OLD PRINCETON APOLOGETICS: COMMON SENSE OR REFORMED?, THE

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2003 by McConnel, Tim

At its founding, Princeton Theological Seminary was given the specific apologetical task of equipping its students to combat the deistic errors of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. This played a significant role in the development of its apologetics, as it tended to take over the argumentation of previous apologists who had attempted the same task, without regard to whether they were Reformed or not. Thus, Bishop Butler's eighteenth-century work, The Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed, became a standard reference work for apologetics classes, in spite of the fact that Butler had repudiated his strict Calvinistic Presbyterian upbringing to embrace a moderate Anglicanism.1

While apologetics was a significant concern, it was certainly not the sole focus of the major Princetonian theologians. Archibald Alexander, the founding professor of Princeton, taught both didactic and polemical theology. Charles Hodge began his academic career as an exegete of Scripture, and later moved to systematic theology, for which he is better known.2 His son Archibald Alexander Hodge replaced him in the chair of didactic and polemic theology, and he in turn was replaced by Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. None of these noted professors served explicitly in the chair of apologetics, which was only created in the later part of the nineteenth century. However, Warfield, a prolific writer, frequently addressed apologetical themes in his writings. A later, lesser known Princetonian, William Brenton Greene, Jr., occupied the Stuart Professorship of Apologetics and Christian Ethics from 1892 until his death in 1928.3 He thus taught as a contemporary of Benjamin B. Warfield, during the last decades of "Old Princeton." As the professor in apologetics of that era, Greene warrants careful consideration. In order to better understand his apologetics, attention must first be paid to what is meant by "Old Princeton," and then to the background philosophy of Scottish Common Sense Realism, before turning to an exposition and evaluation of his apologetics. It will be shown that his apologetics betray an inner tension, even inconsistency, between a Calvinist Reformed approach and one engendered by Scottish philosophy.

I. "OLD PRINCETON"

In order to understand the context of the apologetics of William Brenton Greene, Jr., it is first necessary to define "Old Princeton." This term refers to the consistent theological approach used at Princeton Theological Seminary from its founding in 1812 until the death of its last great exponent, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, in 1921.4 Several distinctives marked Old Princeton. First, it held a high view of Scripture and was unwavering in its commitment to its authority. This had been true of the Reformed tradition since the Reformation, and was the common, almost universal, position in antebellum American Christianity. Secondly, it was self-consciously confessionally Reformed, with a strict adherence to the seventeenth-century Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.5 This was in marked contrast to the American culture of the day, which was moving away from confessionalism to broad evangelicalism, even to the point of anti-confessionalism. Thirdly, Old Princeton stood staunchly for "Old School" Presbyterianism, and opposed the "New School," in both the separation of 1837 and in the reunion of 1869.6 This involved the Princetonians in the thick of the denominational battles of the day, which was made more pointed by the fact that Princeton Theological Seminary itself was under the direct control of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.7 This situation was in contrast to the numerous other Presbyterian seminaries, which operated under independent, self-perpetuating boards. Fourthly, it accepted Scottish Common Sense Realism as the philosophical basis on which to develop epistemology and apologetics.

What does "acceptance" mean? This point has been clearly noted and argued by numerous scholars since Sydney Ahlstrom's seminal article, "The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology." Some, such as John Vander Stelt and Nancey Murphy attribute the Princetonians' general theological positions to their acceptance of Common Sense Realism. Mark Noll and Paul Helseth, while not denying its presence, provide arguments against an overemphasis on the influence of the Scottish philosophy.8 Helseth, for example, argues that while common sense realism provided the "framework" for the Old Princetonians, they were not rationalists, because they clearly recognized the subjective aspect of epistemology, and saw the soul acting as a unitary subject.9 The use of common language and argumentation make it clear that the Old Princetonians were influenced to some degree by the Scottish philosophy.

In fact, the impact of Common Sense Realism is much more readily apparent in the theology of antebellum Unitarianism and the New Haven Theology, and especially in the anthropology of Charles Finney at Oberlin, who taught human ability to respond to the gospel, apart from any special work of the Holy Spirit. The acceptance, in some sense, of Scottish Common Sense Realism by the Old Princetonians would have been in general agreement with the American culture of the day, although Princeton lingered in its adherence late in the nineteenth century when American intellectual currents were moving in different directions.