Apology of the Augsburg Confession | Page 2

and
perpetual concord. [Therefore, if the known and clear truth is trodden
under foot, we will resign this cause to God 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 pass 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 hell, may continually grow
and increase.]

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