the role of those teachings at Princeton. For now the goal is to present the case for why Princeton is unique.

If the case has been made that Princeton began as the high-water mark in the history of Christian education, then this naturally raises the question of how well it has managed in that position. It was in that position because of its relation to historic Christianity and its goals of piety, church, and knowledge. No other school could claim to be training ministers in light of the Westminster Confession while at the same time emphasizing both piety and reason. As time passed these goals changed. For instance, by the early 1800s the University had gotten to a point of having almost no ministerial students. To solve this the Seminary was started. Leaving the liberal arts education to the University, the Seminary retained the goals of instilling piety while continuing to teach the doctrinal standards of the Westminster Confession.

As the 19th and 20th centuries passed, challenges arose to these goals. In order to meet these challenges the Princetonians relied on the foundation they had used to set these goals in place. Therefore, in order to understand how and why these challenges were replied to in a particular way we need to understand this foundation. Insofar as the goals of Princeton University and Seminary are not the same today as they were then, we can infer that a shift has occurred at this foundational level. To conclude as to whether this is a positive or negative shift, a shift that brings these schools closer to or farther away from the truth, we need to get that foundation into perspective.

Before turning to specific theologians who worked at founding and influencing early Princeton, it will be helpful to analyze the main terms used in their work for those schools. The first is “piety.” To be pious means to love and reverence God. Therefore, the central problem will be to make sure one is not pious toward an idol or false representation of God. True piety must be directed at the true God. If piety is of benefit it cannot be directed toward a fiction. Yet given the multiplicity of definitions of “God,” the reality is that many pious people are pious toward a conceptual idol. We can say that they have the appearance of piety without the reality of piety.

No one wants to have false piety, nor does anyone say of himself or herself that his or her piety is directed toward a fiction. However, to avoid this error the first step of knowing the true God must be in place before piety can become a meaningful term for discussion. For example, in Virgil’s Aeneid, which is an epic tracing the founding of Rome by Aeneus, Aeneus says of himself “sum pius Aeneus,” (“I am pious Aeneus,”) and his actions and decisions are marked by his commitment to the commands of Jupiter and Venus. Similarly, in his dialogue On Moral Ends, Cicero and his interlocutor Cato agree that “Now we also give Jupiter the names of ‘Greatest’ and ‘Highest’; we call him our Saviour, our Shelter, our Defender. By this we mean that our security as humans rests on his protection.”² These are qualities that many Christians would agree about concerning God while also maintaining that Jupiter is a false idol.

Similarly, the Deists and Unitarians of the time of Princeton affirmed the qualities of God but denied the need for special revelation. Presumably there were Deists and Unitarians who viewed themselves as pious, yet Christian theists would say that they are not pious toward the true God. They have rejected important attributes and activities of God such as the work of God in human history for redemptive purposes. Or, between the competing soteriologies of the day, disputes about the ordo salutis, the order in which salvation is applied, involve disputes about the nature of God and His relationship to fallen humans. On the one hand, Calvinists argued that regeneration precedes conversion, while on the other Arminians argued either that conversion precedes regeneration or that human choice somehow contributes to regeneration. In the Arminian view, or modified Calvinist views that came out of Yale, God is made to wait on human choice or is not sovereign over human choice. Attempts were made to suggest that God regenerates those whom he foresees would choose him, but this still subordinates God to the human will. These are two very different views of the sovereignty and therefore nature of God. To be pious toward the incorrect view is to be pious toward a conceptual mistake about God.

The emphasis on piety by Dickinson and the other founders of Princeton assumes that they desired actual piety, and not merely the appearance of piety. This implies that they were confident in their understanding of God in contrast to the alternatives being offered. Their emphasis on the human ability to know God implies that they were not simply confident in a blind fideistic way, but believed that the eternal power and divine nature of God could be demonstrated. This is what Archibald Alexander was intending when he identified one of the challenges of the day to be deistical rationalism.

I do not think that the Princetonians would limit their concerns about false representations of God to deism. When we read Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology we see that one of the three volumes is dedicated to the knowledge of God and arguments in favor of theism against all of the alternative views. If we understand “God” to play the role of the metaphysical absolute in the Christian worldview, then to argue for theism as the true conception of God is by implication to argue against the alternative metaphysical absolutes in competing worldviews. This includes “naturalism” which makes the material world its metaphysical absolute. Naturalism, in contrast to deism, became the most significant challenge against the purposes and teaching of Princeton and today is the accepted and expected worldview for those working in academia.

In seeking to train ministers for the Church the Princetonians built on their view of piety. Ministers were needed to instill a vital piety in the people. That this occurs through the Church, as opposed to abandoning the Church for some other institution such as the classroom or charity organizations, shows us that the Princetonians continued to believe that the Church is the redemptive institution in human society. For a minister to instill piety in the people the minister must himself know God and be communicating that knowledge to the Church members. This is the only way to avoid false piety. This knowledge of God in the Church context includes that God can be known, that humans are not seeking, not understanding, and not doing what is right and therefore stand in need of redemption, and that the redemptive purposes of God are known in special revelation. When we study the sermons of the First Great Awakening we see that the emphasis is on the second of these three points, while “God” and his nature are taken as a gi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Context and Goals of Early Princeton
• 2  The Tennents and Revivals
• 3  Jonathan Edwards
• 4  John Witherspoon
• 5  Archibald Alexander
• 6  Samuel Miller
• 7  Charles Hodge
• 8  The Reformed Influence on Common Sense Philosophy
• 9  The Fall and Original Sin
• Conclusion
• Glossary of Names and Terms
• Bibliography
• Index