上海外国语大学硕士学位论文
神权中的民主因素：马萨诸塞海湾殖民地政教分析
专
业：英语语言文学
研究方向：美国文化
作
者：李俊飞
导
师：王恩铭
写作时间：2008 年 11 月
上海外国语大学
研究生院
i
Democracy in a Theocracy: An Analysis of Ecclesiastic
Influence and Politics of the Massachusetts Bay Colony
By
Li Junfei
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School and College of English
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Arts
Under the Supervision of Professor Wang Enming
Shanghai International Studies University
November, 2008
ii
Acknowledgements
Upon the completion of the paper, I would like to express my gratitude to all the people
who have helped me through the five- month hard work and emotional stress. Without their
valuable help and generous support, the completion of the paper would not have been
possible.
I am greatly indebted to my supervisor Professor Wang Enming for his insightful
suggestions and tireless reading and revising of my drafts in addition to the many useful
articles and books for my reference. Professor Wang‘s illuminating ideas inspired me a lot
in the process of writing this thesis and I have learned a lot from his critical thinking and
rigorous scholarship.
My sincere thanks also go to my roommate Li Gaofeng, whose constant encouragement
lent me tremendous strengths and confidence. Indeed, I want to thank all those who have
listened, questioned and argued.
I would also thank the school library for the useful electronic materials that guided my
thinking along the way.
iii
Abstract
Massachusetts Bay Colony was a prominent Protestant political commonwealth that the
British colonists had ever established in the seventeenth-century explorations around the
region of New England. For years the nature of the Puritan politic has been the bone of
contention among scholars, each producing utterly different or even contradictory views. A
group of historians represented by George Bancroft, all full of romantic passion of
patriotism, made great efforts to eulogize the spirit of democracy and freedom in the
United States. In their eyes, the seventeenth-century Puritan forefathers were the very
founders of American tradition of democracy and freedom. However, another group led by
Perry Miller assumed a wholly different approach, claiming that Puritan politic spirit was
conservative and tending towards dictatorship. The author of this thesis adopts a middle
approach, arguing that the commonwealth politic was basically theocratic in the ―Puritan
Age‖ though it was also acting as an incubator of embryonic democracy, which failed to
develop into the genuine form of democracy in the modern sense of the word, shackled by
the concept of their times. The tug-of-wars between theocracy and democracy were a series
of historical drama that paved the way for later development of American tradition of
liberty and freedom. The thesis explores in the theocratic hierarchy the contributive
historical events and elements that gave rise to democracy—the once ecclesiastical
dominance and the incurred democratic oppositions on the one hand; it also presents the
idea that the town system and self- government was an important feature of New England
democracy. Lastly, it delves deep into the struggle between theocracy and democracy in a
historical perspective. Though neither gained the upper hand in the end, the struggles
prepared the breeding ground for the inception and growth of democratic spirit in an
essentially Puritan society.
Key Words: Puritan, Theocracy, town system, self- government, democracy
iv
摘要
马萨诸塞海湾殖民地是17世纪英国殖民者在美洲新英格兰地区建立的地位卓显的具
有民主倾向的宗教政治共同体。多年来，关于新英格兰殖民地清教统治的性质问题一
直是学者们不断争论的焦点之一，各派观点针锋相对，龃龉不合。以乔治·班克罗夫
特等为代表的美国浪漫主义史学家从爱国主义角度出发,大力讴歌清教主义对于美国
民主自由精神的贡献。在他们看来, 17世纪新英格兰的―清教先祖‖正是美国民主自由
传统的奠立者。但佩里·米勒等历史学家倾向于认为，新英格兰清教徒的政治精神在
本质上是保守的，且有独裁倾向。本文采取折衷的观点，认为以马萨诸塞为代表的新
英格兰殖民地在―清教徒时代‖的政体上基本是神权的，而其政体内部又具有适宜产生
民主的因素和倾向，但由于时代观念的桎梏而未能发展成为现代意义上真正彻底的民
主形式，因而上演了一连串神权与民主之间相互斗争的历史戏剧，为美国后世的民主
历程奠定了某种历史基础。本文着重分析马萨诸塞海湾殖民地神权统治内部的一些有
助于酝酿民主的历史事件和因素，即神职人员在政治上的一度霸权以及因之而来的民
主性反抗。另一方面本文还论证了新英格兰民主的主要特色集中在其乡镇自治制度的
观点。最后，从历史的纵向面剖析了神权统治和民主运动之间的张力。虽然两者间的
角力最终并未以一方压倒另一方为结局，却不失为美国后世民主的雏形。
关键词：清教徒，神权，乡镇制度，自治，民主
v
Contents
Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1. Possible Soil for Democracy.............................................................................................. 6
1.1 Enormous Power of the Clergy ................................................................................. 6
1.2 Opposition from the ―Unorthodox‖ ........................................................................ 11
2. Democracy in the Embryo ............................................................................................... 15
2.1 Origin of Town System........................................................................................... 15
2.2 Emergence of Local Government ........................................................................... 16
2.3 New England Town Meeting System ..................................................................... 19
3. Growth towards Limited Democracy............................................................................... 21
3.1 Selection of Deputies .............................................................................................. 21
3.2 Conflicts between Deputies and Assistants ............................................................ 24
3.3 Restrictions upon Freemanship ............................................................................... 28
4. Tug-of-war between Theocracy and Democracy............................................................. 31
4.1 Opening of Freemanship ......................................................................................... 32
4.2 Representation and Bicameral System.................................................................... 39
4.3 Birth of Local Democracy....................................................................................... 43
4.4 The Halfway Covenant ........................................................................................... 45
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 49
Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 53
vi
INTRODUCTION
Massachusetts Bay Colony ranked first in prosperity among the four British colonies in
seventeenth-century New England, with a higher degree of religious homogeneity and
theocratic government. The peculiar theocratic governing system that the Puritans
established was an unprecedented model and its civil system exerted a significant influence
on American democracy. Although it is generally believed that the Puritans migrated to the
New World in aspiration of religious freedom, their self-ordained atrocious acts of
fulfilling God‘s will on earth were constantly subjected to many critics‘ feeling of
inscrutability, or even contempt. In fact, the Puritans‘ political thoughts were very
complicated in that the theocratic system was interwoven with democratic buds. Its
governing thoughts have thus been open to diverse interpretations and evaluation.
Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Professor of Princeton University, argued that prudent scholars on
this subject would not attribute American democratic tradition back to the Puritans on the
ground that they had attempted to insulate their Provident kingdom from the outside realms.
He claimed that there was a distinct tendency of oligarchy from the year 1630 through
1634. He pointed out that the colonial representative politics was still in the control of the
priesthood when the Congregation made concessions over the requirement of the status of
residency on May 1, 1634 and decided to convene the congregational meeting for each
season to make colonial laws. Besides, the Puritans were also repressive and persecutory
towards dissidents. Samuel E. Morrison of Harvard University, by contrast, held that the
seventeenth-century Puritans created a civilized society out of their courage and
perseverance. A thorough examination of the Puritan tradition forms an integral part in
attempting to grasp American history. Contradictory as these views were, there is some
truth in both of them. When the European nations still held ―Divine Right of Kings‖ as
1
orthodox, the pilgrims and puritans in the 1630s and 1640s were already popularizing the
concept of covenant all over their churches and towns. The Congregationalist church stuck
to a type of direct democracy in the colonies, to which any European nation was not
comparable. However, owing to the close links between their religious and political
thoughts, its civil politics swung between providence and democracy, giving rise to many
instances of contradictory decisions and actions. Firstly, the Massachusetts theologians
developed a much more severe approach to distinguish saints from sinners in an effort to
modify John Calvin‘s tough theory of predestination. Additionally, when trying to get rid
of man-made dogmas and creeds to practice Provident truth, the Puritans invented a set of
intricate system of selection. Thirdly, since the puritanical Congregations attached great
significance to the independence of individual churches as well as the political rights of
church members both in the church and in the town, provident decrees were difficult to
implement either by church authority or by town leadership. In view of the complex nature
of Puritan society, the Puritan government should not be defined simply as plutocracy,
dictatorship or democracy.
The Reformation in the seventeenth century gave birth to two distinct movements in
England and New England respectively. The former led to tumultuous civil war, while the
latter fostered the creation of a society of order and justice based on Mosaic laws, with a
sole purpose of fulfilling God‘s truth in New England. This thesis is intended to address the
influence of the Massachusetts setting and their interactions with the British government
upon the formation of their puritanical thoughts and political systems. The former and the
latter are interwoven to form a monstrous mixture of partly theocratic and partly
democratic political system.
There has been no expertise in China that delves deep into the political and theological
thoughts of the seventeenth-century puritans in Massachusetts Bay. By comparison, we can
search abundant volumes addressing this topic from European and American authors.
Among the prolific writings concerning the seventeenth-century Calvinistic Puritan studies,
the most widely read ones may be those penned by Perry Miller of Harvard University,
including The New England Mind written during 1939-1953. Orthodoxy in Massachusetts
2
1630-1650, published in 1933, probed into the origin of Puritan Congregationalism and
Presbyterianism as well as the Congregationalists‘ challenges to carry out their beliefs after
their safe landing in Massachusetts. Errand into the Wilderness, published in 1953,
included several of his papers in William and Mary Quarterly, the most significant of
which was ―Marrow of Puritan Divinity‖, which dilates on how Puritans selected relevant
verses from the Bible and modified part of John Calvin‘s theory of predestination in order
to achieve self-elevation, as well as how they transformed the image of the Creator from an
arbitrary dictator to a kind benefactor, and even one that condescended to make a covenant
of grace, and how the Puritan theologians extended the concept of covenant from the
individual to the church, the society and to the commonwealth.
Although he makes a thorough exposition of man‘s self-examination of their own fall from
Grace and the earnest hope to be reconciled with the divine, Miller was also easily subject
to oversimplification. He held that the Puritans had already had a sound plan concerning
the church organization, social order, and establishment of a commonwealth before setting
off to the New World to weave their dream of a New Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, the
settings of Massachusetts could have exerted a stronger influence upon the formation of
the New England Way than their experiences in Europe.
Among other scholars who made a significant contribution to the study of
Congregationalist Puritanism was Miller‘s student, Edmund S. Morgan, who published The
Puritan Dilemma: the Story of John Winthrop in 1958. In this short biography, Mr. Morgan
traces John Winthrop‘s (1588-1669) struggle with the dilemma he found himself in. First
internally, he dealt with the question of whether traveling to the American Continent
constituted an irresponsible form of ―separatism‖, the desire to sever himself from an
impure Old World, and then whether, as he finally felt resolved, it offered a valuable
opportunity to set an example for all nations on earth by establishing a ―shining City upon
a Hill‖, a more sacred Christian community in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In this sense,
it seems to have been of crucial significance to Winthrop and his fellow men that they
should receive the sovereign approval and that though they were physically estranging
themselves from the Anglican Church, they were not actually forsaking it.
3
In Visible Saints, another book of his, he traces the rise and decline of the Puritan theology,
particularly their concept of church membership. The author demonstrates in the book that
a distinct conversion experience was the prerequisite for church membership by
non-Separatist Puritans in New England, not in England as many scholars had presumed.
Therefore, it may be argued that being ―born again‖ is an American creation. A large
portion of the book elucidated the dormant dilemma in Puritan theology, which was how to
remain pure and saintly. Though the first generation of Puritan colonists struggled to purify
the church completely, it would be common that many of their offspring fell short of that
expectation. What then, if their children didn‘t have the vital conversion experience, but
were otherwise morally decent, professing Christians, should they remain in the church, or
when is it appropriate to remove them from the church membership, or is it also justifiab le
that their children‘s children should receive baptism? The ―Halfway Covenant‖, a form of
partial church membership, was the answer to these questions, demonstrating that even for
Puritans, blood relationship was more acceptable than the spiritual one. To this end, they
were determined that church membership would be extended to the unregenerate, and to
their children‘s descendants, although they would not be allowed to partake of the
Sacrament of the Lord‘s Supper.
Following Morgan, one of the most prominent treatises in this field may be The Faithful
Shepherd by David D. Hall of Boston University. By focusing on such areas as the
authority of the priesthood, church membership, and church organization, David D. Hall
proves that the institutional organization easily relapsed into the original state before their
emigration, though their peculiar experiences in the New World denotes a democratic
propensity in specific periods.
The author of this thesis adopts a middle approach, asserting that the commonwealth
politic was basically theocratic in the ―Puritan Age‖ while it was also acting as an
incubator of democratic embryo, which failed to develop into the genuine form of
democracy in the modern sense of the word, shackled by the prevailing religious doctrines
of their times. The tug-of-wars between theocracy and democracy were a series of
4
historical drama that paved the way for later development of American tradition of liberty
and freedom. Chapter 1 of the thesis explores in the theocratic hierarchy the his torical
events and elements that were contributive to democracy—the once ecclesiastical
dominance and the entailing democratic oppositions; Chapter 2 presents the idea that the
town system and self- government was an important feature of New England democracy.
Chapter 3 explores the idea of limited democracy which the Puritan commonwealth could
possibly achieve. Last in Chapter 4 it delves deep into the tug-of-war between theocracy
and democracy in a historical perspective. Though neither had gained the uppe r hand in the
end, the struggles gave full expression to the ground-setting democratic spirit which the
Puritan fathers could have ever achieved in that certain historical background in spite of its
many limitations.
5
1. Possible Soil for Democracy
1.1 Enormous Power of the Clergy
For more than fifty years, the Puritans struggled to establish a Biblical commonwealth; the
attempt resulted in a dismal failure, but the history of it is indispensable to a correct
understanding of the government, the laws and the social life of the times. Whatever
thoughts may have been in the minds of the originators of the Massachusetts company in
reference to the acquisition of homes and fortunes, whatever ideas of political liberty they
may have had, it is clear that their cardinal idea was to secure for themselves and their
posterity the right, which had been denied them in England, to enjoy the exercise of their
own religious opinions without let or hindrance from kings or bishops. As to the character
of their religion, it is not necessary to say much more than that its harshest features were
little softer than were those of Scotch Presbyterianism in the seventeenth century. Indeed,
as late as the time of Jonathan Edwards, that eminent pastor preached to his audiences
gloomy pictures in tones as fierce as those characterizing the sermons of Hooker and
tradition tells us that in the sermons which he was wont to preach, depicting the awful
sufferings of sinners in the hands of an angry God, he sometimes so terrified his hearers
that they clutched their seats in a frenzy of fright, fearing to loosen their grip lest they
might slide immediately down into hell.
But the manner in which the Theocracy was developed is worthy of careful study. Of
course there was no hint of it in the charter granted by King Charles. Nor was the
Theocracy ever a constituent part of the government itself. Its existence, as a definite and
distinct body, was not recognized, either in the frame of government, or in its laws. It was
a body entirely apart, composed of a small minority of the people, guided and controlled
by a still smaller minority of ministers, who were largely influenced by a yet smaller
minority of their own number. The authority which these few exercised over the others was
6
very great, but it came chiefly from sources other than the form of government. They ruled
largely by the influence which their position in the churches, their talents, and their force
of character gave them.
In retrospect, it seems incredible that these few men were able to exercise such authority at
the beginning, and more authority especially toward the close of the commonwealth, when
at least five-sixths of the people were not church members. How this authority was
acquired, and how it was developed and enlarged, until it dominated the commonwealth,
will be made clear as we look further into the character of the clergy and the character of
the people.
The ministers who came over in the few years after the granting of the charter were among
the most learned men of the age in which they lived. Hooker and Cotton came in 1633;
Shepherd and Norton and Richard Mather in 1635. All of them were university graduates
and had achieved distinction in England. Of Cotton it is said that he was not only familiar
with Greek, but wrote Latin with ease and elegance and could communicate in Hebrew.
Nor were the learned clergymen confined to Boston and the adjacent towns. Even in the
frontier town of Marlborough, the minister (Mr. Brimsmead) was a very learned man, who
kept a journal in Latin, interspersed with quotations in Greek and Hebrew. The industry of
the ministers was as marvelous as their learning. The Rev. John Cotton spent twelve hours
each day in reading, and it was his habit to close the day with reading something from John
Calvin. Increase Mather was accustomed to study sixteen hours every day. Some of the
other ministers must have been quite as industrious. They were men of fearless disposition
and tough will. Hooker, Shepherd, Cotton and Norton had been excommunicated and
forced to flee for their lives, because of their boldness of speech and their defiance of Laud
and the High Commission. Many of the ministers who came after them were compelled to
leave England for the same reason. Such men would be influential in any civilized country
in this or any other age. They would be still more influential among a people in full accord
with their religious views, as were the colonists in Massachusetts when the commonwealth
began, most of whom had left England because they could not freely practice the religion
which they conscientiously believed. Naturally, therefore, their ministers would exercise a
7
greater influence over them than over men of different religious views.
One of the first things done by the colonists, after the charter had been procured, was to
make a plentiful provision of Godly ministers, and the first of their vessels carried four of
them. Before any steps were taken by the newly arrived immigrants in reference to civil
government, a church was organized at Salem. The first thought of the colonists was to
make preparations for churches and ministers. This was the first matter considered at the
first meeting of the Court of Assistants in 1630. For a time the ministers were supported by
voluntary contributions but afterwards laws were passed for the building and maintenance
of meeting houses and homes for the ministers at the expense of the towns. (Whitmore
1887:148) Another care of the colonists was to see that none but church members were
admitted to the privileges of freemen and a voice in the management of the affairs of the
colony. Nothing was said in the charter as to the religious qualifications of freemen, and
the only requisite to admission to the privileges of such was the consent of those who had
already been granted status as freemen. At the first General Court held in 1631, 118
persons were admitted, but at the same court, ―to the end the body of the Commons might
be preserved of honest and good men,‖ it was ordered that ―for the time to come no man
should be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as were members of some
of the churches within the limits of the same.‖ (ibid 153) As will be seen soon, only
―orthodox‖ churches were recognized. In 1664, in consequence of complaints in England
and the severe admonition of the King, the law was nominally repealed, but the repeal did
not settle the grievances, for the repealing act itself required ―a Certificate under the hand
of the Ministers, or Minister of the place where they dwell, that they are Orthodox in
Religion, and not Vicious in their Lives.‖ (ibid 229) It is entirely safe to say that no Baptist
or Quaker could have prevailed upon any orthodox minister to give him such a certificate.
When the Baptists became troublesome, laws were passed authorizing their banishment.
Still severer laws were passed in reference to the Quakers, increasing in severity in
proportion to their obstinacy. As might be supposed, it was considered of prime
importance to preserve the purity of the orthodox religion and to prevent the contamination
of it by any heretical dogmas. Blasphemy was punishable as a capital offence by the Body
of Liberties. Later the law against heresy was made to include the denial by word or
8
writing of the inspiration of any of the books of the old or the New Testament; and severe
laws were enacted against Quakers; their books were ordered to be burned and the Quakers,
themselves, banished and put to death if they returned.
As stated before, the privileges of freemen were limited to church members. It was
therefore necessary to make sure that the churches themselves were orthodox. The
provisions of the Body of Liberties regarding churches had seemingly been very liberal,
those of liberty No. 95, entitled ―A Declaration of the Liberties the Lord Jesus hath given
to the Churches,‖ being as follows: (ibid 57)
“All the people of god within this Jurisdiction who are not in a church way, and be orthodox in
Judgement, and not scandalous in life, shall have full libertie to gather themselves into a Church
Estaite. Provided they doe it in a Christian way, with due observation of the rules of Christ
revealed in his word.
“2. Every Church hath full libertie to exercise all the ordinances of god, according to the rules of
scripture.
……
But in 1658 the above provisions were revised and re-enacted with various amendments.
The most significant was the following, inserted immediately after the first section quoted
above: (ibid 147)
“Provided also that the Generall Court doth not, nor will hereafter approve of any such companies
of men, as shall joyne in any pretended way of Church-fellowship, unless they shall acquaint the
Magistrates, and the Elders of the neighbour churches, where they intend to joyne, & have their
approbation therein.
“2. It is further Ordered, that no person being a member of any church, which shall be gathered
without the approbation of the Magistrates & the said churches, shall be admitted to the freedom
of this Comon-wealth.”
To make sure that none but orthodox ministers should be chosen, the churches were not
allowed to call one without the consent of the neighboring churches and the magistrates.
There was scarcely anything which the Theocracy did not pry into and attempt to regulate
by law. It attempted to control men‘s thoughts as well as their actions. A law enacted in
9
1640 made it a finable offense to destroy or disturb the order and peace of the churches
established by openly renouncing their church estate or their ministry, or other ordinances
dispensed in them, either upon pretense that the churches were not planted by any new
apostle, or that ordinances are for carnal Christians, or for babes in Christ, and not for
spiritual or illuminated persons, or upon any other such like groundless conceit. (ibid 148)
Another law, enacted in 1646, aimed particularly at the Quakers, made it an offense to
interrupt a minister in his preaching or to charge him falsely with any error. Violators of
this law for the first offense were to be reproved and bound over. (ibid 148) Attendance
upon religious services, not only upon Sundays, but also upon fast and thanksgiving days,
was required under penalty of a fine for absence without just and necessary cause. (ibid
148) It would be reasonable to suppose that the ministers in a community having such laws
as have been mentioned would possess great power and influence, not only in social life,
but in the affairs of government. And such was the fact.
Under the peculiar system of the early colonial government, the men who composed the
congregation in the town church were the same men who voted at the town meetings. In
addition, no one could be admitted a freeman, and be entitled to vote and exercise the
privileges of citizenship, until he had been admitted a member of some orthodox church.
But that was not always an easy matter. The minister would, of course, have great
influence in determining the application for membership. Indeed, while he could not admit
any one against the will of the congregation, neither could the congregation admit any one
over his objection, however arbitrary it might be.
It can be inferred from the above that the influence of the clergy was enormous. The power
of the clergy was plainly manifest in the proceedings of the General Court. On all
important questions their advice and counsel were sought, and in all affairs, civil and
domestic, as well as ecclesiastical, the advice of the clergy was almost equivalent to a
command. The connection between church and state was very intimate. It is doubtful if the
connection was ever more intimate since the days of Moses. Nor were the clergy ever more
influential in any government. Their control was well- nigh supreme over the legislature,
the courts and the people. The natural result was to create an established church, not in
10