peal to the excellent explanations of doctor Luther, comprehended in his polemic as well as in his didactic writings, in the very manner indeed that doctor Luther himself recommended to us, by way of pious and necessary advice, in his Latin preface concerning his writings, prefixed to his works. For there, with great perspicuity, he draws this distinction between divine and human writings,-namely, that the Sacred Volume alone must be recognized as the sole rule and determination of all opinions, and that the writings of no man whatever must be compared with them, but rather held in subserviency.

But these remarks must not be understood as if we wish to reject, and strike from the hands of men, other useful and excellent writings,— such as the com mentaries on the Sacred Volume; the refutations of errors; the explanations of important articles. For these writings, so far as outline commentaries and compendiums are conformable to salutary doctrine, can be retained and read with advantage, as explanations and useful declarations. For whatever we have said hitherto concerning compendious outlines of salutary doctrine, must be referred to the wish, that we may have a sure form of doctrine approved by universal consent, which all our evangelical churches at once may recognize and embrace, with which all other writings, so far as these are approved and adopted, ought to coincide and conform, since the former is derived from the word of God.

The reason that we have desired to embrace the Confession of Augsburg, the Apology, the Articles of Smalcald, the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Luther, as the chief authorities of our Christian doctrine, is, because it always has been manifest that the pious and unanimous views of our church are contained in them, since these writings have been confirmed by the most pious and excellent theologians of our times, and received in the evangelical churches and schools. These were all written and published, as we have already intimated, before the dissensions arose among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession; consequently there can be nothing in them devoted to party or sectarian feelings; wherefore they cannot, by any color of justice, be reproached by those who have disagreed among themselves. Nor indeed can any one, sincerely and free from deceit, embrace the Augsburg Confession, and yet strive to weaken or despise its authority, but he will receive it as the evidence of truth. Hence no one can ascribe it as a fault to us, that we have appealed to the authority and determination of these writings, in the midst of rising contentions. As we, therefore, lay down the word of God as a foundation of immutable truth, so we may properly bring upon it those

writings as the evidences of truth,-evidences which embrace the pious, pure, unanimous opinions of our ancestors, who persisted with constancy in the purer doctrine.

OF THE NEGATIVE PROPOSITIONS, OR REJECTION OF THE FALSE DOCTRINE CONTAINED IN THE CONTROVERTED ARTICLES.

To preserve a pure doctrine in the churches, and a harmony perfect, secure, approved, and pleasing to God, it is necessary, not only that the true doctrine be distinctly expressed, but also that those contradicting our views, and those teaching the opposite, be refuted. Each of these, indeed, is the duty of faithful pastors, as doctor Luther used to say, "To feed the sheep, and to drive away the wolf," that Christians may learn to avoid strange voices, and be able to distinguish the precious from the worthless, 1 Tim. 3; 2 Tim. 3, 16; Tit. 1, 9; John 10, 12; Jer. 15, 19.

Consequently on this point also we have declared, and now we declare our decided opinion, that a distinction ought to be made between necessary controversies, and those useless dissensions, which pull down more than they build up. But, lest the church may be thrown into confusion, some controversies may be necessary, as when an argument arises concerning the articles of faith, or important portions of the Christian doctrine; for then a contrary and false doctrine must be refuted of necessity, in defence of the truth.

And though the writings already referred to, with elegance and perspicuity, exhibit to the pious reader who glows with the love of celestial truth, in every article of our Christian religion, whatever, by the authority of the word of God, and of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, is true and ought to be embraced, and whatever is false and ought to be rejected and avoided; yet we desired to show our opinion, distinctly and free from all ambiguity, concerning the several important and leading articles, which in these days have met opposition. And we did this with the hope that the truth might shine more brightly, be recognized with greater certainty, and distinguished more easily from erroneous opinions, so that nothing injurious to truth, might lie concealed under phrases and expressions too indefinite and general; and likewise, in order that a public and substantial testimony might exist, not only for those who are now living, but for all posterity, showing what the opinion, what the determination of our churches, has been, and perpetually ought to be concerning those controverted articles,—namely:

1. We reject and condemn all heresies and errors, which in the primitive church of true believers were rejected and condemned, according to the infallible authority of God's word.

2. We reprove and condemn all sects and heresies, which are reproved in the writings above mentioned.

3. Moreover, since within the last thirty years, dissensions have arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession, partly from a system of doctrine called the Interim, and partly from other circumstances, it was our desire to declare and submit our faith and confession in reference to all these particulars, not only in affirmative, but also in negative propositions; namely, the true and the false doctrine contrasted. And our design has been, that the infallible principles of this heavenly doctrine, might be more distinctly perceived in every article, and that all false, ambiguous, dubious, and condemned opinions, in whatever books contained, and by whomsoever written or defended, might be successfully repudiated, so that all might be faithfully warned and encouraged, to guard against those errors lurking in the books of certain theologians, and never to suffer themselves to be betrayed in matters of such importance, by the authority of any man. If the pious reader will consider with attention this explanation of our controversies, and compare it with the writings in question, he will clearly perceive that those principles, which our ancestors at first be lieved and publicly professed in reference to every article in that compendious system of our religion and faith, those declarations which followed each other by intervals, at different periods, and that doctrine which we now recapitulate in this publication, by no means disagree with each other, but that they are simple, immutable, and most assuredly true. And the candid reader'will acknowledge, that we do not vacillate from one opinion to another, with the levity of which our adversaries accuse us; but he will confess rather that we are laboring with all assiduity, to retain that confession exhibited at Augsburg, as well as the true, the unanimous, the pious sense in which it was understood. And in that doctrine, by the grace of God, against all corruptions which may ensue, we shall persevere with unwavering constancy.

Some editions say twenty-five years: but when thirty years are mentioned, the time between the first projection and the full publication of the Form of Concord, is included,

I. OF ORIGINAL SIN.

A controversy has arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession, concerning original sin, with respect to what it really and properly is. The one party contended, that inasmuch as the human nature and essence are totally corrupted through the fall of Adam, now since the fall, the corrupted nature, substance, and essence of man, or indeed the principal and noblest part of his essence, as the rational soul itself, in its highest faculties and powers,-is original sin itself; which is called natural or personal sin, because it is not a thought, word, or deed, but the nature itself, from which, as from a root, all other sins spring. And on this account, they affirm that now since the fall, inasmuch as the nature is corrupted by sin, there is no difference at all between the nature or essence of man and original sin.

In opposition to this, however, the other party taught that original sin is not properly the nature, substance, or essence of man, that is, the body or soul of man, which even now since the fall remains the work and creature of God in us; but that it is something in the nature, body, soul, and all the faculties of man: namely, a dreadful, deep, and inexpressible corruption of human nature; so that man is destitute of that righteousness, in which he was created in the beginning, and dead in spiritual matters to every thing good, and inclined to all evil; and that, in consequence of this corruption and innate sin which inhere in the nature, all actual sins flow from the heart. And thus they affirm, that there must be a distinction retained between the corrupted nature and essence of man, or his body and soul, which even since the fall are the work and creature of God in us,

and original sin which is a work of the devil, through which the nature is depraved.

Now this dispute concerning original sin, is not a useless contention, but it is one of great moment. For if this doctrine is correctly laid down according to the word of God, and separated from all Pelagian and Manichean errors, the benefits of Christ the Lord, (as the Apology says,) his precious merits, and also the work of grace of the Holy Spirit, will be the better perceived and the more commended. And the due honor will also be attributed unto God, if his work and creation in man are rightly distinguished from the work of the devil, through which our nature is corrupted. Therefore, for the purpose of explaining this controversy in a Christian manner, and according to the word of God, and for the purpose of preserving the right and the pure doctrine concerning original sin, we shall sum up

from the aforenamed writings, the thesis and the antithesis, that is, the right doctrine and the contrary doctrine, in chief articles.

1. And in the first place, it is true, that Christians should regard and acknowledge as sins, not only the actual transgressions of the commandments of God, but that they ought, above all things, to regard and acknowledge really as sin, that dreadful, that deplorable hereditary disease also, by which the whole nature is corrupted; yea, as the principal sin, which is the root and fountain of all actual sins. And this evil is called by doctor Luther, eine Natur oder Person Sünde, sin of nature or sin of person, in order to indicate, that, even if man thought, spoke, or did no evil,-which however, since the fall of our first parents, is impossible to human nature in this life,-his nature and person would nevertheless sin; that is, through original sin, as by a spiritual leprosy, he is wholly and entirely poisoned and corrupted in the sight of God. And on account of this corruption, in consequence of the fall of our first parents, the nature or per son of man is accused and condemned by the law of God, so that we are by nature the children of wrath, condemnation, and death, Eph. 2, 3, if we are not redeemed from these evils by the merits of Christ.

2. In the second place, it is also clear and true, as the nineteenth article of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not the cause, creator, or author of sin; but through the instigation of Satan, sin (which is a work of the devil) entered into the world, by one man, Rom. 5, 12; 1 John 3, 8. And even at the present time, in this corruption of nature, God does not create and cause sin in us; but in connexion with the nature, which God creates in persons at the present time, still original sin is propagated through natural conception and birth, by father and mother, from sinful seed.

. 3. In the third place, human reason is unable to know or to understand what this hereditary defect is, but it must, as the Articles of Smalcald declare, be learned and believed from the revelation in the Scriptures.

And in the Apology, the same is briefly comprehended in these chief articles:

1. That this hereditary defect is the cause of all of us being, in consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, subject to the displeasure of God, and the children of wrath by nature, as the Apostle, Rom. 5, 19, and Eph. 2, 3, testifies.

2. In the second place, that it is also a total defect or privation of the innate hereditary righteousness in Paradise, or of the image of God, after which man was at first created in truth, holiness, and righteousness; and at the same time it is an impotence and an ineptitude