Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)
- Language:
- English
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
- Extent:
- ~130,000 words · 623 passages
Cite this work
- APAPhilip Melanchthon. (n.d.). Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531). Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/philip-melanchthon/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession-1531
- MLAPhilip Melanchthon. Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531). Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/philip-melanchthon/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession-1531.
- ChicagoPhilip Melanchthon. Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531). Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/philip-melanchthon/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession-1531.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
The reasoned defence of the Augsburg Confession that Melanchthon wrote in 1531, when Catholic theologians had refuted it before the emperor.
Context and history
The Confession of 1530 was the document in which the Lutheran princes set out their faith at the imperial diet; the emperor commissioned a refutation and demanded that they accept it, and Melanchthon answered with this text, seven times longer than the original and article by article. The central part is the fourth, on justification by faith, which is the core of the whole dispute and is set out here more carefully than anywhere else. Melanchthon was Luther's collaborator and his opposite in temperament: systematic, conciliatory, humanist — the man who gave orderly doctrinal shape to what Luther had said with fire. The Apology forms part of the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessional corpus.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires against which believers contend. Our adversaries know that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot reject the matter, 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. [All devils, all men cannot overthrow them.] 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, as color of the body or ill health is said to be an adiaphoron [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor evil].