077. III. Elements Of Primitive Holiness.

III. Elements Of Primitive Holiness. The acceptance of primitive holiness as a truth does not necessarily determine the view of its elements or nature. Hence in the history of the doctrine opposing views appear. The issue thus arising has been much in debate, and not as a question of merely speculative interest, but as one which deeply concerns the nature of the Adamic fall, of original sin, and of regeneration. Such implications will sufficiently appear in the statement of these opposing views.

1. The Romish Doctrine.—The Romish anthropology is so far Augustinian as to accept the truth of a primitive holiness, but widely diverges from the latter respecting the nature or content of that holiness. What is specially distinctive of the Romish doctrine is that the primitive holiness was purely a supernatural endowment or gift. As such it must have been extraneous to the nature of Adam, and conferred subsequently to his completed creation. “The first peculiarity of the papal anthropology consists in the tenet that original righteousness is not a natural, but a supernatural, endowment. The germ of this view appears in one of the statements of the Roman Catechism —a work which followed the Tridentine Canons, and is of equal authority with them in the papal Church. ‘Lastly,’ says the Catechism,^[454] ‘God formed man out of the clay of the earth, so made and constituted as to his material body that he was immortal and impassible, not indeed by the force of nature itself, but by a divine favor. But as to his soul, he formed him after his own image and likeness, endowed him with free will, and so tempered within him all the emotions of his mind and his appetites that they would never disobey the rule of reason. Then headded the admirable gift of original righteousness, and decreed that he should have the pre-eminency over other animals.’”^[455] It thus appears that in the papal anthropology the likeness and image of God in primitive man carried the sense of a similarity in the nature and personality of mind, but not the sense of holiness. Place was thus left for primitive holiness as a supernatural endowment.

^[454]Catechismus Romanus, P. I, Cap. ii, Q. 18.

^[455]Shedd:History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii, pp. 142, 143.

Consistently with this view of original righteousness, the papal anthropology could admit, and did admit, certain imperfections of man as originally constituted. As consisting of flesh and spirit, the appetences of the former might war against the rational dictates of the latter, and thus render difficult a prudent and good life. There was thus in the very beginning, and before any lapse of man, a profound moral need of the supernatural endowment of grace which the doctrine maintains. And, further, the primary purpose of this endowment was for the relief of this exigency. So Bellarmin, a master in papal theology, states the facts. “In the first place it is to be observed that man naturally consists of flesh and spirit. . . . But from these diverse or contrary propensities there arises in one and the same man a certain conflict, and from this conflict great difficulty of acting rightly. . . . In the second place, it is to be observed that divine providence, in the beginning of creation (initio creationis), in order to provide a remedy for this disease or languor of human nature which arises from the nature of a material organization (ex conditione materiae), added to man a certain remarkable gift, to wit, original righteousness, by which as by a sort of golden rein the inferior part might easily be kept in subjection to the superior, and the superior to God; but the flesh was thus subjected to the spirit, so that it could not be moved so long as the spirit was unwilling, nor could it become a rebel to the spirit unless the spirit itself should become a rebel to God, while yet it was wholly in the power of the spirit to become or not become a rebel to God. . . . We think that this rectitude of the inferior part was a supernatural gift, and that, too, intrinsically, and not accidentally, so that it neither flowed nor could flow from the principles of nature (ex naturae principiis).”^{[456] [456]} Bellarminus:Gratia Primi Hominis, C. v. Cited by Shedd:History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii, pp. 143, 144.

These views are open to criticism, and are sharply criticized from the side of the Augustinian anthropology. Such original imperfections of man have no warrant in the Scriptures. Nor is there any ground for the exclusively supernatural character of primitive holiness. Further, the doctrine implies that the fall of man was simply a lapse into his primitive state. The fall in its effect upon man, apart from personal demerit, was simply a deprivation of the supernatural endowment of righteousness. His own nature was the same after the fall as before it. But his own nature, while without holiness before the fall, was equally without depravity, and must have remained the same, after the fall. This is a very superficial and false view of the actual state of man in consequence of the Adamic fall. The consequence of that fall was not only a deprivation of the divine communion, but a depravation of the nature of man. For the present we are not concerned with another objection urged against this papal view on the part of the Augustinian anthropology, that by implication it denies the actual sinfulness and demerit of human nature as fallen. Any view of regeneration in accord with this papal anthropology must be superficial and false. It must mean simply a restoration of original righteousness as a supernatural endowment. 8uch limitation must omit the interior work of the Holy Spirit in the renewal and purification of the moral nature, which is the central reality of regeneration. Finally, as this anthropology allows the actuality and the innocence of a certain measure of concupiscence in primitive man, so it must allow the same in regenerate man.

2. The Augustinian Doctrine.—By the doctrine so designated we mean, not limitedly any definite view of Augustine himself respecting the nature of primitive holiness, but rather the central view of the Augustinian anthropology as interpreted and maintained in the Calvinistic Churches. In this view original righteousness was an intrinsic quality of the nature of man, not something added to his nature. By the divine creative act he was constituted holy, and there was not only no subsequent act, but no separate act by which he was so constituted. It should not be overlooked that we give this as the central or prevalent view, and without any notice of individual divergences. As against the papal view, “the reformers generally, and especially Luther, had strenuously contended that this original righteousness was a quality of man’s proper nature, and necessary to its perfection and completeness, and not a supernatural gift.”^[457] Also in dissent from the papal view of a superadded holiness, “the reformers most justly assert, in opposition to this mechanical view, that ‘justitia originalis’ was an original and actual element of our nature as it came from the hand of the Creator.”^{[458] [457]} Cunningham:Historical Theology, vol. i, p. 518.

^[458]Van Oosterzee:Christian Dogmatics, vol. i, p. 370. Also Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. ii, pp. 104, 105. On this question the Augustinian doctrine thus takes the opposite extreme to the papal view. This was quite natural to the protestant attitude of the reformers and the intensity of their antagonism to much of the papal anthropology. Further, their doctrine of sin logically carried them to this view of original righteousness. As in this doctrine the very nature of man in his fallen state is actually sinful, or sinful in a sense deserving of God’s judicial wrath, so the nature of primitive man in itself and without any gracious endowment could be ethically righteous. The rejection of the papal view does not logically require the acceptance of this Augustinian view. In this case, as in many others, the truth may lie between the extremes.

3. Elements of the True Doctrine.—The first element of primitive holiness was the moral rectitude of the Adamic nature as newly created. In our previous discussions fully maintained the possibility and the reality of such holiness, and set forth the definite idea of its nature or content. That position holds true against the papal denial of such holiness. We agree with the prevalent Augustinian anthropology respecting the reality of primitive holiness, but dissent respecting any proper ethical character of that holiness, and also respecting its ‘limitation to a mere quality of the Adamic nature. In that anthropology Adam often appears in the very beginning, and before any personal action, with the moral worth of ethical righteousness, with the activities of holy affection in the fear and love of God.^[459] We omit all this from the content of primitive holiness. The activities of holy affection may be spontaneous to the moral nature, but must be subsequent to its own constitution. Nor can they be the immediate product of the creative agency which constitutes the nature. A thorough analysis must distinguish between the activities of the moral nature in Adam and that nature itself simply as divinely created. That nature was so constituted as to be responsive to the claims of a prudent and good life, not in the sense of a necessary fulfillment of such claims, but in the sense of a spontaneous inclination or disposition toward such fulfillment. This is all that we can properly mean by holiness as a quality of the primitive nature of man.

^[459]Edwards: Works, vol. ii, pp. 386, 387; Wiggers:Augustinism and Pelagianism, p. 142.

There was a second element of primitive holiness in the presence and agency of the Holy Spirit. We have previously presence of dissented from the Augustinian limitation of that holiness to a mere quality of the Adamic nature. We have also dissented from the papal doctrine of its purely supernatural character; but the weighty objection, that it implies serious defects in the nature of man as originally constituted, is valid only against so extreme a view. The presence of the Holy Spirit as a constituent element of primitive holiness has no such implication. The Adamic nature could be holy in its own quality and tendency, and yet need the help of the Spirit for the requirements of a moral probation. Augustine himself held this view. “God had given man an assistance, without which he could not have persevered in good if he would. He could persevere if he would, because that aid (adjutorium) did not fail by which he could. Without this, he could not retain the good which he might will.”^[460] Hence the divine plan might include the presence of the Spirit as an original and abiding element in the holiness of man. We need this truth for the proper interpretation of human depravity. The fall of man was not only the loss of holiness, but also the corruption of his nature. This corruption we may not ascribe to any immediate agency of God, but may interpret it as the consequence of a withdrawment of the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit. This is the doctrinal meaning of “depravation from deprivation.” The most thorough Augustinians so interpret the corruption of human nature, and thus concede the presence of the Holy Spirit as an element of primitive holiness.^{[461] [460]} Cited by Wiggers:Augustinism and Pelagianism, p, 142.

^[461]Cunningham:Historical Theology, vol. i, p. 526.

We thus combine the two elements in the true doctrine. The second element brings the doctrine into full accord with the fact that in the Christian life the Holy Spirit is not only the agent in the primary renewal and purification of the soul, but also an abiding presence in aid of its renewed powers. And we are pleased to think of the immanence of the Spirit in all holy life whether human or angelic.