Part 1 (1/2)
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
by Philip Melanchthon.
INTRODUCTION
THE APOLOGY OF THE CONFESSION.
Philip Melanchthon Presents His Greeting to the Reader. Wherefore we believe that troubles and dangers for the glory of Christ and the good of the Church should be endured, and we are confident that this our fidelity to duty is approved of G.o.d, and we hope that the judgment of posterity concerning us will be more just.
For it is undeniable that many topics of Christian doctrine whose existence in the Church is of the greatest moment have been brought to view by our theologians and explained; in reference to which we are not disposed here to recount under what sort of opinions, and how dangerous, they formerly lay covered in the writings of the monks, canonists, and sophistical theologians. [This may have to be done later.]
We have the public testimonials of many good men, who give G.o.d thanks for this greatest blessing, namely, that concerning many necessary topics it has taught better things than are read everywhere in the books of our adversaries.
We shall commend our cause, therefore, to Christ, who some time will judge these controversies, and we beseech Him to look upon the afflicted and scattered churches, and to bring them back to G.o.dly and perpetual concord. [Therefore, if the known and clear truth is trodden under foot, we will resign this cause to G.o.d and Christ in heaven, who is the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows and of all the forsaken, who (as we certainly know) will judge and pa.s.s sentence upon this cause aright. Lord Jesus Christ, it is Thy holy Gospel, it is Thy cause; look Thou upon the many troubled hearts and consciences, and maintain and strengthen in Thy truth Thy churches and little flocks, who suffer anxiety and distress from the devil.
Confound all hypocrisy and lies, and grant peace and unity, so that Thy glory may advance, and Thy kingdom, strong against all the gates of h.e.l.l, may continually grow and increase.]
Part 1
Article I: _Of G.o.d._
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 G.o.d.
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 pa.s.sing, 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 G.o.d, 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, da.s.s nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so natuerlich geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen, das ist, da.s.s 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 G.o.d, no true faith in G.o.d.] This pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d. For we say that those thus born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and trust in G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, contempt for G.o.d, being dest.i.tute of fear and confidence in G.o.d, hatred of G.o.d's judgment, flight from G.o.d [as from a tyrant] when He judges, anger toward G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, the scholastics do not notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired strength for loving G.o.d above all things, and for fulfilling G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d above all things, and fulfil G.o.d'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 G.o.d, of hatred toward G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of G.o.d, contempt for G.o.d, the being dest.i.tute of the fear of G.o.d and trust in Him, inability to love G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, concerning faith, concerning the love of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, fear of G.o.d, confidence in G.o.d, or certainly the rect.i.tude and power to yield these affections [but the greatest feature in that n.o.ble first creature was a bright light in the heart to know G.o.d and His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fas.h.i.+oned in the image and likeness of G.o.d. What else is this than that there were embodied in man such wisdom and righteousness as apprehended G.o.d, and in which G.o.d was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of G.o.d, the fear of G.o.d, confidence in G.o.d, and the like?
For thus Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to G.o.d, the latter of whom not only says many things to this effect, but especially declares: That soul is not, therefore, in the image of G.o.d, in which G.o.d is not at all times. And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians, 3,10, that the image of G.o.d is the knowledge of G.o.d, righteousness, and truth. Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to G.o.d which G.o.d 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 G.o.d, confidence in G.o.d, the fear and love of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, and fear and confidence in G.o.d. From these facts it appears that the ancient definition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear and confidence toward G.o.d, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to produce these acts [that we have no good heart toward G.o.d, which truly loves G.o.d, 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 G.o.d and believe G.o.d, it seeks and loves carnal things. G.o.d'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 G.o.d above all things.