APOLOGY TO THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION,

BY

PHILIP MELANCHTHON.

PREFACE.

After the Confession of our princes had been publicly recited, certain monks and theologians drew up a Confutation of our articles, which his imperial Majesty caused to be read in a convention of the princes, and required our princes to give their assent to the Confutation. But our princes, having heard that many articles were censured, which they could not reject without great violation of conscience, desired a copy of the Confutation to be shown them, in order that they might see what the opposition condemned, and be able to refute their arguments. And in a cause like this, relating to the regulation of conscience and the principles of religion, they supposed that their adversaries would not obstinately withhold their manuscript. But this reasonable request our princes were not able to obtain, except under the most dangerous terms, which they could not accept. A reconciliation, however, was afterwards attempted, when it appeared that our princes declined no proposition however burdensome, with which they could comply without a violation of conscience. But our adversaries pertinaciously demanded that we should approve certain manifest errors and abuses; and when we declared our utter inability to comply, his imperial Majesty again demanded that our princes should give their assent to the Confutation. This our princes refused to do. For how could they agree to objections on the subject of religion which they had never seen? And they had heard that some articles were condemned, concerning which they could not, without conscious guilt, coincide with the determinations of their adversaries. They directed me, however, and some others, to prepare an Apology to our Confession, in which should be explained to his imperial Majesty the reasons why we could not embrace the Confutation, and in which many objections of our adversa

ries should be repelled. For some of us had heard the general heads and points of argument while the Confutation was being read. This Apology they submitted to his imperial Majesty, in order that he might know that we were prevented by very great and weighty reasons, from approving the Confutation. But his Majesty would not receive the manuscript. Afterwards a certain edict was published, in which our adversaries boasted that they had confuted our Confes sion from the Scriptures.

Accordingly, my reader, you now have our Apology, from which you will learn what determinations our adversaries have made;that they have condemned several articles contrary to the plain declaration of the Holy Spirit, though they have been far from shaking our convictions by the evidences of Scripture. And although we ⚫ commenced the Apology, by conferring at first with others, yet du ring its preparation I have added some things. For this reason I have prefixed my name, that no one may complain that the book has been published without a definite author. It has always been my custom in these controversies, as far as I could consistently, to retain the ordinary forms of doctrine, that harmony might at some time be the more easily re-established. Nor would I now pursue a different course though I might with propriety draw the men of this age farther from the opinions of our adversaries. But these adversaries are so conducting the dispute, that they prove themselves to be not in search either of truth or harmony, but thirsting for our blood.

And now having written in a spirit as moderate as possible, if any thing be said here which may seem too harsh, I must premise that I am contending, not with the emperor or the princes, whom I reverence as I ought, but with the theologians and the monks who have written the Confutation. But I have recently seen the Confutation, and I have observed that it is written in a spirit so insidious and vituperative, that on some points it might deceive even the most vigilant. I have not touched, however, all the subjects of dispute; for the task would be endless;-but I have examined the principal arguments, for the purpose of leaving an evidence among all nations, that we have maintained just and pious views in reference to the Gospel of Christ. Discord is by no means agreeable to us, nor are we alarmed at our own danger, though we easily perceive the bitterness of those odious passions with which we see our adversaries inflamed. But we cannot resist the clear convictions of truth, or disregard the exigency of the church; for we believe that every difficulty and every danger should be sustained, for the glory of Christ and the advancement of the church. We are confident that God

will approve our obedience, and we await with patient hope the more equitable decisions of posterity. For it cannot be denied that many points of Christian doctrine, which it is essential to keep apparent before the church, and which had lain for ages with canonists, monks, and fallacious theologians, buried in opinions more pernicious and dangerous than we are allowed here to portray, have been elicited and explained by our adherents. We have the public testimonials of many virtuous men, who render thanks to God for the inestimable blessing in teaching them on many essential points, more valuable things than our adversaries generally maintain. We therefore recommend our cause to Christ who will finally decide these controversies, and we entreat him to regard his wasted and afflicted churches, and restore them to pious and perpetual harmony.

APOLOGY TO THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.

The adversaries approve of the first article of our Confession, in which it is indicated that we believe and teach, that there is one eternal, individual, undivided, divine essence, and yet, that there are three distinct persons in this divine essence, (or being) equally powerful, equally eternal, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. This article we have ever taught and defended in its purity, and we maintain and feel certain, that it has a foundation in the holy Scriptures, so firm, good, and infallible that no one can censure or refute it.

Wherefore we conclude without hesitation, that all those who hold or teach otherwise, are idolaters and blasphemers and aliens from the church of Christ.

1. CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN.

Nor do the adversaries object to the second article concerning original sin; yet they censure our definition, in which we assert what original sin is; though we merely spoke of it incidentally in that place.

Immediately in the outset your imperial Majesty will perceive, that our opponents, while they frequently comprehend or understand scarcely any thing relative to this all important subject, they often

pervert our words maliciously and intentionally, or misconstrue our meaning. For although we have stated in the most simple and clear manner, what original sin is, or is not, yet however, they have out of malice and ill-will, given an improper construction, intentionally, to the plainest and most simple language.

For thus they say: you declare original sin to be this, that we are born with a mind and heart, in which there is no fear of God, or confidence in Him,-but this is real guilt, and an act itself, or actualis culpa; therefore it is not original sin.-It is by no means difficult to perceive and to judge, that such cavils proceed from the theologians, and not from the counsels of the emperor. Now although we are able to confute very easily these envious, dangerous, and wanton constructions; yet, in order that all upright and honorable persons may understand that we teach nothing improper in this respect, we request them to examine our former German Confession, presented at Augsburg, this will sufficiently prove that we teach nothing new or unheard of. For thus it is written in that Confession :-*Weiter wird gelehret, dass nach dem Fall Adä alle Menschen, so natürlich gebohren werden, in Sünden empfangen und gebohren werden; das ist, dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an, voll böser Lust und Neigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott von Natur haben können.

From this it is evident, that we maintain, with respect to those that are born of flesh, that they are unfit for all things pertaining to God; do not sincerely fear Him and cannot either believe or trust in Him. We here speak of the inborn evil character of the heart, not only of actual guilt, or of real crimes or sins; for we say, that in all the children of Adam there are evil inclinations and desires, and that it is not in the power of any one to prepare his heart of himself, to know God, or sincerely to confide in, or fear Him.

We are, however, desirous of hearing what can be censured here. For pious and upright individuals, loving the truth, perceive, without any doubt, that we are sufficiently clear and correct in our views. In this sense we say also in our Latin Confession, that in natural man there is not potentia, i. e. not sufficient virtue, or ability, even in innocent children, who are incapable from Adam, ever to fear and to love God sincerely. But in adults or grown persons, besides the innate evil disposition of the heart, there are acts and actual sins.

Wherefore, when we mention innate evil desires, we mean not

*For a translation of these words, see Article II. of the Augsburg Confession.

only the acts, the evil works, or fruits, but the evil inclinations within, which continue so long as we are not born anew through the Spirit and faith. But we shall hereafter show more fully, that we have described original depravity, viz. what it is and is not, according to the ancient and usual manner of the scholastics, and that we have made no innovation. I must however, first show for what reason in this place, I have preferred these terms particularly, and not

others.

Thus our adversaries themselves speak upon this subject in their schools, and acknowledge that evil desires constitute the material or materiale of original sin, as they term it. Wherefore, as I wished to define what original sin is, I could not pass over this, especially at this time; since some treat of these innate evil desires more in an unchristian manner, according to their knowledge of philosophy, than according to the divine word or holy Scriptures. For some declare that original sin in human nature is not an innate inclination to sin, but merely a defect and an imposed charge or burden, which all the descendants of Adam must bear on account of his sins, (not their own,) and that therefore all are mortal, but not that they themselves by nature inherited sin from their mothers' womb.

They say, moreover, that no one is condemned eternally on ac count of original sin or depravity alone; but precisely as bondmen and bondservants are born of a bondmaid, not on account of any fault in themselves, but because they must sustain and bear the misfortunes and misery of their mother, though they are born as other people without blemish; so original sin likewise is not an inborn evil or sin, but merely a defect, an incumbrance which we bear from Adam, but of ourselves we do not exist in sin and inherit displeasure.

In order, then, to show that a doctrine so unchristian did not meet our approbation, I have employed these words:-All men from their mothers' womb are full of evil desires and inclinations. And therefore I also call original sin a disease, for the purpose of showing that not a part merely, but the whole man with his whole nature, is born with this disease constitutionally inherent. Wherefore we denominate it likewise not merely an evil desire, but also maintain that all men are born in sin, without fear of God and without faith. Nor do we add this without sufficient grounds. The scholastics treat of original sin, as if it were but a loose, slight defect, and do not understand what original depravity is, or in what light the holy Fathers (ecclesiastical writers) considered it.