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].

But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil
inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture
but simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradict
them. For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and
desire be there] who ever dared to say that these matters, even