作者：Samuel T. Logan. Jr. 編譯者：一僕
引言：他們都是把聖經當作唯一權威（Scripture alone）的，都是唯獨歸榮耀於上帝的，並且，他們以各樣不同的方式，務求每一個意念、每一個行動──無論是宗教性的、政治性的，或社會性的，都要尊基督的主權為大。
早期移居美國的「新教徒（Pilgrims）」（以下簡稱「早期新教徒」）和「清教徒（Puritans）」有何不同？他們是同一批人嗎？這兩個群體是什麼時候成形的？為什麼後來會演變成獨特的宗教團體呢？
這些問題，都問得很好！
要回答這些問題，就不得不提1517，這個非常重要的一年了。
1517年10月，馬丁‧路德在德國威登堡大教堂門上，張貼了他的《九十五條神學論題》（也稱宣言）。同一年，在英國波士頓市，即現址為瑪莎葡萄園（Martha's Vineyard）英式酒吧的地方，約翰‧福克斯（John Foxe）誕生了。福克斯後來對清教運動（Puritanism）做出了不可泯滅的貢獻。
時至1526年，在劍橋的白馬客棧（White Horse Inn），就不時有（頗具顛覆性的）神學討論。參與者包括後來的清教徒領袖人物，如：托馬斯‧比爾耐（Thomas Bilney），休‧拉蒂默（Hugh Latimer），尼古拉斯‧雷德萊（Nicholas Ridley），以及托馬斯‧克來默（Thomas Cranmer）。這四位後來都一一殉道了。
同一時期，英王亨利八世正在著手處理他婚姻和政治上的難題。到了1533年，他堅持要坎特伯雷（Canterbury）的聖公會宣佈他與亞拉岡的凱瑟琳（Catherine of Aragon）的婚姻無效。次年，他又迫使國會封他為英國國家教會（編者按：即聖公會 「Angelicans」）的最高元首，因而使英國全面切斷了與羅馬教廷的關係。
亨利八世雖然無誠意「改革」（reform）教會的神學，但那些常常在白馬客棧聚集的教徒，以及許多支持他們的人和其他同道中人，卻把英王的這一舉動視為出於上帝的安排。他們認為，唯獨尊奉聖經為教會與國家之根基的時代已經到來。
但是，他們的這個盼望，在亨利八世在位期間，並不怎麼受到皇室的支持。一直等到1547年，亨利八世駕崩了，繼承王位的是他九歲大的王子愛德華。愛德華登基後，受到兩位攝政輔政，先是索美塞得公爵（Duke of Somerset），後是諾森伯蘭公爵（Duke of Northumberland）。這兩位都比較支持和認同白馬客棧神學討論會的異象和參與者的洞見。從1547年愛德華登基到1553年他駕崩的期間，英國的清教運動在教會裡和政治上，都獲得了長足的進展。
不幸，繼承愛德華王位的是瑪麗女王（Queen Mary），即為後世所熟悉的「血腥瑪麗」（Bloody Mary）。瑪麗一心要使她的國家重新回到羅馬教廷的懷抱，甚至不惜任何代價。
於是，從1553年到1558年間，更正教教徒（Protestants）為逃避瑪麗女王的迫害，就紛紛逃往歐洲大陸，待在其他更正教教徒的據點，如日內瓦和法蘭克福。當時，年約三十八歲的約翰‧福克斯也逃到了法蘭克福。然而，福克斯對英國仍然抱著十分遠大的異象，他堅信只要英國上下全然信靠上帝的話語，英國就必然會得到大復興。
1558年，瑪麗女王駕崩，繼位的是她同父異母的王妹，信奉更正教的伊莉沙白。伊莉沙白女王的繼位，大大扭轉了先前的局勢，流亡異鄉的更正教徒成群結隊地返回家園。這些人後來就成為了清教徒運動的種子，他們都是從福克斯的神學著作中得著餵養的。
在瑪麗女王的血腥統治下，數以千計的人為信仰殉道。現在上帝既然讓伊莉沙白女王來取代瑪麗女王，那麼英國人民能不能抓住這上帝所賜的絕佳機會，告慰那些已逝的亡靈呢？從此之後，英國人民，能不能堅持在自己的國家和教會中，清除所有不合乎聖經的成分，從而使得教會與國家這兩個機構（和在其中的領袖）都能夠過一種榮耀上帝的生活呢？
這些問題，乃是福克斯在他那本不朽之作《殉道者之書》（The Book of Martyrs）中所提出來的。這本書於1563年初版，他除了對在瑪麗女王統治下受迫害的痛苦有很深刻的描寫之外，也是一隻嘹亮的號角，呼喚英國的國家與教會，全然以上帝的道作為立國、立教的根基。
許多曾經認同白馬客棧之異象的人，現在就響應了福克斯所提出的，上帝對其子民的期待，以一股與日俱增的熱情，堅持要求皇室人員和教會領袖，本著獨尊聖經的原則（Sola Scriptura），也就是唯獨以聖經為一切事物的標準，來治理英國。
但是伊莉沙白女王的看法有別，她只著眼於政治上的穩定和秩序，無意走「極端」路線，特別是宗教性的極端路線。她認為參與白馬客棧神學討論會的那些人和他們追隨者所走的神學路線，乃是過於極端。她認為英國（也包括英國的教會）應當更寬宏、更包容，在遵守聖經教導之餘，也要保留傳統和運用人的理性。所以，到了1570年，英國就發展出了兩大派別，一派偏重從理性主義的角度治理國家和教會，另一派則繼續堅持只按照聖經的教導，徹底清理淨化國家與教會。就是在這兩派人士爭執辯論時，「清教徒」（Puritan）一詞開始被第一派的人，用來辱罵、諷刺第二派的人。
1570年代的人所目睹到的是衝突的深化，事態卻毫無進展，至少清教徒這一方是這麼看的。當時，有托馬斯‧卡特賴特（Thomas Cartwright）在散布長老會主義（Presbyterianism）（編者按，長老會主張廢除主教制度，教會應由信徒自己選出牧師和長老來治理）。卡特賴特因此被定為異端，且被劍橋大學免去教職。如此一來，在某些更正教教徒看來，謀求和解的可能性已經不大了。他們的這一認識，就導致了清教徒內部第一次的主要分裂。
清教徒的興起，主要與福克斯的《殉道者之書》有關（也許更早一些吧！），而「早期新教徒」（Pilgrims）的思潮，則可追溯到羅伯特‧布朗（Robert Browne）所寫的《致安妮：教改刻不容緩》（Reformation Without Tarrying
for Anie），這本書於1580年初版。
布朗可謂是一個理想幻滅的清教徒。他起初也致力於福克斯之著作所展現的那幅異象，但在從事了十多年英國國家教會的復興事工後，他得出了一個結論：此路不通。
於是，布朗就毅然從英國國家教會中「分離」出去了，並且於1581年和與他情投意合的羅伯特‧哈理森（Robert Harrison），在挪利市（Norwich）創立了自己的教會，就此開始了「分離主義者」（Separatist）的運動。
這個運動後來造就了一批領袖人物，如約翰‧史密斯（John Smith）（後來有人視史密斯為英國浸信會之父），約翰‧魯濱遜（John Robinson），威廉‧布魯斯特（William Brewster），和威廉‧布萊福特（William Bradford）。後三者直接加入分離主義者的群體，並在1608年離開英國，前往荷蘭。再後來，他們決定移居美洲新大陸，並於1620年登陸美國麻省的普利茅斯（Plymouth）。他們就是所謂的「早期新教徒」（Pilgrims）了。
然而，大多數清教徒仍然選擇留在英國國家教會裡致力教會內部的改革。到了1620年代晚期，漸漸有些人選擇了離開英國，前往美國的新英格蘭（New England）並且在麻省海灣（Massachusetts Bay，即波士頓地區）建立起殖民地。
波士頓（清教徒）和普利茅斯（早期新教徒）的殖民地，是兩個截然不同的政經實體（至少，在1680年代末英政府尚未將兩區合併前，是這樣的）。他們之間關係大體友好，但兩者的成員卻有很大的區別。
清教徒意欲留在英國國家教會中，從教會內部進行遵行聖經的改革，即使在他們移居到新英格蘭後，他們還是保持著舊日英倫的風格。並且，他們建立新殖民地的主要目的，是要為英國和全世界樹立一個典範──建立一座「山上之城」（City on a Hill），一個能夠使聖經中的公義觀在教會和政府中都得到彰顯的地方。他們都是堅信聖約神學的神學家（covenant
theologians），他們特別強調在上帝面前社區群體性的義行（corporate
righteousness）。
而「早期新教徒」（分離主義者）想要達到的，則是「刻不容緩的改教」。為達到目的，他們甚至不惜從教會和國家中分離出來。他們一面繼續看自己是英國人，另一面卻又要強調要有新的政治標誌和精神標誌。因他們熱衷於即時的、毫無妥協的改革，因此所強調的乃是個人性的義行（individual
righteousness）。
促使麻省海灣和普利茅斯，即「清教徒」與「早期新教徒」合一的因素，遠比使他們分離的因素更強。所有經歷了宗教改革的人，都知道救恩乃是唯獨靠恩典、唯有憑信心、唯在基督裡的（Salvation by grace
alone through faith alone in Christ alone）。他們都是把聖經當作唯一權威（Scripture alone）的，都是唯獨歸榮耀於上帝的，並且，他們以各樣不同的方式，務求每一個意念、每一個行動──無論是宗教性的、政治性的，或社會性的，都要尊基督的主權為大。
讓基督在凡事上居首位，在一切事情上讓基督彰顯主權。今天美國的基督徒，還有比這更重要的目標嗎？
作者是賓州費城西敏寺神學院（Westminster Theological
Seminary）院長兼教會歷史系教授。譯者來自中國，從事機械工程設計，現居紐約州。
The
Pilgrims and Puritans
Total
Reformation for the Glory of God
by
Samuel T. Logan. Jr.
What's
the difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans? Are they all the same
folks? When did the two groups first form? And why did they emerge as distinct
religious groups?
Excellent
questions, every one!
In
answering all of the above questions, the year 1517 was especially crucial.
Most
know one reason for this-in October of 1517, Martin Luther nailed his
theological theses (declarations) to the castle door in Wittenberg, Germany.
But 1517 is a crucial year for another reason as well, for in that year, in
Boston, England, at a site where now stands an English pub called Martha's
Vineyard, John Foxe was born. To anticipate just a bit, John Bunyan, author of
Pilgrim's Progress, once said that something John Foxe did, more than any other
human action, caused the rise and the flourishing of Puritanism.
by
1526, regular (rather subversive) theological discussions were being conducted
in the White Horse Tavern in Cambridge. Participants included such future
luminaries as Thomas Bilney, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer.
Every one of the four was later martyred.
In
the meantime, in the late 1520's and early 1530's Henry VIII was experiencing
matrimonial and political difficulties such that, in 1533, he insisted that the
Convocation of Canterbury declare his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled.
In the next year, Henry had the English Parliament declare him the Supreme Head
of the Church in England, thus severing all ties with the Roman Church.
While
Henry had no particular desire to "reform" the theology of the
church, those who had been meeting at the White Horse (and many of their
colleagues and supporters) saw this as an opportunity "of the Lord."
Perhaps now the Scriptures alone could genuinely become the foundation of the
church and the nation.
Such
hopes found little royal support during Henry's lifetime, but, when the King
died in 1547, his nine-year-old son Edward officially assumed the throne,
ruling primarily through regents, both of whom (first the Duke of Somerset and
then the Duke of Northumberland) had more sympathy for the vision which had
illuminated those White Horse discussions. The push for the purification of the
church and the state gained great momentum in England between 1547 and Edward's
death in 1553.
But
the next Tudor on the throne was Mary Tudor, better known to later generations
as "Bloody Mary." Mary wanted nothing more than to return
"her" country to the Roman Catholic fold, no matter the cost.
Between
1553 and 1558, Protestant exiles flooded Europe, hoping to escape Mary's sword
by gathering in such Protestant bastions as Geneva and Frankfurt. To the latter
came the 38-year-old John Foxe. Foxe developed a powerful vision of what
England could be, if only God's Word were fully and faithfully followed.
Mary's
death in 1558 and the accession to the English throne of Mary's Protestant
sister Elizabeth reversed the earlier tide and sent Englishmen and Englishwomen
home in droves. The seed which became Puritanism received a full shot of
theological fertilizer from the pen of John Foxe.
During
Mary's reign, hundreds had died for their faith. Would the people of England
honor those deaths by seizing the marvelous opportunity the Lord had given
England by removing Mary and replacing her with Elizabeth?
Would
the people of England now insist that their church and their state be
completely purified of all non-biblical elements so that both institutions (and
all the people therein) might bring singular honor to the Lord God of
Scripture?
These
were the questions asked in Foxe's monumental work which we know as The Book of
Martyrs. First published in 1563 Foxe's work was an intense account of the pain
suffered by the Marian martyrs and a clarion call to bring both the nation and
the church of England into full conformity to the Word of God.
Many
of those who shared the dream which had been nurtured at the White Horse Tavern
now seized upon Foxe's expression of God's expectations of His people and
insisted, with ever-increasing fervor, that both their royal and their
ecclesiastical leaders direct all English affairs sola Scriptura, according to
the Scriptures alone.
Queen
Elizabeth I, however, saw things differently. Her vision was of political
stability and order. Elizabeth had no interest in any kind of extremism,
especially the kind of religious extremism which the theological heirs of those
White Horse discussants seemed to her to represent.
England
(including the English church) should, in this Elizabethan view, be broad and
inclusive and should base its life on tradition and reason as well as on the
teachings of Scripture.
So,
by 1570, there had developed in England two parties- 1) those who favored this
more rationalistic understanding of church and state, and 2) those who
continued to insist that further purification of those two entities was
required by Scripture and that England must now seize the spiritual opportunity
so brilliantly described by John Foxe. And it was in the midst of this
controversy that the term "puritan" began to be regularly used by the
first group as a derisive epithet of attack upon the second group.
The
1570's saw the intensification of this conflict with little
"progress," at least from the standpoint of the Puritan party. In
fact, with the dismissal of Thomas Cartwright from his teaching position at
Cambridge for promulgating the heresy of Presbyterianism, it appeared to some
Puritans that the cause was being lost and this perception led to the first
major split within the Puritan party.
As
the Puritan impulse might be primarily associated with (though it actually
preceded) Foxe's Book of Martyrs, so the "Pilgrim" ethos might be
traced appropriately to Robert Browne's book, Reformation Without Tarrying for
Anie, first published in 1580. Browne might be called a disillusioned Puritan.
He shared the vision which informed Foxe's work, but after more than a decade of
seeking revival within the English church, he came to the conclusion that it
just wasn't going to happen. Browne "separated from" the English
church and, with the like-minded Robert Harrison, started his own congregation
in Norwich in 1581.
Thus
was formed the "Separatist" movement, a movement which later produced
suchleaders as John Smyth (whom some regard as the father of English Baptists),
John Robinson, William Brewster, and William Bradford. The latter three were
directly involved in that group of Separatists which, in 1608, left England for
the Netherlands, and then later decided to emigrate to the New World, landing
at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620.
Many
(probably most) Puritans chose to remain within the English church working for reform,
and it was from this group that a much larger group of emigrants left from
England for New England in the late 1620's, establishing their colony at
Massachusetts Bay.
The
Boston and Plymouth colonies were distinct political and religious entities (at
least until the English government combined them in the late 1680's) and, while
relations between them were generally friendly, members of both groups were
crystal clear on the differences between them.
"Puritans"
wanted to remain as part of the English establishment, working for biblical
reform from within. Even as they emigrated to New England, they affirmed their
"Englishness" and saw the main purpose of their new colony as being
that of a biblical witness, a "city on a hill" which would set an
example of biblical righteousness in church and state for Old England and the
entire world to see. As deeply committed covenant theologians, they emphasized
especially strongly the corporate righteousness of their entire community
before God.
"Pilgrims"
wanted to achieve "reformation without tarrying," even if it meant
separating from their church and their nation. While they continued to think of
themselves as English, their emphasis was on their new political identity and
spiritual identity. Because of their passionate commitment to the necessity of
reformation immediate and without compromise, they emphasized especially
strongly individual righteousness before God.
What
united Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth, what united both Puritans and Pilgrims
was far more significant than what distinguished them. All children of the
Reformation, they knew that salvation was by grace alone through faith alone in
Christ alone. And they knew this because they took, as their authority,
Scripture alone.
They
all knew that to God alone must be the glory and, in their different ways, they
sought to bring every thought and every action-religious, political,
social-captive to the Lordship of Jesus.
Could
there be any more important goal for American Christians today?
Reprinted
from Tabletalk magazine, vol. 20, no. 11, November 1996, with permission of
Ligonier Ministries, P.O. Box 547500 Orlando, Florida 32854 1-800-435-4343.
[Dr.
Logan is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pa.
where he teaches church history.]
