Solid Declaration, Article I: Of Original Sin

p. 539 FIRST, a controversy concerning Original Sin has occurred: among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession with respect to what it properly is. For one side² contended p. 540 that, because, through the fall of Adam, man’s nature and essence are entirely corrupt now since the fall, the nature, substance and essence of the corrupt man, or indeed the principal, highest part of his being, namely, the rational soul in its highest state and principal powers, is Original Sin itself. This is called “natural” or “personal sin,” for the reason that it is not a thought, word or work, but the nature itself, whence, as from a root, all other sins proceed, and on this account there is now since the fall, because the nature is corrupt through sin, no distinction whatever between the nature and essence of man and Original Sin.

² Matthias Flacius Illyricus and his adherents.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. ii.; Apology, Art. ii.; Smalcald Articles, Part. III., Art. i.; Epitome, I.

But the other side taught, in opposition, that Original Sin is not properly the nature, substance or essence of man, i. e. man’s body or soul, which even now since the fall are and remain the creatures and works of God in us, but it is something in the nature, body and soul of man, and in all his powers, namely, a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of the same, so that man is destitute of the righteousness wherein he was originally created, and in spiritual things is dead to good and perverted to all evil; and that, because of this corruption and inborn sin, which inheres in the nature, all actual sins flow forth from the heart; and that a distinction must, therefore, be observed between, on the one hand, the nature and essence of the corrupt man, or his body and soul, which as the creatures of God pertain to us even since the fall, and Original Sin, on the other, which is a work of the devil, whereby the nature has become corrupt.

Now this controversy concerning Original Sin is not unnecessary wrangling, but if this doctrine be rightly presented from and according to God’s Word, and be separated from all Pelagian and Manichæan errors, then (as the Apology¹) says, the benefits of Christ and his precious merit, and the gracious efficacy of the Holy Ghost, will be the better known and the more extolled; the honor which belongs to him will also be ascribed to God, if his work and creation in men be rightly distinguished from the work of the devil, whereby the nature has been corrupted. In order, therefore, to explain this controversy in the Christian way and according to God’s Word, and to maintain the correct, pure doctrine, we will collect from the above-mentioned writings the thesis and antithesis, that is, the correct doctrine and its opposite, into brief paragraphs:

¹ ii.: 83. 50.

1. And first it is true that Christians should not only regard and recognize as sins the actual transgression of God’s commands; but also that the horrible, dreadful hereditary malady p. 541 whereby the entire nature is corrupted, should above all things be regarded and recognized as sin, yea, as the chief sin, which is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins. This is called by Luther a “natural” or “personal sin,” in order to declare that even though man would think, speak or do nothing evil (which, nevertheless, since the fall of our first parents, is impossible in this life), yet that his nature and person are sinful, i. e. by Original Sin, as a spiritual leprosy, he is thoroughly and utterly infected and corrupted before God; and on account of this corruption, and because of the fall of the first man, the nature or person is accused or condemned by God’s Law, so that we are by nature the children of wrath, death and damnation, unless delivered therefrom by the merit of Christ.

2. It is also clear and true, as the Nineteenth Article of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not a creator, author or cause of sin, but from the instigation of the devil, through one man, sin (which is a work of the devil) has entered the world (Rom. 5:12; 1 John 3:7). And even at the present day, in this connection of sin and nature [in this corruption of nature], God does not create and make sin in us, but with the nature which God at the present day still creates and makes in men, Original Sin is propagated from sinful seed,¹ through carnal conception and birth of father and mother.

¹ Cf. ¶ 11, 28, 38

3. Thirdly, what [and how great] this hereditary evil is, no reason knows and understands, but, as the Smalcald Articles² say, it must be learned and believed from the revelation contained in Scripture. And in the Apology this is briefly comprehended in the following paragraphs:

² Part III., Art. i.: 63.

1. That this hereditary evil is the cause of our all being, by reason of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, in God’s displeasure, and by nature children of wrath, as the apostle shows (Rom. 5: sqq.; Eph. 2:3).

2. Secondly, that there is an entire want or lack of the concreated original righteousness, or of God’s image, according to which man was originally created in truth, holiness and righteousness; and likewise an inability and unfitness for all the things of God, or, as the Latin words read: Descriptio peccati originalis detrahit naturæ non renovatæ, et dona, et vim, seu facultatem et actus inchoandi et efficiendi spiritualia. That is: The definition of original sin takes away from the unrenewed nature the gifts, the power, and all activity for beginning and effecting anything in spiritual things.³

³ Cf. Apology, ii.: 8

3. That Original Sin (in human nature) is not only such an entire absence of all good in spiritual, divine things, but that it is at the same time also, instead of the lost image of God in p. 542 man, a deep, wicked, horrible, fathomless, inscrutable and unspeakable corruption of the entire nature and all its powers, especially of the highest, principal powers of the soul in understanding, heart and will; that now, since the fall, man receives by inheritance an inborn wicked disposition, an inward impurity of heart, wicked lusts and propensities; that we all have by nature inherited from Adam such a heart, feeling and thoughts as, according to their highest powers and the light of reason, are naturally inclined and disposed directly contrary to God and his chief commands, yea, they are at enmity with God, especially as to what concerns divine and spiritual things. For, in other respects, as regards natural, external things which are subject to the reason, man still has, to a certain degree, understanding, power and ability, although very much weakened, all of which, nevertheless, has been so infected and contaminated by Original Sin that before God it is of no use.

4. The penalties of Original Sin, which God has imposed upon the children of Adam and upon Original Sin, are death, eternal damnation, and also other bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal miseries, and the tyranny and dominion of the devil, so that human nature is subject to the kingdom of the devil, and has been surrendered to the power of the devil, and is held captive under his sway, who stupefies [fascinates] and leads astray many great, learned men in the world by means of dreadful error, heresy and other blindness, and otherwise delivers men to all sorts of crime.¹

¹ Cf. Apology, ii.: 49.

5. Fifthly, this hereditary evil is so great and horrible that it can be covered and forgiven before God only for Christ’s sake, and in the baptized and believing. Human nature also, which is deranged and corrupted thereby, must and can be healed only by the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost, which, nevertheless, is only begun in this life, but will at length be fully completed in the life to come.²

² Cf. Epitome, i.: 10; Apology, ii.: 35.

These points, which have been quoted here only in a summary way, are set forth more fully in the above-mentioned writings of the common confession of our Christian doctrine.

But this doctrine must now be so maintained and guarded that it may not incline either to the Pelagian or the Manichæan side. Therefore the contrary doctrine concerning this article, which is censured and rejected in our churches, should also be briefly reported.

1. And first, in opposition to the old and the new Pelagians, the following false opinions and dogmas are censured and rejected, namely, that Original Sin is only a reatus or debt, on p. 543 account of what has been committed by another without any corruption of our nature.

2. Also that sinful, evil lusts are not sins, but conditions, or concreated and essential properties of the nature.¹

¹ Cf. Apology, ii.: 5.

3. Or as though the above-mentioned defect and evil were not before God properly and truly sin, on account of which man without Christ [unless he be grafted into Christ and be delivered through him] must be a child of wrath and damnation, and also be beneath the power and in the kingdom of Satan.

4. The following Pelagian errors and the like are also censured and rejected, namely: that nature, ever since the fall, is incorrupt, and that especially with respect to spiritual things it is entirely good and pure, and in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers, it is perfect.

5. Or that Original Sin is only external, a slight, insignificant spot sprinkled or stain dashed upon the nature of man, or corruptio tantum accidentium aut qualitatum, i. e. a corruption only of some accidental things, along with and beneath which the nature, nevertheless, possesses and retains its integrity and power even in spiritual things.

6. Or that Original Sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an external impediment to these spiritual good powers, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, whereby its natural power is not removed, but only impeded; or that this stain can be easily washed away, as a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.²

² Cf. Epitome, i. 15, note.

7. They likewise are rebuked and rejected who teach that the nature has indeed been greatly weakened and corrupted through the fall, but that, nevertheless, it has not entirely lost all good with respect to divine, spiritual things, and that what is sung in our churches,

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

is not true, but from natural birth we still have something good (small, little and inconsiderable though it be), namely: capacity, skill, aptness or ability in spiritual things to begin to work or co-work for something. For concerning external, temporal, worldly things and transactions, which are subject to reason, there will be an explanation in the succeeding article.

These and doctrines of like kind, contrary to the truth, are censured and rejected for the reason that God’s Word teaches p. 544 that the corrupt nature, of and by itself, has no power for anything good in spiritual things, not even for the least, as good thoughts, but that, of and by itself, it can do nothing but sin. Gen. 6:; 8:21.

Therefore [But] this doctrine must also be guarded, on the other side, from Manichæan errors. Accordingly, the following erroneous doctrines and the like are rejected, namely: that now, since the fall, human nature is in the beginning created pure and good, and that afterwards Original Sin from without is infused and mingled by Satan (as something essential) in the nature, as poison is mingled with wine [that in the beginning human nature was created by God pure and good, but that now, since the fall, Original Sin, etc.].¹

¹ Francke (iii.: 89) directs attention to the fact that the translator of the Latin version has here missed the sense of the original. Cf. § 28.

For although in Adam and Eve the nature was originally created pure, good and holy, nevertheless sin has not entered nature through the fall in the way fanatically taught by the Manichæans, as though Satan had created or made something essentially evil, and mingled it with their nature. But since, from the seduction of Satan, through the fall, according to God’s judgment and sentence, man, as a punishment, has lost his concreated original righteousness, human nature, as has been said above,² is perverted and corrupt by this deprivation or deficiency, want and injury, which has been caused by Satan; so that at present the nature of all men, who in a natural way are conceived and born, is transmitted by inheritance with the same want and corruption. For since the fall human nature is not at first created pure and good, and only afterward corrupted by Original Sin, but in the first moment of our conception the seed whence man is formed is sinful and corrupt. Thus also Original Sin is not something existing of itself in or apart from the nature of the corrupt man, as it is also not the peculiar essence, body or soul of the corrupt man, or the man himself.

² § 7.

Original Sin, and the nature of man corrupted thereby, cannot and should not, therefore, be so distinguished, as though the nature before God were pure, good, holy, but Original Sin alone which dwells therein were evil.

Also, as Augustine writes of the Manichæans, as though it were not the corrupt man himself who sins by reason of inborn Original Sin, but something different and foreign in man, and therefore that God, by the Law, accuses and condemns not the nature as corrupt by sin, but only the Original Sin therein. For, as stated above in the thesis,³ i. e. the explanation of the p. 545 pure doctrine concerning Original Sin, the entire nature of man, which is born in the natural way of father and mother, is entirely and to the farthest extent corrupted and perverted by Original Sin, in body and soul, in all its powers that pertain and belong to the goodness, truth, holiness and righteousness concreated with it in Paradise. Nevertheless, the nature is not entirely exterminated or changed into another substance [diverse in genus or species], which, according to its essence, is not like our nature, and therefore cannot be one essence with us.

³ § 5 sq., 11.

Because of this corruption the entire corrupt nature of man would be accused and condemned by the Law, if sin were not, for Christ’s sake, forgiven.

But the Law accuses and condemns nature, not because we have been created men by God, but because we are sinful and wicked; not because and so far as nature and its essence, ever since the fall, is a work and creature of God in us, but because and so far as it has been poisoned and corrupted by sin.

But although Original Sin, like a spiritual poison or leprosy (as Luther says), has poisoned and corrupted all human nature, so that we cannot clearly show and point out the nature apart by itself, and Original Sin apart by itself; nevertheless, the corrupt nature, or essence of the corrupt man, body and soul, or the man himself whom God has created (and within whom dwells the Original Sin that also corrupts the nature, essence or the entire man), and Original Sin, which dwells in man’s nature or essence, and corrupts it, are not one thing; as also in external leprosy the body which is leprous, and the leprosy on or in the body, are not, properly speaking, one thing. A distinction must be observed also between our nature, as created and preserved by God, and Original Sin, which dwells in the nature. These two must and also can be considered, taught and believed with their distinctions according to Holy Scripture.

The chief articles also of our Christian faith urge and compel us to preserve this distinction.¹

¹ Cf. Epitome, i.: 3 sqq.

For, first, in the article of Creation, Scripture shows that not only has God before the fall created human nature, but also that, since the fall, it is a creature and work of God (Deut 32:6; Isa. 45:11; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:25; Rev. 4:11)

“Thine hands,” says Job (10:8–12), “have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me as cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and fenced me with bones and p. 546 sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favor, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.”

“I will praise thee,” says David (Ps. 139:14-16), “for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

In the Ecclesiastes of Solomon it is written [12:7]: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it.”

These passages clearly testify that God ever since the fall is the Creator of man, and creates his body and soul. Therefore the corrupt man cannot be, without any distinction, sin itself, for otherwise God would be a creator of sins; as also our Small Catechism, in the explanation of the First Article, confesses: “I believe that God has created me with all that exists, that he has given and still preserves to me my body and soul, with all my limbs and senses, my reason and all the faculties of my mind.” Likewise in the Large Catechism¹ it is thus written: “I believe and mean to say that I am a creature of God, i. e. that he has given and constantly preserves to me my body, soul and life, members great and small, and all my senses.” Although the same creature and work of God is lamentably corrupted by sin; for the mass (massa), from which God now forms and makes man was in Adam corrupted and perverted, and is thus transmitted by inheritance to us.

¹ 450:13.

And here pious Christian hearts ought to consider the unspeakable goodness of God that God did not immediately cast from himself into hell-fire this corrupt, perverted, sinful mass, but from it forms and makes human nature of the present day, which is lamentably corrupted by sin, in order hat by his dear Son he may cleanse it from all sin, sanctify and save it.

From this article now the distinction is indisputable and clear. For Original Sin does not originate with God. God is not a creator or author of sin. Original Sin also is not a creature or work of God, but a work of the devil.

If, now, there would be no difference whatever between the nature or essence of our body and soul, which is corrupted by Original Sin, and Original Sin, by which the nature is corrupted, it would follow either that God, because he is the creator of this our nature, also created and made Original Sin, p. 547 which would also be his work and creature; or, because sin is a work of the devil, that Satan would be the creator of this our nature, soul and body, which must also be a work or creation of Satan if, without any distinction, our corrupt nature should be regarded as sin itself; both of which are contrary to the article of our Christian faith. Wherefore, in order that God’s creation and work in man may be distinguished from the work of the devil, we say that it is God’s creation that man has body and soul. Also that it is God’s work that man can think, speak, do and work anything; for “in him we live, and move, and have our being.” But that the nature is corrupt, that its thoughts, words and works are wicked, is originally a work of Satan, who, through sin, thus corrupted God’s work in Adam, which from him is transmitted by inheritance to us.

Secondly, in the article of Redemption, the Scriptures testify forcibly that God’s Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that he was, in all things, sin excepted, made like us, his brethren, Heb. 2:14. Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to his assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, his brethren; for he has assumed a human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes, and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy.

If, now, there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and Original Sin, it must follow that either Christ did not assume our nature, because he did not assume sin; or that because he assumed our nature he also assumed sin; both of which are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not Original Sin, it is hence clear that human nature, ever since the fall, and Original Sin, are not one thing, but must be distinguished.

Thirdly, in the article of Sanctification, Scripture testifies that God cleanses, washes and sanctifies men from sin (1 John 1:7), and that Christ saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). Sin, therefore, cannot be man himself; for God, for Christ’s sake, receives man into grace, but he remains hostile to sin to eternity. Wherefore that Original Sin is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, sanctified and saved,¹ and other such expressions, whereby we will not offend simple-minded people, that are found in the writings of the recent Manichæans, are unchristian and dreadful to hear.

¹ Christopher Irenæus and other followers of Flacius taught thus. See Carpzov’s Isagoge, 1170.

p. 548 Fourthly, in the article of the Resurrection, Scripture testifies that it is precisely the substance of this our flesh, but without sin, which will rise again, and that in eternal life we will have and retain precisely this soul, but without sin.

If, now, there were no difference whatever between our corrupt body and soul, and Original Sin, it would follow, contrary to this article of the Christian faith, that either this our flesh will not rise again at the last day, and that in eternal life we will not have body and soul of the present essence, but another substance (or another soul), because then we will be without sin, or that [at the last day] sin also will rise again, and, in eternal life, will be and remain in the elect.

Hence it is clear that we must reject this doctrine [of the Manichæans] (with all that depends upon it and follows from it), which asserts and teaches that Original Sin is the nature, substance, essence, body or soul itself of corrupt man, so that between our corrupt nature, substance and essence, and Original Sin, there is no distinction whatever. For the chief articles of our Christian faith forcibly and emphatically testify why a distinction should and must be maintained between man’s nature or substance, which is corrupted by sin, and sin, whereby man is corrupted. For a simple statement of the doctrine and its opposite, with respect to the main point involved in this controversy, this is sufficient in this place, where the subject is not argued at length, but only the principal points are treated, article by article.

But with respect to terms and expressions, it is best and surest to use and retain the form of sound words employed concerning this article in the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books.

Also to avoid strife about words, equivocal terms,¹ i. e. words and expressions, which may be understood and used in several senses, should be carefully and distinctly explained, as when it is said: God creates the nature of men, where by the term “nature” the essence, body and soul of men are understood. But often the disposition or vicious quality is called its nature, as: “It is the nature of the serpent to bite and poison.” Thus Luther says² that sin and to sin are the disposition and nature of the corrupt man.

¹ Cf. Epitome, i.: 22.

² Works, Walch’s Ed., v.: 776; xi.: 396 sq.

Therefore Original Sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our nature, as it is described in the Smalcald Articles.³ But sometimes we thereby understand the concrete or the subject, i. e. man himself with body and soul, wherein sin is and inheres, on account of which man is corrupted, p. 549 infected with poison and sinful, as when Luther says:¹ “Thy birth, thy nature, thy entire essence is sin,” i. e. sinful and unclean.

³ Part III., Art. i.: 3.

¹ See above, § 51.

Luther himself declares that by “natural sin,” “personal sin,” “essential sin,”² he means that not only words, thoughts and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person and essence of man is entirely corrupted [and is altogether depraved] by Original Sin.

² Works, Walch’s Ed., xi.: 396. Cf. v.: 685 sq

Moreover, as to the Latin terms “substance” and “accident,” we are of the opinion that, in sermons to congregations of plain people, they should be avoided, because such terms are unknown to ordinary men. But when learned men, in treating this subject, employ them among themselves or with others to whom this word is not unknown, as Eusebius, Ambrose and especially Augustine, and also still other eminent church-teachers, from the necessity of explaining this doctrine in opposition to the heretics, they regard them as constituting an “immediate division,” i. e. a division between which there is no mean, so that everything which there is must be either “substance,” i. e. an independent essence, or “accident,” i. e. an incidental matter which does not exist by itself essentially, but in another independent essence, and can be distinguished therefrom; which division Cyril and Basil also use.

And because, among others, it is also an indubitable, indisputable axiom in theology that every substance or self-existing essence, so far as it is a substance, is either God himself or a work and creation of God; Augustine, in many writings against the Manichæans, in common with all true teachers, has, after due consideration and with earnestness, rejected and condemned the expression: Peccatum originis est substantia vel natura, i. e. Original Sin is man’s nature or substance. In conformity with him, all the learned and intelligent also have always maintained that what does not exist by itself, neither is a part of another self-existing essence, but exists, subject to change, in another thing, is not a substance, i. e. something self-existing, but an accident, i. e. something incidental. Thus Augustine is accustomed to speak constantly in this way: Original Sin is not the nature itself, but an accidens vitium in natura, i. e. an incidental defect and damage in the nature. In this way also, in our schools and churches, previous to this controversy, [learned] men spoke, according to the rules of logic, freely and without any suspicion [of heresy], and, on this account, were never censured either by Dr. Luther or any orthodox teacher of our pure, evangelical Church.

For since it is the indisputable truth that everything that p. 550 there is, is either a substance or an accident, i. e. either a self-existing essence or something incidental in it, as has been just shown and proved by the testimony of the church-teachers, and no truly intelligent man has ever doubted concerning this; if the question be asked whether Original Sin be a substance, i. e. such a thing as exists of itself, and not in another, or an accident, i. e. such a thing as does not exist by itself, but in another, and cannot exist or be by itself, necessity constrains us, and no one can evade it, to confess directly and candidly that Original Sin is no substance, but an accident.

Hence also the permanent peace of the Church of God with respect to this controversy will never be promoted, but the dissension will rather be strengthened and maintained, if the ministers of the Church remain in doubt as to whether Original Sin be a substance or accident, and whether it be thus rightly and properly named.

Hence if the churches and schools are to be relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that each and every one be properly instructed concerning this matter.

But if it be further asked as to what kind of an accident Original Sin is, it is another question, and one to which no philosopher, no Papist, no sophist, yea, no human reason, however acute it may be, can give the right explanation, but all understanding and every explanation of it must be derived solely from the Holy Scriptures, which testify that Original Sin is an unspeakable evil, and such an entire corruption of human nature that in it and all its internal and external powers nothing pure or good remains, but everything is entirely corrupt, so that, on account of Original Sin, man is in God’s sight truly, spiritually dead, and, with all his powers, has lied to that which is good.¹

¹ Cf. §§ 10, 11.

In this way, then, by the word “accident,” Original Sin is not extenuated [namely] when it is explained according to [the analogy of] God’s Word, after the manner in which Dr. Luther, in his Latin exposition of the third chapter of Genesis, has written with great earnestness against the extenuation of Original Sin; but this word is employed only to designate the distinction between the work of God (which is our nature, notwithstanding that it is corrupt) and the work of the devil (which is sin), that inheres in God’s work, and is a most profound and indescribable corruption of it.

Therefore Luther also has employed in his treatment of this subject the term “accident,” as also the term “quality,” and has not rejected them; but likewise, with especial earnestness and p. 551 great zeal, he has taken the greatest pains to explain and to represent to each and every one what a horrible quality and accident it is, whereby human nature is not merely polluted, but is so deeply corrupted that nothing pure or uncorrupt remains in it, as his words on Ps. 90 run: Sive igitur peccatum originis qualitatem sive morbum vocaverimus, profecto extremum malum est non solum pati æternam iram et mortem, sed ne agnoscere quidem, quæ pateris. That is: Whether we call Original Sin a quality or a disease, it is indeed the utmost evil not only to suffer the eternal wrath of God and eternal death, but also not to understand what we suffer. And again on Gen. 3: Qui isto veneno peccati originis a planta pedis usque ad verticem infecti sumus, siquidem in natura adhuc integra accidere. That is: We are infected by the poison of Original Sin from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, inasmuch as this happened to us in a nature still perfect.