But even natural reason is obliged to confess that the living and true God must be such a one as to impose necessity upon us, seeing that He himself is free. For instance, he would be a ridiculous God, or more properly an idol, if he were either to foresee future things doubtfully, or be disappointed by events. Even the Gentiles have assigned irresistible fate to their gods. 531 He would be equally ridiculous if he did not have power to do all things, and did not effect all things; or if anything is really brought to pass without him. Now, if the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are conceded, then it naturally follows, by an undeniable consequence, that we were not made by ourselves, nor do we live by ourselves, nor do we perform anything by ourselves, but it is all through His omnipotence. And now, since He both knew beforehand that we would be such a people, and He goes on to make us that way, and to move and govern us as such — what can be imagined in us, I ask, that is free to have a different outcome given to it, from what He foreknew, or is now effecting?
So that, God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposite to man’s Freewill. Either God will be mistaken in his foreknowledge, and disappointed in his actings (which is impossible), or we will act, and act according to his foreknowledge and agency. By the omnipotence of God, I do not mean a power by which he might do many things which he does not do; but that acting omnipotence by which, with power, he does all things, in all things. It is in this manner, that the Scripture calls God omnipotent. This omnipotence and prescience of God, I say, absolutely abolishes the dogma of Freewill. Nor can the obscurity of Scripture, or the difficulty of the subject, be made a pretext 532 here. The words are most clear; even children know them. The subject matter is plain and easy; it is one which proves itself even to the natural judgment of common sense. So that, let your series of ages, times, and persons who write and teach otherwise, be ever so great, it will profit you nothing.
SECT. 21. What carnal reason hates.
This common sense, or natural reason, is most highly offended, truly, that God should leave men, should harden them, should damn them, of his own sheer will — as if He were delighted with the sins and torments of the wretched, which are so great and eternal — where he is declared to be a God of such great mercy and goodness. It has been deemed unjust, cruel, and insufferable to entertain such a sentiment concerning God. It is this which has offended so many, and such great men, during so many ages — and who would not be offended?
I myself have been offended at it, more than once, to the very depth, and lowest depth 533 of despair, so as to wish that I had never been created a man — until I learned how salutary that despair was, and how akin it is to grace. Hence, all this toil and sweat in putting forward 534 the goodness of God, and accusing the will of man. Here lay the discovery of those distinctions between God’s regulated and absolute will, between the necessity of a consequence and of a consequent, and much of a similar kind; which have produced no result however, except that the ignorant have been imposed upon by “vain babblings, and by oppositions of science, falsely so called.” 535 Still, there has always remained this sting fixed in the deep of their hearts, both to the learned and to the unlearned (if they have ever come to be serious), that they could not believe the prescience and omnipotence of God, without perceiving our necessity.
Even natural reason, though offended by this necessity, and making such vast efforts to remove it, is compelled to admit its existence, through the conviction of her own private judgment. It would be the same, even if there were no Scripture.
For all find this sentiment written in their hearts, so as to recognise and approve it when they hear it discussed, even against their will:
First, that God is omnipotent, not only in what he is able to do, but also in what he actually does, as I have said; 536 otherwise he would be a ridiculous God;
Secondly, he knows and foreknows all things, and can neither mistake, nor be misled.
These two things being conceded through the testimony of their heart and senses, they are by and by compelled to admit by an inevitable consequence, that we were not made by our own will, but by necessity; and hence, we do nothing by right of Freewill, but just as God has foreknown and directs us by a counsel and an energy which is at once infallible and immutable. So then, we find it written at once in all hearts, that there is no such thing as Free will, even if this writing is obscured through the circumstance of so many contrary disputations, and so many persons of such vast authority, having taught differently for so many ages. So too, every other law — which has been written in our hearts (according to Paul’s testimony) — is recognised when rightly handled. But it is obscured when distorted by ungodly teachers and laid hold of by other opinions. 537
SECT. 22. Paul’s argument resumed. Diatribe is dishonest and cowardly — would escape but cannot.
I return to Paul. Now, if he is not solving this question, and concluding human necessity from the prescience and will of God, what need does he have to introduce the simile of the potter making out of one and the same lump, one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? Rom 9.21
Yet the thing- made does not say to its maker ‘why have you made me thus?’ Rom 9.20 It is men that he is speaking of, whom he compares to clay, and God to the potter. There is no meaning in the comparison; indeed, if he does not mean that our liberty is nothing, then it is absurd and adduced to no purpose. No, Paul’s whole argument in support of grace is abortive. The very scope of his whole Epistle is to show that we can do nothing, indeed even when we seem to be doing good. He says in the same place, how Israel, by following after righteousness, has not attained to righteousness; but the Gentiles, who did not follow it, have attained it. 538 I will speak more about this at large when I produce my own forces.
But Diatribe, disguising the whole body of Paul’s argument, together with its scope, consoles herself meanwhile with garbled and corrupted words. 539 It is nothing to Diatribe, that afterwards in Rom 11.20, Paul exhorts them, on the other hand, “You stand by faith; see that you are not lifted up.” And again, Rom 11.23: “They also, if they believe, will be grafted in,” etc. He says nothing there about the powers of man, but uses imperative and conjunctive verbs, the effect of which has been sufficiently declared already. 540
Indeed, Paul himself, in the very same place, as if to prevent the vaunters of Freewill, does not say that they can believe, but “God is able to graft them in.” In short, Diatribe proceeds with so trembling and hesitating a step in handling these texts from Paul’s writings, that she seems, in conscience, to dissent even from her own words. For in those places where she should most of all have gone on and proved her doctrine, she almost always breaks off the discourse with, ‘But enough of this;’ or, ‘I will not investigate this point now;’ or, ‘It is no part of this subject;’ or, ‘They would say so and so;’ and many like expressions. 541 Thus she leaves the matter in the middle, making it doubtful whether she is standing up as a champion for Freewill, or only showing her skill in parrying off Paul with vain words. 542 She does all this in a rule and manner of her own, like someone who is not earnestly pleading this cause. But we should not thus be indifferent; thus skim the ears of corn; thus be shaken like a reed in the wind. Rather, we should first assert confidently, steadfastly, fervently; and then demonstrate by solid, apposite, and abundant proof, the doctrine we maintain. 543
Then again, how exquisitely she contrives to preserve liberty in union with necessity, when she says, ‘Nor does every sort of necessity exclude freedom of will. For instance, God the Father necessarily begets the Son; but He begets him willingly and freely, inasmuch as He is not compelled to beget him.’
Are we disputing now, I ask, about compulsion and force? Have I not in all my writings testified that I speak of
