132. （7）相信十字架受难是真正的救赎行为，这是教会的根本性错误；这个错误，连同有关来自永恒的三个神性位格的错误，已败坏了整个教会，甚至到了其中属灵之物荡然无存的地步。如今，还有什么东西能比以下观念更能塞满正统神学书籍，或更热情地在学院中被教导和灌输，或更频繁地在讲坛上被宣讲和传扬的呢？即：父神向人类发怒，不仅将其从身边赶走，还把它置于普遍的诅咒之下，从而把它逐出教会；但祂又是仁慈的，故祂说服，或迫使自己的儿子降下来，担当这个诅咒的判决，以平息祂父亲的愤怒；只有这样祂才能以赞许的眼光看待人类。而且，这一切实际上是通过圣子完成的。例如，为了担当人类的诅咒，圣子让自己被犹太人鞭打，往自己脸上吐唾沫，然后被钉十字架，就象在神面前受咒诅一样（申命记21:23）。这样行以后，父就得了安慰，并出于对祂儿子的爱而取消了这个诅咒，不过，仅仅取消了圣子所代求的那些人的诅咒，圣子因此成为父面前永恒的中保。
如今，这些及类似观念就回响在我们教堂中，再从墙上回响过来，如同森林里的回声，灌满那里所有听众的耳朵。若理性被圣言启示并清醒，谁不明白，神是怜悯本身和仁慈本身，因为祂是爱本身和善本身，这些属性是祂的本质？因此，说怜悯本身或良善本身以愤怒的眼光看待人，并对他作出诅咒的判决，却仍保持它自己的神性本质，这是一个矛盾。这类行为很难归给一个好人，只能归给一个坏人。它们也不可能归给天堂的天使，只能归给地狱灵。因此，把它们归给神是非常可怕的。
若问原因，答案是：人们把十字架受难当成了真正的救赎行为。这些错误便从这个源头涌出，就象一个错误酿成了一系列错误，或从一罐醋所流出的，无非是醋，从一个错乱的心智所流出的，无非是疯狂。一个结论会引出同类型的其它理论，因为它们就隐藏在这个结论中，一个接一个出现；从十字架受难就是救赎行为的教义中能出现并提取出关于神的更为卑鄙可耻的观念，直到以赛亚书中的话应验：
祭司和先知因浓酒东倒西歪。他们谬行审判，各席上满了呕吐的污秽。（以赛亚书28:7，8）
132. (7)相信十字架受難是真實的救贖行為, 這是教會方面的根本錯誤。這個錯誤, 連同從永遠就有三個神性位格的錯誤, 已經將教會毀壞到毫無靈性存留的地步。
除了下述的觀點, 沒有其他什麼主題讓現今的正統神學家們填塞在他們的書中, 也沒有什麼比這更熱情地在學術大廳內教導, 更頻繁地在講道臺上被傳講和宣告, 這些觀點就是:
父上帝向人類發怒, 不僅將人類驅趕遠離祂自己, 並且將人類置於一個全體受罰的詛咒中, 還切斷了與我們的聯繫。然而, 因為祂有豐富的慈愛, 祂差遣祂的兒子降世並自己承擔了罪的懲罰, 以此平息了祂父的怒氣。這是唯一的方式讓父上帝與人類和好, 這實際上是由子來完成。例如, 祂擔當了我們的懲罰, 讓猶太人鞭打,吐口水在臉上,並將祂釘十字架, 就像被上帝控罪該死之人(申命記21:23)。在這之後, 父緩和了怒氣, 因著對祂兒子的愛, 祂收回了詛咒, 不過只從那些子所代求的人收回。因此, 子成了人類與父之間永恆的中保。
[2]這種觀念, 以及其他類似的, 如今在教會裡大聲傳頌並在牆壁間回蕩, 如同樹林中的回音, 進入所有人的耳中。但是, 任何有適當理性之人可藉著讀聖言而領悟到, 上帝是慈愛與憐憫本身, 祂是絕對的仁愛和絕對的良善, 這些是祂的本質。若說憐憫本身和良善自身會以怒氣看待人類, 還懲罰人類, 還能保持祂的本質, 那就自相矛盾了。這樣的態度和行為只會屬於惡人, 而不屬於善者。不屬於天國的天人, 只屬於地獄的惡靈。將其歸給上帝, 那是相當可怕的。
[3]如果你細心探究是什麼導致這樣的觀念產生, 你會發現:人們將十字架受難視為救贖的實際行動。以上的觀念就是因此而生, 一個偽謬源自另一個偽謬, 連鎖的反應。如同從醋瓶裡倒出醋, 從精神發狂者那裡得到瘋狂。
任何結論都會帶出一系列同類型的理論, 因為他們隱藏在結論之中, 一個接一個呈現出來。從十字架受難就是救贖這一結論, 居然可以生發出越來越多的推論, 許多冒犯和中傷上帝的信條, 直到以賽亞的預言應驗:
祭司和先知因濃酒迷迷糊糊。他們謬行審判, 一切桌面滿了嘔吐的污穢(以賽亞書28:7-8)。
132. 7. Believing that the Lord's suffering on the cross was redemption itself is a fundamental error on the part of the church. That error, along with the error about three divine Persons from eternity, has ruined the whole church to the point that there is nothing spiritual left in it anymore. There is no topic that fills more books by orthodox theologians today, that is more intensely taught and aired in lecture halls, or that is more frequently preached and pronounced from the pulpit than the following: God the Father was angry at the human race, so he not only moved us all away from himself but locked us into a universal damnation and cut off communication with us. Nevertheless, because he is gracious, he either convinced or goaded his Son to come down to take a limited damnation on himself and ritually purge the Father's anger. This was the only way the Father could look on the human race with any favor. So this was in fact done by the Son. For example, in taking on our damnation, the Son let the Jews whip him, spit in his face, and then crucify him like someone accursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:23). After that happened the Father was appeased, and out of love for his Son he retracted the damnation, but only from those for whom the Son would intercede. Therefore the Son became a Mediator to the Father for all time.
[2] These ideas, and others like them, resound in churches today and reverberate off the walls like an echo from a forest, filling the ears of all who are there. Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one. They belong to a spirit from hell, not an angel of heaven. It is horrendous to attribute them to God.
[3] If you investigate what caused these ideas, you find this: People have taken the suffering on the cross to be redemption itself. The ideas above have flowed from this idea the way one falsity flows from another in an unbroken chain. All you get from a vinegar bottle is vinegar. All you get from an insane mind is insanity.
Any inference leads to a series of related propositions. These are latent within the original inference and come forth from it, one after the other. This idea, that the suffering on the cross was redemption, has the capacity to yield more and more ideas that are offensive and disgraceful to God, until Isaiah's prophecy comes to pass:
The priest and the prophet have gone astray because of beer; they stagger in their judgment. All the tables are full of the vomit they cast forth. (Isaiah 28:7-8)
132. (vii) IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CHURCH TO BELIEVE THAT THE PASSION ON THE CROSS WAS THE REAL ACT OF REDEMPTION. THAT ERROR, TOGETHER WITH THE ERRONEOUS BELIEF IN THREE DIVINE PERSONS EXISTING FROM ETERNITY, HAS SO PERVERTED THE WHOLE CHURCH THAT THERE IS NO REMAINDER OF SPIRITUALITY LEFT IN IT.
Is there any subject which does more to fill and pack the books of orthodox theology to-day, or any that is taught and driven home more zealously in colleges, and is more often preached and ranted about in pulpits, than the belief that God the Father in His anger with the human race not only drove it away from Him, but actually placed it under the ban of universal damnation, thus excommunicating it; but because He is gracious, He persuaded or impelled His own Son to come down and take upon Himself the sentence of damnation, so as to appease His Father's anger; and it is only in this way that He is able to look upon man with any favour? They add that this too was accomplished by means of the Son, for instance, in order to take upon Himself the damnation of the human race, by allowing Himself to be flogged by the Jews, have His face spat upon, and then be crucified as accursed in the sight of God (Deuteronomy 21:23). The Father was propitiated when this had been done, and through His love for His Son revoked the damnation, but only for those for whom the Son interceded, so that He became in perpetuity a Mediator with His Father.
[2] These and similar phrases ring through our churches to-day, re-echoing from the walls like the echoes in woodlands and filling the ears of all listeners. But is there anyone, whose reasoning faculty is enlightened and made whole by the reading of the Word, who cannot see that God 1 is mercy and clemency itself, since He is love itself and good itself, and these qualities are His essence? And that it is therefore a contradiction to say that mercy itself or good itself could look upon man in anger, and pass sentence of damnation on him, and still remain what He is in His Divine essence? Such actions can hardly be attributed to an upright person, but rather to a wicked one; nor to an angel of heaven, but rather to a spirit from hell. So it is an unspeakable crime to attribute such acts to God.
[3] But if one enquires the reason, it is this: people have taken the passion on the cross to be the real act of redemption. From that source these errors have flowed, just as one mistake produces a whole series, or as a jar of vinegar can only yield vinegar, or a disordered mind nothing but madness. The one deduction leads to other theories of the same type, for they lie hidden in the deduction, and come forth one after another. From the belief that the passion on the cross was the redeeming act, yet more scandalous and ignoble ideas about God can emerge and be extracted, until, as Isaiah says:
The priest and the prophet go astray through strong drink. They stumble in judgment, all the tables are covered with vomit brought up, Isaiah 28:7-8.
Footnotes:
1. The Latin text here inserts qui 'who', apparently in error.
132. (7) The belief that the passion of the cross was redemption itself is the fundamental error of the church; and this error, together with the error respecting three Divine persons from eternity, has perverted the whole church to such an extent that there is nothing spiritual left in it. What at the present day more fills and crams the books of the orthodox, or what is more zealously taught and inculcated in the schools, or what is more frequently preached and proclaimed from the pulpit, than that God the Father, being angry with the human race, not only put it away from Himself, but also included it under a universal damnation, and thus excommunicated it; but being gracious, He persuaded or inspired His Son to descend and take upon Himself this determined damnation, and thus appease the anger of His Father; and that under no other conditions could the Father look with favor upon mankind? And further, that this was actually done by the Son; in that by taking upon Himself the damnation of the human race He suffered Himself to be scourged, to be spit upon, and finally crucified by the Jews as one "accursed of God" (Deuteronomy 21:23); and after this had been done the Father was propitiated, and from love for His Son canceled the damnation, but only on behalf of those for whom the Son might intercede, and that the Son thus became a Mediator perpetually before His Father.
[2] The churches of the present day resound with these and like ideas; they are reverberated from the walls like echoes from the forests, and fill the ears of all there. But cannot everyone whose reason has been enlightened and made sane by the Word see that God is mercy itself and pity itself, because He is love itself and good itself, and that these are His essence? It is therefore a contradiction to say that essential mercy or good can look upon man with anger and determine upon his damnation, and continue to be its own Divine Essence. Such things can hardly be ascribed to a good man, but only to a bad man, nor can they be ascribed to an angel of heaven, but only to a spirit of hell. It is therefore horrible to ascribe them to God.
[3] But if it is asked why this has been done the answer is, that the passion of the cross has been taken for redemption itself; and from this these ideas have flowed forth, as from one falsity falsities flow forth in a continuous series, or as from a cask of vinegar nothing but vinegar can flow, or from an insane mind nothing but insanity can flow. For from a single conclusion kindred principles flow; these lie hidden in the conclusion, and grow out of it one after another; and from the doctrine that the passion of the cross was redemption there may proceed or be drawn many other things that are scandalous and dishonoring to God, until the saying in Isaiah comes to pass:
The priest and the prophet err through strong drink; they stumble in judgment; for all tables are full of the vomit of filthiness (Isaiah 28:7-8).
132. (7) IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF THE CHURCH TO BELIEVE THAT THE PASSION OF THE CROSS WAS REDEMPTION ITSELF; AND THIS ERROR, TOGETHER WITH THAT CONCERNING THREE DIVINE PERSONS FROM ETERNITY, HAS PERVERTED THE WHOLE CHURCH SO THAT NOTHING SPIRITUAL REMAINS IN IT.
There is no doctrine at the present time more extensively promulgated in the books of the orthodox, or more zealously taught and inculcated in the schools, or more frequently preached and proclaimed from the pulpit than this: "God the Father, being angry with the human race, not only removed it from His presence, but involved it in a general condemnation, and thus excommunicated it; but because He was gracious, He persuaded or stirred His Son to descend and take upon Himself the condemnation which had been decided, and thus appease the wrath of His Father; and by this means only could the Father look with any favor on mankind. This was done by the Son, who, by taking upon Himself the condemnation pronounced upon the human race, suffered Himself to be scourged by the Jews, spit upon, and finally crucified as one accursed of God, Deuteronomy 21:23. Moreover, after this was done, the Father was propitiated, and from love of His Son, cancelled the condemnation; but only in the case of those for whom the Son should intercede, and thus He became a Mediator in the presence of the Father for ever."
[2] These and similar doctrines are at this day proclaimed in the Churches, re-echoing from their walls as an echo resounds from the woods, and filling the ears of all present. Any one, however, whose reason is enlightened, and made sound by the Word, can see that God is mercy and pity itself, because He is love itself and Goodness itself, and that these are His Essence. It is, therefore, a contradiction to say that mercy itself or goodness itself can look upon a man with anger, and decide upon his condemnation, and still remain His own Divine Essence. Such things are scarcely ever ascribed to an upright man or to an angel, but only to a wicked man or to an infernal spirit; it is therefore impious to ascribe them to God.
[3] If inquiry be made into the cause of so widespread a belief, it will be found to be this, that men have assumed the passion of the cross to be redemption itself; hence have flowed those ideas as falsities in a continuous series flow from one false principle; as from a cask of vinegar nothing but vinegar can come forth, or from an insane mind nothing but insanity. For from a single conclusion there branch forth propositions of a like nature; they are latent in it, and emerge in due order. So from the belief that the passion of the cross is redemption many more opinions, offensive and dishonoring to God, can come forth and be spread abroad till that happens which is spoken of by Isaiah:
"Priest and prophet have erred through strong drink... they stumble in judgment... All tables are full of vomit and filthiness. Isaiah 28:7-8.
132. VII. QUOD PASSIO CRUCIS CREDATUR FUISSE IPSA REDEMPTIO, SIT FUNDAMENTALIS ERROR ECCLESIAE; ET QUOD ILLE ERROR UNA CUM ERRORE DE TRIBUS PERSONIS DIVINIS AB AETERNO, PERVERTERIT TOTAM ECCLESIAM, ADEO UT NON ALIQUID RESIDUUM SPIRITUALE IN ILLA SUPERSIT. Quid plus hodie libros Orthodoxorum implet et farcit, et quid in Gymnasiis ardentius docetur et inspiratur, ac e suggestis frequentius praedicatur et exclamatur, quam quod Deus Pater iratus contra genus humanum, non modo removerit illud a se, sed etiam concluserit illud sub damnatione universali, proinde 1 illud excommunicaverit; sed quia gratiosus est, quod persuaserit, 2 aut exsuscitaverit Filium suum, 3 ut descenderet, et definitam damnationem in se susciperet, et sic iram Patris sui expiaret, et quod sic et non aliter posset ex aliquo favore aspicere hominem; tum quod hoc etiam factum sit per Filium, ut quod damnationem Generis humani in se suscipiendo passus sit se a Judaeis flagellari, in faciem spui, et dein sicut maledictio Dei crucifigi, Deuteronomius 21:23, et quod Pater post hoc factum propitiatus sit, et ex amore erga Filium retraxerit damnationem, sed modo ab illis, pro quibus intercederet, et quod sic Mediator coram Patre suo in perpetuum factus sit.
[2] Haec et similia hodie in Templis sonant, et reverberantur e parietibus, sicut echo e sylvis, et implent omnium aures ibi. Sed quis, cui Ratio illustrata et sana facta est e Verbo, non potest videre, quod Deus sit 4 ipsa Misericordia et Clementia, quia est ipse Amor et ipsum Bonum, et quod illa sint Ipsius Essentia, et inde quod contradictio sit dicere, quod ipsa Misericordia seu ipsum Bonum possit aspicere hominem ex ira, et damnationem ejus concludere, et usque manere sua Divina Essentia; talia vix cadunt in hominem probum sed in improbum, nec in Angelum Coeli, sed in spiritum Inferni; quare infandum est illa addicare Deo.
[3] Sed si inquiritur in Causam, est haec, quod Passionem crucis pro ipsa Redemptione assumserint, inde effluxerunt illa, sicut ex uno Falso falsa in continua serie, aut sicut ex Cado aceti non nisi quam acetum, aut ex Mente insana non nisi quam insanum; ex uno enim Concluso sequuntur theoremata ejusdem prosapiae, latent intus in Concluso, et successive inde prodeunt, et ex illo de Passione crucis quod sit Redemptio, plura adhuc scandalosa et Deo ignominiosa possunt prodire et protrahi, usque ut fiat, sicut 5 dicit Esajas, "Sacerdos et Propheta errant per siceram, titubant 6 judicio, omnes mensae plenae sunt vomitu egestionis," Esajas 28:7-8.
Footnotes:
1. Prima editio: peoinde.
2. Prima editio: pervaserit.
3. Prima editio: suam.
4. Deus sit ubi in prima editione Deus, qui est.
5. Prima editio: sicu.
6. Prima editio: titubani.