Lastly, This holiness and righteousness in a well explained sense, was not supernatural, but natural. The Remonstrants they make this dispute about original righteousness, inepta & absurda, absurd and foolish; Therefore they deny any infused or concreated habits also, and say, The rectitude of the faculties was enough; But the Orthodox say, Adam could not be created without such habits or principles of holiness within him, because he was created for the enjoyment of God, and therefore they call it natural, not as flowing from the principles of nature, but as a moral condition necessary to qualify him for his end, and therefore it was given to whole mankind in Adam, and would have been naturally propagated; and whereas the Remonstrants ask, To what purpose or use is such original righteousness? For if it did not necessarily and immutably determine Adams will to good, than this original righteousness, did need another, and so in infinitum; or if it did then, How came it about that Adam did sin? To this subtlety it is answered, That this original righteousness was not to determine the will of Adam necessarily, but to incline and fortify Adams will the more strongly, and easily to do what was good; So that although it did not absolutely take away Adams mutability and liberty, yet it did heighten and raise up the faculties of his soul to what was good, yet this was not a superadded grace to Adam, as actual confirmation in holiness would have been, but a natural and due qualification preparing him for communion with God; So that the discourse about man in his pure naturals without this original righteousness, is an house that hath not so much as a sandy foundation, it being without any foundation at all, God having put his Image into man, as Phidias did his into Minerva's shield, that none could take that out, but he must also destroy that shield: Thus the Devil could not prevail with Adam to sin, but by the loss of Gods Image.
Lastly, This holiness and righteousness in a well explained sense, was not supernatural, but natural. The Remonstrants they make this dispute about original righteousnesse, inepta & absurda, absurd and foolish; Therefore they deny any infused or concreated habits also, and say, The rectitude of the faculties was enough; But the Orthodox say, Adam could not be created without such habits or principles of holinesse within him, because he was created for the enjoyment of God, and therefore they call it natural, not as flowing from the principles of nature, but as a moral condition necessary to qualifie him for his end, and therefore it was given to whole mankind in Adam, and would have been naturally propagated; and whereas the Remonstrants ask, To what purpose or use is such original righteousnesse? For if it did not necessarily and immutably determine Adams will to good, than this original righteousnesse, did need another, and so in infinitum; or if it did then, How came it about that Adam did sinne? To this subtilty it is answered, That this original righteousnesse was not to determine the will of Adam necessarily, but to incline and sortifie Adams will the more strongly, and easily to do what was good; So that although it did not absolutely take away Adams mutability and liberty, yet it did heighten and raise up the faculties of his soul to what was good, yet this was not a superadded grace to Adam, as actual confirmation in holines would have been, but a natural and due qualification preparing him for communion with God; So that the discourse about man in his pure naturals without this original righteousnesse, is an house that hath not so much as a sandy foundation, it being without any foundation at all, God having put his Image into man, as Phydias did his into Minerva's shield, that none could take that out, but he must also destroy that shield: Thus the Devil could not prevail with Adam to sinne, but by the losse of Gods Image.
