Le Blanc: hard to see how faith, hope and love were supernatural yet righteousness natural; Rambour's statements do not fit together
So Tilenus counts as supernatural grace in the first man both the actual help by which he was stirred to do good and the theological virtues, faith, hope and love, with which he was adorned. But it is hard to see how those virtues could have been supernatural gifts in Adam while his uprightness, or original righteousness, was natural to him. Or what righteousness and uprightness could please God and be accepted by him without faith, hope and love?
In the same way, in what we quoted earlier from Rambour, the things that very learned man asserts together do not seem to fit well: that the first man's righteousness and holiness was natural and not supernatural, and yet that it did not flow from the powers of nature. How can something not be supernatural if it does not flow from nature's powers?
Unless, that is, we say that he, like Pareus, calls supernatural whatever is acquired and added on top of native endowments, and calls original righteousness natural only because it was planted in man from his first origin, created together with him, and so belonged to his native endowments. That seems to be how he explains himself. Even so, what he adds does not quite square: that the first man's righteousness was natural to him as some knowledge of God is natural to us. The knowledge of God he calls natural does not go beyond nature's powers.
Latin
XL. Proinde Doctor ille ad gratiam supernaturalem in primo homine refert, tum auxilium actuale quo excitabatur ad bene agendum, tum virtutes Theologicas fidem, spem, & charitatem quibus ornatus erat. Sed difficile capi potest quomodo virtutes istae in Adamo fuerint dona supernaturalia, & tamen rectitudo, seu justitia Originalis ipsi naturalis erat, aut quae possit esse justitia & Rectitudo Deo grata & accepta sine fide, spe, & charitate. Ut & in iis quae ante ex Ramburtio retulimus, non satis inter se concordare videntur quae simul affirmat doctissimus ille vir, nempe primi hominis justitiam & sanctitatem naturalem fuisse non supernaturalem, & tamen eam ex viribus naturae non profluxisse. Quomodo enim potest non esse supernaturale quod ex naturae viribus non profluit? Nisi dicamus eum cum Pareo supernaturale vocare quod adventitium est, & ad nativas dotes superadditur. Originalem vero justitiam eo solum nomine naturalem vocari, quod a prima Origine fuerit homini insita, & ipsi concreata, & sic ad nativas ejus dotes pertinuerit; quomodo ipse se videtur explicare. Quanquam non satis quadrat quod subjungit, justitiam primi hominis illi fuisse naturalem, sicut naturalis nobis est aliqua Dei cognitio. Nam cognitio illa Dei quam naturalem vocat, non superat naturae vires.