But the wrath of God, which is revealed from heaven upon them, will condemn their whole substance unless they are justified by the Spirit. And this would not be so, unless their whole substance was under sin.
SECT. 7. Paul is justified in his quotations.
But let us see how Paul proves his sentiment from the Scriptures — whether the words are more to the point as we read them quoted in Paul, than as we read them in their own places. Paul says,
“As it is written, for there is none righteous, no not one; there is none that understands: there is none that seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become abominable; there is none that does good; no, not one,” etc. Rom 3.10-12
Let whoever can, give me a commodious interpretation here. Let whoever dares, invent his tropes; complain that the words are ambiguous and obscure, and defend Freewill against these severe condemnations. Then I will willingly yield and recant, and become a confessor and assertor of Freewill. It is clear these things are said of all men; for the Prophet introduces God looking upon all men, and pronouncing this sentence upon them. He says in Psa 14.2-3, “The Lord looked out from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there were any that understands or seeks after God. But they have all gone out of the way,” etc. And Paul prevents the Jews from thinking that these things do not belong to them, by asserting that they especially belong to them. “We know, he says, that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law.” Rom 3.19 He meant the same, where he said in Rom 1.16, “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” 696
You hear, therefore, that all the sons of men, all who are under the law — that is, Gentiles as well as Jews — are unjust in the judgment of God. They do not understand, do not seek after God — no, not even one of them — but all go out of the way, and are unprofitable. I suppose, now, that among the sons of men, and those who are under the law, are also numbered those who are the best and most honourable; those who by the power of Freewill, endeavour after what is honourable and good; and those whom Diatribe boasts about, as having the sense and the seeds of honesty implanted in them — unless perhaps, she maintains that those are sons of angels! 697
How can someone endeavour after good, then, if all are universally ignorant of God, and neither care for, nor seek after him? How can someone possess a power which is profitable for good, if all turn away from good, and are altogether unprofitable? Do we not know what it means to be ignorant of God, not to understand, not to seek after God, not to fear God — to turn aside, out of the way, and be unprofitable? Are the words not most plain, and do they not teach that all men are both ignorant of God, and despise God? And then, as the next step, that they turn aside towards evil, and are unprofitable for good? We are not talking about ignorance in seeking food, or about contempt of money, but about ignorance and contempt of religion and piety. It is an ignorance and contempt which, beyond all question, are not seated in the flesh, and in the inferior and grosser affections, but in those highest and most excellent powers of man in which justice, piety, the knowledge and the reverence of God ought to reign. That is, these are in the rational faculty and in the will — and so, in the very power of Freewill itself; in the very seed of honesty, or in the very heart of that which is most excellent in man.
Where are you now, my Diatribe, who previously promised that you would willingly agree concerning the most excellent thing in man, that it is flesh — that is, ungodly — if it were proved by Scripture. Agree to this now, therefore, hearing as you do that the most excellent thing in all men is not only impious, but ignorant of God, a contemner of God, turned towards evil, and unprofitable as to good. For what is it to be unjust, if not that the will, which is one of the most excellent things in man, is unjust?
What does it mean to have no understanding of God and of good, if not that the understanding, which is another of the most excellent things in man, is ignorant of God and of good — that is, it is blind to the knowledge of godliness? What does it mean to have gone out of the way, and to be unprofitable, if not for men to lack any power in any part of them — and least of all in those parts of them which are most excellent — to do good, but only to do evil? What does it mean not to fear God, if not for men, in all their parts —especially in those better parts of yours — to be despisers of God? Now, to be despisers of God, is to be at the same time despisers of all the things of God; for instance, of the words, works, laws, precepts, and will of God. Now, what can the understanding dictate that is right, when she is herself blind and ignorant? What can the will choose that is good, when she is herself evil and unprofitable? Indeed, what can the will follow after, when the understanding dictates nothing to her, save the darkness of her own blindness and ignorance? If the understanding, then, is in a state of error, and the will is in a state of averseness, what good can the man either do or attempt?
SECT. 8. The Prophet’s condemnation includes power, as well as act.
But someone may perhaps venture a sophistical distinction, and say that, although the will turns aside and the understanding is ignorant in action, the will notwithstanding is able to endeavour, and the understanding is able to get knowledge, by their own powers respectively — seeing that we have power to do many things which we do not, however, actually perform, for our question truly is about power, not performance.
I reply; the words of the Prophet include both act and power; and it is the same thing to say, ‘Man does not seek after God,’ as it would be to say, ‘Man cannot seek after God.’ This is an assertion which may be gathered from this: ‘If there were a power or force in man to will good — seeing that he is not allowed to rest or take his pastime, through the impulse of the divine omnipotence, as I have shown above’ 698 — it could only be that this power was moved towards something , or at least in some one thing, and it was displayed by some sort of use.
This however is not the case; because God looks down from heaven, and does not see even one who seeks after him, or endeavours. It follows, therefore, that this power which endeavours, or is willing to seek after God, is nowhere to be found; but rather all men go out of the way. Again; if Paul is not understood to speak of lack of power, as well as lack of acting, then his argument would avail nothing. His whole bent is to prove that grace is necessary to all men. Now, if men could begin anything of themselves, grace would not be necessary. But as it is — since they cannot — grace is necessary to them. So then Freewill, you perceive, is quite eradicated by this passage, and nothing of goodness or honesty is left in man. He is declared to be unrighteous, ignorant of God, a despiser of God, averse to Him, and unprofitable in his sight. The Prophet is a pretty strong antagonist, therefore, in his own text, as well as under Paul’s allegation of him.
Nor is it a small matter, when man is said to be ignorant of
