Elliot Murphy
Theology of Jonathan Edwards
Short
of Perfect
Writing
on Jonathan Edwards, Perry Miller noted
that Òno one more than Edwards ever insisted that the individual is immersed in
a context of time and place.Ó[1]
Historians and students must follow EdwardÕs own advice whenever studying his
life. Context certainly influenced Edwards, especially in regards to slavery in
colonial America. The best approach to this question is through EdwardsÕ own
view and limited treatment as seen in a History
of Redemption and elsewhere. Edwards understanding of history led him to foresee
the end of slavery as an imperfection unfit for the Kingdom of God; however, he
failed to take immediate action to implement or ease the condition of slaves
around him. Thus, to understand the paradox in Edwards thought on slavery, one
must examine contextual evidence on the state of slavery in colonial America,
EdwardsÕ historical view of the characteristics of the coming Kingdom, and his
own immediate actions toward slaves.
Edwards
recognized the power context and place holds over the individual in a given
time in history, and so one must understand the context of slavery in Colonial
America. Slavery came on the heels of the first settlers to New England. Still,
the northern colonies never experienced the widespread exposure of slavery that
dominated and plagued the southern colonies. By 1680, just over twenty years
before EdwardsÕ birth, only a few hundred slaves lived in New England.[2]
The reason for such a small population was a lack of need. Major plantations,
staple crops, or lack of workers did not exist in the northern colonies, and
labor remained plenty, unlike their counterparts in the south. As an
institution, however, northern slavery carried similar elements to that of the
south.
The
Puritans possessed indentured servants with white, black and red skin. Only the
blacks, and occasionally the red, served for life.[3]
From the beginning, race had played a role in the conditions of slavery.
Puritans dealt with the issue through laws and treatises, but many of their
explanations were ambiguous at best. For example, in 1641 the Puritans of
Massachusetts codified slavery. The document stated the following:
ÒThere
shall never be any bond-slavery, villenage or captivitie amongst us; unlesse it
be lawfull
captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or
are solde to us: and such shalle have
the libertyes and Christian usages which the law of
god established in Israel concerning such
persons doth morally require, provided, this exempts
none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by Authoritie.Ó[4]
Puritans presented a paradox.
Slavery was forbidden for those already in the colonies, but it might be
extended toward any outsiders or strangers. In practice this meant Africans or
Indians. The way in which Puritans evolved their use of the word ÒstrangerÓ and
ÒcaptivesÓ to eventually mean blacks must be understood before examining
Jonathan EdwardsÕ treatment of the issue.
By
the end of the 17th century, slavery had morphed into a practice based largely
on race, and justified by religious comparisons. The heathen condition of the
blacks seems to have played a significant role in how Puritans treated
Africans. For example, as Jordan Winthrop revealed, Òin the early years, the
English settlers most frequently contrasted themselves with Negroes by the term
Christian,Ó but Winthrop goes on to
argue that religious elements were not the sole factor in determining whether
one might be enslaved, ÒÉto be Christian was to be civilized rather than
barbarous, English rather than African, white rather than black.Ó[5] In
each case, the Puritans saw themselves as physically, spiritually and socially
superior. Yet, many of these comparisons presented problems. Spiritual
superiority did not justify enslavement, for conversion of blacks and Indians
occurred frequently, and was even sought after by those possessing slaves.
Thus, Puritan justification and treatment of slavery rested on shaky, uncertain
ground in the time leading up to EdwardsÕ birth. Perhaps the reason for these
paradoxes is the scarcity of slaves in New England, where the black population
never reached beyond 3%.[6] In
Connecticut, the only slaves to be found were in the home of ministers.[7]Amidst
these ambiguities, Jonathan Edwards entered the world.
In
an age where slavery remained a minor issue largely ignored, Jonathan Edwards
formed his household as most other New England ministers did. This meant
everyone under his care must respect the God-ordained hierarchy.[8]
Edwards presided over his wife, children, and his slaves. This Bible-derived
form of hierarchy served as the cornerstone for all Puritan homes. George Marsden
argued that Edwards adopted slavery as a natural off shoot of Puritan views of
servitude and dependency.[9] Scripture provided guidelines for how
masters ought to treat their slaves, and masters were expected to follow these
rules, but that also meant possessing slaves was not an evil act. Massachusetts
law even required slave owners to instruct their slaves in Christian doctrines.[10] Jonathan Edwards grew up witnessing how a
minister ought to treat slaves, for Timothy Edwards, minister and father to
Jonathan, owned at least one slave who worked the fields as the patriarch
prepared his sermons and studies.[11] Thus,
for Timothy and also for Jonathan, owning a salve reinforced their ability to
act as ministers and leaders in the Puritan social class, by providing the necessary
labor needed to sustain a large family. Available records reveal Jonathan
purchased what appears to be his first slave in 1731, while he was serving at
Northampton.[12] A decade later, EdwardsÕ
only specific address on slavery emerged.
Jonathan
Edwards defended slavery in only one known instance. Kenneth Minkema offers a full analysis of EdwardsÕ treatment of the
subject. In 1741, during the height of the Great Awakening, Jonathan addressed
a topic that was likely a distraction compared to the more important topics of
revival and rebirth. Fellow minister Benjamin Doolittle was experiencing a
conflict with his congregation in Northfield, Connecticut. Presumably,
Doolittle leaned towards the old light faction of Puritan ministers, who were
cautious and even critical about the wave of revivals taking places in the
1730Õs.[13] This would put him at odds with Edwards,
one of the leading causes for the revivals. The conflict took an unexpected
turn, however, when the congregation began accosting Doolittle of owning
slaves. Scholars and historians struggle to explain how the issue became such a
central role in the problems at Northfield. Minkema
suggests that a slave revolt in New York that took place in 1741 may have
influenced the response against slavery.[14] After
the revolt, mobs in New York seized several blacks and burned them, all the
while spreading fears of slave revolt throughout New England.[15] Minkema also suggests that the first anti-slavery writings
beginning to emerge in New England influenced the attacks on Doolittle.
Whatever the cause, a group of ministers known as the Hampshire Association
asked Edwards to provide a defense.
In
his defense of Doolittle, Edwards attacks the hypocrisy of the dissenters and
sets the foundation for his beliefs regarding slavery. EdwardsÕ defended slavery
by making similar claims to those outlined in the 1641 Massachusetts law
mentioned above. Slavery was justified when limited to war captives, debtors
and children of slaves, Edwards argued. Looking to Scripture, Edwards argued
that the New Testament did not condemn slavery, and he argued that there was
Òno other sin generally prevalent that is not expressly mentioned and strictly
forbidden.Ó[16] This belief allowed Edwards to separate
domestic treatment of slaves from the evils he saw taking place in Africa.
After justifying domestic slavery, Edwards turned his focus to the African
slave trade, condemning it as an actual evil that must be stopped.[17] Ultimately, Edwards brushed aside the
slavery arguments of the Northfield dissenters as actions Òonly to make
disturbances and raise uneasiness among people against their minister to the
great wounding of religion.Ó[18]
Perhaps the most telling and informative argument found in his letter for
Doolittle, was his allusion to the arrival of GodÕs kingdom on earth.
Although
his defense for Doolittle suggested an ambivalence
towards slavery, Edwards believed slavery would one day vanish. Even in his
defense of Doolittle, Edwards looked ahead to a Òglorious timeÓ where the
Church would enjoy peace before judgment.[19] EdwardÕs tendency to look forward played
a significant role in how he viewed slavery and the world around him. His
massive treatise A History of the Work of
Redemption addressed that theme. Before diving into EdwardsÕ treatment of
slavery in his treatise, his view of history must be understood.
Edwards
saw history as a process leading to the culmination of ChristÕs kingdom on
earth. Perry Miller noted that Edwards treated A HistoryÉ as his summa for explaining all events leading up to the
coming of Christ.[20]
The work began at creation and ran through Òall parts of the grand scheme, in
their historical order.Ó[21] It would present an orderly narrative of
GodÕs work and purpose on earth. The work would show Òthe admirable contexture
and harmony of the wholeÓ of Scripture and divine doctrine. History was not
random or merely sequential, Edwards argued. Instead, every event was connected
and meant to bring about the end for which God sought. This avoided a
simplistic view of history relying on causation and effect, where one event
determined the next. He does allow for causation, but only under a Ògrand
conceptionÓ of history, where all events fall under Òa scheme of causation.Ó In
this scheme all phases Òare parts of one scheme.Ó[22]
Miller explains,
ÒEdwards
found the determination of this orderÉoutside the sequence and yet presiding over it, not accruing step by step as though
each event chose its own effectÉThe order is an
instantaneous concept; translated into time it becomes the historical record,
and in this temporalized
fragmentation of the eternal men may read through their senses, for they can
learn by no other means, the idea of the perfect beginning and end.Ó[23]
Understanding the present was a
crucial task that Edwards believed the Church must seek. His philosophy taught
that the Church was Òcapable of actively falling in with the design, and
promoting it.Ó[24] Men could, Edwards
argued, understand the significance of events during their time and actively
participate in the narrative unfolding around them. Eventually, the efforts of
man might be the means by which God ushers in His kingdom. In the culmination
of the kingdom, all nations and peoples would exist as equals.
ÒIt
is promised that heathenism shall thus be destroyed in many places.Ó[25] Edwards
began his twenty- seventh sermon in his series A History of the Work of Redemption with that phrase as the subject.
He addresses the future fall of Satan, and the glorious triumph of the Gospel,
arguing that Òthe Work of Redemption is a work that God carries on from the
fall of man to the end of the world.Ó Following with Jordan WinthropÕs
conclusions on the relation between heathenism and races, such as blacks and
Indians, Edwards continued, ÒThen shall the many nations of Africa, the nations
of Negroes and others—heathens that chiefly fill that quarter of the
worldÉbe enlightened with glorious light, and delivered from all their
darkness, and shall become a civil, Christian and an understanding and holy
people.Ó[26] At present, Edwards
believed the savage condition in Africa evidenced SatanÕs sway over them,
manifested by ignorance, backwardness, darkness and a lack of civilization. Edwards,
however, saw an immediate and universal end coming for that darkened state of
existence, for the kingdom of Christ would Òextend to all nations and the whole
earth.Ó[27]
Hence, one of the characteristics of the kingdom would be a universal
acceptance of the Gospel by all nations. At this point, one might rightly ask
whether Edwards believed slavery might disappear in the kingdom of God. It does not seem so, for EdwardsÕ
actions toward slavery suggest that he saw slavery as compatible with the
coming kingdom.
Edwards
seemed to allow room for slavery in the coming kingdom of Christ. One must not
forget EdwardsÕ treatment of slavery in the Doolittle case, for in that
argument EdwardsÕ view of coming redemption is evident in his condemnation of
the slave trade as something unfit for the Òglorious timeÓ when Christ would
reign. Such an evil had no part in the kingdom, Edwards believed, and yet,
slavery itself did not seem in need of abolishment. Edwards seemed to reflect
the Puritan acceptance of slavery as under GodÕs providential design. Edwards revealed
this sentiment when discussing the Cain and Able story: Òthe difference which
GodÕs grace makes doth no alter the distinctions which GodÕs providence makes,
but preserves them, and obliges us to do the duty which results from
themÉbelieving servants must be obedient to unbelieving masters.Ó[28] Providence granted every man his station
in life. Grace was available to all, but grace did not undo the manÕs political
or social position. Undoing a manÕs position might mean taking a stand against
the providence of God. This seems one of few available explanations of why
Jonathan Edwards owned slaves. Although he remains responsible for his actions,
Edwards revolutionized the treatment of the slave by the Church.
Edwards
allowed African slaves to become full communicant members at Northampton.
Reflecting on Job 31:15, Edwards observed the equality in nature of slave and
master, ÒIn these two things are contained the most forceable
reasons against the masterÕs abuse of his servant, viz. That both have one
Maker, and that their Maker made Ôem
alike with the same nature.Ó[29]
As beings with similar natures formed in the likeness of their Maker, Edwards
forbade any cruelty from master to slave. Although modern readers wonder why
Edwards did not proceed in his thinking to ask why two beings with similar
natures might own one or the other, it is a remarkable step forward given the
philosophy of slavery prevalent at the time. Edwards acted on his belief by
allowing slaves to join his Church as full members. He was the first minister
at Northampton to ever baptize blacks into the Church as full members.[30]
In this instance, Edwards demonstrated his conviction that salvation might be
freely given to man no matter the race or social standing. Such an occurrence
was a small taste or picture of the coming kingdom of Christ that would
eventually initiate all nations and people unto Christ.
Edwards
knew that as long as man lived on earth, he could not completely remove himself
from the sin around him. No doubt that belief contributed to his longing for
the complete redemption of the world to come with ChristÕs return. Yet, under
his roof he allowed fellow humans he saw as spiritually equal to be completely
subservient to his wishes. It is no question that Edwards would have
immediately freed his slaves had he seen it as a sin to own them, and indeed,
his son, Jonathan Edwards Jr., did raise the banner against slavery in the
years following his fatherÕs death.[31] Perhaps
it is best to look at the question in terms of EdwardsÕ view of history. Perry
Miller explained: ÒThe systole and diastole of time is like that within the
person: it Ôhas its ups and downs,Õ but all the while, Ôin general, grace is
growingÉÕ A declension, thus, should be interpreted as a preparation for the next
and greater exertion.Ó[32]
Jonathan Edwards lived in a time where Negroes were in the trough, the downs of
history. Soon, however, and from EdwardsÕ own loins, came voices that would
declare political, social and spiritual equality of all men, a growth of grace,
a greater exertion.
[1] Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1949), xv
[2] Jordan Winthrop, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 66
[3] Winthrop, White Over Black, 66-67
[4] Max Farrand,
ed., The Laws and Liberties of
Massachusetts (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), 4
[5] Winthrop, White Over Black, 96
[6] Winthrop, White Over Black 103
[7] Winthrop, White Over Black, 103
[8] George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
19
[9] Marsden, 256
[10] Minkema,
Kenneth P. "Jonathan Edward's Defense of Slavery." The
Massachusetts Historical Review 4 (2009): 1- 2.
Print.
[11] Minkema, 7
[12] Marsden, 255
[13] Minkema, 8
[14] Minkema, 9
[15] Marsden, 257
[16] Marsden 257
[17] Minkema, 12
[18] Marsden, 256
[19] Minkema, 11
[20] Miller Perry, Jonathan Edwards (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1949), 307
[21] Miller, 308
[22] Miller, 313-314
[23] Miller, 314
[24] Miller, 312
[25] Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption ed. John F. Wilson, (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989), 471
[26] Edwards, 472
[27] Edwards, 473
[28] Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture ed. Stephen Stein (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1998), 327
[29] Jonathan Edwards, Miscellaneous Observations on the Holy Scriptures (Interleaved
Bible), Beincke, as seen in Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards, 258
[30] Minkema, 19
[31] Minkema, 21
[32] Miller, 315