What Moses next adds, therefore, that after they had eaten the fruit, "they saw that they were naked," are words by no means superfluous nor without special import. For if duly considered, they contain a beautiful description of original righteousness.
The schoolmen indeed argue that original righteousness was not connatural; that is, not a part of human nature as originally created; but a certain ornament, only additionally bestowed on man as a separate gift. Just as if one should place a garland on the head of a beautiful maiden. A garland is certainly no part of the nature of a virgin, but something separate from her nature as such; something added from without, which might be taken away again without any violation of her nature. These schoolmen therefore argue, both concerning man and concerning devils, that, although they lost their original righteousness, yet their natural properties remained pure as they were originally created. This doctrine however detracts from the magnitude of original sin and is to be shunned as a deadly poison.
We conclude therefore that original righteousness was not a superadded gift, which was bestowed from without, separate from the very nature of man; but a truly natural righteousness; so that it was the very nature of Adam to know God, to love God, to believe in God, to acknowledge God and to worship God, etc. These things were as natural in Adam, as it is natural to the eyes to see the light. When the eye is injured by the infliction of a wound, you may rightly affirm that nature is violated; so after man fell from his original righteousness, it is correctly maintained, that the properties of nature were no longer sound and whole, but defiled and corrupted by sin. For as it is the nature of the eye to see, so it was the original nature of the reason and of the will of Adam to know God, to trust in God, and to fear God.
Since therefore it is evident that all these natural powers are lost, who is so mad as to assert that the faculties and properties of nature are still sound and whole? And yet, there was nothing more common nor more fully received in the schools than this doctrine. How much greater then must be the absurdity and the madness, to affirm this doctrine concerning devils to be true, especially since Christ himself declares "that they abode not in the truth," and when we ourselves know them to be the most bitter enemies of Christ and of his Church!
The natural faculties in man therefore created originally sound and whole, were the knowledge of God, faith in God, the fear of God, etc. All these Satan corrupted by sin in the same manner as leprosy defiles the whole flesh. The will and reason of man therefore are so corrupted by sin, that he not only does no longer naturally love God, but flees from him and hates him and wishes to live without him, and to be without him altogether.
Therefore Moses has exactly described in this portion of his sacred history that corruption which succeeded original righteousness and its glory. For it was the peculiar glory of Adam and Eve not to know that they were naked. What corruption then can be greater than that the nakedness, which was originally the glory of our first parents, should now be changed into the basest turpitude. Thus no one blushes on account of his eyes, when sound and perfect. But when the eyes are distorted or partially blind, they cover us with a certain cloud of defect and with a feeling of shame. In like manner in their state of original innocency, it was entirely a matter of glory for Adam and Eve to walk in nakedness. But when, after their sin, "they saw that they were naked," they were overwhelmed with shame and looked about them for "girdles" wherewith to hide their turpitude. How much greater turpitude then is disclosed by the fact, that the slaughtered will, the corrupted understanding and the wholly defiled reason have changed man into an utterly altered being. Are all these woeful things proofs, I pray you, that the qualities and faculties of man's original nature still remain sound and whole?
But consider for a moment what will necessarily follow from the doctrine of making original righteousness, not to have been an essential part of created nature, but only a certain superfluous and superadded gift or ornament. If you lay it down as a fact, that original righteousness was not an essential quality of the nature of man, it must inevitably follow that the sin, which followed original righteousness, was also not an essential quality of the nature of man. And if so, was it not an utterly vain thing that Christ should be sent into the world as the Redeemer of man, if it was man's original righteousness only, which was merely a foreign and separate addition to his nature, that was lost; and if that loss still left the faculties and qualities of his original nature sound and perfect? But what doctrine can be worse than this? What doctrine more unworthy a divine to utter?
Flee therefore from such mad dreams as from a real pestilence and from corruption of the Holy Scriptures; and let us instead follow actual experience which teaches us that we are born of corrupt seed and that we derive from the very nature of that seed, ignorance of God, self-security, unbelief, hatred of God, disobedience, impatience and numberless other kindred evils; all which are so engendered and implanted in our very nature, and are a poison so wholly diffused throughout our flesh, body, soul, nerves and blood, yea, through all our bones and their very marrow; and so wholly poisoning our will, our understanding and our reason, that the poison not only can never be extracted, but that we cannot even acknowledge, or feel, or see that this is our state of sin!
It is a well known sentiment of the old Greek comedian, Aristophanes, "that to visit harlots is no disgrace to a youth." Pardon however may be extended to such a sentiment in a heathen poet. But it is most awful in such as call themselves Christian men, and men professing a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, to incline toward such a sentiment that whoredom is not positive sin. And yet, whole colleges of our canonicals actually approve the sentiment, with one consent by their lives and manners. When this is the case therefore with respect to actual outward sins, what must we conclude to be the state of men's minds, with respect to the uncleanness of the heart and the motions of sin in our very nature? These motions of nature, wicked men cannot of course understand to be sins.
Thus a wicked man cannot understand that the glory of nakedness was lost by sin. For the fact of Adam and Eve walking abroad naked was their highest adornment in the sight of God and before the whole creation. But now since the entrance of sin we not only recoil at the thought of walking naked before men for their sakes, but we are filled with shame for our own sakes; as Moses here testifies, concerning the feelings of Adam and Eve. And this very shame witnesses that our confidence in God as well as in man is lost, whereas this confidence in both existed before sin entered by the fall. But after the entrance of sin, Adam even though blinded would yet have been abashed to present himself naked before the eyes of God or of men; because by his disobedience, his former confidence in God, his glorious Creator, was lost.