管制性原則是誰發現的？
Who Discovered the Regulative Principle?
作者：Glen Clary 誠之譯自：
https://reformedforum.org/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/
https://yimawusi.net/2022/12/13/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/
 
大多數研究宗教改革的學生都承認，馬丁·路德發現了（更準確地說，是重新發現了）因信稱義的教義，而烏里希·慈運理（Ulrich Zwingli）則發現了主的晚餐的象徵性解釋。至少可以說，這些改教家普及了這些教義。
Most students of the Reformation recognize that Martin Luther discovered (more accurately re-discovered) the doctrine of justification by faith alone and that Ulrich Zwingli discovered the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. At least, these Reformers popularized those doctrines.
 
然而，是誰發現了崇拜的管制性原則（regulative principle；或譯為“規範性原則”）呢？不，不是約翰·加爾文或約翰·諾克斯。它實際上是一位重洗派發現的。令人吃驚吧!
But who discovered the regulative principle of worship? No, it wasn’t John Calvin or John Knox. It was actually an Anabaptist. Surprise!
 
在宗教改革時期，我發現最早關於敬拜管制原則的聲明是在康拉德·格雷貝爾（Conrad Grebel；蘇黎世重洗派的領袖）於1524年9月5日寫給多馬·閔采爾（Thomas Müntzer）的一封信中[注1] 。
The earliest statement of the regulative principle of worship that I have found in the Reformation era is in a letter written by Conrad Grebel (the ringleader of the Zurich Anabaptists) to Thomas Müntzer on September 5, 1524.[1]
 
格雷貝爾代表蘇黎世重洗派，對閔采爾說道：“沒有明確教導的”，我們就認為是禁止的，就好像上面寫著 “你不該這樣做”。
Speaking on behalf of the Zurich Anabaptists, Grebel said to Müntzer, “That which is not taught by clear instruction” we regard as forbidden, just as if it stood written, “Thou shalt not do this.”
 
這一原則在他的信中被應用在包括嬰兒洗禮在內的各種崇拜事項上。“我們沒有在任何地方讀到使徒們用水給兒童施洗。因此，在沒有具體的神的話和例子的情況下，兒童不應該接受洗禮”。
This principle is applied in the letter to various matters of worship including infant baptism. “Nowhere do we read that the apostles baptized children with water. Consequently, in the absence of a specific Word and example, they should not be baptized.”
 
同樣，在與慈運理關於嬰兒洗禮的爭論中，重洗派認為，“聖經中沒有任何地方命令兒童應該接受洗禮，也沒有任何地方說基督或使徒應當為兒童施洗；”因此，這是一項人為傳統，“應該作為一種濫用而被廢除，就像教皇其他的濫用被廢除了一樣。”
Likewise, in a dispute over infant baptism with Zwingli, the Anabaptists argued, “Children are nowhere in Scripture commanded to be baptized, nor is it anywhere said that Christ or the apostles baptized children;” hence, it is a man-made tradition that “ought to be done away with as an abuse, as other papistical abuses have been done away with.”
 
格雷貝爾顯然是在特土良的著作中發現了管制性原則。
Grebel apparently discovered the regulative principle in the writings of Tertullian.
 
當特土良的作品在1521年出版時，格雷貝爾是最早研究這些作品的人之一。在特土良大約在211年寫的《冠冕》（De Corona）一書中，我們發現了一個關於某個基督教士兵的故事，他拒絕在塞維魯（Severus）皇帝登基時戴上桂冠。這使得該士兵遭到監禁。
When the works of Tertullian were published in 1521, Grebel was one of the first to study them. In De Corona, which Tertullian wrote around the year 211, we find the story of a certain Christian soldier, who refused to wear the laurel crown on the accession of the emperor Severus. This led to the soldier’s imprisonment.
 
一些基督徒爭辯說，這名士兵無事生非，這不過是穿著的問題。“畢竟，”他們提出的理由是，“聖經中並沒有禁止我們戴冠冕。” 另一方面，特土良寫了De Corona，為士兵的行為辯護。特土良寫道：
Some Christians argued that the soldier was making a big deal out of nothing, a mere matter of dress. “After all,” they reasoned, “we are not forbidden in Scripture from wearing a crown.” Tertullian, on the other hand, wrote De Corona in defense of the soldier’s actions.
 
可以肯定的是，人們很容易會問說：“聖經中哪裏禁止我們戴冠冕了？” 但是，你能給我看一段說我們應該戴冠冕的經文嗎？如果人們試圖說我們可以戴王冠，因為聖經沒有禁止，那麼他們就可以反駁說我們不能戴冠冕，因為聖經沒有規定。然而，“凡不禁止的，毫無疑問都是允許的”。相反，我說的是“凡沒有明確允許的，就是禁止的。”［注2］
Tertullian writes,To be sure, it is very easy to ask: “Where in Scripture are we forbidden to wear a crown?” But, can you show me a text that says we should be crowned? If people try to say that we may be crowned because the Scriptures do not forbid it, then they leave themselves open to the retort that we may not be crowned because Scripture does not prescribe it. But “Whatever is not forbidden is, without question, allowed.” Rather do I say: “Whatever is not specifically permitted is forbidden.”[2]
 
這兩種對立的原則——凡不禁止的就是允許的（一方面），凡沒有命令的就是禁止的（另一方面）——重新出現在十六世紀關於崇拜的辯論中。
These two opposing principles—whatever is not forbidden is allowed (on the one hand) and whatever is not commanded is forbidden (on the other)—reappear in the sixteenth century debates on worship.
 
加爾文派和重洗派都採用了後一種原則，但這兩個團體對於什麼是聖經上的保證，以證明禮儀實踐的合理性，卻有不同的標準。
Both the Calvinists and the Anabaptists employed the latter principle, but the two groups had different criteria for what constituted biblical warrant to justify liturgical practice.
 
具體來說，重洗派對聖經根據的理解更為狹隘，因此，對管制性原則的限制也比加爾文派更嚴格。
Specifically, the Anabaptists had a narrower understanding of biblical warrant and, therefore, a more restrictive version of the regulative principle than the Calvinists had.
 
重洗派聲稱，“要核准上帝公共崇拜中的任何一項內容，都必須要有聖經的直接保證，以命令或先例的形式”[注3]因此，他們拒絕嬰兒洗禮，例如，因為聖經中沒有任何明確的命令或例子來證明它的合理性。
“Direct biblical warrant, in the form of precept or precedent, is required to sanction every item included in the public worship of God,” claimed the Anabaptists.[3] Therefore, they rejected infant baptism, for instance, because of the absence in scripture of any clear command or example to justify it.
 
另一方面，加爾文主義者則認識到，聖經的保證不僅可以通過命令或先例來確立，還可以通過合乎聖經的推論，或者如《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》所說，藉著良好和必要的推論[good and necessary consequence.]來推斷。
On the other hand, Calvinists recognized that biblical warrant could be established, not only by precept or precedent, but also by biblical inferences or, as the Westminster Confession says, deductions by good and necessary consequence.
 
正如詹姆斯·班納曼（James Bannerman）所解釋的：
 
《威斯敏斯特信仰標準》[WCF 1:6]和我們教會的教義是，凡聖言中沒有明確規定的，或通過上帝聖言的必然推論規定的，教會行使自己的權力強制執行就是不合法的；對這種權力的限制是，在上帝的公共崇拜中，除了上帝自己明確規定的或暗示的，不得宣佈和強制執行。[注4]
As James Bannerman explains,The doctrine of the Westminster Standards [WCF 1:6] and of our church is, that whatsoever is not expressly appointed in the Word, or appointed by necessary inference from the Word, it is not lawful for the Church to exercise of its own authority to enjoin; the restriction upon that authority being, that it shall announce and enforce nothing in the public worship of God, except what God himself has in explicit terms or by implication instituted.[4]
 
注：
 
[1] 休斯·奧利芬特（Dr. Hughes Oliphant）博士提醒我格雷貝爾與特土良的關聯。
 
[2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120。
 
[3] J. I. Packer對清教徒做了這個評論，但在我們看來，這更能說明激進改革者的情況；見Packer, Among God’s Giants: 清教徒對基督教生活的看法（Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991）326。
 
[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.
As James Bannerman explains,
 
Endnotes
[1] Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old tipped me off to the Grebel-Tertullian connection.
[2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120.
[3] J. I. Packer makes this comment about the Puritans, but in our opinion, it is more descriptive of the Radical Reformers; see Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991) 326.
[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.
 
格倫·J·克拉里博士（Glen J. Clary）是正統長老教會（OPC）的按立牧師。他曾在俄克拉荷馬州、新澤西州和德克薩斯州牧養教會。目前，他在德克薩斯州奧斯汀附近的護理長老會（Providence Presbyterian Church）擔任牧師。克拉里博士為正統長老教會牧師培訓學院（Ministerial Training Institute of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church）教授改革宗崇拜，他經常在會議上就各種禮儀主題發言。
Dr. Glen J. Clary is an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He has pastored churches in Oklahoma, New Jersey and Texas. He is currently serving as pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church near Austin, TX. Dr. Clary teaches Reformed worship for the Ministerial Training Institute of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and he frequently speaks at conferences on various liturgical topics.