his reason was enlicrhtenecl and his will and feehno;s were conformed to the moral image of" God. It was natural in Adam to love God in the same sense as it was natural for him to love himself. It was as natural for him to apprehend the glory of God as it was for hina to apprehend the beauties of creation. He was so constituted, so created, that in virtue of the natui-e which God gave him, and without any accessory ab extra gift, he was suited to fulfil the end of his being, namely, to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Objections to the Rominh Doctrine.
The obvious objections to the Romish doctrine that original righteousness was a supernatural gift, are, (1.) That it supposes a deo;radincr view of the oriirinal constitution of our nature. Accord- ing to this doctrine the seeds of evil were implanted in the nature of man as it came from the hands of God. It was disordered or diseased, there was about it what Bellarmin calls a morbus or lan- guor^ which needed a remedy. But this is derogatory to the justice and goodness of God, and to the express declarations of Scripture, that man, humanity, human nature, was good. (2.) This doctrine is evidently founded on the Manichean principle of the inherent evil of matter. It is because man has a material body, that this conflict between the flesh and spirit, between good and evil, is said to be unavoidable. But this is opposed to the word of God and the faith of the Church. Matter is not evil. And there is no neces- sary tendency to evil from the union of the soul and body which requires to be supernaturally corrected. (3.) This doctrine as to original righteonsness arose out of the Semi-Pelagianism of the Church of Rome, and was designed to sustain it. The two doc- trines are so related that they stand or fall together. According to the theory in question, oiMginal sin is the simple loss of origi- nal righteousness. Humanity since the fall is precisely what it was before the fall, and before the addition of the supernatural gift of righteousness. Bellarmin ^ says : " Non magis differt status iiom- inis post lapsum Adas a statu ejusdem in puris nataralibus, quam differat spoliatus a nudo, neque deterior est humana natura, si cul- pam originalem detrahas, neque magis ignorantia et infirmitate lab- orat, quam esset et laboraret in puris naturalibus condita. Proinde corruptionaturaanon ex alicujus doni naturalis carentia, neque ex ali- cujus malse qualitatis accessu, sed ex sola doni supernaturalis ob Adae peccatum amissione profluxit." The conflict between the flesh and spirit is normal and original, and therefore not sinful. Concupis- 1 Be Gratia Prim% Hominis, c. 5. Di^tUaliones, vol. iv. p. 16, d, e.
lOti PART II. Cii. v. — ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
cence, the theological term for this rebellion of the lower against the higher elements of our nature, is not of the nature of sin. Andradius ^ (the Romish theologian against whom Chemnitj? directed his Examen of the Council of Trent) lays down the principle, " quod nihil habeat rationem peccati, nisi fiat a volente et sciente," which of course excludes concuj)iscence, whether in the renewed or unrenewed, from the category of sin. Hence, Bellarmin says : ^ " Reatus est omnino inseparabilis ab eo, quod natura sua est dignum seterna damnatione, qua- lem esse volunt concupiscentiam adversarii." This concupis- cence remains after baptism, or regeneration, which Romanists say, removes all sin ; and therefore, not being evil in its own nature, does not detract from the merit of good works, nor render perfect obedience, and even works of supererogation on the part of the faithful, impossible. This doctrine of the supernatural character of original righteousness as held by Romanists, is therefore inti- mately connected with their whole theological system ; and is in- compatible with the Scriptural doctrines not only of the original state of man, but also of sin and redemption. It will, however, appear in the sequel, that neither the standards of the Church of Rome nor the Romish theolog-ians are consistent in their views of original sin and its relation to the loss of original righteousness.
§ 6. Pelagian and Rationalistic Doctrine.
According to Pelagians and Rationalists man was created a ra- tional free agent, but without moral character. He was neither righteous nor unrighteous, holy nor unholy. He had simply the capacity af becoming either. Being endowed with reason and free will, his character depended upon the use whicli he made of those endowments. If he acted right, he became righteous ; if he acted wrong, he became unrighteous. There can be, according to their system, no such thing as concreated moral character, and therefore they reject the doctrine of original righteousness as ii-ra- tional. This view of man's original state is the necessary conse- quence of the assumption that moral character can be predicated only of acts of the will or of the subjective consequences of such acts. This principle which precludes the possibility of original righteousness in Adam, precludes also the possibility of innate, hereditary depravity, commonly called original sin ; and also the possibility of indwelling sin, and of habits of grace. It is a princi*
1 Baur, Kalholicismus und Protestantismus, Tubingen, 1830, p. 85, note.
2 De Amissione Gralice et Statu Peccati, v. 7; Bisputaiiones, vol. iv. p. 287, &