631.至于报应的双份性的第一部分，即涉及人之救恩的那部分，也就是基督功德的任意报应，从而救恩的报应，神学家们存在分歧。有的教导说，这种报应是绝对的，出于自由力量，发生在那些其外在或内在形式讨神喜悦的人身上。另外一些人的观点则是，报应通过预知发生在被注入了恩典，因此那信能被应用到他们里面的那些人身上。然而，这两种观点都瞄准一个目标，就象两只眼睛都盯着一块石头，或两只耳朵都专注于一首歌一样。乍一看，它们似乎背道而驰，但其目标是一致的。因为既然二者都教导人在属灵的事上完全无能为力，并且属于人的一切都被排除在信之外，那么可知，这接受信的恩典，无论是任意被注入，还是通过预知被注入，都是选择的结果。因为如果那所谓在先的恩典是普世的，那么人出于自己的某种力量对它的运用就会进入，而这当然会被避之如大麻风。这就是为什么人和木、石（就是该信被注入后人类似的东西）一样，不知道那信是否由于恩典被赐给他。因为只要人拒绝仁爱、虔诚、对新生活的追求、自由行善或恶的能力，就不可能存在见证它的任何迹象。那些见证那信存在于人内的所谓迹象都是荒唐可笑的，无异于古人通过鸟的飞翔得出的占卜，或占星家通过星辰提出的预言，或玩家通过骰子作出的预测。这类事，以及其它更荒唐的事，就是相信转嫁主之公义的后果，它连同信（即所谓的公义）一起被引入拣选的人里面。
第3节 转嫁基督救世主的功与义之信，起源于第一次尼西亚公会关于永恒的三个神性身位的裁定，从那时起直到现在，整个基督教都接受这信。
631. 至于归算的双份性的第一部分, 即涉及人之救恩的那部分, 也就是基督功德的任意归算, 从而救恩的归算, 神学家们存在分歧。 有的教导说, 这种归算是绝对的, 出于自由力量, 发生在那些其外在或内在形式讨神喜悦的人身上。 另外一些人的观点则是, 归算通过预知发生在被注入了恩典, 因此那信能被应用到他们里面的那些人身上。 然而, 这两种观点都瞄准一个目标, 就象两只眼睛都盯着一块石头, 或两只耳朵都专注于一首歌一样。 乍一看, 它们似乎背道而驰, 但其目标是一致的。 因为既然二者都教导人在属灵的事上完全无能为力, 并且属于人的一切都被排除在信之外, 那么可知, 这接受信的恩典, 无论是任意被注入, 还是通过预知被注入, 都是选择的结果。 因为如果那所谓在先的恩典是普世的, 那么人出于自己的某种力量对它的运用就会进入, 而这当然会被避之如大麻风。 这就是为什么人和木, 石 (就是该信被注入后人类似的东西) 一样, 不知道那信是否由于恩典被赐给他。 因为只要人拒绝仁爱, 虔诚, 对新生活的追求, 自由行善或恶的能力, 就不可能存在见证它的任何迹象。 那些见证那信存在于人内的所谓迹象都是荒唐可笑的, 无异于古人通过鸟的飞翔得出的占卜, 或占星家通过星辰提出的预言, 或玩家通过骰子作出的预测。 这类事, 以及其它更荒唐的事, 就是相信转嫁主之公义的后果, 它连同信 (即所谓的公义) 一起被引入拣选的人里面。
631. As regards the first of the two types of "assigning" that are said to contribute to our salvation - the arbitrary assigning of Christ's merit, which is followed by the assigning of salvation - theologians have differing views on this. Some say that this assigning takes place as the result of God's absolute power, which he can exercise at will; it occurs in people whose outer or inner form are pleasing to God. Others hold that this assigning is based on God's foreknowledge; it is granted to those who have been given grace and are going to be receptive to that faith.
Although these two opinions are coming from different angles, they nevertheless aim at the same target. They are like two eyes that are looking at the same stone or two ears that are listening to the same song. At first glance they may seem divergent, but they come to the same result.
Both sides maintain that we are completely powerless in spiritual matters, and everything we have to offer is excluded from faith. Therefore whether the grace that is receptive to faith is poured in at will or on the basis of foreknowledge, it amounts to the same thing: the notion that God chooses some but not others. If, on the other hand, that grace (which is called preexistent) were universal, our making some effort of our own to apply ourselves would be helpful; but both theories treat this thought like leprosy.
According to them, we know no more than a log or a stone about whether grace has granted us faith yet or not. If faith has been poured into us, we do not know what it is like. There is no real evidence that faith is present, since this position denies the human race any goodwill, godliness, or effort to start a new life, or even the freedom or faculty for doing anything good or evil.
The signs that supposedly do testify to the presence of faith in us are all laughable. They are no different from the augury the ancients practiced using the flight of birds. They are no different from the choices astrologers make based on the stars or gamblers make based on a roll of the dice. Ideas this ridiculous and worse follow from the notion that the Lord's justice is assignable, and that his divine justice, together with faith (which they also refer to as justice), is actually integrated into the so-called elect.
631. There is a difference of approach among theologians to the first part of the double nature of imputation, that concerning man's salvation, that is, the imputation of Christ's merit at discretion, and so the imputation of salvation. Some teach that the imputation is absolute as the result of the free exercise of power, and happens to those whose external or internal form is pleasing to God. The other opinion is that imputation occurs by foreknowledge in the case of those into whom grace is poured, so that that faith can be applied to them. Yet those two opinions are both aiming at one mark. They are like two eyes both focussing on one stone, or two ears both intent upon one song. At first sight it looks as though they are going in opposite directions, but they come together at the end and co-operate. For when both schools of thought proclaim man's complete impotence in spiritual matters, and any contribution on man's part is ruled out, it follows that that grace which allows the reception of faith when it is poured in, whether at discretion or from foreknowledge, is the result of a similar process of choice. For if that grace, which is called prevenient, were available to all, there would have to be an additional effort by some power of his own on man's part; and this is shunned like leprosy.
[2] That is why no one knows whether that faith has been as a result of grace granted to him, any more than a block of wood or a stone, which he resembled when it was poured in. For no sign to witness it is possible, so long as charity, religious feeling, the impulse to start a new life, and the freedom to do good or evil are all denied to man. The alleged signs witnessing the presence of that faith in a person are all ridiculous, no different from the auguries the ancients drew from the flight of birds, or the prognostications of astrologers from the stars, or of gamesters from dice. This is the sort of thing - or even more ridiculous consequences - which follows from belief in the imputation of the Lord's righteousness, if it is alleged to be introduced into the chosen person along with the faith which is called that righteousness.
631. As to the first part of the doubleness of that imputation respecting man's salvation, namely, the arbitrary imputation of Christ's merit, and the imputation of salvation thereby, the dogmatists differ; some teaching that this imputation is absolute, from free power, and takes place with those whose external or internal form is well pleasing to God; others, that imputation takes place from foreknowledge, with those into whom grace is infused, and to whom this faith can be applied. Nevertheless, these two opinions aim at one mark, or are like two eyes that have one stone for their object, or two ears that have as their object one song. At first glance they seem to depart from each other, but in the end they unite and agree. For since man's complete impotence in things spiritual is taught by both, and everything belonging to man is excluded from faith, it follows that this grace which is receptive of faith, whether infused arbitrarily or from foreknowledge is the same as election; for if that which is called prevenient grace were universal, man's application of it from some power of his own would come in, and this is of course rejected as leprous. Consequently a man no more knows whether from grace that faith has been given him or not, than a stock or a stone, which is what he was when it was infused; for there is no possible sign to attest it when charity, piety, the pursuit of a new life, and the free ability to do either good or evil, are denied to man. The signs attesting that faith which are put forth are all ludicrous, closely resembling the auguries of the ancients from the flights of birds, the prognostications of astrologers by the stars, or of players by dice. Such things, and others still more ludicrous, are consequences of the doctrine of the Lord's imputed righteousness, which together with faith (which is called that righteousness), is communicated to the elect.
631. As to the first part of the twofold imputation concerning the salvation of man, namely, the arbitrary imputation of Christ's merit, which is followed by the imputation of salvation, the dogmatists differ. Some hold that this imputation is wholly accomplished from a power that is arbitrary, and is effected for those whose external or internal form is well-pleasing; while others hold that imputation is of foreknowledge, and is imparted to those into whom grace has been infused, and to whom that faith can be added. Nevertheless those two opinions have the same end in view, and are like two eyes fixed on the same stone, or two ears intent on the same song. At first sight they appear to take different directions, but in the end they come together and act in collusion. For both assert man's absolute impotence in spiritual things, and both exclude from faith everything that pertains to man. It, therefore, follows that the grace which is receptive of faith, whether infused arbitrarily or of foreknowledge, is equally election; for even if that grace which is called prevenient were universal, man's co-operation from some power of his own would still require to be added; yet this is rejected as if it were leprous.
Hence it is that no one knows, any more than a stock or a stone, whether that faith is given him of grace, or what its nature was when it was infused; for there is no sign testifying its presence when charity, piety, the desire of a new life, and the free power of doing good as well as evil, are denied to man. The signs that are adduced as testifying the existence of that faith in man are all ludicrous, and not unlike the auguries of the ancients from the flight of birds, or the prognostications of astrologers from the stars, or of players from dice. Absurdities like these and others still more ludicrous follow from the doctrine of the Lord's imputed righteousness which, together with the faith that is called righteousness, is imparted to the man who is elected.
631. Quod primam partem duplicitatis istius Imputationis de Salvatione hominis attinet, quae est Imputatio meriti Christi ex arbitrio, et Imputatio salutis inde, dogmatici in diversum eunt: quidam tradunt, quod Imputatio illa sit absoluta ex libera potestate, et fiat illis, quorum forma externa aut interna beneplacet; aut quod Imputato fiat ex praescientia illis, quibus gratia infusa est, et fides illa applicari potest: sed usque duae illae opiniones collimant ad unam metam, et sunt sicut bini oculi, qui pro objecto habent unum lapidem, aut sicut binae aures, quae pro objecto habent unum cantum: ad primum visum apparet sicut a se mutuo abeant, sed usque in fine se conjungunt, et colludunt; nam cum utrinque plenaria impotentia in spiritualibus traditur, et omne hominis excluditur a fide, sequitur quod gratia illa receptrix fidei, ex arbitrio aut ex praescientia, infusa, sit similis electio,
[2] nam si gratia illa, quae vocatur praeveniens, foret universalis, accederet applicatio hominis ex aliqua sua potentia, quae tamen ut lepra rejicitur. Inde est, quod nemo sciat, num fides illa sit ex gratia ei donata, plus quam truncus aut lapis, qualis fuit cum infusa 1 est, non enim datur signum testificans illam, quando charitas, pietas, studium novae vitae, et libera facultas faciendi bonum sicut malum, homini denegatur: signa testificantia fidem illam in homine, quae traduntur, sunt omnia ludicra, et non alia quam auguria veterum ex volatu avium, aut diagnostica 2 astrologorum ex astris, aut ludificatorum ex talis. Hujusmodi, et ludicriora adhuc sequuntur ex imputata justitia Domini, quae una cum fide, quae vocatur illa justitia, electo homini infertur.
Footnotes: