The Puritans, a movement of Christians that came out of the Church of England in the 16th and 17th centuries, sought to practice justice in all aspects of life.
Their understanding and applications of justice took on new expressions as many of them had the capacity to reform their governments, and, in the case of Colonial America, form a new one.
In the today’s context, these Puritan leaders are often elevated for their considerable writings on theology and personal devotional life. What often gets overlooked is their substantial contribution to a ‘lived theology,’ engaging as faithful Jesus-followers and loving neighbors within their broader social context. These Puritans provide a profound, and often convicting approach to justice within the community for the common good and the glory of God.
A PURITAN UNDERSTANDING OF JUSTICE
The Puritan belief in justice was not a mere theoretical exercise. As Jesus followers, they sought to live a vibrant, activist faith within their homes, churches, and communities. Believing that they were the people of God, American Puritans founded their communities on values they saw in scripture[1], modeling themselves after ancient Israel[2].
Considering the nature of justice, and keying off Jesus’ command to love our neighbor as our self, William Ames argued that
“Justice is a Virtue whereby we are inclined to performe all due Offices to our Neighbour[3].”
English Pastor Richard Baxter similarly argued that justice involved treating all people who lived under a particular government with equity and giving “each man their due[4],” a definition that Ames[5] and others held. To these puritans, ensuring that each person received their due was not a principle based on a human political philosophy or natural law, it was based on their understanding of God’s law[6].
JUSTICE AND EQUITY
Many Puritans argued that one of the key ends of justice is equity, which was understood to be “a set of principles which supplemented the common law and modified its inequities[7].”
William Perkins believed that equity is not only essential to justice, but that it is the the ultimate expression of justice within a community[8].
He believed that without equity, “legal justice is ‘inequity[9].” He argues that
“Legal Justice taken strictly, considereth the words just as they are written, but Equity considereth the End, scope, and intent of the Law, and so hath more Law in it, then Legall justice, when taken strictly[10].”
The pursuit of equity meant that Christians were to confront the wrongs they observed and experienced with both justice and mercy. English pastor and key leader in the Massachusetts Bay colony, John Winthrop, preached a sermon entitled “A Model of Christian Charity” in which he addresses the imperative for Christians to pursue both justice and mercy within their communities:
There are two rules whereby we are to walk one towards another: Justice and Mercy. These are always distinguished in their act and in their object yet may they both concurre in the same subject in eache respect; as sometimes there may be an occasion of showing mercy to a rich man in some sudden danger or distresse, and alsoe doeing of meere justice to a poor man in regard of some perticular contract [11].
Compelled by their covenantal view of scripture, the Puritans worked to live lives marked by justice and mercy and sought to build a God-honoring society marked by equity. This involved a persistent pursuit of the common good and frequent analysis of their governmental structures, legal codes, and execution of those codes within their community. Their goal in building a just society was not self-preservation (e.g., ‘law and order’) or economic advancement (e.g., free market capitalism), it was to build a society marked by virtue as defined by the ‘one who judges justly[12].’
TWO TYPES OF JUSTICE
The Puritans recognized that justice is involves bringing correction to the wrongdoer as well as to correct the wrong done, in as much is possible. Building off both Aquinas[13] and Aristotle[14], William Perkins distinguishes between ‘distributive justice’ and ‘commutative Justice,’ saying:
Distributive justice is, as it were, from the Whole to the Parts, but Commutative is as from Part to Part. For the distribution of Honours and Rewards proceeds from the whole as the greater, but all Commutation consider the Equity of Right between the parts Commuting.
In Distributive Justice, that which is due is given not as if before it had been in the possession and command of him that receiveth, or as it had formerly bin conferr’d, but that now in equity it should be conferr’d : But in the Commutative Justice, that which is due is retorted to a man, as being now properly his own Possession.
In Distributive Justice, the proportion which one party bears to the other, in respect of the thing to be delivered, is directly observed. But in the Commutative nothing is directly observed, but the proportion between the thing received and the thing returned. [15]
While commutative justice involves breaches of justice between parties, distributive justice is more ambiguous, usually involving not law codes or the letter of the law, but rather what is ‘due’ a person as an image-bearer of God. In many, if not most cases, distributive justice focuses on equity, ensuring that every member of a community receives what they are due. This would include, but is not limited to, correcting past inequities, removing present systemic inequities, and building systems and structures that secure future equity between fellow citizens.
THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH IN PURTIAN SOCIETY
Colonial Puritans held a strong conviction that the local church played a vibrant role in advocating for justice, mercy, and equity. William Perkins believed that the local church was to prophetically preach about justice and to compel congregants to hold to a ‘lived theology,’ striving to bring justice and mercy into the social and economic inequities that faced their community[16].
This included advocating for fair wages, providing famine relief, alleviating poverty, fostering healthy postures towards vagrant and migrant workers, decreasing, and condemning morally dubious or corrupt business practices[17].
In celebrating a Parliamentary decision regarding the care for the poor, William Perkins states “And therefore the statute made the last Parliment for the restraining of beggars and rogues is an excellent statute and beeing in substance the very lawe of God, is never to be repealed[18].”
In this same work, he publicly condemns the wealthy who have chosen to live lives of luxury, while their neighbor suffers in poverty, stating “we learne by this, that miserable and damnable is the fate of those that being enriched … doe spende their daies in eating and drinking, in sports and pastimes, not imploying themselves in service for Church or Commonwealth[19].”
Perkins argues that wealth is to be used for five key applications: to care for yourself, your family, to relieve the poor, to support the Church and to maintain the health of the commonwealth[20].
Moreover, he argued that the wealthy and powerful were expected to finance social programs[21] designed to care for, empower and equip the marginalized through such means as donations, interest-free loans, and cancelation of debts[22].
THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTITCE
The covenantal theology of the Colonial Puritans provided them with a framework for understanding how faithful Christians were to obey God’s command to love their neighbors within their community.[23]
Justice was for the entire commonwealth. Because they understood that each citizen shared a corporate responsibility to pursue the good of their community, many Colonial Puritans expected and petitioned their government to play a substantial role in the execution of justice within the community.
Perhaps one of the most famous legal documents shaped by the Puritans is the Mayflower Compact, which tethered together the religious and civil life of a community.
Haveing undertaken for the glorie of God, and advancements of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid.[24]
Both William Ames and William Perkins believed that those in government were, in part, responsible for “the administration of equity as well as strict justice[25].”
Perkins argued that those who held power in government were to apply justice to issues such as unjust war, the taking of property by magistrates, bribery, extortion, corruption in trade, and usury[26].
He believed that government leaders were to live as God’s stewards, using their power, influence, and resources for the common good.
EXAMPLES OF BIBLICAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE PURITAN COMMUNITY
REPARATIONS
One of the most controversial issues facing the modern American church is how to make reparation for the profound damage of systematized racism. The lasting impact of chattel slavery, Jim Crow and redlining continues to foster pain, frustration, lament, and outrage within our communities. The matter has become increasingly complicated as the evil done has been spread out over generations, often begging the question of who is responsible to make reparations.
When an injustice is done between two parties that are presently living, the process of reparation is usually clear. Thomas Watson proposed that when one person wrongs another, restitution is to be sought as part of the process of repentance[27]. However, he recognizes that making restitution becomes substantially more complex when one or more parties is no longer living.
Watson addressed this issue, stating “Let him restore his ill-gotten goods to that man’s heirs and successors. If none of them be living, let him restore to God, that is, let him put his unjust gain into God’s treasury by relieving the poor.”[28]
Watson believe that if the one wronged party is no longer living, the wrongdoer is to make financial recompense to someone else who is in need or has been injured. He also considers the scenario, (much like the children of those who benefited from chattel slavery, Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion Act, Manifest Destiny, and redlining) in which the descendants of the deceased wrongdoer consider what needs to be done to make recompense. Addressing this, Watson argues
“Then they who are his heirs ought to make restitution. Mark what I say: if there be any who have estates left them, and they know that the parties who left their estates had defrauded others and died with that guilt upon them, then the heirs or executors who possess those estates are bound in conscience to make restitution, otherwise they entail the curse of God upon their family.”[29]
Knowing that the wrongdoer or family of the wrongdoer is not always able to make financial restitution, Watson encourages them to “deeply humble himself before God, promising to the wronged party full satisfaction if the Lord make him able, and God will accept the will for the deed.”
This guidance for making reparations as part of the spiritual discipline of repentance provides insight to the Puritan understanding of how repentance is practically lived out within a community and provides us with a guide for present debates about how to make reparations for the sins of our fathers.
POVERTY, WORKERS AND WAGES
Just as today, poverty was a major issue in the late 17th and early 18th centuries in England and its American colonies. The poor often suffered from ‘natural causes’ such as famine, sickness and disability or death of the primary earner, as well as ‘man-made’ issues such as a lack of fair wages, mistreatment of workers and usury[30].
Caring for the poor was an issue frequently addressed by puritan preachers. In the early 18th century, renowned preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards gave a prophetic sermon in which he stated that his local church family was “uncharitable” and neglecting the poor, refusing to use their resources to care for those in need. Arguing that because the poor in their community were fellow image-bearers of God, this lack of giving was not only a sin against their neighbor, but a sin against God[31].
Puritan pastors not only compelled their congregations to be charitable, but they also called on their governing authorities (many of whom claimed to share their Christian convictions), to create and provide administration for social programs that would effectively care for the poor and avoid ‘rewarding sloth.’
In some cases, local governments created discriminatory systems that were designed to separate the undeserving poor from the ‘deserving poor’. The deserving poor included “physically disabled, but also untrained youth, the unemployed and the under-employed[32].” In identifying the ‘deserving poor,’ the Puritans sought to live out the biblical call for justice in a way that equipped and empowered the poor without funding laziness and apathy.
Instead of using the ‘threat’ of funding the ‘undeserving poor’ to prohibit any social programs, they fought to ‘thread the needle’ in serving those in need without the collateral damage of creating a ‘welfare state.’
SLAVERY
Any exploration of 17th and 18th century western European theologians will be forced to reckon with views and practices related to chattel slavery. While the issue of slavery was not a major issue of contention during the late colonial era, in the revolutionary period, some puritan leaders, influenced by their colonial predecessors, began to work out how their understanding of justice, mercy and equity applied to the enslaved men and women in their communities. While some modern people prefer to toss aside theologians that held any view that did not promote full emancipation, we may see how some of these puritans were tilling the mental soil that would allow the seeds of freedom to grow in a culture desiring true equity.[33]
However, I believe we do need to recognize that many of the late colonial puritans did, often, fail to apply their views of justice and equity to the enslaved image bearers of God in their community.
One such example is William Ames, who in writing a chapter on the obligations between masters and servants references Philemon and argues that a slave that runs away from their master is committing a theft. “Servants owe their masters subjection as well as honour; and therefore, they ought not to runne away from their Masters; because this were the same as to take away another man’s proper goods, and so no less unlawful then very Theft[34].”
Though they failed to fully apply their biblical convictions to all citizens of the commonwealth, the Puritan desire to apply justice into all aspects of life paved the way, in part, for future Christians to advocate for emancipation, the end to the slave trade, and equity of civil rights. Though they certainly had shortcomings, their example of striving to apply justice within their context should inform our perspective in the modern American church.
Intro: Justice For All
Part I: Justice in Scripture
Part II: Justice in Church History – St. Basil
Part III: Justice in Church History – The Puritans
Part IV: Justice in Church History – Modern Evangelicals
[1] E. Clinton Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan Covenantal Tradition,” Journal of Law and Religion 6 (1988) 43.
[2] George McKenna, The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (USA, Yale University Press, 2007), 49.
[3] William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (Leiden and London, W. Christiaens, E. Griffin, J. Dawson, 1693), 110.
[4] Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter: With a Preface, Giving Some Account of the Author, and of This Edition of His Practical Works : An Essay on His Genius, Works and Times (London, A. Hall, 1847), 150.
[5] Ames, Conscience with, 110.
[6] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 53.
[7] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 72.
[8] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 54.
[9] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 54.
[10] Ames, Conscience with, 111.
[11] John Winthrop, “A modell of Christian Charity,” Hanover Historical Texts Collection, https://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html.
[12] W.B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England (United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2014), 150.
[13] St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica (United Kingdom, Burns, Oates & Washburne, Limited, 1920), 157.
[14] Izhak Englard, Corrective and Distributive Justice: From Aristotle to Modern Times (United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2009), 85.
[15] Ames, Conscience, 112.
[16] Patterson, William Perkins, 135.
[17] Mark Valeri, “Religious Discipline and the Market: Puritans and the Issue of Usury,” The William and Mary Quarterly 54(4) (1997): 760.
[18] William Perkins, A Treatise of the Vocations: Or Callings of Mem [Ie.Men] with the Sorts and Kindes of Them, and the Right Use Thereof (United Kingdom, John Legat, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1605), 910.
[19] Perkins, Treatise of the Vocations, 910.
[20] Patterson, William Perkins, 148.
[21] McKenna, The Puritan Origins, 49.
[22] Patterson, William Perkins, 150.
[23] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 47.
[24] Benjamin Weiss, God in American History (Wisconsin, Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), 26.
[25] Gardner, “Justice in the Puritan,” 54.
[26] Patterson, William Perkins, 150.
[27] Thomas Watson, The Doctrine of Repentance (United Kingdom, Parkhurst, 1668), Kindle edition, Ch. 3, “Ingredient 2: Sorrow for Sin.”
[28] Watson, The Doctrine, Ch. 3, “Ingredient 2: Sorrow for Sin.”
[29] Watson, The Doctrine, Ch. 3, “Ingredient 2: Sorrow for Sin.”
[30] Valeri, Religious Discipline, 754.
[31] Ronald Story, Jonathan Edwards and the Gospel of Love (Amherst and Boston, University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), 55.
[32] Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2002), 165.
[33] Story, Jonathan Edwards, 129.
[34] Ames, Conscience, 160.