Epitome, Article I: Of Original Sin

p. 493 Statement of the Controversy

WHETHER Original Sin be properly and without any distinction man’s corrupt nature, substance and essence, or indeed the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, ‘the rational soul itself’ in its highest state and powers? Or whether, even since the fall, there be a distinction between man’s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and Original Sin, so that the nature is one thing, and Original Sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, is another?

p. 493 Affirmative

The pure doctrine, faith and confession according to the above standard and comprehensive declaration:

1. We believe, teach and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature, not only as he was originally created by God, pure and holy, and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now, since the fall, namely, between the nature itself, which ever since the fall is and remains a creature of God, and Original Sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

2. We believe, teach and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because the dogma that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith, concerning Creation, Redemption, Sanctification and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.

For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the fall, but also our bodies and souls since the fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as his work, as it is written (Job 10:8): “Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about.” Deut. 32:18; Isa. 45: sqq.; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Job 10:8; Ps. 100:3; 139:14; Eccl. 12:1.

This human nature, nevertheless without sin, and, therefore, not of other’s but our own flesh, the Son of God has assumed into the unity of his person, and according to it become our true brother. Heb. 2:14: “Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same.” Again, v. 16; 4:15: “He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. p. 494 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,” “yet without sin.” Therefore Christ has redeemed it, as his work, sanctifies it as his work, raises it from the dead and gloriously adorns it as his work. But Original Sin he has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; he also will not raise it, or with the elect adorn or save it, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. ii.; Apology, Art. ii. Smalcald Articles, Part. III., Art. i.; Sol. Dec. 573 sqq.

Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature, and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.

3. But, on the other hand, we believe, teach and confess that Original Sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature, that nothing healthy or uncorrupt in man’s body or soul, in inner or outward powers, remains, but, as the Church sings:

“Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.”

This unspeakable injury cannot be discerned by the reason, but only from God’s Word.¹ And [we affirm] that the nature and this corruption of nature no one but God alone can ever separate from one another; and yet this fully comes to pass, through death, in the resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally, without original sin, and separated and sundered from it, as it is written (Job 19:26): “I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.”

¹ Cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. i., § 3.

p. 494 Negative

Rejection of the false opposite dogmas

Therefore we reject and condemn the dogma that Original Sin is only a reatus or debt, on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.²

² This error is ascribed especially to Albertus Pighius. Köllner’s Symbolik of Catholic Church, 285, 290.

2. Also that evil lusts are not sin, but concreated, essential properties of the nature, as though the above-mentioned defect and evil were not true sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] is to be a child of wrath.³

³ Taught by Pelagians, both ancient and modern; cf. Council of Trent, Sess. v. (p. 6 Tauchnitz edition).

3. We likewise reject the error of the Pelagians, by which it is alleged that man’s nature, even since the fall, is incorrupt, and, especially with respect to spiritual things, in naturalibus, p. 495 i. e. in its natural powers, it has remained entirely good and pure.¹

¹ Almost the general opinion of the Scholastics; for they contended that since the fall men were destitute only of the donum supernaturale. Cf Köllner, p. 284.

4. Also that Original Sin is only external, a slight, insignificant spot, sprinkle, or stain dashed upon the nature, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its powers unimpaired even in spiritual things.²

² Ascribed to D’Andrada, a Romish opponent of Chemnitz, who thus wrote in his Defensio Trid. fidei Cathol., lib. v., p. 451 sqq.

5. Also that Original Sin is only an external impediment to unimpaired spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice its natural power is not thereby removed, but only impeded; or that this stain can be easily washed away, as a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.³

³ Almost the very words of Vict. Strigel in the disputation with Flacius at Weimar in 1560. Cf. Carpzov, 1179.

6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, piety, skill, aptness or ability in spiritual things to begin to work, or to co-work for something [good].⁴

⁴ Also taught by Strigel in his declaration, written 1562.

7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manichæans, when it is taught that Original Sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.

8. Also that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, and, on this account, not the nature, but only Original Sin in the nature, is accused.⁵

⁵ Ascribed by Augustine to the Manichæans. Cf. Sol. Dec.

9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichæan error the doctrine that Original Sin is properly, and without any distinction, the substance, nature and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that no distinction between the corrupt nature, considered by itself, since the fall, and Original Sin, can be conceived of, nor can they be distinguished from one another even in thought.⁶

⁶ The doctrine of Flacius and his adherents.

10. Moreover this Original Sin is called by Dr. Luther natural sin, personal sin, essential sin (Natursünde, Person-sünde, Wesentlichle Sünde); not that the nature, person or essence of the man is, without any distinction, itself Original Sin, but that, by such words, the distinction might be indicated between p. 496 Original Sin which inheres in human nature, and other sins which are called actual sins.

11. For Original Sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance and essence of man, so that though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, nor idle word be spoken, nor wicked deed be done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupt through Original Sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountain-head of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words and works, as it is written (Matt. 15:19): “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts.” Also (Gen. 6:; 8:21): “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

12. Thus it is also well to note the diverse signification of the word “nature,” whereby the Manichæans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.

13. But as to the Latin terms “substance” and “accident,” because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be excused from this [in this matter regard should rightly be had to the simple and uneducated]. But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning Original Sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what is attached to it in an accidental way.

For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, from God’s decree [God permitting] corrupt a substance created by God.