加尔文对于我们与基督联合的教导

加尔文对于我们与基督联合的教导

前言 

Seng­Kong Tan毕业于普林斯顿神学院，并获得了系统神学的博士学位。他目前隶属于新加坡Bethel神召会。他的神学论文广被美国的神学刊物所收纳。本篇《Calvin's Dcotrine of Our Union with Christ/加尔文对于我们与基督联合的教导》被收录于2003年10月号的《Quodlibet Journal》这本专业神学杂志之中。

《Calvin's Dcotrine of Our Union with Christ/加尔文对于我们与基督联合的教导》以加尔文成圣教义的核心—unio mystica为主轴，深入的探讨了加尔文对于成圣教义的观点。其内容全面性的涉及了改革宗在三位一体，基督论，圣灵论，和救赎论。不但，我们在文中看见了大量目前华人教会批判的所谓“神秘主义”的用词和观念，如：接枝，属灵的联合，奥秘的联合，一同生长/成为一个，与神联合，认养，重生，有份于基督（的生命和性情）等；连加尔文在其彼得后书1：4解经中的宣告‘福音的总结就是使我们被模成神，我们或许可以这么说，神化我们’，也被Tan引用，作为改革宗的成圣论并没有脱离古教父所公认的‘神化（Theosis）’的范畴的证据。

（事实上，这些东西都存在于改革宗的教导中。因为某种原因，今日的华人改革宗，不但忽视了这块，更将其视为异类，甚至加以批判。）

虽然Seng­Kong Tan是神召会的背景。但是他在治学方面的严谨以及花的功夫是令人敬佩的！在他的112处备注中，共引用了83次《基督教要义》，23处加尔文的解经或其他著作。他在备注中直接引用加尔文的作品的比率达到95%。这是连许多华人教会中的所谓改革宗大师们都望尘莫及的。

这篇文章一方面可以帮助我们以另一个更‘神秘主义’的角度来认识改革宗的神学内涵。在另一方面，也提供了一个‘治学’的好榜样。即使您不认同文中的观点。

尼提宁

本文 

1.      Introduction/简介 

Calvin scholars, like Charles Partee, have argued that the notion of unio mystica is“a more comprehensive way”of approaching the theology of the Institutes.[1] Others support this thesis by contending that Calvin's spirituality is centered on unio mystica.[2] The significance of this theological motif in Calvin's theology and piety, therefore, justifies a preliminary exploration into his doctrine of our union with Christ. However, the comprehensiveness of this doctrine means that its coverage will be limited; as such, our treatment of unio mystica will not include Calvin's doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.

加尔文派的学者，如同Charles Partee，已经争辩过unio mystica (与基督奥秘的联合)这个词乃是一个“更能够帮助我们理会”基督教要义的神学的途径。其他的学者也以承认加尔文的灵命教导乃是以unio mystica为中心的论文来支持Partee。本神学论文的重点乃是着重在加尔文的神学和圣洁教导，希望能够成为一个深入他关于我们与基督联合的教导的初步探索。不论如何，对于这个教道的理解的本身就限制了它的覆盖面；如同，我们对于unio mystica的处理将不会包含加尔文对于教会和圣礼的教导。

Alister McGrath advances the proposal that an important methodological principle underlies Calvin's theological anthropology ­- the Chacedonian axiom of distinctio sed non separatio. According to him, the Christological rule which asserts the two distinctive, yet inseparable natures of the hypostatic union are frequently appealed to by Calvin in depicting the divine­-human relationship; thus “two ideas may be distinguished but not separated.”[3] Since unio mystica is a Christological­-soteriological concept, we shall examine how Calvin understood it in view of this axiom.

Alister MaGrath发展了一个非常重要的，用来构成对加尔文人论的方法 – 加克顿的distinctio sed non separatio（distinct but not separate­­--分别但不分离）的原则。对他而言，其基督论的原则保证了在一个位格联合中两个不同却又不分离的性质。它也常常被加尔文用来刻画基督的神性和人性的关系；所以，‘两个观念可能是不同的，但是是不可分割的’。因为 unio mystica本身就是一个基督论­-救赎论的概念，我们应当审思加尔文对这个议题的理解。

Nonetheless, since it is not simply a notion in reference to Christ alone, but has profound pneumatological and soteriological dimensions, we will focus, with regard to the latter, on Calvin's doctrine of justification and sanctification. But all this is set within the context of his larger trinitarian emphasis, since the person and work of Christ and the Spirit must lead us to the Father.

有鉴于此，因为这不单单是一个与基督有关的观念，而更深入至圣灵论和救赎论的范围。在加尔文的称义与成圣的教导上，我们将更着重于后者。但是，这都是在他的较大范围的对三位一体的强调之中，因为基督的位格和工作，和圣灵，都必须把我们带向父。

2.     Union with Christ as Trinitarian Reality/与基督联合是一个三位一体的实际 

2.1     The Source and Term of our unio mystica ­ - God the Father / 我们的unio mystica的源头­-父神 

Our union with Christ, according to Calvin, has its foundation in the pretemporal electing will of God the Father. This, of course, does not mean that unio mystica is not the common will of the Trinity,[4] but rather, by appropriation, the principle of origin is assigned to God the Father, in virtue of the personal, incommunicable property that distinguishes his personhood from the other Two.[5]Calvin also appropriates the “essential properties” wisdom and power to the Son and Spirit respectively based on their “distinct” modalities of action observed in Scripture ­ -“to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity.”[6] For Calvin, echoing Augustine, the “real distinction[s]” of the Persons are to be found in their personal names - Father, Son, and Spirit, which are represented by “their mutual relationships.”[7]

根据加尔文，我们与基督的联合乃是基于父那个超越时间限制的拣选和意志。当然，着不代表unio mystica不是三位一体的的共同意志。借由appropriation（讲相应的属性归于相应的位格），这个将起源联于父神的原则，在位格的美德，和不可交换的本质中，将父的位格从其他两位分别出来。加尔文也根据圣经记载他们‘不同的’形态（modalities），而将智慧和能力这两个‘本质的特质’归于子和圣—“将行动的起始，万有的源头归于父；把智慧，保惠师，将秩序赐予万有归于子；把行动的能力和果效归于圣灵。”加尔文与奥古斯丁一样，认为位格的“真实不同”可以在它们的名称-­父，子，圣灵，里面找到。所代表的，就是他们“互相的关系”。

Thus, our union with Christ, in its temporal fulfillment, has its prior, eternal ground in the covenantal union God made with Himself,[8] which is nothing less than an expression of God's essential love and mercy[9] - this is the elect's assurance of salvation.[10] Our union with Christ brings us into relation with God through the Spirit of adoption; the regenerate become, by grace, sons and daughters of the Father because they inexplicably participate in the Son's eternal relation with the Father, which is by nature.[11]

故此，我们与基督联合，虽然应验在时间里。乃是建立在神与自己所立的约的联合中，那个先存和永远的基础上，这个约就是为了表明神的本质的爱和怜悯—就是拣选中对于救赎的保证。借由圣灵，我们与基督联合，我们被带进与神的关系里面；借由恩典重生，使我们能够成为父的儿女。因为他们以一种不可言喻的方式分享了子与父永恒的关系，这乃是借由（他的）本质的。

There are occasions where Calvin refers to Christ as“the bond of our union with God”and, elsewhere, he defines unio mystica as“the only bond of our union with God.”[12] Here, Calvin applies the term “bond” to Christ in a different sense, that is, as intermediary,[13] rather than as unitive power, which more appropriately describes the Spirit, since the latter is the bond of our union with Christ.[14] This is clear from Calvin's robust concept of the mediation of Christ.[15] Hence, Calvin can assert that “no one is loved by God apart from Christ” since, citing St. Paul, He is “the bond whereby God may be found to us in fatherly faithfulness.”[16] God becomes our Father through Christ, since the Son is“the bond of our adoption.”[17]

有时候当加尔文把基督比喻为‘我们与神联合的联锁’；在别处，他将unio mystica定义为‘我们与神联合唯一的联锁’。在此，加尔文将‘联锁’这个词在不同的意义上当作基督本身，如同一个中间人一样，而不是将其视为一个较为合适形容为圣灵的联合的能力。而后者是我们与基督联合的联锁。这是从加尔文对于基督是中保观念中而来的。故此，加尔文能够确认，‘除了基督，无人能够被神所爱’，这是保罗的话。他（基督）乃是“神能够在我们里面成为父信实的联锁。”经由基督，神成为我们的父，因为子是‘我们养子之份的连锁。’

In the exercise of Christ's kingly office, Calvin says, “God mediately, so to speak, wills to rule and protect the church in Christ's person” [emphasis mine] in order for “Christ [to stand] in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God.”[18] In Calvin's affirmation of the classical economic­immanent distinction ascribed to the Trinity, Christ is functionally subordinated to the Father, for a time, in His office as Mediator.[19] Hence, Calvin can claim that the title “Lord,” which is ascribed to Christ, “represents a degree midway between God and us.”[20] When the Father becomes “all in all” in the Eschaton, “God will cease to be Head of Christ, for Christ's own deity will shine of itself,” and “God will then of himself become the sole Head of the church” with the surrender of Christ's office as the Mediator.[21] Union with Christ, in the person of the Mediator, who remains God-­man permanently, will lead finally tovisio Dei, when the saints will “see his [the Father's] majesty face to face.”[22] Therefore, God the Father is both the first cause and final end of our union with Christ.

在基督作为君王的存在中，加尔文说，‘神介入了。也就是说，他愿意在基督的位格里，掌管并保护教会’；好叫‘基督在我们里面，带领我们一步一步的进入与神坚固的联合里。’在加尔文所坚持的古典的，在三位一体中的经论­内在的分别中，基督在他中保的职分里，暂时以一个比父低微的角色尽他的功用。故此，加尔文能够宣称，‘主’这个被赋予基督的称号，‘代表了某种在神和我们间的关系。’当父在末世时成为‘一切中的一切’，‘神就不再是基督的头，因为基督的神性本身会发出光辉，’‘神自己成为教会独一的头，’基督也会交出他的中保的职分。与这位永远是神—人的中保基督位格里的联合，致终会让我们visio  Dei（看见神）。那时圣徒们将‘面对面看见他[父]的尊容。’父神是我们与基督联合的起因与目标。

2.2     The Object of our unio mystica ­ Jesus Christ, the Mediator/奥秘的联合的目标—中保耶稣基督 [23]

The hypostatic union and unio mystica, though distinct, are to be regarded as mutually connected realities, though our union with Christ is grounded in, and proceeds from the incarnation. The incarnation “was necessary” in order “that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together.”[24] Through the Incarnation, Christ willingly took “what was ours as to impart what was his to us, and to make what was his by nature ours by grace.” Thus, through the hypostatic union, we have a share in his sonship and heavenly inheritance. In the Son, we become “children of God [the Father]” and “are assured of the inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom”- ­ the Holy Spirit.[25]

位格的联合和unio mystica虽然不同，但是它们应该被视为两个紧紧相连的实际，好使我们与基督的联合是根植于，并发展在道成肉身的基础上。道成肉身是‘必须的’，好叫‘他的神性和我们的人性能够紧密地联合，并一起长大。’借由道成肉身，基督自愿取了‘我们所有的，好把他所有的赐于我们；并让他本质中所有的成分，在恩典立成为我们的。’在位格联合里，我们成为他的儿子，和属天产业的分享者。在子里，我也成为‘神[父]的儿女’，圣灵也保证我们能够‘继承属天的国度’。

Though the atoning mission of Christ is completed, yet his nature and work as the Mediator has not ceased; thus, our union with Christ is a participation of act and being, since Christ's identity is inseparable from his mission. [26] The sole access to the Father is through Christ, by the faithoperation of the Spirit “since “God dwells in inaccessible light” [1 Tim. 6:16], Christ must become our intermediary.” In view of dyophysite affirmation of Chalcedon, Christ alone is both the medium and the object of our faith; for, although union with the person of Christ, in his human nature, leads us to union with God [the Father], yet as Christ himself is God, He is the term of our faith.[27] Does this contradict what has been already noted that the Father is to be regarded as the term of our union with Christ?

虽然基督虚己的任务已经完成，他作为中保的本质和工作仍未终止；故此，我们与基督的联合就是分享（基督的）行动和所是。因为我们不可能分割基督的本体与他的工作。我们只能借由圣灵信心的运行，经由基督进到父神面前，“因为“神住在不可接触的光中[提前6:16]”，基督必须成为我们的媒介。”从dyophysite确认加克顿的角度而言，基督自己同时是我们信心的媒介和目标；基督在他的人性里，带领我们与神[父]的联合；作为神。基督自己也就是我们信心的条件。难道，这与我前面已经说过的，父应该被当作我们与基督联合的条件矛盾吗？

Here, the “distinct but not separated” rule applies specifically in regard to the categories of “person” and “nature” used in the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ. When the relations among the divine Persons are spoken of, there is a taxonomical ordering involved; thus, the Father is first, followed by the Son, and the Spirit. Since Calvin sees the consubstantiality of Father, Son and Spirit as an absolute category, the divine Persons in themselves, without reference to another, are to be identified with the Essence. As Christ, in his divine nature, is autotheos, no taxis is applicable, and “union with God” may be applied to the persons of the Trinity indistinctly.[28] But when Calvin alludes to the Father-Son relation (in the Spirit), unio mystica ought to be regarded as a mediating category, as we have noted above.[29]

在此，‘分别而不分离’这个准则特别被应用在在三位一体和基督论中‘位格’和‘性质’的运用上。当我们描述神圣位格间的关系时，有一个分类的顺序；父是第一个，然后是子，接着是圣灵。因为加尔文看见了父，子和圣灵的同质，并将他们视为一种绝对的类别（an absolute category）。神圣的位格若不是被用来分辨位格间彼此的不同，就应当被视为素质。如同基督，在他神圣的位格中，是自有的神（autotheos），而不能把他当作一个顺序（taxis）。‘与神联合’也以一种不分彼此的方式应用于三位一体的所有位格上。然而，当加尔文在描述（在圣灵里的）父—子关系时，unio mystica就应该被认定为一个中介的种类，如同我们前面说过的一样。

Since the hypostatic union is a permanent bond, Christ as “an everlasting intercessor” is united with the Church through an equally permanent bond.[30] Hence, Calvin asserts that “the Kingdom of the Son of God had no beginning and will have no end” in view of the fact that “not only because Christ, as eternal Word of God, is joined in the same Spirit with the Father, but also from his character as the Mediator”[emphasis mine].[31] The role of the Holy Spirit, as the spiritual bond that unites Christ with the Church, has an eternal correlate in the relation between Father and Son - the vinculum caritatis.[32] This union is both personal and communal, since the ontology of communion is love, viz.hypostasis in ekstasis. [33]

因着位格的联合是永远的，基督作为‘永远的调停者’，也永远的与教会联合。所以，加尔文根据‘不单单是因为永远神的道 —基督在同一位圣灵里与父联合，而也因为他作为中保的角色’，宣称“神儿子的国是无始无终的”。圣灵作为将基督与教会联合的属灵链接这个角色，在父与子的关系里面，有一个永恒的相互关系­ -the vinculum caritatis。这个联合是个人的也是团体的，因为交通的实体乃是爱，就是在基督里的信中的位格。

2.3     The Effective, Unitive Bond of our unio mystica ­ God the Holy Spirit / 我们unio mystica中有效连接的联锁­­--灵神 

Distinct from the role that Christ plays as the mediating bond, the Spirit is the unitive bond of our union with Christ. Appropriating the Augustinian notion of the Spirit as the “bond of love” (vinculum caritatis or amoris) between the Father and the Son, Calvin claims that “the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.”34 A frequent criticism of Western pneumatology, in employing this Augustinian metaphor, is its tendency toward depersonalizing the Spirit (granted that we are speaking here of a relational not a quasi-­material “bond”) and an implicit subordinationism in relation to the Son (the filioque). Can the same be said of Calvin when he appears to describe the Holy Spirit in similar instrumental, non-­personal terms?

与基督作文中保的联锁这个角色不同，圣灵是我们与基督联合的联合的联锁。奥古斯丁将父与子间那个‘爱的联锁’(vinculum caritatis or amoris)归于圣灵。加尔文则宣称,‘圣灵是基督用来将我们有效地与他联合起来的那个联锁。’西方圣灵论经常引用奥古斯丁的一个隐喻，是他将圣灵（我们这里讲的是一个关系上的，而不是类物质的‘联锁’）非位格化的张力，和一个于子（the filioque）的一种次位论的关系。我们是否也能够说，加尔文以一种类似于工具，非位格的名词来描述圣灵的时候？

In relation to the charge of diminishing the hypostatic weight of the Spirit, it must be noted that Calvin (1) affirms the divine subsistence of the Spirit in terms equal to that of the Son and the Father,[35] (2) echoes the patristic writers in utilizing metaphors from the material realm to describe all three divine Persons, where appropriate.36 The strongest argument against this charge is that the same term is used in relation to Christ. Another mitigating factor is Calvin's constant referral to the Spirit as a personal operating subject (“the secret energy of the Spirit”) alongside his designation of the third divine Person as a quasi­personal “relation” (“bond of union”).

关于消灭圣灵的位格的地位的批判，我们必须注意加尔文坚持以一种与子与父同等的名称来确认圣灵神圣的本质。这与教父们运用物质世界的例子来描述三个神圣位格并其特性的做法是一致的。针对这个批判 强烈的论点乃是，同样的词也使用在基督的关系上。另一个减轻罪名的因素乃是，加尔文总是将圣灵比喻为一个带位格化的，和带有运作的个体（‘圣灵奥秘的能力’。）他同时也将第三个神圣的位格归为一个准­-位格的‘关系’（‘联合的联锁’）。

Is Calvin guilty of subordinating the Spirit to Christ? Again, Calvin applies the distinctio sed non separatio axiom in affirming the reciprocity of Christ and the Spirit.37 On this account, one can speak of a Christocentricism in Calvin's theology, but not a Christomonism, which sees the Son apart from the Spirit (or the Father).38 One the one hand, since the Spirit is the anointing within Christ, He “will be found nowhere but in Christ”; on the other hand, without the Spirit, Christ “would be, so to say, dead, and empty of His power.”39 Calvin, elsewhere, speaks of this “bond of union” as identical to faith[40] and holiness,41 since the work of illumination and sanctification are peculiar to the Holy Spirit. Although, faith and union with Christ are distinct aspects of the Spirit's work,42 both are to be regarded in simultaneity, and within the scope of Christ's operation, too.43 In the light of unio mystica, Calvin asserts that “[w]e are partakers of the Holy Spirit to the extent that we share in Christ.”44

难道加尔文错误的将圣灵的位格置于基督之下吗？（译者：认为圣灵的位格次于子。）再次，加尔文应用了‘分别却不分离’的原则，以确保基督和圣灵间的互动。在这方面，读者可以可在加尔文的神学中看见‘基督为中心主义（Christocentricism）’，而不是将子与圣灵（或父）分开的‘基督唯一主义（Christomonism）’。在一方面，因为圣灵在基督里膏了我们，他也‘只能在基督里被我们寻见’；在另一方面，没有圣灵，基督‘就会成为留在死沉中，并丧失了他的能力。’加尔文，在其他的地方将这个‘联合的联锁’称为信心，和圣洁。照亮和成圣的工作是特别由圣灵完成的。信心和与基督联合和圣灵的工作是不同的。它们被认为是同时（发生）的，也在基督的运作里面。在对unio mystica的光照下，加尔文宣称‘我们是圣灵的分享者，甚至到一个程度，我们能够在基督里有份。’

Seen within the context of the perichoresis of the Son and the Spirit, there is also a mutual subordination between them in their missions and modes of operation.45 As Christ rules the Church as its Head through the Spirit, who is the bond of this union, “the Spirit has chosen Christ as his seat that from him might abundantly flow the heavenly riches.”[46] Viewed from the opposite perspective, the kingly office is jointly shared by the Son and Spirit (and specially appropriated to the Father, who is principium) since “Christ's Kingdom lies in the Spirit.”[47] And, as Christ's kingship is “spiritual in nature,” the whole Church and its individual members are, therefore, united to Christ in a “spiritual union.”[48]

在子与圣灵的互相渗透（perichoresis）的涵义中，我们看见在他们的任务和运作的形态间，有一个互相从属的关系。如同基督经由那作为这个联合的联接的圣灵，作为教会的头来管理教会，“圣灵已经拣选基督作为他的宝座，从他里面可以丰富的流出属天的丰富”。从相反的一面看，子和圣灵分享（并且特别别归于父，万有的源头）共同分享君王的职分。‘基督的国度乃是在圣灵里。’并且，就如同基督的王职分的‘本质是属灵的，’整个教会和他的每个成员也是如此。故此，与教会的联合就是在一个‘属灵的联合’里面。

Through the unitive operation of the Holy Spirit, Christ and the elect are brought into reciprocal relationship. The one is the humanward trajectory - ­ Christ's participation in us ­- where “he had to become ours and to dwell within us”; the other is the Christward movement -­ our participation in Christ -­ where we “are said to be “engrafted into him” [Rom. 11:17], and “to put on Christ.”49 And the inseparable corollary of communion with Christ is “the communion of saints.” Although salvation has an intensely personal dimension, viz. an individual person's relation to God, nonetheless, it is not a private affair, since its context is ecclesiologically framed. 50 Hence, a proper understanding of the reality of unio mystica, which recognizes the Spirit's function as its vinculum, demands that righteousness and holiness be interpreted communally.51

在圣灵联合的运作中，基督和选民被带入一个相互的关系里面。这是一个‘向着人的轨迹（humanward trajectory）’—基督在我们里面有分—在其中，‘他必须成为我们的一份子，并住在我们里面。’另一个是‘向着基督的运动（Christward movement）’—我们在基督的有份—在其中，我们‘被称作‘被接枝到他里面’[罗马11：17]，并且‘披上基督。’’这与基督的交通所产生不可分的必然结果就是，‘圣徒相通。’虽然，救赎有一个强烈的个人的层面，如个人与神的关系；然而，他并不是一个私有的时间，因为他的内容是以教会来制衡的。所以，一个对于unio mystica正确的解释，必然会承认圣灵所谓 vinculum的功能，公义和圣洁必须以一种团体的方式来诠释。

3.      The Double Grace of Justification and Sanctification / 称义和成圣的双重恩典 

Through participatio Christi, Calvin asserts that “we principally receive [the] double grace” of justification and regeneration. Both “our purgation and regeneration” are fundamentally trinitarian “events” wherein one recognizes “in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect.”52 Echoing the Chalcedonian Christological principle, this double grace of justification and sanctification are not to be separated,53 but united in Christ;54 and yet, they must be distinguished and not confused.55 Calvin considers the sun to be a most apposite metaphor in explicating this double grace: “The sun, by its heat, quickens and fructifies the earth [sanctification], by its beams brightens and illumines it [justification by faith].”56 To pull apart justification and good works is to hold a “Nestorian” soteriology;[57] to make them indistinguishable is to hold on to an “Eutychian” view of salvation, as Osiander did.58 Union with Christ is, therefore, the soteriological correlate to the Christological notion of the hypostatic union.

经由分享基督，加尔文宣称，‘我们基本上领受了称义和重生的双重恩典’。我们的‘净化和重生’基本上都是三位一体的‘事件’。在其中，我们要确认‘父是因，在子里是事件，在圣灵里是果效。’这也呼应了加克顿的基督论的规范。这个称义和成圣的双重恩典不能被分割，而是在基督里联合为一；虽然，他们必须被分辨，不能被混乱。加尔文认为太阳是用来解释这个双重恩典 合适的比喻：“太阳，它的热力，使得地球被滋润并结实累累[成圣]，它的光芒照亮并反射了他[因信称义]。”将称义和善行分开，是典型的‘聂斯拖流（Nestorian）’救赎论；不将他们分辨乃是‘欧迪奇(Eutychian)’的救恩观点，如同Osiander。故此，与基督联合就是与基督论概念中，位格联合（hypostatic union）的救赎概念。 

Having stated the above, has Calvin reduced the forensic thrust of justification, a notion which Luther so greatly emphasized, by grounding both righteousness and holiness in unio mystica, which is, properly speaking, an “organic” metaphor more akin to sanctification? In other words, in Calvin's effort to mitigate the Roman criticism that the Protestant notion of justification is no more than legal fiction, with his doctrine of union with Christ and the reverse ordering of sanctification and justification in the Institutes, does he end up confusing the two distinct notions?

如同我前面所说的，加尔文已经减低了，一种将称义和成圣深植于unio mystica中，路德非常强调的，称义里那种法庭式的信任（译者：神与人间的审判官和被控告者的关系）的观念。更正确的说，是一种更接近成圣的‘生机’的比喻？换句话说，在加尔文尝试缓和，罗马天主教对更正教的称义不过是一个法律程序的批判。以他的与基督联合的教导，和在要义中反转成圣和称义的顺序，难道他 终混乱了这两个不同的概念吗？

3.2     Christocentric and Trinitarian Nature of Justification and Sanctification / 称义和圣别中的以基督为中心和三位一体的本质 

Though Calvin is unequivocal in contending that justifying righteousness is rooted in the humanity of Christ, he does not deny that justification flows from the whole Person of Christ, as “a fountain, open to us, from which we may draw what otherwise would lie unprofitably hidden in that deep and secret spring.”86 In affirming the theandric person and work of Christ, we do not separate the human nature from the divine nature, and their distinct operations, which are united in His Person. But one should neither confuse the distinct activities of Christ's natures, nor the divine persons by confounding the missions that are proper to them (the Son and the Spirit). The office and title of the Mediator is proper to Christ, and the work of justification “peculiar” to Him, and therefore, distinguishes Him “from the Father and the Spirit.”87

虽然加尔文直率的将称义的公义的根源包含在基督的人选里面，他并没有否定称义乃是从基督的整个位格中流出的，就如同“一个对我们敞开的泉源，我们可以从他取水，否则它就是无功效的被深藏于隐秘的泉里面。”为了确认基督神人二性的位格和工作，我们不能分割基督的人性和神性，它们不同的运作被联合在他的位格里面。但是我们不能混乱基督不同性质的活动，也不能混淆该归于不同位格（子和圣灵）的任务。中保的称呼和职分是基督的，称义的工作是‘特别’属于他的，故此，他与‘父和圣灵’不同。

Nonetheless, Calvin does not deny the Augustinian axiom that the external operations of the Trinity are undivided (opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt) 88 for he states that with Christ, “this work [of justification] is the common task of the Father and the Holy Spirit.” In other words, while imputed righteousness stems from the humanity of Christ, this righteousness is proper to the Mediator. Yet, the title of Justifier belongs to the entire Trinity, and specially appropriated to Christ. Hence, justification by faith is a trinitarian event, which happens in conjunction with our union with Christ;89 the Father declares us righteous in so far as the Spirit bonds us to Christ, the garment of righteousness.

虽然如此，加尔文没有否定奥古斯丁关于三位一体外部的工作不可分割的概念（opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt），他描述，带着基督，“这个[称义]的工作是父与圣灵共有的任务。”换句话说，当被从基督的人性注入我们里面公义的衍生品，这个公义就是中保的。然而，称义者这个称号属于整个三位一体，特别属于嫉妒。故此，因信称义是一个三位一体的事件，发生于我们与基督联合的时候；父宣告我们为义，圣灵把我们契合与基督，这件公义的袍子。

In like manner, though sanctification is specially appropriated to the Spirit, Christ is not separated from this, in the light of unio mystica.90 This cannot be disconnected from the hypostatic union, since Christ “was conceived of the Holy Spirit in order that, in the flesh taken, fully imbued with the holiness of the Spirit, he might impart that holiness to us.” As repentance conforms us to Christ -­ the true imago Dei, sanctification leads us to union with God the Father. Thus, “[t]he chief good of man is nothing else but union with God; this is attained when we are formed according to him as our exemplar.”91

同样的，虽然成圣特别是圣灵的工作，在unio mystica的光照中，基督也不能与其分开。这也不能与位格的合一脱节，因为基督‘是圣灵成孕的，好叫在他所取的肉体里，完全充满圣灵的圣洁，他再能将那个圣洁赐予我们。’在悔改中，把我们模成基督—神真正的像（the true imago Dei），圣别将我们带向与父神的联合。

4.      Union with Christ as Participation in the Divine Life / 在有份神圣生命中于基督联合 

In Calvin's exegesis of a key passage in which the patristic doctrine of theosis is based upon (2 Pet. 1:4), he admits that the biblical doctrine echoes the Platonic idea of imitation, and asserts that the end of justification and sanctification is “that we may at length be partakers of eternal life and glory as far as it will be necessary for our complete felicity.” He totally rejects Manichean emanationism and neo-­Platonic mysticism in their blurring of the divine-human difference, while stating that “the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.” 92

在加尔文对于教父教导神化（Theosis）所根据的（彼后1：4）主要经文的解经中，他承认圣经的教导与柏拉图关于模仿基督的观念是一致的，他也坚信称义与圣化的结果就是“我们能够充分有份于永远的生命和荣耀，这是作为我们完全的喜乐中不可或缺的一部分。”他完全拒绝了马吉安主义基于模糊了神人二性的分别而产生的流溢说和新柏拉图主义的神秘主义，同时宣告‘福音的总结就是使我们被模成神，我们或许可以这么说，神化我们。’

Calvin's severe rejection of Servetus’ emanationistic theological anthropology, and his affirmation of creatio ex nihilo, 93 must act as a crucial interpretive key to the passages in which he speaks of unio mystica as our participation in Christ's “substance.”[94] Partee suggests that this union “is not mystical (in the sense of imitation) nor substantial (in an ontological sense) but real (in a genuine but unspecified and unspecifiable sense).”95 We agree with Partee that Calvin does not speak of an essential participation, and yet it must be affirmed that unio mystica is not idealistic, but ontic. In Calvin's disagreement with Osiander's notion of justification as an “essential” righteousness, he accuses the latter of confusing our mode of union with Christ, with the mode of union among the divine Persons.

加尔文严厉的反对Servetus的流溢说的人论，他确认神从无到有的创造（creatio ex nihil），必须以一个不可或缺的关键角色，运行于他提到我们的unio mystica作为有份于基督的本质的段落。Partee建议这个联合“不是奥秘的（以模仿基督而言），也不失本质的（从本体的角度而言）”，而是真实的（在一个真实的，没有被具体说明的，也无法被具体说明的角度而言）。”我们认同Partee所谓加尔文并没有教导一个本质的有份，然而，它（有份）必须被保证好使得unio mystica不是一个概念性的，而是本体性的。在加尔文否定Osiander关于称义的观念。

However, if Calvin does affirm something like a patristic notion of theosis, it cannot be said that he flatly rejects the notion of unio mystica as imitation,96 or that it does not have ontological significance. Hence, he charges Osiander in failing to account for “the bond of this unity [our union with Christ],” which makes our oneness with Christ not one which “Christ’s essence is mixed with our own” but an energetic union through “the secret power of his Spirit.”[97] Hence, to be “partakers of the divine nature” means a participation not of “essence but quality”; 98 thus, it is not substantial, but nonetheless, it is still ontological as participation in the nature involves a sharing in the properties of the essence

无论如何，若加尔文坚信某种像教父的神化的观念，我们不能因此认为他否定了unio mystica就是模仿基督，或unio mystica没有任何本体的意义。故此，他攻击Osiander没有任的‘这个联合[我们与基督的联合]的联结’能够让我们与基督合而为一，而不是‘将基督的本质与我们的本质混合’，而是一个借由‘他的灵所有的奥秘的能力’的一种能力的联合。所以，成为‘神性的分享者’意指‘不是分享本质，而是分享品质’，故此，它不是本质上的，有鉴于此，它仍然是一个借由分享本质的特性而产生的本质的分享而有的本体性的分享。

In spite of the accusation that Calvin is crypto­-Nestorian,99 and indicative of this is his understanding of the patristic doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum as a mere verbal formula, by which he asserts that the properties of both natures are improperly but directly transferred to one another,100 there is, we contend, in Calvin, an equally robust emphasis on the unity of Christ's person. Hence, Calvin asserts that “our key to [the] right understanding” of the communicatio idiomatum and the unity of the God­-man is in the concept of Christ as Mediator. 101 Even though Calvin speaks of the Mediator's divine attributes and “prerogatives” as endowments due to the incarnation, yet as God, we must affirm that “along with the Father he held them before the creation of the world” though not “in the same manner or respect.” Hence, divine properties are to be properly attributed to the person of the Mediator, since Christ is truly God. However, the communication of these divine properties are proper only to Jesus Christ alone, and no other human being, for “they could not have been given to a man who was nothing but a man.”102 In this way, he distinguishes the hypostatic union from unio mystica.

关于加尔文为隐性-­涅斯拖流异端的批判，并指控他对于教父属性相通的教导的理解只停留在口头上的公式的程度，在这个基础上，他坚信两性的特性被不合适并直接的传输到彼此身上，我们抗议这种说法。在加尔文的教导中，他也坚定的强大基督位格的联合。故此，加尔文坚信我们对于属性相通与神人联合的“正确理解’就是在基督是中保的观念里。甚至加尔文提到基督的神性特征和‘特权（prerogatives）’成为道成肉身的加强（endowments），然而作为神，我们必须承认‘他在创世之前与父一同拥有它们（神性特征）’，虽然不是‘在同样的方式和层次里面。’故此，神性的特征是被合适的归于中保的位格，因为嫉妒乃是真神。无论如何，这些神性特征的交流只能合适的在耶稣基督里面，没有任何其他人类能够拥有。因为‘它们无法被赐予那些单单是人的人类’。如此，他分别了位格的联合与unio mystica。

Yet we do partake of the divine nature, in our union with the humanity of the Mediator. Through the incarnation, life that is properly the attribute of the eternal Logos “pervaded [the assumed flesh] with fullness of life to be transmitted to us”; thus, mortal human nature is “endowed with immortality.”[103] After the Ascension, Christ's bodily presence is localized in heaven but He is present with us by a diffusion of his power and energy.104 Hence, through unio mystica, we participate in Christ's immortality for “the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain that pours into us the life springing forth from the Godhead into itself.”[105] Though this “blessed immortality and glory” is actual in
Christ, but only virtual in us, “yet, in consequence of the secret union, it belongs truly to the members.”106 While we do participate in the eternal life of God, in view of the of the hypostatic union and unio mystica, Calvin admits that through the energies of the Spirit, we do share, in some manner, in the “substance” of Christ's body, not merely the energies of his human nature, in the Eucharistic celebration. Hence, though he rejects the notion that we physically partake of the “substance” of Christ's exalted flesh, nonetheless, in Calvin's view, we do really partake of the “essence” of his humanity, as we are nourished by Christ’s body through its natural energies. While he maintains an essence­-energies distinction, Calvin thinks that we cannot separate the body of Christ from its energies. [107] However, he is also defending the integrity of Christ's human essence, which by nature is localized, and is therefore spatially located in heaven. In the same manner, we retain our essential and personal identities in our union with Christ, as we are bonded to Christ by the divine energy of the Spirit.

然而我们确实在我们与中保的人性联合中，分享了神性。借由道成肉身，那个带有永远的道所有特征的生命“带着生命的丰满披上了肉身，并将生命的丰满传输给我们；”所以，必死的人性被‘不朽所包裹。’在升天后，基督身体的存在被带入天上，然而他以散布（译者：将他的。。。赐予我们每一位）他的能力和能量的方式与我们同在。故此，借由unio mystica，我们分享了基督的不朽，因为‘基督的肉身就像一个丰满和永不干枯的泉源，将从神格本身涌出的生命倾倒到我们里面。’虽然这个‘有福的不朽和荣耀’就在基督里，对我们是虚拟的，‘然而，奥秘联合的结果，让他真实的属于所有（基督）的肢体。’当我们在位格的联合和unio mystica的角度里，分享神永远的生命，加尔文承认借由圣灵的大能，我们以某种方式分享了基督身体的‘素质’，有鉴于此，在加尔文的观点中，当我们被基督身体本质的能量喂养时，我们乃是真是的分享了他人性的‘素质’。不论如何，他也在捍卫我们不能将基督的身体与这个带有本质，并在天上的能量分割。同样的，在与基督的联合中，当我们被圣灵的神圣能力联于基督的时候，我们也保持我们原有的本质与位格的特性。

Our union with Christ is not a state, but a dynamic process that begins with the initial engrafting: As such, “[n]ot only does he [Christ] cleave to us by an indivisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion, day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us.”[108] Our koinonia with Christ is mutual insofar as there is an identity of nature, and a fellowship of equality that increases by day. Nonetheless, the Church stands in an asymmetrical relation to Christ as God, since the recovery of our true personhood through justification and sanctification, and participation in immortality, is utterly dependent on the will and operation of the Trinity. This is analogous to the fact that the human nature of Christ is enhypostatized in the personhood of the pretemporal Logos through the hypostatic union. In like manner, our personal identity is not grounded in mere biological existence, but is realized through the spiritual rebirth in unio mystica. Therefore, “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” [emphasis mine].109

我们与基督的联合不是一种状态，而是一种充满活力的过程，开始于接枝：就像，“不单单是他[基督]用交通那个不可分割的束缚割下了我们，而是一天一天，以一个奇妙的交流，他在我们里面成长，与我们成为一个身体，知道他完全的与我们合一。”我们与基督的koinonia(交通)是互相的，具有本质的特色，并且是每日具增的。有鉴于此，教会对这位是神的基督，因为借由称义与圣化来恢复我们的人性，有份与不朽，有一个不对称的关系，都是完全依赖三位一体的意志和运行。这就是基督的人性位格化在创世前就存在的道的位格中的这个事实所预表的。同意的，我们各人的特性也不单单拥有一个生物性的存在，而是在unio mystica中经由属灵的重生得到实化的。所以，“只要基督在我们之外，我们与他是分开的，他所经历的一切苦难和为了人类的救赎所成就的，都是无用的，并且对我们毫无价值。”

In spite of the parallels between the hypostatic union and our union with Christ, nonetheless, there is evidently a more robust ontological emphasis in Calvin's soteriology, centered on the notion of unio mystica (which radiates out into his doctrines of the Church and the sacraments),110 as compared to the more utilitarian bias in his Christology. This tension between his Christology and soteriology is indicative of the sharp distinction, which Calvin posits between the hypostatic union and unio mystica. Hence, the more universal, cosmic emphasis111 of salvation in the Greek patristic notion of theosis is not evident in Calvin as he sides with the Augustinian­-Thomistic soteriological construal of double predestination.112

关于（基督）位格的联合和我们与基督的联合的类似性，有鉴于，在加尔文的救赎论中有一个更活泼的本体性的强调，强调以unio mystica为中心的观念（从他对于教会和圣礼的教训向外辐射），这与他的基督论中功利主义的偏见是相对的。这个在他的基督论和救赎论间的张力呈现出加尔文放置在位格联合和unio mystica间，一个尖锐的不同点。所以，更宇宙性，由系列教父强调的Theosis救赎观不能作为加尔文倾向于奥古斯丁­多马士式的救赎论中架构的双重预定论的证据。

5.      Conclusion / 结论 

We have seen how the idea of unio mystica, in Calvin's thought functions as an organic link to many of his other doctrinal themes – the Trinity, Christology, pneumatology, soteriology. Along with this emphasis, Calvin applies the axiom of distinctio sed non separatio to highlight the crucial distinctions we need to make in doing theology – essence and persons, essence and energies, Christ and Spirit, divinity and humanity, justification and sanctification, among others. Particularly, with regard to imputed righteousness and imparted holiness, we noted that Calvin not only thinks we must conceptually distinguish the two ideas, but that there is great value in applying symbolic distinctions. The “spiritual” or practical nature of systematic theology cannot depend on merely the precision and univocality of technical language, but must allow for the broader use of poetic and metaphorical language. Hence, theology and piety, while distinct, cannot be separated. For what is the notion of the hypostatic union and, more so, of unio mystica, if they are merely conceptual schemes that are not rooted in an incomprehensible reality, which demands existential appropriation? And, if, we are to receive the sublime truth our union with Christ as whole persons, then what reason is there to separate poetics from technique, piety from theology?

我们已经看见，在加尔文的思想中，他使用unio mystica作为一个生机的连接，将其他关于三位一体，基督论，救赎论等联结起来。为了强调这点，加尔文以distincto sed no separatio（distinct but not separate­­不同但不分离）作为主轴，强调我们在发展神学时的一个非常重要的分界线—本质和位格（persons），本质与能力（energies），基督和（圣）灵，神性和人性，称义和成圣，等等。特别是关于归给我们的公义，和赐给我们里面的圣洁，我们发现加尔不单单认为我们必须在思想上分辨两个不同的概念，并且，象征性的分辨（两者）仍是具有重要价值的。系统神学中，‘属灵’或应用的本质不能单单依赖技术语言的准确性和单义性，而是必须容许一个更广泛的诗意和预表性语言的使用。故此，神学和圣洁，虽然是不同的，却是不可分割的。若位格的联合，甚至unio mystica的概念只是一个概念性架构，并没有根植于那要求一个将相应属性归于相应的个体的实际存在的不可理会的实际中，它们又是什么？再者，若我们接受了一个庄严宏伟的，关于我们与基督联合尔成为完整的人位（persons）的真理，我们又为什么要从技术（性语言）中分割出诗意？从技术重分割出圣洁呢？

Bibliography / 参考书目 

Butin, Philip Walker. Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine­Human Relationship.New York; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated and indexed by Ford L. Battles. The Library of Christian Classics, ed. John Baillie et al., vol. XX. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

________. The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection. CD­ROM Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998

Gründler, Otto. “John Calvin: Engrafting in Christ,”169­-187. The Spirituality of Western Christendom. E. Rozanne Elder, ed. Cistercian Studies Series No. 30. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1976.

Hageman, Howard G. “Reformed Spirituality.” Exploring Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Reader. Ed. by Kenneth J. Collins. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000, 138­-157.

Hesselink, I. John. “Calvin, the Holy Spirit, and Mystical Union.” Perspectives 13, no. 1 (January 1998): 15-­18.

McCormack, Bruce L. “For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement in the Reformed tradition.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, Nos. 1-­4 (1998): 281­-316.

McGinn, Bernard. “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries.”Church History 56 (March 1987): 7­-24.

McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture.Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Partee, Charles. “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 18, no. 2 (Summer 1987): 191­-199.

Smedes, Lewis B. All Things Made New: A Theology of Man’s Union with Christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1970.

Tamburello, Dennis E. Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard.Columbia Series in Reformed

Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

Torrance, Thomas F. Trinitarian Perspectives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Wendel, Fran?ois. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. London: William Collins and Son; London: Harper & Row, 1963. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Willis, E. David. Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So­Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin's Theology. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, ed. Heiko A. Oberman et al., vol. II. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966.

Endnotes  / 尾注 

[1] Taking his cue from Karl Barth, Partee uses this doctrine as a structural principle, proposing an objective­subjective division of the Institutes: (1) God for us, as Creator (Book I) and Redeemer (II), and (2) God in us, as individuals (III) and community (IV). Charles Partee, “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal18.2 (Summer 1987), 191-­199. See also, Otto Gründler, “John Calvin: Engrafting in Christ,” in The Spirituality of Western Christendom. E. Rozanne Elder, ed. Cistercian Studies Series No. 30 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1976), 169­-187; and, I. John. Hesselink, “Calvin, the Holy Spirit, and Mystical Union.” Perspectives 13, no. 1 (January 1998), 15-­18.

Partee从KarlBarth得到按时，并使用这个教训作为架构的基础，认为对要义又一个一个主观­-客观分别：（1）对我们，神使造物主（第一册）和救赎主（第二册），和（2）神在我们里面，作为各人的一面（第三册）和团体的一面（第四册）。Charles Partee，””再思加尔文的核心教义”，在十六世纪期刊18.2（1987夏），191­-199。也参考Otto Gründler“约翰加尔文：接枝到基督里面”，西方基督教属灵经典。E. Rozanne Elder, ed. Cistercian Studies Series No. 30 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1976), 169­-187; and, I. John. Hesselink, “加尔文，圣灵，和奥秘的联合” Perspectives 13, no. 1 (January 1998), 15­-18.

[2] Howard G. Hageman, taking his cue from Wilhelm Neisel, argues that the “starting point” of any discourse on Calvin's spirituality must be the unio mystica. See “Reformed Spirituality” in Exploring Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Reader, edited by Kenneth J. Collins (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 143.

Howard G. Hageman从Wilhelm Neise得到灵感，宣称任何关于加尔文的灵命讨论的‘起点’必须是unio mystica。参考在发现基督教属灵观中的‘改革宗灵命观’： An Ecumenical Reader, Kenneth J. Collins编辑 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 143。

[3] Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 149.

Alister E. McGrath, 加尔文的一生：一个对塑造西方文化者的研究(Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 14。

[4] Since Calvin upholds the orthodox affirmation of God's essential simplicity, he affirms that God's “ will is one and simple in him.” John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), I: xviii: 3, p. 234.

因着加尔文高举正统对于神的本质的纯一的坚持，他确信神的意志只有一个，在他里面也是纯一的。约翰加尔文：基督教

要义，John T. McNeill 编辑(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), I: xviii: 3, p. 234。 

[5] Calvin, Institutes I: xiii: 18, p. 142. The taxonomical ordering of the Trinity ad intra arises also from the personal properties of the divine Persons; hence “in the Father is the beginning and the source.” Calvin, Institutes I: xiii: 20, p. 144.

基督教要义I: xiii: 18, p. 142。三位一体的分类的次序ad intra也从各个神圣位格的特质展现出来；所以‘在父里面有起始和源头’，加尔文，基督教要义I: xiii: 20, p. 144。

[6] Calvin, Institutes I: xiii: 18, p. 142­-143. We take these“distinctions” made by Calvin not to mean the rejection of the Augustinian axiom opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt, [contra. Philip Walker Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the DivineHuman Relationship (New York; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 41] but an affirmation of the doctrine of appropriations, which was conjointly used by the tradition. The former, as a theological rule, has precedence over the latter, which is a linguistical device used to assign (improperly) certain “essential” attributes or functions to the divine persons in virtue of an appropriateness to their personal properties, where Scripture warrants (though this last point might not have been faithfully adhered to within certain sub-­traditions). Calvin himself says that these “distinctions” and the ordering of wisdom and power are logical ones since “the mind of each human being is naturally inclined to” see them as such.

加尔文，基督教要义I: xiii: 18, p. 142­-143。我们认为加尔文所谓的‘分别’不是拒绝奥古斯丁对于opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt的观念，[与Philip Walker Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin's Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine­Human Relationship (New York; Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 41所宣称的相反]，而是一个对于将特性归于相应的位格的教导的确认，这与（奥古斯丁的）传统的使用方式一致。前者，是一个神学的定律，在后者之前。后者则被用来当作一个将某种‘本质性’的特质或功用，在某个相应的位格的美德，归于该位格的语言载台。在其中，圣经也保证了（虽然后者可能在某些次传统中没有被忠实的支持）（它的正确性）。加尔文自己说，这些‘不同’和智慧与能力的顺序是逻辑性的，因为‘每个人的心思会自然地倾向于’如此看它们。

[7] Calvin, Institutes I: xiii: 17, p. 142; 19 & 19, p. 143. Calvin's lack of interest in elaborating on the “personal properties” of the divine Persons in terms of “relations of origins” does indicate a certain caution toward the Augustinian­Thomistic tradition. While he did not appropriate the Thomistic trinitarian categories of essence, processions, persons, relations, and notions, perhaps, due to his reticence toward over­speculation (but certainly not for want of numerical systematization!), Calvin, it seems to us, was not original enough (and this implies no derogation) to have rejected the tradition altogether.

加尔文，基督教要义I: xiii: 17, p. 142; 19 & 19, p. 143。加尔文对于从‘开始的关系’来研讨神圣位格的‘特质’的缺乏兴趣，也表明了某种对于奥古斯丁­多马士传统的警戒。当他或者因为他拒绝因为在过分猜测的情况下（当然不愿意以数字的方式系统化），将多马士式的三位一体论归类为本质，列队（processions），位格，关系，和观念，加尔文，对于我们，还没有完全拒绝传统而达到一个原始（original）的状态（这并不意味着减损任何成分）。

[8]“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man [and woman].” Calvin, Institutes III: xxi, 5, 926.

“我们称预定为神的永远定旨，借着它，他将他在每个人身上的旨意与自己定约”。 加尔文，基督教要义III: xxi, 5, 926。

[9]“For this reason, Paul says that the love with which God embraced us “before the creation of the world” was established and grounded in Christ [Eph. 1:4­-5].” Calvin, Institutes II: xvi: 4, p. 506.

“因着这个缘故，保罗说，神的爱在创立世界前就拥抱了我们，这乃是在基督里被建立并生根立基的”[以弗所1：4­-5]。加尔文，基督教要义II: xvi: 4, p. 506。

[10] “For since it is into his body the Father has destined those to be engrafted whom he has willed from eternity to be his own, that he may hold as sons all whom he acknowledges to be among his members, we have a sufficiently clear and firm testimony that we have been inscribed in the book of life [cf. Revelation 21:27] if we are in communion with Christ.” Calvin, Institutes III: xxiv: 5, p. 970.

“父在永恒中就命定要把他们接枝到基督里，被带入到他（子）的身体里面，成为自己的。好叫他（子）能够保守这些他所承认的众子，成为他的肢体。我们已经有一个极其清晰和坚固的见证，见证，若我们在与基督的交通例，我们就已经被刻写入生命册[参考启示录21：27]。”加尔文，基督教要义III: xxiv: 5, p. 970。

[11] “It hence appears, that the paternal love of God is found in Christ, and that nothing certain is known of Christ, except by those who know themselves to be the children of God by his grace. For the Father sets his own Son daily before us for this end, that he may adopt us in him.”Calvin, Commentary on the First Epistle of John 4: 16, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection [CD­ROM] (Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998). From hereon, referred to as AGES.

‘所以，看来神作为父亲的爱只能在基督里被寻见。而那些自己知道借由他的恩典成为神的儿女的必然也是基督所知道的。因为父在这个时代的末了，每日差遣他的儿子到我们面前，好在他（子）里面领养我们。’加尔文解经集，约翰壹书4：16解经[CD=ROM] (Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998). From hereon, referred to as AGES。 

[12]“These words remind us that the only bond of our union with God is, to be united to Christ; and we are united to him by a faith which is not reigned...” Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John 16: 27, p. 552, AGES. “They also had need of a head, through whose bond they might cleave firmly and undividedly to their God.” Calvin,Institutes II: xii: 1, p. 464.

‘这些话题性我们，我们与神联合的唯一链接，就是与基督联合；我们乃是因着信，而不是辖制，与他联合。。。’加尔文，约翰福音16：27解经，, p. 552, AGES。‘他们也需要一个头，经由他的联接，他们能够紧密的别连接于他们的神。’加尔文，基督教要义II: xii: 1。

[13]“How is it that the Father knows his Wisdom? For Christ simply declares that, so far as he is the bond of our union with God, he is placed between Him and us; as if he had said, that it is no more possible for him to forget us, than that he should be rejected or disregarded by the Father.” Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John10: 15, 364, AGES.

‘父如何能够认识他的智慧呢？因为基督简单的宣城，只要它是我们与神联合的链接，他被安置在他（父）与我们之间；就如同他所说的，他（子）不可能忘记我们，不如他就会被父所拒绝，并被否定。’加尔文，约翰福音10：15解经， AGES。

[14] Here, Fran?ois Wendel’s comment that “the Holy Spirit plays the part of an obligatory mediator between Christ and man, just as the Christ is mediator between God and man” needs to be qualified. See Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. by Philip Mairet (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997), 239-­240. While the role of both Christ and the Spirit as distinct “agents” of redemption need to be acknowledged, such an interpretation seems to be contrary to Calvin’s unequivocal insistence that the person and office of the Mediator is proper to Christ alone.

所以，Fran?ois Wendel’s认为，‘圣灵在基督和人间具有一个身负责任的中介者的角色，就如同基督是神与人间的中保一样’这句话需要进一步的解释。参考加尔文：他的宗教思想的起源和发展，Philip Mairet翻译（Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997），239-­240。当基督和圣灵在救赎中，作为‘代理人’的角色被确认，这种得解释看来和加尔文直接了当的坚持中保的位格与职份只属于基督的说法相互矛盾。

[15] “By these words he reminds us how efficacious is that knowledge which he mentions, even because by it we are united to Christ; and become one with God; for it has a living root, fixed in the heart, by which it comes that God lives in us and we in him. As he says, without a copulative, that: we are in him that is true, in his Son, he seems to express the manner of our union with God, as though he had said, that we are in God through Christ.” Calvin,Commentary on the First Epistle of John 5: 20, AGES.

‘借着这些话，他提醒我们他所提到的认识是多么的有效，甚至因为借由他，我们与基督联合；并与神合而为一；因他乃是活的根，扎根在我们心里，借由它，神来住在我们立马，我们也在他里面。就如同他说过的，没有任何的间隔：我们乃是真实的在他里面，在他的儿子里面，看起来他就是在描述我们与基督联合的方式，甚至他还说，我们乃是经由基督而在神里面。’加尔文，约翰壹书5：20解经，AGES。

[16] Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 32, p. 579.

加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 32。

[17] Calvin, Institutes III: vi: 3, p. 687.

加尔文，基督教要义III: vi: 3。

[18] Calvin, InstitutesII: xv: 5, p. 500.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xv: 5。

[19] The “classical” trinitarian distinction between theologia and oikonomia posits a continuity and discontinuity between God-­in­-himself and God-­in­-his­-relation-to-­the-­world. The first ensures that God's disclosure in time is a true, though not exhaustive, self-­disclosure; the second asserts that only God’s existence is self­-grounded, whereas creation and redemption are contingent and arise from the will of God. Thus, Karl Rahner's Grundaxiom ­-“the economic trinity is the immanent trinity, and vice versa,” when interpreted in the first sense, holds. But to coalesce the distinctions is to run the risk of importing economic categories back into God's own life, as necessary “conditions” for His self­existence (whether suffering, temporality, or the like) and, ultimately, blurs the Creator­-creature distinction.

‘古典’的三位一体论分割了神学（theologia）和经纶（oikonomia），并在在自己里面的神，和在他与世界关系中的神中间，安置了一个连续性和非连续性。前者是为了保证神在时间中被启示出来是一个真实的事件，即使不是全面性的自我启示；后者坚定了只有神的存在是建立在自我之上的，不论是创造还是救赎都是从神的意志中发生。所以，Karl Rahner的 Grundaxiom 在以第一个的意思解释成立的时候，说­­--“经纶的三位一体就是内在的三位一体，反之亦然。”但是，把（经纶的三位一体与内在的三位一体的）分别合并起来就会有一个把经纶的分类（译者：可能指经纶的三一）重新输入到神自己的生命里的危险。并把这个当作是维系他的自有永有的必须‘条件’（如受苦，暂时的，等）以及，至终，模糊了造物主被造之物间的分别。

[20] Calvin, Institutes II: xiv: 3, 485­-486.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xiv: 3。

[21] Calvin, Institutes II: xv: 5, p. 501; xiv: 3, p. 486. By this, Calvin means that Christ “will cease to be the ambassador of His Father,” that is, no longer subordinated to God, but rather, He “will be satisfied with that glory which he enjoyed before the creation of the world.” While Calvin asserts that the office of the Mediator ceases in the Eschaton, Calvin affirms that “the power of his death avails as an everlasting intercession in our behalf [cf. Rom. 8:34], yet in such a way that, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, even to the consummation of the ages [cf. Heb. 9:24ff], he alone bears to God the petitions of the people, who stay far off in the outer court” [emphases mine]. Calvin, III: xx: 20, p. 878.

加尔文，基督教要义：xv: 5； xiv: 3。借由这个，加尔文意指基督，‘不再会是父的大使’，就是说，（基督）不再次与神，甚至，他也‘会在他在创世前就有的荣耀中得到满足。’当加尔文强调中保的职份在末世停止时，他仍确信‘他死的功效在我们的行为中，仍然有一种永远有效的调停功效[参考罗马8：34]，然而这是在进入了属天的圣所后的方式，甚至直到诸世代的终结[参考希伯来9：24注解]，他独自把那些留在外院子中的人类的祈求，背负到神面前。’加尔文III: xx: 20。

[22] Calvin, Institutes II: xiv: 3, p. 486. Even though Calvin viewed the incarnation instrumentally (its necessity was due to the need for redemption) and Christ’s mediation in redempto-­centric terms, yet he could say, “if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator.” Calvin,Institutes II: xii: 1, p. 465.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xiv: 3。即使加尔文将道成肉身看作是一个工具（因为救赎的需要），基督的中保职份是一个以救赎为中心的名词，然而他还能说，“如果人能够保持没有瑕疵，他的情况仍然是如此的低下，除非经由中保，他无法来到神前。”加尔文，基督教要义II: xii: 1。

[23] According to E. David Willis, Calvin employs the term “Mediator” in reference to Christ in three senses: (1) primarily, as God incarnate; (2) as intermediary between fallen humanity and God before the Incarnation, indirectly as the promise behind prophetic utterances, and directly in the form of an angel in the Old Testament; and (3) as Mediator prior to the Incarnation and the Fall, even had the latter not occurred. See Calvin's Catholic Christology: The Function of the So­-Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 68­-69.

根据E. David Willis，加尔文在基督身上使用了‘中保’这个词有三方面的意义：1）主要，作为道成肉身的神；2）作为堕落的人了和神在道成肉身前的中介，间接的作为先知预言的应许，直接的在旧约中以天使的形象中（显现）；和3）作为道成肉身和人的堕落前的中保，即使后者不会发生。参考加尔文的大公基督论：在加尔文神学中所谓Extra Calvinisticum的角色(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 68-­69。

[24] Calvin, Institutes II: xii: 1, p. 464.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xii: 1。

[25] With regard to Christ's anointing in His kingly office, Calvin states “that Christ Kingdom lies in the Spirit.” Calvin,Institutes II: xv: 5, p. 500.

关于基督在他的君王的职份中的被膏，加尔文称‘基督的国度乃是在（圣）灵里面。’加尔文，基督教要义II: xv: 5。

[26] “For we await salvation from him not because he appears to us afar off, but because he makes us, engrafted into his body, participants not only of all his benefits [work] but also in himself [person].” Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 24, p. 570.

‘我之所以等候从他而来的救赎，不是因为他远远的向我们显现，而是因为他把我们接枝到他的身体里面，不单单有份于他工作的果效，而是在他自己[的位格]里面。’加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 24。

[27] Citing Augustine, Calvin notes that, “the goal of faith,” in view of the fact that Christ “was both God and man” is that “namely, as God he is the destination to which we move; as man, the path by which we go.” Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 1, p. 544.

引用奥古斯丁，加尔文指出，从基督‘别生为神和人’的事实的角度而言，‘信仰的目的，’就是‘如同字面所表示的，神就是我们前进的目地；作为人，他就是我们前进的道路。’加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 1。

[27] Citing Augustine, Calvin notes that, “the goal of faith,” in view of the fact that Christ “was both God and man” is that “namely, as God he is the destination to which we move; as man, the path by which we go.” Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 1, p. 544.

引用奥古斯丁，加尔文指出，从基督‘别生为神和人’的事实的角度而言，‘信仰的目的，’就是‘如同字面所表示的，神就是我们前进的目地；作为人，他就是我们前进的道路。’加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 1。

[28] Even St. Basil could argue for the legitimate use of both doxological formulae ­-“with the Father, together with the Son and the Spirit” and “from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” – even though, according to T.F. Torrance, Basil regarded the Father as the source of the being and personhood of the other two divine Persons. SeeTrinitarian Perspectives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 29-­32.

甚至巴西流也争辩这两个用敬拜神的公式—“与父，带着子和圣灵”，和‘从父，经由子，并在圣灵里’—的合法性。根据T. F. Torrance，巴西流认为父是其他两位神圣位格的本质和位格的源头。参考透视三位一体：教义的交集(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 29­-32。

[29] And as noted above, Christ is referred to as the bond of our union with God in his mediating capacity: “For we have been adopted as sons by the Lord with this one condition: that our life express Christ, the bond of our adoption.” Calvin, Institutes III: vi: 3, p. 687.

如同前面所述，基督在他作为中保的能力中，被当作我们与神联合的联结：“因为我们在以下的条件下，被主认养为众子：我们的生活彰显基督—我们养子名分的联结。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: vi: 3。

[30] Calvin, Institutes II: xvi: 6, p. 502.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xvi: 6。

[31] Calvin, Institutes II: xiv, 3, p. 485; III: I: 2, p. 539. “One cannot know by any idle speculation what it is, that holy and spiritual union between him and us, and first of all between him and his father, but here is the sole means to that knowledge, when he infuses his life into us by the hidden virtue of his Spirit.” Calvin, Commentary upon John 14:20,Opera omnia quae supersunt (Corpus Reformatoren) (Brunswick, 1863­-1900), 331, as quoted by Wendel, Calvin,239.

加尔文，基督教要义Institutes II: xiv, 3。“没有人能以任何静态的思维来理解那个在他（神）和我们间的神圣和属灵的联合的本质？这个联合先是存在在他（子）和他的父之间。在此，意指那个当他借由隐藏在他的灵里面的美德，把他的生命灌输到我们里面的认识。”加尔文，约翰福音14：20解经，Opera omnia quae supersunt (Corpus Reformatoren) (Brunswick, 1863-­1900), 331, Wendel引用, 加尔文, 239。 

[32] So, Wendel wonders “whether the Holy Spirit does not in his [Calvin's] view occupy a position, in our relations with the Christ, analogous to that of Christ himself in his relations with the Father.” Wendel, Calvin, 239. Positing the Spirit as the bond of union between the Father and the Son (as a result of affirming the filioque) cannot imply that the Spirit exists as another principle of “essential” unity within the immanent Trinity, which diminishes the Father's position as fons et principium deitatis. Since Calvin does not locate the monarchia in the Father but in the perichoresis of the Persons (as they are autousia), the Father is to be regarded only as the principle of personhood (and not being) within God. A possible interpretation is that the Spirit can be understood as an “energetic” bond between the Father and Son - the common uncreated glory shared by the divine Persons are “enhypostasized” in a special way in the Spirit. This is the divine energy that the elect have a share in which makes participation in God real and ontological, but which, at the same time, does not erase the infinite qualitative distinction between Creator and creature. Such a modified Augustinian position would be able to accommodate the essence-­person­-energy distinction in Palamism, so that union with the Father and the Son (Jn 17:20­-26) can be affirmed in the deepest sense, without having to admit either, on the one hand, human participation in the eternal processions (essential participation) or, on the other, divine personal distinctions in tritheistic terms (intentional participation). This view does not comport with Torrance's position on this matter. See T.F. Torrance, Trinitarian Perspectives, 38-­40.

所以,Wendel也纳闷，‘是否在加尔文的眼光里，圣灵在我们与基督的关系中是没有地位的，如同基督自己在他于父的关系一样？’Wendel，加尔文，239。将圣灵置于父和子联合的联系的地位（其结果就是确定了filioque这个词）并不代表圣灵的存在是在三位一体中‘本质的’联合的另一个要素。这会抹杀父作为fons et principium deitatis的地位。因着加尔文没有将 monarchia（神的统一性）定位在父里面，而是放在了位格（persons，因为他们是autousia-­自有的本质）间的互相渗透（perichoresis）中。父只被视为在神里面位格（而不是本质）的要素。一个可能的解释是，圣灵能被理解为一个在父与子间‘能力’的联结—被神圣位格（Persons）所共享的非受造的荣耀，在圣灵里被以一种特殊的方式‘位格化（enhypostasized）’。这是那个让选民能够以一种真实与本体的方式分享神的神圣能量（divine energy），在同时，却又没有抹杀造物者和被造之物间，那个不可逾越的本质上的不同。这样一个调整过的奥古斯丁的立场，就能够合理的解释在Palamism(译者：持Palama神学立场者)中本质­位格­能量间的不同（the essence­-person­-energy distinction），好叫父与子的联合（约翰17：20­-26）能够被以一个更深层次的含义所保证。在另一方面，不必承认人分享了永恒的三位一体的序列（processions）（本质的分享）或，在另一方面，也不必承认神圣位格在tritheistic（三位神）的用词间的分别（意志的分享）。这个看法bi并没有表现在Torrance在这件事的立场中。参考，T.F. Torrance，三位一体的研究，38­40。 

[33] “Faith in Christ, makes God to dwell in men, and we are partakers of this grace; but as God is love, no one dwells in him except he loves his brethren. Then love ought to reign in us, since God unites himself to us.” Calvin,Commentary on the First Epistle of John 4: 16, AGES.

“基督里的信，让神住在人里面，并让我们成为这个恩典的分享者；然而如同神是爱，不爱他的弟兄的就没有住在他里面。然后爱能够管制我们，因为神将他自己与我们联合。”加尔文，约翰壹书4：16借经，AGES。

[34] Calvin, Institutes III: I: 1, p. 538.

加尔文，基督教要义III: I: 1。

[35] Calvin notes that the terms “hypostasis,”

“subsistence,” and “prosopon” can be equally used to “express the same concept by the word “person”.” Calvin, Institutes I: xiii: 2, p. 123.

加尔文提到‘hypostasis，’‘subsistence，’和‘prospon’都能够被用于‘表现“person（位歌）”的观念。’加尔文，基督教要义I: xiii: 2。

[36] The ancient image of the Trinity as sun, light and heat (Father, Son, Spirit) is appropriated by Calvin (InstitutesIII: xi: 6, p. 732), in relating the work of justification and sanctification to the Son and Spirit; elsewhere, Christ is described as “ a fountain” of our righteousness (Institutes III: xi: 9, p. 736).

古代用太阳，光和热（父、子、灵）来描绘三位一体，加尔文认为，对于子和圣灵称义和成圣的工作而言，是合适的（基督教要义III: xi: 6）；在别处，基督被形容为，我们救恩的‘泉源’（基督教要义III: xi: 9）。

[37] “They are mistaken who hope the Spirit can be obtained apart from obtaining Christ; and it is equally preposterous and deluded to dream that Christ can be laid hold of [percipi] by us without the Spirit. Rather, each of the two must be firmly held onto [atqui utremque tenendum est]. Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians 3:17 (1556 ed.), as quoted in Butin, 80.

“他们错误的希望在基督外得到圣灵；这和梦想基督可以在缺乏圣灵的情况下被我们得到，一样的荒谬和自欺。反而，两者必须被同时持守[atqui utremque tenendum est]。”加尔文，以弗所3：17解经，Butin引用，80。

[38] “But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self­-deception may, contemplate our own election.” Calvin, Institutes III: xxiv: 5, p. 970.

“若我们在他（基督）里面被拣选，我们就无法在我们里面找到对于拣选的保证；若我们认为他（父）是被子服侍的，（这个保证）甚至也不在父神里面。基督，是我们注视我们的拣选的镜子。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: xxiv: 5。

[39] Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians 3:17 (1556 ed.), as quoted in Butin, 80. At the end of his introductory paragraph on the idea of the unio mystica, Calvin states, “To this, also, pertains what we taught in the previous book concerning his anointing.” Calvin, Institutes III: i: 1, 538.

加尔文，以弗所书3：17解经，Butin引用，80。在他关于unio mystica概念的介言的结尾，加尔文说，“对于这点，也属于我们在前册中关于他的被膏的教导。”加尔文，基督教要义III: i: 1。

[40] “Accordingly, the bond of our union with Christ is faith, which raises us upwards, and casts its anchor in heaven, so that instead of subjecting Christ to the figments of our reason: we seek him above in his glory.” Calvin, Selected Works Vol. 2, Tracts Pt. 2, “The Best Method of Obtaining Concord, Provided the Truth be Sought Without Contention,” p. 523. AGES.

“同样的，我们与基督联合的联结，乃是那个将我们向上提升，稳固在天的信，把我们虚妄的理智顺服在基督下：我们还寻求他的荣耀。”加尔文，选集第二辑，彼得后书小册，“得到谐和的 佳方式乃是在避免争辩的情况下提供能被追寻的真理”，p.523，AGES。

[41] “Though then the whole world were roused to a blazing war, yet holiness is not to be forsaken, for it is the bond of our union with God.” Calvin, The Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews 12: 14, pp. 280­-281, AGES.

“虽然全世界都被一个愤怒的战争所兴起，然而圣洁并不会被忽略，因为它是我们与神联合的联结。”加尔文，希伯来书

12：14解经，AGES。

[42](http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/tan­union.shtml#_ednref42) “What else is it, then, than to do injury to the Holy Spirit if we separate faith, which is his peculiar work, from him” [emphasis mine]. Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 39, p. 587, AGES.

“我们的与信仰分离，就是对圣灵的伤害。因为这是他特有的工作。”加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 39。

[43] “To sum it up: Christ, when he illumines us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time so engrafts us into his body that we become partakers of every good.” Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 35, p. 583.

‘总括的说，基督，当他在信里面，以他的灵的大能光照我们的时候，就把我们接枝到他的身体里面，好叫我们成为所有

（属灵的）益处的分享者。’加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 35。

[44] Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians 3:17 (1556 ed.), as quoted in Butin, 80.

加尔文，以弗所3：17解经，Butin引用，80。

[45] “Further, God the Father gives us the Holy Spirit for his Son's sake, and yet has bestowed the whole fullness of the Spirit upon the Son to be a minister and steward of his liberality.” Calvin, Institutes III: i: 2, p. 538.

‘进一步，父神为了他儿子的缘故，将圣灵赐给了我们，那为被圣灵全备的丰满所浇灌的子，成为他的自由的管家。’加尔文，基督教要义III: i: 2。

[46] Calvin, Institutes II: xv: 5, p. 500.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xv: 5。

[47] Calvin, Institutes II: xv: 5, p. 500.

加尔文，基督教要义II: xv: 5。

[48] Calvin, Institutes II: xv: 2, p. 496;

加尔文，基督教要义II: xv: 2。

[49] Calvin, Institutes III: I: 1, p. 537. “But he unites himself to us by the Spirit alone. By the grace and the power of the same Spirit we are made his members, to keep us under himself and in turn to possess him” [emphases mine]. Calvin, III: I: 3, p. 541. Butin notes this “bi­-directionality” of the Spirit’s work in divine revelation and human response. Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response, 84.

加尔文，基督教要义III: I: 1。“但是他乃是借由圣灵把他自己联于我们。借由同一位圣灵的恩典和能力，我们成为他的肢体，保守我们服在他的下面，好拥有他。”加尔文，III: I: 3。Butin注意到圣灵在神圣启示和人的反应中的‘双向’工作。 Butin，启示，救赎和回应，84。

[50] “It is as if one said that the saints are gathered into the society of Christ on the principle of that whatever benefits God confers upon them, they should in turn share with one another.” Calvin, Institutes IV: I: 3, p. 1014.

“就好像有人说，在凡从神得益处的必会承认它们的原则上，圣徒被集合到基督的群体里面。他们也能够彼此分享（自己

所有的）。” 加尔文，基督教要义IV: I: 3。 

[51] “If truly convinced that God is the common Father of all and Christ the common Head, being united in brotherly love, they cannot but share their benefits with one another... So powerful is participation in the church that it keeps us in the society of God.” Calvin, Institutes IV: I: 3, p. 1015.“The church is holy, then, in the sense that it is daily advancing and is not yet perfect.” Calvin, Institutes IV: I: 17, p. 1031.

“若（他们）认为神是我们共有的父，基督是共有的头，（他们）被弟兄的爱联合在一起，他们就必须彼此分享（自己所有的）。。。教会中的分享是如此的有能力，把我们保守在神的群体里面。” 加尔文，基督教要义IV: I: 3。“教会是神圣的，从这个意义而言，这是一个每天都必须长进的过程，不是已经得到完全了。”加尔文，基督教要义IV: I: 17。 

[52] Calvin, Institutes IV: xv: 6, p. 1308.

加尔文，基督教要义IV: xv: 6。 

[53] “Meanwhile, however, I acknowledge that Jesus Christ not only justifies us by cowering [sic] all our faults and sins, but also sanctifies us by his Spirit, so that the two things (the free forgiveness of sins and reformation to a holy life) cannot be dissevered and separated from each other.”

“我们同时承认耶稣基督不单单以让我们的过失和罪过从我们身上退缩而去，以称义我们，也用他的灵圣别我们，好叫两件事（白白对罪的赦免，和圣洁生活的改革）无法彼此分割和分离。”

[54] “Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond... Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself.” Calvin, Institutes III: xvi: 1, p. 798.

“所以，基督不会称义他所没有圣别的人。这些好处乃是被那个永恒和不会消减的联系联合在一起。。。虽然我们能够分辨它们，基督却在自己里面，不分彼此的包含了它们。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: xvi: 1。

[55] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 2, p. 726-­7

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 2。

[56] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 6, p. 732.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 6。

[57] “Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ [justification]? You must first possess Christ [union]; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [1 Cor 1:13]” [emphasis mine]. Calvin, Institutes III: xvi: 1, p. 798. See also, III: xi: 6, p. 732, where Calvin asserts that “as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable - namely, righteousness and sanctification.”

“你希望能够得到基督里的公益[称义]？那么你就必须先得到基督[联合]；除非你被作成在他的圣别中的分享者，你就无法得到他，因为他不能被切成一块一块的[林前1：13]”。 加尔文，基督教要义III: xvi: 1。也请参考III: xi: 6，在该处加尔

文强调‘如同基督不能被切成零碎不同的部分，我们在他里面感受到的这两件事情也是并生，不可分割的—就是，公义和圣别。’

[58] “But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by its light, or lighted by its heat? ... Here is a mutual and indivisible connection. Yet reason itself forbids us to transfer the peculiar qualities of the one to the other. In this confusion of the two kinds of grace that Osiander forces upon us there is a like absurdity.” Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 6, p. 732.

“如果太阳无法和它的热量分离，那么，我们应当说，地球是被它的光所温暖？还是被它的热量所照亮？。。这是一个相互不可分割的联系。理智本身禁止我们把某件事务的复数（性质）转到另一件事物上。因混合了这两种恩赐，Osiander逼得我们必须承认它看起来是荒谬的。”加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 6。

[59] Dennis E. Tamburello includes these metaphors, and not “putting on Christ”, or “clothed in Christ”, as references to union with Christ: engrafting, communion, fellowship, one flesh/spiritual marriage, spiritual union, mystical union, growing together/becoming one, union with God, adoption, regeneration, partakers of Christ See “Appendix,” Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), p. 111­-113.

Dennis E. Tamburello结论说到这些比喻，在谈到与基督联合的时候，不是‘披上基督’或‘穿上基督’：而是接枝，交流，交通，一个肉身/属灵的婚姻，属灵的联合，奥秘的联合，一同生长/成为一个，与神联合，认养，重生，有份于基督。参考‘附录，’与基督联合：约翰加尔文和St. Bernard的神秘主义（Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994）, p. 111­-113。 

[60] Calvin, Institutes III: I: 1, p. 537. Here, the conceptual distinction is not that of an “in Christ” (justification) and “in us” (sanctification) contrast. In distinguishing righteousness and holiness using the “epidermal” and “organic” metaphors, we are positing more of a Christological/pneumatological contrast. Nonetheless, the in Christo/in nobispair can be interpreted as the effects of the unio mystica. The first needs no qualification. The second can be read this way: Being “engrafted” into Christ, his life flows into us through the regenerating and indwelling Spirit for holiness -­ the bond of union is regarded as the active, intrinsic principle of new life in the saint.

加尔文，基督教要义Institutes III: I。在此，观念上的不同不能把‘在基督里’（称义）和‘在我们里面’（成圣）对立起来。在以‘表面的’和‘生机的’作为比喻分辨公义和圣洁的时候，我们更是要标明基督论/圣灵论的对比。有鉴于此，in Christo/in nobis可以被诠释为unio mystica的果效。前者（称义）不需要额外的解释。后者（成圣）可以如此解读：借由‘被接枝’到基督里，借由圣灵的重生和内住，流入我们的里面—在圣徒身上，联合的联结是新生命主动的，和内在的律。

[61] Calvin, Institutes III: I: 3, p. 541.

加尔文，基督教要义III: I: 3。

[62] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 1, p. 725. “Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins ­- that is, newness of life [sanctification] and free reconciliation [justification] -­ are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith.” Calvin, Institutes III: iii: 1, p. 592.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 1。“如今，悔改和赦罪—就是生命的新样[成圣]和白白的（与神）和好[称义]—都因着基督赐给了我们，经由信，我们可以同时得到两者。”加尔文，基督教要义III: iii: 1。

[63] “Therefore, “to justify” means nothing else than to acquit of guilt him who was accused, as if his innocence were confirmed.” Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 3, p. 728.

“所以，‘称义’的意思不外乎是宣判那些被起诉的无罪，并确认他的无辜。”加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 3。

[64] “Only let us remember this, — that those to whom righteousness is imputed, are justified; since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are in themselves, but how God regards them? not that purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own righteousness” [emphases mine]. Calvin, Epistle to the Romans 4:3, p. 66, AGES.

“所以我们要紧记这点，­­那些被注入公义的，就被称义；因为这两者被保罗引用的时候，是同一件事物。所以我们结论，问题不是人在自己里面怎样，而是神如何看他们？纯洁的良知和生命的价值不能与神仁慈的恩赐分开；当我们问，为什么神如此爱我们，甚至好像亏欠了我们？的时候，基督自己就带着他的公义穿上我们，来到这个世界里。”加尔文，罗马4：3，p.66，AGES。

[65] “Hence they speak correctly and truly express what the Holy Spirit everywhere teaches us, who call it imputative righteousness, for they thus show that it is not a quality, but, on the contrary, a relative righteousness, and therefore we said yesterday that he who lives by faith derives life from another, and that every one who is just by faith, is just through what is not in himself, even through the gratuitous mercy of God.” Commentary on the Prophet of Habakkuk 2: 4, “Lecture 111,” AGES.

“故此他们正确无误的根据圣灵在各处对我们的教导传讲这被称为归罪的公义（译者：因罪被归于基督，我们得称义），因为他们证明这不是一件质量的问题，反而，是一个相对性的公义。所以我们昨天说那个借着信而活的，从另外一个人（译者：基督）得到了生命，好叫每一个因信称义的人，都是经由神仁慈的怜悯，因那不属于自己的（公义）被称义。”哈巴谷2：4解经，第111课，AGES。 

[66] But we define justification as follows: the sinner, received into communion with Christ, is reconciled to God by his grace while, cleansed by Christ's blood, he obtains forgiveness of sins, and clothed with Christ's righteousnessas if it were his own, he stands confident before the heavenly judgment seat.” Calvin, Institutes III: xvii: 8, p. 812.

我们如此定义称义：罪人被接纳进入与基督的交流，借由他的恩典与神和好，被基督的血洁净，也得到了罪的赦免，披上基督的公义，如同自己的一样，他才能自信的站立在属天的审判宝座钱。加尔文，基督教要义III: xvii: 8。

[67] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 2, p. 726-­7.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 2。

[68] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 2, p. 726­-7.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 2。

[69] Calvin, Institutes III: xii: 1, p. 753­4.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xii: 1。

[70] “For Christ's righteousness, which as it alone is perfect alone can bear the sight of God, must appear in court on our behalf, and stand surety in judgment... Covered with this purity, the sordidness and uncleanness of our imperfections are not ascribed to us but are hidden as if buried that they may not come into God's judgment, until the hour arrives when, the old man slain and clearly destroyed in us, the divine goodness will receive us into blessed peace with the new Adam.” Calvin, Institutes III: xiv: 11, p. 779.

“因为只有基督完美的公义才能够经得起神的鉴查，他必须在法庭中为我们的行为出庭，为针对我们的审判辩护。。。披上这个纯洁，让我们的污秽和不完美的不洁不再被归于我们，而是如同被埋葬而被遮蔽，不再被神审判。直到旧人在我们里面被消杀并明确地被摧毁，神圣的良善（译者：只有神是神圣，良善的）就会把我们接到新亚当有福的安息里。”加尔文，基督教要义III: xiv: 11。 

[71] To be fair, it must be said that Calvin is much more consistent in applying the “epidermal” metaphor in relation to justification than the “engrafting” image to sanctification. Hence, there are occasions where he does say that the ground of the saints’ salvation lies in the fact that

“being engrafted in the body of Christ, they are freely accounted righteous.” Here the in Christo/in nobis contrast seem to be functioning since Calvin here is denying that justification takes place through the gift of regeneration, as it is always imperfect in this flesh” [emphases mine]. Calvin,Institutes III: xiv: 5, p. 768.

公正的说，我们必须承认，加尔文更倾向于在称义的关系中以一种‘表面性的’表号，而不是在成圣中使用‘接枝’的图画。所以，他有时说圣徒的救赎的根基是被‘接枝到基督的身体里面，他们被白白的算为义。’在此，in Christo/in nobis看起来是矛盾的，因为加尔文在此否认称义是发生在重生的时候，因为在这个肉身中，它（称义）总是不完全的。加尔文，基督教要义III: xiv: 5。

[72] “From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness... because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation.” Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 23, p. 753.

“根据这点，我们在神前被称义，完全是因为基督的公义的介入。。。因为基督的公义可以借由注入到他里面，而交流给他。” 加尔文，基督教要义III III: xi: 23。

[73] “Moreover, he teaches the way in which righteousness is to be obtained: namely, when our sins are not counted against us.” Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 22, p. 752.

“除此以外，他教导公义的路：就是，我们的罪行（sins）不再计算在我们身上。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 22。

[74] “Therefore, since God justifies us by the intercession of Christ, he absolves us not by the confirmation of our own innocence but by the imputation of righteousness, so that we who are not righteous in ourselves may be reckoned as such in Christ” [emphasis mine]. Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 3,。

“所以，因为神借由基督的介入称义我们。他不是因为我们的无知而赦免了我们，而是把公义注入我们里面，叫我们这些本身原是不公义的，能够反射出基督里的公义。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 3。

[75] Calvin, Institutes III:xi: 1, p. 725. “Under this curse must necessarily lie all who are judged by works — none being exempted save those who entirely renounce all confidence in works, and put on Christ, that they may be justified in Him, by the gratuitous acceptance of God. The ground of our justification, therefore, is, that God reconciles us to himself, from regard not to our works, but to Christ alone, and, by gratuitous adoption, makes us, instead of children of wrath, to be his own children.” Selected Works of John Calvin, Vol 1, Tracts, Part 1, Article 23, p. 225, AGES.

加尔文，基督教要义III:xi: 1 。“在这个咒诅下，那些以行为作为审判标准的都会倒下—得救的无一例外都是完全放弃了对于（人的）工作的信心，而穿上基督，叫他们能在他里面被称义，被神仁慈的接纳。我们的义的根基，乃是神自己来与我们和好，不是根据我们的工作，而是只根据基督，并借由仁慈的认养，让我们从愤怒之子，变成他自己的儿女。”约翰加尔文文选，第一辑，第一部，第23篇，p.225，AGES。

[76] Calvin points to the inter­-relations between baptism, the Church, union and adoption: “Baptism is the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God's children.” Calvin, Institutes IV: xv: 1: p. 1303.

加尔文指出了在浸礼，教会，联合和（被神）认养间的内在关系：“浸礼是我们开始被接纳进入教会的记号，好叫我们被接枝到基督里面，让我们能够被算为神的儿女。” 加尔文，基督教要义IV: xv: 1。 

[77] “[T]he end of regeneration is that Christ should reform us to God's image.” Calvin, Institutes I: xv: 4, p. 189.

“重生的结局就是基地把我们模成神的形象。” 加尔文，基督教要义I: xv: 4。

[78] Calvin, Institutes III: iii: 8-­9, pp. 600­-601.

加尔文，基督教要义III: iii: 8­-9。

[79] Calvin, Institutes III: iii: 20, p. 615. “And, just as the twig draws substance and nourishment from the root to which it is grafted, so those who receive baptism with right faith truly feel the effective working of Christ's death in the mortification of their flesh, together with the working of resurrection in the vivification of the Spirit [Rm. 6:8].” Calvin,Institutes IV: xv: 5, p. 1307.

加尔文，基督教要义III: iii: 20。“就如同细枝从被接上的根得到本质与养分，同样的，那些带着正确的信仰受洗，就能够在他们肉身的变化中真正地感觉到了基督死的功效，以及在圣灵点活（人的大能）中复活的果效。” 加尔文，基督教要义

IV: xv: 5。 

[80] Calvin, Commentary on Romans 6:5, p. 171.

加尔文，罗马6：5解经，p.171。

[81] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 1, p. 725.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 1。

[82] “Finally, since there is no sanctification apart from communion with Christ, it is evident that they are evil trees; they can bear fruits beautiful and comely to the sight, and even sweet to the taste, but not at all good.” Calvin,Institutes III: xiv: 4, p. 771. Hence, repentance follows faith and “flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree.” Calvin, Institutes III, iii: 1: p. 593.

“至终，因为圣别不可能独立于与基督的交流之外，它是邪恶的树（evil trees）存在的证明：它们能够结出美丽，悦人眼目，甚至是甜蜜的果子，但是完全是不好的。”加尔文，基督教要义III: xiv: 4。所以，信产悔改，并“（悔改）从它（信）流出来，或者，这就是从树（信）产生的果子。”加尔文，基督教要义III, iii: 1。

[83] Calvin, Institutes III: i: 2, p. 538.

加尔文，基督教要义III: i: 2。

[84] Calvin, Institutes III: xiv, 19: p. 786.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xiv, 19。 

[85] Calvin, Institutes III: iii: 16, p. 609.

加尔文，基督教要义III: iii: 16。

[86] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 9, p. 736. See also Butin, 70-71.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 9。

[87] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 8, p. 734.

加尔文，基督教要义III: xi: 8。

[88] This rule, as it applies to the economy of the Trinity, arises from the fact that, ontologically, the three divine persons are synonymous with the divine essence. Thus, Calvin asserts that “it is clear from our writings that we do not separate the persons from the essence, but we distinguish among them while they remain within it.” Calvin,Institutes I: xiii: 25, pp. 153-­154.

这个规律，当被应用在三位一体的经纶（economy）上时，发生一个现象，从本体而言，三个神圣的位格（persons）成了神圣性情的同义词。所以，加尔文坚持，“在我们的著作里面，我们很明确的没有将位格（persons）从性质分割出来，我们只是当他们（位格）在它（性质）里面时，分辨了它们的不同。”

[89] “I confess that we are justified by faith, inasmuch as by it we apprehend Jesus Christ the Mediator given us by the Father, and lean on the promises of the gospel, by which God declares that we are regarded as righteous, and free from every stain, because our sins have been washed away by the blood of his Son.” Calvin, Selected WorksVol. 2, Tracts Pt. 2, “Brief Form of a Confession of Faith,” p. 128, AGES.

“我承认，我们乃是因信而被称义。因为借着它我们得以认识那位父所赐给我们的中保，耶稣基督，受神因称我们为义的福音的应许，并被从各式的污点中被释放出来。因为我们的罪行（sins）已经被他儿子的血洗干净了。”加尔文，选集第二辑，彼得后书小册，“信仰宣言简述，”p.128，AGES。

[90] “Now the term sanctification denotes separation. This takes place in us when we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of life, that we may serve God and not the world. For while by nature we are unholy, the Spirit consecrates us to God. As, however, this is effected when we are engrafted into the body of Christ, apart from whom there is nothing but pollution, and as it is also by Christ, and not from any other source that the Spirit is conferred, it is with good reason that he says that we are sanctified in Christ, inasmuch as it is by Him that we cleave to God, and in Him become new creatures.” Calvin, Commentary on First Corinthians, 1:1, AGES.

“如今，圣别这个词代表的是分割。发生在我们被圣灵重生，得到生命的新样，叫我们能够服侍神，而不服侍世界的时候。我们的本质曾是不圣洁的，圣灵却将我们献给神。当我们被接枝到基督的身体里时，这就开始发出效力。离开这些，除了被污染外，我们的不到别的。也是借由基督，而不是借由其他的源头，圣灵正式的被赐予我们。这就是我们在基督里被圣别的理由。因为借着他，我们被归于神，在他里面成为新造。”加尔文，哥林多前书1：1解经，AGES。

[91] Calvin, The Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews 4: 10, AGES. The Spirit of sanctification is the principle of holy living “for as the life of the soul is our union with God, so they who are alienated from him through sin may be justly deemed to be dead.” Calvin, The Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews 9: 14, AGES.

加尔文，使徒保罗的希伯来书4：10解经，AGES。圣别的灵是圣洁生活的基础，“因为魂的生活就是我们与基督的联合，叫那些因罪性与神疏远的人，能够被公义的被认定为死亡。”加尔文，希伯来书9：14解经，AGES。

[92] “But such a delirium as this never entered the minds of the holy Apostles; they only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow. This doctrine was not altogether unknown to Plato, who everywhere defines the chief good of man to be an entire conformity to God; but as he was involved in the mists of errors, he afterwards glided off' to his own inventions.” Calvin, Commentary on the Second Epistle of Peter 1:4, AGES.

“这种精神错乱的幻想从未进入圣使徒们的思想力；他们只想说明，在剥夺了肉体所有的堕落后，我们就应该称为神圣、有福的不朽和荣耀的分享者。如同我们能力所及的，我们与神合而为一。这个教导对柏拉图并不陌生，他在各处都将人高的好处定义为，完全的模成神的形象；但是他采用的乃是神话和错误，他随后也背离了他自己的发明。”加尔文，彼后 1：4解经，AGES。

[93] Calvin, Institutes I: xv: 5, p. 191. In charging Servetus of committing the Manichean error in confusing human and divine substance, Calvin asserts that “creation is not inpouring, but the beginning of essence out of nothing.”

加尔文，基督教要义I.vx.5。在攻击Servetus犯了摩尼教混乱人性和神性的错误时，加尔文宣称‘被造的世界不是一个涌入，而是从虚无中产生的本质的起始。’

[94] Bernard McGinn has noted examines the notion of mystical union in the thought of medieval Catholic mystics, and the highlights particularly the “essentialist” mysticism of writers like Meister Eckhart, which had some influence on Rusbroek and Tauler, but not Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard McGinn, “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries,” in Church History 56 (March 1987), 7­-24

Bernard McGinn 已经指出，以中世纪天主教神秘主义来审查与基督奥秘的联合的观念，和标明如Meister Eckhart 此类作者特别强调的‘实在说’的神秘主义，部分影响了Rusbroek和Tauler，却没有影响Bernard of Clairvaux。Bernard McGinn，“在西方基督教中的爱，知识，和澳门的联合：12至16世纪，” 在教会历史56 (March 1987) 中，7­-24。

[95] Partee, “Calvin's Central Dogma Again,” 198.

Partee，“加尔文的核心信仰的再思”198。

[96] As we have noted above, while Calvin disengages his theology from any Platonic mysticism, he does admit that salvation, in a sense, is imitation of God.

如同我们前面指出的，当加尔文将他的神学与柏拉图神秘主义切割的时候，他仍然承认，救赎从某个意义而言，就是模仿神。

[97] Calvin, Institutes III: xi: 5, p. 730.

加尔文，基督教要义III.xi.5。

[98] Calvin, Commentary on the Second Epistle of Peter 1:4, AGES.

加尔文，彼得后书1：4解经，AGES。 

[99]“If we place ourselves at the point of view of Christological doctrine, we may, however, wonder whether, by thus accentuating the distinction between the two natures, he [Calvin] did not endanger the fundamental unity of the person of Christ, and whether some of the affirmations he made would not tend towards somewhat unorthodox conclusions.” Wendel, Calvin, p. 224­-225. See also, Bruce L. McCormack, “For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement in the Reformed tradition.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, Nos. 1­4 (1998), p. 288.

“若我们把自己放在一个鸟瞰基督论教义的立场，我们或许就会希奇，借由强调二性间的不同，他[加尔文]并没有危及基督位格的合一。他所强调的点也不会导致非正统的结论”，Wendel，加尔文,p.224-­225。也请参考Bruce L. McCormack。“为了我们和我们的救赎：在改革宗中的道成肉身和代死。”希腊正教神学期刊43，Nos.1-­4(1988),p.288.

[100] “But since Christ, who was true God and also true man, was crucified and shed his blood for us, the things that he carried out in his human nature are transferred improperly, although not without reason, to his divinity” [emphasis mine]. Calvin, Institutes II: xiv: 2, p. 484. McCormack, p. 287.

“但是因为基督是真神与真人，被钉在十字架上流出了他的血，他的人性的特质乃是以违反（人性本质）的方式被传输到他的神格里。”加尔文，基督教要义II.xiv.3，p.484，McCormack, p. 287.

[101] “Yet he does not ascribe these [human] qualities solely to his human nature, but takes them upon himself as being in harmony with the person of the Mediator… But because the selfsame one was both God and man, for the sake of the union of both natures he gave to the one what belonged to the other.” Calvin, Institutes II: xiv: 2, p. 484.

他把这一切属人性的事，不只归于他的人性，而也归于他的本身，仿佛都是适合于中保的位格。。。。可是因为他乃是神人合一，具有两种性格。他就将一个性质的（特征）归于另一种性质。加尔文基督教要义II.Xiv.2。 

[102] Calvin, Institutes II: xiv: 3, p. 485.

加尔文，基督教要义II.xiv.3。 

[103] Calvin, Institutes IV: xvii: 8, p. 1369. Referring to Jn. 6:48, 51, 52, Calvin comments, “By these words he teaches not only that he is life since he is the eternal Word of God, who came down from heaven to us, but also that by coming down he poured that power upon the flesh which he took in order that from it participation in life might flow into us.” Ibid, p. 1368.

加尔文，基督教要义IV.xvii.8。关于约翰6：48，51，52，加尔文解释道，“借由这些话，他教导他不单单因为他是神永远的话，为我们从天而降。也是生命，他是那个倾倒在他所取的肉身的能力，好叫有份与他的生命能够流进我们里面。”同上。

[104] “Carried up into heaven, therefore, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight [Acts 1:9], not to cease to be present with believers still on their earthly pilgrimage, but to rule heaven and earth with a more immediate power. But by his ascension he fulfilled what he had promised: that he would be with us even to the end of the world, bas his body was raised up above all the heavens, so his power and energy were diffused and spread beyond all the bounds of heaven and earth.” Calvin, Institutes II : xvi: 14, p. 523.

“他被接上天以后，我们就不能看见他的肉体；这并不是说，他身体的显现和寄居世间的信徒从此永诀，乃是以更有效的能力统治天上和人间。再者，他在升天时已经完成了他和我们同在，直到世界未日的应许。因为藉着升天，他的权力和能力扩展，超越天地，正如他的身体上升于天一般。”加尔文，基督教要义II : xvi: 14。

[105] Calvin, Institutes IV: xvii: 9, p. 1369.

加尔文，基督教要义IV: xvii: 9,。 

[106] Calvin, Commentary on the Ephesians, 2:6, AGES.

加尔文，以弗所书2：6解经，AGES。 

[107] “While this distinction is clearly expressed in the Agreement, Westphal pretends that I transfer the name of substance to the use and virtue of the flesh of Christ, abstracting the substance itself. There is little modesty in this, unless he can persuade others that that to which I assign the first place is reduced to nothing. Still I disguise not that my doctrine differs widely from his fiction of the present substance of the body. It is one thing to say that the substance of Christ is present in the bread to give life to us, and another to say, that the flesh of Christ gives us life, because life flows from its substance into our souls.” Calvin, Selected Works Vol. 2, Tracts Pt. 2, “Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith Concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal,” p. 272. AGES.

“当这个分别被清楚的在论点中别指明出来，Westphal谎称我以基督肉身的美德替换了素质，并把素质本身抽象化了。这个说法实在太夸大了。除非他能够让读者承认我在一开始就否定了我原先承认的。我仍不掩饰，我的教导与他那个献上身体的素质的小说有着极大的不同。说基督的素质临在那个赐我们生命的饼里面是一回事，说基督的肉身赐给我们生命，因为生命从它的素质流入我们的魂（souls）里面又是另一回事。”加尔文，选录2辑，彼得后书小册，“为关于圣礼的圣洁和正统信仰的第二辩护，回答Joachim Westphal的评论”，p.272，AGES。 

[108] Calvin, Institutes III: ii: 24, pp. 570-­571.

加尔文，基督教要义III: ii: 24。

[109] Calvin, Institutes III: I: 1, p. 537. That is to say, the integrity and significance of Christ's perfect substitutionary work on earth is grounded in Christ's person alone. Only through union with Christ do we participate in the energies of his personhood, and thus, benefit from his atoning mission.

加尔文基督教要义III.i.1。也就是说，基督在地上完美的代替我们的工作，只能在基督的位格里被完成。只有借由与基督联合，我们才能有份与他位格的能力，故此，得到他赎罪的功效。

[110] In presenting Calvin's “transaction Christology,” Lewis Smedes highlights a tension, which he observes between his sacramentology and Christology: “When he was preoccupied with his defense of a genuinely effective sacrament... he talked of the life of God being siphoned into the humanity of Christ and from there tapped into ours. But when he spoke of Jesus Christ, he let the offices, the action of Jesus dominate.” See All Things Made New: A Theology of Man's Union with Chris (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1970), p. 23.

在介绍加尔文的“交互性基督论（transaction Christology）”，Lewis Smedes揭示了一个他观察到，在加尔文的成圣论和

基督论间的一个张力：“当他全神贯注于他对于真实，有效圣礼的答辩时。。。。他讲述了神的生命被导入基督的人性里，再从那里被汲取到我们里面。然而当他提到耶稣基督的时候，他让耶稣的职份和行动主导（一切）。”参考一切都更新了：一个人与神联合的神学 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1970), p. 23。

[111] According to Calvin, the mystical union is cosmic in scope, in this sense: “Men had been lost, and angels were not beyond the reach of danger. By gathering both into his own body, Christ hath united them to God the Father, and established actual harmony between heaven and earth.” Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians 1: 10, AGES.

根据加尔文，与基督奥秘的联合的规模是宇宙性的，在这个含义中：“人虽然堕落了，天使并不能被危险所触到。借由将两者集合到他自己的身体里，就能够将他们联合与父神，并在天地间建立了和谐”。加尔文，以弗所书1：10解经，AGES。

[112] “Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits” [emphasis mine]. Calvin, Institutes III: i: 1, p. 537.

“然而因为我们看见不是每一个人都能够敞开心胸接受那个经由福音赐给我们的，与基督的交流。理智自己教导我们要升到高处检视圣灵奥秘的大能。借由他，我们才能够来享受基督和他一切的益处。” 加尔文，基督教要义III: i: 1。