加尔文反对神法主义(Theonomy),教导自然律(Natural Law)

既然我在上面已经讨论过,基督教国家应当以怎样的法律统治。我就略而不谈何为最好的法律。因为这是个很大的题目,也与我现在讨论的主题毫无关联。我打算顺便只用几句话,指出我们可以在神面前善用哪些法律,以及如何正当地执行这些法律。

我宁愿完全不谈这件事,但我知道许多人在这方面犯了很严重的错误。许多人认为采用一般国家的法律治理国家而不采用摩西的政治制度,是不蒙神悦纳。我在此不讨论这观念的危险性,我只要证明这是错误和愚昧的观念。

我们现在要提醒诸位:神借着摩西所颁布的律法分成三部分:即道德律(moral law)、礼仪律(ceremonial law),以及民事律(或做司法律,judicial law)。我们也要个别探讨这三部分,好让我们能够明白哪些方面与我们相关,哪些与我们不相关。同时我们不要以为礼仪律以及民事律与道德有关。因为那些古代神学家虽然知道这两者与道德有关,但他们知道这两种律法可以被更改或废除,而道德律仍不受影响,所以他们没有将这些律法也称为道德律。他们只将这名字应用在律法的第一部分,因为没有这一部分,道德上的真圣洁便站立不住,正确生活的不变法则也不会存在。

道德律包括两个部分:一部分吩咐我们以纯洁的信心和敬虔来敬拜神;第二部分则吩咐我们以真诚的爱来爱他人。因此,道德律是唯一真实和永恒公义的准则,也是为了一切愿意顺服神旨意的国家和时代的人所安排的。因为一切这样的人敬拜神并彼此相爱,是神永不更改的旨意。

礼仪律则是神所采用教导犹太人的方式。神喜悦采用这方式教导他还在童年时期的百姓,及至时候满足(加4:3-4;参阅3:23-24),主向万国完全彰显自己的智慧,并叫他所采用的隐喻和预表的真理得以显明。

民事律,为了属世的政府所颁布,上帝赏赐犹太人某种公平和公义的准则(equity and justice),好让他们能够无可指责地和平共存。

礼仪律属于敬虔的教义,因为这些仪式保护犹太人教会对主的服侍和敬畏,然而它们却可以与敬虔本身区分开。与此相似,他们的民事律的形式,虽然只是为了最好地维护上帝永恒的律法所要求的爱,但也与爱的诫命有不同的地方。因此,正如礼仪律被废除,而真敬虔仍然安全无损一样,当这些民事律被挪去时,爱的永久义务和诫命仍然可以保留。

如此,那么每个国家都可以自由制定它认为最恰当的法律。然而,这些法律必须符合爱的永恒诫命,因此,它们在形式上确实有所不同,但目的是一样的。因为我不认为那些野蛮人的法律,如给盗贼以荣誉,允许滥交,以及其他更肮脏和更荒唐的法律,可以被视为法律。因为它们不仅对所有的正义,而且对所有的人性和温情都是可憎的。

如果我们在所有的法律中如实地审查这两件事,我所说的就会变得很清楚:法律的构成,以及其构成本身所依据的公平。公平(equity),因为它是自然的(natural),所以对所有人来说都是一样的,因此,这个相同的目的应该适用于所有的法律,无论其目的是什么。不同的法律在一定程度上取决于产生的环境与处境。因此,只要所有法律都同样朝着公平的目标迈进,它们之间的区别都无关紧要。

我们称之为道德律的上帝的法律,无非是自然律(natural law)和上帝刻在人们头脑中的那份良知的见证。因此,我们现在所讲的这种公平的整个方案都是在其中规定的。因此,只有这种公平必须是所有法律的目标、准则和限制。

无论根据这准则制定什么样的法律,针对这目标,受这限制的约束,我们都没有理由不赞成它们,无论它们与犹太人的法律有什么不同,或者它们之间有什么不同。

上帝的法律禁止偷窃。犹太人国家对小偷的惩罚见于《出埃及记》22章1-4节。其他国家非常古老的法律对偷窃行为的惩罚是双倍赔偿;随后的法律对偷窃行为进行了区分,包括明显的和不明显的。有些人被放逐,有些人被鞭打,有些人最后被处以死刑。在犹太人中,作假证的惩罚是类似于伤害的损害赔偿(申命记19:18-21);在其他地方,以极大的耻辱来惩罚;在一些国家,被吊死;在其他国家,被钉死。所有的法典都同样用血(即死刑)来报复谋杀,但是有不同的死刑的方式。对于奸淫者,有些国家使用更严厉的惩罚,有些国家则使用更轻的惩罚。然而,我们看到,尽管有这样的差异,所有的法律都趋向于同一个目的。因为,他们以同样惩罚上帝永恒律法谴责的那些罪行,即谋杀、偷窃、通奸和假证。但他们对惩罚的方式并不一致。让所有国家在惩罚方式上一致,这既不是必要的,也不是合适的。有些国家,除非他们通过可怕的例子来残酷地对待杀人犯,否则必在屠杀和抢劫中灭亡。有些时代要求越来越严厉的刑罚。如果一个国家发生任何动乱,通常由此产生的问题必须通过新的法令加以纠正。在战争时期,除非引入一些非常规的惩罚手段来震慑,否则所有的人性都会消失。在干旱和瘟疫中,除非使用更严厉的手段,否则一切都会毁于一旦。 有些国家倾向于某种特定的恶习,除非对其进行最严厉的镇压。这种多样性完全适合于维持对上帝的法律的遵守。而如果某人被这种多样性所冒犯,那么他对公共福祉有多大恶意和仇恨啊!

因为有些人说,如果上帝通过摩西颁布的律法被废除,新的律法更被认可,上帝的律法就受到了羞辱,这种说法完全是徒劳的。因为当其他的律法更被认可时,不是通过简单的比较,而是考虑到时代、地点和国家的状况,或者有时候摩西律法被取消,是因为神本来无意要为我们这时代颁布那种律法。因为主通过摩西的手,并没有将那些法律在所有国家中宣扬,在所有地方生效;但当他将犹太民族纳入他的保管、防卫和保护中时,他也愿意特别为它做一个立法者;而且,作为一个明智的立法者,他在制定法律时对它有特别关注。

——约翰·加尔文,《基督教要义》4.20.14-16。

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

But because I have undertaken to say with what laws a Christian state ought to be governed, this is no reason why anyone should expect a long discourse concerning the best kind of laws. This would be endless and would not pertain to the present purpose and place. I shall in but a few words, and as in passing, note what laws can piously be used before God, and be rightly administered among men.

I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish.

We must bear in mind that common division of the whole law of God published by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. And we must consider each of these parts, that we may understand what there is in them that pertains to us, and what does not. In the meantime, let no one be concerned over the small point that ceremonial and judicial laws pertain also to morals. For the ancient writers who taught this division, although they were not ignorant that these two latter parts had some bearing upon morals, still, because these could be changed or abrogated while morals remained untouched, did not call them moral laws. They applied this name only to the first part, without which the true holiness of morals cannot stand, nor an unchangeable rule of right living.

15. Moral, ceremonial, and judicial law distinguished*

The moral law (to begin first with it) is contained under two heads, one of which simply commands us to worship God with pure faith and piety; the other, to embrace men with sincere affection. Accordingly, it is the true and eternal rule of righteousness, prescribed for men of all nations and times, who wish to conform their lives to God’s will. For it is his eternal and unchangeable will that he himself indeed be worshiped by us all, and that we love one another.

The ceremonial law was the tutelage of the Jews, with which it seemed good to the Lord to train this people, as it were, in their childhood, until the fullness of time should come [Gal. 4:3–4; cf. ch. 3:23–24], in order that he might fully manifest his wisdom to the nations, and show the truth of those things which then were foreshadowed in figures.

The judicial law, given to them for civil government, imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably.

Those ceremonial practices indeed properly belonged to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as they kept the church of the Jews in service and reverence to God, and yet could be distinguished from piety itself. In like manner, the form of their judicial laws, although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God’s eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.

But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose. For I do not think that those barbarous and savage laws such as gave honor to thieves, permitted promiscuous intercourse, and others both more filthy and more absurd, are to be regarded as laws. For they are abhorrent not only to all justice, but also to all humanity and gentleness.

16. Unity and diversity of laws

What I have said will become plain if in all laws we examine, as we should, these two things: the constitution of the law, and the equity on which its constitution is itself founded and rests. Equity, because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, and therefore, this same purpose ought to apply to all laws, whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circumstances upon which they in part depend. It therefore does not matter that they are different, provided all equally press toward the same goal of equity.

It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.

Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves.

God’s law forbids stealing. The penalties meted out to thieves in the Jewish state are to be seen in Exodus [Ex. 22:1–4]. The very ancient laws of other nations punished theft with double restitution; the laws which followed these distinguished between theft, manifest and not manifest. Some proceeded to banishment, others to flogging, others finally to capital punishment. False testimony was punished by damages similar and equal to injury among the Jews [Deut. 19:18–21]; elsewhere, only by deep disgrace; in some nations, by hanging; in others, by the cross. All codes equally avenge murder with blood, but with different kinds of death. Against adulterers some nations levy severer, others, lighter punishments. Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God’s eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient. There are countries which, unless they deal cruelly with murderers by way of horrible examples, must immediately perish from slaughters and robberies. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties. If any disturbance occurs in a commonwealth, the evils that usually arise from it must be corrected by new ordinances. In time of war, in the clatter of arms, all humaneness would disappear unless some uncommon fear of punishment were introduced. In drought, in pestilence, unless greater severity is used, everything will go to ruin. aThere are nations inclined to a particular vice, unless it be most sharply repressed. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God’s law?

For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us. For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and—as became a wise lawgiver—he had special concern for it in making its laws.

 Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (J. T. McNeill, Ed., F. L. Battles, Trans.) (Vol. 1, pp. 1502–1505). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

发表回复

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

此站点使用Akismet来减少垃圾评论。了解我们如何处理您的评论数据