作者: 魏司坚（Geerhardus
Vos） 译者/校对者: 凯若思/诚之
一、盟约教义史略
1、盟约思想与改革宗神学
当前的普遍共识是，盟约教义是改革宗特有的教义。它与改革宗神学天生一对儿，某种意义上，它也只能和改革宗神学一对儿。诚然，在十七世纪将近尾声时，好几位路德宗神学家也采用了这个教义，但这显然是模仿来的，在真正的路德宗框架内找不到这个教义。另一方面，在改革宗神学家那里，它获得了最为长足的发展，强有力地主导了神学思想工作，否则后者大有可能走向截然不同的方向。
At present there is general agreement
that the doctrine of the covenants is a peculiarly Reformed doctrine. It
emerged in Reformed theology where it was assured of a permanent place and in a
way that has also remained confined within these bounds. It is true that
towards the end of the seventeenth century this doctrine was taken over by
several Lutheran theologians,2 but this apparently took place by way of
imitation, the doctrine being unknown within the genuine Lutheran framework.
With the Reformed theologians, on the other hand, its emergence occurs in the
period of richest development. With full force it lays hold of theological
thinking, which in many cases it bends in a distinctive direction.
最后一点导致一种看法，认为盟约教义是某种新事物，它虽然确实成长于改革宗神学土壤，却首先出现在柯塞尤斯（Cocceius）及其学派那里。因此可以说，柯塞尤斯主义（Cocceianism）与盟约神学是一回事。假如这是在说，柯塞尤斯是用盟约观念主导其神学体系的第一人，那这话还有几分道理。但是就算如此也不全对。荷兰的克洛彭博格（Cloppenburg）和格里乌斯·斯内卡努斯（Gellius
Snecanus）此前已经提出了一种盟约神学，德国的奥利维亚努斯（Olevianus）也是。柯塞尤斯的创新并不在于盟约神学，而是基于盟约理念，为救赎的展开施行所得出的历史性结论。此结论一出，反对柯塞尤斯主义的争议就开始了。
The last-mentioned phenomenon has
caused some to be of the opinion that the doctrine of the covenant was
something new which did indeed grow up in Reformed soil, but which nevertheless
first came to light in Cocceius and his school. Cocceianism and covenant
theology would then amount to the same thing. If that is taken to mean that
Cocceius was the first to make the covenant idea the dominant concept of his
system, then there is some truth to this opinion. Yet even then it cannot be fully
agreed with. Cloppenburg and Gellius Snecanus3 had already come up with a
covenant theology in the Netherlands, and the same can be said of Olevianus in
Germany. What was new in Cocceius was not his covenant theology as such, but
rather the historical conclusions for the economy of redemption which he drew
from the covenant concept. When these conclusions became apparent, the struggle
against Cocceianism was on.
若不单看盟约神学，而是关注盟约观念本身，那么我们还可以回溯到更早。很多改革宗神学家在他们的体系中都有关于盟约（covenant）或遗命（testaments）的论题。提尔卡修斯（Trelcatius）父子、尤尼乌斯（Junius）、葛马乌斯（Gomarus）等人都在此意义上教导过盟约。对他们来说，盟约理念更多是从属性的，所以他们不能被称为——就这个词后来的含义而言——盟约主义者（federalists）。
If we are looking only for the
covenant concept itself, rather than for a covenant theology, we can go back a
lot further. Many Reformed theologians had in their systems a locus on the
covenant or on the testaments. Trelcatius, father and son, Junius, Gomarus, and
others taught the covenant in this sense. With them the concept remained rather
subordinate, so that they cannot be called federalists in the later sense of
the term.
然而，特别是在德国，盟约教义找到了发展的肥沃土壤。不仅海德堡神学家们，还有其他一些人也与之有特殊关联。这导致有人认为，我们其实是在面对一种地地道道的德国现象。盟约理念被看做是一种原汁原味的趋势（这种趋势被一些人称为“德国改革主义学派”）的特色之一。它被认为并非源自瑞士宗教改革和加尔文主义，而是传承自梅兰希顿在Augustana（《奥斯堡信条》及其《辩护》）中所表述的老日耳曼更正主义（old German
Protestantism）。与其说是梅兰希顿后来改变了立场或离开了最初的原则，不如说是后来的路德宗神学背叛了原初的纯正信仰。德国的改革宗传统从变质的路德宗手中拯救了原本的更正教真理。这样一来，盟约教义就该归属于德国更正教而非改革宗。或者说，我们不应在日内瓦寻找真正的改革宗立场，而应该在德国人那里。梅兰希顿而非加尔文，才是真正的领头人。
However, it was especially in Germany
that the doctrine of the covenant found fruitful soil for development. Not only
the Heidelberg theologians but others as well had a special liking for it. This
has given rise to the opinion that we are here dealing with an indigenous
German phenomenon. The covenant idea is regarded as one of the features of an
entirely original trend which some would like to call the German Reformed
school. It, in turn, is taken as not having originated in connection with the
Swiss Reformation and Calvinism, but rather as being the heir of genuine old
German Protestantism as expressed by Melanchthon in the Augustana. It was not
Melanchthon who later changed his position or departed from his first
principles. It is rather the later Lutheran system that ought to be depicted as
an apostasy from the original purity. The German Reformed tradition saved the
old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the
doctrine of the covenant is supposed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or
rather, we should not be looking for the genuine Reformed position in Geneva,
but with the Germans. Melanchthon, not Calvin, would be the one who took the
lead.
海珀（Heppe）是这种引人瞩目的历史性解释的推崇者之一，也曾极力为此辩护。若真如此，盟约观念就得被当作入侵改革宗领域的怪异想法而被另眼看待。无论在神人合作的土壤（synergistic
soil）里生长的是什么，都不可能结出任何健康的改革宗果实。但几乎不言而喻，这种看法完全站不住脚。海珀本人后来也部分地收回了他的说法。在他的《改革宗教会敬虔主义与神秘主义史》（Geschichte
des Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche, 1879）中，他承认盟约神学源自瑞士而非梅兰希顿，并非兴起于德国，而是自其南边蔓延而来。与其说所谓德国改革宗学派的残余势力只是后来被加尔文主义大潮吞没了，不如说它在非常早期就在德国形成了自己的温床，且以自己的新潮流淹没了自己的阵地。
Heppe was the one who proposed this
remarkable historical construction, and has defended it vigorously. If it were
true, the covenant concept would have to be regarded with suspicion as a
strange intrusion into Reformed territory. Whatever has grown in synergistic
soil cannot bear any healthy Reformed fruits. Yet, it need hardly be said how
completely untenable this representation is. Heppe himself partly retracted it
later. In his Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche
(1879) he admits that the theology of the covenant did not originate with
Melanchthon, but rather in Switzerland. It did not arise in Germany but
penetrated from the south. It was not the case that the Calvinist stream only
later swallowed up the remains of the so-called German Reformed school. Rather,
it formed its own bed in Germany very early on and watered its own area with
its own freshness.
在瑞士，改教家与重洗派有直接冲突。单是这种外部环境就可能导致他们欣赏盟约理念。在为婴儿洗做辩护时，他们援引旧约，并将对圣礼的盟约理解应用在新的时代，慈运理在1525年就是这样做的。自1534年起，由雷奥·尤达（Leo Judae）出版的多种教理问答，内容强烈地受到盟约理念的影响。布林格的《神学布道五十篇》（Decades）于1549-1551年问世，德文译本改名为《家庭读本》（The
Housebook）出版于1558年。这本著作完全以盟约理念为架构。
In Switzerland the Reformers had come
into direct conflict with the Anabaptists. This external circumstance may have
already caused them to appreciate the covenant concept. In their defense of
infant baptism they reached for the Old Testament and applied the federal
understanding of the sacraments to the new dispensation. Zwingli did this in
1525. In the various catechisms that were published by Leo Judae from 1534 on,
the material is strongly penetrated by the covenant idea. The Decades, a series
of sermons by Bullinger, saw the light of day between 1549 and 1551, and in
1558 they appeared in German translation under the modified title, The
Housebook. This work is structured entirely by the covenant idea.
加尔文也时常提及盟约。但他的神学乃建基于三一论，因此盟约概念无法在他的体系中成为主导原则。他是那些将盟约作为独立要点而赋予其从属地位的改革宗神学家的先驱。即使是他最有可能展开阐述盟约理念的《日内瓦要理问答》（Geneva Catechism）也绕过了它。与此同时，苏黎世的神学家们则被视为严格意义上的盟约神学（federal
theology）的先驱，对他们而言，盟约成了基督徒生活实践的主导理念。
In Calvin, too, mention is frequently
made of the covenants. However, his theology was built on the basis of the
Trinity, and therefore the covenant concept could not arise as a dominant
principle in his case. He is the forerunner of such Reformed theologians who
allocate to it a subordinate place as a separate locus. Even his Geneva
Catechism, where one would most expect this idea to be elaborated, bypasses it.
The theologians of Zürich, on the other hand, are to be regarded as the
forerunners of federal theology in the narrower sense insofar as the covenant
for them becomes the dominant idea for the practice of the Christian life.
著名的海德堡神学家，奥利维亚努斯和乌尔辛努斯（Ursinus）二人都与苏黎世神学家关系密切。奥利维亚努斯曾在苏黎世待过一段时间，乌尔辛努斯则去过两次。因此显然，盟约观念对他们的影响应该归功于这种联系。乌尔辛努斯在他的《大要理问答》中应用了盟约观念。奥利维亚努斯讨论盟约的著作有两本，即《使徒标记阐释》（the
Interpretation of the Apostolic Symbol）和《神与选民之间恩典之约的本质》（The Substance of the Covenant of
Grace between God and the Elect），分别出版于1576和1585年。
Both Olevianus and Ursinus, the
well-known Heidelberg theologians, stood in the closest connection to the
Zürich theologians. Olevianus had spent time in Zürich, and Ursinus had even
been there twice. It is, therefore, obvious that the influence which the
covenant concept had on them is to be attributed to this connection. Ursinus
applied it in his Larger Catechism.4 We have two works by Olevianus in which
the covenant is dealt with, namely, the Interpretation of the Apostolic Symbol
and The Substance of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Elect, which saw
the light of day in 1576 and 1585, respectively.
从那时起，盟约主义就不曾从改革宗体系中退出。它在瑞士的穆斯库鲁斯（Musculus, 《教义要点》[Loci
Communes], 1599）、珀拉努斯（Polanus,《系统论述》[Syntagma],
1609）和沃勒比乌斯（Wollebius,《信仰纲要》[Compendium],
1625）；匈牙利的赛格丁（Szegedin,
1585）；德国的皮瑞乌斯（Pierius,
1595）、索尼乌斯（Sohnius,《神学方法》[Methodus
Theologiae]）、艾格琳（Eglin,
1609）和玛尔提努斯（Martinius）的著作中都可见到。而在荷兰，我们也同样可以在尤尼乌斯、葛马乌斯、提尔卡修斯（Trelcatius）父子以及奈尔得努斯（Nerdenus）那里见到盟约主义的主要观点，直至最终，克洛彭博格详尽的体系出现，在其中，盟约理念和严谨的加尔文主义紧密结合在一起。在他之后就是柯塞尤斯。他们之后的盟约神学家（covenant
theologians）的名字就家喻户晓了。
From that time on federalism did not recede from the Reformed system. It appears in Switzerland with Musculus (1599, Loci
Communes), Polanus (Syntagma, 1609), and Wollebius (Compendium, 1625); in
Hungary with Szegedin (1585); in Germany with Pierius (1595), Sohnius (Methodus
Theologiae), Eglin (1609), and Martinius. In the Netherlands we again find the
main ideas of federalism with Junius, Gomarus, both the Trelcatiuses and
Nerdenus, until finally with Cloppenburg a workedout system emerges in which
the covenant idea is wedded to a strict Calvinism. He is followed by Cocceius.
The names of the covenant theologians which follow them are well-known.
2、工作之约与改革宗神学
这个概览足以说明，古老的作品如何能显明出改革宗神学中的盟约教义。但有人也许会说，这只适用于恩典之约（covenant
of grace）。这些历史资料不能证明工作之约（covenant
of works；或译为“行为之约”）也属于古老的改革宗学派。这种看法一再被人提出。十七世纪下半叶，乌拉克（Vlak）和贝克尔（Bekker）公开反对工作之约，理由是这是他们那个时代的新发明，在前辈改革宗神学家那里见不到。这是在假设鲁贝尔图斯（Lubbertus）、马可夫斯基（Makkowski）以及克洛彭博格是其最早的推介者。这就好像柯塞尤斯偶尔被视为一般意义上的盟约观念发现者一样，有些人也想宣称，工作之约的教义是紧接着柯塞尤斯之后的时期被设想出来的。如果这意味着，这个教义早先并没有在每一个细节上都被详尽挖掘，也没有如稍后那样被全然清晰地呈现出来，那么它还有几分道理。但任何人只要有历史意识，可以将思想的最初萌芽和成熟发展区分开来，不坚持某种教义从一开始就是成熟的，都能毫无困难地将工作之约视为古老的改革宗教义。乌尔辛努斯的《大要理问答》中就已经有诸如这样的提问：“神的律法教导你什么？”回答是：“神在创造时与人立的是哪一类的盟约，以及人应当如何守约。”同样地，奥利维亚努斯谈到和恩典之约作对比的律法之约、自然之约、创造之约。确实，有时他是在说摩西之约的颁布，但在其他地方说到的工作之约，再清楚不过应当回到堕落之前去寻找。
This overview is sufficient to show
how the older writings can manifest the covenant doctrine in Reformed theology.
But, one might perhaps say, that only applies to the covenant of grace. These
historical data cannot prove that the covenant of works belonged to the old
Reformed school. This contention has been expressed repeatedly. In the second
half of the seventeenth century Vlak and Bekker declared themselves against the
covenant of works on the grounds that it was an invention of the theologians of
that period and was not encountered in the older Reformed theologians. It was
supposed that Lubbertus, Makkowski, and Cloppenburg were the first to have
introduced it. Just as Cocceius has occasionally been looked upon as the
discoverer of the covenant concept in general, so also some wanted to maintain
that the doctrine of the covenant of works had been thought up in the period
immediately preceding Cocceius. If this is taken to mean that previously this
doctrine had not been worked out in every detail and was not presented in all
clarity as was the case later, then there is some truth to it. But whoever has
the historical sense to be able to separate the mature development of a thought
from its original sprouting and does not insist that a doctrine be mature at birth,
will have no difficulty in recognizing the covenant of works as an old Reformed
doctrine. Already with Ursinus in the Larger Catechism the question: "What
does the divine law teach you?" is answered: "What kind of a covenant
God entered into with man at the creation and how man behaved in the keeping of
that covenant,"5 etc. Likewise, Olevianus speaks of the covenant of law,
the covenant of nature, the covenant of creation in contradistinction to the
covenant of grace. Sometimes, it is true, he means by it the promulgation of
the Mosaic law, but in other places it is no less clear that the actual
covenant of works has to be sought before the fall.
只有在两点上，早期的工作之约教义被其后的发展所取代。第一点是代表性原则（representation
principle）。亚当所有的后代继承了亚当的罪咎，终极原因是他们天生就在其先祖的身内，这种早期的根源论还继续被人持守。此约是和亚当立的，既然所有人都在他里面，这约也就是与所有人立的。后期的理论最终没有（因此并非完全）诉诸自然律，而是诉诸司法性的观念。第二，早期教义未能始终清楚表达的是：工作之约如何与人作为受造物在神面前的天然关系区分开来。后期对这两者则区分得更为清晰。因此，若有人主张工作之约的新颖性，意思是这两点后来变得更为清晰，我们可以同意他。但这不是该教义的全部内容。它的核心位于更深处，而且很早就有了。眼下我们盼望能看到这个核心与改革宗原则有何等密切的关联。不仅如此，我们还必须从中得出一个重要的限制。最早的改革宗神学里有一件事情可以证明，该教义从一开始就是基于承认代表性原则，然后据此线索发展的，那就是灵魂创造说（creationism）。所有人都在亚当身内的观念，并未误导改革宗神学用遗传说（traducianism）来取代创造说。然而，如果改革宗神学确曾彻底严肃地认为，所有人天生就在亚当身内是代代相传的罪咎的终极基础，那自然就会得出遗传说的结论。天然关系是代代相传之罪咎的唯一基础，和灵魂遗传说是密不可分的。改革宗神学家们排除万难，坚持灵魂由神所造，这个事实表明他们怀疑有更深层次的原因，并本能地转向一个有利于后来原罪教义得以发展的方向。
Only in two points was this older
doctrine of the covenant of works superseded by its later development. The
first concerned the representation principle. The old root-idea of all the
descendants of Adam being naturally in their forefather as the ultimate grounds
for inherited guilt was still held to. The covenant was entered into with Adam,
and because all men were in him it was entered into with all. The later theory
did not in the final analysis, and thus not exclusively, appeal to a natural
law of life, but to a judicial idea. Secondly, what did not always come to
clear expression in the old doctrine was the way in which the covenant of works
was to be distinguished from the natural relationship in which man as creature
stands to God. Later on these could be kept apart more distinctly. So whenever
someone contends for the newness of the covenant of works and thereby means
that later there was more light on these two points, then one can agree with
him in this. But that does not exhaust the content of the dogma. Its kernel lay
deeper. This kernel was already there earlier. Presently we hope to see how
intimately this kernel is related to the Reformed principle. Furthermore, we
have to make an important restriction which derives from this. There is a
phenomenon in the oldest Reformed theology which demonstrates how from the
beginning it was based on the recognition of the representation principle and
then moved along that line, so to speak. We mean its creationism. The idea of all
men being in Adam did not lead Reformed theology astray into swapping this
creationism for traducianism. However, if Reformed theology had been completely
serious that the fact of all men being naturally in Adam was the ultimate
ground for inherited guilt, then it would naturally have come to that position.
Natural relationship as the exclusive basis for inherited guilt is inseparable
from traducianism. The fact that the Reformed theologians held to the soul's
creation by God in spite of all the difficulties, indicates how they here
suspected a deeper reason, and instinctively moved in a direction which fits in
with the later development of the doctrine of original sin.
3、盟约教义在英语世界的发展
盟约教义在英语神学中的发展值得特别关注。它表明盟约主义确实是普遍现象，任何以改革宗原则建构神学之处都会出现盟约主义。在这方面，人们曾经泛泛地认为，不列颠神学家只是在追随荷兰的同道。更深入的研究很快就表明，他们不是在模仿，而是有自己独立的发展。米特切尔（Mitchell）在其著作《威斯敏斯特大会》（The
Westminster Assembly, Baird Lecture, 1882）的377页说：“至于有些人宣称源自荷兰的盟约教义，经过仔细查考，我认为我现在有资格说，这个信条所教导的，本质上无不是苏格兰的罗洛克（Rollock）与贺威（Howie），英格兰的卡尔莱特（Cartwright）、普列斯敦（Preston）、帕金斯（Perkins）、埃姆斯（Ames）和巴尔（Ball）在他的两个要理问答中早就教导过的。”事实确实如此。《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》是第一个这样的改革宗信条：它不仅是旁敲侧击地引入盟约的教义而已，而且更将其置于显著位置，并且几乎渗透在每一个要点中。大会从1643年即已召开，而柯塞尤斯的《盟约与遗命教义大全》（Summa
doctrinae de foedere et testamento）直到1648年才问世，就在那年，《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》已经完成并出版。因此显然，威斯敏斯特神学家并未受到任何外国势力的影响，而不过是将他们自己国家中逐渐发展成熟的成果做出总结而已。要追溯这个进程，毫无疑问要再次从布林格开始说起。在玛丽女王统治期间，很多传道人和学者逃到苏黎世。布林格与他们保持了活泼的沟通。前面提到的《五十篇》，在1577年被译成英文，随后又再版多次。当然，这本书的拉丁文版本，其影响就更早了。就我们所知，奥利维亚努斯的《使徒标记阐释》（Expositio
Symboli Apostolici）的一个英文译本，直到1618年才由约翰·菲尔德（John
Fielde）完成。当然，奥利维亚努斯的这本书与其他著作已经以拉丁文被传阅，这个推测很合理。在此，正如在其他地方，他们在吸引众人注意到盟约观念上做出了贡献。
The development of the doctrine of
the covenant in English theology deserves special attention. It indicates that
federalism is a truly universal phenomenon, emerging everywhere where theology
is done on the basis of the Reformed principle. It used to be thought rather
generally that British theologians had followed the Dutch on this score. Closer
research has speedily shown that it is not a matter of imitation but of
independent development. Mitchell, in his work, The Westminster Assembly (Baird
Lecture, 1882), says on page 377: "With respect to the doctrine of the
Covenants, which some assert to have been derived from Holland, I think myself
now, after careful investigation, entitled to maintain that there is nothing
taught in the Confession which had not been long before in substance been taught
by Rollock and Howie in Scotland, and by Cartwright, Preston, Perkins, Ames and
Ball in his two catechisms in England." This is indeed the case. The
Westminster Confession is the first Reformed confession in which the doctrine
of the covenant is not merely brought in from the side, but is placed in the
foreground and has been able to permeate at almost every point. Now the
assembly sat from 1643 on. The Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento of
Cocceius did not appear till 1648, and in that year the Westminster Confession
had already been completed and seen the light of day. Apparently the
Westminster theologians were, therefore, not under any foreign influence, but
simply summed up what in their own country had ripened as the fruit of a slow
development. In tracing back this development one will have to undoubtedly
proceed once again from Bullinger. During the reign of Queen Mary many
preachers and scholars had fled to Zürich. Bullinger maintained a lively
correspondence with them. The Decades mentioned above were translated into
English in 1577 and were afterwards republished several times. In their Latin
form they, of course, had an effect much earlier. An English translation of
Olevianus' Expositio Symboli Apostolici, as far as we can tell, came from the
hand of John Fielde only in 1681.6 However, the conjecture is justified that
this book too and the other works of Olevianus were being read in Latin. Here,
as elsewhere, they made their contribution to drawing the attention of many to
the covenant concept.
罗伯特·罗洛克（Robert
Rollock）于1583-1599年期间担任爱丁堡大学校长。他的部分神学讲座以《论有效恩召》（Treatise
on Effectual Calling）为题，于1597年出版。该书的附录是《小要理问答：论神在起初向人类启示两个盟约的方式》（a Short
Catechism concerning the Way in Which God from the Beginning Revealed Both
Covenants to the Human Race）。英文译本在1603年出版于伦敦。罗洛克沿袭了神所有话语都是盟约话语的观念。“在盟约之外，神不对人说话”。显然工作之约的教义已经比奥利维亚努斯更加清晰了。“在神按着祂的纯粹和圣洁的形象创造了人、并将祂的律法写在人心上之后，祂就与人立约，在这约中，祂应许要赐给人永远的生命，条件是以圣洁和美善的工作回应神创造的圣洁和美善，并顺服神的律法。”在工作之约中有双重的义：一个是此约的根基，另一个是要产生出来的。在工作之约以外，律法已经存在，即使不作为盟约规则也应当被遵守。在第一个约中，善工并非真的可以赚取功劳，纯粹因为神白白的恩惠而有丰厚的奖赏。我们很容易可以看出，它的主要特征在这里已经被刻画得非常清晰。一会儿我们还会回到罗洛克。
Robert Rollock was the principal of
the University of Edinburgh from 1583 to 1599. His theological lectures were
published in part in 1597 with the title, Treatise on Effectual Calling.
Appended to this was a Short Catechism concerning the Way in Which God from the
Beginning Revealed Both Covenants to the Human Race. An English translation
appeared in London in 1603. Rollock proceeds from the idea that all of God's
word belongs to a covenant. "God says nothing to man apart from the
covenant" The doctrine of the covenant of works is already notably clearer
than with Olevianus. "After God had created man in His image, pure and
holy, and had written His law in man's heart, He made a covenant with him in
which He promised him eternal life on the condition of holy and good works
which should answer to the holiness and goodness of the creation, and conform
to the law of God."7 In the covenant of works there is a twofold
righteousness—one on which it rests and another which it had to produce. The
law has remained as it existed apart from the covenant of works; it has been
done away with as a covenant rule. Good works in the first covenant were not
strictly meritorious, but were richly rewarded by free favor. One can easily
see how the main features have already been drawn here very clearly. We will
return to Rollock below.
我们无法详细考察卡尔莱特1616年在伦敦出版的《基督徒的敬拜》（Christian
Worship），但从其他地方我们知道，它采用盟约教义的经纬编织而成。从那时起，且不说诸多偶尔提及盟约的人，光是专门讨论盟约的著述就连绵不绝。及至威斯敏斯特大会时，最重要的作品是：《新盟约或圣徒的产业，论在恩典之约中神的丰盛与人的义，约翰·普列斯敦关于创世记17:1-2的十四篇讲章》（The New
Covenant or the Inheritance of the Saints, a Treatise about the All-Sufficiency
of God, and the Righteousness of Man in the Covenant of Grace, Presented in
Fourteen Sermons on Genesis 17:1-2, by John Preston），初版于1629年。根据书的扉页，普列斯敦是国王牧师和剑桥以马内利学院院长。他的作品具有更高的实用性，但是在精细的神学分辨上，他不如罗洛克有恩赐。
We were unable to peruse Cartwright's
treatise, Christian Worship,8 but from other places we know that it took up the
thread of the doctrine of the covenant and spun it further. It was published in
London in 1616. Not to speak of the many who on occasion made mention of the
covenants, an unbroken series of treatises followed since that time which were
exclusively concerned with the covenant. The most important up to the time of
the Westminster Assembly are the following: The New Covenant or the Inheritance
of the Saints, a Treatise about the All-Sufficiency of God, and the
Righteousness of Man in the Covenant of Grace, Presented in Fourteen Sermons on
Genesis 17:1-2, by John Preston. The first publication of this work appeared in
1629. According to the title, Preston was the king's chaplain and master of
Emmanuel College at Cambridge. His work is of a more practical nature. He does
not equal Rollock's gift for making fine theological distinctions.
我们对托马斯·布雷克（Thomas
Blake）毋庸多言。他那详尽的著述名为：《为盟约辩护，论神与人所立之约及其不同类型和等级》（Vindiciae
Foederis, a Treatise about God’s Covenant Made with Man, in its Various Types and Degrees），1633年初版，1658年大幅修订及扩充再版。布雷克思路清晰。他处理了盟约教义引发的所有棘手问题，以多样化的风格探讨它们。他以令人钦佩的一致性展开他自己的观点，有时候恰恰因为这种一致性而不能总是被人接受。他因为明确坚持一种外在盟约（an
external covenant）的教义而具有独特的地位。
This need not be said of Thomas
Blake. He wrote a detailed treatise with the title: Vindiciae Foederis, a
Treatise about God's Covenant Made with Man, in its Various Types and Degrees.
The first publication dates from 1633,9 the second, notably modified and
amplified, from 1658. Blake was a clear thinker. He deals with all the thorny
questions to which the doctrine of the covenant had given rise and discusses
them in a manifold fashion. He develops his own opinion with a consistency
which arouses admiration, even where it cannot always be accepted precisely
because of this consistency. Because he clearly carries through the doctrine of
an external covenant, he occupies a unique position.
著名的约翰·巴尔在不止一本书中对盟约教义作出贡献。在威斯敏斯特大、小要理问答取代所有要理问答前，他写过两个广泛使用的要理问答。此外他还写过一个单行本：《论恩典之约》（Treatise
on the Covenant of Grace），出版于1645年，在他去世后五年。该著作详尽探讨了恩典之约的各个连续时代。救恩的经世/施行进程（economies）位于显著地位。应许之约、亚伯拉罕之约、摩西带领下的以色列之约、大卫之约、被掳后之约以及新盟约，都依照顺序得到了讨论。巴尔在某些论点上会令人想起柯塞尤斯，比如，他认为基督中保所作的真实补赎（real
satisfication），对那些已经在天上之人的状态仍然有很大的影响力。由于他的著作出版于威斯敏斯特大会的会期当中，正好是大会致力于建构信条之时，也因为《威斯敏斯特标准》确实借鉴了巴尔，我们自然会料想，在信条对盟约教义的制定上，巴尔的影响力应该可以被人察觉到。
The famous John Ball made his
contribution to the doctrine of the covenant in more than one document. He
wrote two catechisms which were much used before those of Westminster replaced
all others. In addition he wrote a separate book: Treatise on the Covenant of
Grace. This appeared in 1645, five years after his death. This treatise is
fullest in its discussion of the successive dispensations of the covenant of
grace. The economies stand in the foreground. The covenant of promise, the
covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Israel under Moses, the covenant with
David, the postexilic covenant, and the new covenant are discussed in order. In
some points one finds things in Ball that remind of Cocceius, e.g., in the
influence which he attributes to the real satisfaction of the Mediator on the
state of those already in heaven. Because his treatise appeared during the
sitting of the Westminster Assembly, just at the time when it set itself to
framing the confession, and because it moreover borrowed from Ball in the
standards, one naturally supposes that his influence can be detected in its formulation
of the doctrine of the covenant.
另外一个虽没有参加大会，却毫无疑问对《威斯敏斯特标准》的制定也有巨大影响力的人物，是爱尔兰阿尔玛格（Armagh）大主教雅各·乌瑟尔（James
Ussher）。1615年他起草了著名的《爱尔兰信条》（Irish
Articles），其中就有工作之约，和被称为“第二个盟约”的恩典之约。该信条中最重要的一些段落，有时候被原封不动地并入到《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》中，连顺序都没变。乌瑟尔整理自青年时代各种素材而成的《教义神学》（Body of
Divinity），对《威斯敏斯特大要理问答》产生了多方面的影响。《教义神学》1645年出版于伦敦。它对盟约教义的处理，与《爱尔兰信条》是一致的。
Although he did not attend the
Assembly, another person who nevertheless had a great influence on the
formulation of the Westminster Standards was James Ussher, the archbishop of
Armagh, Ireland. In 1615 he wrote the famous Irish Articles, in which the
covenant of works and that of grace both appear, the latter being called
"the second covenant." The most important sections of these Irish
Articles were sometimes incorporated literally into the Westminster Confession.
The sequence is also the same. Ussher's Body of Divinity, which he collated
from several sources during his youth, made various contributions to the Larger
Catechism. This work appeared in London in 1645. In its treatment of the
doctrine of the covenant it agrees with the Irish Articles.
威斯敏斯特大会之后出版论及盟约的作品，值得注意的是弗朗西斯·罗伯特（Francis Roberts）的《圣经的奥秘与精髓，即堕落前神在第一亚当里及堕落后在末后的亚当耶稣基督里与人所立的盟约》（The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible, i.e. God’s Covenants with Man in the First Adam Before the
Fall, and in the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, After the Fall，London, 1657），这是一本用小对开纸印刷、且不少于1721页的作品。其中，强调救赎经世进程的倾向，也同样清楚地浮现出来。比起他对各个不同阶段的冗长教义论述，他在一般性地（尽管一如往常仍然是足够细致地）谈论盟约上所花的篇幅要少得多。圣约次序也与巴尔一样，即：1）在乐园中；2）与亚伯拉罕；3）在西奈；4）与大卫；5）与被掳的以色列；6）新盟约。
As to works that appeared on the
covenants after the Westminster Assembly, we note Francis Roberts, The Mystery
and Marrow of the Bible, i.e. God's Covenants with Man in the First Adam Before
the Fall, and in the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, After the Fall (London, 1657).
This is a work in small folio of no less than 1721 pages. In Roberts, too, the
tendency to stress the development of the economies emerges clearly enough.
What he has to say about the covenants in general (although still always
detailed enough) takes up much less space than his diffuse doctrine of the
various stages. The sequence is the same as with Ball, namely: 1. in Paradise;
2. with Abraham; 3. at Sinai; 4. with David; 5. with Israel in exile; 6. the
New Covenant.
二、改革宗神学的基本原则
那么，该如何解释盟约观念从一开始就在改革宗神学中占有如此显著位置呢？在改革宗神学的起点上，一定有什么东西使它感觉到自己被盟约观念所吸引。有人可能会说，这个问题纯属多余。盟约教义源自圣经。它是宗教改革回归圣经的精神所带来的，因此除了这个自然的解释之外，无需它求。但这样的回应完全不能使人满意。路德宗和改革宗都一样倚靠圣经。尽管如此，我们现在充分认识到，在处理圣经的丰富内涵上，后者比前者更为成功，这个事实反过来也要求一个解释。因为改革宗神学抓住了圣经最深邃的根基性理念，因而它可以从这个核心点出发，更整全地处理经文，并使其每个部分的内容都各得其所。
To what, then, does one attribute the
fact that from the beginning this concept of the covenant appears so much in
the foreground of Reformed theology? There must be something in its
startingpoint by which it feels itself drawn to this idea. One might perhaps
say: the question is superfluous. The doctrine of the covenant is taken from
the Scriptures. It came with the Reformation's return to the Scriptures, and
there is no need for any but this natural explanation. However, such a reply
would not at all be satisfactory. The Lutherans as well as the Reformed cast
themselves on the Scriptures. Even though we now fully recognize that the
latter better than the former succeeded in mastering the rich content of
Scripture, this fact in turn also calls for an explanation. Because Reformed
theology took hold of the Scriptures in their deepest root idea, it was in a
position to work through them more fully from this central point and to let
each part of their content come to its own.
这个根基性理念，这把打开圣经丰富宝藏的钥匙，就是神在一切受造物中无与伦比的荣耀。所有关于路德宗和改革宗传统之区别的解释，最后都将归结为一点：前者从人开始，后者从神开始。神并非因为人而存在，而是人因为神而存在，这是铭刻在改革宗神学殿堂入口处的原则。而一旦这个原则应用在人身上、应用在人和神的关系上，就立刻分为三个部分：1）人一切的工作都必须依赖神先在的工作（an
antecedent work of God）；2）人在其一切工作中都必须显明神的形象，成为彰显神之美德的器皿；3）显明神的美德，不能是无意识地或被动地，而是必须通过理解和意愿，并通过有意识的生活，积极主动地得到外在的表达。
This root idea which served as the key
to unlock the rich treasuries of the Scriptures was the preeminence of God's
glory in the consideration of all that has been created. All other explanations
of the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed traditions in the end
again come down to this, that the former begins with man and the latter with
God. God does not exist because of man, but man because of God. This is what is
written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology. When this principle
is applied to man and his relationship to God, it immediately divides into
three parts: 1. All of man's work has to rest on an antecedent work of God; 2.
In all of his works man has to show forth God's image and be a means for the
revelation of God's virtues; 3. The latter should not occur unconsciously or
passively, but the revelation of God's virtues must proceed by way of
understanding and will and by way of the conscious life, and actively come to
external expression.
我们希望说明，这三个要求如何恰好贯彻在盟约教义中。以下将依次讨论：工作之约、救赎之约、以及恩典之约。
We hope to show how this threefold
demand has been reckoned with precisely in the doctrine of the covenant. Let us
now in succession take a look at (1) the covenant of works, (2) the covenant of
redemption, and (3) the covenant of grace.
三、盟约教义的阐释
1、工作之约
只要对比一下在不同神学传统中所发展出来的、对人之原初状态的表述，人们对工作之约教义之看法的重大根本差异就立刻会浮现出来。按照路德宗的说法，人已经达到了他的命定，这是因为神已经将他放在一个正直的状态中；他已经拥有永生；在他的处境中，人的最高理想已然实现；无需再做什么以实现神造人时的意图。诚然，人是可变的，他有可能从原初正直、蒙福的状态中堕落。但是对路德宗来说，这并非前瞻性地指向其他东西的阶段，反而是普通、正常、可以预期的阶段。 (1) When
we compare the representations of the original state of man as they have been
developed by the different theological traditions, there immediately arises a
fundamental difference of great importance for the doctrine of the covenant of
works. According to the Lutherans man had already reached his destination in
that God had placed him in a state of uprightness. Eternal life was already in
his possession. In his situation the highest ideal was realized. Nothing more
need be added to execute God's purpose in creating man. Man was mutable, that
is true, and he could fall away from the state of original uprightness and
bliss. But for the Lutheran conception this is not a stage that points forward
to something else, but rather that which was usual and normal and to be
expected.
由此可知，在恩典状态下（也就是基督带给堕落之人的状态），一切又回到了原点。很显然，既然在亚当堕落前，人类已经达至其命定，基督所做的就不过是恢复在亚当里所失落的，别无其他。而且，既然已经达至的终极状态与可变性和堕落的可能性是完全兼容的，那么，被基督得回的罪人，就必然只能停留在这个层面上。因此，路德宗神学相当前后一致地教导圣徒可能背道。它根本不反对将这种称义并得为后嗣的状态，与这种背道的可能性结合在一起。
From this it follows that the same
condition returns in the state of grace to which fallen man is brought by
Christ. Precisely because mankind's destination had already been reached before
the fall in Adam, Christ can do nothing but restore what was lost in Adam. And
since the destination already realized was fully compatible with mutability and
the possibility of falling, the sinner who has been brought back to his
destination by Christ must necessarily have to remain at this level. Lutheran
theology is, therefore, wholly consistent when it teaches an apostasy of the
saints. It does not at all object to uniting the state of justification and
sonship with the possibility of such an apostasy.
这和伯拉纠主义者以及所有具有伯拉纠主义倾向之人的情况完全不同。按照他们的看法，人受造时也已经被赋予了最高和最宝贵的事物，但这却不是在路德宗意义上的“内建的圣洁”（a built-in
holiness）。伯拉纠主义者不谈这种意义上的神的形象，他们所谓神的形象不包括灵魂的属灵能力本身，而这正是路德宗强调的。然而按照伯拉纠主义者的看法，恰恰是缺乏这个部分，才给人带来了尊严：他是一个自由的个体，必须努力提升自己，以脱离道德中立的状态，而且必须藉着某种伦理性的创造力达至圣洁。因此，他已经是他所当是的，因为他的命定无非就是不确定的自由选择。同样的原则也在恩典的领域贯彻到底。一开始最重要的，在基督的恢复中，仍然还必须是最重要的。这里可以看出，这完全没有为真实的补赎留下空间。基督所能做的，不过是为人挪去他运用自由意志的障碍。他只是再次给罪人一次从头来过的机会。
It is an entirely different matter
with the Pelagians and with all who have Pelagian tendencies. According to
them, too, man had been given the highest and most precious at creation,
however not in the Lutheran sense of a built-in holiness. The Pelagian will
have nothing of the image of God in this sense, whereas on the Lutheran side
this is precisely what is stressed as being the image of God to the exclusion
of the spiritual capabilities of the soul itself. Yet, according to the
Pelagian, it is precisely the lack of this that gives man dignity: he is a free
being who has to work himself up out of his moral neutrality and has to attain
to holiness by a sort of ethical creative power. He, therefore, already was
what he has to be because his destiny is the same as undetermined freedom of
choice. Here, too, the same principle carries through to the sphere of grace.
What was originally the most important will have to remain the most important
in the restoration in Christ. Here it can be seen how there is no room for a
real satisfaction. What Christ can do is restricted to the removal of obstacles
which hinder man in his exercise of his free will. He once again gives the
sinner the opportunity to start from scratch.
改革宗对人原初状态的看法导致一种完全不同的结果。他处在一种“完美正直”（perfect
rightiousness）的状态中，知道何为善、且有意识地行善。只要他留在这个状态中，就可以确保神会施恩。到这一步为止，改革宗的看法和路德宗一样。但比起后者满足于继续、并无限扩展这种状态，改革宗的观点则专注于一种更高的状态。它不把人看作从一开始就被置于永恒的福佑中，而是将人看为被摆在一种有可能达至永恒福佑的境地。伴随着他不稳固的自由（mutable
freedom；直译作“可变的自由”），犯罪和死亡的可能性仍然在他身上徘徊不去。他出于他良善的本性还是可以自由地行善，但他尚未达至只能行善的最高自由之境，后者乃是作为一种理想摆在他面前。获得它的途径是工作之约。同样，恩典的状态最终也要受“人在原初正直状态中之命定”这个观念所限定。我们从第二亚当那里所继承的，与其说是在第一亚当那里所失去的，远不如说是第一亚当本该为我们赢得的——倘若他未曾堕落，而是在此状态中得到确认的话（confirmed
in his state）。被置于那个状态中的人，将永远不会从其中堕落。与基督是完美救主同样确凿无疑的是，祂必将“圣徒的恒忍”（perseverance
of the saints）赐予我们。
The Reformed view of the original
state of man leads to a totally different result. It was a state of perfect
uprightness in which he knew the good and did it consciously. As long as he
remained in that state he could also be sure of God's favor. Up to this point
the Reformed view concurs with the Lutheran. But whereas the latter can be
satisfied by perpetuating such a state and extending it indefinitely, the
Reformed view fixes its gaze on something higher. It sees man not as being
placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way
that he might attain to eternal bliss. There still hovers above him the
possibility of sin and death which is given with his mutable freedom. He is
free to do the good out of his good nature, but he has not yet attained the
highest freedom which can do good only. The latter is placed before him as an
ideal. The means of obtaining it is the covenant of works. Here too the state
of grace is again ultimately determined by the idea of man's destiny in the
state of original uprightness. What we inherit in the second Adam is not
restricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the full
realization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had he remained
unfallen and been confirmed in his state. Someone placed in that state can
never again fall from it. As truly as Christ is a perfect Saviour, so truly
must he bestow on us the perseverance of the saints.
我们若回顾改革宗原则的三重应用，马上可以看出，单是工作之约就满足了其中的要求。要是照着伯拉纠主义，我们就废掉了人“本有的圣洁”（increated
holiness），而允许受造物自己创造出这种圣洁来，我们也就是在否认“人一切的工作都必须依赖神先前的工作”这项要求。这时，创造善的工作就不再属于神了。另一方面，如果我们按照路德宗的说法，人被造时立即获得了最高层次的福佑，我们就忽视了第二项要求，即督促受造者的人生目标，当由“在万事上以荣耀神为更高动机”这一点来主导。路德宗的视角明显是基于人论（以人为中心）的动机。这显明了神本体中为父的那一面，但没有达到全面展示神全部美德的地步，更不用说去满足“藉着人有意识的生活，积极并外在地表现神的美德”这项要求了。改革宗的表述在每个方面都与此不同。首先，我们强烈地体认到神先在的工作（antecedent
work）。人无法为自己创造善，而是必须发展他里面被神赋予的善。若他天然的良善已经是神创造性的工作，神将他摆在盟约关系中就更是如此了。这同样是神自由行动的产物，是从耶和华俯就的恩典中流淌出来的礼物。全能者从无有中将被造物召唤出来，使他存在，他自己并没有带来任何的权利，至少没有不会失丧之永生的权利。若有一条路可以使他得着这永生，那一定是神的创造，按人的话说，神完全可以省略这一步。我们必须看清楚这一点。按照改革宗的观点，工作之约是超乎神和人之间既有之自然关联的东西。《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》以极为优美的方式阐述了这一点（第七章第一条）：“神与受造物之间的差距大到一个地步，尽管有理性的受造者都应当以神为他的创造主而顺服祂，但是他们绝不能从神得着什么，作为他们的祝福与赏赐，除非在神这方面自愿以某种方式降卑；祂也确实愿意这样做，而祂降卑的方式是立约。”
f we now look back on the Reformed
principle in its threefold ramification, it is immediately obvious that the
covenant of works alone meets its requirements. If with the Pelagian we were to
do away with man's increated holiness and allow it to be created by the
creature himself, we would deny the requirement that all of man's work must
rest on a previous work of God. Here the work of creating the good is taken
away from God. If, on the other hand, we were to say with the Lutheran that in
his being created man is immediately placed on the highest level of bliss, we
would overlook the second requirement, which urges that the life-purpose of the
creature be dominated in everything by the honor of God as its higher
motivation. The Lutheran viewpoint apparently proceeds from anthropological
motives. It is the fatherly side of God's being which is thus revealed, but one
does not arrive at a many-sided unfolding of all God's virtues. Even less is
the requirement met that the revelation of God's virtues has to be actively and
outwardly expressed throughout the conscious life of man. The Reformed
representation is different in each of these respects. To begin with we have
here the strongest recognition of the antecedent work of God. Man cannot create
the good for himself, but he has to develop the divinely given good that lies
within him. If his natural goodness is already the creative work of God, the
same can be said for the covenantal relationship in which God places him. This
too is the product of a free divine deed, a gift flowing out of the
condescending mercy of the Lord. Out of the nothingness from which the Almighty
called him into being the creature brought along no rights, least of all the
right to an unlosable, eternal life. When a way is opened by which he can
attain this, then this way is a creation of God, something that, humanly
speaking, could have been omitted. This point must be seen clearly. According
to the Reformed view the covenant of works is something more than the natural
bond which exists between God and man. The Westminster Confession puts this in
such a pointedly beautiful way (VII:1): "The distance between God and the
creatures is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto
Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their
blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part,
which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."
如果我们没有搞错的话，一些人对工作之约本能的厌恶，乃是来自于缺乏对这个美妙真理的欣赏。确实，如果亚当与神之间的关系纯粹是一种天然的关系，其中没有任何正面积极的内容，那么作为纯粹表达这种天然关系的盟约理论，确实看起来很不自然。但事情的真相是，在工作之约中，这种天然关系是被用来达成一个积极的目的，不是被抛在一边，反而是被纳入一个更高的目的。由此可知，就算这更高的目的失去效力或归于无有，这个天然的关系却仍然存在。人作为受造物要服从神，而且，即便神无意以永生来奖赏对律法的持守，对人的要求也不会失效。“你要遵行！”仍是正当的要求——即或没有伴随着“就必因此活着”。在恩典之约中也是如此。有份于其中的人，律法的要求就不再是他获得永恒福佑的条件，却仍然是他道德生活的准则，而不能不遵守。
If we are not mistaken, the
instinctive aversion which some have to the covenant of works springs from a
lack of appreciation for this wonderful truth. To be sure, if the relationship
in which Adam came to stand with God is entirely natural and if there was
nothing positive in it, then the covenant theory as an expression of that
purely natural relationship must indeed appear rather artificial. The truth of
the matter is that in the covenant of works the natural relationship was made
to serve a positive purpose. It is not set aside, but incorporated into
something higher. From this it follows that, where the higher becomes powerless
and falls away, the natural relationship nevertheless remains. As a creature
man is subject to God, and, had it not pleased God to reward the keeping of the
law with eternal life, the requirement would still be effective. "Do
this!" is still valid, even if it is not followed by: "You shall
live." Thus, it is that in the covenant of grace, too, the participants
are exempt from the demand of the law as the condition for eternal blessedness,
but not from its demand as being normative for their moral life.10
因此，工作之约以一种惊人的方式满足了前述第二和第三项要求。人在他所有的盟约工作中，会彰显神的形象。正如神的有福状态（blessedness
of God），在于祂值得敬拜之本体内三个位格彼此之间的自由关系，人也当在他和神的盟约关系中找到他的福分。能反映出神的永恒福气的（这福气是人所期盼的），不在于欢乐本身，而在于他的救恩。因此，他不能立即且过早地拥有最高的喜乐，而是必须沿着一条理性的道路被引领到那里。在他里面的神的形象，必须在他彻底清晰的自我意识中表现出来。在某种意义上，神的形象必须得到扩展，因为人在神的形象中仍有可能犯罪和死亡，这样的人就不再能佩带这形象。在他的一生中，这个形象必须藉着持守神的律法而得到塑造。藉着深厚的道德诚信，他立刻被导向造物主的荣耀，而非他自己的欢乐；他被赋予一个职责，以至于当他尽了本分之后，就能进入与他立约之神的完满喜乐中。
Consequently the covenant of works in
a striking way meets the second and third requirements mentioned above. In all
this covenantal work man displays God's image. Just as the blessedness of God
exists in the free relationship of the three Persons of the adorable Being, so
man shall also find his blessedness in the covenantal relationship with his
God. It is not his bliss in itself, but his salvation as a reflection of the
eternal blessedness of God, toward which he is disposed. Therefore, he must not
immediately and prematurely possess the highest enjoyment, but be led up to it
along a rational way. The image of God within him must be brought out in the
full clarity of his consciousness. In a certain sense it must be extended, for
in that he can still sin and die man is not God's image bearer. In his life it
must be formed by keeping the divine law. With deep moral earnestness he is
immediately directed not to his own bliss but to the honor of the Creator, and
assigned a task so that, by completing it, he might enter the full joy of his
covenant God.
2、救赎之约
如果人在堕落之前就已经和神拥有一种盟约的关系，那么可想而知，盟约观念在救赎之工中也将是主导性的。规条一旦设立，就算人犯罪、背叛，神也不会就这么轻易地放手，而必要藉着贯彻这些规条来彰显祂的荣耀。当我们把中保的职责也放在这个亮光之下，就可以看出它不过是工作之约的另外一面而已。这就可以谈到Pactum
Salutis（救赎之约），一个和平筹定（Counsel of
Peace），或救赎之约（Covenant
of Redemption）了。我们有两条出路：要么否认盟约协议是人获得永生的一般性原则，要么承认这一点，那么他就必须把藉着中保获得永生，同样视为盟约协议，并同意这背后有盟约的设立。如此我们就会清楚地知道，为什么否定工作之约，往往会与缺乏对和平筹定的重视携手并肩了。
(2) If man already stood in a
covenant relation to God before the fall, then it is to be expected that the
covenant idea will also dominate in the work of redemption. God cannot simply let
go of the ordinance which He once instituted, but much rather displays His
glory in that He carries it through despite man's sin and apostasy. It was
merely the other side of the doctrine of the covenant of works that was seen
when the task of the Mediator was also placed in this light. A Pactum Salutis,
a Counsel of Peace, a Covenant of Redemption, could then be spoken of. There
are two alternatives: one must either deny the covenant arrangement as a
general rule for obtaining eternal life, or, granting the latter, he must also
regard the gaining of eternal life by the Mediator as a covenant arrangement
and place the establishing of a covenant in back of it. Thus it also becomes
clear how a denial of the covenant of works sometimes goes hand in hand with a
lack of appreciation for the counsel of peace.
救赎之约不过是要证明，就算是源自神至高无上之意旨的救赎工作，还是按照盟约的方式，以自由的行动来执行的。若中保（the
Mediator）基督是预定的对象，那作为担保人（guarantor）的祂，也同样是自由行动的主体，祂渴慕按照神的旨意去行，且出于祂与父所同享的荣耀，说到：“看哪，我来了！”与其说盟约观念在此是以一种牵强的方式提出的，倒不如说只有在这里才将盟约观念完整地表达出来。因为只有在三一神的本体（triune
Being）里，盟约观念所要求的那种完全的自由，才能真正占据主导地位。
The covenant of redemption is nothing
other than proof for the fact that even the work of redemption, though it
springs from God's sovereign will, finds its execution in free deeds performed
in a covenantal way. If Christ the Mediator is the object of predestination, He
is, as guarantor, equally the freely acting person who desires to do God's will
and who, as He comes forth from the glory which He had with the Father, says:
"Behold, I come!" Instead of the covenant idea being presented here
in a forced way, one must much rather say that only here does it fully come to
its own. For it is only in the triune Being that that perfect freedom dominates
which the covenant idea appears to demand.
这里的盟约完全是双方面的，然而即使是在堕落前，这个盟约仍然只能被当成是单方面的，意思是说，作为神的臣民，人有责任必须按照神所提出的盟约行事。尽管救赎之约现在可以被包含在神的筹定之内（因为它是在三一神里面运作的），它仍然不应该和“预定”（predestination）混为一谈。神学家们很清楚知道如何区分两者。他们不将其放在“先定”（foreordination）的主题下，而是在这之后给它一个独立的位置。他们也在处理谕旨之执行（execution
of the decree）的章节里讨论它，这样就可以跟在违背工作之约的教导之后，并开始讨论恩典之约。这是正确的。在预定这件事上，三个神圣位格共同行动，但就救赎的经世而言（economically），预定被归属于圣父。在救赎之约中，他们彼此具有司法上的关系。在预定这件事上，只有单一、不可分割的神圣意志。而在和平筹定中，这个意志表现为在每个位格中都有自己的存在形态（mode of
existence）。人不可以基于神本体的统一性而反对这一点。强调统一性到一种程度，使得每个位格之间无法彼此有司法性的关系，就会导致撒伯流主义（Sabellianism），并破坏整个救赎经世及其位格与位格之间的关系的真实状况。人应当考虑欧文在他关于希伯来书的作品中为消除这种异议所说的（Exercitation
XXVIII, 1, 13; 参：布雷克，《基督徒理所当然的事奉》，VII, 3）。
Here the covenant is completely
two-sided, whereas before the Fall it still had to be regarded as onesided to
the extent that man, as God's subordinate, was in duty bound to act upon the
covenant that was proposed. Although this covenant of redemption may now be
included in God's counsel in that it operates within the Trinity, it should
still not be confused with predestination. Theologians well knew how to
distinguish the two. They do not take it up under the topic of foreordination,
but give it a separate place after that. They may also take it up in the sections
dealing with the execution of the decree, so that it follows the teaching on
the breaking of the covenant of works and opens the discussion of the covenant
of grace, and rightly so. In predestination the divine persons act communally,
while economically it is attributed to the Father. In the covenant of
redemption they are related to one another judicially. In predestination there
is the one, undivided, divine will. In the counsel of peace this will appears
as having its own mode of existence in each person. One cannot object to this
on the basis of the unity of God's being. To push unity so strongly that the
persons can no longer be related to one another judicially would lead to
Sabellianism and would undermine the reality of the entire economy of redemption
with its person to person relationships. One should consider what Owen brings
to bear in removing this objection in his work on the epistle to the Hebrews
(Exercitation XXVIII, 1, 13; cf. Brakel, Redelijke Godsdienst, VII, 3).
现在我们进一步思想，救赎之约的教义是如何考虑“神的荣耀”这个要求的。堕落后，人再无可能以一种讨神悦纳的方式来工作，除非这项工作是神自己完成的，且又是代表人完成的。人已经永远无法凭其双手来赚取永生。在他里面主观发生的一切，都只能是永生本身的原则与现象，而绝不可能是永生的先决条件。获得永生因此终归要倚靠神，唯独是祂的工作，在其中彰显出祂的荣耀，而且在其中没有一样可以归功于受造物而不减损神的荣耀。在这一点上，整个改教阵营，无论是路德宗还是改革宗，都反对罗马天主教，因为它未能看重这个基要的真理。但是驱使两者如此抗议的原因却不尽相同。在路德那里，原因是不安的良心渴求平静安稳，这在罗马的因功得救中找不到。只要罪人自身还必须为蒙赦罪做些什么，他的工作就不稳固。因此sola fide（唯独信心）就成了德国宗教改革的试金石（shibboleth[示播列]）[2]，称义成为其根本教义。我们会同意，尽管这个教义是以完全的纯净发展出來的，并且以其成熟的形式重新赐给了教会，但它仍未达到那个最高的视角，也就是圣经本身看待这个问题的视角——借用保罗的话说，亚伯拉罕“将荣耀归给神”（罗4:20），圣经藉此看到了他信仰的核心。甚至对称义的教义本身来说，路德宗的把握也不够完整，在其中涌动的不纯粹是神学性的（theological）动机，反而部分是人学的（anthropological）动机（译按：前者是指以神为中心，后者是指以人为中心）。改革宗却非如此。他们同样感到有必要从罗马因功得救的狂浪中脱身，重新站立在稳固的根基之上。但伴随并超越这种必要性的，还有一种更深切的热望：渴求神的荣耀，而非首先考虑自身的平安。改革宗将获取救恩的能力完全从人的手中夺去，如此，才不会缩减神在救恩中的荣耀。
Let us now further consider how the
requirement of God's honor is reckoned with in this doctrine of the covenant of
redemption. After the fall man will never again be able to work in a manner
pleasing to God except a completed work of God be performed on his behalf.
Earning eternal life has forever been taken out of his hands. Everything that
subjectively happens within him can only be a principle and phenomenon of
eternal life itself and in no way a prerequisite for eternal life. The
obtaining of eternal life thus comes to lie in God, as a work that is His
alone, in which His glory shines and of which nothing, without detracting from
that glory, can be attributed to the creature. On this point the entire
Reformation, both Lutheran and Calvinist, took exception to Rome, which failed
to appreciate this fundamental truth. Yet the reasons which had driven both
sides to this protest were different. With Luther it was the thirst for peace
and stability for a restless conscience which could find no tranquility in
Rome's salvation by works. As long as the sinner himself has to do something
for his acquittal, his work remains unstable. Thus the sola fide became the
shibboleth of the German Reformation, justification, its principle doctrine. One
will agree that, despite all the purity with which this doctrine develops and
in which, in developed form, it is given anew to the church, the highest point
is still not reached, namely, that point from which the Scripture itself views
the matter when, in the words of Paul, it sees the heart of Abraham's faith in
his "giving God the glory" (Rom. 4:20). Even in its doctrine of
justification Lutheranism did not catch hold of this idea in its fullness. Not
a purely theological, but a partly anthropological motif ran through it. It was
different with the Reformed. They, too, felt the same necessity to leave the
waves of Rome's salvation by works and once again stand on solid ground. But
beside and behind this necessity there lay a deeper longing: a thirst for the
glory of God that did not primarily meditate on its own peace.
对改革宗来说，重要的是神藉着拯救罪人来荣耀自己这件事得以实现；而对路德宗而言，只要确保人没有把任何属他自己的、不稳固的东西掺杂进来，他们就满意了。对改革宗来说，重心并不在于称义自身，而在于判断称义的原则，这个遍布在圣经里的原则教导我们，从整体上说，救恩当被视为唯独是神的工作。
When the Reformed takes the obtaining
of salvation completely out of man's hands, he does this so that the glory
which God gets from it might be uncurtailed. What is important for him is the
realization that God glorifies Himself in the salvation of sinners, whereas the
Lutheran is satisfied when it merely becomes evident that man brings nothing of
his own instability into the picture. For the Reformed the center of gravity
does not lie in justification as such, but in the principle by which the latter
is to be judged and which the Scripture everywhere applies when it teaches us
to regard the work of salvation in its totality as being exclusively a work of
God.
在这一点上，改革宗原则和救赎之约的教义是环环相扣的。没有什么比揭示救恩乃源自神圣存有者自身的深处，可以更强烈地表达出：救恩乃是神的工作，祂要藉此得着荣耀。发出救赎要求的是神（以圣父上帝的身份），为履行这要求而成为担保人的也是神（以圣子上帝的身份），将救赎施行出来的还是神（以圣灵上帝的身份）。在永恒的大光中（住在其中的只有神），神为我们拟定了救赎的进程，这个进程的轮廓是纯一的，也不会被人手的任何助力所污染。这是三一神的创造，万有都是本于祂、倚靠祂、归于祂。
At this point the Reformed principle
and the doctrine of the covenant of redemption are interlocked. The fact that
redemption is God's work by which He wills to be glorified can in no wise be
more strongly expressed than by thus exposing its emergence from out of the
depths of the divine Being Himself. Here it is God who issues the requirement
of redemption as God the Father. Again, it is God who for the fulfillment of
that requirement becomes the guarantor as God the Son. Once again, it is God to
whom belongs the application of redemption as God the Holy Spirit. In the clear
light of eternity, where God alone dwells, the economy of salvation is drawn up
for us with pure outlines and not darkened by the assistance of any human hand.
It is a creation of the triune One from whom, through whom, and to whom are all
things.
如此一来，盟约教义在和平筹定的教理中找到了它真正的神学支撑点。只有当我们清楚明白它如何根植于神的本体，而非根植于在创造后才存在的事物，直到此时，才算是找到了这个支撑点，也只有到了此时，我们才能神学性地（theologically）思考盟约的观念。工作之约也部分显明了这点，而最明显的地方，就是存有的次序如此优美地反映在工作的次序中，三一神的三个位格本身也共同参与在一个完全属神的盟约内。尽管如此，盟约教义在其最初发端时，还是离弃了从人着手考察自身周围的倾向。藉着总结出和平筹定的教义，这一危险得以被避免，神被置于中心。在此，同样地，受造物的一切关系应当是彰显神之美德的途径这个要求也得到了满足。
In the dogma of the counsel of peace,
then, the doctrine of the covenant has found its genuinely theological rest
point. Only when it becomes plain how it is rooted, not in something that did
not come into existence until creation, but in God's being itself, only then
has this rest point been reached and only then can the covenant idea be thought
of theologically. This was also partly apparent in the covenant of works, but
it is most distinct here where the order of existence is so beautifully
reflected in the order of works, and the persons themselves are involved in a
purely divine covenant. When it first emerged, the doctrine of the covenant
still betrayed the tendency to proceed from man and to survey its surroundings.
By the outworking of the doctrine of the counsel of peace this danger was averted
and the center placed in God. Here, too, the requirement was met that the
creature in all his relationships should be a means to the revelation of the
virtues of God.
对于救恩的施行来说，救赎之约也是有意义的。它确保神救赎之工的荣耀会被印在选民的意识之中，并透过他们的生活主动表达出来。这只有当基督的工作被完整地施行在选民身上才有可能发生，而这完全是因为基督的缘故，也是选民与基督联合的缘故。只有当信徒理解到，他如何必须、也已经从中保那里领受一切，神如何不可能藉着基督以外的途径来对待他，只有这时，神藉着基督所作成的荣耀大工的图景，才会出现在他的意识中，恩典的宏伟理念才会占据主导，并且在他的人生中成形。因此，对改革宗来说，以重生为开头第一步的整个ordo
salutis（救恩次序），都系于与基督的奥秘联合。没有任何福气祂未曾赚得，也没有任何福气不是由祂赐予，或虽由祂赐予却没有提升神的荣耀。救恩次序的基础不在其他，就在于与基督所立的救赎之约。在此约中，父所拣选的人都给了基督。祂成为此约的担保人，以便将他们植入祂的身体中，好叫他们藉着信心活在恩典的思想世界中。基督施行救恩，而且是祂主动地施行救恩，是改革宗神学的一个基础性原则。改革宗神学也正确地将这种施行视为一种落在中保（the
Mediator，中介人）身上的盟约性要求，祂为完成这项要求而成为担保人（the
guarantor）。以这种方式，改革宗神学只是再次表明，它不以任何为满足，除了那句包罗万象的口号：恩典在罪人身上的工作是神荣耀的真实写照。
But the covenant of redemption also
has meaning for the application of salvation. It provides the guarantee that
the glory of God's works of redemption shall be impressed upon the
consciousness of the elect and be actively expressed through their lives. This
can happen only when the application of Christ in its entirety occurs because
of and in union with Christ. Only when the believer understands how he has to
receive and has received everything from the Mediator and how God in no way
whatever deals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the
glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in his consciousness and
the magnificent idea of grace begin to dominate and to form in his life. For
the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis, beginning with regeneration
as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no
gift that has not been earned by Him. Neither is there a gift that is not
bestowed by Him that does not elevate God's glory through His bestowal. Now the
basis for this order lies in none other than in the covenant of salvation with
Christ. In this covenant those chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it
He became the guarantor so that they would be planted into His body in order to
live in the thought-world of grace through faith. As the application of
salvation by Christ and by Christ's initiative is a fundamental principle of
Reformed theology, this theology has correctly viewed this application as a
covenantal requirement which fell to the Mediator and for the fulfilling of
which He became the guarantor. In this way Reformed theology simply showed that
here too it would be content with nothing but its one all-embracing slogan: the
work of grace in the sinner as a mirror for the glory of God.
在此，让我们再瞥一眼这个教理的历史。伽斯（Gass）有一种观点，认为柯塞尤斯唯一引入盟约系统的新奇观点，就是将盟约的概念应用在三一神的三个位格上。然而正如其他的观点，此处被归功于柯塞尤斯的观念其实来源更早。要想追溯某个教义的发展，人需要注意不应过分重视名称，不要因为尚无后期的通行格式，就过早地下结论说以前没有它。固定表达通常只会出现在发展的末期，而非开端。如果我们这样考虑问题，就必须认同海珀的看法，他与伽斯的看法不同，将这个观念归功于奥利维亚努斯（《敬虔主义与神秘主义史》，211页）。在奥利维亚努斯那里，圣子担任永恒担保人职分的观念，已经充分并清晰地表达出来了。在《论盟约的本质》（De
Substantia Foederis）的23页，他写到：“神的儿子既已被神委派为盟约的中间人，就在两个理由上成为担保人：1）祂需要补赎（satisfy）所有父所赐给祂之人的罪；2）他们既然已经被植入在祂的里面，祂还要完成这个目标，就是他们要在他们的意识中享受自由，并一天天地更新为神的形象。”人们应当注意，圣子的担保不只是被描绘为盟约的前提条件，更是盟约施行与运作的根基。对奥利维亚努斯来说，这不是一个抽象的理念，反而是支配着他整个的神学表述。藉着应许和起誓，神将祂自己赐给我们、作我们的神，收纳我们作神的儿女、永生的后嗣。应许和起誓都是对基督作的（祂是亚伯拉罕的子孙），也是对所有被植入这位子孙里面的人作的（De Subst.,
p. 2）。
Let us now take another glance at the
history of this dogma. Gass held the opinion that the application of the
covenant concept to the persons of the Trinity was the only peculiarly new idea
that Cocceius introduced into the system. Yet, as in other points, something
was here attributed to Cocceius that in reality is much older. In tracing back
the development of a doctrine, one should simply take care not to attach too
much importance to the name, and because of the lack of later current formulae,
to conclude prematurely that it was absent. Stock phrases usually do not appear
at the beginning, but only at the end of a development. If we take this into
consideration, we will have to agree with Heppe when he, over against Gass's
own opinion, points to Olevianus (Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik, p.
211). In Olevianus the concept of eternal sponsorship on the part of the Son
has already been brought to full and clear expression. In De Substantia
Foederis, page 23, he writes: "The Son of God, having been appointed by
God as Mediator of the covenant, becomes the guarantor on two counts: 1) He
shall satisfy for the sins of all those whom the Father has given him, 2) He
shall also bring it to pass that they, being planted in him, shall enjoy
freedom in their consciences and from day to day be renewed in the image of
God." One should take note that the guaranty of the Son is not merely
presented as the prerequisite of the covenant, but as the root of the
application and operation of the covenant. With Olevianus this is not an
abstract idea, but it dominates his entire presentation. The promise and
oath-swearing, by which God gave Himself to us as our God, and the adoption as
children of God and heirs of eternal life, were made to Christ, who is the Seed
of Abraham, and to all those who are implanted into this Seed (De Subst., p.
2).
作为祂担保的结果，这位中保塑造了祂和选民的完美合一，并且，当祂成了肉身并受了苦难，这受难就可被算为祂身体的赎金。主的复活是所有属祂之人真实的无罪开释（actualis absolutio）。人们应当比较海珀《德意志更正教教理学》（Dogmatik
des deutschen Protestantismus）第二卷215-220页的各类引证。海珀从他的概述中得出以下结论：“由此显出，奥利维亚努斯之救赎教义的重心，确实是圣父与圣子之间的pactum and
consilium salutis（拯救协议与筹定）教义，以及依赖于此教义的另一教义，即：将选民植入基督，或者说植入在基督奥秘的身体里……这个在永恒中已经确立的关系有如下性质：自永恒中，父神看圣子就不是别的，而是要成为肉身的道，并要与组成祂奥秘身体的选民/信徒联合。”（218页下）
As a result of His guaranty, the
Mediator forms an ideal unity with the elect and, when He became flesh and
suffered, this suffering could count as a ransom for His body. The resurrection
of the Lord is a real acquittal (actualis absolutio) of all those who belong to
Him. One should compare the various quotations in Heppe's Dogmatik des
deutschen Protestantismus, II, pages 215-20. Heppe draws the following
conclusion from his overview: "From this it appears that the doctrine of
redemption in Olevianus has its actual center of gravity in the doctrine of the
pactum and consilium salutis (treaty and counsel of salvation) between Father and
Son, and in the doctrine which rests upon it, namely, the planting of the elect
in Christ, or in the mystical body of Christ. . . . This relationship is one
already established in eternity, and of such a nature that from eternity the
Father looks upon the Son in no other way than as the Word to be made flesh,
and then in union with the elect, believers, who form his mystical body"
(pp. 218f.).
这个思路可能导致奥利维亚努斯在恩典之约的实质和见证之间做出区分。盟约实质或本质乃是在于中保的工作，而见证则是中保藉着圣道和圣灵与我们建立一种活泼的联合时，被带给我们的。如此表达的理念至今仍然是有效的，要跟随这个教义的发展之路，也不会花费太多的气力。罗洛克已经证明，基督中保在恩典之约里的工作，为何不过是在亚当那儿被破坏的工作之约，却在祂里面被成全了。“因此，我们的中保基督，为了我们益处的缘故，使自己顺服在工作之约下，也顺服在律法以下，既在祂圣洁、良善的一生中成全了工作之约的条件……又忍受了咒诅（就是当人没有守住良善、圣洁之工的条件时，在工作之约中被威胁所要受的咒诅）……这就是为什么我们从两个方面看见基督顺服在工作之约下，即在祂的行动与受苦（doing and
suffering）上，而且在这两方面祂都完美地成全了，为此祂也为了我们的缘故，成为我们的中保。”（Rollock,
Works, I, 52f.）
This train of thought probably also
accounts for the distinction which Olevianus makes between the substance and
the testimonies of the covenant of grace. The substance, the essence of the
covenant, lies in the work of the Mediator, whereas the testimonies are brought
to us when the Mediator enters into a living union with us through the word and
the Spirit. The ideas, thus expressed, continued, and without too much
difficulty they can be followed along the way of the doctrine's further
development. Rollock already demonstrates how the work of the Mediator with
respect to the covenant of grace was nothing but a carrying through in him of
the covenant of works broken in Adam. "Christ, therefore, our Mediator,
subjected himself unto the covenant of works, and unto the law for our sake,
and did both fulfill the condition of the covenant of works in his holy and
good life . . . and also did undergo that curse with which man was threatened
in that covenant of works, if that condition of good and holy works were not
kept. . . . Wherefore we see Christ in two respects, to wit, in doing and
suffering, subject to the covenant of works, and in both respects he has most
perfectly fulfilled it, and that for our sake whose Mediator he is become"
(Rollock, Works, I, 52f.).11
对于英格兰清教徒、1622年起任弗兰内克（Franeker）大学讲师的埃姆斯而言，救赎之约是用来反驳抗辩派（Remonstrants）的武器。埃姆斯基于以下两个理由，拒绝亚米念主义对救赎之完成与施行所作的区分：1）它假设神的谕旨的效力，有可能受到挫败或被剥夺；2） 它使与基督所立的盟约（“祂必看见后裔，耶和华所喜悦的事，必在祂手中亨通。”Anti-Synodalia.
De Morte Christi, I, 5）变得毫无能力。因而，与神的谕旨一道，在救恩的完成和施行之间，救赎之约在此表现出更高的合一。英语世界的神学家们尤其从这个角度处理这个教义。普列斯通把恩典之约的应许分为两类，一部分被视为给基督的应许，另一部分则是给信徒的应许：“经上说，‘这应许是对那位子孙说的’，然而这应许是给我们的，同时这盟约又是与亚伯拉罕立的：所有这些如何能同时成立呢？答案是：给那子孙，即基督本身的应许如下：汝当为永远之祭司，吾将赐汝大卫之国；汝当坐其国位，汝当为和平之君，政权必担于汝肩，汝亦必为吾民先知……这是给那子孙的应许。对我们所说的应许虽然在同一个盟约之中，然而在这方面却是不同的,主动的部分托付给了弥赛亚，那子孙本身，而被动的部分是由给我们的应许所组成的：你们将要受教，你们将说预言，你们的罪将要得赦免……因此应许是对我们说的。应许又如何是对亚伯拉罕说的呢？经上说，‘地上万国必因汝得福。’意思是说，它们是衍生的应许。首先与原始的应许，是对耶稣基督说的。（Preston,
The New Covenant， ed. 1639,
pp.374-5）”
In Ames, lecturer at Franeker (after
1622), a Puritan from England, the covenant of redemption is a weapon directed
against the Remonstrants. The distinction between the accomplishment and the
application of redemption, in the Arminian sense, is rejected by Ames on the
following two grounds, among others: 1) that it conceives of God's decision in
such a way that it could be frustrated or robbed of its efficacy, 2) that it
makes powerless the covenant made with Christ ("He shall see his seed, and
the good pleasure of the Lord shall prosper by his hand." Anti-Synodalia.
De Morte Christi, I, 5). Thus the covenant of redemption here appears as the
higher unity between the accomplishment and application of salvation, alongside
the decree. It is especially the English theologians who approach the doctrine
from this angle. Preston divides the promises of the covenant of grace into
two, and regards the one part as promises made to Christ, the other as promises
to believers: It is said, "the promise is made to the Seed," yet the
promise is made to us, and yet again the covenant is made with Abraham: How can
all these stand together? Answer: The promises that are made to the Seed, that
is to Christ himself, are these: Thou shalt be a priest forever; and I will
give thee the kingdom of David; thou shalt sit on that throne; thou shalt be a
prince of peace, and the government shall be upon thy shoulders; likewise, thou
shalt be a prophet to my people. . . . These are the promises that are made to
the Seed. The promises that are made to us, though they be of the same
covenant, nevertheless differ in this respect: the active part is committed to
the Messiah, to the Seed himself, but the passive part consists of the promises
made to us: You shall be taught; you shall be made prophets; you shall have
your sins forgiven. . . . So the promise is made to us. How is the promise made
to Abraham? It reads, "In thee all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed." The meaning is that they are derivative promises. The primary
and original promises were made to Jesus Christ (Preston, The New Covenant [ed.
1639], pp. 374-5).
其他许多人也表达了同样的想法。动机来来回回都一样，就是将救恩的施行聚焦在基督身上，我们很自然应当永远记得的是，基督乃是藉着圣灵工作。瑞诺德（Reynolds）说得精彩：“凭信心所相信的每一个应许，都引导人归向基督，使人思考我们与祂的联合。我们只能藉此享有诸般应许，正如一个圆的圆周上的各个不同点，无论彼此相隔多远，都可以画出相交于中心点的线条。”即使是布雷克，尽管他强烈否认任何内在的盟约（internal
covenant），也并不否认救赎之约的存在。他承认在父和子之间有一些盟约性的交易（federal
transactions），他也承认这是为了我们的缘故，并且最终，恩典之约的经世以及我们身处此约之中，乃是建基于救赎之约（Vindiciae
Foederis, pp.14f.）。
The same thought is expressed by many
others. The motive is the same again and again, namely, to concentrate the application
of salvation in Christ, whereby one should naturally always keep in mind that
Christ works through the Spirit. Reynolds puts it very beautifully: "Every
promise seized upon in faith leads a man to Christ and to the consideration of
our union with him. It is only by virtue of this that we partake of the
promises, just as lines can be drawn to meet in one center from various points
on the circumference of a circle no matter how far apart these be." Even
Blake, in spite of his strongly sustained denial of any internal covenant, does
not deny the existence of the covenant of redemption. He admits that federal
transactions took place between the Father and the Son. He admits too that this
happened for our sakes, and finally that the economy of the covenant of grace
and our being in it is founded on the covenant of redemption (Vindiciae
Foederis, pp. 14f.).
克洛彭博格以最精确的方式阐述了救赎之约的教义。在《论神的盟约》（Over het
Verbond Gods, Disputationes, III, 4; Opera Omnia, I, 503）一书中，他说到：“出现在我们面前的是基督在路加福音22:29所说的，新约（恩典之约）的双重盟约（diatheke）或时代（dispensation）。1）一方面是圣父藉着盟约向担保人所定旨的；2）另一方面是子作为父的担保人，为我们的缘故，定旨了生命与属天荣耀的应许。就第一重协议来说，此约被说成是由神在基督里面预先立的（加3:17）。在这里有完整的盟约观念，即出于互相信任之双方的协议。至于第二重协议，此约被称为由那即将过世之人为我们所立的遗嘱（来9:14-17）。”于是，克洛彭博格接下来首先说到父神和作为担保人的圣子之间的盟约协议，而我们被视为与后者是一体的。他的特殊之处乃是在于，他选择了盟约教义作为他和抗辩派争论的一个起点。
The doctrine of the covenant of
redemption is worked out in a most precise way by Cloppenburg. In Over het
Verbond Gods (Disputationes, III, 4; Opera Omnia, I, 503) he says: "Here
there arises before us the twofold diatheke or dispensation of the new covenant
(covenant of grace) of which Christ speaks in Luke 22:29. 1) The one which the
Father covenantally ordains to the guarantor, 2) The one in which the Son as
the Father's guarantor ordains the promise of life and heavenly glory for our
sake. As for the first arrangement, the covenant is said to be previously
ratified by God in Him, Gal. 3: 17. Here the full covenant concept remains,
namely a two-sided agreement of mutual trust. As for the second arrangement,
the covenant is called a testament established for us by the dying Testator,
Heb. 9:14-17." Cloppenburg then continues by first speaking about the
covenant arrangement between God the Father and the Son as guarantor in which we
are considered one with the latter.
从以上的快速浏览可知，救赎之约的教理并非拣选教义的修订而已。其价值不在于可以把此约拉回到神的谕旨中去讨论，而在于将此约的焦点集中在中保身上，并且一方面证明在祂里面，救恩的成全与施行的合一，另一方面也证明盟约的各个不同阶段。由此可知，尽管人们通常以为神学家们所强调的是此约在永恒里的超越性，但事实上神学家很少这样强调，而且，尽管它被称为是永恒的约，但这种永恒性与谕旨的特性还是有所不同的。说它是永恒的，乃是因为它是落在三一神之内，落在存在于永恒中的神圣本体之内，而非它被提升超过了历史现实这种意义上的永恒：“正如人类犯下了双重罪恶，”奥利维亚努斯说，“圣子既已被神定为盟约的中保，就在两方面成为担保人：祂必定会补赎，等等。”弗朗西斯·罗伯特则如此定义：“信心的盟约是神仁厚的契约或协议，是在人堕落后，与耶稣基督（末后的亚当），并在祂里面与祂所有的后裔订立的，为要藉着基督，使他们从罪和死亡的状态中，恢复到公义和永生的状态中；在祂里面，耶和华要作他们的神，他们要作祂的子民；他们得以藉着真信心，领受基督和约中的一切怜悯，并照着福音，行事为人与这一切的怜悯相称。”（69页）
The peculiar thing with him is that
he chooses the doctrine of the covenant as a point of departure for his polemic
against the Remonstrants.12 From this rapid overview it is apparent that the
dogma of the covenant of redemption is something other than a reworking of the
doctrine of election. It owes its existence not to a tendency to draw the
covenant back and take it up in the decree, but to concentrate it in the
Mediator and to demonstrate the unity between the accomplishment and
application of salvation in Him, on the one side, and the various stages of the
covenant, on the other. From this it follows that much less emphasis than one
generally attributes to the theologians is placed on its transcendent eternity
and that, despite the fact that it is called eternal, this eternity still has a
different character than that of the decrees. It is eternal insofar as it falls
within the Trinity, within the divine being that exists in eternity, but not
eternal in the sense that it was elevated above the reality of history.
"Just as man had committed a double evil," says Olevianus, "so
the Son of God, having been made Mediator of the covenant by God, becomes the
guarantor on two counts: 1) that he shall satisfy, etc." And Francis
Roberts gives this definition: "The covenant of faith is God's gracious
compact or agreement with Jesus Christ, the last Adam, and in him with all his
seed, after the fall, concerning their recovery out of the state of sin and
death into a state of righteousness and eternal life, by Christ; that in him
the Lord may be their God, and they His people; that they should accept Christ
and these covenanted mercies by true faith and walk worthy of them according to
the Gospel" (p. 69).
救赎之约是一个新发明，这个立场早已被韦修斯（Witsius）在他的《盟约的经世》（Huishouding der Verbonden, I, 2, 16），和早于他的罗伯特在《神的诸约》（God’s
Covenants, II, 2, 3）中所驳斥了。我们绝不能忘记，这个教义同样有其历史。它并非直接和整个儿地取自圣经，而是从中生长出来的。柯塞尤斯之后的盟约神学家们对它的描绘，有时候太过人性化，从解经上来为它辩护也不总是令人满意。但是，仅就其核心而言，它乃是相当稳固地建基于改革宗神学的原则，也已经遭受过各种攻击，并且，尽管它具有超越性的特征，它在信徒的心中却为自己保证了一个永久的位置。
That the covenant of redemption is an
innovation is a position already refuted by Witsius in the Huishouding der
Verbonden (I, 2, 16) and by Roberts before him (God's Covenants, II, 2, 3). It
should never be forgotten that this doctrine also had a history. It was not
taken from the Scriptures ready and completed, but grew out of them. The
federal theologians after Cocceius sometimes painted too human a picture. It
has not always been defended too happily exegetically either. But, as far as
its core is concerned, it lies so firmly in the principles of Reformed theology
that it has endured every attack and, despite its transcendent character, has
assured itself of a permanent place in the minds of believers.
3、恩典之约
若救恩之工在其根源就采取了盟约的形式，那么，它接下来的展开就必定要与之相对应，也要以一种立约的方式来进行。救赎之约并非是孑然独立的，而是整个拯救经世的根基。在圣经中，这是回荡在永恒里，并一直奏响进入我们所在之时间里的宏伟序曲，在这个序曲中，我们已经可以听见恩典诗篇的纯净曲调。因为神从起初就将自己设定为要付出爱与信实，就像人对他的朋友一样，也因为祂已经藉着祂的爱子将自己盟约性地委身于修复被破坏的信实，因此这个盟约性救恩的施行，也必当沿着相同的脉络来进行。救赎之约是恩典之约的模板，但又不止如此，它还是后者得以实施的有效因。就其邀约与施行而言，恩典之约是被包括在和平筹定里的，以至于后者完全可以说是一份礼物，一个盟约性的好处。藉着自身被正式任命、被膏立为救赎之约的中保，圣子从万古以来就统治着恩典之家，藉着圣道与圣灵将教会召聚在身旁，并对所有渴望按照祂的律例而活的人，提出所有权的要求。而无论恩典之约的范围要划得狭窄还是宽泛，它总是牵涉到与基督的关系（无论是外在的还是内在的），藉此它与救赎之约是息息相关的。我们也不该认为，中保（作为属祂的百姓的担保人）在此盟约中的出现，会妨碍了他们与神建立盟约的关系。圣子成为担保人，显然是为了使他们能够以立约当事人的身份为人处事，以至于基督不但将自己的功劳归算给他们，更将他们按照神的形象重新创造（re-creation），并在他们的心境和生活行动中，使神的恩典得着荣耀。他们绝不会被排除在神的恩典之外。就算亚当的替代性角色，也不会妨碍任何人以自己的良心，亲自对工作之约的破坏作出反应；基督所作的担保，就更不会拦阻任何信徒在他自己和神的关系中，经历恩典之约的展开。正因为圣经从来没有打算要将恩典之约松散地与和平筹定并列，一个人的表达方式在很大程度上就只是偏好的问题。尽管有些人选择把这些内容分为两个约，其他人则将它们包括在一个约中，但他们总是意识到，这其中的差异不是原则上的，而只是方法上的。《威斯敏斯特标准》为此提供了一个决定性的例证：《信仰告白》论及神与在基督里的信徒之间的恩典之约，与此同时，《大要理问答》则将恩典之约表述为与身为第二亚当的基督所立的盟约。
(3) If the work of salvation has a
covenantal form at its roots, then the rest of its unfolding is bound to
correspond to it and proceed in a covenantal way. The covenant of redemption
does not stand by itself, but is the basis of the economy of salvation. It is
the great prelude which in the Scriptures resounds from eternity on into our
own time and in which we can already listen to the pure tones of the psalm of
grace. Because God has from the beginning set Himself to give love and
faithfulness as a man to his friend, and because by the Son of His good
pleasure He has committed Himself covenantally to the restoration of the
violated faithfulness, so the application of this covenantal salvation will
have to proceed along the same lines. The covenant of redemption is the pattern
for the covenant of grace. However, it is more than that. It is also the
effective cause for carrying through the latter. As far as its offer and
application are concerned, the covenant of grace lies enclosed in the counsel
of peace, so that with respect to the latter it appears completely as a gift,
as a covenantal benefit. By virtue of His official appointment, His being
anointed as Mediator in the covenant of redemption, the Son rules throughout
the ages in the house of grace, gathers unto Himself a church through Word and
Spirit, and lays claim on all those who desire to live according to His
ordinances. However narrowly or widely the boundary of the covenant of grace be
drawn, in any case it involves a relationship with Christ, whether external or
internal, by which it is tied to the covenant of redemption. Nor may it be
thought that the appearance of the Mediator in this covenant, as the guarantor
for His own, prevents them from standing in covenantal relationship to God. The
Son became guarantor precisely so that they might be presented as parties in
the covenant and behave as such, so that there will be no imputation to them of
His merits without re-creation in God's image and glorification of God's grace in
the mirror of their mind and in the activity of their life. Least of all does
it bypass them. Even as the substitutionary role of Adam does not prevent any
individual from reacting personally in his own conscience to the breaking of
the covenant of works, even so the guaranty of Christ does not prevent any
believer from feeling the covenant of grace working out in his own relationship
to God. Precisely because it was never intended to place the covenant of grace
loosely beside the counsel of peace, one's manner of presentation could largely
remain a matter of preference. Although some chose to distribute the data over
two covenants and others to include them in one covenant, they always remained
aware of the fact that here it was not a question of a difference in principle,
but merely of a difference in method. A conclusive example of this is offered
by the Westminster Standards. Whereas the Confession speaks of a covenant of
grace between God and the believer in Christ, the Larger Catechism presents it as
a covenant made with Christ as the second Adam.
（1）人有义务接受并回应神的恩典
在神完成的工作的基础上，盟约关系随之展开，这就是ordo
salutis（救恩次序）丰富内涵的本质。还是那句话，神的荣耀要在信徒的意识和生命中彰显出来，似乎在每一点上都是解释盟约概念最重要的思想。对于“中保所获得的救恩，如何被个别的信徒转化取用（appropriation）”这个问题，改革宗信徒的回答是：乃是以最能彰显三一神在救恩工作中的伟大和荣耀的方式。人不是直接、立刻获得全部的福分，否则他就没有机会看到奇妙之恩典计划的展开过程。恩典也不是像materia
medica（治疗药物）那样，在无意识的情况下被一点一滴地注入到罪人体内，否则他就不能欣赏恩典的神圣之美。神所恩待的罪人的真实处境，必须被显明在他的意识中。因此，改革宗基督徒喜爱透过有意识的人生表达恩典之工。他们时常会谈及“大能的呼召”，有时候这意指重生。所以他们并不否认，要在死人的灵魂里创造出属灵的生命，就必须有神直接的行动；但他们更愿意尽可能强调，只有意识到神的恩典，生命才能收获最丰盛的果实，达到其命定。圣道是神用来对意识工作的食物，因此，若无圣道，这工作就不是神的。
(a) On the basis of the accomplished
work of God the covenantal relation unfolds as the essence of the riches of the
ordo salutis. Here once again the working out of the glory of God in the
consciousness and life of faith appears at every point to be the leading
thought by which the covenant concept is explained. In response to the question
how the salvation obtained by the Mediator is appropriated by the individual,
the Reformed believer answers: In such a way that it best reveals the greatness
and the glory of the triune God in the work of salvation. It is not the case
that man immediately and at once comes into possession of full blessedness, for
then there would not be an opportunity to see the unfolding of the wonderful
plan of grace. Neither is it the case that grace as materia medica is poured
into the sinner; for then he would fail to appreciate its divine beauty. The
reality of his situation must be revealed in the consciousness of the sinner to
whom God shows His grace. Hence, the Reformed Christian loves to express the
work of grace in terms of conscious life. He often speaks about a powerful
calling, occasionally in the sense of regeneration. He does not deny thereby
that an immediate act of God is required to create spiritual life in the dead
soul; rather he intends to express as strongly as possible that life first
comes to its greatest fruition, its destiny, in the conscious recognition of
God's grace. Hence, if the Word as the food for God's conscious working is not
present, the work is not God's.
这些想法很容易借由盟约关系的观念来总结。从外在呼召开始，神与人打交道的方式就透露出这种观念的蛛丝马迹。可以说，它在道德责任的光照下，就变得里外透明了。甚至对救恩的描绘与传讲，也是为了使人充分意识到他和神之间的关系，为了刺激他的意识，使他自由地回应以盟约的形式临到他的、神俯就的良善。藉着改革宗对人里面神的形象的宽泛和狭窄含义所作的区分，使这点成为可能。路德宗认为神的形象主要存在于灵魂的道德品质中。而按照改革宗的理解，这两者无法辨认。人有理性和意志，他是灵，他能认识神；在这方面，他也是神的形象。堕落之后，这些能力多多少少还是存在的，在这个程度上，他仍然是神的形象。我们的目的不是要把任何的良善归给堕落之人，而是要透过他本体的最深幽处和他真实的命运，将他描绘为这样的一种人：他必须领受神的荣耀，并容许它藉着自己透照出来。
It is not difficult to summarize
these thoughts in the concept of covenantal relationship. The way in which God
deals with man, from the external call on, reveals traces of this concept. It
is, as it were, made transparent by the light of moral responsibility. Even the
presentation and preaching of salvation is directed towards taking hold of man
in the consciousness of his relation to God and towards stimulating his
consciousness and making him react freely to the condescending goodness of God,
coming to him in the way of covenant. This becomes possible by means of the
Reformed distinction between the broader and the narrower sense of the image of
God in man. The Lutheran conceives of the image of God as being found mainly in
the moral qualities of the soul. According to the Reformed understanding, these
two cannot be identified. Man has understanding and will, he is spirit, he can
know God; in this regard too, he is the image of God. In the extent that these
capacities are present after the fall, he remains in the image of God. The
purpose here is not to ascribe any good to fallen man, but rather to present
him in the deepest recesses of his being and in his true destiny as somebody
who has to take in the glory of God and allow it to shine through him.
凡是将这一点谨记于心的人，就不难理解，为何对改革宗神学家而言，连同盟约概念一起宣讲律法，具有和对路德宗而言不太一样的重要意义。后者几乎不允许律法在堕落前占据一席之地。无论重生之前或之后，律法都仅有消极的特性，只是为了引发悔改，治死老旧的罪人。对改革宗来说，律法也有这个目的，但不是全部。即使是那些严格区分律法和福音，并将后者完全视为应许的神学家们也仍然强调——事实上，这些神学家比起其他人更强调——作为人生的全面规范，律法也决定了人与福音的关系。在这一点上，我们观察到改革宗观点所具有的强烈的道德严肃性。在人的生命中，但凡神的律法无法直接适用、并对他的良心产生深刻的印象，就什么事也不会发生。一旦福音入到人的意识，他就要面对信心的要求。没有一个罪人能有一刻从他对福音的责任（responsibility
toward the gospel）中脱身，只要他的良心还约束着他。正如堕落前的人有义务缔结工作之约，堕落后的人更有义务以一颗信靠的心接受恩典。当然，不同的是，在正直的状态中，接受是理所当然的事，而在堕落状态中，除非有超自然的恩典，否则这不可能发生。
He who keeps this in mind will also
be able to understand why the preaching of the law in relation to the concept
of the covenant has a somewhat different significance for Reformed theologians
than for Lutherans. The latter scarcely allow a place to the law before the
fall. Both before and after regeneration the law has only a negative character,
serving to generate repentance and mortification of the old man of sin. For the
Reformed it also serves this purpose, but that is not all. Even those among the
theologians who strictly separate law and gospel and make the latter to consist
wholly of promises—as a matter of fact, those theologians more than others—put
emphasis on the fact that the law, as the comprehensive norm for the life of
man, also determines man's relation to the gospel. At this point we observe the
intensely moral seriousness of the Reformed point of view. Nothing can occur in
man's life where God's law does not immediately apply and is not impressed
strongly on his conscience. As soon as the gospel enters into the consciousness
of man, he is confronted with the demand of faith. There is not a single sinner
who for one moment can withdraw himself from that responsibility toward the
gospel, to which he is bound by his conscience. Just as man before the fall was
obligated to enter into the covenant of works, even so fallen man is obligated
to receive grace with a believing heart. Of course, the difference remains that
while acceptance was a matter of course in the state of rectitude, it cannot
take place in the fallen state except for supernatural grace.
改革宗神学对律法的看法受盟约理念影响的地方还不止这些。即使在堕落后，律法也在一定程度上保留了它的盟约形式。律法不可能被包含在盟约关系中却不受其影响。直至今日，律法的呼喊仍在我们耳畔回响：我将给你如是人生，惟愿你可以成全我！在工作之约遭到背弃之后，神大可以全然根除此关系，将最后一点痕迹从我们心中抹去。然而，他却让我们永志不忘。他以假设性的方式不断重复那应许，结果就是，他把藉着持守律法来获得永生的理想不断地摆在我们面前；尽管这是一个已经失落的理想。因此，圣约观念的基本内容一直保留在我们的意识中。当圣灵的工作藉着律法和福音的管道引发真正的回转时，在这回转中，对那失落之理想的渴求就似乎成为不可或缺的一部分。由此，我们也可以解释，为何老一辈神学家并不总是清楚区分工作之约和西奈之约。在西奈之约中赐下的并非“赤裸裸的”律法（the “bare” law），而是对那可以说是在西奈得以延续的恩典之约的惠益中得以恢复的工作之约的反映。
There is still another area in which
the Reformed view of the law is influenced by the idea of the covenant. Even
after the fall, the law retains something of its covenantal form. The law was
not included in the federal relationship without having been affected by it.
Even today the call of the law sounds in our ears: such a life I would give
you, if only you could fulfill me! God could have wholly eradicated that
relation and have taken away the last traces of it from our minds, after the
covenant of works was broken. However, He kept its memory alive in us. He has
repeated that promise hypothetically and consequently has held up before us
constantly the ideal of eternal life to be obtained by keeping the law, a lost
ideal though it be. Thus the essential content of the concept of covenant has
been kept in our consciousness. When the work of the Spirit by means of the law
and the gospel leads to true conversion, in this conversion the longing for
this lost ideal of the covenant appears as an essential part. From the above we
can also explain why the older theologians did not always clearly distinguish
between the covenant of works and the Sinaitic covenant. At Sinai it was not
the "bare" law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of
works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued
at Sinai.13
（2）对全备盟约恩典的稳固盟约信心
然而，说上面这些是盟约的本质却是错误的。人与神之间的这个自然关系，和这个由造物主所提出的正当诉求，一直是有效的，也继续延伸到后来的每个阶段，是一切行动的前提，包括恩典之约。只要不会有人以为，这些因素就道尽了恩典之约的全部，再无其他了。使恩典之约成为日常生活之大能的本质，在于另外一个添加上去的因素，现在我们就要来看看它。
(b) It would be a mistake, however,
to say that the above is the essence of the covenant. That natural relation in
which man stands to God and this just claim made by the Creator, remain valid,
also at each later stage and are presupposed in each act, including the
covenant of grace. Only let no one suppose that the covenant of grace can ever
be exhausted by these factors and can involve nothing more than them. Its
essence, that by which it becomes a power for everyday life, lies in an
additional factor which we now need to bring into view.
为了正确理解它的性质，我们首先要提及以下的特点。盟约神学惯常于从基督徒生活的角度审视真理。这不意味着它停留在一个有限的救恩论范畴之内，因为这么做可就归正过头了；它的目的确实是神的荣耀。虽然有的时候，为了客观性的缘故，个人兴趣会在真理教导中被推到一边，在盟约主义者身上还是体现了基督徒和神学家的合一。众所周知，这体现在《海德堡要理问答》中，那个“相信的我”不断地表达自己。由此可知，盟约观念被认为是只有在信徒中才得到了实现。至于“如何考虑那些缺乏信心却活在盟约职事（ministry
of the covenant）下的人”这个问题，只在极少数情况下才会被提及。盟约神学发展其内容的方法，不是通过将自己放在盟约之前（因此是在盟约之外），而是放在盟约之中。
For the proper appreciation of its
character we first refer to the following feature. Covenant theology was
accustomed to survey the truth from the perspective of the Christian life. That
does not mean that it remained within the boundaries of a limited soteriology,
for it was too Reformed to do that; its purpose truly was the glory of God.
While at times the personal interest in the teaching of truth was pushed aside
for objectivity's sake, the unity of Christian and theologian comes to
expression in the federalist. This comes out, as is well known, in the
Heidelberg Catechism, in which the believing I continually expresses himself.
From this it is clear that the concept of covenant was considered as having
been realized only in the believing Christian. Only rarely is the problem taken
up as to how to consider those who lack faith and yet live under the ministry
of the covenant. Covenant theology develops its contents not by placing itself
before and thus outside it, but in the middle of the covenant.
盟约既非一种假想的关系，亦非有条件的地位，毋宁说是新鲜而活泼的团契，恩典的大能在其中运行。这只有通过信心的操练才能变为现实。作为神真正盟约伙伴而行动的总是信徒。因此，那些成为盟约伙伴的人，身为信徒，也有完整的应许作为印证。盟约是一个整体，一切益处无不囊括其中。
The covenant is neither a hypothetical relationship, nor a
conditional position; rather it is the fresh, living fellowship in which the
power of grace is operative. Only by the exercise of faith does it become a reality.
It is always believers who act as true covenant partners with God. They who are
partners also have the promises in their entirety sealed to them as believers.
The covenant is a totality from which no benefit can be excluded.
基于上述考量，我们可以回头来看看前面所说的盟约教义的主导原则。若情况如此，它不是别的，乃是改革宗信徒对上帝恩典之荣耀计划别具慧眼，且洞若观火。这会在他心中激发出一种盟约意识，并保持其活力，结果是使他对这一圣经的观念如数家珍，这思路对他而言如此自然。若非他能够站立在光的包围中，被光束从四面八方照亮，他怎么能领受并反射神的荣耀呢？站立在这包围中，意味着成为立约的一方，以盟约意识来生活，并饮自约的完满。基督徒知道他在神的盟约里是立约的一方，因此他拥有一切，无论是在时间或永恒中，随时都拥有全备的恩典。藉着信心，他是盟约的成员，这信心视野广阔，包罗万象，不仅指向称义，更指向在基督里属祂的一切恩惠。路德宗倾向于片面地看待信心——只看到它和称义的关系，但是对改革宗而言，信心（在这个词的全部意义上）是使人得救的信心。按照路德宗的说法，圣灵先在罪人里面产生信心（此刻他暂时还未与基督联合）；然后称义随着信心而来，也只有在此时，与中保神秘的联合才得以发生。一切都取决于这个仍有可能失落的称义，以至于信徒可以说只能看到少许恩典的荣耀，且可以说只是为今天而活。盟约的眼光与此相反。人先是藉着奥秘的联合与盟约中保基督联结，这使他在信心中产生意识性的认知。藉着与基督联合，万有会在基督里一并赐下。信心也拥抱这一切；不仅抓住瞬间的称义，更紧紧抓住基督，将祂看为先知、祭司、君王，看祂是富足和完满的弥赛亚。这种看法上的差异，最深刻的理由乃是在于，对改革宗信徒而言，最重要的是在信仰的意识中领受神恩典工作的全部荣耀。因此，信心不能被限制在一部分真理的有限范围内，始终盯住它不放，而需要自由和广泛地关注救恩的整个计划。路德宗信徒像小孩子一样，满足于活在父亲当下的微笑中；改革宗信徒则像成人，在其意识中放射出神永恒的荣耀。
From the above consideration we are
led back to the thought which we have referred to as the leading principle of
the doctrine of the covenant. If this is the case, it is nothing but the open
eye and the clear vision of the Reformed believer for the glorious plan of the
grace of God, which arouses in him a consciousness of the covenant and keeps it
alive, and which causes him to be so familiar with this scriptural idea and
makes this train of thought so natural to him. How else could he receive and
reflect the glory of his God, if he were not able to stand in the circle of
light, where the beams penetrate to him from all sides? To stand in that circle
means to be a party in the covenant, to live out of a consciousness of the
covenant and to drink out of the fullness of the covenant. The Christian knows that
he is a party in God's covenant and as such he has all things and spans at any
one moment the whole orbit of grace, both in time and for eternity. By faith he
is a member of the covenant, and that faith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive
character, which not only points to justification but also to all the benefits
which are his in Christ. Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith onesidedly—
only in its connection with justification—for the Reformed Christian it is
saving faith in all the magnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, the
Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains
outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then,
in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything
depends on this justification, which is losable, so that the believer only gets
to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The
covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator
of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in
faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.
Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous
justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his
rich and full Messiah. The deepest reason for this difference in view is none
other than the fact that the reception of the full glory of the work of God's
grace in the consciousness of faith is the most important thing to the Reformed
believer. Therefore faith may not be confined within the limited circle of one
piece of the truth and its gaze fixed on that all the time; it must have in
view, freely and broadly, the whole plan of salvation. The Lutheran lives as a child
who enjoys his father's smile for the moment; the Reformed believer lives as a
man, in whose consciousness the eternal glory of God throws its radiance.14
如果这诚然是盟约视角的本质特征，那么这种视角就不可能在拣选的观念之外运作。神恩典的源头，改革宗信徒靠盟约得享的全部益处，对他而言都取决于拣选。若盟约意识是改革宗形式之信仰意识的正确表达，那么拣选的观念必然在盟约意识中占有一席之地，而且必然会被这个观念所弥漫，否则它就会缺乏其最深沉、最优美、最珍贵的馨香。如此一来，即使当我们在用盟约教义描画基督徒人生真正的鲜活性时，会发现拣选之恩的血液奔流在这整个人生中。人们最多会说，由于改革宗神学是以实用的方法来处理拣选的教义，它就没有清楚描绘出这教义的黑暗面，即遗弃论（reprobation）。然而，改革宗神学并未怀疑或否定它。至于另一方面，我们可以说，盟约意识和拣选意识并不是分离的，而且前者是后者的基础。以下的历史事实提供了充分的证据：盟约概念活在信徒的意识中，以表达恩典状态的确定性。它被用来当作圣徒恒忍教义的一种公式套语，后者无疑根植于拣选。思路是这样的：工作之约的稳固性同时取决于神和人。因此，这是一个暂时而不确定的盟约。而恩典之约的稳固性则单单取决于神，祂要向立约的双方负责，并藉着圣灵使人的意愿和行为生效。它的稳固性并不取决于终点（作为一个要达到的理想），而取决于起点，取决于中保的工作，而这反过来也已经建基在祂永恒的担保上。
If this is indeed an essential
feature of the covenantal outlook, it follows that this outlook cannot function
apart from the idea of election. The origin of the grace of God, the full
benefits of which the Reformed believer enjoys by the covenant, always lies for
him in election. If consciousness of the covenant is the right expression for
the consciousness of faith in its Reformed form, then there must not only be a
place in it for the idea of election, but it must be permeated by that idea.
Otherwise its deepest, most beautiful and precious fragrance would be lacking.
We find, then, that the bloodstream of electing grace runs throughout the
Christian life, even as the doctrine of the covenant pictures that life in its
true freshness. At the most, one could say that it less sharply delineates the
darker side of this doctrine, reprobation, because of its practical treatment
of election. Yet, Reformed theology has not doubted or denied it. As for the
other side, we may say that the consciousness of the covenant and consciousness
of election are not divorced, and that the former is the basis of the latter.
The following provides sufficient proof: It is a historical fact that the
concept of the covenant lives in the consciousness of believers to express the
certainty of the state of grace. It was used as a formula for the doctrine of
the perseverance of the saints, a doctrine undoubtedly rooted in election. The
train of thought was as follows: The fixity of the covenant of works depended
on both God and man.
因此，这是一个永不改变的盟约，会延伸到永恒。这是一个订婚的公告，信徒藉此可以确认他的未来。有人可能会说，这只是从神的角度看问题，因此只能如此理解，即祂总是遵守、并会永远遵守祂有条件的承诺。但这是不可能的，纯粹是因为如此一来，圣徒的恒忍就失去了根基，也因为这种稳固性不能归给恩典之约，和工作之约有别。
Therefore, it was a temporal,
uncertain covenant. The covenant of grace has its fixity in God alone, who
answers for both parties, and effects man's willing and working by the Holy
Spirit. Its fixity does not lie at the end as an ideal to be reached, but in
the beginning, in the work of the Mediator, which in turn is already grounded
in His eternal guaranty. Hence, it is an unalterable covenant, which extends
into eternity. It is an announcement of intended marriage by which the believer
is assured of his future. Now one could say: that is only meant from God's
perspective and must be understood in such a way that He keeps and will keep
His conditional promise forever. But this is impossible simply because of the
fact that there would be no foundation for the perseverance of the saints, and
because such a fixity can never be ascribed to the covenant of grace in
distinction to the covenant of works.
我们不应忘记，加尔文主义者的宗教改革针对路德宗的回应，必须有利于盟约理念的这种用法。如果对我而言，救恩乃是归结于外在的蒙恩之道（means of
grace），那么恩典在我里面的延续和发展，也将取决于外在恩具的使用。因此，路德宗不熟悉圣徒的恒忍（the
perseverance of the saints），却满足于蒙恩之道的持续存在。很多人都特别注意到，他们信靠的是蒙恩之道的保守（a perseverance of the means
of grace）。但是当盟约概念被置于蒙恩之道的背后，以至于恩典乃是取决于神的手而非受造之物时，恩典就必须立即表现出一种不可抗拒和不可磨灭的特征来。
We should not forget that the
reaction of the Calvinistic Reformation against the Lutheran doctrine had to
favor this usage of the idea of the covenant. If salvation is localized for me
externally in the means of grace, then also the continuation and development of
grace in me will depend on the use of the external means. Therefore the
Lutheran is unacquainted with the perseverance of the saints, and is satisfied
with the continual presence of the means of grace. He believes in a
perseverance of the means of grace, as has been very strikingly observed. But
when the concept of the covenant is placed in back of the means of grace, so
that grace lies in God's hand and not in something created, then grace must
immediately assume an irresistible and imperishable character.
（3）作为盟约意识和盟约实现的信心
就成年人而言（因为我们目前是在讨论他们），在神拣选恩典的基础上，盟约预设了藉着信心对盟约内容的接受，以及个人对此内容的转化取用（appropriation），而盟约的施行则是从这一推定开始的。这是在“盟约的邀请”和“立约的要求”之外所添加的第三类、全新的方面。盟约的实现（realization）就此发生。关于这个主题，引用一些著名神学家本人的话应该不算多余。首先，盟约的具体实现（actualization）是藉着使人得救的信心（saving
faith）。布林格说（Decades,
III, 6）：“创世记明确教导我们，谁是立约的双方，即：永活、全能的神……和亚伯拉罕及其所有后裔，也就是和所有相信的人……因为使徒保罗如此解释亚伯拉罕的后裔，特别是在加拉太书中，他说：‘你们既属乎基督，就是亚伯拉罕的后裔，是照着应许承受产业的了。’”奥利维亚努斯则详细地论证说，盟约并非泛泛地盖印生效，而总是基于一个前提，就是必须有信心。“因此，人在宣讲圣道时，无论是面对被拣选者还是被遗弃者，都需要提出恩典应许的邀约，并召唤接受恩典的回应。但神只在选民心中成就祂所命令的。为了使教会可以从人类整体中浮现出来（神亲自在基督里使他们合而为一），神就开始这个庄严的协议（好像在一个婚姻契约中那样）。但是祂并不是笼统地以恩典的印记的邀约来开始这个协议（因为很多人公开拒绝这邀约，以至于不可能给他们印记，何况主并不愿与伪善者立约，因为就算神自己首先盖了印，他们也会偷偷地使自己的心变得刚硬），而是在有形记号的基础上，以恩典之邀约的最后一件事开始这个协议，这样，我们就可以和我们的后裔一起臣服于神的命令（祂藉此召唤我们领受所提供的恩典），而非使自己心硬。接下来是为最初在福音中提供的恩典盖上印记，也给神特殊的联结盖上印记。”（Substantia
Foederis, II, 54）彼得·马提尔（Peter
Martyr）持相同的看法，我们读到：“信心总应当先于圣礼的施行——如果我们希望正确使用它们而非颠倒次序的话。正如没有信心而吃喝圣餐是极不恰当的领受方式，同样，没有信心而受洗也极不恰当。我希望大家知道这是在说成人，至于孩子该怎么办，我们将另行讨论。”（Loci
Communes, II, 16, 10）穆斯库鲁斯（Musculus）区分神与全地并其中的动物、走兽并人所立的一般性盟约，和“神屈尊与选民和信徒所立的、特殊而永远的约。这个约被称为是‘特殊的’，是因为它并非与所有人相关，而是只和选民、信徒有关，也就是说，是给信徒之父亚伯拉罕及其后裔的。”（Loci
Communes, p. 142）珀拉努斯教导说：“所有信徒共同的盟约是特别在洗礼中，与每一位信徒所立的。”（Syntagma,
VI, 33）普列斯敦写到：“下一个问题是，人如何知道他是否在这个约中？……若你信，那么毫无疑问你就是在约里……此外还有别的方法可以知道，就是：‘地上万国都必因你的后裔得福。’若有人被植入到这后裔里，他就要得福。”（The New
Covenant, pp. 378, 380）只有布雷克是个例外。他认为盟约的本质在于历史性的信心，他解释说，这使一个人作为成年人有资格受洗，而且只有对将来能使人得救的信心所作的应许，才必须被包括在内，而无需预设有这种信心的存在。（Vindicae
Foederis, p. 289）
(c) As far as adults are
concerned—since we are discussing them for the present—the covenant presupposes
acceptance and personal appropriation of its contents by faith on the basis of
the electing grace of God, and the administration of the covenant starts from
this presumption. This is the third and new aspect, which is added to the offer
of the covenant and the requirement to enter into the covenant. Here its
realization takes place. It is perhaps not superfluous to cite some well-known
theologians in their own words in regard to this subject. First, the
actualization of the covenant through saving faith. Bullinger says (Decades,
III, 6): "In Genesis we are taught expressly who the parties in the covenant
are, viz., the living, eternal, almighty God . . . and Abraham with all his
seed, that is with all believers. . . . For the apostle Paul explains the seed
of Abraham in this way, particularly in his epistle to the Galatians, where he
writes, 'If you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according
to the promise.' " Olevianus extensively argues that the sealing of the
covenant is not general, but always starts from the presupposition of the
presence of faith. "Therefore one has in the preaching of the Word an
offer of the promise of grace and a summons to embrace it; both are directed in
this way to the elect as well as to the reprobate. But only in the elect does
God work what He commands. In order that out of that entire multitude a church might
appear, united by God Himself in Christ, God begins that solemn negotiation, as
in a marriage compact, not with a sealing of grace offered, in general (for
many reject it openly so that it cannot be sealed to them; and moreover the
Lord does not desire to enter into covenant with the hypocrites, who secretly
harden themselves, as would be the case if He Himself were first to affix the
seal). Rather in the foundation by visible signs, He begins with what was last
in the offer of grace, namely, so that we may subject ourselves with our seed
and not harden our hearts to the divine command by which He summons us to
receive the offered grace. Then follows the sealing of the grace first offered
in the gospel and also the special bond of God" (Substantia Foederis, II,
54). Peter Martyr takes the same position. We read: "Faith always has to
precede the use of the sacraments, if we want to use them correctly and not
reverse the order. Even as one eats and drinks without faith in an unworthy
manner, so baptism without faith is also received in an unworthy manner. I want
this to be understood with reference to adults, for the precise situation of
children, we deal with elsewhere" (Loci Communes, II, 16, 10). Musculus
distinguishes the general covenant made by God with the whole earth and its
inhabitants, animals as well as men, from "the special and eternal
covenant, which He deigned to make with the elect and believers. This covenant
is called 'special' because it is not relevant to all, but only to those who are
elect and believers, viz., to Abraham as the father of believers and his
seed" (Loci Communes, p. 142). Polanus teaches: "The covenant common
to all believers is made with every believer in particular in baptism"
(Syntagma, VI, 33). Preston writes: "The next question is how can any one
know whether he is in the covenant or not? . . . If you believe, it is certain
that you are in the covenant. . . . And there is still another way to know
this, viz., 'In your seed all the generations of the earth will be blessed.'
When one is planted in this Seed, he will be blessed" (The New Covenant,
pp. 378, 380). Only Blake makes an exception to this. He considers the essence
of the covenant to lie in historical faith and explains that this entitles one
to baptism—in the case of an adult, and that only the promise of future saving
faith has to be included, without presupposing the presence of the latter
(Vindicae Foederis, p. 289).
同样容易证明的是，神学家们并没有以一种二元论的方式，并列拣选和盟约，而是将它们有机地关联在一起。众所周知的是，许多人甚至在他们的盟约定义中，都认为拣选限定了盟约的范围，比如韦修斯、布劳（Braun）、兰普（Lampe）、麦斯崔克（Maestricht）、阿·马尔科（á Marck）、布雷克（Brakel）、弗兰肯（Francken）等人。这种描述不但在后期神学家那里，在非常早期的神学家那里也可以发现。奥利维亚努斯的著作，被冠名为：《论神与选民之间恩典之约的本质》（Concerning
the Substance of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect）。赛格丁（Szegedin）论及一种“神自我降卑，与信徒和选民所立的特殊和永恒之约”。（引自：Heppe,
Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche, p. 208）如前所述，穆斯库鲁斯的表达如出一辙。珀拉努斯（Polanus）也无二致：“神仅仅与选民立了（新旧）两约”。（Syntagma,
VI, 33）同样，1603年，布莱蒙（Bremen）大学教授玛尔提努斯（他后来提倡一种对多特信经更自由的看法）曾写到：“与某些个别的选民所立的恩典之约，而我是其中一员。”几乎无需提醒，所有这些绝非意味着盟约的施行是从拣选而来，也不是说所有非选民与盟约的施行没有任何关系。不如说它的意思是：1）对一个人的拣选有任何的把握，都必须从强烈的盟约意识中发展出来；2）在施行盟约的整个过程中，人始终应当藉着圣道和圣礼，将神那源自拣选、包罗万象的诸般应许铭记在心；3）最后，盟约的本质，它的完全实现，只在神的真儿女身上显明，因此其范围无非就是选民。第二点尤为重要。事实是，凡神的盟约得到施行之处，皆有其内容的印信：在有信心的前提下，我们就能确信，人有资格获得盟约的祝福。除此之外，我们说，始终有一个庄严的见证和事实的印记，就是神希望这恩约完完全全地实现在所有选民身上。在《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》对恩典之约的定义中，这两个方面被很清楚地作出区分：“……恩典之约。在此约中，上帝藉着耶稣基督白白地向罪人提出了生命和救恩的邀约；这约要求他们归信耶稣，以至可以得救，并应许将圣灵赐给一切预定得永生的人，使他们愿意相信，也能够相信。”（第七章第三条）
It is equally easy to demonstrate
that the theologians did not place election and covenant side by side in a
dualistic fashion, but related them organically. It is a well-known fact that
for many election circumscribes the extent of the covenant even in their
definition of the covenant. This is the case with Witsius, Braun, Lampe,
Maestricht, á Marck, Brakel, Francken and others. One finds this description
not only in the later theologians; it is found just as well in the very
earliest. Olevianus' work is entitled: "Concerning the Substance of the
Covenant of Grace Between God and the elect." Szegedin speaks of a
"special and eternal covenant, which God Himself deigned to make with the
believers and elect" (cited by Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik
in der Reformirten Kirche, p. 208). Musculus expressed himself identically, as
one can see above. Polanus is no different: "God made both covenants (old
and new) only with the elect" (Syntagma, VI, 33). Again, in 1603
Martinius, professor in Bremen, who later advocated a more liberal outlook at
Dordrecht, wrote about "the covenant of grace with certain
individual-elect, to whose number I belong." One hardly needs to be
reminded how all this in no sense means that covenant administration proceeds
from election, nor that all nonelect stand outside any relation to the
administration of the covenant. Rather it means: 1) that any certainty about
one's election must develop out of a strong covenant awareness; 2) that
throughout the entire administration of the covenant the all-embracing promises
of God, as they result from election, must be kept in mind, both in word and
sacrament; 3) that finally the essence of the covenant, its full realization,
is found only in the true children of God, and therefore is no more extensive
than election. Especially the second point is important. Besides the fact that
everywhere God's covenant is administered, there is a sealing of its content:
the presence of faith is the presupposition of the assurance that one is
entitled to the blessings of the covenant—besides this fact, we say, there is
always a solemn witness and sealing of the fact that God wishes to realize in
all the elect the total scope of the covenant. These two aspects are very
clearly distinguished in the definition of the Westminster Confession on the
covenant of grace: ". . . the Covenant of Grace; wherein He freely
offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them
faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that
are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able
to believe" (VII, 3).
我们已经看见恩典之约的教义在信徒的良心中，如何完全公平地处理荣耀神的命令，接下来我们就可以指出这个教义对信徒积极的生活所造成的影响。信心，若从盟约角度看待，不仅在视野上更为广阔、更为全面，也比从其他方式来看更为强大和健康，因为它承载着善行的基础。在恩典的状态里有一种盟约的义务。出于感恩的刺激必须在被更新的道德意识上动工，以至于借由基督所获得的新生命可以产生行动，得到发展。这与极力强调预定所带来的预期是截然相反的。恩典之约的教义不会宣讲被动性，而是要求严格的纪律，有时甚至达到一个地步，会让路德宗人士担心回到罗马因功得救的教义上去。这种担心并无根据。带来这些感谢祭的，是在祂子民中工作的中保基督。用我们要理问答的话说，连于基督的人不可能不结出感恩的果子。基督必要在祂的子民中荣耀地掌权，因为这是祂劳苦的赏赐。祂不可能保持沉默，在我们里面毫无作为。唯有当我们被祂的圣道和圣灵统治，以致于完全降服于祂，祂的国才能完全彰显。基督是受膏君王，不仅统治教会，也已经作为万有之首而被赐给教会。因此，在全部生活领域中工作的迫切性也取决于信徒的行动（祂的统治乃是透过他们的行动来实现的）。对改革宗信徒来说，因着其盟约特色，基督信仰是一种永不止息的再创造原则，永远不会从世界中退却，反而要为基督征服世界。真正的宣教使命感只可能出自这种盟约意识，因为在宣教行动中，基督的身体会为自身的完全而努力奋斗，除非它所有的成员都已经加入其中，这种完全就无法达成。在缺乏这种思想的地方，宣教的热忱就只会被慈善的动机所驱动，就其本质而言，这样的动机都不够持久和强大。
Having seen how the doctrine of the
covenant of grace does full justice to the demand of the glorification of God
in the conscience of believers, we may go on to point out the influence of this
same doctrine on the active life of the believer. Faith, considered from the
aspect of the covenant, is not only wider in outlook and more comprehensive, it
is also more powerful and healthy than elsewhere, for it carries with it the
basis of good works. There is a covenantal obligation in the state of grace.
The new life obtained by Christ must be brought to action and development by
having the stimulus of gratitude work on the renewed moral consciousness. This
is the opposite of what was expected from the strong emphasis on predestination.
No passivity is preached, rather a strict discipline is required, which
sometimes goes so far as to make the Lutherans fear a return to the Roman
doctrine of salvation by works. That fear is unfounded. It is Christ, the
Mediator, working in His members, who brings these sacrifices of gratitude. In
the words of our Catechism, it is impossible that someone, having been united
to Christ, would not produce fruits of gratitude. Christ must rule gloriously
in His people, for that is the reward of His labor. He cannot be quiet and
inactive in us. His kingdom is only fully manifest when we are so governed by
His Word and Spirit that we are wholly subject to Him. Christ is the anointed
King, not only over His church, but also He has been given to her as Head over all
things. Hence, in the activity of believers, by which His rule is realized,
lies also the urgency to work in all spheres of life. For the Reformed believer
Christianity, by virtue of its covenantal character, is a restless, recreating
principle which never withdraws itself from the world, but seeks to conquer it
for Christ. Only out of this consciousness of the covenant comes a true zeal
for missions, for in missions the body of Christ is striving toward its own
completion, which it cannot reach as long as all its members have not been
added. Wherever this thought is lacking, zeal for missions is exclusively fed
by philanthropic motives which, by the nature of the case, are less enduring
and powerful.
最后，我们要从另外一个重要的角度揭示改革宗原则和盟约教义的密切关系。这关系到教会的历史性进程。宗教改革运动在这点上是团结一致的，即借由无形的、与基督的联合，而不像罗马那样，借由外在的、可见的约定来寻求教会的本质。这个无形的特性同时也是个体性的（individual）和不可转让的（non-transferable），因此会带来失丧延续性（continuity）的危险。为了防止这种危险，路德在退回到罗马的路上走了很远。在某种意义上，他重新将那维系教会之不可见的、超自然的恩典，囚禁在某些外在的事物里。恩典的能力在圣道和圣礼中；只要教会建立在圣道和圣礼职事的基础上，她就是自给自足的。上帝，一如既往地，放手让恩典保守教会，并将恩典放在蒙恩之道中。改革宗信徒不能满足于这种表述。当然，他相信教会的延续性。但正因为他相信这一点，所以无需借由各类救赎工具（恩典会被浇灌在其中）来支持教会。对他而言，教会的延续性是由上帝信实的应许来保证的。因此，在圣道和圣礼的背后，他将盟约当成最强有力的表述，说明历世历代永不中断的恩典工作，和所有的恩典一样，都如何立基在上帝主权的美意上。教会不是因为我们施洗或者藉着洗礼使人重生而继续存在，更好的说法是神一代代地坚立祂的约，因此教会得以存留，而我们也施洗。既然这是神的盟约而非人的盟约，基督徒就应该藉着无声的感恩，也藉着信心来认识神的良善，并藉着此印记而得刚强。再次，盟约观念要求信心应当自由地、积极地回应神的宣告。盟约诚然把不同的世代连为一体，正如它诚然把个体的人与神连为一体。应许的另一面是感恩的信心。这信心也必须活在教会中，好叫未来的世世代代可以延续下去。它不应该像沙漠一样，当赐福降临时毫无反应；相反，它必须是被一个浇灌的花园，其花朵寻求太阳的面光，叶子舒展以捕捉神恩典的雨滴。显而易见，盟约的观念在其中何等强烈地呈现，并远远超越了对圣礼的偶像崇拜。
Finally, we want to disclose the
close connection between the Reformed principle and the doctrine of the
covenant from one other important angle. This concerns the historical progress
of the church. The Reformation was united in seeking the essence of the church
in the invisible, in union with Christ, and not in an external, visible bond,
as Rome does. This invisible character is at the same time what is individual,
non-transferable. Thus, arises the danger that continuity is lost. In order to
check this danger Luther moved a long way back to Rome. In a certain sense he
again imprisoned the supernatural, invisible grace which maintains the church
within something external. The power of grace is in the Word and in the
sacraments. Where the church is found with the ministry of the Word and
sacraments, it is self-sustaining. God, as it were, has let go of the grace
which sustains the church and placed it in the means of grace. The Reformed
believer cannot be satisfied with this presentation. Certainly he believes in
the continuity of the church, but he believes in it and therefore does not need
to support it by instruments of salvation, into which grace is poured. For him
that continuity is assured by the faithful promise of God. Hence, in back of
Word and sacrament he places the covenant as the strongest expression of how
the unbroken work of grace from generation to generation rests, as all grace,
on the sovereign pleasure of God. The church does not abide because we baptize
or work regeneration by baptism; rather because God establishes His covenant
from generation to generation, therefore the church remains and we baptize.
Since it is God's Covenant and not man's, it is appropriate for the Christian
to recognize this goodness of God in quiet gratitude and in faith and to be
strengthened by its sealing. Here again the concept of the covenant requires
that faith will react freely and actively to this pronouncement of God. The
same thing holds true for the covenant as it binds generations together, as
holds true for the covenant as it binds the individual to God. The other side
of the promise is an appreciative faith. That faith must also live in the
church in regard to its continuation in the generations to follow. It must not
be like the desert, which does not respond when blessings come upon it; rather,
it must be as a watered garden, whose flowers seek the face of the sun and
whose leaves unfold to catch the drops of God's rain of grace. It is evident
how strongly the idea of the covenant makes itself felt here, and how it
elevates itself above all idolatrous worship of the sacraments.
在这方面，也可以说，盟约观念也防止了过于狭隘的圣礼观。作为盟约的印记，圣礼拥有和盟约本身一样广泛而全面的重要性。它们不再是特殊恩典的标记，而成为它们所当成为的：全备恩典的特别标记。它们以我们在祂里面所拥有一切，将基督，那丰盛完满的基督印证给我们。我们不可把这印证的大能局限在救恩之道的任何单一阶段上。既非重生，也非称义或圣徒相通，各自独立，而是所有这些，这些共同组成盟约恩典之内容的，是所印证的对象。如果说对盟约的意识像一面镜子反映了神的荣耀，那么所有个别的光束都在圣礼中聚焦，共同指向一个荣耀。
In this connection it may also be
noted that the idea of the covenant has prevented too narrow a view of the
sacraments. Viewed as seals of the covenant, the sacraments possess just as
universal and comprehensive significance as the covenant itself. They cease
being signs of a particular grace and become what they should be: particular
signs of an all-comprehensive grace. They seal Christ to us, the rich and full
Christ, with all that we have in Him. We cannot limit that sealing power to any
single stage of the way of salvation. Not regeneration, nor justification, nor
the communion of the saints, each in itself, but all of these, as they together
constitute the blessings of the covenant, are the object of sealing. If the
consciousness of the covenant reflects like a mirror the glory of God, then all
the separate rays come together in the sacraments, as a focal point, to one
glory.
（4）圣约儿童与婴儿洗礼的问题
这对孩童的重要性其实不亚于成人，从上文可知，在盟约的邀约和盟约的义务这两个要素之外，还有第三个要素。这是由盟约儿童必将进入盟约团契的期待所组成的。这期待乃是基于神对信徒的应许，就是祂渴望作他们以及他们子孙的神，祂也同样渴望在他们的后裔身上延续盟约，使之成为活生生的现实。这不仅适用于某些带有特定限制的应许，也同样适用于涵盖整个人生、包括所有恩典礼物的盟约应许。我们认为，在这方面，改革宗教会如何强有力地应用盟约的全备性特征，是相当引人注目的。他们都一致认为盟约是一个整体，在他们关于敬拜礼仪的作品中，毫不犹豫地完全展现它的丰盛性。作为一个应许性的盟约，其全部内容在一个人还是婴孩时，就已经临到他。而当婴孩后来以活泼的信心进入到盟约意识里之时，这信心将总结包含在盟约中的一切，以至于神的恩典工作之宽广、丰盛的世界展开在他眼前，这是一个既回顾又前瞻的视角。正是这样一个美丽的景象，使得人们称盟约观念为一个“母亲理念”（mother-idea）。盟约是一位母亲，因为她藉着神圣的恩典和应许属灵地生产儿女，使她的儿女从她领受一切，生育、喂养、祝福他们。改革宗神学显然意识到教会有两个方面，除了是信徒的聚集和基督身体的彰显之外，他也必须是添加新信徒的管道。它并没有将这两方面拆开，反而以有机的关联来保存它们。正因为神的应许已经完整地赐给了信徒的聚集，包括他们的后裔，所以这个聚集也是生儿育女的母亲，主也使她因她的儿女而欢欣。与诸如“救恩的机构”这类语词不同，“母亲”这个名称表明了这种真正的改革宗观点。
(d) With respect to children no less
than for adults, it is clear from the above that besides the two elements of
the offer of the covenant and the obligation of the covenant, there is still a
third element present. This consists of the expectation that covenant children
will enter into the fellowship of the covenant. This expectation is based on
the promise of God to believers that He desires to be their God and the God of
their seed and that He also desires to continue His covenant in their seed and
to make it a living reality. This does not merely hold true for some promises
under certain restrictions, but also for the promises of the covenant, as they
span all of life and include every gift of grace. It is, we think, striking how
strongly just in this respect the comprehensive character of the covenant is
applied by Reformed churches. All of them assume it to be a totality and do not
hesitate to unfold it in all its fullness in their liturgical writings. As a
promissory covenant its total content is brought into contact with the
individual already as an infant. When that infant later enters into covenantal
consciousness by active faith, this faith sums up all that is included in the
covenant, so that the wide, rich world of God's works of grace is opened up to
his sight, a perspective looking backwards and forward. It is just this beautiful
outlook which leads one to call the idea of the covenant of grace a
"mother-idea." The covenant is a mother because it spiritually bears
sons and daughters by the power of divine grace and the promises, a mother
because its children have received everything from it, because it has given
birth to them, sustains them, feeds, and blesses them. Reformed theology has
certainly realized that the church has two sides, and that besides being the
assembly of believers and the revelation of the body of Christ, she must also
be the means by which new believers are added. But it has not separated these
two sides; rather it has kept them in organic connection. Just because the
promises of God have been given to the assembly of believers, in its entirety,
including their seed, this assembly is also a mother who conceives sons and
daughters and is made to rejoice in her children by the Lord. The name
"mother" signifies this truly Reformed point of view in distinction
from other terms such as "institution of salvation."
就我们所知，改革宗神学的主要发言人一致同意这点。他们都认识到，教会已经为了她的后裔领受了这些应许。他们同样认识到，教会对盟约的看法所提供的安慰，其核心就是对这些应许的思考。并且他们坚持认为，记念此应许必须被当做一个急迫的理由来发挥作用，以激发教会的后裔凭信心接受盟约。这个信念给父母和孩童双方都提供了力量。在古时，在教会的黄金时代，它曾提供力量，一个荣耀的安慰，其最荣美的果实可以在这个教义上看到：在婴孩时期夭折的盟约孩童必定得救。
As far as we can discover, the
leading spokesmen of Reformed theology are completely agreed on this. They all
recognize that the church has received such promises for her offspring. They
equally recognize that the consideration of these promises is the heart of the
fruit of comfort which her view of the covenant offers. And they insist that
remembrance of the promise must function as an urgent reason for rousing the
seed of the church to embrace the covenant in faith. On both sides, parents and
children, this conviction provides strength. Strength was provided in the days
of old, in the golden age of the churches, a glorious comfort, finding its most
beautiful fruition in the doctrine of the salvation of the children of covenant
who die in infancy.
神学家们只在阐发这些原则上有不等程度的分歧。人们不得不期待，在每一个盟约成员身上，当他们到达负责任的年纪时，可以看到有意识的转化取用（appropriation），即藉着信心与回转进入盟约的关系里。正如我们试图描绘的，盟约教义的整体倾向会带来这个要求。人们很难满意于这种想法，即只要“不拒绝盟约”就够了，但是却完全没有生命的表现。而这和他们所发现的（也是他们从圣经所知道的），并非所有人都是应许之后裔的这个事实产生了冲突。若对比神学家们在这一点上的说法，显然，在对应许的普遍应用和个体化上，早期神学家显得比后期的神学家更大胆。伯撒（Beza）写到：“由信徒父母所生的孩童，他们的情况非常特殊。在他们里面没有像成人信徒那样的信心品质。但这些生来就被分别为圣，与不信者子女分隔开的孩童，不可能没有信心的种子与胚芽。父母凭信心所领受的应许，也包括他们的孩童，直到千代……若有人反对说，并非所有信徒父母所生的孩童都是选民，正如神没有拣选亚伯拉罕和以撒的所有儿女，对此我们并不缺答案。尽管不能否认情况确实如此，但我们还是要说，这种隐秘的判断应当留给神，正常情况下，基于应许，所有由信徒父母（或父母中一方是信徒）所生的孩童，都被分别为圣了。”
（Confessio Christianae
Fidei, IV, 48）马提尔大致同意他的观点：“我们不把这个（享受盟约的益处）归因于肉身的出生，当成原则和真正原因，因为我们的孩子得救，唯独是靠神的拣选和怜悯（这经常是伴随着自然的出生）……这不是必然的，因为应许一般不会适用于所有后裔，而只适用于被拣选的后裔……但是，因为我们不可好奇地探究神隐秘的护理与拣选，因此我们假定信徒的儿女是圣洁的，只要他们在成长过程中，没有显出他们与基督隔绝。我们就不会将他们排除在教会之外，而是接纳他们为成员，并希望他们有份于神的拣选，拥有恩典和基督之灵，甚至接纳他们，将他们当作是圣徒的后裔。在这个基础上，我们为他们施洗。
Only in the working out of these
principles did the theologians diverge to a greater or lesser degree. One could
not but expect that a conscious appropriation, an entering into the relation of
the covenant by faith and conversion, would be revealed in each member of the
covenant who comes to the age of responsibility. The whole tendency of the
doctrine of the covenant, as we have tried to present it, led to that demand.
One could hardly be satisfied with the thought that a non-rejection of the
covenant, where all expression of life was missing, would be sufficient. Here
they collided with the discovery, as they also knew from the Scriptures, that
not all belong to the seed of the promise. In comparing the statements of
theologians at this point, it is clear that the older theologians generally
proceeded more fearlessly than the later ones in the individualization and
general application of the promises. Beza writes: "The situation of
children who are born of believing parents is a special one. They do not have
in themselves that quality of faith which is in the adult believer. Yet it
cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been
separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed and germ of
faith. The promise, accepted by the parents in faith, also includes their
children to a thousand generations. . . . If it is objected that not all of
them who are born of believing parents are elect, seeing that God did not
choose all the children of Abraham and Isaac, we do not lack an answer. Though
we do not deny that this is the case, still we say that this hidden judgment
must be left to God and that normally, by virtue of the promise, all who have
been born of believing parents, or if one of the parents believes, are
sanctified (Confessio Christianae Fidei, IV, 48). In general Martyr agrees with
him: "We do not ascribe this (the enjoyment of the benefits of the
covenant) to birth in the flesh as the principle and true cause, for our
children's salvation is only by the election and mercy of God, which often
accompanies natural birth. . . . This is not out of necessity, for the promise
is not generally applicable to the whole seed but only to that seed in which
election converges. . . . But because we must not curiously investigate the
hidden providence and election of God, we assume that the children of believers
are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be
estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them
as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and
have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that
basis we baptize them.
我们无需回应那些反对者的质疑，是否牧师受了蒙骗，或许这婴孩事实上并不是应许之子，不是神的拣选和怜悯之子。就成人而言，我们也可以推理出类似的讥讽，因为我们不知道他们是不是带着诡诈而来，是不是真信徒，他们到底是拣选之子还是遭遗弃之子，等等。”（Loci
Communes, IV, 8, 7）按照珀拉努斯的说法，信徒的儿女必须受洗：“因为他们是基督的血所买来的，他们的罪已经被洗净了，因此，藉着圣灵的工作，他们拥有洗礼所象征的事物……因为圣灵已经应许给他们，他们拥有圣灵。”（Syntagma,
VI, 55）
We do not need to respond to those who
object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is
in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar
diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults, for we do not know whether
they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of
election or perdition, etc." (Loci Communes, IV, 8, 7). The children of believers must be baptized, according to Polanus, "because
they have been purchased by the blood of Christ, have been washed from their
sins, and possess therefore by the work of the Holy Spirit the thing signified.
. . . Because the Holy Spirit is promised to them, they possess the Holy
Spirit" (Syntagma, VI, 55).
正如我们已经指出的，其他人，尤其是后期神学家的表述则没有这么大胆，而更愿意满足于做出一般性的判断：在信徒的后裔中，总有一个后裔是属主的，对他而言，盟约的诸般应许是有效的，没有任何限制。以海德格尔（Heidegger）为例，他说：“洗礼并非对信徒子女中的每一位，而只对选民印证重生并属灵恩典的全部内容。基于爱心的判断，个别地来说，对他们每一位都心存盼望，这很好，很正当；但集体而言，关于他们所有的人，却不允许我们心怀如此的期盼。”（Heppe,
Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche, p. 496）
Others, especially the later
theologians as we have already noted, expressed themselves less fearlessly and
preferred rather to be satisfied with the general judgment that there is a seed
for the Lord among the seed of believers, for whom the covenantal promises hold
without limitation. Heidegger serves as an example: "Not to all the
children of believers particularly, but only to the elect baptism seals
regeneration and the total contents of spiritual grace. Though it is good and
proper to hope for the best for each one in particular according to the
judgment of love, it is not permitted in regard to all collectively"
(Heppe, Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche, p. 496).
另一个不同点与这个问题有关：盟约应许借由重生而实现在盟约儿童身上，通常是在什么时候？我们可以辨识出三种思想学派：第一个学派（包括乌尔辛努斯、珀拉努斯、尤尼乌斯、瓦莱乌斯[Walaeus]、克洛彭博格、威提乌斯[Voetius]和韦修斯）不仅假定达到分辨年龄之前就去世的盟约儿童，在婴孩期之初就拥有圣灵，因此已经重生并与基督联合，而且也坚持认为这种论点对于一切应许的后裔来说都是有效的，没有任何差别。在与重洗派（Anabaptists）的论战中，他们以此为论据，为婴儿洗辩护。乌尔辛努斯说：“毫无疑问，神只为那些承认并持定教会已经是由盟约成员所组成的人，设立了祂的圣礼和盟约印记，祂的意思不是要藉着圣礼使他们初次成为基督徒，而是使那些已经是基督徒的人越来越像基督徒，并且要巩固在他们里面已经开始的工作……因此，若任何人认为基督徒的子女是外邦人而非基督徒，并谴责所有这样的婴孩不能来受洗，他需要小心他这样做的理由是什么，因为保罗说他们是圣洁的（林前第7章），而且神透过亚伯拉罕对所有信徒说，祂要作他们和他们子孙的神……其次他需要考虑，他如何以清洁的良心允许他们受洗，因为故意给外邦人和不信者施洗，是对洗礼的公开滥用和亵渎。
Another point of difference concerns
the time when the promises of the covenant are usually realized by regeneration
in the children of the covenant. Three schools of thought can be identified:
the first school (including Ursinus, Polanus, Junius, Walaeus, Cloppenburg,
Voetius, and Witsius) not only assumes that the children of the covenant who
die before they reach the age of discretion, possess the Holy Spirit from their
earliest childhood and so are born again and united to Christ, but also
maintains this thesis as generally valid for the seed of the promise without
distinction. They use it as an argument in defense of infant baptism in their
polemics with the Anabaptists. Ursinus says: "This is sure and certain,
that God instituted his sacraments and covenant seals only for those who
recognize and maintain the church as already made up of parties of the
covenant, and that it is not His intention to make them Christians by the
sacraments first, but rather to make those who are already Christians to be
Christians more and more and to confirm the work begun in them. . . . Hence, if
anyone considers the children of Christians to be pagans and non-Christians,
and damns all those infants who cannot come to be baptized, let him take care
on what ground he does so, because Paul calls them holy (1 Cor. 7), and God
says to all believers in the person of Abraham that He will be their God and
the God of their seed. . . . Next let him consider how he will permit them to
be baptized with a good conscience, for knowingly to baptize a pagan and
unbeliever is an open abuse and desecration of baptism.
当重洗派诉诸婴孩缺乏信心来反对婴儿洗礼时，我们的回答始终是，圣灵重生他们，以适合他们年龄的方式，使他们里面有信靠和顺服神的意愿，我们始终认为，我们放手让自由的恩典和属天的拣选隐秘地工作。”（引自：Südhoff, Olevianus und
Ursinus, pp. 633f.）在《大要理问答》中，有一个问题问到：“婴孩既然没有信心，可以受洗吗？”答案是：“是的，信心和信心告白是对成人的要求，除此之外，他们别无他途可以被包括在盟约里。对婴儿来说，只要基督之灵以适合他们年龄的方式使他们成圣就够了。”（问291）比较上文珀拉努斯的引述，其中也涉及到这个问题。尤尼乌斯反驳重洗派，他说到：“我们认为，说婴孩完全不能信是错误的；只要他们有了习性原则意义上的信心（faith in
the principle of the habitus），他们就有了信心的灵（the Spirit of faith）……重生可以从两方面看：在“基督”这基石里和原则上的重生；以及它在我们里面发动的重生。前者（也可以被称为是从第一亚当移植到第二亚当里）是根源，后者从中生发出果实。藉着前者，当蒙拣选的婴孩被连于基督时，就得了重生，其印记发生在洗礼中。”（Theses
Theologicae, LI, 7）瓦莱乌斯在他针对洗礼的论文中说到：“我们拒绝路德宗的观点，他们把圣灵重生的大能与洗礼的外在之水如此捆绑在一起，以至于这大能就临在于水本身之中，或者至少，重生原则只在施行洗礼的行动中有效。但这不符合圣经在各处所说的，在受洗的人身上，必须先要有信心与悔改，也因此先要有重生的开端和重生的种子……因此，我们不把洗礼的功效和外在的水洒在身体上的时刻绑定在一起，而是和圣经的要求一致——至少是按照爱心的判断（the
judgment of love）——受洗者里面先要有信心与悔改，无论是盟约成员的婴孩子女还是成人。因为我们认为，基于神圣的赐福和福音性的盟约，可以确知婴孩里面有圣灵，也有信心与回转的种子。”（Synopsis
Purioris Theologiae, XLIV, 27, 29）克洛彭博格反对重洗派的讨论也类似：“我们假定信徒子女藉着圣灵直接而隐秘的工作，已经被连于基督，直到婴儿期结束（无论是在今生或过世的那一刻），以至于（不管是否在肉身之中）他们能够凭信心认信信仰，或得见神藉着恩典所共同赐给他们和我们的。”（Exercitationes,
I, 1097）威提乌斯表明，他同意伯格斯（Burges）在原则上的重生（regeneration
in principle）与实际的重生（active
regeneration）这两者之间所作的区分。他把前者归给盟约父母被拣选的子女，却拒绝伯格斯的立场，说这种原则上的重生跟着洗礼而来，是实际重生的结果。“这不能被他所引用的改革宗神学家所证实。众所周知，按照他们的看法，洗礼的效用不在于引发重生，而在于印证已经发生的重生。”
Our continual answer to the
Anabaptists, when they appeal to the lack of faith in infants against infant
baptism, is that the Holy Spirit works regeneration and the inclination to
faith and obedience to God in them in a manner appropriate to their age, always
with it understood that we leave the free mercy and heavenly election unbound
and unpenetrated" (quoted in Südhoff, Olevianus und Ursinus, pp. 633f.).
And in the Larger Catechism, the question "Are infants, since they have no
faith, properly baptized?" is answered: "Yes, faith and the
confession of faith are required of adults, since they can in no other way be
included into the covenant. For infants it suffices that they are sanctified by
the Spirit of Christ in a manner appropriate to their age" (Q. 291).
Compare the above quotation of Polanus, which also relates to this issue.
Junius argues against the Anabaptists: "We call it false to argue that
infants are completely incapable of faith; if they have faith in the principle
of the habitus, they have the Spirit of faith. . . . Regeneration is viewed
from two aspects, as it is in its foundation, in Christ, in principle, and as
it is active in us. The former (which can also be called transplanting from the
first to the second Adam) is the root, from which the latter arises as its
fruit. By the former elect infants are born again, when they are incorporated
into Christ, and its sealing occurs in baptism" (Theses Theologicae, LI,
7). Walaeus writes in his disputation on baptism: "We reject the opinion
of the Lutherans who tie the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to the
external water of baptism in such a way that, either it is present in the water
itself or at least the principle of regeneration will only work in the
administration of baptism. This, however, is opposed to all the places in
Scripture, where faith and repentance and hence the beginning and seed of
regeneration are antecedently required in the one who is baptized. . . .
Therefore, we do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the moment in which the
body is sprinkled with external water; but we require with the Scriptures
antecedent faith and repentance in the one who is baptized, at least according
to the judgment of love, both in the infant children of covenant members, and
in adults. For we maintain that in infants too the presence of the seed and the
Spirit of faith and conversion is to be ascertained on the basis of divine
blessing and the evangelical covenant" (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae,
XLIV, 27, 29). Similarly Cloppenburg argues against the Anabaptists: "We
posit that the children of believers are incorporated into Christ by the
immediate secret work of the Holy Spirit, until, whether in this life or at the
moment of death, the period of infancy is completed, so that, whether in the
flesh or not, they may confess by faith or sight what God has given them and us
together by grace" (Exercitationes, I, 1097). Voetius expresses his agreement
with the distinction Burges made between regeneration in principle and active
regeneration. He ascribes the former to the elect children of covenant parents,
but rejects Burges' position, in which this regeneration in principle follows
from baptism as an outworking of the latter. "This is not proven by the
Reformed theologians cited by him. It is known that in their opinion the effect
of baptism does not lie in the causation of regeneration, but in the sealing of
regeneration which has already been brought about."
稍早一些，他写到：“第七点是改革宗教师们通常的立场，重生被公认个别地发生在每一个盟约儿童，也即选民身上，无论他们于婴孩期夭折或长大后被带进信仰中，等等。”（Selectarum
Disputationum, II, 410-412）最后，韦修斯写到：“我承认，到目前为止，我同意这一意见。”（Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, II, 634）他也认为，这种观点已经被荷兰教会的洗礼常规所接纳。
A little earlier he writes, "The
seventh opinion is the general point of view of Reformed teachers, in which
regeneration is acknowledged in each of the children of the covenant in
particular, namely those who are elect, whether they die in infancy or are
brought to faith when growing up, etc." (Selectarum Disputationum, II,
410-412). Finally, Witsius writes: "I acknowledge that thus far I agree
with this opinion" (Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, II, 634). He also thinks that
this view has been accepted in the baptismal formula of the Dutch churches.
除此之外还有一个学派。在这个群体里的人，对于能否对应许儿童重生的时间作出任何规定而犹豫不决。看起来采取这个立场的有詹秀思（Zanchius）、埃姆斯和老弗里德里希·斯班汉（Fr.
Spanheim the elder）。但是詹秀思更倾向于认为重生是在洗礼时赐下的，而非远在洗礼之后。他说：“正如一些成人，一些婴孩在受洗之前就被赐予信心的灵，他们藉此连于基督，得蒙赦罪、得到重生；这和那些在洗礼中得到这些恩赐的人，情况是不同的。”（De
Baptismo, III, 31, in Commentarius ad Ephesios, Caput V）埃姆斯说到：“我们不否认，神在一些人的洗礼当中将恩典的习性或原则注入在他们里面；但神同样可以在洗礼之前或者之后，赐下同样的恩典。”（Bellarminus
Enervatus, ed. 1628, III, 68）斯班汉则说：“洗礼为重生效力。在成人身上，重生发生在洗礼之前，而在婴儿身上，重生发生在洗礼之后。按照神的美意，其生效有时在现在，有时在将来。”（Dubia
Evangelica, III, 27, 6）
Besides this school there is still
another. Those in this group hesitate to make any stipulation as to the time of
regeneration in the children of the promise. Zanchius, Ames, and Fr. Spanheim
the elder appear to take this approach. Zanchius, however, thinks of
regeneration as given at the time of baptism, rather than occurring long after
baptism. He says: "Some infants, as well as some adults, are given the
Spirit of faith, by which they are united to Christ, receive the forgiveness of
sins and are regenerated, before baptism; this is not the case with others, to
whom these gifts are given in baptism" (De Baptismo, III, 31, in
Commentarius ad Ephesios, Caput V). Ames states: "We do not deny that God
infuses the habitus or principle of grace in some at the time of their baptism;
but God can communicate this same grace both before and after baptism"
(Bellarminus Enervatus [ed. 1628], III, 68). Spanheim: "Baptism serves
regeneration, which precedes in adults and which follows in infants. It takes
effect, at times in the present and at other times in the future, according to
God's pleasure" (Dubia Evangelica, III, 27, 6).
最后还有第三个学派。他们认为，圣道的宣讲是寻常的蒙恩之道，重生是伴随着蒙恩之道而发生的。他们相信，除非必要，神不会背弃这个原则；对于那些命定要活到负责任的年龄的孩童，要等到他们能有意识地得到所印记的盟约之福时，重生才会发生。伯撒（他在这一点上不总是前后一致）说到：“对于那些生在教会里、被神拣选……和在负责任的年龄之前去世的孩子，我可以很容易根据神的应许，假设他们在出生时就已经与基督联合了。然而，除非是彻底的鲁莽，对于其余的孩子，除了说他们只能在藉着听道而领受真信心时重生之外，我们还能确定什么呢？”（Ad Acta
Colloquii Mompelgartensis, p. 106）这一学派的另一位代表人物是乌瑟尔，他这样问到：“对于那些被拣选且被神许可成长到可负责任年龄的婴儿，我们应当怎么理解洗礼在他们身上的功效呢？”他的回答是：“如果神的意思是给他们寻常的蒙恩管道的话，在正常情况下，我们没有理由向他们保证，神会做不寻常的工作。虽然神有时候可以在母腹里就使人成圣，就如耶利米或施洗约翰的例子，而其他时候则是在洗礼之时，但我们很难判定（正如有人惯于如此判定），每一位被拣选的婴儿通常是在洗礼之前或之时，领受重生的原则和信心与恩典的种子。而若真有这样恩典的原则已经被注入，它就不可能失落或隐藏到一个地步，以至于无法显明自身。”（Body of Divinity, p. 417）
Finally, there is a third school. It
held that the preaching of the Word is the usual means by which regeneration
takes place as an accompaniment. It held that God does not depart from this
rule without necessity, and that in those children who are destined to live to
the age of discretion, regeneration bides its time until they can be brought to
a conscious possession of the sealed blessings of the covenant. Beza, who was
not always consistent on this point, says: "As for the children born in
the church, elected by God . . . and who die before coming to the age of
discretion, I can easily assume on the basis of the promise of God, that they
are united to Christ at birth. However, apart from plain audacity, what can we
ascertain concerning the rest other than that they are only regenerated when by
hearing they receive the true faith?" (Ad Acta Colloquii Mompelgartensis,
p. 106). Another representative of this school was Ussher, who asks as follows:
"What must we think of the effect of baptism in those elect infants whom
God allows to mature to years of discretion?" He answers: "There is
no reason ordinarily to promise them an extraordinary work of God, if God
purposes to give them ordinary means. Though God can at times sanctify from the
womb, as in the case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, and at other times in
baptism, it is difficult to determine, as some are accustomed to do, that each
elect infant ordinarily before or in baptism receives the principle of
regeneration and the seed of faith and grace. If, however, such a principle of
grace is infused, it cannot be lost or hidden in such a way that it would not
demonstrate itself" (Body of Divinity, p. 417).
不过，除了刚刚讨论的这两点之外，所有这些学派都一致同意，将这赐给教会的婴儿洗礼和神的应许关联在一起，意思是从她的儿女中，祂要为自己兴起一个后裔。
But apart from these two points just
discussed, all these schools are agreed in relating infant baptism to the
promise of God, given to the church, that from her seed He intends to raise up
a seed for Himself.
[1] 本文译自：Geerhardus Vos,“The
Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology”，收录于：Geerhardus Vos, and Richard B. Gaffin, Redemptive History and Biblical
Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1980), p.234-267。脚注省略；文中各级标题为译者所加。
[2] Shibboleth（示播列）一词出自士师记12:6。——编者注
