E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 TrustInJesus 讨论区 】
发信人: Eloihim (真神), 信区: TrustInJesus
标 题: 清教徒（加爾文信徒）主張宗教自由嗎？ 請所長研究一下。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Nov 24 08:30:16 2011, 美东)
清教徒確實主張自己有宗教自由，但是不主張別人可以有。
對於貴格教派，清教徒主張直接吊死， 而且也確實吊死了一些。
最後還要英國國王派人過來確保貴格派有宗教自由，防止清教徒
壓迫他們。
這種精神有什麼好繼承的？有什麼好說嘴的？
這板的加爾文信徒就是繼承這種精神的。
參考資料
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#Opposition_to_Quakerism
The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New
England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by
the Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[32] In
1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was
English Quaker Mary Dyer who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for
repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[32] She
was one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs. In 1661
King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for
professing Quakerism.[33] In 1684 England revoked the Massachusetts charter,
sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686, and in 1689
passed a broad Toleration act.[33]
http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/why-the-puri
It seems simple enough: the Puritans believed Quakers were heretics. In fact
, anyone who was not an Anglican was a heretic, including Catholics,
Lutherans, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Quakers, Ranters… in short, anyone who
was not Anglican.
Heretics were seen as blasphemers who put barriers in the way of salvation;
they were also considered traitors to their country because they did not
belong to the official state religion. This was true throughout Europe in
the century following the Protestant Reformation: whatever religion the king
chose became the official state religion of his country, and all other
religions or sects were made illegal. In fact, the Puritans had left England
because they had been considered heretics there, and had been persecuted by
the government. Technically, they were not heretics because they did not
leave the official Church of England (the Anglican Church), but their
demands for big changes to that church made them outsiders. It was enough to
get the anti-Puritan Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, to launch a
campaign of persecution against them.
So when Quakers showed up in Boston in the 1650s, it’s no surprise they
were persecuted. Puritan Congregationalism was the official—and only—
religion of New England. Like every other state they knew of in Europe, the
Puritans enforced a state religion that it was treason to oppose. But it
wasn’t just about their religion. The persecution of Quakers was also part
of the Puritans’ determination to rule themselves, independent of England.
The Puritans who had remained in England during the Great Migration to
America of the 1630s drifted apart from their New England brethren. They
were more inclined to allow toleration of other professions of Christian
faith. The impossibility of reforming, or purifying, the Anglican Church in
England was slowly rejected in favor of the much more doable task of simply
confirming England as a Protestant nation by allowing any and all
Protestants to worship relatively freely. The English Puritans also
supported presbyterianism, a system in which the state governs the church
and appoints a hierarchy to oversee all churches.
To the New England Puritans, both toleration and presbyterianism were
unacceptable. They had spent painstaking years establishing a system of
church government called the New England Way that was based on the
independence and power of the individual congregation. The state in
Massachusetts did not appoint clergy, nor was there one over-arching body
that regulated churches. Each church was a sovereign unit. And only one
church was tolerated in Massachusetts: the Puritan, or Congregational church
(which was, to them, the purified Anglican church in America).
Worried that the English government would try to force its new rules of
toleration and presbyterianism on them, the Puritans of Massachusetts made
preparations to fight for their independence. They elected their own
governor and General Court (a combined legislature and judiciary). They
built many forts to protect their harbor and drilled their militia men
regularly. And they continued to persecute Quakers, who, determined to bring
their version of the Gospel to New England, continued to trespass into
Boston despite the harsh and often cruel punishments they knew they would
receive.
Those Quakers were not meek and mild innocents who just wanted to talk. They
were as righteous a group of zealots as most Puritans, and when they
entered a Massachusetts town they tried to wreak maximum havoc: bursting
into church services, yelling in the streets, banging pots and pans together
, and even stripping off their clothes (to show their lack of attachment to
worldly things). The Puritans reacted with vehement rejection, and submitted
Quakers who would not heed the warnings to leave and never return to
terrible punishments. Boring holes through their tongues was just one of
these.
The Quakers had no one to turn to for help until 1660, when the monarchy in
England was restored, and Charles II came to the throne. One of his first
acts as king was to send a letter to the governor of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony (the most powerful New England colony) ordering the persecutions of
Quakers to stop. According to the “King’s Missive,” any Quaker accused of
breaking the law in Massachusetts should be sent unharmed to England for
trial.
Charles II issued his order for two reasons. First, he was a Catholic
sympathizer, and Quakers and Catholics were about the only groups who found
absolutely no acceptance in England. If Charles could win tolerance for
Quakers, perhaps he could win eventual tolerance for Catholics. Second, he
cast a dark eye on Massachusetts’ independence. Disgruntled ex-colonists
who left New England to return home told Charles the Puritans were rebels.
It didn’t help that two of the judges who had condemned his father, Charles
I, to death had fled to New Haven and received a hero’s welcome there.
The new king put Massachusetts in a bind: if they stopped persecuting
Quakers, and sent them to England for trial, that lessened the authority of
their locally elected General Court. If they gave up the authority to
prosecute Quakers, what other bit of their independence would they have to
give up next? It was a slippery slope leading to direct English rule. But on
the other hand, if they did not stop persecuting Quakers, they would be in
violation of the King’s law, traitors, and would be immediately occupied by
English soldiers and forced to accept a royal governor (rather than their
own elected governor). Massachusetts made its choice: they would stave off
English rule as long as possible rather than call down instant English rule
on themselves. Slowly the persecution of Quakers came to an end.
They would win many small battles with the king and maintain their
independence until 1691, when Massachusetts’ charter was revoked and the
powerful colony came at last under direct rule from England. By that time,
toleration was the rule even in New England, and Quakers were no longer a
dangerous and radical sect but commonplace members of society. But
resentment of English rule did not die out amongst New Englanders; less than
100 years later, the descendants of the Puritans would buck off English
rule in America for good.
google "puritan quaker" |
|
