the augsburg confession-第7节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



affinity　with　the　purifications　of　the　Law；　and　says；　9：　In　

vain　do　they　worship　Me　with　the　commandments　of　men。　He；　

therefore；　does　not　exact　an　unprofitable　service。　Shortly　

after　He　adds：　Not　that　which　goeth　into　the　mouth　defileth　a　

man。　So　also　Paul；　Rom。　14；　17：　The　kingdom　of　God　is　not　meat　

and　drink。　Col。　2；　16：　Let　no　man；　therefore；　judge　you　in　

meat；　or　in　drink；　or　in　respect　of　an　holy…day；　or　of　the　

Sabbath…day；　also：　If　ye　be　dead　with　Christ　from　the　

rudiments　of　the　world；　why；　as　though　living　in　the　world；　

are　ye　subject　to　ordinances：　Touch　not；　taste　not；　handle　

not！　And　Peter　says；　Acts　15；　10：　Why　tempt　ye　God　to　put　a　

yoke　upon　the　neck　of　the　disciples；　which　neither　our　fathers　

nor　we　were　able　to　bear？　But　we　believe　that　through　the　

grace　of　the　Lord　Jesus　Christ　we　shall　be　saved；　even　as　

they。　Here　Peter　forbids　to　burden　the　consciences　with　many　

rites；　either　of　Moses　or　of　others。　And　in　1　Tim。　4；1。3　Paul　

calls　the　prohibition　of　meats　a　doctrine　of　devils；　for　it　is　

against　the　Gospel　to　institute　or　to　do　such　works　that　by　

them　we　may　merit　grace；　or　as　though　Christianity　could　not　

exist　without　such　service　of　God。　　



Here　our　adversaries　object　that　our　teachers　are　opposed　to　

discipline　and　mortification　of　the　flesh；　as　Jovinian。　But　

the　contrary　may　be　learned　from　the　writings　of　our　teachers。　

For　they　have　always　taught　concerning　the　cross　that　it　

behooves　Christians　to　bear　afflictions。　This　is　the　true；　

earnest；　and　unfeigned　mortification；　to　wit；　to　be　exercised　

with　divers　afflictions；　and　to　be　crucified　with　Christ。　　



Moreover；　they　teach　that　every　Christian　ought　to　train　and　

subdue　himself　with　bodily　restraints；　or　bodily　exercises　and　

labors　that　neither　satiety　nor　slothfulness　tempt　him　to　sin；　

but　not　that　we　may　merit　grace　or　make　satisfaction　for　sins　

by　such　exercises。　And　such　external　discipline　ought　to　be　

urged　at　all　times；　not　only　on　a　few　and　set　days。　So　Christ　

commands；　Luke　21；　34：　Take　heed　lest　your　hearts　be　

overcharged　with　surfeiting；　also　Matt。　17；　21：　This　kind　

goeth　not　out　but　by　prayer　and　fasting。　Paul　also　says；　1　

Cor。　9；　27：　I　keep　under　my　body　and　bring　it　into　subjection。　

Here　he　clearly　shows　that　he　was　keeping　under　his　body；　not　

to　merit　forgiveness　of　sins　by　that　discipline；　but　to　have　

his　body　in　subjection　and　fitted　for　spiritual　things；　and　

for　the　discharge　of　duty　according　to　his　calling。　Therefore；　

we　do　not　condemn　fasting　in　itself；　but　the　traditions　which　

prescribe　certain　days　and　certain　meats；　with　peril　of　

conscience；　as　though　such　works　were　a　necessary　service。　　



Nevertheless；　very　many　traditions　are　kept　on　our　part；　which　

conduce　to　good　order　in　the　Church；　as　the　Order　of　Lessons　

in　the　Mass　and　the　chief　holy…days。　But；　at　the　same　time；　

men　are　warned　that　such　observances　do　not　justify　before　

God；　and　that　in　such　things　it　should　not　be　made　sin　if　they　

be　omitted　without　offense。　Such　liberty　in　human　rites　was　

not　unknown　to　the　Fathers。　For　in　the　East　they　kept　Easter　

at　another　time　than　at　Rome；　and　when；　on　account　of　this　

diversity；　the　Romans　accused　the　Eastern　Church　of　schism；　

they　were　admonished　by　others　that　such　usages　need　not　be　

alike　everywhere。　And　Irenaeus　says：　Diversity　concerning　

fasting　does　not　destroy　the　harmony　of　faith；　as　also　Pope　

Gregory　intimates　in　Dist。　XII；　that　such　diversity　does　not　

violate　the　unity　of　the　Church。　And　in　the　Tripartite　

History；　Book　9；　many　examples　of　dissimilar　rites　are　

gathered；　and　the　following　statement　is　made：　It　was　not　the　

mind　of　the　Apostles　to　enact　rules　concerning　holy…days；　but　

to　preach　godliness　and　a　holy　life　＇；　to　teach　faith　and　

love＇。　　





Article　XXVII：　Of　Monastic　Vows。　　



What　is　taught　on　our　part　concerning　Monastic　Vows；　will　be　

better　understood　if　it　be　remembered　what　has　been　the　state　

of　the　monasteries；　and　how　many　things　were　daily　done　in　

those　very　monasteries；　contrary　to　the　Canons。　In　Augustine's　

time　they　were　free　associations。　Afterward；　when　discipline　

was　corrupted；　vows　were　everywhere　added　for　the　purpose　of　

restoring　discipline；　as　in　a　carefully　planned　prison。　　



Gradually；　many　other　observances　were　added　besides　vows。　And　

these　fetters　were　laid　upon　many　before　the　lawful　age；　

contrary　to　the　Canons。　　



Many　also　entered　into　this　kind　of　life　through　ignorance；　

being　unable　to　judge　their　own　strength；　though　they　were　of　

sufficient　age。　Being　thus　ensnared；　they　were　compelled　to　

remain；　even　though　some　could　have　been　freed　by　the　kind　

provision　of　the　Canons。　And　this　was　more　the　case　in　

convents　of　women　than　of　monks；　although　more　consideration　

should　have　been　shown　the　weaker　sex。　This　rigor　displeased　

many　good　men　before　this　time；　who　saw　that　young　men　and　

maidens　were　thrown　into　convents　for　a　living。　They　saw　what　

unfortunate　results　came　of　this　procedure；　and　what　scandals　

were　created；　what　snares　were　cast　upon　consciences！　They　

were　grieved　that　the　authority　of　the　Canons　in　so　momentous　

a　matter　was　utterly　set　aside　and　despised。　To　these　evils　

was　added　such　a　persuasion　concerning　vows　as；　it　is　well　

known；　in　former　times　displeased　even　those　monks　who　were　

more　considerate。　They　taught　that　vows　were　equal　to　Baptism；　

they　taught　that　by　this　kind　of　life　they　merited　forgiveness　

of　sins　and　justification　before　God。　Yea；　they　added　that　the　

monastic　life　not　only　merited　righteousness　before　God　but　

even　greater　things；　because　it　kept　not　only　the　precepts；　

but　also　the　so…called　〃evangelical　counsels。〃　　



Thus　they　made　men　believe　that　the　profession　of　monasticism　

was　far　better　than　Baptism；　and　that　the　monastic　life　was　

more　meritorious　than　that　of　magistrates；　than　the　life　of　

pastors；　and　such　like；　who　serve　their　calling　in　accordance　

with　God's　commands；　without　any　man…made　services。　None　of　

these　things　can　be　denied；　for　they　appear　in　their　own　

books。　＇Moreover；　a　person　who　has　been　thus　ensnared　and　has　

entered　a　monastery　learns　little　of　Christ。＇　　



What；　then；　came　to　pass　in　the　monasteries？　Aforetime　they　

were　schools　of　theology　and　other　branches；　profitable　to　the　

Church；　and　thence　pastors　and　bishops　were　obtained。　Now　it　

is　another　thing。　It　is　needless　to　rehearse　what　is　known　to　

all。　Aforetime　they　came　together　to　learn；　now　they　feign　

that　it　is　a　kind　of　life　instituted　to　merit　grace　and　

righteousness；　yea；　they　preach　that　it　is　a　state　of　

perfection；　and　they　put　it　far　above　all　other　kinds　of　life　

ordained　of　God。　These　things　we　have　rehearsed　without　odious　

exaggeration；　to　the　end　that　the　doctrine　of　our　teachers　on　

this　point　might　be　better　understood。　　



First；　concerning　such　as　contract　matrimony；　they　teach　on　

our　part　that　it　is　lawful　for　all　men　who　are　not　fitted　for　

single　life　to　contract　matrimony；　because　vows　cannot　annul　

the　ordinance　and　commandment　of　God。　But　the　commandment　of　

God　is　1　Cor。　7；　2：　To　avoid　fornication；　let　every　man　have　

his　own　wife。　Nor　is　it　the　commandment　only；　but　also　the　

creation　and　ordinance　of　God；　which　forces　those　to　marry　who　

are　not　excepted　by　a　singular　work　of　God；　according　to　the　

text　Gen。　2；　18：　It　is　not　good　that　the　man　should　be　alone。　

Therefore　they　do　not　sin　who　obey　this　commandment　and　

ordinance　of　God。　　



What　objection　can　be　raised　to　this？　Let　men　extol　the　

obligation　of　a　vow　as　much　as　they　list；　yet　shall　they　not　

bring　to　pass　that　the　vow　annuls　the　commandment　of　God。　The　

Canons　teach　that　the　right　of　the　superior　is　excepted　in　

every　vow；　＇that　vows　are　not　binding　against　the　decision　of　

the　Pope；＇　much　less；　therefore；　are　these　vows　of　force　which　

are　against　the　commandments　of　God。　　



Now；　if　the　obligation　of　vows　could　not　be　changed　for　any　

cause　whatever；　the　Roman　Pontiffs　could　never　have　given　

dispensation　for　it　is　not　lawful　for　man　to　annul　an　

obligation　which　is　simply　divine。　But　the　Roman　Pontiffs　have　

prudently　judged　that　leniency　is　to　be　observed　in　this　

obligation；　and　therefore　we　read　that　many　times　they　have　

dispensed　from　vows。　The　case　of　the　King　of　Aragon　who　was　

called　back　from　the　monastery　is　well　known；　and　there　are　

also　examples　in　our　own　times。　＇Now；　if　dispensations　have　

been　granted　for　the　sake　of　securing　temporal　interests；　it　

is　much　more　proper　that　they　be　granted　on　account　of　the　

distress　of　souls。＇　　



In　the　second　place；　why　do　our　adversaries　exaggerate　the　

obligation　or　effect　of　a　vow　when；　at　the　same　time；　they　

have　not　a　word　to　say　of　the　nature　of　the　vow　itself；　that　

it　ought　to　be　in　a　thing　possible；　that　it　ought　to　be　free；　

and　chosen　spontaneously　and　deliberately？　B