The Economics of Conversion and Salvation: An Examination of Puritanism’s Halfway Covenant

Abstract

Why would Colonial America’s Puritan theologians introduce a product differentiation-related doctrinal change—the Halfway Covenant—that would lower the price of eternal salvation to many of its potential congregants (believers)? Following Hébert, Tollison, and Mixon, this study argues that the Halfway Covenant can be viewed, at least in part, as a market response by Puritan theologians to doctrinal competition—one that would increase Puritan church membership and attendance. Among the church’s competitors were Quakers and Baptists, and vocal critics within the church, such as Anne Hutchinson. Secondary competition to church doctrine was represented by so-called counter-magic, or good magic, particularly during episodes of witchcraft hysteria.

Keywords:

• economics of religion
• doctrinal competition
• product differentiation
• Puritanism
• witch trials

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for many helpful comments. Any remaining errors are our own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 As Bridges (2014, p. 11) indicates, “[f]or the first few decades in the New England Puritan settlements, members were asked to recount a ‘conversion experience,’ usually in the form of a written or verbal statement of religious awakening to the church leaders … signif[ying] the new member’s righteousness and distinguish[ing] him or her as one of God’s chosen saints who would one day join him in heaven.”

2 In the early 1660s, the British Crown put pressure on the Massachusetts government to allow political and religious freedom to non-Congregationalists and to uphold the Acts of Trade, to which some colonists dissented (Simmons, 1969, p. 243).

3 While not all the moderates were against the installation of Davenport as minister, a tenuous connection between colonial political concerns and religious diversity formed in the decade following the Synod of 1662.

4 The cooperative efforts of the selectmen and Dorchester Church to urge parents to instruct their children in the catechism exemplifies the community’s collective concern for the religious lives of subsequent generations (Beales, 1974).

5 A conservative minority in Richard Mather’s congregation frustrated attempts in the 1660s to extend the Halfway Covenant to the children of non-communicants. With the death or departure of several prominent community members and church founders, including Deacon John Wiswall, the “chief opponent of the half-way covenant” who went to the First Church in Boston, the younger churchgoers were free to adopt the policy (Beales, 1974, p. 470).

6 Pope (1969a) argues that some Puritan communities were less willing to adopt the policy as a permanent model due to their reservations over theological interpretations of membership doctrine. Only after a succession of disasters (e.g. King William’s War), and recognition of persistent political instability, did these communities relinquish their theological scruples for the sake of sustainable membership (Pope, 1969a, pp. 231–232).

7 Hutchinson made these proclamations during Bible studies that she held in her home. Over time, these gatherings became more and more popular with women (and some men), attracting as many as 80 people each week (Ellsberg, 1997), some of whom were from prominent families (Mixon, 2015).

8 The ministers countered by arguing that good works are only evidence of conversion and salvation, not the grounds for them (Mixon, 2015).

9 As a result, Hutchinson was banished from Massachusetts Bay Colony, finding refuge in Rhode Island (Crawford, 1970; Ellsberg, 1997; Gomes, 2002; Mixon, 2015).

10 When Christopher Holder and John Copeland were arrested in 1658 in Dedham, Massachusetts, and ordered to recant their Quaker beliefs, they refused. As a result, they had their ears removed, and were forced into exile. This sentence was further bolstered by the General Court’s decision to institute the death penalty as a punishment for those who dared return from banishment (Bremer, 1995, p. 155).