|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
中文下载
Formatted, modernized, and annotated by William H. Gross 由威廉·H·格罗斯（William H. Gross）编排、现代化和注释
This is chapters 4-8 of The True Nature of a Gospel Church by John Owen 这是约翰·欧文《福音教会的真实本质》（The True Nature of a Gospel Church）的第4-8章
On the ground of some statements in the following treatise, which was published in 1689, it has been gravely argued that the author returned to the Presbyterianism of his early days before he died. 基于以下这篇发表于1689年的论文中的一些陈述，有人郑重地论证说，作者在去世前回归到了他早年的长老制主义（Presbyterianism）。
In the “Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches,” (see vol. 15), which forms the first part of this work, Owen states that he would “neither examine nor oppose the opinion” in favor of “a national church-state, arising from an association of the officers of particular churches, in several degrees, which they call classical and provincial.” — p. 262. 在《关于福音教会的探究》（”Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches”）（见第15卷）中，这构成本作品的第一部分，欧文声明他将”既不审查也不反对”支持”一个国家教会体制的意见，这种体制产生于各个特定教会的圣职人员在不同层级上的联合，他们称之为区会和省会。”——第262页。
He declares in his answer to Stillingfleet, that had the Presbyterian government been established at the Restoration “without a rigorous imposition of everything supposed by any to belong to it,” Presbyterians and Independents “would have both been to blame” if they had continued in a state of separation from each other. 他在对斯蒂林弗利特（Stillingfleet）的回答中宣称，如果长老制政体在王政复辟（Restoration）时被确立，”而没有严格强加任何人认为属于其中的每一件事”，那么长老会派和独立派”都该受责备”，如果他们继续处于彼此分离的状态。
“If it is asked, then,” he proceeds, “why they did not formerly agree in the Assembly? I answer, — (1.) I was not part of them, and cannot tell; (2.) In my judgment they agreed well enough, if they could have thought so; and further I am not concerned in the difference.” — p. 433. “那么，如果有人问，”他继续说，”为什么他们从前在议会（Assembly）中不能达成一致？我回答，——（1.）我不是他们中的一员，不能说；（2.）在我的判断中，他们已经同意得够好了，如果他们能这样想的话；而且我进一步不关心这个分歧。”——第433页。
The author of the anonymous memoir prefixed to Marshall’s edition of his Sermons remarks, “He was of so healing a temper, that I heard him say before a person of quality and others, that he could readily join with Presbytery as it was exercised in Scotland.” 在马歇尔（Marshall）版本的他的讲道集前面的匿名回忆录作者评论说，”他具有如此医治和睦的性情，我听到他在一位尊贵人士和其他人面前说，他可以欣然加入苏格兰所实行的长老制。”
In his MSS. Analecta, under date 1716, the historian Wodrow records the following statement: — “Mr. George Redpath told me two or three years ago, when in Edinburgh, that he visited Dr. Owen on his deathbed, and Presbytery and Episcopacy came to be discoursed about; and the Doctor said how he had seen his mistake as to the Independent way, and declared to him a day or two before his death, that after his utmost search into the Scriptures and antiquity, he was now satisfied that Presbytery was the way Christ had appointed in his new testament church.” 历史学家沃德罗（Wodrow）在他手稿《文集》（Analecta）中，1716年的日期下记录了以下陈述：——”乔治·雷德帕斯先生（Mr. George Redpath）在两三年前，当他在爱丁堡时告诉我，他探访了临终的欧文博士，谈论到了长老制和主教制（Episcopacy）；博士说他如何看到了自己关于独立派方式的错误，并在他去世前一两天向他宣告，经过他对圣经和古代教会的极力查考，他现在确信长老制是基督在祂新约教会中所指定的方式。”
If we add, that on the subject of the ruling elder (see chapter 7 of the following treatise) the views of Owen are in perfect harmony with Presbyterianism, and that, under certain qualifications, he contends for the lawfulness and authority of synods, we exhaust the evidence that in his last days he was more of a Presbyterian than an Independent. 如果我们再加上，在治理长老（ruling elder）的主题上（参见以下论文的第7章），欧文的观点与长老制主义完全和谐，而且在某些限定条件下，他主张会议（synods）的合法性和权威，我们就穷尽了证据，证明他在晚年更像一个长老会派而非独立派。
Mr. Orme admits that “he seems to contend for a distinct office of ruling elder, or for elders who are called to rule and not to teach;” but he argues that it was a view which could not be reconciled with his other sentiments, and that it differs from the Presbyterian scheme, according to which pastor and elder “are offices so distinct that the ministers alone are considered as mere pastors, and the elders as mere laymen.” 奥姆先生（Mr. Orme）承认”他似乎主张治理长老这一独特职分，或主张被呼召来治理而非教导的长老”；但他论证说，这是一个不能与他其他观点协调的看法，并且它不同于长老制方案，根据该方案，牧师（pastor）和长老（elder）”是如此不同的职分，以至于唯独牧师被视为纯粹的牧者，而长老被视为纯粹的平信徒。”
But Presbyterians really do not hold that elders are laymen, nor that there is any difference in respect of office between the minister and ruling elder, although their functions vary, rule being common to both, while teaching is the duty of the pastor; and on this point, Owen was no more chargeable with inconsistency as an Independent than other eminent men of the same denomination — Thomas Hooker, Cotton Mather, and Timothy Dwight, — who contend for the office of the ruling elder. 但长老会派实际上并不认为长老是平信徒，也不认为牧师和治理长老在职分方面有任何差异，尽管他们的功能不同，治理是二者共同的，而教导是牧师的职责；在这一点上，作为独立派的欧文并不比同一宗派的其他杰出人士——托马斯·胡克（Thomas Hooker）、科顿·马瑟（Cotton Mather）和提摩太·德怀特（Timothy Dwight）——更该被指责不一致，他们都主张治理长老的职分。
Some Presbyterians would confirm implicitly the exposition which our author gives of the nature and objects of synodical action. 一些长老会派会隐含地确认我们的作者对会议行动的性质和目标所作的阐释。
But here his agreement with Presbyterian principles is, on the whole, not so clear and decided as in the case of the ruling elder. 但在这里，他与长老制原则的一致，总体上不像在治理长老问题上那样清晰和明确。
He objects to synods determining articles of faith, and issuing orders and decrees on their own authority; but asserts their “authority to declare the mind of God from the Scripture in doctrine, or give counsel as to practice.” 他反对会议决定信仰条款，并凭自己的权威发布命令和法令；但他主张它们”有权柄从圣经中宣告神在教义上的心意，或就实践提供劝勉。”
There is nothing in this view from which Presbyterians would dissent. 在这一观点中，没有什么是长老会派会不同意的。
That he should differ from both parties on some points is not surprising when we mark how carefully he has thought out his own views, from Scripture, giving a freshness and originality of coloring to his treatises on church-government, which render them to the present day peculiarly interesting and worthy of consultation. 他在某些点上与双方都不同，这并不令人惊讶，当我们注意到他是如何小心地从圣经中思考出他自己的观点时，给他关于教会治理的论文赋予了新鲜和原创的色彩，使它们至今仍特别有趣和值得查考。
It is only, however, by a process of torture to which no man’s language should be subjected, that Owen can be claimed as a Presbyterian. 然而，只有通过一种任何人的语言都不应承受的扭曲过程，欧文才能被宣称为长老会派。
We may gladly accept his decision on some points — not as confirming Presbyterianism so much, as affording room for the hope that, on matters of polity, evangelical churches may yet be united in common action and under the same forms. 我们可以欣然接受他在某些点上的决定——不是说这大大确认了长老制主义，而是为这样的盼望提供了空间，即在政体的事务上，福音派教会或许还能在共同行动和相同形式下联合。
But the opinions of Owen can only be understood by reading the former part of this treatise in connection with this which follows, and “which,” says Chauncey, “he esteemed as his legacy to the church of Christ.” 但欧文的观点只有通过阅读本论文的前一部分并结合这后续部分才能被理解，而”这部分，”钱西（Chauncey）说，”他看重为他留给基督教会的遗产。”
In the latter part, there is no recantation of the principle so abundantly urged in the former, that “the visible churchstate which Christ has instituted under the New Testament consists in a special society or congregation of professed, believers;” and that for two hundred years after Christ, there is no mention “of any other organic, visibly professing church, but only that which is parochial or congregational.” 在后一部分，没有撤回在前一部分中如此充分强调的原则，即”基督在新约下所设立的有形教会体制存在于认信信徒的特殊团体或会众中”；而且在基督之后的两百年里，没有提到”任何其他有组织的、有形认信的教会，只有那些堂区的或会众制的教会。”
That Owen might deem it possible to accomplish and secure all the ends of congregational duty under the system of Presbytery may be true; but it would be hardihood to question that he was a Congregationalist, in regard to the spirit and substance of the ecclesiastical system for which he pleaded. 欧文可能认为在长老制体系下完成和确保会众职责的所有目标是可能的，这可能是真的；但质疑他是一个会众制主义者，就他所恳求的教会体系的精神和实质而言，是鲁莽的。
To the story of Redpath must be opposed the assertion of Chauncey, by whom this treatise was edited, that it was corrected by Owen immediately before his death. 对于雷德帕斯的故事，必须反对钱西的断言，钱西编辑了这篇论文，他说欧文在去世前不久修订了它。
Had he undergone a change of view so complete as is represented, he was not the man to quit the world in a spirit of dishonorable reticence, but would have frankly avowed to what extent his previous convictions had been modified or abandoned. 如果他经历了如所描述的那样彻底的观点改变，他不是那种以不光彩的沉默离开世界的人，而是会坦率地承认他先前的信念在多大程度上被修改或放弃了。
Edmund Blys, son of a clergyman in Devonshire, author of some Latin productions in prose and poetry, replied to this work in 1690, by the publication of “Animadversions3 upon some passages in a book entitled ‘The True Nature of a Gospel Church,’ etc.” — ED. 埃德蒙·布莱斯（Edmund Blys），德文郡一位牧师的儿子，一些拉丁文散文和诗歌作品的作者，在1690年通过出版《对一本名为”福音教会的真实本质”等书中某些段落的评论》（”Animadversions upon some passages in a book entitled ‘The True Nature of a Gospel Church,’ etc.”）回应了这部作品。——编者
Contents 目录
PREFATORY NOTE 序言
OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH 教会的圣职人员
OF PASTORS 论牧师
OF TEACHERS 论教师
OF RULING ELDERS 论治理长老
DUTY OF RULING ELDERS 治理长老的职责
OF DEACONS 论执事