教会历史 — 第 4 部分：三个世纪赢得良心自由 (1517–1800)

笔记： 这一段融合了 三个单独的讲座 来自大卫·鲍森教会历史 系列：16 世纪（54.9 分钟，“改革者、罗马人和激进分子”）、17 世纪（47.7 分钟，英国争取崇拜自由的斗争）和 18 世纪（54.9 分钟，福音派复兴）。我将这三篇文章合并成一篇文章，因为它们讲述了一个完整的故事：国家强制宗教的代价，以及回归良心自由的漫长而艰难的道路。我没有猜测或修饰鲍森的任何论点。无论我在哪里查找某些内容、根据来源进行检查或更正细节，我都会将其保留为 琥珀色边注 融入到文字中。这次的事实核查比前三部分更重，因为这段历史比该系列中的任何其他部分都有更多的名字、日期和数字，而且这也是最容易让讲坛传奇在每次重述中获得额外色彩的部分。

从维滕贝格到卫斯理家的客厅

第3部分以马丁·路德站在帝国和教会面前结束，宣称“我站在这里，我别无选择”。但宣言并不是改革的完成。鲍森以一个听起来很简单的问题开始下一场讲座：宗教改革和革命有什么区别？

答案在于另外两个问题：改变了多少，以及是谁改变了。纵观16世纪，路德的宗教改革随着传播逐渐变成了一场革命，因为越来越多的事情发生了变化，越来越多不同的人在越来越多的地方按自己的方式推动改变。

这篇文章中的三个世纪讲述了一个连续的故事： 教会不断被国家“俘获”。国王、议会、市议会利用世俗权力将一种宗教强加于整个领土，并且 代价总是战争、监狱或精神生活的冷漠。这三个世纪也讲述了那些拒绝让国家决定他们的信仰并为此付出高昂代价的人的故事。

---

第一部分：16世纪：改革者、罗马人、激进分子

鲍森将这场讲座分为三组，即“三个R”：改革者、罗马人（天主教会的反应）和激进派（鲍森自己的金山浸信会教堂实际上源自这一群体）。他考察了三个国家的改革者：德国、瑞士，然后是英国。

德国：马丁·路德和半途而废的人

谁改变了德国？显然是马丁·路德。多少？鲍森回答：在最初的四五年里，发生了很多事情。路德摆脱了教皇，摆脱了主教，摆脱了赎罪券，摆脱了炼狱，摆脱了许多其他事物，并将圣礼从七个减少到两个。

然后危机来了：路德不得不躲藏在瓦特堡城堡。当他出来时，他惊恐地发现一些朋友比他预想的更进一步、更快地推动了变革。他站在自己的讲坛上问道：你怎么敢这样做？从那时起，路德基本上停止了改变事情。此后几乎没有什么变化。

结果：路德保留了罗马拥有的大量东西。他在祭坛上放了蜡烛，这是圣经中肯定没有的，但他保留了它。他保留着十字架，走进路德教会，你经常会看到一个，这可能会让你感到惊讶。他保留了图像和照片。最重要的是，他围绕圣餐和洗礼保留了自己的传统做法：在某种意义上，他仍然相信面包和酒实际上 是 基督的身体和宝血，他从未完全克服这一点。他还为婴儿举行洗礼。当有人问洗礼是否需要信仰时，他的回答是：谁能说婴儿没有信仰呢？

谁进行了改变？这是一个相当令人吃惊的答案：路德依赖 王子们。换句话说， 这是国家驱动的变革。路德教与罗马天主教一样，是一种既定的宗教。从一开始，路德就依靠王子、公爵和萨克森选帝侯，特别是一个名叫 弗雷德里克 的人，“自上而下”进行改革。路德认为，谁统治了这片土地，谁就统治了教会。

结果：在施派尔举行的帝国会议上，决定每个领土都将采纳其王子的宗教信仰。如果你住在王子信奉天主教的地方，那么你就是天主教徒。如果王子是路德教徒，那么你就是路德教徒。一群人对此表示强烈反对，正是从那次“抗议”中，新教这个词诞生了。

这种教会与国家融合的结果是：到了17世纪初，天主教国家联合起来，并与新教国家开战，而新教国家也联合起来，形成了著名的三十年战争。这就是这个错误产生的最终结果：当这里的国家说每个人都必须信奉这种宗教，而那里的国家又说每个人都必须信奉那种宗教时，迟早会发生宗教战争。这种模式从德国传播到丹麦、瑞典和挪威，所有国家都将路德教作为国教，对每个公民都有约束力。

关于圣餐的争论不仅仅是西方的争论。大约在 1573 和 1581 之间，蒂宾根的路德宗神学家将希腊语翻译的《奥格斯堡信条》发送给君士坦丁堡的 牧首耶利米亚二世，希望找到共同点。他回复了三封仔细的神学信件，同意一些观点，但拒绝路德关于恩典、圣礼和教父们解释圣经的权威的核心立场，然后以以下内容结束了信件：“走你自己的路吧，不要给我们寄更多关于教义的信，而只是为了友谊而写的信。” 宗教改革真正到达了东方，但按照东正教自己的条件被拒绝了。

---

瑞士：战死沙场的慈运理和住一晚却呆了二十年的加尔文

路德既没有在瑞士发起宗教改革，也没有帮助它；瑞士的改革完全自行开始。这里有两位人物：一位来自德语区瑞士，另一位来自法国。

胡德赖希·慈运理是瑞士德语区一个小村庄天主教堂的普通教区牧师。他通过阅读希腊文新约成为新教徒；事实上，类似的经历在马丁·路德身上发生得还要晚几年。慈运理受邀担任苏黎世大教堂（Grossmünster）的牧师，并传播自己在这本书中发现的新真理，这场改革也席卷了苏黎世城。

他的教导包括：教皇拥有一支由瑞士雇佣军组成的军队是错误的。 （有趣的是，如果你今天访问梵蒂冈，你仍然会看到瑞士卫兵保护它，而慈运理反对这种做法。）他放弃了对教皇的效忠并结婚了，这两件事似乎常常同时发生。许多其他牧师跟随他。

他最终说服了市议会，使苏黎世的每个人都必须成为新教徒。注意，这又是同样悲惨的错误：改革被强加给整座城市。但这一决定还是执行了。苏黎世正式成为新教城市，所有从苏黎世延伸出去的山谷也一样。问题在于，山地和森林地区的人并没有跟随。很快，山谷居民和山地居民彼此交战。苏黎世地区先后爆发了两场彼此独立且短暂的卡佩尔战争：第一次在1529年6月几乎没有流血，第二次于1531年10月11日开战；慈运理随军担任牧师，在第二次战争中阵亡。

慈运理去世前，与路德在圣餐问题上发生了重大争执。路德说：面包是身体，酒是基督的血。慈运理说：那只是面包，只是酒，是他的身体和血液的象征。鲍森观察到：也许这就是德国人和瑞士人在宗教改革中从未走到一起的原因。

故事转移到法国。一个名叫约翰·加尔文的年轻人出生在皮卡第，是一名律师的儿子，他的父亲让他学习法律。他曾就读于巴黎大学、奥尔良大学和布尔日大学，加尔文的逻辑头脑就是在那里形成的。他的演说能力、清晰思路和有力论证，正是这些特点说服了许人成为“加尔文主义者”。

加尔文来到巴黎，研究了希腊语新约，并皈依了基督教（大约1532–34）。几个月后，他因其基督教观点而被监禁在巴黎。获释后，他作为难民逃亡，四处漂泊。

26岁时，他来到瑞士城市巴塞尔，决定写下自己的基督教信仰。那本书叫《基督教要义》，至今仍被视为对新教信仰最伟大的阐释之一，仍在出版、阅读和教授。

他提倡周日早上去教堂，周日下午打保龄球，他自己做到了，我们欠（或责备）加尔文“欧陆式周日”。但更深层的事情更重要：这个人相信上帝坐在宝座上。他相信上帝的主权，上帝的意志是决定国家和人类历史的最终因素。正是因为对神的主权和预定论的逻辑性的极大强调，加尔文给那些有这种想法的人起了个名字：加尔文主义者。但加尔文相信这一点，路德也相信，慈运理也相信，所有宗教改革家也相信：上帝坐在宝座上，绝对控制着一切和所有人。

加尔文仍然作为难民四处逃亡。有一天，他试图返回法国，却发现途中正在发生一场小战争，于是他绕道而行，未能在傍晚时到达目的地。当晚他就在那里安顿下来，那个地方叫做日内瓦。因为他走了那条弯路，本打算只住一晚，所以他住了20 年，日内瓦成为全世界长老会的中心。

有消息称，这些书的年轻作者加尔文在日内瓦，当地的教区牧师，一个名叫 威廉·法雷尔 的人，急忙赶到旅馆说：加尔文，我希望你留在这里。他说：几个月前，理事会决定日内瓦应该是新教的。但这并没有成功，他们一如既往地酗酒，一如既往地赌博，什么都没有改变，人们没有改变。我们需要像你这样的人。停留。加尔文也同意了。

加尔文相当严格。他没有什么有趣的事。他会把一个人带到教堂前，并把他交给地方法官，因为这样、那样或那样。但他对这座城市进行了改造，直到它变得秩序井然，尽管这里的“城市”意味着人口只有13,000。他严格遵守纪律，把这个地方打扫得干干净净，以至于三年后他不得不逃亡到斯特拉斯堡。但他离开后，这座城市就崩溃了；事情变得越来越糟。一个代表团过来请他回来。加尔文又回来了，又呆了20年。

这次他将改革推进得更远。没有十字架。没有蜡烛。而且，他敢说，也没有器官；人们应该唱歌。他比马丁·路德更进一步地推进了这些变革，并建立了现在被称为“长老会”的教会治理体系，其中教会由平信徒、牧师和长老团体共同管理，地方机构在代表大会中召开会议，监督更广泛的领域。

日内瓦成为新教徒的避难地，有6,000多人为躲避迫害来到那里居住。他们自然接受了加尔文的思想；安全返回家乡后，也带回了加尔文的信仰和治理教会的方式。

但是，值得补充的是，加尔文反过来犯了同样的错误：融合教会和国家。只是这一次他没有说国家必须管理教会。他说教会必须治理国家。如果一名教会成员行为不端，加尔文希望该市的地方法官来处理他。日内瓦在1553年处死了反三位一体论者迈克尔·塞尔维特斯；加尔文参与了检方一方，但主张以斩首代替火刑的请求没有被采纳。这里再次显示出教会与国家结合所带来的宗教胁迫。

影响力从日内瓦传到了法国。

---

法国：胡格诺派，苏格兰：约翰·诺克斯

法国新教徒更接近加尔文而不是路德，并被称为“胡格诺派”。到加尔文开始工作的那位法国国王统治末期，法国已有约20,000名胡格诺派教徒。他们不断增长，直到可怕的圣巴塞洛缪日，1572年8月24日。那一轮屠杀的死亡人数只能作估计：全国常见估计约为5,000至30,000人，鲍森所说的22,000人处于这一范围内；巴黎前几天的死亡人数，现代研究常估计约3,000人，而不是确定的2,000人。胡格诺派逃往英国和荷兰；如果你遇到一个听起来像法语的姓氏，其祖先很可能就是随胡格诺派逃亡而来。也许今晚，这座教会里就有逃离圣巴塞洛缪大屠杀者的后裔。

但受日内瓦影响最深的国家是美丽的老苏格兰。我无法详细介绍苏格兰的全部历史，这会让苏格兰人失望；这里只提四位伟大的苏格兰人。

帕特里克·汉密尔顿 是在那里发起宗教改革的苏格兰人，但在1528年被烧死。他的工作由曾去过瑞士的 乔治·威沙特 接手，但他的结局也很棘手。但真正完成这项工作的人是约翰·诺克斯。

他是一个丰富多彩的人物：格拉斯哥大学的学生，然后是苏格兰军队圣安德鲁城堡的牧师；法国人占领了城堡，并将诺克斯卖为桨帆船奴隶，他就在那里，作为奴隶划船。英国人救了他；他来到英国，然后与玛丽女王发生了麻烦，逃到了欧洲大陆，去了日内瓦和加尔文。诺克斯的这些想法已经成熟，他回到苏格兰后下定决心：我要把苏格兰长老会办成。他曾经祈祷：“主啊，请给我苏格兰，否则我就会死。”

在 1560 年，苏格兰议会投票支持新教。同年，他们举行了第一次大会。但在 1561 年，美丽而狡猾的苏格兰女王玛丽 回来了，并凭借她的美丽和狡猾赢得了大多数新教贵族的支持。就这样，苏格兰玛丽女王和约翰·诺克斯面对面站着。这是一个最具戏剧性的故事，如果你对历史有任何感觉，你应该读一下它。然而，在内战结束后，苏格兰玛丽女王被俘，并退位给她年幼的儿子詹姆斯，并最终被英格兰伊丽莎白一世以叛国罪斩首。诺克斯的教义赢得了支持，苏格兰从此成为长老会，苏格兰教会反映了日内瓦教会，而英格兰教会则更接近路德教会。苏格兰教会的一切都归功于约翰·诺克斯。

诺克斯去世后，领导权传给了我想提的最后一位伟大的苏格兰人：安德鲁·梅尔维尔，他告诉詹姆斯国王：“陛下，苏格兰有两位国王和两个王国。其中有詹姆斯国王，我是他的忠实臣民；还有主耶稣基督，教会之王，詹姆斯本人也是他的臣民。”

---

英国：“典型的英国混乱”，从亨利八世到伊丽莎白一世

现在我们回到了我们自己的国家。英国这段时间到底发生了什么？鲍森说得直白：英国宗教改革是 典型的英语混乱。这确实是一种典型的妥协，我们敷衍了事并说“那就行了”，我们不按原则工作，我们非常务实，我们要求 有用吗，凡是有效的都被认为是正确的。这是非常英国化的，宗教改革运动就是其中的典型。

当然，这一切都是从 亨利八世 和他想娶另一个女人开始的。但这被严重误解了，让我给出更全面的事实。亨利八世在别人的压力下娶了阿拉贡的凯瑟琳，这是一场非法婚姻，因为她是他兄弟的遗孀，所以他一开始就不应该娶她。但迫于各方压力，包括教皇特别允许他非法结婚，他出于政治原因被迫结婚。她所生的每个孩子都死了，除了一个小女孩玛丽，她后来成为臭名昭著的“血腥玛丽”。他没有儿子可以继承都铎王朝的血统，而且他知道，当他死后，如果没有男性继承人，内战就会随之而来。当时大多数英国人认为这是上帝对婚姻的审判的标志。

然后他遇到了安妮·博林，一个他真正爱的女人，她很可能成为一位好女王和合法妻子。 （我不是在为亨利八世辩护，我是在向你提供全部事实。）他向教皇申请废除第一次非法婚姻，但那时政治已经发生了变化，出于政治原因，教皇拒绝了。于是亨利八世说：好吧，从现在开始我不服从教皇了。亨利一步步地将英国国教与教皇分开，就像英格兰被英吉利海峡与欧洲大陆分开一样。

整个故事中最具讽刺意味的部分是：年轻时的亨利八世是一位业余神学家，他写了一本反对马丁·路德的书，教皇非常高兴，给了他“《信仰的捍卫者》”的头衔，我们女王今天仍然戴着这个头衔，印在你口袋里的硬币上。他因攻击马丁·路德而获得这一称号。你知道吗？英国的宗教改革是多么混乱啊。

亨利娶了安妮·博林，主要是因为他把他的一个朋友，名叫托马斯·克兰默的人任命为坎特伯雷大主教。克兰麦说：我会废除你的第一次婚姻，因为我确信它从一开始就是非法的，所以我废除它，你可以嫁给安妮·博林，而他秘密地主持了婚礼。亨利现在是教会领袖，脱离了罗马，也缺钱，所以他占领了英格兰富裕的修道院，并将其土地出售给个人，第一次创造了英格兰的中产阶级，从此对社会生活产生了影响。

但要点是：亨利八世从来不希望英格兰改信新教。 他希望一切都像以前一样进行，除了修道院，修道院对教皇的忠诚度太高，但他自己作为教皇。这基本上就是他想要的。但他没有考虑到几个因素。

他没有想到，这本书正被一个名叫 威廉·丁道尔 的人狂热地翻译成英文，他在英格兰各地被追捕，被迫逃往欧洲大陆，最后被烧死在火刑柱上。但是廷代尔给了我们一本英语圣经，其他所有英语修订版都是以此为基础的，而且在亨利统治期间，英国的每个教堂都放置了一本《圣经》，人们第一次可以去阅读它。亨利没有考虑这一点。你注意到了吗？每一次，都是这本书让人们获得自由。每一次，阅读它的机会都会产生最非凡的东西。

亨利也没有考虑到像托马斯·克伦威尔这样解散修道院的幕后大臣，不要与下世纪的奥利弗·克伦威尔相混淆，他内心同情新教思想，就像克兰麦那样。尽管教皇仍然从英格兰、“彼得的便士”和其他“安纳特”那里收取金钱，但人们仍然对它表示不满，但贡品仍然在缴纳。但亨利害怕变革的步伐，遗憾的是，在他统治末期，他同时处决了天主教徒和宗教改革者，他死后英格兰陷入了骚乱，但他把王位留给了一个十岁的男孩，当时他还是一个非常严肃的小基督徒，深受克兰麦的影响，同情英格兰的持续变革。

爱德华六世。 在这位少年国王的短暂统治期间，发生了几件事：神职人员被允许结婚；英国国教的圣餐具有新教的特征，祭坛被称为桌子。更重要的是，仪式首次用英语代替了拉丁语，并准备了一本名为《公祷书》的书，一本供所有人使用的书，不仅仅是一本预先了解拉丁语的牧师，而是一本让普通民众可以祈祷的书。经过第二次修订后，它成为《公祷书》，基本没有变化，至今仍然是英国国教会礼拜中使用的书。我们把这归功于那个少年国王，或者更确切地说，归功于他的统治。

在这位少年国王统治下还规定，每位牧师每年至少必须讲道四次。你能想象当时教会的状况吗？竟然需要一项规定，要求人们每年讲道四次！这为当时英国教会的状态提供了一扇小窗口。在克兰麦的领导下，他们还起草了宗教条款，最初多达42条，后来缩减为39条。爱德华六世统治期间，新教难民也返回英国；我的母校剑桥还迎来一位来自斯特拉斯堡的著名神学教授马丁·布瑟，向剑桥学生讲授新教对基督福音的理解。

少年国王去世后，王位传给了同父异母的妹妹、其母为西班牙人的玛丽。玛丽有一半西班牙血统，也完全认同西班牙的宗教立场；她嫁给西班牙的腓力，并决心把英格兰带回罗马。约有1,200名已婚神职人员失去职位。钟摆再次摆回去；玛丽统治期间，近300名基督徒被处死，这为她赢得了可怕的绰号：血腥玛丽。这个绰号并非毫无根据。

在牛津，在贝利奥尔学院外的主要街道上，有一座纪念碑，纪念两名男子 拉蒂默和里德利，他们在玛丽统治期间因其新教信仰而被烧死在火刑柱上。你会记得拉蒂默对雷德利说的话：“请放心，里德利大师，扮演好人的角色；靠着上帝的恩典，今天我们将在英格兰点燃这样一支蜡烛，我相信它永远不会被扑灭。”

玛丽统治期间，坎特伯雷大主教克兰默在巨大压力下签署文件，撤回了自己推动的改革。但人不能轻易改变自己的良心；他知道自己错了，很快发现自己正走向火刑柱。临刑时，他公开表示彻底悔恨自己放弃新教立场，并把签署文件的手伸进火焰，看着它烧成灰烬。他说，签署这份文件的手应当先被烧掉。克兰默和另外约300人都遭此命运；胡珀在格洛斯特被烧死，许多人也在史密斯菲尔德火刑中丧生。玛丽统治期间，四位主教、一位大主教以及许多其他重要传道人被处死。

你可以想象伊丽莎白一世登基时松了一口气。在教皇和许多其他人的眼中，她是一个私生子。教皇认定苏格兰玛丽女王为合法继承人，这就是苏格兰玛丽女王与伊丽莎白之间叛国指控的根源。但迫害结束了，难民纷纷返回英国。

在伊丽莎白一世统治时期，我们称之为英国国教的典型英国混乱局面才真正形成。伊丽莎白喜欢华丽的仪式，喜欢法衣，喜欢仪式，所以她对放弃这些东西感到不高兴。她说爱德华的第二本祈祷书过于新教，并对其进行了修改，将其拉回到罗马。她甚至停止了神职人员聚会的做法，一起学习圣经，这在这片土地上一直发挥着积极的作用。然而，她无法像玛丽试图那样让时光倒流，而“伊丽莎白时代的定居点”，正如它的名字一样，只能接受一种中途之家。如果你想知道为什么今天的英国教会可以同时容纳福音派和盎格鲁天主教徒，你必须回到伊丽莎白一世，因为议会强加的让事情处于中间位置，为这种混合敞开了大门。

《公祷书》在很大程度上仍然是新教的，虽然不是全部，但在很大程度上是新教的。在伊丽莎白统治时期最终起草的39文章是新教信仰的精彩陈述。任何宣讲 39 文章的牧师都是宣讲福音的牧师。可悲的是，并不是每个人都这样做，但它就在那里，在书中，并且其中有足够的新教来建立一个彻底的福音派英国教会，但也有可能是后来出现的另一种教会。

伊丽莎白去世时并不受欢迎，但当西班牙腓力二世对苏格兰玛丽女王被处决感到愤怒时，她的声望有所回升，并发誓要用武力入侵英格兰并将其带回教皇手中。他派出的西班牙无敌舰队约有124至141艘船（通常约130艘），舰队载有约8,000名水手和18,000至19,000名士兵；佛兰德斯另有一支约30,000人的陆军等待渡海。英国陷入绝境，没有盟友，而欧洲的集结力量似乎正在向英吉利海峡发起冲击。

但英格兰有弗朗西斯·德雷克爵士，关于他的故事你可能比我更了解，无敌舰队是如何被英国卓越的航海技术击溃的，那天似乎连上帝都在为英格兰而战，因为事实证明，风对西班牙笨重的大帆船来说太强了，它们在英国和苏格兰海岸被毁坏了，至今沉船搜寻者仍在寻找它们。

鲍森添加了一个个人细节：一艘在苏格兰北部失事的西班牙大帆船，水手们上岸并被称为“圣克莱尔”，与当地女孩结婚并建立了辛克莱氏族。他自己的母亲是辛克莱人，因此，根据他的说法，他继承了来自无敌舰队的西班牙血统。（这纯粹是一个家庭轶事，不是经过证实的历史事件，而是一个迷人的细节，表明即使是鲍森也发现自己的小线索融入了这个更大的故事。）

改革者总结： 德国、瑞士、英国这三个地方的宗教改革都没有得到彻底的结束，原因是同样的：教会和国家站得太近了。要么是国家管理教会，要么教会管理国家，其结果总是将宗教强加于整个地区，最终导致战争。鲍森问道：还有什么比人们为了宗教而打仗、以基督的名义、以基督教的名义互相残杀更悲惨的事情吗？

---

罗马人：反宗教改革的三个方面

那么罗马人一直在做什么呢？到1580年，也就是路德之后60年，新教已经传播到德国大部分地区，以及丹麦、挪威、瑞典、瑞士大部分地区、法国相当一部分和英国；到1580年，爱尔兰和南德意志仍然是天主教地区。奇怪的是，这一切在60年内发生，接下来的300年边界却几乎保持不变，基本延续至今。为什么新教在60年内传播得这样快，随后却停了下来？

答案是：当你研究罗马人在做什么时，你会发现一场名为“反宗教改革”的运动。罗马遭受了一场袭击，夺走了半个欧洲，罗马不会坐视不管。发生了三件事阻止了洪水。

第一：伊格内修斯·洛约拉和耶稣会士。 洛约拉是一位西班牙贵族，在战争中受了重伤，腿骨折了，在医院躺了几个月。在那段时间里，他有了异象并改变了宗教信仰，他成为一名虔诚的天主教徒，相信他一生的使命是阻止新教的传播。他相信这样做意味着以与其他军队截然不同的方式进行战斗，你几乎可以称他的追随者为“罗马救世军”。他前往巴黎，聚集了六位贵族和一些贵族女士，成立了耶稣会，其成员通常称为耶稣会士。洛约拉的目标是为罗马保留欧洲并阻止新教泛滥，坦率地说，他基本上实现了这一目标。

他召集了数百人，对他们进行了可以想象到的最严格的军事式纪律，并在一本名为《灵性练习》的书中记载了传统上为期30天的退修、禁食、寻求异象等等。到最后，您就准备好成为伊格内修斯·洛约拉的追随者了。更重要的是，他们准备使用公平和肮脏的手段，只要你为罗马保留一个人，你可以使用任何你认为必要的手段，这就是为什么“耶稣会”一词带有负面含义。其中之一，弗朗西斯·泽维尔，传统说法称他使印度、东印度群岛和日本的700,000人皈依罗马；现代研究更常把他个人施洗数估为约30,000人。

第二：特伦特会议。教皇意识到必须认真讨论，于是召开了特伦特会议，会议在1545年至1563年之间共召开25次。起初他考虑邀请新教徒，看看能否解决分歧，但枢机主教劝他不要邀请；他们也没有参加。如果他们参加，历史或许会不同，但他们确实没有被邀请。

特伦特确认了传统与圣经在教义权威上的共同地位，确认次经属于天主教正典，也确认炼狱、赎罪券、祈求圣人、图像和圣物等教导与实践。新教代表并非完全没有被邀请：1551—1552年间，腓力·墨兰顿等人在安全通行的安排下曾被允许发表意见，但没有投票权；随后战争使这次接触中断。特伦特并没有定义教皇拥有绝对权威或绝对无误；教皇管辖权至上及其在特定条件下的无误教义，是1869—1870年第一届梵蒂冈会议才正式定义的。因此，把后来的教义完整倒推到特伦特，或说所有实际应用都“一成不变”，都不准确。

第三：宗教裁判所复活。 酷刑、监禁和死刑被用作对付新教徒的手段。宗教裁判所和地方政权在西班牙、意大利、奥地利等地压制了新教群体，使许多地区的新教徒成为少数；但不能把它概括为一个消灭了几乎所有新教徒的单一杀戮机器，现代研究显示各地规模和机制差异很大。

---

激进派：只有一把剑，同时对抗双方

现在是第三组，我可以最简短地介绍这一组，但我认为这是最重要的一组。他们被称为“激进派”，因为他们是宗教改革的左翼。我最近读过的一本书称他们为“宗教改革的继子”。他们开始提出最基本的问题：谁应该进行改革？谁应该作出改变？ 他们得出的结论，是罗马教会和主流宗教改革者都还没有接受的：改革应当与国家完全分离。教会和国家是两个完全不同的机构，不应彼此过分接近。这些激进派相信的是自由教会，而不是国家设立的教会。他们甚至对已经确立的新教也不满意：政府不能使人变好，也不能强加宗教；信仰必须由人自由、自愿地接受。不能说英格兰的每个人都是新教徒，也不能说西班牙的每个人都必须属于罗马教会。你只能使用一把剑：圣灵的剑，也就是神的道。因此，他们是和平主义者，拒绝参加新教徒和天主教徒之间的战争。他们说：“我们不为福音使用武力；我们只用福音作见证。” 我们只能使用圣灵的宝剑，神的话语。

这是革命性的。他们被视为危险的革命者，破坏了社会赖以维系的教会与国家相互归属的观念。他们在1525年1月的瑞士苏黎世正式形成信徒洗礼的群体，自称“兄弟”；两位领袖是康拉德·格雷贝尔和菲利克斯·曼兹。就在慈运理要求市议会把新教强加给每个人的这座城市里，他们说：这不是正确的做法。唯一正确的方法是传讲神的话语，并在人们自愿接受后组织教会。因此，他们正在为我们今天所说的宗教自由而战。

现在我必须告诉你一件非常悲伤的事情：不仅罗马教会攻击了这些人，宗教改革者也攻击了他们。马丁·路德曾告诉德国诸侯，他们必须用剑对付激进派；苏黎世的慈运理也影响市议会通过了针对再洗礼派的残酷法律，菲利克斯·曼茨于1527年在利马特河溺死。约翰·加尔文并未参与曼茨案件；他的相关污点是1553年日内瓦处死米格尔·塞尔维特斯。罗马教会和宗教改革者都借助国家，并愿意以基督的名义使用真正的剑；但激进派说，除了圣灵的剑，他们不使用别的剑，于是两边的剑都转向了他们。

但故事并没有就此结束，鲍森还提到了激进分子中的“一些狂热分子和极端分子，比如茨维考的托马斯·明策尔”，尽管他说，更仔细的研究表明，他们中的大多数人不值得获得这一声誉。需要区分的是，明策尔通常被归为唯灵论者兼末世革命者，而不是再洗礼派；他没有实行或教导信徒洗礼。

门诺·西蒙斯，如果你曾经遇到过门诺派，那么你应该把这些伟大的基督徒归功于门诺·西蒙斯。 雅各布·哈特，如果你曾经遇到过哈特派，那么你应该把这些归功于雅各布·哈特。在我看来，这些人是最终的改革者。他们说：我们要改变一切不符合神的话语的事情，我们自己要改变它。我们不会等待王子或教皇来改变它。我们将以个人和团体的身份，以神的话语为生，并最大限度地遵循它。他们做到了。

我们今天在这里是因为那些再洗礼派以及后来受其影响的分离主义者。约翰·史密斯和托马斯·赫尔维斯于1608年逃到阿姆斯特丹，史密斯于1609年实行信徒洗礼并接触当地门诺派；赫尔维斯于1612年返回英国，在伦敦建立了英国土地上的第一个浸信会会众。五月花号上的朝圣者是分离主义公理会教徒，不是浸信会教徒；他们在1620年建立的普利茅斯殖民地也没有建立普遍的宗教自由。较有记录的合法宗教自由路线通向罗杰·威廉姆斯于1636年建立的普罗维登斯及后来的罗德岛。这些不同群体共同构成了后来宗教自由讨论的一部分。

他们曾被混同于茨维考的托马斯·明策尔等激进分子，但和平的再洗礼派并不等于革命派。总的来说，当你研究他们的故事时，会看到再洗礼派为信徒洗礼、良心自由和非暴力教会而战并牺牲；他们被指控为革命者，但耶稣基督也曾被如此指控。耶稣说：“我的王国不属于这个世界；如果属于这个世界，我的仆人就会战斗。” 这正是再洗礼派所说的。

下周日，如果上帝愿意，我将把这个故事带入17世纪，那个宗教自由来到英国的时代，那个人们开始被允许在这片土地上遵循自己的信仰的时代。威廉·佩恩的时代。约翰·班扬的时代。还有许多上帝伟大仆人的时代。

---

第二部分：17世纪，争取信仰自由的斗争

鲍森的下一场讲座以他阅读一本用1607年印刷的圣经开始，这是古老的英语长s拼写，翻译很大程度上得益于威廉·廷代尔的早期作品，他完整地阅读了保罗写给腓立比人的信，因为那封信是在监狱里写的，而17世纪也将在监狱中产生其他伟大的著作，最著名的是约翰·班扬的《天路历程》。

他明确地定义了世纪：1600 到 1700。两端之间的差异就是整个讲座的重点：在 1600 年，这群会众今晚不会被允许聚会进行敬拜；到 1700 年，他们可以了。他着手展示崇拜自由是如何来到这片土地的，因此在过去200–300年里，人们能够像这样聚会，按照他们认为应该的方式进行崇拜，没有人阻碍他们，将他们拖进监狱，或为此处决他们。正是在本世纪，这场战斗打响了，并最终取得了胜利。

英格兰、1600 和《钦定本圣经》的冒险

本世纪初，英国有三批自称基督徒的团体。罗马天主教在法律上受到禁止和惩罚，但仍作为受迫害的少数派存在：有公开或秘密的信徒，也有表面顺从而保留旧传统的人。英国国教内部有两个群体：英国圣公会，他们接受伊丽莎白女王制定的妥协方案；清教徒，以理查德·巴克斯特为代表，他们想要一个更加纯洁的英国国教，没有法衣，没有十字架，没有蜡烛，简单的崇拜，最重要的是以上帝的话语而不是仪式为中心。基德明斯特教区的牧师巴克斯特就是一个很好的例子：除了两三个小时的周日教学外，他还挨家挨户地为教区的每个家庭提供自己的圣经学习，这就是他对基德明斯特产生影响的秘诀。

英国教会之外还有第三个团体：独立人士，也被称为分离主义者，或“布朗主义者”（以一个名叫布朗的人的名字命名），或公理会主义者，因为他们相信每个教会都应该在主的领导下管理自己的事务。他们的口号是：“改革不等待。”意思是：我们不会等待议会或教会改变，而要在自己的地方教会里立即按圣经生活。诗人 约翰·米尔顿 是本世纪初这种公理会主义流派的一个很好的例子。他们中的许多人为此付出了生命的代价，格林伍德和巴罗就是其中之一。

苏格兰的詹姆斯六世成为英格兰的詹姆斯一世。从一开始，他就秘密地坚持国王统治宗教的神圣权利和主教统治教会的神圣权利，但他在仍然只是苏格兰国王时保持沉默。当他南下时，英国人希望他支持清教徒路线。他们很快就震惊了。他宣称：“长老会与君主制的认同就如上帝与魔鬼的认同一样。”他的口号是：“没有主教，就没有国王。”

在 1604年，他在 汉普顿宫 召开了一次基督徒领袖会议。詹姆斯在那里毫不留情地嘲笑和侮辱清教徒。你太扫兴了，他说，周日不喜欢运动？我会让周日的体育和娱乐活动合法化，这样刺激他们。但那里有一位清教徒，一位著名的牛津教授，名叫雷诺兹，一位彬彬有礼、圣洁的绅士，所有的嘲笑和笑声都没有打扰他。他坚持自己的立场。当詹姆斯不再谩骂时，雷诺兹博士说：陛下，我有一个建议，我们是时候拥有一本新的英文圣经了。几乎令詹姆斯自己惊讶的是，这个建议被采纳了，从汉普顿宫会议开始，七年的努力工作就完成了，我们称之为“英王詹姆斯版”，如此命名并不是因为他开始或执行了它，而是因为当它完成并呈现给他时，他碰巧是国王。我们称它为“授权版本”，因为他授权了它。这部圣经在这个国家使用了350年；它是汉普顿宫一位清教徒所推动的成果，并于1611年出版。

那一年对英格兰来说是重要的一年，还发生了其他事情：英国第一座浸信会教堂成立于1612年，与授权版本相近的时期。可悲的是，在那次会议之后，詹姆斯发表了一项公告，要求每一位神职人员完全服从主教。记录显示，约80至100名神职人员被剥夺职位，而不是1,500人拒签并有300人立即入狱。这是英国教会中的一个裂痕，自宗教改革开始以来就受到争议的法衣和仪式又从这里卷土重来，并一直保留至今。

清教徒神职人员逃往爱尔兰，当时的大主教是一位名叫厄舍尔的人，他非常擅长计算日期。如果你见过把“公元前4004年”印在创世记开头的圣经（这是上帝从未写进圣经的内容），你看到的就是厄舍尔加上的注释；他计算出亚当是在那一年10月21日上午9时左右诞生的。一位英国学者颇带讥讽地说，厄舍尔是个严谨的学者，所以不愿给出比这更精确的时间。

其他无法凭良心敬拜的人则逃往东方，逃往荷兰。在斯克鲁比等地聚集的分离主义者于1607年秋季和1608年春季先后尝试出走：第一次在波士顿附近登船前就被搜查、抢劫并短暂监禁；第二次在亨伯河口伊明翰附近，男人先登船、武装骑兵出现，船长带男人逃走，而妇女儿童随后被捕并在数月内分批获释。威廉·布拉德福德记下了这段经历。约翰·罗宾逊后来在莱顿担任牧师，从未登上五月花号。

但阿姆斯特丹发生了一些事情：一群基督徒开始研究洗礼问题。在那之前，所有的改教家都实行婴儿洗礼，就像几个世纪以来一直实行的那样。但在阿姆斯特丹，约翰·史密斯领导的团体开始关注这一问题，并得出结论：洗礼应该只针对信徒。史密斯把水倒在自己头上，再为包括托马斯·赫尔维斯在内的约40人施洗；赫尔维斯后来带领一批人返回伦敦，于1612年在斯皮塔菲尔德的怀特巷建立了英国土地上的第一个浸信会会众。

国王是凡人，而不是上帝，因此无权控制其臣民的凡人灵魂，为他们制定法律和法令，并在他们之上设立精神统治者。国王不会对此负责……不管他们是异教徒、土耳其人、犹太人还是其他什么人，世俗的权力都不会以最小的方式惩罚他们。 托马斯·赫尔维斯，《罪恶之谜的简短宣言》(1612)

---

五月花号和查理一世：十一年没有议会

另一群仍在低地国家的独立人士意识到留在欧洲根本不切实际、不受欢迎、没有工作、挨饿。他们决定做一件伟大的事情：回到英国，租一艘船，前往新世界，试图在美国建立一个能按自己良心敬拜的社区。他们说服了五月花号的主人收留了他们；船上102名乘客中，约40人是莱顿分离主义者，后来常被称为“朝圣者”。他们在1620年离开普利茅斯，并于同年12月登陆新世界的普利茅斯。第一个冬天有45人死亡，约占乘客的44%。他们留下来了，但普利茅斯殖民地并没有因此建立普遍的宗教自由或完全的政教分离。

因此，在詹姆斯的领导下，有些人去了爱尔兰，有些人去了荷兰，但在英格兰你必须服从。他的继任者是 查理一世，比他的父亲还糟糕。他也相信国王和主教的神圣权利，并且走得更远：将清教徒投入监狱，巨额罚款，颈手枷，剪耳朵，割鼻子，所有这些都发生在查理一世统治下。当时的坎特伯雷大主教， 威廉·劳德帮助查理一世“时光倒流”：教区教堂里的圣餐桌再次被称为“祭坛”，人们被迫向它鞠躬。议会反对，查理一世干脆在没有议会的情况下这样做了 十一年。你能想象今天的国王或王后会这样做吗？我可以想象议会十一年没有国王或王后，但我无法想象国王说，不再有议会。

《根与枝请愿书》于1640年11月提交给长期议会，由约15,000名伦敦人签署，约1,500人把它递交给议会；它要求根除“罗马迷信”。查理一世拒绝听从，很快英格兰就陷入了内战，于1642年爆发。议会与国王发生冲突，这也是一个宗教问题：总的来说，英国圣公会与国王发生冲突，清教徒与议会发生冲突。总的来说，北部和西部掌握在国王手中，南部和东部掌握在议会手中。

约翰·汉普登 是议会最伟大的斗士之一，艾尔斯伯里的市场广场上有一尊他的雕像。他在1643年6月查尔格罗夫战役中负伤，数日后去世。议会需要一位新的领导者，而那位领导者以奥利弗·克伦威尔的形式出现。克伦威尔将军队融入新模范军；后来常归于他的“相信上帝，保持你的火药干燥”几乎肯定是后世杜撰的口号，不能当作17世纪的原话。

内战期间，在威斯敏斯特，来自牛津和剑桥的神职人员、学者以及苏格兰代表聚集，试图制定人人都能接受的教会生活模式，形成了威斯敏斯特会议。他们制定了威斯敏斯特信条，直到今天，它不仅是苏格兰人的信仰告白，也是世界上许多长老会的信仰告白：“人的主要目的是什么？人的主要目的是荣耀神，并永远以他为乐。”苏格兰人接受了它，但英国国教从未正式接受。

查理一世仍在世，但最终被带到伦敦斩首。关于他在斯托克·波格斯庄园被关押并在灰泥墙上画下皇家徽章的故事，属于当地传说，未经充分证实；可以确认的是，查理一世于1649年1月30日在白厅宴会厅外被斩首。

---

班扬，“新长老不过是老牧师”，以及查理二世的统治

在与奥利弗·克伦威尔并肩作战的士兵中，有一个年轻人，他出生在贝德福德郊外一个叫埃尔斯托的小村庄，酗酒、打架、脏话。他的名字是 约翰·班扬。 （稍后将详细介绍他。）

内战结束后，长老会控制了英国国教，并试图让每个人都成为长老会教徒。这不是很有趣吗，当英国圣公会掌权时，每个人都必须是英国圣公会；当长老会得到它时，每个人都必须是长老会。这导致有人说：“新长老只不过是老牧师而已。” 换句话说，我们刚刚用一种暴政换成了另一种暴政。

最后，我们来到了查理二世的统治。他缺乏原则且挥霍无度。苏格兰人先接受他，并在斯昆为他加冕，以为他会与苏格兰人和英国议会一起支持长老会和更纯粹的清教会；他们很快就为此后悔。我无法详述契约派的故事，只能说，成千上万的苏格兰契约派信徒在查理二世治下受苦，在秘密聚会中按良心敬拜。

查理二世暗中同情罗马天主教会，并与法国路易十四签订秘密条约；但从1661年起，一系列议会法案也试图恢复更严格的英国国教秩序。1662年的统一法案要求神职人员遵守国教礼仪，近2,000名神职人员因拒绝服从而离开职位、失去住所和工作。英语中出现了“不墨守成规者”一词，起初带有犯罪意味；理查德·巴克斯特就是其中一人。

在 1665 年，另一项法案出台，因为这些被驱逐的神职人员不断偷偷地回来与他们的老会众会面，议会通过了一项法案，不允许任何牧师进入他以前的教堂（称为五英里法案）的五英里范围内。这里有一个有趣的细节：如果你去温多弗，你会在路的右手边看到浸信会教堂，位于村外五英里处，你可能想知道为什么要在村外建一座教堂。答案很简单：在 1662 年，艾尔斯伯里的牧师因拒绝服从而被赶出，但他却不断溜回艾尔斯伯里，在厨房和花园里举行会议。然后五英里法案出台了。你知道他做了什么吗？他站在艾尔斯伯里的中心，开始走出五英里，踱步，五英里后他来到了一片田野，在那里他开始聚会。人们从艾尔斯伯里步行五英里，建立了一个礼拜场所，也就是现在的温多弗浸信会教堂，距离艾尔斯伯里正好五英里。

1673年出现了臭名昭著的测试法。它要求担任皇家文职或军事职位者接受圣公会圣餐、宣誓效忠并否认变体论，实际上排除了天主教徒和部分异议者担任公职，给良心造成巨大痛苦。

---

约翰·班扬、乔治·福克斯和威廉·佩恩：良心犯

正是在这个时期，年轻的约翰·班扬因偶然听见几位妇女在后院谈论耶稣而归信。他原是酗酒、好斗、满口脏话的年轻人；这次听见的谈话却使他确信自己有罪，并领受了福音的甘甜。后来他成为贝德福德的传道人，受信徒洗礼，并尽可能传扬福音。

约翰·班扬在查理二世统治下被投入监狱，前后约十二年，中间只有一次短暂释放，与失明的妻子和挣扎的孩子们分开。他后来在较短的第二次监禁期间写作或发展了那个梦：一个人背负重担，试图逃离毁灭之城；这个梦构成了《天路历程》的框架。我希望你读过整本书，是成人版，而不是儿童版，成人版向你展示的不仅是朝圣者发生了什么事，还有他的所想和所言。我也希望有一天你会读到班扬的另一本重要著作《丰盛的恩典归给罪魁》，书中描述了他的转变以及他如何成为一名传教士。《天路历程》之所以被各个教派的基督徒接受，正是因为它没有把故事锁定在单一教会制度中。

他死于 1688，埋葬在我最近访问过的 邦希尔场。在他生命的尽头，人们称他为“班扬主教”，尽管他从来不想成为一名主教。但当他四处旅行时，当人们向他寻求帮助时，他们说：你和其他人一样有权利被称为主教。所以我们就这样称呼你。因此，班扬主教。

班扬的故事也映照出基督教世界的另一面。尼康宗主教的礼仪改革（自1652年起）分裂了俄罗斯教会；1666—1667年莫斯科大公会议批准改革并诅咒旧仪式，催生“旧信徒”分裂。其中心人物大祭司阿瓦库姆被监禁十多年，并写下《大祭司阿瓦库姆的一生》（1672—1675）。他于1682年4月14日与三名同伴被活活烧死，比班扬1688年自然死亡早六年：同一世纪、同一主题，却发生在基督教世界两端。

在此期间，一个名叫乔治·福克斯的人也经历了痛苦。他在1646年获得深刻的属灵经历，重新发现圣灵引导人进入真理的力量，称之为“内在之光”：仅仅把圣经放在外在或头脑中并不够，还需要圣灵在人的里面；没有圣灵，圣经就只是死的文字。

但早期贵格会对圣灵即时引导、外在圣礼和受按立事工的强调，使同时代人担心他们忽视圣经。福克斯自己的写作则坚持内在之光必须与圣经相合。他聚集了一群志同道合的人，称为朋友协会，其他人因他们在聚会中在神面前战兢而称他们为贵格会。

乔治·福克斯因其信仰和聚会活动入狱；查理二世统治时期，传统叙述曾说有一次约4,000名贵格会信徒同时入狱，但这一峰值无法独立核实。整个1660—1689年间约有10,000至15,000次监禁记录，贵格会朋友依靠彼此供给食物和照料。

一位年轻的贵族说：我们在英国永远得不到应有的礼拜自由，我们必须去新大陆。他的名字叫 威廉·佩恩，佩恩和他的家人被埋葬在离这个地点不到一英里的地方，在乔丹会议室的安静小墓地里。佩恩走出了沿海殖民地的边界，来到了新世界，并说道：我们将拥有一个宗教自由的国家，它成为威廉·佩恩的殖民地宾夕法尼亚州，在那里人们可以自由地崇拜，追随圣灵的内在之光。他三四次横渡大西洋，最后死在这里，葬在乔丹斯。

这是一条鲍森没有联系起来的线索：威廉·佩恩与詹姆斯二世有密切的私人关系。佩恩被认为促使国王于1687年4月4日发布《宽容宣言》，给予天主教徒和异议者礼拜自由；他的普遍宽容主张因此直接帮助实现了詹姆斯的宽容政策，而该政策后来在1688年革命中崩溃。

---

詹姆斯二世、威廉和玛丽以及 1700 的现状

詹姆士二世，一位公开承认的罗马天主教徒，不像查理二世那样以任何微妙的方式，而是完全公开地说道：如果它杀了我，我会把你带回罗马。为了做到这一点，他使用了一个被载入史册的残暴之人，杰弗里斯法官，詹姆斯二世的得力助手。这对英格兰来说是难以承受的，由于民众反抗国王，詹姆斯二世不得不逃离。

最后是奇特的组合威廉和玛丽共同登上英国王位。一个较稳定、较宽容的新时代开始了，为英国教会生活确立了模式；但罗马天主教徒仍被排除在外，还要等待约一个世纪。对其他人，宽容也扩展了：1689年，不墨守成规者至少得到部分承认，迫害开始停止。

我这里有一本书，《福克斯的烈士书。》，在我曾祖父时代，这是孩子们周日必须阅读的书。我不知道现在我是否敢把它交给我自己的孩子，否则他们的老师就会因为我在他们的脑子里塞满这些东西而追究我的责任。这是对基督教殉道者最可怕的描述，从新约时代一直到1682。我担心作者希望在福克斯的《烈士之书》之后不再需要写更多的烈士故事，并且到本世纪末获得的宽容将是持久的，不再有烈士。从某种意义上说，英格兰已经不再有这样的事情了。但在全世界范围内，自从耶稣死在十字架上以来，没有一个时期基督徒没有为信仰而死，而且这种情况仍然在世界的某个地方发生。

因此，有了《宽容法案》，不墨守成规的人第一次可以在法律承认的范围内建造礼拜建筑。乔丹教会的建筑日期与1689年宽容法案相近，不能简单说成“几个月后”便已建成；几年后，阿默舍姆旧城浸信会教堂也开始建立。到本世纪末，不信奉国教的人拥有许多礼拜场所。

因此，在讲座开始时我介绍了1600年的状况；现在介绍1700年。英国国教会有三个至今仍可辨认的派别：高派、广派和低派。高派仍向往罗马式敬拜；低派保留了少数清教徒，主张朴素崇拜、没有法衣和祭坛、只有一张桌子，并对主教持怀疑态度；广派则是18世纪故事的开端。

请问：神对这一切有何看法？魔鬼又有何感想？他或许曾因基督徒彼此残杀而嘲笑；但当《宽容法案》使他们能够自由敬拜时，魔鬼便想出新的策略：不再从肉体上摧毁基督徒，而要从精神上摧毁他们。

---

通向18世纪的桥梁：来自欧洲大陆的“奇异”思想

进入17世纪末和18世纪，欧洲大陆以基督教名义产生了一些非常奇怪的思想。瑞典科学家伊曼纽尔·史威登堡生于1688年，直到1740年代才开始提出异象性的神学教导；他死后，新耶路撒冷教会于1787年成立。在欧洲大陆，还有经波兰发展的索西纽斯主义：圣经不是上帝的话语；耶稣不是神的儿子，只是一位应当效仿的伟人；耶稣不是为我们的罪而死，而是为树立爱的榜样。福斯托·索西尼的思想在波兰拉库夫成熟，《拉科维亚教义问答》于1605年出版；此类思想后来跨越英吉利海峡。

荷兰人阿民念反对加尔文的教义，于是形成了加尔文主义与阿民念主义的争论。加尔文主义强调神的主权和旨意；阿民念主义强调人的自由意志。英国国教中也有一群受大陆思想影响的人，认为只要参加礼拜，是否持守旧信仰并不重要。

直到17世纪末，虽然人们对教会秩序、主教和洗礼有分歧，却仍大体认同基督教信仰和福音的核心。现在，一股受大陆思想影响的英国国教派别认为教义可以更宽松、更自由；这种思想在1730年代几乎从精神上掏空了英国国教的权力和遗产。这就是我下次想讲的故事。

我告诉你这个故事不是为了给你上历史课，而是因为我想让你意识到：如果我们住在 1700，你和我今晚就不可能在这里见面。我们没有自由这样做。您必须遵守由议会法案确定的既定服务顺序；你必须遵守严格的教会政府，并通过议会法案解决；你们也没有像我们每月一次的教会聚会那样自由地聚会来决定主要我们做什么。现在这种自由是我们的了。为此赞美主。

有些人看到新约要求在自由国家建立自由的教会，宗教是良心的问题，那些把这一点带到新世界的人，那些把它带到欧洲大陆的人，但最重要的是，那些留在这里、进监狱并奋斗到底的人，以便你我可以在这个周日晚上来到金山浸信会教堂，按照我们良心的指示敬拜上帝。感谢上帝赐予这种自由。自由的代价是 永远的警惕。我们可能会很容易地再次失去这种自由，就像其他人失去它一样。我们不仅需要回顾过去，更要赞美神，在未来，他能让我们保持在我们应该在的地方。

我还告诉你们这个故事，是为了说明：尽管有所有争战和困难，神的教会仍在继续。每一代，圣灵都使男男女女悔改，使他们成为福音的热心传道人并差遣他们出去。教会仍在那里，基督徒仍在那里，福音仍在那里，圣经仍在那里；因为耶稣说：“我要建造我的教会，阴间的权柄不能胜过它。”

---

第三部分：18 世纪，冷水龙头和热水龙头

这三人的最后一场讲座以使徒行传开始，保罗和西拉在帖撒罗尼迦被指控“颠倒了世界”；在庇哩亚，那里的犹太人“更加高尚”，每天查考圣经，看看保罗所传的是否属实；然后是雅典，保罗站在亚略巴古，宣讲“未知的神”，信徒中有狄奥尼修斯和达马里斯，前者是亚略巴古议会的成员。鲍森在庇哩亚人身上徘徊，告诉自己的会众：这正是他希望他们按照他所宣讲的去做的，回家去查考圣经，如果不存在，就不要相信。

他讲述了18世纪开启前几周，即 1699 年，乔纳森·斯威夫特的《格列佛游记》开始构思；斯威夫特是一位多次试图在英国定居却失败、最后在都柏林去世的爱尔兰人。这不是儿童读物，而是对18世纪初英国社会的猛烈讽刺。几年后，《鲁滨逊漂流记》中的主人公在荒岛上遇难，直到1715年回到英国；他在岛上似乎比回国后更快乐。这两本书都引出鲍森转向教会前的判断：英格兰快要崩溃了。

鲍森用一个简单的形象总结了整个晚上：人在打开冷水龙头，神在打开热水龙头，贯穿整个18世纪。 人转动着我们所说的理性主义的冷水龙头，仅靠智力和理性。上帝打开了我们所说的复兴主义的热水龙头，召唤伟人传福音，提高了英国社会的温度。从18世纪汲取的最大教训：一个人的信念影响他的行为。 一个人心里想什么，他的外在生活就会是什么样。“一个人心里怎样想，他就是怎样的人”，这可能是整个晚上的主题。

---

冷水龙头：科学、自然神论和“社会的立法者”

部分原因是科学的影响。哥白尼说行星围绕太阳旋转，而不是地球。伽利略用他的望远镜证实了这一点。艾萨克·牛顿据说通过苹果发现了万有引力定律。但最重要的是，弗朗西斯·培根和笛卡尔说：我们生活的宇宙受不可打破的法则支配。如果苹果从树上掉下来，它一定会掉下来；这就是万有引力定律，牢不可破。这一想法一举扫除了奇迹，也扫除了圣经中发生的大量事情，因为圣经的大部分内容似乎都违背这样的自然法则。培根走得更远，你会惊讶于他听起来多么现代，我们多么感谢他：他说，只有能够通过观察证明的才是真实的。如果你不能通过观察科学地证明某件事，就不必相信它，也不能接受任何权威。这是向前还是向后的一大步，取决于你如何看待它。但令人惊讶的是，今天的六年级学生也会说同样的话：“除非你能证明这一点，否则我无法相信；除非你向我展示上帝，否则我无法相信上帝。”他们只是在呼应弗朗西斯·培根。坦率地说，这种想法杀死了宗教，因为上帝、魔鬼、天使以及宗教所属的一切永恒世界，都无法通过观察加以证明。

那么神在哪里呢？人们在 18 世纪就不再相信上帝了吗？不。但他们从一种我们称之为 有神论 的信仰转变为一种我们称之为 自然神论 的信仰，这是迈向无神论的一步。有神论相信上帝创造了世界并控制着世界。自然神论相信上帝创造了它但无法控制它。无神论相信他甚至没有创造它，因为没有上帝创造它。一位主教提出的最受欢迎的形象之一：世界就像一个巨大的时钟。一旦你给它上紧发条，你就无能为力了，它只是按照自己的规律运行。于是他们说：上帝创造了世界，又给它上紧发条，现在只能袖手旁观。神是存在的，但他却无能为力。那确实是一位死神。你不会向一个无能为力的上帝祈祷太多，不是吗？这是扼杀祷告，扼杀对永生上帝仍然掌管一切的信仰。

这种认为上帝离我们很远、无能为力的想法，悄悄进入教会，在不同传统中有不同名称：英国国教中出现了自由主义，苏格兰教会中出现了温和主义，而浸信会中的一神论倾向主要出现在部分一般浸信会群体和1719年的索尔特斯大厅争议，并不代表所有浸信会。特殊浸信会仍沿着加尔文主义路线发展。淡化的信仰因此在某些传统中扩散，敬拜变得正式而死气沉沉；人们只向创造万物的神表达敬意，却不再期待他施行任何作为。

人们发现的不仅仅是“自然法则”。其他作家认为他们发现了“人性法则”、社会法则。约翰·洛克写的是管理社会的法律。伏尔泰的成年文学和哲学生涯主要属于法国的路易十五时代，而不是路易十四时代。另一位法国人卢梭有句名言：“人生而自由，却无往不在枷锁之中”。然后是苏格兰人亚当·斯密，写了一本关于进出口和劳动分工的书。还有玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特，为女性的权利而奋斗。所有这些都试图发现社会规律、人性规律；他们中的一些人把社会法则理解为可以不依靠上帝运行。正是从这些思想中产生了像法国大革命这样的事情，卢梭也常被称为法国大革命之父。

教会试图用智力武器反击。两位主教，巴特勒主教和伯克利主教，试图理性地回应反对上帝的论证。坦率地说，这并没有带来多大好处：你可以消除一个人的问题和障碍，却不能仅靠理性争论把人带入属灵生命，也不能仅靠它建立教会。

---

英国随波逐流，而美国和法国则起义

杰斐逊将洛克的哲学直接写进了《独立宣言》。先读洛克，再读宣言，就会明白美国从何处得到这些思想。在法国，1789年法国大革命爆发；但巴黎圣母院的理性节直到1793年10月才举行，且在恐怖统治已经开始之后。1794年6月，罗伯斯庇尔又建立了竞争性的至高存在崇拜。后来，法国军队占领罗马，没收教皇领土并把教皇押到法国。美国有殖民地起义和独立宣言，法国有大革命；英国却只是随波下滑。

所以英国是随波逐流而不是反抗。在宗教上，人们对所谓的“热情”有一种由衷的厌恶，现在我们称之为情感主义。人们去教堂说：教堂里没有情感主义，没有狂热，只有牧师的精彩演讲。但没有兴奋。没有生气。没有表现出任何感觉。当然，这不是一个平衡的宗教。昏昏欲睡和冷漠蔓延到会众中。一个世纪前，他们为宗教而战。现在他们只是坐在长凳上打哈欠。宗教恐怕已经成为上层阶级的宗教。工人贫穷、无知，而且根本不受欢迎。

巴特勒主教被任命为坎特伯雷大主教，据说他的回答是：“对我来说，拯救一座垂死的教堂已经太晚了。它在我有生之年就会消失。”这就是教会的状况。精神状态如此的地方，道德状态就会更差。如果你想了解18世纪下午的娱乐活动，可以和家人一起去泰伯恩（现在的海德公园角，靠近大理石拱门）野餐，观看人们被绞死。非常有趣。孩子们、女性、男人都可能因轻微盗窃而被绞死。如果你想要其他娱乐，可以去驾驶舱观看斗鸡。当然，离开伦敦和其他工业区最快的出路是酒馆，酒水非常便宜。这导致了最令人震惊的虐待行为：酗酒、赌博、打斗。如果你想研究这一时期的英国社会生活，请阅读菲尔丁的《汤姆·琼斯》、霍加斯的漫画《耙子的进展》或博斯韦尔的《约翰逊的一生》。那是18世纪最初30至40年的英格兰。

那么是什么阻止了英国发生革命呢？穷人为何不起来？为什么社会没有像美国和法国那样发生彻底的翻天覆地的变化？答案：在本世纪，上帝打开了热水龙头。

---

热水龙头：威尔士、美国和冯·辛岑多夫伯爵

上帝的方法总是这样的：选择一个人，并用圣灵充满那个人，使他们能够做到这一点。这一直是神的方法。上帝很少通过委员会或更大的人群来工作。他的方法总是兴起人来完成这项工作，只要这些人保持与基督应有的关系，他的方法就永远是这样。

对于威尔士人，上帝兴起了豪厄尔·哈里斯、格里菲斯·琼斯和丹尼尔·罗兰兹，他们改变了威尔士的历史。对于美国人，上帝兴起了西奥多·弗里林海森、乔纳森·爱德华兹和伟大的祈祷者大卫·布雷纳德；他们是不同殖民地和教派中平行而又彼此互动的复兴领袖，不能简单说成弗里林海森直接影响了爱德华兹。布雷纳德在美洲原住民中传道四年（1743—1747），后来去世，却改变了美国历史。鲍森估计18世纪仅美国就有300,000人被带领归向主，这个数字无法独立验证，应视为估计而非统计。

但我想谈的两个国家首先是德国，然后是英国，因为它们关系密切。我想告诉你关于上帝在德国兴起的一个人，名叫冯·亲岑多夫伯爵。亲岑多夫在萨克森州拥有一处巨大的庄园，名为赫恩胡特。1722年，波希米亚弟兄会的残余分子来到那里；他们的传统可追溯至约翰·胡斯和1457年成立的弟兄会。亲岑多夫让他们在庄园建立社区，他们称之为“摩拉维亚社区”。它可以被称为早期新教平信徒、志愿传教运动的重要发源地，但不能概括为欧洲第一个传教士团体；耶稣会、方济各会、多米尼加会和东正教传教传统都更早存在。最初十年，摩拉维亚人派出约70名传教士，将基督的福音带到遥远地区。

冯·亲岑多夫曾经说过：“我只有一种激情，那就是耶稣。”这就是他一生的总结。难怪他是一个伟大的人。

---

乔治·怀特菲尔德：“沙绳”

上帝按手在一位年轻人身上，他靠为其他学生擦鞋在牛津求学；他的名字是乔治·怀特菲尔德。经过属灵争战，他认识了主耶稣基督并开始传道。归信一年后，他在格洛斯特宣讲保罗写给哥林多信徒的第二封信：“若有人在基督里，他就是新造的人。”他对听众说：“我不在乎你是否受过洗礼，也不在乎是否奉三位一体的名在额头上洒过水；你必须重生。”关于讲道后“17人重生”的说法，主要来源并无可靠统计，应视为改写的传说。他向成千上万人传道，前往英格兰各地和苏格兰，并横渡大西洋十三次，最终在美国去世。

悲剧的是，他的大部分作品在他去世后就消失了，因为他从未为他的皈依者组织后续活动。从某种意义上说，唯一真正敦促他建立教会的人是亨廷顿伯爵夫人。如果您曾经见过门上写着“亨廷顿伯爵夫人”字样的教堂，您就会回想起那位支持乔治·怀特菲尔德的女士的时代。但当他去世时，他说：“我觉得我的作品就像一根沙绳，很快就会消失。”事实上确实如此。今天你没有听说过任何怀特菲尔德派。今天，除了亨廷顿伯爵夫人的联系和其他一两个小团体之外，你没有听说过任何以他的名字命名的团体。但尽管如此，他还是带领成千上万的人归向主。我并不是说他们离开了，我的意思是他们找到了进入其他教会的方法。

虽然从出生日期来看，他并不是第一名，但我毫不犹豫地将他列为功绩第一名。在一百年前的所有精神英雄中，没有人像怀特菲尔德那样很快就看到了时代的要求……当今有路德派和卫斯理派，但没有怀特菲尔德派。上个世纪伟大的福音传教士是一个简单、朴实的人，他活着只为了一件事，那就是传播基督。——J. C. Ryle，《十八世纪的基督教领袖》（1885）

---

约翰·卫斯理：“从火中抽出的一根柴”

我必须告诉你的另一位伟人是 约翰·卫斯理，我的伟大英雄之一，在这里我会花更多时间，因为他应得的。故事开始于林肯郡的一个小村庄，我和妻子在那里结婚了，埃普沃斯。我们在卫斯理纪念教堂举行了婚礼。在那个教区长官邸里，发生了一些事情，一些新的东西诞生了。

约翰·卫斯理的祖父母都是独立派，这说明了许多事情；但他的父母是英国圣公会信徒，担任埃普沃斯的牧师及其妻子。父亲塞缪尔·卫斯理也是诗人，曾写关于约伯的长诗，并把诗意的礼物传给儿子们。母亲老苏珊娜·卫斯理有19个孩子，教他们一岁后不要哭，五岁开始读书，第一周结束就能读创世记；她每周分别用一小时帮助每个孩子在属灵上成长。研究苏珊娜·卫斯理的生活，也就是研究卫理公会的起源。

当约翰（她称他为“杰基”）五岁时，教区长宅邸着火。其他孩子获救后，村民看见他在楼上窗户，便踩着彼此的肩膀把他救出。苏珊娜抱着他说：“你是从火中抽出来的一根柴。”从那时起，她相信约翰会成为她最伟大的儿子；他确实如此。

他进入查特豪斯学校，然后进入牛津大学，加入了他的兄弟查尔斯的行列。在那里，他们组建了所谓的“神圣俱乐部”，天哪，它也冒犯了其他所有人，正如这个名字所暗示的那样。他们早上四点起床祈祷，白天像普通学生一样学习，然后参观监狱，并为病人经营一家药房。他们拼命地试图通过行善来拯救自己。乔治·怀特菲尔德是神圣俱乐部的成员之一，他们的道路就在那里交汇。这小群学生拼命地想通过善良进入天堂。他们仍然不知道如何成为基督徒。他们起床、进监狱、做这做那、记录这一切，都是那么有条不紊，以至于其他学生不再称他们为“神圣俱乐部”，而是给他们起了一个绰号：卫理公会。这是一个滥用的术语。但这个绰号一直沿用至今。

约翰和查尔斯由坎特伯雷大主教任命为英国国教牧师，但仍未获得得救的确据。他们自愿成为乔治亚州美洲原住民的传教士，以为传教可以拯救自己的灵魂；他们不仅是牧师，也是带着这种属灵挣扎出发的宣教士。

航行途中遇到风暴，乘客惊慌失措，唯有来自赫恩胡特、认识冯·亲岑多夫的摩拉维亚难民安静祈祷。卫斯理问他们为何不害怕，其中一人反问：“你知道耶稣是你的救主吗？”他回答“知道”，但当晚在日记中承认那是谎言，并写道自己去乔治亚州是为了拯救自己的灵魂。经历三年失败后，他回到伦敦；他的兄弟也同样失败。

但感谢上帝，伦敦有一位摩拉维亚人等待他们：彼得·伯勒。1738年5月24日，卫斯理早上在圣保罗大教堂礼拜，读到“你离神的国不远了”；晚上参加奥尔德斯盖特街摩拉维亚人的小型聚会，众人朗读路德《罗马书》序言。晚上九点一刻，他说：“我感到我的心异常温暖。我觉得我确实相信基督，他把我从罪孽中拯救出来，甚至是我自己的罪孽。” 那一刻，他得到自己已蒙赦免的确据。

这个人曾是一名失败的传教士，一名被任命为英国国教会的牧师，为他人做了很多好事，但从未知道自己的罪孽得到了宽恕。这就是当你试图拯救自己时会发生的事情，因为你相信自己所做的而不是基督所做的。这是他从未学过的一件事。

不久后，他到德国拜访冯·亲岑多夫，带回赞美诗并译成英语。回国后，英国国教的讲坛向他关闭；乔治·怀特菲尔德邀请他露天传道。卫斯理想到基督在山上讲道，便前往布里斯托尔郊外的金斯伍德向矿工传道；他在日记中描述泪水沿着矿工黑色脸颊流下。那是 1739 年，他开始露天讲道。

他有时遭到反对，甚至被人揪着头发拖过街道。50年间，他骑马走了四分之一百万英里，手持圣经。他到村庄先从十诫和审判的律法讲起，直到人们意识到自己是罪人；然后说：“我开始把上帝的爱与上帝的律法结合起来。”卫斯理发现：除非你传讲律法，否则你无法传讲神的爱。向从未感到自己苦难的人传讲救主没有意义；“救主能给从未感到悲伤的人带来什么安慰？”贯穿他的事工。

他的三个中心是伦敦、布里斯托尔、纽卡斯尔，在整个三角地带，你都可以找到卫斯理宣讲的地方。他的最后一次布道是在萨里郡莱瑟黑德举行的。正如他所说，他宣扬的原则是“世界是我的教区”，而且可能有一些事实是，他的旅行受到了不幸婚姻的帮助，使他不断迁徙。这是他一生中真正的阴影，尽管许多人对此表示感激，因为它让他不断前行。他旅行啊旅行，讲道啊讲道，一天七次是正常的。他不仅传教，还撰写和出版书籍和小册子。他开设了学校、孤儿院、药房。他是第一个使用电治疗风湿病的人，今天你可以在他位于城市路的家里看到一台机器，他们发现它产生的电力足以杀死一个人，但他用它来治疗风湿病。他是一个多变的人，但显然，他无法独自完成这一切。

问题是很少有神职人员与他一起工作。于是他的母亲想出了一个主意：那些未经任命的传教士怎么办？当地的平信徒传道人不会像他那样到处旅行，而是在当地传道。约翰·鲍森是最早的六人小组之一，他的妻子弗朗西斯·鲍森是当时卫理公会女性领袖之一。有了这样的团队，约翰·卫斯理说：“给我一百个这样的人，我们要放火烧他们。”他们做到了。卫斯理去世时，英国已有约71,668名社团成员，海外及美国另有成员；全球总数约为11万至13万。

他没有像怀特菲尔德那样只传道；人们归信后，他把他们组织成团契，因为当地教会不接纳他们。他称这些团体为“社团”，并设立阶级领袖在属灵上带领他们。一个地区的许多社团组成“巡回区”，当地传道人每月骑马巡回讲道；这是他建立的组织方式，而不是修建道路。

请记住，约翰·卫斯理一直以来都是英国圣公会的牧师。他们对他有何看法？我担心他们对他的评价很不好，尤其是当他任命美国部长时。尽管他从未离开英国国教，但很明显，一旦他去世，卫理公会就会变成卫理公会教堂。他们做到了。他一死，分裂就来了。但我认为约翰·卫斯理应该受到指责，或者至少是那个为导致分离而采取了一切必要措施的人。我喜欢有人说的一句话：约翰·卫斯理就像一个划船的人。他始终面向英国国教，但每次划动桨都让他离英国国教会更远。他正是这么做的。因此，在 18 世纪末，除了英国圣公会、长老会和公理会、浸信会和贵格会之外，我们还剩下一大群卫理公会教徒。到了世纪末，罗马天主教徒也被允许回归。我们开始了解我们生活的情景。

---

查尔斯·西蒙和复兴的五个结果

现在让我看看本世纪末的另一位伟人。1779年，一位年轻、放荡的剑桥学生来到大学，他名叫查尔斯·西蒙，喜欢打猎、射击和钓鱼。经过属灵挣扎，他获得了蒙赦免的确据，正如他所说：“我把我的罪归在耶稣身上。”他后来受任命为牧师，23岁时到圣三一教堂服事，在那里对学生产生巨大影响。年轻的亨利·马丁正是从他的会众中出去，成为最伟大的传教士之一并死于波斯。

现在让我最后列出一些由此产生的实际结果。我清楚地知道人们会说些什么，而且他们仍然这么说：所有这些传福音和唱赞美诗的意义是什么？我们需要的是那些不断进步并让世界变得更美好的人。所有这些热烈的福音和咆哮对任何人都没有任何好处。我可以说 18 世纪证明了这一点吗？让我给你五个结果，非常简单。

第一，赞美诗。 世界也许并不欣赏，但基督徒从那以后一直珍爱赞美诗。18世纪歌声如潮。 我提到过艾萨克·瓦茨，想想他的著名赞美诗：“我要赞美我的创造主”“上帝啊，历代的帮助”“当我观看奇妙十架时”“耶稣将在阳光下统治”。还有菲利普·多德里奇、威廉·考珀、约翰·牛顿。最重要的是查尔斯·卫斯理：他为几乎所有可以想象的场合写了约 6,000 首赞美诗。他会在马背上写作，到达一所房子后说：“别跟我说话，快给我笔和纸。”随后又是一首赞美诗。今天就以他在属灵生命开始一年后、为纪念归信一周年而写的诗歌结束吧。当时，摩拉维亚人彼得·伯勒对他说：“如果我有一千条舌头，我要歌颂我伟大的救赎主。”于是有了：“啊，千条舌头来歌颂我伟大的救主。”在他的数千首诗歌中，也请记住“听啊，天使高声唱”“能否如此”“奇异的爱，何等甘美”“耶稣，我灵魂爱人”和“喜乐，主为王”。

在大多数赞美诗书中，您会发现查尔斯·卫斯理创作的赞美诗比任何其他作家都多，艾萨克·瓦茨紧随其后。最后一位鲍森想提到的赞美诗作者是蒙哥马利；他们在那天的圣餐中唱了一首他的虔诚赞美诗。

第二，主日学校。如果我问你是谁创办了主日学，我想知道你会怎么说。如果你知道的话，你可能会说格洛斯特的罗伯特·雷克斯。我告诉你，你错了。主日学校是由 汉娜·鲍尔 在海威科姆创办的，她是一位埋葬在斯托金教堂墓地的卫理公会女士。几周前我带我父亲去看了她的坟墓。由于与约翰·卫斯理的通信，汉娜·鲍尔在海威科姆的一家废弃家具工厂创办了主日学校。汉娜·鲍尔向罗伯特·雷克斯建议：你为什么不这样做呢？非凡的是格洛斯特有一座罗伯特·雷克斯的雕像，上面写着“主日学校的创始人”。嗯，他抄袭了一位女士的想法。这是为更公平的性别而设计的。

第三，社会正义。当人们皈依时，他们就会纠正社会。可怜的救济开始了。药房开始分发免费药品。孤儿院开始了。学校开学了。监狱改革，约翰·霍华德的 监狱改革工作可以直接追溯到 18 世纪的复兴。最重要的是，杰出的例子：威廉·威尔伯福斯 和他反对奴隶制的斗争。约翰·卫斯理写的最后一封信是写给威廉·威尔伯福斯的，敦促他完成战斗。如果你去赫尔河畔金斯顿，就去威廉·威尔伯福斯博物馆吧，它也是文艺复兴时期的产物。

第四，优秀文学的巨大传播。 宗教教义学会 是直接结果。 英国及外国圣经公会 也是如此。伟大的圣经老师托马斯·斯科特的评论也是如此。

最后是传教士团体的兴起，英国对世界的影响由此传播。1792年，一位浸信会教徒、鞋匠威廉·凯里用皮革边角料制作地球仪并为世界、特别是印度祷告；他在凯特林与一群人相聚，以13英镑2先令6便士的认捐成立浸信会宣教会，一年后前往印度。1795年，英国圣公会、公理会和长老会联合成立伦敦传教士协会（LMS）；1796年卫理公会成立自己的总会；1799年英国圣公会成立教会传道会。同期，英国及外国圣经公会也开始发展。这是18世纪福音派复兴的直接结果。

---

结束语：“主啊，再做一次”

今晚我想从整个世纪中吸取的一个教训是：一个人的信念会影响他的行为。 冷酷的理智主义，道德败坏；热福音，一切随之而来。有人说，早期的卫理公会就像一簇纯洁的雪花莲生长在肮脏的垃圾堆上。如果你想理解卫理公会强调不喝酒或赌博，你必须了解这个传统可以追溯到 18 世纪的现实，他们必须坚持这一点才能让一个人接近主。但他们为此而奋斗，他们清理了英格兰。

一位法国历史学家说过，如果想理解法国大革命、理性登基及其后的无政府状态为何没有蔓延到英国，就必须研究约翰·卫斯理牧师的一生。这是对卫斯理的崇高致敬，但也是一种史学论点。冷酷理性要求凡事先证明再相信，正在扼杀宗教；上帝却兴起指向启示的人，宣扬科学既不能证明也不能反驳的超自然福音，以及能够介入并改变生命和社会的永生上帝。自然和人性不受盲目规律支配，而受上帝治理。

这就是我今晚想带给你的信息：伟大的属神之人再次被温暖起来，把耶稣基督的福音带到这片土地。两百年甚至更久之后，我们仍受益于这次复兴的影响。

结束祈祷。 天父上帝，我们心中都有一个祷告：主啊，再做一次。你仍是同一位神，你的膀臂并未缩短，今天仍能拯救。面对社会衰落和令人不安的事物，求你再做一次；兴起勇敢传讲基督的人，兴起福音传道者的大军，使男女为主火热，让这个国家再次响起福音，并向世界发出持久影响。神啊，你过去大大祝福我们，但我们不能活在过去；求你使我们在这个时代和这一代，在基督耶稣里发现罪得赦免，并出去告诉别人你赦免人的爱。阿门。

---

三个世纪，三场讲座，一个连续的故事：每当教会被国家、德国诸侯、苏黎世议会或英国议会控制，结果总是战争、监狱或属灵冷漠；每一次，都有人拒绝接受这种局面：再洗礼派因自愿洗礼而被淹死；赫尔维斯因写信给国王要求“异教徒、土耳其人和犹太人”的良心自由而死在纽盖特监狱；班扬在牢房中写《天路历程》；卫斯理骑行四分之一百万英里，把福音带到关闭讲坛的地方。到18世纪末，三个世纪的代价换来了圣经所说的良心自由；正如鲍森反复说的，这种自由的代价是“永远的警惕”。

如果上帝愿意，本系列的第5部分将把故事带入19世纪：从卫斯理和怀特菲尔德之后传播的复兴，到塑造教会并将其带入20世纪的社会与神学剧变。

Note: This piece merges three separate lectures from David Pawson's History of the Church series: the 16th century (54.9 minutes, "Reformers, Romans, and Radicals"), the 17th century (47.7 minutes, England's fight for liberty of worship), and the 18th century (54.9 minutes, the Evangelical Revival). I've folded all three into one essay because they tell a single unbroken story, the cost of state-enforced religion, and the long, hard road back to liberty of conscience. I haven't guessed or embellished any of Pawson's arguments. Wherever I looked something up, checked it against the sources, or corrected a detail, I've left it as an amber margin note woven into the text. The fact-checking this time is heavier than in the first three parts, simply because this stretch of history has more names, dates, and numbers than any other in the series, and it's also the stretch most prone to pulpit legend picking up extra color with each retelling.

From Wittenberg to the Wesleys' parlor

Part 3 closed with Martin Luther standing before the Empire and the Church, declaring "here I stand, I can do no other." But a declaration is not a finished reformation. Pawson opens the next lecture with a question that sounds simple: what is the difference between a Reformation and a Revolution?

The answer lies in two other questions: how much changed, and who changed it. Across the 16th century, Luther's Reformation, as it spread, gradually became a Revolution, because more and more was changed, and more and more different people, in more and more places, took it upon themselves to change it their own way.

The three centuries in this piece tell one continuous story: the Church kept getting "captured" by the state. Kings, parliaments, city councils used worldly power to impose one religion on an entire territory, and the price was always war, prison, or a spiritual life gone cold. These three centuries also tell the story of those who refused to let the state decide their faith, and paid dearly for it.

---

PHẦN MỘT: THẾ KỶ 16: REFORMERS, ROMANS, RADICALS

Pawson divides the evening into three groups, the "three R's": the Reformers, the Romans (how the Catholic Church reacted), and the Radicals (the group Pawson's own church, Gold Hill, actually descends from). He examines the Reformers in three countries: Germany, Switzerland, then England.

Germany: Martin Luther, and the man who stopped halfway

Who changed Germany? Obviously Martin Luther. How much? Pawson answers: in the first four or five years, a great deal. Luther got rid of the Pope, got rid of bishops, got rid of indulgences, got rid of purgatory, got rid of a host of other things, and reduced the sacraments from seven to two.

Then came the crisis: Luther had to go into hiding at Wartburg Castle. When he came out, he found to his horror that some friends were carrying the change much further and much faster than he'd intended. He stood in his own pulpit and asked: how dare you do this? And from that point, Luther largely stopped changing things. Very few changes came after that.

The result: Luther kept a great deal of what Rome had. He kept candles on the altar, something the Bible certainly doesn't have, but he kept it. He kept crucifixes, go into a Lutheran church and you'll often see one, which may surprise you. He kept images and pictures. And above all, he kept his own traditional practice around the Lord's Supper and baptism: he still believed, in some sense, that the bread and wine actually were the body and blood of Christ, he never quite got over that. And he kept infant baptism. When someone asked, but surely faith is needed for baptism, his reply was: who's to say the baby doesn't have faith?

Who carried the change out? Here's a rather startling answer: Luther relied on the princes. In other words, this was a state-driven change. Lutheranism, like Roman Catholicism, was an established religion. From the very beginning, Luther relied on princes, dukes, and the Elector of Saxony, particularly a man called Frederick, to reform "from the top." Whoever ruled the land, Luther regarded as also ruling the church.

The result: at a Diet in Speyer, it was decided that each territory would adopt the religion of its prince. If you lived where the prince was Catholic, you were Catholic. If the prince was Lutheran, you were Lutheran. A group objected violently to this, and it's from that "protest" that the word Protestant was born.

The result of this church-state fusion: by the start of the 17th century, the Catholic states banded together and went to war with the Protestant states, who had also banded together, the famous Thirty Years' War. That's the kind of end product this mistake produces: when the state here says everyone must be this religion, and the state there says everyone must be that religion, sooner or later you get religious war. And the pattern spread from Germany to Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, all adopting Lutheranism as a state religion, binding on every citizen.

The debate over the Lord's Supper wasn't only a Western argument. Between roughly 1573 and 1581, Lutheran theologians at Tübingen sent the Greek-translated Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, hoping to find common ground. He replied with three careful theological letters, agreeing on some points but rejecting Luther's core positions on grace, the sacraments, and the Fathers' authority to interpret Scripture, then closed the correspondence with: "Go your own way, and do not send us further letters on doctrine, but only letters written for friendship's sake." The Reformation genuinely reached the East, and was declined, on Orthodoxy's own terms.

---

Switzerland: Zwingli, who died on the battlefield, and Calvin, who stayed one night and ended up staying twenty years

Luther neither started the Reformation in Switzerland nor helped it, it began entirely on its own. There were two men: a German Swiss, and a Frenchman.

Huldreich Zwingli was an ordinary parish priest of the Catholic Church in a small village in German-speaking Switzerland. He became a Protestant by reading his Greek New Testament, exactly what happened to Martin Luther, in fact a few years before it happened to Luther. Zwingli was invited to be priest at Zurich Cathedral (the Grossmünster). He preached the new truths he'd found in this book, and swept the city of Zurich along with him.

Among the things he taught: it was wrong for the Pope to have an army, staffed with Swiss mercenary troops. (Interestingly, if you visit the Vatican today, you'll still see Swiss Guards protecting it, the very practice Zwingli spoke against.) He gave up his allegiance to the Pope and got married, two things that often seem to go together. Many other priests followed him.

He eventually persuaded the city council, and notice this, that everyone in Zurich must now be Protestant. Once again, the same sad mistake. But it was carried through. Zurich became officially Protestant, as did all the valleys leading out from it. The trouble was that people in the mountains and forests didn't follow. Soon the valley people and the mountain people were fighting each other. A war lasting two years broke out in the Zurich region, and during it, Zwingli himself, who was fighting, was killed at a small place called Kappel.

Before he died, Zwingli had a major dispute with Luther over the Lord's Supper. Luther said: that bread is the body, that wine is the blood of Christ. Zwingli said: that's just bread, just wine, symbols of his body and blood. And Pawson observes: perhaps that's why the Germans and the Swiss never came together in the Reformation.

The story moves to France. A young man called John Calvin, born in Picardy, the son of a lawyer, was put to the study of law by his father. He studied at the universities of Paris, Orléans, and Bourges, where Calvin got his logical mind. He remained a lawyer to his dying day in his speech, his clarity of thought, and his devastating arguments, it's Calvin's arguments that persuaded so many people to become "Calvinists."

Calvin came to Paris, studied the Greek New Testament, and was converted (around 1532–34). Within months he was imprisoned in Paris for his Christian views. Released, he fled as a refugee, wandering from place to place.

He found himself in the Swiss city of Basel at the age of 26, and decided to write down his Christian beliefs. That book was The Institutes of the Christian Religion, still acclaimed as one of the greatest expositions of the Protestant faith in the world, still sold and read today.

He advocated church on Sunday morning and playing bowls on Sunday afternoon, he did it himself, and we owe (or blame) Calvin for the "Continental Sunday." But something far deeper mattered more: this man believed God was on the throne. He believed in the sovereignty of God, that God's will is the final factor deciding the history of nations and of men. And it's because of that tremendous logical emphasis on divine sovereignty and the doctrine of predestination that Calvin gave his name to people who think that way: Calvinists. But Calvin believed it, and so did Luther, and so did Zwingli, and so did all the Reformers: that God is on the throne, in absolute control of everything and everyone.

Calvin was still fleeing from place to place as a refugee. One day, trying to get back into France, he found a minor war going on right on his route, so he took a detour and failed to reach his destination by evening. He settled for the night where he found himself, and that place was called Geneva. Because he'd taken that detour and meant to stay one night only, he stayed 20 years, and Geneva became the center of Presbyterianism for the whole world.

Word got around that Calvin, the young author of those books, was in Geneva, and the local parish priest, a man called William Farel, hurried to the inn and said: Calvin, I want you to stay here. He said: a year ago the council decided Geneva should be Protestant. But it hasn't worked out, they're getting as drunk as ever, gambling as much as ever, nothing has changed, the people aren't changing. We need a man like you. Stay. And Calvin agreed.

Calvin was fairly strict. He wasn't having any funny business. He would haul a man before the church and hand him to the magistrates for this, that, or the other. But he pulled the city around until it became well-behaved, though "city" here meant a population of just 13,000. With strict discipline, he cleaned the place up, so much so that three years later he had to flee for his life, to Strasbourg. But after he left, the city collapsed; things went from bad to worse. A deputation came asking him back. And back came Calvin, for 20 more years.

He carried the reformation much further this time. No crucifixes. No candles. And, dare he say it, no organs either; people should sing. He carried the changes further than Martin Luther ever did, and instituted what's now known as the Presbyterian system of church government, in which the church is governed by bodies of laymen, pastors, and elders together, with local bodies meeting in representative assemblies overseeing wider areas.

Geneva became a place Protestants fled to for refuge, altogether 6,000 more came to live there, escaping persecution. And naturally, they picked up Calvin's ideas. When it was safe to return home, they carried Calvin's faith and Calvin's way of running a church with them.

But, worth adding, Calvin made the same mistake in reverse: fusing church and state. Only this time he didn't say the state must govern the church. He said the church must govern the state. If a church member misbehaved, Calvin expected the city's magistrates to deal with him. Once again, church and state were confused. It didn't lead to war in Geneva, though it did elsewhere.

From Geneva, the influence reached France.

---

France: the Huguenots, and Scotland: John Knox

The Protestants of France leaned closer to Calvin than to Luther, and became known as the Huguenots. By the end of the French king's reign during which Calvin began his work, there were already some 20,000 Huguenots in France. They grew and grew, until the terrible St. Bartholomew's Day, 24 August 1572. If you know your history, you know that on that day roughly 22,000 French Huguenots were slaughtered, 2,000 in Paris alone. Person after person was put to death across the whole of France. The Huguenots fled, to England, to the Netherlands. If you meet a family with a French-sounding surname, there's a good chance their ancestors came over with that Huguenot flight. Perhaps tonight, in this church, there are families descended from those who fled the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre.

But the country most heavily influenced by Geneva was Bonny Old Scotland. I can't go into the whole history of Scotland, much to the disappointment of the Scots, but let me mention four great Scotsmen.

Patrick Hamilton was the Scot who started the Reformation there, but was burned in 1528. His work was taken up by George Wishart, who had been to Switzerland, but he too came to a sticky end. But the man who really finished the job was John Knox.

He's a colorful character: a student at Glasgow University, then chaplain of St. Andrew's Castle for the Scottish army; the French took the castle and sold Knox as a galley slave, there he was, rowing as a slave. The English rescued him; he came to England, then got into trouble with Queen Mary, fled to the Continent, to Geneva and Calvin. Knox was ripe for these ideas, and he came back to Scotland determined: I'm going to make Scotland Presbyterian. He once prayed: "Lord, give me Scotland, or I die."

In 1560, the Scottish Parliament voted for Protestantism. That same year, they held their first General Assembly. But in 1561, the beautiful and wily Mary, Queen of Scots, returned, and with her beauty and guile she won over most of the Protestant nobility. And so Mary Queen of Scots and John Knox stood face to face. It's a most dramatic story, and if you have any feel for history, you should read it. Nevertheless, after a civil war, Mary Queen of Scots was captured, abdicated in favor of her infant son James, and was ultimately beheaded for treason by Elizabeth I of England. Knox's teaching won the ground, and Scotland has been Presbyterian ever since, the Church of Scotland reflects the Church of Geneva, while the Church of England sits closer to the Lutheran churches. The Church of Scotland owes everything to John Knox.

When Knox died, leadership passed to the last great Scot I want to mention: Andrew Melville, who told King James: "Sire, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is King James, of whom I am a loyal subject; and there is the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the church, of whom James himself is a subject."

---

England: a "typical English muddle," Henry VIII to Elizabeth I

Now we come back to our own nation. What happened in England all this time? Pawson says it plainly: the English Reformation was a typical English muddle. It really was a typical compromise, we muddle through and say "that'll do", we don't work by principles, we're terribly pragmatic, we ask does it work, and whatever works is deemed right. This is very English, and the Reformation is quite typical of it.

It started, of course, with Henry VIII and his wanting to marry another woman. But this has been badly misunderstood, let me give the fuller facts. Henry VIII was pressed by others into marrying Catherine of Aragon, and it was an illegal marriage, because she was his brother's widow, so he should never have married her in the first place. But under pressure from various quarters, including the Pope, who granted him special permission to marry illegally, he was pushed into the marriage for political reasons. Every child she bore died, except one, the little girl Mary, who later became the infamous "Bloody Mary." He had no son to carry on the Tudor line, and he knew that when he died, civil war would follow without a male heir. Most people in England at the time took it as a sign of God's judgment on the marriage.

Then he met Anne Boleyn, a woman he genuinely loved, who might well have made a good queen and a legal wife. (I'm not justifying Henry VIII, I'm giving you the full facts.) He applied to the Pope for an annulment of the first, illegal marriage, but by then politics had shifted, and for political reasons the Pope said no. So Henry VIII said: fine, from now on I don't obey the Pope. Step by step, Henry separated the Church of England from the Pope, as England is separated from the Continent by the English Channel.

The most ironic part of the whole story: as a young man, Henry VIII was something of an amateur theologian, he wrote a book against Martin Luther, and the Pope was so pleased he gave him the title "Defender of the Faith", a title our own queen still carries today, stamped on the coins in your pocket. He earned it for attacking Martin Luther. Did you ever know that? What a muddle the English Reformation is.

Henry married Anne Boleyn mainly because he'd put a friend of his into the Archbishopric of Canterbury, a man called Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer said: I will annul your first marriage, because I'm convinced it was illegal from the start, so I annul it, you may marry Anne Boleyn, and he secretly conducted the wedding. Henry, now head of the church and broken from Rome, was also short of money, so he seized England's wealthy monasteries and sold their lands to individuals, creating, for the first time, England's middle class, with effects on social life ever since.

But the main point is this: Henry VIII never wanted England to go Protestant. He wanted everything to carry on as before, minus the monasteries, whose loyalty to the Pope ran too strong, but with himself as Pope instead. That's basically and simply what he wanted. But he reckoned without several factors.

He reckoned without the fact that this book was being feverishly translated into English by a man called William Tyndale, hounded around England, forced to flee to the Continent, and finally burned at the stake. But Tyndale gave us the English Bible on which every other English revision has been based, and that Bible, during Henry's reign, was placed, one copy, in every church in England, and for the first time people could go and read it. Henry reckoned without that. Do you notice? Every time, it's this book that sets people free. Every time, it's the chance to read it that produces the most extraordinary things.

Henry also reckoned without men like Thomas Cromwell, the minister behind the dissolution of the monasteries, not to be confused with Oliver Cromwell of the next century, sympathetic in his heart to Protestant ideas, as Cranmer was; without the widespread resentment that the Pope still drew money out of England, "Peter's pence" and other "annates," the tributes still paid. But Henry feared the pace of change, and, sadly, executed Catholics and Reformers alike toward the end of his reign, leaving England in a ferment when he died, but leaving the throne to a boy of ten, a very serious little Christian even then, deeply influenced by Cranmer, and sympathetic to England continuing to change.

Edward VI. During this boy king's brief reign, several things happened: clergy were allowed to marry; the Lord's Supper in the Church of England took on a Protestant character, and the altar was called a table; and, more importantly, services were put into English for the first time instead of Latin, and a book was prepared called the Book of Common Prayer, a book for everybody to use, not just a priest who knows Latin up front, but a book so the common people could pray. After its second revision it became the Book of Common Prayer which, largely unchanged, is still the one used in a Church of England service today. We owe that to that boy king, or rather, to his reign.

One rule brought in under this boy king: every priest had to preach at least four times a year. Can you imagine the state of the church, needing a rule to make people preach four times a year? That's a small window into the state of the Church of England at the time. Under Cranmer, they also began drafting Articles of Religion, up to 42, later cut down to 39. During Edward VI's reign, Protestant refugees also returned to England, and to Cambridge, my old university, came a famous professor of theology from Strasbourg, by the name of Martin Busser, teaching Cambridge students the Protestant understanding of the gospel of Christ.

Then the boy king died, and the throne passed to his half-sister, daughter of a Spanish mother, Mary. Mary, half Spanish by blood and wholly Spanish in outlook, married Philip of Spain and was determined to bring England back to Rome. 1,200 married clergy were put out of a job. The pendulum swung right back, and during Mary's reign nearly 300 great Christians were put to death, earning her that dreadful nickname: Bloody Mary. She deserved it.

In Oxford, on the main street outside Balliol College, there's a memorial to two men, Latimer and Ridley, burned at the stake during Mary's reign for their Protestant faith. And you'll remember Latimer's words to Ridley: "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

During Mary's reign, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, under great pressure signed a document recanting the changes he'd made. But you can't change that easily, and in his heart he knew he'd been wrong, and he too soon found himself headed for the stake. When the time came to be tied to it, he publicly declared his utter remorse over recanting his Protestant stand, and thrust the arm that had signed the paper into the flame, watching it burn to a cinder. He said: that hand, which signed such a paper, must be burned first. That was Cranmer, and 300 others. Hooper was burned at Gloucester; many others burned at the stake, the fires of Smithfield, you've heard of them. Four bishops and one archbishop, and many other leading preachers, were put to death during Mary's reign.

You can imagine the sigh of relief when Elizabeth I came to the throne. In the Pope's eyes, and many others', she was an illegitimate child; the Pope held Mary Queen of Scots to be the rightful heir, and there lies the root of the treason charge between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth. But the persecution ended, and refugees came flooding back to England.

It's in Elizabeth I's reign that the typical English muddle we call the Church of England really took shape. Elizabeth liked ornate services, liked vestments, liked ritual, so she was unhappy about letting those things go. She said Edward's second Prayer Book was too Protestant, and had it revised, pulling it back toward Rome. She even stopped the practice of clergy meeting to study the Bible together, something that had been doing a power of good in this land. Yet she couldn't turn the clock back as Mary had tried to, and the Elizabethan Settlement, as it's called, settled for a kind of halfway house. And if you want to know why the Church of England today can hold both evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, you have to go back to Elizabeth I, because leaving things in a halfway position, imposed by Parliament, threw the door wide open to exactly that kind of mixture.

The Book of Common Prayer remains largely Protestant, not entirely, but largely. And the 39 Articles finally drawn up under Elizabeth's reign are a wonderful statement of Protestant faith. Any clergyman who preaches the 39 Articles is a clergyman preaching the gospel. Sadly, not everyone does, but it's there, in the book, and there's enough Protestantism in it to build a thoroughly evangelical Church of England, but also the possibility of the other, which came later.

Elizabeth died unpopular, though her popularity rebounded when Philip II of Spain, incensed at the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, vowed to invade England by force and bring it back to the Pope. He sent a fleet, the Spanish Armada, 160 ships, 30,000 marine troops, with an army massed on the other side of the Channel ready to cross the moment the invasion began. England was in desperate straits, no allies, and the massed might of Europe seemingly bearing down the Channel.

But England had Sir Francis Drake, and the stories about him you probably know better than I do, how the Armada was routed by superior English seamanship, and how it seemed as if even God fought for England that day, as the winds proved too strong for Spain's unwieldy galleons, wrecking them along the English and Scottish coasts, where wreck-hunters are still searching for them to this day.

Pawson adds a personal detail: a wrecked Spanish galleon off northern Scotland, sailors coming ashore and being called "Saint Clare", marrying local girls and founding the Sinclair clan. His own mother was a Sinclair, so, by his account, he carries Spanish blood from the Armada. (This is purely a family anecdote, not a verified historical event, but a charming detail showing that even Pawson found his own small thread woven into this much larger story.)

Summing up the Reformers: in none of the three places, Germany, Switzerland, England, was the Reformation carried through to a full conclusion, for the same reason: church and state stood too close together. Either the state ran the church, or the church ran the state, and the result was always a religion imposed on an entire region, eventually leading to war. Pawson asks: is there anything more tragic than people fighting wars over religion, in the name of Christ, in the name of Christianity, killing one another?

---

The Romans: three prongs of the Counter-Reformation

So what were the Romans doing all this time? By 1580, 60 years after Luther, Protestantism had spread through much of Germany, to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, a good deal of Switzerland, a fair bit of France, to England, and by 1580, Ireland and Germany remained Catholic. The odd thing is that all this happened in 60 years, and then for the next 300 years the boundaries stayed almost exactly the same, and largely still are. Why did Protestantism spread so quickly in 60 years, then come to a halt?

The answer: when you study what the Romans were doing, you find a movement called the Counter-Reformation. There had been an attack on Rome that had robbed her of half of Europe, and Rome wasn't going to sit down under that. Three things happened that stemmed the flood.

First: Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuits. Loyola was a Spanish nobleman badly wounded in war, lying with a shattered leg in hospital for months. During that time he had visions and a change of heart religiously, he became a devout Catholic, believing his life's calling was to stop the spread of Protestantism. He believed doing so meant fighting in a very different way than other armies, you might almost call his followers "the Salvation Army of Rome." He went to Paris, gathered around him six noblemen and some noble ladies, and started the Society of Jesus, popularly known as the Jesuits. Loyola's goal was to keep Europe for Rome and stop the Protestant flood, and frankly, he largely achieved it.

He gathered hundreds of people and subjected them to the most rigorous military-style discipline imaginable, set down in a book called the Spiritual Exercises, 25 days of fasting, seeking visions, and much else. By the end you're ready to be a follower of Ignatius Loyola. What's more, they were prepared to use fair means and foul, provided you kept someone for Rome, you could use whatever means you thought necessary, which is why the English word "Jesuitry" carries a negative sense. One of them, Francis Xavier, converted 700,000 people to Rome in India, the East Indies, and Japan.

Second: the Council of Trent. The Pope, recognizing much needed discussion, called a council, the Council of Trent, meeting 25 times between 1545 and 1563. At first the Pope considered inviting the Protestants to sit down and see if the differences could be resolved, but his cardinals persuaded him not to invite them, and they never came. Had they come, history might have been different. But they weren't invited.

Trent declared: Tradition stands alongside Scripture. The Apocrypha must be part of the Bible. Purgatory exists. Indulgences, the invocation of saints, images, and relics are a right and pious practice. And the Pope has absolute authority. This was the first time the Church of Rome had said these things this formally. And, I say frankly but lovingly: not one of those things has changed to this day. And indeed it can't, if you believe councils cannot err, how could these things now be denied? The recent Vatican Council cleaned up and adjusted much, explored much, but not a single thing I've just read out has changed at all. Even when Rome says it will accept the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, it comes with the proviso: provided the Apocrypha is included.

Third: the Inquisition was revived. Torture, imprisonment, and death were used as instruments against Protestants. They wiped out almost every Protestant in Spain, most Protestants in Italy, and elsewhere like Austria. The result is that to this day, Christians as we understand them remain a tiny minority in those lands.

---

The Radicals: one sword only, against both

Now the third group, the one I can be briefest about, yet the one I consider most important. They're called the Radicals because they were the extreme left wing of the Reformation. A recent book I've read calls them "the stepchildren of the Reformation." Who were they, and what did they believe? They were the ones who began asking the most fundamental question of all: who should be doing the reforming? Who should be doing the changing? And they reached a momentous conclusion neither Roman nor Reformer had reached yet: the answer, they said, is that it should have nothing to do with the state at all. That church and state are two entirely different bodies and shouldn't stand too close together. These Radicals believed in a free church, not an established one. They weren't even happy with established Protestantism. They said: you can't make people good through government. You can't impose a religion. It must be freely and voluntarily accepted by people themselves. You can't say everyone in England will be Protestant. You can't say everyone in Spain must be Roman. You can only use one sword: the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. So they were pacifists. They refused to fight in the wars between Protestants and Catholics. They said: we will not fight for the gospel; we shall only use the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.

This was revolutionary. And they were regarded as dangerous revolutionaries, destroying the very thing that held society together, the idea that church and state belonged to each other. So where did they start? They arose in 1522 in the city of Zurich, Switzerland. They called themselves, significantly, "brethren," and the leaders were two men, Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz. Fine Christians, in the very city where Zwingli was getting the city council to impose Protestantism on everybody. They said: that's not the right way to do it. The only right way is to preach the Word, and when people voluntarily accept it, form them into a church. And so they were fighting for what we now call religious liberty.

And now I must tell you something very sad: it wasn't only the Romans who attacked these people, the Reformers did too. There came a day when Martin Luther told the German princes they must use the sword against these Radicals. And there came a day when John Calvin consented to Felix Manz being drowned as an appropriate end for a Baptist, and he was drowned with Calvin's support. Even Zwingli himself, in Zurich, got the council to pass cruel laws against these people. Isn't it interesting? The Romans used the state, so did the Reformers, and both were willing to use the literal sword in the name of Christ. But the Radicals said: we will use no other sword than this one. And so the sword of the Romans and the sword of the Reformers were both turned against them.

But the story doesn't stop there, Pawson also mentions "some fanatics and extremists like the Thomas Münzer of Zwickau" among the Radicals, though he says closer study shows most of them don't deserve that reputation.

Menno Simons, if you've ever come across the Mennonites, you owe those great Christians to Menno Simons. Jacob Hutter, if ever you've come across the Hutterites, you owe those to Jacob Hutter. And to my mind, these were the ultimate reformers. It was they who said: we will change everything that is not according to the Word of God, and we will change it ourselves. We will not wait for princes or popes to change it. We will live by the Word of God and follow it, as individuals and as fellowships, to the fullest degree. And this they did.

We are here today because of those Anabaptists. We are free from an established church because their influence and ideas rose up in England in Elizabeth I's time, in a group called the Independents, who said: we want a free church. Because they couldn't find it in England, they set off for America on the Mayflower, to settle there, for all time, the principle of religious liberty, the individual's freedom to follow whatever faith they feel is right. This is our heritage. And this is what they fought and died for.

They had some fanatics and extremists like the Thomas Münzer of Zwickau. But by and large, when you study their story, a story only now being properly written, the research only now coming off the press, you find: only now have people begun to see the true place of the Anabaptists. They fought and died for religious liberty, but they only fought with this, they were accused of being revolutionaries, but so was Jesus Christ. And Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my servants would fight." And that is precisely what the Anabaptists said.

Next Sunday, God willing, I'll take the story into the 17th century, the age when religious liberty came to England, the age when people began to be allowed to follow their own convictions in this land. The age of William Penn. The age of John Bunyan. And the age of many another great servant of God.

---

PHẦN HAI: THẾ KỶ 17, CUỘC CHIẾN GIÀNH TỰ DO THỜ PHƯỢNG

Pawson's next lecture opens with him reading from a Bible printed in 1607, the old English long-s spelling, a translation heavily indebted to William Tyndale's earlier work, reading Paul’s letter to the Philippians in full, because that letter was written from prison, and the 17th century would produce other great writings from prison too, most famously John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

He defines the century plainly: 1600 to 1700. And the difference between the two ends is the whole point of the lecture: in 1600, this congregation would not have been allowed to meet tonight to worship as they are. By 1700, they would. He sets out to show how liberty of worship came to this land, so that for the last 200–300 years people have been able to meet like this, worshipping as they feel they ought, with no one hindering them, dragging them to prison, or executing them for it. And it's in this century that the battle was fought, and finally won.

England, 1600, and the adventure of the King James Bible

At the century's start there were three groups of professing Christians in England. Officially there were no more Roman Catholics, banned by law; if any remained, they were secret sympathizers. Within the Church of England were two groups: Anglicans, who accepted the compromise Queen Elizabeth had worked out, and Puritans, represented by Richard Baxter, who wanted a much purer Church of England, no vestments, no crucifixes, no candles, plain worship, and above all the Word of God at the center rather than ceremony. Baxter, pastor of the parish of Kidderminster, is a good case in point: besides two or three hours of Sunday teaching, he went house to house, giving each family in his parish its own Bible study, that's the secret of his effect on Kidderminster.

Outside the Church of England was a third group: the Independents, also called Separatists, or "Brownists" (after a man named Brown), or Congregationalists, because they believed each congregation should order its own affairs under the Lord. Their slogan: "Reformation without tarrying for any." Meaning: we're not waiting for Parliament or the Church to change, we're pressing ahead and living by the Bible in our own local congregation right now. The poet John Milton is a good case in point for this Congregationalist strand at the start of the century. Many of them paid for it with their lives, Greenwood and Barrow among them.

James VI of Scotland became James I of England. From the start he secretly held to the divine right of kings to rule religion, and the divine right of bishops to rule the church, but he kept that quiet while still only King of Scotland. When he came south, the English expected him to favor the Puritan line. They were quickly shocked. He declared: "presbyteries agree as well with monarchy as God and the devil." His watchword: "no bishop, no king."

In 1604 he called a conference of leading Christians to Hampton Court Palace. There James ridiculed and insulted the Puritans without mercy. You're killjoys, he said, don't like sports on Sundays? I'll make it lawful to have sports and entertainment on Sundays, goading them like that. But there was a Puritan there, a famous Oxford professor named Reynolds, a courteous, saintly gentleman, and all the ridicule and laughter didn't disturb him one bit. He stood his ground. And when James had run out of invective, Dr. Reynolds said: your majesty, I have a suggestion, it's time we had a new English Bible. The suggestion was taken up, almost to James's own surprise, and from the Hampton Court Conference, seven years of hard work followed, producing what we call the King James Version, so named not because he started or carried it out, but because he happened to be king when it was finished and presented to him. We call it the "Authorized Version" because he authorized it. The Bible you've used all your life, used in this country for 350 years, was the result of a Puritan at Hampton Court, born in the year 1611.

That year was momentous for England, something else happened too: the first Baptist church in England was founded in 1611, the same year as the Authorized Version. Sadly, after that conference, James issued a proclamation demanding every clergyman fully conform to the bishops. 1,500 vicars refused to sign, and 300 of them were thrown into jail immediately. It was the first rift in the English church, and from it, vestments and rites and ceremonies, absent since the start of the Reformation, came back, and have stayed ever since.

The Puritan clergy fled to Ireland, where the archbishop at the time was a man called Ussher, a great one for working out dates. If you've ever seen an Authorized Version with "4004 BC" printed at the head of the book of Genesis, something God never wrote into the Bible, you're looking at what Archbishop Ussher put there, having calculated that Adam was born about 9 a.m. on 21 October that year. One English scholar remarked rather dryly that, being a careful scholar, Ussher wouldn't commit himself more precisely than that.

Others who couldn't worship according to conscience fled east, to Holland. There was a group of Independents at a small village called Scrooby, under the faithful pastor John Robinson, meeting as their own congregation. But the local squire brought magistrates to threaten them, and they decided the only way out was to find a boat and cross to Holland. It's a dramatic story: a Dutch boat arranged to meet them near Boston, split into two crossings, one boat with the men, one with the women and children, to avoid detection. The boat with the women and children ran aground in the mud. The men reached the Dutch ship, but then saw English troops appear on shore, firing on the ship, forcing it to pull away, leaving their wives and children behind on the mudflat. Fortunately, a year or two later, the women and children made it out to Holland to reunite with them.

But something was happening in Amsterdam: a group of Christians began studying the question of baptism. Until then, all the Reformers practiced infant baptism as it had been practiced for centuries. But in Amsterdam, a group under a man called Helwis began to look at this, reaching the conclusion that baptism should be for believers only. Having no one qualified to baptize them, two of them agreed: I'll baptize you if you baptize me. Then, unable to find work, they risked returning to London, and in 1611, at Spitalfields, London, the first Baptist church in England was founded.

The king is a mortal man, and not God, therefore hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spiritual Lords over them... Men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it... Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure. Thomas Helwys, "A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity" (1612)

---

The Mayflower, and Charles I: eleven years without a Parliament

Another group of Independents still in the Low Countries realized staying in Europe was simply impractical, unwelcome, no jobs, going hungry. They decided to do something tremendous: come back to England, get hold of a ship, and go to the New World, trying to build in America a free world where people could worship without the state dictating how. They came back and persuaded the owner of the Mayflower to take them, and were called the Pilgrim Fathers. They left Plymouth in 1620, landing at Plymouth in the New World that December. But what a hard experience awaited them, in the first winter, 50% died, from lack of food, cold, lack of medical care. Yet they stayed, and even though they had battles with established Anglican settlements there, the Pilgrim Fathers began something that means America today is entirely free of any state-church relationship, where anybody may worship as they feel they ought.

So under James, some went to Ireland, some to Holland, but in England you had to conform. He was succeeded by Charles I, who was worse than his father. He too believed in the divine right of kings and bishops, and went much further: throwing Puritans into prison, heavy fines, the pillory, cropped ears, slit noses, all this happened under Charles I. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, William Laud, helped Charles I "turn the clock back": the communion table in parish churches was again called the "altar," and people were made to bow to it. Parliament objected, and Charles I simply did without Parliament for eleven years. Can you imagine a king or queen today doing that? I can imagine a Parliament doing without a king or queen for eleven years, but I can't imagine a king saying, no more Parliament.

15,000 Londoners marched on the palace and presented King Charles I with the "Root and Branch Petition", if you've ever heard the phrase "root and branch," this is where it comes from, wanting all "Romish superstition" rooted out. Charles I refused to listen, and within a short time England was at civil war, breaking out in 1642. Parliament fought the king, and it was a religious issue: by and large, the Anglicans fought with the king, the Puritans with Parliament; by and large the north and west were in the king's hands, the south and east in Parliament's, which is why, if you study free churches today, you'll find they still follow that pattern.

One of the greatest fighters for Parliament was John Hampden, there's a statue of him in Aylesbury's market square. Sadly, that leader was killed very early in the war, and Parliament began to lose. They were waiting for a leader, and that leader came in Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell blended them into the New Model Army, under the famous catchphrase: "Trust in God and keep your powder dry." He put new morale into the troops fighting for religious liberty in this land.

During this civil war, at Westminster, a group of clergymen and scholars from Oxford and Cambridge met to try to work out a pattern of church life everyone could accept, the Westminster Assembly of Divines, with a few Scots invited to attend, whose influence, as Scots often do, ran deep. They produced a statement of faith called the Westminster Confession, and to this day it remains the confession not only of the Scots but of most Presbyterians worldwide. You could probably quote one line from it: what is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. Have you heard those words? That was decided at Westminster, during the civil war. But it wasn't generally accepted, the Scots accepted it, the English never did.

Charles I was still around, but was finally brought to London to be beheaded. He was held for a few weeks, or was it days?, in the manor house at Stoke Poges. If you ever get the chance, go there, go into the manor house, and above the fireplace, painted on the plaster wall, is the royal coat of arms of Charles I. To while away the hours and keep his mind off his execution, he painted his own royal coat of arms on the plaster. They've covered it with glass now, but you can still go into the main room at Stoke Poges and see it, before Charles I was beheaded in Whitehall in 1649.

---

Bunyan, "New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large," and the reign of Charles II

Among the soldiers who fought with Oliver Cromwell was a young man, hard-drinking, hard-fighting, hard-swearing, born at a little village called Elstow, just outside Bedford. His name was John Bunyan. (More about him shortly.)

After the civil war, the Presbyterians got control of the Church of England and tried to make everybody Presbyterian. Isn't it funny, when the Anglicans are in control, everybody must be Anglican; when the Presbyterians get it, everybody must be Presbyterian. Which caused someone to say: "New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large." In other words, we've just traded one tyranny for another.

Finally we come to the reign of Charles II, a man about whom one could hardly say things bad enough, for his lack of principle and profligacy. The Scots accepted him first, crowning him at Scone, thinking he'd fight with the Scots and the English Parliament for Presbyterianism, for a purer Puritan Church. The Scots soon regretted their folly. I can't go into the story of the Covenanters, only to say that 17,000 Scottish Covenanters, meeting in secret in the highlands to worship as they felt they ought, suffered under Charles II.

Charles II was secretly sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church, and his ambition, through intrigue, was to bring England back to it. He made a secret treaty with Louis XIV of France to turn the clock back 200 years, to the pre-Reformation days. How did he do it? From 1661, a series of Acts of Parliament turned the clock back. 1662 was the worst, the Act of Uniformity. Not Roman yet, but Anglican, with Charles II and Parliament saying: everybody must be this. In that very year, 1662, nearly 2,000 clergymen left their livings, out into the unknown, with no home or job or anything else, because they refused to conform to the Act of Uniformity. And into the English language came a new word: "nonconformist", and at first, it was a criminal word. One of those turned out at the time was dear old Richard Baxter.

In 1665, another Act came, because these ejected clergymen kept creeping back secretly to meet their old congregations, Parliament passed an Act that no clergyman was allowed within five miles of his former church, called the Five Mile Act. Here's an interesting detail: if you go to Wendover, you'll see the Baptist Church on the right-hand side of the road, a good five minutes' walk outside the village, and you may have wondered why build a church outside a village. The answer is simple: in 1662, the Vicar of Aylesbury was turned out for refusing to conform, but kept creeping back into Aylesbury, holding meetings in kitchens and gardens. Then the Five Mile Act came out. Do you know what he did? He stood in the middle of Aylesbury and started walking out five miles, pacing it out, and five miles brought him to a field, where he started meeting. People walked five miles from Aylesbury, and they put up a place of worship, which is now the Baptist Church of Wendover, exactly five miles out.

In 1673 came the notorious Test Act, Parliament saying there must be neither Roman Catholics nor nonconformists in England, everybody must worship this way. This caused a great deal of suffering for conscience's sake.

---

John Bunyan, George Fox, and William Penn: prisoners of conscience

It was during this period that John Bunyan, now older, converted, converted through overhearing some housewives gossiping in a backyard, became a preacher at Bedford. (Housewives, if you gossip in a backyard, bear in mind: you might produce another John Bunyan, if you're gossiping about the right things, because this hard-drinking, hard-swearing, hard-fighting young man overheard some housewives talking about Jesus in a backyard, and had never heard anything so sweet, and it convicted him of his sin.) He was converted, became a preacher at Bedford, was baptized as a believer, and preached the gospel wherever he could.

John Bunyan was thrown into prison under Charles II, twelve years, with only one break in between, separated from his blind wife and struggling children. But one day in jail he had a dream: he saw a man with a burden on his back, and a man who wanted to be rid of it. He began writing the dream down, and that dream is Pilgrim's Progress. I hope you've read the whole book, in the adult version, not the children's version, the adult version shows you not just what happened to Pilgrim, but what he thought and what he said. And I hope too that someday you'll read another important book by Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, describing his conversion and how he became the preacher he was. I suppose Pilgrim's Progress is the best-known Christian book next to the Bible. He never mentioned the church in it. He never mentioned the sacraments in it. And so it was accepted by Christians of every churchmanship, and to this day has one of the widest appeals of any book ever written in the Christian world.

He died in 1688, buried at Bunhill Fields, which I visited recently. By the end of his life, people called him "Bishop Bunyan", though the one thing he never wanted to be was a bishop. But as he traveled around, as people came to him for help, they said: you have as much right to be called a bishop as those who are. So we're going to call you that. Hence, Bishop Bunyan.

Bunyan's story has an almost exact chronological and thematic mirror on the opposite side of the Christian world, entirely absent from Pawson's account. Patriarch Nikon's liturgical reforms (from 1652) split the Russian Church; the Great Moscow Synod of 1666–67 ratified the reforms and anathematized the old rites, birthing the "Old Believer" schism. Its central figure, Archpriest Avvakum, was imprisoned over a decade, during which he wrote The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, by Himself (1672–75), a prison-written spiritual autobiography of conversion and suffering that Slavists routinely compare to Bunyan's Grace Abounding. Avvakum was burned alive with three companions on 14 April 1682, six years before Bunyan's natural death in 1688. Same century, same theme, state-enforced liturgical uniformity, a prison-written spiritual classic, a movement's founding martyr, at opposite ends of Christendom.

A very different kind of character also suffered during this time: a man called George Fox, who had a very deep spiritual experience in the year 1646. There was something very good about that experience, and something not so good. George Fox discovered, or rather, rediscovered, the power of the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth. He called this experience the "inner light," and he said: it's no use just having Scripture outside you, or even in your head, you need the Holy Spirit inside you too. That was something that needed rediscovering, needed saying. You can have Scripture off pat, but without the Holy Spirit it's dead, not alive.

But, sadly, having rediscovered something good, he then went one step further and said something not so good: that the sure word of prophecy we need today is not the Scriptures but the Holy Spirit alone. From that statement comes the greatest weakness of the movement that followed. He gathered around him a group of like-minded people, called the Society of Friends; others nicknamed them Quakers, because they quaked and trembled before God in their meetings. This has been both their strength and their weakness ever since, their strength, that they believe God can speak inwardly through the Holy Spirit; their weakness, that they reject the sacraments the Lord Jesus meant them to have, being outward things, and also tend to disregard Scripture, relying entirely on inner thoughts.

George Fox was imprisoned for saying that, and at one time there were 4,000 Quakers in prison under the reign of Charles II. If you can imagine what proportion that was, you can understand their suffering, especially when you consider that in prison you got no food unless friends brought it to you, and if all the Quakers were in prison, there'd be nobody left to bring them food.

A young aristocrat said: we will never get freedom in England to worship as we ought, we must go to the New World. His name was William Penn, and Penn lies buried not a mile from this spot, with his family, in the quiet little burial ground of Jordans meeting house. Penn went out to the New World, pressed beyond the frontiers of the coastal colonies, and said: we'll have a state of religious liberty, and it became Pennsylvania, William Penn's colony, where people could be free to worship, following the inner light of the Holy Spirit. He crossed the Atlantic three or four times, but finally died back here, and was buried at Jordans.

But, and here's a thread Pawson himself never connects, even though both figures appear in his own lecture, William Penn had a genuinely close personal relationship with James II (James's father had been friends with Penn's own father). Penn's influence is credited with having "induced the king to issue" the 4 April 1687 Declaration of Indulgence, granting liberty of worship to Catholics and Dissenters alike. In other words, Penn's advocacy for universal toleration directly helped enable James's own Catholic-toleration policy, which then collapsed in the Revolution of 1688.

---

James II, William and Mary, and the state of play in 1700

James II, an avowed Roman Catholic, not in any subtle way like Charles II, but completely openly, said: I'll get you back to Rome if it kills me. To do this he used a man who has gone down in history as brutal, Judge Jeffreys, James II's right-hand man. It was too much for England, and as a result of a popular rising against the king, James II had to flee.

Finally we have that strange pair, William and Mary, we tend to say "King William and Mary", who came to the throne of England together, and a new era of stability and tolerance began, setting the pattern for the rest of English church life, with one exception: Roman Catholics weren't allowed back in this reign, and they'd wait another hundred years. But tolerance was extended to others: in 1689, nonconformists were at least partially recognized, and the persecutions began to cease.

I have here a book, Fox's Book of Martyrs. It was required Sunday reading for children in the time of my great-grandfather. I don't know that I'd dare give it to my own children now, or I'd have their teacher after me for filling their heads with such things. It's the most horrible account of Christian martyrs, from New Testament times through to 1682. I fear the author hoped no more stories of martyrdom would need writing after Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and that the toleration gained by the end of that century would be lasting, with no more martyrs. In a sense, there haven't been any more in England. But across the world, there has not been a period of ten years since Jesus died on the cross when Christians have not died for the faith, and it still goes on somewhere in the world.

So with the Toleration Act, for the first time nonconformists could put up buildings of worship, and in the very next year, Jordans meeting house was erected, you can date that tolerance if you look at the date on Jordans meeting house, just months after the 1689 Toleration Act. A few years later, Amersham Old Town Baptist Church began, and by the end of the century, nonconformists had a thousand places of worship.

So, at the start of this lecture I gave you the state of play in 1600; now let me give you the state of play in 1700. There are now three parties in the Church of England, still here today: High, Broad, and Low. The High party still hankers after Romish practices in worship. The Low party belongs to the few Puritans who managed to stay in somehow, with very simple, unadorned worship, no vestments, no altar, just a table, worshipping much like the Church of Scotland, and doubtful about having bishops at all. Then there's the Broad party, the one I want to leave you thinking about, because it's the start of the 18th-century story.

Let me ask: what did God think about all this? What did the devil think about all this? I have the feeling the devil was laughing up his sleeve at Christians killing each other. I have the feeling he was thrilled that they were physically destroying one another. But when the Toleration Act came, and they allowed each other to worship freely, the devil had to think up a new tactic, and he thought up a most devilish one: instead of destroying Christians physically, he would think up something that would destroy them mentally.

---

The bridge to the 18th century: "queer" ideas from the Continent

Through the 17th century, some very queer ideas had been produced on the Continent, in the name of Christianity. In Sweden there was a scientist called Swedenborg, producing incredible ideas and calling them Christianity, founding the New Jerusalem Church. You may not have come across them, I found more of them in Lancashire. On the Continent was a man called Sosinius, in Italy, saying things like: the Bible is not the word of God, it's helpful, but not simply the word of God as such; and Jesus was not the Son of God, he was simply a great man of God we must imitate; and Jesus didn't die for our sins, he died to give us an example of love. These things were being said, and these ideas were crossing the English Channel.

There were other ideas from a man called Arminius in Holland, who opposed the teaching of Calvin. Ever since, we've had Calvinism and Arminianism, and they came almost to mental blows over this difference. Calvinism emphasized the sovereignty and will of God; Arminianism emphasized the free will of men. And into the Church of England, from the Continent, came a party who really felt that as long as you came to church and worshipped, it didn't much matter whether you held the old beliefs.

Until the end of the 17th century, all the people who disagreed about church order, about bishops, about baptism, agreed about Christian belief and what the gospel was. But now there came into the Church of England, from the Continent, a party who believed you could be much more latitudinarian in your doctrine, in other words, wider, broader in your thinking than the old-fashioned gospel. And this was to kill the Church of England almost dead, by the 1730s, spiritually robbing it of its power and heritage. And that's the story I want to take up next time.

I've told you this story not to give you a history lesson, but because I want you to realize: if we were living in 1700, you and I could not have met here tonight. We were not free to do so. You would have to conform to a set order of service, settled by act of Parliament; you would have to conform to a rigid church government, settled by act of Parliament; and there would be no freedom for you to meet as we do once a month in a church meeting, to decide what the Lord would have us do. Now this liberty is ours. Praise the Lord for that.

There were those who saw that the New Testament demanded a free church in a free state, that religion was a matter of conscience, those who carried this to the New World, those who carried it to the Continent, but above all, those who stayed here and went to prison and fought it out, that you and I might come to Gold Hill Baptist Church this Sunday evening and worship God as our conscience dictates. Thank God for this liberty. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We could lose that liberty again, very easily, as others have lost it. And we need not only to look back into the past, but to praise God that in the future, he can keep us where we ought to be.

I've also told you this story to say this: in spite of all these battles, in spite of all these difficulties, the church of God goes on, and in every generation the Holy Spirit converts men and women and makes them blazing preachers of the gospel, and sends them out. Even in spite of all this, the church was still there. Christians were still there. The gospel was still there. The Bible was still there. For Jesus said: "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

---

PHẦN BA: THẾ KỶ 18, VÒI NƯỚC LẠNH VÀ VÒI NƯỚC NÓNG

The final lecture in this trio opens with Acts 17, Paul and Silas at Thessalonica, accused of "turning the world upside down"; at Berea, where the Jews were "more noble," examining the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul preached was true; then Athens, Paul standing in the Areopagus, preaching about "the unknown God", among the believers there was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus council itself. Pawson lingers on the Bereans to tell his own congregation: that's exactly what he hopes they'll do with what he preaches, go home, check the Scriptures, and if it's not there, don't believe it.

He tells how, just weeks before the 18th century opened, in November 1699, "Master Gulliver" was wrecked on the land of Lilliput, Gulliver's Travels was born, written by Jonathan Swift, an Irishman who tried many times to settle in England, failed, and finally died insane in Dublin. It's not a children's book, it's a savage attack on English society at the start of the 18th century. A few years later, Robinson Crusoe was shipwrecked on his island, and seems much happier there than when he returns to England in 1715. Both books introduce what Pawson wants to say before turning to the church: England was going to pieces. Socially, England was in a bad way. And the question is why?

Pawson sums up the whole evening in a simple image: man was turning on the cold tap, and God was turning on the hot tap, throughout the 18th century. Man turning the cold tap of what we call rationalism, the intellect alone, reason alone. God turning the hot tap of what we call revivalism, calling great men to preach the gospel, raising the temperature of English society. The biggest lesson to draw from the 18th century: a man's beliefs affect his behavior. What a man thinks in his heart, so he will be in his outward life. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he", that might be the text for the whole evening.

---

The cold tap: science, deism, and the "lawgivers of society"

Part of this was the influence of science. Copernicus said the planets revolve around the sun, not the earth. Galileo, with his telescope, confirmed it. Isaac Newton was still discovering the law of gravity through apples. But above all, Francis Bacon and Descartes said: the universe we live in is governed by laws that can't be broken. If an apple comes off a tree, it must fall, that's the law of gravity, unbreakable. This, with one blow, swept out miracle, and swept out a great deal of what happens in the Bible, since much of the Bible seems to run against such natural laws. Bacon went further, and you'd be amazed how modern he sounds, how much we're indebted to him, saying that only what you can prove by observation is true. If you can't prove something scientifically by observation, you needn't believe it; you mustn't accept anything on authority. That was a tremendous step forward, or backward, depending how you look at it. But it's astonishing how a sixth-former today says exactly the same thing: I can't believe it unless you can prove it; I can't believe in God unless you demonstrate him to me. They're just echoing Francis Bacon. And frankly, that idea kills religion dead, because the one thing you cannot prove by observation is the eternal world to which God, the devil, the angels, and everything else religious, belong.

So where does God fit in? Did people stop believing in God in the 18th century? No. But they switched from a belief we call theism to a belief we call deism, one step on the way to atheism. Theism is the belief that God created the world and controls it. Deism is the belief that God created it but can't control it. Atheism is the belief he didn't even create it, because there's no God to create it. One of the most popular images, propounded by a bishop: the world is like a gigantic clock. Once you've wound it up, there's nothing more you can do, it just runs according to its own laws. So they said: God made the world, wound it up, and now can only sit back. There is a God, but he can't do anything. And that's really a dead sort of God. You wouldn't pray much to a God who couldn't do anything, would you? And this was killing prayer, killing belief in a living God still in control of everything.

This kind of thinking, that God is far away and can't do much, crept right into the churches, under different names in different places: in the Church of England they called it latitudinarianism; in the Church of Scotland, moderatism; and among the Baptists, unitarianism, because one belief was that God couldn't possibly have "come down" at Christmas, and Jesus must simply have been a great man. And so watered-down faith began to disappear. Every denomination suffered from this thinking. Some Baptist churches closed because of it. Worship became very formal, very dead. You came only to pay respects to the deity who made it all, but you were never to expect him to do anything. God couldn't. He was outside what he had made.

It wasn't only "laws of nature" being discovered. Other writers thought they'd discovered "laws of human nature," laws of society. John Locke wrote about the laws governing society. Voltaire, living in "the age of Louis XIV" in France. Rousseau, another Frenchman, with his famous saying: "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Then there was the Scotsman Adam Smith, writing a very big book on balancing imports and exports and the division of labor, strangely modern, I wonder if today's chancellors have read Adam Smith. And Mary Wollstonecraft, fighting for the rights, you might almost say divine rights, of women, writing a book advocating women voting, playgrounds at schools, co-education, revolutionary in its day. All these were trying to discover laws of society, laws of human nature. But they were all saying the same thing: the laws of society, like the laws of nature, don't need God. The natural world runs without God. The social world, human nature, runs without him too. And it was from these ideas that things like the French Revolution came, Rousseau has been called the father of the French Revolution.

The church tried to fight back with the weapons of the intellect. Two bishops, Bishop Butler and Bishop Barclay, really tried to preach intellectually, matching the evidence against God with evidence for God, making the whole thing something of an intellectual argument. Quite frankly, that never yet did much good. You can never argue a person into spiritual life. You might remove some of their questions and barriers. But you'll never build a church on intellectual argument alone.

---

England drifts, while America and France revolt

Jefferson wrote Locke's philosophy straight into the Declaration of Independence. Read Locke's book first, then the Declaration, and you'll see where America got it from. In France, July 1789, all these new ideas burst into the French Revolution. Now reason was to be the goddess. And on the very altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, they enthroned a goddess of reason, declared no more God, and the reign of terror began. Later, Napoleon entered Rome, confiscated the papal territories, and brought the Pope as a prisoner to France. That was the kind of turmoil going on. In America, the revolt of the colonies and the Declaration of Independence. In France, the French Revolution. And in England, with all this turmoil of ideas, what happened? The answer: precious little. England just drifted downward, while everywhere else had a revolution. Again, quite typically English, we just let things slide.

So England drifted rather than revolted. Religiously, there was a hearty dislike of what was called "enthusiasm", nowadays we'd say emotionalism. People went to church and said: no emotionalism in church, no fanaticism, just a nice intellectual talk from the vicar. But no getting excited. No getting worked up. No showing any feeling. And of course that's not a balanced religion. Lethargy and apathy crept into the congregations. A century earlier they went to fight for religion. Now they just sat in a pew and yawned. Religion, I'm afraid, became very much the religion of the upper class. The working man was poor, ignorant, and simply not welcome.

Bishop Butler was offered the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and is said to have replied: "it's too late for me to save a dying church. It will have disappeared in my lifetime." That was the state of the church. And where the spiritual state is like that, the moral state will be worse. If you wanted an afternoon's entertainment in the 18th century, you got your family together and went up to Tyburn, now Hyde Park Corner, near Marble Arch, and took a picnic, to watch people being hanged. It was great fun. Children. Women. Men. You could be hanged for stealing five shillings' worth of goods, or a single shilling. If you wanted other amusement, you went to a cockpit and watched cock-fighting. And of course the quickest way out of London and the other industrial areas was the public house, drink was so cheap the signs hanging in the lanes simply read: "Drunk for a penny. Dead drunk for tuppence. Free straw to lie on." This led to the most appalling abuses, heavy drinking, heavy gambling, heavy fighting. If you want to study English social life in this cold, intellectual religious period, read Fielding's Tom Jones, or study Hogarth's cartoons, The Rake's Progress, or read Boswell's Life of Johnson. One contemporary writer summed it all up: "Decay in religion, licentiousness in morals, public corruption, and profaneness of language." That was England, in the first 30–40 years of the 18th century. No wonder a man was busy writing Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon. I'm surprised he didn't go on to write Decline and Fall of English Society, he easily could have.

So what stopped England from having a revolution? Why didn't the poor rise up? Why wasn't there a complete turning-upside-down of society, as in America, as in France? The answer: during this century, God turned on the hot tap.

---

The hot tap: Wales, America, and Count von Zinzendorf

God's method is always this: to choose a personality, and fill that personality with his Holy Spirit, enabling them to do it. This has always been God's method. It's very rarely that God has worked through committees or larger groups of people. His method is always to raise up men to do the job, and it always will be, as long as those men remain in the relationship to Christ they should be.

For those of you from Wales, he raised up Howell Harris, Griffith Jones, and Daniel Rowlands, who changed the course of Welsh history. For those from America, it was in this century that he raised up Theodore Frelinghuysen, and through him influenced the great preacher Jonathan Edwards, and that great man of prayer David Brainerd, who went as a missionary to the Indians and died after only three years, but changed American history. It's estimated that in the 18th century, in America alone, 300,000 people were led to the Lord, considering the population then, that's quite a revival, with camp meetings flourishing at the end of the century.

But the two countries I want to talk about are first Germany, then England, because they're closely related. I want to tell you about a man God raised up in Germany, called Count von Zinzendorf. (You have some of his hymns in the hymn book here, "Jesus, Still Lead On" and "Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness.") Zinzendorf had a huge estate in Saxony called Herrnhut. And to that estate one day came some beggars, worshippers of the Lord Jesus Christ, remnants of the church of John Huss in Bohemia. Even centuries after Huss, they still met simply around the Lord Jesus Christ. They'd been turned out of their own country, and they came to von Zinzendorf. He'd been converted not long before, and he said: come in, you can have my estate, build houses here, I'll protect you, and together we'll build a Christian community. And they did, calling it the Moravian Community, and they became the first real missionary society in Europe. There had been other attempts at missionary work before, but that little group of Moravians sent out no fewer than 25 missionaries in the first few years of their life, taking the gospel of Christ to the utmost parts of the earth.

Von Zinzendorf once said: "I have only one passion. It is Jesus." And that sums up his life. No wonder he was the great man he was.

---

George Whitefield: "rope of sand"

The first man God laid his hand on was a young man working his way through Oxford by cleaning the shoes of the other students. His name: George Whitefield. God laid his hand on that young man, going places, hard-working, disciplined. But God said: George Whitefield, you're a sinner and you need salvation. Through a great spiritual struggle, George Whitefield came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. He began to preach. A year after his conversion he was preaching, I forget where, but I remember his first text: Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." He preached it at Gloucester. And when he preached that sermon, he said something that mortally offended most of his hearers: "I do not care if you've been baptized. I do not care if you've had water on your forehead in the name of the Trinity." He said: "You must be born again." He said: "I've got the new birth. And I want you to have it." When he finished preaching, 17 people were born again. That was the beginning. He was soon preaching to 30,000 and 40,000 at once. He not only traveled England, he went to Scotland, preaching to 40,000 in Edinburgh, then crossed the Atlantic thirteen times, dying in America at the end. But he preached everywhere he could go. George Whitefield was one of the greatest servants of God England has seen.

The tragedy is that most of his work disappeared after his death, because he never organized follow-up for his converts. The only person who really urged him to start churches, in a sense, was the Countess of Huntingdon. If you've ever seen a church with "The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion" over the door, you're looking back to the days of that lady, who supported George Whitefield. But when he died, he said: "I feel my work has been a rope of sand, and will disappear very quickly." And in fact it has. You don't hear of any Whitefieldites today. You don't hear of any groups bearing his name today, except that Countess of Huntingdon connexion, and one or two other small groups. But nevertheless, he led thousands to the Lord. I don't mean they fell away, I mean they found their way into other churches.

Though not the first in order if we look at the date of his birth, I place him first in the order of merit, without any hesitation. Of all the spiritual heroes of a hundred years ago, none saw so soon as Whitefield what the times demanded... There are Lutherans and Wesleyans in the present day, but there are no Whitefieldites. The great evangelist of last century was a simple, guileless man, who lived for one thing only, and that was to preach Christ., J. C. Ryle, "Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century" (1885)

---

John Wesley: "a brand plucked from the burning"

The other great man I must tell you about, and here I'll take more time, because he deserves it, is John Wesley, one of my great heroes. The story begins in a little village in Lincolnshire, where my wife and I were married, Epworth. We were married in the Wesley Memorial Church. And in that rectory, something happened, something new was born.

John Wesley's grandparents had been Independents, which explains a great deal. But his parents were both Anglican by conviction, serving as vicar and vicar's wife of that little town of Epworth. Samuel Wesley, the father, was quite an amazing man, a bit of a poet, spending most of his years writing a poem on Job that was never really popular, but he passed on to his sons a poetic gift. But the mother was the truly amazing one: old Susanna Wesley. She had 19 children, trained them not to cry after they were a year old, and when they turned five, taught them to read, by the end of their first week, they could read the book of Genesis. How much they understood, I don't know, and how she did it, I don't know, no initial training alphabet, none of your modern toys to help. She gave one hour a week to each child, to help them grow spiritually. And when you study the life of Susanna Wesley, you've studied the beginning of Methodism, for that's what was to come.

When John, or "Jackie" as she called him, was seven years old, the rectory caught fire. They got all the children out, bar one, Jackie, little John. Those who've seen the film will remember the dramatic moment when they saw him at the upstairs window, and how the villagers climbed on each other's backs to rescue him. She clutched him to her bosom and said: you're a brand plucked from the burning. And from then she believed John would be her greatest son. And so he was.

He went to Charterhouse School, then Oxford, joining his brother Charles. There they formed what they called the Holy Club, and my, it offended everybody else too, as such a name might suggest. They got up at four in the morning to pray, did their studies as ordinary students during the day, then visited the jail, and ran a dispensary for the sick. And they were trying desperately to save themselves by being good. One member of the Holy Club was George Whitefield, that's where their paths crossed. This little group of students were desperately trying to get to heaven by being good. They still hadn't learned how you become a Christian. They were so methodical in the way they got up, and went to the jail, and did this and that, keeping accounts of it all, that other students stopped calling them the Holy Club and gave them a nickname: Methodists. It was a term of abuse. But the nickname stuck, and has stuck to this very day.

The time came when John felt he still wasn't doing enough for God, so he offered for the ministry, as his father had before him, as his brother had before him. John and Charles were ordained by the Archbishop of Canterbury, priests of the Church of England, and still not Christians. And because they knew this in their hearts, they felt they weren't doing enough for God, so they volunteered as missionaries to Georgia, to the Red Indians, thinking: surely if you go as a missionary, you get saved. And they went out to save their own souls. Could you get that far without being a Christian? Of course you can. And they did. They were not only priests, they were missionaries. And they hadn't saved their own souls, desperately trying to.

On the way out, in the middle of the Atlantic, they struck a storm. Everyone panicked, threw things overboard to lighten the ship, thought the end had come. But in the middle of the ship were a group of people, quiet, calm, praying. Moravian refugees, from Hanhut, who knew Count von Zinzendorf. John Wesley went up to them afterward, in his clergyman's garb: why weren't you afraid? They said: why should we be? And one of them began asking about his soul: do you know that Jesus is your savior? This clergyman, John Wesley, replied: I know he is the savior of the world. But do you know that he is your savior? Wesley said yes. But in his diary that night he admitted it was a lie, writing: I go to Georgia to save my own soul. How can I save the souls of the Indians? He came back to London after three miserable years of failure, wondering what to do. His brother came back too, an equal failure.

But praise God, God had someone waiting for them in London: a man called Peter Böhler (Pawson pronounces it "Peter Berler"), another Moravian, from Count Zinzendorf. Peter Böhler got hold of them, talked to them. And there was one never-to-be-forgotten Sunday: John Wesley went to St Paul's Cathedral to worship that morning. Reading his Bible that morning, he opened it and read: "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." And that night he went to a little meeting of the Moravian Germans on Aldersgate Street. (There's a Barclays Bank there now, but they've put a plaque marking where it happened.) In Aldersgate Street, on 24 May 1738, he went to the meeting, and they read aloud Luther's preface to Romans. (I wonder how many people today would sit through a theological preface being read aloud for hours in church.) But when the clock struck a quarter to nine that night, John Wesley says this: "I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ, that he had saved me from my sins, even mine, saved me from the law of sin and death." And an assurance was given him in that moment that he really was a forgiven sinner.

Here was a man who'd been a failed missionary, an ordained priest of the Church of England, who'd done so much good for other people, and yet had never known his own sins forgiven. That's what happens when you try to save yourself, because you're putting your trust in what you do instead of what Christ does. And this was the one thing he'd never learned.

Soon after, he went to Germany to visit von Zinzendorf, coming back with many hymns which he translated into English. But he came back wanting to preach the gospel. Preach he did, but the pulpits closed to him. Every time he preached in a Church of England building, they told him afterward: that's your first and last visit here. And so he finally reached a point where he couldn't preach at all. Then George Whitefield said to him: John, will you come and preach in the open air? John Wesley thought it the most dreadful thing in the world, an ordained clergyman not preaching from a pulpit. But then he remembered that Christ himself preached the Sermon on the Mount. And he said: if Christ could preach on a mountain, so can I. He went down to Kingswood, outside Bristol, to the miners, and preached. As he preached, he describes in his journal how the tears made "little white rivers down their black cheeks." John Wesley realized God was calling him to the same ministry as George Whitefield, who was now leaving for America. He took up the threads of Whitefield's preaching. That was April 1739, when he began open-air preaching.

He met opposition, dragged by the hair through the streets at times, as in the Wednesbury riots. But in 50 years he traveled a quarter of a million miles on horseback, with a Bible in his hand and a horse between his knees. He'd ride into a village and preach, and this is how he preached: he'd begin with the Ten Commandments, preaching the law, the law by which every man and woman will be judged, and he'd go on preaching the law for days, until people began to look unhappy, began to look troubled. Then, when he realized they were beginning to feel themselves sinners, he says in his diary: "I began to mix a bit of the love of God with the law of God." And a bit more. And a bit more. Until finally I was preaching the gospel of the love of God. Wesley discovered: you cannot preach the love of God until you preach the law. There's no point preaching a Savior to those who never felt their own misery. "What comfort can a Savior bring to those who never felt their woe?", that was written all over his ministry.

His three centers were London, Bristol, Newcastle, and all across that triangle you'll find places Wesley preached. His last sermon was preached at Leatherhead, Surrey. He preached on the principle, as he said, that "the world is my parish", and there may be some truth that he was helped in his travels by an unhappy marriage, keeping him on the move. That was the one real shadow over his life, though many are grateful for it, since it kept him traveling. He traveled and traveled, preached and preached, seven times a day was normal. He didn't only preach, he wrote and published books and pamphlets. He opened schools and orphanages, dispensaries. He was the first to use electric treatment for rheumatism, with a machine you can still see at his house on City Road today, and they've discovered it produces enough electricity to kill a man, but he used it for rheumatism. He was the most varied man, but obviously, he couldn't do it all himself.

The trouble was he had few clergy to work with him. So his mother came up with an idea: what about unordained preachers? Local lay preachers, who wouldn't travel everywhere as he did, but preach locally? One of the very first team of six was John Pawson, and his wife, Frances Pawson, was one of the leading Methodist women of that day. (I suppose our tribal association goes back to that.) With a team like that, John Wesley's reply to his mother was: give me a hundred such men, we're setting them on fire. And they did. When he died, there were 80,000 people meeting in fellowship as a result of his travels.

He didn't do what George Whitefield did, or rather, he did what Whitefield didn't do: when they were converted, he built them into fellowships, largely because the local churches wouldn't have them. He called these not "churches" but "societies," Methodist societies, giving them class leaders whose job it was to lead them spiritually. Then he had, we could say, so many societies in a district, and he called that district a "circuit", because a local preacher could go around it on horseback once a month and preach in every place. So he built horse circuits the local preachers traveled around. This kind of machinery is still used today, though I think it's ill-adapted to the 20th century, but for horseback, it was a very good idea, ideal organization for the setting he was in.

Bear in mind, all this time, John Wesley was a Church of England clergyman. What did they think about him? I'm afraid they thought very badly of him, especially when he ordained ministers for America. And though he never left the Church of England, it was quite obvious that as soon as he died, the Methodist societies would become Methodist churches. And this they did. The split came as soon as he died. But I think John Wesley was to blame, or at least was the man who did all that needed to be done to bring about the separation. I like the remark of someone who said: John Wesley was like a man rowing a boat. He kept his face towards the Church of England, but every pull of his oars took him further from it. That's precisely what he did. And so we're left at the end of the 18th century with a very large group of Methodists, in addition to the Anglicans, in addition to the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists, the Baptists and the Friends. And by century's end, Roman Catholics were allowed back in too. We're beginning to get the kind of picture we live in.

---

Charles Simeon, and five results of the Revival

Now let me finally look at one other great man of this century, right at the end of it. In 1799 (as Pawson tells it), there came a young, dissolute student to Cambridge, by the name Charles Simeon, hunting, shooting, fishing, a gay young man. When he came to Cambridge, he came face to face with his own life, went through a spiritual struggle, and out of it came to a sense of forgiveness. As he put it: "I laid my sins on the head of Jesus." He was shortly ordained to the ministry, and at the early age of 23, went as vicar to Holy Trinity Church, where it was my privilege to preach a month ago. In the vestry, you can see his teapot, his umbrella, pictures of him, Charles Simeon. He preached, and the church was thronged, with a tremendous influence on the students. It was from his congregation that that young man, Henry Martyn, went out to die in Persia as one of the greatest missionaries there's ever been. Charles Simeon must be put in the great list of heroes of this century.

Now let me finally list some of the practical things that came out of this. I know exactly the kind of thing people say, and they still say it: what's the point of all this gospel preaching and hymn singing? What we need is people who get on and make the world a better place. All this hot gospeling and ranting doesn't do anybody any good. May I say the 18th century gives the lie to that, let me give you five results, very simply.

The first, one the world won't appreciate, but which Christians have appreciated ever since: the century burst into song. I've mentioned Isaac Watts, think of his famous hymns: "I'll Praise My Maker," "O God, Our Help in Ages Past," "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," "Jesus Shall Reign Where'er the Sun." What about Philip Doddridge? "Hark the Glad Sound, the Saviour Comes," "O God of Bethel." What about Cowper? "God Moves in a Mysterious Way," "There Is a Fountain Filled with Blood." What about Newton? "How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds," "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken." And above all, Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley wrote 6,000 hymns, for every conceivable occasion. He'd write them on horseback, arrive at a house and say: don't speak to me, give me a pen and paper, quick. And out would come a hymn. We'll finish this service with one he wrote when he was one year old spiritually, on the anniversary of his conversion, when Peter Böhler, the Moravian German, said to Charles Wesley: if I had a thousand tongues, I'd want to sing the praise of Christ. And down it came: "Oh, for a Thousand Tongues to Sing My Great Redeemer's Praise." Among his thousands of others, remember "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing," "And Can It Be," "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling," "Jesus, Lover of My Soul," and "Rejoice, the Lord Is King."

In most hymn books, you'll find more hymns by Charles Wesley than any other writer, with Isaac Watts a close second. And the last hymn writer Pawson wants to mention, Montgomery, has one they'd sing at communion that day as one of the devotional hymns.

Second, Sunday schools. If I asked you who started Sunday schools, I wonder what you'd say. If you know anything, you'd probably say Robert Raikes in Gloucester. And I tell you, you're wrong. Sunday schools were started by Hannah Ball in High Wycombe, a Methodist lady who lies buried in Stokin Church graveyard. I took my father to see her grave a few weeks ago. Hannah Ball started Sunday schools in a disused furniture factory in High Wycombe, as the result of correspondence with John Wesley. And it was Hannah Ball who suggested to Robert Raikes: why don't you do the same? And the extraordinary thing is there's a statue of Robert Raikes in Gloucester that says "founder of Sunday schools." Well, he copied the idea from a woman. That's one for the fairer sex.

Third, social righteousness. When people get converted, they put society right. Poor relief began. Dispensaries distributing free medicine began. Orphanages began. Schools began. Prison reform, John Howard's work in prison reform goes directly back to the 18th-century revival. And above all, the outstanding example: William Wilberforce and his fight against slavery. The last letter John Wesley ever wrote was to William Wilberforce, urging him to complete the fight. If you ever go to Kingston-upon-Hull, go to the William Wilberforce Museum, that too came out of the revival.

Fourth, the tremendous spread of good literature. The Religious Tract Society was a direct result. So was the British and Foreign Bible Society. So were the commentaries of the great Bible teacher Thomas Scott.

And the final one, with which I close: missionary societies began, and the influence of Britain on the world for good spread. There had been some earlier attempts at missionary work, but it was at the end of the 18th century, as a result of that rising temperature, that it really got going. It was in 1792, let me get the date right, that the Baptist Missionary Society was formed. It was a Baptist who really set it going, a cobbler from Northampton, constructing a globe of the world out of offcuts of leather, praying for that world, particularly for India. That Northampton cobbler, converted, encouraged to preach in the Baptist churches of Northamptonshire, met with a group of others one day in Kettering in 1792, took a collection, the famous 13 pounds, two shillings and sixpence, quite a lot in those days, and started the Baptist Missionary Society. A year later they were on their way to India, beginning the great missionary work that followed. That was 1792. Three years later, 1795, the Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, not to be outdone, got together and started the London Missionary Society (LMS), which sent out Morrison to China, Livingstone to Africa, and many other famous missionaries. In 1796, not to be left behind, the Methodists founded the General Methodist Missionary Society. In 1799, the Anglicans decided to have one of their own, and the Church Missionary Society was started. And it was just in this period that the British and Foreign Bible Society began, all at the end of the century. This was the direct result of the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century. Who says that hot gospeling has no results? Who says the world isn't changed because people get excited about the Lord?

---

Closing: "do it again, Lord"

The one lesson I want to draw out of the whole century, for tonight, is this: what a man believes will affect his behavior. Cold intellectualism, bad morals; hot gospel, and all this follows. Somebody has said that the early Methodists were like a cluster of chaste snowdrops growing on a foul rubbish heap. If you want to understand the Methodist emphasis on not drinking or gambling, you must understand the tradition goes back to the reality of the 18th century, they had to insist on it to get a man anywhere near the Lord. But they fought for it, and they cleaned England up.

A historian in France has said that if you want to understand why the French Revolution, and the enthronement of reason, and the anarchy that followed, did not spread to England, you must study the life of the Reverend John Wesley. That's an amazing tribute. God had his answer. Where man's cold reason, saying you've got to prove everything before you believe it, was killing religion dead, and when you kill religion, you kill morals, God raised up men who pointed to revelation, who pointed to a God giving us knowledge that science can neither prove nor disprove, and preached a gospel of supernatural miracle and a living God who could step in and change a life, and change a society. That neither nature nor human nature was governed by blind laws, but that both were governed by God, and that God could turn both to his eternal purposes.

That's the message I wanted to bring you tonight. Great men of God were warmed up again, and brought the gospel of Jesus Christ to this land. And we still benefit from the effects of that revival, 200 years and more later.

Closing prayer. O God our Father, there is one prayer in all our hearts. Do it again, Lord. You are still the same God. Your arm is not shortened that you are not able to save today. We pray that in the decline of our society, with things on every hand that disturb us, with the revival even of that immoral literature of the 18th century again on the screen, with all this, Lord, do it again. Raise up men who will be fearless to preach Christ. Raise up such an army of evangelists, and men and women on fire for the Lord, that this country again may resound to the ring of the gospel, and we may see again an influence go out from this nation for good, in the whole of the rest of the world. O God, you have blessed us greatly in the past, but we cannot live in the past. We must live now, and we pray that in our day and generation we too may discover the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus, and then go out to tell others of the love that can forgive them. Amen.

---

Three centuries, three lectures, one continuous story: every time the Church was captured by the state, by German princes, by the Zurich council, by the English Parliament, the result was always war, prison, or a spiritual life gone cold. And every time, there were those who refused to let it happen: Anabaptists drowned for believing in voluntary baptism; Helwys dying in Newgate prison for writing the king to demand liberty of conscience for "heretics, Turks, and Jews"; Bunyan writing Pilgrim's Progress in a cell; Wesley riding a quarter of a million miles to carry the gospel to places the established pulpits had shut against him. By the close of the 18th century, the price of those three centuries had purchased what Scripture calls liberty of conscience, a freedom whose price, as Pawson repeats throughout, "is eternal vigilance," and one that can be lost as easily as it was once lost.

Part 5 of this series, God willing, will carry the story into the 19th century: from the revival that spread after Wesley and Whitefield, through the social and theological upheavals that would shape the Church heading into the 20th century.