Winthrop s Defense of the Alien Law circa June 1637

Transcription

1 Winthrop s Defense of the Alien Law circa June 1637 In response to the growing Antinomian controversy, Winthrop was elected governor at the General Court of May The court tried John Wheelwirght, finding him guilty of sedition; but it deferred sentencing him until the next session, which it hoped would give him time to recant so that the court could act leniently toward him. The court at this time also passed an alien law, one of its the most controversial acts. It did not place penalties on the aliens themselves, who after all were citizens of England. Rather, it would fine towns 200 for allowing any alien to reside within its jurisdiction more than three weeks without the approval of at least two magistrates or one member of the Counsel Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, or John Endecott. The court would fine any person guilty of such an offense 40 and 20 every month thereafter as long as the alien was within the jurisdiction. The immediate reason for the law was the expectation that a group from Roger Brereley s Grindleton Chapel in Yorkshire was soon to arrive. They were called Grindletonians and known to be Antinomians or to be moving in that direction. The more general threat was that Anne Hutchinson s sympathizers would arrive in New England and further strengthen her dissenting group. The law was unpopular enough that Winthrop felt obliged to defend it with a tract, A Declaration of the Intent and Equitye of the Order made at the last Court (May, 1637), which he published anonymously on behalf of the court. Winthrop s defense is a concise statement of his political philosophy of government based on free consent. He argued that a state has the right of exclusion and that no one had a right to live among them if they were not wanted. In defending this position, Winthrop used one of his most famous metaphors: A family is a little common wealth, and a common wealth is a great family. Now as a family is not bound to entertain all comers, no not every good man (otherwise

2 than by way of hospitality) no more is a commonwealth. Winthrop s defense is in Arthur Meier Schlesinger, gen. ed., et al., Winthrop Papers, Volume III, (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1943), A Declaration of the Intent and Equitye of the Order made at the last Court, to this effect, that none should be received to inhabite within this Jurisdiction but such as should be allowed by some of the Magistrates For clearing of such scruples as have arisen about this order, it is to be considered, first, what is the essentiall forme of a common weale or body politic such as this is, which I conceive to be this The consent of a certaine companie of people, to cohabite together, under one government for their mutual safety and welfare. In this description all these things doe concurre to the well being of such a body, 1 Persons, 2 Place, 3 Consent, 4 Government or Order, 5 Wellfare. It is clearely agreed, by all, that the care of safety and wellfare was the original cause or occasion of common weales and of many familyes subjecting themselves to rulers and laws; for no man hath lawfull power over another, but by birth or consent, so likewise, by the law of proprietye, no man can have just interest in that which belongeth to another, without his consent. From the premises will arise these conclusions. 1. No common weale can be founded but by free consent. 2. The persons so incorporating have a public and relative interest each in other, and in the place of their co-habitation and goods, and laws etc. and in all the means of their wellfare so as none other can claime priviledge with them but by free consent.

3 3. The nature of such an incorporation tyes every member thereof to seeke out and entertaine all means that may conduce to the wellfare of the bodye, and to keepe off whatsoever doth appeare to tend to theire damage. 4. The wellfare of the whole is to be put to apparent hazard for the advantage of any particular members. From these conclusions I thus reason. 1. If we heere be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath right to come into us etc. without our consent. 2. If no man hath right to our lands, our government priviledges etc., but by our consent, then it is reason we should take notice of before we conferre any such upon them. 3. If we are bound to keepe off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then we may lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtfull to us, and therefore it is lawfull to take knowledge of all men before we receive them. 4. The churches take liberty (as lawfully they may) to receive or reject at their discretion; yea particular towns make orders to the like effect; why then should the common weale be denied the like liberty, and the whole more restrained than any parte? 5. If it be sinne in us to deny some men place etc. amongst us, then it is because of some right they have to this place etc. for to deny a man that which he hath no right unto, is neither sinne nor injury. 6. If strangers have right to our houses or lands etc., then it is either of justice or of mercye; if of justice let them plead it, and we shall know what to answer: but if it be only in way of mercye, or by the rule of hospitality etc., then I answer 1st a man is not a fit object of mercye except he be in

4 miserye. 2d. We are not bound to exercise mercye to others to the ruine of ourselves. 3d. There are few that stand in neede of mercye at their first coming hither. As for hospitality, that rule doth not bind further than for some present occasion, not for continual residence. 7. A family is a little common wealth, and a common wealth is a greate family. Now as a family is not bound to entertaine all comers, no not every good man (otherwise than by way of hospitality) no more is a common wealth. 8. It is a generall received rule, turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hospes, it is worse to receive a man whom we must cast out againe, than to denye him admittance The rule of the Apostle, John [2 John 10] is, that such as come and bring not the true doctrine with them should not be received to house, and by the same reason not into the common weale. 10. Seeing it must be granted that there may come such persons (suppose Jesuits etc.) which by consent of all ought to be rejected, it will follow that by this law (being only for notice to be taken of all that come to us, without which we cannot avoyd such as indeed are to be kept out) is no other but just and needfull, and if any should be rejected that ought to be received, that is not to be imputed to the law, but to those who are betrusted with the execution of it. And herein is to be considered, what the intent of the law is, and by consequence, by what rule they are to walke, who are betrusted with the keeping of it. The intent of the law is to preserve the wellfare of the body: and for this ende to have none received into any fellowship with it who are likely to disturbe the same, and this intent (I am sure) is lawful and good. Now then, if such to whom the keeping of this law is committed, be persuaded in theire judgments that such a man is likely to disturbe and hinder the publick weale, but some others who are not in the same trust, judge otherwise, yet they are to follow their owne judgments, rather than the judgments of others who

5 are not alike interested: As in tryall of an offender by jury; the twelve men are satisfied in their consciences, upon the evidence given, that the party deserves death: but there are 20 or 40 standers by, who conceive otherwise, yet is the jury bound to condemn him according to their owne consciences, and not to acquit him upon the different opinion of other men, except theire reasons can convince them of the errour of their consciences, and this is according to the rule of the Apostle. Rom Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mynde. If it be objected, that some prophane persons are received and others who are religious are rejected, I answer 1st, It is not knowne that any such thinge has as yet fallen out. 2. Such a practice may be justifiable as the case may be, for younger persons (even prophane ones) may be of lesse danger to the common weale (and to the churches also) than some older persons, though professors of religion: for our Saviour Christ when he conversed with publicans etc. sayeth that such were nearer the Kingdom of heaven than the religious pharisees, and one that is of large parts and confirmed in some erroneous way, is likely to doe more harme to church and common weale, and is of lesse hope to be reclaymed, than 10 prophane persons, who have not yet become hardened, in the contempt of the meanes of grace. Lastly, Whereas it is objected that by this law, we reject good christians and so consequently Christ himselfe: I answer 1st. It is not knowne that any christian man hath been rejected. 2. a man that is a true christian, may be denyed residence among us, in some cases, without rejecting Christ, as admitt a true christian should come over, and should maintain community of goods, or that magistrates ought not to punish the breakers of the first table, 2 or the members of churches for criminal offences: or that no man were bound to be subject to those lawes or magistrates to which they should not give an explicite consent, etc. I hope no man will say, that not to receive such an one were to reject Christ; for such opinions (though being maintained in simple

6 ignorance, they might stand with a state of grace yet) they may be so dangerous to the publick weale in many respects, as it would be our sinne and unfaithfullness to receive such among us, except it were for tryall of theire reformation. I would demand then in the case in question (for it is bootlesse curiosity to refrayne openesse in things publick) whereas it is sayd that this law was made of purpose to keepe away such as are of Mr. [John] Wheelwright his judgment (admitt it were so which yet I cannot confesse) where is the evill of it? If we conceive and finde by sadd experience that his opinions are such, as by his own profession cannot stand with externall peace, may we not provide for our peace, by keeping of such as would strengthen him and infect others with such dangerous tenets? and if we finde his opinions such as will cause divisions, and make people looke at their magistrates, ministers and brethren as enemies to Christ and Antichrists etc., were it not sinne and unfaithfullness in us, to receive more of those opinions, which we already finde the evill fruite of: Nay, why doe not those who now complayne joyne with us in keeping out of such, as well as formerly they did in expelling Mr. [Roger] Williams for the like, though lesse dangerous? Where this change of theire judgments should arise I leave them to themselves to examine, and I earnestly entreat them so to doe, and for this law let the equally mynded judge, what evill they finde in it, or in the practice of those who are betrusted with the execution of it. 1 Literally, It is more disgraceful to turn out than not to admit one (Ovid). 2 The first four of the Ten Commandments, telling the people s duty to God Taylor & Francis