On the Bondage of the Will (De servo arbitrio)

u Thou sayest then unto me, why doth he yet find fault ? For who shall resist his will ?" Do you notice the personification ?z They, upon hearing that the will of God imposes a necessity upon us, blasphemously murmur and say, c Why doth he yet find fault V that is, why doth God so press, so drive, so demand, so complain? why doth he accuse? why doth he condemn? as if we men could do what he demands, if we pleased. He has no just cause for this complaint — let him rather accuse his own will — 'there let him prefer his complaint — there let him press and drive. For who shall resist his will? who can obtain mercy, when he does not choose they should? who can melt himself, if it be his will to harden ? It does not lie with us to change His will, much less to resist it: that will chooses that we should be hardened ; by that will we are compelled to be hardened — whether we will or no. If Paul had not resolved this question, or had y Luther makes some confusion in the order of the verses, putting the 18th in the place of the 15th. But his argument is not dependent upon the transposition. The more explicit testimony of verse 18 is implied in verse 15 ; but verse 18 precedes both the cavil and the reproof.

z Prosopopoeia.'] c The introducing of imaginary persons:' literally, ( the making of persons { — a well-known figure of rhetoric. Paul had before been simply stating truth in plain language. Now he brings ifl a supposed objection. Luther asks Erasmus whether he notices this ? It was essential to his correct understanding of the passage, that he should have remarked this change in the Apostle's mode of address : that he does personify, and what sort of persons he fabricates. not unequivocally determined that a necessity is sec.xix. imposed upon vis by the divine prescience, what need was there to introduce persons as murmuring and alleging that it is impossible to resist his will ? For who would murmur or be indignant, if he did not think that this necessity bad been determined? The words in which he speaks of resisting the will of God are not obscure. Is it doubtful what he means by c resisting,' or by 'will;' or c of whom' he speaks, when he speaks of the will of God? Let unnumbered thousands of the most approved doctors be blind here, and let them feign that Scripture is not clear, and let them be afraid of a difficult question. We have got some most clear words, of this import ; " He pitieth whom he will ; whom he will, he hardeneth." Also, iC Thou sayest to me therefore, why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his will ?"

Nor is it a difficult question ; nay, nothing can be plainer to common sense than that this conse- ■ quence is certain, solid and true : ' If God foreknows an event, it necessarily comes to pass ;' when it has been presupposed, upon the testimony of Scripture, that God neither errs nor is deceived.51 I confess that the question is a difficult one — nay, one which it is impossible to resolve— if you should in the same instant determine to maintain both God's foreknowledge and man's liberty. For what is more difficult, or rather more impossible, than to contend that contradictions and contraries are not at variance with each other; or that a number is at the same time ten and nine ? There is no difficulty in the question we are handling, but the difficulty is gone after and a Efrat.falliiur.~\ Err. a mistake in his own apprehensions. Fall, appearances beguile him. It is not disappointment as to the event, which is the subject of remark here ; but an object seen afar off made to appear different from what it really part iv. brought in, just as ambiguity and obscurity are gone after and introduced by violence into the

Scriptures. — So then, he stops the mouths of those wicked ones who have been offended by those most plain words (and why offended, but because they perceive that the divine will is fulfilled by means of our necessity, and because they perceive it to have been unequivocally determined that there is nothing of liberty or of Freewill left to them, but that all things are dependent upon the will of God only) ; he stops their mouths I say, but it is by bidding them be still, and reverence the Majesty of the divine power and will,b over which we have no right of control, whilst it has full power over us, to do what seemeth it good : not that there is any injury done to us by its operations, since it owes us nothing ; having received nothing from us, and having promised nothing to us but just so much as it chose and was pleased to do. SEC. xx. Here then is the place, here is the time, for adoring, not the fictitious inhabitants of those where Corycian caves, but the real f Majesty of God in ence'for6'" his 'fearful wonders, and in his incomprehensible the Scrip- judgments ; and for saying u Thy will be done, tures hes. ag m heaven^ so jn earth." On the other hand, we are never more irreverent and rash, than when we attempt and accuse these very mysteries and judgments, which are unsearchable. Meanwhile, we imagine that we are exercising an incredible degree of reverence in searching the holy Scriptures. Those Scriptures, which God has commanded us to search, we do not search in one direction; but in another, in which he has forbidden us to search them, we do nothing but

b Majestatem.'] A form of expression common amongst men, with application to earthly potentates. ' His Majesty ' does so and so. It is a sort of personification of the sovereign's state, power, and excellency. So here, of God's power and will. search them with a perpetual temerity, not to say sec. xx. blasphemy. Is it not such a search, when we rashly endeavour to make that most free foreknowledge of God accord with our liberty ; and are ready to detract from the prescience of God if it do not leave us in possession of liberty ; 01% if it induce necessity, to say with the murmurers and blasphemers, ' Why doth he yet find fault? who shall resist his will? what is become of the most merciful God ? what is become of Him who willeth not the death of a sinner? Has he made us that he might delight himself with man's torments V and the like ; which shall be howled out for ever amongst the devils and the damned ? But even natural reason is obliged to confess, that the living and true God must be such an one as to impose necessity upon us, seeing he himself is free : as for instance, that he would be a ridiculous God, or more properly an idol, if he should either foresee future things doubtfully, or be disappointed by events ; when even the Gentiles have assigned irresistible fate to their gods.a He would be equally ridiculous, if he had not power to do ail things, and did not effect all things ;

or if any thing be really brought to pass without him. Now if the foreknowledge and omnipotency of God be conceded, it follows naturally, by an undeniable consequence, that we were not made by ourselves, neither do we live by ourselves, neither do we perform any thing by ourselves, but all through His omnipotency. And now, since he both knew beforehand that we should be such a sort of people, and goes on to make us such, and to move and govern us as such ; what can be imagined in us, pray, that is

c Fatum in-eluctabile.~\ Even those, who made the fatal sisters superior to Jupiter himself, still had an uncontrolled ordainer of events j inexorable, infallible, invincible fate. part iv. free to have a different issue given to it from that which he foreknew, or is now effecting? So that God's foreknowledge and omnipotency are diametrically opposite to man's Freewill. For either God will be mistaken in his foreknowledge, and disappointed in his actings (which is impossible), or we shall act, and act according to his foreknowledge and agency. By the omnipotency of God, I mean not a power by which he might do many things which he does not; but that acting omnipotency, by which he doeth all things, with power, in all things : it is after this manner, that the Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipotency 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 d here. The words are most clear, even children know them: the subject matter is plain and easy; one which approves 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 never so great, it profiteth you nothing. sec.xxi. This common sense, or natural reason, is most

highly offended forsooth, that God should leave mOrauon men> snoa^ harden them, should damn them, of hates. his own sheer will; as if he were delighted with the sins and torments of the wretched, which are so great and eternal : whereas he is declared to be a God of so great mercy and goodness. It has been deemed unjust, cruel and insufferable to entertain such a sentiment concerning God ; with which so many, and those such great men, during so many ages, have also been offended. — And who would not be offended ? I myself have been d PrcEiexi.'] Properly, ' a fine web of art spread before a substance to cover, or disguise it.' — Judicium naturale, like ratio nataralis above, opposes e natural' to ' spiritual.' The conclusions are so obvious, that we need not the Spirit to draw them. offended at it, more than once, to the very depth, sec.xxi and lowest depth0 of despair, so as to wish that I — had never been created a man : until I learned how salutary that despair was, and how near of kin to grace. Hence ail this toil and sweat in putting forward f 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 like kind ; which have produced no result however, save that the ignorant have been imposed upon by u vain babblings, and by oppositions of science falsely so called/'5 Still there has always remained this sting infixed in the deep of their hearts, both to the learned and to the unlearned, if ever they have come to be serious; that they could not believe the prescience and omnipotency 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; which would be the same, even if there were no Scrip- e Abyssum.~] ' Abijssus est profunditas aquarum impenetrabilis, sive speluncss aquarum latentium, de quibus fontes et flumina procedunt, vel quce oceulte subtereant/ Hence applied to c the abyss.' " They besought him that he would not command them to go out into the abyss." (Gr.) " Art thou come hither to torment us before the time ?" — Luther had felt the very hell of despair. ' And in the lowest deep, A lower deep still threatening to devour me Opens wide.' f Pro excusandd bonitate Dei.~\ Excus. ' Item, in excusationem affero.' — For regulated and absolute will see above, Sect. xix. where he distinguishes these as voluni. ordin. scu signi, and volunt. placiii. — For consequence and consequent, see Part i. Sect xi. s 1 Tim. vi. 20. avnOcaeis. c Boctrina opposita,' c qusestio quae ad disceptandum proponitur.' — Not what is commonly understood by opposition ; but men setting out to canvass doctrines with a great display of school-learning, and maintaining theses which were opposite to the truth.

part IV. ture. For all find this sentiment written in their hearts, so as to recognise and approve it, even against their will, when they hear it discussed : 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 ;h else he would be a ridiculous God : secondly, that 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, by and by they are compelled to admit by an inevitable consequence, that we were not made by our own will, but by necessity; and hence, that we do not any thing in right of Freewill, but just as God hath foreknown and doth direct 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 Freewill : although this writing be obscured, through the circumstance of so many contrary disputations, and so many persons of such vast authority having, for so many ages, taught differently. Just as every other law, which (according to Paul's testimony) has been written in our hearts, is recognised when rightly handled, but obscured, when distorted by ungodly teachers and laid hold of by other opinions.1 sc. xxii. I return to Paul. Now, if he be not solving this question, and concluding human necessity from the prescience and will of God, what need

h See above, Sect. xx. i Paul's testimony can only respect the fact that a law may be written in our hearts, which is not outwardly taught and professed : for it is neither the same law, of which Paul speaks ; neither does he testify any thing about the handling", or about the recognition of that law. (Rom. ii. 13 — 16'.; — Luther supposes this law of necessity to lie at the bottom of our hearts, so that, when we hear it duly and truly set out, we by the exercise of our natural powers accord with it ; whilst it may be made illegible, and effaced, by false teaching and prejudice. has he to introduce the simile of the potter sc. xxn. making, out of one and the same lump, one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? Yet the resumed, thing made doth not say to its maker tf why hast dishonest thou made me thus V It is men that he is and cowspeaking of: whom he compares to clay, and ^JiT God to the potter. There is no meaning in the escape, but comparison ; nay, it is absurd and adduced to cannotno purpose, if he do not mean that our liberty is nothing. Nay, PauPs whole argument in support of grace is abortive. The very scope of his whole Epistle is to shew that we can do nothing, yea even then, when we seem to be doing good ; as he saith in the same place, c how that Israel, by following after righteousness, hath not however attained to righteousness; but the Gentiles, which followed not, have attained to it:'* of which I shall speak more at large when I produce my own forces.

But Diatribe, disguising the whole body of PauPs argument, together with its scope, consoles herself meanwhile with garbled and corrupted words.1 It is nothing to Diatribe, that Paul afterAvards, in Rom. xi. exhorts them, on the other hand; saying, " Thou standest by faith ; see that thou art not lifted up." And again : " They also, if they believe, shall be grafted in," &c. He says nothing there about the powers of man ; but uses imperative and conjunctive verbs, the effect of which has been sufficiently declared already."1 k Rom. ix. 30. — I have not marked the words as a Scripture quotation,, because they are not exact. He says in the same place : the intervening verses are all dependent upon verse 24, being so many quotations to shew., that it was God's avowed purpose to call a body of Gentiles into his church, and to save only a remnant of Israel. 1 Excisis et depravaiis.~] Exc. words { cut out ' from the text, in which they stand connected with others. Depr. ( turned awry/ f made crooked/ their meaning, through this violent separation, distorted and polluted. m See above, Part iii. Sect, xxxiv. part iv. Nay, 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 graff them in/' says he. — To be 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 from even her own words. For, in those places where she ought most of all to have gone on and proved her doctrine, she almost always breaks off the discourse with a — ? But enough of this ;' or, c I will not investigate this point now f or, ' It is no part of this subject/ or, * They would say so and so ;' and many like expression s.n Thus she leaves the matter in the midst, making it doubtful whether she would rather seem to be standing up as a champion for Freewill, or only to be shewing her skill in parrying off Paul with vain words.0 All this she does after a law and manner of her own ; as one who is not in earnest whilst pleading this cause. But we ought not to be thus indifferent ; thus to skim the ears of corn; thus to be shaken like a reed with the winds : but, first to assert confidently, steadfastly, fervently; and then to demonstrate by solid, apposite, and abundant proof the doctrine we maintain.15

Then again, how exquisitely does she contrive to preserve liberty in union with necessity, when she says, Nor does every sort of necessity exclude freedom of will. As for instance, God the Father necessarily begets the Son; but he begets him willingly and freefy, inasmuch as he is not compelled to beget him. Are we disputing now, n Excutiam. instituti.'] Excut. c concutere, scrutandi et explorandi causa.' Inst. e scopus, propositum, inceptum.' irpoaipeai'i' ° Pro libero arbltrio dicer e. Eludere Paulum. p Super aristas incedere."] See above, Part iii. Sect. vi. note b. ( Certo opposed to ( hesitatingly ;' constayiter, to ' variableness of statement ;' ardenter, to 'Indifference y solide, to 'insubstantial;' dextre, to a f clumsiness, and want of address;' copiose, to ' scantiness of materials.' pray, about compulsion and force ? Have I not sc. xxn. in all my writings testified, that I speak of a necessity of immutability ? q I know that the Father willingly begets; I know that Judas betrayed Christ through an act of his will. But I affirm that this will was about to be in this very Judas, certainly and infallibly, if God foreknew it. If what I affirm be not yet sufficiently understood, 6 let us refer one sort of necessity — that of violence— to the work; another sort of necessity — that of infallibility — to the time/ Let him who hears me understand me to speak of the latter of these two necessities, not of the former ; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but, whether at the time fore-appointed of God it must not infallibly come to pass, that Judas, by an act of his own will, betrays Christ,

But see what Diatribe says here : c If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, Judas was necessarily to become a traitor; but Judas might have changed his will.' Do you even know what you are saying, my Diatribe? To omit, what has been already proved, that the will can but choose evil; how could Judas change his will in consistency with the infallible foreknowledge of God ? could he change the foreknowledge of God, and make it fallible ? Here Diatribe gives in, deserts her standard, throws away her arms, and flies; referring the discussion, as none of hers, to those scholastic subtilties which distinguish between the necessity of a consequence and the necessity of a consequent:1" a sort of quibble i See above. Part iii. Sect, xxxvii. note h. r In consistency with what has been said before (Part i. Sect, xi.), but with a minute variety in the application, Judas's treachery, they would say, was necessary, but he was not a necessary traitor : he must betray, but not therefore necessarily ; that is, according to their account of the matter, compulsorily. part iv. which she has no mind to pursue. It is very prudent in you doubtless, after having conducted

your cause all the way into the midst of a crowded court8 — when now a pleader is most of all necessary— to turn your back, and leave the business of replying and defining* to others. You should have acted this counsel from the first, and abstained from writing altogether; according to that saying, c The man who knows not how to contend abstains from the weapons of the field/" It was not expected of Erasmus, that he should remove v that difficulty, e how God with certainty foreknows, yet our actions are contingent/ This difficulty was in the world long before Diatribe's time. But it was expected that he should reply and define. However, being himself a rhetorician, whilst we know nothing about it, he calls in a rhetorical transition to his aid, and — carrying us ignoramuses along with him, as if the matter in debate were one of no moment, and the whole discussion were mere quirk and quibble, — dashes violently out of the midst of the crowd, wearing his crown of ivy and laurel.x s The ' mediae turbas' are the multitudes surrounding the judicial tribunal : c non usitata frequentid stipati sumus.' — Cic. ' Perduxeris ' expresses the pomp and the labour with which he had dragged on the cause to issue.

t Respondendi et definiendi.'] Resp. has respect to the adversary's argument, which should be invalidated or taken off: defin. is the explanatory statement of the advocate's own case. See above, Part i. Sect. ix. u Hor. Art. Poet. v. 379. v Moveret.~\ There is a peculiar force, if I mistake not, hi ( moveret :' he does not say ( remove,' though I have ventured, with good authority, to give it that force ; rather, it is a heavy body which he cannot f wag.' x Luther thus ridicules his claim to skill and victory. In many sorts of competition, and for many sorts of merit, it was customary to crown the conquerors with various materials — sometimes precious, sometimes of no value — as the highest tribute of honour which could be received. Here therefore he represents Erasmus as crowning himself; by a feint of rhetoric abandoning his cause, and assuming to be a conquering But you have not gained your end by this sect. stratagem, brother ! There is no skill in rhetoric XXIIL so great as to be able to deceive a sincere conscience: the sting of conscience is mightier than eloquence with all her powers and figures. We shall not suffer the rhetorician to pass on here to another topic, that he may hide himself: it is not the place for this exhibition. The hiuge of the several matters in dispute, and the head of the cause is attacked here:

it is here that Freewill is either extinguished, or shall gain a complete triumph. But instead of meeting this crisis, no sooner do you perceive your danger, or rather perceive that the victory over Freewill is sure ; than you pretend to see nothing but metaphysical subtilties in the question. Is this acting the part of a trusty theologian? Are you serious in the cause ? How comes it then, that you both leave your hearers in suspense, and the discussion in a state of confusion and exasperation/ Still however, you would be thought to have done your work very honourably, and would seem to have carried off the palm. Such cunning and wilinessz may be endurable in profane causes; but in theology, where simple and undisguised truth is the object of pursuit — that souls may be saved — it is most hateful and intolerable.

The Sophists also have felt the invincible and Much joy insupportable force of this argument ; and have ^hlstl and therefore feigned this distinction between the Diatribe in Bacchus, and an unrivalled Apollo, by wearing the emblems of those divinities. y Perturbatum et exasperatum.~\ Perturb, implies want of order and distinctness ; no first, second, and third, either in reply or advancement : exasp. the heat and ruffle with which it is maintained $ we speak of f angry' debate. z Vafritia et versutia.'] Vaf. expresses the subtile invention which devises ; versut. the versatility and adroitness with which the crafty counsel is executed : opposed afterwards by simplex, f what is inartificial y and aperta, ( what is manifest to the part iv. necessity of a consequence and of a consequent : «-* but how fruitless this distinction is, has been their ne- snewn already.* They also, like yourself, are not Tconse- aware what they say, and how much they admit quent. against themselves. For, if you allow the necessity of a consequence, Freewill is vanquished and laid prostrate, and is nothing aided by the consequent's being either necessary or contingent. What is it to me, that Freewill does what she does willingly and not by compulsion? it is enough for me that you concede, f it must necessarily be that Judas do willingly what he does ; and that the event cannot be otherwise, if God hath so foreknown it9 If God foreknows that Judas will betray the Lord, or that he will change his will to betray him ;

whether of the twain he shall have foreknown? rwill necessarily come to pass : else God will be mistaken in his forekno wings and foretellings ; which is impossible. The necessity of the consequence effects this ; if God foreknows an event, that very event necessarily happens. In other words, Freewill is a nothing. This necessity of the consequence is neither obscure, nor ambiguous : if the great doctors in all ages have even been blind, they must still be obliged to admit its existence, since it is so manifest and so certain as to be palpable. b

But the necessity of the consequent, with which they comfort themselves, is a mere phantom, and fights, as the saying is, diametrically with the necessity of the consequence. For example ; it is the necessity of a consequence, if I say ' God foreknows that Judas will be a traitor ; therefore it will certainly and infallibly come to pass, that Judas is a traitor/ In opposition to this neces- a See above, note r. b Palpari."] ' What you may stroke with the hand.' The gentlemen which have no eyes may still receive sense-testimony to it. sity of the consequence^ you console yourself in sect. this way : But since Judas may change his will to xxiv. betray; therefore there is no necessity in the con- "'""" sequent. I demand of you, how these two assertions agree with each other : < Judas may not be willing to betray ;' and f it is necessary, that Judas be willing to betray/ Do they not directly contradict and fight against each other ? ' He shall not be compelled (say you) to betray, against his will/ — What is this to the purpose? You have been affirming something about the necessity of a consequent; that it is not rendered necessary, forsooth, by the necessity of the consequence; but you have affirmed nothing about the compulsion of the consequent. Your answer ought to have been touching the necessity of the consequent; and you produce an example which shews compulsion in the consequence. I ask one question and you reply to another. All this is the produce of that half asleep half awake state of mind, in which you do not perceive how perfectly inefficient that device is, the necessity of a consequent.0

So much for the first of the two passages ;d The other which respects the induration of Pharaoh, and admitted 1 7 text de- c Commentum.~] The subtilty means ' Judas has still a will, which is not forced ; therefore there is Freewill still.' — Who says ' forced?' But can it choose otherwise? A will, that can only make one choice, is in bondage. — The example of Judas is introduced by Erasmus, not Luther. d See Part iv. Sect. i. — The course of this long, elaborate, and invincible argument may be traced by the side notes attached to each section ; but the reader will forgive me if I endeavour to assist him by the following short summary. Erasmus endeavours to evade this plain text by a trope. 1. Tropical interpretations are generally inadmissible. % Absurdity of the proposed one. 3. It does not remove the difficulty. 4. Certain illustrations objected to. 5. The causes assigned for introducing it examined. 6. How God hardens explained. 7. Diatribe exposed, and Luther's view maintained by an appeal to the context. Also, by an appeal to Paul's comment ; which introduces Erasmus's evasion and that of the Sophists. — In the course of these considerations several topics are ad-

part iv. involves all the texts of like kind, amounting to a phalanx — and that an invincible one. Let us now examine the second, about Jacob and Esau ; of whom, when not yet born, it was said " The elder shall serve the younger." Diatribe evades this passage by saying, c It has nothing properly to do with the subject of man's salvation. God may will that a man be a servant or a poor man, whether the man will or no, without his being rejected from eternal salvation/ Nothing See how many side-paths and holes of escape a salvation, slippery mind seeks after, which is intent upon So' Jerome flying away from truth; but still she does not had said. qUite accomplish her flight. Let us suppose, if you will, that this text does not appertain to man's salvation (of which I shall speak hereafter), is it to no purpose then, that Paul adduces it? Shall we make Paul ridiculous, or absurd, in the midst of so serious a discussion ? Howbeit, this is a fancy of Jerome's; who, with abundant arrogance on his brow, whilst he is committing sacrilege with his mouth, has the audacity in more places than one to affirm, that those Scriptures which oppose in Paul, do not oppose in their proper places,0 from which he quotes them. What is this but to say, that, in laying the foundations of christian doctrine, Paul does but corrupt the divine Scriptures, and beguile the souls of the faithful, by a sentiment which is the coinage of his own brain, and which is intruded upon the Scriptures by violence ? Such is the honour, which the Spirit ought to receive, in the person of that holy and choice instrument of God, Paul ! Now, whereas Jerome ought to be read with judgment, and this saying of his to be classed

mitted by the way : such as the state of man, limits of inquiry, carnal reason's objections, &c. . . . e Pugnant.~\ Said with reference to some particular doctrine not named — the doctrine of Freewill doubtless, as maintained by Jerome and those who teach like him. amongst the many which that gentleman (through sect. his listlessness in studying, and his d illness in XXY' understanding Scripture) has written impiously; Diatribe snaps up this very saying without any judgment, and does not deign to mitigate it, as she might at least do, with a gloss of some sort, but both judges and qualifies the Scriptures by this saying, as an oracle which precludes all doubt. Thus it is, that we take the ungodly sayings of men as so many rules and measures for interpreting the divine word: and can we any longer wonder that it has become ambiguous and obscure, and that so many of the Fathers are blind to its real meaning, when it is thus made impious and profane ? Let him be anathema therefore who shall say, paui de- * those words do not oppose the doctrine in their fended in original places, which do oppose as quoted by gL?xxv. Paul/ This is said, but not proved ; and is said 21—23. by those, who neither understand Paul nor the ^edfy passages cited by him, but deceive themselves by supposing taking the words in their own sense ; that is, an the service impious one. For although this text in particular (Gen. xxv. 21 — 23.) were meant of temporal servitude1 only (which is not true); still it is rightly and efficaciously quoted by Paul to prove, that, not for the merits of Jacob or of Esau, but through him that calleth, it was said to Sarah8 " The

f What is, in fact, gained by this distinction ? The principle is the same ; ' God of his sovereign will putting a difference.'— Just so it is, with respect to national and personal election. Yet some seem to think that they have hooked a great fish, in discovering, that Great Britain may have been elected to hear the Gospel without any of her children having been elected to receive it ! s Sarah.'] Clearly, it should be Rebekah. Sarah was dead when this prophecy was delivered, which is expressly said to have been delivered to Rebekah. " And she (Rebekah) said, If it be so, &c. And the Lord said unto her." Gen. xxv. 22, 23. The preceding mention of Sarah in Rom. ix. accounts for the mistake. part iv. elder shall serve the younger." — Paul's question is, whether they attained to what is said of them by the virtue or merits of Freewill • and he proves that, not by the virtue or merits of Freewill, but only by the grace of him that called him, Jacob attained to what Esau did not. This he proves by invincible words of Scripture : such as, that they were not yet born ; and again, that they had done neither good nor evil. The weight of the matter lies in this proof ; this is the point under debate. But Diatribe, through her exquisite skill in rhetoric, passing over and disguising all these things, does not at all debate the question of merits (although she had undertaken to do so, and although Paul's handling of the subject requires it), but quibbles about temporal servitude (as if this were any thing to the purpose) ;

only that she may appear not to be conquered by those most mighty words of Paul. For what could she have to yelp out against Paul, in support of Freewill ? what profit was there of Freewill to Jacob ? what hurt of the same to Esau ? when it had been settled by the foreknowledge and ordination of God what sort of a lot each of them should receive : namely, that the one should serve, and the other should rule ; when as yet neither of them was born, or had done any thing. The rewards, which each shall receive, are decreed before the workmen are born, and have begun to work. It is to this point, that Diatribe ought to have directed her reply. This is what Paul insists upon, that they had done nothing good or evil as yet,* but still the one is ordained to be the master and the other the servant, by a divine judgment. The question is not, whether this servitude have respect to eternal salvation, but by what merit this servitude is imposed upon a man who has not merited any thing. But it is most

irksome to maintain a conflict with these depraved11 SECT, endeavours to torture and elude Scripture. Howbeit, that Moses is not treating of their Theservice temporal servitude and dominion only, and that is not Paul is right in this also, that he understands him ^fbut*" to speak with reference to their eternal salvation spiritual, (although this be not so important to the point in hand, I will not however suffer Paul to be defiled with the calumnies of sacrilegious men1), is proved from the text itself. The divine answer k given to Rebekah in the book of Moses is, " Two manner of people shall be separated from thy womb ; and the one people shall overcome the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger." Here two sorts of people are manifestly distinguished from each other. The one is received into the free favour of God, although the younger, so as to overcome the elder ; not by strength, it is true, but through God's befriending him. How else should the younger conquer the elder, except God were with him? Now, since the younger is about to become the people of h Pravis.'] Nearly allied in meaning to the torquendce Scripture which follows ; ' what is crooked and awry.' — No objection, it is obvious, can be drawn from the statement in this paragraph, and from St. Paul's argument, to what has been advanced in a former note (see above, Sect.

x. note z.) on the subject of original sin. The question is about the difference between Jacob and Esau. Both alike fallen and self-destroyed in Adam, the question is how either of these receives distinguishing benefits, whether of a temporal or eternal nature. With respect to manifest existence and distinct personal agency, neither of them, it is plain, had done good or evil, when the words were spoken to Rebekah. That which alone could constitute any difference on a ground of Freewill or merit, there had as yet been no opportunity of displaying-.

1 See last section. The question of Freewill is not affected. Erasmus follows Jerome, whom Luther has pronounced sacrilegious. k OraculumJ] It is said of Rebekah, that cc she went to inquire of the Lord." Oraculum therefore, c an answer, counsel, or sentence from the Gods,' is the fit term by which to characterise what was said to her. part IV. God,1 it is not only external dominion or ser- -^ vitude, that is treated of here, but every thing which appertaineth to the people of God ; that is, the blessing of God, the word, the Spirit, the promise of Christ, and the eternal kingdom : which is even yet more largely confirmed by the Scripture afterwards, where it describes Jacob as being blessed, and as receiving the promises and the kingdom. Paul intimates these several things briefly, when he says, " the elder shall serve the younger i" sending us back to Moses, as one who treats them more at large. So that, in opposition to the sacrilegious"' comment of Jerome and Diatribe, you may say, that all the passages which Paul adduces fight yet more stoutly against Freewill in their original places, than in his writings. A remark which holds good, not only with respect to Paul, but with respect to all the Apostles ; who quote the Scriptures as witnesses to, and assertors of their doctrine. Would not it be ridiculous to quote as a testimony, that which testifies nothing, and does not bear upon the question ? If those be accounted ridiculous amongst philosophers, who prove an unknown thing by one yet more unknown, or by an argument which is foreign to the subject; with what face shall we ascribe this absurdity to the chief leaders and authors of the doctrine of Christ ; on which the salvation of souls depends ? especially in those parts of their writings in which they treat of the main articles of the

1 Isaac's descendants in the line of Jacob were not only to be the typical family — the community which shadowed out the Lord's elect church — but also to be the visible church for a season, and to contain within them the true seed : so that all the spiritual blessings of God were comprehended in this superiority which is announced as the portion of Jacob. m Sacrilegam.'] ' Qui sacra legit,'' i. e. furatur. Thus, sacrilege is beautifully defined by Johnson to be f the crime of robbing heaven.' Jerome and those who followed him were guilty of this. faith. But such insinuations become those, who have sect. no real reverence for the divine Scriptures ?n That saying of Malachi's which Paul annexes, Diatribe's " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," evasions she tortures by three distinct productions of her ofMaiac.i. industry.0 The first is, ' If you insist upon the £ by a letter/ God does not love as we love ; nor does trope put he hate any man : since God is not subject to 0nove. affections of this kind/ What is it I hear? Is it not made the question, how God loves and hates ; instead of why he loves and hates ? By what merit of ours he loves or hates, is the question. We know very well, that God does not hate or love, as we do ;

since we both love and hate mutably; but he loves and hates according to his eternal and immutable nature : so far is he from being the subject of accident and affection. And it is this very thing which compels Freewill to be a mere nothing ; namely, that the love of God towards men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards them eternal ; not only prior to the merit and operation of Freewill, but even to the very making of the world; and that every thing is wrought in us necessarily, according to his having either loved us or not loved us, from eternity: insomuch that not only the love of God, but even his manner of loving, brings necessity upon us. — See here

n Qui sacris scripturis serib non qfficiuntur."] Luther has a peculiar use of the word officio, or rather afficior, which I recognise here — c affected to' — denoting a mind interested in, having its affections excited towards an object. ° Triplici industrid torquet.~\ A peculiar use of the word industrid — which commonly denotes c a state, or act, of mind' — to express ( the result of that act ; ' and this in an unfavourable sense : f a laboured excogitation, in which there is neither genius, nor the Spirit.' (See above, Sect.- v. note2.) p Si literam urgeas.~\ By way of forcing a tropical interpretation of the text, she intimates that the literal cannot possibly stand. ' If you drive the letter $' that is, force us to take it whether we will or no. part iv. what Diatribe's attempts at escape have profited her; every where she but runs aground the more, the more she strives to slip away: so unsuccessful a thing is it to struggle against truth. But let your trope be allowed: let the love of God be the effect of love, and the hatred of God the effect of hatred ; are these effects wrought without, or beside,q the will of God? Will you also say here, God doth not will as we do ; neither is he subject to the affection of willing ? If these effects take place then, they take place only when he wills :

and what he wills, that he either loves or hates. Tell me then, by what merit on their part severally, Jacob is loved and Esau is hated before they are born and perform any act? It appears therefore, that Paul doth most excellently introduce Malachi to support the sentiment of Moses (namely, that God called Jacob before he was born, because he loved him, and not because he was loved before by Jacob, or because he was moved by any merit of his to do so); that it might be shewn in the case of Jacob and Esau, what our Freewill can do.r

The second of these laboured excogitations is, 'that Malachi seems not to be speaking of the hatred by which we are eternally damned, but of a temporary affliction. It is a reprehension of those who would build up Eclom.' Here is a second word of reproach for Paul, as doing violence to Scripture : so entirely do we cast off our reverence for the majesty of the Holy Spirit, if we may but establish our own conclu- Malachi speaks of temporal affliction. 9 Citra et prater.] More literally,, f on this side and beyond :' implying therefore that they are altogether of him and through him. and to him. r Erasmus says it is not love and hate, but the effect of these. Luther replies, if effect, it is God's will that effects, and the effect is what he approves : he approves one sort of event to Jacob therefore, and another to Esau.— How much forwarder are you ? sions. But we will bear this insult for a while, sect. and see what good it does. Malachi speaks of ^ temporal affliction. What comes of this ? or what is this to the point in hand ? Paul is proving from Malachi that this affliction was brought upon Esau without any merit of his, by the mere hatred of God ; that he may conclude Freewill to be nothing. Here it is you are pressed : to this point you ought to direct 3^0 ur answer.

We are disputing about merit, you speak of reward ; and in such a way as not however to elude what you was meaning to elude : nay, in even speaking of reward you acknowledge merit.5 But you pretend that you do not see this. Tell me then, what was the cause in the divine mind for loving Jacob and hating Esau, when they were not yet in being. — Again ; it is false, that Malachi speaks only of temporary affliction ; nor is his business with the destruction of Edom : you pervert the whole meaning of the Prophet by this laboured subtilty. The Prophet makes it quite plain what he means, by using the clearest terms : his meaning is to upbraid the Israelites with their ingratitude, because, whilst he has been loving them, they in return are neither loving him as a father, nor fearing him as a master. The fact of his having loved them he proves both by Scripture and by actual performance. For instance, although Jacob and Esau were brothers, as Moses writes in Gen. xxv. he had however loved and chosen Jacob before he was born (as we have just shewn),

s To make this text consist with Freewill, there must be ground of love and of hate in the personal mind and conduct of the two persons. — What follows is a master's view of Malachi's prophecy, and decisive as to the question. Judah's reproach is that he has been freely, distinguishing^ loved, and has been so treacherous. The essence of the reproach is the freeness of the love : and what is this temporality, which extends from generation to generation, and which comprehends as its central portion ' the eternal God had/ in opposition to ' not Jiad, but had for an enemy }\ ART iv. but had so hated Esau as to have reduced his country to a wilderness. Moreover he hates, and persists in hating, with such pertinacity, that, after having brought Jacob back from captivity and restored him, still he suffered not the Eclomites to be restored ; but, even if they should say they would build, himself threatens them with destruction. If the Prophet's own plain text1 does not contain these things, let the whole world charge me with telling a lie. It is not the temerity of the Edomites then, which is reprehended here, but the ingratitude (as I have said) of the sons of Jacob ; who do not see what he is conferring upon them, and what he is taking away from their brothers the Edomites, for no reason but because he hates the one, and loves the other. u

How will it now stand good, that the Prophet is speaking of temporary affliction ? when he declares in plain terms, that he is speaking about two distinct nations of people, who had descended from the two Patriarchs : that the one of these had been taken up to be his people, and had been preserved ; the other had been abandoned, and at length destroyed. Now the act of taking up a people as a people, and not taking them up as such, has not respect to temporal good or evil only, but to every thing. For our God is not the God of our temporal possessions only, but of every thing we have and look for : nor will he choose to be your God, or to be worshipped by you, with half a shoulder, or a limping foot, but with all your strength and with all your heart ; so as to be your God both here and hereafter, in all circumstances, cases, times, and works. 1 Textusipse apertus Prophetce.~\ Ipse, without any additions of mine ; apertus, what requires no opening to make its meaning clear. u Hie odit, illic amat.~\ More literally, ' hates in the one quarter, and loves in the other.

The third of these elaborate excogitations is., sc.xxtx. 'By a tropological form of expression, he declares that he neither loves all the Gentiles nor hates all £acob and _ Jbsau are a the Jews; but some out of each. By this tro- trope for pical interpretation it is made out, says she, that Jewsand this testimony has no voice for proving necessity, but for repelling the arrogance of the Jews. Having made this way of escape for herself, she next goes out by it to the length of maintaining, that God is said to hate those who are not yet born, inasmuch as he knows beforehand that they will do things worthy of hatred. Thus the hatred and love of God are no obstacle to Freewill. She comes at last to the conclusion, that the Jews have been cut off from the olive tree by the merit of unbelief; that the Gentiles have been graffed into it by the merit of faith — making Paul the author of this sentiment — and gives hope to them that have been cut off, that they shall again be graffed in; and fear to them that have been graffed in, lest they should be cut off/

Let me die, if Diatribe knows herself what she is saying. But perhaps there is here also some rhetorical figure, which teaches scholars to obscure the sense, wherever there is any danger of being entrapped by the word. I see none of those tropical forms of speech here, which Diatribe imagines to herself in her dreams, but does not prove : no wonder then, that the testimony of Malachi does not oppose her, if taken in a tropological sense; when it has no such sense at all. Again ; our subject of disputation is not that cutting off and graffing in of which Paul speaks afterwards/ when he exhorts. We know v I insert the word e afterwards ' to give clearness. It is evidently the eleventh chapter to which he refers. — There cannot be a more pernicious practice in the interpretation of Scripture (whilst there is scarcely any more common), than that of dragging in words which are somewhere thereabouts, but do really stand in quite a different connection, and have a perfectly dif- part iv. that men are graffed in by faith, and are cut off ■ by unbelief, and that they are to be exhorted to

believe, that they may not be cut off. But it does not follow from hence, neither is it proved, that they can believe or disbelieve through the power of the free will : which free will is the subject of our debate. We are not discussing who are believers and who not ; who are Jews and who are heathens ; what follows to believers and to unbelievers ; all this belongs to the exhorter. Our question is, by what merit, by what work, men attain to that faith by which they are graffed in ; or to that unbelief by which they are cut off. This is what belongs to the teacher.x Describe this merit to us. Paul teaches that this befals, not by any work of ours, but only by the love and hatred of God: and, when it has befallen men to believe, exhorts them to perseverance, that they may not be cut off. Still, exhortation proves not what we can do, but what we ought to do. I am forced to use almost more words in withholding my adversary from wandering else whither and leaving his cause, than in pleading the cause itself: howbeit, to have kept him to the point is to have conquered him ; so clear and invincible are the words which we have under consideration. Hence it is, that he does almost nothing else but turn aside from it, hurry away in an instant out of sight, and plead another cause than that which he had taken in hand. She takes her third passage from Isaiah xlv. Doth the clay say to its potter, what makest

The simile of clay in ferent scope ; to ascertain the meaning of a proposed text. An argument, or rather an illustrative exhortation of the eleventh chapter, separated from the preceding by many intervening subjects of discussion, is adduced by Erasmus to determine the meaning of an express affirmation in the early part of the ninth. x According to Paul's distinction of offices in Rom. xii. 6 — 8. " Having then gifts, &c. ; or he that teacheth, on teaching 5 or he that exhorteth on exhortation." thou?" And from Jeremiah xviii. "As the clay is sc. xxx. in the hand of the potter, so are ye in my hand." ' These words, again, are much stronger combatants ^j^o* in Paul, she says, than in the Prophets from ter, Paul whence they are taken; in the Prophets they doesnot are spoken of temporal affliction, but Paul applies Temporal them to eternal election and reprobation 9 — giving afflictions Paul a black-eye for his temerity, or for his evaders ignorance. force. But, before we see how she proves that neither of these passages exclude Freewill, let me first observe, that Paul does not appear to have taken this passage from the Prophets, nor does Diatribe prove that he has. Paul is wont to bring in the name of the writer, or to protest that he takes his sentiment from the Scriptures : neither of which he does here. It is therefore more probable that Paul uses this general simile (which different writers adopt for the illustration of different causes), in a sense of his own, for the illustration of the cause which he has in hand.

Just as he does with that simile, u A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump f which, in 1 Cor. v., he adapts to corruptive manners, and elsewhere casts in the teeth of those who were corrupting the word of God : just as Christ also makes mention of the leaven of Herod and of the Pharisees. So then, although the Prophets may speak especially of temporal affliction (a point which I decline speaking to now, that I may not be so often occupied and put off with questions foreign to the subject); still Paul uses it in a sense of his own, against Freewill. But, how far it is shewn that Freewill* is not taken away, if we be clay to the afflicting hand of God ; or why Diatribe insists upon this distinction; I know not: since it is unquestionable, that afflictions come upon us from God against our own will, and put us under the necessity of bearing them, whether we will or no, nor have we it in our own power to avert them ; although

The cavil from 2 Tim ii. repelled. we are exhorted, it is true, to bear them with a willing mind.y But it is worth while to hear Diatribe prosecute her cavil, that Paul does not exclude Freewill in his argumentation, by introducing this simile. She objects two absurdities; one of which she gathers from Scripture, the other from reason. The Scriptural one runs thus. When Paul had said in 2 Tim. ii. that in a great house there are vessels of gold and of silver and of wood and of earth ; some for honour, and some for dishonour; he presently adds, "if a man shall have cleansed himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour, &c." Upon this, Diatribe reasons thus : ' What could be more foolish than if a man should say to an earthen urinal, if thou shalt have purged thyself, thou shalt be a vessel of honour? which however would be rightly enough said to a cask possessed of reason, which has the faculty of accommodating itself to the will of its master, when admonished what that will is/ From these hints she would collect that the simile does not square in all respects, and is so far parried, as to prove nothing. I answer, first, to the exclusion of this cavil, that Paul does not say, if a man shall have cleansed himself from his own filth, but from these; that is, from the vessels of reproach : so that the sense is, if a man shall abide in a state of separation from these ungodly teachers, and shall not have mixed himself with them, he shall be a vessel of honour, &c. But, what if I should also grant that this text of Paul's has no more

y Erasmus says the Prophets speak only of temporal afflictions. What of this ? You do not disprove bond-will by this distinction, if it be just : rather, you adduce an instance of bond-will. These afflictions come, lie, remain against our will. How much does this shew of freedom ? — Voluntarie. We are taught indeed to make God's pleasure ours; but, whether we be enabled to do so, or not, his pleasure only is done. efficacy than Diatribe wishes to give to it ; that sc.xxxi. is, that the simile proves nothing? how will she prove that Paul means just the same thing in that passage from Rom. ix. which we are discussing? Is it enough, to quote another passage, and to have no care at all whether it have the same scope or a different one ? There is not any easier or commoner failure in the interpretation of Scripture, as I have often shewn, than that of parallelizing different passages of Scripture, as being alike;2 so that similitude of texts (on the ground of which Diatribe here vaunts herself) is even more inefficacious than this simile of ours which she is confuting. But, not to be contentious, let me grant that each of these passages in PauPs writings means the same thing : and that a simile (which without controversy is true) does not always, and in all particulars, square with the thing illustrated. Indeed, if it did, it would be neither simile nor metaphor, but the very thing itself; according to the proverb, ' Simile halts, and does not always run upon all fours/

But here is Diatribe's error and offence ; she overlooks the cause of the comparison which ought to be looked at more than all the rest, and is captious and contentious about words : whereas the meaning is to be sought, as Hilary says, not only from the words used, but also from the causes which give occasion to them. Thus the force of a simile depends upon the cause of the simile. Why then does Diatribe leave out the matter for the sake of which Paul uses the simile, and catch at what he says over and above the cause of the simile. What he says, ' If a man shall have cleansed himself/ belongs to exhortation; what he says, 6\\\ a great house are vessels, &C/ belongs to teaching: so that, from all the circumstances of PauPs z Velut similes coaptare."] I have given the idea rather than the exact word : it is * pairing, like horses joined together in a chariot,' part iv. words and sentiment, you would understand hini to be making a declaration about the diversity and use of vessels. The meaning therefore is, ' Since so many are now departing from the faith, we have no consolation but in that we are sure, the foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal to it ; the Lord knoweth them that are his, and every one who calleth upon the name of the Lord departeth from iniquity/ Thus far we have the cause and the force of the simile ;

namely, * that the Lord knoweth them that are his/ Then follows the simile; namely, 'that there are different vessels, some to honour, and some to disgrace.' Here ends the doctrine ; namely, ' that vessels do not prepare themselves, but their master prepares them/ Rom. ix. means also the same thing; 'that the potter hath power, &c/ Thus doth Paul's simile remain unshaken, as most efficacious to prove that Freewill is nothing before God.a

After these follows the exhortation, " If any man shall have purged himself from these ;" the force of which expressions is well known from what has been said above. It does not follow from a Coram Deo.'] Referring to a distinction which I have already objected to (See Part i. Sect. xxv. note i ) ; as though there were some objects and considerations, with regard to which it is not a nothing. — Erasmus argues against the conclusion drawn from the simile of the potter, chiefly by appealing to c2 Tim. ii. 20, 21. Luther says, 1. You mistake the words " from these." 2. If the simile be inefficacious here, this does not prove it so in Rom. ix. You must prove the similitude which you assume. 3. This passage, rightly interpreted, does mean the same, and does prove the very thing in dispute.— The account which Luther gives of this text, in its connection and construction, is perfectly correct. Ruin aboundeth ; " the nevertheless solid foundation of God standeth ;" evil does not contradict his will and plan, but fulfils it. In a great house there are vessels of two sorts. God's eternal separation of his people is manifested, realized, and consummated by their own God-enabled voluntary separation in time — through his Spirit working in due season. QejueXio? expresses the whole elect church of God laid by him as a sort of huge foundation-stone with inscriptions. See Zechar. iii. 9.

hence, that he can therefore cleanse himself: nay, sect. if any thing be proved by these words, it is that J ^ Freewill can cleanse itself without grace ; since he does not say, ' if grace shall have cleansed any one/ but c if he shall have cleansed himself/ Abundance however has been said about imperative and conjunctive verbs : and the simile, let it be observed, is not expressed in conjunctive verbs, but indicative ; ' as there are elect and reprobate, so there are vessels of honour and of ignominy/ In a word, if this evasion be admitted, Paul's whole argument falls to the ground. To what purpose would he introduce persons murmuring against God as the potter, if the fault were seen to be in the vessel and not in the potter? Who would murmur at hearing that one worthy of damnation is damned ? b Diatribe culls a second absurdity from Madam Reason's Reason, commonly called Human Reason; namely, ^.vil .fro™ 'that the fault is not to be imputed to the vessel but to the potter : especially since he is such a potter as creates the very clay itself and moulds it. Here is a vessel cast into eternal fire, says Diatribe, which has committed no fault but that of not being its own master.5 4

Nowhere does Diatribe more openly betray Set forth herself than in this place. For here is heard, in ™ *?* au" other words it is true, but with the same meaning, what Paul represents profane men as saying: " Why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his will?" This is that verity which reason can neither apprehend, nor endure. This is what offends so many persons of excellent talents, received for so many ages ! Here forsooth they demand of God that he should act according to human law, and do what seemeth right to them; or b On the contrary supposition to that assumed and reasoned upon by Paul, the vessel is not the potter's workmanship, as having been made by him just such as he is 5 but his own. Why defend the potter then ? part iv. cease to be God. The secrets of his Majesty " shall profit him nothing. Let him give a reason why he is God, or why he wills or does what hath no appearance of justice; as you would call a cobbler or a tailor to come and stand at your judgment-seat. The flesh does not think fit to put such an honour upon God as to believe him just and good, when he speaks and acts above and beyond the rules prescribed in Justinian's Codex, or the fifth book of Aristotle's Ethics. Let the creative majesty give place to one single dreg of his creation, and let the famed Corycian cave change places with its spectators, and stand in awe of them, not they of if I So then, it is absurd that he damns a person who cannot avoid deserving damnation :

and because this is such an absurdity, therefore it must be false that " he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." But he must be brought to order, and laws must be prescribed to him, that he may not condemn any one who has not first deserved it according to our judgment. Thus only can they be satisfied with Paul and his simile ; namely, by his recalling it, and allowing it co have no meaning, but so moderating it, that according to Diatribe's explanation, the potter here makes a vessel to dishonour, on the ground of previous deservings : just as he rejects some Jews And con- for unbelief; and takes up the Gentiles for their futed* faith. But if God's work be such that he have respect to merits, why do they murmur and expostulate ? How come they to say, ' Why doth he find fault? who resisteth his will?' What need is there for Paul to stop their mouths ? For who wonders, I will not say who is indignant or expostulates, if he be condemned of his own desert? Again; what becomes of the power of the potter to make what he pleases, if he be subjected to merits and laws ? ]He is not suffered to do what he will, but is required to do what he ought.

Respect to merits is quite at variance with the sect. power and liberty of doing what he pleases : as v the householder in the parable proves, when he opposes liberty of will in the disposal of his good things to the murmurs of his labourers who demanded a distribution according to right. These are amongst the considerations which invalidate Diatribe's gloss. But let us suppose pray, that God ought to be Exposed such an one as hath regard to merits in the ["JSt*-^ damned. Shall we not equally maintain and allow, why not that he looks at merits also in the saved. If we caviJ have a mind to follow Reason, it is equally unjust salvation ' that the unworthy be crowned, as that the unwor- of the thy be punished. Let us conclude then, that save * God must justify on the ground of previous deservings; or we shall declare him unjust, as being delighted with evil and wicked men, and inviting them to impiety by crowning them with rewards. But woe unto us — who would then be indeed wretched beings — if this were our God. For who then should be saved ? — See how good for nothingis the human heart ! When God saves the unworthy without merit; nay, when he justifies the ungodly with much demerit ; this heart does not accuse him of unfairness : this heart does not then imperiously demand of him why he wills thus — though it be most unfair, according to her own0 judgment — but, forasmuch as it is advantageous and acceptable to herself, she counts this fair and good. But, when he condemns the undeserving— seeing it is disadvantageous to herself — this is unfair, this is intolerable: here comes in expostulation, murmuring, blasphemy.

You see then that Diatribe and her friends do not judge according to equity in this cause, but according as their interest is affected. If she had regard to equity, she would expostulate with God for c Luther personifies ' the heart/ or rather e the wickedness of the heart : ' which I have therefore ventured to make feminine. part iv. crowning the unworthy, just as much as she does for condemning the undeserving: she would also commend and extol God for condemning the undeserving, just as much as she does for saving the unworthy. In each case there is equal unfairness, if you refer the matter to our own judgment; unless it be not equally unrighteous to commend Cain for his murder, and make him a king ; as it would be to cast innocent Abel into prison, or put him to death. When it is found then, that reason commends God for saving the unworthy, but finds fault with him for condemning the undeserving, she stands convicted of not commending God as God, but as one who promotes her own personal interest : in other words, she looks at self and her own things in God, and commends them; not at God and the things of God. The truth however is, that if you are pleased with God for crowning the unworthy, you ought not to be displeased with him for condemning the undeserving. If he be just in the one case, why not in the other ?

In the former case, he scatters favour and pity upon the unworthy ; in the latter, he scatters wrath and severity upon the undeserving: in both cases excessive and unrighteous according to man's judgment, but just and true according to his own. For, how it be just that he crowns the unworthy, is incomprehensible at present \ but we shall see how, when we come to that place, where he will no longer be believed, but with open face beheld. So again, how it be just that he condemns the undeserving, is incomprehensible at present; but we receive it as matter of faith, until the Son of man be revealed/

d Luther blunders a good deal here, whilst he says many excellent things. — In dealing with this cavil, c the fault then is in the potter/ he first sets forth its audacity, next repels Erasmus's gloss by it, then maintains that it is an interested judgment, not a judgment of equity, by which God is condemned.— Much of the difficulty is, no doubt, resolvable into Diatribe however, being sorely displeased with sect. this simile of the potter and the clay, and not a little i ■ i • i . i Scripture the sovereignty of God ; that sovereignty which is so bitterly must ^e offensive to the carnal mind, whilst without the light of ij we understood cannot stir a step in God. Whence came creation in all and with qualievery part of its wide range ; whence come blessing and curs- fications. ing, either as foreordained or as fulfilled ; whence come heaven and hell, and inhabitants for each ; whence comes the devil, whence comes the fall of man ; whence comes sealed ruin on the one hand, and whence comes free restoration and glorification on the other ; but from him who makes no appeal to the creature for his vindication, but says c I have lifted up my hand that it shall be so V — But there is"a worthy end for all this ; which Luther saw not, and therefore did not assign :

the sight of which, however, makes the difference of a cruel God and a wise one. (See Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes * v x.) — It is not true that God condemns the undeserving, or that he crowns the unworthy. Luther did not discern the mystery of the creation and fall of every individual man in Adam (see Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note l, Partiv. Sect. x. note2), neither did he understand the mystery of the predestinative counsel. Every individual of the human race became a hell-deserving sinner in Adam ; every individual of the saved is saved by virtue of new relations assumed by God, and given to him in Christ — as one previously self-ruined, whom Christ has rendered worthy to be taken up from his ruin, by having shared it with him. Predestination is fulfilment forearranged ; as is the execution, such was the covenanted design. It is self-destroyed ones therefore that are predestinated to hell ; even as it is Christ-made worthy ones that are predestinated to life. — Luther knew nothing about God's assuming relations, much less about his assuming distinct relations ; and shews once more how impossible it is to give any consistent account of the salvation of the righteous, on the basis of universal redemption : such a redemption must leave either partiality in God, or merit in man. Luther will have it indignos to avoid merit, and therefore leaves God / a respecter of persons.' — He does not say a word too much about sovereignty, but he puts it in its wrong place, and omits what ought to be added to it — the end for which it is exercised.

The place is, ' God determining to make creatures with opposite destinies — some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt — vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.' And that we may not even in heart murmur here, we must have an adequate end •Ziewn to us. It is shewn to as many as have an eye to see it ; *■ he determines to make, and he does make them, to his own glory — the manifesting of himself, according to what he really is.' M What if God, willing, &c." (Rom. ix. 22—24.) — In the fulfilment of this design sovereignty is not the hinge j there is nothing from first to last, in the varieties of the way or of the

part iv. indignant to be so hunted by it, is reduced at length to the extremity of producing different passages from Scripture, of which some seem to ascribe all to man and some all to grace, and then contending in her passion, that both these ought to be understood with a sober explanation/ and not to be taken strictly. Else, if we urge this simile, she in her turn is prepared to urge us with those imperative and conjunctive texts ; especially with that of Paul's, " If a man shall have purged himself from these." Here she represents Paul to contradict himself, and to attribute all to man, except a sober explanation come to his aid. 'If then an explanation of the text be admitted here, so as to leave room for grace, why may not the simile of the potter also admit of qualification, so as to leave room for Freewill V I answer, it is no matter to me whether you take the words in a simple sense, or in a double sense, or in a hundred senses. f What I say is, you gain nothing, you prove nothing (of what you seek to gain and prove), by this sober explanation. It ought to be proved, that Freewill can will nothing

end, but what approves itself to right reason. — Luther seems to think that the salvation of the righteous escapes animadversion : the fact that there is such a state may ; but if the true nature of that state, and the true way to it, be faithfully opened, they are scarcely less offensive to the carnal mind, than the damnation of the lost. e Interpretatione sand.~\ I do not venture to render by ''qualified interpretation,' though this appears to be nearly the meaning : e a sound,' as opposed to extravagant, sense is to be assigned to the words, in contradistinction to their simple, literal meaning ; which, it is implied, would be extravagant and contradictory, A peculiar use of ' interpretatio,' which both Cicero and Quintilian recognise ; from whom Erasmus no doubt borrowed it : e a giving of the sense, instead of rendering the words ;' much as the Levites did when they read the law to the people after the captivity. Nehem. viii. 7, 8. See Part hi. Sect. xxx. note f. f Simpliciter, dupliciter, centuplic.'] Luther puns upon the word simpliciter : which is properly opposed to figurative, or tropical. q-ood. But in this place, " If a man shall have sect.

purged himself from these/' the form of expression being conjunctive, neither is any thing, neither is nothing proved; Paul is only exhorting. Or if you add Diatribe's consequence and say, ' he exhorts in vain, if man cannot cleanse himself ;' then it is proved that Freewill can do every thing without grace. And so, Diatribe disproves herself. I still wait for some passage of Scripture therefore, which teaches this explanation; I do not give credit to those who make it out of their own heads. I deny that any passage is found which ascribes all to man. I deny also that Paul is at variance with himself, when he says Ci If a man shall have cleansed himself from these." I affirm that the variance in Paul is not less a fiction, than the explanation which she extorts from it is a laboured invention ; and that neither of them is demonstrated. This indeed I confess, that, if it be lawful to increase the Scriptures with these consequences and appendages of Diatribe's — as when she says, injunctions are vain if we have not power to fulfil them — then Paul is really at variance with himself, and all Scripture with him, because then the Scripture is made different from what it was before. Then also she proves, that Freewill can do every thing. But what wonder if, in that case, what she says elsewhere be also at variance with her ;

' that God is the alone doer of every thing ?' But this Scripture, so added to, is not only at war with us, but with Diatribe herself also, who has laid it down that Freewill can will nothing good. Let her therefore deliver herself first of all, and say how these two things agree with Paul, c Freewill can will nothing good/ and, 'if a man shall have cleansed himself; therefore he can cleanse himself, or else it is said in vain.' You see therefore that Diatribe is plagued to death, and overcome, by this simile of the potter, and that all her effort is to elude the

Luther has always maintained the perfect consistency of Scripture — illustrates it in affirmed opposites. force of it ; not heeding, in the mean while, how much her interpretation injures the cause which she has undertaken to defend, and how she is confuting and making a jest of herself/ I, on the contrary, as I said before, have never been ambitious of interpretations, nor have I ever spoken after this manner, " extend the hand;" that is, c grace shall extend it/ h e These are Diatribe's fictions about me, to benefit her own cause. My affirmation has always been, that there is no variance in the words of Scripture, and no need of ' explanation5 for the purpose of untying a knot. It is the assertors of Freewill who make knots where there are none,1 and dream out discrepancies for themselves. For example ; those two sayings, " If a man shall have cleansed himself," and "God worketh all in all," are in no wise opposite : nor is it necessary, by way of untying a knot, to say, God does something and man does something. The former of these texts is a conjunctive sentence ; which neither affirms nor denies any work or power in man, but prescribes what work or power there ought to be in a man. There is nothing figurative here, nothing which needs explanation ; the words are simple, the sense is simple, if you do not add consequences and corruptives after the manner of Diatribe. Then indeed the sense would become unsound : but whose fault would it be ? not the text's, but its corrupter's.

The latter text, " God worketh all in all," is an indicative sentence, affirming that all work, all power is God's. In what respect then do two places disagree, of which one has nothing to do t All this alleged inconsistency in Scripture is the fruit of your additions ; by the aid of which you create inconsistencies, hut you also contradict your own positions. h Affedavimus, extended See above, Sect. iv. text and notes -, particularly note xx. 1 Nodos in scirpo queerunt.'] See above, Part i. Sect.xxvi, note K with the power of man, and the other ascribes all sect. to God? Rather, do they not most perfectly XXXVL agree with each other ? Bat Diatribe is so plunged over head and ears, choked and sobbed,k by entertaining that carnal thought, f it is vain to command impossibilities/ as not to be able to restrain herself, whenever she hears an imperative or conjunctive verb, from at once appending her own indicative consequences to it, and saying — c There is something commanded, therefore we can do it, else it would have been folly to command it.' Upon this, she sallies forth and makes boast of her victories every where, as though she had demonstrated that those consequences, together with her own imagination, were as much a settled thing, as the divine authority. Upon this, she does not hesitate to pronounce that in some passages of Scripture every thing is ascribed to man ;

that there is a discrepancy therefore, a repugnacy in those places, which must be obviated by an explanation : not seeing, that all this is the figment of her own brain, without a single letter of Scripture to confirm it; that it is, besides, a figment of such kind, as, if admitted, would confute no one more stoutly than herself. For, would she not prove by it, if she prove any thing, that Freewill can do every thing? — the express contrary to that which she has undertaken to prove.

Upon the same principle it is, that she so often in merit repeats the words, c If man does nothing there is ^,dre"&c no room for merit \ where there is no place for she con- * merit, there is no place for punishment or for tradicts ijl - x herself — Again she does not see how much more stoutly absurdity and cannc tell what she confutes herself by these carnal arguments, a k Corrupia.'] The figure is that of a man drowned ; and the last term expresses the state of his substance, when now it has been long under water. It is like Virgil's { cererem corruptam undis.' ' part iv. than she does me. For what do these con- -■ sequences prove, save that all attainable merit is tevZT hJ Freewill? What room will there then be for But in fact grace ? Besides, if you shall say Freewill earns nothra°— S a very '^tle, and grace the rest, why does FreePaul will receive the whole reward ? Shall we also instands. vent a very small degree of reward for her ? If there must be place for merit, that there may be place for reward ; the merit should be as big as the reward. — But why do I lose my words and my time about a thing of nought ? Though even all which Diatribe is contriving should be built up and stand;

and though it should be partly man's work, and partly God's work, that we have merit ; still they cannot define this very work in which our merit consists, of what sort, and how big it is — so that we are disputing about goats' hair.1 Well then, since she proves none of those things which she asserts — neither discrepancy, nor qualified interpretation — nor can exhibit a text of Scripture which ascribes all to man ; but all these things are phantasms of her own imagination; Paul's simile of the potter and his clay maintains its ground, unhurt and irresistible, as proof that it is not of our own will, what sort of vessels we are formed; and that those exhortations of Paul's, "If a man shall have purged himself" and the like, are models to which we ought to be conformed, but are no proofs of either our performance or our endeavour. Let this suffice with respect to those passages about Pharaoh's hardening, about Esau, and about the potter. sect. Diatribe comes at length to those passages

' which are cited by Luther in opposition to FreeGen vi. 3 Wl^> intending to confute them also ; of which the maintain- first is that from Gen. vi. " My Spirit shall not ed- always abide in man, because he is flesh." She confutes this passage in various ways. First, she 1 Land caprind."] See above, Part ii. Sect. iii. note 9. urges that "flesh" does not signify 'sinful affec- sect. tion' here, but c infirmity/ Secondly, she in- ' creases Moses's text: because his saying pertains to the men of that age, not to the whole human race, therefore she would say, 'in those men;' yet again, not applying it to even all the men of that age, since Noah is excepted. Lastly, she urges that this saying imports something else in the Hebrew language ; that is to say, the clemency and not the severity of God, according to Jerome : meaning possibly to persuade us, that, as this saying appertaineth not to Noah but to the wicked ; so the severity and not the clemency of God appertaineth to Noah, the clemency and not the severity of God appertaineth to the wicked ! — But we will pass over these fooleries of Diatribe's, who is every wliere telling us that she counts the Scriptures a fable. I care not what Jerome says in his trifling way here : it is certain he proves nothing ; and we are not inquiring what Jerome thinks, but what the Scripture means.

Let the perverters of Scripture pretend, that the Spirit of God means his indignation. I affirm that she fails in her proof two ways : first, in that she cannot produce a single text of Scripture in which the Spirit of God is taken for God's indignation; whilst kindness and sweetness on the contrary are every where ascribed to him : secondly, in that if she could by any means prove, that it is some where or other taken for indignation, still she cannot forthwith prove, that it necessarily follows it. must also be taken so here. So again, let her pretend that the flesh is taken for infirmity, still she just in the same degree proves nothing. For, whereas Paul calls the Corinthians carnal, he certainly does not mean to impute infirmity, but fault to them — complaining as he does, that they were oppressed with sects and parties ; which is not infirmity, or incapacity to receive more solid doctrine, but the old leaven of

part iv. malice : which he commands them to purge out. Let us examine the Hebrew. " My Spirit shall not always be judging man^ because he is flesh." This is word for word what Moses says :m and, if we would give up our own m I am disposed to give rather a different turn to the declaration, though in no wise affecting Luther's argument. All he wants to shew is, that they are words of anger, not of pity and palliation. But since the word which we render "strive " and which Luther renders "judge " properly signifies * debate ' or ' judgment given after discussion j? why might not the sentiment be " My Spirit shall not be always proving that man is flesh ;* or " shall not always be reproving him for being flesh V* The great reason for continuing man in existence after the original and damning transgression was, that he might shew himself what he is, as he has made himself; so different from what God made him. The Lord here says, he will carry on this work of manifestation — this controversy, as it may be called — no longer than for one hundred and twenty years. There seems to be no great importance in the annunciation that he would not strive because he is flesh. He was so from the first moment of transgression 5 and not more so now, than from that moment.

But the manifestation having been carried far enough, there was now a reason why it should cease. This trial, or controversy, or judgment, or proof, or reproof, was effected by the divine Spirit both mediately and immediately acting upon their spirit. Luther confines it to the effect of their intercourse with others ; such as Noah, and those of the Lord's people who had lived and were living with those generations of men : in whom the Spirit of God was. But did not that Spirit also act upon these disobedient ones, without their intervention ? that Spirit, which, according to Luther, 'moves and drives ' all God's creatures. — ( p-j appendere —

litem vel causam agere — quomodo ' disceptare ' signift. et t judicare.' fut ftTl disceptabit. Gen. vi. 3.' (Sim. Lex. Hebr. in loc.) — ' "pHI Contendit. prop, appendit. 2. Judicavit, i. e. appendit bilance judicii. 3. In judicio contendit. To judge, to strive, to litigate.' (Robertson's Clavis Pentateuch in loco.) D|\2El ( Inasmuch as,' ' for that.' Robertson. Simon derives it rather differently, and explains by e £v -w' seducere eos 3 i. e. dum seducit eos ipsa caro. Luther seems to lose the particular point of the preceding verses, when he speaks of the ' sons of men ' marrying wives ; it is the sons of God seeing the daughters of men, &c. meaning surely those who practised and made profession of his worship, dreams., the words are sufficiently clear and ma- sect. uifest, I think, as they stand there. But the XXXVIL words which go before and which follow after, connected as they are with the bringing on of the flood, sufficiently shew that they are the expressions of an angry God. They were occasioned by the fact of the sons of men marrying wives through the mere lust of the flesh, and then oppressing the earth with tyranny, so as to compel God to hasten the flood, through his anger; scarcely allowing him to defer for an hundred years what he would otherwise never have brought upon the earth. Read Moses carefully, and you will see that he clearly means this.

But what wonder that the Scriptures are obscure, or that you set up not only Freewill, but even Divine will through their means, if you be at liberty to sport with them as if you were looking for scraps and shreds of Virgil in them.n This forsooth is untying knots and putting an end to questions by a qualified interpretation ! But Jerome and his friend Origen have filled the world with these trifling conceits, and have been the originators of this pestilent precedent for not consulting the simplicity of Scripture.0

It was enough for me, that it be proved from this text, that divine authority calls men flesh ; and in such manner flesh, that the Spirit of God could not continue amongst them, but at a fixed period must be withdrawn from them. He explains presently what he means by declaring that his Spirit shall not always judge amongst men ; by prescribing the space of an hundred and twenty years, as that in wrhich he should still judge. He in opposition to those who had thrown it off. The great offence and provocation seems to have been given by that hypocritical remnant, to and concerning which Enoch, as appears from Jude, verse 15, had previously prophesied. 11 Virgilicentonas.~\ More literally, ' Virgilian centos.' ° Simplicitati scripturarum studeretur.~\ i. e. taking care to maintain a plain sense where it is practicable, in opposition to a figurative one. part iv. opposes the Spirit to the flesh, because men, being flesh, do not receive the Spirit ; and he, being Spirit, cannot approve the flesh: whence it would arise, that he must be withdrawn after an hundred and twenty years. So that we may understand the passage in Moses thus : ' My Spirit, which is in Noah and my other saints, reproves those wicked men by the word they preach, and by the holy life they lead (for to judge amongst men is to exercise the ministry of the word amongst them p — to reprove, rebuke, and entreat, in season and out of season);

but in vain. For they, being blinded and hardened by the flesh, become worse the more they are judged : just as it is, whensoever the word of God comes into the world \ men are made worse, the more they are instructed. And this is the cause why the wrath of God is now hastened, just as the flood also was hastened in that day ; not only do men sin now-a-days, but even grace is despised, and as Christ says, \ Light is come but men hate light/

Since men are flesh therefore, as God himself testifieth, they can mind nothing but the flesh ; so that Freewill can have no power but to commit sin : and since, with even the Spirit of God calling amongst them and teaching them, they grow worse ; what would they do when left to themselves, without the Spirit of God? — Nor is it any thing to the purpose here, that Moses speaks of the men of that age. The same is true of all men, since all are flesh, as Christ says in John iii. 6. if That which is born of the flesh is flesh. " How great a malady this is, he teaches us himself on the same occasion, when he says, " No one can enter into the kingdom of God, except he have been born again." Let the Christian know therefore, that Origen and Jerome, and p Officio verbi inter eos agere.~\ Implying more than mere preaching 5 he has before said ' per verbum prsedicationis et vitam piorum ;' it is word administered by mouth and life. all their tribe, are guilty of a pernicious error in sect. denying that the flesh is to be taken for ungodly ^^ affection in these places. For that expression in " 1 Cor. iii. "Ye are yet carnal?' bespeaks ungodliness. Paul means that they had ungodly persons still auiougst them; and further, that the godly, so far as they mind carnal things, are carnal; although they have been justified by the Spirit.

In short, you will observe in Scripture that wheresoever the flesh is treated of in opposition to the Spirit, you may almost always understand by the flesh every thing that is contrary to the Spirit. For instance ; " The flesh profiteth nothing." But where it is treated of absolutely, you may know that it denotes the bodily nature and condition : as " They two shall be one flesh." (i My flesh is meat indeed." " The word wras made flesh." In these places you may change the Hebrew idiom and say 'body/ instead of flesh: the Hebrew language expressing by one word 6 flesh/ what we do by the words ' flesh ' and c body/ I wish indeed that it had been so translated, by distinct terms, throughout the whole canon of Scripture, without exception. — So that my text from Gen. vi. will still maintain its place boldly, I think, as the opponent of Freewill: since it is proved, that the flesh, as here spoken of, is that same substance of which Paul says in Romans viii. that " neither can it be subjected to the will of God" (as we shall see when we come to that place); and of which Diatribe says herself, that it can will nothing good.q

i It is impossible to understand this text so as that it shall not be a decisive testimony against Freewill. Whether it be that ' God would cease to prove man,, what he is/ or l cease to judge him, because he is such an one ;' wThat he is remains the same ; and that is something so vile that God cannot any longer tolerate it. — I confess that I greatly prefer understanding the flesh in Rom. vii. viii. as the bodily part of the saint j which, whilst he remains in this world, is unrenewed. But part iv. The second passage is from Gen. viii. " The imagination and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his youth." And in chap. vi. " Every thought of man's heart is intent upon evil conGen, viii. tinualiy." She puts off this by saying, c The prone21. and ness ^0 evil, which is in most men, does not altotained. " gether take away the freedom of the will/ But does God, pray, speak of most men, and not rather of all men, when, as if repenting himself what difference does this make as to the question of Freewill \ Every individual man is by natural constitution " enmity against God ;" so far as that natural constitution remains in the saint, he also is enmity. The passage under consideration either says,, or implies, being he is flesh, he is contrary to the Spirit and offensive to God.

What is the state of his will then ? — I would rather understand the word * flesh ' here, of his whole substance or constitution than, as Luther and most other divines do, of ' an affection ' of it. Indeed, I consider that much jargon has been introduced into theology by this distinction. It has led to what is called the doctrine of two principles (the term ( principle ' being a very indefinite one, and a shelter for almost every thing that is unknown or wishes to be obscure) ; whereas I believe there are few if any places in Scripture, in which it may not be understood of ' the human substance,' either in its complexity as soul and body, or in its dividuality, as body only. — I by no means subscribe to the interpretation which Luther assigns to some of the texts he adduces. " The flesh proiiteth nothing " is not ( evil affection ' but ' the natural substance of man . as contrasted with f the Spirit/ " The word was made flesh," does not declare body in opposition to soul, but that whole human person which the second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity did verily and actually assume into union with himself when the fulness of the time was come. So "my flesh is meat indeed" does not exclude his soul as made an offering for sin : neither does the <c one flesh " which the church is made to be with Christ exclude him that is joined to the Lord from being one Spirit.

— As a hint to shew that, if Luther's interpretation and distinction with respect to the term ' flesh ' be admitted, a third must at least be added (viz. this sense which comprehends the whole human substance, and so constitutes a title which distinguishes man from all other creatures) ; I would mention Psalm cxlv. 21, Luke iii. 6. Isaiah xl. 5, 6. John xvii. 2. 1 Cor. i. 29. to which others without number might be added. — Luther speaks with sufficient exactness of the presence and withdrawal of the Spirit to make it clear that he did not understand Him to have dwelt in the ungodly -, whilst he omits a very important part of His agency. (See above, note m.)

after the flood, lie promises to those which re- sect. uiained of men, and to those which should come *m after, that he would not any more bring a flood because of man ; subjoining as the reason, that man is prone to evil? As if he should say, S Were man's wickedness to be regarded, there must never be any cessation from a flood : but I do not mean hereafter to look at man's deservings Sec/ So you see God affirms that men were evil both before the flood and after it; making it to be nothing, what Diatribe says about most men. Then again, this proneness or propensity to evil seems a matter of small moment to Diatribe ; as though it were within the limits of our own power to raise it up v or restrain it : whereas the Scripture means to express by this proneness that constant seizure and impulse of the will towards evil. Why has not Diatribe consulted the Hebrew text even here also? in which Moses says nothing about proneness ; that you may have no ground for cavilling. For thus it is written in chap. vi. " Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil all his days/' He does not say intent upon, or prone to evil, but absolutely evil ; and that nothing but evil is imagined and thought of by man all his life.

The nature of its wickedness is described; that it neither does, nor can do otherwise, seeing it is evil : for an evil tree cannot bear any other than evil fruit, according to Christ's testimony. As to Diatribe's cavil, ' Why is space given for repentance, if repentance be in nowise dependent upon the will, but every thing is wrought by necessity?' my reply is, you may say the same of all the precepts of God : why does he enjoin, if all things happen by necessity ? He commands, that he may instruct and admonish men what they ought to do, that having been humbled by the recognition of their own wickedness they

r Erigere.] See Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note V part IV. may attain to grace; as hath been abundantly declared.5 So that this text, also, still stands its ground invincibly, as the antagonist of Freewill. sect. The third passage is that of Isai. xl. " She hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her Isaiah sins." Jerome, says she, interprets it of divine xi.2.main- vengeance, not of grace given in return for evil tamed. deeds. This means, ? Jerome says so, therefore it is true/ I affirm that Isaiah asserts a certain proposition in most express words, and Jerome is cast in my teeth ; a man, to speak in the gentlest terms, of no judgment or diligence. What is become of that promise, on the faith of which we made a compact that we would plead the Scriptures themselves, not human commentaries?1 This whole chapter of Isaiah, according to the Evangelists, speaks of remission of sins as announced by the Gospel ; in which they affirm that " the voice of him that crieth " pertaineth to John the Baptist. Now is it to be endured, that Jerome should, after his manner, obtrude Jewish blindnesses upon us as the historical sense of the passage, and then his own silly conceits by way of allegory to it; that, through a perversion of grammar, we may understand a passage, which speaks of remission, to speak of vengeance ? What sort of vengeance is it, pray, which has been fulfilled by preaching Christ?" — But let us

55 See above Part iii. Sect. xxii. &c. * See Partii. Sect. i. u There is a vengeance connected with the preaching of Christ ; yea, and a necessary part of that preaching. i( To preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God." The kingdom of God has enemies that would not be reigned over by the King, to be trodden under foot, as well as princes to be seated on thrones. There are souls to be cut off amongst the people by not hearing that Prophet, as well as souls to be gathered by hearing him. " We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish. To the one we are a savour of life unto life; and to the other a savour of death unto death." The Lord Jesus said- of his Jewish opposers, " If I had not look at the words themselves in the Hebrew, sect. Be comforted (says he), be comforted, O my XXXIXpeople; or, comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. I imagine he does not inflict vengeance who commands consolation. It follows; "speak to the heart of Jerusalem and proclaim unto her/' To speak to the heart is an Hebraism; meaning, to speak good, sweet and soothing things : as, in Genesis xxxiv. Sichem speaks to the heart of Dinah, whom he had defiled;

that is, he soothed her in her sadness with soft words — as our translation has it. What those good and sweet things are, which God hath commanded to be spoken for their consolation, he explains by saying, " For her warfare is finished, insomuch that her iniquity is pardoned ; seeing, she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." — c Warfare/ which our manuscript copies exhibit faultily by the word e malice,' appears to the audacious Jewish grammatists/ to denote a stated time : for thus they understand that saying in Job vii. The life of man upon the earth is a ' warfare ;■ that is, there is an appointed time to him. I prefer considering the term c warfare ' to be used literally, according to its grammatical sense; understanding Isaiah to speak 6f the course and labour of the people under the law, which was like that of combatants in the

come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin." The manifestation of what is in man — of the Satanic enmity of the human heart — is peculiarly effected by the preaching of Christ. But it is not the form of that dispensation to condemn ("God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world"), though aggravated guilt and increased condemnation be the actual, result of his coming. Nor is Luther's argument invalidated by this result : the people to be comforted are not objects of vengeance, but of favour. ■ v Grammatistis .] Not granimaficiw, but grammafisto .- a name of reproach, which he applies here to the Jewish Rabbins ; who were sciolists in literature, though vast pretenders, and took great liberties with the sacred text. See above. Sect. iv. note '. part iv. stadium. For thus Paul by choice compares both the preachers and hearers of the word to soldiers ; as, when he commands Timothy to fight as a good soldier, and to war a good warfare : and represents the Corinthians to be running in a racecourse. So again, " No man is crowned except he strive lawfully." He clothes both the Ephesians and the Thessalonians with armour, and boasts that he has himself fought the good fight: and the like in other places/ So in 1 Kings (I Samuel), it is written in the Hebrew text, that the sons of Eli slept with the women who were performing service (literally, ' warring') at the door of the tabernacle of the covenant : of whose warfare Moses also maketh mention in Exodus/ Hence too, the God of that people is called the Lord of Sabaoth ; that is, the Lord of warfare or of armies.

Isaiah therefore declares, that the warfare of a legal people with which they were harassed under the law, as with an insupportable burden (according to the testimony of Peter in Acts xv.), should be finished ; and that they, being delivered from the law, should be translated into the new service of the Spirit. Moreover, this end of their most hard service, and this succession of a new and most free one shall not be given them through their merit (since they could not even bear that service), but rather through their demerit; because their warfare is finished in this manner, through their iniquity being freely forgiven them. Here are no obscure or ambiguous words. He says that their warfare shall be finished, because their iniquity is forgiven them ; plainly intimating, that they, as soldiers under the law, had not fulfilled the law — neither could have fulfilled it — but had been warring in the service of sin, and had been sinner x 2 Tim. ii. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 12. 1 Cor. ix. 24—27. 2 Tim. ii. 5. Ephes. vi. 1 Thess. v. 2 Tim. iv. 7. y Exod. xxxviii. 8. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 22. soldiers : as if God should say, I am compelled to ??9T:

forgive them their sins, if I would have the law J fulfilled by them ; nay, I am compelled at the same time to take away the law, because I see that they cannot but sin — and that most of all, when they are militating; that is, labouring to shew the model of the law2 through their own strength. The Hebrew phrase " her iniquity hath been forgiven," denotes c gratuitous good pleasure :' by which iniquity ' is made a present of' (forgiven) without any merit, nay with absolute demerit. This is what he subjoins. " For she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." This, as I have said, means not only remission of sins, but even a finished warfare ; which is nothing else but — the law, which was the strength of sin, being taken away; and sin, which was the sting of death, being forgiven — to reign in twofold liberty, through the victory of Jesus Christ : this is what Esaias means by his Ci Of the hand of the Lord." They have not obtained these things by their own strength or merits, but have received them through the conquests and free gift of Christ. 6i In all their sins," is an Hebraism ; agreeing to what is expressed in Latin by for or on account of their sins : just as in Hosea xii. it is said, Jacob served in his wife ; that is, for his wife. And in the 1 7th Psalm, they have compassed me round in my soul ; that is, for my soul. Isaiah therefore represents our merits, in a figure, to be the procuring cause of this twofold liberty 5 namely, the finished warfare of the law, and forgiveness of sin; because these (our merits) have been only sins, and all of them sins.

Shall we then suffer this most beautiful and 2 Legem exprimere.'] Properly, f to press, wring, strain, or squeeze out;' hence applied figuratively to models in wax,, marble, or canvass. part IV. invincible text against Freewill to be polluted with Jewish filthy such as Jerome and Diatribe have daubed upon it ? God forbid ! On the contrary, ray friend Esaias keeps his ground as the conqueror of Freewill, and makes it clear that grace is given, not to the merits or endeavours of Freewill, but to its sins and demerits ; and that Freewill can, by its own powers, do nothing but maintain the warfare of sin — insomuch that even the very law, which is supposed to have been given as a help to her, was an intolerable burden, and made her yet more a sinner whilst militating under it.a a Militantem .] The word ( milito,' which occurs in divers forms throughout this passage, expresses f the whole state of a soldier' as to doing and suffering, in preparation, conflict, and endurance. — Luther goes far afield for his solution and defence of this text 3 1. Warfare is her legal service. 2. She only sinned in that service. 3. She was rewarded for sin, not merit. — The truth, if I mistake not, lies nearer home. Why not understand fC double for all her sins" as a phrase to denote, that ' great and manifold as her sins had been, she was receiving the double of them in divine favour.' Double is a finite put for an infinite.

(So Isa. lxi. 7- Jerem. xvi. 18. xvii. IS. Zech. ix. 12. Rev. xviii. 6.) Her warfare is the whole interval of her toil and labour. — I cannot but think that the prophecy in its consummation is still future ; though it has already received a partial fulfilment. Jerusalem's warfare is not yet accomplished : but the whole space from the Lord's first coming in the flesh to his hereafter coming in glory is comprehended in this prophecy ; in which it will at length be seen that the Jerusalem ( which then was' had an interest. The visible church received this f double ' at the coming, or rather at the ascension, of the Lord Jesus ; when her covenant of condemnation was exchanged for a covenant of righteousness. But the prophecy looks farther ; even to the end of that new dispensation which John Baptist began, when the true church — " the church of the first-born, which are written in heaven" — shall receive its consummation and bliss ; and the national Israel, which has been running a parallel with it throughout the whole of its history, shall receive and enjoy what it has never yet truly possessed — its Canaan and its Temple. Thus, I neither understand the c warfare,' nor the f double,' with Luther's strictness ; I might rather say,/arfetched-ness : nor do I place this text where he would place it, as a testimony against Freewill. It is only by implication

As to what Diatribe argues, that c although sect.xl. sin abounds through the law, and where sin hath abounded, Grace also abounds; but it does not ^P1S0°e " o " upon ijtou s follow hence, that man, assisted by the help of help.— God, cannot, even before grace makes him ac- Cornelius ceptable, prepare himself, by means of works morally good, for the divine favour :' I shall wonder, if Diatribe be speaking here of her own head, and have not culled this flower from some document sent or obtained from some other quarter; which she has entwined into her own nosegay.b She neither sees, nor hears, what her own words mean. If sin aboundeth by the law, how is it possible that a man can prepare himself by moral works for the divine favour ? How can works profit, when the law does not profit ? or what else is it for sin to abound by the law, but that works done according to the law are sins ? But of this in another place. — Then what is it she says, that c man assisted by the help of God can prepare himself by good works V Are we arguing about God's help, or about Freewill ? What is not possible to the divine help ? But this is just what I said, Diatribe despises the cause she is pleading, and therefore snores and gapes so in the midst of her talk.

But she adduces Cornelius the centurion, as an example of a man whose prayers and alms have pleased God, before he was yet baptized, and inspired with the Holy Spirit. a testimony against Freewill j it is a broad, palpable testimony to " reigning grace :" sin is requited with superabounding, free favour ; and it is implied that there has been, and could be, nothing but sin going before. — The hypothetical, and therefore questionable, nature of Luther's interpretation is manifested by his own testimonies: all rest upon 'militia;' which he makes law-service. But does not he cite the Gospel also called a warfare ? To whom are these sayings in Timothy, the Corinthians, Ephesians, &c. addressed ? b Libro suo inseruerit.~] I have ventured to maintain Luther's figure of ' decerpserit.' part iv. I also have read Luke's account in the Acts ; but I have never found a single syllable which indicates that the works of Cornelius were morally good without the Holy Spirit, as Diatribe dreams. On the contrary, I find that he was a just man, and one that feared God : for so Luke calls him. But for a man to be called a just man and one that fears God, without the Holy Spirit, is to call Belial Christ. — Then again, the whole argument in that passage goes to prove that Cornelius was one clean in the sight of God : even the vision, which was sent down from heaven to Peter, and which also rebuked him, testifies this;

nay, the righteousness and faith of Cornelius are celebrated by Luke in such great words, and by such great deeds, that it is impossible to doubt them. Diatribe however, with her friends the Sophists, contrives to be blind, and to see the contrary, with her eyes open, amidst the clearest light of words and evidence of facts. Such is her want of diligence in reading and observing the Scriptures ; which in that case may well be defamed as obscure and ambiguous. What though he had not yet been baptized, and had not yet heard the testimony to Christ's resurrection ! Does it follow from thence that he had not the Holy Spirit ? On the same principle, you will say that John the Baptist also, with his father and mother — next, Christ's mother and Simeon — had not the Spirit ! But away with such thick darkness !c sec.xli. My fourth text? taken from the same chapter of Esaias, " All flesh is grass, and ail the glory

c Cornelius, if I distinguish rightly, was a quickened man, but not a converted man : one begotten again from death by the Holy Ghost, but not yet turned to the Lord — for how could he be turned to him whom he knew not ? and how could he know him of whom he had not heard ? But he had already been brought by the Spirit of Christ into a state to receive Him when he should be manifested by preaching ; and the Lord had reserved, and still doth reserve, this honour for his outward word, and for his accredited ambassadors. thereof as the flower of grass; the grass wither- sec.xli. eth, and the flower thereof falleth, because the ; ' Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it;" &c. seems 6**7* mainto my Diatribe to suffer very great violence, when tained. drawn to the subject of grace and Freewill. Why so, pray ! Because Jerome, says she, takes the Spirit for indignation, and the flesh for the infirm state of man ; which cannot stand against God. Again are the trifling conceits of Jerome produced to me instead of Esaias. I have a harder fight to maintain against the weariness with which Diatribe's carelessness consumes me, than against Diatribe herself. But I have said very lately what I think of Jerome's sentiment. — Let us compare Diatribe's self with herself. Flesh, says she, is the infirm state of man. Spirit is the divine indignation. Has the divine indignation nothing else then to dry up, but only this wretched and infirm condition of man; which it ought rather to raise up than to destroy ?

But this is a finer touch still. — c The flower of grass is the glory which arises from prosperity with respect to bodily things. The Jews gloried in their temple, in circumcision, and in their sacrifices : the Greeks in their wisdom.' So then, the flower of grass and the glory of the flesh is the righteousness of works and the wisdom of the world. How is it then, that righteousness and wisdom are called bodily things by Diatribe ? What must then be said to Esaias himself, who explains himself in words without figure, where he says, " Truly the people is grass." He does not say, '■ Truly the infirm condition of man is grass,' but cc the people is grass ;" and he asserts it with an oath. What is the people then? Is it only the infirm condition of man ? I do not know indeed whether Jerome means ' the creature itself,' or * the wretched lot and state of man,' by c the infirm condition of man.' — But, whichsoever of the two it be, the divine indignation ' carries off part iv. wonderful praise and ample spoils assuredly/ d in drying up a wretched creature, or men that are

in a state of imhappiness, instead of scattering the proud and putting down the mighty from their seat, and sending the rich empty away ; as Mary sc. xlii. But let us bid adieu to our spectres, and fol- low Esaias. The people, says he, is grass. Now The true ^ pe0pie js no\ merely flesh, or the infirm state interpret- r 1 J ■ ' . , ation. oi human nature, but comprehends whatsoever is contained in the people ; namely, rich men, wise men, just men, holy men : unless the Pharisees, the elders, the princes, the chiefs, the rich, &c. were not of the people of the Jews. Its glory is rightly called the flower of grass ; forasmuch as they boasted of their dominion, their government, and especially of their law, of God, of righteousness and wisdom ; as Paul argues in Rom. ii. iii. ix. When Esaias therefore says, " all flesh ;" what is this else but all the grass, or all the people ? For he does not simply say, " flesh," but " all flesh." Now there pertaineth to the people soul, body, mind, reason, judgment and whatsoever can be mentioned or discovered that is most excellent in man. For he who says " all flesh is grass" excepts no one, but the Spirit which dries it up. So neither does he omit any thing who says, " the people are grass." Let there be Freewill then, let there be whatsoever is accounted highest and lowest in the people, Esaias calls all this flesh and grass : seeing that these three nouns, flesh, grass, people, according to the interpretation of the very author of the book, mean the same thing in this place.

Then again, you affirm your own self, that the wisdom of the Greeks, and the righteousness of the Jews, which were dried up by the Gospel, are grass, or the flower of grass. Do you think d Virg. Mn. iv. 93. e Luke i. 51, 52. that wisdom was not the most excellent thing sc. xlii. which the Greeks possessed ? Do yon think that righteousness was not the most excellent thing which the Jews could work ? Shew me any thing that was more excellent than these. What becomes of your confidence then, by which you gave even Philip a black-eye/ as I suppose ; saying, ( If any man should contend that what is best in man is nothing else but flesh — that is to say, wickedness — I will be ready to agree with him, * provided he but shew by Scripture testimonies that what he asserts is true?' You have here Esaias proclaiming with a loud voice that the people which hath not the Spirit of the Lord is flesh ; although even this loud voice does not make you hear. You have your own self's confession (made perhaps without knowing what you was saying), that the wisdom of the Greeks is grass, or the glory of grass ; which is just the same thing as calling it flesh. Unless you should choose to contend that the wisdom of the Greeks does not appertain to reason, or ■■' the leading thing/ g as you call it by a Greek term ;

that is, to the principal part of man. Hear yourself at least, pray — if you despise me — when as you have been taken captive by the force of truth, affirming what is right. You have John declaring, <e That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." This passage, which evidently proves that what is not born of the Spirit is flesh (else that division of Christ would not stand, by which he divides all men into two parties, the flesh and the Spirit) — this passage, I say, you have the courage to pass over — as if it did not teach you what you were

f Etiam Philippum sugillabas.'] Philip Melancthon — who maintained a good deal of friendly intercourse with Erasmus, and was much more to his mind than Luther and the rest of the reformers : this explains etiam. part iv. demanding11-— and scurry away, as your manner is, to another subject; holding forth to us in the mean while, how that John says, c Believers are born of God and made sons of God ; yea Gods and new creatures/ You give no heed to the conclusion which the division leads to, but teach us in superfluous words who those are whom the other part of the division comprehends : trusting in your rhetoric, as if there was nobody to observe this most crafty transition and dissimulation of yours.1 It is hard to give you credit for not being artful and chameleon-like here. The man, who labours in the Scriptures with the wiliness and hypocrisy which you employ over them, may safely enough h Referring- to his challenge above ; ' provided he but shew/ &c. 1 Luther's argument is, Freewill is called f flesh' here ; for it is part of ( the people' — which, with all that is in it, gets the name of ( flesh' here : for ' people/ ' flesh/ ' grass/ are declared by Isaiah himself to be the same thing. — You ought according to your own previous confession therefore to submit ; and, with respect to the real nature of flesh, we have it from our Lord's own mouth in John iii.

— I do not fall in with his reasoning : if flesh mean what he says it does in John, must it also mean the same here ? But why must it mean what he says, in John ? why not there as well as here mean ' the whole substance and constitution of man / not ' body only/ nor ' ungodly affection.' (See above, Sect, xxxvii. note ^.) ' All flesh/ is e all human beings :' ' the people ' generally distinguishes the Jews from the rest of the world 3 and so gives emphasis here. It is man's mortality, moreover, rather than his sin, which is brought into view here 5 as set in contrast with the immutability of God. (See the whole context from A^er. 3 to ver. 8, and compare with 1 Pet. i. 24, 25.) The great subject of the prophecy is, the glory Jehovah shall be revealed : God — who is not, like man, grass and a liar — hath spoken it. — In the word ' grass,' I follow our English version, which has the authority of the original text — *vs?n herba virens a isfn viruit. But Luther has foenum ; grass in the state of ' cut and withered.' Thus, again we have a testimony against Freewill by implication only : and, though we need not wonder, as Erasmus does, how this should be dragged into the dispute (for if man be grass, what is his will ?) 5 I cannot help remarking, what I shall have occasion to do hereafter more freely, that Luther would have done wisely in keeping back some of his witnesses.

profess that he is not yet taught by the Scrip- sc. ^LUtures, but that he wishes to be taught; whereas ' he wishes nothing less, and only chatters thus, that he may disparage that most clear light which is in the Scriptures, and may give a grace to his own obstinacy. Thus the Jews maintain unto this day, that what Christ and the Apostles and the Church have taught is not proved by the Scriptures. Heretics cannot be taught any thing by the Scriptures. The Papists have not yet been taught by the Scriptures, although even the stones cry out the truth. Perhaps you are waiting for a passage to be produced from the Scriptures, which shall consist of these letters and syllables, ' The principal part in man is flesh f or ' that which is most excellent in man is flesh;' and till then, mean to march off as an invincible conqueror. Just as though the Jews should demand that a sentence be produced from the Prophets consisting of these letters ; * Jesus, the son of a carpenter, born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, is the Messiah, and the Son of God/ Here, where you are compelled to admit our conclusion, by the manifest sentiment, you prescribe the letters and the syllables which we are to produce to you : elsewhere, when conquered both by the letters and the sentiment, you have your tropes; your knots to untie, and your sober explanation.

Every where you find something to oppose to the divine Scriptures : and no wonder, when you do nothing else but seek for something to oppose to them. One while you run to the interpretations of the ancients ; another while to the absurdities of reason : when neither of these serve your purpose, you talk about things that are afar off, and things that are nigh, just that you may avoid being confined to the teiLt immediately before you. What shall I say ? Proteus is no Proteus, as compared with you. But you cannot slip out of our hands even by these arti-