|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
中文下载
The Atonement began as a series of articles on the atonement which appeared in the Presbyterian Banner intended to correct the broad misrepresentation of the doctrine of the atonement.
《赎罪》（The Atonement）始于一系列关于赎罪的文章，这些文章最初发表在《长老会旗帜报》（Presbyterian Banner）上，旨在纠正对赎罪教义的广泛误解。
This compilation of Hodge’s articles served as a useful resource for Reformed churches—then and now—and creates a deepened understanding of the atonement from the perspective of Calvinism.
霍奇（Hodge）的这些文章的汇编，对当时的和现在的归正教会（Reformed churches）来说都是一种有用的资源，并从加尔文主义（Calvinism）的角度深化了对赎罪的理解。
Hodge begins with a broad introduction to the doctrine of the atonement in non-technical language, outlining its development and controversies.
霍奇（Hodge）首先用非技术性的语言广泛介绍了赎罪的教义，概述了它的发展和争论。
He explains the various theories of the atonement, as well as the theological problems basic to each.
祂解释了各种赎罪论（theories of the atonement），以及每种理论所基于的神学问题。
In addition to a detailed outline of the doctrine of the atonement, Hodge also asks fundamental questions about its meaning, comparing contemporary accounts of the atonement to historic Reformed traditions.
除了详细概述赎罪的教义外，霍奇（Hodge）还提出了关于其意义的基本问题，将当代对赎罪的论述与历史上的归正（Reformed）传统进行了比较。
Table of Contents
目录
PREFACE
序言
PART I: THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT
第一部分：赎罪的性质（THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT）
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTORY
第一章：导论（INTRODUCTORY）
Vital importance of the doctrine—General agreement of the Christian Church in all ages—Danger of Rationalism, and its prevalence in the present age—All error partial truth—Systems of doctrine unavoidable—All controversy upon the subject is to be determined by a simple appeal to Scripture—Objections to the evidence upon which a doctrine rests to be frankly considered, but all rationalistic objections to the plain teachings of inspiration inadmissible—The plan of the following treatise briefly stated.
本教义至关重要—基督教会历代以来的普遍共识—理性主义（Rationalism）的危险及其在当代的盛行—所有的错误都是部分的真理—教义体系是不可避免的—关于此主题的所有争议都应通过简单诉诸圣言（Scripture）来裁定—对于一个教义所依据的证据的反对意见应坦诚地予以考虑，但对默示（inspiration）的明确教导所提出的所有理性主义反对意见都是不可接受的—以下论著的计划简要说明。
CHAPTER II: STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE
第二章：教义的陈述（STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE）
The attitude of God, of the individual sinner, and of the moral universe in relation to the Atonement severally considered—The Orthodox doctrine shown to be comprehensive and consistent, and the Moral Influence and Governmental Hypothesis shown to be partial and inconsistent—The elements of the Orthodox Doctrine stated in respect to its Motive, its Nature, and its Effects.
分别考察上帝、个别罪人和道德宇宙（moral universe）对赎罪的态度—正统教义（The Orthodox doctrine）被证明是全面且一致的，而道德影响（Moral Influence）和治理论假说（Governmental Hypothesis）则被证明是片面且不一致的—正统教义的要素在其动机（Motive）、性质（Nature）和效果（Effects）方面予以陈述。
CHAPTER III: DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS INVOLVED IN THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
第三章：术语的定义以及正统赎罪教义所涉及主要论点的具体说明
Necessity of technical terms, and need of acurate definitions—ATONEMENT and SATISFACTION—The difference between a penal and a pecuniary satisfaction—Penalty and distinction between CALAMITIES, CHASTISEMENTS and PENAL EVILS—Meaning of the terms SUBSTITUTION and VICARIOUS—EXPIATION and PROPITIATION—IMPETRATION and APPLICATION—REDEMPTION and ATONEMENT—MERITUM and SATISFACTIO, or the distinction between active and passive obedience—The principal points involved in the doctrine stated.
技术性术语的必要性，以及准确定义的需要—赎罪（ATONEMENT）和满足（SATISFACTION）—刑罚性满足（penal satisfaction）和金钱性满足（pecuniary satisfaction）之间的区别—刑罚（Penalty）以及灾难（CALAMITIES）、管教（CHASTISEMENTS）和刑罚性恶果（PENAL EVILS）之间的区别—替代（SUBSTITUTION）和代受（VICARIOUS）术语的含义—赎罪（EXPIATION）和挽回（PROPITIATION）—求得（IMPETRATION）和应用（APPLICATION）—救赎（REDEMPTION）和赎罪（ATONEMENT）—功德（MERITUM）和满足（SATISFACTIO），或主动顺服（active obedience）和被动顺服（passive obedience）之间的区别—本教义所涉及的主要论点予以陈述。
CHAPTER IV: THE ULTIMATE MOTIVES OF ALL GOD’S ACTS ARE IN HIMSELF; AND THE IMMUTABLE PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINE NATURE DEMAND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN
第四章：上帝所有行动的终极动机都在于祂自己；且神性（DIVINE NATURE）不可变的完全性要求对罪的刑罚
The ultimate motives of all God’s act ons are in himself proved—The Scriptures predicate holiness of the divine nature as well as of the divine will—They assert that God hates sin, and regards it as intrinsically worthy of punishment—The different answers to the question, Why does God punish sin? considered—The hypothesis that Disinterested Benevolence is the whole of Virtue, disproved—The punishment of sin intrinsically right, and essential to the moral perfection of God—JUSTICE voluntary, but not optional—GRACE necessarily a matter of sovereign choice.
证明上帝所有行动的终极动机都在于祂自己—圣言（The Scriptures）断言神性（divine nature）具有圣洁，神圣意志（divine will）亦然—它们断言上帝憎恨罪恶，并认为罪恶本质上值得刑罚—对“上帝为何刑罚罪恶？”这一问题的不同回答予以考虑—无私仁爱（Disinterested Benevolence）是美德（Virtue）的全部这一假说被驳斥—对罪恶的刑罚本质上是公义的，对上帝的道德完全性（moral perfection）至关重要—公义（JUSTICE）是自愿的，但不是可选择的—恩典（GRACE）必然是主权选择（sovereign choice）的事项。
CHAPTER V: THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE DIVINE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUTABLE
第五章：从神圣律法（DIVINE LAW）是绝对不变的这一事实，证明教会的赎罪教义
The divine law shown to be immutable—Dr. Fiske’s admissions—The law ceremonial and moral—The Penalty shown to be an essential part of law—The admissions and inconsistencies of Fiske and Barnes—The sufferings of Christ shown not to have been a “substitute for the penalty,” to have been not identical with the sufferings demanded of his people in person, considered as suffering, but precisely identical considered as penalty—Scripture teaches that Christ came with the design of fulfilling, not relaxing the law—The position of Dr. John Young as to the nature of moral law, and its penalty stated and refuted.
证明神圣律法（divine law）是不可变的—费斯克博士（Dr. Fiske）的承认—律法包括礼仪性的和道德性的—刑罚被证明是律法的一个基本组成部分—费斯克（Fiske）和巴恩斯（Barnes）的承认和不一致之处—证明基督的受苦并非“对刑罚的替代”（substitute for the penalty），就其作为受苦而言，与祂的百姓本人被要求的受苦并非完全相同，但就其作为刑罚而言，则是完全相同的—圣言教导说，基督来是为了成全（fulfilling）律法，而不是放松（relaxing）律法—约翰·杨博士（Dr. John Young）关于道德律法性质及其刑罚的立场予以陈述和驳斥。
CHAPTER VI: THE THREE-FOLD RELATION WHICH MORAL AGENTS SUSTAIN TO THE DIVINE LAW
第六章：道德主体（MORAL AGENTS）与神圣律法所维持的三重关系
The distinction between the Natural, Federal and Penal relations which men sustain to the divine law stated and applied.
陈述并应用了人与神圣律法所维持的自然关系（Natural relation）、盟约关系（Federal relation）和刑罚关系（Penal relation）之间的区别。
CHAPTER VII: ADAM WAS, IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORDS, THE FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RACE; AND THE ANTENATAL FORFEITURE, OF WHICH EACH OF HIS DESCENDANTS IS SUBJECT, IS THE PENAL CONSEQUENCE OF HIS PUBLIC SIN
第七章：亚当，就这些词的严格意义而言，是人类的盟约代表（FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE）；祂每一个后裔所遭受的出生前丧失（ANTENATAL FORFEITURE），是祂公开之罪的刑罚性后果（PENAL CONSEQUENCE）
The admitted facts of man’s birth into an inevitable condition of sin and misery stated—The Orthodox and the Rationalist agreed that God could not bring the new-born soul into such a condition, unless his natural rights had been justly forfeited before birth—The two questions thence arise, WHY God allows such a curse to be transmitted, and HOW it is transmitted—I. The attempted solutions which deny that man is subject to a just antenatal forfeiture—The Manichæan doctrine of the absolute impreventability of sin—Pantheistic hypothesis that sin is a necessary incident to moral development—The New England Root Theory and Placæus’ doctrine—Mediate and Consequent Imputation stated and refuted—II. The attempted solutions which admit antenatal forfeiture—Theory of pre-existence is maintained by Dr. E. Beecher and Julius Müller stated and refuted—The Realistic theory of our oneness with Adam, as advocated by Drs. Baird and Shedd, stated, proved not to have been the doctrine of the men who wrote the Creeds of the Reformed Churches, and not to be true—The Doctrine of President Edwards—The Several points involved in the true doctrine, 1st, As to the imputation of guilt, and 2d, As to the origination of moral corruption in each new-born soul, stated, and the whole proved from Scripture, and the consent of Churches.
陈述了人类出生进入不可避免的罪恶和痛苦状态的公认事实—正统派（The Orthodox）和理性主义者（Rationalist）都同意，除非新生的灵魂的自然权利在出生前已经被公义地丧失，否则上帝不能将祂带入这样一种状态—由此产生了两个问题：上帝为何允许这样的咒诅被传递，以及它是如何被传递的—I. 试图否认人遭受公义的出生前丧失的解释—摩尼教（Manichæan）关于罪恶绝对不可预防的教义—泛神论（Pantheistic）假说，认为罪恶是道德发展（moral development）的必要附带事件—新英格兰根源论（New England Root Theory）和普拉卡厄斯（Placæus）的教义—中介归算（Mediate Imputation）和后果归算（Consequent Imputation）予以陈述和驳斥—II. 试图承认出生前丧失的解释—E. 比彻博士（Dr. E. Beecher）和朱利叶斯·穆勒（Julius Müller）所坚持的先存论（Theory of pre-existence）予以陈述和驳斥—由拜尔德博士（Dr. Baird）和谢德博士（Dr. Shedd）所倡导的，关于我们与亚当合一的实在论（The Realistic theory）予以陈述，证明它并非撰写归正教会（Reformed Churches）信条（Creeds）的人所持的教义，并且并非真实—爱德华兹总统（President Edwards）的教义—真实教义所涉及的几个论点，第1，关于罪疚的归算（imputation of guilt），第2，关于道德败坏（moral corruption）在每个新生灵魂中的起源，予以陈述，并从圣言和众教会的共识中证明了整体。
CHAPTER VIII: CHRIST WAS, IN THE STRICT JEWISH SENSE OF THE TERM, A SACRIFICE. THE JEWISH SACRIFICES WERE STRICTLY PIACULAR, AND THEY WERE TYPICAL OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD
第八章：基督，就该术语严格的犹太意义而言，是祭物（A SACRIFICE）。犹太祭物是严格的赎罪性祭物（STRICTLY PIACULAR），并且它们是主耶稣基督的祭物的预表（TYPICAL）
Heads of argument stated—I. The divine origin of Sacrifices proved—The primitive Sacrifices were piacular—The principle established by the common consent of mankind—II. That the Jewish Sacrifices were strictly piacular, the doctrine of the entire Christian Church—The opinions of Bähr, Maurice, Jowett, Bushnell and Young—The different kinds of Sacrifice—The Orthodox doctrine proved (a) from the occasions upon which the sacrifices were offered, (b) The qualifications and sacrificial designations of the victims, (c) The ritual of the sacrifice, (d) from their declared effects, and (e) from the testimony of the inspired prophets, and of ancient heathens, Jews and Christians—III. The Sacrifices of the law were typical of the sacrifice of Christ—This proved from the words of Christ—from the fact that the Old Testament sacrifices are declared to be shadows, &c., of which Christ is the substance, and from the fact the Scriptures explicitly assert that Christ saves his people by being offered as a sacrifice for them.
论点的要点予以陈述—I. 证明祭物（Sacrifices）的神圣起源—原始祭物（primitive Sacrifices）是赎罪性的（piacular）—此原则由人类的普遍共识所确立—II. 犹太祭物是严格的赎罪性祭物，这是整个基督教会的教义—巴尔（Bähr）、莫里斯（Maurice）、乔伊特（Jowett）、布什内尔（Bushnell）和杨（Young）的观点—不同种类的祭物—正统教义的证明：(a) 从献祭的时机（occasions）来看，(b) 从祭牲（victims）的资格和祭祀性指定来看，(c) 从祭物的仪式（ritual）来看，(d) 从它们被宣告的效果来看，以及 (e) 从受默示的先知以及古代异教徒、犹太人和基督徒的见证来看—III. 律法的祭物是基督祭物的预表（typical）—这一点从基督的话语中得到证明—从旧约祭物被宣告为影儿（shadows）而基督是实体（substance）的事实中得到证明，并且从圣言明确断言基督借着为祂的百姓献上自己作为祭物来拯救祂们的事实中得到证明。
CHAPTER IX: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED BY THE FACT THAT CHRIST EFFECTED SALVATION BY ACTING AS THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE
第九章：从基督以祂百姓的大祭司（HIGH PRIEST）身份行事来成就救恩的这一事实，证明正统教义
The position assumed by the advocates of the Moral Theory as to the nature of Christ’s Priesthood stated—The same as to the advocates of the Govermental Theory—I. The Priest was ordained to act in behalf of man in those things which bear upon God—That the effect of his work primarily terminates upon God, proved from Scripture—II. The work of the priest secured the salvation, not the salvability, of those for whom he acted, and he acted as the representative of certain persons definitely—III. That Christ was a real and not a metaphorical priest, proved from Scripture—The inferences from these positions deduced.
陈述了道德理论（Moral Theory）倡导者对基督祭司职分性质所持的立场—同样也陈述了治理论（Govermental Theory）倡导者所持的立场—I. 祭司被设立是为了在那些关乎上帝的事情上代表人类行事—祂的工作效果主要终止于上帝，这一点从圣言中得到证明—II. 祭司的工作确保了祂所代表之人的救恩（salvation），而不是可得救性（salvability），并且祂明确地作为某些特定人群的代表行事—III. 基督是一位真实的而不是一个比喻性的祭司，这一点从圣言中得到证明—从这些立场推导出的结论。
CHAPTER X: CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS WERE STRICTLY AND DEFINITELY VICARIOUS
第十章：基督的受苦是严格且明确的替代性（VICARIOUS）
Bushnell’s perversion of the phrase Vicarious illustrated and disproved—The true relation of the words, Vicarious, Substitute, Representative and Mediator, stated—Barnes’ definition of a substitute accepted as true—That Christ is in the strict sense the Substitute of his people and his sufferings vicarious, proved—Barnes’ inconsistency exposed.
说明并驳斥了布什内尔（Bushnell）对“代受”（Vicarious）一词的曲解—陈述了代受（Vicarious）、代替者（Substitute）、代表（Representative）和中保（Mediator）这些词的真实关系—巴恩斯（Barnes）对“代替者”（substitute）的定义被接受为真实—证明基督在严格意义上是祂百姓的代替者（Substitute），并且祂的受苦是代受性的（vicarious）—揭示了巴恩斯（Barnes）的不一致之处。
CHAPTER XI: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT OUR SINS WERE LAID UPON CHRIST
第十一章：从圣言宣告我们的罪归到基督身上的事实，证明正统教义
Passages which assert the fact cited—Different senses of the word “sin” in Scripture—The scriptural usage of the phrase “to impute sin.” explained and illustrated and proved—The doctrine guarded from abuse, and the misrepresentations of adversaries rebuked—The usage of the phrase, “bear sin or iniquity,” both in the Old and in the New Testament, illustrated and proved—Bushnell’s extravagant assertions exposed.
引用了断言这一事实的经文—圣言中“罪”（sin）一词的不同含义—“归算罪”（to impute sin）这一短语在圣言中的用法得到解释、说明和证明—该教义受到保护，免遭滥用，并斥责了反对者的歪曲—旧约和新约中“担当罪或不义”（bear sin or iniquity）这一短语的用法得到说明和证明—揭露了布什内尔（Bushnell）的过分断言。
CHAPTER XII: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE CHARACTER OF THE EFFECTS WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTED TO IT IN SCRIPTURE
第十二章：从圣言归于赎罪的果效的特性，证明正统的赎罪教义
I. The effect of Christ’s death as it respects God—The classical and New Testament usage of the phrase καταλλάσσειν stated and proved—The classical and New Testament usage of the phrase λάσκεσθαι stated and proved—The Biblical usage of כפר explained—II. The effect of Christ’s death as it respects the guilt of sin—The objections of Young answered—The Atonement shown to be the effect and not the cause of God’s love for his people—The Orthodox doctrine shown not to involve Tritheism—III. The effect of Christ’s death as it respects the sinner himself—The Biblical usage of the terms γαράζειν, λυτρόω, λύτρον explained—This language proved not to imply that the Atonement was a commercial transaction—This usage establishes theOrthodox doctrine—The Scriptures combine various modes of conceiving of the Atonement in the same passages, and thus define the species as well as the genus of the Atonement as definitely as any one of the Creeds.
I. 基督之死对上帝的功效— καταλλάσσειν（和解）这一短语在古典著作和新约中的用法得到陈述和证明—λάσκεσθαι（挽回）这一短语在古典著作和新约中的用法得到陈述和证明—解释了圣经中 כפר（赎罪）的用法—II. 基督之死对罪的罪疚（guilt of sin）的功效—回答了杨（Young）的反对意见—证明赎罪是上帝对祂百姓的爱的结果，而不是原因—证明正统教义不涉及三神论（Tritheism）—III. 基督之死对罪人本身的功效—解释了圣经中 γαράζειν（赦免）、λυτρόω（救赎）、λύτρον（赎价）这些术语的用法—证明这种语言并不意味着赎罪是一种商业交易（commercial transaction）—这种用法确立了正统教义—圣言在同一段落中结合了对赎罪的各种构想模式，从而像任何一个信条（Creeds）一样，明确地定义了赎罪的属和种。
CHAPTER XIII: THE TRUE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES ASSERT SUBSISTS BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE
第十三章：从圣言所断言的基督与祂百姓之间存在的联合（UNION）的性质，证明赎罪的真实性质
The common objection that vicarious punishment is unjust considered—I. The fact that Christ and his people are one proved from Scripture—The substance of all that is revealed as to the nature of this union stated—II. The fact of this union, as thus proved from Scripture, shown to be consistent only with the Orthodox doctrine of the nature of the Atonement.
考虑了代受刑罚是不公义的这一普遍反对意见—I. 从圣言中证明了基督和祂的百姓是合一的这一事实—陈述了所有启示关于这种联合的性质的实质内容—II. 这种联合的事实，正如从圣言中证明的那样，被证明只与赎罪性质的正统教义相一致。
CHAPTER XIV: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF JUSTIFICATION
第十四章：从圣言所教导的称义（JUSTIFICATION）的性质和基础，证明关于赎罪性质的正统教义
I. Justification proved to be a forensic act of God as Judge, and thus shown to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the Moral Influence Theory as to the nature of the Atonement—The arguments of Dr. John Young answered—II. The view of Justification corresponding to the Governmental Theory of the Atonement stated—The true doctrine, viz. that Justification is not mere pardon, that it is a Judicial and not a Sovereign act, and that its ground is the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, stated and proved.
I. 证明称义是上帝作为审判官的法理行为（forensic act），从而表明它与关于赎罪性质的道德影响理论（Moral Influence Theory）处于不可调和的对立—回答了约翰·杨博士（Dr. John Young）的论点—II. 陈述了与赎罪治理论（Governmental Theory of the Atonement）相对应的称义观—陈述并证明了真实的教义，即称义并非仅仅是赦免（pardon），它是一个审判性的（Judicial）而非主权的（Sovereign）行为，并且它的基础是基督完全的义归算给信徒。
CHAPTER XV: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH
第十五章：从圣言所教导的信心（FAITH）的性质和功用，证明关于赎罪性质的正统教义
That faith includes trust proved—That faith in or on Christ as the sole condition of salvation is the gospel preached by the Apostles, proved—That this fact is perfectly consistent with the Orthodox view of the Atonement, but utterly irreconcilable with either the Governmental or the Moral Theory, shown.
证明信心包括信靠（trust）—证明相信或信靠基督作为救恩的唯一条件是使徒们所传的福音—表明这一事实与正统的赎罪观完全一致，但与治理论或道德理论都完全不可调和。
CHAPTER XVI: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IN ORDER TO THE SALVATION OF SINNERS
第十六章：从圣言所教导的赎罪对于罪人得救的绝对必要性（ABSOLUTE NECESSITY），证明关于赎罪性质的正统教义
Different opinions as to the ground of the NECESSITY of the Atonement, stated—The bearing of this question upon the question as to the NATURE of the Atonement—The true ground of the necessity of the Atonement stated and proved.
陈述了关于赎罪的必要性（NECESSITY）的基础的不同意见—该问题对赎罪性质（NATURE）问题的影响—陈述并证明了赎罪必要性的真实基础。
CHAPTER XVII: THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT DETERMINED BY WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO ITS PERFECTION
第十七章：从圣言所教导的赎罪的完全性（PERFECTION），来确定赎罪的性质
I. That the Atonement of Christ is intrinsically perfect in its law-fulfilling and justice-satisfying value—Different views stated and compared— The true doctrine stated and proved—II. That the atoning work of Christ is perfect and complete in the sense of infallibly securing its own application to all of those for whom it was designed—This point proved (a) in opposition to the Romish doctrine of the merit of good works and the efficacy of penance, (b) in opposition to the Protestant advocates of an indefinite Atonement.
I. 基督的赎罪在其成全律法和满足公义的价值上是内在完全的—陈述和比较了不同的观点—陈述和证明了真实的教义—II. 基督的赎罪工作是完全和完整的，因为它在确保其自身必然应用于所有为其所预定之人这一意义上是完全的—证明了这一点 (a) 反对罗马天主教关于善工的功德（merit of good works）和苦修（penance）功效的教义，(b) 反对不确定赎罪（indefinite Atonement）的新教倡导者。
CHAPTER XVIII: THE SATISFACTION RENDERED BY CHRIST PROVED TO EMBRACE HIS ACTIVE AS WELL AS HIS PASSIVE OBEDIENCE
第十八章：证明基督所提供的满足（SATISFACTION）既包括祂的主动顺服（ACTIVE OBEDIENCE），也包括祂的被动顺服（PASSIVE OBEDIENCE）
Ambiguity of the word Atonement—The term Satisfaction precise and comprehensive—Defect of Symington’s book—That the obedience of Christ is inseparable from his suffering, proved—General object of chapter to prove that Christ’s obedience as well as his sufferings is vicarious—Threefold relation mankind sustain to law—Obedience is as absolutely necessary in order to the promise of life as is penal suffering in order to the judicial reconciliation—I. The original covenant was accompanied by two sanctions, a promise conditioned on obedience and a penalty—The two alternative theories of justification stated, and the truth of the Calvinistic view proved—II. The doctrine contended for shown to be expressly stated in Scripture—III. Christ’s obedience shown to have been vicarious, from the fact that his person transcended the the claims of law—IV. Only a perfect righteousness can be the ground of justification—V. Tha objection of Piscator, &c., refuted.
赎罪（Atonement）一词的歧义—满足（Satisfaction）一词精确而全面—辛明顿（Symington）著作的缺陷—证明基督的顺服与祂的受苦密不可分—本章的一般目的是证明基督的顺服和祂的受苦都是代受性的（vicarious）—人类与律法维持的三重关系—为了生命的应许，顺服是绝对必要的，就像为了法理和解，刑罚性的受苦是绝对必要的一样—I. 最初的盟约伴随着两种制裁：以顺服为条件的应许和刑罚—陈述了两种替代性的称义（justification）理论，并证明了加尔文主义（Calvinistic）观点的真实性—II. 证明所主张的教义在圣言中得到明确陈述—III. 从基督的位格超越律法的要求这一事实，证明基督的顺服是代受性的—IV. 只有完全的义才能成为称义的基础—V. 驳斥了皮斯卡托（Piscator）等人的反对意见。
CHAPTER XIX: THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE FAITH OF THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THROUGH ALL AGES
第十九章：证明归正教义（THE REFORMED DOCTRINE）关于赎罪性质的观点一直是历代整个基督教会的信仰
I. General statement of the points which the historical evidence to be adduced are claimed to prove—II. The historical argument of Dr. Young stated and refuted, and the testimony of writers from the time of the Apostles to the present time adduced, together with citations from the Creeds of the Greek, Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches—III. The result of this historical review shown to be that the uniform faith of the entire Church has included the element of expiation, and consequently is inconsistent with either the Moral or the Governmental Theories of the Atonement.
I. 拟引用的历史证据旨在证明的论点的一般陈述—II. 陈述和驳斥了杨博士（Dr. Young）的历史论证，并引用了从使徒时代至今的作者的见证，以及引述了希腊、罗马、路德宗和归正教会（Reformed Churches）的信条（Creeds）—III. 这种历史回顾的结果表明，整个教会统一的信仰都包含了赎罪（expiation）的要素，因此与道德理论或治理论的赎罪观都不一致。
CHAPTER XX: THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH DOCTRINE STATED AND ANSWERED
第二十章：对教会教义的主要反对意见的陈述和回答
1st. The objection that our doctrine ascribes vindictiveness to God, disproved—Show that both the Moral and the Governmental Theories resolve justice into benevolence—2d. The objection of Socinus and others, that our doctrine excludes grace, disproved—3d. The general principle that the demands of the law are personal shown not to impugn the truth of our system—4th. The objection that Christ was but a single person, and his sufferings finite and of short duration, shown not to have weight—5th. The Church doctrine of “Imputation” shown not to include the absurd figment of the “transfer of moral character”—6th. The objection that Christ owed obedience for himself, disproved.
第一，驳斥了我们的教义将报复心（vindictiveness）归于上帝的反对意见—表明道德理论和治理论都将公义（justice）归结为仁慈（benevolence）—第二，驳斥了索西努（Socinus）等人的反对意见，即我们的教义排除了恩典（grace）—第三，表明律法的要求是属个人的这一普遍原则不会质疑我们系统的真理性—第四，表明基督只是一个单独的位格（single person），祂的受苦是有限且短暂的这一反对意见没有分量—第五，表明教会“归算”（Imputation）的教义不包括“道德品格的转移”（transfer of moral character）这一荒谬的虚构—第六，驳斥了基督为祂自己欠下顺服的反对意见。
CHAPTER XXI: THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT
第二十一章：赎罪的道德影响理论（MORAL INFLUENCE）和治理论（GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES）
I. The Moral Influence Theory—The object of Christ’s death defined by Socinus—Statements to the same effect by Bushnell and Young—The objections to the Moral View are, 1st. The moral influence in question is better effected by the Atonement when conceived of according to the Orthodox view—2d. The Moral Theory fails, as its advocates confess, to account for the production of the moral effect—3d. Inconsistent with true nature and design of a sacrifice—4th. Inconsistent with the application of the work of Christ to those who died before his advent—5th. This doctrine is condemned by its historical record—II. The Governmental Theory—History and statement of the doctrine—Its superiority to Moral Theory—Objections to this theory are, 1st. The positive truth of the Governmental Hypothesis better taught by the Orthodox doctrine—2d. It shows no connection between the death of Christ and its acknowledged effects—3d. It is founded upon a false theory of virtue—4th. It represents the work of Christ as an exhibition of principles not truly in exercise—5th. Inconsistent with true idea of law, sacrifice, vicarious suffering and ransom, &c—6th. It necessitates the conclusion that the Atonement was indefinite—7th. It is connected with the false theory of co-operative justification—8th. Is contradicted by the uniform faith of the Church—9th. It was not developed from Scripture—10th. Its only plausible support is its relation to the figment of an indefinite Atonement—11th. Its known Arminian origin proves its inconsistency with Calvinism.
I. 道德影响理论（The Moral Influence Theory）—索西努（Socinus）定义的基督之死的目的—布什内尔（Bushnell）和杨（Young）的相同主张—对道德观的反对意见是：第一，按正统观点构想的赎罪能更好地实现所讨论的道德影响—第二，道德理论正如其倡导者所承认的那样，无法解释道德效果的产生—第三，与祭物的真实性质和目的不一致—第四，与基督的工作应用于在祂降临之前已逝去的人不一致—第五，该教义因其历史记录而受到谴责—II. 治理论（The Governmental Theory）—该教义的历史和陈述—它优于道德理论—反对该理论的意见是：第一，治理论假说（Governmental Hypothesis）的积极真理（positive truth）通过正统教义得到更好的教导—第二，它没有显示基督的死与其公认的效果之间的联系—第三，它建立在错误的德行（virtue）理论之上—第四，它将基督的工作表现为并非真正实践中的原则展示—第五，与律法、祭物、代受之苦和赎金等的真实观念不一致—第六，它必然得出赎罪是不确定的（indefinite）的结论—第七，它与合作性称义（co-operative justification）的错误理论相联系—第八，与教会一贯的信仰相矛盾—第九，它不是从圣言中发展出来的—第十，它唯一看似合理的支撑是它与不确定赎罪的虚构（figment）有关—第十一，它已知的亚米念主义（Arminian）起源证明了它与加尔文主义（Calvinism）的不一致。
PART II: THE DESIGN OR INTENDED APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT
第二部分：赎罪的目的（DESIGN）或预期应用（INTENDED APPLICATION）
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTORY
第一章：导论（INTRODUCTORY）
The question as to the design of the Atonement considered as it is involved in our controversy—1st. With the Arminians—2d. With the Calvinistic Universalists.
考虑了赎罪的目的（design）问题，因为它涉及到我们与—第一，亚米念主义者（Arminians）—第二，加尔文主义普救论者（Calvinistic Universalists）的争议。
CHAPTER II: THE TRUE DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT ACCURATELY STATED
第二章：关于赎罪目的的真实教义的准确陈述
The question stated first negatively and then positively under several heads.
该问题首先以否定的方式陈述，然后以肯定的方式在几个要点下陈述。
CHAPTER III: THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE TRUE RELATION WHICH THE PROBLEM AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT SUSTAINS TO THE PROBLEM AS TO ITS DESIGN, EXAMINED
第三章：考察关于赎罪性质的问题与关于其目的的问题所维持的真实关系
The view as to the Design of the Atonement entertained by the advocates of, 1st. The Moral View, 2d. The Governmental Theory, 3d. The strictly Mercantile View, 4th. The view of the Lutheran Churches, 5th. The view of the Reformed Churches and of the Arminians.
赎罪目的观被以下倡导者所持：第一，道德观（The Moral View），第二，治理论（The Governmental Theory），第三，严格的商业观（The strictly Mercantile View），第四，路德宗教会（Lutheran Churches）的观点，第五，归正教会（Reformed Churches）和亚米念主义者（Arminians）的观点。
CHAPTER IV: HISTORY OF OPINION AMONG CALVINISTS UPON THE QUESTION AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT
第四章：加尔文主义者（CALVINISTS）之间关于赎罪目的问题的观点历史
The use of indefinite language by many strict Calvinists explained—The different senses in which the phrase “That Christ died for all men” has been used—The doctrine of Amyraldus and its reception by the French Synod—The doctrine of the Marrow-men as to the general reference of the Atonement —The two classes of the recent advocates of an indefinite Atonement considered.
解释了许多严格加尔文主义者使用不确定语言的原因—“基督为所有人而死”（That Christ died for all men）这一短语被使用的不同含义—亚米拉多（Amyraldus）的教义及其被法国宗教会议（French Synod）接受的情况—骨髓派（The Marrow-men）关于赎罪普遍指称的教义—考虑了近期不确定赎罪（indefinite Atonement）倡导者的两类人。
CHAPTER V THE QUESTIONS, WHAT WAS THE OPINION OF CALVIN AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT? WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF CALVINISM? AND WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE ON THIS SUBJECT OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND CATECHISM? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED
第五章：考察并回答以下问题：加尔文（CALVIN）关于赎罪目的的观点是什么？加尔文主义（CALVINISM）的标准是什么？以及威斯敏斯特信条和问答（WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND CATECHISM）关于此主题的教义是什么？
The true position of Calvin on this subject carefully shown—The standard of Calvinism shown, and proved to admit only the doctrine of a definite Atonement—The doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechism demonstrated.
仔细阐明了加尔文（Calvin）在这个问题上的真实立场—表明了加尔文主义的标准，并证明它只承认确定赎罪（definite Atonement）的教义—论证了威斯敏斯特信条和问答的教义。
CHAPTER VI: THE ARGUMENTS STATED UPON WHICH THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT RESTS
第六章：陈述了归正教义（THE REFORMED DOCTRINE）关于赎罪目的所依据的论据
This proved—1st. From the very nature of the Atonement, since Christ suffered as the personal Substitute of his people, and his work was a satisfaction, and he died with the design of actually saving those for whom he died—2d. Christ purchased faith and repentance for his people—3d. He died after half the human race were already dead—4th. He died in execution of the terms of an eternal covenant with his Father—5th. His motive was the highest personal love for his own people—6th. His design declared to be the salvation of “his sheep,” the “Church,” &c.—7th. Christ’s work as High Priest was one work, and proved from the doctrine of election—8th. Our doctrine harmonizes all the facts.
证明如下—第一，从赎罪的本质来看，因为基督作为祂百姓的个人代替者受苦，祂的工作是一种满足（satisfaction），并且祂死去的目的是实际拯救祂为之而死的人—第二，基督为祂的百姓购买了信心和悔改—第三，祂在半数人类已经死亡之后才死去—第四，祂是执行与祂的父（Father）所立永恒盟约的条款而死去—第五，祂的动机是对祂自己百姓最高的个人之爱—第六，祂的目的被宣告为祂“羊群”（his sheep）、“教会”（the Church）等的救恩—第七，基督作为大祭司的工作是一项工作，并从拣选（election）的教义中得到证明—第八，我们的教义使所有事实和谐一致。
CHAPTER VII: THE OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE REFORMED VIEW OF THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT STATED, AND THE ANSWER TO THEM INDICATED
第七章：陈述了反对归正赎罪目的观的反对意见，并指明了对它们的回答
It is objected that our doctrine is inconsistent—1st. With the general offer of the Gospel; answer—2d. With those passages which declare he suffered for “all,” or “the world;” answer—3d. With those passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom Christ died; answer.
有人反对说，我们的教义与—第一，福音的普遍提供（general offer）不一致；回答—第二，与那些宣告祂为“所有”人或“世界”受苦的经文不一致；回答—第三，与那些谈论基督为之而死的人有可能灭亡的经文不一致；回答。