評蘆笛《清教徒在北美殖民地推行的政教合一暴政》

著名網人蘆笛先生發表過《清教徒在北美殖民地推行的政教合一暴政》一文, 似乎廣受好評(國內朋友可到這裏來看), 文中所列出的清教徒的“罪證”是這部截至1648年的《馬薩諸塞法律匯編》 。

蘆笛翻譯了其中的死刑條款(以證明清教徒的法律“秦始皇式的嚴苛”), 其中一項死罪“denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world”----蘆把“Government of the world”翻譯成“世上的政府”, 真是別出心裁。一般讀者都會很自然地把這個翻成“對世界的管理”。參照一下Richard Baxter這部《基督徒指南》裏麵的幾個小標題: 可以照樣把Government of the Thoughts翻成“思想上的政府”, Government of the Body翻成“身體上的政府”, 的確很好很強大。(這並不是無關大局的細枝末節, 後麵我們會再談到----蘆笛為了曲解John Winthrop的政治理念、以便將其刻化為“反民主”的形象, 故而絕不能把govenment譯為“統治/管理”, 隻能一概解作“政府”）

進入正題之前, 先看看跟“清教徒暴政”八杆子打不著的弗吉尼亞的死刑規定, 想想這些單純以發財置地為目的、毫無狂熱的保王派貴族到底比清教徒寬容幾分(事實上就是1649年的馬裏蘭寬容法案也規定對否認三位一體論的人處以死刑)：

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.

蘆笛眼中的新英格蘭近乎一無是處, 宗教不寬容就不必說了, 世俗法律也殘忍野蠻, 例證是burglar第一次被抓住就要在前額上烙個“B”。關於這一點, 大概是英國法的特色, 事實上, 英國本土的法律規定: 偷竊額超過12便士就要判死刑。至於烙印, 英王統治之下的適用麵更大, 愛德華六世的法律規定: 凡有勞動能力卻遊手好閑超過三日者, 要被烙上V字, 並被罰作舉報者的奴隸,為期兩年; 假如膽敢逃跑, 就要烙上“S”, 終生為奴; 再逃跑, 死刑。詹姆士一世任內, 流浪行乞者左肩被烙R字, 若此後當事人被發現繼續行乞, 死刑。

比烙刑更猛的是火刑, 異端就不用說了(伊麗莎白在1570s燒死了兩名浸禮派成員, 她的繼承人於1612年把兩位索西奴派分子送上了火刑柱), 偽造金銀硬幣的女人也作為Treason被燒死,。而且,“謀殺親夫”也以同一罪名被判火刑(見Blackstone的英國法注釋)----“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, 還有煮(也許應該叫做油炸)。亨利八世時通過的一條法律規定, 投毒者適用這種待遇。當然並不是說英國在酷刑上鶴立雞群, 德意誌境內的偽幣製造者就要下油鍋, 而且規定不能一下子把全身扔進去。

講了前麵那些, 再回過頭來看看麻州對同類罪行的懲罰力度, 應該冷靜多了吧。至於蘆笛特別強調該州“每一條惡法都以經文為依據”, 其實也沒什麽特別的: 一者母國有一大堆如此強悍的法例, 似不易照搬, 到聖經中去吸取靈感也是沒辦法; 其次, 引用經文為法律的合理性背書, 無非是模仿Edward Coke在Institutes of the Lawes of England裏的風格。

而且, 關於清教徒照搬聖經刑法“恰與今日中東原教旨回回以《可蘭經》的戒律為法律一般”, 還是有幾點該商榷的。首先, 清教徒對某些摘取的舊約法律作了改動, 後麵會提到對偶象崇拜者的死刑判決附加了一個前提, 是舊約中沒有的; 褻瀆罪在舊約的懲罰是石刑(最近伊朗有女人以通奸罪被判石刑), 但“暴戾”的清教徒卻沒有在這一點上表達自己對經文的“無限忠於”; 最近網上有人談基督徒為什麽不把通奸的女人用石頭打死的話題, 一般大家注意的是“是否打死”的問題, 其實降低死刑的痛苦程度本身也算是進步的種子吧(回教的砍手斷腳之類特色項目就不用提了)。

再有, 原教旨回回最為人詬病的地方除了不容異教徒之外, 恐怕殘害女性也是很重要的一條吧。“榮譽謀殺”的案子在那些為追求物質享受而移民西方的穆斯林中都層出不窮, 後麵會引用“清教徒暴政”下的一條禁止打老婆的法律(“原教旨回回”還有一大特色,就是規定女人出門必須包得嚴嚴實實;回顧一下當初John Cotton與Roger Williams的蒙頭之爭也很有意義)。塔利班視女性讀書為大罪, 無論在阿富汗還是巴基斯坦, 女子學校都是重要的襲擊目標; 作為對照的例子, 不用專門研究新英格蘭人了, 看看路德這篇1524年的《為設立與維持基督教學校致德意誌各城參議員書》, 其中明確提出要對女孩進行義務教育。蘆笛拿出路德說理性是娼妓的言論, 感歎其反智程度連耄太祖都望塵莫及。那就請讀讀上麵提到的這篇公開信：

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.
若我們花這麽多的時間和精力教他們學習唱歌跳舞和玩牌, 我們為什麽不花同樣的時間和精力來教他們學習讀書, 和其他的功課呢? 假如我有小孩而可能做到的話, 除叫他們學習語言和曆史以外, 我還要叫他們學習聲樂, 器樂, 和數學。這些功課不都是兒童的遊戲嗎? 希臘從前便是拿這些學課訓練兒童, 使他們成為有奇才的男女, 熟悉各種工作。我過去沒有多讀詩人和曆史學家的著作, 也沒有人教我, 現在我還在懊悔! 那時候我費了很多的金錢和勞力, 不得不學些魔鬼的髒東西, 即哲學家和詭辯家的知識, 這些東西是我現在要努力洗淨的。

回過頭來說清教徒, 蘆笛一向對摩西規定的“種族滅絕”政策恨之入骨, 據他說, 北美清教徒就是有樣學樣, 跑去屠殺印第安人的。舊約的屠殺就不說了, 但是講清教徒以此為據、把印第安人等同於當時的迦南土著加以種族滅絕, 這就是缺乏神學常識的無知推測了。下麵簡單說兩個代表性的例子：

John Cotton這篇God’s Promise to His Plantation (1630)裏麵說, 如果要侵略土著者的土地, 必需的前提是要有從上帝而來的special commission, 否則這種行為(即舊約以色列人侵入迦南之舉)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.

類似誤解體現在這篇網文中, 作者說：

這些住在“應許之地”的新“以色列人”, 把印第安人等同於巴勒斯坦的迦南人, 是應當消滅的。就是有些真心向印第安人宣教的宣教士, 他們也無法改變社會這種惡行。如果沒有這種“信仰”的因素滲入政治, 他們的迫害可能還不至於這樣猛烈。

值得一提的是“向印第安人宣教”並非是少數人的意見, 到麻州1646年的法令集裏麵找INDIANS條目下的內容, 就可知道至少過半的清教公民並無這種“信仰”因素。

最後再拿出Samuel Rutherford的代表作解決問題。他說, 以色列把迦南地殺得雞犬不留的作法, 屬於禮儀律的性質(新約時代, 禮儀律廢止了, 前麵John Cotton說的這種Special Commission也不可能存在了。相反意見的是“異端”, 嗬嗬)

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.

蘆笛本文的主旨是說: 在北美清教政權之下, 既無個人權利又無民主製衡, 是十足的“暴政”——多虧後來傑弗遜大人力挽狂瀾, 用天賦人權和宗教自由的觀念啟蒙愚民, 方有今日之美國：

“美國實行宗教容忍的功臣是傑佛遜, 就是他堅持把政教分離, 宗教容忍寫入憲法的。他之所以這麽做, 乃是因為他並非基督徒, 而且對教會深惡痛絕, 隻是這秘密被掩蓋下來了...”

——總之,“美國民主建國是清教徒的功勞”這類說法是“彌天大謊”, 是後世的無良史學家(例如Bancroft)為營造“民族自豪感”而對曆史進行“浪漫化處理”的產物。。。

下麵, 我在談論清教殖民地的政體之前, 先列舉一下馬薩諸塞法律裏麵、某些跟壬醛有關或無關的條款, 看The Massachusetts Body of Liberties：

第1款: 所有人的生命都不可剝奪, 所有人都不可被隨意逮捕, 所有人的財產都不可被隨意侵奪
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: 無論是否有參政權, 所有居民在法律麵前一律平等.
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: 除非依據法律並且給予合理補償, 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: 所有人均有權參加鄉鎮會議, 通過口頭或者書麵方式提出動議或者請願等
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: 在法律對一個人作出判決前, 任何人都不應當受到人身限製或者被拘禁
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: 不得因為欠債而逮捕任何人
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: 任何人都不得因為同一違法行為而遭受兩次處罰
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證其罪
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: 丈夫無權親自(私自)打老婆——想懲罰妻子隻能向公權機關申請, 若得到法官允許方可在法定地點由執法人員執行。(“寬容”的伊斯蘭教就不同了, 就算不說榮譽謀殺那麽極端的,至少可以隨時“用柳條輕輕抽打她的細腰”)
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.

然後還有... ...

第29款(選擇陪審團): 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(知情權)：
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(隱私): 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. (在這個問題上, 大眾對清教徒的觀點有很大的誤解, 請參照Westminster Larger Catechism第144問和145問, 其中要求信徒“為他人的軟弱難過, 並加以遮掩”, 又禁止“泄漏別人不該泄漏的軟弱”。)

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(異議權): 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.

談到民主問題, 蘆笛引用了John Winthrop的一句話, 然後就詩性大發, 感歎“這不是暴政, 什麽是暴政?”, 以及“美國獨立後民主建國是清教徒的功勞是何等彌天大謊”。

這段話在Wikipedia上能查到(還附有搞笑的點評)：

...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."

這番言論的前因後果不容易說明白, 跟一頭豬的爭議有關, 最終造成1644年的一項法令(兩院議員不再混合開會)。

重點在於John Winthrop所稱的mixed aristocracy到底何指。下麵是他的另一篇政論：

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: 溫斯羅普這篇1644年的論文中引述了殖民地特許狀裏的條款, 闡明了這個“反民主”政體的基本權力分配方式——統治階層成員(總督、副總督及多位“助理”, 總數不能超過18名)由自由民每年重選一次, 執政者們的權力即使在任期內仍受到一些製約, 如果要收稅(包括其它重大事件, 例如立法、或授予某人公民權), 則必須同時得到過半自由民(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.

常識是: 所謂“混合貴族政體(mixed aristocracy)”當然是指民主成分與貴族成分加以混合, 以區別於"單純"民主政體。如果你不斷章取義, 當然該知道Winthrop那段話前麵就明說“民意代表(Deputies)”是該殖民地政治結構中的“民主成分”("the Deputies are the Democraticall part of our Government"), 由此證明如果取消Magistrates的否決權, 則隻剩下了民主成分, 成了純民主政體(民主政體是最壞的政體, 這種話由麥迪遜來講就好得很, 清教徒這樣說就十惡不赦)。

事實上, 麻州的“貴族”無非是一年一度投票選出的, 隻是他們在任期內擁有一定限度的自決權, 跟鄉鎮代表們必須隨時代表當下的民意(因為他們隻是為了避免人多不便而被設立的公民的代理,理論上相當於選民把票填好密封後委托他們提交)有所不同, 所以後者是民主成分, 前者是“貴族”成分---可笑的是蘆笛既然聲稱他引用Winthrop那段話的來源是Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 卻完全不提這一事實: 即該書中緊接著那段話所在篇章的就是上麵提到的Arbitrary government——而該書的正文部分更是明確說: Winthrop是以阿奎那的著作(混合政體理論, 也可參照加爾文的類似論述)為這篇論文作注的("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.

現在回到開頭提到的關於Government這個詞的翻譯問題: Winthrop那段話明顯隻是在強調一點, 即一個穩定的社會必須有統治者(官吏)和被統治對象(人民)的區分, 當然在這裏統治者是被人民選舉產生的、並且權力受到如上所提的某些基本限製。所以他攻擊的對象與“民主分權”毫無關係、隻是那種取消官民區別的“大民主”而已——這就是John Cotton所說的If the people be governors, who shall be governed?。

順便說一下: 如果誰要拿“隻有(官方承認的)教會成員才有參政權”這一條來證明溫斯羅普的“strident anti-democratic political tendencies”, 也不能把維基上這段引用作為證據, 因為那場爭論純是自由民內部的權力分配問題。至於非自由民, 麻省當局認為他們沒什麽可抱怨的, 不滿意可以直接走人:

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.

實際上, “隻有官方教會成員才有選舉權”這種說法用來定性整個“北美清教徒”也是不合適的, 因為康涅狄格就沒有這個“教會會員資格”的限製。

最後, 說Massachusetts的“選舉權隻限於教會成員”也容易讓人誤解, 實際規定是這樣的: 隻有教會成員才有資格申請成為自由民, 然後隻要大議會(General Court)批準該人為自由民, 哪怕他後來被教會開除會員資格, 也不會因此喪失選舉權(Disfranchisement)：

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

事實上, Massachusetts的非自由民隻是不能參與“聯邦”一級的選舉而已, 請看1647年的Township Act, 他們可以選舉或當選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]

該州1660年之後在選舉權適用人群規則上的改革, 並非僅僅源於母國的壓力, 我們可以看一個類似的例子: 免於打板子的權利從“紳士”擴展到普通人。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, 法律變成這樣(見Torture這一條目)：

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.

說完了“民主的彌天大謊”, 最後再說說伊斯蘭教比清教徒“寬容”的問題, 先學習蘆笛語錄：

比起今日的極端回回來, 當年的清教徒也實在幹淨不到哪兒去, 甚至還不如占領了君士坦丁堡的奧斯曼帝國的回回——人家在1453年占領了君士坦丁堡後, 還實行了宗教容忍, 次年就恢複了當地基督徒的最高級主教。自此後希臘人一直能自由信奉東正教, 而清教徒在兩百年後在小媳婦熬成婆後還做不到這點, 甚至比英國原來迫害他們的“婆婆”還厲害萬倍。

從Thomas Aquinas以來, 到第一代宗教改革分子(路德, 慈運裏), 都首先明確表明基督教政權不能強迫境內的異教徒(猶太教徒和回回)改宗, 隻有在他們公開說“你們的宗教是假的”或者咒罵上帝時, 才作為“褻瀆”加以懲罰(詳情見這裏或這裏, 獨立派的代表觀點可見這篇講章)。那麽伊斯蘭教寬容在哪兒呢? 你能向回教徒傳教嗎? 回回能改宗嗎? 罵安拉和穆聖能被“寬容”嗎? 唯一可能更寬容的一點: 基督教禁止境內所有人跳大神, 伊斯蘭教東征西討版圖巨大, 或許當地人什麽儀式都可以被“容忍”, 但是你把十字架或佛像帶進麥加試試(其實就是“被寬容”的教堂也不能頂著十字架)。

事實上, 就算“容忍宗教儀式”這一條, 伊斯蘭教也並沒有什麽實質性的優越之處。首先, 基督教政權對異教徒偶像崇拜行為之“不容忍”, 其力度類同於城管對無照經營者所為, 並不是要他們的命(後麵會引用一條麻州關於印第安人的法律); 再者, 阿奎那(還有John Cotton等人)明確說過, 如果境內的異教徒數量太多, 基督教政府擔心壓製其民俗會激起群體事件, 就可以容忍他們的迷信行為：

人類的統治權起源於神的統治權, 並且應當以神的統治權為模仿的榜樣。全能和至善的上帝有時讓世上作惡, 雖然他是能夠加以防止的; 他這樣做是唯恐較大的善會受到摧殘, 甚或較大的惡會相繼效尤。所以, 在人類的政治方麵, 當權的人可以正當地讓某些弊害存在, 免得某種善行會徒成泡影, 甚或為較大的惡行所代替。像聖奧古斯丁在《論天命》(第二篇, 第四章)中所說的:“如果取締娼妓, 放蕩淫亂的事情將層出不窮而不可遏製”。因此, 雖然異教徒可能因其宗教儀式而犯有罪孽, 他們卻或者由於他們可能從其中取得的善, 或者由於借此避免的惡, 應當得到寬容。在猶太人的宗教儀式中, 我們現在所信奉的真正的宗教在古時預先露了端倪, 因此從猶太人舉行他們的儀式這一事實, 可以獲得這種好處, 即: 我們從敵人方麵得到我們基督教的曆史證據以及我們信仰的象征性的表現; 所以猶太人是被容許舉行他們的宗教儀式的。
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, 其他異教徒的儀式若是絲毫不包含真實的內容或有用的部分, 就決不應當加以容忍; 除非是可能為了避免某種弊害, 例如避免物議或對他們的壓製可能引起的衝突; 或者是為了避免在拯救那些由於這種寬容而最後改信甚督教的人們的過程中遭遇障礙。為了這個緣故, 當異教徒人數很多的時候, 教會有時連異端分子和邪教徒的儀式都是加以寬容的。
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.

提出這一點不是為了說明中世紀的基督教對異教徒有多麽“寬容”, 而是提醒讀者一個問題: 伊斯蘭政權對土著居民(例如印度人)宗教儀式的“容忍”, 真是出於什麽慈悲心腸嗎? 還是更可能與基督教政權一樣、僅僅是因為“異教徒人數很多”呢？

如果我把自己的辯論作風降低到某人的標準(見上麵對Winthrop“極端反民主”一事的討論), 大可以從盧瑟福這篇殺氣騰騰的論文中摘出那句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, 然後宣稱那些“清教徒不寬容”的論點都是“彌天大謊”。

如果有人非要堅持北美清教徒是特別狂暴的一個群體, 不承認上麵引用的長老會神學家的言論能代表這群人的觀點, 那麽請看John Cotton的相關作品：

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

有些人不顧常識, 認定“IF any man after legal conviction shall HAVE OR WORSHIP any other God, but the LORD GOD: he shall be put to death.”這條法律的意思就是要“殺盡境內的異教徒”。他們也不看看同一網頁記錄的另一死刑條例“If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to BLASPHEME the holy Name of God...”——既然隻要是Pagan就格殺勿論, 何需有此特別規定？

事實上, 隻要看看作為該法例根據的幾處經文(Exod.22.20. Deut.13.6.&10. Deut.17.2.6.), 就可以看到所禁止的隻是“事奉”和“叩拜”偽神的行為。----John Cotton的An Abstract of the Laws of New England說的明白, 該死刑條例針對的是公開的偶像崇拜(Idolatry)行為(克倫威爾掌權時期,彌薩被視為迷信行為,但英格蘭境內的天主教徒被允許在家中進行這種儀式), 而且隻對自認基督徒的居民有效, 也就是說, 異教徒不會因此被處死, 基本是罰款了事。下麵這條1646年的法令是針對境內印第安人的：

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, 倘若執意再犯才判死刑, "after legal conviction"說的就是這個。這裏的conviction是一種警告性的“定罪”---用我朝的話說就是“批評教育說服”---簡略的把conviction看成convince的名詞形式即可。下麵再引用兩條麻州的法律(前者是在ECCLESIASTICALL之下, 第2條屬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]

在當時加爾文派的神學裏(參見Samuel Willard的講章), 這個術語有一個專有意義(A conviction is a convinced conscience.)。上麵提到的John Cotton那封針對宗教寬容的回信裏提出以下原則：(1)不能強迫人去宣誓認可他不相信的教義(上麵引用的法令說“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傳與正統不容的錯誤觀念, 則區別對待: <1>如果這些錯誤觀念是“非原則性的”, 則隻要當事人為人謙和、並未狂熱地宣傳這些觀念以攪擾他人, 則不應受到幹涉和懲罰; <2>如果是原則性的異端觀念, 則初犯時隻加以警告和開導, 使其認識到自己的錯誤觀念是不符合聖經的, 由此他被自己的良心“定罪”(conviction)---如果此後他還是堅持原有的觀點, 則對其施加的懲罰就不是破壞良心自由了, 因為是他自己違背了自己的良心。

介紹了清教徒的以上觀念, 不是要加以認可, 而是解釋那條死刑法律的適用範圍為何不包括非基督徒, 因為“legal conviction”是隻有基督徒才談得上的(這裏的“legal conviction”不能譯成什麽“法庭判決”, 此處“legal”實際是指“符合先例的”, 所以New Haven殖民地的同類法律才會有這種表述“if any person after legall, or other due conviction”), 下麵引用阿奎那的相關論述：

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."

下麵摘錄John Cotton那封回信的兩處, 可以看出與阿奎那大同小異：

[Page 9]

[Page12]

前述John Owen那篇講章也很清楚的描述了這種正統觀念(但至於他本人是否認同這種理論,就請讀者自己看上下文了)：

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.

事實上, 更清楚的例子可見Owen在1646年的一篇布道文, 他質問論敵“what gospel means have been used for their conviction?”, 這就完全沒有爭議了。

這部基本法的作者Nathaniel Ward本人也在另一代表作中提到這個概念：

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.

如果蘆笛之流看到的是1680年新罕布什爾的版本, 就不會產生誤解了, 那裏明確指出對Idollitry的死刑僅限於基督徒：

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.

事實上, John cotton草擬的憲法條文中有一個絕好的例子, 可以用來確定那個“after legal conviction”倒底在說什麽(見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提出的四項宗教方麵的死罪(Blasphemy, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Heresy), 其中隻有對blasphemy的懲罰是基督徒和異教徒統一標準的----犯者都要處死。要注意《利未記》裏規定人即使在暴怒下出現了褻瀆上帝的言行, 也是死罪, 而馬薩諸塞的法律則要求當事人必須滿足"wittingly and willingly"的條件(難怪麻省直至1684年才有兩例Blasphemy, 而且無一因此被處死----因為你怎麽可能證明"wittingly and willingly"呢?)。

在1656年, New Haven殖民地修改法律, 將blasphemy的死刑處罰也隻限於基督徒：

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.

最後解釋一下: 相同的行為, 何以對基督徒處以死刑、而異教徒反而隻受輕微處罰? 說到底, 無論伊斯蘭教還是當時的基督教, 最不能容忍的是叛教(Apostasy)、而不是未入教者的“無知”行為。還是請看前麵多次引述的John Cotton的那篇代表作：

話說回來, 清教徒就算趕不上伊斯蘭教“寬容”與人道(除了打老婆甚至離婚的問題), 但是正如開頭所引用的弗吉尼亞死刑條款所提示的---要判斷其曆史地位, 首先應該跟基督教國家的世俗君主相比, 才能看它是“進步還是反動”。英王禁止在國教會之外的聚會(也禁止缺席國教之內的聚會), 講道人員必須發誓讚同公禱書中的全部內容, 獲得合法執照, 否則是“非法布道”(1559年的劃一法案規定,凡使用非官方公禱形式者,初犯罰錢,再犯判處一年徒刑,三犯終身監禁)。領取聖餐時必須對著那東西屈膝——初期清教徒希望在國教內部改革時, 主要就是糾纏這個問題, 他們請求批準讓年邁腿腳不便的信徒可以站著領聖餐, 但是國王認為“退一步就完了”, 堅決不準。

北美那些公理會當然比起國教的管理體製要寬容多了。首先每個教會地位平等, 互不隸屬; 再者每個公理會在財產管理、任免神職人員以及接納或開除會員這些重大事務上, 都是由全體會員按照少數服從多數的原則投票決定; 而且私下的宗教聚會(private meeting)是合法的, 雖然不被官方承認為“通過資格認證”的教會(需要得到官員的批準或其它正式教會的承認才能轉正), 不能享受財政補貼, 其會員不具備申請公民權的資格——但是比起在英國要受治安處罰, 哪裏更寬容？

最重要的是, 新英格蘭隻列出了一些具體的禁止事項, 隻要不違反即可自行其是; 而英王則是規定人們(至少是神職人員)必須積極地按照某一套去做(例如公禱書, 特定儀式, 尤其是穿“法衣”), 哪邊的空間更大, 一目了然。新英格蘭的法律讓人有穩定的預期, 而且受到指控之後也是按照正式的庭審程序受審, 有權為自己辯護, 而不是接受暴民式的審判。(回頭說說平民在土耳其素丹治下的幸福生活: 他們的生命和財產安全如何? 據說是沒人敢露富, 否則權貴就像蒼蠅見了血一樣。)

再者, 新英格蘭是清教移民股東的私人社區, 禁止不受歡迎者入內有何問題(況且不滿意的隨時可以用腳投票, 不像後來路易十四權下的新教徒那樣, 要麽改宗, 要麽勞改)? 假如是在英國本土, 清教徒煽動其它各派與之一起造反, 許諾掌權之後實行完全的宗教自由, 結果一旦上台反而比原政府更專製, 這種情況才跟蘆笛的感歎有點兒關係。那麽, 英國本土的清教徒掌權期間, 是否像蘆說的那樣“比英國原來迫害他們的婆婆還厲害萬倍”？

所以說, 當你嘲笑“清教徒宗教寬容”的說法時, 至少應該結合史實解釋一下: 為什麽不能說克倫威爾的宗教政策比前後的英王更寬容(英國掌權的清教徒跟新英格蘭也有寬容之爭, 見The Simple Cobler Of Aggawam In America)? 克倫威爾時期新興教派層出不窮, 宣傳和平主義拒絕服兵役的貴格會正是這時出現, 連那些繼續遵守國教方式的聚會都被允許, 正如腦神經學家Thomas Willis這位保皇黨所為(當時300名聖公會信徒固定在牛津聚會, 采用聖公會的崇拜形式, 見Religion at Oxford and Cambridge. A History 1160-1960 by Green V. H. H.)。

關於克倫威爾的宗教政策, 有兩點可說：

(1)他所組建的國教會僅僅對牧師的學曆和操行進行審查, 不但不觸及教義觀點, 連儀式規章都無硬性的統一規定(包括聖餐的儀式);
(2)更重要的是, 在國教會之外自行聚會也不受限製, 見其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, 在克倫威爾權下, 很多牧師依然使用舊國教的公禱書, 天主教徒的處境也比前朝更好----克倫威爾在與馬紮然(Mazarin)的通信中申明這一點, 法國駐英大使發回的報告也證實“the Catholics find their position better than under former kings who did not allow them freedom of worship.”(Maurice Ashley, 1958, p. 287)

丘吉爾在他的《英語國家史略》一書中, 將克倫威爾的統治定性為“英國自古以來最令人發指的”, 但關於蘆笛眼中與清教徒風馬牛不相及的宗教寬容精神, 作者是這樣評價的：

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.

至於把美國的宗教自由算成傑弗遜的功勞更是缺乏常識。當時美國各州早就是信仰自由的, 立憲者隻是解決官方教派接受政府補貼(今天的北歐、英國和德國依然如此)的問題(弗吉尼亞按照傳統以聖公會為官方教派,但其它教派的成員數量早已遠超過聖公會成員,事實上該州的長老會是“宗教自由法案”的重要支持者)。最後“國會不得立法建立國教”的提法正是出於Fisher Ames的動議(見Annals of Congress)。

北美長老會總會在1729年就已經正式把Westminster Confession中的"懲罰褻瀆"的內容給解釋掉了(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), 公理會更是早已自由化, 哪裏還需要一個地下黨傑弗遜去“締造宗教自由”(在這一點上, 蘆笛的荒唐簡直是登峰造極, 我不強求他知道彌爾頓的A Treatise of Civil Power, 至少應該解釋一下公理會牧師Elisha Williams在1740s發表的那篇跟獨立宣言幾乎相同的論文吧)。

總之,“政教合一”如果指神職人員掌握刀劍之權, 那麽清教徒政權從開頭就不是政教合一((見前文引述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.

如果指因為宗教原因而受刑事處罰, 則: (1)當時的清教政權在這方麵比之英王和蘆笛讚賞的伊斯蘭教,並無更不寬容、更“殘暴”之處, 相反有很多方麵更加寬鬆; (2)不管是對貴格會傳教士的處置還是“獵巫”, 都主要是出於世俗考慮; (3)後來新英格蘭不斷降低對“褻瀆罪”的懲罰力度, 從死刑變為鞭笞再變為治安處罰後來又代以象征性的小額罰款, 早在傑弗遜出來做秀之前好幾十年, 即使“反動的”新英格蘭也早就不存在什麽宗教迫害了; 傑弗遜其人可有可無。

事實上, 即使1660年以前, 整個新英格蘭也沒有一人因Idolatry或Blasphemy而被處死的, 當然更沒有青少年因為“咒罵父母”或“悖逆”而送命的。在馬薩諸塞的死刑條款中, 有許多隻是為了反映對十誡的尊崇(一個很好的參照例子是New Plymouth的法律, 其1636年與1658年的死刑條目都與宗教無關, 連“Cursing God”也不受重罰, 對“Denying the Scriptures”的刑罰要保證“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, 見截圖;五月花號乘客建立的這個殖民地,可以說是當時西方世界裏宗教迫害成分最少的行政區,惟一與宗教有關的重刑是針對巫術的,並且從未有人被成功定罪。同性戀行為也隻處以鞭笞或罰站,僅處死過一名××人士,據說他跟騾子和火雞都發生過關係); 而在實際的執行過程中, 法官們總是心照不宣地手下留情(以Christian Charity的名義), 使得這些“血腥法律”成了一紙空文; 但願某熱愛和平的宗教也能至少先做到這一步。

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