§ 24. State of Integrity Defined.

The state of integrity is the original condition of man created after the image of God, in goodness and rectitude.” QUEN. (II, 2.) The first condition of man is thus designated, because in it he was entirely uninjured and incorrupt in all his endowments, powers, and attributes. [3] This 218condition is more specifically described by the expression, “the image of God in which man was created,” Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:1; for man is distinguished from all other creatures in this, that he was made after the image of God. [4] This expression denotes, in general, a resemblance to God, which has its ground in this, that God took Himself, so to speak, as a pattern and archetype according to which He created man. [5] The passages, Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24, teach in what particulars that resemblance to God consists, by which man’s original condition is described. [6] In these, the apostle states that mankind, whom he presupposes to have lost the image of God, must be renewed again in the same; and, inasmuch as he describes the new condition as that in which mankind are renewed by the power of the Holy Ghost, in true righteousness and holiness, we see that he means by the image of God (Gen. 1 and 5) the peculiar spiritual and moral perfection of man’s original condition. [7] QUEN. (II, 9): “The image of God is a natural perfection, consisting in an entire conformity with the wisdom, justice, immortality, and majesty of God, which was divinely concreated in the first man, in order that he might perfectly know, love, and glorify God, his Creator.” [8] Accordingly, man in his original condition possessed:

(1) Wisdom and the power to understand perfectly, according to the measure of his necessities, things divine, human and natural. [9]

(2) Holiness and freedom of the will, according to which man loved God and that which is good, and possessed the power to live, in all respects, in conformity with the will of God. [10]

(3) Purity of the natural affections, and the perfect harmony of all his powers and impulses. [11] HOLL. (470): “The perfections constituting the image of God were an intellect excelling in knowledge, perfect holiness and freedom of the will, absolute purity of the sensuous appetites, and the most harmonious agreement of the affections with the decision of the intellect and guidance of the will, in conformity with the wisdom, holiness, and purity of God, as far as was consistent with the capacity of the first man.”

These spiritual and moral excellences, thus described, are the true reason why man is called the image of God. [12] They are also summed up in the expression “original righteousness.” [13] With these there are yet connected, as a natural consequence from them, corporeal excellences, and a peculiarly exalted position in relation to the external world, [14] viz., (a) corporeal impassibility and immortality, for neither suffering nor death could touch man thus spiritually and morally endowed; and (b) external dominion over the other animals (Gen. 1:26-28), for in this also does the exalted dignity of the likeness to God manifest itself. HOLL. (475): “The less principal perfections included in the image of God are the immunity of body, infected with no stain of sin, from passions, its immortality, and complete control over sublunary creatures, especially beasts.” [15] Man, thus created, could not but rejoice in unalloyed happiness, to which also his residence in Paradise, “a most pleasant habitation,” contributed its share. [16]

All these excellences we must designate as natural to man in his original state, not indeed in the sense that if he lost them he would no longer be the same being; but yet in this sense, that they were created along with him, and that they cannot be separated from him without making his whole condition different from what it formerly was. This is expressed in the statement, that the image of God is a natural perfection, and not an external, supernatural, and supplementary gift. [17] This condition, with all its excellences, man would also have propagated to his posterity (by natural generation, Gen. 5:3; Rom. 5:12), had he not fallen. If we inquire concerning supernatural gifts, of which man, in his original condition, was a partaker, they can be more easily enumerated, viz.: “The supernatural favor of God, the gracious indwelling of the most holy Trinity, and the enjoyment and delight thence derived;” for these gifts are to be regarded, in a certain sense, as peculiar additions and consequences, flowing from man’s happy and morally good condition. [18]

[1] QUEN. (II, 1): “The subject of Theology is man, who fell into misery from his original happy state, and who is to be brought back to God and eternal salvation. The discussion here is not of 220man as to his essence, and as he is a creature, . . . but as he is such or such a creature; and in regard to his state, which before the Fall was innocent and most happy, but after the Fall corrupt and most miserable.”

[2] HOLL. (461): “Concerning the Fall of man, the condition from which (terminus a quo) as well as the condition into which he fell (terminus ad quem) is to be considered. The condition from which he fell, is the state of innocence or integrity. The misery of fallen man cannot be accurately measured, unless the happiness which preceded it, and of which man, alienated from God, deprived himself, can be exactly estimated. For the loss of anything is understood from previous possession of it, and the magnitude of an evil is estimated by the good which has been lost.” The various conditions of man, CAL. (IV, 385) enumerates in the following order: “The states of man, which come to be considered in Theology, are diverse. One before the Fall, which is called the state of innocence; one after the Fall, which again is divided into a state of sin without grace, which they call a state of sin or corruption, and a state of sin under grace, through a gracious renovation commenced in this life, and to be completed in the next: whence the state of grace in this life is called the state of renovation, to which the state of glory succeeds in another life. . . . Moreover, although God desires the renovation of all men, and the Scriptures and Theology have been directed to this point, yet many are not renewed, and these, consequently, after this life, are compelled to undergo another state, viz., that of eternal condemnation. Thus, if all the conditions of man are to be regarded, five states may be assigned to him, viz., of nature innocent, corrupt, renewed, glorified, and condemned; or a state of innocence, of misery, of grace, of eternal glory, and of eternal shame. The Papists err, who invent yet another state, which they call that of the purely natural (purorum naturalium); which is nothing more than a mere figment of the Scholastics; since, indeed, a man never did exist, nor could exist, with the simple negation both of innocence and grace and of sin and misery, who was neither just nor unjust, and who neither pleased nor offended God.” In the topic which is under discussion by us, only the first two states are considered, for the subject of Theology is only “man in a state of sin, who is to be restored to salvation.”

[3] CAL. (IV, 389): “It is called a state of integrity, because man in it was upright and uncorrupt (Eccl. 7:29) in intellect, will, the corporeal affections and endowments, and in all things was perfect. They call it also the state of innocence, because he was innocent and holy, free from sin and pollution.”

[4] BR. (289): “It is evident that there are other creatures which are called very good, and, though created according to a certain form, agreeably to the divine intellect, yet not in the image of God.”

[5] HOLL. (462): “The formal requisites of an image, generically considered, are: (a) Resemblance, or agreement with the model or prototype; because it is the property of an image to represent that of which it is an image; but this cannot be done without resemblance; (2) Origin, or the process by which the image is made after the model, because the image was made to imitate the prototype, for the sake of representing it.” The difference, according to HOLL. (Ib.), between a vestige (vestigium) and an image, is expressed in the following manner: “An image clearly represents that of which it is an image; a vestige obscurely points to that of which it is a vestige. In all creatures are seen the vestiges of divine power, wisdom, and goodness; but in unfallen man the image of God shone forth with full splendor.” HOLL. (464): “דמות is the archetype, like which anything is made, as is indicated by the prefix כ. But צלם is the ectype in which the express resemblance is seen. Hence the meaning of the words: ‘Let us make man in a condition which may be determined according to our perfections and bear our likeness.’ Cf. Dan. 10:16. But in another passage, Gen. 5:3, דמות denotes the ectype, and צלם the archetype, as the former is connected by the ב, and the latter by the כ.” Yet BR. (290) remarks concerning this general definition of image: “The image of God in man ought not to be referred to all things which are in God; neither can it be so referred; nor is it in man in the same degree of perfection in which it is in God.” Concerning the meaning of the words צלם and דמות HOLL. (463) further says: “In the original (Gen. 1:26) two words are employed, viz., צלם image, and דמות likeness, not that they are expressions for different things and that image denotes the very substance of the human soul and likeness its accidental perfections or attributes (as some of the Papists say), but that the latter may be exegetical of the former, and that image may be designated as most like or very similar.” [TELLER adds the following note to HOLL. (462): “An image, properly so called, is that in which there is seen an agreement with another, from which it so derives its origin that the properties of the former appear in the latter. Hence there are three things, properly speaking, which are required in an image: (1) An archetype. (2) An ectype. (3) An agreement between the two. An agreement alone is therefore insufficient, but origin is especially necessary, and that in such way that express properties of the archetype are conspicuous.”]

[6] It is well known that the expression, “image of God,” is employed in a variety of significations, and therefore we must ascertain from other passages in what respect man can be said to be like God. In the following passages, CAL. (IV, 572) furnishes the proper rule according to which we can discover the resemblance which we are considering: “Inasmuch as the conformity of man to God, as an archetype, is found to be manifold, and, in respect to this conformity, the image of God is variously defined by different persons, the following rule should be particularly observed, lest we should here depart from the proper sense of the Scriptures: That the conformity of man to God refers to the image of God, which, having been impressed upon our first parents in creation, and having been almost entirely lost through transgression is to be restored by renovation in this life, and, chiefly, in blessed regeneration for the life to come.” This rule points to the passages, Col. 3 and Eph. 4, from which we learn that the likeness of God, which we are here discussing, must consist of spiritual and moral attributes. Therefore, the image of God, which is ascribed to man in his original state, is described as “accidental, the accidental (mutable and amissible) perfections of which are conformed to the infinite perfections of God, according to the measure of human capacity.” HOLL. (462). Through this definition the accidental image of God is distinguished (1) from the substantial image of God, which is Christ, according to 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; and by which the sameness of the essence of the Father and the Son is pointed out. HOLL. (462): “The substantial image is the eternal Son of God, because He exhibits in Himself the entire essence of the Father, being distinguished from Him by the mode of His subsistence.” (2) This definition shows that the advantages of man’s original condition, whether of the body or of the soul, do not make up his being itself, but that they consist of attributes which are, indeed, intimately united with it, but yet, when they are removed, the being of man remains unaltered. According to the position above assumed, CAL. proceeds: “Whence it is clear that the conformity to God which is found in the substance of the soul, or of the body, does not belong to the image of God, which is described in the language of the Scriptures: because the substance of the soul, or of the body, was not destroyed by the Fall, neither is it restored by renovation.” QUEN. (II, 17): “We must distinguish between the substance of man, or the matter itself of which he is composed, and that which, as if something following, adheres most closely to the substance of man, and nevertheless, as to its accidents, perfects it internally; or, we must distinguish between nature itself and its qualities, or perfections in the qualities: 223the image of God indicates the latter, not the former. In short, the image of God is not man, but in man, i.e., it is not substantial or essential to man, but accidental. In opposition to the views of the followers of Flacius, who maintain that the image of God was the substantial form itself of the first man, and the very essence of the rational soul, which was entirely lost in the fall of Adam.”

A distinction is made, also, in the “accidental” image of God “understood generically and figuratively, or specifically and literally.” In the former sense, the resemblance of man to God is asserted “on account of a certain analogy or similarity to God.” (HOLL. (463): “The substance itself of the human soul, exhibits certain things that are qeia or divine, and stands related to the Divinity as to a model. For God is a spirit, immaterial, intelligent, acting with a free will, etc. These predicates can, in a certain manner, be affirmed of the human soul.”) In this sense, however, man did not lose it through the Fall, and, therefore, it can be affirmed of him also after the Fall, Gen. 9:6; James 3:9. Only in this latter sense, is the term employed while we treat of the state of integrity. QUEN (II, 17): “The image of God, specifically understood, is not to be sought for in those things which yet remain in man since the Fall, and which are truly in man unregenerate. Because the image of God, having been lost through the disobedience of the first Adam, must be restored by a new creation, through the obedience of the Second Adam.” Consequently, in the topic now under discussion, we understand by the image of God “only those gifts and graces granted to man in his first creation and lost by the Fall, i.e., the integrity and rectitude of all the powers concreated with the first man.”

[7] GRH. (IV, 242): “In the following passages (Col. 3 and Eph. 4) the phrases ‘after the image of God,’ and ‘after God’ are synonymous. There is exhibited in these a description of the new man, who is called new, not by reason of a change of essence, but on account of new qualities, the knowledge of God, righteousness, and true holiness. The image of God consists in that in respect of which man was made after God, and is renewed after the image of God; but he is renewed in respect of the knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness, etc., and in these particulars he is made like God, in the image of God. Therefore, the primeval image of God in man consists of these things.

[8] BR. (293): “The divine image, in the special acceptation of the term, implies certain accidental perfections, created in the intellect and will of the first man, conformable to the perfections 224which are in God, and bestowed upon men for the purpose of directing aright, and perfecting their actions, in order that they may attain the ultimate end.”

GRH. (IV, 248): “This is the description of the image of God in the first man, given in the Scriptures, namely, that it was righteousness and true holiness, by which are meant the highest rectitude, integrity, and conformity to the divine Law, of all the powers of soul and body — the highest perfection, innocence, and purity of the whole man, which his nakedness and his dwelling in Paradise prove.”

[9] BR. (293): “In respect of intellect, God bestowed upon the first men, in imitation of Himself, as of a model, a certain wisdom, i.e., a certain habitual enlightenment or perfection of intellect, so that they attained a high degree of knowledge in things divine, human, and natural, and that which was sufficient for their primeval state.” The proof of this, according to QUEN. (II, 5) appears: “(1) from Col. 3:9, 10; (2) from the acts of Adam, which are: (a) an appropriate application of names, Gen. 2:19, which was not only grammatical as to the nomenclature of the animals, but even highly logical as the most correct definition; (b) his recognition of Eve, Gen. 2:23; (c) prophecy, or a prediction concerning the perpetuity of the conjugal relation, Gen. 2:24.”

The nature and extent of this wisdom are more particularly defined in the following, BR. (294): “The intellect of man understood the essence and will of God, so far as it was necessary to attain this end, viz., that the intellect might prescribe the worship that should be rendered to God, or so far as was essential to right and holy living.” This wisdom is described as “of such a nature that it could still be increased in the course of time, and not as so perfect and comprehensive that it could extend to the knowledge of the free decrees of God, or that it implied a perfectly accurate knowledge of all natural things.”

QUEN. (II, 6): “This knowledge of Adam was excellent, full, perfect, and such as no man since the Fall can acquire, either from the volume of Nature or from that of Scripture. When, therefore, the inquiry is made, whether the intellect of the apostles, after the reception of the Holy Ghost, was superior to that of Adam before the Fall — the reply is: We must distinguish between the knowledge of divine things and the mysteries of faith, and the perfect and complete knowledge of all things natural and useful to man. In reference to the former, we can believe that the apostles possessed greater knowledge than Adam, because, after the advent of Christ, these things were known more fully and distinctly than before. 225In reference to the latter, Adam excelled all men, and therefore also the apostles, both extensively or in compass, and intensively or in mode or depth of knowledge; and that too, derived, not from probable reason or inferences, but from the proper cause of each thing, and also by the tenacity and unchangeableness of his knowledge. Hence it is evident that the knowledge of Adam was finite and limited, because he knew not the secret decrees of God, nor the thoughts of the heart, nor future contingencies, nor the number of the stars. This knowledge also, which was concreate with Adam, could have been perfected more and more, and admitted of augmentation, if you regard the perfection of the degree of knowledge, both by revelation, or a more extended knowledge of God in supernatural things, and by his own experience and observation in things natural.”

HOLL. (471): “The knowledge of Adam was truly excellent, and sufficient for his primeval state; but it was not the intuitive knowledge of God. For the clear vision of God is not given on earth, but is promised to be given in heaven. 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 John 3:2.”

[10] BR. (294): “In regard to the will, spiritual strength was bestowed by God upon man, or an habitual inclination and prompting to love God above all things, and to do all things according to the direction of an intellect rightly illuminated; but to avoid what it judged should be avoided, and to govern the lower powers of his nature, lest they should in some way break forth into inordinate and sinful acts.”

QUEN. (II, 6): “The perfection of the will of the first man, therefore, consisted (1) in a natural inclination to that which is good, which altogether excluded every proximate power of erring; (2) in a free and unhindered volition of good, and the execution of that volition: and thus there was in him a holy freedom of the will, and a free holiness which excluded all sin. But his will was free in such a way that it inclined only to good, and was not prone to the choice of evil or the neglect of good; whatever occurred afterwards, happened through an unfortunate abuse of the freedom of the will.” But “holiness in the first man did not introduce absolute impeccability, but only a relative freedom from sin in his will.”

[11] HOLL. (474): “There were in the first man the most exact harmony and wonderful agreement of all the higher and lower powers of his nature. For reason most promptly obeyed the divine law, the will reason, the sensuous appetite the will, the affections the appetite, and the members of the body the affections.”

BR. (295): “For this reason it is that our first parents, in the state of integrity, knew not that they were naked, neither blushed; i.e., their sensuous appetites (although an object were present which could entice them) were not influenced, even in the least degree, by any inordinate affection. Gen. 2:25.”

HOLL. (474): “There is an antithesis of the Papists and Socinians, ascribing to our first parents a concreated rebellion of the sensuous appetite against the judgment of sound reason.”

[12] BR. (296): “This wisdom, righteousness, and holiness of the first men so express the idea of the divine image, that it is from them only, speaking in the abstract, that man can be called the image of God.”

[13] The expression, “original righteousness,” was the one more frequently employed, in the earliest systems of divinity, to point out man’s original condition. AP. CONF. (I, 17): “Original righteousness implies not only an equable temperament of the bodily qualities, but also these gifts, viz., a more certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or a certain rectitude and power of attaining them. And this is proved by the Scriptures, when they say (Gen. 1:27) that man was made in the image and likeness of God, which is nothing else than this wisdom and righteousness embodied in man, which might apprehend God, and in which God might be reflected, i.e., these gifts were bestowed upon man, viz., the knowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and like blessings. Paul also (Col. 3, Eph. 4) shows that the image of God consists in the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.”

CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 227): “Original righteousness was not only the receiving, but also the rectitude and soundness, of all the powers.” It consisted not only in an equable temperament of the body, but especially in the rectitude of the powers of the soul. It comprehended not only the second table of the Law, but also the first. Nor did it consist only in external actions, or the inferior powers of man. This is, in substance, all that the earliest divines say concerning the state of integrity. The view which has been given in the text belongs to a later period.

Concerning the expression, original righteousness, CALOV. remarks in addition (IV, 598): “It is called righteousness, not as this virtue is distinguished from others (which is called particular righteousness), but as general righteousness, in the common acceptation, which, however, is here understood in a higher sense, comprehending not only all moral, but also spiritual virtues, not merely those which relate to the will, but those also which have respect to the intellectual 227powers; for by this term is now meant, according to the use of theological writers, that universal and exceedingly delightful agreement, συμφωνια, in the first man, of mind, will, and heart, with the intellect, will, and heart of God. Nor is this term improperly used; for that original perfection of nature is called righteousness, both in respect of its essence, because we are indeed accustomed to call that righteous, which by its own nature is true, perfect, right, sound, and incorrupt, and also in respect of its efficiency, because it made man righteous in the sight of God, i.e., innocent, acceptable, and holy. Righteousness is called original, because it was first of all in man, and because from the beginning he possessed it after the manner of a concreated habit; also, in order that the righteousness of man’s original and first state may be distinguished from moral, imputed, and imperfect righteousness, from that which is perfected in another life, and from every other kind whatsoever; and, finally, because it must needs be transmitted to posterity by natural generation, inasmuch as in a state of innocence men would obtain this natural perfection with their origin, just as now, in a state of sin, original sin is propagated, and from that very propagation is called original.” CALOV. (IV, 597) defines original righteousness to be “a habit of wisdom created in the mind, and of perfect holiness and purity in the natural desires and heart, in virtue of which our first parents, by natural illumination, knew the truth, even that which was spiritual, without error and doubt, and were freely inclined, by natural propensity, to that which is good, and promptly, without any struggle of internal affections, accomplished what they wished.”

[14] Many divines include these excellences in their definition of image; yet they make a distinction between “the image partly received (μερικως), which denotes knowledge and original righteousness, and the image wholly received (ολικως) which embraces all things that complete the image of God.” The excellences of the first class they call “the principal perfections, whose seat is the soul;” those of the second class are called “the less principal, whose seat is the body.” The latter class QUEN. (II, 7) divides into those which are within man and those which are without him. If these excellences are included in the definition of the image of God, then the following is of value in reference to the difference between the image of God and original righteousness, QUEN. (II, 3): “The image of God and original righteousness differ as the whole and a part. The image of God includes as well the principal as the secondary conformity with God; but original righteousness is ordinarily received as embracing only the principal conformity.”

[15] (a) HOLL. (475) proves impassibility in the following manner: “Painful and destructive sufferings are the punishment of sin (Gen. 3:16; Sirach 38:15); wherefore the first man, being without sin, was free from its bitter suffering.”

QUEN. (II, 7) remarks on this point: “The first men in the state of innocency had a body incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it was not exposed to those things which could have injured their natural disposition and contributed to the death and corruption of the body. Such things were: a freedom from all injuries arising from pain and trouble, special protection against rains, winds, heat, diseases, etc., and other inconveniences, which now, since the Fall, are innumerable (Gen. 2:25). Meanwhile, however, if man had remained in his integrity, physical changes would not have been wanting, such as generation, nutrition, etc., and he would have needed food and drink for his sustentation.”

(b) Immortality. QUEN. (II, 7): “It is proved from Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 6:23.”

We must distinguish (1) between the immortality which denotes absolute freedom from the power and act of dying (and thus God is immortal, and angels, our souls, and the bodies of the redeemed and the damned), and (2) the immortality which denotes a freedom from the proximate power of dying and the natural tendency to death, and, at the same time, from the act of dying, in such a manner, however, that death could happen upon a certain proposed condition; and such was man’s immortality in his state of integrity. We must make a distinction between absolute freedom from death, which will exist in another life, and a conditional or decreed freedom, which existed in the first state of man (viz., as long as he should not sin), and which did not exclude but included the use of food and drink, and especially the eating of the tree of life, by which means our first parents were enabled, in a natural way, to perpetuate life. It is one thing not to be able to die, and another to be able not to die, and still another not to be able not to die. The last belongs to all sinners, the second to Adam in his state of integrity, and the first to the blessed.” (II, 8.)

(c) Dominion. HOLL. (475): “(a) God granted to the first man dominion over sublunary things, extending over seas and lands, but not over the stars of heaven, except as far as he converted their influence to his own advantage. (b) That dominion was not absolute and direct, but relative and useful, which denotes the inhabiting of the earth, with the use of its fruits. (c) Dominion is received either in its etymological signification for the right and power of ruling, or formally for actual ruling. In the former sense, it is the less 229principal part of the image of God; in the latter it was an external accident, or addition, to that image.”

BR. (297) cites some more corporeal excellences, viz.: “But God bestowed upon man in respect of his body also a certain image of Himself, inasmuch as not only the perfections of the soul expressed themselves through the external acts of the body, but, in addition, the members themselves, of the organic body, have a certain analogy to the divine attributes, viz.: the countenance, erect towards heaven, furnishes a semblance of the divine majesty; but particularly the immortal body, or that which could endure forever and remain free from every corruption, bears, according to the intention of God, a resemblance to the divine immortality.” Yet Baier perceives that not all these excellences were lost by the Fall, and reckons them in part, therefore, as belonging to the image of God generically received.

[16] Therefore the original condition of man is called a most happy one. QUEN. (II, 2): “The happiness of it appeared (1) from the condition of the soul, which was wise and holy; (2) from the condition of the body, which was beautiful, not susceptible of suffering, and immortal; (3) from the condition of life, which was happy and blessed; (4) from the condition of his habitation, which was most pleasant, truly a garden of pleasure, called Paradise.”

GRH. (IV, 247): “Hence it happened that man, joyful, blessed, and contented, delighted in God, his Creator, there being in him neither fear, nor terror, nor sadness.”

[17] BR. (296): “Therefore also this divine image was a natural endowment, or it belonged naturally to man, so that he might rightly perform his connatural acts; since, in the absence of this, his nature would not have been pure, but impure.”

HOLL. (477): “The image of God did not, indeed, constitute the nature of the first man, after the manner of an essential part; nor did it emanate from his nature, per se and necessarily, as if properly inseparable from it: yet it was natural to the first man, because by creation it began to exist with his very nature, and thus both belonged to him and was deeply impressed in him, and also thoroughly perfected his nature in the state of integrity, so that he could attain his end; it could be propagated, also, to posterity by natural generation.”

The different significations in which the word natural is used are, according to QUEN. (II, 9), the following: “Anything is said to be natural (1) by constitution (constitutive), viz., that which constitutes a nature itself, and is either the nature itself, or an essential 230part of it, as soul and body; (2) by sequence (consecutive), viz., that which follows nature, and flows essentially from its form, as the faculties of the soul, teachableness, etc.; (3) subjectively (subjective), viz., that which adheres most closely to nature as a natural property; (4) by way of perfecting (perfective), viz., that which perfects and adorns it internally; (5) by way of transfer (transitive), viz., that which is propagated naturally along with the nature to others. When we say that primeval righteousness was natural or connatural to Adam, we do not understand the word natural in the first or second sense, but only in the third, fourth, and fifth, viz., on account of a natural inhesion, perfection, and propagation.”

Original Righteousness is, therefore, not a supernatural gift, for “that is supernatural which does not belong to nature from its origin, but by special grace is superadded by God to supply its imperfection.” If original righteousness, then, were said to be a superadded gift, that would conflict with Gen. 1:31.

HOLL. (478): “Antithesis of the Papists, who maintain that the image of God was a supernatural gift superadded to man for the purpose of supplementing his connatural imperfection, as a wreath or garment adorns a man externally, and as the rein restrains the horse. But as the nature of man and of the horse remains incorrupt when the garment and the rein are removed, thus they suppose that the nature of man was not corrupted by the Fall, the image of God having been removed, but that it remained upright.”

Together with this assertion is also rejected the other concerning the status purorum naturalium. (See Note 2.)

[18] On this point the Dogmaticians are not agreed. GRH., CAL., QUEN., and other call the gracious indwelling of the Trinity, etc., a supernatural gift; others, as HOLL., understand this also as a natural gift. HOLL. (484): “There are, indeed, some theologians of great reputation who think that the grace of God and the indwelling of the most Holy Trinity were supernatural to the first man. Yet, if we consider (1) that the nature of the first man never was nor ever could be upright without the indwelling and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and (2) that original sin, which came into the place of the divine image after the fall of Adam, introduced into fallen man not only corporeal but also spiritual death (which consists in the deprivation of the mystical union of the soul with God) we agree with those authors who decide that divine grace and the indwelling of the most Holy Trinity were not supernatural, but natural, to the first man.”

On the other hand, HOLL. (ib.) points out as supernatural gifts “extraordinary revelation and that which is connected with it (viz., positive law and supernatural strength to fulfil it).”