The real controversy: natural or supernatural; real for some Reformed, verbal for others
The real dispute here, between the Roman school (with very few exceptions) and the Reformed school, is whether original righteousness was natural or supernatural to the first man. The Reformed teachers say by common consent that it was natural and not supernatural; almost all the Roman theologians, on the other hand, insist that it was supernatural and not natural.
With some theologians this dispute seems to be about substance, with others only about words. It is a dispute of substance with those who hold that original righteousness was a perfection of the natural order, answering to man's natural faculties and belonging to nature rather than to grace. When the Roman theologians call that righteousness supernatural, they really do mean the opposite.
With the others it is a dispute about words. They teach that original righteousness was natural to the first man only because it was created with him and should be counted among his native endowments, and when they deny that it was supernatural they mean only that it was not added to man over and above his first endowments. That the Roman teachers grant, or a great many of them do.
Latin
XLVII. Verum hic controversia est inter Scholam Romanam, paucissimis exceptis, & inter Scholam Reformatam, Num justitia Originalis primo homini naturalis fuerit, vel supernaturalis. Naturalem fuisse non supernaturalem communi consensu affirmant Scholae Reformatae Doctores; contra vero Scholae Romanae Theologi plerique omnes pertendunt illam fuisse non naturalem, sed supernaturalem. Quae quidem controversia respectu quorundam Theologorum realis, respectu vero aliorum verbalis esse videtur. Realis est respectu eorum qui sentiunt justitiam Originalem fuisse perfectionem ordinis naturalis, naturalibus hominis facultatibus respondentem, & quae non ad gratiam sed ad naturam pertinebat. Reapse enim contrarium significare volunt Scholae Romanae Theologi, quum asserunt justitiam illam fuisse supernaturalem. Sed eadem controversia verbalis est respectu aliorum, qui docent justitiam istam non aliter primo homini fuisse naturalem, quam quia erat illi concreata, & inter dotes ejus nativas numerari debet. Ac quum eandem justitiam negant fuisse supernaturalem, nihil aliud significare volunt, quam eam non fuisse homini supra primigenias dotes superadditam. Quod concedunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, saltem eorum quamplurimi.