Henry
Hoffmann
A Summary
of the 1740Õs
The
middle decades of the eighteenth century are of the highest importance in
American, and world, history.
During this time, the last defenders of the old way of seeing reality
clung tenuously to the last vestiges of the inheritance of the Middle Ages against the onslaught of Enlightenment
thought. One of them, Jonathan
Edwards, stood athwart the tide of modernism, attempting to halt its course,
but the irresistible sweep of the tide of the times ultimately overcame his
opposition. The events of the 1740
specifically resulted from and in turn contributed to a growing sense of
individualism and belief in the goodness of the people both individually and
collectively.
The
Great Awakening and the King GeorgeÕs War were the two events of the greatest
significance during the decade from 1740 to 1750. The Great Awakening had began in 1735,
but underwent a substantial change with the arrival of George Whitefield in the
colonies early in the decade, who capitalized upon the burgeoning individualism
of the colonies. King GeorgeÕs War help create a sense of American, rather than colonial,
identity and led to deep dissatisfaction with Britain.
Other
events, both in the colonies and around the world, demonstrate the gradual change which the colonies underwent socially and
intellectually in the mid eighteenth century, from a self-identified colony,
with all the early-modern intellectual baggage associated with that term, to a
restless settlement dissatisfied with the mother country. This sense of alienation from the empire
began with the events of the 1740Õs.
The Great Awakening and Its Effects
Many
local awakenings had occurred simultaneously, throughout the colonies, starting
around 1735. These had begun to
slack off by the end of the decade, but the Enlightenment received a new life
with the arrival of George Whitefield in the colonies in 1739. Whitefield, Benamin
Franklin calculated, could successfully address a crowd of 25,000 listeners.[1] The meetings of the Great Awakening thus
became Òthe first mass revivals of modern times,Ó[2]
creating lay attitudes inhospitable to established church order. Whitefield threatened the church
establishment, both directly and indirectly. Directly, by openly
questioning the authority of ministers of whose conversion Whitefield was not
personally convinced.[3] Indirectly, by undermining the authority
of the clergy with his open-air, populist, emotionally-charged meetings, and
his lack of emphasis on theology, which was the purview of the established
clergy. WhitefieldÕs itinerant preaching was frowned upon in New England, and
Whitefield, ignoring the authority of the leaders of the churches, held
open-air gatherings instead.[4] WhitefieldÕs actions sparked a storm of
criticism between New Lights, supporters of Whitefield, and Old Lights, who
questioned the rationality and validity of the revival.[5] Jonathan Edwards, although skeptical of
the most extreme cases of emotionalism, largely supported Whitefield, agreeing
with his ends, but not always his means.
This
quarrel between the Old and New Lights undermined the clergy and elevated the
importance of the laity. Harry Stout writes,
ÒBy
refusing to recognize the legitimacy of opposing views, the ministry as a whole
temporarily lost the public trust.
Once substantial numbers of ministers were labeled Ôunconverted,Õ or
ÔAntinomian,Õ congregations everywhere faced the terrifying prospect that their
ministers---historically the prime bulwark against divine desertion---might
indeed be wolves in sheepÕs clothing.
With these developments in mind, the decade 1735-1745 may be designated
the most critical period in colonial New EnglandÕs intellectual and religious
historyÉ.Suddenly it was the people---guided by their
self-made leaders---who had to take responsibility for their religious laves to
retain GodÕs special favor for New EnglandÉ.Thus began another experiment in
liberty---this one in the churches---as New Englanders discovered the power
they possessed when united against authority.Ó[6]
Thus the
Great Awakening provided the people of New England, and of the colonies as a
whole, with a sense of individual freedom not before experienced. Stout concludes that to win back the
trust of the laity, ministers had to encourage toleration and respected the
rights of the colonies. These changes in the attitude of the ministers resulted
in the idea Òthat the real enemy threatening New EnglandÕs mission was not
excessive democracy but tyranny.Ó[7] Thus one piece in the puzzle leading to
American rebellion and independence was laid.
King GeorgeÕs War
George
Whitefield returned to New England for a second tour in 1744. Enthusiasm had lessened, however, and public attention was distracted by the beginning of a war
with France, in which the New England colonies played a vital role in the North
American theatre. In 1745, the
colonies, in conjunction with the English navy, captured the French fort at Louisbourg, which inspired the colonies with a new sense of
importance and self-reliance. The
French, being Catholic, were more than political enemies; the protestant
colonies considered them servants of the Antichrist. Edwards viewed the event
as evidence of GodÕs interposition and a harbinger of a new millennial
age. ÒFor years Edwards had been
recording news of Catholic setbacks in his notebooks. Now he had considered irrefutable
evidence of GodÕs providential interventions in political affairs. Perhaps they were seeing the predawn
glimmers of millennial days after all.Ó[8]
Thus Edwards interpreted the colonial victory as a sign of the coming of GodÕs
kingdom.
King
GeorgeÕs War produced frustration and tension with England in the colonies.
Very little, from the colonistsÕ view, had been settled. The British Empire
returned Louisbourg, whose capture gave the colonists
so much pride. New England casualties were high;
higher per capita than the Civil War. Additionally, New England incurred large
amounts of debt, and suffered British Navy press gangs. All of these factors created tensions,
exacerbated by EnglandÕs neglect of colonial interests while negotiating the
peace treaty. New Light ministers,
changing their tone from exultation and millennial hope to judgement
and reproof, cited these troubles as evidence of divine disfavor and signs of
the need of repentance.[9] Thus, King GeorgeÕs War added to the
confluence of circumstances setting the stage for the Revolutionary War.
Colonial Secularization
During
the 1740Õs, Enlightenment rationalism increasingly infected the colonies with its
deistic influences, which Jonathan Edwards and others in the New Lights camp
opposed to the best of their abilities.
One
sign of this secularization was an increase in interest in material profit and
economic gain. The Land Bank Scheme
of 1741, a unauthorized attempt to create an
unofficial paper currency, exemplified this trend. The money provided a cheap
access to expensive English goods for ordinary people. Therefore, the legislature supported the
illegal bank, against the governorÕs opposition. The governor suppressed the
bank using executive privilege, but due to popular discontent, was replaced by
an Anglican opposed theologically to Edwards. This event demonstrated the
material greed and popular strength of the people, a lesson which
the former governor, and the British Empire a few years later, learned too
late. The land bank scheme, in fact, had similar effects to the revival,
because it also strengthened the people and undermined established authority.[10]
The
people fought for increased control politically as well as economically. In the
colony of Massachusetts, the popular legislature battled with the governor for
increased representation to reflect increases in population since the founding
charter. This again reflected an
emphasis on popularization and democratization.[11]
In
Philadelphia, meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin had established the American
Philosophical Society, dedicated to manÕs reason and power to understand and
subjugate nature.[12] Edwards condemned this rationalistic
view of nature frequently in his metaphysical writings, arguing that reality
was a manifestation of the divine mind, rather than a piece of material
clockwork machinery.[13]
The
1740Õs, then, exhibited an acceleration of democratization and secularization,
trends which Edwards struggled against. The Great Awakening and King GeorgeÕs War, fed and accelerated this trend, creating circumstances
conducive to rebellion roughly two decades later. Edwards, one of last remnants of the
earlier tradition, often supported democratization unintentionally, as in the
case of Whitefield, while simultaneously condemning the concurrent
secularization of the age.[14] In this respect, he was both a child of
his time, and a product of what was by then a bygone era of early-modern
and medieval thought.
Bibliography:
Marsden,
George. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Middleton,
Richard. Colonial America: A History,
1607-1760. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers,
1992.
Stout,
Harry. The New England
Soul. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
[1]
George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. p. 206
[2] Richard Middleton, Colonial America: A History, 1607-1760. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
p.253
[3]
George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, p.
210
[4]
Richard Middleton, Colonial America.
p. 253
[5]
Harry Stout, The New England Soul,
New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. p. 202
[6]
Stout, New England, p. 208
[7]
Stout, New England, p. 211
[8]
Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, p. 311
[9]
Stout, New England, p. 239
[10]
Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, p. 229
[11]
Middleton, Colonial America, p. 325
[12]
Middleton, Colonial America, p. 263
[13]
Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, p. 73
[14]
Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, p. 230