The Theology of Jonathan Edwards and Enlightenment
Political Theory
Jared W. Key
Religion 319: 18th Century Theology
Prof. Don Westblade
4/26/2021
Those
that say the puritans left England to establish the first government of religious
pluralism are entirely incorrect. Samuel Willard, a puritan minister, wrote in
1681 in response to the anabaptist congregation's appeal to the religious
liberty sought by the settlers, "I perceive they are mistaken in the
design of our first planters, whose business was not toleration; but they were
the professed enemies of it. . . Their business was to settle and (as much as
in them lay) secure religion to posterity, according to that way which they
believe was of God.”[1]
Early puritan political theology functioned as a theocracy and had no love for
differing sects of Christianity, much less religious pluralism. Their model was
the Jewish nation and the national covenant. They built their theology on the
Old Testament covenants with God serving as the ultimate source of political
authority. This covenant-based approach to government is challenging to merge
with the Enlightenment consent-based government emerging at the time. Some scholars
seek to use Jonathan Edwards to bridge the reformed tradition with the
ideological movement of the time towards the social contract philosophy. This
reasoning is faulty; a better interpretation of Edwards's political ideology is
a rephrasing of the reformed tradition rather than a doctrinal shift. Jonathan
Edwards’s political philosophy outlines the foundation of government, the
proper roles of government, and the necessary traits of a good leader to
fulfill the purpose of government— the refinement of society in align with
God’s will.
The
reason for the needed rephrasing was the rising tide of Arminianism, with which
Edwards associated with the Enlightenment. The philosophies of Locke and others
have made natural observation about natural rights that need to be squared with
the reformed doctrine. Arminianism is on the surface more compatible with the
natural rights/ social contract tradition.
The
reformed tradition’s foundational premise is that not all men are created equal
as some are among the elect, and some are created to be a part of the
reprobate. This inequality runs directly counter to the inherent equality required
in thinkers such as Locke. In the natural rights tradition despite some people
being created with greater natural abilities, all men are by nature equal. This
contradiction represents the monumental task given to Edwards— he is charged to
give a reformed answer for these two seemingly contradictory ideas. The danger
for Edwards’s political philosophy is the tendency of the early puritan governments
to reduce the reprobate into Aristotle’s natural slave — a person born inferior
that is incapable of ruling themselves.[2]
The problem with this argument is that Edward’s never seemed to accept this mantle.
Discussing
Edwards’s political philosophy should begin as most political philosophy does
with man in a pre-political state. Edwards does not write explicitly on this
topic in detail, but enough details are present in his sermon “A Strong Rod
Broken and Withered” to imply that he corresponds with the reformed position. Men
in a pre-political state are devils following their sinful and licentious
desires to full effect. Thus, government is instituted among men by God to
restrain improper desires. He writes, "They [good rulers] are great gifts
of the Most High to a people, and blessed tokens of
his favor, and vehicles of his goodness to them, and therein images of his own
Son. The grand medium of all God's goodness to fallen mankind; and therefore all of them are called, 'Sons of the Most
High." All civil rulers, if they are as they
ought to be, such strong rods as have been described, will be like Sons of the
Most High.”[3]
Edwards
links the foundation to government as a creation of God for the perfection of
his people.
This
description of the pre-political state mirrors Thomas Hobbes’s state of war with
some very distinctive differences.[4]
Without the social contract foundation, there is no right to the revolution
unless God's will is violated. This restriction is
because sovereignty directly comes from God; it is immoral to challenge or
reject the governing authority unless the king is preventing God from being
followed properly. God has ordained that such bad action or leadership has
occurred. It is a punishment from God on the sinfulness of the puritan people
that they have bad rulers or that a good ruler has died.[5]
This undermines the foundation for the natural rights tradition. Thus, there must
create a foundation for a common ethical code beyond the natural law.
A
common moral framework is foundational for all political philosophy. There must
be some higher thing for which all people can agree. This includes both those
within the church and those outside of the church. For the Enlightenment, that
was the natural right tradition.[6]
Due to Edwards’s theocentric worldview, especially with his near occasionalism,
he removes the middleman in the natural rights tradition and points to God as
the source of the political framework. Edwards writes in the same vein as
Calvin with the idea that God vests all governmental power.[7]
Thus, sovereignty is something bestowed upon the ruling power by God. This
placement of sovereignty is another break from the social compact theory.
Political sovereignty is vested by God directly, not through the people more
generally.
It is important to discuss Edwards’s
view of the relationship between faith and reason. Edwards tries to answer this
debate that dominated this era by saying both are correct. He writes that all
reason comes from divine revelation. This is part of the danger of Edwards's
political philosophy— there must be some common rational understanding common
to all to as the divine revelation is based on scripture.
Many scholars point to a doctrine of beauty and a common
human desire for it as the base foundation drawn by Edwards. Dr. Gerald
McDermott writes, “Edward’s thinking about non-Christian therefore possesses the
resources to support a Christian understanding of social pluralism.”[8]
It is important to note that Edwards does not advocate for this broader
interpretation despite providing a possible ideological foundation. Edwards argues
that within every person there is an inherent desire and attraction to beauty.
This desire is an inherit longing of the soul. This distinctly Aristotelian
notion cumulate with Edwards’s writing, “Every intelligent being is some way
related to Being in general and is a part of the universal system of existence
and so stands in connection with the whole.”[9]
This common connection allows for all human beings can share in the knowledge
of true moral ends. God has engraved his law on the consciousness of all men. In
the reprobate, this desire is unrefined and not properly directed, but it
exists in common.
This
lack of refinement is the same distinction he makes regarding patriotism. In
the reprobate, patriotism is a selfish lesser virtue. They pursue patriotic
action due to self-preservation or self-enriching purposes rather than the
motivation of the elect being respect for the sovereignty of the divinely
ordinated political authorities.[10]
The fact that God has instilled a natural
affection for pity and family affection, among other social virtues, can serve
as a substitute for natural rights in society. Particularly, the natural love
of family is the most important foundation, “That natural affection to a man’s
children or family, or near relations, is not properly to be ascribed to
self-love as its cause, in any respect, but is to be esteemed an affection
arising from a particular independent instinct of nature, which the Creator in
his wisdom has implanted in men for the preservation and well-being of the work
of mankind.”[11]
It is important to note that when
Edwards talks about politics, he mostly refers to the local politics of New
England. Thus, his politics are fairly constricted to a homogeneous population;
he never really had to contend with a true pluralist society. This manifests in
him only believing the only true legitimate rulers must be reformed and
Christian. They cannot be Arminian which is defined as anyone who does not
fully embrace the reformed tradition.
The best case for Edwards to be a
product of the Enlightenment politically is his six purposes of government. All
of them are in perfect alignment with the Enlightenment tradition. The first
four roles fit within what is referred to as negative rights tradition of
government. The first role of government is protecting property and securing
the rights of the citizens. This is because Edward’s conception of political justice
is primarily done in terms of property.[12] One needs a strong arm of government to
restrain the wicked influences of man. The “state of nature” for Edwards
involves men continuously violating other rights and property. The strong
oppress the weak without government to restrain their wicked urges. This
complements the second role, to keep order. He writes in the miscellaneous, “The
result without government's restraint of human lust — would be the 'utmost
deformity, confusion, and ruin.[13]
The third role is the pursuit of
justice. This is where his focus on the oppression of the weak reemerges fully.
He was very aware that many merchants and sellers take advantage of people
using price gouging. This was a morally reprehensible action in his mind, and
the government has a vested interest in preventing such practices from
occurring.
Finally, he gets to the most basic
role of government in his fourth duty— to provide national defense. He builds
this idea on the "law of self-preservation." Thus, his wars are
defensive in nature, including injury regarding the violation of property
rights.
The
first of the positive duties is the requirement that government has a role in
the promotion of virtue and morals. Governments need to make laws against
immorality. The final role of government is to help the poor because the church
is not always a reliable source of support. He writes, ‘In this corrupt world
[private charity] is an uncertain thing. Therefore, the wisdom of the legislator
did not think fit to leave those who are so reduced upon such precarious
foundation for substance.”[14]
All of these duties are in perfect alignment with the founding fathers' more Enlightenment-based
political philosophy. This does not prove alignment with the Enlightenment as these
principles of good government are foundational for most of political theology
and theory.
In
“A Strong Rod Broken and Withered," Edwards outlines the five necessary
traits of a good ruler.[15]
The first trait is a natural ability for ruling; this comes half from God and
half from natural training. This mirrors Plato’s golden soul individual, a
person born with natural capacity that needs to be trained in virtue.[16]
This education and training in virtue from a good puritan family prevent the
most naturally talented leader from becoming tyrannical and anti-Christian,
leading to the second characteristic. The second trait is compassion for the
people rather than self-interest in a leader. From a political philosophy view,
the leader's interest must be aligned with the population's interests and
values. The third is what the founds
would refer to as energy within the executive. This means the leader must be
active and aggressive with the activity of ruling. In the same vein, the leader
must be willing to take a stand against the majority's will.[17]
Fourth,
the leader must have good internal morality or piety. It is unclear how such a
trait could be adequately judged. One could easily imply that this requirement
was satisfied by being an elect member of the local reformed church with proper
doctrinal correctness. These four represent the internal characteristics of a
good ruler. All in all, these are very standard when it comes to political
philosophy. Edwards is clearly drawing influence from Calvin, Plato, Aquinas, Aristotle,
and Locke in the formulation of these virtues.
The
final trait of a good ruler is purely external and outside of the control of
the individual. One must have material and familial success to be a proper virtuous.[18]
This is by far his most practical trait of a good ruler and the most shocking
for Edwards to include. His reasons could easily have been taken from the Prince
with their blunt practicality.[19]
One needs these traits because people are more likely to follow a leader that possesses
money, good looks, and a good family. While certainly true, this argument does
undercut his internal meritocratic approach for the ruler outlined above. This
trait also implies the consent of the populous is necessary for ruling. Such
traits in the ruler are not brought about by chance as they are bestowed by God
and follow his will; thus, God’s sovereignty is absolute.
This
political philosophy works well for the time frame and area in which Edwards
presided. This form of government was only designed to take into account a
fairly homogeneous population. The population, for the most part, shared a common
ancestry, common religion, and a common value system. This removes, for the
most part, the need for consent as the consent is implied in the culture and
theology. They had a cultural and religiously enforced natural inequality that is
accepted by the masses. One is reminded of Aristotle’s quote in The Politics,
that once a city is large enough, the only possible form of government is
democracy.[20]
In Edwards's case, one should replace democracy with pluralism. The Edwards’s
political arena never became large enough that pluralism was necessary.
Edwards
created a natural and ordained aristocracy. Fundamentally, this is because the
purpose of government is the refinement of man's soul. Also, only those of the
reformed church had the proper alignment of values and piety. There must be a
natural aristocracy formed of those elect to provide proper leadership to the
people. This is what the sermon “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered” is about. This
sermon was based on Ezekiel 19:12 which reads, "Her strong rods were
broken and withered." Colonel John Stoddard a beloved and moral leader in
New England died.[21]
New England had lost such a leader, and the people will suffer for it.[22]
He writes, “When God by death removes form a people those in place of public
authorities and rule have been as strong rods. ‘tis an awful judgement of God
on that people, and worth of great lamentation.”[23]
God both gives and removes great leaders from the people's punishments for
their moral failings. This doctrine is the critical end of Edwards.
This
moral degeneracy brings up a serious political problem of which Edwards was
very aware. In Edwards’s understanding, New England was one of the most morally
degenerate societies ever, with a huge part of the population not truly being
saved.[24]
The veracity of these claims is unimportant. The point is that not only is
there an inherent natural inequality among the people but that, more than
likely, the majority are those unfit to rule not only the society but
themselves as well. Thus, there is a need for the minority to have complete political
power, including church and state, as the leader must direct the fallen nature
of his flock to the holy direction.
The
moral degeneracy previously argued seems to contradict Edward’s end of government
personified in his millennialism.[25]
Despite constant attacks on the moral ground of New England at the time, he
firmly believed in the perfecting of society to true heaven on earth. Thus, a
good ruler is needed to move the secular powers in alignment with the eventual
end of society.
Thus,
the model of government is not significant. The end of government is the only
relevant fact. Whether the government is timocracy, democracy, or monarch is
not a problem for Edward. He favors a very strong executive power as it has to
overcome the depravity of the human condition of the non-elect. What matters is
the orientation of the political power. Is the government divinely originated
with a “strong rod” ruling?
Edwards
maintained the traditional Calvinist mode of government with slight refinements
from the Enlightenment. However, his orientation is always directed to the more
traditional roles of government. His focus was not on crafting a complete
political philosophy but on a comprehensive theology. Thus, some of the nuances
are missing from his argument, and some of the implication occasionally runs
counter to the others. His ends of goverment, however, are clear in addition to
the type of leader required.
Bibliography
Aristotle. Aristotle's
Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2013.
Edwards, Jonathan.
“A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed
April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv
Edwards, Jonathan.
“Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue.” Jonathan Edwards Center.
Accessed April
23, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy43OjYud2plbw==.
Edwards, Jonathan.
“The Great Concern Of A Watchman For Souls.” Jonathan
Edwards Center .
Yale Univeristy. Accessed April 23, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDo0LndqZW8=.
Edwards, Jonathan. “The Duties Of Christians In A Time Of War.” Jonathan Edwards Center . Yale University , n.d. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDo4OjEud2plbw==.
Kirsch, Adam. The
Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York, NY: Basic Books,
2016.
Locke, John. Two
Treatises of Government. Handbooks,
2019.
Machiavelli,
Niccolò. The Prince. New York, N. Y.: The Overlook Press, 2013.
McDermott, Gerald
R. One Holy, and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995.
Miller, Perry, and
Thomas Herbert Johnson. The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings. 1.
Vol. 1. New York:
Harper, 1963. P.185
Westbrook, Robert
B. "Social Criticism and the Heavenly City of Jonathan Edwards."
Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 59, no. 4
(1976): 396-412. Accessed April 23, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41178006.
Guelzo, Allen C. “From Calvinist Metaphysics to Republican Theory: Jonathan Edwards and James Dana on Freedom of the Will.” Journal of the History of Ideas 56, no. 3 (1995): 399. https://doi.org/10.2307/2710033.
Henry, C. “Pride, Property, and Providence: Jonathan Edwards on Property Rights.” Journal of Church and State 53, no. 3 (2011): 401–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csq145.
Kimnach, Wilson H. “In a Time of War.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 23, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozOjQud2plbw==.
[1] Miller, Perry, and Thomas Herbert Johnson. The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings. 1. Vol. 1. New York: Harper, 1963. P.185
[2] Aristotle. Aristotle's Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. p.9
[3] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[7] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv
[8] McDermott, Gerald R. “Poverty, Patriotism, and National Covenant: Jonathan Edwards and Public Life.” Journal of Religious Ethics 31, no. 2 (2003): 229–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9795.00136.
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Edwards, Jonathan. “Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 23, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy43OjYud2plbw==.
[12] McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy, and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995.p.132
[13] Ibid p.131
[14] McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy, and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995. P.134
[15] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv
[16] Kirsch, Adam. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2016.
[17] This is another time when Edwards draws upon the Enlightenment as it seems to imply a more consent view of government. This is because this necessary trait seems to imply that the population has some natural right to consent to the governing of their communities. There is a very subtle shift in sovereignty from God solely to the people. Edwards took a truth from the Enlightenment but did not incorporate the foundation for the belief.
[18] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv.
[20] Aristotle. Aristotle's Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
[21] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy, and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995.
[25] McDermott, Gerald R. “Poverty, Patriotism, and National Covenant: Jonathan Edwards and Public Life.” Journal of Religious Ethics 31, no. 2 (2003): 229–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9795.00136.