Main currents in American thought An interpretation of American literature from the beginnings to 1920
citizens for political purposes was a conspiracy against the will of
God. The practical result of this doctrine of magisterial vicegerency
was that a small group of freemen set up an unlimited oligarchy over
some four or five thousand of their fellow Englishmen, even going so
far as to advance the novel doctrine of a freehold tenure of power.
Winthrop’s extreme jealousy of popular power cannot be explained
away by the doctrine of stewardship. Hooker of Hartford had no such
distrust of the people, but he was not a gentleman, like Winthrop,
and had not grown up with an aristocratic contempt for democracy.
The preposterousness of democratic aspiration was a stock jest among
English gentlemen, and in seeking to refute the arguments of the
deputies for greater popular power Winthrop did little more than give a
Hebraic twist to his aristocratic prejudices:
Where the chief Ordinary power & administration thereof is in
the people, there is a Democratie ... the Deputies are the
Democraticall p’te of o’r Governm’t. Now if we should change
from a mixt Aristocratie to a meere Democratie: first we should
have no warr’nt in scripture for it: there was no such Governm’t
in Israell. 2: we should heerby voluntaryly abase o’rselves, &
deprive o’rselves of that dignitye, w’ch the providence of God
hath putt upon us: w’ch is a manifest breach of the 5th Com’t: for
a Democratie is, among most Civill nations accounted the meanest
& worst of all formes of Governm’t: & therefore in writers, it is
branded w’th Reproachfull Epithets as Bellua multorū capitū, a
monster, &c: & Historyes doe recorde, that it hath been allwayes of
least continuance & fullest of trouble.[32]
In an often quoted letter to Thomas Hooker, then engaged in erecting
a democratic commonwealth in Connecticut, Winthrop diplomatically
moderated his terms and put the aristocratic doctrine in more
attractive form. “I expostulated about the unwarrantableness &
unsafeness of referring all matter of counsel or judicature to the body
of the people, _quia_ the best is always the least, & of that best part
the wiser part is always the lesser.”[33] But he must have agreed
heartily with another English gentleman, who writing to Winthrop under
date of July 9, 1640, remarked pithily:
I say agayne noe wise man shoud be soe folish as to live whear
every man is master, & masters must not correct theyr servants:
Where wise men propound & fooles determine, as it was sayde of the
citties of Greece.[34]
As the responsible steward of God’s plan for New England, Winthrop
would not flatter the people by pretending to the doctrine of _vox
populi, vox dei_. The multitude he regarded as factious, overswayed
by expediency and self-interest, incapable of governing wisely. Law,
by its nature, was ethical, the expression of God’s absolute and just
will; and this law, the magistrates were called of God to enforce.
From this conception of the absolute nature of law, came the famous
discussion of liberty and authority, known as the “little speech,”
which is the most highly praised of Winthrop’s utterances. In a certain
police-court matter that had loosed the class prejudices of all
parties, he had held against the popular feeling, and was impeached
before the general court. Upon his acquittal he rose and addressed the
court in words which he afterwards set down in his journal. No other
episode in his varied career reveals so well the admirable poise of the
man--the dignity, the self-control, the fair-mindedness, despite an
attack that hurt him to the quick.
For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake
in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I
mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first
is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as
he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he
lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is
incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure
the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and
maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time
to be worse than brute beasts: _omnes sumus licentia deteriores_.
This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which
all the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue
it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; and it may
also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and
man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions
amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object
of authority, and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty
to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are
to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of
your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this, is not authority,
but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised
in a subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free.... On the other side, ye know
who they are that complain of this yoke and say, let us break their
bands, etc., we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so,
brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you stand
for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in
your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority,
but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off
that yoke; and if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and
lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly
and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in
all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail
at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God’s assistance) to
hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God;
so shall your liberties be preserved, in upholding the honor and
power of authority amongst you.[35]
The doctrine of aristocratic stewardship has never been more skillfully
presented. It is John Cotton’s reply to Roger Williams, translated into
political terms; the philosophy of natural rights whittled down to a
covenant between God and man. It rests on the assumption of an absolute
law, superior to expediency. But may not honest men disagree as to what
constitutes the good, just, and honest? and may not godly authority
imperceptibly slide over into plain tyranny? Although the Saints may
have professed themselves satisfied with Winthrop’s doctrine, the pages
of early Massachusetts history bear ample record of the dissatisfaction
of the sinners. Most of the difficulties experienced by Winthrop in his
administration of the commonwealth had their root in this assumption
of arbitrary power, the immediate outcome of which was a spontaneous
development of incipient democracy. How far such an assumption of
divine custodianship may lead a generous man from the path of justice,
appears in his summing up of the case against Mistress Anne Hutchinson,
who because she insisted upon her own interpretation of the good, just,
and honest, was adjudged “A woman not only difficult in her opinions,
but also of an intemperate spirit.” “The ground work of her revelations
is the immediate revelation of the spirit, and not by the ministry of
the Lord ... and this hath been the ground of all these tumults and
troubles; and I would that those were all cut off that trouble us.” The
kernel of the offense for which Mistress Hutchinson was banished, is
then laid bare: “We see not that any should have authority to set up
any other exercise beside what authority hath already set up.”[36]
In this arbitrary judgment of Winthrop’s--the natural fruit of the tree
of theocratic stewardship--the “little speech” discovers its suitable
commentary. Urged on by his bigoted associates, the kind-hearted
governor descended to their level, and began the unhappy business of
playing the tyrant under pretense of scourging God’s enemies. The
lords-brethren served notice upon all dissenters that henceforth there
must be no dissent in New England. The admirable courage of Mistress
Hutchinson availed no more against the magisterial interpretation
of the good, just, and honest, than the boldness of Roger Williams
before her; or later, the zeal of the Baptists who were sent away by
Endicott; or later still, the piety of the Quakers, who were whipped
at the cart-tail and hanged, men and women both. The policy of the
political stewardship of the best and wisest never had fuller trial,
with abler or more conscientious agents, than in Massachusetts Bay; and
its failure was complete. Such progress as Massachusetts made towards
freedom and tolerance was gained in the teeth of theocratic opposition;
New England democracy owes no debt to her godly magistrates.
Bred up in a half-feudal world, the leaders of the Migration remained
patriarchal in their social philosophy, unable to adapt old prejudices
to new conditions. Human motives are curiously mixed, human actions
rarely consistent; and if the shortcomings of John Winthrop show
blacker by contrast with the excellence of the ideal which he
professed, the fault must be charged against his time and associates
and not against his manly, generous nature. Most English gentlemen of
his day were steeped in a sodden Toryism, yet he earnestly desired to
be a faithful steward of church and state. If as a gentleman he held
firmly to the privilege of rulership, as a Christian he endeavored
to rule honorably and in the fear of the Lord. If he followed the
beaten path and tried to shape the great experiment by the traditional
principles of his class; if his zeal at times led him into indisputable
tyrannies; it was because he was led away from the light, not because
he sought selfish ends. Godliness has its own special temptations, and
it would be ungenerous to bear ill-will against so lovable a man.
Footnotes
[7] James Truslow Adams, _The Founding of New England_, p. 170.
[8] _Institutes_, Book IV, Chapter XX, Paragraph 8.
[9] “Letter to Lord Say and Sele,” in Hutchinson, _History of
Massachusetts Bay Colony_, Vol. I, p. 497.
[10] Vol. I, p. 116.
[11] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 125.
[12] _Magnalia_, Vol. I, p. 265. Compare with this Cotton’s own words:
“The law, which your Lordship instanceth (in that none shall be chosen
to magistracy amongst us, but a church member) was made and enacted
before I came into the country; but I have hitherto wanted sufficient
light to plead against it” (Hutchinson, _History of Massachusetts Bay
Colony_, Vol. I, p. 498).
[13] Hutchinson, _History of Massachusetts Bay Colony_, Vol. I,
Appendix 2.
[14] See _Narragansett Club Publications_, Vol. II, p. 203.
[15] _Ibid._, Part II, p. 15.
[16] See Hutchinson, _Papers_, Vol. II, pp. 131 ff.; quoted in Adams,
_Founding of New England_, p. 261.
[17] “Master John Cottons Answer to Master Roger Williams,” in
_Narragansett Club Publications_, Vol. II, pp. 22-23.
[18] _Life and Letters of John Winthrop_, Vol. I, p. 310.
[19] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 296.
[20] _Life and Letters_, Vol. I, pp. 397-398.
[21] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 288.
[22] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 179.
[23] Book IV, Chapter XX, Paragraph 6.
[24] The heads of argument are given in _Life and Letters_, Vol. II,
pp. 211-214.
[25] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 236.
[26] Both are given in the appendix to Vol. II of the _Life and
Letters_.
[27] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 454.
[28] _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 240.
[29] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 438.
[30] _Discourse about the Neg: Vote, Life and Letters_, Vol. II, p. 434.
[31] _Journal._
[32] _Life and Letters_, Vol. II, p. 430.
[33] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 237.