Question: If you had been a member of the General Court, how would this sermon have influenced your politics? Why?
Theopolis Americana was a sermon delivered by Cotton Mather to the Massachusetts General Court on May 9th, 1709. It was a conventional sermon that didn’t stray too far from popular opinion in New England. It was also very focused on New England’s role in eschatology. Would this sermon influence the legislators in the General Court? If I was a member of the General Court, I doubt that it would have changed any of my actions. With the possible exception of making me a little more conservative. Why wouldn’t his sermon have changed much?
He Was Vague
Mather’s was not trying to rock the boat with this sermon. Therefore, he left it vague and didn’t present any unpopular opinions. He did this because he didn’t want to seem like a partisan. He did not want alienate anyone in his audience. This was a common theme in civil sermons. An example of the vague nature of his sermon is in his social criticisms; he never goes into specifics on any issue. He criticizes unethical business practices, harsh slavery, and alcoholism. However, he never specifies what are unethical business practices and he never proposes a solution to alcoholism. He stays vague, so that he doesn’t anger anyone.
For example, on alcohol he writes: “A River, the Streams whereof do debauch, do defile, do destroy the City of our God. Oh! If the Street of the CITY be Pure Gold, there will be no Reeling there; no Spew-ing, upon all the Glory. The Bottel must not be the Grand Merchandise of the Market-Place… I don’t move, to have the Use of it Banished; but the Abuse and Excess of it. And I most importunately move, That all Sober People throughout the Land, would set themselves to think, What may be done, to have Rum used with more of Moderation?” Clearly, he does not approve of the excessive use of alcohol, but he doesn’t want to ban it altogether. In his entire sermon, he never offers a solution to the problem of alcoholism; he does not want to alienate them, so he stays vague.
He Kept Within Popular Opinion
Mather’s sermon did not present any revolutionary ideas. His social criticisms were not uncommon and the theology of his sermon was common to New England. He stuck to the traditional eschatological view of New England, postmillennialism, but he did add some very subtle shifts towards premillennialism. A large portion of his sermon was focused on eschatology. He claimed that New England would be/was part of the earthly kingdom of God, which was a common view as well. You get the idea, his sermon promoted popular opinion in New England.
What Could His Sermon Change
Mather’s sermon was a special type of sermon called a jeremiad. A jeremiad is a sermon that warns a society of the negative sanctions of disobeying God’s laws and the rewards for obeying. It was a common type of New England Puritan preaching. Mather claimed that right now the New Englanders were on the right track. He affirmed the popular social and theological views of the period and did not call for any radical change. He even praised the current judicial system. However, he did warn against straying from their godly society, as a jeremiad does. Therefore, if I was a legislator listening to this sermon I would want to conserve the present society.
Conclusion
Mather’s sermon probably didn’t change much in the realm of politics. His sermon was vague and kept to popular opinion both socially and theologically, as most civil sermons do. At most, because it was a jeremiad it might have convinced the legislators to be more conservative. He didn’t want to alienate anyone in his audience, so his sermon was not going to change much politically.
You cannot always keep everyone happy