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.

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.

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==.

[3] 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.

[12] McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy, and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995.p.132

[15] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv

[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.

[21] Edwards, Jonathan. “A Strong Rod Broken and Withered.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw%2FYy4yNDoxNy53amVv

[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.