The Perfectibility of Man! Ah heaven, what a dreary theme! … Which of them are you going to perfect? … The perfectibility of man, dear God! … Which of these do you choose to perfect, at the expense of every other? Old Daddy Franklin will tell you. He'll rig him up for you, the pattern American. Oh, Franklin was the first Downright American.
D. H. Lawrence.Footnote 1INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the divergent influences of Enlightenment moral philosophy and the moral teachings of Protestant Christianity by contrasting the teachings of two men who left an indelible impression upon American culture: George Whitefield, a religious itinerant preacher, and Benjamin Franklin, a political philosopher. Each man brought an important influence to the developing colonial identity, as each attempted to shape American society through molding individual men. However, the image of man that Franklin and Whitefield wished to inaugurate varied considerably based upon their fundamental philosophic assumptions, evidenced in divergent understanding of human perfection. Franklin and Whitefield represent a critical juncture in American intellectual history, particularly in the northern colonies, where the Protestant Christian view of human perfection, as expressed in the widespread and influential teachings of George Whitefield, was being challenged by the emerging Enlightenment and liberal understanding expressed in the writings of Benjamin Franklin.Footnote 2 While Franklin's pedagogical influence was rooted in Enlightenment liberalism,Footnote 3 it was not the exclusive position shaping the intellectual and political development of colonial America. Historians and political theorists have long noted a variety of intellectual strands which influenced the worldview of both the populace and elites in the late eighteenth century, including English common lawFootnote 4 and classical republicanism,Footnote 5 as well as democratic religious themes with roots in the First Great Awakening of 1731–55.Footnote 6 Not only were these intellectual traditions running concurrently with one another, they were also being comingled, particularly the religious and republican sentimentsFootnote 7 which coalesced in the political actions and philosophy of the founding era.Footnote 8
Yet this comingling created a people of paradoxes as Americans, like their Enlightenment European counterparts, were forced to assimilate their religious and philosophic histories.Footnote 9 As Pangle properly noted, “the question remains whether the moral and political understanding of men like Franklin … can be adequately interpreted as a continuation of the Christian tradition.”Footnote 10 This paper argues that Franklin's fundamental view of human perfection is a foundational and philosophic break with the Christian, particularly northern Protestant, view expressed by George Whitefield. The examination of these competing views shows how the rational enlightenment conception of human nature as expressed by Franklin is rooted in his commitment to democratic man and fundamentally differs from the religious view of human nature. Finally, this paper concludes by exploring the reasons Franklin may have wished to present a variant standard of human perfection.
It is important to analyze these differences between Whitefield and Franklin first because they were, to some degree, friends.Footnote 11 Second, as contemporaries, both Whitefield and Franklin established democratic paradigms which impacted future generations of AmericansFootnote 12 while using communicative modes that formed an American “public” identity.Footnote 13 Third, while it is impossible to argue that Franklin's view was a direct response to the position of Whitefield, the position espoused in the sermons discussed below, which were published between 1771 and 1772, were widely and repeatedly preached throughout the colonies as far back as 1738.Footnote 14 Franklin was well versed in Christian doctrine generallyFootnote 15 and in the teachings of George Whitefield specifically, having attended his sermons, and having been “employed in printing his Sermons and Journals.”Footnote 16 It is reasonable to assert that the position espoused by Whitefield was known and that it influenced Franklin's own views, espoused in his autobiography which was composed between 1771 and 1790.
WHITEFIELD: OTHERWORLDLY PERFECTION
George Whitefield was one of the most renowned figures of the First Great Awakening, whose preaching and private advice influenced many religious and political leaders around colonial America.Footnote 17 Whitefield's style and content spread around the colonies and left an indelible impression on American Christianity, emphasizing its democratic character.Footnote 18 Yet, when examining the teachings of Whitefield, particularly when comparing them to Benjamin Franklin's teachings, it is indispensable to point to the warning that Franklin gave about Whitefield and his sermons.
Franklin warned that if Whitefield had merely been an orator, he would have “left behind him [a] much more numerous and important sect … as there being nothing of his writing on which to found a censure and give him lower character.”Footnote 19 Whitefield's rhetorical skill clearly brought him numerous followers, and the value of a teaching based upon oral tradition not only allows for the fog of memory to shade any difficult or offensive dictate, but also permits teachings to be more easily adapted to new necessities. As if to offer an example for his lesson about Whitefield, Franklin immediately turns from discussing Whitefield's written work to contrasting the Quakers with the Dunkers on this issue of written doctrine. As Franklin witnessed while a representative in the Pennsylvania Assembly, the Quaker doctrine of pacifism frequently hindered the protection of the colony or the assistance of others. Because the doctrine was written, Quaker representatives had to be absent on key votesFootnote 20 or use carefully constructed phrases with obfuscated meanings such as writing “bread, flour, wheat, or other grains” in a bill to provide gunpowder to New England.Footnote 21 In contrast, Franklin praises the Dunkers, whose founder stated,
When we were first drawn together as a society … it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which once esteemed as truths, were errors … He has been pleased to afford us farther light and our principles have been improving and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure we have arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves bound and confined by it, and unwilling to receive further improvement.Footnote 22
For Franklin, an adaptive religion is far more “prudent”Footnote 23 and most easily arises without written doctrine. Written doctrine presupposes, or at least leads followers to presuppose, that there is a rigid perfection at least in the area of the dictate. Clearly the preference for oral versus written doctrine evidences one of the differences between Franklin and Whitefield's view of perfection.
The specificity and finitude of written doctrine make it problematic because not only may it contain “unguarded expressions, and even erroneous opinions,” but it also no longer can be “explained or qualified … or even denied”Footnote 24 after it had been distributed publicly.Footnote 25 Of course, it is because of these written doctrines, and Franklin's employment of printing them through detailed laying of moveable type, that it is reasonable to assert that Franklin was aware of particular expressions and opinions of Whitefield, especially his understanding of perfection.
Whitefield's view of perfection, which was linked to Calvinist Christianity, was that mankind must shake off “the world and worldly affection; to run more swiftly after righteousness, [and] hate your own lives for the sake of Christ.”Footnote 26 For Whitefield, this life and affection for things within it are to be spurned; thus perfection is not of this world but must be found elsewhere. Therefore man is to shun this life and move toward righteousness. This striving for righteousness was found in Christ, who personified perfection. One must “live in a perpetual habitude of desires, struggles, and yearnings towards an intimate union with Christ, the perfection of righteousness.”Footnote 27 A person's struggles and yearnings are “perpetual,” meaning that they will never be achieved. If man is to strive perpetually after the perfection of righteousness, it insinuates that at least on earth, mankind will never actually achieve its goal. Whitefield makes this idea most evident when he states, “till we come up to the perfection of our heavenly father, we can never be righteous enough, much less perfectly righteous: wherefore, as in this life, men cannot attain to the perfection of their heavenly father.”Footnote 28 Whitefield distinguishes between what can be achieved in this life and in the next, leaving Christian followers with no hope of being perfect on earth, while assuring perfection in heaven.
Whitefield further clarified his position of disagreement with other Christian preachers whose messages he thought were inaccurate and unbiblical. John Wesley taught that Christians could achieve a sinless perfection prior to their ascension to heaven. Whitefield wrote, “I am sorry, honoured Sir, to hear by many letters, that you seem to own a sinless perfection in this life attainable.”Footnote 29 Any assessment of Christian perfection being achievable in this life was, for Whitefield, false and unscriptural. Dallimore notes that, for Whitefield, earthly perfection stands distinct from true divine perfection, and the best a man can hope to achieve is a mere “heightened state of maturity,” not a flawless moral state.Footnote 30 Perfection on earth had to be tied to the consequences of God's punishment upon postlapsarian human nature. Whitefield's Christian understanding of human nature is evident: humans are depraved and wholly incapable of achieving moral perfection on earth.
Those who are in heaven are perfect because they are “made perfect.”Footnote 31 This illustrates that even the attainment of perfection in another life cannot be reached by any particular human action. Rather, perfection was externally imputed to man, regardless of his own attempts. Thus mankind should not desire earthly perfection because it is a mistake to strive for “righteousness by the works” of both “ceremonial … [and] moral law.”Footnote 32 Rather, mankind should seek justification by “the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ apprehended by faith.”Footnote 33 The perfection of Christianity, then, was unattainable without a supernatural transformation of man's internal character. Yet even this change was not accomplished through mankind's meritorious actions; on the contrary, it comes from an external source: Christ.
This transformation, for Whitefield, is a necessary but insufficient cause to achieve perfection. He stated, “The most perfect Christian, I am persuaded, must agree, according to one of our Articles ‘that the corruption of nature remains even in the regenerate … So that believers cannot do things for God with that perfection they desire’.”Footnote 34 Even those who have undergone the necessary renewal of their internal character of the heart, according to Whitefield, still stand corrupt. Original sin pervades the actions and motives of mankind and leaves it far short of any perfection. The idea that sin cannot be eradicated even upon conversion was a key position for post-Reformation Protestantism. Despite man's ever-present and visibly noticeable corrupt nature, Whitefield nevertheless taught men to “labor to go on to perfection”Footnote 35 though such “sinless perfection is unattainable in this life.”Footnote 36 Thereby, Whitefield commands men to strive for an unachievable goal.
Mankind desires and perpetually strives to return to the state in which he was uncorrupted, for, “as God made man, so God made him Perfect.”Footnote 37 It is this longing for the prelapsarian state that causes mankind to seek perfection. Yet this pursuit is futile not only because the sentence of exile was proclaimed by God, but also because the enforcement of that sentence prevents man's reentry into the earthly ideal of paradise; for God “placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”Footnote 38 This teaching may appear hopeless and doom man to despair. Even Whitefield preached that man must find perfection not in himself, but in another, to be attained in heaven. It is in light of this despair and necessity to trust another that Franklin is led to interpret Whitefield as making man “naturally half beasts and half devils.”Footnote 39 Franklin noted that the underlying assumption of Whitefield's postlapsarian view of human nature was the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, a doctrine which argues that man's heart is wholly inclined towards evil, as a devil, and that such depravity affects man's reason, making him like unto beasts. Because of this view of human nature, for Whitefield, mankind is unable to achieve perfection on this earth.
This emphasis of the locus of mankind's aim away from the earth to a higher heavenly hope caused Franklin to disagree with the colonial pastor Whitefield. Franklin himself seeks to make this difference clear for he includes a mundane story about his accommodating Whitefield as he passed through Philadelphia only to offer the critical reflection of what each man focussed upon. As Franklin states, Whitefield sought “to shift the burden of the obligation from off his own shoulders, and place it in heaven, I [Franklin] had contrived to fix it on earth.”Footnote 40 For Franklin, this is the central component of that narrative: that each man fundamentally diverges upon the focus of the aim of man. However, it must be recognized that divergence of focus between the heavenly and earthly was only a symptom and not the cause of their disagreement. The reason each aimed at a different standard is because their presuppositions of human nature were fundamentally divergent. Since each viewed the nature of man differently, they then argued for a different aim of man based upon that view of human nature.
FRANKLIN: HEAVEN ON EARTH, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIZATION OF PERFECTION
Benjamin Franklin has long been praised as one of America's greatest founders; he lived an exemplary life and made many significant contributions to science, politics, and philosophy. Franklin's greatness is not merely because he reached incredible heights, but because in reaching such heights he blazed an impressive trail and showed others that they too could follow the path he trod. Franklin himself was guided by the desire to impart a legacy which would “be serviceable to mankind, to their country, to their friends, or to themselves.”Footnote 41 The goal of Franklin's writings, particularly his autobiography, was not limited to a mere description of his own life, but he also sought to influence posterity so that his “posterity may like to know” the “means [he] made use of … [in] going from poverty and obscurity of birth to the state of affluence and reputation in the world.”Footnote 42 For Franklin, being serviceable to the world, his country, and intellectual descendants involved the inculcation of egalitarian principles: the wholly democratic virtue which he espoused shaped the very character of a new nation.Footnote 43
This inculcation is most clearly evidenced in Franklin's codicil to his will dated 23 June 1789, in which he states, “I wish to be useful even after my death, if possible, in forming and advancing other young men, that may be serviceable to their country.”Footnote 44 This benefit to posterity would come through Franklin's writings, particularly “a little Work for the Benefit of the Youth, to be call'd The Art of Virtue,”Footnote 45 which, though never published, as a stand-alone moral treatise, seems to have been encapsulated as part of Franklin's autobiography.Footnote 46 Just as the method of physical science would “render [mankind], as it were, masters and possessors of nature,”Footnote 47 Franklin agreed with Enlightenment thought that a rational methodological approach to virtue would lead to the proper formation of human nature, for himself and others.Footnote 48 To inculcate these principles in posterity, Franklin sought to improve upon other moral teachers not merely by proclaiming a goal, but also by offering a methodology which was exhibited through real-life examples.Footnote 49 Through this methodology, his readers could emulate Franklin's actions, as far as the principles were “suitable to their own situations, and therefore fit to be imitated.”Footnote 50 Franklin recognized that the inculcation of virtue required comradery and habituation, and thus he proposed a club entitled the Society of the Free and Easy, which would be composed of “young and single men.” Each of these men would adhere to Franklin's religious creed and “should have exercised himself with the thirteen weeks’ examination and practice of the virtues.”Footnote 51 This group was to be useful by “forming a great number of good citizens.”Footnote 52 The habituation that these men learned would benefit society as a whole, as they would be good citizens in America or any other country.
Even the discussion of his thirteen virtues – arguably Franklin's central theme and the topic of detailed scholarly inquiryFootnote 53 – was a “bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection.”Footnote 54 Despite the emphasis on Franklin's method, previous scholars have not focussed enough on understanding the goal of “moral perfection” within his teachings. Therefore an appropriate understanding of Franklin's teaching of virtue requires that one first understand Franklin's concept of human perfection, as discussed throughout his writings.
According to Franklin, “men are endowed with Reason,” which is the teacher of the duties they have on this earth.Footnote 55 Franklin's view of human reason does not accept the Christian doctrine of corruption of original sin. For Franklin, both the reason and the pathos of individuals influence choices in each particular circumstance, but sometimes reason does not always prevail because humans frequently seek the easiest path.Footnote 56 This different understanding of the effect of original sin and the role of reason led to his divergent view of man's ability to become perfect. Perfection is not an absolute moral standard of action; rather it is an individual standard based upon the influence of reason and its application to exogenous circumstances. One of Franklin's major criticisms of the moral teachings of the Bible was that they exhort mankind towards an end, but fail to provide the necessary method for attaining that end. Franklin's own writings, particularly his moral teachings, are viewed as a practical improvement of the lessons of the Bible, as he offers himself as an example of how one can achieve the goal.Footnote 57
While there has been much discussion of Franklin's thirteen virtues – what they are, whether they are properly called virtues, and whether they are compatible with the classical and Christian teachings of virtue – previous scholars have not adequately focussed on apprehending the object of his teachings, i.e. “arriving at moral perfection.”Footnote 58 Franklin's writing was designed to be path-finding because it demonstrated that posterity can achieve both virtue and perfection since it had already been achieved by another.
Franklin's teaching of virtue was an attempt to provide men not only with a technique that they can utilize, but also with a clear goal that can realistically be achieved through diligent effort. While several scholars have debated the precise nature of Franklin's teaching on morals, it is evident that Franklin sought them to be “as uncontroversial and universally applicable as possible.”Footnote 59 The evidence for their universality can be found not only in the understood purpose of the work,Footnote 60 but also in the very definition of the virtues. While each virtue may, upon initial glance, appear strict and narrow,Footnote 61 a deeper analysis finds that there is often wide latitude in what constitutes following the virtue. For example, Sincerity is defined as “use not hurtful deceit, think innocently and justly, and if you speak, speak accordingly.”Footnote 62 This definition may appear to ban deceit, however, it only prohibits deceit which brings about harm to oneself or another. “Harmless” deceit is permitted. Franklin himself recognized that following each virtue strictly was impossible, but one would be much more improved by the concerted effort than if one failed to improve oneself at all.Footnote 63
Franklin's virtue, then, was a liberal virtue, one that did not presuppose a rigid and absolute definition; rather it would promote democratic ideals and was flexible and accessible to the majority of mankind. Franklin desired to develop a standard for “excellence … [that] does not dictate that one crucify the self or even that one put others first, but it does demand an enlightened attention to the ways in which the good of others dovetails with one's own.”Footnote 64 Franklin notes in “Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue”Footnote 65 that a virtue is not enhanced if one has to do it against one's own inclination, or if there is some sort of internal fight over the motive of the action. This shows that the reason behind the action is less important to its virtue than the success of the action. In other words, Franklin's teaching was one founded upon the modern liberal theory of an enlightened self-interest.
Franklin clearly rejected the Christian concept of perfection for “mankind cannot in this life be so perfect as an angel.”Footnote 66 This is because man, though guided by reason, makes mistakes. As Franklin's alter ego, Poor Richard, stated, “To err is human.”Footnote 67 Franklin recognized that a proper understanding of human nature requires a recognition that errors will occur; in many cases these errors are not to be faulted. For Franklin, the errors of humanity are defensible lack of knowledge or improper uses of reason. Franklin showed this most overtly through his sly alteration of Alexander Pope's famous words “Immodest works admit no defense, the want of modesty is the want of sense” to the more benign “immodest words admit but this defense, the want of modesty is the want of sense.”Footnote 68 While Franklin should not be thought a Platonist, this justification of man's errors as being due to lack of knowledge echoes the philosophic position of Plato; men err not because of an inherent evil nature within them, but rather because they do not know how they should act.Footnote 69 It is through offering a different foundation for, or source of, human frailty that Franklin begins to illuminate a different understanding and path to human perfection. If men's errors are not, as Christianity expressed by Whitefield argues, a flaw in their very nature, but rather an ignorance in their knowledge, then there is a practical solution to men's errors: instruct them to use reason and follow the correct habits.
Reason, for Franklin, is to be the ultimate guide of human actions. This notion was most clearly and humorously demonstrated in Franklin's mocking account of a preacher steadfastly holding to the inerrancy of Scripture in the light of reason and human errors. Franklin recounted an error he made in printing a Bible:
where David says I am fearfully and wonderfully made, I omitted the letter (e) in the last word, so that it was, I am fearfully and wonderfully mad; which occasioned an ignorant preacher, who took that text, to harangue his audience for half an hour on the subject of spiritual madnesss.Footnote 70
Two lessons can be extrapolated from Franklin's story. First, mankind, at times, will make errors, so Franklin believes it is inherently foolish to strive for the Christian goal of prelapsarian perfection. Second, Franklin argues for the common understanding of reason to be the primary hermeneutic in the interpretation of the Bible. This can also be applied as the hermeneutic for interpreting all teachings. Franklin showed that it was foolish to assume that David would say he was “mad” and, using reason, the hearers should have been able to understand that the word “mad” was really an error. This primacy of reason in the interpretation of man's actions leads to an accommodation of errors, for “whoever accustoms himself to pass over in silence the faults of his neighbors, shall meet with much better quarter from the world when he happens to fall into a mistake himself.”Footnote 71 Since errors are part of human nature, Franklin believes that it is best to accommodate them rather than disparage them, and instead work for improvement. In this way each individual will be more accepting and understanding of the rest of society.
Franklin's greatest treatment of human perfection occurred in his discussion questions for the Junto, a club he began in order to consider questions of moral and natural philosophy. One question Franklin postulated was, “Can a man arrive at perfection in this life as some believe, or is it impossible as others believe?”Footnote 72 Franklin recognized that those who argue that perfection is impossible on this earth hold an erroneous position on the concept of perfection; this is not based upon willful error, but on divergent definitions. Thus, in the very same discussion, Franklin indicated that the disagreement between himself and Whitefield occurred because “they differ in the meaning of the word perfection.”Footnote 73 The identification of variant definitions allows a thoughtful reader to reassess Franklin's purpose: to replace the previously held position on perfection as espoused by Christianity and exhibited by Whitefield with an understanding that is consistent with reason and accounts for man's nature, which may err.
It is critical to note that Franklin did not wish to discuss whether man can or will become perfect in heaven. Rather, he placed the discussion firmly “in this life.” This does not mean that Franklin failed to consider otherworldly perfection. Instead, he wrestles with Whitefield's concept by stating, “If they mean a man is not capable of being so perfect here as he is capable of being in heaven, that may be true likewise.”Footnote 74 While Franklin was not willing to dismiss the veracity of such a claim, he only tentatively concurs because perfection in heaven was a topic outside the realm of human reason. The reader should note that the statement was posed as a hypothetical that “if” then they “may” be correct. This cautious acceptance corresponds to his belief that error “is common in metaphysical reasoning.”Footnote 75 Therefore Franklin posed merely hypothetical connections. This was similar to what he did in Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, where he remarked that the reader can “easily perceive what I design for demonstration, and what for probability only.”Footnote 76 Without necessarily contradicting Whitefield's conclusion, Franklin argued that the question to be posed was not about what will happen in heaven since that cannot be known, but instead about what is possible on earth.
Franklin stated that it is nonsensical to argue that “man is not capable of being so perfect here, as he is capable of being here.”Footnote 77 Using a foundation of reason – the law of noncontradiction – Franklin shows that any statement that denies the perfectibility of mankind on earth and is grounded upon earthly definitions is contradictory. This standard, as well as the argument to prove its possibility, was based upon man's reason and was a new and radically different standard than that of Whitefield's Christianity. Franklin's standard asserted that “the perfection of anything [is] to be only the greatest the nature of that thing is capable of.”Footnote 78 Thus it must be recognized that “different things have different degrees of perfection, and the same thing at different times.”Footnote 79 This statement is of the utmost importance in properly assessing Franklin's teaching on perfection and consequently in understanding his virtues. For Franklin, perfection is not a single absolute standard for all, but rather each class of things has its own perfection and each thing can be considered perfect at various points depending on its relative standard.
It is difficult to understand how someone can be the “greatest the nature of the thing is capable of,”Footnote 80 yet also more perfect at a different time. This tension does make sense, however, if one recognizes that, for Franklin, not only is learning the virtues a progressive effort, but also one's actions are a consequence of habituation. Franklin states, “Habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason.”Footnote 81 This statement indicates that Franklin's understanding of perfection allowed for a progressive growth in habit and that, with effort, one could suppose “the habit of that virtue so much strengthened and its opposite weakened.”Footnote 82 This allowed him to focus on the next virtue. Franklin's methodology of inculcating virtue allows for continued growth.
Franklin's own life shows the evolving nature and meaning of his virtues, particularly of chastity and frugality. For chastity, Franklin's definition allows a wide latitude of sexual activity. To him, being chaste means to “Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.”Footnote 83 And yet, how to measure “rarely” depends on the individual. Within his own life, Franklin notes that “hard-to-be-governed passion of youth hurried me frequently into intrigues with low women that fell in my way, which ere attended with … a continual risk to my health,”Footnote 84 and such encounters are not in fact in violation of the virtue of chastity. Franklin allowed such variance in his virtues because of different individuals' abilities to fulfill a strict standard and his preference to allow some leeway so that all men would be able to achieve the virtue. This is also why frugality is defined as “Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e. waste nothing.”Footnote 85 And yet, when one becomes wealthy, as Franklin eventually did, it is not prodigal to purchase china and silver spoons for breakfast, even as the china “augmented gradually to several hundred pounds in value” because “our wealth increased.”Footnote 86 Frugality is to be followed at all times, for both the poor and the rich, yet once one has achieved wealth, the “expenses to do yourself good”Footnote 87 are much greater than when one is poor and therefore frugality is relative to the wealth of the individual.
Franklin's perfection exists in different degrees, for something can be perfect in itself, but be more or less perfect when compared to another. As Franklin notes, “An horse is more perfect than an oyster, yet the oyster may be a perfect oyster as well as the horse a perfect horse.”Footnote 88 This statement is difficult to disentangle, because both are as perfect as “their nature is capable of,”Footnote 89 yet somehow he still asserts that the horse is more perfect than the oyster. Franklin sheds light on this seemingly problematic idea when he later states that “an egg is not so perfect as a chicken, nor a chicken as a hen; for the hen has more strength than the chicken, and the chicken more life than the egg: yet it may be a perfect egg, chicken and hen.”Footnote 90 Here Franklin presented more information on his hierarchy of perfection. The possession of more life (actual versus potential) means that in comparing two things – the one with the potential to achieve something and the other which already possesses it – the possessor is “more perfect” than the being that only has potential to possess it since the value of any good, for Franklin, is based upon “its usefulness, and the great good it does to society.”Footnote 91 It is also possible to take this distinction and apply it to mankind. A child is a potential possessor of reason, but a man is (or at least should be) a full possessor of reason. A child is less perfect than a man, but may be a perfect child. Yet the possessor of potential is not yet transformed into the mature version of the possessor of the actual quality, and as such is less useful and still less perfect than he could be. This explains why Franklin allowed a time variance in the perfection of something, for progressive growth will change from potential to actual, thus allowing the ability to be as perfect as the nature is capable of and yet still become more perfect.
Moreover, Franklin specifically made a distinction on the basis of strength. He stated, “The hen has more strength than the chicken.”Footnote 92 While chicken is the species' name, hen refers only to the female of the species. Franklin insinuated that the female hen has more strength than the male chicken, i.e. rooster. Yet, in this point, Franklin wrote not about strength as in might, but rather in reference to usefulness. The hen is more useful in at least two ways. First, the hen produces eggs which can be hatched or eaten by another. Stated differently, the hen is capable of both creating and sustaining life. Second, while both hen and rooster can be eaten, a hen is generally the more edible of the two. Therefore the hen is more useful for itself by way of propagation and for others by providing food both in eggs and in its own body. This significance indicates that strength, according to Franklin, should be understood by a being's utility to itself and others. Thus, in understanding the hierarchy of perfection, Franklin argued that something more useful is more perfect than something less useful, though both may be as useful as their own nature allows.
The reader should also note that Franklin showed that different degrees of perfection can exist in “the same thing at different times.”Footnote 93 The relation of time to perfection is important, and, as discussed earlier, is related to potentiality and actuality. However, Franklin also demonstrates that some external influences are beyond the control of man because “a perfect man” is only “as perfect as his present nature and circumstances admit.”Footnote 94 This question of circumstances and their effect upon perfection shows that exogenous influences can limit the perfection some beings can expect to have. As Poor Richard says, “It is hard for an empty sack to stand upright.”Footnote 95 Franklin indicates that the ability to achieve virtue can be influenced by being “free from debt, which exposes a man to confinement, and a species of slavery to his creditors.”Footnote 96 Franklin recognized that necessity constrains and enslaves; therefore actions that occur under such a constraint are not truly free. In such cases, mankind is not “capable” of acting otherwise, and, as such, he can be perfect. Even if necessity dictates that man act in a way that he would not if he had the freedom of choice, such action is consistent with “the greatest [way] the nature of that thing is capable of” given the constraints of necessity.Footnote 97
Franklin understood that there were many exogenous circumstances that directed his actions, for “[f]avorable circumstances and situation … preserved me, through this dangerous time of youth … without any willful gross immorality.”Footnote 98 Though there may have been things that appeared immoral or not virtuous, he deemed none of them willful. Franklin defined this: “I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others.”Footnote 99 This statement indicates Franklin's belief that one's ability to be perfect to “the greatest the nature of that thing is capable of”Footnote 100 is related to one's youth, experience, and circumstances.
In summary, Franklin argued for a new definition of “moral perfection” that accounts for man's limitations. This belief is why so many of his virtues, which are the method to moral perfection, have caveats that allow man to have what Franklin views as harmless foibles. Franklin's story of the speckled ax best exemplifies his teaching, for it recognizes the major components of human nature:
The man who, in buying an ax of a smith, my neighbor, desired to have the whole of its surface as bright as the edge. The smith consented to grind it bright for him if he would turn the wheel; he turned, while the smith pressed the broad face of the ax hard and heavily on the stone, which made the turning of it very fatiguing. The man came every now and then from the wheel to see how the work went on, and at length would take his ax as it was, without farther grinding. “No,” said the smith, “turn on, turn on; we shall have it bright by-and-by; as yet, it is only speckled.” “Yes,” said the man, “but I think I like a speckled ax best.”Footnote 101
First, the ax is not as perfect as it could conceivably be. According to Franklin, ultimate perfection may be possible in a theoretical sense, but man's desire for it is weighed alongside the physical effort necessary to achieve that level, and the man's fatigue meant the ax fell short of the ideal. For Franklin, perfection is constrained by the capabilities of each individual. Thus perfection must be defined not as an objective standard that all must meet but as a fluid concept that allows variations within the product: a more or less speckled ax. Franklin's new standard of moral perfection is one which is individual and recognizes what is best given one's individual constraints. Thus perfection is no longer associated with a strict universal standard; rather it is fluid and relative to the situation. This explains why Franklin's methodology, the virtues, is wrought with exceptions such as “Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation,” or “Sincerity: use no hurtful deceit.”Footnote 102 These definitions do not require strict abstinence or truth, but rather allow variation for each man to determine for himself precisely when his or her health necessitates sexual activity and whether or not a lie would be hurtful. “We learn enough in the autobiography to realize that each of the loopholes in this definition is deliberate; if Franklin had viewed the virtue more strictly, he might have been forced to give up on it.”Footnote 103 The existence of purposeful loopholes allows one to understand why Franklin's errata support his broader view of human perfection. As Franklin notes, there are a few actions of his life which, upon mature and more informed reflection, would be corrected if he “were to live it over again,”Footnote 104 yet in the moment “weighed little on me.”Footnote 105 This is explained by recognizing that all choices are constrained by the surrounding circumstances and knowledge; they can still be the best decision in the moment while recognizing that upon later knowledge and reflection they ought to be corrected. Franklin presented a view of perfection that required a loose interpretation of virtue, thus allowing more men to be able to achieve the teaching he presented because perfection is relative to one's situation and knowledge. It is through his careful introduction of a new definition of perfection – one based upon utility and relative to individuals – that Franklin was able to encourage man to foster and accomplish what he deemed to be virtuous perfection.
CONCLUSION
As this paper argues, eighteenth-century colonial America contained a variety of intellectual and philosophic influences, some that had fundamental conflicts on the nature of manFootnote 106 and yet were often comingledFootnote 107 in paradoxical political expressions of the American people.Footnote 108 This leads to the question whether the expressions rooted in Enlightenment liberalism are philosophically consistent with, or a fundamental break from, Protestant Christianity.Footnote 109 This paper has illustrated the divergent worldviews as they relate to human nature and perfection through the ideas of Franklin and Whitefield. While both men idealized democracy, they disagreed on the telos of human nature, particularly about the understanding of man's perfection and its attainability in this world. Whitefield's democratic idea was founded upon the assumption of a fundamental equality of mankind, men who had fallen from perfection into sin. Thus, for Whitefield, earthly moral perfection is humanly unattainable, and all such striving leaves man in a perpetual state of failure. Mankind's unsuccessful attempts merely serve as a constant reminder of weakness and imperfection. The only way perfection can be achieved is through redemption in Christ; even then, moral perfection is not truly attained until one reaches heaven. Thus Whitefield denies the ability for man to achieve the highest end and as such teaches man to seek help from another for that which he himself cannot attain.
However, it is precisely this conclusion of finding help in another that set Franklin's view apart. As Fiering states, Franklin “explicitly rejected almost all concern with the reformation of the heart or with the need for internal change as a necessary preliminary and foundation for virtue”Footnote 110 because mankind, through hard work, can achieve such virtue. This arises because Franklin argued for the common understanding of reason to be the primary guide for human morality rather than revelation. His understanding of these Christian elements – namely the total depravity of man and the necessity of redemption only through the mediatorial work of Christ, leading to perfection being achieved only in heaven – caused him to devise a new standard of moral perfection that he believed to be both attainable by humans and less restrictive in its understanding of the virtue of man. Additionally, this redefinition would benefit civility amongst citizens and promote a democratic theory of tolerance. Mankind learns to accept errors in himself and others, leading to an accommodation, for “whoever accustoms himself to pass over in silence the faults of his neighbors, shall meet with much better quarter from the world when he happens to fall into a mistake himself.” Franklin recognized that for liberal democratic values to continue, there must be a way for man to achieve variant levels and tolerate those who differ. This necessitated a recognition of the weakness inherent in human nature – “To err is human.” By presenting a view of human perfection which is based on the human nature of imperfection, Franklin was able to root liberal democratic values upon a standard of constant self-improvement tempered with tolerance.Footnote 111 Thus, the acceptance of Franklin's liberal education necessitated a rejection of fundamental Calvinistic Christian beliefs that were dominant in colonial America.
