Nature refers to “the principle, ordained of God, of motion and rest in its own natural subject, according to its own mode.” (https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xii.html). That is to say that anything which pertains to the natural end of man is to be referred to nature.
Grace, on the other hand, it seems to me could be likewise defined as referring to “the principle, ordained of God, of motion and rest in its subject, according to a supernatural mode”, that is to say, that anything given to man through supernatural power which raises him above his natural end and towards his supernatural end is referred to grace.
The natural end of man is “that it should approach very near to the Divine” (Junius in Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis, pg. 144) and anything ordered to this end is of nature. The supernatural end of man is the beatific vision and anything ordered to this end is of grace.
“To depraved nature, pertained its own future natural happiness, though it was afterwards, so to speak to be absorbed, by the grace of God, in supernatural happiness” (Junius, ibid.).
Adam was at first created in a state of pure nature, that is to say, he was created without grace. However, to this state of pure nature was then added grace, which we call the donum superadditum. “The order of creation, in a certain respect, proves [this is so], since the body was first made from the dust, and afterwards the soul was breathed into it. Which, then, is more probable, that the soul was, at the moment of its creation, endowed with supernatural gifts, or that they were superadded after its creation? I would rather affirm that, as the soul was added to the body, so the supernatural endowments were added to the soul. If God did this in relation to nature, why may He not have done it, in the case of grace, which is more peculiar?” (https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xii.html).
Adam, while he was in a state of pure nature, was morally whole and free from all sin and all inordinate and sinful concupiscence. This habitual holiness is original righteousness and it is natural to man. “This principle in the creation being right, holy, not contaminated by any stain of inordinate desires, voluntary followed the judgment of the intellect (which could not be deceived because of the innate light of truth), in such a way that under its guidance, both angels and mankind, in accordance with the order that is congruent to their nature and in an intelligent way, were willing the ends and the objects shown by reason, and performed them by acting: although the angels acted in a more excellent way than mankind, because of the excellence and simplicity of their nature.” (Junius in Reformed Thought on Freedom, pg. 102).
The acts or habits, inwrought by that principle, are righteousness, holiness, and truth. Righteousness, holiness, and truth are not the image, but pertain to the image. Let us return, if you please, to that principle, which the Fathers laid down "natural things are corrupt, supernatural things are removed." You may certainly, hence, deduce with ease this conclusion; -- righteousness, holiness and truth are not removed, therefore, they are not supernatural. Again, they have become corrupt, therefore, they are natural. If they had been removed, none of their elementary principles would exist in us by nature. But they do exist; therefore, they are by nature, and are themselves corrupt, and, with them, whatever originates in them. The same is the fact with the image of God. The image of God is not removed; it is not, therefore, supernatural; and, on the other hand, it has become corrupt; it is, therefore, natural. (https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xii.html)
Adam furthermore had a principle of spiritual life within himself while he was in a state of pure nature in virtue of which he was able to please God. “There was one mode of spiritual life in Adam, and there is another mode in us, in whom supernatural grace alone produces this life, while Adam had, together with this grace, the image of God unimpaired and uncorrupted, and therefore had spiritual life in both modes, the natural and supernatural.” (https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xvi.html)
That which is natural cannot perform that which is supernatural. “For in man, even before the Fall, the intellect could not raise itself by transcending the natural limits to supernatural knowledge, nor could the will apprehend those things, except supported and sustained by supernatural help.” (Junius, Reformed Thought on Freedom, pg. 103).
God willed that Adam would achieve the beatific vision through means suitable to the end, that is, not only through natural means, but through supernatural means.
“For this reason, to this particular principle of his nature was added (superadditus) a singular principle of grace for Adam, by which his intellective will was acting, singularly moved, above its natural mode. Hence, those words of Genesis 2:23 announced by that prophetic spirit: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Hence also in the same place, verse 20, the imposing of names to every single animal and many other things, which the intellect would never have been able to exert by its own insight or by the powers of its natural will.” (Junius, ibid.)
Adam’s reception of grace/the Holy Spirit (recall that grace is the form by which we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit), that is the donum superadditum, elevated his natural gifts towards a supernatural end.
This is not explicitly from Junius, but it seems that Adam’s reception of grace occurred when he was placed in the garden (Genesis 1:8) and thus into covenant with God, which covenant designated to him his supernatural end and the means by which he would achieve it.
The natural gifts were to be propagated by nature, but the supernatural gifts of grace could not be propagated in a natural manner. “I acknowledge that Adam and Eve received supernatural gifts, but for themselves not for their heirs; nor could they transmit them to their heirs, except by a general arrangement or special grace.” https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xii.html
Through sin, Adam wholly lost both the supernatural gifts and spiritual life. His natural gifts were not destroyed and wholly lost, but corrupted. He has lost the perfect rectitude of the will in which he was created. It is for this reason we say that original righteousness was lost and removed from man: that although the elementary principles remain as the matter, the form of perfect rectitude has been lost.
Fallen man lacks spiritual life and is wholly corrupted in his nature. A Christian, through receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit, is restored to spiritual life through this supernatural gift and his natural gifts are not only healed by this same supernatural gift, but also elevated by it even as Adam’s natural gifts were elevated by this supernatural grace.
Thus,
A man in pure nature: Whole natural gifts, spiritual life
A sinless man in grace: Supernatural gifts, whole natural gifts, spiritual life
A man fallen in sin: Corrupt natural gifts, no spiritual life
A man fallen, now restored by grace: Supernatural gifts, corrupt yet progressively restored natural gifts, spiritual life
Corollaries:
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit/the reception of grace is necessary to supernatural moral wholeness, but not to natural moral wholeness or to spiritual life. That is to say, before Adam received the Holy Spirit, he was morally whole and possessed spiritual life, although he had no grace.
The supernatural/theological virtues of faith, hope, and love are of positive law and are therefore not commanded by the natural law. This is somewhat obvious seeing as they are “supernatural” as opposed to “natural” virtues. They are only commanded of man insofar as God commands them of him for a supernatural end, which they are by nature ordered to. What nature commands are the natural analogs to these virtues (that is, a natural love, a natural hope, and a natural faith, the latter of which I tend to think either just is prudence or is very much like it).
Those who do not hear the Gospel are under no obligation to believe it and thus no obligation to have supernatural virtues. Those who do hear it and understand it are given sufficient and yet resistable grace by which God holds them accountable when they reject it. Domingo Banez should be consulted here and his position ought to be held among the Reformed.
The essential image of God is not supernatural, but natural. Adam was in the image of God both before and after he possessed the supernatural gifts. However, insofar as Adam’s supernatural gifts elevated his natural gifts, we may speak of a relative image of God. “The moon has an essential image, and one which is relative and accidental. As its image is essential, it has its own light in some degree; yet it would be darkened, unless it should look towards the sun; as its image is relative, it has light borrowed from the sun, while it is looked upon by it, and looks to it. So, there was, in man, a two-fold relation of the image of God, even from the creation. For man had his own essential light fixed in the soul, which shines as the image of God among created things; he had also a relative light, as he was looked upon by God, and looked back to God. The essential image is natural; the relative image was, so to speak, supernatural, for it looked to God, through nature joined to grace, by a peculiar and free motion of the will; God looked upon it, of grace, (for, what action of God towards us is natural?) We have that essential light, corrupted by sin; it is plain that we have not lost it. We have lost the relative light; but Christ restores this, that we may be renewed, after God, in his own image, and that the essential light may be purified, since natural things are corrupted, the supernatural are lost, as we have previously said.” https://ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works3/works3.iv.xii.html
We say that original righteousness is natural. We say that the donum superadditum is supernatural.
We must not equate spiritual life with supernatural life.
The above corollaries keep us from Jansenism and the affirmation that God could not have created man except in grace. The opposite errors of Romanism were touched on here: https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/whether-man-was-created-in-grace-a-comparison-of-reformed-and-thomist-argumentation
Finally: Make a clear and firm distinction between original righteousness and the donum superadditum. The former is natural, the latter is supernatural. They are adequately distinct from one another. The latter perfects and elevates the former, yes, but they are not to be equated with each other.
