Let us pray.
O Lord, our God, do Thou grant that
we may ever have discernment, to discern between
truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, and
do Thou grant that we may have such
sensitivity to the truth and to that which
is right, that we shall be aroused to
opposition and even to indignation against all that
is contrary to Thy holiness, to Thy revealed
will, and to the demands of that which
we may be affections in
the world or in the church.
The honour of the purity of His name,
we, O Lord, of His vocation, will fill
our ministry with fidelity and joy.
The state
of pure nature, the state of pure nature,
that is of two distinct and diverse elements,
the one with corporeal impulses and desires, and
the other with the higher exercises of reason,
conscience, and will.
This primitive condition, this condition which arose from
God's original creative act, is
one in which man is endowed simply with
natural gifts, with natural gifts, dona naturalia, and
it is called in Roman Catholic theology a
state of impuris naturalius, impuris
naturalius.
I'll stop for tomorrow.
Impuris naturalius.
This state is one in which
man possesses all the attributes necessary to his
nature as man, but
destitute of those graces which adorn human nature,
which adorn.
This condition is one in which there is
concupiscence, concupiscence.
But this concupiscence is not sinful.
It isn't sinful.
It is simply a state in which there
are these diverse appetites and impulses, diverse appetites
arising from the diverse concept of
his metaphysical being.
Sensuous appetites and impulses arising from the corporeal
and higher exercises of reason, arising
from the spiritual, spiritual.
There can be no fault attaching
to this concupiscence because it
is not a diversity that arises
from the will of man, but
proceeds from the very constitution with which man
was created.
Now we come to Roman II, which I
have called the quidna concupiscentiae, the conflict
arising from concupiscence.
Conflict arising from concupiscence.
Although this state of nature is not one
of sin, it is nevertheless one in
which there is a tendency, a tendency on
the part of the lowly to break through
the limits of reason, a tendency to break
through the limits of reason.
And when they do break through the limits
of reason, then you have a concupiscence of
the flesh which is sinful.
A concupiscence of the flesh which is sinful.
Now in many Roman Catholic theologians, this
tendency is not more, is not construed
to be more than tendency.
But in some of the ablest and most
representative of Romish theologians, it is construed as
a conflict, a conflict between the lower and
higher elements, a conflict
which would inevitably develop by
degrees, inevitably develop, because
of the composite nature of man's being.
You'll find the quotation from Bellarmine on page
one hundred and four of the textbook, very,
very clear to this effect.
Fight, battle, conflict.
And I'll translate that paragraph, it's at the
middle of page one hundred and four.
It must be understood, first of all, that
man naturally consists of flesh and spirit, and
therefore partly with the beasts and partly with
the angels, has affinity of, affinity of nature,
has common nature, partly with the beasts and
partly with the angels has a common nature.
And therefore by reason of the flesh and
affinity with the beasts, with the other anemic
beings, of course, affinity with the beasts, he
has a certain propension to corporal good, to
corporal good, and a sense of all good
in the sense of, not sense of good,
no sense of the word, that's pertaining to
the senses.
That's corporal and sensuous good, in best translation,
towards which he is borne along by sense
and appetite.
By reason of the spirit and affinity with
the angels, he has a propension to spiritual
and intellectual good, to spiritual and
rational good, towards which he is borne by
intelligence and will.
Now here's the insignificancy.
But from these two diverse or contrary propensions,
from these two diverse and contrary propensions, there
exists in the one and the same man
a certain fight, a certain conflict, a certain
battle, pugna-pundra, a certain battle, and from
this conflict, still battle, pugna, and from this
conflict an inherent difficulty of doing what is
good, while one propension hinders the other.
There exists in the one and the same
man a certain fight, and from that fight
an inherent difficulty of doing good, as long
as the one propension hinders the other.
Now there is...
Now Bellarmine is quite representative on that, because
Thomas Aquinas, much earlier than Bellarmine, as I
said earlier, took the very same position.
He used this term pugna.
Well, so much for that.
Now we come to the third, the superadded
gifts, donas superaddit.
Whether this condition of concupiscence is regarded
as simply tendency, or as actual conflict, it
created the necessity for the
bestowal of the dona superaddita.
Now, in
the older Roman Catholic theology, this is spoken
of as dona superadditum, as the superadded gift,
and it is called origin of righteousness, istitia
originalis, origin of righteousness.
And the purpose of this supernatural or superadded
grace is that
the sensual and super-sensual, the sensual and
super-sensual elements in man's being were
maintained in harmony, the one with the other.
By this gift of original righteousness, according to
the older formulation, by this gift of original
righteousness, man was brought into the closest communion
with his creator, into the closest communion with
his creator.
And man was exalted above human nature, and
made to participate in the nature of God,
made to participate in the nature of God.
It is important to bear in mind that
this gift is due to special grace from
God's part, due to special grace, what Muller
calls a special condescension of the Almighty.
God was under no obligation for survival.
He went down and went this added grace.
It is therefore superadded, not supernatural.
But in more recent, and that goes back
quite a long time, supposed to be a
hundred years, in more recent Roman Catholic theology,
these superadded gifts, dona superaddita, are
divided into creature-natural and supernatural.
Creature-natural and supernatural.
The older Roman Catholic theology calls supernatural.
This Roman Catholic theology calls creature-natural.
And of these creature-natural gifts, there are
two, namely immortality and integrity.
Now this creature-natural superadded gift was
necessary in
order to, from the necessity of dying, deliver
man from the necessity.
Roman Catholic theology teaching that death is a
necessity inherent
in the corporeal nature of man.
Necessity inherent in his corporeal nature.
Hence man were to be immortal.
This required a superadded grace.
Immortal creature-natural is that of integrity, to
the harmony between the component elements of man's
nature, between the
component that overcomes
the conflict existing in the state of pure
nature between the corporeal and the spiritual.
Every gift is called sanctity.
Sanctity.
By this supernatural gift, man was made
a partaker of the divine nature, elevated to
a higher order of existence, endowed
with that which is above the essence and
exigency of any creative nature.
The essence and exigency, that is need, of
any creative nature adopted into the position occupied
by the Only Begotten Son and
given the capacity for the beatific vision.
The beatific vision.
Given the capacity for the beatific vision.
Beatific.
Now, that when man fell, he
lost all of these.
Preternatural.
Preternatural and supernatural gifts.
Well, now, at this point, that when man
fell, he lost all of these preternatural gifts.
Preternatural and supernatural gifts he lost.
And that is, after all, the calamity of
the fall.
And since he lost these gifts, he reverts
to this condition called cognacompassion.
He reverts to the position in which he
was in a state of pure nature.
In a state of pure nature.
Now, one other question arises.
When was the preternatural and supernatural gifts?
When?
Historically, there was a painting from the Polish
theologians on that question.
Following them, the Scottists.
The Scottists maintained that there was an interval
elapsed between the original creation of
man in pure his natural abode and his
elevation to great time elapsed.
Taken by Peter Lombard, Bonaventura, Bonaventura, but
Thomas Aquinas contends that these super-additivists were
given at creation, from the very beginning of
creation, so that these, as
far as time, the state of pure nature,
and that bestowed by the super
-additivist, were contemporaneous.
And that appears to be the prevailing view
among Roman Catholic theologians today.
No time elapsing between the original creation and
endowment with dona superabita.
You will have the order, Roman Catholic, original
righteousness, this tipia originality, is defined in
terms of what later is called integrity.
So you see that there has been a
considerable refinement and expansion in more recent Roman
Catholic theology of the
dona superabita, and therefore it is very necessary
when dealing with Roman Catholic theology how most
representatively is to speak not simply of dona
superabita, after the pattern of older Roman Catholic
theology consisting in original righteousness, but of the
dona superabita, the superadditivist, defined as preternatural and
supernatural.
Now we come to number four, imago deis,
the image of God.
What does in this scheme, well,
there is no unanimity, there is not unanimity
on this question in Roman Catholic theology.
Some Roman Catholics make a distinction between image
and likeness.
Image and likeness.
And image is regarded as belonging to the
state of pure nature and
pertains to the spirit of man per se.
That God made the spirit of man to
his image, to his image.
And therefore the image of God belongs to
man as man.
Belongs to man as man.
That is what you find, for example, in
the older Roman Catholic theology.
That is the viewpoint represented by the Council
of Prayer, for example.
And you find it particularly in the Catechism
of the Council of Trade.
It is a companion volume and is very
important, the Catechism of the Council of Trade.
Likeness, however, has been regarded by such Roman
Catholic theologians as a superadded gift of grace.
A superadded gift of grace.
But there are others, other Roman Catholic theologians,
and I think this is more representative of
present-day Roman Catholic theology.
Other Roman Catholic theologians do not make this
distinction between image and likeness.
They do not make it.
And regard all images as gifts of grace.
As gifts of grace.
However, that position does put Roman Catholic theology
in a rather difficult position on its own
premise.
Puts Roman Catholic theology in a rather difficult
position.
And so the position is taken that in
a certain sense, in some sense, the
image of God belongs to the very soul
of man.
In some sense, the image of God belongs
to the very soul of man.
However, not in the full sense.
Not in the full sense.
Because, out of deference to such passages, 2
Peter 1, 4, which, remember, speaks of our
becoming partakers of the divine nature, 2 Peter
1, 4, and 1 John 3, 2, which,
remember, has not yet been made manifest what
we shall be, but we know that when
it shall be manifested, we shall be like
Him on the basis of such passages.
The image and likeness of God are more
properly regarded as super-added, even as
supernatural, and would belong, I think, if I
might so judge, belong particularly to the gift
of sanctity.
Sanctity.
Because when they are defining sanctity, when Roman
Catholics of the Lord Jesus are defining sanctity,
they use that very text from 2 Peter
1, 4, which supports the doctrine
that man is elevated above the essence and
exigency of human nature.
Elevated above the essence and exigency of human
nature.
Now you, I could give you various references
to support this latter view as the view
that is represented in Roman Catholic theology today,
that image and likeness are properly regarded as
super-added, supernatural, also in a certain way,
in a certain way, the image of God
belongs to the very soul of man.
But how Roman Catholic theology would work out
that sort of discrepancy, now
by way of noting
that Roman Catholic theologians speak of two
additional super-added gifts, namely impassibility and infused
knowledge.
Impassibility and infused knowledge.
Now impassibility would be freedom from suffering, and
infused knowledge would be the impartation
of knowledge that did not belong to man
in his state of pure nature.
But Roman Catholic dogma up to date, Roman
Catholic dogma does not include
these two additional gifts, does not include these
two additional gifts in the donor-superadditor.
Perhaps someday Roman Catholic dogma will include elements
of this dogma from time to time.
Someday they may be included.
And I suspect, though I wouldn't be certain
of this, rather
than a supernatural, well, that's the outline.
I now come to criticism of this.
First of all, Rome entertains a degrading view
of man's metaphysical constitution.
A degrading view, because it supposes that there
is a great incompatibility between the component elements
of man's being, namely between flesh and spirit.
In Bellarmine terms, there is a disease, a
languor, that needed a remedy, a disease
more than a languor, that needed a remedy.
Or in Aquinas terms, this battle of concupiscence,
which he says is not derogatory to human
nature, nevertheless requires a supernatural grace or gift
to prevent this sinful concupiscence.
Which would inevitably be supernatural grace to prevent
sinful concupiscence inevitably results.
So on the most restrained Roman Catholic construction,
conflict proceeding from the composite nature of man
necessarily arises.
Now I say that one's a thwart.
One's a thwart.
The uniform representation of Scripture is no inherent
incompatibility in the nature of man.
That is what we found already when we
were dealing earlier with the nature of man.
I say that is what we found to
be the distinctive feature of the Biblical teaching
in contrast with all pagan thought respecting
the incompatibility between the spirit and material elements
in man's being so that the ideal of
human existence is to be relieved of the
degrading influence inevitably exerted by the corporeal, the
material.
Well, that's the first point.
Now second point of criticism is that the
Scripture offers no warrant whatsoever for a construction
of man's origin in terms of a twofold
action.
Twofold action.
The only action, the only action which the
Bible speaks is that of making man in
his own image.
There is not the remotest suggestion of any
superadded action.
The superadded action whereby man was endowed with
graces or qualities intended to make a defect
in man's nature as originally created.
Now just before the gentleman may I say
for a second it makes absolutely no difference
as far as this criticism is concerned whether
you take the scottish position or the thomist.
The thomist, although he offers contemporary immediacy in
these two actions nevertheless possible.
This differentiation, this radical differentiation that is the
point of significance.
That is the main point of criticism.