truth and grace, he does not receive the truth because it is this and no other, but because the church tells him that it is the truth.
The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated as follows: As created, man was morally naked or devoid of positive righteousness (pura naturalia, or in puris naturalibus). By obedience he obtained as a reward from God (doum supernaturale, or superadditum) a suit of clothes or robe of righteousness to protect him so that he became clothed (vestitus). This suit of clothes, however, was a sort of magic spell of which he could be divested. The adversary attacked him and stripped him of his suit. After his sin he was one despoiled (spoliatus a nudo). But his condition after differed from his condition before the attack, only as a stripped man differs from a naked man (spoliatus a nudo). He was now only in the same state in which he was created, with the single exception of the weakness he might feel as the result of losing his customary clothing. He could still earn himself another suit ? in fact, he could earn two or more, so as to sell, or give away, what he did not need for himself. The phrase in puris naturalibus describes the original state, as the phrase spoliatus a nudo describes the difference resulting from man?s sin.
Many of the considerations already adduced apply equally as arguments against this view. We may say, however, with reference to certain features peculiar to the theory:
(a) No such distinction can justly be drawn between the words ^l,X, and tWmD] . The addition of the synonym simply strengthens the expression, and both together signify ?the very image.?
(b) Whatever is denoted by either or both of these words was bestowed open man in and by the fact of creation, and the additional hypothesis of a supernatural gift not originally belonging to man?s nature, but subsequently conferred, has no foundation either here or elsewhere in Scripture. Man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, not to have been afterwards endowed with either of them.
(c) The concerted opposition between sense and reason which this theory supposes is inconsistent with the Scripture declaration that the work of God?s hands ?was very good? ( <010131>Genesis 1:31) and transfers the blame of temptation and sin from man to God. To hold to a merely negative innocence, in which evil desire was only slumbering, is to make God author of sin by making him author of the constitution which rendered sin inevitable.
Was this article helpful?