Tutor HuntResources History Resources

The Place Of Natural Religion In Thomas Halyburton`s Theology

I investigate a work written by Thomas Halyburton, a late 17th century theologian and preacher. I argue that reason, in addition to faith, forms an essential part of his theology.

Date : 05/10/2020

Author Information

Robbie

Uploaded by : Robbie
Uploaded on : 05/10/2020
Subject : History

The Place of Natural Religion in Thomas Halyburton s Theology

Reason is given its due place, for even in the soul`s deepest experience there is nothing contradictory to reason but the real confidence comes when scri pture and Experience join [1]

Sitting somewhere in-between a secular and a religious understanding of the Enlightenment is Scottish theologian and minister Thomas Halyburton. A contemporary as far away as London understood Halyburton as a sort of brimstone-preacher, lifting high The Sword... see HALYBURTON on the mounds, the camp Of Deism rush, and triumph o er its powers .[2] My aim in this essay is to show that Halyburton was not the type of fanatical, anti-reason preacher some imagined him to be. I aim to show that reason is an integral part of his theology, both for the discovery of some religious truths, as well as for its use in the defence of revelation. A subsidiary aim of this essay is to dispute the idea that religious discourse was withering away into the foothills of the Enlightenment .[3] To accomplish these aims, I will examine Halyburton s posthumously published Natural Religion Insufficient.[4] This work criticises arguments put forward by deists , and showcases Halyburton s theology throughout. I cannot convey the entirety of his arguments in this essay, so I have selected the discussions I think have the most relevance to the place of reason in his theology. I will begin by analysing the areas where he seems most critical of the abilities of reason. I will demonstrate that he argues reason is insufficient to discover the true nature of God, and argue he thinks reason cannot discover a specific kind of higher happiness. After this I will analyse the arguments where Halyburton does find value in reason. I will begin by arguing that he thinks some religious truths can be known without revelation. Finally, I will establish that Halyburton s use of evidence and experience shows that he believes reason, and reasoned arguments, are essential for a complete understanding of theology. By the end of this essay, I aim to have demonstrated that Halyburton holds reason in high regard and views it, alongside revelation, as an essential symbiotic component in his theology.

Before I begin my analysis, it is necessary to establish the context within which Halyburton was writing. Halyburton was writing at the end of the 17th century and the early 18th century. Religious questions, and answers to these questions, were immensely important to him and his contemporaries.[5] Natural theology was the belief that some truths could be found through reason alone, without the aid of scri pture. Such encroaches of reason upon religion could have far reaching consequences. If God could be known without the use of the bible, then revelation was not necessary to prove the existence of God.[6] Thomas Aikenhead, a student at the University of Edinburgh, was executed for Blasphemy in January 1697 for arguing that the Old Testament was fabricated by Ezra, and for questioning Christ s abilities.[7] We must be cautious, however, to assume this meant that religious ideas critical of revelation could not be questioned in Scotland. Michael Hunter and Michael Graham have shown that Aikenhead s polemic and inconsiderate utterances, as well as the particularly sensitive religious and political climate, contributed greatly to his execution.[8] Historians of the Enlightenment have regularly emphasised its secularising nature, often interpreting revealed religion as antithetical.[9] One of the earliest and well known examples of this is Peter Gay s The Enlightenment: An Interpretation.[10] A notable break from the secularisation narrative came from David Sorkin s The Religious Enlightenment.[11] Sorkin argued that such secular narratives of the Enlightenment were cardboard character representation[s] .[12] Interestingly, despite the importance of this work in subsequent historiography, newer works like Margaret Jacob s The Secular Enlightenment continue to push the sorts of narratives that Sorkin wrote against.[13] With this context in mind, I will begin my analysis of Halyburton s Insufficient.

Examination of Halyburton s argument on the nature of God shows he was critical of the abilities of reason without revelation. He argues that man, without revelation, cannot come to know the true nature of God. He begins this argument in the fourth chapter of Insufficient by criticising deist views on the abilities of man. It is not immediately obvious which deists Halyburton is referring to, but he does cite Charles Blount s Oracles of Reason. This explains his non-specificity, as this work contained the writings of several deist writers.[14] Terms like deist or atheist were often used as smear words against writers who criticised some aspect of religious thought often those making objections to scri ptures and Christianity.[15] Wayne Hudson points out that many writers that received the epithet of deist were more complex figures than polemical characterizations from the period suggest .[16] Robert Sullivan similarly argues this term is a matter of convenience rather than an aid to analysis .[17] We should be mindful then that the term deist represents a set of general characteristics rather than a concrete and accurate definition. Halyburton argues these deists believe that God extended a portion of His infinite wisdom, goodness and power to man.[18] The abilities God imbued in man, they argue, allow man to discover the nature of God without the need for revelation. However, Halyburton criticises the suggestion that we can come to know with accuracy what powers we have been given. It seems a little presumptuous for us to prescribe, or measure what was fit for GOD to do, by what appears to us fit to have been done .[19] We cannot pretend to know what powers God would extend to us, for His Councils are too deep for us . To think that this or that fit for GOD can only result in weak and presumptuous Conjecture .[20] Halyburton is then demonstrably sceptical about the powers of reason, arguing that we cannot come to know God through powers He extended to us. We cannot know the extent of the powers we have by enquiring into them.[21] It is apparent that Halyburton finds the deist argument insufficient for proving that unassisted reason is sufficient to know God, and I argue this shows he is critical of the abilities of reason. The only way to know the extent of our abilities is to judge what Man can do by what he has done .[22] To do this, Halyburton examines written works from pre-Christian societies.

Halyburton s discussion on pagan texts demonstrates that he rejects the argument that natural religion without revelation can reveal the true nature of God. He echoes a perspective that captures his own position quite succinctly, helping to show how critical he is about the abilities of unassisted reason. Pagan writers were Giants... in all other Kinds of Literature... [but] Dwarfs in Divinity .[23] These writers failed to discover things even the most ignorant of Christians know.[24] Despite being such erudite philosophers, their lack of knowledge of religious truths demonstrated to Halyburton the insufficiency of reason to discover such truths. He emphasises this, arguing only a few of them were positive that there are no mo Gods save one .[25] He argues some came close, and had give[n] the best Accounts , but his quick qualification of this reinforces his critical stance. These accounts were wavering and uncertain... seem[ed] positive in one Place, and immediately... seem[ed] to be uncertain and fluctuating .[26] He targets Charles Blount specifically, criticising his assertion that such knowledge of God was sufficient for discovery.[27] It is his criticism of Christian writers, however, that really demonstrates his scepticism towards the abilities of reason. He specifically targets M. Dacier s Life of Plato, a work he argues put Constructions on Plato s words, and attempted to reconcile pagan philosophy with Christian theology.[28] Halyburton denounces Dacier s assertion that Plato knew of the three persons of the trinity. He argues instead that Plato thought of the Three Persons of the Deity as of Three [distinct] Gods , showing Plato knew neither the Trinity, not the One true GOD .[29] This demonstrates that Halyburton did not believe that pagan writers could come to such religious truths. Instead, the Light, whereby those Discoveries have been made, was borrowed from the scri ptures .[30] This is a clear indication he thought that revelation was vital for the proper discovery of a deity and reason alone could not obtain it. This critical stance against reason is also prevalent in his discussion on the nature of man s happiness.

Halyburton s rejection of unassisted reason s ability to discover the true nature of man s happiness further evidences his critical stance of reason. His definition of happiness in the sixth chapter of Insufficient is, broadly, the eternal Enjoyment of God after Time .[31] For Halyburton, happiness as a phenomenon stretches past worldly experience and is bound to the knowledge and worship of God. This happiness exists in a time after death, and this time is infinite. By stating that by the meer Light of Nature... is not able to discover wherein Happiness lies , we can clearly see the limitations he puts on reason.[32] As in his discussion on the discovery of a deity, he turns to the lack of uncovering from the pagans to demonstrate his point. He provides the definitions of happiness from several pagan philosophers, including Cicero, Seneca and Plato, and deems them insufficient because they all fail acknowledge happiness after death. For Cicero, despite all of his great works, there was not one Word of GOD the Enjoyment of him, or any Thing of that Kind, which favours Life after this .[33] Cicero failed both to understand the temporal aspect of ultimate happiness, as well as the importance of the following and worship of God. Similarly for Seneca, in his De Vita Veara, we are to look for no more Words about Eternity .[34] Seneca too failed to appreciate the temporal aspect of happiness. Plato, however, Speaks somewhat liker Truth than others as he wrote that Happiness consists in the Knowledge of the chief Good... That to be made like GOD is the chief Good, that to follow GOD is the chief Good .[35] However, Halyburton quickly moves to disqualify this, arguing there no reason to confirm me that Plato understood any Thing tolerably about the Enjoyment of GOD, either in Time or after Time .[36] Plato therefore missed this important temporal element and therefore could not meet Halyburton s criteria. With the inadequacy of these and other philosophers definitions of happiness, It is plain that none of them have clearly come to know that happiness consists in the eternal Enjoyment of GOD after Time .[37] This demonstrates that Halyburton thought natural theology was not useful for formulating a proper understanding of happiness. Only since the advent of Christianity and revelation have arguments on happiness receiv d a vast improvement .[38] Revelation, not reason, was then needed for the discovery of these truths. However, while Halyburton s arguments on the discovery of God and happiness depend on revelation for discovery, I argue he does not dismiss reason altogether, and in fact argues it is fundamental to the discovery of several religious truths.

Despite stressing the inability of reason to achieve understanding of certain religious truths, Halyburton does not reject reason completely. Instead, he argues for its usefulness in making some theological discoveries. In the third chapter of Insufficient, he argues that through reason all the World, in all Ages, hath been possess d of some Notion of a GOD... on whom... they did depend .[39] He reiterates this by taking a passage from Cicero s De Natura Deorum, saying there is no Nation so barbarous that owns not some GOD .[40] Those who have claimed to have found nations with no notion of God, upon Search are found false .[41] Timothy Stanton argues that Halyburton employed a broadly Lockean theory of knowledge , but does not draw from his material to support his point.[42] In this argument on the knowledge of God, we can indeed see an example of this congruence between Halyburton and Locke as, although Halyburton does not cite him in this section, Locke also argued that all nations had known some deity.[43] Clearly Halyburton does concede that reason without revelation can achieve a basic level of religious truth. However, we must not look at this as a mere reluctant concession granted by Halyburton, anomalous in an otherwise rigid system stressing the failures of natural religion. He goes further, arguing that man has a certain rational capacity to understand and interpret things. In his argument on the discovery of a deity he argues that discoveries of God must be plain to the Capacities of all Mankind .[44] If man were informed of such a discovery in such a way as could not be comprehended, it would be as if it were not discovered at all .[45] He extends this line of thinking to more secular or at least not specifically religious - areas. He argues that people are born with Faculties which, when used, cannot miss Occasions of thinking of, or coming to the Knowledge of... Laws of Nature .[46] Moreover, he argues I do think that the Knowledge of some of the more obvious Laws of Nature... hath [been] universally obtain d .[47] By this, he means we have been able to discover some laws of nature by reason alone. This type of thinking was not radical for his time. The idea that some aspects of nature could be understood from reason was inherited from a long tradition deriving from Greek antiquity.[48] By not dismissing reason, and by actively arguing for its importance, Halyburton cannot be deemed an unreasonable Christian. This term forms an important part of David Sorkin s notion of a religious Enlightenment. Sorkin argues that an exclusive embrace of either reason or faith was undesirable, as they were two irrational extremes that produced intolerant, dogmatic, or enthusiastic religion .[49] Halyburton is clearly not dismissing the ability of man to come to knowledge of things without revelation. He is instead showing that reason has both come to reveal secular and religious truths about the world. He rejects reason only in as much as it is insufficient to come to the whole of some truths. Halyburton develops these ideas further, arguing that man needed to be convinced, by sufficient evidence, to have faith.

The value Halyburton places on evidence and experience shows that reason is an essential part of his theology. He uses evidence for two main ends. First, he argues that in order for someone to believe in God, they must be convinced by considerable evidence. Second, he argues in order to see how far pre-Christians discovered the nature of God and happiness without revelation, we must judge by experience we must find evidence that they came to certain truths. The first point shows that Halyburton does not think people believe purely on faith people had, and have, to be convinced by proofs too substantial to deny. For instance, he argues that Conjectural Discoveries... built on airy and subtile Speculations, are not firm enough to establish such a Perswasion of Truth in the Soul .[50] Moreover, The Evidence of these Things must be abiding .[51] This means such truths must not only be initially convincing, but convincing enough be believed for a long time. Halyburton argues, therefore, that reason is fundamental to Christian faith. He seems to fit into David Sorkin s definition of a religious Enlightener, as he acknowledges the importance of reason in religious belief.[52] He does not, however, seem to fit comfortably in Israel s definition of a moderate Enlightener as, while Halyburton created a viable synthesis of reason and faith, he did not aspire to conquer ignorance and superstition .[53] He can also not be comfortably understood as a traditionalist because, as we have seen, reason is an important part of his theology. This goes to show that, while categories such as these may be helpful for the creation of historical narratives, they can obscure nuance and encourage generalisation to the detriment of historical accuracy.

M. A Stewart points out that Halyburton appears to move further away from such a rational approach in An Essay Concerning the Nature of Faith, where Halyburton criticises Locke s argument on the prophets.[54] He argues that Halyburton distances himself from Locke... and other rationalists as they assert that belief in revelation is dependent on historical signs, or evidence, for validity.[55] Halyburton does disagree with Locke s assertion, arguing instead that the prophets did not need an external sign (or evidence) to be convinced that they were receiving a message from God. This, Halyburton stresses, could be done by faith alone: the internal light of assurance... [was] sufficient to satisfy the mind fully .[56] However, Halyburton is still hugely emphatical about the role of evidence: it is undeniable, that our obligation to believe arises from the proposal of due objective evidence, if this is wanting, no man can be obliged to believe .[57] Therefore, while Stewart is right that, on the issue of the prophets, Halyburton is taking a stance against Locke and promoting an argument defending faith and revelation, it would be a mistake to suggest that this is proof of Halyburton distancing himself from his rational theology. Reason, and arguments based on evidence, were still important to fundamental Christian belief for Halyburton. Arguments from experience were also an important part of his theology.

Halyburton s second use of evidence, his argument based on experience, shows that he was taking a rational approach to dismantle the arguments of the deists. I have previously discussed his engagement with pagan authors in order to show how far he dismisses the successes of reason. Here, however, I argue that the process itself is part of a rational critique. Halyburton seeks evidence, or experience, in order to disprove arguments made by the deists. In this sense, he is engaging with them on their level that is to say, without scri pture. Halyburton was, in a way, inverting the usual method of proving true ideas. According to Justin Champion, scri ptural interpretation was a source by which many readers could authenticate or deconstruct the value of the works they examined .[58] Halyburton upended this practice, proving ideas to be false by interpreting pagan texts and revealing their inadequacy. scri pture would have been insufficient to disprove deist arguments, so he turned to the analysis of pagan texts and history instead. For example, the only Way we can judge what Nature s Light can do, is by considering what it has done .[59] He does not refer to scri pture, but to evidence and experience. In his criticism on the discovery of God, he argues If not one has made sufficient Discoveries of God, it is rash to say that any one can by the meer Light of Nature make them .[60] He contends it is not rational to believe that anyone can come to discover God sufficiently if no one has done so in the past. He argues it is up to the deists to provide the evidence that such discoveries have been made: it belongs to those who affirm Man able to make such Discoveries of GOD, to show by whom, and where .[61] So, while his arguments may ostensibly appear to argue for the limitations of reason, he is in fact performing a very rational, non-scri ptural, evidence based analysis. It is not possible to say that Halyburton rejected reason in his theology when, at the very points he is being most critical of reason, he was using a rational critique to convey his argument.

With all of this considered, it is clear that reason forms a central part of Halyburton s theology. He remains emphatical about the strengths of revealed religion, stressing that there are just some truths that cannot be known through reason alone. He rejects the deist notion that we can deduce our abilities based on them being a fraction of God s. His analysis of pagan instead of biblical texts allows him to disprove the arguments put forward by the deists by revealing they were never able to come to the truths before the advent of revelation. Through this, he reveals that pre-Christian societies never came to a sufficient knowledge of God, or of the happiness he covets. Yet, this is not a rejection of reason instead, it is a demonstration of its limitations. Halyburton showed that reason can come to some knowledge of a God, albeit an insufficient one. Reason is important because people, through their faculties, need to be convinced in the reality of a deity, or of revelation, by overwhelming evidence. Such tremendous evidence can only come from revelation, but they needed the reasoned capabilities to accept such signs in the first place. His approach to pagan texts relies on disproving their arguments through evidence and experience, which is a rational critique of deist arguments. Reason, together with revelation, is an essential component of his theology. He is not the fanatic preacher arguing against reason, but a theologian digesting the current intellectual trends of his day and using them in defence of revelation. He is a perfect character to muddy the waters over the decline of religious importance in the Enlightenment against the rise of the secular. He incorporates elements of reason and faith into a polemical fusion, targeted at those he feels have become estranged from and disillusioned with faith. His Insufficient continued to be published until the end of the 18th century, and the arguments he engaged with continued to be discussed by a new generation of theologians. It was even printed in the burgeoning United States, a supposed bastion of secular Enlightenment ideals.[62] We should not discount religion in the Enlightenment, but recognise it for its indelible and historical significance.

[1] E.P Dickie, Thomas Halyburton, Scottish Journal Of Theology 5, no. 1 (1952): 13, https://tinyurl.com/y9mmxjxl.

[2] Dr Thomas Gibbons describing Halyburton in Dickie, Thomas Halyburton : 2.

[3] Justin Champion, Republican Learning: John Toland and the Crisis of Christian Culture, 1696-1722 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 6.

[4] Thomas Halyburton, Natural Religion Insufficient (Edinburgh: 1714).

[5] Alisdair Raffe, The Culture of Controversy: Religious Arguments in Scotland, 1660-1714 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), 3.

[6] Thomas Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 3.

[7] Alisdair Raffe, Archibald Pitcairne and Scottish Heterodoxy, c 1688-1713, The Historical Journal 60, no. 3 (2017): 633-634.

[8] Raffe, Archibald Pitcairne, 634 Michael Hunter, Aikenhead the Atheist : the Context and Consequences of Articulate Irreligion in the Late Seventeenth Century, in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment eds. Michael Hunter and David Wootton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 221-54 Michael Graham, The Blasphemies of Thomas Aikenhead: Boundaries of Belief on the Eve of the Enlightenment (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008).

[9] James Harris and Alexander Broadie, Philosophy, Revealed Religion, and the Enlightenment, The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century (December 2013): 622.

[10] Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: [Vol. 1] The Rise of Modern Paganism (New York: Knopf, 1966).

[11] David Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).

[12] Ibid, 3.

[13] Margaret Jacobs, The Secular Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

[14] Dario Pfanner, Blount, Charles (1654-1693), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), https://tinyurl.com/v2rkvkr.

[15] Wayne Hudson, Enlightenment and Modernity (London: Routledge, 2009), 17.

[16] Hudson, Enlightenment, 2.

[17] Robert Sullivan, John Toland and the Deist Controversy: A Study in Adaptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 232.

[18] Halyburton, Insufficient, 51.

[19] Ibid, 51.

[20] Ibid, 51.

[21] Ibid, 51.

[22] Ibid, 52.

[23] Ibid, quoting Sir Charles Wolseley, 54.

[24] Ibid, 54.

[25] Ibid, 54.

[26] Ibid, 55.

[27] Ibid, 57.

[28] Ibid, 58.

[29] Ibid, 58.

[30] Ibid, 59.

[31] Ibid, 72. Ibid, 69. Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, 71. Ibid, Ibid, 72. Ibid, 73. Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Timothy Stanton, Locke and His Influence, in The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century ed. James Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): 32 J. Halyburton, Insufficient, 49. Ibid, Halyburton, Insufficient, 38. Ibid, Halyburton, Insufficient, 50. Ibid, Jonathan M. A. Stewart, Halyburton, Thomas (1674-1712), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), https://tinyurl.com/yx4o86kf. Thomas Halyburton, An Essay Concerning the Nature of Faith, Concerning, in Thomas Halyburton, Natural Religion Insufficient (Leith: 1798), Halyburton, Concerning, Halyburton, Insufficient, Ibid, Ibid, 52. Thomas Halyburton, Natural Religion Insufficient, (Philadelphia: 1798) Jacob, Enlightenment, 263.This resource was uploaded by: Robbie

Other articles by this author