CHAPTER TWO COMPETING VIEWS OF ORIGINAL SIN AND ASSOCIATED ARGUMENTS AND MEANINGS The dispute over the definition of original sin, or more precisely, Matthias Flacius Illyricus’s1 controversial explanation of this doctrine, originated at the University of Jena in 1560 among the highest levels of the Lutheran academic world. It did not enter the territory of Mansfeld until a decade later. There it first claimed the attention of those clerics who operated in intellectual circles that went beyond the territory’s borders. But divisions within this ecclesiastical leadership soon spread throughout the territory’s entire pastorate. It may seem strange to begin a discussion of lay religiosity with elite theologians debating abstract points of doctrine in ivory towers. But in order to understand why the laity of Mansfeld became deeply involved in the controversy, it is important to start at the beginning with the central intellectual premise, and work outward to the various meanings and connotations it came to encompass. Only then can the laity’s association with one side or the other begin to make sense. The assumption here is that a purely intellectual weighing of the validity of the two definitions of original sin was not the only aspect of the debate 1 Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575) was born in Croatia, but studied in Venice, Basel, and Tübingen, before matriculating in Wittenberg in 1541. He eventu- ally became a professor of Hebrew there, where he was influenced by both Luther and Melanchthon, the former particularly with regard to pastoral care, the latter with regard to theology. After Emperor Charles V’s defeat of the Lutheran princes in the Schmalkald War (1547), as Melanchthon was urging a conciliatory policy, Flacius took up the banner of complete resistance. He left Wittenberg for the still unconquered Magdeburg, where he took part in the efforts there to resist the re-imposition of any and all aspects of the Roman religion. During this period he was involved in the composition of the Protestant church history referred to as the Magdeburg Centuries and played a key role in the establishment of a Lutheran hermeneutical tradition. He quickly became famous for his polemics against the Philippists, the followers of Melanchthon, who more than once successfully employed political forces to expel Flacius from various posts. For his views on original sin, however, he was not only condemned by the Philippists, but by the majority of members of his own party, the Gnesio-Lutherans. For more on Flacius see Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002); and Wilhelm Preger, Matthias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit, 2 vols. (Erlangen: 1859–1861). original sin and associated arguments and meanings 49 that piqued lay interest. For already with Flacius, a group of argu- ments and premises attached themselves to his definition, the origin and identity of which are the subject of the first part of this chapter. But Flacius never spoke a word to the laity of Mansfeld, rather the pastorate there acted as intermediaries between the academy and the parish. What did they take from Flacius? How did they translate his views into more accessible language? What did they emphasize, add, subtract, and modify? Answers to such questions are essential for gauging the level of understanding the laity achieved regarding this complex doctrine and will also be addressed in this chapter. Matthias Flacius Illyricus on Original Sin Matthias Flacius Illyricus composed his most complete explanation of original sin in 1567 as a part of his comprehensive work of theology entitled Clavis scripturae sacrae.2 His decision to address original sin was in response to a notion that, he claimed, was widespread among Lutheran theologians, namely that original sin was an accident, some- thing non-essential to human nature, merely attached to it. Flacius asserted that such theologians often used the following analogy to exemplify their reckless and frivolous understanding of original sin: prior to the fall into sin, human nature was like a magnet, its capacity for free will like the magnet’s power to attract iron. When rubbed with garlic, the magnet’s powers were nullified, just as when corrupted by original sin, the human being’s free will no longer functioned prop- erly. But goat’s blood would reverse the effects of the garlic, allow- ing the magnet to resume it natural functions. The point was that the magnet never lost its inherent ability to attract iron, rather external materials defused its powers. So the human will, even after the fall into sin remained intact, its powers merely neutralized. Moreover, both the garlic and original sin were accidents, non-essential to the substance of 2 Matthias Flacius Illyricus, “Tractatus VI, De Peccati originalis aut veteris Adami appellationibus et essentia,” in Clavis Scripturae, seu de Sermone Sacrarum literarum, plurimas generales Regulas continens. Altera Pars. Authore Matthia Flacio Illyrico Albonese. Huius Operis multiplicem necessariumque usum ac rationem, Lector, ex Praefatione intelliges. Accessit quoque Rerum & verborum toto Opera praecipue memo- rabilium Index. (Basil: 1581 [Basil 1567]), 368–382 [479–498]. I am heavily indebted to Preger in the following explanation of Flacius’ position on original sin. Matthias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit, 2:310–321..