On the Bondage of the Will (De servo arbitrio)

part iv. flces# What victories did the Arians boast, because those letters and syllables ot^osmog were not contained in the Scriptures : not accounting it any thing, that the reality affirmed by that word is most decisively proved by other words. But let even impiety and iniquity herself judge, whether this be the acting of a good mind — I will not say of a pious one — which desires to be instructed. Take your victory then — I confess myself conquered— these letters and syllables, ' the most excellent thing in man is but flesh/ are not found in the Scriptures. But see thou, what sort of a victory thine is, when I prove that there are found testimonies in the greatest abundance to the fact, that not one portion — or the most excellent thing in man — or the principal part of man — is flesh; but that the whole man is flesh : and not only so, but that the whole people is flesh; and, as though this were not enough, that the whole human race is flesh. For Christ says, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Untie thy knots, imagine thy tropes, follow the interpretation of the ancients, .or turn else whither, and discourse about the Trojan war, that you may not see or hear the te^t which is before you. It is not matter of faith with us, but we both see and feel, that the whole hum an race is born of the flesh :

we are therefore compelled to believe what we do not see ; namely, that the whole human race is flesh, upon the authority of Christ's teaching. Now therefore, we leave it to the Sophists to doubt and dispute whether the yjysf/,ovixa,9 or leading part in man, be comprehended in the whole man, the whole people, the whole race of man : knowing as we do, that in the subject, ' whole human race/ is comprehended the body and the soul, with all their powers and operations, with all their vices and virtues, with all their folly and wisdom, with all their justice

and injustice. All things are flesh ; because all sc. xlii. things mind the flesh (that is, the things which are their own), and are destitute of the glory of God and of the Spirit of God : as Paul says in Rom. iii.k k Luther speaks as the oracles of God, when he says, c all things — meaning ' all persons' — all human beings — are flesh. — I have hinted already (see the last note) that I do not agree with Luther in his interpretation of this most authoritative text (John iii. 6.) on which he bottoms his whole argument here, as he did before. He says " That which is born of the flesh is flesh" means ' that which is born of the flesh is sinful, or ungodly, affection;' in short, is c wicked,' or f wickedness.' I say f flesh' means the same in the subject and in the predicate ; ' that which is born of man is man.' What this is, as to its nature, properties and qualities, must be sought elsewhere : but the next clause gives us a pretty good hint at these, by implying that it is of a nature directly contrary to that of the Holy Ghost ; " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." The Scripture is, moreover, abundantly explicit in its testimony to what this nature is, by giving us a full and complete history of its creation and depravation, and by asserting in the clearest and strongest terms its total, universal, complicated, and pervasive villainy.

Take but these four passages, to which scores might be added, and let them teach us ' what that flesh is which flesh begets, and brings forth.' " What is man, that he should be clean ? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous ? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints, and the heavens are not clean in his sight : how much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water r" (Job xv. 14 — 16.) " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm II. 5.) " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it ?" (Jerem. xvii. 9.) " For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness : all these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark vii. 21 — 23.) — It is not therefore, that I draw a different testimony from John iii. 6. but I make it a step to explicit proof, rather than explicit proof itself ; and by so doing cut the sinews of objection here, whilst I also preserve simplicity and uniformity in the interpretation of Scripture terms.*

* For a more full consideration of the terms flesh and spirit, I venture to refer the reader to ' Vaughan's Clergyman's Appeal,' chap. iii. sect. iii. and chap, v. sect. ii. iv. where some account is given of the nature state of man, and of the sanctincation of the Lord's people, which I deem satisfactory. Heathen virtue is God's abhorrence. As to what you say therefore, that ' every affection1 of man is not flesh, but there is which is called soul, there is which is called spirit ; by the latter of which we strive after whatsoever things are honourable111 — just as the philosophers strove, who taught that death should be encountered a thousand times sooner than allow ourselves in any base act, even though we knew that men would be ignorant of it, and God forgive it' — I reply; it is easy for a man who believes nothing assuredly to believe any thing, and say any thing. Let your friend Lucian,n not I, ask you, whether you can shew us a single individual out of the whole human race (you shall be twice or seven times over a Socrates yourself, if you please) who hath exhibited what you here mention, and say that they taught. Why do you tell stories then, in vain words ? Could those strive after honourable things who did not even know what honourable is? You call it honourable perhaps (to hunt out the most eminent example) that they died for their country, for their wives and children, and for their parents ; or that, to avoid belying themselves or betraying these relations, they endured exquisite torments. Such were Q. Scsevola, M. Regulus, and others.0 But what can you display in all these, save an outside shew of good works ? Have you looked into their

1 Omnis affectus.'] Not merely what we commonly denote { affection/ meaning ' appetite and passion :' but all that is liable to be moved and affected in man : ' his whole constitution as a moral being.' m Quo nitimur ad honesta."] Honestum is properly opposed to turpe: ' placui tibi, qui turpi secernis honestum'. — Hor. It is the ( honore et laude dignum/ opposed to what is dishonourable : the koXov of the Greeks ; something more exalted than the TrpiTTov, even as that wTas also more exalted than the hlicaiov. n See above, Part ii. Sect. xx. note x. ° It should rather be C. Scsevola j that Seaevola who hazarded his life to rid his country of Porsenna ; that Regulus who dissuaded from peace jvith Carthage though he went back to die for it. hearts ? Nay, it appeared at the same time on sc.xliii. the very outside of their performance that they were doing all these things for their own glory; insomuch that they were not ashamed to confess and to make it their boast, that they were seeking their own glory. For it was glory burning them through and through, which led even these Romans, according to their own testimony, to do whatsoever they did that was virtuous; which same thing is true both of the Greeks also, and of the Jews also, and of the whole human race.

Now, although this be honourable amongst men, still nothing can be more dishonourable in the sight of God ; nay, in his sight, it was the most impious and consummate sacrilege, that they did not act for the glory of God, neither did they glorify him as God, but, by the most impious sort of robbeiy, stole the glory from God and ascribed it to themselves : so that they were never less honourable and more vile, than whilst shining forth in their most exalted virtues. But now, how could they act for the glory of God, when they knew nothing of God and of his glory: not for that these did not appear, but because the flesh did not suffer them to see the glory of God, through the rage and madness with which they were raving after their own glory. Here then, you have the chieftain spirit (rf/suovixov), that principal part of man, striving after things honourable— in other words, exhibiting itself as the robber of God's glory, and the affectant of his Majesty — in the case of those men most of all, who are the most honourable and the most illustrious for their consummate virtues. Deny now, if you can, that these men are flesh, and in a lost state through ungodly affection.

Indeed I imagine that Diatribe was not so much offended with its being said that man is flesh or spirit, when she read it according to the Latin translation, ' man is carnal or spiritual/ part IV. por we lllust grant this peculiarity amongst many others to the Hebrew tongue, that when it says, e Man is flesh or spirit/ it means the same that we do, when we say, ' Man is carnal or spiritual i* just as the Latins say, ' The wolf is a sad thing for the folds/ ' Moisture is a sweet thing to the sown corn/ or when they say, ' That man is wickedness and malice itself/ Thus, holy Scripture also, by an expression of intensity, calls man flesh as though he were carnality itself; because he has an excessive relish for the things of the flesh, and none for any thing else : just as it also calls him spirit, because he relishes, seeks, does and endures only the things of the Spirit. She may put this question indeed, which still remains, ' Although the whole man, and that which is most excellent in man, be called flesh ; does it follow that whatsoever is flesh must straightway be called ungodly V Whosoever hath not the Spirit of God, him I call ungodly : for the Scripture declares, that the Spirit is given for this very purpose, that he may justify the ungodly .p Again/ when Christ distinguishes the Spirit from the flesh, by saying " That which is born of the flesh is flesh/' and adds, that one who is born of the flesh cannot see the kingdom of God ; it evidently follows, that whatsoever is flesh, the same is ungodly, is under the wrath of

p Ut rnipium justificet.'] Luther evidently means by ''justify' here, ' making righteous ;' and that, as to personal character. I do not know whence he gets his quotation ; " believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly/ (Rom. iv. 5.), is said with quite another meaning : the nearest I can find is 1 Cor. vi. 11. " And such were some of you ; but ye are. . . .justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." i Cum verb."] I venture to give it this turn, because it is clearly a new and distinct argument which he here introduces : to call ' flesh' is to call ' wicked ;' for it is to say, 1. that he hath not the Spirit (which alone maketh godly) 5 2. that he is a member of the devil's kingdom. God, and is far from the kingdom of God. Now, sc.xliv. if it be far from the kingdom and Spirit of God, it must necessarily follow that it is under the kingdom and spirit of Satan — there being no middle kingdom between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan ; which are perpetually fiffhtins: ao-ainst each other. These considerations prove that the most consummate virtues amongst the heathens — the best sayings of their philosophers, and the most eminent actions of their citizens — however they may be spoken well, and may appear honourable in the sight of the world — are truly but flesh in the sight of God, and services rendered to Satan's kingdom ; that is, impious and sacrilegious, and in all respects evil.

But pray let us for a moment suppose Dia- Consetribe's assertion to stand good, that the whole ^hlt* of constitution of man is not flesh ; that is, wicked : sumption but that part of it, which we call spirit, is honest respecting and sound. See what absurdity follows hence, manwirich not in the sight of human reason it is true ; but is not with reference to the whole religion of Christ, ' es ' and to the principal articles of the faith. For if the most excellent part in man be not ungodly, lost and damned, but only the flesh ; that is, the grosser and inferior affections; what sort of a Redeemer shall we make out Christ to be ? Shall we represent the worth of his most precious blood-shedding to be so small that it only redeemed the vilest part in man; whilst the most excellent part in man is strong of itself, and hath no need of Christ? Henceforth then, we must preach Christ, not as the Redeemer of the whole man, but of his most worthless part — that is, the flesh; whilst man is himself his own redeemer in his better part. Choose which of the two you please. If the better part of man is sound, it does not stand in need of Christ as a Redeemer. If it does not

part iv. stand in need of Christ, it triumphs over Christ with a glory superior to his — as curing itself, which is the better part, whereas Christ cures only the more worthless. Then again, the kingdom of Satan also will be nothing ; as reigning over the viler part of man, whilst it is itself rather ruled by man, as to his better part. Thus it will be brought to pass by this dogma concerning the principal part of man, that man is exalted above both Christ and the devil ; that is, he will be made God of Gods, and Lord of Lords. — What becomes then of that approvable opinion, which affirmed that Freewill can will nothing good? Here, on the contrary, she contends that this same Freewill is the principal part, and the sound part, and the honest part; that which hath no need even of Christ, but can do more than God himself and the devil can. I mention this, as. in former instances/ my Erasmus, that you may see again, how dangerous a thing it is to attempt sacred and divine things without the Spirit of God, under the rash guidance of human reason. — If then Christ be the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world; it follows that the whole world is under sin, damnation and the devil; and the distinction between principal parts, and not principal parts, avails nothing. For the world signifies men who relish worldly things in all parts of their frame.5

sc. xlv. < jf £|ie whole man, sa)s she, when even regenerated by faith/ is nothing else but flesh, what Luther J ' rt 7 r See Part i. Sect xxii. Part iii. Sect. xxxn. Part. iv. Sect. s Luther's order in the last two sections is, 1. Your praise of the heathens is false. CZ. Man is f flesh* ' is man is wickedness.' 3. What would follow if your cavil ' not all' were true. — There is a good deal of subtilty in this part of his argument ; and we are ready to say ' not content with knocking down his adversary, he kicks him when he is down :' but his objections are solid and unanswerable. 1 There is an ambiguity in the expression f renatus per becomes of the spirit which is born of the Spi- sc* XLV* rit ? what becomes of the son of God? what ~ 7~ Authority fidem.' Faith is the fruit and effect of regeneration strictly of the anand properly so called ■ that is, c of that act of God by his cients Spirit, whereby he begets the soul anew, and so makes it abused, but capable of spiritual perceptions, actings and sufferings.' But S00. *ol__ in the more enlarged sense of regeneration, which includes jj? qq? state as well as character (what is more properly called new co,Jtradicts birth, Lorn again) regeneration may be said to be the fruit of Erasmus, faith:

" Ye are all the children of God in Christ Jesus by faith 5" that is, manifested to be such — visibly and acknowledgedly adopted into his family. — The child as begotten differs from the child as born into the world. Regeneration, strictly speaking, is the begetting of the child 5 speaking more widely, is the birth of it ; and Baptism is the sign and seal of this regenerate state — the sign of and the seal that we are in it. In its most correct view, it is the sacrament of the Resurrection ; of our having died and risen again with Christ — into whom we have been baptized — in a figure ; of which, our being in the number of those, for whom and with whom he has died, in order that they might be raised up again from the dead with him and for his sake — at an appointed time — is the reality. By baptism therefore, the Lord's people are sealed to be in the state of those who have risen from the dead 5 who already have that which is to be had in this life of the resurrection from the dead, in possessing, acting and enjoying a risen Spirit — and who have the pledge of God, which cannot lie, that they shall have the superabundant residue both in their person (a raised body) and in their state (partakers of the glory which shall be revealed.) In whatever form the ordinance be administered, whether by immersion, affusion, or aspersion, it is in effect the same teaching sign ;

the laver of regeneration being the Lord's blood, and its application to our person denoting our union with him in his death and resurrection. It is this signing-, sealing ordinance, I say, to God's elect, and to none else : who, when they have been called by the Spirit (which may be before or after — if one part of the sign must be future, why may not both :), are led and enabled either to wait upon the Lord in the receiving of it, or to look back to it as a benefit already received. — Hosts of objections will rise up, no doubt, against this testimony. Why then are infants baptized r Why is baptism administered to the nonelect ? — I am not careful to answer these questions of the natural man. Infant baptism however, I remark, must stand upon its own grounds of vindication ; and, for my own part, I am content with God's having commanded every male Israelite to be circumcised on the eighth day. — Administered to nonelect ! Why it has been the mystery of God from the beginning to bring out aud draw to himself his elect, amidst

part iv. becomes of the new creature ? I should like to be informed about these things.' So much for Diatribe. — Whither, whither so fast, my dearest Diatribe ? What are you dreaming about ? You desire to learn how it is that the spirit in man, which is born of the Spirit of God, can be flesh ? O how happy and secure is this victory, under the flush of which you insult over your vanquished one, as though it were impossible that I could stand my ground here ! Meanwhile, you would gladly make an ill use of the authority of the ancients, who talk about certain seeds of honesty being sown by nature in the minds of men. First of all, you may, for what I care, use or abuse the authority of the ancients, if a multitude of professing hypocrites. Enoch lived amongst such : Judas was one of the twelve. The meaning of the ordinance is not impaired by these mysterious arrangements j and it is just so much of shame, grief and weakness to the spiritual man, if he do not use and enjoy the pregnant sign. — I have mixed this reference to baptism with the subject of regeneration, not only because so mixed by the Fathers and by the Apostles, but because I cannot doubt that the Lord had a reference to it in John iii. 5. (Except a man be begotten by the Spirit out of water ;

i. e. begotten by the Spirit in and through that water which is the sacramental emblem of my blood; he can have no part or lot in the kingdom of God) ; and because I consider it as so illustrative of the real nature of regeneration : which I cannot allow to be either character or state only, but must regard as, in its more enlarged sense, comprehending both. How simple and how sweet the view thus opened to us of the Lord's sacraments ! Baptism, the sacramental introduction of the Lord's people into the resurrection state 5 and the communion of the body and blood, the sacrament of their continual life therein. — The phrase ( renatus per fidem" then, which both Erasmus and Luther adopt, is allowable as expressive of that state into which the eternally foreknown of God are brought, when, having already been regenerated in Spirit, they, by faith and calling upon God, are regenerated in state. In this state, they live and walk by and in the Spirit. — Then what has this state of theirs to do with the question of Freewill -, or rather, with all that has just been argued about man's being flesh — whatever be meant by that word ? He that hath been begotten, or born, of the Spirit is Spirit, and has the Spirit dwelling and walking in him,, and serveth God therein.

you please ; it is your look out what you believe, sc. xlv. when you believe men who dictate their own opinions without any authority from the word of God: and perhaps it is not a matter of religions anxiety which torments you much, what any man believes ; since you so easily give credit to men, without heeding whether what they say be certain or uncertain in the sight of God. — / also have my question to propose for information: when did I ever teach what you so freely and so publicly impute to me? Could any one be so mad as to say, that the man who hath been born of the Spirit is nothing but flesh? I decidedly separate flesh and Spirit as substances at variance with each other; and affirm, in unison with the sacred oracle, that the man who hath not been born again by faith is flesh : I affirm further, that the regenerate man is flesh, only so far as pertaineth to that remainder11 of the flesh in him, which fighteth against the first-fruits of the received Spirit. — I cannot think you so base as wilfully to have feigned this, by way of exciting ill-will against me : else, what could you have imputed to me of a more atrocious nature ? But either you know nothing of my matters, or you seem unequal to the weight of the subject; by which you are so pressed and confounded, that you do not sufficiently remember what you say either against me, or for your-

u Secundum reliquias.~] Luther speaks of this remainder, as many other divines do, in a manner which implies that the work of the Spirit upon the substance of the soul in regeneration is incomplete : whereas it shall receive no increase or alteration for ever. The body only is unrenewed, and shall remain so till the resurrection. The variety is in the energizings of the within-dwelling Spirit : which, unto God's glory in our real good, are neither uniform nor perpetual ; and so give occasion to the unrenewed part of our frame, and to our enemies without, to gain many a transient victory over us. — What I have already said and referred to, about e flesh' and f spirit,' will serve to shew that my account of this remainder would differ some little from Luther's. — See above. Sect. xlii. notes ' and k. See also Part ii, Sect i. note f. part IV. self. For in believing, upon the authority of the ancients, that some seeds of honesty are implanted in the minds of men by nature, you again speak with a degree of forgetfulness, having asserted before, that Freewill can will nothing good. I do not know how this inability to will any thing good, is compatible with some seeds of honesty. Thus am I perpetually compelled to remind you of the point which is at issue in the cause you have undertaken to plead ; from which you are perpetually departing through forgetfulness, and maintaining a proposition different from the one you set out with.v SC.XLVI. Another passage is in Jeremiah x. " I know, ; — O Lord, that the way of man is not his ; nor is it

xei2™24 *n ^*e Power °f any man t° walk and direct his defended, steps." This text, she says, appertains to prosperity of event, rather than to the power of Freewill. Here again Diatribe confidently introduces her gloss at pleasure, as if she had a sort of plenipotentiary authority over Scripture. But what need was there of such authoritativeness in the man, to enable him to consider the sense and scope of the Prophet ? ^ It is enough, says Mr. Erasmus ; therefore it is so/ Allow the adversaries of the truth this lust for glossing, and what will they not gain ? Let him teach us this gloss then from the context, and we will believe him. On the contrary, I shew from that very context, that whilst the Prophet sees himself engaged in teaching the ungodly with so much importunity to no purpose, he at the same time perceives that his word avails nothing, unless God teach it within ; and that it is not at the disposal of man there- v Luther defends his interpretation of Isaiah xl. 6, 7- by 1. Making Jerome and Erasmus ridiculous. 2. Maintaining' Isaiah. 3. Appealing to Erasmus's vain shew of candour and exposing it. 4. Entertaining the cavil ' not all.' 5. Repelling false eharges, and charging inconsistencies.

fore, to hear and to will good. Perceiving this, sc.xlvi. and alarmed at the thought of God's judgment, *- he begs of him to correct him with judgment, if he must absolutely be corrected } and that he may not be delivered over to the wrath of God, together with the ungodly, whom God suffers to be hardened and to continue in unbelief. But let us suppose however, that this passage is to be understood as speaking of prosperous and adverse events : what if this very gloss should most effectually subvert Freewill? This new evasion is invented, it is true, in order that persons unpractised and unskilled in falsehood may fancy they have received a satisfactory explanation of the text — the same sort of trick which is practised in the attempt to evade the necessity of a consequence. They clo not see that they are so much the more ensnared and entrapped by these evasions, than by the plain meaning of the words; so misled are they by these new terms ! Why, if the event of temporal concerns and transactions, over which man is constituted lord and master (Genesis i.), be not under our own control; how shall that celestial substance, the grace of God, which is dependent upon the will of God alone, be under our control ? Can the effort of Freewill obtain eternal salvation, when it cannot keep the printer's dagger, or even a hair of one's head in its place ? Have we no power to get possession of the creature, and shall we havex power to get possession of the Creator? Why are we so mad? For a man to strive after good or evil, implies by far the greatest degree of mastery over events ;y because, whichsoever of the two he be striving after, he is much more liable to be deceived, and has less

x For objections to this distinction, see above, Part i. Sect, xxv. note \ y Pertinet igitur.'] More literally, ' It most of all pertains to events, that a man strive,' &c. part IV. liberty, than whilst he is striving after money, or glory, or pleasure. What an exquisite escape, then, hath thy gloss effected? which, whilst it denies man's freedom in paltry creature events, proclaims it in the high events of God.z As if you shall say, Codrus cannot pay half a crown, put he can pay millions of guineas. I am surprised too, that Diatribe, who has so persecuted that saying of WicklifPs hitherto, ' all things happen by necessity,' should now of her own accord concede, that events are necessary to us.a 6 Besides, if you force it never so much, says she, that it may bear upon the subject of Freewill, does not every body confess that no one can maintain an upright course of life without the grace of God ? Still however, we strive in the mean while ourselves also, according to our ability; inasmuch as we pray daily, u O Lord my God, direct my way in thy sight." He who sues for help does not lay aside endeavour/

Diatribe thinks it does not signify a straw what she answers ; provided she be not silent, but say something. Having done so, she would be thought to have satisfied everybody; so confident is she in her own authority. — The thing to be z Creatls eventibus. divinis eventibus."] Luther has said (see, as at note x), that a dominion has been given to man over the inferior creatures, in the exercise of which he would not object to its being said that he has Freewill. There are creature-events therefore, and God-events ; that is, events which are conversant with creatures only, and events which are conversant with €Jod also : these, in which he has to deal with creatures, are of small moment with respeet to those in which he has to deal with the Creator. Temporal prosperity is of the former ; salvation is of the latter. — I deny the justness of the distinction -, and must allow, that we have rather too much of the gladiator in this paragraph. Luther's defence of his text is correct j but to give his adversary another thrust when he is fallen, he goes into refinements which will not stand. Doubtless, spiritual things are higher than temporal things, but each is under the sole dominion of God.

a See Part iii. Sect. xliv. note m. proved was, whether we strive by means of our sect. own strength ; the thing she proves is, that she XLVIL endeavours something by praying. Is she mocking us, pray ? Is she making fun of the Papist?. ? He who prays, prays by means of the Spirit ; nay the Spirit himself prays in us. (Rom. viii. 26.) How is the power of Freewill proved by the endeavour of the Holy Spirit? Is Freewill the same thing as the Holy Spirit in Diatribe's account? Are we at present discussing wThat the power of the Spirit is ? Diatribe leaves me this passage of Jeremiah, therefore, untouched and unconquerable ; and only produces this gloss of her own brain, ' We also strive with our own strength ;' and Luther is obliged to believe her — if he pleases.b So again, she maintains that the saying in Prov.xvU. Proverbs xvi. " The preparation of the heart is defended, man's, the government of the tongue is the Lord's;" belongs also to events. As if we should be satisfied with this ipse dixit of hers, and require no other authority ! And it is answer more than enough surety, that, if we even grant this to be its meauing, which applies it to events, clearly the victory is mine; according to what I said last : since Freewill is nothing in our own works and events, much more is it nothing in the works and events of Gocl.' c

But observe how sharp she is : c How can it be man's work to prepare the heart, when Luther affirms that every thing is done by necessity V I reply ; c Since events are not in our own power, as you acknowledge; how can it be man's work to bring matters to their issue ? Take for b Luther's order is, 1. To repel Diatribe's gloss. 2. To shew the folly and inconsistency of it, if admitted. 3. To confound Diatribes' s confusion. The proof which the text yields is broad and palpable, and only loses force by allowing that it may allow a cavil. c See last section. Much in Proverbs for Freewill. part iv. my answer the answer which you have given me. ; — - Nay verily, we must work especially on this account, because all future things are to us uncertain : as the Preacher says, "In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand, because thou knowest not whether this or that, shall spring up." To us, I say, they are uncertain as to knowledge, but necessary as to event. Their necessity inspires us with that fear of God, which is our antidote against presumption and security ; whilst their uncertainty begets a confidence, which fortifies our minds against despair.

But she returns to her old song, c that in the book of Proverbs many things are said in favour of Freewill -/ such as this, c Confess thy works unto the Lord/ Dost thou hear, says she? thy works. — That is, there are many imperative and conjunctive verbs in that book and many pronouns in the second person : for by such supporters Freewill is proved. As for instance, f confess ;' therefore thou canst confess : ' thy works;' therefore thou doest them. So that saying, "I am thy God," you will understand to mean, ^thoumakest me thy God/ "Thy faith hath made thee whole:" dost thou hear? " thy faith." Expound thus, ' thou makest thyself to have faith/ And now you have proved Freewill. — I am not mocking here, but shewing that Diatribe is not in earnest, when pleading this cause. That saying in the same chapter, u The Lord hath made all things for himself; even the wicked for the day of evil," she absolutely moulds into a new shape by words of her own ; urging in excuse for God, that he hath not made any creature evil.d As if I spoke of creation, and not rather of that constant operation of God upon things created, by

d See Part iv. Sect. x. note z. which God actuates even the wicked; as I have sect. already said about Pharaoh. God makes the wicked XLVIIL man, not by creating evil, or an evil creature, " which is impossible; but the seed being corrupted upon which God operates, an evil man is made or created, not by the fault of the Maker, but through the corruptness of the material. Nor has that saying from the twentieth chapter Pwv.hU. any efficacy in her view, " The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; he inclineth it whithersoever he -kill." It is not necessary, says she, that he who inclines compel. As if we were speaking about compulsion, and not rather about a necessity of immutability. ByGod's inclining of the heart is meant, not that sleepy lazy thing which Diatribe pretends, but that most efficacious operation of God, which the man cannot avoid or change; and by which he necessarily has such a will as God hath given to him, and such a will as God hurries along with his own motion. I have spoken to this point already.6 Besides, since Solomon speaks of the king's heart, Dia tribe thinks that this text is improperly drawn to express a general sentiment ; but that it means what Job says in another place, " He maketh a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people." Job xxxiii. 30. At length she concedes that the king is moved by God to evil, but in some such way as this ; e God suffering the king to be driven by his passions, in order that he may chastise his people/

I reply; whether God permit or incline, the very act of permitting or inclining arises from the will and operation of God : because the king's will cannot escape the actuation of the omnipotent God; forasmuch asf every man's will is e See above, Sect. xi. note h. f Quia.] I should have liked qud instead of quia, if there had been any authority for it. — For the principle maintained, see above, Sect. xi. and note h. part iv. hurried on by him to will and to do, whether it be good or evil. As to my having made a general proposition out of the particular one about the king's will ; I have done so, as I imagine,, neither unseasonably, nor unwisely. For if the king's heart which seems to be especially free and to have lordship over others, cannot however will otherwise than God shall have inclined it ; how much less can any of the rest of men do so? And this same consequence would stand good, not only with respect to the king's will, but also with respect to any man's will. For if one man, however private, cannot will before God g except as God inclines him, the same mast be said of all men. So the fact that Balaam could not speak what he pleased, is an evident proof, contained in the Scriptures, that man is not the free chooser, or doer, of his own law,h or work : else there would be no such thing as examples in the Scriptures.1 sect. After this, having affirmed that many testimoxlix. n{eS} suc\i as Luther collects from this book of Johnxv 5 Proverbs, might indeed be brought together, but maintain- they would be such as by a commodious intered- pretation might be made to stand up for Freewill,

as well as against it ; she at length adduces that Achillean and inevitable lance of Luther's from s Coram Deo.~\ Referring*, I suppose,, to the former distinction about divine and created events ; as if there were some acts in which God left us at liberty. See above, Sect. xxxi. note a. h Sui juris. ] 4 Jus (a jubeo,, ut quidam volunt) est universim id quod legibus constitutum est, sive naturalibus, sive divinis, vel gentium, vel civilibus.' ' The law or rule, which he prescribes to himself for the regulation of his conduct.' Hence the expression ' sui juris esse,' i. e. ' liberum esse, suique arbitrii.' ( Ut esset sui juris ac mancipii respublica.' — Cic. 1 Luther defends his quotations from Proverbs, and withdraws the chorus from Erasmus's old song, by 1. Necessity does not preclude human agency, but quickens it. 2. They are imperative and conjunctive verbs. 3. Nature of God's making and operating, in the wicked. 4. The king's heart furnishes an * a fortiori/ but any man's heart will do. John xv. " Without me ye can do nothing." SE^J- &c. &c. &c. XL1X' I too commend the skill of this exquisite orator of Freewill, in teaching us, first of all, to shape the testimonies of Scripture by convenient interpretations, as seemeth good to our own minds, so that they may in reality stand up for Freewill; that is, may make out, not what they ought to do, but what we please ;

and then pretending to have such a great dread of one in particular which she calls Achillean, that the stupid reader may hold the rest in exquisite contempt when this has been vanquished. But I shall look sharp after this magniloquous and heroic Diatribe, to see what force it is of hers, by which she gets the better of my Achilles ; when she has not yet hit a single common soldier — no not even a Thersites — -but has destroyed herself most miserably by her own weapons.

So then, she lays hold of this little word what c nothing/ and slays it by the aid of many words 'nothing' and many examples ; dragging it to this result by a commodious interpretation, that c nothing * may be the same as small and imperfect : that is, she holds forth in other words what the Sophists have heretofore taught thus on this passage — "without me ye can do nothing ;" that is, nothing perfectly. Such is the power of her rhetoric, that she contrives to make this gloss, which has now for a long time been stale and mouse-eaten, appear like something new ; and insists upon it in such a way, that you might think she has been the first to bring it forwards, that it never was heard of before, and that it is little less than a miracle which she is exhibiting in the production of it. Meanwhile, she is quite careless and thoughtless about the text itself, and its fore and after context ; from which the knowledge of it is to be sought : not to mention that her aim Js to part iv. shew, by so many words and examples, how this — word ' nothing ' may be taken here for ' something small and imperfect;' as if, forsooth, we were disputing about what might be — when the thing to be proved is, whether it ought to be taken so.

The whole of her magnificent interpretation therefore amounts but to this, if to any thing, that this passage of John's is made uncertain and ambiguous: and what wonder, when it is Diatribe's one and alone object, to make out that the Scriptures are every where ambiguous, lest she should be compelled to use them ; k that the testimonies of the Fathers are decisive, that she may have liberty to abuse them. Strange reverence for God this, which makes His words useless, and man's words profitable ! sect. L. But the finest thing of all is to see how con-

sistent she is with herself. c Nothing' may be taken for ' a little.' And in this sense, says she, it is most true that we can do nothing without Christ : for he speaks of Gospel fruit, which befals none but those who are abiding in the Vine ; that is, Christ. Here, she confesses herself that fruit befals none but those who abide in the Vine ; and this she does, in that self-same commodious interpretation by which she proves that c nothing ' means the same with c small and imperfect.' Perhaps we ought also to interpret the adverb c not ' commodiously, so as to signify that gospel fruit befals men out of Christ in some measure, or in a small and imperfect degree ; hereby announcing that ungodly men, without Christ, with the devil reigning in them and fighting against Christ, may yield k Uti. abuti.~\ Ut. ' To use according to its real nature.' Abut. ' To use contrary to the nature,, or first intention of a thing;, whether for the better or worse.' The Scripture is authority ; she will not use it. The Fathers are not authority 5 she will use them as though they were.

some portion of the fruits of life ; in other words, sect. l. the enemies of Christ may act for Christ. But — "— no more of this. I should like to be informed here, how heretics Advantage are to be resisted, who shall avail themselves of g^J° this law every where in their interpretations of the Scriptures, and insist upon understanding 'nothing* and 'not* to denote an imperfect substance. As ' without him was nothing made f that is, ' very little/ 4 The fool hath said in his heart there is no God;* that is, c God is imperfect/ ' He hath made us and not we ourselves ;* that is, we made ' a very little * of ourselves. And who can number the passages of Scripture in which the words 'nothing* and 'not* occur? Shall we say here, the suitableness of the interpretation is to be looked at. What heretic does not account his own interpretation suitable ? What this, I suppose, is an untying of knots, to open such a window of licence to corrupted minds and deceiving spirits ! 1 To you who make havoc of the certainty of sacred Scripture, I can readily believe that such a licence of interpretation would be commodious : but to us who are labouring to settle the consciences of men, nothing can arise of a more inconvenient, a more hurtful, a more pestilent nature than this commodiousness which you recommend. Hear thou therefore, mighty conqueress of Luther's Achilles ; except thou shalt have proved that 'nothing' in this place, not only may but must be taken for 'a little;' thou shalt get nothing by all this multitude of words and of examples, but that thou hast been fighting fire with dry stubble. What have I to do with thy 'maybe;' when thou art required to prove that it ' must be ?' Until thou shalt have done this, I stand fast in the natural and grammatical

1 Corruptis. fallacibus.~] Cor. expresses the state of the receiver ; fal. the wilfulness of the false prophets : we have the tinder ready,, and they strike the spark. part iv. signification of the word, laughing at thy armies no less than at thy triumphs ! What is now become of that approvable opinion, which declares that Freewill can will nothing good ? Bat perhaps the principle of commodious interpretation hath arrived here at last, making out that c nothing good' means ' something good/ by an altogether unheard of art both of grammar and of logic which explains 6 nothing' to mean the same with ' something :' what logicians would account an impossibility, since they are contradictory? What becomes of the assertion, that we believe Satan to be the prince of this world, reigning according to Christ and Paul, in the wills and minds of men, which are his captives and serve him ? Will that roaring lion forsooth, the implacable and restless enemy of the grace of God and of man's salvation, suffer it to come to pass, that man, who is his slave and a part of his kingdom, should endeavour after good, by any motion towards it, at any moment, that he may escape his tyranny? Would he not rather incite and urge him, both to wTill and to do what is contrary to grace, with all his might ? The righteous, who act under the influence of the divine Spirit, hardly resist him, so as to will and to do what is good; such is his rage against them.

You who feign that the human will is a thing placed in a free medium, and left to itself, have no difficulty in feigning at the same time, that the effort of the will is towards either side; because you imagine both God and the devil to be afar off as mere spectators of this mutable and free will, and do not believe that they are impellers and agitators of this bond will of ours, each of them most determined warriors on the side on which he acts. Believe this fact only, and our sentiment stands in full strength, with Freewill laid prostrate at its feet: as I have already shewn. For, either the kingdom of Satan is a mere no- sect.li. thing in men, and so Christ is a liar : or, if his kingdom be such as Christ describes it to be, Freewill is nothing but Satan's captive packhorse, which cannot have freedom, unless the devil be first of all cast out by the finger of God. Thou perceivest from hence, my Diatribe, what it is, and of what power, which thy author in detestation of Luther's positiveness of assertion is wont to say, ' Luther drives on his cause with a mighty force of Scripture, but all his Scripture is pulled to pieces by one little word?'m Who does not know that the whole body of Scripture might be pulled to pieces by one little word? We knew this well enough, even before we had ever heard the name of Erasmus.

But the question is, whether it be satisfactory that the Scripture should be pulled to pieces by a little word ? The matter in dispute is, whether it be rightly pulled to pieces thus, and whether it must be pulled to pieces thus. Let a man direct his view to this point, and he will see how easy it is to pull the Scriptures to pieces, and how detestable is Luther's positiveness. But the truth is, he will see that it is not a parcel of little words, nor yet all the gates of hell that can do any thing towards accomplishing this object.

Let us then do what Diatribe cannot for her Luther affirmative, and, though we have no business to do provef the so, let us prove our negative ; extorting by force of argument the concession, that the word ' nothing' here not only may, but must be taken to signify not <a little,' but what it naturally expresses. This I will do by arguments additional to that invincible one which has already given me victory; namely, that words ought to be kept to m Uno verbulo.~\ Alluding to this little word e nothing,' I suppose. All Luther's force, he would say, is in this Achillean lance ; which we break by our interpretation of the word ' nothing.' their natural meaning, unless the contrary shall ~~ have been demonstrated:" which Diatribe neither natureTof e nas done, nor can do here. — First then, I extort the case, this concession from the very nature of the case. It has been proved by testimonies of Scripture, which are neither ambiguous nor obscure, that Satan is by far the most powerful and most crafty prince of the princes of this world;0 as I have said : under whose reign the human will, which is now no longer free, and its own master, but the slave of sin and Satan, cannot will any thing but what this prince of hers shall be pleased to let her will. Nor will he suffer her to will any thing good : albeit, if Satan did not rule her, sin itself whose servant man is, would be a sufficient clog upon her to prevent her willing good.p

Secondly, the very sequel of the discourse — which Diatribe in her valour despises,q although I had commented upon it very copiously in my assertions — extorts the same concession. For Christ goes on thus in John xv. " If a man abide not in me, he is cast out as a branch, and he withereth, and they gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burnetii." These words, I say, Diatribe acting the part of a most profound rhetorician has passed over ; in hopes that this transition would be incomprehensible to such unlettered readers as the Lutherans. But you n See above, Sect. iii. ° Longe potentiss. et caUidiss. mundi.~\ There is a 'little ambiguity in the expression j but he clearly means to compare the devil with other earthly Princes. p Luther speaks as others speak ; leaving it to be imagined, that sin is a substance, and has a real and positive existence. (See above, Sect. xi. note h.) The more correct statement is, ' the human soul is itself a substance sinful and devilish ; and would remain so — willing according to its nature — if Satan and his agency were withdrawn from it.

i Fortiter contemnit.~] The taunt is obscure ; but I understand it to insinuate, that Diatribe has a good deal of that ' better part of valour, which is discretion.' perceive that Christ, becoming himself the inter- sect.li. preter of his own simile of the branch and the — vine here, most expressly declares what he would have to be understood by the word c Nothing f, namely, that a man out of Christ is cast forth and withereth. And what else can this being cast forth and withering mean, but that he is delivered over to the dominion of the devil, and is continually made worse ? But to grow worse and worse is not to have power, or to endeavour. The withering branch is made more and more ready for the burning, the more it withereth. If Christ had not thus opened and applied this simile, nobody would have dared to open and apply it so. It is established therefore, that the word f Nothing ' must be taken literally here, according to its natural import/ Let us now look also into the examples by 3. By rewhich she proves that ' nothing" is in some places fating Diataken for ' a little f in order to shew, that in this amplest" part of her argumentation also Diatribe is nothing, and effects nothing. Yet, if she had even proved

r I should rather rest the conclusion upon the scope and train of the parable,, than upon the interpretation of the figures in any one verse : a good general rule for the interpretation of parables. We may overstrain parts ; but we cannot be wrong in seizing the general outline, and maintaining the broad principle which is illustrated 5 where that can be distinctly ascertained.— Perhaps I should not interpret this parable just as Luther does. I consider it as a representation of the visible church 5 exhibiting two sorts of members, fruitful and unfruitful. The fruitful only are Christ's true ones 3 and their fruitfulness is dependent altogether upon a real, continued and unobstructed union with himself. It is with reference to their continuance in him, that this nothingness is spoken of. Should they be cut off from him — suppose them to have been never so fruitful— (thus the parable speaks) their fruitfulness would cease — entirely cease . Both the end and the way require that the nothing be an absolute nothing. — Luther cannot state the result of nonunion, or dis-union, more awfully than I would do ; but I should question the parable's setting this out with the minuteness which he assigns to it, and do not see it necessary to the conclusion he is sustaining. It is quite enough that the- disunited branch is a cast-away waiting for the burning.

part iv. something here, she would have effected nothing ; such a perfect nothing is she, in all her parts and in all her means.3 ^ It is a common saying (she avers) that a man does nothing, if he does not obtain what he seeks after; but still, the man who endeavours frequently makes some way towards his object/ I reply, I never heard that this is a common saying ; you take the liberty of imagining so. Words (so far as they give names to things1) must be considered according to the subject matter, and with relation to the intention of the speaker. Now a man never calls that ' nothing/ which he endeavours when in action; nor does he speak of his endeavour when he talks about ' nothing/ but of the effect : this is what a man is looking at, when he says ' that man does nothing, or effects nothing/ that is, e he has not reached his point, he has not obtained.' — Besides, if your instance proves any thing (which however is not the case), it makes more for me than for you. For this is the very point I am maintaining, and wishing to get proved; that Freewill does many things, which are but nothing in the sight of God.u What is the use of her endeavouring, if she does not gain what she seeks ? — So that, let Diatribe turn which way she will, she founders and confutes herself, as is usually the case with advocates pleading a bad cause.

Thus again, she is unhappy in her instance s Per omnia et omnibus modis.'] Per omn. the several parts of her argument. Omn. mod. the materials of each. Her arguments would not prove her point, if they were sound 5 but they are not so. 1 Verba, ut vocant.~\ Ut voe. i. e. ' quatenus vocabula sunt, sive dictiones quibus res singula? vocantur, aut voce efferuntur.' u Coram Deo.'] Erasmus says, nothing means a little ; and so men speak of their performances. Luther replies, this is said of the effect, not of the act: but if it be said of the act, this proves for me : doing, he does not ; for in the sight of God his work is nothing. Coram Deo, in a former instance (see above, Sect. xxxi. note a), referred to God's presence as an agent j here refers to it as a spectator. which she adduces from Paul, "Neither is he sect. that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, but LIL God that giveth the increase." What is of very ] ... little moment, and useless of itself, he calls c nothing ;' says she. Who is this? What you, Diatribe, call the ministry of the word useless of itself, and of small moment; that ministry which Paul extols with such great praises both every where else, and especially in 2 Cor. iii. where he calls it the ministration of life and the ministration of glory ?

— Again you are guilty of neither considering the subject matter, nor the intention of the speaker. With respect to giving the increase, the planter and the water er are nothing ; but with respect to planting and watering they are not ' nothing:' it being the chief work of the Spirit in the church of God to teach and to exhort. Paul means this, and his words very clearly express this. But granting that this inapplicable example also applies, it again, like the other, will stand on my side. For I am maintaining, that Freewill is nothing — that is, useless — of itself, as you explain this text, before God: for it is of this kind of existence that we speak, well knowing that the ungodly will is e a something/ and not e a mere nothing.3 y

So again, with regard to that saying in 1 Cor. xiii. l Cor. xiii. "If I have not charity, I am nothing." I do not 2* see why she adduces this example, except it be that she is in quest of number and multitude, or thinks that we are in want of arms with which to dispatch her. For the man who has not charity is truly and strictly 6 nothing' before God. I v Merum nihil.'] Erasmus applies this text to the act of ministering the word ; whereas it belongs to the effect of that ministry. But be it, that it illustrates the agency of the free will under the ministry, without grace : this agency is nothing in the sight of God, though not an absolute nothing in itself.— This conclusion however is drawn from a double misapplication of the text : it is act, instead of effect ; and it is act of the hearer, not of the speaker. part IV. maintain the same tiling with respect to Freewill. So that this example also stands up for me against Diatribe herself, unless it be that Diatribe is even jet ignorant what our ground of battle is.x We are not speaking of an existence of nature ; but of an existence of grace, as they call it. We know that Freewill performs certain natural acts ; that she eats, and drinks, and begets children, and rules the house.

So that Diatribe might have forborne to mock us with that nonsensical saying, which is like the ramble of a delirium, 'that a man cannot even sin, without Christ/ if we insist upon this word 6 nothing f whereas even Luther admits that Freewill has a power of committing sin, though it hath no other ! — The wise Diatribe, you see, must have her joke even upon a serious subject.— What we affirm is, that man without the grace of God still remains under the control of the general omnipotency of God, who performs, who moves, who carries away all things by a necessary and infallible course ; but what the man so carried away does, is "nothing" — that is, availeth nothing before God, and is accounted nothing but sin. Thus — with regard to a being of grace — he is nothing who hath not charity. — Why then does Diatribe, after confessing of her own accord that we are in this place treating of evangelical fruit, which is not produced without Christ, here in an instant turn aside from the question at issue, begin a strange song, and cavil about natural operations and human fruits ? Why— but that a man destitute of the truth, is never any where consistent with himself ?y John iii. So again, that saying in John iii. u A man can

* Quo loco pugnemus.'] The same with ' status causae ;' the question at issue. J We are reasoning about ' existence of grace/ or c existence before God/ and her argument is about mere natural existence, which is absolute ; when she has even avowed the distinction which makes the difference. receive nothing, except it be given him from sect. heaven." LIL John speaks of a man, who was something assuredly already, and denies that this man receives any thing ; that is to say, the Spirit with his gifts : for it is of this, and not of nature, that he speaks.2 He had no need of Diatribe's instructions, surely, to teach him that the man already had eyes, nose, ears, mouth, mind, will, reason, and all the other properties of a man. Perhaps Diatribe thinks that when the Baptist spoke of a man, he was so mad as to be thinking of Plato's chaos, or Leucippus's vacuum, or Aristotle's infinite, or some other e nothing/ which was at last to be made 6 something * by a gift from heaven ! What, it is bringing examples from Scripture, purposely to make sport in this way upon so weighty a subject ! — To what purpose is it then, that she brings forwards such a redundancy of material, by way of teaching us that fire, escape from evil, effort towards good, and the rest, proceed from heaven ; as if any man knew

z De hoc enim.~\ We shall see hereafter, that Luther is mistaken in his view of this text ; but the conclusion remains : the ' nothing' is distinct from natural endowments. — Plato's chaos is that c rudis indigestaque moles,' out of which, f being itself eternal/ he taught that the eternal God, according to an eternal draught or model in his own mind, had, in his own appointed time, created the world. — Leucippus of Abdera, a. c. 428. was the first who invented the famous system of atoms and a void, which was afterwards more fully explained by Democritus and Epicurus. The void was nothing, till the infinity of eternal atoms rushed into it by a blind and rapid movement, and thus settled into a world. — Aristotle's c infinite ' is his ( first moveable ' eternally put into motion by his * first Mover,' and made to be what it is, at its one first projection, by Him. There is not much of essential difference therefore between Plato's chaos, Leucippus's vacuum, and Aristotle's infinite : they are each a name for some supposed state in which the world that now is subsisted antecedently to its present one. — For some account of Plato, see Preface ; see also Part ii. Sect. v. note u, where I have followed Seneca's account of his term ( idea.' — For some account of Aristotle, see Part iv. Sect, viii.note r.

part IV. not, or denied this ? I am speaking of grace; or, as she has herself expressed it, of Christ and gospel fruit : but she meanwhile chatters away about nature, that she may get time, protract the cause, and throw dust in the eyes of the unlearned reader. With all this however, she not only fails in adducing a single example of ' nothing ' taken for ' a little/ which is what she undertook to do ; but even manifestly betrays herself to be one who neither knows, nor cares, what Christ is, or what grace is, or how grace differs from nature : a distinction which the very rudest of the Sophists knew, and beat out in their schools by commonest use.a Nor is she in the least aware, at the same time, that all her examples make for me and against herself. Even this saying of the Baptist— (e A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven " — proves that Freewill is nothing. This is the way to conquer my Achilles — Diatribe puts arms into his hands with which to destroy her in her nakedness and defencelessness. Thus it is, that those Scriptures, by which the inflexible dogmatist Luther drives all before him, are scattered by a single wordling.b

After this she details0 a great many similes ; by which all she does is to carry off the foolish a Detriverunt.~\ A figure taken from threshing, or more properly from treading out the pure grain with the feet : " Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." Possibly he may have a squift at the name of Diatribe, in his use of this term ; c even the Sophists have trodden the floor of their schools ' to better purpose than she. See Introduction, p. 3, note a. b Luther maintains his Achillean lance, by 1 . Exposing the staleness, unaptness, and unauthorizedness of the evasion which Diatribe proposes. 2. The dangerous conclusions which may be extorted from her concessions. 3. Impossibility of realizing what is thus ascribed to Freewill. 4. c Nothing' cannot mean c a little ' in this text. 5. Does not in any of the texts which she adduces. c Enumerat implies f the number in full tale' — an ostentatious display of numbers. reader, as her manner is, into foreign matters, sect. herself meanwhile quite forgetting her cause. As for instance ; God preserves the ship it is true, $im\\es but still the mariner conducts it into port ; so that naught, the mariner does something. It is a distinct work fndasamst forsooth, which this simile ascribes to God on the what she one hand — that of preserving — and to the mariner ought to on the other, that of guiding into port. Besides, ^^ " if it proves any thing, it proves that the whole work of preserving is God's ; the whole work of guiding, the seaman's. But still, it is an exquisite and apt simile ! d

So the husbandman carries the productions of the earth into his barns, but God has given them. Here again, distinct works are ascribed to God and to man ; unless she chooses to make the husbandman creator at the same time, and so even joint-giver of the fruits. But let the same works moreover be assigned to God and to man by these similes, what is the amount of them, but that the creature cooperates with the operating God ? Are we now disputing about cooperation then ? Are we not disputing, rather, about the several force and operation of Freewill ? What a flight is this ! The orator was to have spoken about a palm tree, but he has talked only of a gourd. A cask was to be turned, why comes there out a pitcher?6 I also know, that Paul works together with God in teaching the Corinthians ; himself preaching without, whilst God teaches within: where the work of the two operators is a different one. In like manner, he also works together with God, when he speaks in the Spirit of God.: and the work is the same. For this is what I assert and maintain, that God, when he works without the

d There is a double failure in the comparion : the works are two ; and the agent in each, one. e Hor. Art. Poet, v, 23. — I do not find any classical allusion for the gourd. part IV. confines of the grace of his Spirit, worketh all in all, even in the wicked ; seeing that he, the alone maker of all things, doth also alone move, drive and carry away all things, by the motion of his omnipotency: which they cannot escape or change, but do necessarily follow and obey ; each according to the measure of its own power, which God hath given to it. So true is it, that even all wickednessesf do work together with him. Again; when he acts by the Spirit of grace in those whom he hath made righteous — that is, in his own kingdom— he in like manner drives and moves them ; and they — seeing that they are new creatures — do follow and work together with him; or rather, as Paul says, they are ledhy him. — But this was not the place for these things. Our question is not, what we can do when God worketh, but what we can do, of ourselves ; that is, whether, when now created out of nothing, we can do or endeavour any thing, through that general motion of omnipotency, towards preparing ourselves for the new creation of his Spirit?

This question should have been answered, instead of turning us aside towards another. For we answer this question, and our answer is this : like as man, before he is created to be a man, does nothing and endeavours nothing towards making himself a creature ; and afterwards, when he has been made and created, does nothing and endeavours nothing towards continuing himself in being as a creature; but each of these events takes place by the alone will of the omnipotent might and goodness of God, who creates and preserves us without ourselves, but does not work in us without ourselves — seeing we are those whom he hath created and preserved for this very end, that he may work in us, and we may work together with him ; whether this be without the confines of his kingdom

f Omnia etiam impia.'] < All wicked substances : ' men and devils. by the acting of his general omnipotence or within sect. the confines of that kingdom by the special power ' of his Spirit — so (we go on to say) man, before he is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdom of the Spirit, does nothing, endeavours nothing, towards preparing himself for that renewal and kingdom ; and afterwards, when he has been created anew, does nothing, endeavours nothing, towards continuing himself in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone doeth each of these things in us, both creating us anew without ourselves and preserving us when so created — as James also says, " Of his own will begat he us by the word of his power, that we might be the beginning of his creation;" speaking of the renewed creation.2 Still he does not work in us without ourselves ; seeing we are those whom he hath created anew and doth preserve, to this very end, that he might work in us, and that we might work together with him.h Thus, he preaches by us, has pity on the poor by us, comforts the afflicted by us. But what is hereby ascribed to Freewill ? rather, what is left to it, but c nothing ;' absolute nothing?

Read the Diatribe in this part for five or six inconsistleaves together, and you will find that all she does encdy *"d f is, first by lugging in similes of this sort, and after- Diatribewards by citing some of the most beautiful passages takes UP and parables from PauPs writings and from the j^tand Gospels, to teach us that innumerable texts (as she pursues expresses it) are to be found in the Scriptures, ar^eTi^ which declare the cooperation and helping gifts inversion. of God. Now, if I collect from these testimonies, s Renovata creatura.'] Sometimes called ( the new creation ;' but with less propriety : this new is all made out of the old ; which e new * does not imply, but f renewed ' does. h Cooperaremw\~\ The cooperation in both cases consists in our acting concurrently with God, according to our nature : God, by his own agency, calls out our faculties such as they are, whether natural or renewed, into act and exercise : it is by, and not without, our faculties that he 'moves, drives and hurries us along/ part iv. that man can do nothing- without the helping grace of Cod, therefore no works of man are good ; she, on the contrary, using a rhetorical inversion, concludes 'Nay rather, there is nothing which man cannot do with the assistance of God's grace, therefore all man's works may be good. Well then, as many passages as there are in the word of God, which make mention of divine assistance ;

so many are there which maintain Freewill. Now there are such without number. I have conquered therefore, if the question be decided by the number of testimonies/ Thus she. — But do you think Diatribe was quite sober, or of sound mind, when she wrote these words ? For I will not impute it to malice and wickedness in her (except so far as she might have a mind perhaps to destroy me by a perpetual tiresomeness), that she preserves such a perfect consistency throughout her whole performance, always handling other topics than those which she proposed to treat. However, if she has delighted herself with talking nonsense on so grave a subject, it shall be my pleasure, in return, to expose to public scorn the absurdities which she has so wantonly promulgated.1

First then, I neither make it a question, nor am ignorant, that all the works of man may be good, if they be done with the help of God's grace. Secondly, I neither make it a question, nor am ignorant, that there is nothing which man cannot do, with the help of God's grace. But I cannot sufficiently admire your negligence, that having commenced to write upon the power of Freewill, you should proceed to write on the power of divine grace: having done which, as* if all were stocks and stones, you are audacious enough to 1 Publice tradueere.~] A peculiar use of traduc. ' to expose to ridicule or dishonour, to disgrace.' So f traducit avos.'— -Juv. viii. 17. f Rideris, multbque niagis traduceris.' — Martial. e Miseraia traducere calvam/ — Id. say publicly, that Freewill is established by those sect. passages of Scripture which extol God's helping _ grace. Not only have you the audacity to do this, but even to sing your own paean, k as a most glorious, triumphing conqueror ! I now know experimentally, through this word and deed of yours, what Freewill is, and what her power. 'She is mad/ What can it be in you, pray, which speaks thus; save this very Freewill ?

But, mad as you are, hear your own conclusions. Scripture extols the grace of God ; therefore Scripture proves Freewill. Scripture extols the help which is derived from God's grace ; therefore Scripture establishes Freewill. What art of logic is it pray, from which you have learned these conclusions ? Why might it not be just the reverse ? Grace is preached, therefore Freewill is exploded. The help which is afforded by grace is extolled, therefore Freewill is destroyed. For to what end is grace conferred ? Is it, that the pride of Freewill, who is sufficiently strong of herself, may frolic and sport at a Bacchanalia,1 tricked out with grace, as a sort of superfluous ornament ? — Well then, I also will draw an inference by inversion ; and, though confessedly no rhetorician, yet with a more solid rhetoric than yours. As many passages as there are in the divine Scriptures which make mention of divine help ; so many there are which exclude Freewill. Now there are such without number. If the question is to be decided by numbers then, I have conquered. For wherefore have we need of grace ; k Encomion.'] A Greek derivative ; whence our English word e encomium ' also : applied peculiarly to the laudatory songs which were sung to the praise of the conqueror amidst the tumultuous revels of his Triumph. — See Introd.p. 4.

1 Feasts in honour of Bacchus ; which were not only drunken bouts, but scenes of proud display, to the praise of the glory of man. They imitated the poetical fictions concerning Bacchus -, putting on fawn skins, crowning themselves with garlands and persQnating men distracted. part iv. and wherefore is the help of grace conferred; but because Freewill can do nothing, and, as this very Diatribe has affirmed, in that approvable opinion of hers, cannot will good? When grace therefore is extolled, and the help of grace is proclaimed, the impotenc}^ of Freewill is in the same instant proclaimed. This is that sound conclusion, and that legitimate consequence, which not even the gates of hell shall overthrow. sect. Here I make an end of maintaining my own texts against Diatribe's confutation of them, that my book may not grow to an immoderate size : the rest (if there be any worth noticing) shall be considered in the assertion of my own sentiment. As to what Erasmus repeats in his Epilogue, that, if our sentiment stand, there are never so many precepts, never so many threatenings, never so many promises all made vain; there is no place left either for merit, or demerit, for reward, or for punishment— then again, that it is difficult to defend the mercy, or even the justice of God, if God condemns those who sin necessarily — and other disagreeable consequences, which have so moved the greatest men as to overthrow them —

I have given an answer to all these considerations already. Nor do I either tolerate, or receive, that golden mean which advises, with good intention, as I am willing to suppose, that we should concede a very small degree of power to Freewill, in order that the inconsistency of Scripture, and the forementioned inconveniences, may the more easily be removed. The truth is, this golden mean neither assists the cause which it is meant to serve, nor gets us any forwarder in the solution of difficulties. Unless you yield the whole and every thing to Freewill, as the Pelagians do, there still remains inconsistency in the Scriptures, merit and reward are excluded, the mercy and justice of God are abrogated, and all those inconveniences which we aim to avoid by allowing a very small and inefficacious power to Freewill remain in force ; s^ct. as I have already shewn. We must therefore come * to the extremity of denying Freewill altogether, and referring every thing to God ; and then we shall find that the Scriptures are not inconsistent with themselves, and that our inconveniences are either removed or rendered tolerable. There is one thing, however, which I deprecate, my Erasmus, and that is, your persuading yourself that I plead this cause with more of zeal than of judgment. I cannot endure that I should be charged with such hypocrisy as to think one thing and write another : nor is it true what you write of me, that I have been carried forwards by the heat of self-defence to the point of now for the first time denying Freewill wholly, whereas I had hitherto ascribed something to it.

You will not shew this something, I well know, in any of my publications. There are theses and questions of mine extant, in which I have been perpetually asserting, up to this very hour, that Freewill is a nothing, and a matter of mere name; such was the term which I then used about it. Overcome by truth ; provoked and compelled by disputation ; thus I have been brought to think, and thus I have been brought to write. That I have discussed the matter with a considerable degree of vehemence, if it be a crime, is a crime to which I plead guilty : nay, it is my marvellous joy, that this testimony should be borne to me by the world, in the cause of God. May God himself confirm this testimony in the last day ! So shall none be then more blessed than Luther ; who is so greatly extolled by the testimony of his own age as one that hath not pleaded the cause of truth sluggishly or deceitfully, but with a high degree, it may be with an excess of vehemence. Then shall I happily escape that judgment spoken of by Jeremiah : Cursed is

part iv. the man who cloeth the work of the Lord negli- Now if I shall also seem a little severe upon your Diatribe, you must pardon me. It is not from ill-will to you that I am so : but I have been stirred up to it, by the conviction that you were mightily depressing this cause, which is the cause of Christ, by your authority; whilst your knowledge and the matter you put forth11 are not such as to entitle you to any superior consideration. — And then, who has such a command of temper every where, as not in some places to grow warm? Your desire of moderation has made you almost cold as ice in this treatise; but you not unfrequently contrive to hurl fiery and exceeding bitter darts, so as to seem absolutely virulent to your reader, except he regard you with peculiar favour and indulgence. But all this has nothing to do with the cause : we ought to forgive these asperities mutually, seeing we are but men, and nothing different from humanity is found in us.° m Negligenter.~\ Our version says deceitfully, but has negligently in the margin. u Re ipsd.~\ ' The material which he worked up :' as distinguished not only from his name, but from the dress of language which he put upon it.

° Nihil humani alienum.'] ' Homo sum, nihil a me humani alienum puto,' has furnished Luther with a sentiment which requires a little correction. As a called child of God he had surely something in him more than human. — He only means to make full confession of his humanity — and that another name for sin of all kinds. How Luther proposes to conduct the fight. We are now arrived at the last part of this treatise, in which, according to promise, I ought to lead out my own forces against Freewill. But I shall not produce them all; for who could do this in a small work, when the whole Scripture is on my side, every point and letter of it. Nor is there any need to do so, since Freewill has already been vanquished and laid prostrate by a twofold victory; vanquished, by my having proved that all is against her, which she thought was for her ; vanquished again, by my having shewn that all those proofs which she had a mind to confute remain still invincible. Besides, even if she were not already vanquished, it were enough that she should be prostrated by one or two lances. For what need is there, when an enemy has been slain by some single weapon, to pierce him through and through as he lies dead, with many more. I shall therefore be short now, if the subject will allow me; and out of the vast variety of armies, which I might lead forth into the field, I shall summon two general officers only, with a select portion of their legions : these are Paul and John the Evangelist.

Paul, writing to the Romans, thus enters sectii. upon his argument in behalf of the grace of God against Freewill. " The wrath of God, says he, f™^ part v. is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in Sentence unrighteousness." Jn these words you hear a upon Free- general sentence pronounced upon all men, that wllL they are under the wrath of God. What is this else, but that they are worthy of wrath and punishment? He assigns as the cause of this anger, that they do nothing but what is worthy of wrath and punishment ; that all, forsooth, are ungodly and unjust, and hold the truth in unrighteousness. Where now is that power of Freewill which endeavours after something good ? Paul represents it to be deserving of the wrath of God, and passes sentence upon it as ungodly and unjust. Nov/ that which is ungodly, and deserves wrath, endeavours and hath power, not for grace, but against it.a Luther will be laughed at here for his carelessness, as not having examined Paul's text sufficiently; and some will say, that Paul does not speak of all men, nor of all their endeavours, in this passage, but only of those who are ungodly and unjust: of those, as his words express it, who detain the truth in unrighteousness; and so it does not follow that all are of this character. Upon which I remark, that with Paul it is the same thing to say, c upon all ungodliness of men,' as to say, 6 upon the ungodliness of all men ;' for Paul hebraizes almost every where :b so that his meaning is, ' all men are ungodly and unjust, and detain the truth in unrighteousness; therefore all men are worthy of wrath.' Besides, it is not the relative that is used in the Greek text —

a Luther's argument is, ' Paul declares that wrath is revealed upon " all men." If so, it is revealed upon Freewill.— His labour therefore is to shew that this text means so much. — That it does mean so much is shewn, 1. From the very words. 2. From the preceding context. b Ebralcatur .] I should not say ' hebraizes' here \ for it is Greek as well as Hebrew — perhaps nearly all languages — thus to speak : grammarians call it Hyperbaton. of those who — but the article ; as thus, c The SECT nwrath of God is revealed upon the ungodliness and injustice of men, detaining as they do the truth in unrighteousness/ — So that this is a sort of epithet applied to all men, ( That they detain the truth in unrighteousness :' just as it is an epithet when it is said, e Our Father which art in heaven;' which might otherwise be expressed thus, c Our heavenly Father/ or ' Our Father in the heavens/0 For the expression is used to distinguish them from those who believe and are godly. But let these suggestions be frivolous and vain, if the very thread of Paul's argument do not constrain and prove them. He had said just before, " The Gospel is the power of God, unto salvation, to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first and also to the Greek." The words here used are not obscure or ambiguous : c To the Jews and to the

c An epithet -which implies the reason of the Lord's conduct 5 and which I should venture to render by c for that they detain, &c.' in Latin ' utpote qui ;' ' seeing that they are those who, &c.' — I do not agree with Luther in the distinction which he here understands the Apostle to make : I consider him to be speaking strictly of all men ; even as he is proceeding to shew that all men without exception are in their nature state chargeable with holding the truth in unrighteousness. It is the nature state of man, the state of man without the Gospel, of which the Apostle treats ; till he comes to the twenty-first verse of the third chapter. The true connection is, I shall be glad to come to Rome ; for I am not ashamed of the Gospel ; for that Gospel is the power of God unto salvation -, that salvation which all men want ; which all men want because the wrath of God is revealed upon all men for their ungodliness ; for their ungodliness and unrighteousness, because they hold e the truth' in unrighteousness ; they hold the truth in unrighteousness because God has made himself manifest to them, but they have not dealt with him according to that manifestation. His great charge therefore, which he goes on to maintain against man universally — both Jew and Gentile — considered as yet without the preached Gospel — is, that they hold the truth in unrighteousness. — This account of the context does not at all invalidate Luther's application of the text. All he wants is c< all men :" and this he clearly has.

part v, Greeks— that is, to all men— the Gospel of the power of God is necessary, in order that believers may be saved from the wrath which is revealed/ When he declares the Jews — who excelled other nations in righteousness, in the law of God, and in the power of Freewill — to be, without any difference, both destitute of the power of God and in need of it, that they may be saved from the revealed wrath — making that power necessary to them — does he not reckon them to be under wrath, pray ? What men will you assume to be unobnoxious to the wrath of God, when you are compelled to believe that the greatest men in the world — the Jews and the Greeks for instance— are not so ? Agam ; whom will you except amidst those Jews and Greeks, when Paul embraces them all without any distinction under one name, and subjects them all to the same sentence? Is it to be supposed, that there were no individuals in these two most eminent nations/ who strove after honesty?6 Were there none that endeavoured, to the uttermost of Freewill ? Yet Paul does not heed this at all ; he sends all under wrath ; he pronounces all ungodly and unjust. Must we not suppose, that the rest of the Apostles also did, by a like sentence, cast all the other nations also, and each individual of them in his lot, as one mass of

d Istis duabus."] I should rather understand the Greeks in this connection to be the representatives of the Gentile world, selected as the most favourable or enlightened specimen of it j Jew and Greek, like Jew and Gentile, comprehending the whole human race. Luther understands Paul to express that nation in its individuality, and argues by induction thence to the rest of the nations. — The frequent use of this antithesis — Jew and Greek — favours my view : but Luther's argument is not affected by the distinction. His refined Greek is included amongst my promiscuous Gentiles. e Qui ad honesta niterentur.~\ Referring to Erasmus's noble defence of the heathens and their philosophers, as such great sticklers and striversfor the e honestum.' See Part iv. Sect, xliii. note m. See also Part ii. Sect. viii. condemnation under the curse and dominion of sect. in. This passage of PauPs therefore stands boldly, A pubiishand insists that Freewill, or the most excellent p^°sPel thing in men, even in those who are most emi- want of nent, even in those who are endowed with the kn™ledge law, justice, wisdom and all virtues, is ungodly turai man, and unjust, and deserves the wrath of God : else as well as PauPs argument falls to the ground ; whereas if power? it stand, his division, by which he distributes salvation to those who believe the Gospel and wrath to ail the rest, leaves no man in the midway between them.

He represents believers as righteous, unbelievers as ungodly, unrighteous, and subject to wrath. For all he means to say is, ' the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, that it is of faith :' therefore all men are ungodly and unrighteous ; seeing it would be foolish in God to reveal righteousness to men, which they either knew, or possessed the seeds of already. But seeing that God is no fool, and jet he reveals a righteousness of salvation; it is manifest that Freewill, even in the chiefest of men, not only has nothing and can do nothing, but does not even know what is just in the sight of God. Unless you shall choose to say, that the righteousness of God is not revealed to those chiefest of men, but only to the baser sort; in opposition to PauPs boast, that he is a debtor to the Jew and to the Greek, to the wise and to the unwise, to the barbarian and to the Greek. f So then Paul, comprehending all men without exception in one mass here, concludes that all of them are ungodly, unjust, and ignorant of righteousness and faith ; so far are they from being

f The allusion is to Romans i. 14. — I do not find any text in which he speaks of himself as debtor to Jews and Greeks. Luther seems to have confounded the fourteenth verse with the sixteenth, and with some expressions in Rom. ii. 1 Cor. i. Galat. iii. Coloss. iii. Experience confirms Paul's argument. Freewill neither conceives the truth, nor can endure it. able to will or to do any good thing: a firm conclusion from the premise, that God reveals a righteousness of salvation to them, as being ignorant and sitting in darkness — why then of themselves they are ignorant. Now those that know not a righteousness of salvation are assuredly under wrath and damnation; and cannot extricate themselves therefrom through their ignorance, or even endeavour to be extricated. For what endeavour can you make, if you know not what, where, whither, or how far you are to endeavour. Fact and experience agree with this conclusion. Shew me a single individual out of the whole race of mortals, though he be the most holy and righteous of all men, who ever conceived that this is the way to righteousness and salvation — forsooth to believe in Him, who is at the same time God and man ; who has died for the sins of men, and who has risen again, and is seated at the right hand of the Father — or who ever dreamed of this wrath of God, which Paul here declares to be revealed from heaven ?

Look at the Jews, continually taught as they have been by so many miracles, by so many Prophets ; what do they think of this way ? Not only have they declined accepting it, but they even hate it, to such a degree that there is not a nation under heaven which has persecuted Christ more atrociously unto this very day. And yet who would dare to say that there hath not been a single individual in such a multitude of people, who hath cultivated his free will, and endeavoured to effect something by its power ? How comes it then, that all men try after something different from this, and that the most excellent of the most excellent of men have not only neglected to cultivate this method of righteousness, yea, and been ignorant of it ; but, when now it has been published and revealed, have repelled it with the most consum-

mate hatred, and have been eager to destroy it ? sect. iv. So that Paul, in 1 Cor. i. declares this way to be to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness. Now, since he makes mention of Gentiles and Jews indiscriminately, and since it is certain that the Jews and the Gentiles are the chief people under heaven ; it is at the same time certain, that Freewill is nothing but the chiefest enemy of righteousness and of man's salvation ; because it cannot be, but that some amongst these Jews and Gentiles have acted and endeavoured with the uttermost power of Freewill; and yet with this very Freewill have done nothing but wage war against grace. Go now, and say that Freewill endeavours after good, when goodness and righteousness itself is a stumbling-block and foolishness to her ! Nor can you say that this saying pertains to some, but not to all. Paul speaks indiscriminately of all, when he says, " to the Gentiles foolishness, and to the Jews a stumbling-block;" excepting none but those that believe. " To us, says he ; that is, to the called and sanctified ; he is the power and wisdom of God." He does not say, e to some Gentiles, to some Jews/ but simply, c to the Gentiles and to the Jews who are not of us' — making a division, which is very plain, between the believing and the unbelieving, and leaving not a single individual in the midway between the two. Now we are talking about Gentiles who have not the grace of God : Paul says that the righteousness of God is foolishness to them, and they abhor it ! So much for this laudable endeavour of Freewill after good.s

s Luther's account of this text is, 1. The words are a testis mony. 2. This testimony is confirmed by (1.) the preceding context (2.) fact and experience. — I deem him mistaken in his view, both of the text and context. (See above, note c.) The text does not refer to ' the truth' as preached by the Gospel, neither does it make any division or exception. It is the part v. Again; see whether he does not himself adduce the very chiefest of the Greeks as examples nature state of c all men' that is here described, and described as a reason for Paul's willingness to preach the Gospel at Rome, or any where. Luther was misled, possibly, by the word ' truth ;' " who hold the truth in unrighteousness ;" as if it must necessarily mean the Gospel. What, is there no teacher of truth but the Gospel ? and is ' the truth' identical with the The truth" is either ' the substance of God,' * or ' the doctrine of that substance' — what states it out ; and consequently, what states out or displays any part of this — so far as it does state this out — may in this inferior sense (I call doctrine of or about the reality inferior to the reality itself) be called ' the truth.' Now some of the invisible things of God were thus shewn, or stated out, in creation ;

and are shewn by what we call the works of nature (that is, works of God in creation as distinguished from those of super-creation or redemption.) So that those who had not the Gospel might still be charged with holding the truth in unrighteousness : they had it, and did not act it. — That this is Paul's reference and meaning here, appears from what follows. He goes on to say, (f Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them j for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead : so that they are without excuse." He then sets out the conduct of the Gentiles under this knowledge, having thus previously shewn, that if they sinned, it was without excuse. — Luther is guilty here of the very error which he charges upon Erasmus in Part. iv. Sect, xxx., that of assuming parallelisms without proof : because Jew and Greek are opposed in 1 Cor. i., and also here, he assumes that it must be with just the same reference and scope in each ; whereas it is there the rejecting infidel, here the un-evangelized neglecter and contemner of God, that is the subject of remark.— Still the testimony against Freewill is entire. Even the conclusion from the sixteenth verse, and from the seventeenth verse, is not abated :

" The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek 3" therefore both Jew and Greek needeth salvation — therefore they neither liave, nor know it by Freewill. i( Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith 5" therefore righteousness is not known without it — is not known by Freewill 5 it is by faith — and

* I do not forget that the Lord Jesus Christ is hoth personally and mystically called the truth ; but if this title be examined, it will be found that He has it, in both these regards, sulordinately ; - as the grand Displayer, Declarer, Word, and Glory of God the Father — the created image of the Uncreated Reality. of Lis assertion, when he says that the more wise sect. v. of them were made foolish, and their heart was darkened : also that that they were made vain by ™™^stth0ef their reasonings; that is, by their wily disput- theGreeks, ations.11 and afteor - What, does he not here lay his hands upon aemnsX what is highest and most excellent amongst the JewsindisGreeks, when he lays hold of their reasonings ? j™: These are their highest and best thoughts and opinions, which they accounted solid wisdom. But this wisdom, which he elsewhere calls foolish in them,1 he here calls vain; and says, that with much endeavouring it got from bad to worse : so that at length their heart was darkened, that faith is not of Freewill,, but opposed to it. — But what says the text itself in its grammatical sense as led to and supported by a just view of the context ? ' The wrath of God is revealed against all men in their nature state, for that they hold the truth in unrighteousness : they manifest themselves to be what they are — children of wrath and curse, through original sin and guilt — by blinding themselves to that display of God which is made by the visible, and otherwise sensible, things of his hand.'

h Luther does not quote the words in the order in which we have them in our version, and in which they stand in the original text. " Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful : but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God, &c." — I doubt the propriety of Luther's distinction here between the wiser of them, and the rest of the nation. He appears to have understood the words ' (pdo-KOPTes eJimc aocpolS as expressing those who said they were wise amongst them. But there is nothing partitive in the form here. It is a description applied to the persons of whom he had spoken in the preceding verse, and of whom he continues to speak in the following verses. The whole nation, which Avas a refined and philosophical nation, boasted itself of its wisdom. The philosophers led the way in much of the idolatry and sin, but the people followed them j and it is of the whole, inclusively but not exclusively of the philosophers, that the Apostle delivers his testimony. Luther's argument, however, is not affected by this distinction ; he only wants to have it secured that the greatest and best of their community are comprehended in the censure.

1 1 Cor. hi, 18—20. pautv. and they worshipped idols, and performed the monstrous acts which he records in the following verses. k If the best endeavours and performance, then, in the best of the Gentiles be evil and wicked; what do you think of the remaining multitude? being, as they were, even a worse sort of heathens. For neither here again does he make any difference between the better sort; whilst without any respect of persons he condemns their search after wisdom. Now, when the very act or endeavour is condemned, the endeavourers, whosoever they be, are condemned also, although they may have done what they did with the uttermost might of Freewill. Their very best effort, I say, is declared to be faulty ; how much more the persons employed in it ! Presently he in like manner rejects the Jews also without any distinction, as being Jews in the letter and not in the spirit. u Thou, by the letter and circumcision, dishonourest God," says he. And again ; u For he is not a Jew who is a Jew openly, but who is a Jew secretly." — What can be plainer than this division? The outside Jew is a transgressor of the law. But how many Jews were there, think you, who had no faith, men of the greatest wisdom, devotion and honesty, who strove after justice and truth with the greatest earnestness of endeavour ? Just as he often bears them record, that they have a zeal for God, that they follow after the righteousness of the law, that they are labouring day and night to obtain salvation, that they live blameless ! 1 And yet they are transgressors of the

k Sequentia monstra, quce.'] The form is ambiguous ; it might express that their horrific abominations were the natural consequence of their idolatries : which is true,, though I do not consider him as affirming it. The form as I have rendered it, though not grammatical, is common. 1 Quod sine quereld vivantJ] Ambiguous — might mean without a murmur — but seems clearly to refer to such passages as Philipp. iii. 6. Luke i. 6. — Luther's representation of these law, because not in spirit Jews, but even obsti- sect.vi. nate in their resistance to the righteousness of faith. What remains then, but that Freewill is the worst when it is best, and the more it endeavours the worse it is made. The words are clear, the division is one which admits of no doubt, there is not any thing which can be controverted. But let us hear Paul himself in the character Paul's epiof his own interpreter. Making a sort of epi- losue. loguem to his argument, in chap. iii. he says, h^meL!8 "What then? do we excel them? By no means. ing. For we have charged11 both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin." Jews requires chastening : they yielded but an outward observance to the law, either in its ceremonial, or in its moral requirements. They did not really fulfil the commandment any more than they entered into the spirit of the ritual. The real Jew, the spiritual Israelite, was enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see, understand, receive, use and enjoy Christ in both, by faith • having faith bestowed upon him, by an exercise of grace which was distinct from and beyond his covenant.

(See above, Part iii. Sect, xxviii. note v.) But the others were transgressors of the law, not because they had not faith : ' ' For the law is not of faith ; but the man that doeth them shall live in them." (Galat. iii. 12.) One of the objects proposed by the law was to make them superabounding transgressors (Rom. v. 20.) ; and they were constituted such, not by lack of faith in Christ, but by lack of spiritual obedience to its spiritual requirements. Luther confounds Law and Gospel here : the spirit-faith, of Abraham with the /eJfer-morality of Moses ! It suits his view of the Apostle's argument 5 but that view is incorrect. (See above, Sect. ii. note c.) The Apostle is shewing that the law-having Jew is no better than the uncovenanted Gentile : iC but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." (Rom. ii. 25.)

m Velut epilogum faeiens.~\ Epil. ' Postrema pars orationis qua congregantur et repetuntur ea, quae dicta sunt j Latine peroratio, cumulus, conclusio : ab eVA-eV/w, insuper dico, dictis addo, repeto.' n Causati sumus.~] TrporfriacxajtieOa. — We say, proved j but Luther is more correct, as 'appears both from the etymology of the word and from the discourse which follows : irpoaii. ante causam affero ,• ante arguo. Most commentators however, and Sleusner amongst the rest, assign a sense to it like ours; although this be the only place in the New Testament where the partv. What is become of Freewill now? All Jews and Greeks, says he, are under sin. Are there any tropes, or knots here ? What can a qualified interpretation, in which the whole world should join, avail against this sentence which is so plain? He who says ' all' excepts none. He who lays it down that they are under sin ; that is, servants of sin, leaves nothing good in them. But where has he preferred this charge that all the Jews and the G entiles are under sin ? Nowhere else, save where I have shewn that he does so ; that is, when he says, " The wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." In the words which follow he proves this by experience; for that they, being displeasing to God, were subjected to so manyvices, being convicted as it were by the fruits of their ungodliness, that they will and do nothing but evil.0 He then enters into judgment with the Jews separately, charging the Jew with being a transgressor of the letter;

and this he in like manner proves by their fruits, and by experience : " Thou preachest that man should not steal, and stealest. Thou abhorrest idols, and committest sacrilege ;" excepting none, unless they be in spirit Jews. Nor have you any outlet of escape here, by saying, ' Although they be under sin, still what is best in them, as reason and will, has endeavour towards good:' for, if good endeavour be remaining in them, his assertion that they are under sin is false. For when he specifies Jews and Gentiles, he by that mention comprehends whatsoever is in Jews and Gentiles : unless you would invert his words, and suppose him to have

word occurs. Paul enters forthwith into proof 5 which looks'as if he considered what had preceded as little more than laying a charge. — Some MSS. read the simple verb yTtaa. which Luther seems to have followed. 0 Velutfructibusimpietatisconvicti^] Their abandonment of God, under which they did such vile things, proved what they were, with respect to God, who had been provoked to give them up. written, ' The flesh of all Jews and Greeks'— that sec. vn. is, their grosser affections — ' are under sin/ But the wrath of God, which is revealed from heaven upon them, will condemn their whole substance ; except they be justified by the Spirit : and this would not be so unless their whole substance were under sin. But let us see how Paul proves his sentiment Pauljustifrom the Scriptures ; whether the words are more fied m his to the point as we read them in Paul, than as we qu° ai° read them in their own places. " As it is written, says he ; for there is none righteous, no not one ; there is none that understandeth : there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become abominable; there is none that doeth good ; no, not one." And the rest.

Let who can give me a commodious interpretation here ; let who dares invent his tropes ; complain that the words are ambiguous and obscure, and defend Freewill against these severe condemnations. Then will I also willingly yield and recant, and myself become a confessor and assertor of Freewill. It is clear these things are said of ail men; for the Prophet introduces God looking forth upon all men, and pronouncing this sentence upon them. Thus he speaks in Psalm xiv. " The Lord looked forth from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there were any that understandeth or seeketh after God. But they are all gone out of the way, &c." And Paul prevents the Jews from thinking that these things do not belong to them, by asserting that they do especially belong to them. " We know, says he, that whatsoever the law saith, it saith unto them that are under the law." He meant the same, where he said ; " To the Jew first, and also to the Greek." p p That I deny : here he speaks of Jews only ; there, by the combination of the two names he comprehended all men.

part v. You hear therefore, that all the sons of men, all who are under the law — that is, Gentiles as well as Jews — are in the judgment of God such as be unjust, do not understand, do not seek after God — no, not even one of them — but all go out of the way, and are unprofitable. I suppose now, that amongst the sons of men, and those who be under the law, are numbered those also who are the best and most honourable ; those who by the power of Freewill endeavour after what is honourable and good, and those whom Diatribe makes her boast of, as having the sense and the seeds of honesty implanted in them : unless, peradventure, she maintain that those are sons of angels ! q The very force of the argument consists in its exclusiveness. The Jews would say, those Scriptures do not belong to us, but to the heathens. Nay, says he, they are addressed to you : <e Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Do not excuse y ourselves ; it is meant for you chiefly. Why should that be spoken to you, which belongs to others, but not to you? Your excuse therefore cannot be admitted. — It is a common and current mistake that the law was given to every body :

given to Adam in creation, and through him to the whole race. But this is apocryphal, and not canonical Scripture. It was never given but to the Jews, that is, to the church ; the elect and covenanted nation of Israel : which was for its hour (a space of fifteen hundred years) the visible church (even as the whole community of professed Christians is that church now) ; which was the type of the church of the first-born — the true church — and in which the several and individual members of that same church — the people of God during that period existent in the flesh — were chiefly, if not exclusively, gathered into realized union with Christ. — Here at least, it is plain that the Apostle distinguishes between the two parts of mankind — Jews and heathens — by means of this badge. If the rest of mankind be supposed to be dealt with according to this law, and as though they were under it ; tins must be by a tacit reference to it in the divine mind, not on the ground of any positive and express enactment which had given it to them : in which they are plainly differenced from the Jews, who are here the subjects of remark.

i My objection with respect to the law does not affect the universality of the charge. Paul is dealing with a Jewish objector : with respect to the guilt of the heathens no question How can those endeavour after good then, who sec.vii. are all universally ignorant of God, and neither care for, nor seek after him ? How can those possess a power which is profitable for good, who all turn away from good, and are altogether unprofitable ? Do we not know what this meaneth — to be ignorant of God, not to understand, not to seek after God, not to fear God, to turn aside out of the way, and to be unprofitable ? Are not the words most plain, and do they not teach that all men are both ignorant of God and despise God ; and then, as the next step, turn aside towards evil, and are unprofitable for good ? We are not talking now about ignorance in seeking food, or about contempt of money; but about ignorance and contempt of religion and piety : an ignorance and contempt which, beyond all question, are not seated in the flesh, and in the inferior and grosser affections, but in those highest and most excellent powers of man in which justice, piety, the knowledge and the reverence of God ought to reign ; that is, in the rational faculty and in the will — and so, in the very power of Freewill itself; in the very seed of honesty, or in the very heart of that which is most excellent in man.

Where art thou now, my Diatribe, who before promisedst, that thou woulclest willingly agree, as concerning the most excellent thing in man, that it is flesh — that is, ungodly — if it should be proved by Scripture. Agree to this now therefore, hearing as you do, that the most excellent thing in all men is not only impious, but ignorant of God, a contemner of God, turned towards evil, and unprofitable as to good. For what is it to be unjust, but that the will, which is one of the most excellent things in man, is unjust? What is it to have no understanding of God and of is entertained : the Scriptures which he quotes have established the guilt of the Jews also. He has therefore made good his charge, that f all men' hold the truth in unrighteousness. part v. good, but that the understanding, which is another of the most excellent things in man, is ignorant of God and of good ; that is, blind to the knowledge of godliness ? What is it to be gone out of the way, and to be unprofitable, but for men not to have any power in any part of them — and least of all in those parts of them which are most excellent — to do good, but only to do evil ? What is it not to fear God, but for men in all parts of them — and especially in those better parts of yours — to be despisers of God ?

Now to be despisers of God is to be at the same time despisers of all the things of God ; for instance, of the words, works, laws, precepts, and will of God. Now what can the understanding dictate that is right, when she is herself blind and ignorant ? What can the will choose that is good, when she is herself evil and unprofitable ? Nay, what can the will follow after, when the understanding dictates nothing to her, save the darkness of her own blindness and ignorance ? If the understanding then be in a state of error, and the will in a state of averseness, what good can the man either do or attempt ? sec. vni. But some one may perhaps venture upon a

sophistical distinction, and say, that, although the The Pro- wj|j ^urn aside and the understanding be igno- phet s con- ~ ~ demnation rant in action, the will notwithstanding is able includes t0 endeavour, and the understanding to get know- weHasact. ledge, by their own powers respectively: seeing we have power to do many things which we do not however actually perform, whilst our question forsooth is about power, not performance. I reply ; the words of the Prophet include both act and power; and it is the same thing to say 6 Man does not seek after God/ as it would be to say c Man cannot seek after God :' an assertion which may be collected hence ; i If there were a power or force in man to will good — seeing he is not suffered to rest, or take his pastime, through the impulse of the divine omnipotency, as I have sec.viii. shewn above" — it could not be, but that this power were moved towards something, or at least in some one thing, and were displayed by some sort of use. This however is not the case; because God looketh down from heaven, and seeth not even one who seeks after him,or endeavours. It follows therefore, that this power which endeavours, or is willing to seek after God, is nowhere to be found; but rather all men go out of the way. Again ; if Paul be not understood to speak of want of power as well as want of act, his argument would avail nothing.

His whole bent is to prove grace necessary to all men. Now if men could begin any thing of themselves, grace would not be necessary. But as it is — since they cannot — grace is necessary to them. So then Freewill, you perceive, is quite eradicated by this passage, and nothing of goodness or honesty is left in man; he being declared to be unrighteous, ignorant of God, a despiser of God, averse from him, and unprofitable in his sight. The Prophet is a pretty strong antagonist, therefore, in his own text as well as under Paul's : allegation of him. — Nor is it a small matter, when man is said to be ignorant of God, and to despise Him : these are the fountains of all wickednesses, the sink of sin, yea, the very hell of evil. What evil will be left undone, where there is ignorance and contempt of God ? In a word, the empire which Satan has in men could not have been described in fewer or fuller words, than by his calling them ignorant and despisers of God. In this is included unbelief; in this, disobedience ; in this, sacrilege ; in this, blasphemy towards God ; in this, cruelty and want of compassion towards our neighbour; in this, the love of self pervading all things both divine and human.

r See above, Part iv. Sect. xi. Paul's big words in Rom. iii. 19, 20. insisted upon. But Paul goes on to testify that he is speaking of all men, and especially of the best and most excellent of men;5 saying, u That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Because by the deeds of the law is no flesh justified before him." How is every mouth stopped, pray, if there still remains a power in us, by which we can do something ? For a person may say to G od, ' It is not an absolute nothing which is here : here is something which you cannot condemn ; seeing it is what you have your own self given me, that it might be able to do something. This at least shall not be silent, nor shall it be guilty before thee. If this power of Freewill be whole, and can do something, it is false that the whole world is guilty, or under charge of guilt before God; t since this power is no small thing, nor is it in a small part of the world, but is in all the world, a most excellent possession held by all in common, whose mouth ought not to be stopped. On the other hand, if its mouth ought to be stopped, then must it, together with the whole world, be criminal and guilty before God. But with what right shall it be called guilty, except it be unrighteous and ungodly; that is, worthy of punishment and vengeance ? Let her look to it, pray, by what explanation this power of man's is absolved from the guilt with which the whole word is charged at the suit

s I object, as before, to Luther's interpretation of this text : it is the Jews of whom he is speaking, not of the best and most excellent of men generally. These testimonies are borne to, and concerning Jews, that they also may have their mouths stopped. Of the Gentile mouths being stopped there could be no question, and was none with the Jews ; though they shifted off their own charges from themselves to others. But the argument, again, is not affected by this distinction : the whole world is declared guilty, which is all he wants. 1 Deo obnoxius seu reus.'] v7t6£iko<$ rui 6ew. Obnox. in this distinction expresses e liable to charge.' Reus, 'one actuallyarraigned.' YttoS. r. 0. comprehends the two, ( one charged with crime at the suit of God.' of God,u or by what art it is excepted from being sect.ix. enclosed within the circle of the whole world. These words of Paul's are mighty thunders and penetrating lightnings, and are truly that u hammer which breaketh the rock in pieces," as Jeremiah says : u They are all gone out of the way/1 " The whole world is guilty," " There is none righteous." By these words all that is, not only in any one man, or in some men, or in some part of them, but all that is in the whole world, in all men, without the exception of a single individual absolutely, is broken in pieces ;

so that the whole world ought to tremble, to fear, and to flee at them. What bigger words, what mightier words, could be uttered than these ; the whole world is guilty, all the sons of men are turned aside and unprofitable, none feareth God, none is righteous, none under standeth, none seeketh after God ? Yet such hath been, and still is, the hardness and insensible obstinacy of the human heart, that we neither hear nor perceive these thunders and lightnings, but join in extolling and asserting Freewill and its powers against all these, so as truly to fulfil that saying of Malachi i. u They build, I will throw down?"v

u Qua interp. reata obstfictus.'] Interp. See above, Part iv. Sect, xxxiv. note e. Re. e the state of the ' reus' or accused : obst. one tied and bound with the chain of crime solemnly charged, or imputed.' v Luther should not say f fulfil;' it is a mere accommodation of Malachi's words, which have no reference to this subject. — Luther refines here too much ; and is again guilty of arguing per sequelam. ' The whole world is guilty. Why then, if there be any good thing in them ; any good part in their substance, or any good affection of their substance, it ought to be excepted : else this part, &c. has an answer for God.' — But why may they not have abused this good part ? the testimony is against their spirit and conduct. By inference, their whole substance and all its affections must be bad ; but this is not asserted. Just so, in the last section ; 1 Man seeketh not after God' is the same as saying c Man cannot seek after God 3' which he proves by argument and inference. partv. There is the same bigness of speech in that

saying also; " By the deeds of the law no flesh is justified before him." It is a big saying, " By the deeds of the law;" just as is that also, ( The whole world / or that e All the sons of men/ — It is observable, that Paul abstains from speaking of persons, and mentions the things they are seeking after; meaning, forsooth, to involve all persons, and whatsoever is most excellent in them. For had he said, c the common people amongst the Jews/ or ' the Pharisees/ or ' some of the wicked/ are not justified; he might seem to have left some out, as not altogether unprofitable, through the power of Freewill and the propping-up of the law. But when he condemns the very deeds of the law, and makes them wicked before God, it becomes manifest that he condemns all who excelled in zeal for the law and its deeds : and yet those only who were the best and most excellent had a zeal for the law and its deeds ; and that only in the best and most excellent parts of their frames, even their understanding and their will. If then, those who exercised themselves in the law and its deeds with the greatest zeal and endeavour of the understanding and of the will — that is,with the whole power of Freewill — and were even assisted by the lawT itself, as a sort of divine helper, which instructed and encouraged them ;

if these persons, I say, be charged with ungodliness, in that they are said not to be justified, but are declared to be flesh in the sight of God — what remains, pray, in the whole human race, which is not flesh and ungodliness ? We see all alike condemned, who are of the deeds of the law. Whether they exercise themselves with the greatest zeal, or with moderate zeal, or with no zeal at all, it matters not : all could yield but a performance of the deeds of the law; and the deeds of the law do not justify. If they do not justify,

they prove their fulfillers to be ungodly, and sect. x. leave them so. But the ungodly are guilty persons, and deserving of God's wrath. — -These things are so plain, that no one can even mutter ought againt them.x But it is common to elude Paul here, and to Evasion, get out-fey saying, that by the deeds of the law Gonial he means the ceremonial ordinances, which have law of become deadly since the death of Christ. I reply ; this is that ignorant mistake of Jerome's, which, in spite of Augustine's bold resistance, hath, through God's departure and Satan's ascendency, flowed abroad into the world, and continued to this day : by which it hath also been brought to pass, that Paul could not possibly be understood, and that the knowledge of Christ has necessarily been obscured. Nay, had there been no error besides in the church, this one was sufficiently pestilent and powerful to make havoc of the Gospel ; by which, except a special grace hath interposed, Jerome has earned hell rather than heaven — so far am I from venturing to canonize him, or to call him a saint. It is not true then, that Paul speaks only of ceremonial works ; else how wdll his argument stand, by which he comes to the conclusion, that all are unrighteous,

x Luther misapprehends the condemnation here pronounced by the Apostle. It is not that the works of the law are evil • or that the works of men, so far as they be a fulfilment of it, are evil ; but that they do not really perform these works. If they really performed these works, such testimonies as those above would not have been borne against them. The fact that such testimonies have been borne (which he has shewn to be designed especially for them) proves that they are not keepers of the law but breakers of it ; and as breakers, not as keepers, are condemned by it. — Luther is again in error about the word. • flesh ;' it is not sinful affection here, any more than in the former instances : it is a name for the human species ; " no flesh" is l no human being.' The argument however is not shaken. If the deeds of the law be never so good, but man and Freewill instead of attaining to them are condemned by them ; what is man, and what is Freewill ? part v. and have need of grace ? A man might say, I

grant we are not justified by ceremonial deeds; still a man might be justified by the moral deeds of the decalogue. So that you have not proved grace necessary to us by your reasoning. Besides, what would be the use of that grace, which has only freed us from the ceremonial ordinances ? Those are the easiest of all, and may at least be extorted from us by fear or self-love. Again, it is a mistake to say that the ceremonial ordinances have become deadly and unlawful since the death of Christ. Paul has never said this. He says, that they do not justify ; and that they do not profit a man before God, so as to free him from the charge of ungodliness. It is perfectly consistent with this, that a man may do them, and do nothing unlawful in doing so. Just as eating and drinking are works which do not justify, and do not commend us to God; but a man does not therefore commit an unlawful act in eating and drinking. They err also, inasmuch as the ceremonial works were enjoined and exacted by the old law equally with the decalogue; so that the latter had neither less nor more authority than the former: and Paul speaks first to the Jews; as he says in Romans i.y — Let no one doubt therefore, that Ci by the deeds of the law" is meant c all the works of the whole law:' for they must not be even called works of the law, if the law hath been abolished, and is deadly : an abrogated law is now no longer a law, as Paul knew very well ; and therefore he does not speak of an abrogated

y I say, 'to the Jews only;* (see above, Sect- ii. note c, and Sect. vii. note P) though Luther will have it, to both : clearly, however, both had it not in the same form; and the Jew had the ceremonial, which the Gentile confessedly had not. It was necessary to Luther's argument therefore, that he should mark the distinction. — He goes on, ( Nor had this been abrogated.' law, when he makes mention of the deeds of the sect. x. law, but of a law which is still in force, and regnant. Else, how easy would it have been for him to say, ' The law itself is now abrogated!" which would have been plain and clear. — But let us adduce Paul himself, his own best interpreter, who says in Galatians iii. " As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse : for it is written, Cursed is every one who shall not have continued in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." You observe that Paul here, where he is pleading just the same cause as to the Romans, and in the same words, speaks