评芦笛《清教徒在北美殖民地推行的政教合一暴政》

著名网人芦笛先生发表过《清教徒在北美殖民地推行的政教合一暴政》一文, 似乎广受好评(国内朋友可到这里来看), 文中所列出的清教徒的“罪证”是这部截至1648年的《马萨诸塞法律汇编》 。

芦笛翻译了其中的死刑条款(以证明清教徒的法律“秦始皇式的严苛”), 其中一项死罪“denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world”----芦把“Government of the world”翻译成“世上的政府”, 真是别出心裁。一般读者都会很自然地把这个翻成“对世界的管理”。参照一下Richard Baxter这部《基督徒指南》里面的几个小标题: 可以照样把Government of the Thoughts翻成“思想上的政府”, Government of the Body翻成“身体上的政府”, 的确很好很强大。(这并不是无关大局的细枝末节, 后面我们会再谈到----芦笛为了曲解John Winthrop的政治理念、以便将其刻化为“反民主”的形象, 故而绝不能把govenment译为“统治/管理”, 只能一概解作“政府”）

进入正题之前, 先看看跟“清教徒暴政”八杆子打不着的弗吉尼亚的死刑规定, 想想这些单纯以发财置地为目的、毫无狂热的保王派贵族到底比清教徒宽容几分(事实上就是1649年的马里兰宽容法案也规定对否认三位一体论的人处以死刑)：

2.That no man speake impiously or maliciously, against the holy and blessed Trinitie, or any of the three persons, that is to say, against God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, or against the knowne Articles of the Christian faith, upon paine of death.

芦笛眼中的新英格兰近乎一无是处, 宗教不宽容就不必说了, 世俗法律也残忍野蛮, 例证是burglar第一次被抓住就要在前额上烙个“B”。关于这一点, 大概是英国法的特色, 事实上, 英国本土的法律规定: 偷窃额超过12便士就要判死刑。至于烙印, 英王统治之下的适用面更大, 爱德华六世的法律规定: 凡有劳动能力却游手好闲超过三日者, 要被烙上V字, 并被罚作举报者的奴隶,为期两年; 假如胆敢逃跑, 就要烙上“S”, 终生为奴; 再逃跑, 死刑。詹姆士一世任内, 流浪行乞者左肩被烙R字, 若此后当事人被发现继续行乞, 死刑。

比烙刑更猛的是火刑, 异端就不用说了(伊丽莎白在1570s烧死了两名浸礼派成员, 她的继承人于1612年把两位索西奴派分子送上了火刑柱), 伪造金银硬币的女人也作为Treason被烧死,。而且,“谋杀亲夫”也以同一罪名被判火刑(见Blackstone的英国法注释)----“condemned a woman to be burnt for murdering her husband (d); and it is now the usual punishment for all sorts of treasons committed by those of the female sex (e)”.

除了烙和烤, 还有煮(也许应该叫做油炸)。亨利八世时通过的一条法律规定, 投毒者适用这种待遇。当然并不是说英国在酷刑上鹤立鸡群, 德意志境内的伪币制造者就要下油锅, 而且规定不能一下子把全身扔进去。

讲了前面那些, 再回过头来看看麻州对同类罪行的惩罚力度, 应该冷静多了吧。至于芦笛特别强调该州“每一条恶法都以经文为依据”, 其实也没什么特别的: 一者母国有一大堆如此强悍的法例, 似不易照搬, 到圣经中去吸取灵感也是没办法; 其次, 引用经文为法律的合理性背书, 无非是模仿Edward Coke在Institutes of the Lawes of England里的风格。

而且, 关于清教徒照搬圣经刑法“恰与今日中东原教旨回回以《可兰经》的戒律为法律一般”, 还是有几点该商榷的。首先, 清教徒对某些摘取的旧约法律作了改动, 后面会提到对偶象崇拜者的死刑判决附加了一个前提, 是旧约中没有的; 亵渎罪在旧约的惩罚是石刑(最近伊朗有女人以通奸罪被判石刑), 但“暴戾”的清教徒却没有在这一点上表达自己对经文的“无限忠于”; 最近网上有人谈基督徒为什么不把通奸的女人用石头打死的话题, 一般大家注意的是“是否打死”的问题, 其实降低死刑的痛苦程度本身也算是进步的种子吧(回教的砍手断脚之类特色项目就不用提了)。

再有, 原教旨回回最为人诟病的地方除了不容异教徒之外, 恐怕残害女性也是很重要的一条吧。“荣誉谋杀”的案子在那些为追求物质享受而移民西方的穆斯林中都层出不穷, 后面会引用“清教徒暴政”下的一条禁止打老婆的法律(“原教旨回回”还有一大特色,就是规定女人出门必须包得严严实实;回顾一下当初John Cotton与Roger Williams的蒙头之争也很有意义)。塔利班视女性读书为大罪, 无论在阿富汗还是巴基斯坦, 女子学校都是重要的袭击目标; 作为对照的例子, 不用专门研究新英格兰人了, 看看路德这篇1524年的《为设立与维持基督教学校致德意志各城参议员书》, 其中明确提出要对女孩进行义务教育。芦笛拿出路德说理性是娼妓的言论, 感叹其反智程度连耄太祖都望尘莫及。那就请读读上面提到的这篇公开信：

If we take so much time and trouble to teach children card-playing, singing and dancing, why do we not take as much time and trouble to teach them reading and other branches, while they are young and have the time, and are apt and eager to learn? For my part, if I had children and could accomplish it, they should study not only the languages and history, but singing, instrumental music, and all of mathematics. For what is all this but mere child’s play? In these branches the Greeks in former times trained their children, who grew up into men and women of wondrous ability, skilled in every pursuit. How I regret now that I did not read more poets and historians, and that no one taught me them! I was obliged instead to read, with great cost, labor and injury, that devil’s filth, the philosophers and sophists, from which I have all I can do to get myself clean.
若我们花这么多的时间和精力教他们学习唱歌跳舞和玩牌, 我们为什么不花同样的时间和精力来教他们学习读书, 和其他的功课呢? 假如我有小孩而可能做到的话, 除叫他们学习语言和历史以外, 我还要叫他们学习声乐, 器乐, 和数学。这些功课不都是儿童的游戏吗? 希腊从前便是拿这些学课训练儿童, 使他们成为有奇才的男女, 熟悉各种工作。我过去没有多读诗人和历史学家的著作, 也没有人教我, 现在我还在懊悔! 那时候我费了很多的金钱和劳力, 不得不学些魔鬼的脏东西, 即哲学家和诡辩家的知识, 这些东西是我现在要努力洗净的。

回过头来说清教徒, 芦笛一向对摩西规定的“种族灭绝”政策恨之入骨, 据他说, 北美清教徒就是有样学样, 跑去屠杀印第安人的。旧约的屠杀就不说了, 但是讲清教徒以此为据、把印第安人等同于当时的迦南土著加以种族灭绝, 这就是缺乏神学常识的无知推测了。下面简单说两个代表性的例子：

John Cotton这篇God’s Promise to His Plantation (1630)里面说, 如果要侵略土著者的土地, 必需的前提是要有从上帝而来的special commission, 否则这种行为(即旧约以色列人侵入迦南之举)是不可仿效的：

Now, God makes room for a people three ways:

First when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2: "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Machpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in the place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves...So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no Nation is to drive out another without special Commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the Natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable way. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto themselves.

类似误解体现在这篇网文中, 作者说：

这些住在“应许之地”的新“以色列人”, 把印第安人等同于巴勒斯坦的迦南人, 是应当消灭的。就是有些真心向印第安人宣教的宣教士, 他们也无法改变社会这种恶行。如果没有这种“信仰”的因素渗入政治, 他们的迫害可能还不至于这样猛烈。

值得一提的是“向印第安人宣教”并非是少数人的意见, 到麻州1646年的法令集里面找INDIANS条目下的内容, 就可知道至少过半的清教公民并无这种“信仰”因素。

最后再拿出Samuel Rutherford的代表作解决问题。他说, 以色列把迦南地杀得鸡犬不留的作法, 属于礼仪律的性质(新约时代, 礼仪律废止了, 前面John Cotton说的这种Special Commission也不可能存在了。相反意见的是“异端”, 呵呵)

We with good ground deny the consequence, because the war with these seven Nations was warranted by the Law of nature, but the war, tali modo, to destroy utterly young and old, cattle, and all they had, was from a ceremonial and temporal law peculiar to the Jews, because God would have his Church neither enriched by their goods, nor to make Covenants, and marriages with them, or to live in one society with them, nor to see their groves, lest they should be ensnared to follow their Religion and strange Gods.

芦笛本文的主旨是说: 在北美清教政权之下, 既无个人权利又无民主制衡, 是十足的“暴政”——多亏后来杰弗逊大人力挽狂澜, 用天赋人权和宗教自由的观念启蒙愚民, 方有今日之美国：

“美国实行宗教容忍的功臣是杰佛逊, 就是他坚持把政教分离, 宗教容忍写入宪法的。他之所以这么做, 乃是因为他并非基督徒, 而且对教会深恶痛绝, 只是这秘密被掩盖下来了...”

——总之,“美国民主建国是清教徒的功劳”这类说法是“弥天大谎”, 是后世的无良史学家(例如Bancroft)为营造“民族自豪感”而对历史进行“浪漫化处理”的产物。。。

下面, 我在谈论清教殖民地的政体之前, 先列举一下马萨诸塞法律里面、某些跟壬醛有关或无关的条款, 看The Massachusetts Body of Liberties：

第1款: 所有人的生命都不可剥夺, 所有人都不可被随意逮捕, 所有人的财产都不可被随意侵夺
1. No man's life shall be taken away, no man's honor or good name shall be stained, no man's person shall be arrested, restrained, banished, dismembered, nor any ways punished, no man shall be deprived of his wife or children, no man's goods or estate shall be taken away from him, nor in any way damaged under color of law, or countenance of authority, unless it be by virtue or equity of some express law of the Country warranting the same established by a General Court and sufficiently published, or in case of the defect of a law in any particular case by the word of God (the laws of the Bible). And in capital cases, or in cases concerning dismembering or banishment, according to that word to be judged by the General Court.

第2款: 无论是否有参政权, 所有居民在法律面前一律平等.
2. Every person within this jurisdiction, whether inhabitant or foreigner, shall enjoy the same justice and law, that is general for the Plantation, which we constitute and execute one towards another, without partiality or delay.

第8款: 除非依据法律并且给予合理补偿, 不得征用任何人的物品
8. No man's cattle or goods of what kind soever shall be pressed or taken for any public use or service, unless it be by warrant grounded upon some act of the General Court, nor without such reasonable prices and hire as the ordinary rates of the Country do afford. And if his cattle or goods shall perish or suffer damage in such service, the owner shall be sufficiently recompensed.

第12款: 所有人均有权参加乡镇会议, 通过口头或者书面方式提出动议或者请愿等
12. Every man, whether inhabitant or foreigner, free or not free, shall have liberty to come to any public Court, Council, or town-meeting, and either by speech or by writing, move any lawful, seasonable and material question, or to present any necessary motion, complaint, petition, Bill or information, whereof that meeting hath proper cognizance, so it be done in convenient time, due order and respective manner.

第18款: 在法律对一个人作出判决前, 任何人都不应当受到人身限制或者被拘禁
No man's person shall be restrained or imprisoned by any authority whatsoever, before the law hath sentenced him thereto, if he can put in sufficient security, bail, or mainprise, for his appearance and good behavior in the meantime, unless it be in capital crimes, and contempts in open Court, and in such cases where some express act of Court doth allow it.

第33款: 不得因为欠债而逮捕任何人
33. No man's person shall be arrested or imprisoned upon execution or judgment for any debt or fine, if the law can find any competent means of satisfaction otherwise from his estate. And if not, his person may be arrested and imprisoned where he shall be kept at his own charge, not the plaintiff's, till satisfaction be made, unless the Court that had cognizance of the cause or some superior Court shall otherwise provide.

第42款: 任何人都不得因为同一违法行为而遭受两次处罚
42. No man shall be twice sentenced by civil justice for one and the same crime, offense, or trespass.

第45款: 任何人都不得被迫自证其罪
45. No man shall be forced by torture to confess any crime against himself nor any other unless it be in some capital case where he is first fully convicted by clear and sufficient evidence to be guilty. After which, if the cause be of that nature, that it is very apparent that there be other conspirators or confederates with him, then he may be tortured, yet not with such tortures as be barbarous and inhumane.

第80款: 丈夫无权亲自(私自)打老婆——想惩罚妻子只能向公权机关申请, 若得到法官允许方可在法定地点由执法人员执行。(“宽容”的伊斯兰教就不同了, 就算不说荣誉谋杀那么极端的,至少可以随时“用柳条轻轻抽打她的细腰”)
80. Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes (whipping) by her husband, unless it be in his own defense upon her assault. If there be any just cause of correction, complaint shall be made to authority assembled in some Court, from which she shall receive it.

然后还有... ...

第29款(选择陪审团): In all actions at law it shall be the liberty of the plaintiff and defendant by mutual consent to chose whether they will be tried by the bench or by a jury, unless it be where the law upon just reason hath otherwise determined. The like liberty shall be granted to all persons in criminal cases.

第38款以及第48款(知情权)：
38. Every man shall have liberty to record in the public rolls of any Court any testimony given upon oath in the same Court, or before two Assistants, or any deed or evidence legally confirmed there to remain in perpetuum rei memoriam, that is for for perpetual memorial or evidence upon occasion.
48. Every inhabitant of the Country shall have free liberty to search and view any rolls, records or registers of any Court or office except the Council, and to have a transcript or exemplification thereof written, examined and signed by the hand of the officer of the office, paying the appointed fees thereof.

第61款(隐私): No magistrate, juror, officer, or other man shall be bound to inform present or reveal any private crime or offense, wherein there is no peril or danger to this plantation or any member thereof, when any necessity of conscience binds him to secrecy grounded upon the word of God, unless it be in the case of testimony lawfully required. (在这个问题上, 大众对清教徒的观点有很大的误解, 请参照Westminster Larger Catechism第144问和145问, 其中要求信徒“为他人的软弱难过, 并加以遮掩”, 又禁止“泄漏别人不该泄漏的软弱”。)

Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

第75款(异议权): It is and shall be the liberty of any member or members of any Court, Council or civil assembly in cases making or executing any order or law, that properly concern religion, or any cause capital, or wars, or subscription to any public articles or remonstrance, in case they cannot in conscience and judgment consent to that way the major vote or suffrage goes, to make their contra remonstrance or protestation in speech or writing, and upon request to have their dissent recorded in the rolls of the Court. So it be done Christianly and respectfully for the manner, and their dissent only be entered without the reasons thereof, for the avoiding of tediousness.

谈到民主问题, 芦笛引用了John Winthrop的一句话, 然后就诗性大发, 感叹“这不是暴政, 什么是暴政?”, 以及“美国独立后民主建国是清教徒的功劳是何等弥天大谎”。

这段话在Wikipedia上能查到(还附有搞笑的点评)：

...those who praise Winthrop fail to note his strident anti-democratic political tendencies. Winthrop stated, for example, "If we should change from a mixed aristocracy to mere democracy, first we should have no warrant in scripture for it: for there was no such government in Israel ... A democracy is, amongst civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government. [To allow it would be] a manifest breach of the 5th Commandment."

这番言论的前因后果不容易说明白, 跟一头猪的争议有关, 最终造成1644年的一项法令(两院议员不再混合开会)。

重点在于John Winthrop所称的mixed aristocracy到底何指。下面是他的另一篇政论：

The Government of the Massachusetts consists of Magistrates and Freemen: in the one is placed the authority, in the other, the liberty of the commonwealth. Either hath power to act, both alone, and both together, yet by a distinct power, the one of liberty, the other of authority. The Freemen act of themselves in electing their magistrates and officers; the magistrates act alone in all occurrences out of court; and both act together in the General Court; yet all limited by certain rules, both in the greater and smaller affairs, so as the Government is regular in a mixed aristocraty, and no ways arbitrary.

注: 温斯罗普这篇1644年的论文中引述了殖民地特许状里的条款, 阐明了这个“反民主”政体的基本权力分配方式——统治阶层成员(总督、副总督及多位“助理”, 总数不能超过18名)由自由民每年重选一次, 执政者们的权力即使在任期内仍受到一些制约, 如果要收税(包括其它重大事件, 例如立法、或授予某人公民权), 则必须同时得到过半自由民(或其代表)的同意：

The parties or members of this body politic are reduced under two kinds, Governor and Company, or Freemen: to the Governor it adds a Deputy, and eighteen Assistants: in these is the power of authority placed, under the name of the Governor (not as a person, but as a State) and in the other (which is named the Company) is placed the power of liberty: - which is not a bare passive capacity of freedom, or immunity, but such a liberty as hath power to act upon the chiefest means of its own welfare (yet in a way of liberty, not of authority) and that under two general heads, election and counsel: (1) they have liberty to elect yearly (or oftener if occasion require) all their Governors and other their general officers, viz., such as should have influence (either judicial or ministerial) into all parts of the jurisdiction; (2) they have liberty of counsel in all the General Assemblies, so as without their counsel and consent no laws, decrees, or orders, of any public nature or concernment, not any taxes, impositions, impresses, or other burdens of what kind soever, can be imposed upon them, their families or estates, by any authority in the Government: which notwithstanding remains still a distinct member, even in those General Assemblies: otherwise our state should be a mere Democratic, if all were Governors or magistrates, and none left to be an object of government, which cannot fall out in any kind of Aristocratie.

常识是: 所谓“混合贵族政体(mixed aristocracy)”当然是指民主成分与贵族成分加以混合, 以区别于"单纯"民主政体。如果你不断章取义, 当然该知道Winthrop那段话前面就明说“民意代表(Deputies)”是该殖民地政治结构中的“民主成分”("the Deputies are the Democraticall part of our Government"), 由此证明如果取消Magistrates的否决权, 则只剩下了民主成分, 成了纯民主政体(民主政体是最坏的政体, 这种话由麦迪逊来讲就好得很, 清教徒这样说就十恶不赦)。

事实上, 麻州的“贵族”无非是一年一度投票选出的, 只是他们在任期内拥有一定限度的自决权, 跟乡镇代表们必须随时代表当下的民意(因为他们只是为了避免人多不便而被设立的公民的代理,理论上相当于选民把票填好密封后委托他们提交)有所不同, 所以后者是民主成分, 前者是“贵族”成分---可笑的是芦笛既然声称他引用Winthrop那段话的来源是Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 却完全不提这一事实: 即该书中紧接着那段话所在篇章的就是上面提到的Arbitrary government——而该书的正文部分更是明确说: Winthrop是以阿奎那的著作(混合政体理论, 也可参照加尔文的类似论述)为这篇论文作注的("Appended to this treatise is a long Latin excerpt, from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas..." )：

For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

现在回到开头提到的关于Government这个词的翻译问题: Winthrop那段话明显只是在强调一点, 即一个稳定的社会必须有统治者(官吏)和被统治对象(人民)的区分, 当然在这里统治者是被人民选举产生的、并且权力受到如上所提的某些基本限制。所以他攻击的对象与“民主分权”毫无关系、只是那种取消官民区别的“大民主”而已——这就是John Cotton所说的If the people be governors, who shall be governed?。

顺便说一下: 如果谁要拿“只有(官方承认的)教会成员才有参政权”这一条来证明温斯罗普的“strident anti-democratic political tendencies”, 也不能把维基上这段引用作为证据, 因为那场争论纯是自由民内部的权力分配问题。至于非自由民, 麻省当局认为他们没什么可抱怨的, 不满意可以直接走人:

17. Every man of or within this jurisdiction shall have free liberty, notwithstanding any civil power, to remove both himself and his family at their pleasure out of the same, provided there be no legal impediment to the contrary.

实际上, “只有官方教会成员才有选举权”这种说法用来定性整个“北美清教徒”也是不合适的, 因为康涅狄格就没有这个“教会会员资格”的限制。

最后, 说Massachusetts的“选举权只限于教会成员”也容易让人误解, 实际规定是这样的: 只有教会成员才有资格申请成为自由民, 然后只要大议会(General Court)批准该人为自由民, 哪怕他后来被教会开除会员资格, 也不会因此丧失选举权(Disfranchisement)：

60. No church censure shall degrade or depose any man from any civil dignity, office or authority he shall have in the Commonwealth.

事实上, Massachusetts的非自由民只是不能参与“联邦”一级的选举而已, 请看1647年的Township Act, 他们可以选举或当选Select-man(市政官)：

5. This Court taking into considerattion the usefull Parts and abilities of divers Inhabitants amongst us, which are not Freemen, which if improved to publick use, the affairs of this Common-wealth may be the easier caried an end in the severall Towns of this Jurisdiction doth order, and heerby declare;

That henceforth it shall may be lawfull for the Freemen within any of the said Towns, to make choice of such Inhabitants (though non-Freemen) who have taken, or shall take the Oath of fidelitie to this Government to be Jurie-men, and to have their Vote in the choice of the Select-men for the town Affairs, Assessements of Rates, and other Prudentials proper to the Select-men of the several Towns. Provided still that the major part of all companyes of Select-men be Free-men from time to time that shall make any valid Act. As also, where no Select-men are, to have their Vote in ordering of Schools, hearing of cattle, laying out of High-wayes and distributing of Lands; any Law, Use or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided also that no non-Freeman shall have his Vote, untill he have attained the age of twenty one years. [1636 1641 1647]

该州1660年之后在选举权适用人群规则上的改革, 并非仅仅源于母国的压力, 我们可以看一个类似的例子: 免于打板子的权利从“绅士”扩展到普通人。先看The Massachusetts Body of Liberties第43款：

43. No man shall be beaten with above 40 stripes, nor shall any true gentleman, nor any man equall to a gentleman be punished with whipping, unles his crime be very shamefull, and his course of life vitious and profligate.

而到了1648年, 法律变成这样(见Torture这一条目)：

2. And that no man shall be beaten with above fourty stripes for one Fact at one time. Nor shall any man be punished with whipping, except he have not othewise to answer the Law, unles his crime be very shamefull, and his course of life vitious and profligate.

说完了“民主的弥天大谎”, 最后再说说伊斯兰教比清教徒“宽容”的问题, 先学习芦笛语录：

比起今日的极端回回来, 当年的清教徒也实在干净不到哪儿去, 甚至还不如占领了君士坦丁堡的奥斯曼帝国的回回——人家在1453年占领了君士坦丁堡后, 还实行了宗教容忍, 次年就恢复了当地基督徒的最高级主教。自此后希腊人一直能自由信奉东正教, 而清教徒在两百年后在小媳妇熬成婆后还做不到这点, 甚至比英国原来迫害他们的“婆婆”还厉害万倍。

从Thomas Aquinas以来, 到第一代宗教改革分子(路德, 慈运里), 都首先明确表明基督教政权不能强迫境内的异教徒(犹太教徒和回回)改宗, 只有在他们公开说“你们的宗教是假的”或者咒骂上帝时, 才作为“亵渎”加以惩罚(详情见这里或这里, 独立派的代表观点可见这篇讲章)。那么伊斯兰教宽容在哪儿呢? 你能向回教徒传教吗? 回回能改宗吗? 骂安拉和穆圣能被“宽容”吗? 唯一可能更宽容的一点: 基督教禁止境内所有人跳大神, 伊斯兰教东征西讨版图巨大, 或许当地人什么仪式都可以被“容忍”, 但是你把十字架或佛像带进麦加试试(其实就是“被宽容”的教堂也不能顶着十字架)。

事实上, 就算“容忍宗教仪式”这一条, 伊斯兰教也并没有什么实质性的优越之处。首先, 基督教政权对异教徒偶像崇拜行为之“不容忍”, 其力度类同于城管对无照经营者所为, 并不是要他们的命(后面会引用一条麻州关于印第安人的法律); 再者, 阿奎那(还有John Cotton等人)明确说过, 如果境内的异教徒数量太多, 基督教政府担心压制其民俗会激起群体事件, 就可以容忍他们的迷信行为：

人类的统治权起源于神的统治权, 并且应当以神的统治权为模仿的榜样。全能和至善的上帝有时让世上作恶, 虽然他是能够加以防止的; 他这样做是唯恐较大的善会受到摧残, 甚或较大的恶会相继效尤。所以, 在人类的政治方面, 当权的人可以正当地让某些弊害存在, 免得某种善行会徒成泡影, 甚或为较大的恶行所代替。像圣奥古斯丁在《论天命》(第二篇, 第四章)中所说的:“如果取缔娼妓, 放荡淫乱的事情将层出不穷而不可遏制”。因此, 虽然异教徒可能因其宗教仪式而犯有罪孽, 他们却或者由于他们可能从其中取得的善, 或者由于借此避免的恶, 应当得到宽容。在犹太人的宗教仪式中, 我们现在所信奉的真正的宗教在古时预先露了端倪, 因此从犹太人举行他们的仪式这一事实, 可以获得这种好处, 即: 我们从敌人方面得到我们基督教的历史证据以及我们信仰的象征性的表现; 所以犹太人是被容许举行他们的宗教仪式的。
Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust." Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good---that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.

可是, 其他异教徒的仪式若是丝毫不包含真实的内容或有用的部分, 就决不应当加以容忍; 除非是可能为了避免某种弊害, 例如避免物议或对他们的压制可能引起的冲突; 或者是为了避免在拯救那些由于这种宽容而最后改信甚督教的人们的过程中遭遇障碍。为了这个缘故, 当异教徒人数很多的时候, 教会有时连异端分子和邪教徒的仪式都是加以宽容的。
On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.

提出这一点不是为了说明中世纪的基督教对异教徒有多么“宽容”, 而是提醒读者一个问题: 伊斯兰政权对土著居民(例如印度人)宗教仪式的“容忍”, 真是出于什么慈悲心肠吗? 还是更可能与基督教政权一样、仅仅是因为“异教徒人数很多”呢？

如果我把自己的辩论作风降低到某人的标准(见上面对Winthrop“极端反民主”一事的讨论), 大可以从卢瑟福这篇杀气腾腾的论文中摘出那句It is not lawful to us to go with fire and sword, to force the Indians, Samaritans, or any heathen to embrace the Christian faith, 然后宣称那些“清教徒不宽容”的论点都是“弥天大谎”。

如果有人非要坚持北美清教徒是特别狂暴的一个群体, 不承认上面引用的长老会神学家的言论能代表这群人的观点, 那么请看John Cotton的相关作品：

[The Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience in Matters of Religion]

有些人不顾常识, 认定“IF any man after legal conviction shall HAVE OR WORSHIP any other God, but the LORD GOD: he shall be put to death.”这条法律的意思就是要“杀尽境内的异教徒”。他们也不看看同一网页记录的另一死刑条例“If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to BLASPHEME the holy Name of God...”——既然只要是Pagan就格杀勿论, 何需有此特别规定？

事实上, 只要看看作为该法例根据的几处经文(Exod.22.20. Deut.13.6.&10. Deut.17.2.6.), 就可以看到所禁止的只是“事奉”和“叩拜”伪神的行为。----John Cotton的An Abstract of the Laws of New England说的明白, 该死刑条例针对的是公开的偶像崇拜(Idolatry)行为(克伦威尔掌权时期,弥萨被视为迷信行为,但英格兰境内的天主教徒被允许在家中进行这种仪式), 而且只对自认基督徒的居民有效, 也就是说, 异教徒不会因此被处死, 基本是罚款了事。下面这条1646年的法令是针对境内印第安人的：

And it is farther ordered and decreed by this Court; that no Indian shall at any time powaw, or performe outward worship to their false gods: or to the devil in any part of our Jurisdiction; whether they be such as shall dwell heer, or shall come hither: and if any shall transgresse this Law, the Powawer shall pay five pounds; the Procurer five pounds; and every other countenancing by his presence or otherwise being of age of discretion twenty shillings.

值得一提的是, 初犯者要先受到司法警告, 倘若执意再犯才判死刑, "after legal conviction"说的就是这个。这里的conviction是一种警告性的“定罪”---用我朝的话说就是“批评教育说服”---简略的把conviction看成convince的名词形式即可。下面再引用两条麻州的法律(前者是在ECCLESIASTICALL之下, 第2条属HERESIE)：

It is ordered and decreed by this Court and Authoritie thereof; That wheresoever the ministry of the word is established according to the order of the Gospell throughout this Jurisdiction every person shall duly resort and attend therunto respectively upon the Lords days & upon such publick Fast dayes & dayes of Thanksgiving as are to be generally kept by the appointmet of Authoritie: & if any person within this Jurisdiction shal without just and necessarie cause withdraw himselfe from hearing the publick ministry of the word after due meanes of conviction used, he shall forfeit for his absence from everie such publick meeting five shillings. All such offences to be heard and determined by any one Magistrate or more from time to time. [1646]

---

ALTHOUGH no humane power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therfore may not constrein them to beleive or professe against their Consciences: yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith, and destruction of the soules of men, ought duly to be restreined from such notorious impiety, it is therfore ordered and decreed by this Court;

That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or mainteining any damnable heresie; as denying the immortalitie of the Soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins, or shal affirm that wee are not justified by his Death and Righteousnes, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the moralitie of the fourth commandement, or shall indeavour to seduce others to any the herisies aforementioned, everie such person continuing obstinate therin after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to Banishment. [1646]

在当时加尔文派的神学里(参见Samuel Willard的讲章), 这个术语有一个专有意义(A conviction is a convinced conscience.)。上面提到的John Cotton那封针对宗教宽容的回信里提出以下原则：(1)不能强迫人去宣誓认可他不相信的教义(上面引用的法令说“no humane power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therfore may not constrein them to beleive or professe against their Consciences”); (2)如果某基督徒持有和宣传与正统不容的错误观念, 则区别对待: <1>如果这些错误观念是“非原则性的”, 则只要当事人为人谦和、并未狂热地宣传这些观念以搅扰他人, 则不应受到干涉和惩罚; <2>如果是原则性的异端观念, 则初犯时只加以警告和开导, 使其认识到自己的错误观念是不符合圣经的, 由此他被自己的良心“定罪”(conviction)---如果此后他还是坚持原有的观点, 则对其施加的惩罚就不是破坏良心自由了, 因为是他自己违背了自己的良心。

介绍了清教徒的以上观念, 不是要加以认可, 而是解释那条死刑法律的适用范围为何不包括非基督徒, 因为“legal conviction”是只有基督徒才谈得上的(这里的“legal conviction”不能译成什么“法庭判决”, 此处“legal”实际是指“符合先例的”, 所以New Haven殖民地的同类法律才会有这种表述“if any person after legall, or other due conviction”), 下面引用阿奎那的相关论述：

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

下面摘录John Cotton那封回信的两处, 可以看出与阿奎那大同小异：

[Page 9]

[Page12]

前述John Owen那篇讲章也很清楚的描述了这种正统观念(但至于他本人是否认同这种理论,就请读者自己看上下文了)：

Now, concerning these, it is generally affirmed, that persons maintaining any error in or against any fundamental article of faith or religion, and that with obstinacy or pertinacy after conviction, ought to be proceeded against by the authority of the civil magistrate, whether unto death or banishment, imprisonment or confiscation of goods.

事实上, 更清楚的例子可见Owen在1646年的一篇布道文, 他质问论敌“what gospel means have been used for their conviction?”, 这就完全没有争议了。

这部基本法的作者Nathaniel Ward本人也在另一代表作中提到这个概念：

I would be understood, not onely an Allower, but an humble Petitioner, that ignorant and tender conscienced Anabaptists may have due time and means of conviction.

如果芦笛之流看到的是1680年新罕布什尔的版本, 就不会产生误解了, 那里明确指出对Idollitry的死刑仅限于基督徒：

It is enacted by the Assembly and the authority thereof, that if any person having had the knowledge of the true God, openly and manifestly have or worship any other God but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22:20; Deu. 13; 6 and 10.

事实上, John cotton草拟的宪法条文中有一个绝好的例子, 可以用来确定那个“after legal conviction”倒底在说什么(见An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as They Are Now Established.)：

7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after due admonition and conviction, in the churches' establishment, and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.

Cotton提出的四项宗教方面的死罪(Blasphemy, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Heresy), 其中只有对blasphemy的惩罚是基督徒和异教徒统一标准的----犯者都要处死。要注意《利未记》里规定人即使在暴怒下出现了亵渎上帝的言行, 也是死罪, 而马萨诸塞的法律则要求当事人必须满足"wittingly and willingly"的条件(难怪麻省直至1684年才有两例Blasphemy, 而且无一因此被处死----因为你怎么可能证明"wittingly and willingly"呢?)。

在1656年, New Haven殖民地修改法律, 将blasphemy的死刑处罚也只限于基督徒：

If any person within this Jurisdiction, professing the true God, shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the holy name of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or high-handed blasphemy, either by willfull or obstinate denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world, or shall curse God, father, Son, or Holy ghost, or reproach the holy Religion of God, as if it were but a politick device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shall utter any other kind of blasphemy of like nature, and degree, such person shall be put to death. Lev. 24.15, 16.

最后解释一下: 相同的行为, 何以对基督徒处以死刑、而异教徒反而只受轻微处罚? 说到底, 无论伊斯兰教还是当时的基督教, 最不能容忍的是叛教(Apostasy)、而不是未入教者的“无知”行为。还是请看前面多次引述的John Cotton的那篇代表作：

话说回来, 清教徒就算赶不上伊斯兰教“宽容”与人道(除了打老婆甚至离婚的问题), 但是正如开头所引用的弗吉尼亚死刑条款所提示的---要判断其历史地位, 首先应该跟基督教国家的世俗君主相比, 才能看它是“进步还是反动”。英王禁止在国教会之外的聚会(也禁止缺席国教之内的聚会), 讲道人员必须发誓赞同公祷书中的全部内容, 获得合法执照, 否则是“非法布道”(1559年的划一法案规定,凡使用非官方公祷形式者,初犯罚钱,再犯判处一年徒刑,三犯终身监禁)。领取圣餐时必须对着那东西屈膝——初期清教徒希望在国教内部改革时, 主要就是纠缠这个问题, 他们请求批准让年迈腿脚不便的信徒可以站着领圣餐, 但是国王认为“退一步就完了”, 坚决不准。

北美那些公理会当然比起国教的管理体制要宽容多了。首先每个教会地位平等, 互不隶属; 再者每个公理会在财产管理、任免神职人员以及接纳或开除会员这些重大事务上, 都是由全体会员按照少数服从多数的原则投票决定; 而且私下的宗教聚会(private meeting)是合法的, 虽然不被官方承认为“通过资格认证”的教会(需要得到官员的批准或其它正式教会的承认才能转正), 不能享受财政补贴, 其会员不具备申请公民权的资格——但是比起在英国要受治安处罚, 哪里更宽容？

最重要的是, 新英格兰只列出了一些具体的禁止事项, 只要不违反即可自行其是; 而英王则是规定人们(至少是神职人员)必须积极地按照某一套去做(例如公祷书, 特定仪式, 尤其是穿“法衣”), 哪边的空间更大, 一目了然。新英格兰的法律让人有稳定的预期, 而且受到指控之后也是按照正式的庭审程序受审, 有权为自己辩护, 而不是接受暴民式的审判。(回头说说平民在土耳其素丹治下的幸福生活: 他们的生命和财产安全如何? 据说是没人敢露富, 否则权贵就像苍蝇见了血一样。)

再者, 新英格兰是清教移民股东的私人社区, 禁止不受欢迎者入内有何问题(况且不满意的随时可以用脚投票, 不像后来路易十四权下的新教徒那样, 要么改宗, 要么劳改)? 假如是在英国本土, 清教徒煽动其它各派与之一起造反, 许诺掌权之后实行完全的宗教自由, 结果一旦上台反而比原政府更专制, 这种情况才跟芦笛的感叹有点儿关系。那么, 英国本土的清教徒掌权期间, 是否像芦说的那样“比英国原来迫害他们的婆婆还厉害万倍”？

所以说, 当你嘲笑“清教徒宗教宽容”的说法时, 至少应该结合史实解释一下: 为什么不能说克伦威尔的宗教政策比前后的英王更宽容(英国掌权的清教徒跟新英格兰也有宽容之争, 见The Simple Cobler Of Aggawam In America)? 克伦威尔时期新兴教派层出不穷, 宣传和平主义拒绝服兵役的贵格会正是这时出现, 连那些继续遵守国教方式的聚会都被允许, 正如脑神经学家Thomas Willis这位保皇党所为(当时300名圣公会信徒固定在牛津聚会, 采用圣公会的崇拜形式, 见Religion at Oxford and Cambridge. A History 1160-1960 by Green V. H. H.)。

关于克伦威尔的宗教政策, 有两点可说：

(1)他所组建的国教会仅仅对牧师的学历和操行进行审查, 不但不触及教义观点, 连仪式规章都无硬性的统一规定(包括圣餐的仪式);
(2)更重要的是, 在国教会之外自行聚会也不受限制, 见其1650s的《施政文件》：

XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.

Maurice Ashley指出, 在克伦威尔权下, 很多牧师依然使用旧国教的公祷书, 天主教徒的处境也比前朝更好----克伦威尔在与马扎然(Mazarin)的通信中申明这一点, 法国驻英大使发回的报告也证实“the Catholics find their position better than under former kings who did not allow them freedom of worship.”(Maurice Ashley, 1958, p. 287)

丘吉尔在他的《英语国家史略》一书中, 将克伦威尔的统治定性为“英国自古以来最令人发指的”, 但关于芦笛眼中与清教徒风马牛不相及的宗教宽容精神, 作者是这样评价的：

Religious toleration challenged all the beliefs of Cromwell's day and found its best friend in the Lord Protector himself. Believing the Jews to be a useful element in the civil community, he opened again to them the gates of England, which Edward 1 had closed nearly four hundred years before. There was in practice comparatively little persecution on purely religious grounds, and even Roman Catholics were not seriously molested. Cromwell's dramatic intervention on behalf of a blaspheming Quaker and Unitarian whom Parliament would have put to death as well as tortured proves that he was himself the source of many mitigations. A man who in that bitter age could write, "we look for no compulsion but that of light and reason", and who could dream of a union and a right understanding embracing Jews and Gentiles, cannot be wholly barred from his place in the forward march of liberal ideas.

至于把美国的宗教自由算成杰弗逊的功劳更是缺乏常识。当时美国各州早就是信仰自由的, 立宪者只是解决官方教派接受政府补贴(今天的北欧、英国和德国依然如此)的问题(弗吉尼亚按照传统以圣公会为官方教派,但其它教派的成员数量早已远超过圣公会成员,事实上该州的长老会是“宗教自由法案”的重要支持者)。最后“国会不得立法建立国教”的提法正是出于Fisher Ames的动议(见Annals of Congress)。

北美长老会总会在1729年就已经正式把Westminster Confession中的"惩罚亵渎"的内容给解释掉了(concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do not received those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any for their religion), 公理会更是早已自由化, 哪里还需要一个地下党杰弗逊去“缔造宗教自由”(在这一点上, 芦笛的荒唐简直是登峰造极, 我不强求他知道弥尔顿的A Treatise of Civil Power, 至少应该解释一下公理会牧师Elisha Williams在1740s发表的那篇跟独立宣言几乎相同的论文吧)。

总之,“政教合一”如果指神职人员掌握刀剑之权, 那么清教徒政权从开头就不是政教合一((见前文引述The Massachusetts Body of Liberties的Liberties more particularly concerning the Freemen部分)

60. No church censure shall degrade or depose any man from any civil dignity, office or authority he shall have in the Commonwealth.

如果指因为宗教原因而受刑事处罚, 则: (1)当时的清教政权在这方面比之英王和芦笛赞赏的伊斯兰教,并无更不宽容、更“残暴”之处, 相反有很多方面更加宽松; (2)不管是对贵格会传教士的处置还是“猎巫”, 都主要是出于世俗考虑; (3)后来新英格兰不断降低对“亵渎罪”的惩罚力度, 从死刑变为鞭笞再变为治安处罚后来又代以象征性的小额罚款, 早在杰弗逊出来做秀之前好几十年, 即使“反动的”新英格兰也早就不存在什么宗教迫害了; 杰弗逊其人可有可无。

事实上, 即使1660年以前, 整个新英格兰也没有一人因Idolatry或Blasphemy而被处死的, 当然更没有青少年因为“咒骂父母”或“悖逆”而送命的。在马萨诸塞的死刑条款中, 有许多只是为了反映对十诫的尊崇(一个很好的参照例子是New Plymouth的法律, 其1636年与1658年的死刑条目都与宗教无关, 连“Cursing God”也不受重罚, 对“Denying the Scriptures”的刑罚要保证“not endanger life or limb”, 直到1671年才照抄了其它清教殖民地的那一套----但仍不包括Adultery, 见截图;五月花号乘客建立的这个殖民地,可以说是当时西方世界里宗教迫害成分最少的行政区,惟一与宗教有关的重刑是针对巫术的,并且从未有人被成功定罪。同性恋行为也只处以鞭笞或罚站,仅处死过一名××人士,据说他跟骡子和火鸡都发生过关系); 而在实际的执行过程中, 法官们总是心照不宣地手下留情(以Christian Charity的名义), 使得这些“血腥法律”成了一纸空文; 但愿某热爱和平的宗教也能至少先做到这一步。

[Bradley Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660, p.58]