Man; the cause.

Herman Witsius has written:

“1st. Man himself is not only the meritorious, but also the physical cause of his own impotence, which he brought upon himself by his misconduct; as if an insolent and naughty servant should put out the candle by which he ought to carry on his master’s business, or by drinking to excess, willingly render himself unfit for the service of his master. In this case, the master does by no means forfeit his right of requiring every piece of service properly due to him, and of punishing that naughty servant for non-performance. 2ndly. Though God as a just judge had deprived man of ability to fulfil the law, yet, on that account, he both will in point of right, and can require the performance it by man. He can very justly, because no wickedness of man, justly punished by God, can diminish God’s authority over him, otherwise it would be in man’s power, at his won pleasure, either to extend or limit the authority of God, which is contrary to the immutable perfection and blessedness of God. He also does require this for wise reasons, of which this is one, that sinful man may by that means be convinced of his irreparable misery, upon finding such things justly required of him, which he has rendered himself incapable to perform. And since he is as unwilling as unable to obey God, he is the more inexcusable, the more clearly the duty of the law is inculcated upon him. 3dly. It is absurd to say, that it is the greatest punishment that God inflicts on man, not to require obedience from the rebellious creature. It is indeed true, that the creature ought to reckon it a part of its happiness to have the glory of obeying. And it is the punishment of the creature, if, by the just judgment of God, it is condemned never to perform what is incumbent, and may be acceptable to God. But it is another thing to say, that God will not require obedience from it. If God requires not obedience, the creature owes none; if it owes none, it does not act amiss, by disobeying, and if it does not amiss by disobeying, that cannot be the highest punishment for it. And thus Arminius destroys his own argument; who would have spoke rightly, had he said, that it is, instead of the highest punishment to the creature, to be condemned by the just judgment of God not to perform that obedience, which God consistently with his justice and holiness requires of it. 4thly. Should we deal more closely with a bold disputant, we might say, that there is a contradiction in the adjunct, when he supposes God addressing himself thus: I will not have thee to perform any obedience to me: for if any calls for obedience, he presupposes not only some authority by which he can require it, but also a command, which requires obedience, and which must be obeyed. Whoever by his authority gives such a command, requires that obedience be yielded to it. If he should give another command to this purpose, I will not have you to obey me, he would then contradict himself; nay, contradict the nature of the command, which consists in an obligation to obedience. 5thly. It is the highest absurdity imaginable, that a creature shall, by its sin, obtain exemption from the authority of the Creator, and be no longer bound to obey him. If this is true, then the first of all deceivers spoke truth, that man, by eating of the forbidden fruit, would become as God. Whoever is exempted from the authority of the Creator, is under the authority of none, is at this own disposal; in fine, is God. For to be at one’s own disposal, is to be God. Ah! how ridiculous is this!”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume I, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 154-155.)