威登堡協約 the Wittenberg Concord

前言

《威登堡協約》（The Wittenberg Concord）是在1536年，有馬丁布塞珥牽頭，墨蘭頓執筆，就聖禮問題，在德國路德宗教會與德國西南部、瑞士西部的改革宗教會之間討論、協商的結果。它是新教各教會間嘗試尋求共識的一份文件，旨在對共同持有的觀點進行肯定，如共同否定實體轉變、肯定基督在聖餐中的真實臨在。

但這份文件並不具一錘定音之效，它並沒有成為聯合雙方的膠水——儘管以最後的文字所呈現的樣態表明，在場的每個人以《奧斯堡信條》及《辯護論》作為他們的共同信仰聲明，但他們在更細節的內容上仍是各自表述。不過，幾乎所有的人都簽署了這份文件，如路德、墨蘭頓、布塞珥、卡皮托等等。這提醒我們這份文件在1530年代的重要性，及其前後所發生的事件對這份文件的形成，並日後「瓦解」的影響。

本文翻譯自Amy Nelson Burnett教授英譯的《威登堡協約》，並參考E. J. Hutchinson的版本。這兩位譯者的資料如下：Amy Nelson Burnett, ‘The Wittenberg Concord 1536,’ Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 25-7; and E. J. Hutchinson, The Wittenberg Concord, The Calvinist International, posted on April 22, 2016, https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/04/22/the-wittenberg-concord/#easy-footnote-4-10036 (accessed November 15, 2021)。文中所示之英文，除正文的第一段取自Hutchinson，其餘均來自Burnett教授的英譯本。本文保留中文翻譯版權，引用請註明出處。Chinese translated by Ivan Cen according to two above English editions, but mainly to Burnett’s. The Chinese edition is copyrighted by Ivan Cen, please indicate the source.

關於《威登堡協約》的研究可參考：Amy Nelson Burnett, “Basel and the Wittenberg Concord,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte(Archive for Reformation History) 96, no. 1 (2005): 33-56. https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2005-0103; Amy Nelson Burnett, “From concord to confession: the Wittenberg Concord and the Consensus Tigurinus in historical perspective,” Reformation & Renaissance Review, 18, no. 1(2016): 47-58; Gordon A. Jensen, “The Wittenberg Concord,” Lutheran Quarterly 31, no. 2 (2017): 150-171, doi:10.1353/lut.2017.0023; Gordon A. Jensen, The Wittenberg Concord: Creating Space for Dialogue, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2018)。

翻譯如下：

威登堡的博士們與德國高地（該地區包括瑞士西部和德國西南部）城市的博士們之間的共識。關於基督的身體和血在主的晚餐中的存在。由墨蘭頓於主後1536年在雙方的命令和要求下撰寫。

我們已經聽說了馬丁·布塞珥博士如何解釋他，並其他與他一同從不同城市而來的傳道人對基督身體和寶血之神聖聖禮的看法。如下所示：

The Concord between the Doctors of Wittenberg and the Doctors of the Imperial cities in Upper Germania. On the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. Written at the command and request of both parties by Philip Melanchthon. In the year of Christ 1536.

We have heard how Master Martin Bucer has explained his view and that of the other preachers who came with him from the cities concerning the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. It is this:

他們承認，根據愛任紐的話（Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.18.5, in PG 7, 1029. ），在這個聖禮中有兩樣東西，一樣是屬天的，一樣是地上的。因此，他們認為並教導說，藉著餅和酒，基督的身體和血是真實地、實質地臨在、被賜予、被領受。

並且，他們不主張實體轉換，也不認同基督的身體和血以局部或佔空間的方式被包涵在餅中，或以任何其他聖禮之外的方式與之永久結合，但他們承認，藉著聖禮地聯合，餅就是基督的身體。也就是說，他們認為，當餅被賜予時，基督的身體也同時（at the same time）臨在，並被真實地賜予，等等。且在參與（聖餐禮）之外，如人們把餅放在一旁，放在聖體龕（tabernacles）里，或像在教皇制下，帶著它在遊行中展示的做法，他們都不認為基督的身體是臨在的。

第二，他們認為，基督所設立的這一聖禮制度在教會中具有能力，這並不取決於執行聖禮的牧師或領受聖禮的人是否按理（worthiness or unworthiness；或翻譯為「不配之人」）。因為正如聖保羅所說（林前11:27），不按理的人也參與、領受（partake）了聖禮。他們也認為，當一個人堅持主基督的制度和命令時，基督的身體和血也是真正被不按理之人所領受的。

但又如聖保羅所說（林前11:29），這樣的人要受審判。他們濫用了神聖的聖禮，因為他們在沒有真悔改，也沒有信心的情況下領受了它。但這聖禮是為以下目的而設立的：顯明/表明/證明（testify）基督的恩典和眾益處（benefits）在其中給予/歸予（appropriated）那些真正悔改的人，並顯明他們成為基督身體之成員，藉著基督的血被洗淨（啟1:5），藉著對基督的信得著安慰（are consoled）。

但由於目前只有少數人會面了，且這件事還必須在雙方其他傳道人和政府面前進行。所以，在我們將其提交給其他人之前，我們還不能締結這項協約。

但是，既然（目前）所有這些人都承認，他們想持守、教導福音派眾諸侯的[奧斯堡]信條和辯護論（ the [Augsburg] Confession and Apology of the evangelical princes；譯註：此處的福音派是指以路德的改教為中心的宗教改革運動，並非20世紀的美國福音派）的所有命題，我們樂意希望，並非常盼望看到一個協約的確立。如果雙方的其他同工都認為這些命題合他們的心意，我們很希望在我們之間建立一個堅定的協約。

They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two things, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and the blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, offered, and received.

And although they do not hold to transubstantiation, nor do they hold that the body and blood of Christ are locally or spatially enclosed in the bread or in any other way permanently united with it, outside of the partaking of the sacrament, they nevertheless acknowledge that through sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ; that is, they hold that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present and truly offered, etc. For outside of the partaking, as when one sets the bread aside and keeps it in tabernacles or carries it around and displays it in processions, as is done under the papacy, they do not hold that Christ’s body is present.

Second, they hold that the institution of this sacrament done by Christ has power in the Church, and this does not rest on the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who administers the sacrament, or of the one who receives it. Because, as St. Paul says, the unworthy also partake of the sacrament, they also hold that the body and blood of Christ are also truly offered to the unworthy, when one holds to the institution and command of the Lord Christ.

But such receive this to judgment, as St Paul says. For they misuse the holy sacrament, because they receive it without true repentance and without faith. For it was instituted for this purpose, to testify that Christ’s grace and benefits are appropriated in it and that they are made members of Christ’s body and washed through the blood of Christ5 who truly repent and are consoled through faith in Christ.

論洗禮

就孩童的洗禮而言，他們都毫無疑問地同意，有必要給孩童洗禮。因為救恩的應許也屬於孩童（但不屬於教會以外的），所以也有必要藉著牧師給他們施洗，並算為（counted）教會的成員。

因為有話對那些在教會中的孩童說，’你們在天上的父是不願意這些小弟兄中有一個失喪的。’（太18:14[新譯本]；it is not the Father‘s will that any of these should perish）。所以，很明顯，兒童藉著洗禮經歷了原罪的赦免，也經歷了聖靈的恩賜，聖靈按他們的程度（according to their measure）在他們裡面大有能力地運行（works powerfully in them）。我們拒絕那些認為孩童討上帝的喜悅（children please God）而不需要上帝做任何工作就能得救的錯誤。因為基督清楚地說：「人若不是水和聖靈重生的，就不能進神的國」（約3:5）。

雖然我們不明白上帝在孩童身上的工作是什麼，但可以肯定的是，有新的、聖潔的變化（ some new and holy movement ）在他們身上發生了作用，就像約翰在他母親腹里（his mother’s womb）發生的新工作（new movements）一樣（路1:41）。儘管不應該認為孩童們能理解，但這些相信和愛上帝的變化和傾向/醫院（inclinations）在某種程度上就像信心和愛的變化。這就是我們說孩童們有信心的意思。因此，我們這樣說是為了讓人們明白，如果沒有神聖的工作在他們身上，孩童們就既非聖潔，也沒有得到拯救。雖然現在有些地方的習慣（custom）是在某些日子進行洗禮，但人們仍應被教導，當擔憂孩子的生命時，應使他們接受洗禮，牧師應該給他們主持洗禮。

On baptism

Concerning the baptism of children they have all agreed without any doubt that it is necessary to baptize children. For because the promise of salvation also belongs to children (although not to those outside of the Church), so it is also necessary that they are given baptism through the ministry and counted among the members of the Church.

And because it is said of those children who are in the churches, ‘it is not the Father’s will that any of these should perish‘, so it is clear that children experience the forgiveness of original sin through baptism, and also the gift of the Holy Spirit who works powerfully in them according to their measure. For we reject the error of those who believe that children please God and are saved without any working of God. For Christ clearly says, ‘whoever is not reborn of water and the Spirit may not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’

Although we do not understand what God‘s working is in children, it is certain that some new and holy movement is effected in them, as new movements happened to John in his mother’s womb. For although it should not be thought that children understand, these movements and inclinations to believe and to love God are in some measure like the movements of faith and of love. This is what we mean when we say that children have faith. Therefore we say this, so that it is understood that children are neither holy nor saved without divine working in them. Although it is the custom now in some places that baptism is administered on certain days, people should still be taught that when there is concern for the child‘s life that they bring it about that they are baptized, and the minister should administer baptism to them.

論赦免

關於赦免，他們都希望在教會中保留「私人宣赦」（private absolution；或譯「私人告解」）；這是為了安慰良心，也因這種教導（discipline）對教會非常有用：當一個人私下聽到人們的聲音，可以教導那未規訓的人（the unlearned；不想翻譯為無知，或許還有不熟練、需要訓練的意思在其中，eg 天路客）；而這種談話和問詢對不明所以的人（the ignorant）是必要的。但這並不意味那舊式的認罪和羅列罪狀的方式是被推崇或有必要的。然而，為了宣赦和基督的制度，這種談話（方式）應該被保留。

On absolution

Concerning absolution, they all desire that private absolution is retained in the Church, and this for the sake of consoling consciences, and also that such discipline is very useful to the Church, when one hears the people in private and can instruct the unlearned; and such conversations and interrogations are necessary for the ignorant. But this does not mean that the old confession and the listing of sins is either praised or required. The conversation should be preserved, however, for the sake of absolution and the institution of Christ.

署名（Subscribed）:
Wolfgang Capito, Dr, minister of the Strasbourg Church
M[aster] Martin Bucer, minister of the same Church
Martin Frecht, minister of the Word in the Ulm Church, licentiate in theology M[aster] Bonifacius Lycosthenes [Wolfhart], minister of the Word in the Augsburg Church
Wolfgang Musculus, minister of the Word in the Augsburg Church
Gervasius Scolasticus [Schuler], M[aster], pastor of the Memmingen Church
Jacob Otter, licentiate in theology, pastor of the Esslingen Church
M[aster] Johannes Bernard, minister of the Frankfurt Church
M[aster] Martin Germanus, minister of the Furfeld Church
M[aster] Matthaeus Alber, pastor of the Reutlingen Church
Johannes Schradin, deacon of the Reutlingen Church
Martin Luther, Dr, Wittenberg
Justus Jonas, Dr, P[rovost] Wittenberg
P. Caspar Cruciger, Dr, Wittenberg
Philippus Melanchthon
Joannes Bugenhagus, Pomeranus, Dr
Justus Menius, Eisenach
Friedrich Myconius, Gotha

關於譯本與版權：

本文翻譯自Amy Nelson Burnett教授英譯的《威登堡協約》，並參考E. J. Hutchinson的版本。這兩位譯者的資料如下：Amy Nelson Burnett, ‘The Wittenberg Concord 1536,’ Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 25-7; and E. J. Hutchinson, The Wittenberg Concord, The Calvinist International, posted in April 22, 2016, https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/04/22/the-wittenberg-concord/#easy-footnote-4-10036 (accessed November 15, 2021)。文中所示之英文，除正文的第一段取自Hutchinson，其餘均來自Burnett教授的英譯本。保留中文翻譯版權，引用請註明出處。

根據Amy Nelson Burnett教授所提供的訊息，《威登堡協約》的德文、拉丁文版本出處如下：Original German text from BDS 6/1: 121-32.1; The Latin text of the Wittenberg Concord may be found in Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 3, ed. C.G. Bretschneider (Halle: Schwetschke & Sons, 1836), 75-7, and on the facing pages in BDS 6/1:120-32.

English translated by:

Amy Nelson Burnett, ‘The Wittenberg Concord 1536,’ Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 25-7; and E. J. Hutchinson, The Wittenberg Concord, The Calvinist International, posted on April 22, 2016, https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/04/22/the-wittenberg-concord/#easy-footnote-4-10036 (accessed November 15, 2021).

Chinese translated by Ivan Cen according to two above English editions, but mainly to Burnett’s. The Chinese edition is copyrighted by Ivan Cen, please indicate the source.