Chapter I: Of God, Original Sin and Christ (Articles I–III)

p. 75 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, indivisible, 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 [idolatrous and blasphemous].

p. 75 Article II: Of Original Sin

The second article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but in such a way, that they, nevertheless, censure the definition p. 76 of Original Sin, which we incidentally gave. Here 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.

A. Of the Notion of Original Sin

It is very evident that such subtilties have originated in the schools, not in the council of the Emperor. But although this false interpretation 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 gelehret, das nach dem Fall Adä alle Menschen, so natürlich geboren werden, in Sünden empfangen, und geboren werden; das ist, dass sie alle von Mutter Leibe an voll böser Lust und Neigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, kein wahren Glauben an Gott von Natur haben können. [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 statement denies to nature the power, i. e. it denies the gifts and energy, by which to produce fear and trust in God, and, in adults, 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 statement 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 p. 77 passed by, especially at this time, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a manner unbecoming our 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 fault or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [an innate evil nature, but only a fault or imposed load or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear, because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam’s sin], and without any fault of their own. Besides, they add that in eternal death, no one is condemned on account of Original Sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any vice of nature, but because of the calamity of their mother. To show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made mention of “concupiscence,” and, with the best intention, have termed and explained, as “diseases,” “that the nature of men is born corrupt and full of faults.”

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 [fault 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, the being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God’s judgment, the flight from God [as from a tyrant] when he judges, anger toward God, despair of grace, the having confidence 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;¹ 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, but to have original righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely pure and holy]? But if p. 78 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 how preposterously our adversaries speak? 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:; 140:; 36:1], viz. of carnal security, of the contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and of similar faults 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 to elicit acts 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.

¹ Augsburg Confession, Art. xviii. 8.

These were the reasons, why, in the description of Original Sin, we made mention of concupiscence also, and denied, to man’s natural strength, fear and confidence in God. For we wished to indicate that Original Sin contains also these diseases, viz. ignorance of God, contempt for God, the being destitute of fear and confidence in God, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the Decalogue.

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 Decalogue, but the first also, which teaches concerning the fear of God, concerning faith, concerning the love of God. Therefore original righteousness should have not only an equable temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect health and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the body], but also these gifts, viz. a more certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly rectitude and the power to yield these affections. And p. 79 Scripture testifies to this, when it says [Gen. i: 27] that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God. What else is this than that, in man, there were embodied 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 Irenæus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the latter of whom says: “That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not at all times.” And Paul shows 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 imparted to man in the beginning.” 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, but also denies the knowledge of God, confidence in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the power to produce these affections. 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.

Of the same import is the definition of Augustine, who is accustomed to define Original Sin, as concupiscence [a wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence succeeded. For inasmuch as diseased nature cannot fear and love God, and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. God’s judgment it either in security contemns, or, thoroughly terrified, hates. Thus Augustine includes both the defect and the vicious habit which has succeeded it. 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, viz. 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 p. 80 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 good things. Nor only the ancients, 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, viz. 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.” And Bonaventura: “When the question is asked, ‘What is Original Sin?’ the correct answer is, that it is immoderate 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. These opinions also agree with Scripture. For Paul sometimes expressly calls it a defect, 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.” In reference to both parts, we could cite more passages; 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. They are abiding defects in nature that has not been renewed.

(In reference to Original Sin, we therefore hold nothing differing either from Scripture or from the Catholic Church, 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. But the recognition of Original Sin is necessary. For the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood, unless our diseases be recognized. The entire righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy before God, unless we acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love, fear and confidence in God. For this reason, the prophet (Jer. 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.

p. 81 B. Against the Adversaries of Luther

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 thus wrote, viz. that baptism removes the imputation (reatus) 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 put to death 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 occasions desires, against which believers contend.” Our adversaries know that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot disprove the fact, 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. 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, p. 82 as color¹ or ill-health is said to be an adiaphoron of the body [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor evil].

¹ Another reading substitutes dolor (pain) for color.

But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture, but the entire Church also [and all the Fathers] will contradict them. For even though perfect consent were not attained [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and desire be there], who ever dared to say that these were adiaphora, viz. 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 remove one from afflictions, to murmur because the wicked experience 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. But, in the schools, they transferred hither from philosophy, notions entirely different, that, because of emotions, we are neither good nor evil, we are neither praised nor blamed. 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 evil. In its proper place, we do not censure this; but it is not right to pervert it, so as to extenuate 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 are these matters only disputed in the schools, but, as is usually the case, are carried from the schools to the people. And these persuasions 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, 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 [3:15] the punishment, imposed on account of Original Sin, is described otherwise. For there, human nature is subjected not only to death and p. 83 other bodily evils, but also to the kingdom of the devil. For there (Gen. 3:15), 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 peculiarly 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 Catholic Church 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 explain correctly and logically neither that which is formal in [i. e. that which is or is not properly in the essence of] Original Sin, nor the defects of which they speak. 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.

p. 83 Article III: Of Christ

The third article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that there are in Christ two natures, viz. a human nature p. 84 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 has risen again, to reign, and to justify and sanctify believers, etc., according to the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

Parallel passages: Apostles’ Creed, 2; Nicene Creed, 2, 3; Athanasian Creed, 28–39; Smalcald Articles, 299; Formula of Concord, Epitome and Sol Decl., Art. iv. 544, 674.