INTRODUCTION
Philip Melanchthon Presents His Greeting to the Reader.
Part 1
Article I: _Of God._
The First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in which we declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence, undivided, etc., and yet, that there are three distinct persons, of the same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This article we have always taught and defended, and we believe that it has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that cannot be overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those thinking otherwise are outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolaters, and insult God.
Article II (I): _Of Original Sin._
The Second Article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but in
such a way that they, nevertheless, censure the definition of original
sin, which we incidentally gave. Here, immediately at the very
threshold, His Imperial Majesty will discover that the writers of the
_Confutation_ were deficient not only in judgment, but also in
candor. For whereas we, with a simple mind, desired, in passing, to
recount those things which original sin embraces, these men, by
framing an invidious interpretation, artfully distort a proposition
that has in it nothing which of itself is wrong. Thus they say: "To be
without the fear of God, to be without faith, is actual guilt"; and
therefore they deny that it is original guilt.
It is quite evident that such subtilties have originated in the schools,
not in the council of the Emperor. But although this sophistry can be
very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good men may understand
that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd, we ask first of
all that the German Confession be examined. This will free us from
the suspicion of novelty. For there it is written: _Weiter wird
gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so natuerlich
geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen, das ist,
dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste und Neigung sind,
keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott von Natur
haben koennen._ [It is further taught that since the Fall of Adam all
men who are naturally born are conceived and born in sin, i.e., that
they all, from their mother's womb, are full of evil desire and
inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith
in God.] This passage testifies that we deny to those propagated
according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also the power or
gifts of producing fear and trust in God. For we say that those thus
born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and trust in
God. What is there here with which fault can be found? To good men,
we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselves sufficiently. For
in this sense the Latin description denies to nature [even to innocent
infants] the power, i.e., it denies the gifts and energy by which to
produce fear and trust in God, and, in adults [over and above this
innate evil disposition of the heart, also] the acts, so that, when we
mention concupiscence, we understand not only the acts or fruits, but
the constant inclination of the nature [the evil inclination within,
which does not cease as long as we are not born anew through the
Spirit and faith].
But hereafter we will show more fully that our description agrees
with the usual and ancient definition. For we must first show our
design in preferring to employ these words in this place. In their
schools the adversaries confess that "the material," as they call it,
"of original sin is concupiscence." Wherefore, in framing the
definition, this should not have been passed by, especially at this
time, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a manner
unbecoming teachers of religion [are speaking concerning this innate,
wicked desire more after the manner of heathen from philosophy than
according to God's Word, or Holy Scripture].
For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in
the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not
an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden],
which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of
another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their own.
Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on
account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman
are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but
because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they
are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an
innate evil but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we
are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]. To
show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made mention
of "concupiscence," and, with the best intention, have termed and
explained it as "diseases," that "the nature of men is born corrupt and
full of faults" [not a part of man, but the entire person with its
entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease].
Nor, indeed, have we only made use of the term concupiscence, but we
have also said that "the fear of God and faith are wanting." This we
have added with the following design: The scholastic teachers also,
not sufficiently understanding the definition of original sin, which
they have received from the Fathers, extenuate the sin of origin. They
contend concerning the fomes [or evil inclination] that it is a quality
of [blemish in the] body, and, with their usual folly, ask whether this
quality be derived from the contagion of the apple or from the breath
of the serpent, and whether it be increased by remedies. With such
questions they have suppressed the main point. Therefore, when they
speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention the more serious
faults of human nature, to wit, ignorance of God, contempt for God,
being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God's
judgment, flight from God [as from a tyrant] when He judges, anger
toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust in present things
[money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which are in the
highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics do not
notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired
strength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God's
commandments according to the substance of the acts; nor do they
see that they are saying things that are contradictory to one another.
For what else is the being able in one's own strength to love God
above all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to have
original righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely
pure and holy]? But if human nature have such strength as to be able
of itself to love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently
affirm, what will original sin be? For what will there be need of the
grace of Christ if we can be justified by our own righteousness
[powers]? For what will there be need of the Holy Ghost if human
strength can by itself love God above all things, and fulfil God's
commandments? Who does not see what preposterous thoughts our
adversaries entertain? The lighter diseases in the nature of man they
acknowledge, the more severe they do not acknowledge; and yet of
these, Scripture everywhere admonishes us, and the prophets
constantly complain [as the 13th Psalm, and some other psalms say
Ps. 14, 1-3; 5, 9; 140, 3; 36, 1], namely, of carnal security, of the
contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and of similar faults born
with us. [For Scripture clearly says that all these things are not
blown at us, but born with us.] But after the scholastics mingled with
Christian doctrine philosophy concerning the perfection of nature
[light of reason], and ascribed to the free will and the acts springing
therefrom more than was sufficient, and taught that men are
justified before God by philosophic or civil righteousness (which we
also confess to be subject to reason, and in a measure, within our
power), they could not see the inner uncleanness of the nature of
men. For this cannot be judged except from the Word of God, of which
the scholastics, in their discussions, do not frequently treat.
These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we
made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's natural
strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate
that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of
God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and
trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of
human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the
Decalog.
Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understood
aright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: "Original sin
is the absence of original righteousness" [a lack of the first purity
and righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here the
scholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explain
what original righteousness is. Now, in the Scriptures, righteousness
comprises not only the second table of the Decalog [regarding good
works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also, which teaches
concerning the fear of God, concerning faith, concerning the love of
God. Therefore original righteousness was to embrace not only an
even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect health and, in all
respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the body, as they
contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain knowledge of
God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly the rectitude and
power to yield these affections [but the greatest feature in that
noble first creature was a bright light in the heart to know God and
His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1,
27, that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God. What
else is this than that there were embodied in man such wisdom and
righteousness as apprehended God, and in which God was reflected,
i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of God, the
fear of God, confidence in God, and the like? For thus Irenaeus and
Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the latter of whom not only
says many things to this effect, but especially declares: That soul is
not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not at all times.
And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians,
3,10, that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness,
and truth. Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness
is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man. We recount
the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with
Augustine's interpretation of the image.
Therefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lack of
righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man's lower
powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and its meanest and
lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God, confidence
in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the power to produce
these affections [the light in the heart which creates a love and
desire for these matters]. For even the theologians themselves teach
in their schools that these are not produced without certain gifts and
the aid of grace. In order that the matter may be understood, we term
these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fear and confidence in God.
From these facts it appears that the ancient definition says
precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear and confidence
toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to
produce these acts [that we have no good heart toward God, which
truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do or achieve any
perfectly good work].
Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of
Augustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence
[wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost,
concupiscence came in its place. For inasmuch as diseased nature
cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal
things. God's judgment it either contemns when at ease, or hates,
when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defect
and the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed is
concupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but also,
in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nor do those
persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same time
concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost, and
love to God above all things.
We, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of
original sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able to believe
God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise: the having
concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God's Word, i.e.,
seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal wisdom and
righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as god things. Nor
only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also the more
recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones among
them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly these namely,
the defects which I have recounted and concupiscence. For Thomas
says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of original
righteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the parts of
the soul; whence it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit [something
positive]. And Bonaventura: When the question is asked, What is
original sin? the correct answer is, that it is immoderate
[unchecked] concupiscence. The correct answer is also, that it is
want of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these replies the
other is included. The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he says that
original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh.
For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring with us
ignorance of God unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. For
when he mentions ignorance, he includes these. And these opinions
[even of the most recent teachers] also agree with Scripture. For Paul
sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divine light], as
1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God. In another place, Rom. 7, 5, he calls it concupiscence working in
our members to bring forth fruit unto death. We could cite more
passages relating to both parts, but in regard to a manifest fact
there is no need of testimonies. And the intelligent reader will
readily be able to decide that to be without the fear of God and
without faith are more than actual guilt. For they are abiding defects
in our unrenewed nature.
In reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differing either
from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse from
corruptions and restore to light most important declarations of
Scripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by the
sophistical controversies of modern theologians. For it is manifest
from the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed
what the Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of original
righteousness]. But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. For
the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one can
heartily long and have a desire for Christ for the inexpressibly great
treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers], unless
our diseases be recognized. [As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark 2, 17:
They that are whole need not a physician.] The entire righteousness
of man is mere hypocrisy [and abomination] before God, unless we
acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love, fear, and
confidence in God [that we are miserable sinners who are in disgrace
with God]. For this reason the prophet Jeremiah, 31, 19, says: After
that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh. Likewise Ps. 116, 11: I
said in my haste, All men are liars, i.e., not thinking aright
concerning God.
Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote
that, "Original sin remains after Baptism." They add that this article
was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will find on
this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know in what sense
Luther intended this remark that original sin remains after Baptism.
He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes the guilt of
original sin, although the material, as they call it, of the sin, i.e.,
concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference to the material
that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to mortify the
concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a new sense
and spirit] in man. In the same manner, Augustine also speaks who
says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no
longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he confesses openly
that sin exists, i.e., that it remains although it is not imputed. And
this judgment was so agreeable to those who succeeded him that it
was recited also in the decrees. Also against Julian, Augustine says:
The Law, which is in the members, has been annulled by spiritual
regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled
because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which
believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires
against which believers contend. Our adversaries know that Luther
believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot reject the matter,
they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by this artifice to
crush an innocent man.
But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a
burden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to
death and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It has been
said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. If
there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let them quarrel
with Augustine. Besides Paul says, Rom. 7, 7. 23: I had not known lust
(concupiscence), except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is
in my members. These testimonies can be overthrown by no sophistry.
[All devils, all men cannot overthrow them.] For they clearly call
concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputed to those who
are in Christ although by nature it is a matter worthy of death where
it is not forgiven. Thus, beyond all controversy, the Fathers believe.
For Augustine, in a long discussion refutes the opinion of those who
thought that concupiscence in man is not a fault but an adiaphoron, as
color of the body or ill health is said to be an adiaphoron [as to have a
black or a white body is neither good nor evil].
But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil
inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture but
simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradict them.
For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and desire be
there] who ever dared to say that these matters, even though perfect
agreement could not be attained, were adiaphora, namely, to doubt
concerning God's wrath,: concerning God's grace, concerning God's
Word, to be angry at the judgments of God, to be provoked because
God does not at once deliver one from afflictions, to murmur because
the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, to be urged on by
wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc.? And yet godly men
acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in the Psalms and the
prophets. [For all tried, Christian hearts know, alas! that these evils
are wrapped up in man's skin, namely to esteem money, goods, and all
other matters more highly than God, and to spend our lives in
security; again, that after the manner of our carnal security we
always imagine that God's wrath against sin is not as serious and
great as it verily is. Again, that we murmur against the doing and
will of God, when He does not succor us speedily in our tribulations,
and arranges our affairs to please us. Again, we experience every day
that it hurts us to see wicked people in good fortune in this world, as
David and all the saints have complained. Over and above this, all men
feel that their hearts are easily inflamed, now with ambition, now
with anger and wrath, now with lewdness.] But in the schools they
transferred hither from philosophy notions entirely different, that,
because of passions, we are neither good nor evil, we are neither
deserving of praise nor blame. Likewise, that nothing is sin, unless it
be voluntary [inner desires and thoughts are not sins, if I do not
altogether consent thereto]. These notions were expressed among
philosophers with respect to civil righteousness, and not with
respect to God's judgment. [For there it is true, as the jurists say, L.
cogitationis, thoughts are exempt from custom and punishment. But
God searches the hearts; in God's court and judgment it is different.]
With no greater prudence they add also other notions, such as, that
[God's creature and] nature is not [cannot in itself be] evil. In its
proper place we do not censure this; but it is not right to twist it
into an extenuation of original sin. And, nevertheless, these notions
are read in the works of scholastics, who inappropriately mingle
philosophy or civil doctrine concerning ethics with the Gospel. Nor
were these matters only disputed in the schools, but, as is usually
the case, were carried from the schools to the people. And these
persuasions [godless, erroneous, dangerous, harmful teachings]
prevailed, and nourished confidence in human strength, and
suppressed the knowledge of Christ's grace. Therefore, Luther
wishing to declare the magnitude of original sin and of human
infirmity [what a grievous mortal guilt original sin is in the sight of
God], taught that these remnants of original sin [after Baptism] are
not, by their own nature, adiaphora in man, but that, for their
non-imputation, they need the grace of Christ and, likewise for their
mortification, the Holy Ghost.
Although the scholastics extenuate both sin and punishment when
they teach that man by his own strength, can fulfil the
commandments of God; in Genesis the punishment, imposed on
account of original sin, is described otherwise. For there human
nature is subjected not only to death and other bodily evils, but also
to the kingdom of the devil. For there, Gen. 3, 16, this fearful
sentence is proclaimed: I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The defects and the
concupiscence are punishments and sins. Death and other bodily evils
and the dominion of the devil, are properly punishments. For human
nature has been delivered into slavery, and is held captive by the
devil, who infatuates it with wicked opinions and errors, and impels
it to sins of every kind. But just as the devil cannot be conquered
except by the aid of Christ, so by our own strength we cannot free
ourselves from this slavery. Even the history of the world shows how
great is the power of the devil's kingdom. The world is full of
blasphemies against God and of wicked opinions, and the devil keeps
entangled in these bands those who are wise and righteous [many
hypocrites who appear holy] in the sight of the world. In other
persons grosser vices manifest themselves. But since Christ was
given to us to remove both these sins and these punishments, and to
destroy the kingdom of the devil, sin and death, it will not be
possible to recognize the benefits of Christ unless we understand our
evils. For this reason our preachers have diligently taught concerning
these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is new but have set
forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy Fathers.
We think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty
concerning the puerile and trivial sophistry with which
the adversaries have perverted our article. For we know
that we believe aright and in harmony with the Church
catholic of Christ. But if the adversaries will renew
this controversy, there will be no want among us of those
who will reply and defend the truth. For in this case our
adversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what
they say. They often speak what is contradictory, and
neither explain correctly and logically that which is
essential to [i.e., that which is or is not properly of
the essence of] original sin, nor what they call defects.
But we have been unwilling at this place to examine their
contests with any very great subtlety. We have thought it
worth while only to recite, in customary and well-known
words, the belief of the holy Fathers, which we also
follow.
PART 2
Article III: _Of Christ._
The Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that there
are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed by the Word
into the unity of His person; and that the same Christ suffered and died to
reconcile the Father to us; and that He was raised again to reign, and to
justify and sanctify believers, etc., according to the Apostles' Creed and
the Nicene Creed.
Article IV (II): _Of Justification._
In the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, below, in the Twentieth Article, they
condemn us, for teaching that men obtain remission of sins, not because of
their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, through faith in Christ.
[They reject quite stubbornly both these statements.] For they condemn us
both for denying that men obtain remission of sins because of their own
merits, and for affirming that, through faith, men obtain remission of
sins, and through faith in Christ are justified. But since in this
controversy the chief topic of Christian doctrine is treated, which,
understood aright, illumines and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of
especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy
Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right
knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and
brings necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we
ask His Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to matters
of such importance. For since the adversaries understand neither what the
remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor what righteousness
is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure the glory and benefits of
Christ and rob devout consciences of the consolations offered in Christ.
But that we may strengthen the position of our Confession, and also
remove the charges which the adversaries advance against us, certain
things are to be premised in the beginning, in order that the sources of
both kinds of doctrine, i.e., both that of our adversaries and our own, may
be known.
All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the
Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in
others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in the Old
Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the
remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel [in
the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the
remission of sins, justification, and life eternal. Moreover, in this
discussion, by Law we designate the Ten Commandments, wherever they
are read in the Scriptures. Of the ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses
we say nothing at present.
Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason
naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same judgment
divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees with the law of
Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek the remission
of sins and justification. Now, the Decalog requires not only outward civil
works, which reason can in some way produce, but it also requires other
things placed far above reason, namely, truly to fear God, truly to love
God, truly to call upon God, truly to be convinced that God hears us, and to
expect the aid of God in death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires
obedience to God, in death and all afflictions, so that we may not flee
from these, or refuse them when God imposes them.
Here the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a
righteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides that
without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things. For, as long
as the human mind is at ease, and does not feel the wrath or judgment of
God, it can imagine that it wishes to love God, that it wishes to do good
for God's sake. [But it is sheer hypocrisy.] In this manner they teach that
men merit the remission of sins by doing what is in them, i.e., if reason,
grieving over sin, elicit an act of love to God, or for God's sake be active
in that which is good. And because this opinion naturally flatters men, it
has brought forth and multiplied in the Church many services, monastic
vows, abuses of the mass; and, with this opinion the one has, in the course
of time, devised this act of worship and observances, the other that. And
in order that they might nourish and increase confidence in such works,
they have affirmed that God necessarily gives grace to one thus working,
by the necessity not of constraint, but of immutability [not that He is
constrained, but that this is the order which God will not transgress or
alter].
In this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which it would
be tedious to enumerate. Let the discreet reader think only of this: If this
be Christian righteousness, what difference is there between philosophy
and the doctrine of Christ? If we merit the remission of sins by these
elicit acts [that spring from our mind], of what benefit is Christ? If we
can be justified by reason and the works of reason, wherefore is there
need of Christ or regeneration [as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]? And
from these opinions the matter has now come to such a pass that many
ridicule us because we teach that an other than the philosophic
righteousness must be sought after. [Alas! it has come to this, that even
great theologians at Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other
godliness or righteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul
teaches otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach. And
although we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to
ridicule it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We
have heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead of a
sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard a great
preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and preached the
ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish way to preach to
Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things are true which the
adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the adversaries be true, the Ethics
is a precious book of sermons, and a fine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote
concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this
need be demanded. We see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ
are compared with the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though
Christ had come for the purpose of delivering certain laws through which
we might merit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this
gratuitously, because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receive the
doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit the
remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference between
philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian righteousness.
Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a
knowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him that it is
His merit that a habit is given us, or, as they say, _prima gratia_, "first
grace," which they understand as a habit, inclining us the more readily to
love God; yet what they ascribe to this habit is of little importance [is a
feeble, paltry, small, poor operation, that would be ascribed to Christ],
because they imagine that the acts of the will are of the same kind before
and after this habit. They imagine that the will can love God; but
nevertheless this habit stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully.
And they bid us first merit this habit by preceding merits; then they bid us
merit by the works of the Law an increase of this habit and life eternal.
Thus they bury Christ, so that men may not avail themselves of Him as a
Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receive remission of
sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their own fulfilment of the
Law they merit the remission of sins, and that by their own fulfilment of
the Law they are accounted righteous before God; while, nevertheless, the
Law is never satisfied, since reason does nothing except certain civil
works, and, in the mean time neither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly
believes that God cares for it. And although they speak of this habit, yet,
without the righteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in
man, nor can it be understood what the love of God is.
Their feigning a distinction between _meritum congrui_ and _meritum
condigni_ [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice in order
not to appear openly to Pelagianize, For, if God necessarily gives grace for
the _meritum congrui_ [due merit], it is no longer _meritum congrui_, but
_meritum condigni_ [a true duty and complete merit]. But they do not know
what they are saying. After this habit of love [is there], they imagine that
man can acquire _merit de condigno_. And yet they bid us doubt whether
there be a habit present. How, therefore, do they know whether they
acquire merit _de congruo_ or _de condigno_ [in full, or half]? But this
whole matter was fabricated by idle men [But, good God! these are mere
inane ideas and dreams of idle, wretched, inexperienced men who do not
much reduce the Bible to practise], who did not know how the remission of
sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of conscience,
trust in works is driven out of us. Secure hypocrites always judge that
they acquire _merit de condigno_, whether the habit be present or be not
present, because men naturally trust in their own righteousness, but
terrified consciences waver and hesitate, and then seek and accumulate
other works in order to find rest. Such consciences never think that they
acquire merit _de condigno_, and they rush into despair unless they hear,
in addition to the doctrine of the Law, the Gospel concerning the
gratuitous remission of sins and the righteousness of faith. [Thus some
stories are told that when the Barefooted monks had in vain praised their
order and good works to some good consciences in the hour of death, they
at last had to be silent concerning their order and St. Franciscus, and to
say: "Dear man, Christ has died for you." This revived and refreshed in
trouble, and alone gave peace and comfort.]
Thus the adversaries teach nothing but the righteousness of reason, or
certainly of the Law, upon which they look just as the Jews upon the
veiled face of Moses, and, in secure hypocrites who think that they satisfy
the Law, they excite presumption and empty confidence in works [they
place men on a sand foundation, their own works] and contempt of the
grace of Christ. On the contrary, they drive timid consciences to despair,
which, laboring with doubt, never can experience what faith is, and how
efficacious it is; thus, at last they utterly despair.
Now, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely, that
God requires it, and that, because of God's commandment, the honorable
works which the Decalog commands must necessarily be performed,
according to the passage Gal. 3, 24: The Law was our schoolmaster;
likewise 1 Tim. 1, 9: The Law is made for the ungodly. For God wishes
those who are carnal [gross sinners] to be restrained by civil discipline,
and to maintain this, He has given laws, letters, doctrine, magistrates,
penalties. And this righteousness reason, by its own strength, can, to a
certain extent, work, although it is often overcome by natural weakness,
and by the devil impelling it to manifest crimes. Now, although we
cheerfully assign this righteousness of reason the praises that are due it
(for this corrupt nature has no greater good [in this life and in a worldly
nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue], and Aristotle
says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more
beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily rewards),
yet it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ.
For it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction, and not
true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.
False also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God because of
the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].
False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love God
above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear God to be
truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to obey God in death
and other dispensations of God, not to covet what belongs to others, etc.;
although reason can work civil works.
False also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who, without
grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments of God
merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in their hearts]
We have testimonies for this our belief, not only from the Scriptures, but
also from the Fathers. For in opposition to the Pelagians, Augustine
contends at great length that grace is not given because of our merits. And
in _De Natura et Gratia_ he says: If natural ability, through the free will,
suffice both for learning to know how one ought to live and for living
aright, then Christ has died in vain, then the offense of the Cross is made
void. Why may I not also here cry out? Yea I will cry out, and, with
Christian grief, will chide them: Christ has become of no effect unto you
whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal. 5,
4; cf. 2, 21. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going
about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law
for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10 3. 4. And John 8, 36:
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Therefore
by reason we cannot be freed from sins and merit the remission of sins.
And in John 3, 5 it is written: Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But if it is necessary to be
born again of the Holy Ghost the righteousness of reason does not justify
us before God, and does not fulfil the Law, Rom. 3, 23: All have come short
of the glory of God, i.e., are destitute of the wisdom and righteousness of
God, which acknowledges and glorifies God. Likewise Rom. 8, 7. 8: The
carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God,
neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
These testimonies are so manifest that, to use the words of Augustine
which he employed in this case, they do not need an acute understanding,
but only an attentive hearer. If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the
flesh certainly does not love God; if it cannot be subject to the Law of
God, it cannot love God. If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh
sins even when we do external civil works. If it cannot be subject to the
Law of God, it certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, it
possesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise. The adversaries
consider only the precepts of the Second Table which contain civil
righteousness that reason understands. Content with this, they think that
they satisfy the Law of God. In the mean time they do not see the First
Table which commands that we love God, that we declare as certain that
God is angry with sin, that we truly fear God, that we declare as certain
that God hears prayer. But the human heart without the Holy Ghost either
in security despises God's judgment, or in punishment flees from, and
hates, God when He judges. Therefore it does not obey the First Table.
Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God
and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men
truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works,
because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23:
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works
with contempt of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for
him, or that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works
seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.
Lastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who are
under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love, which
springs from their mind, since it is impossible to love God, unless the
remission of sins be apprehended first by faith. For the heart, truly
feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He be shown to have been
reconciled. As long as He terrifies us, and seems to cast us into eternal
death, human nature is not able to take courage, so as to love a wrathful,
judging, and punishing God [poor, weak nature must lose heart and courage,
and must tremble before such great wrath, which so fearfully terrifies
and punishes, and can never feel a spark of love before God Himself
comforts]. It is easy for idle men to feign such dreams concerning love as,
that a person guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because
they do not feel what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in agony of
conscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences the
emptiness of these philosophical speculations. Paul says, Rom. 4,15: The
Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the
remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences.
Therefore it does not justify, because conscience terrified by the Law
flees from the judgment of God. Therefore they err who trust that by the
Law, by their own works, they merit the remission of sins. It is sufficient
for us to have said these things concerning the righteousness of reason or
of the Law, which the adversaries teach. For after a while, when we will
declare our belief concerning the righteousness of faith, the subject itself
will compel us to adduce more testimonies, which also will be of service
in overthrowing the errors of the adversaries which we have thus far
reviewed.
Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law of
God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death, on this
account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be justified but the
promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for
Christ's sake, who was given for us in order that He might make
satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only]
Mediator and Propitiator. And this promise has not the condition of our
merits [it does not read thus: Through Christ you have grace salvation,
etc., if you merit it], but freely offers the remission of sins and
justification, as Paul says, Rom. 11, 6: If it be of works, then is it no more
grace. And in another place, Rom. 3, 21: The righteousness of God without
the Law is manifested, i.e., the remission of sins is freely offered. Nor
does reconciliation depend upon our merits. Because, if the remission of
sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliation were from the
Law, it would be useless. For, as we do not fulfil the Law, it would also
follow that we would never obtain the promise of reconciliation. Thus
Paul reasons, Rom. 4, 14: For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith
is made void, and the promise made of none effect. For if the promise
would require the condition of our merits and the Law, which we never
fulfil, it would follow that the promise would be useless.
But since justification is obtained through the free promise, it follows
that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, wherefore would there be
need to promise? [And why should Paul so highly extol and praise grace?]
For since the promise cannot be received except by faith, the Gospel,
which is properly the promise of the remission of sins and of justification
for Christ's sake, proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which
the Law does not teach. Nor is this the righteousness of the Law. For the
Law requires of us our works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely
offers, for Christ's sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death,
reconciliation, which is received, not by works, but by faith alone. This
faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only confidence
in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. This special faith,
therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ's sake his sins
are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and
propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us. And because in
repentance, i.e. in terrors, it comforts and encourages hearts it
regenerates us, and brings the Holy Ghost that then we may be able to
fulfil God's Law, namely, to love God, truly to fear God, truly to be
confident that God hears prayer, and to obey God in all afflictions; it
mortifies concupiscence, etc. Thus, because faith, which freely receives
the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against
God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love [which would be
tossed aside like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true
knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and
regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. And of this
faith not a syllable exists in the doctrine of our adversaries. Hence we
find fault with the adversaries, equally because they teach only the
righteousness of the Law and because they do not teach the righteousness
of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ.
Part 3
Article I: _Of God._
The First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in which
we declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine
essence, undivided, etc., and yet, that there are three distinct
persons, of the same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. This article we have always taught and defended, and we
believe that it has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that
cannot be overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those thinking
otherwise are outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolaters, and
insult God.
Article II (I): _Of Original Sin._
The Second Article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but in
such a way that they, nevertheless, censure the definition of original
sin, which we incidentally gave. Here, immediately at the very
threshold, His Imperial Majesty will discover that the writers of the
_Confutation_ were deficient not only in judgment, but also in
candor. For whereas we, with a simple mind, desired, in passing, to
recount those things which original sin embraces, these men, by
framing an invidious interpretation, artfully distort a proposition
that has in it nothing which of itself is wrong. Thus they say: "To be
without the fear of God, to be without faith, is actual guilt"; and
therefore they deny that it is original guilt.
It is quite evident that such subtilties have originated in the schools,
not in the council of the Emperor. But although this sophistry can be
very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good men may understand
that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd, we ask first of
all that the German Confession be examined. This will free us from
the suspicion of novelty. For there it is written: _Weiter wird
gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so natuerlich
geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen, das ist,
dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste und Neigung sind,
keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott von Natur
haben koennen._ [It is further taught that since the Fall of Adam all
men who are naturally born are conceived and born in sin, i.e., that
they all, from their mother's womb, are full of evil desire and
inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith
in God.] This passage testifies that we deny to those propagated
according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also the power or
gifts of producing fear and trust in God. For we say that those thus
born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and trust in
God. What is there here with which fault can be found? To good men,
we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselves sufficiently. For
in this sense the Latin description denies to nature [even to innocent
infants] the power, i.e., it denies the gifts and energy by which to
produce fear and trust in God, and, in adults [over and above this
innate evil disposition of the heart, also] the acts, so that, when we
mention concupiscence, we understand not only the acts or fruits, but
the constant inclination of the nature [the evil inclination within,
which does not cease as long as we are not born anew through the
Spirit and faith].
But hereafter we will show more fully that our description agrees
with the usual and ancient definition. For we must first show our
design in preferring to employ these words in this place. In their
schools the adversaries confess that "the material," as they call it,
"of original sin is concupiscence." Wherefore, in framing the
definition, this should not have been passed by, especially at this
time, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a manner
unbecoming teachers of religion [are speaking concerning this innate,
wicked desire more after the manner of heathen from philosophy than
according to God's Word, or Holy Scripture].
For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in
the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not
an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden],
which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of
another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their own.
Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on
account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman
are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but
because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they
are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an
innate evil but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we
are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]. To
show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made mention
of "concupiscence," and, with the best intention, have termed and
explained it as "diseases," that "the nature of men is born corrupt and
full of faults" [not a part of man, but the entire person with its
entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease].
Nor, indeed, have we only made use of the term concupiscence, but we
have also said that "the fear of God and faith are wanting." This we
have added with the following design: The scholastic teachers also,
not sufficiently understanding the definition of original sin, which
they have received from the Fathers, extenuate the sin of origin. They
contend concerning the fomes [or evil inclination] that it is a quality
of [blemish in the] body, and, with their usual folly, ask whether this
quality be derived from the contagion of the apple or from the breath
of the serpent, and whether it be increased by remedies. With such
questions they have suppressed the main point. Therefore, when they
speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention the more serious
faults of human nature, to wit, ignorance of God, contempt for God,
being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God's
judgment, flight from God [as from a tyrant] when He judges, anger
toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust in present things
[money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which are in the
highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics do not
notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired
strength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God's
commandments according to the substance of the acts; nor do they
see that they are saying things that are contradictory to one another.
For what else is the being able in one's own strength to love God
above all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to have
original righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely
pure and holy]? But if human nature have such strength as to be able
of itself to love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently
affirm, what will original sin be? For what will there be need of the
grace of Christ if we can be justified by our own righteousness
[powers]? For what will there be need of the Holy Ghost if human
strength can by itself love God above all things, and fulfil God's
commandments? Who does not see what preposterous thoughts our
adversaries entertain? The lighter diseases in the nature of man they
acknowledge, the more severe they do not acknowledge; and yet of
these, Scripture everywhere admonishes us, and the prophets
constantly complain [as the 13th Psalm, and some other psalms say
Ps. 14, 1-3; 5, 9; 140, 3; 36, 1], namely, of carnal security, of the
contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and of similar faults born
with us. [For Scripture clearly says that all these things are not
blown at us, but born with us.] But after the scholastics mingled with
Christian doctrine philosophy concerning the perfection of nature
[light of reason], and ascribed to the free will and the acts springing
therefrom more than was sufficient, and taught that men are
justified before God by philosophic or civil righteousness (which we
also confess to be subject to reason, and in a measure, within our
power), they could not see the inner uncleanness of the nature of
men. For this cannot be judged except from the Word of God, of which
the scholastics, in their discussions, do not frequently treat.
These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we
made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's natural
strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate
that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of
God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and
trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of
human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the
Decalog.
Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understood
aright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: "Original sin
is the absence of original righteousness" [a lack of the first purity
and righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here the
scholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explain
what original righteousness is. Now, in the Scriptures, righteousness
comprises not only the second table of the Decalog [regarding good
works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also, which teaches
concerning the fear of God, concerning faith, concerning the love of
God. Therefore original righteousness was to embrace not only an
even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect health and, in all
respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the body, as they
contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain knowledge of
God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly the rectitude and
power to yield these affections [but the greatest feature in that
noble first creature was a bright light in the heart to know God and
His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1,
27, that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God. What
else is this than that there were embodied in man such wisdom and
righteousness as apprehended God, and in which God was reflected,
i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of God, the
fear of God, confidence in God, and the like? For thus Irenaeus and
Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the latter of whom not only
says many things to this effect, but especially declares: That soul is
not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not at all times.
And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians,
3,10, that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness,
and truth. Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness
is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man. We recount
the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with
Augustine's interpretation of the image.
Therefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lack of
righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man's lower
powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and its meanest and
lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God, confidence
in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the power to produce
these affections [the light in the heart which creates a love and
desire for these matters]. For even the theologians themselves teach
in their schools that these are not produced without certain gifts and
the aid of grace. In order that the matter may be understood, we term
these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fear and confidence in God.
From these facts it appears that the ancient definition says
precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear and confidence
toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to
produce these acts [that we have no good heart toward God, which
truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do or achieve any
perfectly good work].
Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of
Augustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence
[wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost,
concupiscence came in its place. For inasmuch as diseased nature
cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal
things. God's judgment it either contemns when at ease, or hates,
when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defect
and the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed is
concupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but also,
in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nor do those
persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same time
concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost, and
love to God above all things.
We, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of
original sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able to believe
God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise: the having
concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God's Word, i.e.,
seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal wisdom and
righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as god things. Nor
only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also the more
recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones among
them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly these namely,
the defects which I have recounted and concupiscence. For Thomas
says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of original
righteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the parts of
the soul; whence it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit [something
positive]. And Bonaventura: When the question is asked, What is
original sin? the correct answer is, that it is immoderate
[unchecked] concupiscence. The correct answer is also, that it is
want of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these replies the
other is included. The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he says that
original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh.
For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring with us
ignorance of God unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. For
when he mentions ignorance, he includes these. And these opinions
[even of the most recent teachers] also agree with Scripture. For Paul
sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divine light], as
1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God. In another place, Rom. 7, 5, he calls it concupiscence working in
our members to bring forth fruit unto death. We could cite more
passages relating to both parts, but in regard to a manifest fact
there is no need of testimonies. And the intelligent reader will
readily be able to decide that to be without the fear of God and
without faith are more than actual guilt. For they are abiding defects
in our unrenewed nature.
In reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differing either
from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse from
corruptions and restore to light most important declarations of
Scripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by the
sophistical controversies of modern theologians. For it is manifest
from the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed
what the Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of original
righteousness]. But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. For
the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one can
heartily long and have a desire for Christ for the inexpressibly great
treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers], unless
our diseases be recognized. [As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark 2, 17:
They that are whole need not a physician.] The entire righteousness
of man is mere hypocrisy [and abomination] before God, unless we
acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love, fear, and
confidence in God [that we are miserable sinners who are in disgrace
with God]. For this reason the prophet Jeremiah, 31, 19, says: After
that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh. Likewise Ps. 116, 11: I
said in my haste, All men are liars, i.e., not thinking aright
concerning God.
Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote
that, "Original sin remains after Baptism." They add that this article
was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will find on
this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know in what sense
Luther intended this remark that original sin remains after Baptism.
He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes the guilt of
original sin, although the material, as they call it, of the sin, i.e.,
concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference to the material
that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to mortify the
concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a new sense
and spirit] in man. In the same manner, Augustine also speaks who
says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no
longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he confesses openly
that sin exists, i.e., that it remains although it is not imputed. And
this judgment was so agreeable to those who succeeded him that it
was recited also in the decrees. Also against Julian, Augustine says:
The Law, which is in the members, has been annulled by spiritual
regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled
because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which
believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires
against which believers contend. Our adversaries know that Luther
believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot reject the matter,
they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by this artifice to
crush an innocent man.
But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a
burden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to
death and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It has been
said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. If
there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let them quarrel
with Augustine. Besides Paul says, Rom. 7, 7. 23: I had not known lust
(concupiscence), except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is
in my members. These testimonies can be overthrown by no sophistry.
[All devils, all men cannot overthrow them.] For they clearly call
concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputed to those who
are in Christ although by nature it is a matter worthy of death where
it is not forgiven. Thus, beyond all controversy, the Fathers believe.
For Augustine, in a long discussion refutes the opinion of those who
thought that concupiscence in man is not a fault but an adiaphoron, as
color of the body or ill health is said to be an adiaphoron [as to have a
black or a white body is neither good nor evil].
But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil
inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture but
simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradict them.
For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and desire be
there] who ever dared to say that these matters, even though perfect
agreement could not be attained, were adiaphora, namely, to doubt
concerning God's wrath,: concerning God's grace, concerning God's
Word, to be angry at the judgments of God, to be provoked because
God does not at once deliver one from afflictions, to murmur because
the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, to be urged on by
wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc.? And yet godly men
acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in the Psalms and the
prophets. [For all tried, Christian hearts know, alas! that these evils
are wrapped up in man's skin, namely to esteem money, goods, and all
other matters more highly than God, and to spend our lives in
security; again, that after the manner of our carnal security we
always imagine that God's wrath against sin is not as serious and
great as it verily is. Again, that we murmur against the doing and
will of God, when He does not succor us speedily in our tribulations,
and arranges our affairs to please us. Again, we experience every day
that it hurts us to see wicked people in good fortune in this world, as
David and all the saints have complained. Over and above this, all men
feel that their hearts are easily inflamed, now with ambition, now
with anger and wrath, now with lewdness.] But in the schools they
transferred hither from philosophy notions entirely different, that,
because of passions, we are neither good nor evil, we are neither
deserving of praise nor blame. Likewise, that nothing is sin, unless it
be voluntary [inner desires and thoughts are not sins, if I do not
altogether consent thereto]. These notions were expressed among
philosophers with respect to civil righteousness, and not with
respect to God's judgment. [For there it is true, as the jurists say, L.
cogitationis, thoughts are exempt from custom and punishment. But
God searches the hearts; in God's court and judgment it is different.]
With no greater prudence they add also other notions, such as, that
[God's creature and] nature is not [cannot in itself be] evil. In its
proper place we do not censure this; but it is not right to twist it
into an extenuation of original sin. And, nevertheless, these notions
are read in the works of scholastics, who inappropriately mingle
philosophy or civil doctrine concerning ethics with the Gospel. Nor
were these matters only disputed in the schools, but, as is usually
the case, were carried from the schools to the people. And these
persuasions [godless, erroneous, dangerous, harmful teachings]
prevailed, and nourished confidence in human strength, and
suppressed the knowledge of Christ's grace. Therefore, Luther
wishing to declare the magnitude of original sin and of human
infirmity [what a grievous mortal guilt original sin is in the sight of
God], taught that these remnants of original sin [after Baptism] are
not, by their own nature, adiaphora in man, but that, for their
non-imputation, they need the grace of Christ and, likewise for their
mortification, the Holy Ghost.
Although the scholastics extenuate both sin and punishment when
they teach that man by his own strength, can fulfil the
commandments of God; in Genesis the punishment, imposed on
account of original sin, is described otherwise. For there human
nature is subjected not only to death and other bodily evils, but also
to the kingdom of the devil. For there, Gen. 3, 16, this fearful
sentence is proclaimed: I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The defects and the
concupiscence are punishments and sins. Death and other bodily evils
and the dominion of the devil, are properly punishments. For human
nature has been delivered into slavery, and is held captive by the
devil, who infatuates it with wicked opinions and errors, and impels
it to sins of every kind. But just as the devil cannot be conquered
except by the aid of Christ, so by our own strength we cannot free
ourselves from this slavery. Even the history of the world shows how
great is the power of the devil's kingdom. The world is full of
blasphemies against God and of wicked opinions, and the devil keeps
entangled in these bands those who are wise and righteous [many
hypocrites who appear holy] in the sight of the world. In other
persons grosser vices manifest themselves. But since Christ was
given to us to remove both these sins and these punishments, and to
destroy the kingdom of the devil, sin and death, it will not be
possible to recognize the benefits of Christ unless we understand our
evils. For this reason our preachers have diligently taught concerning
these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is new but have set
forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy Fathers.
We think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty
concerning the puerile and trivial sophistry with which
the adversaries have perverted our article. For we know
that we believe aright and in harmony with the Church
catholic of Christ. But if the adversaries will renew
this controversy, there will be no want among us of those
who will reply and defend the truth. For in this case our
adversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what
they say. They often speak what is contradictory, and
neither explain correctly and logically that which is
essential to [i.e., that which is or is not properly of
the essence of] original sin, nor what they call defects.
But we have been unwilling at this place to examine their
contests with any very great subtlety. We have thought it
worth while only to recite, in customary and well-known
words, the belief of the holy Fathers, which we also
follow.