-•«•

-vr

CANQITSMDDNiG, D. Q.

TORONTO, TSOl

-

MARTIN LUTHER

ON THE

BONDAGE OF THE WILL;

TO THE VENERABLE MISTER

ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM,

1525.

FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED^FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN ;
BY

EDWARD THOMAS VAUGHAN, M.A.

VICAR OF ST. MARTIN'S, LEICESTER, RECTOR OF FOSTON, LEICESTERSHIRE,
AND SOMETIME FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. )

WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES.

,sl

LONDON :

SOLD FOR THE EDITOR, BY T. HAMILTON, PATERNOSTER-
ROW J AND T. COMBE, LEICESTER.

1823.

[Entered at Stationers' Hall.]

. > • f i

• 'CW1

U.#i3

V « >w

London : Printed by A. Applcgatli,
Stamtord-street.

TO

HIM

WHO SITTETH UPON THE THRONE
BY THE SIDE OF THE INVISIBLE FATHER,

EVEN JESUS,

MY LORD AND MY GOD !

WHO KNOVVETH THAT
NOT BY MY FREEWILL, BUT BY HIS,

THIS WORK,

WHATSOEVER IT BE,

WAS PROMPTED AND UNDERTAKEN,

AND HATH NOW AT LENGTH BEEN EXECUTED,

I DEDICATE IT :

DESIRING THAT HIS WILL, NOT MY OWN,

BE DONE BY IT ;

AND FIRM IN THE HOPE, THAT HE WILL USE IT
UNTO THE EDIFYING OF HIS PEOPLE.—

E. T. V.

PREFACE.

I DEEM it expedient to put the reader in possession of
the circumstances under which this work was written ;
for which purpose it is necessary that I premise a rapid
sketch of Luther's history, in its connection with Pro
testantism.

Martin Luther was born in the year 1483, at Isleben,
in Saxony. His father, who had wrought in the mines of
Mansfield, became afterwards a proprietor in them ; which
enabled him to educate his son, not only with a pious
father's care, but with a rich father's liberality. After
furnishing him with the elements in some inferior schools,
he sent him at an early age to the University of Erfurth :
where he made considerable proficiency in classical learn
ing, eloquence and philosophy, and commenced Master of
Arts at the age of twenty. His parents had destined him
for the bar ; but after devoting himself diligently to the
study of the civil law for some time, he forsook it ab
ruptly, and shut himself up in a convent at Erfurth.

Here he became remarkable for his diligence, self-morti
fication and conscientiousness ; occasionally suffering great
agitation of mind from an ignorant fear of God. Habitu
ally sad, and at intervals overwhelmed with paroxysms of
mental agony, he consulted his vicar-general Staupitius ;
who comforted him by suggesting, that he did not know
how useful and necessary this trial might be to him : * God
does not thus exercise you for nothing, said he ; you will
one day see that he will employ you as his servant for

a

ii PREFACE.

great purposes.' — f The event, adds the historian, gave
ample honour to the sagacity of Staupitius, and it is very
evident that a deep and solid conviction of sin, leading
the mind to the search of Scripture-truth, and the investi
gation of the way of peace, was the main spring of
Luther's whole after conduct ; and indeed this view of our
reformer's state of mind furnishes the only key to the dis
covery of the real motives, by which he was influenced in
his public transactions.'

It was not till the second year of his residence in the
monastery, that he accidentally met with a Latin Bible in
the library, when he, for the first time, discovered that
large portions of the Scriptures were withheld from the
people. Being sick this same year, he was greatly com
forted by an elder brother of the convent, who directed his
attention to that precious article of our creed, ( I believe
in the remission of sins.' Staupitius, he afterwards
remarked, had spoken to him as with the voice of an angel,
when he taught him that c true repentance begins with the
love of righteousness and of God ;' but the old monk led
him up to the source of this love. — There may be, there is,
a breathing after righteousness, and a feeling after God,
which prepareth the way for this love ; but there can be
no real righteousness wrought, or real love of it and of God
felt, till we have the consciousness of his forgiveness. —
His aged adviser represented to him, that this article im
plied not merely a GENERAL BELIEF — for the devils, he
remarked, had a faith of that sort — but that it was the
command of God, that each particular person should apply
this doctrine of the remission of sins to his own particular
case ; and referred him for the proof of what he said to
Bernard, Augustine and St. Paul. — With incredible ardour
he now gave himself up to the study of the Scriptures,
and of Augustine's works. Afterwards he read other
divines, but he stuck close to Augustine ; and held by
him, as we find, to his last hour.

PREFACE. iii

In the year 1507, he received holy orders ; and in the
next year was called to the Professorship of Divinity at
Wittemberg, through the recommendation of his friend
Staupitius ; who thereby gave him an opportunity of veri
fying his own forebodings concerning him. Here arose
his connection with the elector Frederic, of Saxony ;
which was so serviceable to him in all his after- conflicts.
Frederic was tenderly anxious for the credit and success
of his infant seminary; and Luther more than fulfilled
his expectations, both as a teacher of philosophy and as a
public minister. ' Eloquent by nature, and powerful in
moving the affections, acquainted also in a very uncom
mon manner with the elegancies and energy of his native
tongue, he soon became the wonder of his age/

In 1510, he was dispatched to Rome on some import
ant business of his order ; which he performed so well as to
receive the distinction of a doctor's degree upon his return.
Whilst at Rome he had opportunities of noticing the
spirit with which religious worship was conducted there —
its pomp, hurriedness and politically ; and was thankful
to return once more to his convent, where he might pray
deliberately and fervently without being ridiculed. He
now entered upon a public exposition of the Psalms and
Epistle to the Romans ; studied Greek and Hebrew with
great diligence; improved his taste, and enlarged his
erudition, by availing himself of the philological labours
of Erasmus (to which he always owned that he had been
greatly indebted) ; rejected the corruptive yoke of Aris
totle and the Schoolmen, and rested not, like the satirist
who had given him a taste for pulling down, in confusion,
but sought and found his peace in erecting a scriptural
theology upon the ruins of heathenized Christianity. The
true light beamed very gradually upon his mind : from sus
pecting error he became convinced that it was there ; con
strained to reject error, he was forced step by step into truth.

Whilst thus employed, with great contention of mind,

iv PREFACE.

in studying, ruminating, teaching and preaching; when
now he had been favoured with some peculiar advan
tages* for ascertaining the real state of religion,
both amongst clergy and laity, in his own country, his
attention was in a manner compelled to the subject of
Indulgences. He had not taken it up as a speculation ;
he did not know the real nature, grounds, ingredients, or
ramifications of the evil. As a confessor, he had to do
with acknowledgments of sin ; as a priest, he was to dic
tate penances. The penitents refused to comply, because
they had dispensations in their pockets. — What a chef-
d'oeuvre of Satan's was here ! It is not <( Sin no more,
least a worse thing happen unto thee ;" but f Sin as thou
listest, if thou canst pay for it.' Luther would not ab
solve. The brass-browed Tetzel stormed, and ordered
his pile of wood to be lighted that he might strike terror
into all who should dare to think of being heretics. At
present Luther only said with great mildness from the
pulpit, ( that the people might be better employed than in
running from place to place to procure INDULGENCES /f

• In his office of subaltern vicar he had about forty monasteries
under his inspection, which he had taken occasion to visit.

f It is not to be inferred that Luther was at this time ignorant of
the doctrine of grace, because ignorant of this particular subject. This
is the memorable year 1517. In the preceding year, 1516, he thus
wrote to a friend. ' I desire to know what your soul is doing ; whe
ther wearied at length of its own righteousness, it learns to refresh
itself and to rest in the righteousness of Christ. The temptation of
presumption in our age is strong in many, and specially in those who
labour to be just and good with all their might, and at the same time
are ignorant of the righteousness of God, which in Christ is conferred
upon all with a rich exuberance of gratuitous liberality. They seek in
themselves to work that which is good, in order that they may have
a confidence of standing before God, adorned with virtues and merits,
which is an impossible attempt. You, my friend, used to be of this
same opinion, or rather — of this same mistake ; so was I ; but now I
am fighting against the error, but have not yet prevailed.' — ' A little
before the controversy concerning Indulgences, George, Duke of
Saxony, entreated Staupitius to send him some worthy and learned

PREFACE. v

He was sure it was wrong ; he would try to check it ;
would try, with canonical regularity, applying to arch
bishop and bishop for redress : so ignorant of the prin
cipals, sub-ordinates and sub-sub-ordinates in the traffic,
that he called upon his own archbishop vender to stop the
trade !

See how God worketh. Ambition, vanity and extrava
gance are made the instrument of developing the abomi
nations of the Popedonx, that God may develope himself
by his dealings with it. The gorgeous temple, whose
foundations had previously been laid, to the wonderment
of man^ not to the praise and worship of God, must con
tinue to be built ; though not one jot may be subtracted
from Leo's pomp, sensuality and magnificence, and though
his treasury be already exhausted. Profligate necessity
leads him to an expedient, which, whilst it reveals his
own spirit, and discloses the principles of the government

preacher. The vicar-general, in compliance with his request, dis
patched Lnther with strong recommendations to Dresden. George
gave him an order to preach : the sum of Luther's sermon was this ;
That no man ought to despair of the possibility of salvation ; that those
who heard the word of God with attentive minds were true disciples of
Christ, and were elected and predestinated to eternal life. He enlarged
on the subject, and shewed that the whole doctrine of predestination, if
the foundation be laid in Christ, was of singular efficacy to dispel that
fear, by which men, trembling under the sense of their own umvorthi-
ness, are tempted to fly from God, who ought to be our sovereign
refuge.' — Evidence to the same effect may be drawn in abundance from
his letter to Spalatinus, written in this same preceding year, containing
remarks on Erasmus's interpretations of Scripture, compared with those
of Jerome, Augustine, and some of the other Fathers. — ' When obe
dience to the commandment takes place to a certain degree, and yet
has not Christ for its foundation, though it may produce such men as
your Fabricius's, and your Regulus's, that is, very upright moralists,
according to man's judgment, it has nothing of the nature of genuine
righteousness. For men are not made truly righteous, as Aristotle
supposes, by performing certain actions which are externally good —
for they may still be counterfeit characters — but men must have righte
ous principles in the first place, and then they will not fail to perform
righteous actions. God first respects Abel, and then his offering.'—
Milner, iv. Cent xvi. chap. ii.

vi PREFACE.

he administers, could scarcely fail to draw some at least
into an inquiry, by what authority they were called to
submit to such enormities. This expedient (not new
indeed — Julius had adopted it before — but never yet so
extensively and so barefacedly practised, as in this in
stance) was no other than to make gain of godliness, by
selling merits for money — by not pardoning only, but even
legalizing, contempt and defiance of God, through the
distribution of certain superfluous riches of Christ and of
his saints, of which the Pope has the key. The price
demanded varied with the circumstances of the buyer, so
that all ranks of men might be partakers of the benefit. In
fact, all orders of men were laid under contribution to
ecclesiastical profligacy, whilst the infamous Dominican
had some colour for his boast, that he had saved more
souls from hell by his Indulgences, than St. Peter had
converted to Christianity by his preaching.

Luther inquired, studied, prayed, called on his rulers;
and at length, receiving no help but only silence or
cautions from authorities, published his ninety-five theses,
or doctrinal propositions, upon the subject: which were
spread, with wonderful impression and effect, in the course
of fifteen days, throughout all Germany.

Tetzel answered them by one hundred and six : which
gave occasion to sermons in reply and rejoinder ; and so
dutiful, so simple-hearted, and so confident in truth, was
Luther, that he sent his publications to his superiors in
the church, his diocesan and his vicar-general ; and re
quested the latter to transmit them to the Pope. — The
cause was now fairly before the public. New antagonists
arose. Luther was elaborate and temperate in his an
swers. — At length the lion was roused. He had com
mended brother Martin for his very fine genius, and re
solved the dispute into monastic envy — a rivalry between
the Dominicans and the Augustinians : but now, within
sixty days, he must appear to answer for himself at Rome $

PREFACE. vii

nay, he is condemned already as an incorrigible heretic,
without trial, in the apostolic chamber at Rome, even
before the citation reaches him. Through the intercession
of his powerful friend the elector, he gets a hearing at
Augsburg; if that can be called a hearing, which gives
the accused no alternative but admission of his crime and
recantation. — Such however was the justice and the judg
ment which Luther met with at the hands of Cajetan.
After going to and beyond the uttermost of what was right
in submission — saving nothing but to write down the six
letters (REVOCO), which would have settled every thing —
though there were other weighty matters in dispute,
besides the Indulgences — he left his imperious, con
temptuous judge with an appeal which he took care to
have solemnly registered in due form of law, ff from the
Pope ill-informed to the same most holy Leo X. when
better informed/' — Luther had in his several conferences
at Augsburg, written and unwritten, stood distinctly upon
his distinguishing ground, ( Scripture against all papal
decrees :' it is his glory on this occasion, that he main
tained it in the very jaws of the usurper's representative ;
an abject mendicant monk, as the cardinal haughtily
termed him, with all due and unfeigned respect for human
superiority, took and acted the language, which two ap
prehended and arraigned Apostles had used before him,
(( We ought to obey God rather than men." — Cajetan got
no honour at Rome by his negociations at Augsburg ; the
papal counsellors complained that he had been severe
and illiberal, when he ought to have promised riches, a
bishopric, and a cardinal's hat. Such were their hot-
burning coals to be heaped upon the head of inflexibility !
On his return to Wittemberg, at the close of 1518,
Luther meditated to leave Germany and retire into
France ; but the elector forbad him, and made earnest
application to the emperor Maximilian to iziterpose, and
get the controversy settled. Meanwhile, Luther renewed

viii PREFACE.

his appeal to the Pope ; which was followed, strange to
tell, by a new bull in favour of Indulgences, confirming
all the ancient abuses, but not even mentioning Luther's
name. In his then state of mind, clinging as he still did
to the Pope's authority, this document was opportune ; as
serving to make his retreat impossible. Maximilian's
death, which took place early in 1519, increased the elec
tor's power of protecting Luther during the interregnum,
and led to more lenient measures at Rome. The courte
ous Saxon knight was sent to replace the imperious
Dominican. — ' Martin, said he, I took you for some soli
tary old theologian ; whereas I find you a person in all the
vigour of life. Then you are so much favoured with the
popular opinion, that I could not expect, with the help of
twenty-five thousand soldiers, to force you with me to
Rome/ — Luther was firm, though softened : he had no
objection to writing submissively to the Pope ; as yet he
recognised his authority, and it was a principle with him
to shew respect to his superiors, and to obey " the powers
that be," in lawful things, if constituted lawfully.

In the month of July, 1519, were held the famous dis
putations at Leipsic ; where Luther, who had been refused
a safe conduct, if he attempted to appear in the character
of a disputant, was at length permitted to take up Carol-
stadt's half-defended cause, and to answer for himself in
opposition to one of the most learned, eloquent and embit
tered of his papal opponents. Eckius, Luther's quondam
friend, had come to earn laurels for himself, and strength
for the Papacy ; but He who gives the prey assigned it to
truth, and made this the occasion of supplying Luther
with many able coadjutors. Melancthon's approval of
his doctrine and attachment to his person were the off
spring of this rencounter. ' At Wittemberg, Melancthon
had probably been well acquainted with Luther's lec
tures on divinity ; but it was in the citadel of Leipsic that
he heard the Romish tenets defended by all the arguments

PREFACE. I*

that ingenuity could devise; there his suspicions were
strengthened respecting the evils of the existing hierarchy;
and there his righteous spirit was roused to imitate, in the
grand object of his future inquiries and exertions, the
indefatigable endeavours of his zealous and adventurous
friend.'

Here it was, thai the question of papal supremacy
first came into debate. The act of granting Indulgences
assumed the right; but the principle was now brought
forwards by Eckius, in malicious wilfulness, for the pur
pose of throwing scandal upon Luther ; who as yet, how
ever, (e saw men, but as trees, walking ;" and even main
tained the Pope's supremacy, though on inferior grounds.
He gave it him by a right founded on human reasons ;

DIVINE PERMISSION, and THE CONSENT OF THE FAITHFUL.

Though Eckius's thirteen propositions, and Luther's ad
versative ones, had respect chiefly to the papal domination,
they comprehended other topics ; and much important
matter of a more generally interesting nature was elicited
and agitated by the discussion. On all the subjects of
debate, Luther shewed a mind opening itself to truth, as
in the instance just cited ; though it may be doubted who
ther he was yet fully enlightened into any. Even on
Justification, and on Freewill, though he held the sub
stance of what he taught afterwards, he did not use the
same materials, or the same form of defence. Hear his
own account, as given in the preface to his works. f My
own case, says he, is a notable example of the difficulty
with which a man emerges from erroneous notions of long
standing. How true is the proverb, custom is a second
nature ! How true is that saying of Augustine, habit, if
not resisted, becomes necessity ! I, who both publicly
and privately, had taught divinity with the greatest dili
gence for seven years, insomuch that 1 retained in my
memory almost every word of my lectures, was in fact at
that time only just initiated into the knowledge and faith

x PREFACE.

of Christ; I had only just learnt that a man must be justi
fied and saved not by works but by the faith of Christ ;
and lastly, in regard to pontifical authority, though I pu
blicly maintained that the Pope was not the head of the
church by a DIVINE RIGHT, yet I stumbled at the very next
step, namely, that the whole papal system was a Satanic
invention. This I did not see, but contended obstinately
for the Pope's RIGHT, FOUNDED ON HUMAN REASONS ; so
thoroughly deluded was I by the example of others, by
the title of HOLY CHURCH, and by my own habits. Hence
I have learnt to have more candour for bigoted Papists,
especially if they are not much acquainted with sacred, or
perhaps, even with profane history.' — When the debate
was over, Luther calmly reviewed his own thirteen propo
sitions, and published them, with concise explanations and
proofs ; establishing his conclusions chiefly by an appeal
to Scripture and to ecclesiastical history.

These wrestling-matches of ancient times were the
seed-bed of the reviving church : the people heard, the
people read; and thus, according to Luther's favourite
maxim, THE STONE which is to destroy Antichrist WAS

CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS.

In 1520, Miltitz advised a second letter to the Pope.
Advancing, as he now was, towards meridian light, he found
it difficult to do this with integrity ; it may be questioned,
whether he succeeded in his attempt. Already he had
disclosed to his friend that he had not much doubt but
the Pope is the real Antichrist. ( The lives and conver
sation of the Popes, their actions, their decrees, all, said
he, agree most wonderfully to the descriptions of him in
Holy Writ.' With what consistency could he still ap
proach him as his authorized head and desired protector,
flatter his person, and propose terms of mutual silence?
True, the tone of his address is much altered from that
of his former letter ; he declares many of the abomina
tions of his government ; he expressly refuses to recant ;

PREFACE. xi

he insists upon his great principle, ( perfect freedom in
interpreting the word of God.' He is also peculiarly wise,
just, plain and forcible in warning him against the big
swelling words, with which his flatterers dignified him :
" O my people, they which call thee BLESSED cause
thee to err." But we could be glad to see more of frank
ness and less of compliment j the person not so subtilely
separated from the office, the man from his court ; wishes
and prayers for good suppressed, where he had begun to
be persuaded that there could be only curse and destruc
tion. The only plausible defence is, his mind was not
yet FULLY made up as to what the Pope is : he had doubts,
he thought himself bound to go to the uttermost in endea
vours to conciliate, such an appeal would be a touchstone.
In estimating the rectitude of this measure, every thing, it
is plain, depends upon the degree of light which had then
beamed upon his mind : but it is difficult to conceive, that,
writing, as he had done, early in this same year to Spala -
tinus, and writing, as he afterwards did, in the month of
June, his treatise on the necessity of reformation, and, in
the month of August, his Babylonish captivity, he should,
in the intermediate space, have retained a state of mind
which, consistently with simplicity, could dictate his, or
indeed any letter of accommodation to Leo.

At length, however, having abundantly proved his
David, and convinced him of his foolishness, the Lord took
it clean away from him, whilst He sealed up his enemies
in theirs. Never was there a more manifest illustration of
Jewish blindness and induration — (( He hath blinded their
eyes, and hardened their heart" — than in the counsels of
the Conclave at this period. Leo disdains to be conciliated.
After three years' delay, when Lutheranism has now
grown to a size and a strength which no fire can burn,
the damnatory bull is issued on the 15th of June, 1520, at
Rome, and after a further short interval of mysterious
silence is published in Germany. It extracted forty-one

xii PREFACE.

propositions out of his writings, declaring them all to be
heretical, forbad the reading and commanded the burning
of his books, excommunicated his person, and required all
secular princes to aid in his arrest.

Luther was now quite prepared to receive it ; prepared
through the judgment which the Lord had now enabled
him to form concerning the papal usurpation; and pre
pared, through the willingness which He had given him to
suffer martyrdom for the truth, if called to that issue. The
trenches were now fairly opened ; the war was begun.
His first measure was to publish two Tracts : in one of
which he treated the bull ironically, pretending to have
some doubts of its authenticity, but still entitling it the
execrable bull of Antichrist, and calling upon the emperor
and all Christian princes to come and defend the church
against the Papists ; in the other, he gave a serious answer
to the forty-one condemned articles, defending the autho
rity of Scripture, and calling every body to study it, with
out deference to the expositions of men. Having answered,
he acted his reply to it. If the bull were valid, it \vas not
to be answered, but obeyed : he would shew, therefore,
that he accounted it an illegal instrument. The Pope was
the separatist, not he ; a bull of Antichrist is a bull to be
burnt. He therefore takes the bull, together with the papal
decretals, and such parts of the canon law as had respect
to the pontifical jurisdiction, and with all due solemnity
and publicity commits them to the flames : a measure, which
he afterwards proved to have been deliberately adopted —
not the effect of heat and rage, but of calm conviction —
by selecting thirty articles from the books he had burnt,
publishing them with a short comment, and appealing to
the public whether he had shewn them less respect than
they deserved. The two last of these were, Article 29.
fThe Pope has the power to interpret Scripture, and
to teach as he pleases j and no person is allowed to in
terpret in a different way.' Article 30. < The Pope does

PREFACE. xiii

not derive from the Scripture, but the Scripture derives
from the Pope authority, power and dignity.' He had more,
he said, of like kind. Assume his cause to be just, and his
bold proceedings were unquestionably right. His was not
a case for half-measures. He was either a subject for
burning, or a vindicator of the oppressed. What sort of
vindicator ? Not by the knight-errant's sword, but by
such acts as should declare him to be in earnest, and such
arguments as should shew that he was not in earnest for
nought. His publications at this period, and during the two
preceding years, were almost without number. He knew
that his life was in his hand ; he prized the short interval,
as he anticipated, which was allowed him ; the cause of
Christ, so evidently committed into his hands, was to be
maintained, extended, and at length made triumphant,
only by the bloodless sword of the Spirit. That sword
therefore he would wield with all his might, without ces
sation, faintness, or weariness. His main expectation
was from the word of God simply and intelligibly set
forth. He added short practical and experimental trea
tises — appeals to plain sense and Scripture — but the ex
pounded word was his stay. Hence his great labour in the
Epistle to the Galatians ; which he first published in the
year 1519, and, after fifteen years of additional research,
having made it one material subject of his public lectures
during all that period, revised, corrected, enlarged, and
reedited in 1635.

( I have repeatedly read and meditated on this treatise,
says his pious, laborious and philosophical historian, and,
after the most mature reflection, am fully convinced, that,
as it was one of the most powerful means of reviving the
light of Scripture in the sixteenth century, so it will, in
all ages, be capable of doing the same, under the blessing
of God, whenever a disposition shall appear among men to
regard the oracles of divine truth, and whenever souls shall
be distressed with a sense of in-dwelling sin. For I per-

xiv PREFACE.

fectly despair of its being relished at all by any but serious,
humble and contrite spirits, such being indeed the only
persons in the world, to whom the all-important article of
justification will appear worthy of all acceptation. The
AUTHOR himself had ploughed deep into the human heart,
and knew its native depravity ; he had long laboured, to
no purpose, to gain peace of conscience by legal observ
ances and moral works, and had been relieved from the
most pungent anxiety, by a spiritual discovery of the
doctrine just mentioned. He was appointed in the coun
sels of Providence — by no means exclusively of the other
reformers, but in a manner more extraordinary and much
superior — to teach mankind, after upwards of a thousand
years' obscurity, this great evangelical tenet — compared
with which how little appear all other objects of contro
versy ! namely, that man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of Christ/

I cannot deny myself the satisfaction of inserting one
extract from this truly spiritual work. — e This doctrine,
therefore, of faith must be taught in its purity. Namely,
that as a believer, thou art by faith so entirely united to
Christ that he and thou are made as it were one person. That
thou canst not be separated from Christ 5 but always adherest
so closely to him, as to be able to say with confidence, I am
one with Christ ; that is, Christ's righteousness, his vic
tory, his life, death, and resurrection, are all mine. On the
other hand, Christ may say, I am that sinner ; the meaning
of which is, in other words, his sins, his death, and punish
ment, are mine, because he is united and joined to me, and I
to him. For by faith we are so joined together as to become
one flesh and one bone. We are members of his body, of
his flesh, and of his bones ; so that, in strictness, there is
more of an union between Christ and me, than exists even
in the relation of husband and wife, where the two are con
sidered as one flesh. This faith, therefore, is by no means
an ineffective quality j but possesses so great excellency,

PREFACE. xv

that it utterly confounds and destroys the foolish dreams
and imaginations of the Sophisters, who have contrived a
number of metaphysical fictions concerning faith and
charity, merits and qualifications. — These things are of
such moment, that I would gladly explain them more at
large, if I could.'*

Luther had many antagonists in his warfare. As his as
sertive manifestoes were clear, argumentative and decisive;
so his answers to those who attacked them were prompt,
energetic and full. He neither spurned, nor delayed, nor
spared. His admiring historian thinks it necessary to
apologize for his vehemence, and for his acrimony. I do
not concur with him in the sense of that necessity. God,
who made the man, gave him his language. His language
was the language for his case, for his hour, for his hearers
and readers. Such were the publications wanted ; such
would be read ; they agitated the high, they were under
stood by the vulgar. His own account of himself, as
given at a later period, is worth a thousand apologies. ' I,
says he, am born to be a rough controversialist ; I clear
the ground, pull up weeds, fill up ditches, and smooth the
roads. But to build, to plant, to sow, to water, to adorn the
country, belongs, by the grace of God, to Melancthon/ — If
he had a spirit of rancorous enmity and cold-blooded malice
towards his opponents, let him be condemned : but, we all
know, severe words may be spoken without a particle of
malignity, and a smooth tongue often disguises an

* There is a defect in Luther's statement of the believer's union with
Christ : he does not mark, he did not discern, its origin and founda
tion, and its consequent exclusiveness and appropriateness to a peculiar
people. He refers it all to his believing ; which is the manifestation,
realization and effectuation of that relation which has subsisted, not
in divine purpose only, but in express stipulation and arrangement,
from everlasting, and which has been the source of that very faith, or
rather of that energizing of the Holy Ghost, which he considers as its
parent. But the thing itself, the nature of this union, is so beautifully
described, that, whatever be ita defects, I could be glad to give it all
currency.

xvi PREFACE.

envenomed spirit. — / am much more disposed to quarrel
with his vanity, than with his petulance.

The obligations which Charles owed to Frederic were
such as to secure his protection for Luther, to a certain
extent. For his opinions he cared not, though his own
prejudices were no doubt on the side of the old system :
he cared only for the political bearings of the question ;
and it Avas obvious the elector's friend must not be con
demned without a hearing. Hence, after much negociation
and correspondence, his appearance at Worms is agreed
upon. His wise protector gets an express renunciation of
the principle, ' Faith not to be kept with heretics,' from
Charles, several of the princes countersign his safe conduct,
and Luther, as if to face as many devils as there were
tiles upon the houses of the selected city, preaches his way
up to Worms. His defence there has sometimes disap
pointed me, and he seems afterwards to have felt that he
had been too tame and uncxplicit himself. When he
speaks, at a still later period, of his boldness ; questioning
whether he should in that day (but a little before his
death) have been so bold — a fact recited triumphantly by
many historians — it is with reference to his courage in
determining, or rather in proceeding to go up, notwith
standing the strong dissuasives which he met with on his
way, that he gives God glory. He who made man's
mouth and gives him wisdom, and who hath promised for
such very occasions, " I will give you a mouth and wisdom
which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or
resist," did, no doubt, order his speech in perfect wisdom,
at that trying hour. The speech he delivered was the
speech for the time and for the case. But the question is,
was it the speech we should have looked for from a
Luther ? We admit there never was such a moment, pos
sibly, since the Apostles' days. All the pomp of Caesar
was before him. But I confess there is more of the
elector Frederic, Spalatinus and Melancthon, than of Paul

PREFACE. xvii

before Felix, or of Peter and John before the council.
Hear his own^account. ( I have great misgivings (says
he in a letter to Spalatinus some months after), and am
greatly troubled in conscience, because, in compliance
with your advice, and that of some other friends, I
restrained my spirit at Worms, and did not conduct
myself, like an Elijah, in attacking those idols. Were I
ever to stand before that audience again, they should
hear very different language from me.' And again; cTo
please certain friends, and that I might not appear unrea
sonably obstinate, I did not speak out at the diet of
Worms ; I did not withstand the tyrants with that decided
firmness and animation which became a confessor of the
Gospel ! Moreover I am quite weary of hearing myself
commended for the moderation which I shewed on that
occasion/ — The dean sets it all down to humility; but I
doubt not there was much of well-founded and conscien
tious self-upbraiding in these acknowledgments. — He
maintained his principle, however ; ' a free use of the
word; the Scripture for all, to be freely interpreted by all:
retract he would, if convinced by Scripture, but not else.'
Upon being informed that he was required to say simply
and clearly whether he would or would not retract his
opinions, ' My answer, said Luther instantly, shall be
direct and plain. I cannot think myself bound to believe
either the Pope or his councils ; for it is very clear, not
only that they have often erred, but often contradicted
themselves. Therefore, unless 1 am convinced by Scrip
ture or clear reasons, my belief is so confirmed by the
scriptural passages I have produced, and my conscience so
determined to abide by the word of God, that I neither
can nor will retract any thing ; for it is neither safe nor
innocent to act against a man's conscience.' There is
something particularly affecting in the words which follow:
1 Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. May God help
me. Amen.'

b

xviii PREFACE.

Many attempts were made to persuade him in secret ;
but the upshot was, he would stand by the word ; ' rather
than give up the word of God, when the case is quite
clear, I WOULD LOSE MY LIFE.'*

In the course of three hours after his last interview with
the elector Archbishop of Treves (who, though a bigoted
Roman Catholic, had shewn strong dispositions to serve
him), Luther received an order to quit Worms j only
twenty- one days being allowed for his safe conduct, and
he not permitted to preach in his way home. A sanguinary
edict was then smuggled through the diet : many of the
members had left Worms before it was voted ; the cere
mony of enacting it took place in the emperor's private
apartments ; the decree was ante-dated, as though it had
passed on the 8th instead of the 21st, and Aleander, the
Pope's legate, Luther's accuser, who had been much
gravelled by the vast consideration and respect shewn to
Luther, received it, as a sort of sop and soporific, from the
emperor, that he should draw up the sentence.

( The edict, as might be expected, was penned by

* Much was said, in the course of these discussions, about a future
council. Luther acknowledged the authority of such a council; main
taining only, that it must be legally convened — the civil governor being
the alone rightful summoner — and that its decisions must be regulated
by the word of God. There is more of sound than substance in the
recognition of this appeal ; upon Luther's principles. Waving the
difficulty of summoning such a GENERAL COUNCIL, where deputies are
to be brought together out of all Christendom, divided as it is into inde
pendent states, under various supreme heads ; what is the' decision at
last ? The testimony of Scripture is testimony of Scripture to my con
science, onb so far as I am led to understand Scripture in a sense
•which is coincident with the general decision. If that decision be con
trary to my own deliberate, conscientious and supposedly Spirit-taught
views, as a lover of order I bow to the tribunal by submitting to its
penalties, whether positive or negative ; but I cannot confess myself
convinced, or adopt the judgment of the council as my own, without
violating Luther's fundamental principle, ' the word my judge.' (See
Part ii. Sect. xii. note k of the following work.) — Luther's last answer
confirms the distinction which I have here been marking ; it is to
the supposed decision of a council, that his resolution applies.

PREFACE. xix

Aleander with all possible rancour and malice. The first
part of it states that it is the duty of the emperor to pro
tect religion and extinguish heresies. The second part
relates the pains that had been taken to bring back the
heretic to repentance. And the third proceeds to the
condemnation of MARTIN LUTHER in the strongest terms.
The emperor says, that by the advice of the electors,
princes, orders, and states of the empire, he had resolved
to execute the sentence of the Pope, who was the proper
guardian of the Catholic faith. He declares, that Luther
must be looked on as excommunicated, and as a notorious
heretic ; and he forbids all persons, under the penalty of
high treason, to receive, maintain, or protect him. He
orders, that after the twenty-one days allowed him he
should be proceeded against in whatever place he might
be ; or at least that he should be seized and kept prisoner
till the pleasure of his imperial majesty was known. He
directs the same punishment to be inflicted on all his
adherents or favourers ; and that all their goods should be
confiscated, unless they can prove that they have left his
party and received absolution. He forbids all persons to
print, sell, buy or read any of his books, and he enjoins the
princes and magistrates to cause them to be burnt.'

This high-sounding decree was never executed. Charles
was too busy, too much entangled with crooked and con
flicting politics, too dependent and too needy, to take ven
geance for the Pope, at present, in Germany. In 1522, a
diet of the empire held at Nuremberg agreed to a con
clusion which Luther considered as an abrogation of it. In
1523, a second diet held at the same place, after some
considerable difference of sentiment, concurred in a similar
recess. The Lutherans were divided between hope and
fear, alternately elated and depressed, during some succeed
ing years. In 1526, when evil had been anticipated, the
diet of Spires, after much jangling, terminated favourably.
The wrath, however, was but deferred. In 1529, a second

b2

xx PREFACE,

diet at Spires went nigh to establish the neglected edict of
Worms. The violence, with which it was conducted, led
to a Protest of the Lutheran states and princes (whence
we have derived our name of Protestants), and was followed
by the famous defensive league of Smalcalde. The decree
of Augsburg, in 1530, served to confirm the necessity of
this league. The most moderate expressions of doctrine,
and the most guarded behaviour, had no conciliatory
efficacy ; force was prepared, and must be repelled by
military combination. It is not by strength, however,
or by might — human strength and human might — that the
Lord wins his battles. That formidable confederacy,
which could bring 70,000 men into the field, under the
banner of John the Constant, to meet a not more than 8000
of the emperor's, soon melted away like the winter's snow.
In 1547, the emperor carries all before him — takes the two
great Protestant leaders captive, and makes a spectacle of
them to their subjects — establishes his Interim, slays the
Protestant witnesses and assumes to be even the MAN OF
SIN'S master, in his domination over the Lord's heritage.
But behold ! in three years and a half, the witnesses
<( whose dead bodies have been lying in the street of the
great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,
where also our Lord was crucified " — even in that Germany
which has been called the highway of Europe — are seen
standing upon their feet again. The treacherous and
intriguing Maurice is made the instrument of bringing
deliverance to the Protestants. The emperor becomes in
his turn a fugitive, a panic-struck, and, within a hair's
breadth, the captive of his captives ; when, at length, the
unhoped-for treaty of Passan legalizes Protestantism, and
secures to the revived witnesses a seat in the symbolical
heavens.

From the disasters, alike as from the triumphs, of these
latter scenes Luther was removed by a rapid sickness and
premature death, in the year 1546. Fatigue and anxiety

PREFACE. xxi

had impaired the native soundness and vigour of his bodily
frame, and he died an old man, at the age of sixty-three.

The storm which had gathered around his head at
Worms was repelled in its onset by a prudent stratagem of
the elector's, which he had communicated, it is probable,
in secret, to the emperor himself. Having seized his
person, by a mock arrest, whilst returning to Wittem-
berg, he took and hid him in the castle of Wartburgj
where he fed and nourished him at his own expense for
ten months, and would have continued to do so, if Luther
had allowed him, to the end of his days. In this hiding-
place which he called his Patmos, comparing himself with
St. John as banished to that island by Domitian, he saw
many visions of the Almighty, which enlightened his future
ministry. He betrayed a good deal of impatience under
this seclusion. He complained that his kind detainer
fed him too well ; that he ate and drank too much, that he
grew stupid and sensual. But the truth seems to have
been, that stir and bustle and a great to do were his
element. He did not like fowling, though he allegorized
it, so well as reading lectures to five or six hundred young
men, and preaching to half as many thousands. Here,
however, the Lord nurtured his Moses, and made him
wiser in the art of feeding his sheep ; and, if he suffered
him to be dull and heavy, he gave him no inclination to
be idle. The Yonker,* in his horseman's suit, wrote
many tracts ; improved himself in the knowledge of Greek
and Hebrew, which he studied very diligently with an eye
to his projected translation of the Scriptures, and actually
accomplished his German version of the New Testament,
so as to publish it this same year. These were not the
achievements of sloth and sensuality ! Of his original
works at this period, his answer to Latomus'vS defence of

* 'During his residence in the castle of Wartburg he suffered his
beard and hair to grow, assumed an equestrian sort of dress, and passed
for a country gentleman, under the name of Yonker George.'

PREFACE.

the Louvain divines was the most elaborate. ' A confuta
tion, says Seckendorff, replete with so much solid learning
and sound divinity, that it was impossible to reply to it
without being guilty of obvious cavilling or downright
impiety. — If the author of it had never published any thing
else in his whole life, he "would, on account of this single
tract, deserve to be compared with the greatest divines
which ever existed in the church. At the time of writing
it, he was furnished with no other book but the Bible ; and
yet he interprets the leading passages of the Prophets and
the Apostles, and does away the deceitful glosses of sophis
tical commentators with so much exquisite erudition and
ability, that the genuine meaning of the inspired writers
cannot but be clear to every pious and attentive reader.'

He dedicates it to Justus Jonas, who had recently been
appointed to the presidency of the college of Wittemberg ;
desiring him to accept it as a sort of congratulatory pre
sent, expressing a strong sense of the divine indignation
as now poured out upon the visible church, and hinting
what he expected from the new president, in the discharge
of his office. — * It is my earnest prayer, that you, my
brother, who, by your appointment ought to teach the
pestilential decretals of Antichrist, may be enlightened by
the Spirit of God to do your duty ; that is, UNTEACH every
thing that belongs to Popery. For though we are com
pelled to live in Babylon, we ought to shew that our affec
tions are fixed on our own country, Jerusalem. Be strong
and of good comfort ; and fear not Baalpeor ; but believe
in the Lord Jesus, who is blessed for evermore. Amen.'

In this treatise, he vindicates himself from the charge of
insincerity in having for so long a time submitted to the
Pope, and to the received opinions ; Avhilst he declares his
grief for having done so, his thankfulness to the Lord
Jesus Christ for that insight into the Scriptures, which he
deemed a hundred times preferable to the scholastic
divinity of the times, and his now full conviction, that the

PREFACE. xxiii

Pope is that monster of Antichrist, foretold throughout the
sacred writings. He expresses himself indifferent to the
charge of wanting moderation, and as to sedition, it was
no more than the Jews had charged Christ with ; the main
point in debate, he maintains, is (THE NATURE OF SIN/
( If in the passages which I have quoted from St. Paul,
says he, it can be proved that the Apostle does not use the
word SIN in its true and proper sense, my whole argument
falls to the ground ; but if this cannot be proved, then
Latomus's objections are without foundation. He blames
me for maintaining that no human action can endure the
severity of God's judgment. I reply, he ought to shudder
in undertaking to defend the opposite sentiment. Sup
pose, for a moment, that any man could say, he has indeed
fulfilled the precept of God in some one good work. Then
such a man might fairly address the Almighty to this
effect : " Behold, O Lord, by the help of thy grace, I have
done this good work. There is in it no sin ; no defect ;
it needs not thy pardoning mercy : which, therefore, in
this instance I do not ask. I desire thou wouldest judge
this action strictly and impartially. I feel assured, that,
as thou art just and faithful, thou canst not condemn it ;
and therefore I glory in it before thee. Our Saviour's
prayer teaches me to implore the forgiveness of my tres
passes ; but in regard to this work, mercy is not necessary
for the remission of sin, but rather justice for the reward
of merit.'* To such indecent, unchristian conclusions are
we naturally led by the pride of the scholastic system !
This doctrine of the sinless perfection of human works *
finds no support in Scripture : it rests entirely on a few
expressions of the Fathers, who are yet by no means
agreed among themselves, and if they were agreed, still
their authority is only human. We are directed to prove

* It is the works of the godly that are the subject of inquiry ; the
charge against which Luther here defends himself is, his having main
tained that the very best acts of the best men have the nature of sin.

xxiv PREFACE.

ALL THINGS and to hold fast that which is good. ALL
doctrines then are to be proved by the sacred Scriptures.
There is no exception here in favour of Augustine, of Jerome,
of Origen, nor even of an antichristian Pope. — Augustine,
however, is entirely on my side of the question. . . .
Such are my reasons for choosing to call that SIN to
which you apply the softer terms of defect and imper
fection. But farther, I may well interrogate all those, who
use the language of Latomus, whether they do not resemble
the Stoics in their abstract definition of a wise man, or
Quintilian in his definition of a perfect orator j that is,
whether they do not speak of an imaginary character, such
as never was, nor ever will be. I challenge them to pro
duce a man, who will dare to speak of his own work, and
say it is without sin. — Your way of speaking leads to most
pernicious views of the nature of sin. You attribute to
mere human powers that which is to be ascribed to divine
grace alone. You make men presumptuous and secure in
their vices. You depreciate the knowledge of the mystery
of Christ, and, by consequence, the spirit of thankfulness
and love to God. There is a prodigious effusion of grace
expended in the conversion of sinners : you lose sight of
this ; you make nature innocent, and so darken or pervert
the Scripture, that the sense of it is almost lost in the
Christian world.' — I make no apology for these instructive
extracts. ' The matter of this controversy must always be
looked on as of the last importance, if any thing is to be
called important, in which the glory of God, the necessity
of the grace of Jesus Christ, the exercises of real humility,
and the comfort of afflicted consciences are eminently
concerned/

f Luther concludes his book with observing, that he is
accused of treating Thomas Aquinas, Alexander, and
others, in an injurious and ungrateful manner. He defends
himself by saying, those authors had done much harm to
his own mind j and he advises young students of divinity

PREFACE. xxv

to avoid the scholastic theology and philosophy as the ruin
of their souls. He expresses great doubts whether Thomas
Aquinas was even a good man : he has a better opinion of
Bonaventura. Thomas Aquinas, says he, held many here
tical opinions, and is the grand cause of the prevalence of
the doctrines of Aristotle, that destroyer of sound doctrine.
What is it to me, if the Bishop of Rome has canonized him
in his bulls ?'

Valuable, however, as this work is, it will admit of no
comparison with the truly herculean and apostolic labour,
in which he was interrupted by performing it. c You can
scarcely believe, says he, with how much reluctance it is,
that I have allowed my attention to be diverted from the
quiet study of the Scriptures in this Patmos, by reading
the sophistical quibbles of Latomus.' And again; ' I really
grudge the time spent in reading and answering this worth
less publication — particularly as I was EMPLOYED IN TRANS
LATING the Epistles and Gospels into our own language/

We who sit at ease, and, when wre have leisure or inclin
ation to read a chapter in the Bible, have nothing to do but
take down our Bible and open it where we please, are apt
to forget the labour which it cost to furnish us with that Bible
in our native language, and the perils by which we were re
deemed into the liberty of reading it with our own eyes, and
handling it with our own hands. We especially, who have
fallen upon times, in which, through the manifest counsel
and act of God, out of the supposed three hundred lan
guages and dialects of the earth, versions of the Scriptures
are now circulating throughout the whole of the known
world in more than one hundred and forty, and to whom it
is a rare thing to meet with an individual who has it even
in his heart, much less upon his tongue, to put any limits
to the circulation of the sacred volume, are ill prepared, by
our own feelings and experience, to estimate the boon of a
Bible now for the first time edited in the vernacular
tongue. But Luther had not only to fight for the right to

xxvl PREFACE.

read, but to labour that they might have whereupon to
exercise that right. ' Luther easily foresaw the important
consequences which must flow from a fair translation of
the Bible in the German language. Nothing would so
effectually shake the pillars of ecclesiastical despotism ;
nothing was so likely to spread the knowledge of pure
Christian doctrine. Accordingly he rejoiced in the design of
expediting the work, whilst his adversaries deprecated the
execution of it, more than any heresy of which the greatest
enemy of the church could be guilty/ Accordingly, he
had begun, and \vas preparing himself by the more accu
rate study of the original languages for the completion of
his work, when drawn off by Latomus : an enterprise,
which required the silence and seclusion of his Patmos
for its origination and commencement, but which could
not be satisfactorily completed, without larger resources
than he possessed there. f I find, says he, I have under
taken a work which is above my strength. I shall not
touch the Old Testament till I can have the assistance of
yourself and my other friends at Wittemberg. If it were
possible that I could be with you, and remain undiscovered
in a snug chamber, I would come ; and there, with your
help, would translate the whole from the beginning, that
at length there might be a version of the Bible fit for
Christians to read. This would be a great work, of im
mense consequence to the public, and worthy of all our
labours/

This arduous task was at length accomplished : the New
Testament, as I have already mentioned, being published
in 1522; the Old Testament afterwards, in parts, till
completed in 1530. ( In this work he was much assisted
by the labour and advice of several of his friends, parti
cularly Jonas and Melancthon. The whole performance
itself was a monument of that astonishing industry which
marked the character of this reformer. The effects of this
labour were soon felt in Germany ; immense numbers now

PREFACE. xxvii

read in their own language the precious word of God, and
saw with their own eyes the just foundations of the
Lutheran doctrine.' — What an Ithuriel's spear did the
Lord thus enable him to put into the hands of the mass of
the people ! No wonder that the Papists should cry out
and burn. — What, in fact, has upheld the Popedom but
ignorance of THE BOOK ? and what is ultimately to destroy
it, according to Luther's intelligent and enlightened antici
pation of that event, but the knowledge of the Book f
f The kingdom of Antichrist, according to the Prophet
Daniel's prediction, must be broken WITHOUT HAND ; that
is, the Scriptures will be understood by and by, and every
one will speak and preach against the papal tyranny from
the word of God ; until THIS MAN OF SIN is deserted by all
his adherents, and dies of himself. This is the true Christian
way of destroying him ; and to promote this end, we ought
to exert every nerve, encounter every danger, and undergo
every loss and inconvenience.' — The wonder is, that, in
our days, individuals shall I say ? numbers rather, compre
hended in that communion, are zealous for the dissemination
of the Scriptures in the spoken language of their country;
whilst one of these, towering high above the rest, has been
the favoured instrument of distributing more than three hun
dred thousand copies of a German version of his own,
besides many thousands of this very version of Luther's.*

' To decide on the merits of Luther's translation would
require not only an exact knowledge of the Hebrew and
Greek, but also of the German language ; certainly it was
elegant and perspicuous, and beyond comparison prefer
able to any scriptural publication which had before been
known to the populace. It is probable that this work had

* I need scarcely mention the name of Leander Van Ess. But is
there no opposition to this work, amongst the Roman Catholics ? Are
there not divisions and fiercest persecutions amongst them on this very
ground? And where, and what, are the Bible Societies of Spain, Por
tugal, Bavaria and the Italian States ?

xxviii PREFACE.

many defects ; but that it was in the main faithful and
sound, may be fairly presumed from the solid understand
ing, biblical learning and multifarious knowledge of the
author and his coadjutors. A more acceptable present
could scarcely have been conferred on men, who were
emerging out of darkness ; and the example being followed
soon after by reformers in other nations, the real know
ledge of Scripture, if we take into account the effects of
the art of printing, was facilitated to a surprising degree.'

The papistical plagiarist Emser endeavoured first to
traduce, and afterwards to rival and supersede him : but
his correct translation was, in fact, little more than a
transcript of Luther's (he was himself notoriously ignorant
of the German language), some alterations in favour of the
Romish tenets excepted ; so that Luther was read under
Emser's name, and the Lord gave him grace to say with
his heart, " Notwithstanding, whether in pretence or in
truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea,
and will rejoice."

It was not without manifesting, from time to time, a
considerable degree of impatience, that Luther was de
tained even for ten months in his solitude : action was his
element, and it was painful to him to sit still. < For the
glory of the word of God, and for the mutual confirmation
of myself and others, I would much rather burn on the live
coals, than live here alone, half alive and useless. If I
perish, it is God's will ; neither will the Gospel suffer in
any degree. I hope you will succeed me, as Elisha did
Elijah !' — I could wish he had not written this last sentence
to his friend Melancthon. — However, after ten months,
the state of his beloved Wittemberg concurred with his own
self-centered likes and dislikes, to render it manifestly
desirable for the church's welfare, and so, by just inference,
the clear will of God, that he should hazard his life and
safety by leaving his retreat and returning to his public sta
tion in the then capital of infant Protestantism. Melancthon

PREFACE.

wanted spirits and vigour ; the elector wanted boldness and
decision ; Carolstadt was become tumultuous ; the flock
was in the state of sheep without a shepherd ; the enemy
was crying, " There, There." Having already made one
short visit by stealth, and finding that an occasional inter
position would no longer meet the difficulty, he deter
mined to risk all, and knowing the elector as he did, to
act first, and then apologi/.e. Accordingly, he left Wart-
burg, and wrote his noble letter to him from Borna, on his
way, in which he freely opened his motives and expect
ations, delivering Frederic from all responsibility for his
safety, and testifying his entire and alone confidence in the
divine protection. Having done so, he pursued his journey
with no real or even pretended safeguard, but Him who
is invisible. — ( I write these things that your highness may
know, I consider myself in returning to Wittemberg to be
under a far more powerful protection than any which the
elector of Saxony can afford me. To be plain, I do not
wish to be protected by your highness. Tt never entered
my mind to request your defence of my person. Nay, it
is my decided judgment, that, on the contrary, your high
ness will rather receive support and protection from the
prayers of Luther and the good cause in which he is em
barked. It is a cause which does not call for the help of
the sword. God himself will take care of it without human
aid. I positively declare, that if I knew your highness
intended to defend me by force, I would not now return to
Wittemberg. This is a case where God alone should
direct; and men should stand still, and wait the event
without anxiety ; and that man will be found to defend
both himself and others the most bravely, who has the
firmest confidence in God. Your highness has but a very
feeble reliance on God ; and for that reason I cannot think
of resting my defence and hopes of deliverance on you.'
If I were to put my finger on the most splendid moment
of Luther's life, I should fix it at Borna. All the mag-

xxx PREFACE.

nanimity, courage and perseverance which he displayed after
wards, were but the acting of that Spirit which he had then
evidently received : the fruit and effect of the Lord's most
full and most clear manifestation of Himself, as that which
he is, to his soul. This enabled him to cast his die in
God. He cast it at Wartburg, he declared it at Borna. —
His return to Wittemberg was healing, confidence and
peace to his scattered, agitated and mistrustful flock.

Luther's valuable life was preserved to the church, for
twenty-four years, after his return to Wittemberg. In
these, he had first to build, which he found more difficult
than to destroy ; then, to protect, extend, uphold and per
petuate his infant establishment.* He had to provide
against the rapacity of the secular arm, without making
ecclesiastics rich ; to obtain learned instructors of the
people, without feeding hives of drones ; to make the
untaught teachers ; to abolish pomp without violating
decency. Often he was at a loss what to advise ; and
often he was obliged to adopt what was only second best
in his own eyes. The press was the great weapon of his
warfare, and of his culture ; his publications extended to
a vast variety of subjects, and it may be truly said, he had
thought and knowledge, matter and weight for all. We
are to remember, that he was all this while like a vessel
living in a storm; not only an excommunicated man (he
had excommunicated in return), but an outlaw, under the
ban of the empire ; whom any body that dared might have
seized and delivered up to justice : — is not this the man
whom the Lord holdeth with His right hand, keepeth as
the apple of His eye, and spreadeth a table for in the
midst of his enemies ?

Nor were his professed enemies his worst : the slow
caution of the elector, the timidity of his coadjutors, the

* It was an acknowledged principle with him, as with our reformers,
to alter as little as possible. He was more of a Cranmer than a
Knox.

PREFACE. xxxi

madness of the people — fleshly heat assuming the name
and garb of religious fervour — lust of change — every body
must be somebody — envy, debate, clamour, and his own
native obstinacy, were more to him than the Eckiuses and
the Aleanders, the Conclave and the Emperor !

The character of Luther is sufficiently obvious from this
mere hint at his history. Magnanimous, capacious, absti
nent, studious, disinterested, intrepid, wise, f He feared
God, he feared none else.' Early in life he had been made
to drink deep into the knowledge of his own wickedness,
accountableness, lostness and impotency. Melancthon tells
of him, that, while he was deeply reflecting on the astonish
ing instances of the divine vengeance, so great alarm would
suddenly affect his whole frame, as almost to frighten him to
death. I was once present, when, through intense exertion
of mind in the course of an argument respecting some
point of doctrine, he was so terrified as to retire to a
neighbour's chamber, place himself on the bed, and pray
aloud, frequently repeating these words, " He hath con
cluded all under sin, that he might have mercy upon all."
This sensibility of conscience prepared him for a trembling
reception of the divine word. We have seen how the Lord
threw it in his way. For a considerable time it spake
only terrors to him. " THEREIN is the righteousness of
God revealed," stirred him up to blasphemy. At length
the Lord had pity on him, and opened his eyes, and
shewed him that the righteousness of God there spoken of
is not His own essential righteousness, which renders Him
the hater and punisher of iniquity, but a substance which
He has provided to invest sinners withal ; and thus, this
very expression which had proved a stumbling-block to
him became his entrance into Paradise. In process of
time, the Lord revealed the mystery of this righteousness
somewhat more distinctly to him. He shewed him that
the Lord Jesus Christ was in his own person this righte
ousness ; and that to enter into Him, and to put Him on,

xxxii PREFACE.

by faith, was to be righteous, before God ; that the merit
of Christ was complete for justification ; that nothing was
to be added, or could be added to it, by a sinner ; and that
it was received by faith only. Thus far the Lord gave
him clearness of sight, though not fulness ; and that
speedily : after, and beyond this, He left him to blunder ;
aye, and to the end of his days. — Now therefore, " it
having pleased God, who had separated him from
his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to
reveal his Son in him, straightway he conferred not with
flesh and blood ;" "he could not but speak the things
which he had heard and seen;" " he was ready not to be
bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of
the Lord Jesus."*

God gave three special endowments to this chosen wit
ness ; which are the characteristics of his testimony :
great knowledge of Scripture, great talent for abstruse
and elaborate argumentation, and a singular felicity in
addressing the common people. f In illustration of the
first of these, his whole works may be appealed to, if his

* If his faults be required, he had, in him, every fault under heaven.
In him, that is, in his flesh, dwelt no good thing; that is, dwelt every
bad thing. His WITHIN was like ours. " For from within, out of the
heart, &c. &c." But if, as should rather he, what came out of him
chiefly, that is evil, be inquired, his vices, as is the nature of evil, were
his virtues run mad : he was obstinate, fierce, contemptuous, vain. —
He was not unkind, as some would represent him ; he had " bowels of
mercies :" he was not rash ; no man more deliberately weighed his
words and deeds: he was not implacable; witness his attempts to con
ciliate that greatest of all bears, the Duke George, our tiger Henry,
Carblstadt, Erasmus, and even the Pope.

•f* This does not imply that he always interpreted Scripture lightly, or
saw all the truth ; any more than his skill in arguing implies that he
always arrived at right conclusions, or proceeded to them by just
steps — His excellency in addressing the common people, let it lie
observed, did not consist in his having one doctrine, or one reason, for
them, and another for the learned ; he had one Gospel for all, and told
it all out to all ; but he had powers of language — facility of illustration
and simplicity of expression — which made him intelligible and affecting
to the most illiterate.

PREFACE.

translation of the Bible be not proof enough : for the
second; his disputations with Eckius, Latomus and Eras
mus — specially the treatise which follows : for the last, all
his numerous tracts and sermons, particularly his address
to the common people on the breaking out of the rustic
war. — His commentary on the Galatians furnishes speci
mens of the three.

Such was the man, whom the Lord raised up, called
forth and employed, as the most prominent, active and
efficacious of his blessed workfellows, in accomplishing
the Reformation ! But how strange is it, that man will
look but at half of God, and at the surface only of that half,
when His whole self stands revealed ; and when it is the
very aim and contrivance of his operation, to effect that
complete display ! The Reformation was God's act — an
act, inferior only to those of Calvary and of the Red Sea,
for manifesting his mighty hand, and his outstretched arm —
which he accomplished by doing all in all that Luther did,
and all in all that Luther's enemies did ; by working in
Charles as well as in the Elector ; in Leo as well as
Luther; in Cajetan, Campeggio, Prierias, Hogostratus,
and the whole train of yelping curs and growling mastiffs,
which were for baiting and burning the decriers of Baby
lon, as in Jonas, Pomeranus and Melancthon. Indeed, if
we would estimate this transaction aright, as a displayer '
of God, we must not only inspect the evil workers, visible '
and invisible, as well as the good, but must mark the steps
by which He prepared for his march, and the combinations
with which He conducted it ; we must see Constantinople
captured by the infidel, and the learned of the East shed
abroad throughout Christendom ; we must see the barba
rian imbibing a taste for letters, and the art of printing
facilitating the means of acquiring them; we must see
activity infused into many and various agents, and that
activity excited by various and conflicting interests ; we
must see rival princes, and vassals hitherto bowed down

c

xxxiv PREFACE.

to the earth, now beginning to ask a reason of their govern
ors; we must see a domineering Charles, a chivalrous
Francis, a lustful and rapacious Henry, a cannonading
Solyman, a dissipated Leo, a calculating Adrian, a hesi
tative Clement — German freedom, Italian obsequiousness,
Castilian independence, Flemish frivolity, Gallic loyalty,
Genoa's fleet and Switzerland's mercenaries, Luther's
firmness, Frederic's coldness, Melancthon's dejectedness,
and Carolstadt's precipitancy — made, stirred and blended
by Him, as a sort of moral chaos, out of which, in the ful
ness of his own time, He commandeth knowledge, liberty
and peace to spring forth upon his captives in Babylon.

Luther describes himself, we have seen, as a rough
controversialist: controversy was his element; from his
first start into public notice, his life was spent in it. — I
hope my reader has learned not to despise, or even to
dread controversy. It has been, from the beginning, the
Lord's choice weapon for the manifestation of his truth ;
just as evil has been his own great developer. What are
Paul's and John's Epistles but controversial writings ?
What was the Lord's whole life and ministry but a con
troversy with the Jews ? Luther well knew its uses, and
had tasted its peaceable fruits : it stirs up inquiry ; it stops
the mouth of the gainsayers; it roots and grounds the
believers. Still, there were three out of his many, from
which he would gladly have been spared; they were
maintained against quondam friends. In the first of these
he was all in the right, but not without question ; in the
second, all in the wrong, 'without question ; in the third, all
in the right, without question : without question, I mean,
not as respects any public trial which has been held, and
judgment given, but before the tribunal of right reason.

f Andreas Bodenstenius Carolstadt, unheard) uncon-
victed, banished by Martin Luther.' — What ! Luther
become a persecutor ? he who should have been a martyr
himself, make martyrs of others ? Not so ; but charged

PREFACE. xxxv

with doing so, and appearances against him ! — Honest
Carolstadt — there is some question whether he truly
deserves this name — was a turbulent man. He had no
hearty relish for Luther's ' broken WITHOUT HANDS ;'
though a learned man, and still a professor at Wittem-
berg, he gave out that he despised learning, and, having
placed himself at the head of a few raw and hot-brained
recruits, raved at the papal abuses which still remained
amongst them, and proceeded to remove them WITH
HANDS, by breaking images and throwing down altars.
This disorderly spirit gave the first impulse to Luther's
return. ( The account of what had passed at Wittemberg,
he said, had almost reduced him to a state of despair.
Every thing he had as yet suffered was comparatively
mere jest and boys' play. He could not enough lament,
or express his disapprobation of those tumultuous pro
ceedings ; the Gospel was in imminent danger of being
disgraced, from this cause.' Carolstadt fled before him ;
became a factious preacher at Orlamund ; was banished by
the elector; restored at length through the intercession of
Luther ; reconciled to him, but without much cordiality ;
and at length retired into Switzerland, where he exercised
his pastoral office in a communion more congenial with
his own sentiments, and died in 1531. Such is the short
of Carolstadt ; one of Luther's earliest defenders, .who
turned to be his rival and his enemy, and with whom he
waged a sort of fratricidal war, for some years after his
return from Wartburg, in conferences, sermons and
treatises : of the last of these, his f Address to the Celes
tial Prophets and Carolstadt' is the principal. Of his
banishment it is unquestionable that Luther was not the
author, though he thoroughly approved it ; nay, on his
submitting himself, he took great pains to get him restored :
he could not succeed with Frederic, he did with John.
Still I have thought him repulsive, arbitrary, and ungene
rously sarcastic hi his resistance to this Carolstadt; even as

c2

xxxvi PREFACE.

I have thought him unwarrantably contemptuous and
exclusive in his comments and conflicts with the Munzer-
ites, and somewhat too confident in shifting off all influence
of his doctrine from the rustic war. Hence my expression,
f not without question.' But, on a closer review, I find
clear evidence that Carolstadt really was what Luther
charged him with being — whimsical, extravagant, false and
unsettled in doctrine ; a preacher and a practiser of sedi
tion — that he had moreover united himself to Munzer and
his associates, and had thereby obtained a niche amongst
the Celestial Prophets. I find clear evidence that Stubner,
Stork, Cellery, Munzer and the rest were a nest of design
ing hypocrites ; raging and railing, and making preten
sions to divine favour, which they neither defined, nor
defended. — His test of false prophecy and false profession,
too, let it be remarked, is sound, efficacious and prac
ticable ; though perhaps founded (I refer to his test of
conversion) rather too positively and exclusively upon his
own personal experience. Again ; I find Luther's doctrine
so clear in marking the line of civil subordination that it
was impossible for the peasants, or those who made them
their stalkinghorse, to urge that Luther had taught them
rebellion. Nor was it less than essential to sound doc
trine, that he should disclaim, and express his abhorrence
of their error. — With the exception of that part of the con
troversy therefore, which respected his Sacramentarian
error, Luther had right on his side : and on that subject,
Carolstadt, though right in his conclusion was so defective
in his reasoning, so fickle, so versatile, and so disingenuous,
that he defeated his own victory.

In the second of these controversies, which, although
broached by Carolstadt, soon fell into abler hands, and
was at length settled by abler heads than his,* Luther

* Zuingle and CEcolampadius, the former at Zurich, and the latter
at Basil, were the great defenders of the faith, in this cause ; who,
notwithstanding the authority, ponderosity, calumniousness, and inflexi-

PREFACE. xxxvii

was lamentably wrong ; wrong in his doctrine, and wrong
in the spirit with which he defended it : — an affecting
monument of what God-enlightened man is; who can
literally and strictly see no farther than God gives him
eyes to see withal, and for whose good it is not, and
therefore for God's glory in whom it is not, that he should
see every thing as it really is, but should in some par
ticulars be left to shew, to remember and to feel, " the
rock whence he was hewn, and the hole of the pit whence
he was digged." Is there any exception to this remark
amongst human teachers and writers ? Can we mention
one, on whose writings this mark has not been impressed,
so as to make it legible that we are reading a book of
man's, not of God's ?

Luther held, that ' the real substance of the Lord's
body and blood was in the bread and wine of the Eucha
rist, together with that previous substance which was
bread and wine only :' a tenet, involving all the absurdity
of popish transubstantiation, together with the additional
one, that the same substance is at the same instant of two
dissimilar kinds.

bility of Luther, manifested to the uttermost in opposing them, were
enabled to " bring forth judgment unto truth." Zuingle's great work
is a commentary on true and false religion, published in 1525, to which
he added an appendix on the Eucharist. OEcolampadius's principal
performance is a treatise ' On the genuine meaning of our Lord's words,
' This is my "body/ published about the same time : of which Erasmus,
in his light and profane way, said, ' it might deceive the very elect ;'
and, being called, as one of the public censors, to review it, declared to
their high mightinesses, the senate of Basil, that it was, in his opinion,
a learned, eloquent and elaborate performance — he should be disposed
to add ' pious,' if any thing could be pious which opposes the JUDG
MENT AND CONSENT OF THE CHURCH. Zuingle testified his sense of
the importance of the question by remarking in his letter to Pomeranus,
' I do not think Antichrist can be completely subdued, unless this error
of consubstantiation be rooted up.' CEcolampadius traces the origin of
the doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE to Peter Lombard; and contends
that every one of the Fathers had held that the words ' This is my
body,' were not to be taken literally.

xxxviii PREFACE.

Now, althcugh the word of God requires us to receive
many things as true which are beyond the testimony of
sense, and above the deductions of right reason, it no
where calls us to receive any thing contrary to these. In
what page, or chapter, or verse of the Bible are we called
to believe a palpable contradiction ? This negative ap
plies, by the way, not only to the abstruser articles of the
faith, the coexistence of three coequal persons in the
one divine essence, the Godman-hood of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the reality of divine and diabolical agency
within the human soul, but also to those simpler verities
which affirm what are called the moral attributes of God,
and have been strangely marred and confounded by
neglecting it. Luther, for instance, perplexed to recon
cile what is commonly understood by these with his repre
sentations of truth, has gone the length of maintaining
that we do not know what these are in God : whereas, if
justice, faithfulness, purity, grace, mercy, truth &c. &c.
be not essentially the same sort of principles in God, as
in his moral creatures, we can know nothing, we can
believe nothing, we can feel nothing rightly concerning
him. How these may consist with each other, and with
his actings, is a distinct consideration : but it is a bungling,
a false, and a pernicious expedient for solving difficulties,
to deny first principles ; and, if our very ideas of moral
qualities, even as respects their essential nature, be im
pugned and taken from us, we cease to be moral beings.

The tenet of consubstantiation, then, is contradictory
both to sense and reason. Four of our senses testify
against it, whilst only one can claim to bear witness in
its favour. If the disciples heard the Lord affirm it, and
if we hear it from their writings, our sight, our touch, our
taste, our smell, assure us that it is bread, and nothing
but bread, which we are pressing with our teeth.* — The

* It was this sort of argument which brought the infidel Gibhon
back to the Protestant faith, from which he had been seduced. . . .'That

PREFACE. xxxix

same body can only be extended in one place at the same
instant : the Lord's body therefore, which is at the right
hand of God, cannot be in any place where the sacrament
is administered ; much less in the various places in which
it is administered at the same moment ; any more than the
bread which he held in his hand when he instituted the
ordinance could occupy the same place as the hand itself.
Luther talked much of ubiquity ; but what is the ubiquity
of the Lord's body ? Are we not expressly taught that it
is extended, and remains for a season, in one place ? " So
then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received
up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God ;" " Who
is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God."
t( Who is even at the right hand of God." <l Sit on my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." " Whom
the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of
all things." — Besides, what precludes all dispute, He has
in reality now no such body and blood to give. <f There is
a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." " Flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." He did
indeed turn his spiritual body into a natural one, by
miracle, for some moments, at sundry times, after his
resurrection, in order that he might give competency to
his witnesses — f< Even to them which did eat and drink with
him after he rose from the dead" — but his abiding, ordi- ',
nary subsistence, ever since, has been in a body which no^
teeth could manducate, no lips enclose.

All Luther's stress was upon the words c This is my
body :' he carried that sound and just principle of his,
( Interpret Scripture literally, not tropically, where you X
can,' to a false and even ridiculous extreme here ; in oppo- v
sition to his own admitted exception, ' unless an evident

the text of Scripture which seems to inculcate the real presence is
attested only by a single sense, our sight — while the real presence itself
is disproved by three of our senses.' See his ' Memoir of my Life and
Writings/ vol. i. p. 58.

xl PREFACE.

context, and some absurdity which offendeth against one
of the articles of our faith, in the plain meaning, constrain
us to such interpretation.' (See Part iv. Sect. iii. p. 239.
of the following work.) Is this the only instance of such
a form of speech ? Circumcision, elsewhere called the
token of the Abrahamic covenant, is, in some places, called
the covenant ; the two tables of stone are called the cove
nant ; the lamb is called the passover ; the rock stricken
in Horeb is called Christ. Besides, if the bread be con-
substantiated into his body, the cap should also be con-
substantiated into a testament ; " this cup is the new tes
tament." And when we have eaten this flesh, and drunken
this blood (if such act were possible) by a carnal mandu-
cation and deglutition, what has it done for us ? As if
flesh could nourish spirit ; or, as if Christ's flesh (Luther
dreamed that it was so) were spirit.'

Luther diminished the impression of his general cha
racter as a reasoner, and invalidated the authority of his
argumentations, by an elaborate and ingenious obstinacy
in this controversy. He gave himself the air of an orator
who could descant upon a broomstick, and could defend
a bad cause as vehemently as a good one, by exhausting
the great powers of his mind in forcible appeals and
sophistical illustrations to establish this unfounded tenet.
Not that he knew, or thought, he was advocating false
hood — his only palliation is, he was honest ; aye, honest
to his dying hour ; for however he might regret the heat
of spirit and of language into which he had gone out
against his opponents, he never made any concession with
respect to his doctrine, but declared it amidst the concus
sion and relentings of a severe sickness in 1526, and con
tinued to preach and write upon it to the last. The spirit
he had manifested, he did regret ; and well he might. He
had maintained it like a wild bull in a net, calling
names, and making devils of his adversaries — who, to say
the least, were as pure, as learned and as laborious, if

PREFACE. xli

not so commanding in their aspect, so exalted in their
sufferings, and so brilliant in their successes, as he — and
the rending of the mantle which should have covered
Switzerland as well as Germany, and made both one
against the foe of both, was more his than theirs.* This

* Take an instance of the toil and sweat of his argumentation ; take
an instance, or two, of the calumnious fierceness with which he pursued
these fraternal adversaries.

' But it is absurd to suppose the body of Christ to be in more than
a hundred thousand places at once. — This is not more absurd than the
diffusion of the soul through every part of the body. Touch any part
of the body with the point of a needle, and the whole man, the whole
soul is sensible of the injury. If then the soul be equally in every part
of the body, and you can give no reason for it, why may not Christ be
every where, and every where equally, in the sacrament ? Tell me, if
you can, why a grain of wheat produces so many grains of the same
species ; or why a single eye can fix itself at once on a thousand
objects, or a thousand eyes can be fixed at once on a single minute
object. — Take another example. What a feeble, poor, miserable,
vanishing thing is the voice of a man ! Yet what wonders it can per
form — how it penetrates the hearts of multitudes of men 1 and yet not
so as that each person acquires merely a portion of it, but rather as if
every individual ear became possessed of the whole. If thj/j were not a
matter of experience, there would not be a greater miracle in the whole
world. If then the corporeal voice of man can effect such wonders,
why may not the glorified body of Christ be much more powerful and
efficacious in its operations ? — Farther ; when the Gospel is preached
through the exertion of the human voice, does not every true believer,
by the instrumentality of the word, become actually possessed of Christ
in his heart ? Not that Christ sits in the heart, as a man sits upon a
chair, but rather as he sitteth at the right hand of the Father. How
this is no man can tell ; yet the Christian knows, by experience, that
Christ is present in his heart. Again, every individual heart pos
sesses the whole of Christ ; and yet a thousand hearts in the aggregate
possess no more than one Christ. The sacrament is not a greater
miracle than this.'

' The Sacramentarian pestilence makes havoc, and acquires strength
in its progress. Pray for me, I beseech you, for I am cold and torpid.
A most unaccountable lassitude, if not Satan himself, possesses me,
so that I am able to do very little. Our ingratitude, or perhaps
some other sin, is the cause of the divine displeasure : certainly our
notorious contempt of the word of God will account for the present
penal delusion, or even a greater. I was but too true a prophet, when I
predicted that something of this kind would happen.— If I had not known

xlii PREFACE.

acrimonious controversy, deplorable on many accounts,
but not without its direct and collateral benefits, began in

from experience, that God in his anger did suffer men to be carried
awav with delusions, I could not have believed that so many, and so
great men, would have been seduced by such trifling and childish rea
sonings, to support this pestilentious, this sacrilegious heresy. ... I am
all on fire to profess openly for once my faith in the sacrament, and to
expose the tenets of our adversaries to derision in a few words ; for
they will not attend to an elaborate argument. I would have published
my sentiments long ago, if I had had leisure, and Satan had not thrown
impediments in my way. . . . Factious spirits always act in this way.
They first form to themselves an opinion which is purely imaginary ;
and then torture Scripture to support that opinion. . . . He gave him
self seriously to the work, and produced, in the month of February or
March, a most elaborate treatise, in the German language, on the
words ' Take, eat, this is my body,' AGAINST THE FANATICAL SPIRITS
or THE SACRAMENTARIANS. . . . They lay no stress on any thing except
their Sacramentarian tenet. Devoid of every Christian grace, they
pretend to the sanctity of martyrs, ou account of this single opinion.
. . . They would persuade one that this was the great, the only concern
of the Holy Ghost ; when, in reality, it is a delusion of Satan, who,
under the pretence of love and concord, is raising dissensions and mis
chiefs of every kind.' — In the celebrated conference at Marpurg, pro
posed and accomplished by the landgrave of Hesse in 1529, for the
purpose of mutual conciliation and peace — though the Sacramentarians
begged hard to be acknowledged as brethren, and even went so far as to
own repeatedly, that the body of Christ was verily present in the Lord's
Supper, though in a spiritual manner, and Zuingle himself, in pressing
for mutual fraternity, declared with tears, that there was no man in
the world with whom he more earnestly wished to agree, than with the
Wittemberg divines — the spirit of Luther proved perfectly untractable
and intolerant. It seems he had come with a mind determined not to
budge one inch upon this point. Accordingly, ' nothing more could be
gained from him than that each side should shew Christian charity to
the other as far as they could conscientiously ; and that both should
diligently pray God to lead them into the truth. To go further, Luther
maintained, was impossible ; and expressed astonishment that the Swiss
divines could look upon him as a Christian brother, when they did
not believe his doctrine to be true. In such circumstances, however,
though there could be no such thing as fraternal union, the parties, he
allowed, might preserve a friendly sort of peace and concord; might do
good turns to each other, and abstain from harsh and acrimonious
language.' The vehemence, in fact, was not confined to one side,
though the Swiss had learned more of modern manners than the
Lutherans, and could cut deep without appearing to cany a sword ;

PREFACE. xliii

1524, and continued to and beyond Luther's death : the
churches which pass under his name still retain his
dogma.

In the last of these controversies, I pronounce him all in
the right ; right, I would be understood to mean, as respects
his conclusion and his opponent, though he adduces some
arguments which might have been spared, and does not
always exhibit a full understanding and correct use of his
weapons.

Erasmus, who was Luther's predecessor in age by
about sixteen years, had done the reformers some service ;
chiefly by facilitating the knowledge of the ancient lan
guages through his successful researches in literature, but
not a little by employing his peculiar talent of ridicule
upon some of the grosser abominations of Popery. Not
that he had any hearty concern about these ; but he was
a man born pour le rire — he was all for his jest — and
monks and friars furnished him with a subject which he
did not know how to reject. Like Lucian and Porphyry
therefore, he, without seriously meaning it, prepared the
way for a better faith, by turning much of the old into
derision. He was indignant to be thought a sceptic ; and
many now-a-days think him hardly used by such an in
sinuation. But is not every one who trifles with his soul
a sceptic ? and what is the great multitude of professing
Christians but such a company of triflers, who, if they
were brought to the test, would act what he said in his
irony, ' God has not given every body the spirit of
martyrdom ?'

Erasmus, however, had committed himself in some
degree to the cause of the reformers, by speaking well of

whereas the Lutherans growled more than they bit, in this fight. —
Still our business is with the wrong of Luther. He provoked first, he
spoke worst ; their acrimony was no excuse for his. His was the fury
of a great man brought to the level of, or even below his equals ; whom
lie would fain count his inferiors, and treat as his vassals.

xliv PREFACE.

them, specially of Luther, and acquiescing in many of
their dogmas. In 1520, when the bull was preparing, and
when the bull was out, he had both written and spoken a
very decided language in Luther's favour : ' God had sent
him to reform mankind ;' ' Luther's sentiments are true,
but I wish to see more mildness in his manner;' ' The
cause of Luther is invidious, because he at once attacks
the bellies of the monks, and the diadem of the Pope.'
1 Luther possesses great natural talents ; he has a genius
particularly adapted to the explanation of difficult points
of literature, and for rekindling the sparks of genuine
evangelical doctrine, which have been almost extinguished
by the trifling subtilties of the schools. Men of the very
best character, of the soundest learning, and of the most
religious principles, are much pleased with Luther's books ;
in proportion as any person is remarkable for upright
morals and gospel-purity, he has the less objections to
Luther's sentiments. Besides, the life of the man is
extolled, even by those who cannot bear his doctrines. It
grieved him that a man of such FINE PARTS should be ren
dered desperate by the mad cries and bellowings of the
monks.' When pressed by the Pope's legates to write
against Luther, he answered, ( Luther is too great a man
for me to encounter. I do not even always understand
him. However, to speak plainly, he is so extraordinary a
man, that I learn more from a single page of his books
than from all the writings of Thomas Aquinas.' — Still, as
the cause advanced, Erasmus did not advance with it, but
receded. Vanity, a love of the praise of men, was his
ruling passion ; and the particular mode of it, a desire to
stand high with great men — with princes, dignified eccle
siastics, and all who were highly thought of — to stand
high, specially on the ground of extreme moderation j
such as became a man of letters. He would be an Atticus
in his day. To join heartily with the reformers was not
the way to achieve this object; they were despised by the

PREFACE. Xlv

rulers, and, what was still move provoking, they would not
make him a king even among themselves.

' Micat inter omnes
Julium sidus, velut inter ignes

Luna minores.' — Hor.

But he was not that Luna, Luther was that Luna. What
was to be done therefore, but to pout, and distinctly sepa
rate himself from them ; giving the princes clearly to
understand, that they were mistaken if they thought him
one of them ? Thus, by a sort of dexterous manoeuvre, he
would kill two birds at once j avenge the injury of his
{ spreta forma,' and open a way for the sun and stars to
shine in upon him. He confessed this in his answer to
Luther : < As yet I have not written a syllable against
you ; otherwise I might have secured much applause from
the great ; but I saw I should injure the Gospel. I have
only endeavoured to do away the idea that there is a per
fect understanding between you and me, and that all your
doctrines are in my books. Pains have been taken to instil
this sentiment into the mind of the princes, and it is hard
even now to convince them that it is not so.' Luther
would have been glad that the matter should rest here.
Erasmus had done all the service he was made for ; but
let him not become their enemy : he was a successful
sharpshooter; some of his shots would hit, annoy and
dismay. There were underlings, however, in Luther's
camp, as well as in the Pope's : and these had not quite
mind enough to preserve Luther's line. They would step
beyond it ; they lampooned the satirist ; hinted pretty
broadly what he was, and made him little to his great ones.
Luther tried to abate the shock of their attack ; but it was
too late. The enemy had been beforehand with him.
Henry of England had implored, Adrian in two epistles
had supplicated, duke George had demanded, Tunstall
had conjured, Clement had persuaded : and all this, whilst
the sting of the wasps was yet sore. Luther makes his

xlvi PREFACE.

last attempt to pacify him : with great forbearance, yet
not trenching upon sincerity ; with some galling hints as
to the real state of the cause, but, as Erasmus himself
allowed, with sufficient civility. ( I shall not complain of
you, for having behaved yourself as a man estranged from
us, to keep fair with the Papists, my enemies ; nor that
you have censured us with too much acrimony.' . . . .( The
whole world must own with gratitude your great talents
and services in the cause of literature, through the revival
of which we are enabled to read the sacred Scriptures in
their originals. — I never wished that, forsaking or neglect
ing your own proper talents, you should enter into our
camp.' . . . / I could have wished that the COMPLAINT of
Hutten had never been published.' . . . .' I am concerned,
as well as you that the resentment and hatred of so many
eminent persons hath been excited against you. I must
suppose that this gives you no small uneasiness ; for vir
tue like yours, mere human virtue, cannot raise a man

above being affected by such trials' ' What can I do

now ? Things are exasperated on both sides ; and I could
wish, if I might be allowed to act the part of a mediator,
that they would cease to attack you with such animosity,
and suffer your old age to rest in peace in the Lord : and
thus they would conduct themselves, in my opinion, if
they either considered your weakness, or the magnitude
of the controverted cause, which hath been long since
beyond your capacity. They would shew their moderation
towards you so much the more, since our affairs are
advanced to such a point, that our cause is in no peril,
although even Erasmus should attack it with all his might;
so far are we from fearing any of his strokes and stric
tures.' ' Our prayer is, that the Lord may bestow on

you a spirit worthy of your great reputation ; but if this
be not granted, I entreat you, if you cannot help us, to
remain at least a spectator of our severe conflict ; and not
to join our adversaries j and in particular not to write

PREFACE. xlvii

tracts against us ; on which condition I will not publish
against you/

All is in vain : to preserve his gold, to shew his grati
tude for what he has already received, and (except he be
barbarously treated) to earn more, his pledges must now
be redeemed, and out comes the Diatribe.*

He vapours much about the great danger of publishing
it : f no printer at Basil would dare to undertake his
or any work which contained a word against Luther.'
* The die is cast, he tells Henry (to whom he had sent a
part of the manuscript for his approbation) ; my little book
on Freewill is published : a bold deed, believe me, if the
situation of Germany at this time be considered : I expect
to be pelted ; but I will console myself with the example
of your majesty, who has not escaped their outrages/
Conscience speaks out, when he says to Wolsey, ' I have
not chosen to dedicate this work to any one, least my
calumniators should instantly say that in this business I
had been hired to please the great : otherwise I would
have inscribed it to you, or to the Pope/ His ruling
passion speaks out, when he declares the mighty conse
quences which he expected from his publication. He
writes to Tunstall ; ( The little book is out ; and, though
written with the greatest moderation, will, if I mistake not,
excite most prodigious commotions. Already pamphlets
fly at my head/

Such was the birth of the Diatribe ; the offspring of a
peevish, dissatisfied, vain man ; who had tampered with
both parties, and pleased neither, but was now sufficiently
determined which side he would be of, yet aimed still to
preserve his favourite character of moderation. It is the <
work of a great scholar, but not of a deep thinker ; ' of /
one who had scoured the surface of his question, but by no 5

* He feared losing the pension which he received from England.
Clement had made him a present of two hundred florins. He had
received most magnificent promises from popes, prelates and princes.

;

xlviii PREFACE.

' means penetrated into its substance ;' of one who knew
[. what is in the Bible, but did not understand the Bible :
. imposing, but not solid ; objurgatory and commendative ;
but neither disproving what he blamed, nor establishing,
or even denning, what he approved. Yet is this a perform-
< ance, such as, not careless persons only, but half the tribe
of professedly serious gospellers will defend, and do in
substance maintain, in opposition to Luther's ; nay, many
that call and account themselves Calvinists, or Calvinistic
(I am by no means an advocate for names — it is character
and principle, not sect or party, that I would uphold), are
in heart and understanding, if not avowedly, Freewillers ;
squaring, as they seek to do, the testimony of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, to the deductions of blinded human rea
son, and making a God for themselves, by blending shreds
and patches of Scripture with shreds and patches of their
own imagination, instead of simply studying, lying at the
feet of, and inhabiting, that living and true One, whom the
Bible has been written and published to make known. — I
subscribe my testimony to Luther's, that it is tedious,
• distinctive, illusory, false and pernicious.

Luther hesitated about answering it ; but at length
consented to do so, for reasons which he declares in the
introduction of his letter : if he was to answer such a
production of such a man upon such a subject, why, it
must be done as he has done it — with all his miijht. He

O

that would see Luther, therefore, may behold him here.

Erasmus replied in two distinct treatises under the
name of Hyperaspistes, f defender as with a shield ;' the
first, as he tells us, written in ten days, that it might be
ready for the ensuing Frankfort fair (the great mart for
literature as well as commerce, in that day) — a passionate
and hasty effusion, in which he did not give himself time
to think ; the second, a very long and highly-laboured
performance, in which ( he was completely unfettered, and
completely in earnest, and, if he had been able, would,

PREFACE. xlix

without the least mercy, have trampled on Luther, and
ground him to powder.' l Diis aliter viswn.' ( This
second book is very long and very tedious ; but the tedi-
ousness, of which every reader must complain, is not owing
so much to the length of the performance, as to the con
fusion which pervades it throughout. The writer is kept
sufficiently alive, amidst great prolixity, by the unceasing
irritation of his hostility and resentment ; but the reader
is fatigued and bewildered, by being led through obscure
paths one after another, and never arriving at any distinct
and satisfactory conclusion. A close attention of the mind
to a long series of confused and jumbled propositions
wearies the intellect, as infallibly, as a continued exertion
in looking at objects difficult to be distinguished exhausts
the powers of the most perfect organs of vision.'

Luther did not rejoin to this twofold reply : he well knew
that Erasmus was fighting for victory, not for truth, and
he had better things to do than write books merely to repeat
unanswered arguments. There was nothing of argument
in the Hyperaspistes, which had not been answered in his
Bondage of the Will ; even as there was nothing in the
Diatribe, which had not been in substance advanced and
confuted many times before. The Letter, or Treatise,
which is now presented to the public must, therefore, be
considered as containing Luther's full, final, and, as he;
deemed it, unrefuted and irrefragable judgment, on the
state of the human will.

That state is, according to Erasmus, a state of liberty ;
according to Luther, a state of bondage. Such is the sub
ject and position brought into debate by Erasmus, and
accepted as matter of challenge by Luther.

The accurate Locke, whose name I would ever recite
with veneration and gratitude, has shewn that the ques
tion is improperly stated. The will, he says in substance,
is but a power of the human mind, or, of the man ; free
dom is also a power of the man; to ask, therefore,

d

1 PREFACE.

whether the will be free is to ask whether one power of
the man possesses another power of the man ; which
is like asking, whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue
square; liberty being as little applicable to the will,
as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to
c virtue. The proper question is, not whether man's will
)be free, but whether man be free : and this he determines
* that he is, in so far, and only so far, as he can by the
f direction or choice of his mind, preferring the existence
of any action to the non-existence of that action, and vice
(versa, make it to exist, or not exist ; liberty being a power
4to act, or not to act, according as we shall choose, or, will.
*If however the improper question be still urged, whether
the will be free, it must be changed into this form; is
man free to ivill ? that is, has he liberty in the exercise of
his will ? Now this must respect either the act of exercising
his will ; or the result of that exercise, the thing chosen.
As to the former of these, he determines, that, in the greater
number of cases, man has not liberty ; for when any action
in his power is once proposed to his thoughts, as presently
to be done, will he must : in the latter, he determines, that
he cannot but have liberty ; he wills what he wills, he is
pleased with what he is pleased with. To make a ques
tion here, is to suppose that one will determines the acts
of another, and that another determines that ; and so on
in iiifinitum.* — In this latter assertion, Luther, it must be
remarked, is as explicit as Locke ; maintaining expressly,
<that a compelled will is a contradiction in terms, and
should be called Nohmtas, rather than Volant as : non-
^ will, rather than will. (See Part i. Sect. xxiv. p. 69.)

The schoolmen, from whom Luther and Erasmus took
this question (Erasmus first on this occasion — but then
Luther had taken it up before), made a distinction between
the absolute faculty of the will, and that faculty as exer
cised, or, in action. Their question was not, an sit libera

* See Locke's Essay, vol. i. pp. 195—200. b. ii. c. 21.

PREFACE. H

voluntas, but an sit liberum arbitrium ? a distinction, in
fact, without a difference : because, what is the subject
matter about which they were disputing ? not a dormant
faculty surely, but a faculty such as it is when exercised ;
for how else can its nature and properties be ascertained ?
Luther is as perceptive as Locke himself here. Erasmus,
in his definition of Freewill, calls it ' that power of the
human will by which a man is able to turn himself to
those things which appertain to his salvation, or to turn
himself away from them :' in reality meaning ta .interpose
ajsomethibig. between the will .and its actings. Luther,
when canvassing this definition, denies that there can be
any such tertium quid', and uses a language so very like
Locke's, that it might well draw from his historian the
remark, ' Luther, with as much acuteness as if he had
studied Mr. Locke's famous chapter on power, replies &c.J
( But, what is meant by this same power f applying itself
and turning away itself;' except it be this very willing
and refusing, this very choosing and despising, this very
approving and rejecting ; in short, except it be ' the will
performing its very office ;' I see not. So that we must
suppose this power to be f a something interposed between
the will itself and its actings :' a power by Avhich the will
itself draws out the operation of willing and refusing, and
by which that very act of willing and refusing is elicited. It
is not possible to imagine or conceive any thing else here.'
See Part iii. Sect. ii. p. 132.

But this false distinction opens a door to the solution
of the whole difficulty. Their improper question has been,
( Is the will free ?' The proper question would be, * Is the
understanding free ?' that is, has the man's will all the
case before it, when he decides upon any given ques
tion ? A blind understanding will lead to a false deter
mination, though that determination be made without any
thing approaching to compulsion. Now this I apprehend
to be just the true state of the case : the natural man,

d2

lii PREFACE.

having his understanding darkened, being alienated from
the life of God, through the ignorance that is in him, be
cause of the blindness of his heart ; and being, moreover,
possessed by the devil, whose energizing consists in main
taining and increasing his blindness ; forms his decisions
and determinations upon partial and false evidence. The
same observation extends to the spiritual man, in so far
as he is not spiritual ; in so far as his flesh, through which
the devil acts upon him, is allowed in subserviency to the
great general principle, f God's glory in his real good/ to
influence the determination of his will. So that it is the
judgment, perception, or understanding, not the will, cor
rectly speaking, which is really in bondage ; that faculty,
which presents objects to the determining faculty, presenting
them erroneously, either by suppressing what ought to be
made present, or giving a false colouror distorted appearance
to that which is, and ought to be, there. This suggestion
will explain the paradox, that the will is at the same time
;,free and not free, in popular language : free, inasmuch as
--'from its very nature it cannot be compelled ; not free,
inasmuch as it acts in the dark : so that it may more fitly
be called blind-will, than bond-will; which is Luther's
'term. This suggestion will go further; it will explain all
mysteries and all paradoxes : Paul's conflict in Romans
vii. — Pharaoh's induration — our own daily experience — •
nay, the whole system of God's government, in ruling, as
he does, a world of moral beings — flee before it. Only
such considerations as He makes present can really con
stitute the materials of any judgment which we form, and
consequently of any determination which we can come to,
with respect to our own actings : that is, our volitions,
whilst free, are subject to His agency, and, through the
means of our perceptions, His will becomes ours. — I have
adopted throughout, however, the language of the com
batants ; which is also the language of common life. I
speak of the will as free, or in bondage ; and I use the

PREFACE. liii

term Freewill, as expressive of some supposed power in
man, separating it into a sort of distinct substance, and
almost continually personifying it.

Let it be conceded then, that the question is not cor
rectly worded; that the proper inquiry is, not whether
man's will be free, but whether man be free ; or rather,
as we have just seen, whether his perceptive faculty be
clear and entire : still the substance of the debate remains
unaltered, and its importance unimpaired. Essentially,
we are ascertaining what is the moral state of man ; and
the considerations, nay, even the expressions, introduced
into many parts of the discussion, will shew that it is not
an abstract and isolated question about the will which we
are entertaining, but an investigation of our Adam soul.
What shall be called momentous, if this subject be not so ?
What can be understood, if this be unknown ? Of what \
sort is the Christ of an ignorant Freewiller ? (See Part i.
Sect. v. vi. vii. viii.) The truth is, ignorance of the real
state of man lies at the root of all religious ignorance, and
it is, manifestly, the ordained, arranged and continually
operated course of the Lord's dealings with his people to
bring them to the knowledge, use and enjoyment of Him
self through the means of deep, minute, self-emptying
and self-abasing self-knowledge. How can this be, but
by opening to us the abyss of impotency as well as crime,
of blindness as well as enmity, into which we have freely
plunged ourselves ?

It is the peculiarity of this treatise to explore the pre
sent state of the human soul by the aid of scripture testi
monies and scriptural reasonings, exclusively; without one
syllable of abstract philosophical investigation beyond what
is absolutely necessary to the writing and reading upon it
intelligibly.* Luther was not ignorant of metaphysics ;

* I was once asked, why, with such an excellent treatise as Jonathan
Edwards's, and others, in our own language, I thought it necessary to
revive Luther. Here is my answer. Your great metaphysicians decora-

liv PREFACE.

he had been thoroughly trained in Aristotle and the school
men : if he forbore to use such weapons, it was because
he disdained them ; I should rather say, because, according
to his own testimony as recited already, he had found
them pernicious. Erasmus sometimes compels him to
break a lance of this kind ; when he gives full proof that
he could have handled such weapons dexterously, if he
had deemed them to be the weapons of the sanctuary.
One who was no common speculator, and no unskilful
arbitrator, has said of him ; ' Even in the metaphysical
niceties, which could not be entirely avoided in this ab
struse inquiry, he proved greatly his (Erasmus's) over
match.' But those who have really submitted themselves
to the authority of Scripture, and have drunk deep of it
to know the Father's testimony concerning Jesus, will feel
that, as this subject is the most momentous which can
engage the human soul, so this method of investigating it
can alone be expected to yield a satisfactory conclusion.
They will rejoice therefore, that such a man as Erasmus —
a man well acquainted with the letter of Scripture (so
Luther testifies of him — qui sic nostra omnia perlustra-
vit — Part iii. Sect. vi. note e) — should have delivered his
challenge in the form of an appeal to the canonical
Scriptures only; and that such a man as Luther, who
had penetrated to no inconsiderable depth in the mines

pound man ; and, if they could, would decompound God. Your great
theologians do the same. But if we would really know either man or
God, we must first learn to take the Bible for granted — that it is the
word of God — and then study both, as therein drawn and described : not
imagining a God for ourselves, by decking out some we know not what
substratum with a number of what we call attributes ; but remember
ing, that what we hear called His attributes are in reality parts of His
essence, and considering, that it is THAT GOOD ONE who hath devised,
fore-ordained, and in his appointed time manifested the Lord Jesus
Christ as the image of Himself, in his person and in his actings — which
is our God ; and that we ourselves are parts of that Adam, by his deal
ings with, and declarations concerning which, in Christ, He has been,
and is, effecting the manifestation of what He himself is.

PREFACE. lv

of that volume, should have accepted and brought it to
issue.

The ORDER of the argumentation is minutely shewn in
the Table of Contents which follows, and is aftenvards
noticed at the head of each Part and Section. I shall only
premise therefore, that, after a short Introduction, Luther
pursues the order of Erasmus's march (who, desultory as
he is, furnishes us with a clue for his labyrinth-), first
examining his Preface, then his Proem, then his testi
monies, then his pretended refutation, and afterwards
establishing his own position by direct proof : he concludes
the whole with a pathetic address, even as each Part ex
hibits a specimen of the ' melting mood,' in its close. It
is a common idea, that Luther wanted softness ; yet the
once cloistered, but afterwards conjugal and paternal
monk, could weep, be gentle, be compassionate, be a little
child.

The FORM of the treatise is epistolary : it is truly no
thing else but a LETTER to Erasmus ; and therefore I have
preferred the division of PARTS to that of CHAPTERS — con
sidering chapters of a letter as anomalous, though we are
accustomed to it, I grant, in our distribution of the Scrip
tures : this division however, it is to be remembered, has
no authority, and has led to much misconstruction ; Locke
advises those who would understand Paul to disregard it.
I have only one caution to give with respect to these Parts ;
which is, that the reader do not suffer himself to take
fright at some of the less inviting gladiations of the first
Part — not that / account them uninteresting, but that the
work increases in interest, as it proceeds. I trust the reader
will find it so, and will remember meanwhile, that we
must make a way to the walls, as well as storm them.

I cannot compliment Luther upon his STYLE : the sen
tences are long, the ideas multifarious ; the words often
barbarous, their collocation inharmonious. But there is
always meaning in what he says, although that meaning be

Ivi PREFACE.

not always obvious, or clear : he is sometimes elaborately
eloquent, and often simply so. The language is like the
man. He is Hercules with his club, rather than Achilles
with his sword ; more of a Menelaus than an Ulysses ;
always forcible, sometimes playful; drawing wires now
and then ; never leaving a loophole for his adversary to
escape through, but dragging him through many of his own.

The EXCELLENCES of this treatise are, a noble stand for
truth on its proper ground — God's testimony unmixed with
man's testimony (see Part ii. Sect, i — xii.) ; that ground
cleared from objection (Partii. Sect. xiii. xiv.); an integral
part of the truth of God firmly set upon its base (see Part
iii. Part iv. Part v.) ; much of it, besides, collaterally and
incidentally asserted or implied — proved, or left to clear
and palpable inference : so that a man need not fear to
say, ' Give me Luther, and I will give you THE TRUTH.'

But Luther has not given it us, either in this treatise,
or elsewhere ; the defects of his theological system being
manifest in this best of his best,* as well as his other per
formances : I say * theological system ;' because TRUTH is
one vast whole, not a number of disjointed and dissevered
propositions' — a whole made up of many parts, which,
whilst distinct, are yet so closely interwoven and com
pacted with each other, that it is scarcely possible to dis
cern any one of these as it really is, without discerning
each, and all, and that whole. Let those who deny sys
tem in the Bible say what they understand by 'H tiXrjOeia
(the truth) ; let those who deny system in the Bible say
why this should be a name for that counsel, or plan, which
God is executing in Christ ; why it should be a name for
Christ; why it should be a name for Gocl.f If God be

* ' It may not be improper to observe, that Luther himself, many
years afterwards, had so good an opinion of it, as to declare, that he
could not revjew any one of his writings with complete satisfaction,
unless perhaps his Catechism and his Bondage of the Will.'

f See John i. 17- xiv. 6. Eph. i. 13. iv. 21. Col. 15. \ John v. 20.

PREFACE. Ivii

himself the only truth, THE TRUE ONE ; if Christ be his
Image ; if the counsel, or system of divine operations,
which is in Him, be the image of that Image ; if the Gos
pel, or doctrine of the kingdom of God, be the word or
declarer of that counsel ; we can have no difficulty in
understanding why one and the same term should be
applied to all these various subjects. They are all, in
various regards, THE TRUTH. Nor is it a sound objection
to say, ( this revered man did not see it there/ or, ( that
revered man did not see it there ;' it may be there still : and,
if it be not there, God has come short of His object in reve
lation, which is, not to reveal a proposition, but to reveal
HIMSELF. Let every one so study the Bible as to get to
know God by it ; which he cannot do, except he realize
what is there written, IN HIM, and realize it as a whole :
let him at the same time take this caution — he is to get his
whole, not by murdering or stifling any part, but by giving
its fair, well-considered and authenticated meaning to each
and every portion of the testimony.

The DEFECTS of this treatise, then, are the defects of
Luther's theological system. It was not given to him
to discern, that all God's dealings with creatures are
referable to one vast counsel, devised, ordained and
operated for the accomplishment of one vast end; that
this vast end is the manifestation of God ; that this coun
sel is in all its parts (not in that only which respects
man's redemption, but every jot of every part) laid, con
ducted and consummated in and by Christ — the eternally
predestinated, and in time very, risen GOD-MAN* (see
Part ii. Sect. viii. note r. Part iii. Sect, xxxii. note s) ;
much less was it given to him to discern the structure and
materials of that counsel by which God is effecting this
end — that Adam, meaning not the personal Adam only,
but all that was created in him, even the whole human

* See, amongst other places, John i. 1—14. 1 John i. 1, 2. Coloss.
i. 15—20. Heb. i. Prov. viii. 22—31. JVlicah v. 2.

Iviii PREFACE.

race, is the great and capital subject of His self-manifest
ing operations. (See Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes * v x. Sect,
xxxvii. note ' &c.) Though he had some insight into the
mystery of Christ's person (see Part i. Sect. iii. j also Sect.
xvi. note n) — that He was verily God and man, a coequal
in the Trinity made man through the Virgin's impreg
nation by the Holy Ghost, he was not fully led into the
mystery that his person is constituted by taking a human
person, the spiritualized man Jesus, into union with his
divine person, and that he has been acting in this person, as
inspired, not by his own godhead, but by the Holy Ghost,*
from the beginning — having subsisted as the glorified
God-man first predestinately and secretly, up to the period
of his ascension ; and now, ever since that period, really
and declaredly — doing the will of the Father continually,
not his own will, by the Holy Ghost's inspiration, not his
own ; thus exhibiting the Trinity in every act he performs,
which is, in deed and in truth, every act of God. His
human person, moreover, was marvellously formed, so as
to be at the same time both son of Adam and son of God ;
the Holy Ghost's impregnation gave him a spotless soul ;
the daughter of Adam gave him a sinful body : thus he
became the sinless sinner ; thus he that knew no sin waa
made sin for us, and was in all points tempted like as we
are, without sin ; that same Holy Ghost which had begotten
him sinless, keeping him without sin amidst all the tempt
ations of the world the flesh and the devil, until he had
died to sin once, and his mortality had been swallowed up
of life. — Into this depth of the mystery of Christ's person, f

* See especially Matt. xii. 28. Acts i. 1, 2. ii. 22 &c. x. 38.

f The essence of Christ's person is God-man-hood : He is God the
equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost : He is man by the concep
tion of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin ; He is God-man in one substance,
through that union of his God person with his man person, which is
effected by the agency of the Holy Ghost ; Who, being one in essence
with his God person, inbabiteth that manhood of His which he hath
generated. What is that manhood so generated? Its essence is a pure,

PREFACE. llx

of which the essential element is < union yet distinct
ness' — both as it respects his divine and human person,
and as it respects his oneness with us — it was not given
to Luther to penetrate. (See as before, Part ii. Sect. viii.
note r. Part iii. Sect xxii. note 3 ; also Part v. Sect. xxii.
note l. Sect, xxviii. note °.) Again ; although it was
given him to see the fact of man's coining into the world
guilty (which he ascribes to his being born of Adam (see
Part v. Sect, xx.), and that entire vitiation of his nature,
as brought into the world with him, which renders him
both vile and impotent (a fact which he assumes, and
reasons upon, throughout the whole of his treatise, but
see especially Part iv. Sect, x.) ; he was not led to see the
mystery of the creation and fall of every individual of the
human race, male and female, in and with Adam.* (See
Part iv. Sect. x. note z. Part v. Sect. xx. note p.) Again ;
though it was given him to see the fact that there are
elect and reprobate men, God having predestinated some to
everlasting life and others to everlasting death ; he had no in
sight into that covenant-standing in Christ, and the appro-
spotless, sinless spirit inhabiting (in the days of his flesh, and whilst
yet it was flesh and blood) a sinful body. Romans i. 3, 4. rightly inter
preted, confirms this satisfying account of the matter : " Who was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh, that is, the body ;
Who was declared to be Son of God with power, according to the spirit
of holiness — that is, according to his spirit ivhich was holy (the oppo
sition, I maintain, is between his flesh and his spirit) — front the period
of his resurrection (ef avaaTaacwv}. The whole tenour of Scripture
declaration falls in with this view. His body is his connecting link
with manhood, that is, with Adam-hood : Son of man is not man
merely ; man any how begotten, any how made, any how existent (as
the Lord God might have made five hundred species of men) ; but Son
of Adam, one who has his being SOME HOW through and of the stock of
Adam.

* The notes referred to are explicit and full ; but take an illustration,
which may be of use to some, 1. from the case of Rebekah, Genesis xxv.
21 — 23. (. . . " Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people
shall be separated from thy bowels) ; and 2. from Heb. vii. 9, 10. (For
he was yet in the loins of his Father, when &c.)

Ix PREFACE.

priateness of His work, consequently, to the elect, which
renders God just in acting a difference between them, whilst
the original and eternal separation is of a law beyond just
ice — even of that sovereignty which knows no limit but
omnipotency. Thus he was not only left, through his igno
rance of God's plan and counsel, without any insight into
that blessed and glorious principle which reconciles the spi
ritual mind to the severity of his appointments — for how,
else, shall that paramount end of God-manifestation be
accomplished ?— but he was even obliged to give up the
justice of God (which, both verily and discernibly, is with
out a flaw in this procedure) and to take refuge in a most
pernicious falsehood, ' that we know nothing about God's
justice, and must be content to be ignorant what it is, till
.THE DAY disclose it.' Why, if justice, truth and all other
'moral excellencies be not in Him essentially what they
are in us, and according to our spiritual conceptions of
HIM, ' chaos is come again:' we know nothing — nothing
' of God — He has revealed himself in vain. (See Part iii.
Sect, xxviii. notes t v x. Sect, xxxvii. note '. Part iv.
Sect. xv. note n. Part v. Sect, xxxiii. note e.) Again ;
whilst it was given him to see something of the freeness
and completeness of a sinner's justification in and by
Christ, it was impossible, from the very nature of that
ignorance which hath already been ascribed to him, that
he should see it correctly and perfectly : he neither saw
the eternal justification which they received in Christ
Jesus, distinctly, personally and individually, before the
world began — God engaging to raise them up to Him as
his accepted ones, for the sake of the merits of His death ;
nor did he see with precision what constituted their atone
ment made in time ; nor did he see the state into which
they were hereby brought, and have from the beginning
been dealt with as though they had been meritoriously
brought — a state of gracious acceptance, in which they
can bring forth, as He is pleased to enable them, and

PREFACE. Ixi

actually do bring forth, as He is pleased to enable them,
fruit unto God : nor did he see that, whilst their crown is
a free crown, the Lord has so arranged, and so brings it
to pass, that it shall be a righteous thing in God to put a
difference between the righteous and the wicked ; there
being a mind in the one, which is correlative to the mani
festation He has made and is making of himself in his
new-creation kingdom, whereas in the other there is
nothing but enmity to Him, as so displayed. Again ;
though he had some insight into the nature of Holy-
Ghost-influences, the other parts of his ignorance were
incompatible with true' and correct knowledge here. He
did not see that the gift of the Holy Ghost is, in fact, the
gift of His personal presence and agency; altogether a
super-creation gift, a gift in Christ; had, when and as
God has been pleased to arrange to give it — had therefore,
when it be good for his people to have, and withheld, as
to manifestation, when it be good that they have it not ;
in nowise contributing to the justification, properly so
called, of a sinner, though enabling the manifestedly justi
fied to shew their justification. When I say, * in nowise
contributing,' I mean that none of their acts performed
by and in the Spirit, are what contribute the least particle
to their acceptance. They are foreknown freely, pre
destinated freely, called freely, justified freely (that is,
have their absolution from all sin testified to them freely)
glorified freely; whilst it is the Holy Ghost who alone
enables, nay constrains them to believe, thereby exhibit
ing in their persons an obedience to the divine command
ment,* and putting a badge upon them which declares

* God has given a commandment, " Repent ye, and believe the Gos
pel;" " And this is his commandment, that \ve believe on the name &c."
This command is congruous to that manifestation which he makes of
himself in his super-creation kingdom ; say rather, is congruous to what
He himself is — He being, even as He hath hereby shewn himself to be,
the God, who, in perfect harmony and consistency with all other per
fections, is love, grace and mercy. The giving of this commandment,

Ixii PREFACE.

that they are in the number of those for whom Christ
according to the will of the Father — thus evinced to be
the will of the sacred and coequal Three — in due time died.
Luther's ignorance on this subject led him to speak of
Adam's having the Spirit, of the Spirit's being our law-
fuliiller, and of the Jewish church, as not having been
justified by the law, because they had not the Spirit. (See
Part iv. Sect. x. note z. Part v. Sect. x. note z.) As if the
Spirit of grace were a creational, natural, or legal possession!
Again ; whilst he saw the Law to be a condemning pre
cept, he did not understand its real nature, form and
design j that it was an interpolation, typical in all its
parts, preparatory, temporary; whose glory was to be
done away. (See Part iii. Sect. xxiv. note '. Part v. Sect.
x. xi. xii. xiii.) This ignorance led him to bring it back
upon the people of God, instead of banishing it for ever ;
to heap burdens with his left hand, which he had hardly
removed with his right. He was not led to apprehend the
distinct nature, as well as end, of Law obedience and Gospel
obedience : that obedience to the Law, which he sub
stantially, if not in word, demanded, is not only an obeying
for life instead of an acting of the life given ; but is even
a denying of God to be what He is and is manifesting
himself to be, whilst we profess to be believing in Him,
and serving Him.*

and the receiving of his people according to it, falls in with his great
design of God manifestation, by drawing out, as it does, what is in man,
and shewing HIM as dealing with what is so drawn out, according to
justice and equity. — It no way disparages the freeness of the grace, whilst
it manifests to the uttermost the justness of the indignation. — Which
of the reprobate disobeys the Gospel edict, because he counts himself
to be a reprobate ? and which of them has any right to deal with him
self as such ?

* The law is a perfect transcript of creation man's duty, in enigma ;
typical emblem of Christ as the unblemished Lamb, and of the law of the
Spirit of life which is laid up in Him (" Your lamb shall be without
blemish," Exod. xii. 5. ..." And put the tables in the ark which I had
made," Deut. x. 5. ..." A new covenant ... I will put my laws into

PREFACE. Ixiii

These are some of the principal DEFECTS of Luther's
theology :* which he manifests, as might be expected, in

their mind, etc." Heb. viii. 8 — 11.), and real teacher that Adam cannot
obey his Maker; say rather, that creature, a* creature, cannot fulfil the
law of his sort. But grace has a new MIND to study, and is cast into
a mould correspondent to that mind — brought to a mind which is of
much higher tone, and of other string, than that which God taught and
demanded at Sinai.

* I would be understood as not pretending to make full and accurate
references in proof of Luther's seelngs and not scelngs (which would,
in fact, be to analyze and anatomize the whole of his work), but merely
to give a hint at each. — And now, I well know how I shall be arraigned
of arrogancy, for having dared to controvert his positions, nay more, to
judge and to condemn him. 1 can only say, as Luther did at Worms ; ' Here
I stand. I cannot do otherwise. May God help me. Amen.' — It is the
fashion to speak of Luther and the rest of the reformers as little less
than inspired men, and of the cera of the Reformation, as the season of
an effusion of the Spirit : the same sort of expression has been applied
also to later times ; to a supposed, and, as I will hope, real revival of
religion which took place in Whitfield's time. Such expressions are
unwarranted : I know but of one effusion, when, " being by the right
hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of
the Holy Ghost, Jesus did shed forth that which was seen and heard,"
on the day of Pentecost. Granting, therefore, what I would by no
means dispute, that it has been the Lord's blessed will from the begin
ning to make peculiar display of his Spirit at certain seasons-^-as in
private and personal experience, so in the community of his people —
and not sticking at a word, but calling this, if you please, EFFUSION ;
what is the extent of the benefit? It is not meant that the atmosphere
is impregnated with spiritual influences, so that all who live at such a
period, and within the circle of it, are made partakers of the boon.
Else, whence come the Caiaphases and the Alexanders, the Felixes and
the Caesars ? It goes no farther, than that certain persons are pecu
liarly taught, strengthened and comforted at these seasons ; and that the
number so instructed and enlivened is greater than in ordinary times.
It does not follow, that the blessed Spirit hath, at these seasons, taught
and shewn all that ever is to be taught and shewn of God and of his
truth. The Uible and other records shew, that there has, on the con
trary, been a progression in His teaching ; in the manner of revealing,
if not in the matter revealed. Though all truth be contained in, " And
I will put enmity between thee and the woman &c." this truth has been
made plainer, in various degrees, since the beginning ; to Abraham, to
Moses, to David, to the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles.
It would not be adventurous to affirm, that, as the Prophets spake to as
well as of the Apostles' days ; so the Apostles have spoken to as well

Ixiv PREFACE.

this elaborate treatise. I have dealt fairly, as I believe,
both with his excellencies and with his defects. It has
been my endeavour to give the most faithful rendering I
could to his whole text, and to every word and syllable of
it. His excellencies, which, if I have succeeded in my
endeavour, cannot be hidden, I have made yet more con
spicuous by extricating each point of his argument, and
specifying it distinctly, with the numbers 1.2. 3. &c. pre
fixed. His errors and defects 1 have endeavoured to
obviate and to supply, severally, by telling out THE TRUTH.
My statements are ample, but I am not aware that they
are prolix. I have desired to consult brevity; and, in
some instances, have obtained, as I fear, the reward of

of later times ; times yet for to come. Is it sacrilege or blasphemy to
say, that what Paul and John wrote and spake shall be better under
stood, and is even now better understood, generally in the church, than
it was by their own immediate hearers and readers, if not by themselves.
It would be preposterous surely to affirm, that nothing lias been added
to the store of evangelical learning, since Luther's time, by the dis
covery of additional manuscripts, and by the collation of them ; by the
improved knowledge of the original languages ; by the illustrations of
travellers, and other sources of intelligence, inquiry and communi
cation. Whilst all other knowledge is progressive, why should biblical
knowledge be stationary ? Has it, in fact, been so ? is it even yet so ?
And it is plain, this remaik does not apply to the elucidation of pro
phecy exclusively ; it extends to the counsel and truth- of God. Take
our fourth Article as a specimen. In Luther's and our reformers' time,
I suppose every body expected to rise with a flesh and blood body, as
that Article speaks — in spite of Paul's clear words. But now, we have
been taught with what sort of a body the Lord rose, and what sort of
an one we may look to be clothed with, ourselves. — (See 1 Cor. xv.
44 — 54. See also Bishop Horsley's NINE DISCOUKSKS ON OUR LORD'S
RESURRECTION.) — These hints must be my defence iigainst the supposed
arrogancy of impugning and correcting Luther. The Reformation did
not absorb the spiritual Sun, any more than former or later periods had,
or have done so. He still continues to shoot forth his rays, when and us
it pleascth Him ; and those on whom they fall have already received their
direction how to deal with them, from his own mouth, where He says,
" No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or
putteth it under a bed ; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which
enter in may see the light." Luke viii. 16.

PREFACE. Ixv

laboured brevity, by becoming obscure. But I hope not
often so.

The reader must have seen already, that, if I was to
publish Luther, it must be with NOTES. I honestly believe,
that he would be unintelligible without; as well as defective
and fallacious. I have therefore adhered rigidly to two
simple principles throughout, ' Luther, all Luther, and
nothing but Luther, in the text; my own sentiments,
whether agreeing with, or contradicting his, in the notes/

Now, if it be asked why, in all wonder, have you
thought it worth your while to publish Luther at all, when
you pronounce his sentiments to be both defective and.
erroneous ; I am not without an answer. With all its defects
and errors, confessed and professed, I count this a truly
estimable, magnificent and illustrious treatise. I publish
it therefore, 1. Because I deem the subject all-important.
2. Because I know no other work of value upon this all-
important subject, which discusses it by the same sort of
argumentation. 3. Because Luther's name is gold with
some, and will, I hope, beget readers. 4. Because his
right is so very right, and so very forcible. 5. Because his
very errors and defects throw some rays of light upon
their corrector and supplier, claim and obtain a hearing
for him, and open a way to the more successful march
and entry of truth. The wise Paley remarks, that, if he
could but make his pupils sensible of the precise nature of
the difficulty, he was half way towards conquering it Let
the reader see what sort of a God, and of a Christ, and of
a salvation, Luther, when brought into day, sets before
him ; and my expectation is, he will cry out for something
better.

I have said Luther's name is gold, and Luther, as I
trust, will beget readers. Do not let it be supposed that
I am therefore leaning upon Luther's arm for the support of
truth. That be far from me. I disclaim, as he did, man's
authority ; what he protested against the Fathers, that I

Ixvi PREFACE.

protest against him, and against every uninspired teacher.
The fair and legitimate use of human authority is to
awaken attention. What so eminent a man of God has
said, is worth listening to, is worth weighing : but, could
he now be called before us, he would say, ( Weigh it in the
balances of Scripture ; I desire to be received no farther
than as I speak according to the oracles of God.' High
respect is due to the opinions of a godly, God-raised, God-
owned man — but he is man, fallible man at last ; and this
man carried the mark of his fallibility with him to his
grave, yea, has left it not in his writings only, but as a
frontlet between the eyes of his blindly-devoted followers —
who consubstantiate with him. a To the law and to the
testimony" — Well ! but neither will that appeal ensure
the knowledge of THE TRUTH : all do not know THE TRUTH
who search the Scriptures. It is the Scripture as we be
lieve it to be opened to us by the Holy Ghost, \vhich is
the guide of our spirit ; and, whilst we are bound to yield a
certain deference and obedience to the decisions of a law
fully constituted human tribunal — submitting to its inflic
tions even to the destruction, not of our worldly substance
only, but of our flesh — our spirit owns no fetters but those
which the Spirit imposes.

I commend this work therefore, both as it respects
Luther and as it respects my own part in it, to the candid,
patient and anxious consideration of the reader j earnestly
requesting him to compare what is here written with the
Scriptures, and carrying with him into that comparison a
prayer which I here breathe out for him, f Lord, grant me
to understand thy word ; preserve me from concluding
rashly against any thing that is written in this book, how
ever it may contradict my preconceived opinion ; and
what is true in it enable THOU me to welcome, digest,
hold fast and enjoy !'

I have already hinted that my desire has been to accom
plish a faithful translation. I believe the Lord has given

PREFACE. Ixvii

me my desire. I need scarcely say I have found it a diffi
cult undertaking. Every scholar knows that the work of
translation is one of great nicety. There is in every lan
guage some one word which more precisely than any other
corresponds with the given one ; but it may often be the
rumination of many hours to find that word. This has
been much of my toil. Luther's work, above most others,
demanded it : he abounds in emphatic and distinctive
words. His meaning also, as I have said, is not always un
ambiguous. He wrote, too, in a dead language : in which,
though he doubtless tried his best on this occasion, and
was complimented by having it supposed that the elegant
pen of Melancthon had assisted him, he was but a clumsy
and middle-aged composer. He has proverbs, moreover,
without end ; some German, some classical. ' The Ger
mans, you know (as a very learned friend, whom I con
sulted in one of my difficulties, obligingly writes to me),
are great proverbialists, and many of their allusions are
now lost. I have searched a great variety of authors, on a
similar inquiry' (he was kind enough to do so now), ' but
in vain.' — / too, in a much more humble way, have made
some search and a great deal of inquiry, but have learned
.nothing: witness, the Wolf and the Nightingale (p. 79),
the beast which eats itself (p. 196), and the palm and
the gourd (p. 373). My greatest perplexity has arisen
from his^^i some instances mixing the old with the
new, an^^ing me, like a will o' the wisp, to go after
him, because I fancied I had a lantern to guide me, but
soon found myself left in darkness.

I fear my notes will incur the censure of two different
sorts of reader ; each of whom will account many of them
superfluous. I can only say none of them have been inserted
without thought and design. To the learned I have been
anxious to vindicate my accuracy ; to the unlearned I have
been anxious to give such helps as might enable them to
understand me. The learned must bear the burden of

e2

Ixviii PREFACE.

my laborious dulness, and the unlearned, of my Latin and

Greek.
With respect to my theology, I shall not wonder if I

appear more positive and dogmatical to some, than even
Luther himself. Let me be understood here. Whilst I
make no claim to infallibility, but desire only that my
assertions may be brought to the standard of Scripture, I
desire to give my reader the full benefit of the firmness
and deliberateness with which I have formed, entertained,
and advanced my opinion, by omitting all such qualifying
and hesitative restrictions, as ( if I mistake not,' ' I believe
it will be found,' ( I would venture to affirm &c.' Such
subjects require a mind made up in the instructor ; and,
if he would not invite others to doubt, his language must
breathe the indubitative confidence which he feels. Be
sides, there is an energy, as well as an importance in
truth, which inspires, even as it demands, boldness.

I cannot take leave of my reader without desiring him
to acknowledge his obligations to the late venerable Dean
of Carlisle, Dr. Milner, to whose completion of his bro
ther's valuable history I am indebted, almost exclusively,
for my account of Luther : a work of great research ; in
which, by ransacking a vast body of original documents,
and drawing light from sources which former historians had
been content to leave unexplored, he has vindicated,
illustrated and adorned this dauntless standarclsJiearer of
the Reformation.

ird-jj.es

POSTSCRIPT.

IN the following work, it has been my endeavour to assist
the unlearned and those who may not have access to
books, by giving some account of the various persons
named in it by the author. I believe I have been tolerably
consistent in doing so, but am aware that I have left two
capital writers without note or comment. I would aim
at uniformity therefore, by supplying this deficiency here :
Plato is one of these, Augustine is the other. Not only
their celebrity, but the frequent reference made to them
by Luther (especially to the latter), would render my
omission inexcusable.

1. The great PLATO then (for such he truly was), seems
to have been no favourite with Luther ; who was deeply
conscious of the mischievous tendency of his writings as
fostering a spirit of proud self-sufficiency, and as having
cooperated with other sources of error to contaminate the
truth, by exhibiting some semblances of its glory and
beauty. In Part iv. Sect. Hi. he speaks contemptuously
of his ' Chaos' ; and in Part ii. Sect. v. of his ' Ideas.' This
Plato, Mnvever, appears to have been led into some vast
conceptions of God (whence he derived them, is another
question) — his nature, will, power and operations — into
some exalted aspirations after communion with him—and
into some elaborate attempts to purify and elevate the
morals of his countrymen. Like others who speculated
upon God, without God's guidance, he made matter eternal
as well as God, though he gave God a supremacy over it,
and ascribed to him both the modelling of the world, and

Ixx POSTSCRIPT.

the commanding of it into being. Doubtless, it is a
strange jumble which he makes — the world having
a soul, nay a compound soul; man with his two souls,
and second causes placing a material body round a germ
of immortality ! — but in his ' chaos/ wild as it is, and that
universal soul which was plunged into it and by its agi
tation brought out order, we see the vestige of corrupted
truth ; in his ( ideas,' or * first forms of things/ we see
something yet more nearly approaching to reality — even
the eternal God devising, ordaining and protruding every
thing which exists ; and in his ideal world with God
reigning in its highest height, as compared with the visi
ble system and its sun, we catch a faint glimpse of the
invisible glory, and of that repose which shall be found in
the uninterrupted contemplation of the reposing God. — I
am not for bringing men back to Platonism, but for letting
them see, that even pagan Plato had a conception and a
relish beyond many on whom the true light has shone ; and
for leading them to understand, that revelation and tradition
have extended much more widely than they are aware of;
so that it ought not to appear strange, if even heathens are
dealt with on a ground of knowledge which we may falsely
have supposed that they had not the means of possessing.
(See Part iii. Sect, xxviii. note v. Part v. Sect. xxvi. note c.)
( The notion of a Trinity, more or less removed from the
purity of the Christian faith, is found to have been a lead
ing principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy, and
in the religions of almost all nations; and traces of an
early popular belief of it appear even in the abominable
rites of idolatrous worship. If reason was insufficient for
this great discovery, what could be the means of inform
ation but what the Platonists themselves assign, OeoTrapa-
COTO? GeoXorym ; f a theology delivered from the Gods,' i. e. a
revelation. This is the account which Platonists, who
were no Christians, have given of the origin of their mas
ter's doctrine. But from what revelation could they derive

POSTSCRIPT.

their information, who lived before the Christian, and had
no light from the Mosaic ? For whatever some of the
early Fathers may have imagined, there is no evidence
that Plato or Pythagoras were at all acquainted with the
Mosaic writings : not to insist that the worship of a Trinity
is traced to an earlier age than that of Plato or of Pytha
goras, or even of Moses. Their information could only
be drawn from traditions founded upon earlier revelations ;
from the scattered fragments of the ancient patriarchal
creed ; that creed which was universal before the defec
tion of the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idola
try, gross and enormous as they were, could never totally
obliterate.' — ( What Socrates said of him, what Plato
writ, and the rest of the heathen philosophers of several
nations, is all no more than the twilight of revelation, after
the sun of it was set in the race of Noah.' (See Horsley's
Letters to Priestley, pp. 49, 50.)

I am the rather surprised that Luther should fleer so
roughly at Plato, because his beloved Augustine acknow
ledged obligations to him. ' And first, as thou MTouldest
shew me how thou resistest the proud, and givest grace
to the humble ; and how great thy mercy is shewn to
be in the way of humility; thou procuredst for me, by
means of a person highly inflated with philosophical pride,
some of the books of Plato translated into Latin, in which
I read passages concerning the divine word similar to those
in the first chapter of St John's Gospel ; in which his
eternal divinity was exhibited, but not his incarnation, his
atonement, his humiliation, and glorification of his human
nature. For thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and revealed them unto babes ; that men might
come to thee weary and heavy laden, and that thou

mightest refresh them Thus did I begin to form better

views of the divine nature, even from Plato's writings, as
thy people of old spoiled the Egyptians of their gold,
because, whatever good there is iu any tiling, is all thy

Ixxii POSTSCRIPT.

own j and at the same time I was enabled to escape the
evil which was in those books, and not to attend to the
idols of Egypt/ — His historian remarks upon this, ( there is
something divinely spiritual in the manner of his deliver
ance. That the Platonic books also should give the first
occasion is very remarkable j though I apprehend the Latin
translation, which he saw, had improved on Plato, by the
mixture of something scriptural, according to the manner
of the Ammonian philosophers.'* — Thus Plato, it seems,
could hold the candle to an Augustine, whilst he was him
self far from the light : but there was truth, we see, and
discriminating truth, mixed and blended with his false
hood.

2. AUGUSTINE'S errors were those of Luther, increased

* Milner does not appear to have understood what the investigating
Horsley has made plain, that neither was Plato an inventor, neither were
the Ammonians scriptural improvers of human inventions, but both
Plato and those from whom he copied retailers, in fact, of mutilated
revelations. ' These notions were by no means peculiar to the Platonic
school : the Platonists pretended to be no more than the expositors of a
more ancient doctrine ; which is traced from Plato to Parmenides ;
from. Parmenides to his masters of the Pythagorean sect ; from the
Pythagoreans to Orpheus, the earliest of the Grecian mystagogues ;
from Orpheus to the secret lore of the Egyptian priests ; in which the
foundations of the Orphic theology were laid. Similar notions of a
triple principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldean theology ; and
vestiges even of the worship of a Trinity were discernible in the
Roman superstition in a very late age ; this worship the Romans had
received from their Trojan ancestors. For the Trojans brought it with
them into Italy from Phrygia. In Phrygia it was introduced by Dar-
danus as early as in the ninth century after Noah's flood. Dardanus
carried it with him from Samothrace, where the personages that were
the objects of it were worshipped under the heathen name of the
Cabirim. . . . ' The Great or Mighty .ones :' for that is the import of the
Hebrew name. And of the like import is their Latin appellation,

Penates Thus the joint worship of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva,

the triad of the Roman capital, is traced to that of the THREE MIGHTY
ONES in Samothrace ; which was established in that island, at what
precise time it is impossible to determine, but earlier, if Eusebius may
be credited, than the days of AbraAani.' — Horsley's Letters to Priestley,
pp. 47—49.

POSTSCRIPT. Ixxiii

by an ignorance of the doctrine of justification : he had
the elements of this doctrine, it is said, but he never put
them together. His case was a very remarkable one.
After a profligate youth, in which he had run to great
excess of riot j after having infected himself with the
poison of the Manichees (see Part iv. Sect. ix. note v.
Sect. xi. note h); after having sold himself into the ser
vice of vain-glory, lasciviousnes, pride and atheism, he
was made to bow down before the true God, and to kiss
his Son. God had hereby signally and specially prepared
him to be the champion of grace in opposition to Pela-
gianism ; which started up in his days a many-varied
monster. By degrees he was led to use his own expe
rience as an interpreter of Scripture ; and though, as his
historian tells us, St. Paul's doctrine of predestination was
a doctrine that, with him, followed experimental religion,
as a shadow follows the substance — it was not embraced
for its own sake — yet follow him it did ; and he was per
suaded of it, and embraced it, and maintained it in much,
though not all of its vigour, against its antagonists. In
fact, how could he defend the doctrine of grace, as his
historian terms it (meaning thereby not grace in its ful
ness, but only the gift of the Spirit), without it ? If his
historian be correct, we have in him a confirmation of the
salutary effect of controversy ; it was Pelagianism which
made Augustine understand what he did of predestination :
we have it also exemplified, that, not to know the root and
outline of truth is not to know any branch or feature of
it thoroughly. His historian would commend him for
his moderation, which is here another name for his igno
rance ; but the reality is, not thoroughly understanding
predestination, which is the root " of the mystery of God,
and of the Father, and of Christ," he did not understand
justification, he did not understand redemption, he did not
understand man's state, he did not understand that grace
of which he was the strenuous and honoured defender.

Ixxiv POSTSCRIPT.

Grace of the Spirit (properly so called) is but a part of the
grace of God the Father, which was given us in Christ
Jesus before the world began ; and even of that part, of
which he spake so sweetly and so feelingly, he did not
discern the spring, channel and mouth. — What is to be
said of this — how it should have been so arranged to this
beloved child, that he should have been left, and kept,
and used in his ignorance, is one question ; the fact that
he was so left is another. The truth is, he and his
venerable yoke-fellow Luther are clear confirmers of the
position I have maintained in a preceding note (see p. Ixiii.)
that the light of divine truth is progressive ; Augustine
knew what Cyprian did not, and Luther knew what
Augustine did not — and why is the climax to end with
Luther, Calvin and Cranmer ? Grace however, though
not in all its fulness, yet in all its freeness, was Augus
tine's theme and Augustine's glory. With such a his
tory going before, how could he teach any thing else ?
( The distinguishing glory of the Gospel is to teach
humility, and to give God his due honour ; and Augustine
was singularly prepared for this by a course of internal
experience. He had felt human insufficiency completely,
and knew that in himself dwelt no good thing. Hence he
was admirably qualified to describe the total depravity and
apostasy of human nature, and he described what he knew

to be true Humility is his theme. Augustine taught

men what it is to be humble before God. This he does
every where Math godly simplicity, with inexpressible
seriousness. And in doing this, no writer, uninspired,
ever exceeded, I am apt to think ever equalled him in any
age Few writers have been equal to him in de
scribing the internal conflict of flesh and spirit He

describes this in a manner unknown to any but those who
have deeply felt it : and the Pelagian pretensions to per
fection oblige him to say more than otherwise would be
needful to prove, that the most humble and the most holy

POSTSCRIPT. Ixxv

have, through life, to combat with in-dwelling sin. . . . Two
more practical subjects he delights to handle, charity and
heavenly-mindedness. In both he excels wonderfully. . .
A reference of all things to a future life, and the depth
of humble love appear in all his writings ; as in truth,
from the moment of his conversion, they influenced all his
practice.' With all his darkness, therefore, abiding thick
upon him (we are not to call darkness light because God
commanded the light to shine out of it), He who formeth
the light and createth darkness made him light to His
church. ' For a thousand years and upwards the light of
divine grace, which shone here and there in individuals,
during the dreary night of superstition, was nourished by
his writings ; which, next to the sacred Scriptures, were
the guides of men who feared God : nor have we, in all
history, an instance of so extensive utility derived to the
church from the writings of men.' Beatus Augustinus is
the title by which he is commonly quoted ; and a word
from him, for confirmation, was usually made an end of
all strife by Luther, Calvin, and all the Oracles of the
Reformation, when eleven hundred years had rolled over
his ashes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION

PART I. — ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED .

II. — ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED

III. — TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED

IV. — TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAIN
TAINED

V. — FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE .

CONCLUSION

Page

2—9

10-77

78—128

129—235

236—380
381—467
468—470

PART I.

j Till

SECT.

i. Assertions defended.

ii. Erasmus a sceptic.

in. Christian truth not
hidden.

iv. Scripture falsely ac
cused of obscurity.
v. Freewill a necessary
subject.

vi. Erasmus's Christianity.

vn. The same exposed by

similes.

Connection of the sub
ject with true piety.

IX. Erasmus has omitted
God's prescience.

SECT.

x. God's prescience flows
from Erasmus's con
cession.

xi. Objection to term e Ne
cessity.' Necessity of
a consequence, &c.
xii. Prevalence of the opi
nion of ' Necessity/
xni. Temerity of Erasmus's

moderation.
xiv. All Scripture truth may

be published safely.
xv. That ' some truths
ought not to be pub
lished' considered.

Ixxviii

CONTENTS.

SECT.

xvi. Erasmus's three ex
amples considered.

xvii. Erasmus neither un
derstands nor feels
the question.

xvin. Peace of the world
disturbed.

xix. Free confession. The
Pope and God at
war. The people
abuse.

XX. Respect of persons,
time and place per
nicious.

xxi. The Fathers have no
authority but from
the word.

SECT.

xxii. c All things by ne
cessity;' f God all
in all.'

xxin. Two reasons why
certain paradoxes
should be preached.

xxiv. That ' all human
works are neces
sary,' explained and
defended.

xxv. Erasmus self-con
victed : madness of
claiming Freewill.

xxvi. Erasmus reduced to
a dilemma.

PART II.

i. Canonical Scriptures

xi. Erasmus's perplexity.

to be the standard.

xn. Two tribunals for the

ii. Excellences of the

spirits of men.

Fathers not of Free

xin. Clearness of Scrip

will.

ture proved.

in. Luther demands ef

xiv. The same.

fects of Freewill in

xv. Concludes against

three particulars.

Freewill.

iv. The Saints practically

xvi. f All your adversaries

disclaim Freewill.

shall not be able to

v. Luther demands a de

resist/ considered.

finition of Freewill.

xvii. We have this pro

vi. Erasmus's advice

mised victory.

turned against him

xvm. Why great geniuses

self.

have been blind

vn. Injustice done to the

about Freewill.

Fathers.

xix. That Erasmus has

viu. ( That God should

admitted Scripture

have disguised the

to be clear.

error of his church,'

XX. Erasmus reduced to

considered.

a dilemma.

ix. The church hidden.

xxi. Luther claims vic

x. Judgment of faith

tory before the

distinct from judg

battle .

ment of charity.

CONTENTS.

Ixxix

PART III.

SECT.

I. Erasmus's definition
of Freewill exa
mined.

ii. Definition continued.
in. Definition continued.
iv. Inferences from Eras
mus's definition.
V. Erasmus's definition
compared with that
of the Sophists,
vi. Ecclus. xv. 15 — 18.

considered.
vii. Opinions on Freewill

stated.

vin. Erasmus inconsistent
with his definition.
ix. The approvable opi
nion considered.
x. The approvable opi
nion further consi
dered.

xi. Freewill not a c ne
gative intermediate
power of the will.'
xn. The approvable opi
nion compared with
the other two.
xni. Ecclus. xv. 14 — 18.
resumed and ex
pounded.

xiv. Eccllls. at least does
not decide for Free
will,
xv. What meant by c If

thou wilt, &c.'
xvi. Use of such forms of

address.

xvii. Diatribe insincere in
her inference —

proves too much —

confirms

ism.

Pelaguin-

SECT.
XVIII.

XIX.
XX.
XXI.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV,

XXVI,

XXVII
XXVIII

XXIX

XXX

XXXI

Conclude that Ec-
clus. proves nothing
for Freewill.
Genesis iv. 7« con
sidered.

Dent. xxx. 19. con
sidered.

Passages from Deut.
xxx. &c. considered.
His Scriptures prove
nothing; his addi
tions too much.
Simile of the hand
tied. Uses of the
law.

Isaiah i. 19. xxx.
21.xlv. 20. Hi. 1, 2.
and some other pas
sages considered.
Mai. iii. 7- more
particularly consi
dered.

Ezek. xviii. 23. con
sidered.

The true meaning
of Ezek. xviii. 23.
stated.

Ezek. xviii. 23. ne
gatives Freewill, in
stead of proving it.
, How far Cod may
be said to bewail
the death he pro
duces.

Exhortations, pro
mises, &c. of Scrip
ture useless.
, Deut. xxx. 11 — 14.

considered.
, Sum of the Old Tes
tament witnesses for
Freewill.

Ixxx

CONTENTS.

SECT.

xxxii. New Testament
witnesses for Free
will, beginning with
Matthew xxiii. 37 —
39. considered.

xxxin. The reality of
God's secret will
maintained.

xxxiv. Matthew xix. !/•
and other like pas
sages, considered.
xxxv. Objection,, ' that
precepts are given,
and merit is ascribed
to Freewill/

xxxvi. New Testament
precepts are ad
dressed to the con
verted, not to those
in Freewill.

xxxvn. Merit and reward
may consist with
necessity.

i. Erasmus has but two

texts to kill,
n. Kills by resolving
them into tropes :
which he defends
by Luther's ex
ample.

in. Trope and conse
quence when only
to be admitted.

IV. Luther denies having
used trope in his
interpretation of —
" Stretch out/' and
" Make you."

v. Diatribe must prove
by Scripture or mi
racle, that the very
passage in question
is tropical.

SECT.

xxxvin. Why there are
promises and threat-
enings in Scripture.
xxxix. Reason is an
swered, ' Such is
the will of God.'
XL. Apology for not
going further. Ab
surd cavil from
Matt. vii. 16.
XLI. Luke xxiii. 34. is
against not fur
Freewill.
XLII. John i. 12. is all

for grace.

XLI n. Objections from
Paul summarily de
spatched.

XLIV. Wickliffe's confes
sion confessed.

PART IV.

vi. Erasmus's trope
makes nonsense of
Moses, and leaves
the knot tied,
vii. Necessity still re
mains, and you do
not clear God.
vin. Diatribe's similes of
sun and rain re
jected.

ix. Erasmus's two causes
for tropicizing con
sidered.

x. That God made all
things very good,
not a sufficient rea
son.
xi. How God works evil

in us, considered,
xii. How God hardens.

CONTENTS.

Ixxxi

SECT.

xni. Mistakes prohi
bited,
xiv. Pharaoh's case

considered.

xv. Impertinent ques
tions may still be
asked.

xvi. The trope com
pared with the text,
xvn. Moses's object is
to strengthen Is
rael.

xviii. Paul's reference in
Rom. ix. Diatribe
obliged to yield.
xix. Diatribe's conces
sions and retrac
tions exposed.
xx. Where true rever
ence for Scripture
lies.

xxi. What carnal rea
son hates.

xxn. Paul's argument
resumed. Diatribe
tries to escape but
cannot.

xxm. ' Necessity of a
consequent/ ex
posed.

xxiv. The other admit
ted text defended.
xxv. Paul defended in
his use of Genesis
xxv. 21 — 23.
xxvi. The same,
xxvii. Diatribe's eva
sions of Malachi i.
2, 3. considered,
xxvin. The same.
xxix. The same.
xxx. Simile of the pot
ter.

xxxi. The cavil from
2 Tim. ii. repelled.

SECT.

xxxii. Reason's cavil

from this simile.
xxxin. The same.
xxxiv. That Scripture
must be understood
with qualifications.
xxxv. That Luther has
always maintained
the consistency of
Scripture.
xxxvi. After all Paul

stands.

xxxvn. Gen. vi. 3. main
tained,
xxxvin. Gen. viii. 21. and

vi. 5. maintained.
xxxix. Isaiah xl. 2. main
tained.

XL. Episode upon
God's help. — Cor
nelius rescued.
XLI. Isaiah xl. 6, 7.

maintained.
XLII. The true interpret-

ation'of the same.
XLIII. Heathen virtue is

God's abhorrence.
XLIV. Consequences of
the assumption that
a part of man is not
< flesh.'

XLV. Luther falsely
charged. Autho
rity of the ancients,
&c.
XLVI. Jeremiah x. 23,

24. defended.
XL vn. Proverbs xvi. 1.

defended.
XLVIII. Much in Proverbs

for Freewill.
XLIX. John xv. 5. main
tained.

L. Inconsistency
charged.

Ixxxii

CONTENTS.

SECT.

1,1. Luther proves his

negative.

LI i. 1 Cor.iii. 7- 1 Cor.

xiii. 2. John iii. 27 .

LIU. Diatribe's similes

naught, and against

O -' O

. her. — What she
ought to have spok
en to.

SECT.

LIV. Diatribe's incon
sistency and auda
city — takes up one
subject and pursues
another — argues by
inversion.

LV. Solemn conclu
sion.

PART V.

i. How Luther pro
poses to conduct
the fight.

ii. Romans i. 18. pro
nounces sentence
upon Freewill.

in. A published Gos
pel proves want of
knowledge as well
as power.

iv. Freewill neither
conceives the truth
nor can endure it.
v. Paul expressly

names the chiefest
of the Greeks, and
afterwards con
demns the Jews in
discriminately.

vi. Paul's epilogue es
tablishes his mean
ing.

vn. Paul justified in his

quotations.

vin. David's condemna
tion includes power
as well as act.

ix. Paul's big words in
Romans iii. 19, '20.
insisted upon.

x. Evasion, that it is
ceremonial law of
which Paul speaks,
xi. Paul's meaning is,
4 works of the law
done in the flesh
condemn.'
xn. All the law does is

9 to shew sin.
xin. Confirmed by Gal.
iii. 19. and Rom. v.
20.

xiv. Rom. iii. 21 — 25.
contains five thun
derbolts against
Freewill.
xv. The same.
xvi. The same,
xvii. Sophists worse than

the Pelagians,
xvin. Fathers overlooked

Paul.

xix. Paul's citation of the
example of Abra
ham searched and
applied.

xx. Luther omits much
which he might in
sist upon.

CONTENTS.

Ixxxiii

SECT.

SECT.

xxi. Luther's own view

John iii. 27. John

of Paul.

iii. 31. John viii. 23.

xxn. Paul's crown.

xxix. John vi. 44.

xxin. Grace exemplified

xxx. John xvi. 9.

in Jews rejected —

xxxi. Omits ' flesh and

Gentiles called.

spirit/

xxiv. John a devourer.
xxv. John Baptist's tes

xxxii. Difficulty stated,and
exposed.

timony.
xxvi. Nicodemus's case.
xxvn. John xiv. 6. fore

xxxiii. The same reproved,
and palliated by ex
ample.

stalled. Way,Truth,

xxxiv. Sum of the argu

&c. are exclusive.

ment.

xxvin. John iii. 18. 36.

ERRATA.

PAGE

22, note P,/or Chap. ii. read Part ii.

(JO, note i,/0r Chap. i. Sect. iii. note '. read Part i. Sect iii note

71, notes for Sect. ix. note <*. read Sect. ix. note *.

199, side note, for Some read Sum.

225, note 'i,/or y read %•

MARTIN LUTHER,

ON THE

BONDAGE OF THE WILL;

TO THE VENERABLE MISTER ERASMUS, OF ROTTERDAM.

1525.

MARTIN LUTHER,

etc.

To the venerable Mr. Erasmus of Rotterdam
Martin Luther sends grace and peace in Christ.

INTRODUCTION.
Reasons for the Work.

IN replying so tardily to your Diatribe3 on
Freewill, my venerable Erasmus, I have done
violence both to the general expectation and to
my own custom. Till this instance, I have seemed
willing not only to lay hold on such opportunities
of writing when they occurred to me, but even to go
in search of them without provocation. Some per
haps will be ready to wonder at this new and un
usual patience, as it may be, or fear of Luther's ;
who has not been roused from his silence even
by so many speeches and letters which have been
bandied to and fro amongst his adversaries,
congratulating Erasmus upon his victory, and
chaunting an lo PcEan. ' So then, this Macca-

a Diatribe.] One of the names by which Erasmus chose to
distinguish his performance on Freewill. He borrows it from
the debates of the ancient philosophers ; and would be under
stood to announce a canvassing of the question rather than
a judicial determination upon it. The original Greek term
denotes, 1. The place trodden by the feet whilst they were
engaged in the debate. 2. The time spent in sucli debate.
3. The debate itself. Erasmus's Diatribe, therefore, is ' a
disquisition, or disputation,' on Freewill. Luther often per
sonifies it.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

basus and most inflexible Assertor has at length
found an antagonist worthy of him, whom he does
not dare to open his mouth against !'

I am so far from blaming these men, however,
that I am quite ready to yield a palm to you
myself, such as I never yet did to any man ; ad
mitting, that you not only very far excel me in1
eloquence and genius (a palm which we all de
servedly yield to you — how much more such a;
man as I ; a barbarian who have always dwelt
amidst barbarism), but that you have checked
both my spirit and my inclination to answer you,
and have made me languid before the battle
This you have done twice over: first, by your art
in pleading this cause with such a wonderful com
mand of temper, from first to last, that you have
made it impossible for me to be angry with you;
and secondly, by contriving, through fortune, ac
cident or fate, to say nothing on this great sub
ject which has not been said before. In fact, you]
say so much less for Freewill, and yet ascribe so
much more to it, than the Sophists" have done
before you (of which I shall speak more at large
hereafter), that it seemed quite superfluous to an
swer those arguments of yours which I have so
often confuted myself, and which have been trod
den under foot, and crushed to atoms, by Philip
Melancthon's invincible * Common Places/0 In

b The schoolmen, with Peter Lombard at their head, who
arose about the middle of the twelfth century ; idolizers of
Aristotle ; their theology abounding with metaphysical subtil-
ties, and their disputations greatly resembling those of the
Greek sophists.

c Luther refers to the former editions of Melancthon's
' Common Places/ which contained some passages not found
in the later ones ; this amongst others. ' The divine pre
destination takes away liberty* from man : for all things happen
according to divine predestination ; as well the external ac
tions as the internal thoughts of all creatures. . . . The judgment
of the Hcsh abhors this sentiment, but the judgment of the

* Not ' choice,' but ' unbiassed choice;' ' freeness and contingency of
choice.'— ED.

INTRODUCTION.

my judgment, that work of his deserves not only to
be immortalized, but even canonized. So mean and
worthless did yours appear, when compared with it,
that I exceedingly pitied you, who were polluting
your most elegant and ingenious diction with such
filth of argument,, and was quite angry with your
most unworthy matter, for being conveyed in so
richly ornamented a style of eloquence. It is just
as if the sweepings of the house or of the stable
were borne about on men's shoulders in vases of
gold and silver ! You seem to have been sensi
ble of this yourself, from the difficulty with which
you was persuaded to undertake the office of
writing, on this occasion ; your conscience, no
doubt, admonishing you, that with whatever pow
ers of eloquence you might attempt the subject,
it would be impossible so to gloss it over that I
should not discover the excrementitious nature of
your matter through all the tricksy ornaments of
phrase with which you might cover it ; that J
should not discover it, I say; who, though rude
in speech, am, by the grace of God, not rude in
knowledge. For I do not hesitate, with Paul,
thus to claim the gift of knowledge for myself,

spirit embraces it. For you will not learn the fear of God, or
confidence in Him, from any source more surely than when
you shall have imbued your mind with this sentiment concern
ing predestination.' — It is to passages such as these that Luther
doubtless refers in the testimony here given to Melancthon's
work ; and from the withdrawing of which in subsequent edi
tions, it has been inferred that Melancthon afterwards changed
his sentiments upon these subjects. The late Dean of Car
lisle has investigated this supposition with his usual accuracy
and diligence ; and concludes that he probably did alter his
earlier sentiments to some extent in later life. Truth, how
ever does not stand in man or by man. Too much has no
doubt been made of supposed changes in the opinions of
many learned and pious divines. But after all, what do these
prove ? We have the same sources of knoAvledgc as they,
and must draw our light from the clear spring, not from the
polluted and uncertain stream. — See Milaer's Eccles. Hist,
vol. iv. p. 920—936, first edition,

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

and with equal confidence to withhold it from you ;
whilst I claim eloquence and genius for you, and
willingly,, as I ought to do, withhold them from
myself.

So that I have been led to reason thus with
myself. If there be those who have neither drunk
deeper into our writings, nor yet more firmly
maintain them, (fortified as they are by such an
accumulation of Scripture proofs) than to be
shaken by those trifling or good for nothing argu
ments of Erasmus, though dressed out, I admit,
in the most engaging apparel ; such persons are
not worth being cured by an answer from me: for
nothing could be said or written which would be
sufficient for such men, though many thousands of
books should be repeated even a thousand times
over. You might just as wrell plough the sea
shore and cast your seed into the sand, or fill a cask,
that is full of holes, with water. We have mi
nistered abundantly to those who have drunk of
the Spirit as their teacher through the instru
mentality of our books, and they perfectly despise
your performances ; and as for those who read
without the Spirit, it is no wonder if they be
driven like the seed with every wind. To such
persons God would not say enough, if he were
to convert all his creatures into tongues. So that
I should almost have determined to leave these
persons, stumbled as they were by your publication,
with the crowd which glories in you and decrees
you a triumph.

You see then, that it is neither the multitude
of my engagements, nor the difficulty of the under
taking, nor the vastness of your eloquence, nor
any fear of you, but mere disgust, indignation,
and contempt ; or, to say the truth, my deliberate
judgment respecting your Diatribe, which has
restrained the impulse of my mind to answer you:
not to mention what has also its place here, that
fever like yourself you with the greatest pertina-

INTRODUCTION.

city take care to be always evasive and ambi- $
guous.d More cautious than Ulysses, you flatter <
yourself that you contrive to sail between Scylla
and Charybdis ; whilst you would be understood
to have asserted nothing, yet again assume the
air of an asserter. With men of this sort how is
it possible to confer and to compare-," unless one
should possess the art of catching Proteus? Here
after I will shew you with Christ's help what I can
do in this way, and what you have gained by put
ting me to it.

Still it is not without reason that I answer you
now. The faithful brethren in Christ impel me
by suggesting the general expectation which is
entertained of a reply from my pen ; inasmuch as
the authority of Erasmus is not to be despised,
and the true Christian doctrine is brought into
jeopardy in the hearts of many. At length too it
has occurred to me that there has been a great
want of piety in my silence ; and that I have been
beguiled by the 'wisdom' or 'wickedness' of my
flesh into a forgetfulness of my office, which makes
me debtor to the wise and to the unwise, especially
when I am called to the discharge of it by the en
treaties of so many of the brethren. For, although
our business f be not content with an external

d Lubricus etjlexlloquus.'] Lub. ' one that slips out of your
hands, so that you cannot grapple with him.' Flex. f one whose
words will bend many ways j as being of doubtful or pliable
meaning.'

e Cow/erri aut componi.] What Erasmus professed to do, and
thereupon gave the name of ' Collatio' to his Treatise : ' a sort
of ' conference' and ' comparison' of sentiment ; each dis
putant bringing his opinion and arguments, and placing them
front to front with his opponent's.' — Proteus was a sort of
Demigod supposed to have the power of changing himself into
many forms.

f Res nostra."] ' The ministering of Christ' is the business
here spoken of, by a phrase correspondent with ' res bellica/
• res navalis,' ' res judiciaria,' &c. &c. as being the trade, occu
pation, and alone concern of Christ's ministers $ in whose name
he here speaks.

8 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

teacher, but besides him who planteth and water-
eth without, desires the Spirit of God also (that
He may give the increase,, and being Himself life
may teach the doctrine of life within the soul — a
thought which imposed upon me); still, whereas
this Spirit is free, and breathes, not where we would,
but where He himself wills ; I ought to have ob
served that rule of Paul's, "Be instant in season,
out of season •" for we know not at what hour
the Lord shall come. What if some have not yet
experienced the teaching of the Spirit through my
writings, and have been dashed to the ground by
your Diatribe ! It may be their hour was not yet
come.

And who knows but God may deign to visit
even you, my excellent Erasmus, by so wretched
and frail a little vessel of His, as myself? Who
knows but I may come to you in happy hour (I
wish it from my heart of the Father of Mercies
through Christ our Lord) by means of this trea
tise, and may gain a most dear brother? For,
although you both think ill and write ill on the
subject of Freewill, I owe you vast obligations,
for having greatly confirmed me in my sentiments,
by giving me to see the cause of Freewill pleaded
by such and so great a genius, with all his might,
and yet after all so little effected, that it stands
, worse than it did before. — An evident proof this,
that Freewill is a downright lie ; since, like the
woman in the Gospel, the more it is healed of
the doctors the worse it fares. I shall give un
bounded thanks to you, if the event be, that you
are made to know the truth through me, even as /
have become more fixed in it through you. How-
beit, each of these results is the gift of the Spirit,
not the achievement of our own good offices. g

s Offitii nostri.~\ Off. ' What a man has to do;' ' his business,'
implying relation ; as f munus et officium oculorum,' ' the office
or function of the eye.' Hence, f good office, obligation, kind
ness conferred.'

INTRODUCTION.

We must therefore pray God to open my mouth
and your heart and the hearts of all men, and to
be himself present as a Teacher in the midst of
us, speaking and hearing severally within our
souls. Once more; let me beg of you, my Eras
mus, to bear with my rudeness of speech, even
as I bear with your ignorance on these subjects.
God gives not all his gifts to one man; nor have
we all power to do all things ; or, as Paul says,
"There are distributions of gifts, but the same
Spirit." It remains, therefore, that the gifts labour
mutually for each other, and that one man bear
the burden of another's penury by the gift which
he has himself received ; thus shall we fulfil the
law of Christ. (Galat. vi. 2.)

10 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED.

SECTION I.
Assertions defended.

I WOULD begin with passing rapidly through
some chapters of your Preface, by which you
sink our cause and set off your own.a And first, hav
ing already in other publications found fault with me
for being so positive and inflexible in assertion, you
in this declare yourself to be so little pleased with
assertions that you would be ready to go over
and side b with the Sceptics on any subject in
which the inviolable authority of the divine Scrip
tures, and the decrees of the Church (to which you
on all occasions willingly submit your own judg
ment, whether you understand what she prescribes,
or not) would allow you to do so. This is the
temper you like.

I give you credit, as I ought, for saying this
with a benevolent mind, which loves peace ; but
if another man were to say so, I should perhaps
inveigh against him, as my manner is. I ought
not however to suffer even you, though writing
with the best intention, to indulge so erroneous

a Gravas, ornas.~] The figure is mixed : gr. ' clog, load, weigh
down.' Orn. ' beautify with apparel.'

b Pedibus discessurus.~\ A Roman phrase taken from their me
thod of voting in the senate, when they dissented from the
decree as proposed : they walked over to the opposite side of
the house.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. \\

an opinion. For it is not the property of a SECT. i.

Christian mind to be displeased with assertions; '

nay, a man must absolutely be pleased with asser- Assertions
tions, or he never will be a Christian. Now,
(that we may not mock each other with vague
words0) I call ' adhering with constancy, affirming,
confessing, maintaining, and invincibly per
severing,' ASSERTION ; nor do I believe that the
word ( assertion ' means any thing else, either as
used by the Latins, or in our age. Again ; I,cqn-
fine ' assertion ' to those things which have been
delivered by God to us in the sacred writings.
We do not want Erasmus, or any other Master,
to teach us that in doubtful matters, or in matters
unprofitable and unnecessary, assertions are not
only foolish but even impious ; those very strifes
and contentions, which Paul more than once con
demns. Nor do you speak of these, I suppose,
in this place ; unless, either adopting the manner
of a ridiculous Orator, you have chosen to pre
sume one subject of debate and discuss another,
like him who harangued the Rhombus; or, with
the madness of an impious Writer, are contend
ing that the article of Freewill is dubious or
unnecessary. d

c Ne verbis ludamvr ."] f That we may not be mocked by
words ;' ' made the sport of words.'

d frelut ille ad Rhombum."] If you be indeed speaking of such
assertions here, you are either a ridiculous orator, or a mad
writer : a ridiculous orator, if it be not true genuine Freewill
which you are discussing ; a mad writer, if it be. Oratory was
out of place, on such a subject, however sincere and dis
interested the speaker might be ; but orators were for the
most part a venal and frivolous tribe, and some exercised their
art unskilfully, whilst others were hired but to amuse and make
sport. It is not without meaning, therefore, that Luther puts
the orator and the writer into comparison ; and if Erasmus is
to fill the weightier place of the writer, it is that of one
phrensied and blasphemous. — I am indebted to the kindness of
a learned friend for the reference, ' velut ille ad Rhombum,'
which had perplexed me. I can have no doubt that it is to
the fourth Satire of Juvenal, where Doraitian is represented as

12 BONDAGE OF THE WILL;

TART. I. We Christians disclaim all intercourse with the

Sceptics and Academics, but admit into our family

asserters twofold more obstinate, than even the
Stoics themselves. How often does the Apostle

having called a council of his senators to deliberate what
should be done with an immense ' Rhombus,' or Turbot ; with
which a fisherman out of fear had presented him. Amongst
other counsellors was a blind man, of very infamous character,
as an informer, but high in the favour of the Emperor, named
Catullus ; ' cum mortifero Catullo.'

" Grande ct conspicmim nostro quoque temporc monstrum
4< Cescut adulator."

This man extolled the Rhombus exceedingly, pointing to its
various beauties with his hand, as if he really saw them. But
unfortunately, whilst he pointed to the fish as lying on his left
hand, it lay all the while on his right.

*' Nemo magis Rhombum stupuit : nam plurima dixit
" In laevum conversus : at illi dextra jaccbat
" Eellua :

This was not the only occasion on which he had given scope
to his imagination, and praised as though he had eyes :

"sic pugnas Cilicis laudabat et ictus,

" Et pegma, et pueros inde ad velaria raptos." — Juv. iv. 113 — 121.

The force of the comparison, therefore, lies in Erasmus
being supposed to discuss the phantom of his own imagination,
instead of the real Rhombus. This phantom he might call
dubious or unnecessary, without being himself impious ; it was
the coinage of his own brain : but if he called the real
Rhombus, ' the Church's confession of Freewill,' dubious or
useless, he wrote gravely, but he wrote sacrilegiously. He has
only the alternative, therefore, of being a fool or a madman,
if he place Luther's assertion on Freewill amongst the barren
and vain. — The word ' praesumere ' is used in rather a peculiar,
but not unauthorized, sense ; correspondent with our English
word, ' presume,' and with its own etymology ; ' preconceive/
'anticipate,' ' conjecture,' imagine,' — ' opinari,' 'credere/
' conjicere/ ' imaginari.' — I should rather have preferred un
derstanding ' praesumere' in the sense of ' anticipating / mean
ing that he spoke of one subject here in his Preface, and of
another in the body of his work. But the illustration does not
coincide with this view ; Catullus did not make two speeches :
nor do I find any authority for such use of ' praesumere.' — It
has a peculiar rhetorical sense of ' pre-occupying j' that is,
' occupying the adversary's ground before him/ by an
ticipating and obviating his objections. — But this will not
apply here.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 13

Paul demand that Plerophory,0 or most assured SECT. i.
and most tenacious ( assertion' of what our con-
science believes ! In Rom. x. he calls it ' confes-
sion'; saying, " and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation." (Rom. x. 10.) And Christ
says, " He who confesses me before men, him will
I also confess before my Father." (Matt. x. 32.)
Peter commands us to give a reason of the hope
that is in us. (1 Pet. iii. 15.) And what need of
many words? Nothing is more notorious and
more celebrated amongst Christians than Asser
tion : take away assertions, and you take away
Christianity. Nay, the Holy Ghost is given to
them from heaven, that He may glorify Christ and
confess him even unto death. Unless this be not
asserting, to die for confessing and asserting ! In
short, the Spirit is such an assertor, that He even
goes out as a champion to invade the world, and
reproves it of sin, as though he would provoke it
to the fight; and Paul commands Timothy to
" rebuke, and to be instant out of season." ("John
xvi. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 2.) But what a droll sort of
rebuker would he be, who neither assuredly be
lieves, nor with constancy asserts himself, the
truth which he rebukes others for rejecting. I
would send the fellow to Anticyra/ But I am far
more foolish myself, in wasting words and time
upon a matter clearer than the sun. What Chris
tian would endure that assertions should be de
spised ? This were nothing else but a denial of all
religion and piety at once ; or an assertion, that
neither religion, nor piety, nor any dogma of the
faith, is of the least moment. — And why, pray, do
you also deal in assertions ? ( I am not pleased

e Luther has no authority for this interpretation of the terra
Plerophory ; which expresses no more than ' full evidence to a
fact, or truth ;' or, ' full assurance of that fact or truth.' But
in substance he is correct j ' confession ' (which amounts to
assertion) is demanded.

f Antic.'] The famous island of Hellebore ; which cured inad
people. Hence ' Naviget Anticyram.' — Hor.

14 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. with assertions, and I like this temper better than

its opposite.'

But you would be understood to have meant
nothing about confessing Christ and his dogmas
in this place. I thank you for the hint ; and, out
of kindness to you, will recede from my right and
from my practice, and will forbear to judge of
your intention; reserving such judgment for an
other time, or for other topics. Meanwhile, I
advise you to correct your tongue and your pen,
and hereafter to abstain from such expressions ;
for however your mind may be sound and pure,
your speech (which is said to be the image of the
mind) is not so. For, if you judge the cause of
Freewill to be one which it is not necessary to
understand, and to be no part of Christianity, you
speak correctly, but your judgment is profane.
On the contrary, if you judge it to be necessary,
you speak profanely and judge correctly. But
then there is no room for these mighty complaints
and exaggerations about useless assertions and
contentions : for what have these to* do with the
question at issue ?
SECT. ii. But what say you to those words of yours in

which you speak not of the cause of Freewill only,

Erasmus fo^t of all religious dogmas in general, ' that, if
beTsdV the inviolable authority of the divine writings and
*""••• the decrees of the Church allowed it, you would

go over and side with the Sceptics ; so displeased
are you with assertions.'

What a Proteus is there in those words, ' in
violable authority and decrees of the Church I'
As if you had a great reverence, forsooth, for the
Scriptures and for the Church, but would hint a
wish that you were at liberty to become a Sceptic.
What Christian would speak so? If you say this
of useless dogmas about matters of indifference,
what novelty is there in it ? Who does not in
such cases desire the licence of the Sceptical pro
fession? Nay, what Christian does not, in point

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 15

of fact,, freely use this licence and condemn those SECT. n.
who are the sworn captives of any particular sen- ^~^
timent ? Unless (as your words almost express) shewn to
you account Christians, taken in the gross, to be a b.e a SceP-
sort of men whose doctrines are of no value,
though they be foolish enough to jangle about
them, and to fight the battle of counter-assertion !
If, on the contrary, you speak of necessary doc
trines, what assertion can be more impious than
for a man to say, that he wishes to be at liberty to
assert nothing, in such cases ? A Christian will
rather say, e So far am I from delighting in the
sentiment of the Sceptics, that, wherever the
infirmity of my flesh suffers me, I would not only
adhere firmly to the word of God, asserting as it
asserts ; but would even wish to be as confident as
possible in matters not necessary, and which fall
without the limits of Scripture assertion.' For
what is more wretched tlmn uncertainty ?

Again ; what shall we say to the words subjoin
ed, ( to which I in all things willingly submit my
judgment, whether I understand what they pre
scribe, or not'? What is this you say, Erasmus ?
Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment
to Scripture? do you submit it also to the decrees
of the Church? What has she power to decree,
which the Scripture has not decreed ? If so, what
becomes of liberty, and of the power of judging
those dogmatists : as Paul writes in 1 Cor. xiv.
" Let the others judge?" You do not like, it seems,
that there should be a judge set over the decrees of
the Church; but Paul enjoins it. What is this
new devotedness and humility of yours, that you
take away from us (as far as your example goes)
the power of judging the decrees of men, and
submit yourself to men, blindfold? Where does
the divine Scripture impose this on us? Then
again, what Christian would so commit the in
junctions of Scripture and of the Church to the
winds, as to say ' whether I apprehend, or do not

16 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTI, apprehend.' You submit yourself, and yet do not

care whether you apprehend what you profess, or

not. But a Christian is accursed, if he do not
apprehend, with assurance, the things enjoined to
him. Indeed, how shall he believe if he do not ap
prehend ? For you call it apprehending here, if a
man assuredly receives an affirmation, and does
not, like a Sceptic, doubt it. Else, what is there
that any man can apprehend in any creature, if e to
apprehend a thing ' be ' perfectly to know and
discern it'? Besides, there would then be no
place for a man's at the same time apprehending
some things, and not apprehending some things, in
the same substance ; but if he have apprehended
one thing, he must have apprehended all : as in
God, for instance ; whom we must apprehend, be
fore we can apprehend any part of his creation.

In short, these expressions of yours come to this :
that, in your view, it is no matter what any man
believes any where, if but the peace of the world
be preserved ; and that, when a man's life, fame,
property and good favour are in danger, he may
be allowed to imitate the fellow who said 'They
affirm, I affirm ; they deny, I deny ;' and to account
Christian doctrines nothing better than the opi
nions of philosophers and ordinary men, for which
it is most foolish to wrangle, contend and assert,
because nothing but contention and a disturbing of
the peace of the world results therefrom. f What is
above us, is nothing to us/ You interpose yourself^
as a mediator who would put an end to our conflicts
by hanging both parties and persuading us that we
are fighting for foolish and useless objects. This
is what your words come to, I say ; and I think you
understand what I suppress here, my Erasmus.5

s Luther does not choose to speak out on the subject of
Erasmus's scepticism and infidelity, but hints pretty broadly at
it. There is but too strong evidence that the insinuation was
just ; and it constituted the most galling part of his attack.
Erasmus's object was to rise upon the ruins of Luther ; but

ERASMUS'S PREFACE HE VIE WED. 17

However, let the words pass, as I have said ; and, SECT. HI.

in the mean time, I will excuse your spirit, on the

condition that you manifest it no further. O fear
the Spirit of God, who searches the reins and the
hearts, arid is not beguiled by fine words. I have
said thus much to deter you from hereafter loading
our cause with charges of positiveness and inflexi
bility ; for, upon this plan, you only shew that you
are nourishing in your heart a Lucian, or some
other hog of the Epicurean sty, who, having no be
lief at all of a God himself, laughs in his sleeve at
all those who believe and confess one. Allow us
to be asserters, to be studious of assertions, and
to be delighted with them ; but thou, meanwhile,
bestow thy favour upon thy Sceptics and Acade
mics, till Christ shall have called even thee also.
The Holy Ghost is no Sceptic ; nor has He written
dubious propositions, or mere opinions, upon our<
hearts, but assertions more assured and more firmly
rooted than life itself, and all that we have learned
from experience.11

I come to another head, which is of a piece Christian
with this. When you distinguish between chris- truth]s re;

. , J , , ' vealed and

nan dogmas, you pretend that some are necessary ascertain-
to be known, and some unnecessary; you say that ed.nothid-
some are shut up, and some exposed to view.1
Thus, you either mock us with the words of others,
which have been imposed upon yourself, or try
your hand at a sort of rhetorical sally of your own.
You adduce, in support of your sentiment, that say
ing of Paul's (Rom. xi. 33.) " O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ;"

with what face could the Pope or the Princes prefer an Infidel ?
See Milner's Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. 935 — 945.

h A beautiful testimony to the confidence inspired into the
soul by the Holy Ghost's teaching's ! We are more sure of
the truth of His assertions than that we lire ; and hold them
more firmly than we do the results of experience.

1 Abstrusa, cxposit(i.~\ Abst. 'thrust from us,' as into secret
places; ' hidden from view,' like the apocryphal writings.
Expos, 'set out in broad day/ like goods exposed to sale.

C

18 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTI, and that of Isaiah too (Isa. xl. 13.) "Who hath
assisted the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been
his counsellor"? It was easy for you to say these
things, either as one who knew that he was not
writing to Luther, but for the multitude; or as one
\v ho did not consider that he was writing against
Luther: to whom you still give credit, as I hope, for
some study and discernment in the Scriptures.
If not, see whether I do not even extort it from
you. If I also may be allowed to play the rheto
rician, or logician, for a moment, [ would make
this distinction : God, and the writing of God,
are two things ; no less than the Creator, and the
creature of God, are two things. Now, that there
be many things hidden in God, which we are igno
rant of, no one doubts; as he speaks himself of the
last day, " Of that day knoweth no man, but the
Father." (Matt. xxiv. 36.) And again, in Acts i.
"It is not for you to know the times and the
seasons." And again; "I know whom I have
chosen."k (John xiii. 18.) And Paul says, "The
Lord knoweth them that are His" : (2 Tim. ii. 19.)
and the like. But that some dogmas of Scripture
are shut up in the dark, and all are not exposed to
view, has been rumoured, it is true, by profane
Sophists (with whose mouth you also speak here,
Erasmus), but they have never produced a single in
stance, nor can they produce one, by way of making
good this mad assertion of theirs. Yet, by such
hobgoblins as these, Satan has deterred men from
reading the sacred writings; and has rendered
holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause
his own pestilent heresies, derived from philoso
phy, to reign in the Church. I confess indeed

k Luther appears to understand this text as most do : ' lie
knew who those were amongst men, whom he had chosen ;'
with a supposed reference to eternal election. But the Greek
text plainly determines it to mean, f I know the real character
and state of those persons whom I have chosen ;' referring to
the Twelve exclusively, as those whom he afterwards (xv. 19.)
declares himself to have chosen out of the world.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. ]9

that many passages of Scripture are obscure and SECT in.
shut up; not so much through the vastness of the
truths declared in them, as through our ignorance
of words and grammar: but I maintain that these veaied and
do not at all prevent our knowledge of all things ascertain-
contained in the Scriptures. For what, that is of a den?°
more august nature, can yet remain concealed in
Scripture, now that, after the breaking of the seals,
and rolling away of the stone from the door of the
sepulchre, that greatest of all mysteries has been
spread abroad, that ( Christ, the Son of God, is
made man7;1 that ( God is at the same time Three
and One;' that ' Christ has suffered for us, and
shall reign for ever and ever'? Are not these
things known, and even sung in the streets ? Take
Christ from the Scriptures, and what will you any
longer find in them?

The things contained in the Scriptures, then,
are all brought forth into view, though some pas
sages still remain obscure, through our not under
standing the words. But it is foolish and pro
fane to know that all the truths of Scripture are
set out to view in the clearest light, and, because
a few words are obscure, to call the truths them
selves obscure. If the words be obscure in one
place, they are plain in another; and the same truth,
declared most openly to the whole world, is both
announced in the Scriptures by clear words, and
left latent by means of obscure ones. But of what
moment is it, if the truth itself be in the light, that
some one testimony to it be yet in the dark ; when
many other testimonies to the same truth, mean
while, are in the light ? Who will say that a
public fountain is not in the light, because those

1 ' ' Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, ac
cording to the spirit of holiness," (opposed to, " which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh," in the
preceding verse) " by the resurrection from the dead." Rom.i.4.
Fractis signaculis. The stone at the door of the sepulchre
was sealed. Matt, xxvii. 65. 66.

c2

20 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTI, who live in a narrow entry do not see it, whilst

all who live in the market-place, do see it ?m

SECT. iv. Your allusion to the Corycian cave," therefore,

is nothing to the purpose. The case is not as

•ScfriiptVie y°u represent it, with respect to the Scriptures,
accusecfof The most abstruse mysteries, and those of greatest
obscurity, majesty, are no longer in retreat, but stand at

the very door of the cave, in open space, drawn
out and exposed to view. For Christ hath
opened our understanding, that wre should un
derstand the Scriptures. (Luke xxiv. 45.) And
the Gospel has been preached to every creature.
(Mark xvi. 15. Coloss. i. 23.) Their sound
has gone out into all the land. (Ps. xix. 4.) And
all things which have been written, have been
written for our learning. (Rom. xv. 4.) Also,
all Scripture having been written by inspiration of
God, is useful for teaching. (2 Tim. iii. 16.)
Thou, therefore, and all thy Sophists come and
produce a single mystery in the Scriptures, which
still remains shut up. The fact, that so many truths
are still shut up to many, arises not from .any
obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own
blindness, or carelessness ; which is such, that
they take no pains to discern the truth, though
it be most evident. As Paul says of the Jews,
(2 Cor. iii. 15.) "The veil remains upon their
heart." And again, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.) " If our
Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost ;
whose hearts the G od of this world hath blinded."
To blame Scripture, in this matter, is a rashness
like that of the man who should complain of the
sun and of the darkness, after having veiled his

m Luther's affirmation and argument is of the greatest im
portance here. All the truth of God, he maintains, is expli
citly and intelligibly declared in Scripture; in some passages
more obscurely, through our ignorance of words ; in others
more manifestly and unequivocally: but there is no truth,
no dogma, that is not distinctly taught and confirmed.

n A cave of singular virtue in Mount Cory c us of Cilicia,
supposed to be inhabited by the Gods.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 21

own eyes, or gone from out of the day-light into SEC. iv.
a dark room to bide himself. Then let these -
wretches cease from such a blasphemous per-

verseness as to impute the darkness and dulness accused of
of their own minds to the Scriptures of God; obscurity.
which are light itself.

So, when you adduce Paul exclaiming "how
incomprehensible are his judgments " you seem to
have referred the pronoun HIS to the Scripture.
But Paul does not say how incomprehensible are
the judgments of Scripture, but of God. Thus
Isaiah (Isai. xl. 13.) does not say ' who hath
known the mind of Scripture,' but, " who hath
known the mind of the Lord?" Howbeit, Paul
asserts that the mind of the Lord is known to
Christians : but then it is about <f those things
which have been freely given to us"; as he speaks
in the same place. (1 Cor. ii. 10. 16.) You see,
therefore, how carelessly you have inspected these
passages of Scripture; which you have cited, about
as aptly as you have done nearly all your others
in support of Freewill. And thus, your instances,
which you subjoin with a good deal of suspicion
and venom, are nothing to the purpose ; such as
' the distinction of Persons in the Godhead/ ' the
combination of the divine and human nature,' and
' the unpardonable sin:' whose ambiguity, you say,
has not even yet been clean removed.0 If you
allude to questions which the Sophists have
agitated on these subjects, I am ready to ask what
that most innocent volume of Scripture hath done
to you, that you should charge her with the abuse,
with which wicked men have contaminated her
purity? Scripture simply makes confession of
the Trinity of Persons in God, of the humanity of
Christ, and of the unpardonable sin : what is there

0 Rescctitm.~\ Erasmus's term j taken from fthe dose cutting of
the nails, or hair, or heard ;" or, from ' the excision of the
unsound flesh in wounds.' It implies, that all the ambiguity is
not yet withdrawn, though some of it may be,

22 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART i. of obscurity, or of ambiguity here ? How these
things subsist, the Scripture has not told us, as
you pretend it has ; nor have we any need to know.
The Sophists discuss their own dreams on these sub
jects : accuse and condemn them, if you please, but
acquit Scripture. If, on the other hand, you
speak of the essential truth, and not of factitious
questions, I say again, do not accuse Scripture,
but the Arians, and those to whom the Gospel is
hid, to such a degree, that they have no eye to see
the clearest testimonies in support of the Trinity
of Persons in God, and the humanity of Christ;
through the working of Satan, who is their God.

To be brief; there is a twofold clearness in
Scripture, even as there is also a twofold obscu
rity: the one external, contained intheministeriality
of the word ; the other internal, which consists in
that knowledge which is of the heart.p If you speak
of this internal clearness, no one discerns an iota
of Scripture, but he who has the Spirit of God. All
men have a darkened heart : so that, even though
they should repeat and be able to quote every
passage of Scripture, they neither understand nor
truly know any thing that is contained in these
passages ; nor do they believe that there is a God,
pr that they are themselves God's creatures, or
any thing else. According to what is written
;in Psalm xiv. ; " The fool hath said in his heart,
God is nothing." (Ps. xiv. 1.) For the Spirit
is necessary to the understanding of the whole
of Scripture, and of any part of it. But if you
speak of that external clearness, nothing at all

p Luther refers back to this passage in the progress of his
work. (See below, Chap. ii. Sect, xiii.) It is not the public
ministry of the word, but its instrumentality in general, of
which he here .speaks. Scripture reveals truth to the ear, and
reveals truth to the heart. The former of these he calls an
external clearness. The word which falls upon the ear is a plain
and clear word. The other he calls an internal clearness. The
truth which is contained in Scripture, and conveyed by a clear
and plain word, is understanded by the heart.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 23

has been left obscure, or ambiguous ; but every SECT. v.

thing that is contained in the Scriptures has been ;

drawn out into the most assured light, and de
clared to the whole world, by the rninisteriality of
the word.

But it is still more intolerable, that you Freewill a
should class this question of Freewill with those necessary
which are useless and unnecessary, and should su je°
recount a number of articles to us in its stead, the
reception of which you deem sufficient to con
stitute a pious Christian. Assuredly, any Jew or
Heathen, who had no knowledge at all of Christ,
would find it easy enough to draw out such a pat
tern of faith as yours. You do not mention Christ
in a single jot of it ; as though you thought that
Christian piety might subsist without Christ, if
but God, whose nature is most merciful, be wor
shipped with all our might. What shall I say
here, Erasmus ? Your whole air is Lucian, and
your breath a vast surfeit of Epicurus ?q If you
account this question an unnecessary one for
Christians, take yourself off the stage, pray : we
account it necessary.

If it be irreligious, if it be curious, if it be su
perfluous, as you say it is, to know whether God
foreknows any thing contingently ; whether our
will be active in those things which pertain to
everlasting salvation, or be merely passive, grace
meanwhile being* the agent; whether we do by
mere necessity (which we must rather call suffer)
whatever we do of good or evil, what will then be
religious I would ask ? what, important ? what,
useful to be known? This is perfect trifling,
Erasmus ! This is too much. Nor is it easy to
attribute this conduct of yours to ignorance. An
old man like you, who has lived amongst Chris
tians and has long revolved the Scriptures, leaves

i ' Totus Lucianum spiras et inhalas mihi grandem Epicuri
crapulam ' . Luc. One of the most noted satirical blas
phemers of Christianity : Epic, An atheistic heathen philo
sopher^ who inculcated pleasure aud indifference.

24 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART. I. us no place for excusing or thinking favourably of

him. Yet the Papists pardon these strange things

in you, and bear with you, because you are
writing against Luther. Men who would tear you
with their teeth, if Luther were out of the way
and you should write such things ! Plato is my
friend, Socrates is my friend, but I must honour
truth before both. For although you knew but
little about the Scriptures and about Christianity,
even the enemy of Christians might surely have
known what Christians account necessary and
useful, and what they do not. But you, a theolo
gian and a master of Christians, when setting
about to prescribe a form of Christianity to them,
do not, what might at least have been expected
of you, hesitate after your usual sceptical manner,
as to what is necessary and useful to them ; but
glide into the directly opposite extreme, and
in a manner contrary to your usual temper, by
a sort of assertion never heard of before, sit now
as judge, and pronounce those things to be unne
cessary which, if they be not necessary and be not
certainly known, there is neither a God, nor a
Christ, nor a Gospel, nor a faith, nor any thing
else even of Judaism, much less of Christianity,
left behind. Immortal God ! what a window shall I
say? what a field rather, does Erasmus hereby open
for acting and speaking against himself! What
could you possibly write on the subject of Free
will, which should have any thing of good or right
in it, when you betray such ignorance of Scripture
and of piety, in these words of yours? But I will furl
my sails, and will talk with you here, not in my
own words, (as 1 perhaps shall do presently) but in
yours.

SECT. vi. The form of Christianity chalked out by you
has this article amongst others, that we must strive

Erasmus's w^h all our might; that we must apply ourselves

Chris- . , , ^> r .r J

tianity. to the remedy of repentance, and solicit the mercy
of God by all means : without this mercy, nei
ther the will, nor the endeavour of man, is effica-

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 25

cious. Also, that no man should despair of SECT.VI.

pardon from God, whose nature it is to be most

merciful. These words of yours, in which there chrLT"5'8
is no mention of Christ, no mention of the Spirit; tianity.
which are colder than ice itself, so that they have
not even your wonted grace of eloquence in them;
and which, perhaps, the fear of Priests and Kings r
had hard work to wring from the pitiful fellow,
that he might not appear quite an Atheist ; do
nevertheless contain some assertions : as, that we
have strength in ourselves; that there is such a
thing as striving with all our strength ; that there
is such a thing as God's mercy ; that there are
means of soliciting mercy; that God is by nature
just ; by nature most merciful, &c. &c. If then
any one be ignorant, what those powers are, what
they do, what they suffer, what their striving is,
what its efficacy, and what its inefficacy; what
shall he do ? what will you teach him to do ? It
is irreligious, curious, and superfluous, you say, to
wish to know whether our will be active in those
things which pertain to everlasting salvation, or be
only passive under the agency of grace. But here
you say, on the contrary, that it is Christian piety
to strive with all our might ; and that the will is
not efficacious without the mercy of God. In these
words, it is plain, you assert that the will does
something in matters which appertain to everlast
ing salvation, since you suppose it to strive ; on
the other hand, you assert it to be passive, when
you say that it is inefficacious without the mercy
of God : howbeit, you do not explain how far that
activity and that passiveness are to be understood
to extend. Thus, you do what you can to make

r Pont'ificum et Tyrannorum.~] These names comprehend the
whole tribe of Popes, Cardinals, and Princes, by which the
ecclesiastical and civil power of the Roman empire was now
administered. Pont. ' Priests of high dignity,' generally ; not
confined to the Pope, but including also his Cardinals. Tyran.
' The civil rulers throughout the empire :' in Latin, used more
generally in a bad sense, to denote ' usurped authority exer
cised with fierceness and violence ;' but not always.

26 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

PART. i. us ignorant what is the efficacy of our own will

" arid what the efficacy of the mercy of God,, in that

very place in which you teach us what is the con
joint efficacy of both. That prudence of yours, by
which you have determined to keep clear of both
parties, and to emerge in safety between Scylla
and Charybdis, so whirls you round and round in
its vortex; that, being overwhelmed with waves
and confounded with fears a in the midst of the
passage, you assert all that you deny, and deny
all that you assert.
SEC. vii. I will expose your theology to you, by two or

three similes. What if a man, setting about to

Erasmus's make a good poem or speech, should not consider
expose! by or inquire, of what sort his genius is ; what he is
similies. equal to, and what not ; what the subject which
he has taken in hand requires ; but, altogether
neglecting that precept of Horace, ' what your
shoulders are able to bear, and what is too heavy
for them/ should only rush headlong upon his
attempt to execute the work ; as thinking within
himself, that he must try and get it done ; and that
it would be superfluous and curious to inquire>
whether he have the erudition, the powers of
language, and the genius, which the task requires?
What if a man, anxious to reap abundant fruits
from his ground, should not be curious to exercise
a superfluous care in exploring the nature of his
soil, as Virgil in his Georgics curiously and
vainly teaches us ; but should hurry on rashly, and
having no thought but about finishing his work,
should plough the shore, and cast in his seed
wherever there is an open space, whether it be
sand or mud ? What if a man, going to war and
desirous of a splendid victory, or having some
other service to perform for the state, should not be
curious to consider what he is able to effect ; whe
ther his treasury be rich enough, whether his sol"
diers be expert, whether he have any power to exe-

8 Confusus, expresses the state of the mariner's mind.:J}actibits
obrutus, his drowning body.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 27

cute his design; but should altogether despise that SEC. vn.

precept of the historian, 'before you act, there is •

need of deliberation, when you have deliberated, J^™115'8
you must be quick to execute;' and should rush on, exposed by
with his eyes shut and his ears stopped, crying out similies-
nothing but " war " "war," and vehemently pursu
ing his work? What judgment would you pro
nounce, Erasmus, upon such poets, husbandmen,
generals, and statesmen ? I will add that simile in
the Gospel. If any man, going about to build a
tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost,
whether he hath wherewithal to finish it ; what is
Christ's judgment upon that man ?

Thus, you command us only to work, au(l forbid
us first of all to explore and measure, or ascer
tain our strength, what we can do, and what we can
not do ; as though this were curious, unnecessary
and irreligious. The effect of which is, that, whilst
through excessive prudence you deprecate teme
rity, and make a shew * of sober-mindedness, you
come at last to the extreme of even counselling
the greatest temerity. For, although the Sophists
act rashness and insanity, by discussing curious u
subjects, yet is their offence milder than yours;
who even teach and command men to be mad and
rash. To make this insanity still greater, you
persuade us that this temerity is most beautiful ;
that it is Christian piety, sobriety, religious gra
vity, and soundness of mind. Nay, if we do not
act it, you, who are such an enemy to assertions,
assert that we are irreligious, curious, and vain : v
so beautifully have you escaped your Scylla, whilst
you have avoided your Charybdis. It is your con-

1 Detestaris, prcetendisJ] Detest, deprecari, amoliri, avertere,
deos invocando. Pra-ttnd., ' to put forwards as a reason for act
ing, whether truly or falsely.' ;

u CwrioA-a.] Applied in a bad sense to ' things we have no busi
ness with,' ' curionns dicitur nonnunquam de iis qui nimia cur£
utuntur in rebus alienis exquirendis.'

v Vanos answers to supervacaneos used above, expressing their
' unprofitableness;' ' idle speculators.'

28. BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART. I. fidence in your own talents which ' drives you to

this point. You think you can impose upon men's

minds by your eloquence, to such a degree, that
no man shall be able to perceive what a monster
you are cherishing in your bosom, and what an
object you are labouring to achieve by these slip
pery writings of yours. But " God is not
mocked ;" nor is it good for a man to strike upon
such a rock as HIM.

Besides, if you had taught us this rashness in
making poems, in procuring the fruits of the earth,
in conducting wars and civil employments, or in
building houses ; though it would be intolerable,
especially in a man like yourself, you would after
all have deserved some indulgence from Chris
tians at least, who despise temporal things. But,
when you command even Christians to be these rash
workmen, and, in the very matter of their eternal
salvation, insist upon their being incurious as to
their natural powers, what they can do and what
they cannot do ; this, surely, is an offence which
cannot be pardoned. For, they will not know
what they are doing, so long as they are ignorant
what, and how much they can do ; and if they
know not what they are doing, they cannot pos
sibly repent should they be in error; and impeni
tence is an unpardonable sin. To such an abyss,
does that moderate, sceptical theology of yours
conduct us !
SEC. VIIL It is not irreligious, then, nor curious, nor

superfluous, but most of all useful and necessary

Absolute to a Christian, to know whether the will does any
"f IhTsub- thing, or nothing, in the matter of salvation. Nay,
ject of to say the truth, this is the very hinge of our dis-
order"!! m Putation ; the very question at issue turns upon
true piety. it.x We are occupied in discussing, what the free

will does, what the free will suffers, what is its

x Status causce hujus.'] ' Status a rhetoribus dicitur qutestio,
quae ex prima causarum conflictione nascitur ; quia in eo tota
causa stat et consistit.'

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 29

proportion to the grace of God. If we be igno- SEC.VIII.

rant of these things, we shall know nothing at •

all about Christianity, and shall be worse than Absolu.te

»/ f ncccssitv

Heathens. The man who does not understand Of the sub-
this subject, let him acknowledge that. he is no Ject °f

c\\ -A- >n 1 i " -A Freewill in

Christian. Ine man who censures or despises it, order to
let him know that he is the worst enemy of Chris- true
tians. For, if I know not, what, how far, and how<piety'
much, I can, of my own natural powers, do and
effect towards God; it will be alike uncertain and
unknown to me, what, how far, and how much, God
can and does effect in me: whereas God "worketh \
all in all !" y

Again ; if I know not the works and power of
God, I know not God himself; and if I know not
God, I cannot worship, praise, give him thanks,
serve him; being ignorant how much I ought to
attribute to myself, and how much to God. We1;
ought therefore to distinguish, with the greatest1
clearness, between God's power and our own'
power, between God's work and our own work; ii
we would live piously.

You see then, that this question is the . one
part z of the whole sum of Christianity ! Both the
knowledge of ourselves, and the knowledge and
glory of God, are dependent upon the hazard of
its decision. It is insufferable in you, then, my
Erasmus, to call the knowledge of this truth irreli
gious, curious and vain. We owe much to you,
But we owe all to piety. Nay, you think yourself,
that all good is to be ascribed to God, and you
assert this in the description you have given us: of
your own Christianity. And if you assert this,
you unquestionably assert in the same words that

y Omnla in OJnhifctw.] Not only ' all things in all men ;' but
'all things in all tilings i every jot and tittle in every single thing
that is done.

z Partem alterant. ~] Opposed to ' altera pars ' in the next
section : considering the sum of Christian doctrine, as divisible
into these two integral parts.

30 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. the mercy of God does all, and that our will acts
- • nothing, but rather is acted upon ; else, all will
not be attributed to God. But, a little while after
you declare, that the assertion, and even the know
ledge of this truth, is neither religious, pious, nor
/salutary. However, the mind which is inconsis
tent with itself, and which is uncertain and an-
* skilled in matters of piety, is obliged to speak so.
SECT.IX. The other part of the sum of Christianity, /is to
know whether God foreknows any thing c^ntin-
ffentfy> an(^ whether we do every thing tteces-

scence.

ted the sarily. This part also you represent as irreligious,
question of curious, and vain ; as all other profane men do.
1 C~ Nay, the devils and the damned represent 5t as
utterly odious and detestable : and you are very
wise in withdrawing yourself from these questions,
if you may be allowed to do so. But, in the mean
time, you are not much of a rhetorician or a theo
logian, when you presume to speak and to teach
about Freewill, without these parts. I will be
your whetstone; and, though no rhetorician my
self, will remind an exquisite rhetorician of his
duty. If Quintilian proposing to write on ora
tory should say, ' In my judgment those foolish
and useless topics of invention, distribution, elo
cution, memory, and delivery should be omitted;
suffice it to know that oratory is the art of speak
ing well ;' would not you laugh at the artist? This
is precisely your method. Professing to write about
Freewill, you begin with driving away, and casting
off, the whole body, and all the members of this
art, which you propose to write about. For, it is
impossible that you should understand what Free
will is, until you know what the human will has
power to do, and what God does; whether he
foreknows, or not ? a

a An pra>sciat.~\ The Newstadt editor inserts the word neces-
sariu here. It is not needed. What is foreknowledge, if it be
not absolute ; i.e. if the event be not inevitable, or necessary ?

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 31

Do not even your rhetoricians teach you, that, SECT.IX.
when a man is going to speak upon any matter,

he must first speak to the point whether there be

, i -j • -j "as

such a thing, or no ; then, what it is ; what are its ted the

parts ; what its contraries, its affinities, and question of
its similitudes. But you strip poor Freewill,
wretched as she is in herself, of all these appendages,
and define b none of the questions which apper
tain to her, save the first; whether there be such a
thing as Freewill? By what sort of arguments you
do this, we shall see presently. A more foolish
book on Freewill I never beheld, if eloquence of
style be excepted. The Sophists, forsooth, who
know nothing of rhetoric, have here at least
proved better logicians than you ; for in their
essays on Freewill they define all its questions ;
such as, ' whether it be ;' 'what it is;' 'what it
does ;' c how it is/ &c. &c. Howbeit, neither do
even they complete c what they attempt. I will
therefore goad d both you and all the Sophists in
this treatise of mine, until ye define the powers
and the performances of Freewill6 to me; yea,

bDffinis.'] Def. does not express simply what we understand and
mean by ' a definition ;' but ' a laying out of the subject matter
of debate in propositions, and a supporting of those proposi
tions by argument'. Such were Luther's several Theses ; with
ninety-five of which, he first opened his attack upon the Pope-
dom ; or rather upon the doctrine of Indulgences : a form of
discussion common in those times. Perhaps our English word
' determine ' comes nearest to it.

c Efficiunt quod tcntantJ] They do not go through with the

matter in hand, but leave it short : the ' vires et opera ' are still

undefined 5 neither distinctly affirmed, nor satisfactorily proved.

d Urgebo.~\ ' Driving, as you would drive cattle, or an

enemy, before you.'

e Liberi arbitrii vires et opera. ~\ Foluntas is ' the faculty of the
will at large.' Arbitrium, ' the essence, spirit, power of that
faculty.' Erasmus maintains this power to be free ; Luther, that it
is in bondage. Hence ' liberum arbitrium,' ' servum arbitrium.'
I is, or vires arbitrii, ' the power or powers of this power.' Vis,
or vires liberi arbitrii ; ' the power or powers of this power, as
declared by Erasmus to be free ;' and so, just corresponds with
jur idea and term of ' Freewill.' ' You shall define to me, what

PAR

32 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

ART I. so goad you, with Christ's help, that I hope 1

- shall make you repent of having published your
Diatribe.

SECT.X. It is most necessary and most salutary, then,

- for a Christian to know this also ; that God fore-
God's fore- knows nothing contingently, but foresees, and pur-

knowledge T°I J ,, • /

absolute, poses, and accomplishes every thing, by an un-
ws from changeable, eternal, and infallible will. But, by
this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and
completely ground to powder. Those who would
assert Freewill, therefore, must either deny, or
disguise, or, by some other means, repel this thun
derbolt from them. However, before I establish it
by my own argumentation and the authority of
Scripture, I will first of all encounter you per
sonally, with your own words. Are not you that
Erasmus, who just now asserted, that it is God's na
ture to be just, that it is God's nature to be most
merciful? If this be true, does it not follow, that
he is UNCHANGEABLY just and merciful ; that, as
his nature changes not unto eternity, so neither
doth his justice or his mercy change ? But
what is said of his justice and mercy, must he
said also of his knowledge, wisdom, goodness,
will, and other divine properties. If these things,
then, be asserted religiously, piously, and profit
ably concerning God, as you write ; what has
happened to you, that, in disagreement with your
self, you now assert it to be irreligious, curious,
and vain, to affirm that God foreknows necessarily?
<Is it that you think, that, ' he either foreknoivs
j what he does not toill, or wills what he does not
^foreknow ?' If he wills what he foreknows, his
will is eternal and immutable, for it is part of his
nature : if he foreknows what he wills, his know-

are the powers of this faculty, which is thus supposed and main
tained by you to be free.' This is just the crux of modern Free-
willers, as it was of Erasmus. They get on pretty well, till
they are compelled to define.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 33

ledge is eternal and immutable, for it is part of liis SECT. x.
nature/

Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we
do, and all which happens, although it seem to
happen mutably and contingently, does in reality
happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as
respects the will of God. For the will of God is
efficacious, and such as cannot be thwarted ; since
the power of God is itself a part of his nature : it
is also wise, so that it cannot be misled. And
since his will is not thwarted, the work which
he wills cannot be prevented ; but must be pro
duced in the very place, time, and measure which
he himself both foresees and wills. If the will of
God were such as to cease after he has made a
work which remains the same, as is the case with
man's will when, after having builded a house as
he willed, his will concerning it ceases; as it
| does in death; then it might be truly said, that
some events are brought to pass contingently and
mutably. But here, on the contrary, so far is it
from being the case, that the work itself either
comes into existence, or continues in existence
contingently, by being made and remaining in
being when the will to have it so hath ceased;
that the work itself ceases, but the will remains.
,Now, if we would use words so as not to abuse
them, a work is said in Latin to be done contin
gently, but is never said to be itself contingent.

• 7

(

fThis abstruse but irresistible deduction from Erasmus's
Concession may perhaps be stated a little more familiarly, thus:
'If Cod does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be
•:\ defect either in his will, or in his knowledge ; what happens
.must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge. Either
he meant otherwise than the event, or had no meaning at all
about the event ; or, lie foresaw another event, or did not
foresee any event at all. But the truth is, what he willed in
past eternity, he wills now ; the thing now executed is what
he has intended to execute from everlasting ; for his will is
eternal : just as the thing which has now happened is what he
>aw in past eternity ; because his knowledge is eternal.

D

34

PART I.

SECT. XI.

Objection
to term
' necessity'
admitted :
absurdity
of the dis
tinction
between
necessity
of a con
sequence
and of a
conse
quent.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

The meaning is, that a work has been performed
by a contingent and mutable will ; such as is not
in God. Besides, a work cannot be called a con
tingent one, except it be done by us contingently
and .as it were by accident, without any fore
thought on our part; being so called, because our
will or hand seizes hold of it as a thing thrown in
our way by accident, and we have neither thought
nor willed any thing about it before.

* I could have wished indeed, that another and a
better word had been introduced into our dis
putation than this usual one, ( Necessity '; which
is not rightly applied to the will of either God or
man. It has too harsh and incongruous a mean
ing for this occasion ; suggesting the notion of
something like compulsion, and what is at least
the opposite of willingness, to the mind. Our
question, meanwhile, implies no such thing ; for
both God's will, and man's will does what it does,
whether good or bad, without compulsion, by dint
of mere good pleasure or desire, as with perfect
freedom. The will of God, nevertheless, is im
mutable and infallible, and governs our mutable
will — as JBoethius sings, ' and standing fixed,
mov'st all the rest' — and our will, wicked in the
extreme, can of itself do nothing good. Let the
understanding of my reader, then, supply what the
word ( necessity' does not express; apprehending
by it, what you might choose to call the immutability
of God's will, and the impotency of our evil will :
what some have called ' a necessity of immuta
bility': not very grammatically or theologically.

The Sophists, who had laboured this point for
years, have at length been mastered, and are com
pelled to admit that ' all events are necessary ;'
but by the necessity of a consequence, as they say,
and not by the necessity of a consequent. Thus
have they eluded the violence of this question, but

* N. B. This whole paragraph is omitted in the Nieustadt
edition of 1591.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 35

it is by much more illuding themselves.5 I will SECT.XI.

take the trouble of shewing you, what a mere no

thing1 this distinction of theirs is. By necessity of a
consequence (to speak as these thick-headed people
do) they mean, that, if God wills a thing, the thing
itself must be, but it is not necessary that the very
thing which is, should be. For only God exists neces
sarily ; all other things may cease to be, if God
pleases. Thus they say that the act of God is neces
sary, if he wills a thing, but that the very thing pro
duced is not necessary. Now what do they get by
this play upon words ? Why, this, I suppose. The
thing produced is not necessary ; that is, has not
a necessary existence — this is no more than say
ing, the thing produced is not God himself. Still
the truth remains, that every event is necessary;
if it be a necessary act of God, or a necessary
consequence : however it may not, now that it is
effected, exist necessarily; that is, may not be
God, or may not have a necessary existence. For,
if I am of necessity made, it is of little moment to
me that my being or making be mutable. Still
I — this contingent and mutable thing, who am not
the necessary God — am made. So that their
foolery, that all events are necessary, through a
necessity of the consequence, but not through a
necessity of the consequent, has no more in it than
this : all events are necessary, it is true ; but
though necessary, are not God himself. Now
what need was there to tell us this? As if there
was any danger of our asserting that the things

8 Eluserant, illnscrunt.'] A play upon the words eludo, illiido.
Elud. ' to parry «ff,' ' evade.' A metaphor taken from the
gladiator, who, by a dexterous turn of his body, escapes the
weapon of his adversary. I do not find any classical authority
for understanding ' illudo ' with the same reference to the
gladiator. It refers to customs of a more general nature ;
comprehending all sorts of injury inflicted in a way of decep
tion, or derision : ' to sport with,' or ' make sport of ;'• some
times ' to ruin in sport.' Thus these Sophists have evaded
their adversaries, but they have made fools of themselves.

D2

36 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. made are God, or have a divine and necessary
- nature. So sure and stedfast is the invincible
aphorism, ' All things are brought to pass by the
unchangeable will of God :' what they call
6 necessity of a consequence/ Nor is there any
obscurity or ambiguity here. He says in Isaiah —
" My counsel shall stand " and my will shall be
brought to pass. (Isa. xlvi. 10.) Is there any
schoolboy who does not understand what is meant
by these words ( counsel,' ' ivill,' ' brought to pass,'
' stand?'

SEC. xii. But why should these things be shut up from us
Christians, so that it is irreligious, and curious, and

suasion,

UrevValence Va^U ^Or US ^° searcn an(^ to loiOVV them ; when

of this per- heathen poets, and the very vulgar, are wearing
them threadbare, by the commonest use of them in
conversation? How often does the single poet
Virgil make mention of fate ! ' All things subsist
by a fixed law/ ' Every man has his day fixed/
Again, ( If the fates call you/ Again, f If you
can by any means burst the bonds of the cruel
fates/ It is this poet's sole object to shew, that
in the destruction of Troy and the raising up of
the Roman empire from its ruins, fate did more
than all human efforts put together. In short, he
subjects his immortal Gods to fate; making even
Jupiter himself and Juno to yield to it necessarily.
Hence they feigned these three fatal sisters, the
Parcas; whom they represent as immutable, im
placable, inexorable.

Those wise men discovered (what fact and ex
perience prove) that no man has ever yet received
the accomplishment of his own counsels, but all
have had to meet events which differed from their
expectations. 4 If Troy could have been defended
by a human right hand, it had been defended even
by this/ says Virgil's Hector. Hence that most
hackneyed expression in everybody's mouth,
' God's will be done/ Again, f If it please God,
we wrill do so/ Again, ' So God would have it/

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 37

' So it seemed good to those above.' f So ye SEC.XIII.
would have it/ saysVmriL So that, in the minds of

' *> •'.-.-

the common people, the knowledge of the predes
tination and foreknowledge of God is not less in
herent, we perceive, than the very notion that
there is a God : although blessed Augustine, with
good reason, condemns fate ; speaking of the fate
which is maintained by the Stoics. But those
who professed to be wise went to such lengths in
their disputations, that, at last, their heart being
darkened they became foolish, (Rom. i. 22.) and
denied or dissembled those things which the poets,
and the vulgar, and their own consciences, account
most common, most certain, and most true.

I go further, and declare, not only how true these The ex-
things are (of which I shall hereafter speak more
at large from the Scriptures) but also how reli-
gious, pious, and necessary it is to know them.
For if these things be not known, it is impossible pretended
that either faith or any worship of God should be and boast-
maintained. For this would be a real ignorance tk>n"°C
of God ; with which salvation cannot consist; as
is notorious. For if you either doubt this truth, <•
or despise the knowledge of it, that God fore
knows and wills all things ; not contingently, but
necessarily and immutably ; how will you be
able to believe his promises, and with full as- \
surance to trust and lean upon them ? For, when
he promises, you ought to be sure that he knows
what he promises, and is able and willing to ac
complish it : else you will account him neither
true nor faithful ; which is unbelief, the highest
impiety, and a denial of the most high God.

But how will you be confident and secure, if you
do not know that he certainly, infallibly, un
changeably, and necessarily knows and wills, and
will perform what he promises ? Nor should we
only be certain, that God necessarily and immu
tably wills and will perform what he has promised;

38 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTI, but we should even glory in this very thing, as
Paul does in Romans iii. saying, " But let God
be true and every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.) And
again, " Not that the word of God hath been of
none effect/' (Rom. ix. 6.) And in another place,
" The foundation of God standeth sure, having
this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his."
(2 Tim. ii. 19.) And in Titus i. " which God who
cannot lie hath promised before the world began."
(Tit. i. 2.) And in Hebrews xi. " He that cometh
to God must believe that God is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that hope in him." (Heb. xi. 6.)
So then, the Christian faith is altogether ex
tinguished, the promises of God and the whole
Gospel fall absolutely to the ground, if we be
taught and believe, that we have no need to know
that the foreknowledge of God is necessary, and
that all acts and events are necessary. For this
is the alone and highest possible consolation of
Christians, in all adversities, to know that God
does not lie, but brings all things to pass without
any possibility of change ; and that his will can
neither be resisted, nor altered, nor hindered. See
now, my Erasmus, whither this most abstinent
and peace-loving theology of yours leads us !
You call us off from endeavouring, nay forbid that
we endeavour, to learn the foreknowledge of God
and necessity, in their influence upon men and
things ; you counsel us to abandon such topics,
to avoid and to hold them in abhorrence. By this
ill-advised labour of yours, you at the same time
teach us to cultivate an ignorance of God, (what
in fact comes of itself, and even grows to ush) to
despise faith, to forsake God's promises, and to
set at nought all the consolations of the Spirit

h AgnataJ] f What grows to us as a sort of monstrous ap
pendage;' like the membra agnata et agnasccntia in animals ;
parts that are more than should be by nature ; as a sixth
finger, &c.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 39

and the assurances of our own conscience. In- SEC.XIII.
junctions these, which scarcely Epicurus himself
would lay upon us !

Not content with this, you go on to call that
man irreligious, curious, and vain who takes pains
to get the knowledge of these things ; you call
that man religious, pious, and sober who despises
them. What else do you achieve then by these
words, but that Christians are curious, vain, and
irreligious ; and that Christianity is a thing of no
moment at all ; vain, foolish, and absolutely im
pious. Thus it happens again, that whilst you
would, above all things, deter us from rashness,
being hurried, as fools usually are, into the oppo
site extreme, you teach us nothing but the most
excessive temerities and impieties, which must
lead us to destruction. Are you aware that your
book is, in this part, so impious, so blasphemous,
and so sacrilegious, as no where to have its
like?

I speak not of your intention, as I have already
said, for I do not think you so abandoned as to
wish, from your heart, either to teach these things,
or to see them practised by others ; but I would
shew you what strange things a man obliges him
self to babble, without knowing what he says,
when he undertakes a bad cause. I would shew
you also, what it is to strike our foot against divine
truth and the divine word, whilst we personate a
character in compliance with the wishes of others,
and, with many qualms of conscience, bustle
through a scene, in which we have no just call to
appear.1 It is not a play or a pastime to teach

1 Aliorum obsequio."] Erasmus was a. forced champion, writ
ing to please the Pope and his party, at their special request.
Personam sumirnus. He did not really stand in his own person,
but was an actor sustaining a part which had been put upon
him. Alienee scentz servire expresses the drudgery of labouring
through a character in which he had made himself a volunteer.
Scena servire sometimes signifies 'to temporize ;' but here I
prefer retaining the original figure.~-This is one of the poi-

40 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTI, theology and piety ; in such an employment it is
most easy to make that sort of fall which James
speaks of,k when he says,, " He that oftendeth in
one point becomes guilty of all." (Jam. ii. 10.)
For thus it comes to pass, that, whilst we think we
mean to trifle but a little, having lost our due re
verence for the Scriptures, we soon get entangled
in impieties, and are plunged over head and ears
in blasphemies. Just what has happened to you
in this case, Erasmus ! May the Lord pardon
and have mercy on you !

As to the fact, that the Sophists have raised such
swarms of questions on these subjects, and have
mixed a multitude of other unprofitable matters
with them, such as you mention ; I am aware of
this, and acknowledge it as well as you, and have
inveighed against it with yet more sharpness,
and at greater length, than you. But you are
foolish and rash in mixing, confounding, and assi
milating the purity of sacred truth with the pro
fane and foolish questions of ungodly men. They
have defiled the gold and changed its beautiful
colour, as Jeremiah says, (Lam. v. 1.) but gold is
not forthwith to be compared to dung and thrown
away together with it ; as you have done. The
gold must be recovered out of their hands, and

soncd arrows of Luther's treatise j ' u hireling expectant, with
only half his heart in the cause.'

k A forced application of James's words ; who speaks of a
breach of one commandment as subjecting us to the curse of
all, because such breach is derogatory to the authority of the
Lawgiver. We set ourselves up against the Lawgiver, and
impugn his authority by a single wilful breach of a single com
mandment, with guilt of the same quality, though not of the
same extent and aggravation, as if we brake all. Luther ap
plies it to Erasmus's only meaning to have a little sport ; but
then it is at the expense of Scripture : and such sport, and even
the intention of such sport, implies a want of due reverence
for Scripture. This first fault leads to all the impiety which
follows ; and therefore he who is guilty of it, is guilty of all
the impieties which follow, though he did not set out with the
intention of committing them. ' Guilty of all/ because one
leads to all ; is the seed of all.— This is not James's meaning.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 41

the purity of Scripture separated from their dregs SEC.XIV.
and filth : and I have always been aiming to do
this ; in order that one sort of regard might be
paid to the divine word, and another to their
trifling conceits. Nor should it move us, that no
other_advantage has been gained by these ques
tions, than that, with great expense of concord,
\\ r have come to love less, whilst we are far too
eager to get wisdom. It is not our question, what
advantage disputatious Sophists have gained ; but
how we may ourselves become good Christians :
nor ought you to impute to Christian doctrine what
ungodly men do amiss. For this is nothing to the
purpose, and you might have spoken of it in ano
ther place, and have spared your paper.

In your third chapter, you go on to make us AH Scrip-
these modest and quiet Epicureans by another 'Mretruth
sort of counsel, not a whit sounder than the two published
already mentioned : viz. that ' some propositions
are of such a nature, that even though they were
true and could be ascertained, still it would not be
expedient to publish them promiscuously.'1 Here
again, you confound and mix things, as your cus
tom is, that you may degrade what is sacred to
the level of the profane, without allowing the least
difference between them ; and again fall into an
injurious contempt of God and his word. I have
said before, what is either plainly declared in
Scripture, or may be proved from it, is not only
open to view, but salutary ; and therefore may be
with safety published, learned, and known; nay,
ought to be so. With what truth, then, can you
say, that there are things which ought not to be
published promiscuously, if you speak of things
contained in Scripture ? If you speak of other
things, nothing that you have said concerns us ;
all is out of place, and you have wasted your

1 Prosiitucre promiscuis auribits.'] Prostit. ' publicare/ diffa-
mare,' (pro, sive prce, statuo.) Promise. ' confusus $' hence,
' general/ ' common.'

42 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. paper and your time in words. Again, you know

that I have no agreement, upon any subject, with

the Sophists; so that I deserved to have been
spared by you, and not to have had their abuses
cast in my teeth. It was against me that you
were to write in this book. I know how guilty the
Sophists are, and don't want you to teach me,
having already reprehended them abundantly :
and this I say, once for all, as often as you con
found me with the Sophists, and load my cause
with their mad sayings. You act unfairly by me
in so doing, and you very well know it.

SEC. xv. Let us now look into the reasons on which you

build your counsel. Though it should be true,

Theargu- that God is essentially present in the beetle's
'"some cave, and even in the common sewer, no less than
truths in heaven (which reverence forbids you to assert

an<^ you blame the Sophists for babbling so);
is still, you think it Avould be irrational to maintain
either in- such a proposition before the multitude.
with Eras- I*1 the first place, babble who may, we are nottalk-
mus's act, ing here about the actions of men, but about law and
place* ° right ; not how we live, but how we ought to live !
Which of us lives and acts rightly in all cases?
Law and precept are not condemned on this ac
count, but rather we by them. The truth is, you
fetch these materials of yours, which are foreign
to the subject, from a great distance, and scrape
many things together from all sides of you, be
cause this one topic of the foreknowledge of God
gravels you ; and, having no arguments to over
come it with, you try to weary your reader by a
profusion of empty words, before you conclude.
But we will let this pass, and return to our subject.
— Then how do you mean to apply this judgment
of yours, that there are some truths which ought
not to be proclaimed to the vulgar ? Is Freewill
one of these? If so, all that I said before, about
the necessity of understanding Freewill, returns
upon you. Besides, why do you not follow your

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 43

own counsel, and withhold your Diatribe? If- you SEC.XVI.

are right in discussing Freewill, why do you find

fault? if it be wrong to so do, why do you discuss
it? On the other hand, if Freewill be not one of
these subjects, you are again guilty of running
away from the point at issue, in the midst of the
discussion, and of handling foreign topics with great
verbosity, where there is no place for them.

Not that you deal correctly with the example Erasmus's
which you adduce, when you condemn it as an amplest
useless discussion for the multitude, ' that God is truths not;
in the cave, or in the sewer/ You think of God v°^edpub"
too humanly. I acknowledge, indeed, that there
are some frivolous preachers, who, having neither
religion nor piety, and being moved solely by a
desire of glory, or an ambition of novelty, or an
impatience of silence, gabble and trifle with the
most offensive levity. But these men please nei
ther God nor man, though they be engaged in
asserting that God is in the heaven of heavens.
On the contrary, where the preacher is grave and
pipuS; and teaches in modest, pure, and sound
words; such a man will declare such a truth be
fore the multitude, not only without danger, but
even with great profit. Ought we not all to teach
that the Son of God was in the womb of the
Virgin, and born from her bowels ? And what
difference is there between the bowels of a wo
man and any other filthy place? Who could not
describe them nastily and offensively? Yet we
should deservedly condemn such describers, be
cause there is an abundance of pure words to ex
press this substance, of which it has become ne
cessary to speak,1" with beauty and grace. Christ's
own body, again, was human like our own. And
what is filthier than this ? Shall we therefore for
bear to say that God dwelt in him BODILY, as

m Earn ncccssitatem.

44 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART. i. Paul speaks?11 (Coloss. ii. 9.) What is more

disgusting than death ? What more horrible than

hell ? But the Prophet glories that God is with
him in death and in hell. (Psa. xxiii.)

The pious mind then does not shudder to hear
that God is in death or in hell ; each of which is
more horrible than the cave or the sewer : nay,
since Scripture testifies that God is every where,
and fills all things, not only does such a mind
affirm that he is in those places, but will, as
matter of necessity, learn and know that he is
there. Unless, perchance, if I should somehow
be seized by a tyrant, and cast into a prison or a
common sewer, which has been the lot of many
saints, I must not be allowed to invoke my God
there ; or to believe that he is present with me,
until I shall have come into some ornamented
temple! If you teach us that we ought to trifle
in this way about God, and are so offended with
the abiding places of his essence, you will, at
length, not allow us to consider him as abiding
even in heaven : for not even the heaven of hea
vens contains him, or is worthy to do so. But
the truth is, you sting with so much venom,0 as
your manner is, that you may sink our cause, and
make it hateful, because you see it to be insuper
able and invincible, by powers such as yours.

The second instance which you adduce, ( that
there are three Gods/ is, I confess, a stumbling-
block, if it be indeed taught : nor is it true, nor
does Scripture teach it. The Sophists, indeed,
speak so ; and have invented a new sort of logic.
But what is that to us ?

n I would crave the reader's particular attention to this de
scription of the human body of the Lord Jesus Christ ; that part
of his frame which alone connected him and did really con
nect him with the damned substance of his people. It enters
into the very entrails of ' the mystery of godliness.'

0 Sic odiose pungis.'] Pmtg. ' cuspide vel aculeo ictum
infero.'

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED, 45

With respect to your third and remaining SEC.XVI.

example of confession and satisfaction, it is won- •

derful with how happy a dexterity you contrive to
find fault: every where, as you are wont, just
skimming the surface of the subject, and no more,
lest you should appear, either, on the one hand,
not simply to condemn our writings, or, on the
other, not to be disgusted with the tyranny of the
pontiffs :p a failure in either of which points would
be by no means safe for you. So, bidding adieu,
for a little while, to conscience and to Cod, (for
what has Erasmus to do with the will of the latter
and the obligations of the former, in these mat
ters?) you draw your sword upon a mere out
side phantom, and accuse the common people of
abusing the preaching of free confession and
satisfaction,4 as their own evil nature may incline
them, to the indulgence of the flesh; maintaining,
that by necessary confession they are, some how
or other, restrained. O famous and exquisite
harangue ! Is this teaching theology? To bind
with law's and kill, as Ezekiel says, (xxiii.
xiii. 19.) the souls which God has not bound. At
this rate, you stir up the whole tyranny of the
Popish laws against us forsooth, on the ground
of their being useful and salutary ; because by
them also the wickedness of the people is re
strained !

But I am unwilling to inveigh against you, as
this passage deserves. I will state the matter as
it is, concisely. A good theologian teaches thus :
the common people are to be restrained by the

s

p Ponti/icnm tyrannidem offendere.'] Offend. ' aversari,' 'offendi,'
' molestiam capere ;' quasi impingere, incurrere in illiquid,
quod displiceat. — Another poisoned arrow. Whilst lie keeps
no terms with Luther, he must still be the friend of liberty.
He had gone far in satirizing the reigning abuses. But how
galling the exposure !

q Free.] That is, preaching that these are free ; that men
may observe or neglect them, according to their own indivi
dual conscience.

46 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART i. external force of the sword, when they do amiss,
as Paul teaches (Rom. xiii. 1 — 4.); but their con
sciences are not to be ensnared by false laws,
teasing and tormenting them for sins which God
does not account sins. For the conscience is
bound only by the commands of God; so that
this interposed tyranny of the pontiffs, which
falsely terrifies and kills souls inwardly, whilst it,
to no purpose, harasses the body without, should
be entirely taken out of the way. This tyranny
does, indeed, compel men to outward acts of con
fession, and to other burdens, but the mind is not
restrained by these things : rather, it is exaspe
rated to an hatred of God and of man. It hangs,
draws, and quarters the body outwardly, without
effect, making mere hypocrites within ; insomuch,
that the tyrants who enact and execute laws of
this sort are nothing else but rapacious wolves,
thieves, and robbers of souls. These wolves and
robbers, O most excellent counsellor of souls, thou
commendest to us again. In other words, thou
proposest the most cruel of soul-slayers to our
acceptance; who will fill the world with hypo
crites, blaspheming God, and despising him in
their hearts ; in order that men may be a little
restrained in their outward carriage : as if there
were not another method of restraining, which
makes no hypocrites, and is obtained without de
stroying any man's conscience ; r as I have said,
sc. xvii. Here you fetch ins a host of similes ; in which
you aim to abound, and to be thought very apt
- an(* expert. You tell us, forsooth, that there are

r Consul, auctor, refer to the customs of the Roman Repub
lic, of which the consul was the guardian and adviser : he was
the author, or originater of measures.

s Allegas, ' afferre aliquid probandi vel excusandi gratia.'
A forensic expression ; these were his witnesses : but what did
, they prove ? only, what a clever fellow this Erasmus is. Illus
tration is not argument ; but here it is manifestly a substitute
'for it. He amuses, imposes, irritates, and bewilders by his
similies, because he has nothing solid wherewith to answer.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 47

some diseases which are borne with less evil than sc. xvn.

they are removed withal ; such as the leprosy

and others. You also add the example of Paul, deistands
who distinguished between things lawful and the vast
things expedient. A man may lawfully speak the
truth, you say ; to any body, at any time, in any
way he pleases ; but it is not expedient for him to tion.
do so.

What an exuberant orator ! but one who does
not at all know what he is saying. In a word,
you plead this cause as if your affair with me were
a contest for a sum of money which is recoverable,
or for some other very'inconsiderable object: whose
loss (as being a thing of far less value than that dear
external peace of yours) ought riot to move any one
to such a degree that he be unwilling to submit, do,
and suffer, as the occasion may require; or to
render it necessary that the world be thrown into
such a tumult. %You plainly intimate, therefore,
that this peace and tranquillity of the flesh is far
more excellent in your eyes than faith, conscience,
salvation, the word of God, the glory of Christ,
yea, God himself. I declare to you, therefore,
and entreat you to lay this up in your inmost
soul, that I, for iny part, am in pursuit of a se
rious, necessary, and eternal object in this cause ;
such and so great an object, that I must assert and
defend it, even at the hazard of my life ; nay,
though the whole world must not only be thrown
into a state of conflict and confusion through it,
but even rush back again into its original chaos,
and be reduced to nothing. If you do not com
prehend, or do not feel, these things, mind your
own business; and give others leave to compre
hend and to feel them, on whom God has be
stowed this power.

For I am not such a fool, or such a madman, I
thank God, as to have been willing to plead and
maintain this cause so long, with such resolute
ness, with such constancy, (you call it obstinacy)

48

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. amidst so many hair-breadth escapes with life,

amidst so many enmities, amidst so many wiles

and snares — in short, amidst the rage and
phrenzy of men and devils ; for the sake of money,
which I neither have nor desire ; or for the sake
of glory, which, if I would, I could not obtain in
a world that is so hostile to me ; or for the sake of
bodily life, of which I cannot ensure the possession
for a single moment. Do you think that you are
the only person who hath a heart that is moved
with these tumults ? I, no more than yourself j
am made of stone, or born of the Marpesian rocks.
But, since it must be so,1 1 choose rather to endure
the collisions of a temporal tumult, for asserting
the word of God, with an invincible and incorrup
tible mind, rejoicing all the while in the sense and
manifestations of his favour, than to be crushed to
pieces by the intolerable torments of an eternal
tumult, as one of the victims of God's wrath. The
Lord grant that your mind be not such (I hope
and wish he may !) but your words sound as
though, like Epicurus, you accounted the word of
God and a future state to be mere fables ; when,
by virtue of the doctorial authority with which
you are invested, you wish to propose to us, that,
in order to please pontiffs and princes, or to pre
serve this dear peace of yours, we should submit
ourselves, and, for a while, relinquish the use of
the word of God, sure as that word is," if occasion
require ; although, by such relinquishment, we re
linquish God, faith, salvation, and every Christian
possession. How much better does Christ advise
us, to despise the whole world rather than do
this !

But you say such things, because you do not
read, or do not observe, that this is the most con-

SC.XVITI.

Peace of
the world

1 ' Since I am reduced to this painful alternative of evils.'
u Certiasimum.'] Opposed to what Erasmus gave reason to
su?pect that he accounted it : ' verbum Dei et futuram vitam
Jaiulas esse putis.'

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 49

stapt fortune of the word of God,, to have the sc.xvin.
u oriel iu a state of tumult because : of it. Christ

X*s>^s^V^'S.^^%*^'^^^^^^^a»^^h^^^^^*^^

explicitly asserts this,, when he says, " I am not distu»'bed,
come to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. x. 34.) S^S*1*"
And in Luke, " I am come to send fire on the against a.
earth." (Luke xii. 49.) And Paul (2 Cor. vi. 5.) jj°f"£it.
" In seditions," &c. And the Prophet testifies the
same thing, with great redundancy of expression,
in the second Psalm, when he asserts, that the
nations are in a tumult, that the people murmur,
that the kings rise up, that the princes take coun
sel together against the Lord and against his
Christ: as though he should say, numbers, gran
deur, riches, power, wisdom, justice, and what
soever is exalted in the world, opposes itself to
the word of God. See, in the Acts of the Apos
tles, what happens in the world through Paul's
preaching only, not to mention the other Apos
tles ; how he singly and alone stirs up both Gen
tiles and Jews : or, as his enemies themselves
affirm in that same place, how he troubles* the
whole world. The kingdom of Israel is troubled
under the ministry of Elijah, as king Ahab com
plains. What a stir there was under the other
Prophets ! whilst they are all slain with the
sword, or stoned ; whilst Israel is led captive
into Assyria, and-Judah, in like manner, to Baby
lon. Was this peace ? The world and its God
neither can nor 'trill endure the word of the true
God ; the true God neither will nor can be silent.
\Vhrn these two Gods are at war, what can there
br but tumult in all the world?

The wish to hush these storms is nothing else
but a wish to take the word of God out of the
way, and to stay its course. For the word of
God comes for the very purpose of changing andf
renewing the world, as often as it does come; 5
and even Gentile writers bear witness that a>

v Conturlnt.'] Luther makes it ' troubled waters ' ; we, more
correctly, 'the world turned upside down', a

E

50 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I; change of things cannot take place without com
motion and tumult, nay, without blood. It is the
part of a Christian, now-a-days, to await and
endure these things with presence of mind; as
Christ says, " When ye shall hear of wars and
rumours of wars, be not afraid, for these things
must first be, but the end is not just yet." I, for
my part, should say, if I saw not these tumults,
the word of God is not in the world : but seeing
them, I rejoice in my heart and despise them ;
most sure, that the kingdom of the Pope and his
adherents is about to fall : for the word of God,
which is now running in the world, has especially
invaded this kingdom. To be sure, I see you,
my Erasmus, complaining of these tumults in
many of your publications, and mourning over
the loss of peace and concord. Moreover, you
try many expedients to cure this disorder, with a
good intention, as I verily believe ; but this is a
sort of gout, which mocks your healing hands.
For here, to use your own expression, you are, in
truth, sailing against the stream; nay, you are
extinguishing fire with stubble. Cease to com
plain, cease to play the physician: .tins confusion
is of God in its origin, and in its progress; nor
will it cease, till it has made all the adversaries of
the word like the mire of the streets. But it is a
lamentable thing, that it should be necessary to
admonish you, who are so great a theologian, of
these things, as a scholar ; when you ought to b(
filling the place of a master.

This, then, is the proper application of youi
aphorism (a very excellent one though you mis
apply it), ' that some diseases are borne witl
less evil than removed/ Let all those tumults,
commotions, troubles, seditions, divisions, dis
cords, wars, and whatsoever other things there
are of like kind, with which, for the word of
GocVs sake, the whole world is shaken and clashed
together in conflict; be called diseases better

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 51

borne than cured. These things, I say, being1 sc.xvin.
temporal, are borne with less mischief than old
habits of evil; by which all souls must perish,
except they be changed through the word of God.
So that, by taking this word of God away, you
take away eternal blessings ; God, Christ, the
Spirit. But how much better were it to lose the
world, than to lose the Creator of the world ; who
can create innumerable worlds afresh, and who is
lu't<rr than an infinity of worlds ! For what com
parison is there between temporal arid eternal
things ? Much rather, then, is this leprosy of
temporal evils to be borne, than that, at the ex
pense of the slaughter and eternal damnation of
all the souls in the world, the world should, by
their blood and destruction, be pacified and cured
of all these tumults : since one soul cannot be
redeemed by paying the whole world for its ran
som. You have many beautiful and excellent
similies and aphorisms : but when you come to
sacred subjects, you apply them childishly, and
3ven perversely ;x for you crawl on the ground,
ind have no thought of any thing which is beyond
nere human conception. Now, the things which
jod does are neither childish things, nor civil or
lumaii things; but things of God;y and such as
exceed all human conception. For example ;
rou do not see that these tumults and divisions
ire marching through the world by divine coun-
el and operation, and you are afraid the skies
hould fall : but I, on the other hand, thanks be
o God ! see good in these storms ; because I see
'ther and greater in the world to come, compared
••ith which, these seem but as the whispers of the

x Perverse.'] ' Distortcdly,' in a manner contrary to their real
leaning and use. Luther's charge is no less than this : what
rastnus counted evil was really good ; and vice versa.

y Pueriha, cwilia, humana, divina.'] Civ. ' What relate to
ian as a citizen'; opposed to 'puerilia', because it was not till
man attained a certain age that he became entitled to them.

E 2

52 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. gentle breeze, or the murmur of the soft-flowing

- stream.

sc.xix. But you either deny,, or profess not to know,

- that our doma of free confession and satisfaction

whether ls t]l6 WOrd °f

the dogma This is another* question: we, however, both
office con- kno\v, and are sure, that it is the word of God ;
scriptural and that word by which Christian liberty is main-
The Pope tained, in order that we may not allow ourselves to

A f^ A

cunotbe ^e entrapped into servitude by human traditions
obeyed and laws. A point this, which I have abundantly
conjointly. prove(] elsewhere : and, if you should have a mind

The people 1 . ' •* i i •

must be to try the question, 1 am ready to plead in sup-
left to p0rt of it, even at your judgment seat;a or to
debate it with you. Many books of ours are
before the public upon these questions.

' Still, however, the laws of the pontiffs ought to
be suffered, and to be observed equally with the di
vine laws, out of love, if both the eternal salvation
of men, through the word of God, and the peace of
the world, may thus be made to subsist together
without tumult/

I have said before that this cannot be. The
prince of this world does not suffer that the laws
of his Pope and his cardinals be maintained in
consistency writh liberty, but has it in his mind to
entrap and enchain men's consciences by them.
The true God cannot endure this. Thus it is, that
the word of God, and the traditions of men, are
opposed to each other with an implacable discord,

z Hac alia qu&stio est.~\ ' Other' than that of the expediency
of proclaiming it, as supposed to be acknowledged truth. Fret
confession is introduced by Erasmus, as his third example of t
dogma, which, though true, ought not to be circulated.

a El tibi dicere.~] Like his ' etiam te judice', in Part ii
Sect. i. means making Erasmus himself the judge. — Vel con
serere manus might be supposed to allude to an ancient cus
torn, ' ex jure manu consertum vocare' ; when a party expresset
his willingness to go with his adversary into the field, if dissa
tisfied with the award of the tribunal : a species of judicia
combat. But I prefer the simpler antithesis of the text.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 53

no other than that with which God himself and sc. xix.

Satan oppose each other ; and the one undoes the

works and subverts the dogmas of the other, like
two kings laying waste each other's kingdom.
" He that is not with me is against me," says
Christ.

Now, with respect to ' the fear that the multitude,
who are prone to crimes, will abuse such liberty;'
This must be classed amongst those disturb
ances we have been speaking of, as a part of that
temporal leprosy which is to be tolerated; of that
evil which is to be endured. Nor are these per
sons of so great account, that the word of God
should be given up in order to restrain their
abuse of it. If all cannot be saved, still some are
saved ; for whose sake the word of God is given :
and these will love it the more fervently, and con
sent to it the more reverently. And what evils,
pray, have wicked men not done even before this,
when there was no word of God; rather, what
good did they? Has not the world for ever over
flowed with war, fraud, violence, discord, and all
manner of wickedness, so that Micah compares
the very best amongst them to a thorn? (Micah
vii. 4.) What would he call the rest, think you?
Now, indeed, it begins to be imputed to the pro
mulgation of the Gospel, that the world is wicked;
because through the good Gospel it more truly
appears how wicked the world was, whilst it lived
in its own darkness, without the Gospel. So, illite
rate men attribute it to literature, that their igno
rance has become notorious since letters have
flourished. Such are the thanks we render to the
word of life and salvation ! What a fear, then,
must we suppose to have been kindled amongst
the Jews, when the Gospel absolved all men from
the law of Moses ! b What degree of licence did

b Luther's expressions are not equivocal here, but irrcstric-
tive and direct : ' absolved all men from the law of Moses',
without excepting any part of that law ; and it is essential to

54

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

SEC. xx.

PARTI, this prodigious liberty not seem to be hereby
conceding to wicked men ? But the Gospel was
not therefore withheld. Wicked men were left
to their own ways, and it was charged upon the
godly not to use their liberty for an occasion to
the flesh. (Gal. v. 13.)

Nor does that part of your counsel or remedy0
stand good, where you say, ' It is lawful to de-
c^are the truth amongst any persons, at any time,
about per- and in any manner, but it is not expedient ;' and
an?' ia™ee' V6r^ a^surc^J adduce Paul's words, " All things
penurious', are lawful unto me, but all things are not expe
dient." (1 Cor. vi. 12.)

Paul is not here speaking about doctrine, or
about teaching the truth, as you, confounding his
words, and drawing them whither you please,
would represent him to do. Nay, he would have
the truth proclaimed every where, at any time, by
any means ; insomuch, that he even rejoices that
Christ should be preached for an occasion, and
out of envy ; and expressly testifies, in the very
words, that he rejoices if Christ be preached by
any means. A Paul is speaking about the practice
and use of doctrine ; to wit, of those vaunters of
Christian liberty, who, " seeking their own/'e
cared not what stumbling-blocks they made, and
what offences they occasioned by them to the
weak. The true doctrine is to be preached

his argument that he be understood thus comprehensively. —
Else what ground of fear ?

c Erasmus interposes in the form of an adviser, or physician ;
reprobating the course pursued by others, and suggesting a
better : this was no other than to modify the truth by squaring
it to times, places, and persons.

d The allusion is evidently to Philip i. 18, which fully jus
tifies his ' quovis modo.' " What then ? notwithstanding every
way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached ; and
I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." The ' every way',
or ' by any means', is ' whatsoever spirit he be preached with'j
' sincere or insincere.'

e " For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus
Christ's." (Philip ii. 21.)

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 55

always, openly, steadily, never to be turned aslant, sc. xx.

never to be concealed :f for there is none occasion

of stumbling in it; 'tis the rod of straightness.g And
who ever empowered you, or gave you the right,
to bind the Christian doctrine to places, persons,
times, cases ; when Christ wills it to be published,
and to reign in the world with the most perfect
freedom ? " For the word of God is not bound,"
says Paul, (2 Tim. ii. 9.) and shall Erasmus bind
it? Nor hath God given us a word which is to
make selection of places, persons, and times ;
since Christ says, (f Go ye into all the world."
He does not say, ' Go to a certain place, and
to a certain place go not/ as Erasmus speaks.
Again ; " Preach the Gospel to every creature."
(Mark xvi. 15.) He does not say, ' Preach it to
some, to some preach it not/ In short, you pre
scribe acceptance of persons, acceptance of places,
and acceptance of manner ; that is to say, TIME
SERVINGS ; in ministering the word of God ;
whereas, this is one great part of the glory of
the word, that " there is no acceptance of per
sons" (as Paul says) and " God respecteth not
persons." You see again, how rashly you make
war uponb the word of God, as though you pre-

f Obliquanda,'] Obliq. is sometimes applied to ' the veering
and tacking' of ships ; but the essential idea is ' bending, or
making crooked, what is in itself straight.' It is here opposed
to constanter, as ' celanda' is to ' palam'. The truth must be
preached in its straightness, or perpendicularity, not bent down
wards or sideways, that it may be accommodated to the taste,
or lusts, or supposed unaptnesses of the hearer.

K The allusion is evidently to Psa. xiv. 6. Luther seems to
have understood the Gospel or doctrine of Christ by this rod
or sceptre ; as he does also, though not exclusively, in his ex
position of this psalm. (Vide in loco.) I should rather under
stand it of his own personal conduct, as a prince. But according
to Luther's allusion, the truth being a straight or upright rod,
he who walks by it will walk straightly, or uprightly, and will
not give occasion to others to walk crookedly, or pronely.

h The word of God teaches that there is no respect of per
sons, and that God regardeth not the persons of men. Coloss.
iii. 25. Rom. ii. 6. Gal. ii. 6. Ephes. vi. 9. James ii. 1. Luke

56 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART. I. ferred your own thoughts and counsels very far
before it.

If now we should request you to distinguish
times, persons, and modes of speaking the truth
for us, when will you determine them ? The
world will have laid its end to sleep, and time be
no more, before you have fixed upon a single
sure rule. Meanwhile, what becomes of the
teacher's office? where shall we find the souls
which are to be taught ? Nay, how is it possible
that you should lay down any sure rule, when you
know no rate by which to estimate persons, times,
and modes of speech ? But if you assuredly knew
such a rate, still you are ignorant of the hearts
of men. Unless, indeed, you should choose to
adopt this; standard for your manner of speaking,
for your time and your person; ' teach the truth,
so that the Pope shall not be indignant, so that
Ca3sar shall not be angry, so that the cardinals
and princes be not displeased; provide further,
that there be no tumults or commotions in the
world, and that the multitude be not stumbled,

xx. 21. Acts x. 34, &c. &c. How contrary is it, then, to the clear
testimony of the word, which declares that God mocks all
human distinctions ; that Jew and Greek, master and servant,
or slave, rulers and subjects, pillars of the church, and men
disinterested in the church, are alike regarded and disregarded
by Him ; to have respect to these distinctions, as Erasmus
would counsel us, in the ministry of the word ! These testi
monies are sometimes perverted to mean a denial of God's
electing grace. ; which they do not, in the slightest degree, im
pugn, nor did Luther conceive so. He maintained that grace
as firmly as any man. The truth is, ' respect of persons' in
Scripture, means ' respect of persons according to human and
earthly distinctions'; in which regards, God, contrariwise to
man, puts no difference between them. His distinctions, which,
lie palpably makes, are built upon another foundation. " Where
there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum-
sion, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free ; but Christ is all, and
in all." (Coloss. iii. 1 1.) But then. " Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all
spiritual blessings (or blessedness) in heavenly places in Christ ;
according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the
world," &c. Eph. i. 3, 4. &c.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 57

and made worse/ You have already seen, what sc.xxi.

sort of a counsel this is. But you choose to play

the rhetorician after this manner, with idle words,
because you must say something.

How much better were it for us wretched men
to give to God, who knows all hearts, the glory
of prescribing the manner, persons, and times of
speaking the truth ! He knows the ( what', the
' when', the ( how', and the c to whom', we ought
to speak ; and his injunction is, that his Gospel,
which is necessary to all, should know no limits of
place or time, but should be preached to all men,
at all times, and in all places. I have already
shewn that the things set forth in the Scripture
are such as lie exposed to the view of all men;
such as, whether we will or no, must be spread
abroad amongst the common people ; and such as
are salutary. What you also maintained yourself
in your Paraclesis, when you gave better counsel
than you do now. Let us leave it to those who
are unwilling that souls should be redeemed ; such
as the Pope and his myrmidons ; to bind the word
of God, and shut men out from eternal life and the
kingdom of heaven ; neither entering in them
selves, nor suffering others to enter in: whose
mad rage you, Erasmus, are perniciously serving
by this suggestion of yours.

With the same sort of wariness you, in the next The Fa-
place, suggest that we ought not to make public the™ not

j i A- • -i- J.T • i_- i to be set

declarations in opposition to any thing which may On a level
have been determined wrongly in general conn- with.
cils ; lest we should give a handle for despising theh-Sdeci-
t he authority of the Fathers. sions have

This you say to please the Pope; who hears it ^buJ0"
with more pleasure than he does the Gospel : un- from the
,; grateful in the extreme, if he does not, in return, word-
i honour you with a cardinal's hat and revenues !
' 'Meanwhile, what is to become of those souls which
! have been fettered and slain by the unrighteous
decree? Is this nothing to you? Why, you

58

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I.

SC.XXII.

Injurious-
ness of
certain pa
radoxes,
'all things
by neces-

always feel, or pretend to feel, that the statutes
of men may be observed without any danger ; in
coincidence with the pure word of God. If they
could, I would readily accord with this propo
sition of yours. So then, if you be still ignorant,
I will again inform you, that e human statutes
cannot be observed in conjunction with the word
of God/ For the former bind men's consciences,
the latter looses them ; and they fight one with
another like fire and water, except the former be
kept freely ; that is, as statutes not binding : a
thing very contrary to the Pope's will ; and which
must be so, unless he should wish to destroy and
put an end to his own kingdom ; which is only
kept up by ensnaring and fettering men's consci
ences, whilst the Gospel declares them to be free.
The authority of the Fathers, then, must be set at
nought, and all bad decrees (in which number I
include all such determinations as are not war
ranted by the word of God) must be torn in pieces,
and thrown to the dogs ; for Christ's authority is
of another sort than that of the Fathers. In short,
if your statement comprehends the word of God,
it is a wicked one : if it be confined to other
writings, your verbose discussion of the sentiment
which you recommend is nothing to me ; my as
sertions have respect to the word of God only.1

In the last part of your Preface, you seriously
dissuade us from this sort of doctrine, and fancy
that you have almost succeeded. What is more
injurious, you say, than that this paradox should
be published to the world, that ' whatsoever is
done by us is not done by Freewill, but by mere

' Erasmus had said, that bad decisions should be hushed up ;
and if spoken of, it should rather be said, that they were good at
the time, though unseasonable now. Luther replies, if your
remark be intended to affect any decision which is founded
upon the word of God, the sentiment is impious. With res
pect to any other sort of decisions, whether you choose to call
them pious and holy, or acknowledge them to be faulty, I have
nothing to do with them.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 59

necessity'? And that saying of Augustine's that sc. xxn.

' God worketh both good and evil in us ; that he •

rewards his own good works in us, and punishes sityVG°<*

i • i_ j i • , .) TT . , . all in all'.

his own bad works in us' ! Here you are rich in
giving, or rather, in demanding reasons. ' What
a window will this saying open to impiety, if it be
commonly published amongst men ? What wicked
man will correct his life ? Who will think he is
loved of God? Who will strive with his flesh?'

I am surprised that, in this mighty vehemence
and agony of yours, you did not remember your
cause, and say, what will then become of Freewill?
Let me also become speaker in my turn, Erasmus,
and I will ask you, if you account these paradoxes
to be the invention of men, why dispute? why
boil with rage? Whom are you opposing? Is
there a man in all the world, at this day, who has
more vehemently inveighed against the dogmas of
men, than Luther has done ? So that this admoni
tion of yours is nothing to me. But, if you be
lieve these paradoxes to be the word of God,
I what face have you?k what modesty have you?
Where is now — I will not say, that wonted so
briety of Erasmus, but — that fearful reverence
which is due to the true God ; when you as
sert, that nothing can be affirmed more unpro-
fitably than this word of God ? What ! I suppose
your Creator is to learn from his creature what is
useful to be preached, and what not ? Yes,
this foolish and ill-advised God has not known
hitherto what is expedient to be taught; but now
at last his master Erasmus will prescribe to him
!the manner in which he shall be wise, and in which
he shall deliver his commands ! He, forsooth,
would have been ignorant, unless you had taught
him, that your inference follows upon his paradox!

k Ubl frons tua,.~] The face is the index of sensibility :
"ffrontery is the result of obduracy. Luther's question implies
you can have no face ; you must have a brow of brass, to
speak so.'

60 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART i. If God, then,, hath been willing to have such

things spoken openly, and spread abroad amongst

the common people, without regard to con
sequences ; who are you, that you should forbid
him ?

Paul the Apostle explicitly declares the same
things, in his Epistle to the Romans, open-mouthed,
not in a corner, but publicly and before the whole
world, in even harsher words ; saying, " Whom
he will he hardeneth." (Rom. ix. 18.) And again,
" God willing to make his wrath known." (Rom. ix.
22.) What is harsher (to the flesh, I mean) than
that saying of Christ, " Many are called, but few
chosen." (Matt. xxii. 14.) And again, "I know
whom I have chosen."1 (John xiii. 18.) All these
sayings, forsooth, if we listen to your suggestions,
are amongst the most injurious that can be con
ceived ; inasmuch as they are the instruments by
which ungodly men fall gradually m into despera
tion, hatred of God, and blasphemy.

Here, as I perceive, you reckon that the truth
and usefulness of Scripture are to be weighed and
decided by the judgment of men, and these no
other than the most ungoldly ; so that, what they
shall be pleased with, and account tolerable, that,
verily, is true, is divine, is salutary; and, what
shall be otherwise in their eyes, that is straight-
ways useless, false, and pernicious. What do
you propose by this counsel, but that God's words
should be dependent upon the will and authority
of men, so as to stand or fall by them ? whereas
the Scripture, on the other hand, says, that every
thing stands or falls by the will and authority oi
God ; nay, that " all the earth must keep silence
before the face of the Lord." (Hab. ii. 20.) To
speak as you do, a man must imagine the living
God to be nothing else but some light and igno-

1 See Chap. i. Sect. iii. note '.

ni Prolabantur.'] Translate ' sensim devenire,' 'palatim ac-
cedere.'

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. Gl

rant sort of Ranter, declaiming- in a rostrum; sc.xxri.

wlio.se words you are at liberty, if you choose, to

interpret any how you please ; accepting' or re
jecting them, according to the emotions or affec
tions which you see produced by them in wicked
men. You clearly shew here, my Erasmus, how
sincere you was before, in persuading us to re
spect the awful majesty of the divine judgments.
When the question was about the dogmas of
Scripture, and there was no need to call for reve
rence towai'ds them, on the ground of their being
shut up, and hidden from view; inasmuch as
there are none of this sort ; you, in words of
great solemnity, threatened us with Corycian
caves, lest we should break in curiously: so as
almost to deter us, by fear, from reading- Scrip
ture at all ; that very Scripture which Christ and
his Apostles, and even your own pen, elsewhere,
so greatly urge and persuade us to study ! But,
here, when we are actually arrived, not at the
dogmas of Scripture and the Corycian cave only,
but truly at the awful secrets of the divine ma
jesty ; to wit, why he works in the manner which
hath been mentioned ; here, I say, you break
through bolts and bars, and rush forwards, with
all but blasphemies in your mouth ; shewing all
possible indignation against God, because you
are not permitted to see the design and arrange
ment of such a judgment of his ! n Why do not

n Non licet videre.'] Referring to Augustine's saying, that
' God worketh all tilings in us ; rewarding his own good, and
I punishing his own evil.' In a future part of the work, where
this subject is more fully gone into, and to which I defer my
observations on it as here briefly glanced at ; I trust it will ap
pear, that the word of God does not really leave us in that
depth of darkness winch Luther's language here implies, and
which his fuller statement, hereafter made, affirms. God has
not revealed himself that he might remain hidden ; as un
known, or even yet more unknown than he was before ; but,
amidst the unsearchableness of his infinity, has, by his counsel
of manifestation, which the Scripture records, unveiled much

62

PART I.

SC.XXIII.

Answers to
Erasmus's
objec-
tionary
questions,
who will
take pains,
&c.? Two
reasons
why these
things
should be
preached.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

you here, also, pretend obscurities and ambigui
ties ? Why do not you both restrain yourself,, and
deter others, from prying into those things which
God hath willed to be kept secret from us,, and
hath not published in his word? You should
have laid your hand upon your mouth here, re
vering the unrevealed mystery, adoring the secret
counsels of the Divine Majesty, and exclaiming
with Paul, " Nay, but, O man, who art thou that
repliest against God ?" (Rom. ix. 20.)

You say, ( who will take pains to correct his
life?' I answer, no man; nor will any one be
even able to do so ; for God pays no regard to
your amenders of life, which have not the Spirit,
since they are but hypocrites. But the elect and
godly will be amended by the Holy Spirit: the
rest will perish unamended. For Augustine does
not say that the good works of none will be
crowned, nor yet that the good works of all will
be crowned ; but that the good works of some are
crowned. There will be some, therefore, who
amend their life. You say, 'Who will believe
that he is beloved of God ?' I answer, no man
will believe so, or be able to believe so ; but the
elect will believe so : the rest, not believing, will
perish ; storming and blaspheming, as you do in
this place. There will be some, therefore, that
believe.

As to what you say, ' that a window is opened
to impiety by these doctrines ' — What if the dis
orders resulting from them be referred to that
leprosy of tolerable evil, which I have already
hinted at? Still, by the same dogmas, a door is
at the same time opened to righteousness, and an
entrance into heaven, and a way to God, for the

of himself to our view ; which, before and without it, was, and
must for ever have remained, concealed. Luther — prodigy as
he was, in his day — had not the clue of God-manifestation to
guide him through the labyrinth ; and, therefore, counted
much that is light, darkness.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 63

elect and godly. Now if, according to your ad- sc.xxm.

vice, we should abstain from these dogmas, and

should hide this word of God from men, so that
each one, beguiled by a false persuasion of his
safety, should not learn to fear God, and to be
humbled, that, through the means of wholesome
fear, he may, at length, come to grace and love ;
then, we shall have nobly closed your window of
impiety ; but, in its place, we shall open folding
doors ; nay, pits and gulfs ; not only to impiety,
but even to the belly of hell; for ourselves and
for all men. Thus, we should neither enter
heaven ourselves, nor suffer others, who were
entering, to go in.

'What is the use or necessity, then, of publish
ing such things to the world, when so many evils
seem to spring from them ?'

I answer; it were enough to say, ( God would
have these things published : and, as to the prin
ciples of the divine will, we have no right to ask
them ; we ought simply to adore that will, giving
glory to God ; because He, the only just and wise
one, injures no man, and cannot possibly do any
thing foolishly or rashly ; though it may appear
far otherwise to us.' Godly men are content with
this answer. But, to be lavish of our abundance,0
let it be replied, that ' two things require the
ipreaching of these truths/ The first is, the
•humbling of our pride, and a thorough knowledge
)f the grace of God : the second, the very nature
)f Christian faith. For the first, God hath pro-
nised his grace, with certainty, to the humbled ;
hat is, to those who bewail themselves in self-
lespair. But man cannot be thoroughly humbled,

Super-erogemus.~\ ' To lay out and bestow over and above
/hat is due.' Erogo, is properly applied to ' public money,
xacted and issued upon petition and by order ' ; thence trans-
?rred to ' private expenditure.' Ut ex ubundantid super, implies,
a superabundance of reasons might be alleged, where
one is necessary.

64 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART i. till lie knows that his salvation lies altogether be
yond, and out of the reach of his own strength,
counsels, desires, will, and works ; depending
absolutely upon the counsel, will, and work, of
another ; that is, of God only. For, as long as he
is persuaded that he can do the least thing pos
sible for his own salvation, he continues in self-
conh'dence, and does not absolutely despair of
himself; therefore, he is not humbled before God,
but goes round about anticipating for himself, or
hoping, or, at least, washing to obtain, a place, a
time, and some performance of his own, by which
He may at length arrive at salvation.15 On the
other hand, he who has not the shadow of a doubt
that he is dependent, wholly and solely, upon the
will of God — this man is complete in his self-
despair ; this man chooses nothing,** but waits for
God to work ; this man is next neighbour to that
grace of God, which shall make him whole. So
that these things are published for the elects'
sake ; that they may by these means be humbled
and brought to know their own nothingness ;
and so may be saved. The rest resist this sort of
humiliation; nay, they condemn the teaching of
this self-despair ; they would have some very
small modicum of power left to themselves. These
persons, secretly, remain proud, and adversaries
to the grace of God. This, I say, is one reason
why these truths should be preached; that the

P Quo tandem perveniat.'] The contrast is between that direct
going to God of the truly humbled sinner ; and the circuitous,
procrastinative, self-centered expectations of the man who does
not yet know the whole of his lostness and impotency.

'i Nihil eligit.'] In direct contrast with the ' sibi praesumit,
sperat, optat* of the former sentence ; he does not desire or ex
pect any particular combination of time and place, in which he
may perform some great work for himself ; bullies passive in
the hands of God, leaving it to God even to choose for him.
The expression reminds us of St. Paul's language, under other
circumstances, which was probably in Luther's mind -} " yet
what I shall choose I wot not." (Phil. i. 22.)

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED.

godly, being humbled, may come to a real know- sc.xxur.
ledge r of the promise of grace, may call upon the
name of the Lord, and may receive its fulfilment.

The second reason for this preaching is, that,
faith being conversant about things which do not
appear ; to have place for faith, all the things
believed must be hidden things. Now, things
are never hidden further frcon us, than when the
contrary to them is set before us by sense and ex
perience. Thus God, whilst he makes us alive,
does it by killing us; whilst he justifies us, does
it by making us guilty; whilst he lifts us up to
heaven, does it by plunging us into hell. As saith
the Scripture, " The Lord killeth, and maketh
alive ; he bringeth down to the grave, and
bringeth up :" (1 Sam. ii. 6.) of which, this is not
the place to discourse at large. Those, who have
seen our books, are hackneyed in these topics.
Thus He hides his eternal mercy and pity under
eternal wrath ; his righteousness under iniquity.

This is the highest degree of faith, to believe \
hat He is merciful, who saves so few, and con-j;
demns so many; to believe Him just, who, of his
own will, makes us necessary objects of damna-
ion ; s thus seeming, according to Erasmus's ac
count, to be delighted with the torments of the
wretched, and to deserve hatred, rather than love. /
if then, I could, by any means, comprehend how
this God is pitiful and just, who shews so great
wrath and injustice, there would be no need of
aith ; but now, since this cannot be compre
hended, space is given for the exercise of faith,
whilst these things are preached and published ;

•

r Cognoscant.'] ' Nosco, vel bene nosco' ; ' to know a person,
or thing, not known before ;' opposed to ' agnosco.'

8 Necessarib damnabiles.'] We were so created, have been so \
generated and brought out into manifest existence,, are so con- \
stituted and so situated, that we cannot choose but be just \
objects of God's eternal damnation. This necessity is not \
blind Fate, but arises out of the appointments, arrangements,
.uid operations of God's counselled will.

F

66 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART i. even as the faith of life is exercised in death,*

whilst God is in the very act of killing us. Enough

for the present, in a preface.

By this proceeding of theirs, those who assert
and defend these paradoxes, do, in fact, better
provide against the impiety of the multitude, than
you do, by your counsel of silence and abstinence;
which, after all, avail;, nothing. For, if you either
believe, or suspect that they are true (being, as
they are, paradoxes of no small moment), through
that insatiable desire which men have for scru
tinizing secret things (then, most of all, when
most of all we wish to conceal them), you will
cause men to have a much greater desire for
learning whether these paradoxes be true, by
publishing this caution of yours ; you will have
set them on fire, no doubt, by your eagerness.
Thus it will be found, that none of us has ever
yet given such occasion to the promulgation of
these things, as you have done by this devout and
vehement admonition. You would have acted
more prudently, in quite holding your tongue
about shunning these paradoxes, if you meant to
obtain your wish. All is over now : since you do
not absolutely deny that they are true, they can-

* Fides vit<z.~] Luther has some allusion possibly to Job.xiii.15.
" Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." — ' Faith
of eternal life ;' the belief that he shall possess that life ; is
exercised by the dying- man, in the moment when God is killing
him. ' What ! He give thee life, who is now killing thee ?' Yes ;
so faith speaks. — Even so, these apparent contradictions to the
justice and other perfections of God, kill faith; but it is exer
cised in the midst of this death. A fine thought ! But it
will be seen elsewhere, as I trust, that Luther misconceives
and overstates this difficulty ; through not seeing far enough
into the counsel and actings of God. There is manifestly no
injustice in the divine procedure ; when that procedure is
viewed in its real nature and circumstances, as revealed. Nor
are we without a manifested end, which the spiritual mind en
tirely approves and rejoices in, for that severity, which is so
hateful to carnal man. But it requires great depth, as-well as
distinctness of vision, so to see, as to be verily and indeed satis
fied with this mystery of God, by which He is making himself
known.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 67

not hereafter be concealed, but will draw every sc.xxiv.
body to the investigation of them, by the sus- -
picion that they are true." Either deny, therefore,
that they are true ; or keep silence first yourself, if
you mean that others should be silent.

With respect to the other paradox, that ' what- The Pai<a-
ever we do is done by mere necessity, and not by «aiihuman
Freewill ;' let us look a little into it here, that we works are
may forbid its being called most pernicious. What I
say at present is, when it shall have been shewn and
that our salvation is placed beyond the reach of fended-
our own power and wisdom, depending upon the
work of God only (which I hope to prove fully,
hereafter, in the body of my discourse), will it not
clearly follow, that ' whilst God is not present
as a worker in us, every thing is evil which we
do ; and that we do necessarily those things which
are of no profit to our own salvation ?' For, if
it is not ive, but only God, that works salvation
in us ; we do nothing that is profitable to our
salvation, whether we will or no, before he works
in us. When I say necessarily, I do not mean by
compulsion ; but, as it is said, by a necessity of
immutability, not of compulsion : that is, when a
man is destitute of the Spirit of God, he does not
\\ork. evil against his will, through a violence put
ipon him; as if some one should seize him by the
limit, and twist him round ; just as a thief or
lighwayman is carried, against his will, to the
Callows ; but he works it of his own accord, and
vith a willing will. But then he cannot, by
lis own strength, lay aside, restrain, or change
his good pleasure, or will to act; but he goes on
,o Billing and liking : and, even if he should be corn
s' >elled from without to do something else by force,
till his will remains averse within him, and he is
ngry with the person who compels or resists him.

0

u Suspicione veritaiis.'] Interdum suspicio est ' opinio,' ' co-
I iitatio,' ' conjectura,' ' levis cognitio :' a sort of 'surmise'
i nat they may be true.

F2

68 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. NOW, he would not be angry, if his mind were
changed, and he were following the force which
acts upon him willingly. This is what I at pre
sent call ca necessity of immutability'; that is,
the will cannot change itself and turn another
way, but is rather provoked the more to will, by
being resisted : as is proved by its indignation.
This would not be, if the will were free, or pos
sessed Freewill. Appeal to experience. How
impracticable those persons are, who cleave to any
thing with affection. If these persons cease to
cleave, they so cease through violence, or through
the greater advantage which they are to derive
from something else ; they never cease to cleave,
but by constraint : whereas, if they have no affec
tion for the thing, they suffer, what may, to go for
wards and be done.

So, if, on the other hand, God work in us, the
will which has been changed and softly whispered
to by the Spirit of God, again wills and acts ac
cording to its own sheer lust, proneness, and self-
accord, not compelledly ; so that it cannot be
changed into another sort of will by any opposite
excitements, nor overcome or compelled, even by
the gates of hell ; but goes on willing and liking
and loving good, just as it before willed and
liked and loved evil. For, experience again
proves, how invincible and constant holy men are.
whilst they are goaded on by force to other ob
jects ; insomuch, that they are from thence the
more provoked to will : just as fire is inflamed bj
the wind, rather than extinguished ! So that
neither in this case is there any freedom in tin
will to turn itself another way, or will some
thing else, as the free will might choose ; si
long as the Spirit and God's grace remain in th
man.

In short, if we be under the power of the Go
of this world, being destitute of the work an
• Spirit of the true God, we are held captive by hii

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED.

at his will ; as Paul says (2 Tim. ii. 26.) ; so that sc.xxiv.
we cannot will any thing but what he wills. For
he is himself that strong- man armed, who so
keepeth his palace that those are in peace whom
he possesses ; lest they should stir up any com
motion or thought against him. Otherwise, the
kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself
could not stand ; whereas Christ affirms that it \
does stand. And this will of his we do willingly (
and cordially, agreeably to the nature of our will;;
which, if it were compelled, would not be a Will :
for compulsion is, if I may so speak, more pro-;
perly Non-will.* But, if a stronger than lie come'
upon him, and, having conquered him, carry us/
off as a spoil; then, again, we become servants,
and captives through His spirit (which, however, )
is royal liberty), to will and do of our own lust,
just what He himself wills. Thus, the human will
is placed, as a sort of packhorse, in the midst of
two contending parties. If God hath mounted,
it wills and goes whither God pleases; as the
Psalmist says, u I am become as a beast of
burden, and I am ever with thee."y (Psa. Ixxiii.
22, 23.) If Satan hath mounted, it wills and goes
whither Satan wills. Nor is it in its own choice,
to which of the two riders it shall run, or to seek
its rider; but the riders themselves contend for the
acquisition and possession of it.z

Noluntas.'] 'The negation of will;' a state supposed,
vhich is inconsistent with the very existence of the faculty :
'et this is what the opponents of ' necessity ' would charge its
issertors with maintaining ; instead of that constrained but
reely-acted obedience, which is essential to the reality of God's
!>eing God, and man his moral creature.

1 y Our authorized version gives another turn to this passage,
iy dividing the verses differently. But the original text is,
~ I am foolish, and I did not know that I was behemoth before
hee : and I am always with thee, thou holdest in thy hand my
'• 'ight hand."

1 Luther does not really mean what his words might seem to
uply, that God and Satan are co-equal rivals for the throne of

70

PART. I.
SC. XXV.

Erasmus
convicted
by his own
conces
sion : folly
and mad
ness of
man's
claiming
Freewill.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

What if I shall have proved from your own
words, in which you assert Freewill, that there is
no such thing as Freewill ; so as to convict you of
unwarily denying the conclusion which you endea
vour, with so much wariness, to establish ?
Verily, if I do not succeed in this, I swear to re
voke all which I have written against you, from
the beginning to the end of this book; and to con
firm all which vour Diatribe either asserts or

»/

brings into question against me.a

You represent the power of the free will as
something very diminutive, and what is altogether
inefficacious without the grace of God.

Do not you acknowledge this ? I ask and de
mand, then, if the grace of God be .wanting, or be

man's will. Hereafter, it will be found, that he firmly and ex
plicitly maintains the universal and minute sovereignty of God,
as the doer of all things. His object here is to shew the
governance under which man's will is ; that it is under the
power and control of the devil, unless and until the Holy
Ghost assume the empire of it : when it is still a subject,
though the subject of another, and that a freedom-giving
master. — The truth, however, is, that God has never given
Freewill (if by Freewill is meant an uncontrolled will) to any
cre.atu.re. Man, in his creation state., had the power of choos
ing, and refusing, as he has now ; and the difference between
his then state and his now state, consisted in his knowing no
thing but good ; and, till the moment of trial, having no temp
tation to choose any thing but good. When that temptation was,
for the first time, presented to him, we know how he met it • and
the result was a corrupted faculty, which Satan rides as his
packhorse. But both his seat and his riding are of the gift,
and according to the will, of God ; even as his dispossession is,
when, as and in whom God wills j not a moment sooner, or
later. Yet all this agency of God in no Avise contradicts the
reality of a will in man ; God's universal and minute govern
ment consisting in his setting, or rather procuring to be set,
before this faculty, such considerations as shall lead the free-
agent possessor of it to choose just what God would have him
choose.

a Contra me turn assent, turn quceni."] Much of Erasmus's
argument consisted of dubitative remark ; hinting a fault or
objection, rather than boldly stating it ; and proposing ques
tions, rather than affirming certainties.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 71

separated from this little something of power; sc.xxv.
what will it do by itself ?b It is inefficacious, you

,.— „ «• Hi • * V -*' '"*'<L* * "*' J* ' 7 mj

say, and does nothing that is good. Then it wrill
not do what God or his grace would have to be
done (for we suppose here, that the grace of God
is in a state of separation from it), and what the
grace of God doeth not, is not good. It follows,
therefore, that the free will,c without the grace of

9 -• i, -i- i - __ — - • — , ^ — ir"1 i_ji— >_j -n_i —i.i CT •— f

God>,ia-~aJj>SQlutely not free, but is immutably the
captive and slave of evil ; .since it cannot, of itseltj
turn to good. Let but this be allowed, and I will
give you leave to make the power of the free will
not only that small something, but the power of
an angel ; a power, if you can, that is truly
divine. Still, if you shall add this unhappy ap
pendage, that it is inefficacious without the grace
of God, you will instantly take away all power
from it. — What is an inefficacious power, but no
power at all ?

To say, then, that the will is free, and has
power, but that its power is inefficacious, is what
the Sophists call ' an opposite in the adjunct :'
as if you should say, the will is free, but it is not
free. It is like saying, fire is cold, and earth is
hot. Let fire possess even an infernal degree of
heat ; if it be neither warm nor burn, but be cold
and make cold, I will not call it fire, much less
hot — unless you choose to consider it as a paint
ing or engraving of a fire. If, however, we should
declare Freewill to be that power, which renders

b Quid ipsa faciet .] This question is no less than the death
blow to Freewill, how modest soever may be the pretensions
made for her. A false candour and a ruinous forbearance say,
why attempt to separate what run so closely and so harmo
niously together, God's grace and man's exertion ? Goodwill
to man and zeal for God demand the separation : thus only can
man be made to. know himself ; thus only can God's proper
praise be knowingly and unfeignedly rendered to him.

e See above, Sect. ix. note u. Lib. arb. ' The power of will
ing/ thus asserted to be free. Vis lib. arb. ' The power of this
power, &c. &c.' ' Freewill.'

72 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. man a fit substance to be seized by the Spirit and
imbued with the grace of God, as a being created
to eternal life, or eternal death ; we should speak
properly. For we also confess this power (that
is, this fitness) in the will ; or, as the Sophists
speak, this disposable quality and passive adapt-
edness ; which everybody knows to be not im
planted in the trees and in the beasts : for God
hath not created heaven for geese and ganders ;
as it is said.d

It stands fixed, even by your own testimony,
therefore, that we do all things by necessity, and
nothing by Freewill ; so long as the power of the
free will is nothing, and neither does nor can do
good, in the absence of grace. Unless you, by a
new use of terms, should choose to mean ' com
pletion' by 'efficacy;' intimating, that Freewill
can begin and can will a good work, though not
complete it ; which I do not believe. But more of
this hereafter.

It follows, from what has been said, that Jxee-
vyill is a title which belongs altogether to God;
and cannot join with any other being, save, the
Divine Majesty only. For that Divine Majesty,
as the Psalmist sings, can and does effect all that
He wills in heaven and in earth. (Psa. cxxxv. 6.)
But if this title be ascribed to men, you might just
as well ascribe divinity itself to them ; a sacrilege
which none can exceed. So that, it was the duty
of theologians to abstain from this word, when

d It is necessary to mark with precision the amount of this
concession. Man has a rational will, (not that his reason is
seated in his will ; it is a distinct faculty ; and we should say
more correctly, man has an understanding as well as a will)
which brutes have not ; and through the means of which he
may become the subject of spiritual influences. There is a
spirit in man ; and this spirit may be renewed and invigorated
by the Holy Ghost, so as to discern spiritual objects, and to
perform spiritual acts. But how does this affect the reality of
the natural blindness and impotency of the rational will ? It
presupposes that reality.

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 73

they would speak of human power, and to leave it SC. xxv.
for God only; and, having done this, to remove the — — —
same from out of the mouth and discourse of men,
claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their
God.e Nay, if they must by all means ascribe
some power to man, they should teach that it be
called by some other name than ' Free will;' espe
cially, when as we all see and know, the common
people are miserably seduced and beguiled by
this term ; hearing in it, and conceiving from it,
a something very far different from what theolo
gians entertain in their minds, and affirm. For
t Freewill ' is too magnificent, extensive, and
copious a term; by which the common people
suppose (as both the force and the nature of the
word require) that a power is meant, which can
turn itself freely to either side,, and is of .such ex
tent as not to yield or be subjected to any one.
Did they know that the fact is otherwise, and
that scarcely a very small particle of a little spark
is signified by it, and that this very small particle
is quite inefficacious by itself; nay, the captive
and slave of the devil ; it would be strange if they
did not stone us, as mockers and deceivers, for
uttering a sound so very far different from our
meaning : and this too, when it is not even a settled
and agreed thing amongst us yet, what we really
do mean! For "he who speaks deceitfully," says
the wise man, " is detestable ;"f especially, if he
do so in matters of piety, where eternal salvation
is at stake.

Seeing, then, that we have lost the substance

e Nomen.'] He does not mean that God should be called by
this name ; but that it is a property, which should be to him
as a name ; ' what separates the individual, in the recognition
of others, from all that resemble him.'

f OdibilisJ] I do not find any words like these, either in the
Canonical Scriptures, or in the Apocrypha. Some have sup
posed Luther to refer to Eccle. xxxvii. 3. " O wicked imagina
tion, whence earnest thou in to cover earth with deceit ?"

74 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART. I. which is expressed by so glorious a name, or
" rather have never possessed it (the Pelagians,
indeed, would have it that we do ; beguiled, as
you are, by this word) ; why do we so obstinately
retain an empty name, to the mocking and endan
gering of the common people which believe ?

It is just the same sort of wisdom, as that by
which kings and princes either retain, or claim
and vaunt themselves to possess, empty titles of
kingdoms and countries ; when they are almost
beggars all the while, and are as far as possible
from possessing those kingdoms and countries.
This, however, is a folly that may be borne ; since
they neither deceive nor beguile any one, but feed
themselves on vanity, to no profit at all. But in
the case before us, the soul-danger and the de
ception are most injurious.

Who would not laugh at, or rather hate, that
unseasonable innovator in the use of words, who,
contrary to all common usage, should endeavour
to introduce such a mode of speaking as to call a
beggar rich; not for having any money of his
own, but because some king might perchance give
him his ? Especially, if he should do this, as
though he were in earnest ; without any figure of
speech, such as antiphrasis or irony. So, if he
should call one that is sick unto death a man in
perfect health ; because some other person, who is
in health, might possibly make him whole, like him
self. So, if he should call a most illiterate idiot a
very learned man; because some other person
might possibly give him letters. It is just the same
sort of thing which is said here — ' man has Free
will': yes, forsooth: if God should give him His.
By such an abuse of speech, any man might boast
himself of any thing : as for instance, that he is
Lord of heaven and earth; that is, if God would
but give it him. Such, however, is not the lan
guage of theologians, but of stage-players and

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 75

swaggerers.* Our words ought to be plain, pure, sc.xxv.

and sober :h what Paul calls "sound and irre •

prehensible." (Tit. ii. 7, 8.)

If, then, we be not willing to give up the term
altogether, which would be the safest expedient,
and most consistent with piety ; still, let us teach
men to keep good faith in using it only within
certain limits ; by which Freewill shall be con
ceded to man, only with respect to such sub
stances as are inferior to himself, and not to those
which are his superiors. In other words, let him
know that he has, with regard to his faculties and
possessions, a right of using them — of doing, and
of forbearing to do — according to his own free
will ; although this very right be also controlled
by God's alone free will, wheresoever he sees fit
to interpose. But in his actings towards God, in
things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he
has no free will, but is the captive, the subject,
and the servant, either of the will of God, or of
the will of Satan.1

« Quadniplator:im.~\ This name was applied, under the Roman
law, to ' public informers,' who gained a fourth part of the
accused's goods, or of the fine imposed upon him : or, as others
say, because they accused persons, who, upon conviction,
used to be condemned to pay fourfold; as those guilty of ille
gal usury, gaming, or the like. But chiefly mercenary and
false accusers, or litigants, were called by this name ; and also
those judges who, making themselves parties in a cause, de
cided in their own favour. Seneca calls those who, for small
services, sought great returns, ' quadruplatores beneficiorum
suorum;' as overrating and exaggerating them. — Luther,
however, may possibly have no allusion to these customs, but
use the term, according to its essential meaning, for ' a bouncer*
or ' exaggerator ;' insinuating, that Erasmus's statements were
of this kind. But his uniting it with Histrionum leads us
rather to some notorious class, or community of persons.

h Propria, pura, sobria.] Prop. ' plain,' as opposed to|' figu
rative ;' pur. ' simple,' as opposed to ' ornamented ;' sobr. 'tem
perate,' as opposed to ' extravagant.'

1 Luther's distinction here is neither profitable, nor just,
nor safe : unprofitable, because the amount of the exception is
small, and hard to be defined ; unjust, because God does, in
fact, interpose always — " He worketh all things after the coun-

76 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. \

PART i. I have said thus much on the chapters of your
Preface, which even in themselves contain almost

J

the whole of our matter ; more of it, I might say,
Luther " than the body of the book which follows. But the
concludes sum of these is what might be dispatched by this
h's review short dilemma. Your preface complains either of
mus'sPre- the words of God, or of the words of man : if, of the
face, byre- words of man, it is all written in vain, and I have
to"dfiem- no concern with it; if, of the words of God, it is
ma, and altogether profane. So that, it would have been
shor^work more profitable to make this our question ; are the
of some of words, about which we dispute, God's words or
his sharp man»s words ? But, perhaps the Proem which
follows, and the disputation itself, will discuss this
question.

What you repeat in the conclusion of your
preface, does not at all disturb me : as * that you
should call my dogmas fables, and useless ;' ' that
you should say, that we ought rather, after the
example of Paul, to preach Christ crucified ;' ' that
wisdom must be taught amongst them that are per
fect;' ' that Scripture has its language variously
attempered to the state of the hearers ;' which
makes you think, that it is left to the prudence
and charity of the teacher, to preach what he may
deem suitable to his neighbour.

All this is absurdity and ignorance ; I also
preach nothing but Jesus crucified : but " Christ
crucified" brings all these things along with it;
and brings, moreover, that very wisdom amongst
them that are perfect : since there is no other wis
dom to be taught amongst Christians, than that
wrhich is hidden in a mystery and belongs to the

sel of his own will." " Not a sparrow falleth to the ground
without your Father ;" " He is all (things) in all (things)."
Unsafe ; because, if Freewill be admitted any where, why not
every where ? who will yield to our authority, when we say,
' it is here, but it is not there?' The truth is, man., is ajjree-
agent, though not n. free-wilier , in spiritual things ; anJdJie.is no
more in temporal things, and in his dealings with, the inferior
creatures. (See Sect. xxiv. note z.)

ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 77

perfect; not to children/ of a Jewish and legal SC-XXVI-
people, which glory in works without faith. This
is Paul's meaning in 1 Cor. ii. unless you would
have ' the preaching of Christ crucified' to mean
no more than the sounding out of these letters,
f Christ was crucified/

As to those expressions, 6 God is angry/
( hath fury/ f hateth/ ' grieveth/ ' pitieth/ ' re-
penteth/ when we know that none of these things
happeneth to God ;

You are looking for a knot in a bulrush.1 These
expressions do not make Scripture obscure, or
such as must be modulated according to the
varieties of the hearer; except that some people
are fond of making obscurities where there are
none. These are matters of grammar : the sen
timent is expressed in figurative words; but
those, such as even schoolboys understand. How
ever, we are talking about doctrines, not about
figures of speech, in this cause of ours.

k Pueros.~\ Piter, opposed to perfectos ; tv TO?? Te\e/o<s' The
men ' of full age', opposed to babes. (1 Cor. ii. 6.)

1 Nodus in scirpo quceritur.'] A proverb for stumbling upon
plain ground.

78 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART II.

PART II.

LUTHER COMMENTS UPON ERASMUS'S PROEM.

SECTION I.

Canonical Scriptures to be the standard of appeal. Human autho
rity all against Luther — admitted — but depreciated.

]STow, therefore, when about to enter upon your
disputation, you promise to plead the Canonical
Scriptures only, since Luther does not hold himself
bound by the authority of any other writer.

I am satisfied, and accept your promise : albeit,
you do not make this promise on the ground of
judging those other writers unprofitable to the
cause, but to spare yourself useless labour; for
you do not quite approve this audacity of mine,
or whatever else the principle, by which I regulate
myself in this instance, must be called.

You are not a little moved, forsooth, by so nu
merous a series of the most learned men, who
have been approved by the common consent of so
many ages : amongst whom, are to be found men
of the greatest skill in sacred literature, some of
the most holy of our Martyrs, and many celebrated
for their miracles. Add to these a number of
more modern theologians ; so many Universities,
Councils, Bishops, Pontiffs. In short, on the one
side stands erudition, genius, numbers, grandeur,
high rank, fortitude, sanctification, miracles, and
what not ? But on my side, only Wickliff and one
other, Laurentius Valla (howbeit Augustine also,
whom you pass over, is altogether with me); whose
weight is nothing, in comparison with the former.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 79

There remains none but Luther — a private man, SECT. I.

a man of yesterday — and his friends : who have

neither so much learning, nor so much genius ; no
numbers, no grandeur, no sanctification, no mira
cles — they cannot even heal a lame horse. They
make a parade of Scripture; which they never
theless consider to be equivocal,a as well as the
opposite party. They boast of the Spirit also ;
but they give no signs of possessing it. — And a
great many other particulars ; which you could spe
cify, if you pleased.b — There is nothing on our
side, therefore, but what the wolf acknowledged
in the devoured nightingale ; 6 You are a voice,'
said he, ' and nothing else.' ' They talk/ you
say; e and, for this only, expect to be believed.'

I confess, my Erasmus, that you are not with
out good reason moved by all these things. I
was so much affected by them myself for more
than ten years, that I think no other person was
ever equally harassed by such conflicts : and it
was utterly incredible to me, that this Troy of
mine, which, for so long a time, and during so
many wars, had proved itself to be invincible,
could ever be taken. Nay, I call God for a re
cord upon my soul, that I should have continued
in my opinion, and should, to this day, be still
impressed with the same feelings, if it were not
that the goadings of my own conscience, and
the evidence of facts, constrain me to judge dif
ferently. You can have no difficulty in conceiving,
that, although my heart be not a heart of stone,
pet if it were one, it might have melted in the
struggle and collision with such waves and tides
is 1 brought upon myself, by daring to do an act,

a Quam tamen dubiam habent.'] The pretended ambiguity of
'Cripture is a point on which Erasmus laid great stress, and
/hich Luther, hereafter, most powerfully and satisfactorily
epels.

b A vaunting insinuation expressed in the words of yEneas
/F,n. iv. 333, 334) ; by which Erasmus would lead his reader
J understand, that he had a great deal still behind.

80 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. which would, as I perceived, cause all the autho
rity of these persons whom you have recounted,
to come down, with all the violence of a deluge,
upon my own head.0

But this is not the place for me to construct a
history of my life, or of my works ; nor have I taken
this book in hand with the design of commending
myself, but that I might extol the grace of God.
What sort of a man I am, and with what spirit
and design I have been hurried into these trans
actions, I commit d to that Being, who knows that
all these things have been effected, not by my own
Freewill, but by His : howbeit, even the world
itself ought to have become sensible of this, long
ago. It is evidently a very invidious situation
into which you throw me, by this exordium of
yours : from which it is not easy for me to extri
cate myself, without trumpeting my own praises,
and censuring so many of the Fathers. But I sha
be short. In erudition, genius, numbers, autho
rity, and every thing else, I allow the cause to b
tried at your judgment-seat, and acknowledg
myself the inferior.0

c Luther claims respect, here, for three properties of h
mind and conduct ; conscientiousness, scrupulous investiga
tion of truth, and full consciousnesss of the evil he was encoun
tering. Not only was his light poured in very gradually, an
admitted very cautiously, but, from first to last, he would hav
been often glad to hold his tongue. When he spoke, or wrote
it was because God's word was in his heart as a burning fir
shut up in his bones, and he was weary with forbearing, an
could not stay. (Jer. xx. 9.)

d Commtndo.~] Properly, to c commit as a deposit into th
hands of a trustee.' I leave my character and my conduct, i
these particulars, with my God.

e Luther considers himself as arrayed, in opposition to th
Fathers, before the judgment-seat of Erasmus. His defenc
must consist of self-praise and abuse of the Fathers. He de
clines making such a defence, and cuts the matter short b
acknowledging his inferiority ; and, that in all the points o
competition which Erasmus had introduced. — Dr. Milne
understands him to reserve three ; viz. the Spirit, miracles
sanctification. But this does not appear to be the fair con
struction and import of the original text. If I collect th

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 81

But if I should turn round upon my judge, and SECT. i.

propose these three questions to you, what is

the manifestation of the Spirit? what are Mira
cles? what is Sanctification ? f you would be

sense aright, he makes two concessions : etlam tc judice ; ' I
will allow the cause to be tried even at your judgment-seat ;'
omnibus aliis ; ' I reserve not a single point of superiority for
myself.' (Did Luther indeed mean to contest the palm on any
of these three grounds of excellency r) — But then he abates the
force of his concessions, by remarking, with respect to those
three distinctions which alone are of any value in the number
and variety claimed for his adversaries, that, in the first place,
Erasmus could not define them ; and, in the next, he could not
prove concerning any individual of his vaunted host, that he
possessed them. (See Miln. Ecclesi. Hist. vol. iv. part ii.
p. 863.)

It may be well, just to notice the order, in which Luther
hence proceeds, in his animadversions upon Erasmus's Proem.

1. You cannot prove that they possessed these properties.

2. If they had them, they did not come at them by Freewill.

3. Show ye the same. 4. At least define the power. 5. How ab
surd your conduct with respect to the Fathers. G. Some desul
tory objections — such as, ' strange that God should have
tolerated such errors in his church : ' Scripture is not clear' —
met and repelled. 7. Erasmus reduced to a dilemma.

1 By ' manifestation of the Spirit,' Luther (Avith reference to
Erasmus's taunt, ' quern nusquam ostendunt ') means, ' how
men are to prove that they have the Spirit dwelling and walk
ing in them.' By ' miracles', how the reality or falsehood of
affirmed miracles is to be proved. By ' sanctification', the
state of a saint ; that is, of one effectually called by the Holy
Ghost : this effectual calling, or separation of the Spirit, being that
act by which the eternally separated of the Father (Jude ver. 1.)
are drawn into a realized and recognised union with the sepa
rated one, even the Lord Jesus Christ ; in whom (Heb. ii. 11.),
according to eternal purpose and covenant, they are separated to
God. So that ' separation from and unto' constitutes the essence
of sanctification ; into which the Scripture use of the term is
every where resolvable : not a gradual work, the result of
repeated actions of the Spirit upon the substance of the natural
soul, as human authors fondly teach ; but one complete and
final operation, by which the natural soul (Y^x1/) is made a
spiritual soul (TTVCU/J.U) ; as holy, with respect to its own sub
stance, as it ever will be in eternity. (See 1 Pet. i. 2, 22, 23.
2 Thess. ii. 13. John vi. 37, 44, 63, 64. See also the K\IJTO^
ofy/otv, ' called to be saints,' of the epistolary inscriptions.)
Luther very properly distinguishes this ' sanctimonia,' ' sanc
tum esse vel fuisse', from the ' haberc spiritual;' that is, from
the presence of the Holy Ghost with, and his consequent actings
in and by, the renewed Spirit.

G

82

PART II.

SECT. II.

The excel
lencies of
the Fa
thers were
not of, or
for Free
will.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

found too inexpert and too ignorant (so far as I
know you from your letters and from your books)
to answer me one syllable. Or, if I should
go on, and demand of you, which of all these
heroes, of whom you make your boast, you could
certainly show to have been, or to be sanctified,
or to have had the Spirit, or to have displayed
real miracles ; my conviction is, that you would
have to work very hard, and all in vain.g Much
that you say is borrowed from common use and
public discourse ; h which loses more than you sup
pose of its credit and authority, when summoned to
the bar of conscience. True is the proverb, e Many
pass for saints on earth, whose souls are in hell/

But let us grant you, if you please, that even
all of them were sanctified, had the Spirit, and
wrought miracles (a concession which you do not
ask) ; tell me, was any one of them sanctified, did
any one of them receive the Spirit and work mira
cles, in the name or by the power of Freewill; or,
to confirm the doctrine of Freewill ? God forbid,
you will say : all these things were done in the
name and by the power of Jesus Christ ; and in
support of the doctrine of Christ. Why, then,
do you adduce their sanctification, their having
the Spirit, and their miracles, in support of the
doctrine of Freewill ; for which they were not
given and wrought? Their miracles, therefore,
their having the Spirit, and their sanctification,
are all ours ; who preach Jesus Christ, in oppo
sition to the powers and works of men. Now,
what wonder is it, if those men (holy, spiritual,
and workers of miracles as they were) being
every now and then forestalled by the flesh, have
spoken and have acted, according to the flesh?
what happened more than once to the Apostles

B Multum sed frustru sudatorum .] Horace's ( sudet multfrm
frustraque laboret :' implying great and inefficacious toil.

h Ex usu et piiblids sermonibus.'] Us. 'men's saying what is
usually said, what others say.' Publ. senn. ' what men talk in
public ;' contrasted with private meditation and the secret
testimony of their own hearts.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. #3

themselves, when living- under the immediate eye SECT, in-

of Christ. For you do not deny, but even assert, •

that Freewill is not a matter of the Spirit, or of
Christ, but a mere human affair; so that the Spirit,
which was promised, that he might glorify Christ,
cannot possibly preach Freewill. If, therefore, the
Fathers have sometimes preached Freewill; as
suredly they have spoken by the flesh, as men, and
not by the Spirit of God: much less have they
wrought miracles, that they might support it. So
that your allegation respecting the Fathers, as
having been sanctified, had the Spirit, and wrought
miracles, is inapplicable : since it is not Freewill,
but the dogma of Jesus Christ1 as opposed to that
of Freewill, which is proved thereby.

But come now, ye that are on the side of Free- Luther
will, and assert that a dogma of this sort is true ; jj^11^ ges
that is, has come from the Spirit of God ; still, shew ef-
still I say, manifest the Spirit, publish your mira- £ctsof,,

-,. Ji ,.,.1 ,. . ji Freevvill,m

cles, display your sanctincation. Assuredly you, the three

who assert, owe these things to us who deny, particular

The Spirit, sanctification, miracles, ought not to ci^TwiUch

be demanded of us who deny ; of you who assert, he has se-

they ought. Since a negative advances nothing, lefc'ed out

J , P , . &> of Eras-

IS nothing, is not bound to prove any thing, nor mus'scata-

ought to be proved itself. An affirmative ought losue-
to be proved. You affirm the power of Freewill ;
a human substance. But no miracle has ever yet
been seen, or heard of, as performed by God, for
any dogma in support of a human thing; but only
for one in support of a divine thing. We have it
in charge to receive no dogma whatsoever, which
has not been first proved by divine attestations.
(Deut. xviii. 15 — 22.) Moreover, the Scripture calls
man vanity and a lie ;k which is in effect saying,

1 Jesu Christi dogma.'] Not ' a dogma taught by Jesus
Christ;' but a ' dogma of which He is the subject:' 'the
truth as it is in Jesus ;' which is directly opposite to this fancy
of Freewill.

k Ps. xxxix. 5. Ixii. 9.

o2

84 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. tliat all human things are vanities and lies. Come
then ; come,, I say, and prove your dogma in sup
port of a human vanity and lie,, to be true.
Where is now your manifestation of the Spirit ?
where, your sanctification ? where, your mira
cles ? — I see talents, erudition, and authority —
but God hath given these to the Gentiles also.

And yet, it is not great miracles to which we
will compel you; such as that of healing a lame
horse;1 lest you should complain of a carnal age :m
howbeit, God is wont to confirm his doctrines by
miracles, without any regard to the carnality of the
age. He is not moved by the merits or demerits
of a carnal age, but by mere pity and grace; and
by a love of establishing souls in solid truth, unto
His glory.n You are at liberty to work a miracle
as small as you please. Nay, by way of pro
voking your Baal to exertion, I jeer you; and
challenge you to create even a single frog, in the
name and by the power of Freewill : of which
the impious Gentile magicians in Egypt were
enabled to create many. For I will not put you
to the trouble of creating lice ; which they also
were not able to bring forth. 1 will set you a still
lighter task : take but a single gnat or louse (since
you tempt and mock my God Avith your fleer about
healing a lame horse) ; and if, with the whole
united force, and the whole conspiring efforts, both
of your God and of yourselves, you shall be able
to kill him — in the name and by the power of Free
will — you shall be proclaimed conquerors ; and it

1 Equum claudum sanareJ] Erasmus's burlesque illustration
of their want of miracles. Luther plays with it : ' we will not
call you to practise upon so huge an animal as an horse ; we
will be content with something; less.'

171 Alluding- to the Lord's, " a wicked and adulterous genera
tion seeketh after a sign." Matt. xvi. 4. xii. 39.

n Luther confines the design of God in his miracles to the
gracious object of them : but does not God also design, by
these seals set upon his truth, to convict and render inexcusa
ble the reprobate and ungodly ?

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 85

shall be admitted that you have maintained your SECT.III.

cause, and we will come presently and adore this

God of yours — the marvellous slayer of a louse !
Not that I deny your having the power even to
remove mountains : but because it is one thing to
have it asserted, that some act has been per
formed by the power of Freewill ; and another, to
have it proved.

What I have said of miracles, I say also of
sanctification. If, in so great a series of ages and
of men, and of all things which you have named,
you shall be able to show a single work (let it be
but the lifting up of a straw from the ground) ; or a
single word (let it be but the syllable ' my"); or a
single thought (let it be but the feeblest sigh) —
proceeding from Freewill — by which they have
either applied themselves to grace, or earned the
Spirit, or obtained pardon of sin, or have nego-
ciated any thing (let it be as diminutive as you
please — we will not talk about their sanctification)
with God; be ye again the victors, and we the van
quished ! But then it must be through the power
and in the name of Freewill ! For, as to what
is done in men through the power of a divine
creation, it has Scripture testimonies in abun
dance. You certainly ought to exhibit some work
of this kind, if you would not make yourselves
ridiculous teachers, by spreading dogmas through
out the world, with all this superciliousness and
authority, about a thing of which you produce no
record. For those shall be called dreams, which
produce no result whatsoever (the most disgrace
ful thing imaginable) to persons of so great con
sequence, living through such a series of ages,
men of the greatest erudition and sanctity, who
have also the power of working miracles. The
issue will be, that we prefer the Stoics before you;
N ho, although they too described a wise man such
as they never saw, still endeavoured to exhibit the
likeness of some part of him in their own character.

86 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. But you have absolutely nothing to show; not

- even the shadow of your dogma.

So again, with respect to the Spirit: if, out of
all the assertors of Freewill,, you can show me one,
who hath possessed even so small a degree of
strength of mind, or of good feeling, as might
enable him to despise a single farthing, to forego
a single cast of the die, or to forgive a single word
or letter of injury (I will not talk of despising
wealth, life, and fame), in the name and through
the power of Freewill ; take the palm again, and
I will be content to be sold as your captive.0 You
ought at least to show us this, after all your big
swelling words p in boast of Freewill; else, you
will again seem to be either wrangling about
goats* wool, or, like the noble Argian, seeing
plays in an empty theatre. q

SECT iv. But, in contradiction to your statement, I shall
easily shew you that holy men, such as you vaunt
y°urself to possess, as often as they come to pray
or plead with God, approach him in an utter for-

Freewiii, getfulness of their own Freewill; despairing of

0 Sub liastam libenter il)imus.~\ The custom of selling under
the spear was derived from the sales of booty taken in war ;
in which the spear wa? set up, and the spoil sold under it, to
denote whence the property had been obtained. So constant,
however, was the use of the spear in auctions, that ' hasta' is
sometimes put absolutely for the auction itself; and ' sub
hasta venire' corresponds to our ' coming under the hammer.'
Luther applies it here, in agreement with its original use ;
' he will freely come to the spear, that he may be sold as a
part of Erasmus's spoil.'

P Buccd verborum."] ' The puffed or distended cheek' is used
to express ' anger,' ' pride,' or ' boastfulness-' Horace has
' iratus buccas inflet ;' Persius, ' scloppo tumidas intendis rum-
pere buccas.'

1 Land caprind, vacua theafro.'] The first allusion (Hor. 1.
Epist. xviii. 15.) charges him with 'contentious trifling;'
like the man who quarrels with his friend about goats' hair,
whether it should be called wool or bristles; ' fighting for
straws •' the second — ' fuit haud ignobilis Argis' — (Hor. 2.
Epist. ii. 128 — 130, &c.) with indulging ' a harmless but disor
dered fancy.' — If you cannot show us any moral effects produced
by it, Freewill must be either a thing of no value, or an illusion.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 87

themselves, and imploring nothing but pure grace SECT.V.

only; which they acknowledge to be far removed

from their own deservings. Such a man does however
Augustine frequently prove himself to have been ; disunite
such did Bernard, when, in his dying-hour, he about it.
said, ( I have lost my time, for I have lived abo
minably/" I do not see any power which applies
itself for grace alleged in these expressions, but
all the power which a man has, accused of abso
lutely turning away from it.8 And yet, these self
same holy men sometimes spoke a different lan
guage about Freewill, in their disputations. Just
what happens, as I perceive, to all mankind : they
are one sort of people, whilst intent upon words
and reasonings; and another, when feeling and
acting. In the former instance, they speak a lan
guage which differs from their previous feelings ;
in the latter, their feelings contradict their pre
vious language. But men are to be measured by
their feelings, rather than their discourse; whether
they be pious, or impious.

" But we give you still more : we do not demand Luther de-
miracles, the Spirit, sanctification ; we return to J^"^*n
the dogma itself : demanding only, that you Of Free-
shall at least shew us, what work, what word, will ; a spa-
what thought, this power of the free will stirs up, ofitspmrti,
or attempts to perform, in order that it may apply powers,
itself to grace. It is not enough to say, ' there is JSfSdJ"'
a power/ ( there is a power/ ' there is a certain dents.
power, I say, in the free will ;' for what is easier
than to say this ? Nor is this worthy of those most
learned and most holy men, who have been ap
proved by so many ages. ( The babe must be
named/ as the German proverb has it. You must
define what that power is, what it does, what it suf
fers, what are its accidents. For example ; speak
ing as one most dull of apprehension, I would ask,

r Perditi.'] ' More perditi hominis ; flagitiose/ ' nequiter, cor-
rupte.'

8 Non nisi aversa fuerit.~] Opposed to ' ad gratiam sese appli-
cet j' aversation and disgust, instead of desire and seeking.

88 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. is it the office of this power either, to pray, or to
fast, or to labour, or to keep under the body, or
to give alms, or to do any thing else of this kind,
or does it make any attempt at these things ? If
it be a power, it will be trying to achieve some
thing. But here, you are more dumb than the
Seriphian frogs, and fishes.1

And how is it possible that you should define
it, when, according to your own testimony, you
are still uncertain what the power itself is ; at
variance with each other, and each of you incon
sistent with himself? What will become of the
definition, when the thing defined means one
thing in one place, and another in another?

But let it be granted, that, since the time of
Plato, there has, at length, been some sort of
agreement amongst you, about the power itself:
let it further be defined, as its office, that it prays,
or fasts, or does something of this sort, which still,
perhaps, lies concealed in the maze of Plato's
' Ideas/11 Who shall assure us, that the dogma is
true, that it is well-pleasing to God, and that we
are safe in maintaining it?x Especially, when you
confess yourselves that it is a human thing, which
has not the testimony of the Spirit; for that it

1 Seriphus was an island in the ^Egean sea ; one of the Spo-
rades ; where, according to .Lilian, the frogs never croaked ;
but, when removed to another place, became more noisy and
clamorous than others. The latter part of the story., how
ever, is differently told, and in a manner more consistent with
the proverb ; that they retained their dumbness, when trans
ferred and mingled with others. Hence the saying, BaT/>ox»s
CK 2f/>/0«, for a silent man, who can neither speak, nor sing.

u Platonis IdeLs.] A term used by Plato to denote the first
forms of things ; the sort of mental draught, according to
which nature (in the language of a heathen philosopher — and
would it were only professed heathens who speak so !) has
framed all her substances. ' Plato ideas vocat ex quibus omnia
quaecunque videmus fiunt, et ad quas omnia formantur.'

x Nosque tuto rectum agere, i. e. in rectum.] More literally,
' safe in going straight forwards.' Quasi ' in rectum agere
iter.'

" Itcrque
Non agit in rectum." ..." in rectum exire catervas."

LUCAN.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 89

was bandied by the philosophers, and had a SECT.V.

being in the world, before Christ came, and

before the Spirit was sent from heaven. Thus it
is made most certain, that this dogma was not
sent from heaven, but had been born long before,
out of the earth : so that a great deal of testimony
is necessary, to confirm it as certain and true.

Let us, then, be private men and few, whilst
yon are even publicans1' and a multitude; let us
be barbarians, and you most learned ; let us be
stupid, and you most ingenious ; us, men of yes
terday, and you older than Deucalion ; us, men of
no acceptance ; you, men who have received the
approbation of ages; us, in fine, sinners, carnal,
sottish ;z you, men fitted to excite fear in the very
devils, by your sanctity, the Spirit which is in you,
and your miracles. Give us, at least, the right of
Turks and Jews ; that of demanding a reason for
your dogma, agreeably to what your great patron
St. Peter* has commanded you. We ask this,
however, with the greatest modesty ; inasmuch

y PubUcani.~\ Not without meaning' used here instead of
publici, as opposed to privati. The publicans were govern
ment-officers, employed in collecting the public revenues ;
which they contracted for at a price, and lived upon the pro
duce. They were chiefly of the equestrian order, and held in
honour. ' Erant publicani equites Romani, qui tributa et pub-
lica vectigalia questus sui causa conducebant.' ' Publicani
autem, sunt, qui publico fruuntur.' ' Flos equitum Roma-
norum, ornamentum civitatis, firmamentum reipub. Publica-
norum ordine continetur.' — Luther uses the name, if I under
stand him aright, equivocally. Whilst he gives them the glory
of publicity, he hints at their support being derived from the
focus, and the infamous celebrity which they had acquired by
their exactions. In fact, what were the barefaced traffickers
in Indulgences, such as Tetzel and others, but publicans of
the worst stamp ? — I do not find any authority for the word
publicanus, but as referred to this office.

z Socordcs.~] Quasi sine corde. ' Not only sinful, instead of
sanctified ; and carnal, instead of having the Spirit ; but abso
lutely without natural intellect and feeling.

a Referring to 1 Pet. iii. 15. " And be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear." Petrus vester. ' Your
tutelar saint and pretended founder.'

90 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. as we do not demand that it be proved to us, by
sanctification, by the Spirit., and by miracles., as we
might do according to your own law ; which is, to
demand these things of others. Nay, we even
allow you not to give us any instance of thought,
word, or deed in your dogma; but to teach us the
simple, naked proposition. Declare the dogma
itself, at least ; what you wish to be understood
by it ; what is its form.b

If you will not, or cannot give us an example
of it, let us at least try to give you one. Imitate
the Pope and his cardinals at least, who say,
' Do what we say, but do not according to our
works/ Even so, do ye also say what work that
power requires to be performed by its subjects,
and we will apply ourselves to it ; leaving you to
yourselves. What! shall we not even gain this from
you ? The more you exceed us in numbers, the
more ancient you are, the greater, the better in all
respects than we; by so much the more disgrace
ful is it to you, that you are not able to prove
your dogma — by the miracle of even slaying a
louse, or by any very small affection of the Spirit,
or by any very small work of holiness — to us, who
are a mere nothing in your presence, and are
wishing to learn and perform your dogma.
Nay, you are not even able to exemplify it in a
single deed or word. More than this, you are not
even able to declare the very form or meaning of
the dogma (such a thing as never was heard of),
that we, at least, might imitate it. Delightful
teachers of Freewill ! What are ye now, but a
voice, and nothing else ? Who are those now,
Erasmus, that make boast of the Spirit, and show

b Qudformd.'] In a dialectic sense. ' A dialecticis sumitur
pro specie subjecta generi.' < Formae sunt, in quas genus
dividitur.' ' Specificate,' or < define ' it • i. e. enumerate and
combine all the several ideas contained in it. — We do not ask
miracles, &c. ; we do not even ask an example, by vvav of
illustrating it ; but we do require a clear and explicit affirma
tion of what you mean j a full and precise description of the
supposed substance.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 91

nothing of it ? that only speak, and forthwith SECT. V.

expect to be believed. Are not these admired

ones of yours, the men who do all this ; though so
extolled to the skies ? who do not even speak,
and yet make such great boasts and demands?0

We ask it as a favour, therefore, of yourself
and of your party, my Erasmus, that you would
at least grant to us, that, being terrified with the
danger incurred by our conscience, we may be
allowed to indulge our fears, or at least to defer
our assent to a dogma, which you perceive your
self to be nothing but an empty word, and the
sounding of so many syllables ; (to wit, ' There is
such a thing as Freewill ;' ' there is such a thing
as Freewill ;') if you should even have attained the
summit of your object, arid all your positions
should have been proved and allowed. Then,
again, it is still uncertain, even amidst your own
party, whether this mere word has a being or not ;
since they are at variance one with another, and
not agreed each with himself. It is a most unfair
thing; nay, the most wretched thing imaginable,
that the consciences of those whom Christ hath
redeemed with his own blood, should be harassed
with the mere phantom of a single petty word,
and that word of doubtful existence. Yet, if we
do not suffer ourselves to be thus harassed, we
are accused of an unheard of pride, for having
despised so many Fathers, of so many ages, who
have asserted the doctrine of Freewill ; when the
truth is, that they have laid down no distinct pro
positions at all concerning Freewill, as you per
ceive from what has been said; and the dogma of
Freewill is set up under the cover of their name,
whilst its maintainers are unable to exhibit either

c Qui nc dicit is quldem^] 'You are not even the nightingale.'
(See above, Sect, i.) They had voice enough, when speaking
for themselves ; but none with which to answer the questions
and demands of their opponents.

92

PART II.

SECT. VI.

Erasmus's
advice
turned
against
himself:
presump
tion, cru
elty, want
of discern
ment,
charged
upon him.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

its species, or its name.d It is. thus, that they have
contrived to delude the world with a lying word!6
And here, Erasmus., I summon your own and
not another's counsel f to my aid; who persuadest
us above, that we ought to desist from questions
of this kind,, and rather to teach Christ crucified,
and such things as may suffice for Christian piety.
Such has now, for a long time, been the nature of
our questions and discussions. For what else are
we aiming at, but that the simplicity and purity of
Christ's doctrine may prevail ; and that those
dogmas, which have been invented and introduced
by men, may be abandoned and disregarded.
But, whilst you give us this advice, you do not
act it; but just the contrary. You wrrite Diatribes,
you celebrate the decrees of Popes, you boast in
the authority of men, and try all means of hurry
ing us into those matters which are strangers and
aliens from the holy Scriptures, and of agitating
unnecessary topics; in order that wre may corrupt
and confound the simplicity and genuineness of
Christian piety with the additions of men. Hence
we readily perceive, that you have not given us
this counsel from your heart ; and that you do

d Neque speciem ncque nomen,~] ' They can neither define it,
nor find an appropriate name by which to express it.'

e Mendacl vocabulo.~] Though they cannot find a name for it,
they have got a word for it : but that word is a liar ; for it pro
claims the will to be free, which is really in bondage. Logi
cians distinguish ' vocabulum ' from ' nomen :' the former is
arbitrary and general ; the latter descriptive and precise. What
you cannot name (according to this distinction) you may speak
of. ' Differunt nomina et vocabula ; quia nomina finita sunt et
significant res proprias ; vocabula autem infinita, et res com
munes designant.'

f Appellamus.~] A forensic expression, applied to advocate,
witnesses, and judge ; but to each, in consistency with its pri
mary meaning of ' addressing a person by name j' Trpoira^opcvu)'
Luther would avail himself of Erasmus's own testimony and
advice, now that he has shewn the dogma of Freewill to be this
unauthorized and unprofitable one. Erasmus had recommended
that all such should be suppressed.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 93

not write any thing seriously, but trust to the vain SECT. vi.

and puerile ornaments of your language^ as that

which may enable you to lead the world whither
soever you please. Meanwhile you, in point of
fact, lead it no whither; for you utter nothing but
sheer contradictions throughout the whole, and in
every part : so that you would be most fitly cha
racterised by the man who should call you Pro
teus, or Vertumnus'1 himself ; or who should
accost you with the words of Christ, and say,
"Physician, heal thyself!" It is disgraceful to
the teacher, when the fault, which he reproves,
reproves himself.'

Until you shall have proved your affirmative,
therefore, we persist in our negative ; and venture
to make it our boast at the tribunal of our judge
(even though that judge should be the whole
band of holy men, which you vaunt yourself as
having all on your side ; or, rather, should be
the whole world) ; that we do not, and ought
not to admit a dogma, which is really nothing,
and of which it cannot be shewn, with certainty,
what it is. We will, moreover, charge you with
an incredible degree of presumption, or insanity,
in demanding that this dogma should be admitted
by us ; without any reason, except that it pleases
your High Mightinesses — who are so many, so
great, and so ancient — to assert the being of a

s Inanibus bullis verlorum.~] ' Prettinesses of style.' ' Bulla '
is properly ' a bubble, made by the boiling of water,' and is
thence applied to divers ornaments of dress ; particularly to
one in the shape of a heart, worn by the Roman youth : of
which the quality depended upon their rank, or degree of nobi
lity. This they dedicated to the Lares, when they took the
manly gown.

h Vertumnus had, amongst the Latins, the same property of
assuming all shapes, which Proteus had amongst the Greeks.

' Luther does not tell us to whom he is indebted for this
int'triral aphorism. — Erasmus had played the physician, pre
scribing silence with respect to some dogmas ; his own is
shewn to be one of them.

94 B NDAGE OF THE WILL.

1'ART ii. thing, which you confess yourselves to be a mere
- nothing. Is it really a conduct worthy of Chris
tian teachers, to delude the poor wretched common
people, in the matter of piety, with a mere no
thing ; as though it were a something of great
moment to their salvation ! Where is now that
sharpness of Grecian wit, which heretofore in
vented lies, having at least some shew of beauty;
but on this subject utters only naked and undis
guised falsehoods ? Where is now that Latin
industry, not inferior to Grecian, which in this
instance so beguiles, and is beguiled, with the
vainest of words ?k But thus it happens to un
wary, or designing, readers of books : they make
those dogmas of the Fathers and of the Saints which
are the offspring of their infirmity, to be all of the
highest authority ; the fault not being that of the
authors, but of the readers. Just as if a man,
leaning on the sanctity and authority of St. Peter,
should contend that all which Peter ever said
is true ; including even that saying in Matt. xvi.
22. by which, through infirmity of the flesh, he
persuaded Christ not to suffer ; or that saying, by
which he commanded Christ to depart from him
out of the ship (Luke v. 8.); and many others, for
which he is reproved by Christ himself.
SEC. vii. Men of this sort are like those, who, by way of
sneering at the Gospel, go chattering that all is
not true which is in the Gospel ; and lay hold of

the Fa- that word (John viii. 48.) where the Jews say to
then, by Cbrist « Say we not ^e}\ ftlSii thou art a Sama-

choosing IT 1-in i TT

their bad ritan, and hast a devil :" or that, " He is guilty

k Erasmus had bestowed these and some other commenda
tions upon the Greek and Latin Fathers, to the disparagement of
the Reformers, as making for his side in the argument. Luther
asks, whether what they had said on Freewill was a specimen
of this richness of invention, and laboriousness of investigation
and expression ? Here they had not excelled, any more than
Erasmus himself; to whom Luther was not backward to
ascribe the praise of resembling and even equalling them.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 95

of death ;" or that " We have found this fellow SEC. vn.

subverting our nation, and forbidding to give

tribute unto Csesar." The assertors of Freewill sayings
do just the same thing (with a different design, it j1" '
is true; and not willingly, but through blindness good.
and ignorance), when they lay hold on what the
Fathers, having fallen through infirmity of the
flesh, say in support of Freewill; and oppose it to
what the same Fathers have, in the strength of the
Spirit, said elsewhere against it : after which,
they go on presently to make the better give place
to the worse. Thus it comes to pass, that they
give authority to the worse sayings, because they
make for the judgment of their flesh ; and with
draw it from the better, because they make against
that judgment.

Why do we not rather choose the better?
Many such sayings are in the works of the
Fathers. To give you an instance : what saying can
be more carnal ; nay, what saying can be more im
pious, more sacrilegious, and more blasphemous ;
than that wonted one of Jerome's ? ' Virginity fills
heaven, and marriage earth/ As if earth, and
not heaven, were the due of those patriarchs,
apostles, and private Christians, who have married
wives ; or heaven were the due of vestal virgins
amongst the heathens, without Christ ! Yet the
Sophists collect these, and like sayings, from the
Fathers ; maintaining a contest of numbers, rather
than of judgment, to get the sanction of authority
x>r them. Just like that stupid fellow, Faber of
Jonstance,1 who presented his Margaritum (more
)roperly called his stable of Augeas) lately to the ,

1 John Faber, a native of Suabia ; who, from one of his works
gainst the Reformers, probably this very work, was called
The Mallet of the Heretics.' He was advanced to the see of
ienna in 1531, and died there in 1542. His elevation was
jpposed to have been the fruit of his zeal against Luther,
le entitled it his Pearl : but Luther wrould rather call it his
Dunghill; with allusion to Hercules's famous labour of remov-
ig the long accumulated filth of 3000 oxen.

96

PART II.

SEC. VIII.

Objection,
' that God
should
have dis
guised the
error
of his
Church,'
answered.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

public., that the pious and learned might have
their nauseating and vomiting draught.

In answer to what you say, ' that it is incre
dible that God should have disguised"1 the error of
his Church for so many ages, and should not have
revealed to any of his saints what we maintain to
be the very head of evangelical doctrine ;' I reply :

First, that we do not say that this error has been
tolerated by God in his Church, or in any saint of
His. For, the Church is governed by the Spirit of
God ; the saints are led by the Spirit of God
(Rom. viii. 14.); and Christ remains with his
Church even unto the end of the world (Matt,
xxviii. 20.); and the Church of God is the pillar
and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. iii. 15.) These
things, I say, we know. For thus speaks even
our common creed ; i I believe in the holy Catholic
Church :' so that it is impossible for her to err in
the least article.0 And if we should even grant

m Dissimuldrit.'] ' Diligenter et astute celo, occulto, fingo non
esse, quod revera est.'

11 STV^AO? KUI s&pafafui T/y<? dXrjOeteif'] Luther connects and
refers these words, as the older editions of the Scriptures, and
our translators, have done ; but Griesbach, and others after
him, connect them with what follows. A very important
sense is thus elicited ; " the pillar and ground of the truth
(and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness)
is God was manifested in the flesh, &c." — But there seems an
evident allusion to the ancient tabernacle, with its boards and
sockets (the pillars, or uprights, and the silver foundations into
which these were grooved ; see Exod. xxvi. 15 — 30.) j of which
the Church of God is the blessed reality ; even as that was the
image, or figure.

0 Luther seems to have inferred the immaculateness of the
militant and visible Church, from the above, and other like
testimonies ; ' an entire exemption from error in a certain ever-1
subsistent community of the Lord's people tabernacling in
flesh of sin'. The Nineteenth Article of our Church declares,
more correctly, ' The visible Church of Christ is a congrega
tion of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God
is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered, in all those
things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church
of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the
Church of Rome hath erred ; not only in their living and man
ner of ceremonies,, but also in matters of faith.'- — The same

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 97

that some elect persons are held in error all their SEC.VIII.

lifetime, still they must, before death, return into -
the way ; because Christ says (John x. 28.), " No

one shall pluck them out of my hand." But this whathe
must be your labour and your achievement; even calls the
to make it appear, with certainty, that those whom ^ "he '
you call the Church, are the Church ; or, rather, Church.
that those, who all their lifetime were wanderers,
have not at length been brought back to the fold,
before they died. For it does not directly follow,
if God hath suffered all those whom you adduce
(scattered through as long a series of ages as you
please, and men of the greatest erudition, if you
please) to abide iu error, that therefore he has
suffered his Church to abide in error.

Look at Israel, the people of God : of all their

kings, so many in number, and reigning during so

long a period, not even one is mentioned, but what

erred. And under Elias the Prophet, to such a

degree had all men, and all that was public* of that

! people, departed into idolatry ; that he thought

himself left alone. Yet, in the mean time, whilst

God was going to destroy kings, princes, priests,

irophets, and whatsoever could be called the

)eople or church of God, he reserved to himself

seven thousand men. But who saw or knew these

:o be the people of God ? So then, who will dare

;o deny, that God hath even now preserved to

aimself a Church amongst the common people,

concealed under those principal men, (for you

mention none but men of public office and of

name — ) and hath left all those to perish, as he did

n the kingdom of Israel? since it is God's pecu-

•emark extends to each individual of the faithful. Who hath not
:rrecl in his lifetime ? Of whom shall we say, that he died
vithout any mixture of error in his creed ? — Luther's repre-
entation, therefore, requires restriction: of such error as he
disputing about, it holds good.

p Omne quod publicum erat.~] ' Men of public station, as
•pposed to private men.' Luther does not forget Erasmus's
rivatus and publicus.

H

98 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. liar right and act, to entangle the choice men of

Israel, and to slay their fat ones (Psa. Ixxviii. 31),

but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel
alive ; as Esaias saith.q

What happened under Christ himself: when all
the Apostles were offended, and he was denied,
and condemned by the whole people; scarcely one
or two, Nicodemus and Joseph, and afterwards
the thief upon the cross, being preserved to him ?
But were these, at that time, called the people of
God? There was, indeed, a people of God re
maining, but it was not called so : what was called
so, was not that people. Who knows, whether
such may not have been the state of the Church
of God always, during the whole course of the
world, from its beginning ; that some have been
called the people and saints of God, who were not
really so ; whilst others, abiding as a remnant in
the midst of them, have been, but have not been
called, his people or saints ? as is shewn by the
history of Cain and Abel, of Ishmael and Isaac, of
Esau and Jacob.

Look at the Arian period :r when scarcely five

i Frequent promises are made in this Prophet that ' a remnant
shall be left.' " Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a ver
small remnant, we should have been as Sodom," &c. (Is. i. 9.)
" The remnant of Israel and such as are escaped of the house o

Jacob The remnant shall return, even the remnant of JacobJ <

unto the mighty God." " For though my people Israel be
the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return.'
(x. 20, 21, 22. Comp. Rom. ix. 27.) So Is. xi 11— 16. But
do not find the expressions ' dregs' and ' remnant' united.

r Arrianorum seculum.~\ Arianism arose early in the fourt
century ; about three hundred years before the rise of th
Popedom ; and, though condemned by Councils, was adopte
by several of Constantine's successors, and became a source o
grievous persecution to those who were sound in the faith
For an account of its origin and real nature, see Milner's Eccle
Hist. vol. ii. pp. 51 — 54. It was, in substance, a denial of th<
co-eternity, co-equality, and co-essentiality of the Lord Jesu
Christ with the Father. ' Already some secret and ambiguou
attempts had been made to lessen the idea of the divinity of t
Son of God. While his eternity was admitted by Eusebius th

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 99

Catholic8 bishops were preserved in all the world, SEC.VIII.
and those driven from their sees; the Ariatis

historian, he yet was not willing to own him co-equal with
the Father. Arius went greater lengths : he said, 'That the Son
proceeded out of a state of non-existence ; that he was not
before he was made ; that he, who is without beginning, has
set his Son as the beginning of things that are made ; and that
God made one, whom he called Word, Son, and Wisdom, by
whom he did create us.' (Milu. in loc.) Like all the rest of
heresy, it is truth corrupted ; and the only solid and satisfac
tory answer will be given to it, not by boldly asserting and
proving the real and proper divinity of the Lord Jesus, but by
showing forth his whole person in its complexity ; made up,
as it is, of two persons, a divine person and an human person,
held together by an indissoluble union : the secret being, that
God does all his works by this complex person's agency, who
acts in his human person as plenarily inspired by the Holy
Ghost. This person who thus doeth that will of God — of God,
even the Trinity — which is referred to the Father personally j
does hereby, amongst other subjects of manifestation, especially
manifest that which we may well suppose to be the preemi
nent object of display in the TRI-UNE Jehovah, the threefold
personality of his one undivided essence. — I am aware that the
term ' union of persons,' as substituted for ' union of natures,'
will be deemed objectionable, till it is well considered : but I
have the authority of one of the best philosophers I know, for
thus entitling the human part of the person of the Lord Jesus
Christ. ' That which can contrive, which can design, must be
a person. These capacities constitute personality, for they imply
consciousness and thought. They require that which can per
ceive an end or purpose ; as well as the power of providing
means, and of directing them to their end. They require a cen
tre in which perceptions unite, and from which volitions flow ;
which is mind. The acts of a mind prove the existence of a
mind ; and in whatever a mind resides is a person. The seat of
intellect is a person.' (Paley's Nat. Theol. pp. 439, 44O, 14th
Edn.^ Now, is it not plain from Scripture, and the admis
sion of all Christians, with a very few heretical exceptions,
that the Lord Jesus had this human mind, distinct from his
godhead ? he had, therefore, according to this description, a
person distinct from his divine person. — And, what is to hinder
that divine person, if the will oi' God be so, from taking up an
human person into union with himself, and acting in that per
son, from thenceforth, not in his divine person ? Is not that
union real, which subsists between this divine person and this
human person ; when this human person, having been first
generated, is afterwards inhabited, by his co-equal co- essential
in the unity of God ? Does it not also subsist without for-

100 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. reigning every where, under the public name, and

as filling the office/ of the Church. Nevertheless,

under the dominion of those heretics, Christ pre
served his Church; but in such a form, that it was
by no means supposed to be, or regarded as, the
Church.

Under the reign of the Pope, shew me a single
bishop discharging his duty; shew me a single
Council, in which matters of piety were treated of;

feiture of distinctness ? Is it not also constant and unbroken,
when that divine person evermore acts in and by that human
person, putting his godhead as it were into abeyance ? Yet,
are not his acts and his sufferings the acts and sufferings of the
co-equal of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost ? There is no
diminution, it is plain, of his essential godhead, in his volun
tarily, and to a great end, submitting to act ly and in this
creature person ; which constitutes him at the same time both
creature and Creator : very man cloeth the works of God, and
very God doeth the works of man. — And, if this complexity of
person is thus to be realized in time, what is to hinder that
person in God, in whom it is to be realized, from transacting
as though he actually were this complex person, from and in
the beginning ? Is not Jehovah's will both immutable and
irresistible ? is it not his propriety, to call things which are not
as though they were, and to give realized being to substances
which, as yet, exist in predestination ? And must he not have
acted thus in this particular instance, when he chose a people
of mankind to be in this complex person as a head, and gave
grace to that people so chosen, before the world began ? —
Now, therefore, we can meet Arius upon his own ground, and
confound him even there. Admitting all that he says, and
says from the plain text of Scripture, about ' begotten,' ' non-
existence,' ' was not before he was made,' ' God hath made one
whom he calls Word, Son, and Wisdom, by whom he did
create us ;' this in no wise impugns the co-eternity, co-equa
lity, and co-essentiality of the Lord Jesus Christ with the
Father : his human person, by and in which he has thus been
doing all things, is the creature \vhich Arius would describe ;
but he who assumed this person into union with himself is
very God- which implies, that he is all that God is.

s Catholid.'] Cath. opposed to heretical; a Greek term (aipcaif
«//j6T<Kos-) denoting ' selection', or ' partiality,' as opposed to
the profession of the whole faith.

1 Publico nomine el offido^] They were publicly called, and
recognised as, Christ's Church ; and performed its public
functions.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 101

and not robes, dignity, revenues, and other pro- SEC.VIII.
fane trifles, which none but a madman can attri
bute to the Holy Spirit. Yet they are called the
Church ; when all who live as they did — whatever
may be said of others — are in a lost state, and any
thing- rather than the Church. Howbeit, under
these Christ preserved his Church ; yet so, as not
to have it called the Church. How many saints,
think you, have these sole and special inquisi
tors" of heretical pravity burnt and slain; in the
course of some ages, for which they have now
reigned? Such as John Hussv and the like; in
whose time, no doubt many holy men lived, of the
same spirit.

Why do you not rather express your admira
tion at this, Erasmus, that, from the beginning of
the wrorld, there have always existed amongst the
heathens men of more excellent genius, greater
erudition, and more ardent study, than amongst
Christians, or the people of God? Just as Christ
himself confesses, that the children of this world
are wiser than the children of light. (Lukexvi. 8.)
What Christian is worthy to be compared with

u Soli isti inquisitor es.~] Referring, not to the Inquisition only
(which was established about the year 1226 ; the Vaudois and
Albigenses being the first objects of it) ; but to the whole system
of espionage, confiscation, excommunication, and violence, with
which ' the lamb-like beast' professed to be achieving the
extirpation of heresy ; whilst he was himself the great here-
siarch.

v John Huss, and his fellow-martyr Jerom of Prague, were
amongst the earlier and most intrepid vociferators against the
Papal abuses. They were favoured with much insight into the
truth of God, walking in the light, and treading in the steps,
of their immediate predecessor, Wickliff; though it has been
said, that they struck at the branches rather than the root of
Antichrist, not sufficiently exposing the predominant corrup
tions in doctrine. (See Milner, vol. iv. p. 275.) They suffered
death, under very aggravated circumstances of perfidy, fierceness,
and maliciousness, by a decree of the Council of Constance,
1415, 1416 j about a hundred years before Luther's time. Huss
is supposed to have been Luther's swan; singing of him in his
death, as one that should come after.

102

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART II.

SEC. IX.

The

Church is
not yet
manifest
ed ; the
saints are
hidden.

but Cicero only — not to mention the Greeks — in
genius., erudition, and diligence? What shall we
then say to have been the hindrance, that none of
them hath been able to attain to grace ? Cer
tainly they have exercised the free will with all
their might : and who will venture to say, that
not any one of them hath been most eagerly bent
upon arriving at the truth ? Yet it must be
asserted,, that none of them hath reached it. Will
you say here also, that it is incredible God should
have left so many and so great men to them
selves, throughout the whole course of the world,
and should have suffered them to strive in vain ?
Assuredly, if Freewill w^ere any thing, or could
do any thing, it must have been something, and
have done something, in those men ; in some one
of them at least. But it has effected nothing;
nay, its effect has always been the opposite way.
So that Freewill may be fully proved to be nothing,
by this single argument ; that, from the beginning
of the world to the end, no sign can be shewn
of it.

But to return to the point. What wonder, if
God suffer all the great ones of the Church to walk
in their own ways, when he has so left all nations
to walk in their own ways; as Paul says in the
Acts? (xiv. 16.) The Church of God is not so
vulgar x a thing, my Erasmus, as this name, ' The
Church of God/ by which it is called ; nor do the
saints of God meet us up and down every where,
so commonly as this name of theirs, c The Saints
of God/ does. They are a pearl and noble gems;
which the Spirit does not cast before swine, but,
as the Scripture speaks, keeps hidden ; that the

x fulgaris ] Properly, ' what is possessed by the common
people;' 'ordinary/ 'common,' ' promiscuous ;' opposed to
' rare,' ' choice/ ' what is the possession of a few.' The
names ' Church of God/ and ' Saints/ are in every body's
mouth ; but the things signified by these names are select and
few.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 103

wicked may not see the glory of God.y Else, if SECT- x-
these were openly recognised by all people, how "
could it happen that they should be so afflicted
and persecuted in the world? as Paul says, "If
they had known, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory."

I do not say these things, as denying that those
whom you mention were saints, or were the Church

of God; but because it cannot be proved (should judgment
any one be disposed to deny it) that these iden- ^ment^
tical persons were saints, but must be left alto- Of charity.
gether uncertain : and, consequently, an argument
drawn from their saintship is not of sufficient
credit a to confirm any dogma. I call them saints,
and account them such ; I call, and think them to
have been, the Church of God ; but by the law of
love, not by the law of faith : that is, charity,

y Gloriam Dei.~\ These substances are not only select, but
hidden ; ' the Church' is an invisible community, and the
saints have no outward badge to distinguish them. If they
could be discerned by the eye, that Scripture would be falsi
fied, which saith, ' The wicked shall not see the glory of God.'
I do not find this text to which he appears to refer. The Lord's
people are expressly called 'his hidden ones.' Ps. Ixxxiii. 3.
and his act of hiding them is mentioned Ps. xxvii. 5. xxxi. 20.
Also the sentiment of ' the wicked not seeing God,' is com
mon in Scripture, though not with this allusion ; which is evi
dently a strained one, though beautiful and just. But I do not
find any Scripture which puts the two sentiments together ;
'hidden, that the wicked may not see.' ' The Church,' and ' each
individual saint,' is a part of that substance, ' the mystical
Christ,' which God has ordained and created to his glory.

z Dominion gloricE crucijijcissent.~] Here again, we have a
strained application of Scripture (1 Cor. ii. 8.) ; although the
sentiment be correct. What the Apostle there says, he says of
Christ personally and exclusively ; but it is also true, that, in
persecuting his people, they act his crucifixion over again.
They are animated with the same spirit as the crucifiers ; and
the Lord himself has said, with application to this very case,
" Why persecutes! thou Me?"

a Locum satis fidelem~\ Loc. more strictly, ' a fund of ar
guments ; ' ' locus' et ' loci,' sunt sedes argumentorum, ex
(niibus ea tanquam e promptuario petuntur. Fid. ' fide dignus,'
'trustworthy;' like Trunos, it expresses either 'one who has
faith,' or ' one towards whom faith is exercised.'

]04

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. which thinketh all good of every man, and is in
no wise suspicious, and believes and presumes all
good of her neighbours, calls any baptized person
you please,1' ' a saint/ Nor is there any mischief,
if she be mistaken : because it is the lot of charity
to be deceived; exposed, as she is, to all the
uses and abuses of all men ; a general helper to
the good and to the evil, to the faithful and to
-the unfaithful, to the true and to the false. But
< faith calls no man a saint, except he be declared
such by a divine judgment. Because it is the
property of faith, not to be deceived. So that,
whereas, we ought all to be accounted saints mu
tually, by the law of charity; still, no one ought
to be decreed a saint by the law of faith; as
though it were an article of faith, that this or that
man is a saint. It is in this way, that the Pope,
that great adversary of God, who sets himself in
the place of G od, canonizes his saints : of whom
he knows not that they are saints.c

This only I affirm, with respect to those saints
Qf y0urs or rather of ours ; that, since they are at

• 11 Till

variance amongst themselves, those rather should
have been followed who spoke the best things;
that is, against Freewill in support of grace ; and
those should have been left, who, through infir
mity of the iiesh, have witnessed to the flesh,
rather than to the Spirit. Again ; those writers,
who are inconsistent with themselves, should have
been adopted and embraced where they speak
after the Spirit, and left where they savour the
flesh. This was the part of a Christian reader; a
clean animal, which parteth the hoof and chew-
eth the cud.d But our course has been., to post-

b Quamvis baptisatum.'] Luther states this too broadly : the
judgment of charity is moderate and indulgent ; but surely there
are deflections, both in faith and practice, which place many
' a baptized unbeliever' beyond the bounds of the widest en
closures of charity.

c See 2 Thessal. ii. 4. d See Levit, xi. 3. Deut. xiv. 6.

HOW LU-
ther would

writers,

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 105

pone the exercise of judgment,, and to devour all SECT.XI.

sorts of meat indiscriminately : or, what is still

more unrighteous, by a perverse exercise of judg
ment, we reject the better and approve the worse,
in the self-same authors ; and, after having done
so, we affix the title and authority of their saint-
ship to those very parts which are the worse : a
title which they have deserved for their better
parts, and for the Spirit only; not for their Free
will, or flesh.

' What shall we do then ? The Church is a hidden Erasmus's
community : the saints are not yet manifested, j^^dvice
What and whom shall we believe? or, as you stated; in
most shrewdly argue, who shall assure us? How somedf-
shall we try their spirit?0 If you look to erudition, mTtteVbut
there are Rabbies on both sides. If you look to amended.
the life, on both sides are sinners. If you look
to Scripture, both parties embrace it with affec
tion. Nor is the dispute so much about Scrip
ture (which is not even yet quite clear) as about
the meaning of Scripture/ Moreover, there are
on both sides men, who, if they do not promote
their cause at all by their numbers, their erudition,
or their dignity ; much less do so, by their fewness,
their ignorance, and their meanness. The matter
is therefore left in doubt, and the dispute remains
still under the hands of the judge : so that it
seems as if we should act most prudently in with
drawing, as a body, into the sentiment of the
Sceptics ; unless we should rather choose to fol
low your best of all examples, who profess to be
just in such a state of doubt, as enables you to tes
tify, that you are still a seeker and a learner of

e Unde e.rplorahimus SpiritumJ] Referring to 1 John iv. 1.
Erasmus talks about Paul's recommending to try the spirits,
hut evidently his allusion is to these words of St. John.

f Neijue adeo de Scripturd.] It is not so much the
authority of Scripture, as its right interpretation, which is in
dispute. Qua: necdum. Want of clearness is hinted rather than
affirmed ; ' necdum' implies, ' notwithstanding all that has been
written and decreed about it.'

106 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. the truth ; inclining to that side which asserts the
-- freedom of the will, only just until truth shall have
made herself manifest/

To this I reply, ' What you say here is the
truth, but not the whole truth/ g For we shall not
try the spirits by arguments drawn from the eru
dition, life, genius, multitude, dignity, ignorance,
rudeness, paucity, or meanness of the dispu
tants. Nor do I approve those, who place their
refuge in a boast that they have the Spirit. For I
have had a very severe contest this year,1' and am
still maintaining it, with those fanatics who sub
ject the Scriptures to the interpretation of their
own spirit. Nay, it is on this ground, that I have
hitherto inveighed against the Pope himself; in
whose kingdom nothing is more commonly urged,
or more commonly received, than this saying,
c That the Scriptures are obscure and ambigu
ous ;' ' that we must seek the interpreting spirit
from the Apostolic See of Rome/ There cannot
be a more pernicious assertion than this ; from
which ungodly men have taken occasion to exalt
themselves above the Scriptures, and to fabricate
just what they pleased : till at length, having quite
trodden the Scriptures under foot, we were be
lieving and teaching nothing but the dreams of
madmen. In a word, this saying is no human in
vention, but a mouthful of poison sent into the
world by the incredible malice of the very prince
of all the devils.

SEC. xii. This is our assertion ; that the.j3pjrita aje_ia be
trjed and proved by tw,Q sorts of judgment. One of

these is internal ; by_ which,,the man who has been
naisforthe enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or special gift of

s Neque nihil, neque omnia dicis."] Erasmus says rightly, ' the
spirits must be tried ; ' wrongly, ' that there is no test of them.'
Also, the tests he proposes are bad.

h It was in J525 (the date of his performance), that Luther
published his ' Address to the Celestial Prophets and Ca-
rolstadt.'

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED.

his own .sake and for his own individual SEC. xn.

salvation, doth, \\ith the greatest certainly, judg;.'

and discern the dogmas and thoughts of all men. sPints of

•A /-• * n • • men j one

i this judgment the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 11. p,ivate,the
15. " He that is spiritual judgeth all things, and other pub-
is judged of no man." This judgment appertains
to faith ; and is necessary even to every private
Christian, t have called it above ' the internal
clearness of Holy Scripture/' Perhaps, this is
what was meant by those who have replied to you,
' that every thing must be determined by the judg
ment of the Spirit/ But this judgment is of no
profit to any other person besides ourselves, and
is not the subject of inquiry in this cause : nor
does any one, I dare say, doubt that this judg
ment is just what I state it to be.

There is, therefore, another judgment, which is
external ; and by which we, not only for our
selves, but for others, and for the salvation of
others, do with the greatest certainty judge the
spirits and dogmas of all men. XJjjsJs the judg
ment of the public ministry, an outward office,
appealing to the word: what belongs chielly to
the leaders of the people, and preachers of the
word.k We use it to confirm the weak, and to

J See Part i. Sect. iv.

k Judic'mm publici ministerii in verbal] Minis. ' The office, or
body, of ministers.' In verbo. The word is to them, what the
law of the land is to a civil judge. Offic. exter. opposed to an in
ternal function, or operation. Luther refers to the judgment
of a synod, or council ; a tribunal, to which he always de
clared himself willing to submit his own obnoxious assertions.
He states the matter too broadly, and was guided by an
mage which lie had in his mind of what might be, rather than
iy any exhibition of this external judgment which he had ever
ieen, or could appeal to as an example. A synod of real
dints might be confidently looked to, as decreeing under the
Humiliation of a light from above. But when has such a synod
net since the council of Jerusalem ? (Acts xv. 1 — 31.) If, as
t is probable, there be real saints in the council, who is to
nsure their being the majority? Whilst great respect, there-
ore, is due to a judgment of this kind, it cannot be that infal-
ible one, which Luther's commendations might seem to imply.

108 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ir. confute the gainsayers. I have called this above
-- ' the external clearness of Holy Scripture/ Our
assertion is, ( Let all the spirits be tried in the
face of the Church at the bar of Scripture/ For
it ought to be a first principle, most firmly main
tained amongst Christians, that the Holy Scrip
tures are a spiritual light, far brighter than the
sun ; especially in those things which pertain to
salvation, or are necessary.

SEC.XIII. But, since we have now for a long time been
persuaded to a contrary opinion by that pestilent
the Sophists, ' That the Scriptures are

ture prov- obscure and ambiguous;' I am compelled, in the
ed.bytesti- first place, to prove that very first principle of
fronTthe ours, by which all the rest are to be proved : —
Old Testa- what would to philosophers appear absurd and
ment- impossible.

First, then, Moses says (Deut. xvii. 8), that, if
any difficult cause should arise, they must go up
to the place which God hath chosen for his name,

It is not strictly parallel to the ' external clearness' of Scrip
ture ; which he refers to, as asserted, Part i. Sect. iv. The
testimony may be imperfectly brought out ; or the judges may
not have eyes to see it. Would Luther undertake to say, that
he should himself bring all the testimony that is in the Scrip
tures, to bear upon any given question ; or would he, had he
been able to cite it, have convinced the Council of Constance,
or the Council of Trent ? After all, the private and internal
judgment which he speaks of ; the Spirit shining upon and con
firming his testimony by the word, is that which the spiritual
man must, and will, at last resort to, and can alone depend
upon. He is thankful for, and in some sense obedient to, the
judgment of pure synods (pure as such compounds can be ex
pected to be) ; but to a higher Master he standeth or falleth.
" This I say then, walk in" (or after} '-'the spirit." (Gal. v. 16.)
— Enough for Luther's purpose may., however, be admitted. Let
all dogmas be brought to the standard of Scripture, publicly ;
let the leaders and counsellors of the people declare upon them,
stating the grounds of their decision. Such judgment will
have its weight, though not paramount ; and it will be mani
fested how slender, or how false, are the foundations of error.
This object is obtained, in a great degree, now, by the free
canvass which religious, as well as other opinions., are made to
submit tOj from the press.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 109

and there consult the Priests, who must judge it SEC.XIII.

according* to the la\v of the Lord. " According

to the law of the Lord/' saith he. But how shall
they judge, except the law of the Lord, wherewith
the people must be satisfied, were externally ' most
plain ? Else, it were enough to say, e They shall
judge according to their own spirit/ Nay, the
truth is, that in every civil government, all the
causes of all the subjects are settled by the laws.
But how could they be settled, except the laws
were most certain, and just like so many shining
lights amongst the people. For, if the laws were
ambiguous and uncertain, not only would it be
impossible that any causes should be decided, but
there could be no certain standard of manners :
since laws are made for this very purpose, that
the manners of the people may be regulated by a
certain model ; and the principles by which causes
are to be determined, may be defined."1 That
which is to be the standard and measure of other
things, ought itself to be by much the surest and
clearest of all things : and such a sort of thing is
the law. Now, if this light and certainty in their
laws be both necessary, and also conceded freely
to the whole world, by a divine gift, in profane
governments (which are conversant about tem
poral things) ; how is it possible, that God should
not have granted laws and rules of much greater
light and certainty to his Christian people (his
chosen, forsooth) ; whereby to direct their own
iearts and lives individually, and to settle all their
Causes? since He would have temporal things to
e despised by his children ? For, " if God so

1 Extern^.] As opposed to a light of the Spirit, within the
oul.

m Causarum qucestiones dejiniantur.'] The book of the laws lays
own and recognises certain broad principles, to which the
lets of each case are applied. These principles must be de-
jrminately fixed, admitted, and perspicuously affirmed. ' Stains
tustf,' is the question of fact, at issue ; ' qucestio causa;,' the law
rinciple to which it is referable.

HO BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. clothe the grass, which to day is, and to-morrow is

cast into the oven, how much more shall he clothe

us?" — But let us go on to overwhelm this pesti
lent saying of the Sophists with Scripture.

The nineteenth Psalm (ver. 8) says, et The
commandment of the Lord is lightsome, or pure ;
enlightening the eyes." I suppose that Avhich
enlightens the eyes, is not obscure, or ambi
guous.

So the 119th Psalm (ver. 130) says, "The door
of thy words enlighteneth ; it giveth understand
ing to thy little ones." Here he attributes to the
words of God that they are ( a door,' ( a something
set open;' what is exposed to the view of all, and
enlightens even the little ones.

Isaiah viii. (ver. 20) sends all questions to the
law and to the testimony ; threatening, that the
light of the morning shall be denied us, unless
we do so.n

In Zech. ii.° he commands them to seek the
law from the mouth of the Priest, as being the
messenger of the Lord of Hosts. Pretty mes
senger or ambassador of the Lord, forsooth, if
he speak those things which are both ambiguous
in themselves, and obscure to the people ; so
that he is as ignorant of what he speaks, as they
are of what they hear.

And what is more frequently said to the praise
of Scripture, throughout the whole of the Old Tes
tament, and especially throughout that single hun
dred and nineteenth Psalm, than that it is in itself

11 In our version, it is not a threat, but an explanation of a
fact : " If they speak not according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them," — A testimony equally conclusive as
to the clearness of the word ; for how are we to compare decla
rations, and ascertain their conformity with the written word,
if that word be not plain ?

0 A false reference : the wrords are found in Malachi ii. 7-
" For the Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should
seek the law at his mouth j for he is the messenger of the Lord
of Hosts."

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. HI

a most certain and a most evident light ? For thus SEC.XIV.

he celebrates its clearness, " Thy word is a lamp

unto my feet, and a light unto my paths/' (v. 105.)
He says not, ' Thy Spirit only is a lamp unto my
feet:' albeit, he assigns its office to this also;
saying, " Thy good Spirit shall conduct me
forth p in a right land." Thus, it is called both a
' way' and e a path;'q doubtless, from its exceed
ing great certainty.

Let us come to the New Testament. Paul says Clearness
(Rom. i. 2.), that the Gospel was promised by the °JrgCllp"
Prophets in the Holy Scriptures : arid in chap. iii. proved, by
that the righteousness of faith was witnessed by
the law and the Prophets. (Ver. 21.) But what
sort of a witnessing was this, if obscure ? Nay, he Testa-
not only makes the Gospel ' the word of light/ "
f the gospel of clearness/ in all his Epistles ; but
does this professedly, and with great abundance
of words, in 2 Cor. iii. and iv. where he reasons
boastfully upon the clearness, as well of Moses as
of Christ/

Peter also says (2 Peter i. 19), " We have a
very sure word of prophecy ; whereunto ye do
well that yc take heed, as unto a light that shineth
in a dark place." Here Peter makes the word of
God a clear lamp, and all other things darkness :
and do we make obscurity and darkness of it ?

Christ so often calls himself " the lio-ht of the

o

world," and John the Baptist " a burning and a
shining light ;" not because of the sanctity of their
lives, doubtless; but because of the word: just

p Deducet.~\ Like the •jrpmrcf.nrw of the Greeks, expresses ' the
escorting' of a person to his home.

i Via et semita.] Via, ' the broad carriage-road ;' semita,
' the narrow foot-path.'

r Glorio& dispntat.'] The Apostle institutes a comparison (in
chap iii.) between the glory of the Gospel ministry and that of
Moses ; shewing the superiority of the former. The scope and
effect of the comparison is to magnify his own office : but the
clearness of both is assumed, as the very basis of the argument ;
i clearness, indicated in Moses by the glory of his countenance.

112 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. as Paul calls the Philippians " bright lights of the

world;" "because ye hold fast5 the word of life,"

says he. For, without the wo rd,life is uncertain
and obscure.

And what are the Apostles about, when they
prove their own preachings by the Scriptures ? Is
it, that they may darken their own darkness to us,
by greater darkness? or, is it to prove the more
known thing by one more unknown ? What is
Christ about, in John v. (ver. 39.) when he teaches
the Jews to search the Scriptures ; as being his
witnesses, forsooth ? Is it that he may render
them doubtful about the faith of him?* What are
those persons about, in Acts xviii. (ver. 2.) who,
on hearing Paul, read the Scriptures day and
night, to see whether those things were so ? Do
not all these things prove, that the Apostles, as
well as Christ himself, appeal to the Scriptures, as
the clearest witnesses to the truth of their dis
courses ? With what face, then, do we represent
them as obscure ?

I beg to know, whether these words of Scrip
ture are obscure or ambiguous, " God created the
heavens and the earth ;" " and the word was made
flesh ;" and all those affirmations which the whole
wrorld has received as articles of faith : and
whence received them, but from the Scriptures?
And what are those about, who preach still to this
day? Do they interpret and declare" the Scrip-

s Our translation says " holding forth;" Luther says " tene-
tis :" the original word is eVe^i/res- ' exhibeo,' ' prse me fero.'
But it must be possessed, before it can be held forth ; and, if
on this account they be called " lights," what must the word
itself be ?

1 Dejide sui.~] If these witnesses were doubtful, not clear ;
he would be justifying them in their unbelief, instead of
establishing his claim to be received.

u Declarant.'] ' Make clear,' or ' cause to be seen ;' it refers
to the matter of Scripture, as inlerpretantur does to the meaning
of the terms : an ' avowing,' ' propounding,' or ' distinctly set
ting forth to the world,' of the testimony, or truth of God,
which is contained ami shut up in the Scriptures.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 113

tures? If the Scripture, which they declare, be ob- SEC.XIV.
scure; who is to assure us, that even this decla
ration of it is certain? Another new declaration?
What shall declare that also ? At this rate,
we shall have an endless progression. In fine, if
Scripture be obscure or doubtful, what need was
there for it to be declared to us by God from
heaven? Aw vf r'r>f "vffirjfilltlyliflhfifini'ft 'HI 'I
ambiguous, ^illiout having our obscurity, ambi-
gujty^_and darkness increased to us from heaven ?
What will then become of that saying of the Apos
tle, " All Scripture, having been given by inspi
ration of God, is profitable for teaching, for
reproving, and for convincing?" (2 Tim. iii. 16.)
Nay, it is absolutely useless, Paul ! and what
thou attributest to Scripture must be sought from
the Fathers, who have been received for a long
series of ages, and from the Roman see ! Thy
sentence, therefore, must be revoked, which thou
writest to Titus, " That a bishop must be mighty
in sound doctrine, that he may be able both to
exhort and to refute the gainsayers, and to stop the
mouth of vain- talkers and soul-deceivers." How
shall he be mighty, when thou leavest him the
Scriptures obscure ; that is, arms of flax ; and, for
a sword, light stubble ? Then must Christ also
recant his own word, who falsely promises us, " I
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your
'adversaries shall riot be able to resist." How
shall they not resist, when we fight against them
with obscure and uncertain weapons? — Why dost
thou also prescribe a form of Christianity to us,
if the Scriptures are obscure to thee?

But I think I have long been burdensome, even
to men of no sensibility, in making so long delay,
and so wasting my forces' on a proposition which
is most evident. But it was necessary to over-

Tantas moras traho et copias perdu."] His ' copise' are his
kripture testimonies ami reasonings.

I

1 14 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART II. whelm that impudent and blasphemous saying,
- ( The Scriptures are obscure ;' that you also
might see, my Erasmus, what it is you say, when
you deny the Scripture to be quite clear. For
you must, at the same time, assent to me, that all
your saints, whom you adduce, are much less clear.
For who shall assure us of their light, if you make
out the Scriptures to be obscure ? So that those,
who deny the Scriptures to be most clear and
most evident/ leave us nothing but darkness.
SEC. xv. jjut here you will say, e All this is nothing to
~~" me; I do not say that the Scriptures are obscure
upon all subjects (for who would be mad enough

if the dog- to say so?); but only on this, and the like/ My
freewill answer is; neither do I assert these things in
be obscure, opposition to you only, but in opposition to all
"1 W^° th*1^ as y°u do. And again: in opposition
to you distinctly; I affirm, with respect to the
whole Scripture, that I will not allow any part of
it to be called obscure. What I have cited from
Peter stands good here ; that " the word of God
is a lamp shining to us in a dark place." y Now,
if there be a part of this lamp which shineth not;
it will become part of the dark place, rather than
of the lamp itself. Christ has not so enlightened
us, as wilfully to leave some part of his word
dark; when he, at the same time, commands us to
give heed to it: for in vain he commands us to
give heed, if it doth not shine.

So that, if the dogma of Freewill be obscure
or ambiguous; it belongeth not to Christians and
to the Scriptures, and should be altogether aban-

x Lucidissimas et evidentissimas.~] Luc. ' their testimony un
equivocal;' evid. ' the terms in which that testimony is con
veyed, unambiguous.' — So that they may be compared to some
of those beautiful orbs above us ; which are not only luminous,
but exposed to view.

y See above, Sect. xiv. Stat ibi. ' qui vigent,' ' in statu suo
manent,' ' incolumes sunt/ ' dignitatem suam retinent ;' non-
nunquam stare dicuntur : opposed to ' concido 3' ' loses none
of its authority here.'

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 115

doned, and ranked amongst those fables, which SEC.XVI.

Paul condemns Christians for wrangling1 about/'

For, if it belong to Christians and to the Scrip
tures, it ought to be clear, open, and evident, and
just like all the oilier articles of the faith : which
are most evident. For, all the articles, which
Christians receive, ought not only to be most cer
tain to themselves, but also fortified against the
assaults of other men, by such manifest and clear
Scriptures, that they shut every man's mouth
from having power to say any thing against them :
as Christ says in his promise, " I will give you a
mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries
shall not be able to resist." If, therefore, our
mouth be so weak in the behalf of this dogma,
that our adversaries can resist it ; what he says is
false, that no adversary can resist our mouth. So
that, we shall either meet with no adversaries,
whilst maintaining the dogma of Freewill (which
will be the case if it does not belong to us) ; or, if
it do belong to us, we shall have adversaries, it is
true ; but they shall be such as cannot resist us.

But this inability of the adversaries to resist Meaning
(since the mention of it has occurred here) con- a"^ ex?m~
sisteth not in their being compelled to abandon Sf the pro-
their own humour/ or being persuaded either to niise> 'Ail

z Christianis r'ucaniibus.'] Luther does not appear to refer to
any single text explicitly, but to the many warnings of this
kind, which are dispersed throughout the Epistles to Timothy
and Titus. The nearest references seem to be, 1 Tim. i. 4, 6'.
("Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which
minister questions rather than godly edifying, which is in
faith.". ..." From which some having swerved, have turned
aside unto vain jangling.") 2 Tim. ii. 23. (" But foolish and
unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.")
And Titus iii. 9. (" But avoid foolish questions, and genealo
gies, and contentions, and strivings about the law ; for they
are unprofitable and vain.")

a ,SY/wi suo cedere.~\ ' Sensus ' is properly, ' the frame of

thought, or of feeling,' whatever that be ; ' the state of mind.'

Communis sensus,' which follows just below, is properly,

the common judgment, or feeling, of mankind $' and is

i2

116 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ir. confess or to be silent. For who shall compel

• the unwilling to believe, to confess their error,

youradyer- or |o j^ s]}eilt ? What is more loquacious than

sanes shall .. . OT»JJ_I- JT •

not be able vanity, says Augustine I — rSut their mouth is so
to resist.' far stopped, that they have nothing to say in
reply ; and, though they say much in reply, yet,
in the judgment of common sense, they say
nothing. This is best shewn by examples. When
Christ had put the Sadducees to silence (Matt.
xxii. 23 — 32.), by citing Scripture, and proving
the resurrection of the dead from the words of
Moses (Exod. iii. 6.), " I am the God of Abra
ham, &c." " He is not the God of the dead, but

of the living — " upon this, they could not resist, or
say any thing in reply. But did they, therefore,
recede from their opinion ? — And, how often did
he confute the Pharisees, by the most evident
Scriptures and arguments ; so that the people
clearly saw them convicted, and they themselves
perceived it? Still, however, they continued his
adversaries. Stephen, in Acts vii.b so spake,
according to Luke, that (C they were not able to
resist the wisdom and the Spirit which spake in
him." But what was their conduct? Did they
yield ? So far from it, being ashamed to be over
come, and having no power to resist, they go mad;
and, stopping their eyes and ears, suborn false
witnesses against him. (Acts vi. 1 0 — 14.) See how
he stands before the council, and confutes his

thence transferred to express a certain imaginary standard of
judgment, or court of appeal, the voice of unadulterated and
unsophisticated nature, which \ve call ' common sense.'

b This should be Acts vi. (v. 1O.) There is a good deal of
confusion in Luther's reference to this history, lie represents
the violence with which they rushed upon him at the close of
his defence (especially when he had testified ' that he saw the
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing- on the right
hand of God'), as having been expressed before his apprehension
and arraignment, and refers the whole transaction to Acts vii. ;
of which the first incidents are recorded in the preceding
chapter.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 117

adversaries! After having enumerated the bene- SEC.XVI.

fits which God had bestowed upon tliat people,

from their origin, and having proved that God had
never ordered a Temple to be built to him (for on
this charge he was tried, and this was the point of
fact at issue);0 he at length concedes, that a Temple

c Ecus agebaturJ] Re. ag. ' lie was arraigned ; ' ed qucestione, ' on
this indictment 3' this was the law-crime charged : status
causa1, 'the question of fact to be tried.' — Luther intimates, that
his address to the council is resolvable into this main subject ;
' a defence against the charge of having blasphemed the Temple.'
Such being the charge preferred against him, he repelled it, by
maintaining that it was nothing criminal to speak against the
Temple ; for that was not God's ordinance. Probably, he had
been led by the Holy Ghost, to aim at beating down the idola
trous attachment which the Jews shewed to their Temple, in his
reasonings with those who arose and disputed with him. But
it is expressly said, " they suborned men which said, We have
heard him Speak blasphemous words against Moses, and
against God." (Acts vi. 11.) And afterwards ; "And set up
false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak
blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law."
(Acts vi. 13.) — It should seem, therefore, that more was charged
against him, with respect to this blasphemy, than he had
really spoken. — Perhaps his defence ; or, as I would rather call
it, his address ; may be correctly said to have had a broader
basis than that of merely repelling a charge of having blas
phemed the Temple ; viz. that of proving, that the great body
of their nation had always been " registers " of the Holy Ghost ;
and by inference, therefore, that they were such now, in what
they had done to Jesus. From the Patriarchs downwards,
their plans and efforts had always been in direct opposition to
the counsel and purpose of God, as declared to them by those
in whom the Holy Ghost spake. (See Heb. i. 1, C2. Gr.)
Whatever was the accusation, and however he might design to
repel it, the clue to his discourse seems to be found in
vv. 51 — 53. " Ye stiffnecked and uncircurncised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost" — (not as striving hi
their own souls, but as testifying in those whom God sent to be
his instruments for drawing out the enmity of their carnal
mind) — "as your fathers did, so do ye." — On this broader basis,
however, he contrives to build an answer to his own peculiar
charge respecting the Temple ; by shewing, that this very
Temple furnished one proof of their resistance to the Holy
Ghost — their idolized Temple had not originated from God, but
was man's device. It was, in fact, David's own suggestion,
which he was forbidden to execute ; and was rather acquiesced
in, than appointed of God (just as in the former case of appointing

118 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. had indeed been bnilt to him, under Solomon.

But then he abates the force of his concession/1

by subjoining after this manner; " Howbeit the
Most High dwelleth not in temples made with
hands :" and, in proof of this, he alleges the last
chapter of the Prophet Isaiah, " What house is
this that ye build unto me?" (Isa. Ixvi. 1.) Tell
me, what could they say now, against so plain a
Scripture ? But they, nothing moved by it, re
mained fixed in their own sentiment. Which
leads him to inveigh against them also:6 "Ye
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always
resist the Holy Ghost." ' They resist/ he says ;
whereas, in point of fact, they were not able to
resist.

Let us come to the men of our day/ When
John Huss disputes after this manner against the
Pope, from Matt. xvi. 18, &c. "The gates of hell
prevail not against my Church." (Is there any

a king, 1 Sam. viii — xii.) ; when the honour of building it was
appropriated to Solomon. (2 Sam. vii. 1 Chron. xvii.) God's
Temple (not only the spiritual one, but the material fabric also)
was deferred till the latter times (Ezek. xl. — xlviii) ; and Solo
mon's was but an abortive birth, arising from the precocity of
man : the Lord giving way, as it were, to man's device,
that he might shew him its instability and vanity. Go(
instituted a tabernacle ("Our fathers had the tabernacle of wit
ness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unU
Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he
had seen." Acts vii. 44. &c. &c.J — a fabric more suited to the
then stote of his Church and nation — but the well-meaning
vanity of his aspiring worshippers, would have a stately temple
as if walls and roofs could contain him ! " Howbeit the Most
High &c."

d Subsumit.~] I do not find any authority for this word ; but
taking the general principle of the preposition sub, when uset
in composition (secretly, diminutively) ; the amplification in the
text seems most nearly to express the author's meaning.

' Tandem concedit At ibi subsumit :' subs, implies ' a

secret, or partial, retraction of his concession.'

0 Unde et in eos.~\ In contradistinction to their fathers.

f The Council of Constance, A. D. 1415. was Luther's day,
and even our day, as compared with that of Christ and his first
Martyr.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED.

obscurity or ambiguity in these words ?) But sc. xvn.

against the Pope, and his abettors, the gates of

hell do prevail ; since they are notorious for their
manifest impiety and wickednesses all the world
over. (Is this also obscure ?) Therefore the
Pope and his partisans are not that Church of
which Christ speaks. — What could they hereupon
say against him; or how could they resist the
mouth, which Christ had given him ? Yet they
did resist, and persevered in their resistance, till
they burnt him : so far were they from altering
their mind. Nor does Christ suppress this, when
he says, ' the adversaries shall not be able to
resist/ They are adversaries, says he ; therefore
they will resist. If they did not resist, they
would not be adversaries, but friends ; and yet
they shall not be able to resist. What is this,
but to say, that, resisting, they shall not be able to
resist?

Now, if we also shall be able so to confute Free- We must
will, as that our adversaries cannot resist ; even ^e. cont.ent
though they retain their own humour, and, in spite Tort^vic-
of conscience, hold fast their resistance ; we shall tol>y- Our
have done enough. For I have had abundant ex- *&%£*
perience, that no man chooses to be conquered ; confess
and, as Quintilian says, ' there is no one who Jimself
would not rather seem to know, than to be a
learner :' although it be a sort of proverb in every
body's mouth amongst us (from use, I should
rather say abuse, more than affection), ' I wish to
learn ; 1 am ready to be taught ; and, when
taught better things, to follow them. I am a man;
I may err.3 The truth is, men use such expres
sions as these, because, under this fair mask, as
under a shew of humility, they are allowed con
fidently to say, (I am not satisfied; I do not
understand him ; he does violence to the Scrip
tures; he is an obstinate assertor:' because they
are sure, forsooth, that no one can suspect such

120 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

TART ii. humble souls, as theirs, of being pertinacious in

their resistance to truth ; and of making a stout

attack upon her, when now they have even recog
nised her presence/ So then, it ought not to be
ascribed to their own perverseness, that they keep
their old mind; but to the obscurity and ambiguity
of the arguments, with which they are assailed.

This was just the conduct of the Greek philo
sophers also : that none of them might seem to
yield to another, even though manifestly over
come, they began to deny first principles • as
Aristotle recites. Meanwhile, we kindly persuade
ourselves and others, that there are many good
men in the world, who would be willing to em
brace the truth, if they had but a teacher who
could make things plain to them; and that it is
not to be presumed, that so many learned men,
through such a series of ages, have been in error,
or that they have not thoroughly understood the
truth. As if we did not know, that the world is
the kingdom of Satan : in which, besides the
blindness adherent as a sort of natural excres
cence to our flesh, spirits even of the most mis
chievous nature having dominion over us, we are
hardened in that very blindness ; and now no
longer held in chains of mere human darkness,
but of a darkness imposed upon us by devils,
sc.xvm. 'If the Scriptures then be quite clear, why have

men of excellent understanding, you say, been for

Why great go manv ao;es blind upon this subiect?' I answer,

ircniuscs ^ •* "

have been ' they have been thus blind, unto the praise and
Mind about glory of Freewill : that this magnificently boasted
TiaTthat power, by which man is able to apply himself to
they might those things which concern his everlasting salva-

s Pertinacitcr resistcrc,fortiier impugnare.'] The unsuspected
case was the real case : notwithstanding all his ostentatious
professions of humility, Erasmus was not only rejecting- clearest
evidences of truth — which is bad enough — but even lighting
against what he knew to be truth — which is far worse.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 121

tion; this power, I say, which neither sees what sc.xvin.
it sees, nor hears what it hears — much less under
stands or seeks after these things ; might be
shewn to be what it is. For to this belongs, what But no
Christ and his Evangelists so often assert from wonder,
Isaiah, " Hearing, ye shall hear and shall not natural
understand ; and seeing, ye shall see and shall not man is
perceive." What does this mean, but that the
free will, or human heart, is so trodden under foot of God.
of Satan, that, except it be miraculously1' raised
up by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself either
see or hear those things which strike upon the
very eyes and ears, so manifestly as to be pal
pable to the hand : such is the misery and blind
ness of the human race. For it is thus, that even
the Evangelists themselves, after expressing their
wonder how it should happen that the Jews were
not taken with the works and words of Christ —
which were absolutely irresistible and undeniable —
reply to their own expressions of wonder, by
citing this passage of Scripture :' by suggesting,
forsooth, that man, left to himself, seeing sees not,
and hearing hears not. What can be more mar
vellous ? " The light," saith he, " shineth in
darkness, and the darkness apprehendeth it not."

h Mirabiliter suscitetur.'] Mir. would express either the na
ture or the degree of influence exerted ; but here it must be the
nature : the very least degree of the Holy Ghost's regenerating
energy, applied to the natural soul, produces this result ; an
energy which admits not of degrees. One soul is not more
regenerated than another : and every such act of regeneration
is a miracle ; an exercise of super-creation grace and of super
natural power, effecting a supernatural constitution and state,
in those that are the subjects of it. " Except a man be begotten
from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Except a.
man be begotten of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God." " Of his own will begat he us by the
word of truth." "Everyone that doeth righteousness hath
been begotten of him."

1 See especially John xii. 3? — 41. It is remarkable that this
passage of Isaiah is quoted more often than any other in the
New Testament ; being found in each of the Evangelists, in
Acts xxviii, and in Horn. xi.

122 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. (John i. 5.k) Who would believe this? who
ever heard the like? that the light shineth in
darkness; and yet the darkness remains darkness,
and is not made light ?

Besides, it is nothing wonderful, that men of
excellent understanding have for so many ages
been blind in divine things. In human things, it
would be wonderful. In divine things, the wonder
rather is, if one or two be not blind ; whilst it is
no wonder at all, if all, without exception, be
blind. For what is the whole human race, without
the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil, as I have
said ; a confused chaos of darkness ? Whence
Paul calls the devils, " the rulers of this dark
ness ;" and says (1 Cor. ii. 8.), " None of the
princes of this world knew the wisdom of God !"
What do you suppose that he thought of the rest,
when he asserts that the princes of the world were
slaves of darkness ? For, by princes, he means
the first and highest persons in the world : whom
you call men of excellent understanding. Why
were all the Arians blind ? Were there not,
amongst them, men of excellent understanding ?
Why is Christ "foolishness" to the Gentiles?1 Are
there not amongst the Gentiles men of excellent
understanding? Why is he to the Jews " a stum
bling-block?" Have there not been amongst the
Jews men of excellent understanding? "God
knoweth the thoughts of the wise," says Paul;

k Apprehendunt .~] More proper than our version 'compre
hend ;' which implies ' compassing about/ and so (trans-
latively) ' taking in the whole of a substance :' ov Ka-rc\aftcv
av-ro- ' did not lay hold of it, so as to possess it;' ' did not
receive,' or 'admit' the 'light;' but (as Luther explains it)
remained darkness still. See Sleusner in v. KcwaXa/afidvw
' excipio,' ' admitto.'

1 1 Cor. i. 23. Our authorized version, and most copies,
read " Greeks :" by which St. Paul frequently denominates
that part of the world which is not Jewish ; as Rom. i. 16.
It would seem to give more point to Luther's antithesis here :
but " Gentiles " is the more authentic reading. See Gries-
bach's text and note in loc.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 123

" for they are vain." He would not say, " of sc.xvin.

?nen," as the text itself has it;"1 but singles out

6 the first and chiefest amongst men :' that from
these we may estimate the rest of them.

But I shall perhaps speak more at large of these
things, hereafter. Suffice it, for an exordium, to
have premised ' that the Scriptures are most
clear ;' and ' that, by these our dogmas may be
so defended, as that our adversaries shall not be
able to resist/ Those dogmas, which cannot be
so defended, are other people's; and do not belong
to Christians. Now, if there be those who do riot
see this clearness, and are blind, or stumble, in this
sunshine ; these, on the supposition that they are
ungodly men, shew how great is the majesty and
power of Satan in the sons of men: even such, that
they neither hear nor apprehend the clearest
words of God. Just as if a man, beguiled by
some sleight of hand trick, should suppose the
sun to be a piece of unlighted coal, or should
imagine" a stone to be gold! On the supposi
tion that they are godly persons, let them be
reckoned amongst those of the elect, who are led
into error some little, that the power of God may
be shewn in us : without which, we can neither see,
nor do any thing at all. For, it is not weakness of
intellect (as you complain), which hinders the
words of God from being apprehended : on the
contrary, nothing is more adapted to the appre
hension of the words of God, than weakness of
intellect. For, it is because of the weak, and unto
the weak, that Christ both came, and also sends
his word. But it is the mischievousness of Satan,
who sits and reigns in our weakness, resisting the

m Psalm xciv. 1 1 .

n Putct, scnliat.'] Put. is rather matter of reasoning and
argument ; sent, rather matter of sense. Both are intermixed
here, though each has its distinct appropriation : he thinks
about the sun, he handles the stone. — A double error is pointed
out by the illustration. These ungodly men assert what is not,
and deny what is.

124 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART II. word of God. If it were not for this acting of

Satan, the whole world of men would be converted

by one single word of God, once heard; nor would
there be any need of more.0
sc. xix. And why do I plead long? why do we not

finish the cause together with this exordium, and

Erasmus g-ye sentence agai nst you, on the testimony of your
have ud- own words ? according to that saying of Christ,
mittedthat a fjy thy words thou shalt be justified, and by
thy words thou shalt be condemned."11 (Matt. xii.
37.) You assert, ' that the Scripture is not
clear upon this point:' and then, as though the
sentence of the judge were suspended, you dis
pute on both sides of the question, advancing all
that can be said both for and against Freewill.
This is all that you seek to gain by your whole per
formance ; which, for the same reason, you have
chosen to call a Diatribe rather than an Apophasis,q
or any thing else : because you write with the in
tention of bringing all the materials of the cause
together, without affirming any thing. If the
Scripture, then, be not plain, how comes it that
those of whom you make your boast ; that is, so
numerous a series of the most learned men, whom
the consent of so many ages hath approved even
to this very day ; are not only blind upon this

0 Luther does not distinguish here, as he ought to do, be
tween what Satan has made of us, and what Satan personally
does in us. The soul of man, in its natural state, is so blinded
and hardened and satanized, that, even if there were no imme
diate agency of his upon any individual soul, the effect of
fone' or even 'many' words of God (unaccompanied by his
quickening Spirit) would not be such as Luther describes ; but
it would still reject the truth !

p A forced application of the words. The Lord is there
speaking of the words being a sure index of the mind. Luther
seems to have got some confusion into his mind, from Luke
xix. W. " Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, &c."

1 A Greek term, which may express either ' affirmation' or
' negation ;' but here clearly denotes the former : with allu
sion cither to the ' explicit avowal of private opinion $ or, to
f the judge delivering- his sentence in court.'

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 125

subject, but even rash and foolish enough to de- sc.xix.

fine and assert Freewill from the Scripture, as

though that Scripture were positive and plain.
The greater number of these men come recom
mended to us, you say, not only by a wonderful
knowledge of the sacred writings, but by piety of
Jife. Some of them, after having defended the
doctrine of Christ by their writings, gave testi
mony to it with their blood. If you say this sin
cerely, it is a settled thing with you, that Freewill
has assertors endowed with wonderful skill in the
Scriptures; who have borne witness to it as a part
of Christ's doctrine with their blood. If this be
true, they must have considered the Scripture as
clear : else, how should they be said to possess a
wonderful skill in the sacred writings? Besides,
what levity and temerity of mind would it have
been in them, to shed their blood for a thing that
is uncertain and obscure ? This is not the act of
Christ's martyrs, but of devils.

r Now, therefore, do you also ( set before your
eyes and weigh with yourself, whether you judge,
that more ought to be attributed to the prior judg
ments5 of so many learned men, so many orthodox
men, so many holy men, so many martyrs, so
many ancient and modern theologians, so many
universities, so many councils, so many bishops,
and so many popes — who have thought the Scrip
tures clear, and have confirmed their opinion by
their blood, as well as by their writings — or to your

r Jam et lu pone.] Luther here retorts Erasmus's own words
upon him. " Et tamen illud interim lectorem admonitum vclini,
si etc. . . .ut turn denique sibi ponat ob oculos tarn numerosam
seriem eruditissimorumvirorumetc.. . .turn illud secumexpendut,
utrum plus tribuendum esse judicet tot eruditorum, tot ortho-
doxorumetc .... prsejucliciis, an uniusautalterius private judicio.'

8 Pr&judiciis.~] A forensic term, expressing either, 1. ' prece
dents which apply to an undecided cause j' or, LZ. 'matters
relating to the cause in hand, which have already been decided ;'
or, 3. 'a previous judgment of the cause itself;' as here.
These men had sat in judgment upon this question before, and
had decided it.

126 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ir. own single judgment — which is that of a private
individual — denying the Scriptures to be clear:'
when, it may be, you have never sent forth one
tear, or one sigh, for the doctrine of Christ. If
you believe these men to have thought correctly,
why not follow their example ? If otherwise, why
boast yourself with such a puffed cheek and such
a full mouth; as if you would overwhelm me with
a sort of tempest and flood of words : which falls,
however, with still greater force upon your own
head, whilst my ark rides aloft in security. For
you, in the same instant, attribute the greatest
folly and temerity to these so many and so great
ones ; when you write, that they were most skilful
in the Scriptures, yet have asserted by their pen,
by their life, and by their death, a sentiment
which you nevertheless maintain to be obscure
and ambiguous. What is this but to make them
most ignorant in knowledge, and most foolish in
assertion? I, their private despiser, should never
have paid them such honour, as you, their public
commender, do.1
SEC. xx. I hold you fast then, here, by a horned syllogism,

as they call it:u for one or other of these two

El.as™"s things must be false ; either what you say, ( that
a dilemma, these men were worthy to be admired for their
knowledge of the sacred writings, life and mar
tyrdom -,' or what you say, ' that the Scripture
is not plain/ But, since you would rather choose

1 Privatus &c.] The substance is, ' Insignificant Luther,
whom Erasmus taunted with his obscurity, and with his con
tempt of these great men (though, in fact, he had only shaken
off the yoke of their undue authority, without expressing any
sentiment of contempt), would never have so vilified them in
his privacy, as Erasmus — the man of name and fame — was
doing by his public extolment of them.'

11 Cornuto sijUogismoJ] Corn. syll. Dilemma ; so called, be
cause the horns of the argument are, in this kind of syllogism,
so disposed, that to escape the one you must run upon the
other. The term ' horns' is applied to argumentation ; from
a certain disposition of forces, as well naval as military, in
which they resemble the horns of the crescent moon.

ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 127

to be driven upon this horn of the two, ' that the SEC.XX.
Scripture is not plain' (what you are driving at
throughout}7 our whole book); it remains, that you
must have pronounced them to be most expert in
Scripture, and martyrs for Christ, either in fun or
in flattery — certainly not seriously — merely to
throw dust in the eyes of the common people, and
to give Luther trouble, by loading- his cause with
hatred and contempt, through vain words. How
ever, I pronounce neither true; but both false.
I affirm, first, that the Scriptures are most clear;
secondly, that those persons, so far as they assert
Freewill, are most ignorant of the Scriptures;
thirdly, that they made this assertion neither with
their life, nor by their death, but only with their
pen — and that, under absence of mind.

I do therefore conclude this little disputation/
thus. s By Scripture — seeing that it is obscure —
nothing certain has yet been determined, or
can be determined, on the subject of Freewill ;
according to your own testimony/ That, ' by
the lives of all men, from the beginning of the
world, nothing has been shewn in support of
Freewill/ is what I have argued above. Now,
to teach any thing which is neither enjoined
by a single word in Scripture, nor demonstrated
by a single fact out of Scripture ; is no part
of Christian doctrine, but belongs to the true
stories of Lucian :x except that Lucian — sporting
as he does, on ludicrous subjects, in mere jest and
wittingly — deceives nobody and hurts nobody. But

v Disputatiunculam.'] Disp. The diminutive implies ' a dis
cussion subordinate to the main point in debate.'

x See Tart i. Sect. v. note fi. Lucian, the Epicurean philo
sopher of Samosata, in Syria, ridiculed all religions ; and
served Christianity, without meaning it, pretty much as
Erasmus was doing — by depreciating the fashionable and
reigning idolatry. lie died wretchedly, A. D. 180. — Much of
his writings is in dialogue — Erasmus's favourite composition —
with which he interweaves many ' true stories.,' of very doubt
ful credit.

128

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ii. these antagonists of ours play the madman on a

serious subject — even one pertaining to eternal

salvation — to the destruction of innumerable
souls.

SEC. xxr. Thus, too,, I might have put an end to this whole
question about Freewill ; since even the testimony
of my adversaries is on my side, and at war with
theirs: whilst there is no stronger proof against an
accused person, than his own proper testimony
against himself. But, since Paul commands us to
stop the mouths of vain babblers, let us take the
very pith and matter of the cause in hand; treating
it in the order in which Diatribe pursues her
march. Thus, I will first confute the arguments
adduced in behalf of Freewill ; secondly, de
fend our own confuted ones ; and, at last, make
my stand for the grace of God, in direct conflict
with Freewill.

Luther
claims vic
tory al
ready, but
will pro
ceed.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED.

PART III.

LUTHER CONFUTES ERASMUS'S TESTIMONIES
IN SUPPORT OF FREEWILL.

SECTION I.

Erasmus's Definition of Freewill examined.

... ('•..<'"!•' .!."•'!>•. })'U / ::i I

AND first, as in duty bound, I shall begin with
your very definition of Freewill; which is as
follows :

' Moreover, by Freewill here, I mean that power
of the human will, whereby a man is able to apply
himself to those things which lead to eternal sal
vation, or to turn himself away from them/

With great prudence, doubtless, you lay down
a naked a definition here; without opening any
part of it, as is customary with others : afraid of
more shipwrecks than one ! I am, therefore, com
pelled to beat out the several parts of it, for my
self. The thing defined, if it be strictly examined,
is certainly of wider range than the definition : it
is, therefore, what the Sophists would call a de
fective definition ; such being their term for those
which do not fill up the thing defined. b For I
have shewn above, that Freewill belongs to none
but God only. You might, perhaps with pro
priety, attribute will to man; but to attribute free
will to him, in divine things,0 is too much : since
the term Freewill, in the judgment of all ears, is

a Bald and bare ;' without any appendage of amplification,
resolution of parts, or illustration.

b The idea is that of a mould not filled up : the definition is
not commensurate with the thing defined.

c See Part i. Sect xxv. note '.

130

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. properly applied to ' that winch can do, and which

" " does,' towards God, whatsoever it pleases; without

being confined by any law, or by any command.
You would not call a slave free, who acts under
the command of his master. With how much
less propriety do we call a man, or an angel, free :
when they live under the most absolute subjec
tion to God (to say nothing of sin and death), so
as not to subsist for a moment by their own
strength.

Instantly, therefore, even at the very doors of
our argument, we have a quarrel between the de
finition of the name, and the definition of the thing;
the word signifying one thing, and the thing itself
being understood to be another. It would be
more properly called vertible will, or mutable will.
For thus Augustine, and after him the Sophists,
extenuates the glory and virtue of that word Free;
adding this disparagement to it, i that they speak
of the vertibility of the free will/ And so it
would become us to speak, that we might avoid
deceiving the hearts of men by inflated, vain, and
pompous words : as Augustine also thinks, that we
ought to speak in sober and plain words, observ
ing a fixed rule. For, in teaching, a dialectic
simplicity and strictness of speech is required;
not big swelling words, and figures of rhetorical
persuasion.d
SECT. n. But, lest I should seem to take pleasure in

• fighting for a word, I will acquiesce, for the mo-

Definition menf jn fljjs a}Juse of terms, great and dano-erous

continued ^

as it is; so far as to allow a 'free' will to be the
same as a Avertible' will. I will also indulge
Erasmus with making Freewill ' a power of the
human will;' as though Angels had it not : since,
in this performance, he professes to treat only

d ' A fixed rule/ opposed to whim, taste or chance ; ' sober/
opposed to ' extravagant / 'plain/ or ' proper/ opposed to
' figurative/ ( strictness of speech/ (i. e. words used in their
own genuine and natural sense) opposed to ' metaphor/ ' logic*
opposed to ' rhetoric/

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 131

of human Freewill : else, in this particular also, SECT. n.

the definition had been narrower than the thing ~^

defined.

I hasten to those parts of the definition on
which the subject hinges. Some of these are suf
ficiently manifest; others flee the light, as though
a guilty conscience made them afraid of every
thing: yet a definition ought to be the plainest
and most certain thing in the world; for to define
obscurely, is just like not defining at all. These
parts are plain : ' a power of the human will ;'
also, ' by which a man is able ;' also, ( unto eter
nal salvation :' but those words, ( to apply him
self;' and again, ' those things which lead;'
and again, 'to turn away himself;' are words
of the hoodwinked fencer.6 What shall we
then divine that saying, ' to apply himself,' to
mean? Again, fto turn away himself?' What
are those words, e which lead to eternal salvation ?'
What corner are they slinking into ? I have to do,
as I perceive, with a very Scotus or Heraclitus;f
who wears me out with two sorts of labour.
First, I have to go in search of my adversary, and
to grope for him in the dark, amidst pitfalls, with
a palpitating heart (a daring and dangerous en-

c Andabat(e^} ' A man fighting in the dark, with his eyes
blinded :' a name given (quasi avafia-rai s'i\e.uvra.vafta-rai) to cer
tain fencers, or gladiators, who fought on horseback with their
eyes covered ; or, more properly, ' to the man who went up
into the chariot to fight with the charioteer.' It was one of
the games of the Circus ; of which the peculiarity consisted in
the conflict being maintained in the dark. Jerome has the ex
pression, ' More andabatarum, gladium in tenebris ventilans ;'
with allusion to the former of these customs.

f Scotus.] The celebrated Duns Scotus, a Franciscan ; the great
opponent of Thomas Aquinas, the Dominican. He acquired
the name of the ' subtile' doctor ; as his opponent did that of
the ' angelic.' Heradltus, the weeping philosopher, was
characterised as ' tenebrosus,' or ' obscure ;' from the enig
matical style in which he communicated his reveries. Socrates
is said to have expressed an admiration of some of his pieces,
so far as he could understand them ; but to have intimated
the danger there was of being drowned in his incomprehensible
depths.

K2

132 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. terprise) ; and, if I do not find him, to fight with
hobgoblins, and beat the air in the dark, to no pur
pose. Secondly, if I shall have dragged him into
the light; then at length, when I am worn out
with the pursuit, I have to close with him in
equal fight.

By ( a power of the human will/ then, is meant,
as I suppose, an ability, or faculty, or disposedness,
or suitedness, to will, to refuse, to choose, to de
spise, to approve, to reject, and to perform whatever
other actions there are of the human will. But,
what is meant by this same power ' applying itself
and turning away itself;' except it be this very
willing and refusing, this very choosing and de
spising, this very approving and rejecting; in
short, except it be ' the will performing its very
office ; ' I see not. So that we must suppose this
power to be ' a something interposed between the
will itself and its actings:' a power, by which the
will itself draws out the operation of willing and
refusing, and by which that very act of willing and
refusing is elicited. It is not possible to imagine
or conceive any thing else here. If I be mistaken,
let the fault be charged upon the author who de
fines, not upon me who am searching out his mean
ing. For, it is rightly said by the jurists, that the
words of him who speaks obscurely, when he
might speak more plainly, are to be interpreted
against himself. And here, by the way, I could
be glad to know nothing of these Moderns,8 with
whom I have to do, and their subtleties : for we
must be content to speak grossly,'1 that we may
teach and understand. ' The things which lead to

o

eternal salvation/ are the words and works of

6 Moderni."} Quasi Iwdierni. The subtile doctor and his con
temporaries, together with those who had preceded them, from
Peter Lombard downwards, were but men of 'to-day;' as
compared with the ancient logicians, and with the Fathers.
Also, the Schoolmen were divided into three classes, like the
Academics; old, middle, and new. Scotus was of the last.

h Crassc.'] ' Dull, heavy, fat-headed / as contrasted with their
wire-drawn refinements.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 133

God, I suppose : which are set before the human SECT. in.

will, that it may either apply itself to them, or turn

away from them. By the words of God, I mean
as well the Law as the Gospel : works are de
manded by the Law; faith by the Gospel.1 For
there are no other things that lead either to the
grace of God, or to eternal salvation, save the
word arid work of God : since grace, or the
Spirit, is the life itself; to which we are led by
the word and work of God.k

But this life, or eternal salvation, is a thing in- Definition
comprehensible to human conception ; as Paul conlmued-
cites from Isaiah (1 Cor. ii. 9.): " What eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into
the heart of man, are the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him." For this also
is placed amongst the chief articles of our faith :
in confessing which we say, ' and the life ever
lasting/ And what the power of Freewill as to
receiving this article is, Paul declares in I Cor.
ii. 10. " God," saith he, " hath revealed them to
us by his Spirit." As if he should say, ' except
the Spirit shall have revealed them, no man's
heart will know or think any thing about them ;
so far is it from being able to apply itself there
unto, or to covet them/

Consult experience. What have the most ex
cellent wits amongst the heathens thought of a

1 Luther speaks here, as theological writers commonly do.
But the truth is ; the Law required faith, and the Gospel re
quires works : though the form of the two several dispensations
was such as Luther represents them. The Law was designed
to shut the Church up unto faith ; the Gospel, to open it, by
that faith which is itself a work (for " this is the work of God
that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." John vi. 29.) to
those works which alone are acceptable to Gocl ; viz. the
actings and manifestations of a self-emptied, contrite, and
believing soul.

k He speaks not of any particular word or work of God, but
of his whole word, and of his whole work ; excepting only
what he does, by his special grace, in and upon the hearts of
his people.

134 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. future life, and of the resurrection? Has it not

- been, that, the more they excelled in genius, the
more ridiculous did the resurrection,, and eternal
life, appear to them. Except you will say, that
those philosophers and other Greeks, who called
Paul a babbler,1 and an assertor of new Gods,
when he taught these things at Athens, were not
men of genius. Porcius Fcstus calls Paul a mad
man, in Acts xxvi.m (ver. 24.) for preaching eter
nal life. What does Pliny bark about these
things, in his seventh book? What says Lucian,
so great a wit? Were these men stupid? Nay, it
is true of most men, even at this day, that the
greater their genius and erudition, the more they
laugh at this article, and account it a fable ; and

[that openly. For, as to the secret soul, no man
positively, except he be sprinkled Avith the Holy
Ghost, either knows, or believes in, or wishes for
eternal salvation, even though he may make fre
quent boast of it with his voice and with his pen.
Would to God that you and I, my Erasmus, were
free from this same leaven ! so rare is a believing
mind, as applied to this article. — Have I hit the
sense of your definition ?
SECT. iv. So then, Freewill, according to Erasmus, is a

- power of the will, which is able, of itself, to will

not to w'^ ^ie wor^ an(l work of God ; by

defi- which word and work, it is led to those things
nition. which exceed both its sense and thought. — But

1 Babbler.'] STre/^o'Aoryo? is a term of contempt, applied pro
perly to persons who went about the forum picking up the
seeds and crumbs, or whatever else might fall between buyer
and seller, and making a living out of them. Hence applied
to a loose, ignorant, unordered, and unmeasured speaker ; one
who retails the sort of refuse, common-place scraps, which he
has picked up in the streets. New Gods, not in the invidious,
or disparaging sense of demons, or of £r/^ioi/es ; but some addi
tional deities : objects of worship, having the same sort of
claim to reverence which the rest of their multiplied divinities
had.

m He says, Acts xxiv. j but the allusion is manifestly to
Acts xxvi.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 135

if it be able to will and to refuse, it is able also SECT. iv.

to love and to hate. If it be able to love- and to

hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to do the
deeds of the Law, and to believe the Gospel : be
cause if you will, or refuse a certain thing, it is
impossible but that you must be able to work
something- towards it, by means of that will, even
though you be not able, through another's hinder
ing, to finish it. Now, since death, the cross, and
all the evils of the world are numbered amongst
those works of God which lead to salvation ; the
human will must be able to choose even death and
the man's own destruction. Nay, it is able to
will all things ; whilst it is able to will the word
and work of God. For, what can there be any
where, that is below, above, within, or without, the
word and work of God; save God himself?11 And
what is now left to grace, and the Holy Spirit?
This is manifestly to attribute divinity to Free
will : since to will the Law and the Gospel, to re
ject sin, and to choose death, is the property of
divine virtue exclusively; as Paul teaches in more
places than one.

Hence it appears, that no man, since the Pela
gians' days, has written more correctly on Free
will, than Erasmus has. For I have said before,
that Freewill is a term peculiar to God, and ex
presses a divine perfection. However, no man
has attributed this divine power to it hitherto,
except the Pelagians : for the Sophists, whatever
they may think, certainly speak very differently
about it. Nay, Erasmus far exceeds the Pela
gians : for they attribute this divinity to the whole
of the free will, Erasmus to half of it. They make
Freewill to consist of two parts; a power of dis-

n IntrvL extrti.] ' On this side of it, or beyond it :' which, when
joined with the preceding words ' infra, suprV express ' the
universal comprehension of the word and work of God;' as
containing ' all that is above, beneath, and on all sides of us' —
with only one exception.

136

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ill. cerning, and a power of choosing: of which they

• feign the one to belong to the understanding, and

the other to the will ; as the Sophists also do. But
Erasmus, making no mention of the pOAver of dis
cerning, confines his praises to the power of
choosing, singly ; and so deifies a sort of crippled
and half-begotten Freewill. What would he have
done, think you, if lie had been set to describe the
whole of this faculty ?

Yet, not content with this, he even exceeds the
heathen philosophers. For they have not yet
determined t whether any substance can put itself
into motion;' and on this point, the Platonics and
Peripatetics differ from each other, throughout the
whole body of their philosophy. But, according
to Erasmus, Freewill not only moves itself, but
applies even to those things which are eternal ;
that is, incomprehensible to itself; by its own
power. A perfectly new and unheard-of definer
of Freewill; who leaves heathen philosophers,
Pelagians, Sophists, and all others, far behind
him ! Nor is this enough : he does not even spare
himself, but even disagrees and fights with him
self, more than with all the rest. He had before
said, ' the human will is altogether inefficacious
without grace;' (did he say this in jest?) but
now, when he defines it seriously, he tells us that
the human will possesses that power, whereby it
is efficacious to apply itself to those things which
are belonging to eternal salvation; that is, to
those things which are incomparably above its
power. Thus Erasmus is, in this place, superior
even to himself also.0

SECT.V. j)0 yOU perceive, my Erasmus, how, by this
~ definition, you (without meaning it, as I suppose)

Erasmus's , tc\ i i i i 1 ,T • '

definition betray yourself to be one who understands nothing

0 Erasmus lias made Freewill greater than itself. Luther
puns upon this, and intimates that he has even out-heroded.
Herod here ; not only exceeding philosophers, &c. but ercn
his own extravagant self.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 137

'

at all about these things, or who writes OQ them SECT. v.
in sheer thoughtlessness and contempt, without
proving what he says, or what he affirms. As I
have remarked before, you say less, and claim of the
more, for Freewill, than all the rest of its advo- s°Phists-
cates have done : inasmuch as you do not even
describe the whole of Freewill, and yet assign
every thing to it. The Sophists (or at least their
father, Peter Lombard) deliver what is far more
tolerable to us, when they affirm, that ' Freewill is
the faculty of first discerning good from evil, and
then choosing good or evil according as grace be
present, or be wanting.' p He agrees entirely with
Augustine, that ' Freewill, by its own strength,
cannot but fall ; and has no power, save to com
mit sin/ On which account, Augustine says, it
should be called Bondwill, rather than Freewill;
in his second book against Julian.

But you represent the power of Freewill to be
equal on both sides, inasmuch as it can, by its
own strength, without grace, both apply itself to,
and turn away itself/row good. You are not aware
how much you attribute to it by this pronoun
' itself/ or ' its own self/ whilst you say, ( it can
apply itself!' In fact, you exclude the Holy
Spirit with all his power, as altogether super
fluous and unnecessary. Your definition is there
fore damnable, even in the judgment of the
Sophists ; who, if they were not so maddened
against me by the blindings of envy, would rave
at your book rather than mine. But, since you
attack Luther, you say nothing but what is holy
and catholic/ even though you contradict both
yourself and them. So great is the patience of
the saints/

p They ascribed the power of discerning1, out of hand; but
the power of choosing1 good, conditionally.

q Catholicum .] Catk. ' Ad oinnes pcrtinens,' ' quod ubique et
Jipud omnes disseminatum est, et ab omnibus recipi debet.'
' What all are bound to receive as true.'

r A sarcastic allusion to Rev. xiii. 10. xiv. 12.

138 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. I do not say this as approving the sentence of

the Sophists on Freewill, but as thinking it more

tolerable than that of Erasmus ; because they
approach nearer to the truth : but neither do they
affirm, as I do, that Freewill is a mere nothing.
Still, inasmuch as they affirm (the Master of the
Sentences5 in particular) that it has no power of
itself without grace, they are at war with Eras
mus ; nay, they seem to be at war also with them
selves, and to be torturing one another with dis
putes about a mere word : being fonder of con
tention than of truth, as becometii Sophists. For,
suppose a Sophist of no bad sort to come in my
way, with whom I were holding familiar conversa
tion and conference upon these matters in a corner;
and whose candid and free judgment I should ask,
in some such way as this : t If any one should pro
nounce that free to you, which, by its own power,
can but incline to one side (that is, to the bad
side) ; having power, it is true, on the other side
(that is, on the good side) — but that, by a virtue
not its own ; nay, simply by the help of another :
could you refrain from laughing, my friend ?' For,
upon this principle, I shall easily make it out that
, a stone, or the trunk of a tree, has Freewill ; as
being that which can incline both upwards and
; downwards ; by its own power, indeed, only
downwards; yet, by another's help, and by that
only, upwards also. And thus, as I have before
said, by an inverted1 use of all languages and
words, we shall at length come to say, ( No man
is all men;' ( nothing is every thing:' as refer
ring the one term to the thing itself, and the

s Master &c. A title with which Peter Lombard was dig
nified, from his work entitled ' The Sentences;' by which he
was svipposed to have rendered the same service to Divinity,
which Gratian, his contemporary, had done to Law. He was
the father of scholastic theology, which succeeded to that of
the Fathers ; his work being considered as the great source of
that science, in the Latin church. He died A. D. 1164.

1 ' Turning words topsy-turvy.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 139

oilier to some other thing-, which is no part of SECT.VI.

it, but may possibly be present to it and befal

it."

It is in this way, that, after endless disputings,
they make the free will to be free by an accident;
viz. as being that which may be made free by
another. But the question is about the freedom
of the will, as it is in itself, and in its own sub
stance : and if this be the question resolved, there
remains nothing but an empty name for Freewill,
whether they will or no. The Sophists fail in this
also ; that they assign a power of discerning good
from evil, to Freewill. They also lower regene
ration, and the renewal of the Holy Ghost ; and
claim that extrinsic aid, as a sort of outward ap
pendage to Freewill:" of which I shall say more
hereafter. But enough of your definition: Jet us
now see the arguments which are to swell out
this empty little word.x

The first is that taken from Ecclus. xv. (vv. 15 — Ecci«s. xv.

18.) " The Lord made man from the beginning. 15~l8' ,
i i xv i • • *i i i c u- i IT? considered-

and lett him in the hand ot his own counsel. He

added his commands, and his precepts. If thou
shalt be willing to keep his commandments, and
to perform acceptable faithfulness for ever, they
shall preserve thee. He hath set fire and water
before thee ; stretch forth thy hand unto whether

u For example ; ' Nothing is all things.' Why, God made
all things of nothing. You might call that ' nothing,' ' all
things ;' but it would be, by referring the term ' nothing' to
the thing itself, and ' all things' to ' the existent one ;' who
being present communicates being (which he has in himself)
to this ' nothing.'

v Velut extern^ affingunt.~] The gift of the Spirit, though
of course not inherent, they represented as inseparably at
tached to the free will ; and so, communicated as matter of
course.

x Inffitura.'] A figure taken from blowing a bladder, or
from raiding a bubble, or from making a musical instrument
to sound aloud : ' to give size, or substance, or sound, to this
empty, speechless thing.'

140 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART HI. thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good
and evil, whether him liketh shall be given
him."y

Although I might justly reject this book, for
the moment I admit it ; that I may not lose my
time by involving myself in a dispute about
the books received into the Hebrew canon: which
you ridicule and revile not a little ; comparing the
Proverbs of Solomon and the Love-song (as you
by an ambiguous sort of jeer entitle it) with the
two books of Esdras, Judith, the history of Susan
nah and of the Dragon, and Esther.2 This last,
however, they have received into their canon ;
although, in my judgment, deserving, more than
all the rest, to be excluded. But I would answer
briefly, in your own words : c the Scripture is ob
scure and ambiguous in this passage ;' it there
fore proves nothing with certainty : and, main
taining as we do the negative, I demand of you to
produce a place which proves what Freewill is,
and what Freewill can effect, by clear words.
Perhaps you will do this on the Greek calends.a
Howbeit, to avoid this necessity, you waste many
good words in marching over the ears of corn,b

y The Greek text, from which our authorized version is a
faithful translation, omits the words ' conservabunt te,' arid
' adjecit mandate et prsccepta sua.' Also in verse 17 ', ' bonum
et malum.' The Syriac, or vulgar Hebrew, in which this book
was originally written, is lost ; although Jerom professes to
have seen it. What Jesus the Son of Sirach produced in the
Syriac, his grandson translated into Greek, for the benefit of
his countrymen in Egypt 5 Avho, by long disuse, had forgotten
the Hebrew tongue.

z ' The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are
found neither in the Hebrew, nor the Chaldee.'

a Gr&cas calendas.~\ ' A day that will never come ;' a Latin pro
verb taken from the Greeks having no calends to their months,
as the Latins had.

b Super aristas inccdisJ] Applied proverbially, to f one who
affirms nothing absolutely :' he skims the ears of corn, fearing
to set his foot on them.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 141

and reciting so many opinions on Freewill, that SECT.VI.

you almost make Pelagius evangelical.0 Again;

you invent four kinds of .grace, that you may be
able to assign some sort of faith and charity, even
to the heathen philosophers. Again ; you invent
that threefold law of nature, works, and faith :
a new figment, by which you enable yourself to
maintain, that the precepts of the heathen philo
sophers have a mighty coincidence with the pre
cepts of the Gospel. Then again ; you apply
that affirmation in Psalm iv. " The light of thy
countenance has been marked upon us, Lord;"d
which speaks of the knowledge of the very
countenance of God (that is, of an operation
of faith) to blinded reason. Now, let any Chris
tian put all these things together, and he will
be obliged to suspect that you are sporting and
jesting with the dogmas and worship of Chris
tians. For I find it most difficult indeed to at
tribute all this to ignorance, in a man who has
so thoroughly ransacked6 all our documents,
and so diligently treasured them up and remem
bered them. But I will abstain for the present,
content with this short hint; till a fitter op
portunity shall oifer itself. But let me beg of
you, my Erasmus, not to tease us any more in
this way, with your ' Who sees me?' nor is it
safe, in so weighty a matter, to be continually

c Pelagius.'] The great lieresiarch of Freewill, in the fifth
century 5 a native of Wales, and as is supposed, a monk of Ban-
go r ; who exchanged his original name of Morgan, for the more
imposing one of Pelagius.

u lie read Psalm iv. 6'. "Lord lift thou"up," &c. as a prayer;
but it may with equal propriety he read as an affirmation.

c Nostra omnia sic perhtstnwit.'] I refer the ' nostra oinnia'
to the sacred records, ' the authorized documents of Chris
tianity ;' not the writings of Luther and his friends. Pcrlustr.
does not express ' real insight into the things contained in
those documents,' but ' complete outside inspection.' This
is just the sort of knowledge which Luther would choose to
ascribe to him, and which is amply sufficient to exempt him
from the plea of ignorance.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

in. playing at making Vertumnuses of words, with

- every body.1

SEC. VH. You make three opinions on Freewill, out of
one ; accounting that a harsh one/ which denies
that a mau can W^ good without special grace ;

stated. which denies that he can begin any thing good,
denies that he can go on with any thing good, de
nies that he can complete any thing good. But
though harsh, you account it highly approvable.
It approves itself to you, as leaving man in pos
session of desire and endeavour, but not leaving
him any thing to ascribe to his OAvn powers. The
opinion of those who maintain that Freewill can
do nothing but sin ; that only grace works good
in us ; seems still more harsh to you : but most
of all, that opinion which affirms Freewill to be an
empty name, God working both good and evil in
us. It is against these two last opinions, that you
profess to write.

SEC.VIII. Do you even know what you are saying, my
Erasmus ? You make three opinions here, as if
they were the opinions of three different sects ;
not perceiving, that it is the same thing declared
in different words, with a twofold variety, by us,
the same persons, and professors of one sect.
But let me warn you of your carelessness, or dull
ness of intellect; and expose it.

I ask then, how does the definition of Freewill,
which you have given above, correspond with
this first opinion of yours ; which you declare to

{ ' Us,' opposed to ' every body.' He represents him as
playing at peep with the learned ; and as deceiving the people by
his tricks upon words, by which he gave the same word as
many faces as Vertumnus. He plagued the wise ; he deceived
the vulgar. Vertumnus had many faces : hence, ' Vertumnis
verborum ludere,' ' to play at making words like Vertumnus ;'
that is, different in appearance, whilst really the same. Eras
mus could say and unsay every thing, by his copiousness, ver
satility, and ambiguity of words.

g Erasmus does not introduce the \vord ' harsh' in describing
this first opinion j Luther ascribes it to him, as implied in his
description of the other two.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 143

_ *

be lug'hly approvable ? For you have said, that SEC- IX>
Freewill is a power of the human will, by which a
man can apply himself to good. But here you
say, and approve its being said, that a man can
not will good, without grace. Your definition
affirms what its illustration denies ; and there is
found ( a yea and nay ' in your Freewill : so that
you at the same time both approve and condemn
us ; nay, condemn and approve yourself, in one
and the same dogma and article.'1 Do you not
think it good, that it applies itself to those things
which pertain to everlasting salvation? This is
what your definition attributes to Freewill; and
yet there is no need of grace, if there be so much
of good in Freewill that it can apply itself to
good. So then, the Freewill which you define, is
a different thing from the Freewill which you de
fend ; and Erasmus has two Freewills more than
others have, and those quite at variance with each
other.

But, dismissing that Freewill which your defini- Theappro-
tion has invented, let us look at this contrary one, ^onS*-
which the opinion itself sets before us. You grant, sidered.
that a man cannot will good without special grace ;
and we are not now discussing what the grace of
God can do, but what man can do without grace.
You grant therefore, that Freewill cannot will
good. This is nothing else, than that it cannot
li | apply itself to those things which appertain to
eternal salvation, as you sung out in your defini
tion. Nay, you say a little before, that the hu
man will is so depraved, that, having lost its
liberty, it is compelled to serve sin, and cannot
store itself to any better sort of produce. If I
o not mistake, you represent the Pelagians to
have been of this opinion. — Now, I think there is
no escape here for my Proteus. He is caught and

h The definition says, ' can apply itself to those things, &c.f
The approvable opinion says, ' cannot will good.'

144 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. ?

PART in. held by open words ; to wit, the will, having lost
its liberty, is driven into, and held fast in, the ser
vice of sin. O exquisite Freewill which, having
lost its freedom, is declared by Erasmus himself to
be the servant of sin ! When Luther said this,
6 nothing had ever been heard that is more ab
surd / ( nothing could be published that is more,
mischievous than this paradox/ Diatribes must
be written against him !

But perhaps nobody will take my word for it,
that Erasmus has really said these things : let
this passage of Diatribe be read, and it will excite
wonder. Not that I am greatly surprised. The
man who does not account this a serious subject,
and is never affected with the cause he is pleading,
but is altogether alienated from it in heart, and is
tired of it, and chills under it, or nauseates it — how
can such an one do otherwise than here and there
say absurd things, incongruous things, discordant'
things? pleading the cause as he does, like a
drunken or sleeping man, who belches out ' yes/
' no/ as the sounds fall variously upon his ears.
It is on this account, that rhetoricians require feel
ing in an advocate; and much more does theology
require such a degree of emotion in her champion,
as shall render him vigilant, sharpsighted, intent,
thoughtful, and strenuous.
SECT. x. If then Freewill, without grace, having lost her

freedom, is obliged to serve sin, and cannot will

Tahbe1(fPp™~ good ; I should like to know what that desire,

nionfur- what that endeavour is, which this first and appro-

t!ie|' c"n- vable opinion leaves to a man? ' It cannot be good

desire, it cannot be good endeavour : because he

cannot will good ; as the opinion says, and as you

have conceded. Evil desire, therefore, and evil

endeavour are alone left ; which, now that liberty

is lost, are compelled to serve sin. — And what is

meant, pray, by that saying 'This opinion leaves

1 ( It leaves man in possession of desire and endeavour/ &c^

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 145

^_^»-'*>^'

desire and endeavour, but leaves not that which SEC. XL

may be ascribed to the man's own powers ?' Who

can conceive this ? If desire and endeavour be
left to Freewill, why should they not be ascribed
to it ? If they are not to be ascribed, how can
they be left? Are this desire and endeavour,
which subsist before grace, left even to that very
grace which is to come, and not to Freewill ; so
as to be at the same time left, and not left, to this
same Freewill? If these be not paradoxes, or
rather monsters, I know not what monsters are.

But perhaps Diatribe is dreaming, that there is Freewill
a something between this being able to will good, not 'ane-
aud not being able to will good, which is the mere feTmediate
power of willing ; distinct from any regard to good power of
or evil. Thus, we are to evade the rocks by a the Wlll>>
sort of logical subtilty; affirming, that there is, in
the will of man, a certain power of willing, which
cannot indeed incline to good without grace, and
yet even without grace does not forthwith will
only evil : a pure and simple power of willing;
\\hich may be turned by grace upwards to good,
and by sin downwards to evil. But what then
becomes of that saying, ( having lost its liberty,
it is compelled to serve sin ?' Where then is
that ' desire and endeavour ' which is left ?
Where is that power of applying itself to those
things which belong to eternal salvation ? For that
power of applying itself to salvation cannot be a
mere abstract power of willing, unless salvation
itself be called nothing. — Then, again, desire and
endeavour cannot be a mere power of willing;
Isince desire must lean and endeavour some
.vhither, and cannot be carried towards nothing*,
or remain quiescent. In short, whithersoever
Diatribe shall be pleased to turn herself, she can-
lot escape contradictions, and conflicting expres-
;ions : so that even Freewill herself is not so much
t captive, as Diatribe who defends her. She so en-
angles herself, in her attempts to give liberty to

146 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART ill. the will, that she gets bound with indissoluble

• chains, in company with her freedmaid.

Then, again, it is a mere fiction of logic, that
there is this middle faculty of mere willing in
man ; nor can those prove, who assert it. Igno
rance of things, and servile regard to words, has
given birth to this fancy ; as if the will must
straightway be such in substance, as we set it out
in words. The Sophists have numberless fig
ments of this sort. The truth rather is, what
Christ says, " He that is not with me is against
me." He does not say, ' He that is not with me,
nor against me, but in the middle/ For, if God
be in us, Satan is absent, and only to will good is
present with us. If God be absent, Satan is pre
sent, and there is no will in us but towards evil.
Neither God, nor Satan, allows a mere abstract
power to will in us ; but, as you have rightly said,
having lost our liberty, we are compelled to serve
sin ; that is, we will sin and wickedness ; we speak
sin and wickedness ; we act sin and wickedness.
See into what a corner Diatribe has been driven,
without knowing it, by invincible and most mighty
truth ; who has made her wisdom folly, and com
pelled her, when meaning to speak against us, to
speak for us, and against herself: just as Free
will does, when she attempts any thing good ; for
then, by opposing evil, she most of all does evil,
and opposes good. Thus Diatribe is much such a
speaker, as Freewill is an actor. Indeed, the
whole Diatribe itself is nothing else but an ex
cellent performance of Freewill, condemning by
defending, and defending by condemning;" that is,
twice a fool, whilst she would be thought wise. ,

The first opinion, then, as compared with itself,
Thea " is such as to deny that man can will any thing
provable good, and yet to maintain that desire is left to him;

k ' Not only ruining her own cause, but establishing her
adversary's/

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 147

and yet that this desire also is not his. Let us SEC. xii.

now compare it with the other two. — ' The second

is harsher, which judges that Freewill has no °Pinion

, / -P • rru • - compared

power but to commit sin/ Ihis, however, is with the
Augustine's opinion; expressed in many other other two.
places, and specially in his treatise on the Letter
and Spirit (the fourth or fifth chapter, if I am not
mistaken), where he uses these very words.

'That third opinion is the harshest of all, which
maintains that Freewill is an empty name, and that
all we do is necessarily under the bondage of sin.'
Diatribe wages war with these two. Here, I
admit that probably I may not be German enough,
or Latinist enough, to enunciate the subject matter
perspicuously; but I call God to witness, that I
meant to say nothing else, and nothing else to be
understood, by the expressions used in these two
last opinions, than what is asserted in the first
opinion. Nor did Augustine, I think, mean any
thing else ; nor do I understand by his words any
thing else, than what the first opinion asserts. So
that the three opinions recited by Diatribe are, in
my view, but that one sentiment, which I have
promulgated. ' For, when it has been conceded
and settled, that Freewill, having lost her freedom,
is compelled into the service of sin, and has no
power to will any thing good; I can conceive no
thing else from these expressions, but that Free
will is a bare word ; the substance expressed by
that word having been lost. Lost liberty my art
of grammar calls no liberty at all ; and to attri
bute the name of liberty to that which has no
liberty, is to attribute a bare name to it. If I
wander from truth here, let who can recal me
from my wanderings ; if my words be obscure
and ambiguous, let who can make them plain, and
confirm them. I cannot call lost health, health ;
and if I should ascribe such a property to a sick
man, what have I given him but a bare name ?

But away with such monstrous expressions !

148 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. For, who can bear that abuse of language,, by

which we affirm that man has Freewill; yet, with

the same breath, assert that he has lost his liberty,
and is compelled into the service of sin, and can
will nothing good. Such expressions are at vari
ance with common sense, and absolutely destroy
the use of speech. Diatribe is to be accused,
rather than we ; she blurts out her own words as
if she were asleep, and gives no heed to what is
spoken by others. She does riot consider, I say,
what it is, and of what force it is, to declare that
man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin,
and has no power to do any thing good. For, if
she were awake and observant, she would clearly
see that the meaning of the three opinions, which
she makes diverse and opposite, is one and the
same. For the man who has lost his liberty, who
is compelled to serve sin, and Avho cannot will
good — what shall be inferred more correctly con
cerning this man, than that he does nothing but
sin, or will evil ? Even the Sophists would
establish this conclusion by their learned syllo
gisms. So that Madam Diatribe is very unfor
tunate in entering the lists with these two last
©pillions, whilst she approves the first, which is
the same with them ; again, as her manner is,
condemning herself., and expressing approbation
of my sentiments, in one and the same article.

sc. xni. Let us now return to the passage in Ecclesias-

ticus; comparing that first opinion, which you de-

Ecciesias- c]are to be approvable, with it also, as we have
H^is.re- now done with the other two. The opinion says,
sumed,and c Freewill cannot will good.' The passage from
expounded. Ecciesiasticus is cited to prove, that < Freewill is

nothing, and can do nothing/ The opinion which
is to be confirmed by Ecclesiasticus, then, de
clares one thing, and the passage from Eccle
siasticus is alleged to confirm another. As if a
man, going to prove that Christ is Messias, should
adduce a passage which proves that Pontius

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 149

Pilate was Governor of Syria ; or something else, SEC.XIII.

which is as wide from it as the extreme notes of the """

double octave.1 Just such is your proof of Free
will here : not to mention, what I have dispatched
already, that nothing is here clearly and certainly
affirmed, or proved, as to what Freewill is, and can
do. But it is worth while to examine this whole
passage.

In the first place, he says, e God made man in
the beginning.' Here he speaks of the creation
of man, and says nothing, hitherto, either about
Freewill, or about precepts.

It follows ; ' and left him in the hand of his own
counsel/ What have we here ? Is Freewill
erected here? Not even here is any mention
made of precepts, for which Freewill is required ;
nor do we read a syllable on this subject, in the his
tory of the creation of man. If any thing be meant,
therefore, by the words ' in the hand of his
counsel,' it must rather be, what we read in the
first and second chapters of Genesis : ' Man was
appointed lord of the things which were made, so
as to have a free dominion over them •/ as Moses
says, " Let us make man, and let him have domi
nion over the fishes of the sea, &c." Nor can
any thing else be proved from these words. For
in that state, man had power to deal with the
creatures according to his own will, they being
made his subjects ; and he calls this man's coun
sel, in opposition to God's counsel. But after
this, when now he has declared man to have been
thus constituted the ruler, and to have been left
in the hand of his own counsel ; he goes on,

" He added his own commands and precepts."
To what did he add them ? Why, to the counsel
and will of man; and over and above that esta
blishment of the dominion of man over the rest of

1 Quod disdiapason conveniat.] A Greek proverb, denoting
the greatest possible dissimilitude.

150 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. the creatures. By these precepts, he took away
from man the dominion over one part of his crea
tures (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for instance), and rather willed that it should not
be free. Having mentioned the adding of pre
cepts, he next comes to man's will towards God,
and the things of God.

" If thou shalt be willing to keep the command
ments, they shall preserve thee, &c." From this
place, then, ( if thou shalt be willing/ the ques
tion about Freewill begins. So that we may
learn from the Preacher, that man is divided be
tween two kingdoms ; in the one of which, he is
borne along by his own will and counsel, without
any precepts or commandments from God ; to
wit, in the exercise of his relations to the inferior
creatures. Here he reigns, and is lord, as having
been left in the hand of his own counsel. Not
that God so leaves him, even here, as not to co
operate with him in all things ; but that he leaves
him a free use of the creatures, according to his
own will, not restricting him by laws or injunc
tions. Just as if you should say, by way of com
parison, ' The Gospel has left us in the hand of
our own counsel, to rule over the creatures, and
use them as we please ; but Moses and the Pope
have not left us in this counsel, but have re
strained us by laws, and have rather subjected us
to their wills.' — But in the other kingdom, man
is not left in the hand of his own counsel, but is
borne along, and led by the will and counsel of
God. So that, as in his own kingdom, he is borne
along by his own will, without the precepts of
another ; so, in the kingdom of God, he is borne
along by the precepts of another, without his own
will. And this is what the Preacher affirms,
" Re added precepts and commands ; If thou
wilt, &c. &c."m

111 I object to this distinction, as I have already done to the
same in substance (Part ii. Sect. xxi.); nor can I believe it to

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 15 J

If these things then be quite clear, we have SEC.XIV.

proved that this passage from Ecclesiasticus ~

makes against Freewill, not for it ; as subjecting Ecciesias-
man to the precepts and will of God, and with- least does
drawing him from his own will. But if they be not decide
not quite clear, I have at least made out, that ^ui. "
this passage cannot be brought to support Free
will, as being capable of quite a different interpre
tation from theirs : such, for instance, as I have
just mentioned ; which is so far from being ab
surd, that it is most sound, and is consonant to
the whole tenour of Scripture : whereas theirs is
repugnant to that testimony, and is fetched from
this single passage, in contradiction to the whole
volume besides. We stand firm, and without fear,
therefore, in our good sense of the words, which

have been in the mind of the Apocryphal writer. Man had
not Freewill given to him, in the exercise of one set of his rela
tions (those to the creatures, for instance) , more than in another.
Dominion and superiority did not confer Freewill. He was, in
reality, made accountable for his use of the creatures ; they were
not given to him to do what he pleased with. But, if it had
been so, this would not have prevented his liability to have his
will moved by a power without him. Insubjection and unac-
countahleness are of a perfectly different nature from Freewill.
A despot may be ruled within, as well as a slave. But, taking
the writer to mean that he was left to do his own will — this
does not necessarily imply more than that he was left a free
agent : and this he was left, with respect to all his relations,
higher as well as inferior : and so are we. The difference be
tween Adam's state before his fall, and ours who have been be
gotten out of him since — after having fallen in and with him —
consisteth not in his having been any way independent of
God — which we are not — or having had a will that was inac
cessible to divine control — which ice have not — but only in
his ignorance of, and freedom from evil. He knew only
good, and the devil had as yet no part in him. But, even in
that state, he did only, and only could do, what God willed that
he should do ; and, though without excuse in choosing evil
(as having faculties and capacities, and being placed in cir
cumstances, by and in which he ought at once to have rejected
the temptation), did so choose, through the operation (not
compulsory indeed, but efficacious) and according to the will, of
Him who doeth all things : whose glory as well as preroga
tive it is, to govern a world of free agents.

152

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

TART in. negatives Freewill, until they shall have con-

firmed their affirmative, harsh, and forced one.

/ When the Preacher therefore says, " If thou
shalt be willing to keep the commandments, and
to maintain acceptable faith, they shall preserve
thee;" I do not see how Freewill is proved by
these words. The verb is in the conjunctive
inood ('If thou wilt'); which asserts nothing indi-
catively. Take an example or two. ' If the
devil be God, he is worthy to be worshipped/
( If an ass fly, he has wings/ ' If the will be free,
grace is nothing/ The Preacher should have
spoken thus, if he had meant to assert the freedom
of the will : ' Man can keep the commandments of
God;7 or, 'Man has power to keep the command
ments/

But here Diatribe \vill cavil, that ' the Preacher,
in saying " If thou wilt keep," intimates that there
is a will in man to keep, and not to keep ; for
what meaning is there, in saying to a man who
has no will, flf thou wilt/ Would it not be
ridiculous to say to a man that is blind, ' If
thou wilt see, thou shalt find a treasure ?' or to a
deaf man, ( If thou wilt hear, I will tell thee a
pretty story?' This would be only laughing at
their misery.

I answer; these are the arguments of human
reason, who is wont to pour out a flood of such
wise sayings : so that I have not now to dispute
with the Preacher, but with human reason, about
an inference." That lady interprets the Scriptures
of God by her own consequences and syllogisms ;
drawing them whither she will. I shall undertake
my office very willingly, and with full confidence
of success, because I know that she chatters no
thing but what is foolish and absurd ; the most of

n De sequehf] ' What follows, or is supposed to follow,
from an assertion proved or admitted, but is not the immediate
point in debate.' ( Consequence/ ' deduction/ * inference.1

SEC XV.

What
meant by
< If thou
wilt, &c.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED.

all, when she sets about shewing her wisdom on SEC. xv.
sacred subjects.

Now if, in the first place, I should ask how it is
proved to be intimated, or to follow, that man has
in him a will that is free, as often as it is said 'If
thou wilt/ ' if thou shalt do/ 'if thou shalt hear/
she will say, ' because the nature of words, and
the custom of speech amongst men, seem to require
so.' She measures the things and words of God,
then, by the things and usage of men. What can
be more perverse than this ; when the one sort of
things is earthly, and the other heavenly? Thus
she betrays her foolish self; how she thinks
nothing, but what is human, of God.

But what if I should prove, that the nature of
words and custom of speech, even amongst men,
is not always such as to make those persons
objects of ridicule, who have no power to comply
with the demand, as often as it is said to them,
< If thou wilt/ ' if thou wilt do/ ( if thou wilt
hear ?' How often do parents mock their chil
dren, by bidding them come to them, or do this or
that, for the mere purpose of making it appear
how utterly incapable they are of doing so, and
of forcing them to call upon the parent for his
helping hand ! How often does the faithful phy
sician command his proud patient to do or leave
undone things which are either impossible, or
noxious, that he may drive him to that knowledge
of his disease, or of his weakness, through making
trial of himself, to which he could not lead him
by any other means ! What is more frequent,
or more common, than words of insult and pro
vocation, if we would shew, either to friends or to
enemies, what they can do, and what they cannot
do? I mention these things, only by way of ma
nifesting to human reason, how foolish she is in

O 9

attaching her inferences to the Scriptures; and
how blind she is, not to see that these inferences
are not always realized, even in human words

154 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. and actions : yet, if she but see them fulfilled now
and then, presently she rushes forwards with pre
cipitation, and pronounces that they take place
generally, in all human and divine forms of speech.
Thus she contrives to make an universal of a par
ticular, as the manner of her wisdom is.
SEC. xvi. Now, if God deal with us as a father with his

childen, to shew us our impotency, of which we

Us(; °/ are ignorant ; or as a faithful physician, to make

such forms « ' 1 J . '

of address, our disease known to us ; or it he insult us, as his
enemies, who proudly resist his counsel, and by
proposing laws to us (which is the most con
vincing way of doing it), say, ' Do, hear, keep;'
or, ' if thou shalt hear, ifthou shalt be willing, if
thou shalt do;' will it be a just inference from
hence, ' So then we can will freely, else God is
mocking us ?' Is not this rather the inference,
' So then God is making trial of us, whether we
be friends or foes; that, if we be his friends, he
may lead us to the knowledge of our impotency,
by the law; or, if we be proud enemies, then
indeed he may truly and deservedly insult and
deride us.'0 This is the reason why God gives
;laws ; as Paul teaches.1' For human nature is so
"blind as not to know its own strength, or rather
its own disease ; and is, besides, so proud as to
think that it knows and can do all things. Now,
God has not any more effectual remedy for this

°It is not Luther's business to state whence this difference
of reception arises ; which is only through the free favour of
God,, making some to be his friends, by his Spirit working in
due season, whilst he leaves others in their native enmity.
Luther would not hesitate to assign this cause ; but he has
here only to do with the fact, that the Lord tries and evinces
these different characters of men, by such calls to obedience.

P " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh
be justified in his sight ; for by the law is the knowledge
of sin." (Rom. iii. 20.) " Moreover, the law entered that the
offence might abound." (Rom. v. 20.) " Wherefore then
serveth the law r It was added because of transgressions."
(Gal. iii. 19.) " Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ." (Ibid. 24.)

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 155

pride and ignorance, than the propounding of his sc. xvir.

law; of which I shall say more in its proper

place. Let it suffice to have taken but a sip of
the cup here, that I might confute this inference
of foolish, carnal wisdom, f If thou wilt — therefore
the will is free/ Diatribe dreams that niau is
sound and whole; just such as he is in the sight
of his fellow men, in mere human affairs. Hence
it is, that she cavils and says, ' Man is mocked by
such words as ' if thou wilt,* e if thou wilt do/
'if thou wilt hear/ except his will be free/ But
Scripture declares man to be corrupt and captive ;
and not only so, but a proud despiser of God, and
one ignorant of his corruption and captivity. So
she plucks him by the sleeve, and endeavours to
awaken him by such words as these, that he may
own, even by sure experience, how incapable he
is of any of these things.

But I will become the assailant myself in this Diatribe
conflict; and will ask, < If thou dost indeed think, !Ilshlcere

•HIT V» i • 11 ft* m her m-

Madani Reason, that these mterences stand good (it
thou wilt — therefore thou canst will freely), why dost
thou not follow them ? Thou sayest, in that appro v-
able opinion of thine, that Freewill cannot will any
thing good. By what sort of inference, then, will it
at the same time flow, as you say it does, from this
passage, ' If thou shalt be willing to keep/ that man
can will freely, and cannot will freely ? Do sweet
water and bitter flow from the same fountain ?
Are you not, even yourself, the greater mocker
of man here; when you say that he is able to keep
what he cannot even will, or wish ? It follows
therefore, that neither do you on your part think
it a good inference, ' If thou wilt — therefore thou
canst will freely/ though you maintain it so vehe
mently: or else, you do not, from your heart,
affirm that opinion to be approvable, which main
tains that man cannot will good/ — Reason is so
entrapped in the inferences and words of her own
wisdom, as not to know what she says, or what

156 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. s}ie jg talking about. Unless it be (as is indeed
most worthy of her), that Freewill can only be
defended by such arguments as mutually devour
and make an end of each other : just as the Midi-
anites destroyed themselves, by a mutual slaugh
ter, whilst making war against Gideon and the
people of God.

Proves But let in e expostulate, still more at large, with

>o much, this wise Diatribe. The Preacher does not say,
' If thou shalt have a desire or endeavour to keep,
which is, nevertheless, not to be ascribed to thine
own powers;' as you collect from his words; but
' If thou wilt keep the commandments, they shall
preserve thee.' Now, if we wrould draw infer
ences, such as you in your wisdom are wont to do,
we shall infer, ( therefore man can keep the com
mandments :' and thus, we shall leave not only a
little bit of a desire, or a sort of endeavourling, in
man; but shall ascribe to him the whole fulness
and abundance of power to keep the command
ments. Else, the Preacher would be mocking the
misery of man, by commanding him to keep, when
he knew him to be unable to keep. Nor would it
be enough, that he should have desire and endea
vour : not even thus would the Preacher escape
the suspicion of using mockery; he must inti
mate that he has in him a power of keeping.

Confirms J3ut let us suppose this desire and endeavour
°f Freewill to be something. What shall wre say
to those (the Pelagians, I mean) who, from this
passage, were used to deny grace altogether, and
to ascribe every thing to Freewill ? Without
doubt, the Pelagians have gained the victory, if
/Diatribe's consequence be allowed. For the
words of the Preacher import keeping, and not
merely desiring or endeavouring. Now, if you
shall deny to the Pelagians the inference of ' keep
ing ;' they will, in their turn, much more properly
deny to you the inference of ' endeavouring:' and,
if you take away complete Freewill from them,

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 157

they will take from you that little particle of it sc. xvn.

which you say remains ; not allowing you to

claim for a particle, what you have denied to the
whole substance. So that, whatever you urge
against the Pelagians, who ascribe a whole to
Freewill from this passage, will come much more
forcibly from us, in contradiction to that little bit
of a desire which constitutes your Freewill/1 The
Pelagians too will so far agree with us as to ad
mit, that, if their opinion cannot be proved from
this passage, much less can any other be proved
from it : since, if the cause is to be pleaded by
inferences, the Preacher makes the most strongly
of all for the Pelagians ; forasmuch as he speaks
expressly of entire keeping. i If thou w ilt keep
the commandments/ Nay, he speaks of faith also :
'If thou wilt keep acceptable faith/ So that, by
the same inference, we ought to have it in em
power to keep faith also : howbeit, this faith is
the alone and rare gift of God ; as Paul says/

In short, since so many opinions are enumerated
in support of Freewill, and there is not one of
them but what seizes upon this passage of Eccle-
siasticus for itself, yet those opinions are different
and contrary ; it must follow, that they deem the
Preacher contradictory and opposite, each to the
other severally, in the self-same words. They

i Tutiim libero arbitrlo tribuentibus."] The Pelagians spake
more wisely than many who oppose them. They maintained
' the integrity of Freewill ;' an absolute power of willing good.
Freewill is Freewill ; and, if there be any thing of it iu man,
there is the whole of it.

r Luther refers, no doubt, to Ephes. ii. 8. " For by grace
are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is
the gift of God." His interpretation, if I understand the text
aright, is incorrect : it is. not 'faith' that is spoken of as the gift
of God, but ' his whole salvation.' The truth of his affirma
tion, however, though not fairly deducible from this text,
is unquestionable ; and may be shewn, as well from particular
testimonies, as from the general tenour of Scripture. Matt.
xvi. 17. John vi. 44, G5. Ephes. i. It). Coloss. ii. 12. (to
which many others might be added) are decisive.

158 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART HI. can, therefore, prove nothing from him. Still, if
- that inference be admitted, he makes for the Pela
gians only, against all the rest : and so makes
against Diatribe ; who cuts her own throat here.8

sc xvin l*ut I renew my first assertion ; viz. that this
_ passage from Ecclesiasticus patronises none ab-
Conciude solutely of those who maintain Freewill; but
s?asticuslc" °pP°ses them all. For that inference, ' if thou
proves no- wilt — therefore thou canst/ is inadmissible; and
thing for ^e |rue understanding of such passages as these
\vhether' is, that, by this word and the like, man is warned
what is of his impoteiicy ; which, as being ignorant and
derltoodof Prou(^? ^ ^ were not for these divine warnings,
Adam, or he would neither own nor feel.

°eneraii ^^ ^iere ^ sPea^^ n°t °f the first man only, but
of any man, and every man; though it be of little
consequence, whether you understand it of the
first man, or of any other whatsoever. For, al
though the first man was not impotent through the
presence of grace; still God shews him abun
dantly by this precept, how impotent he would be
in the absence of grace. Now if that man, hav
ing the Spirit/ was not able to will good ; that is,

s Suo ipsius glacUo jugulatur.'] By quoting a passage for
herself, which directly contradicts her.

1 Cum adesset Spiritus.~\ Luther assumes that Adam, in his
creation state, had the Spirit ; of which there is no proof, and
the contrary seems evidently to have been, the fact. Made per
fect after his kind, it was no part of his creation dues or gifts
to have the Spirit. He was formed to glorify God, as his
creature : which implies a substance distinct from, and exist
ing in a state of severance from his Creator ; like a piece of
mechanism put out of the hand of its artificer. He was left
to himself, therefore, having his own high moral powers and
acquirements, but no extrinsic aid ; to make trial and to shew,
what man in his entireness is, and what he would become
through temptation, if not inhabited by his Creator. This trial
and manifestation would furnish an inference with respect to
other creatures ; even as the same inference had already been
furnished by the angelic nature. But this trial could not have
been made, and this exhibition therefore could not have been
effected, if he had possessed the Spirit ; or, in other words, if he
had been united to God. So united, he could not have been
overcome. That union, therefore (as Luther, and others with

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 159

obedience ; while as his will was yet new, and sc.xviii.

good was newly proposed to him/ because the

Spirit did not add it; what could we, who have
not the Spirit, do towards good, which we have
lost? It was shewn therefore, in that first man,
by a terrible example, for the bruising under of
our pride, what our Freewill can do when left to
itself; yea, when urged and increased continually,
yet more and more, by the Spirit of God. The
first man could not attain to a more enlarged
measure of the Spirit, of which he possessed the
firstfruits, but fell from the possession of those
firstfruits. How should we, in our fallen state,
have power to recover those firstfruits, which
have been taken from us ? Especially, since Satan
now reigns in us with full power ; who laid the
first man prostrate by a mere temptation, when
he had not yet got to reign in him. — It were impos
sible to maintain a stronger debate against Free
will, than by discussing this text of Ecclesiasticus,

; in connection with the fall of Adam : but I have not
room for such a descant here, and perhaps the

; matter will present itself elsewhere. Meanwhile,
let it suffice to have shewn, that the Preacher says
just nothing in support of Freewill here (which its
advocates, however, account their principal testi
mony) ; and that this and similar passages, ' If

him, would say), was dissolved- the Spirit which he had
possessed was withdrawn during his temptation. Then, was
any longer the same substance, or person, which had re
ceived the command ? On this representation, the command
was given him, having the Spirit ; and he was tried, not having
he Spirit. — So demonstrable is it, that Adam had not the Holy
^fhost ; whose in-dwelling ' doth not appertain to the perfection
of man's nature.' — But the argument from Adam's state to ours
s quite strong enough, without this unwarranted assumption of
Luther's. He that was just come out of the hands of his
Creator, made in his image, and pronounced by him to be
very good,' could not stand against a single and solitary temp-
ation : what should we do therefore ?

u As opposed to that < stale and rejected' thing which good
s to us.

160 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. thou wilt/ 'if thou wilt hear/ 'if thou wilt do/

declare not what man can do, but what he ought

to do.v

SEC.XIX. Another passage is cited by our Diatribe from

the fourth chapter of Genesis, where the Lord

Gen. iv. 7. says to Cain, " The desire of sin shall be subject

L to thee, and thou shalt rule over it." < It is shewn
here, says Diatribe, that the motions of the mind
towards evil may be overcome, and do not induce
a necessity of sinning/

This saying, ' that the motions of the mind to
wards evil may be overcome/ is ambiguous; but
the general sentiment, the consequence, and the
facts compel us to this understanding of it,x that,
'it is the property of Freewill to overcome its own
motions towards evil, and that those motions do
not induce a necessity of sinning/ Why is it
again omitted here, ( which is not ascribed to Free
will' ?y What need is there of the Spirit, what need
of Christ, what need of God, if Freewill can over
come the motions of the mind towards evil ? What
has again become of that approvable opinion,
which says that Freewill cannot even will good?
Here, however, victory over evil is ascribed to

v I cannot help regretting that Luther, after the example of
his opponent, has given so much space to this Apocryphal tes
timony from Ecclesiasticus. I could have been glad, if he had
not only stood upon his right, which he hints at in the opening
of his discussion, declining" to answer ; but had used the
occasion to protest against the honour put upon this book,
and the rest of its brothers and sisters, by binding them up in
our Bibles and reading them in our churches. — The collateral
matter of the argumentation, however, is highly valuable ;
and Luther could afford to make his adversary a present of an
argument. Here, indeed, he may almost be said to have taken a
culvcrin to kill flies withal. For, is it not Adam, clearly, of whom
the Preacher speaks ; whose will is not the matter in debate ?
and what, as we have seen, is said even of that will, which
might not be said of ours ? It was left free to choose ; and if
it should choose good, good would result from that good.

x Vi sentential, consequential e.t rerum hue cogitiir.

y Referring to the ' satis probabilis opinio ;' ' sed non relin-
quat, quod suis viribus ascribat.' See above, Sect. vii.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 161

this substance, which neither wills nor wishes SEC.XIX.
good. Our Diatribe's carelessness is beyond all
measure here. — Hear the truth of the matter in
few words. I have said before, man has it shewn
to him, by such expressions as these, not what he
can do, but what he ought to do. Cain is told,
therefore, that he ought to rule over sin, and to
keep its lustings in subjection to himself. But
this he neither did, nor could do, seeing, he was
now pressed to the earth by the foreign* yoke of
Satan. It is notorious, that the Hebrews fre
quently use the future indicative for the impera
tive : as in the twentieth chapter of Exodus ; f Thou
shalt not have any other Gods,' ' Thou shalt not
kill/ 'Thou shalt not commit adultery / and num
berless such like instances. On the contrary, if
the words be taken indicatively, according to
their literal meaning/ they would be so many
promises of God, who cannot lie ; and so, nobody
would commit sin, and there would be no need
therefore of these precepts. In fact, our trans
lator would have rendered the words better in this
place, if he had said, * Let its desire be subject to
thee, and do thou rule over it/ Just as it ought
also to have been said to the woman, ' Be subject
to thy husband, and let him rule over thee/ —
That it was not said indicatively to Cain, appears
from this : it would in that case have been a divine
jpromise ; but it was not a divine promise, for
the very reverse happened, and the very reverse
|was done by Cain.b

Alieno impcrio.'] ' A dominion out of himself; ' so that he
is no longer his own master.

Ut sonant.'] The sound, as opposed to the sense, or real
iport.

b I admit Luther's principle, but demur to the application of
t, both here and in the parallel to which he refers, Gen. iii. 16.
| .'he original passage is one of great difficulty. I incline to the
iterpretation which our authorized version gives to it ; and
ifer the words which are immediately under remark, as that
ppears to do, not to sin, but to Abel. " If thou doest well, shalt

M

162

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

SEC.XX.

Deut. xxx.
19. con
sidered.

PART in. Your third passage is from Moses, " I have set
before thy face the way of life and of death ;
choose that which is good/' &c. &c. f What
could be said more plainly/ says Diatribe ? ' He
leaves freedom of choice to man/

I answer, what can be plainer than that you are
blind here? Prithee, where does he leave free
dom of choice? In saying, ' choose?' So then,
as soon as Moses says f choose/ it comes to pass
that they do choose ! Again, therefore, the Spirit
is not necessary : and since you so often repeat
and hammer inc the same things, let me also be

them not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at
the door. And unto thee shall be bis desire, and thou shalt rule
over him." Well, and not well, have relation to the then
known will of God. Was Cain ignorant, with what sort of
offering God was to be approached ? — Whatever might be said
of later times, Cain must have heard all about Eden, the ser
pent and the woman, the serpent's seed and the woman's
seed ; and must have seen the coats of skins. Cain despised
""the way;" he would none of Christ.- — Then, God's words
are adapted to quiet, and to instruct him. We know that a
man can no more come by Christ, except it be given him from
above, than he can come by the law. But this was not the
thing to be shewn him ; he was to be reminded of the alone
way of access, that he might make the fullest developement of
himself, if he should continue to neglect and despise it : and,
since jealous and angry fears were now arising in his mind with
respect to his brother ; chiefly, lest he should lose the earthly
superiority attached to his primogeniture ; he is pacified with
an assurance (connected, doubtless, with the fore-mentioned
condition), that tin's dominion should remain in his hands ; an
assurance conveyed in words very nearly resembling those
by which Eve was warned of her subjection to Adam. The
Septuagint gives another turn to the former part of the verse,
but clearly refers the latter as I do ; and so in Gen. iii. 16. —
According to this view, the words of this text have nothing to
do with Freewill, though it seems the Hebrew llabbins, as
well as Luther and Erasmus, thought they had. (See Pole's
Synops. in loc.) — If they must be referred to sin, not Abel ;
Luther's interpretation is correct, and his answer unanswer
able- — If the words be taken indicativcly , they are a promise
of God, which was broken as soon as made.

c Inculces.~] A figurative expression from ' treading in with
the feet ; ' hence applied to those efforts by which, like the
pavier ramming down his stones, we aim to drive or beat our

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 163

allowed to say the same thing many times over. If SEC. xx.

there be freeness of choice d in the soul, why has

your approvable opinion said that the free will
cannot will good ? Can it choose without will
ing, or against its will? — But let us hear your
simile.

It would be ridiculous to say to a man standing
in a street where two ways meet, f you see two
ways, enter which you please ; ' when only one is
open.

This is just what I said before, about the argu
ments of carnal reason : she thinks that man is
mocked by an impossible precept ; whereas we
say, he is admonished and excited by it to see
his own impotency. Truly then, we are in this
sort of street; but only one way is open to us : or
rather, no way is open.e But it is shewn us by
the law, how impossible it is for us to choose the
one — that leading to good, I mean — except God
give his Holy Spirit: how broad and easy the
other is, if God allow us to walk in it. Without
mockery then, and with all necessary gravity, it
would be said to a man standing in the street,
( enter which of the two you please ; ' if, either
he should have a mind to appear strong in his
own eyes, being infirm ; or should maintain that
neither of these ways is shut against him.

The words of the law then, are spoken not to
affirm the power of the will, but to enlighten blind
reason ; that she may see what a nothing her light

meaning into a person's head. Erasrrms not only repeats, but
pursues long desultory arguments, heaping one upon another,
to prove his point.

d Libertns eligcndi."] Choice there must be, or there is no
will ; but that choice may be made under a wrong bias. This .
is properly the question of Freewill ; viz. : whether the will be
\uuler such a bias, or not.

e Imo nulla patet.~] Referring to what he has said before,
' about God's doing every thing ; ' and our doing all we do, by
necessity. So, even the way of evil is only broad and easy,
' si Deus permittat.'

M2

164 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. is, and what a nothing the power of the will is.
" By the law is the knowledge of sin," says
Paul ; he does not say the ' abolition/ or the
* avoidance/ of it. The principle' and power
of the law has for its essence the affording of
knowledge, and that only of sin ; not the display
ing of any power, or the conferring of any.

For this8 knowledge, neither is power, nor
confers power, but instructs ; and shews that there
is no power in that quarter, and how great is the
infirmity in that quarter. For what else can the
knowledge of sin be, but the knowledge of our
infirmity and of our wickedness. Nor does he
say, ( by the law comes the knowledge of virtue,
or good :' but all that the law does, according to
Paul, is to cause sin to be known.

This is that passage from which I drew my
answer, ( that by the words of the law man is ad
monished and instructed what he ought to do,
not what he can do ;' that is, to know his sin, not
to believe that he has some power. So that, as
often as you cast the words of the law in my teeth,
I will answer you, my Erasmus, with this saying
of Paul; "By the law is the knowledge of sin,"
not power in the will. Take now some of your
larger Concordances, and heap together all the
imperative verbs into one chaos (so they be not
words of promise, but words of exaction and law),
and I shall presently shew you, that by these is
always intimated not what men do, or can do, but
what they ought to do. Your grammar-masters,
and boys in the streets, know this ; that by verbs

f Tota ratio et virtus legisJ] Rat. a word of very extensive and
various signification, expresses ' the nature, order, object,
structure, and relations of any substance.' 'Principle' seems
best to express it here : as comprehending both design and
constitution. Rat. et virt. The law is both framed for this
purpose, and effects it.

e I insert ' this j' because the two ibis, which follow, make
it plain, that it is not knowledge in general, but this knowledge
in particular, of which he speaks.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 165

of the imperative mood nothing else is expressed, SEC.XXI.

but what ought to be done : what is done, or '

may be done, must be declared by indicative
verbs.

How comes it then, that you theologians, as if
you had fallen into a state of second childhood,
no sooner get hold of a single imperative verb,
than you are foolish enough to infer an indicative;
as if an act were no sooner commanded, than it
becomes straightway, even of necessity, a thing
done, or at least practicable. For how many things
happen between the cup and the lip,1' to pre
vent what you have ordered, and what was more
over quite practicable, from taking place : such a
distance is there between imperative and indica
tive verbs, in common and most easy trans
actions. But you' — when the things enjoined,
instead of being near to us as the lip is to the
cup, are more distant than heaven from earth —
and, moreover, impracticable — so suddenly make
indicatives for us out of imperatives, that you will
have the things to have been kept, done, chosen,
and fulfilled, or about to be so, by our own
power ; as soon as ever the word of command has
been given, ' do, keep, choose.' k

In the fourth place, you adduce many like verbs Passages
of choosing, refusing, keeping; as, cif thou shalt from^eut-
keep/ ( if thou shalt turn aside/ ' if thou shalt considered,
choose,' &cc. &c. from the third1 and from the
thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy. ' All these

h Inter os et offcim.'] ' The mouth and the cake ;' but I have
preferred the more common proverb.

1 Et vos,~] It would be read with more spirit in the form of
a question : — ' And do you so suddenly make, &c. ?'

k Luther is abundant in reply to this passage from Deu
teronomy. 1. It proves too much. 2. Not ridiculous, if the
way be supposed shut. 3. The law gives knowledge of sin.
4. Imperative verbs are not indicatives.

1 The reference to Deut. iii. appears to be incorrect : these
expressions are all found in the xxxth ; and the like to them
.n xxvii. xxviii. xxix. But chap. iii. is a mere narrative.

1GG BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. expressions, you say, would be unseasonable, if
• man's will were not free to good/

I answer, you also are very unseasonable, my
Diatribe, in collecting Freewill from these verbs !
For you professed to prove only desire and
endeavour in your Freewill, and adduce no pas
sage which proves such endeavour, but a string
of passages, which, if your consequence were
valid, would assign ( a whole' to Freewill."1 Let
us, then, distinguish here again between the
words adduced from Scripture, and the conse
quence which Diatribe has appended to them.
The words adduced are imperative, and only
express what ought to be done. For Moses
does not say, you have strength or power to
choose, but ' choose, keep, do.' He delivers
commands to do, but does not describe man's
power of doing. But the consequence added by
this sciolous Diatribe infers, ' therefore man can
do these things ; else they would be enjoined in
vain.' To which the answer is, c Madam Dia
tribe, you make a bad inference, and you do not
prove your consequence : it is because you are
blind and lazy, that you think this consequence
follows, and has been proved.' These injunc
tions, however, are not delivered unseasonably,
or in vain ; but are so many lessons by which
vain and proud man may learn his own diseased
state of impotency, if he try to do what is com
manded. So again, your simile is to no purpose,
where you say ;

6 Else it would be just as if you should say
to a man, who is so tied and bound, that he
can only stretch out his arm to the left, See !
you have a cup of most excellent wine at your
right hand, and a cup of poison at your left :

m Totum, opposed to particula ejus reliqua ; ' that small re
maining particle of Freewill which Erasmus professed to sup
port and prove :' his texts would make it an integer, not a
fraction. See abovej Sect. iv.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 167

stretch out your hand to whichsoever side you SE. xxn.
please/

I have a notion that you are mightily tickled
with these similes. But you do not perceive all
the while, that, if your similes stand good, they
prove much more than you have undertaken to
prove ; nay, that they prove what you deny, and
would have to be disapproved ; namely, that Free
will can do every thing. For, throughout your
whole treatise, forgetting that you have said
( Freewill can do nothing without grace/ you
prove that * Freewill can do every thing without
grace/ Yes, this is what you make out, at last, by
your consequences and similes, that, either Free
will, left to herself, can do the things which are
said and enjoined, or they are idly, ridiculously,
and unseasonably enjoined. Howbeit, these are
but the old songs of the Pelagians ; which even
the Sophists have exploded, and you have yourself
condemned. Meanwhile, you show by this forget-
fulness and bad memory of yours, how entirely
you are both ignorant of the cause, and indif
ferent to it. For what is more disgraceful to a
rhetorician, than to be continually discussing and
proving things foreign to the point at issue ; nay,
to be continually haranguing against both his
cause and himself ? "

I do therefore affirm again, that the words of His Sc"P-
Scripture adduced by you are imperative words,
and neither prove any thing, nor determine any his a
thing, on the subject of human power, but pre- scripture,
scribe certain things to be done, and to be left too much!
undone: whilst your consequences or additions,

" Contra causam et scipsnm.~\ Not only in opposition to the
cause lie was advocating, but even to his own admissions and
assertions. — But what a string of charges is here ! — Sciolist! a
mere smattercr in learning and knowledge. — Pelagian .' which
every ' would-be' orthodox disclaims — negligent, desultory, un-
discerningf heartless ! quam nihil vel intelligas vel afficiaris
causse !

168 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. and your similes, prove this, if they prove any

thing, that Freewill can do every thing without

grace. This proposition, however, is not one which
you have undertaken to prove, but have even de
nied : so that proofs of this kind are nothing else
but the strongest disproofs. For let me try now,
whether it be possible to rouse Diatribe from her
lethargy. Suppose I should argue thus: when Moses
says, ( choose life, and keep the commandment;' ex
cept a man can choose life and keep the command
ment, it is ridiculous in Moses to enjoin this upon
man: should I by this argument have proved, that
Freewill can do nothing good ; or that it has endea
vour, but not of its own power?0 No, I should
have proved, by a pretty bold sort of comparison,11
that, either man can choose life and keep the com
mandment, as he is ordered to do ; or Moses is a
ridiculous teacher. But who would dare to call
Moses a ridiculous teacher? It follows therefore,
that man can do the things commanded him.
This is the way, in which Diatribe is continually
arguing against her own thesis ; by which she
engaged not to maintain any such position as this,
but to show a certain power of endeavouring in
Freewill : of .which, however, she makes little
mention in the whole series of her arguments, so
far is she from proving it. Nay, she rather proves
the contrary : so as to be herself rather, the ridi
culous speaker and arguer every where.q

0 Sine suis viribus.'] He plays upon ' the approvable opinion ;'
which leaves endeavour,, but does not leave it to be ascribed to
Freewill's own power.

P Satis fort i cont(:ntione.~] Cont. is sometimes used in a rheto
rical sense to express one of the parts of an oration ; ' dispu-
tatio sive disceptatio,' opposed to ' quocstio ' or ' controversia ;'
what might properly be called ' the argumentation:' but is
here used in another rhetorical sense, to express ' contrast,
comparison, or antithesis -,' ' Moses's folly,' set in array against
( man's power.'

'i She imputed this to Luther : she would make either him
or Moses absurd ; the real absurdity lay in adducing argu
ments., which either proved nothing, or proved the opposite.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 169

With respect to its being ridiculous,, according sc. xxn.
to the simile you have introduced, that a man tied
by the right arm should be bidden to stretch out
his hand to the right, when he can only stretch it tied.
out to the left; would it be ridiculous, I ask — if
a man, who was tied even by both hands, should
proudly maintain, or ignorantly presume, that he
could do what he pleased on both sides of him —
to bid such a man stretch out his hand to which
soever side he likes ; not with the design of laugh
ing at his captive state, but that the false pre
sumption of his own liberty and power may be
evinced, or that his ignorance of his captivity and
misery may be made notorious to himself. Dia
tribe is always dressing up for us a man of her own
invention, who either can do as he is bidden, or
at least knows that he cannot. But such a man
is no where to be found : and if there were such
a man, then it would indeed be true, that, either
impossibilities are enjoined ridiculously, or the
Spirit of Christ is given in vain/

But the Scripture sets before us a man, who is Uses of
not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, dead, tela"'
but who adds this plague of blindness (through
the agency of Satan his prince) to his other ble-
plagues, and so thinks himself at liberty, happy,
unshackled, able, in health, alive. For Satan
knows, that, if man were acquainted with his
own misery, he should not be able to retain a
single individual of the race in his kingdom; be
cause God could not choose but at once pity and
help him, when now he had come to recognise his
misery, and cry out for relief: seeing, he is a
God so greatly extolled throughout the whole
Scripture, as being near to the contrite in heart,
that, in the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah (vv. 1 — 3.),
Christ declares himself to have been even sent

r If he can do what is bidden, there is no need of the Spirit ;
if he knows he cannot, there is no longer any use for pre
scribing it.

170 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. into the world by Him, for the purpose of preach-

ing the Gospel to the poor, and healing the

broken-hearted. So that, it is Satan's business to
keep men from the recognition of their own
misery; and to keep them in the presumption of
their own ability to do all tfyat is commanded.
But the legislator Moses's business is the very
opposite of this : HE is to lay open man's misery
to him by the law, that, having hereby broken his
heart, and confounded him with the knowledge of
himself, he may prepare him for grace,8 and send
him to Christ, and so he may be saved for ever.
What the law does, therefore, is not ridiculous,
but exceedingly serious and necessary.1

Those who are now brought to understand
these matters, understand at the same time, with
out any difficulty, that Diatribe proves absolutely
nothing, by her whole series of arguments ; whilst
she does nothing but get together a parcel of
imperative verbs from the Scriptures, of which
she knows not either the meaning or the use.
Having done so, she next adds her own conse
quences and carnal similes, and thus mixes up
such a potent cake," that she asserts and proves
more than she had advanced, and argues against
her very self. It would not be necessary, there
fore, to pursue my rapid course v through her

s Ad gratiam.] Not, what is often understood by grace, e the
gift of the Spirit ;' but, what grace truly is in its essence, ' the
free favour of God.'

* Ridicula. .seria. . neccssariaJ] Ridiculous may have respect
either to the laugher, or the laughed at ; what we do in sport,
or suffer as objects of sport. The law neither mocks, nor makes
a fool of herself, though her ordinances be impossible to man ;
neither mocks, by calling merely to expose ; nor subjects her
self to derision, by speaking Avhere she has nothing to gain.

u Offam seems to be some allusion to Cerberus. ^En. vi. 420.

v Percurrere.] Luther applies the same term to his review of
Erasmus's preface, implying short and lively animadversion
rather than grave and elaborate research. So, just afterwards,
' recensere ;' * enumeration,' or ( recital,' rather than ' inves
tigation.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED.

several proofs any further; since they are all dis- sc.xxm.

missed by dismissing one, as all resting upon one

principle. Still, I shall go on to recount some
of them, that I may drown her in the very flood
in which she was meaning to drown me.x

In Isaiah i. (ver. 19.) we read, "If ye shall Isaiah U9.
have been willing, and shall have heard, ye shall *j'x'4)1'
eat the good of the land:" where it would have m. 'i.'jj.
been more consistent, as Diatribe thinks, to have and some
said, ' If I be willing ; ' ( If I be unwilling ; ' on
the supposition of the will not being free.

The answer to this suggestion is sufficiently
manifest, from what has been said above. But no distinct
what congruity would there be, in its being said tlon be~
here, ( If / will, ye shall eat of the good of the ana Cos-
land ?' Does Diatribe, of her excessive wisdom, rel> &c-
imagine that the good of the land could be eaten
against the will of God ; or that it is a rare and
new thing for us to receive good, only if HE
will ?

So in Isaiah xxx.y " If ye seek, seek ; turn ye,
and come." ' To what purpose is it that we ex
hort those who have no power at all over them
selves? Is it not just as if we should say to a
man bound with fetters, move yourself that way ;'
says Diatribe ?

Say rather, to what purpose is it that you
quote passages, which, of themselves, prove
nothing, but by adding a consequence ; that is,
by corrupting their meaning; ascribe every thing
to Freewill : whereas only a sort of endeavour,
and that not ascribable to Freewill, was to be
proved?

x Obruatur copld, seems to be some allusion to the dra
gon, Rev. xii. 15. " And the serpent cast out of his mouth
water, as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause her to
be carried away of the Hood."

y The reference seems to be to verse 21, where our trans
lation has it, " And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee,
saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right
hand, and when ye turn to the left."

172 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. < I would say the same of that testimony in

Isaiah xlv. " Assemble yourselves, and come ;

turn to me, and ye shall be saved : " and of that in
Isaiah Hi. " Arise, arise, shake thyself from the
dust, loose the chains from off thy neck." Of that
also in Jeremiah xv. " If thou wilt turn, I will
turn thee ; and if thou wilt separate the precious
from the vile, thou shalt be as iny mouth." But
Zechariah makes still more evident mention of the
endeavour of Freewill, and of the grace which is
prepared for the endeavourer. He says, " Turn
ye to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn
to you, saith the Lord."z

In these passages, our Diatribe discovers no
difference at all between law words and gospel
words. So blind and ignorant is she forsooth,
that she does not see what is Law and what is
Gospel. Out of the whole of Isaiah, she brings
not a single law word, except that first one, ' If
ye shall have been willing.' All the other pas
sages are made up of gospel words; by which the
contrite and afflicted are called to take comfort
from offers of grace.a But Diatribe makes law

z Isa. xlv. 20. lii. 1, 2. Jerem.xv. 19. The reference made
to Zechariah seems properly to belong to Malachi iii. 7. See
above, Part ii. Sect. xiii. note °.

a Verbo gratia; oblate.'} The expression, ' offers of grace,' is
exceptionable, as implying freeness of choice ; in direct con
trariety to Luther's position and arguments. The truth is,
that, whilst he abhorred free choice, he liked free offers. I could
have been glad if he had expressed his meaning more defi
nitely; which is little else than ' the promises of God received
in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scrip
ture;' that is, received ' as promises of free favour made to
persons of a certain character ; and not to individuals, as such.'
What but these are the very and legitimate stay of God's eter
nally foreknown, elect, predestinated, and now quickened
child, in the day of his tearing and smiting ? Is he to hear a
voice, or see a vision, or receive some providential token, per
sonal to himself; before he presumes to call upon the name
of the Lord ? Are not these, " Ho, every one that thirsteth ;"
" To this man will I look ;" " Come unto me, all ye that tra
vail and are heavy-laden;" "The same Lord over all is rich

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 173

words of them. And pray what good will he do sc.xxni.
in theology, or in the Scriptures, who has not yet
got so far as to know what the Law is, and what
the Gospel is ; or, if he does know, disdains to
observe the difference ? Such an one must con
found every thing ; heaven and hell, life and
death; and will take no pains to know any
thing at all about Christ. I shall admonish my
Diatribe more copiously upon this subject hereafter.
Look now at those words of Jeremiah and
Zechariah : ' If thou wilt turn, I will turn thee /
and, ( Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you.'
Does it follow, ' Turn ye/ therefore ye can turn ?
Does it follow, ( Love the Lord thy God with all
;hine heart/ therefore thou shalt be able to love
lim with all thine heart? What is the conclu
sion, then, from arguments of this kind, but that
Freewill needs not the grace of God, for she can
do every thing by her own power ? How much
more properly are the words taken, just as they
stand ! b ' If thou shalt have been turned, I also
will turn thee/ that is, if thou shalt leave off
sinning, I also will leave off punishing ; and if,
when thou art converted, thou shalt lead a good
life, I also will do thee good, and will turn thy
captivity and thy evils.0 But it does not follow

unto all that call upon Him" — his warrant for drawing near,
ind his first words of consolation ? — But these, at last, are not
' offers' of grace ; by which God throws himself, as it were,

the knees and feet of his creatures — subjecting himself to a
-efusal ; nay, with full assurance that he must receive one,
except he superadd a special and distinct impulse of his own
;o secure acceptance — but testimonies of his own mouth, and
land, and ordinances, borne to those souls which he, in his
>wn good time, has made ready to welcome them ; that he
vill bind up, and heal, and own, these poor destitutes, amidst
he gathered remnant of his heritage.

b Verba, ut posita sunt.~] ' Without additions,' such as Eras-
nus's.

c I do not know that any reasonable objection can be made
o Luther's paraphrase of Jeremiah xv. 19, and Malachi (he
alls him Zechariah) iii. 7. 13ut the (juotation from Jeremiah

174 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. from these words, that a man can turn to God by
his own power ; nor do the words affirm this :
they simply say, ' If thou art converted ;' admo
nishing man what he ought to be. Now, when
he shall have known and seen this, he would seek
the power, which he hath not, from the source
whence he might have it,d if Diatribe's Leviathan
(her appendage and consequence, I mean) did not
come in the way, saying, ' It would in vain be
said, " Turn ye," except a man could turn by his
own power/ — What sort of a saying this is, and
what it proves, has been declared abundantly.

It is the effect of stupor or lethargy to suppose
that Freewill is established by those words, ( Turn
ye/ ( If thou shalt turn,' and the like ; and not to
perceive, that, upon the same principle, it would
also be established by this saying, " Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;" since
the demand in the one case, is equivalent to the
command* in the other. Nor is the love of God,
and of all his commandments, less required than our
own conversion ; since the love of God is our true
conversion. And yet no man argues Freewill
from that commandment of love, whilst all argue

seems perfectly out of place : it is a personal matter between
the Lord and his Prophet, a converted man : what has this to
do, then, with the question of Freewill ?

d Qucerat unde possit.~] I have been inclined to connect
these words with the preceding sentence ; ' by which he id
admonished what he ought to be ; and having understood and
discovered this, is admonished to seek the power which he
hath not whence he might get it ; if Diatribe should not inter
vene,' &c. — The punctuation, however, forbids this connection,
and it does not appear to be Luther's meaning. He imputes it
to Diatribe's false suggestion, if man, warned that he ought to
turn to God, does not find out his own impotency, and seek his
conversion from Qod. But there is much more that goes to
this seeking, than Luther seems to include in it: under the clear
est light, men will still resist conviction ; and the heart to seek,
is as much a gift, as conversion itself.

e More literally, ' since the meaning of the commander and
the demander is equal on both sides.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 175

it from those words, ( If tliou shalt be willing-/ sc.xxiv.

f If tliou sbalt hear/ ' Turn/ and the like. If

then it folio weth not from that saying, ' Love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart/ that Freewill
is any thing, or has any power, assuredly neither
doth it from those, f If thou wilt/ ( If tliou near
est/ ' Turn ye/ and the like : which either de
mand less, or demand less vehemently, than that
' Love God/ ' Love the Lord/ f

Whatever reply, therefore, is made to that
saying, ' Love God/ forbidding to conclude Free
will from it; the same shall be made to all other
expressions of command or demand, in forbid-
dance of the same conclusion: namely, that by the
command to love is shewn e the matter of the
law/8 what we ought to do; but not the power of
the human will, what we can do ; or rather, what
we cannot do. The same is shewn by all other
expressions of demand. It is evident, that even
the schoolmen, with the exception of the Scotists
and the Moderns,1' assert, that man cannot love
God with his whole heart. From whence it fol
lows, that neither can he fulfil any of the other
commandments ; since they all hang on this, as
Christ testifies. Thus, it remains as a just con
clusion, even from the testimony of the scholastic
(doctors, that the words of the law do not prove
,a power in the free will, but show what we ought
to do, and what we cannot do.

But our Diatribe, with still greater absurdity, Mai. m. 7.
not only infers an indicative sense from that say- morc Par-

•* ticularly

considered.

f DillgK Deum. Ama Dominum.~\ Dil. and am. are here used
;as of like import : sometimes they are put in contrast, and
ithat variously ; diligo being sometimes the stronger, and some
times the weaker term. In distinguishing them, 'amo' may
be understood to denote the love of appetite; and 'diligo'
the love of reason.

5 Forma legiy.~\ More literally, ' the shape, mould, or image
:>f the law ;' ' what is comprehended in it.'
h Scotistis et Modcrnis.'] See above, Part iii. Sect. ii. notes

176 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. ing of Zechariah, ' Turn ye unto me;' but main-

tains, that it even proves a power of endeavouring

in Freewill, and grace prepared for the endea-
vourer.

And here, at last, she remembers her ' endea
vour ;' and, by a new art of grammar, e to turn/
with her, signifies the same as f to endeavour :'
so that the sense is, ' Turn unto me / that is,
f endeavour to turn,' and ' I will turn to you /
that is, ' endeavour to turn ' to you. At last,
then, she attributes endeavour even to God ; in
tending perhaps to prepare grace for His endea-
vourings also. For, if ( to turn ' signifies ' to
endeavour ' in one place ; why not in all ?

Again, in that passage of Jeremiah, flf thou
shalt separate the precious from the vile/ she
maintains that not only 6 endeavour/ but even
' freedom of choice/ is proved : what she had
before taught us to have been lost, and to have
been turned into a necessity of serving sin. You
see then, that Diatribe truly possesses a free will
in her handlings of Scripture ; by which she com
pels words, of one and the same form, to prove
endeavour in one place, and free choice in ano
ther; just as she pleases.

But bidding adieu to these vanities, the word
c turn ' has two uses in Scripture ; a legal, and an
evangelical one. In its legal use, it is an exacter
and commander ; requiring not endeavour only,
but change of the whole life; as Jeremiah fre
quently uses it, saying, ' Turn ye every one from
his evil way / e Turn to the Lord :' where it evi
dently involves an exacting of all the command
ments. When used evangelically, it is a word of
divine promise and consolation; by which nothing
is demanded from us, but the grace of God is
offered to us. Such is that of Psalm cxxvi.
' When the Lord shall turn again the captivity
ofZion/ and that of Psalm cxvi. ' Turn again
then unto thy rest, O my soul !' And so Zecharias

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 177

contrives to dispatch both sorts of preaching (law as sc.xxiv.
well as grace) in a very short compendium. It is all
law, and the sum of the law, when he says, ' Return
unto me :' it is grace, when he says, f I will
return unto you/ As far, therefore, as Freewill is
proved by that saying, ' Love the Lord/ or by
any other saying of any particular law; just so far,
and no farther, is it proved by this summary law
word ' Turn/ It is the part of a wise reader
of Scripture then, to observe what are law
words, and what are grace words ; that he may
not jumble them all together, like the filthy
Sophists, and like this yawning Diatribe.1

1 Luther's distinction between law words and gospel words,
as applied by him in these two sections, severally and com-
paredly, is arbitrary, indefinite, and unavailing. Arbitrary ; in
asmuch as he pretends not to have any recognised authority for
it, and applies it inconsistently ; sometimes calling words of
exhortation or command ( gospel words / and sometimes con
fining that term to words of promise, as opposed to them.
' Turn ye unto me ' is a law word ; ' I will turn to you ' is a
gospel word. Indefinite ; because he gives no fixed rule by
which to determine what is one, and what is the other j but,
according to his own account, leaves it to the discerning
reader. Unavailing ; because a gospel precept is not less im
practicable than a law one to the free will. — In my view, he
confounds matters ; for 'return/ or 'repent/ is surely not a
law precept, but a gospel one : the law knows nothing of
repentance. — The truth is, he has given his answer to all these
testimonies already. They are requirements ; call them law
requirements, if you will, or gospel requirements ; they are
something for man to do ; and, as he very properly argues,
they are meant to shew him what he ought to do, but imply
not any power either towards Law, or towards Gospel. The law
is, properly, ' the law of the Ten Commandments/ under
which, speaking less precisely, may be comprehended all those
precepts which fall in with the nature and design of that
' transcript of the creation law of man / but nothing which
regards his relations as a fallen, or as a restored creature. —
Luther speaks confusedly, as other writers do, on this subject ;
not discerning the origin, design, and nature of that institu
tion. — The law spake not till Moses ; spake only to the Jews,
or then visible church of God ; was a preparation for, and
a fore-preached Gospel. A law word therefore, rightly under
stood, is also a gospel word : a word which prepareth, by com
pelling a sense of need ; and which— whilst it " shuts up unto

N

178

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. por see now? 11OW she treats that famous passage

£c xxv *n Ezekiel xviii. " As I live, saith the Lord, I

' would not the death of a sinner, but rather

Ezek.xviii. that he be converted and live." First, ' It is so

23. con- often repeated, says she, in the course of this

dered> chapter, " shall turn away," " hath done,"

" hath wrought ;" in respect both of good and

evil. Where then are those who deny that man

does any thing?'

What an excellent consequence is here ! She
was going to prove desire and endeavour in Free
will ; but she proves the whole act, every thing-
done to the uttermost by Freewill. Where now
are they who maintain the necessity of grace and
of the Holy Spirit? For this is her ingenious
way of arguing : e Ezekiel says, If the wicked
man shall turn away from his wickedness and do
justice and judgment, he shall live. — Why then the
wicked man presently does so, and can do so.'
Ezekiel intimates what ought to be done; Diatribe
considers this as what is done, and has been done ;
again introducing a new sort of grammar, by
which she may teach us that it is the same thing
to owe, as to have — the same thing to be enacted,
as to be performed — the same thing to demand,
as to pay.

After this, she lays hold on that sweetest of gos
pel words, ' I would not the death of a sinner/
and gives this turn to it;k ' Does the holy Lord
deplore that death of his people, which he works
in them himself? If he would not the death of a
sinner, verily, it is to be imputed to our own wil
if we perish. But what can you impute to a being,

the faith which should afterwards be revealed," and which now
has been revealed — impliedly promises and exhibits Him who
was to be, and who now has been and is, its fulfiller ami
perfecter.

k Sic versat>~\ Vers. implies a forced application of it ; as if yov
should turn a body, that is already in motion, out of its natural
Bourse j or give motion to one that is at rest.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 179

who has no power to do any thing, either good or sc.xxvi.
evil?'

Pelagius also sang just the same sort of song;
when he ascribed not desire and endeavour only,
but complete power of fulfilling and doing every
thing to Freewill. For these consequences prove
this power, as I have before said, if they prove any
thing; and therefore fight as stoutly, and even
more so, against Diatribe herself (who denies
this power in Freewill, and sets up endeavour
only), as against us who deny Freewill altogether.
But without dwelling upon her ignorance, I will
state the matter as it really is.

It is a gospel word, and a word of sweetest The true
consolation to poor miserable sinners, when Eze- ineanins
kiel says, (e I would not the death of a sinner, xviiL 23.
but rather that he should be converted and live, stated.
by all means." As is that of the thirtieth Psalm
also, " For his wrath is but for a moment, and
his will towards us life rather than death." And
that of the thirty-sixth Psalm, "How sweet is thy
mercy, Lord I" Also, " Because I am merciful."
And that saying of Christ, in Matthew xi. " Come
unto me, all ye that labour, and I will refresh
you." Also that of Exodus, " I do mercy to
them that love me, unto many thousands." Nay,
what is almost more than half of the Scripture
but mere promises of grace, by which mercy, life,
peace, and salvation are offered to men ? ' And
what other import have words of promise than
this, ' ' I would not the death of a sinner ?" Is it
not the same thing to say, ' I am merciful/ as to
say, i I am not angry/ ' I do not wish to punish/
* I do not wish you to die/ * I wish to pardon
you/ ( I wish to spare you ?' Now, if these
divine promises did not stand in the word, to
raise up those whose consciences have been
wounded with the sense of sin, and terrified with

1 See above, Sect xxiii. note a.
N2

180 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. the fear of death and judgment, what place would

there be for pardon, or for hope ? What sinner

would not despair ? But, as Freewill is not
proved by other words of pity, or promise, or
consolation, so neither is it proved by this, "I
would not the death of a sinner."

But our Diatribe, again confounding the dis
tinction between law words and words of promise,
makes this place of Ezekiel a law word, and ex
pounds it thus : ( I would not the death of a
sinner ;' that is, ' I would not that he should sin
mortally, or become a sinner guilty of death ;
but rather that he should turn away from his sin,
if he hath committed any, and so should live/ For,
if she did not expound it so, it would not serve
her purpose at all : but such an exposition en
tirely subverts and withdraws this most persua
sive word of Ezekiel, ' I would not the death of
a sinner/ If we are determined so to read and
understand the Scriptures, by the exercise of our
own blindness, what wonder if they be obscure
and ambiguous? For he does not say, ' I would
not the sin of a man/ but ' I would not the death
of a sinner;' clearly intimating, that he speaks of
the punishment of sin, which the sinner is expe
riencing for his sin ; that is, the fear of death. Yes;
He raises up and consoles the sinner, when now
laid on this bed of affliction and despair, that he
may not quench the smoking flax, or break the
bruised reed, but may excite hope of pardon and
salvation : that so he may rather be converted
(converted, I mean, to salvation from the punish
ment of death) and live ; that is, be happy, and
rejoice in a quiet conscience."1

For this also must be observed, that, as the

m His state as a sinner is a state of eternal death, the just
punishment of his sin ; and of this state he has the beginning
in his now realizing apprehensions of it. When converted,
he is delivered from this state of punishment ; and when he
lives, he is brought into the joy of this changed state.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 181

voice of the law is sounded forth only over those sc.xxvn

who neither feel nor acknowledge their sin (as

Paul speaks in Rom. iii. " By the law is the
knowledge of sin"); so the word of grace comes
but to those who, feeling their sin, are afflicted
and tempted to despair. Thus it is, that, in all law
words, you see sin charged by shewing us what
we ought to do : just as, in all words of promise,
on the other hand, you see the misery, which
sinners (that is, those who are to be raised up from
their dejection by them) labour under, intimated :
as here, the word ' I would not the death of a
sinner ' expressly names death and the sinner ;
the very evil which is felt, as well as the very
man who feels it. But in this word ' Love God
with all thy heart' there is pointed out the good we
owe, not the evil we feel; that we may be brought
to acknowledge how incapable we are of doing
that good.

So then, nothing could have been more unaptly Ezek.xviii.

adduced in support of Freewill, than this passage 2.3< n!?a"
,. T« i • i i • i f i A , >i i tives Free-

irom Jbzekiel ; which even tights against it most wiii, in-

lustily. For herein is implied, how Freewill is stead of
affected, and what it is able to do, when sin has pl°
been discovered, and when now the matter is to
turn itself to God : it is herein implied, I say,
that it could do nothing but fall into a still worse
state, adding desperation and impenitence to its
other sins, unless God should presently come to
its succour, and should recall and raise it up," by
his word of promise. For God's eagerness in
promising grace to restore and raise up the
sinner, is a very mighty and trustworthy argu
ment, that Freewill of herself cannot but fall from
bad to worse ; and, as the Scripture says, " to

1 Rcvocaret et erigeret.'] Revoc. implies ' departure ;' the
soul has gone further and further off from God, through de
spair of mercy : erig. implies ' fallen,' ' thrown down/ ' pros
trated j' like Saul before the witch of Endor.

182 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. the nethermost hell."0 Do you think that God is
so fight-minded as to pour out words of promise
thus fluently, when they are not necessary to our
salvation., for the mere pleasure of talking? You
see then from this fact, that not only do all law
words stand opposed to Freewill, but even all
words of promise do utterly confute it. In other
words, the whole Scripture is at war with it. So
that this saying ( I would not the death of a
sinner' has no other object, as you perceive, than
that of preaching and offering divine mercy
through the world ;p which none but those who
have been afflicted and harassed to death receive
with joy and gratitude. These do so, because the
law has in them already fulfilled its office, by
teaching the knowledge of sin : whilst those who
have not yet experienced this office of the law,
and who neither acknowledge their sin, nor feel
their death, despise the mercy promised in that
word.1

0 The Psalms abound with expressions of this sort : see es
pecially the 38th and 88th ; from the latter of which these
words appear to be a quotation. " For my life draweth nigh
unto the grave (v. 3) ; or, according to the older version, " to
hell." (v. 2.)

i" See above, note a. The account I have there given of
Luther's meaning is abundantly confirmed here. Mercy is to
be preached, and what//e calls ' offered,' generally to all men;
but only those in whom the law has done its office (and whom
did Luther understand by these, but God's elect ?) will receive
it. His offer, therefore, is a nugatory offer to all but the
elect ; and these must receive ; not ' physically ' must, but
' morally.'

1 Luther's answer to Erasmus's argument from Ezek. xviii.
23. is threefold. 1. It proves too much. 2. It proves no more
than other gospel words ; that is, words of promise and mercy.
3. Such words prove against Freewill, by implying, that without
them man could only despair.

See above, note ', where I have objected to this distinction
between law words and gospel words, and to the statements
generally made respecting the Law, as though it were opposed
to the Gospel. Luther is chargeable here with arguing ' per
sequelam,' for which he so much blames Erasmus ; ' God's

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 183

But, as to why some are touched by the law s.xxvm.
and others not/ so that the former take in, and the
latter despise, the grace offered; this is another

word of promise proA'es that man could only despair without
it.' — The true answer to Erasmus's argument from this text
(which, according to Luther's distinction, is a gospel word — but
then there is quite as much supernatural help necessary to
make a gospel word availing, as to fulfil a law one — ) is, that it
proves nothing on either side. Inferences may be drawn both
ways ; against as well as for, and for as well as against : but
the affirmation respects only the mind of God. He declares
that he wills not death. What does this assert concerning the
natural powers of man ? — For a more full view of the doctrine
set forth in this and like texts, and of their place in the great
scheme of God-manifestation, see the next Section and its notes.
r Luther has given what he considers the true answer to
Erasmus's objection drawn from this text ; ' it is a gospel
word, for the consolation of the law-stricken ;' and declares
that we have no right to ask any more questions. I do not
approve the exact point to which he brings the debate, nor can
I agree with him that it ought to end just here. Luther
speaks, and many others like him, as if only the law (meaning
thereby the law of the Ten Commandments) could do the
office of abasing and prostrating man ; which, in effect,
assumes that the law was given to man from the beginning,
and that Moses's giving of it was but a republication : else how
were those saints emptied of self and prostrated, who lived
before Moses • such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the rest ? But
what proof is there of the law having been given from the
beginning ? Express proof is afforded in Rom. v. that the law
was not till Moses. " For until the law sin was in the world :
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam to Moses, &c." (vv. 13, 14.) The
truth is, it is not the law, but the Holy Ghost (using the law,
it is true, ?is his instrument more generally, where it has been
given, but by no means universally so using it) — who needeth
not the law, but has proofs enough to supply of man's sin ; of his
" earthly, sensual, devilish " mind ; without having recourse
to that summary of creation duty — that humbles, empties, and
makes ready for the manifold Scripture declarations of God's
entire readiness to receive the penitent freely. These are
indeed made such of God, and can only be made such by him j
though it is not his plan usually to tell us how we have come,
and alone can come, to this mind, when he testifies his love and
good-will towards it. So that the question arising from this
admitted state of things, ' some receive, others do not receive,
this and like gospel words,' is not properly why some are law-
stricken ; or, more correctly, why some are prostrated, and
self-emptied, and self-despairing ; but why some have the

184

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

bewail the
death he
produces.

PART in. question, and* one not treated by Ezekiel in this

place. He speaks of God's preached and offered

mercy, not of that secret and awful will of his, by
the counsel of which he ordains whom and what
sort of persons he wills to be made capable of
receiving, and to become actual participants of
his preached and offered mercy. This will of
God is not the object of our researches, but of
our reverent adorati'on ; as being by far the most
venerable secret of the divine majesty, which he
keeps locked up in his own bosom, and which is
much more religiously3 prohibited to us, than the
Corycian caves to the countless multitude.

When now Diatribe cavillingly asks, ( whether
the holy Lord bewails that death of his people
which he produces in them himself? a suggestion
too absurd to be entertained :'

I answer, as I have already done, we must
argue in one wise concerning God, or the will of

Holy Ghost, and others have not^ which is, in other words,
why is there ' an election of grace :' — I cannot agree with
Luther, that we have no right to ask this question ; or, in
other words, that the Scripture does not afford an answer to it;
for here is the secret of God.

If it be asked why such a man is elect, and such a man is
not elect, it is most true, we have no answer ; this is God's
secret ; AVC have nothing to do with it. But if the question be,
why are there elect and non-elect, we have to do with it, and
can give an answer : it is to the manifestation of God ; which is
the end of all his counsels, and of all his operations. — For
some observations on Luther's accepted aphorism ( Quae supra
nos, nihil ad nos,' and upon ' his apparent setting out of two
Gods/ with one of which we have nothing to do ; and for the
correct answer to Erasmus's insidious question, ' Does God
deplore &c.' see notes \ v, x, which follow.

s Religiosius.'] 'By religious considerations.' — The multitude
might look into the entrance ; priests might enter into the
penetralia ; but the multitude might not go in to explore: if
they did, they were filled with terrors ; appalling sights con
founded them : just so, and with still more fearful apprehen
sions of a religious nature, we are prohibited, says Luther,
from attempting to penetrate the secret of God. But the ques
tion is, where this secret begins ? Luther says, ' in the fact,
that some are touched by the law., and others not.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 185

God, insofar as that will is proclaimed to us, s.xxvnr.
revealed, offered to our acceptance, made the
ground of worship; and in another wise, concern
ing God, insofar as he is unproclaimed, unre-
vealed, unoffered, and unworshipped. So far as
God hides himself, and chooses to be unknown by
us, we have nothing to do with him. Here is the
true application of that saying, 'What is above
us, is nothing to us/ And lest any one should
suppose this to be my distinction, let him know
that I follow Paul, who writes to the Thessa-
lonians concerning Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 4.)
" That he would exalt himself above all that is
proclaimed of God, and that is worshipped ;"'

1 Super omnem Devon pracdicatum et cuUum.~\ Literally, 'above
all the proclaimed and worshipped God.' I question the sound
ness of Luther's interpretation of this text, and of the argu
ment consequently, which he draws from it; although the
distinction which he labours to establish is, with some modifi
cation and amplification, the root of the answer to the objec
tion. "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is
called God, or that is an object of worship," is the more correct
rendering- of the original text. The meaning seems to be, that
this Antichrist would both oppose himself to, and exalt him
self above, every object of worship, both true and false ; ' every
being that is called God, and every substance which is wor
shipped.' It has therefore nothing to do with distinct views
and considerations respecting the true God ; but only marks
the extravagant claims which this Antichrist would make, and
which would be allowed by his votaries, as compared with the
several objects of worship received in the world. — The word of
God, however, doth clearly recognise a distinction between
God, regarded as the legislator, governor, and judge of his
moral creation — or in any other relations which he may have
been pleased to assume towards the whole, or certain parts, of
that creation — and God regarded as he is in himself, and as
separated from such relations : as also, between that will of
His which he hath revealed for our obedience (what may
therefore be called his legislative will), and that free, infinite,
and eternal will of His, from which this legislative will has
emanated, and by which, in perfect consistency with all his
assumed relations, and with that of legislator amongst the
rest, he regulates his own conduct (what may therefore be
called, by way of distinction, his personal will) : in other
words, between his commands and his mind. — God, who made
the worlds, the alone Being, subsisted in his trinity of co-»

186 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART HI. plainly intimating, that a man might be exalted
above God, so far as he is proclaimed, and wor-

equal persons, infinite, and all-blessed, before he made them.
Is it presumptuous to say why he made them ? Has he not
unequivocally told us ? His end is, as it must be, seated in
himself.* He will shew himself — WHAT HE is — so far as infinite
can be shewn to finite, to certain moral and intelligent crea
tures, whom he will make capable of apprehending, adoring,
and enjoying him, in their measure. Hence the whole counsel,
process, series, and results of creation ; in which I include all
that belongs to Creator and creature-ship. Hence the true dis
tinction between the hidden and revealed God : which is
properly no other than God the revealer and God the revealed;
creation in this wide extent being only God's revealer 3 and
having in reality revealed much of him, whilst there is much
at last in God which is not, cannot be revealed. Thus, we see
that this hidden God, or rather this absolute God (so called
because not circumscribed by relations ; which relations, how
ever, can only be such as he has seen fit to assume ; and which
he has seen fit to assume, for the one great end of self-manifes
tation), is the same God with the revealed and circumscribed
God ; and that, so far from being an unknown God in this
regard, he has revealed himself in his relative and circum
scribed capacity, for the very purpose of making himself
known (so far as the incomprehensible can be made known)
in this absolute and uncircumscribed capacity.

So, again, with respect to his secret and his revealed will ; or,
as I have more correctly distinguished them, his personal and
his legislative will ; whilst these are distinct, they are neither
opposed to each other, nor unconnected with each other — his
legislative Avill subserves his personal will, and is his ordained
and specially-devised instrument for accomplishing it : by
which accomplishment, his great purpose, in submitting him
self to his various creator relationships (to wit, self-manifest
ation) is achieved. t

Luther does not seem to have apprehended the union and
concordance of these two distinct views, in which both God
and his will are set forth to us, whilst he so strongly marks
their distinctness ; and thus, his answer (not being the whole
truth; that is, not being THE TRUTH; which consists in an har
monious combination of many parts) has an air of evasion and
sophistry (to which he seems not to have been insensible him
self), and is, in reality, unsatisfying and repulsive. Is it true,
that the proverb, ' What is above us, is nothing to us,' has its
rightful application here ? Is it true, that we have nothing to

* See Vaughan's Calvinistic Clergy defended,, p. 64 — 73. 2d Ed.

•\ In the observations which follow, 1 do not confine myself to the words
immediately under review, but comprehend the whole of Luther's expres
sions and reasonings in this and the three succeeding paragraphs.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 187

shipped ; that is, above that word and worship s.xxvni.
by which God is made known to us, and main-

do with this God of majesty, as Luther calls him ; the absolute
God ? What is the knowledge of God — that last, highest, best
gift of promise — but the knowledge of this God ? the communica
tion of which is, as we have seen, the very end of creation and
of revelation. — Again ; is it true, that the revealed God, or
relative God, wills only life ? or, according to Luther's own
way of stating it, that God has revealed himself in his word
only as that God who offers himself to all men, and would draw
all men unto himself? — Why then docs he tell us, in that self
same word, that in very deed for this cause he had raised Pharaoh
up, for to shew in him His power; and that His name might be
declared throughout all the earth ? — That it was of the Lord to
harden the hearts of the Canaanites, that they should come
against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly,
and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy
them, as the Lord commanded Moses ? — That. Hophni and
Phinehas hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because
the Lord would slay them ? — That he smells a sweet savour of
Christ in them that perish ? — That whom he will he hardeneth ? —
That there are those ordained of old to condemnation ? — Those
appointed to stumble at the stone? — Those whom he has com
manded to fill up the measure of their iniquities ? — That he is,
in short, a potter having power over the clay, and using that
power ? — Has he proclaimed all this concerning himself in his
word ; does he, moreover, make that word his great instru
ment of bringing these things to pass ; and is it true never
theless, that his word stands in contrast, nay direct opposi
tion, to himself, so that we are wisely counselled to attend to
his word in contrast, and even in opposition, to God who gave
it ? — Had Luther discerned the simple end of creation and
revelation, ' God manifesting himself as what he really is in
his essence ' (in which essence, hatred of that which is con
trary to himself is as much a part as lore of that which is like
himself) ; and seen that by means of creation and revelation,
God is actually effecting this end — he would not have talked of
salvation being the revealed God s alone work ; nor have said
that we have to do with his word, but not with himself ; nor have
warned us that we have nothing to do with His inscrutable will
(including therein all that Luther includes therein) — when that
inscrutable will is made matter of instruction in his word, and
is declared to be what he is continually fulfilling in us ; what
the Lord Jesus thanks his Father for ; and what his people
find to be their great source of light, and strength, and joy. —
How remarkable it is, that Luther should here silence his
gainsayer with " Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest
against God V when, with the interval of only a single verse,
the Holy Ghost had furnished him with a clue to the whole

188 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. tains intercourse with us. But., if God be re
garded, not as he is an object of worship, and
as he is proclaimed, but as he is in his own
nature and majesty, nothing can be exalted above
him, but every thing is under his powerful hand.

God must be left to himself then, so far as he
is regarded in the majesty of his own nature ; for
in this regard we have nothing to do with him ;
nor is it in this regard that he hath willed to be
dealt with by us : but, so far as he is clothed with
his word, and displayed to us thereby; that word,
by which he has offered himself to our acceptance;
that word, which is his glory and beauty, and
with which the Psalmist celebrates him as clothed;
so far, and so far only, we transact with him. In
this regard, we affirm that the holy God does not
bewail that death of his people, of which he is
himself the worker in them; but bewails that
death which he finds in his people, and is taking
pains to remove it. For this is what the pro
claimed God is about, even taking away sin and
death, that we may be saved. For "he hath sent
his word and healed them."11 But the God
which is hidden in the majesty of his own

counsel of God, and with an answer to those very questions
which he says it is not lawful to ask, or possible to get resolved.
" What if God, willing- to shew his wrath, and to make his power
known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction : And that he might make known the riches
of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared
unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles r" — Luther both speaks and means
incorrectly here ; but he says rather more than he means. It
is not against the sober, hallowed use of the knowledge of this
inscrutable will (for though there be that which is inscrutable
in it, there is also that in it which may be known, for he has
told it to us), but against those who denied, or confounded, or
impugned, or reviled these distinctions, and would hear no
thing of his sovereign majesty, and of his secret counsel, that
he is aiming his dart here.

u Psalm cvii. 20. Luther applies this healing ' to all men j*
but the Psalmist declares it only of ' those who cry unto the
Lord in their trouble and in particular dispensations of his
hand.' — This is not all men.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 189

nature, neither bewails nor takes away death ; but s.xxvni.
works life and death, and all things in all things/

v Yes — and works life and death, and all things in all things,
through the agency of that proclaimed, or relative God ; and
in perfect consistency with — yea, by means of — that legisla
tive * will, which regulates man's duty as his moral creature.
It is as the proclaimed or relative God, not as the hidden or
absolute God, that he both saves and destroys j and this, by
means of his legislative enactments, not in contradiction to
them. The power which he gives to his elect and saved, and
which he withholds from the reprobate and damned, is distinct
from these legislative enactments ; and, whilst it proceeds
from the relative God, proceeds not from him in his legisla-
torial relation, but in another, which is distinct from and not
commensurate with it, although its subjects be also subject to
that relation, and to its requirements. It is no part of the
legislator's office to give power, or to withhold it. He may
do either. He may work any thing, every thing, upon,
around, above, beneath him, so he but leave the subject of
his enactments a free agent : and this God does, and ever has
done.

Thus it was in creation strictly so called ; God, having assumed
the relation of Creator to man, gave him a law (Gen. ii. 17.)
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shall not eat of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surelydie." It was no part of his relation, as Creator,
either to withhold temptation from his creature, whom he had
" made upright," " in his own image," " good," " very
good " (but, as we have before noticed,f not having the Holy
Ghost, and therefore not held as by a chain to God, but sub
sisting in a state of severance from him) ; nor yet to sustain
him by new powers (additional to those which he had received
at his creation), in a crisis of temptation. The result was that
he fell ; and that the whole human race (which had been
created in him, and of which the several individuals had a dis
tinct personal subsistence in him, and were parts of his sub
stance, when, having first apostatized in heart, he did after
wards put forth his hand, and did take, and did eat) shared in
his ruin. — It is by the instrumentality of this law then, that
God both saves whom he personally wills to save, and destroys
whom he personally wills to destroy : saving those to whom,
by a super-creation relation which was given them in Christ
Jesus before the world began, he vouchsafes his special grace;
and, destroying those from whom, in perfect consistency with all
creation dues and obligations, he withholds the same.

* By ' legislative,' I shall be understood to mean all which can be
called ' enactment,' as given by God, of whatever kind ; whether to one
nation, or to the whole world ; whether Law or Gospel. See note ' above.

t Sect, xviii. note '.

190 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. For, when acting in this character, he does not

bound himself by his word, but has reserved to

himself the most perfect freedom in the exercise of
his dominion over all things.

But Diatribe beguiles herself through her igno
rance, making no distinction between the pro
claimed God, and the hidden God ; that is, be
tween the word of God, and God himself. God
does many things which he has not shewn us in

Thus it was in God's dealings with the nation of Israel, and
with his visible church, as for a season co-extensive with
that nation. When now he had formed the seed of Abraham
into a nation, and had assumed the relation of king to that
people, he gave them a law ; by which, instrumentally, he kept
them for his own, so long as it was his personal will to keep
them, and scattered them when it was the counsel of his per
sonal will to scatter them.* By the same law instrumentally, He,
in their ecclesiastical relation, saved whom he would save,
through the bestowal of a grace which was not of their covenant;
whilst he at the same time destroyed whom he would destroy,
through the withholding of that grace, in perfect consistency
with the provisions of the same.

Thus it is also in the Gospel Church, and in the commanded
preaching of the Gospel to all nations, and tongues, and
people. God, in the relation of the offended sovereign of the
human race, commandeth all men every where to repent;
giving them what may be called the law of repentance and
faith, and demanding of them a state of mind which is suited
to their condition as fallen and guilty creatures. ' Repent ye,
and believe the Gospel.' f By this legislative will of his,
instrumentally, he fulfils the counsels of his personal will ;
saving whom he has predestinated to save, and destroying
whom he has predestinated to destroy.

* Israel, like Adam in Paradise, broke the. law nearly as soon as it was
given him ; but, by so doing, he prepared the way for all God's future
dealings with him.

•\- Implicitly, but not explicitly, this is the demand, and the alone demand,
which God has made upon man, even the whole human race, since the Fall ;
and shall continue to be so, till his mystery be finished by the Lord's second
coming. The form of this demand has been varied, the knowledge of it has
been varied; the law, eminently so called, has been interposed to the church,
God has " winked at times of ignorance ;" but a Manasseh's humbledness of
mind, with a peradventure of mercy — the only demand which, in consis
tency with the recognition of those primary transactions in the Garden, and
with the realities of the case, could be made — is in truth the only demand
whit.i has been made upon the sons and daughters of fallen Adam, from the
period of the ejection out of Paradise until now : a demand which has served
to mark the only difference that can ever be found to subsist between the
several apostate members of an apostate head; viz, continued apostasy in
some, and restoration in others.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 191

his word. He also wills many things which he s.xxvnr.
has not shewn us that he wills, in his word. For
instance, he wills not the death of a sinner —
according- to his word, forsooth — but he wills it
according to that inscrutable will of his. Now
our business is to look at his word, and to leave
that inscrutable will of his to itself: for we must
be directed in our path by that word, and not by
that inscrutable will. Nay, who could direct
himself by that inscrutable and inaccessible will?
It is enough for us barely to know, that there is a
certain inscrutable will in God. — What that will
wills, why it so wills, and how far it so wills, are
matters which it is altogether unlawful for us to in
quire into, to wish for knowledge about, to trouble
ourselves with, or to approach even with our touch.
In these matters, we have only to adore and to fear.
So then, it is rightly said, ( If God wills
not death, we must impute it to our own will
that we perish/ Rightly, I say, if you speak
of the proclaimed God. For he would have all
men to be saved, coming, as he does, with his
word of salvation to all men ; and the fault is in
our own will, which does not admit him ; as he
says, in Matt, xxiii. " How often would I have
gathered thy children, and thou wouldest not ?" —
But why this majesty of His does not remove this
fault of our will, or change it in all men (seeing
that it is not in the power of man to do so); or
why he imputes this fault of his will to man, when
man cannot be without it; these are questions
wrhich it is not lawful for us to ask ; and which,
if you should ask them, you would never get
answered. The best answer is that which Paul
gives in Romans ix. " Who art thou that repliest
against God ?" Let these remarks suffice for this
passage of Ezekiel, and let us go on to the rest.x

x Luther has in substance given the right answer to this
cavil from Ezekiel, but has given it, as we have seen, in an
exceptionable form 5 exceptionable, as it respects the distiuc-

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. After this, Diatribe objects that the exhorta-
- - — tions with which the Scripture so much abounds,
sc.xxix. together with all those manifold promises, threaten-

Exhorta- ^Qn ^y}^^ he institutes, ' hidden God and revealed God ;'
ions, pio- anj exceptionable, in that he does not show the sameness of
this God, which is thus distinguishingly regarded. It is to
be remembered, that the words bear only by inference and
consequence upon the question of Freewill (which is the ques
tion in debate), whatever be the correct interpretation of them j
neither does Erasmus represent them fairly. Erasmus speaks
of walling and working : but where does Ezekiel say that God
" wails ?" He says only, ' I would not.' Erasmus argues,
' God deplores ; therefore, it is not his doing that they die ;
therefore, it is their own doing • therefore, there is Freewill.'
It is inference two deep ; each of which requires proof. What
if their death be self-wrought ? Why may they not have pre
viously forfeited their Freewill, and therefore die under bond-
will ? We might hold ourselves excused, therefore, from
entering at all into this cavil ; it is truly rdhil ad nos.

But there are reasons why we should rather meet it in the
face j and the answer has, by implication, been given to it
already. — Some would say, why not at once knock if down
with " Secret things belong unto the Lord ?" (Deut. xxix. 29.)
a convenient text for a perplexed disputant ! My answer is, that
text does not apply here. The Prophet is not speaking of the
principles of divine conduct, but of those providential events
and arrangements by which God realizes and fulfils them. It
was in the counsels of God to bring the nation of Israel to
obedience at the last, through a long course of tergiversation
and punishment : but they had at that time the word given to
them (" the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy
heart ; that is, the word of faith, which we preach." Com
pare Rom. x. 5 — 10. with Deut. xxx. 11 — 14.), which they
would at length obey. Now, they had nothing to do with
these intermediate events which God would bring about ; it
was theirs to use that commandment (or rather that Gospel
which the commandment fore-preached) — looking through the
type to the reality — which he commanded them that day. —
Besides, if we were at liberty to use this text here, we must
learn from it, that we have nothing to do with election and
reprobation at all : as some are fond enough of admonishing'
us. For it is not a question, who is individually of the one
class, and Avho of the other, that is here to be answered ; but
whether there really be such distinctions, and why there are
such. (See above, note r.) — Then meeting the question
fairly, though not fairly attached to the question of Freewill,
how does this assertion in Ezekiel comport with the God-willed
death of a sinner ?
Not to insist upon the peculiarities of the case to which this

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 193

ings, expostulations, upbraidings, beseechings, SECT.
blessings and cursings, and all those numerous xxix.

solemn declaration of God is annexed (the house of Israel was mises, &c.
brought into peculiar relations to God, and the case of an °^ Scrip-
Israelite was therefore considerably different from that of |ure use"
uncovemmted transgressors) j not to notice the ambiguity of
Erasmus's expression ' his people ' (God works no death in
his people properly so called, though he works death in many
Avho have a name to be his people, and are not) • without

insisting that the original words V^P^ VbnH as well as the

I : i v I v T if

Oe\w, not (3ov\o[iat, of the Septuagint, express inclination
rather than determination — and so the sentiment conveyed may
be no more than what our translators have assigned to them,
' have I any pleasure at all,' ' for I have no pleasure ;' implying
only such a reluctance as is not inconsistent with a contrary
decision — though Luther, as well as Erasmus, makes it ' nolo ;'
waving all such objections, which do not shield the vitals of the
truth, though they may serve to parry off a blow from its ex
tremities (for clearly here is God at least declaring his dislike
of that death which he nevertheless inflicts, and which we
affirm that he wills) ; the true account of the matter, and that
which comprehends all possible cases, has been furnished in
the two preceding notes ; asserted in note l, and illustrated by
examples in note u.

The relative God, in his character of Israel's legislator and
sovereign, declares in this chapter that he will deal henceforth
both nationally and spiritually with that people, each man
according to his own ways ; and, in effect, preaches the Gospel
to each individual of them, saying, ' Repent, and live.' At the
twenty-third verse,* he signifies that he has no pleasure in the
death of him that dieth : in the three last verses, he exhorts
and remonstrates, and repeats his gracious assurances. — But it
does not belong to these and such like relations, to give grace
and power ; and, without such grace and power, exhortations
promises and threatenings are all, and alike, vain. But is
God therefore to withhold them ? Man, without this super-
added grace, ought to obey them ; ought, though he cannot ;
cannot, through a self-wrought impotency. And are there no
reasons, no satisfying reasons, why God should give them ? Are
not these amongst his choicest instruments, whereby he effects
the manifestation of himself ; manifestation of himself, through
the manifestation of what is in man ; " that thou mightest be
justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest." — L
His elect obey ; his non-elect harden themselves yet the more,
under his outward calls. — Thus, whether the case set forth in
Ezekiel be considered as the peculiar case of the national Israel, or

* Erasmus quotes the text unfairly, by joining the oath of v. 3 with T. 23 ;
but it is no part of it.

O

194

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. swarms of precepts, are without meaning ne-

• cessarily/ if no one has it in his power to keep

what is commanded.

Diatribe is always forgetting the question at
issue, and proving something different from what
she undertook to prove : nor does she perceive,
how much more strongly every thing she says
makes against herself than against us. For she
proves from all these passages a liberty and power
of keeping all the commandments, by force of
the inference which she suggests from the words
quoted; when all the while she meant only to
prove ( such a Freewill as can will nothing good
without grace, together with a sort of endeavour,
which is not to be ascribed however to its own
powers.' I see no proof of such endeavour in any
of the passages quoted ; I see only a demand of
such actions as ought to be performed : what I
have indeed said too often already, if it were not
that such frequent repetition is necessary, because
Diatribe so often blunders upon the same string/
putting off her reader with an useless profusion of
words.

sc. XXX. Nearly the last passage which she adduces from
the Old Testament, is that of Moses in Deut. xxx.
" This commandment, which I command thee this

considered.

the general case of the visible church having the Gospel preached
to it (that Gospel which is in one view a statute, enactment,
or commandment ; whilst, in another view, it is the Jubilee
trumpet, by which the Holy Ghost proclaims liberty to the
Lord's captives) ; we see in it, at last, but a farther exem
plification of what has been shewn already; the relative God
revealing the absolute, and his legislative fulfilling his personal
will. — Luther meant nothing contrary to this statement, though
his language might seem to imply it.

y Frigere necessarib.'] Frig. A metaphor taken from vegetable
or animal substances, which are nipped with cold. These ex
hortations, &c. have no warmth, no life, no power, no mean
ing in them, 'without Freewill.

' Ut citharoedus
Ridetur, chorda qui semper oberrat eadem.'

Hor. Art. Poet. 355.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 195

day, is not above thee, nor far off from thee, nor sc. xxx.

placed in heaven, that you mightest say, who of •

us is able to ascend up into heaven, to bring it
down to us, that we may hear and fulfil it ? But the
word is very near to thee, in thy mouth and in
thy heart, that thoumayest do it." Diatribe main
tains it to be declared in this place, that we not
only have power to do what is enjoined, but that
it is even downhill work to do so ; that is, easy
or at least not difficult.

Thanks to you for your immense learning ! If
then Moses so clearly pronounces that there is
not only a faculty in us, but even a facility of
keeping all the commandments ; why submit to all
this toil? Why have we not at once produced
this passage, and asserted Freewill in a field that
is without opponent.3 What need have w^e any
longer of Christ? what need of the Spirit? We
have at length found a place which stops every
mouth, and distinctly pronounces not only that
the will is free, but that the observance of all the
commandments is easy ! How foolish was Christ
to purchase that unnecessary Spirit for us at the
, price of his own out-poured' blood, that it might
ibe made easy to us to keep the commandments ;
a facility, which it now seems that we possess by
nature ! Nay, let Diatribe herself recant her own
words, in which she said that Freewill can will
nothing good without grace : and let her now say,
that Freewill is of so great virtue as not only to
will good, but even with great ease to keep the
chiefest and all the commandments. O see what is
the result of having a mind which feels no interest
in the cause pleaded ! see how impossible it is, that
this mind should not betray itself! Is there any
onger need to confute Diatribe ? Who can con-
ute her more thoroughly than she confutes her own
;elf ? This, forsooth, is the animal which devours

a Libero campo.~\ I understand it < liber ab hoste. seu anta-
jonista : but I do not find any parallel.

o2

196 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. its own stomach .b How true is the proverb, f a
liar ought to have a good memory ! '

I have spoken on this passage in my commentary
upon Deuteronomy.0 I shall therefore treat it
concisely here, shutting out Paul from our dis
cussion, who handles this passage with great
power, in Rom. x. You perceive that nothing
at all is affirmed here, nor one single syllable
uttered, about facility or difficulty, about the
power or the impotency, of Freewill or of man,
to keep or not to keep the commandment : except
that those who entangle the Scriptures in the net
of their own consequences and fancies, do thereby
render them obscure and ambiguous to themselves,

b Se ipsam comedit.'] What this animal is, and whether real
or fabulous ; I must leave in some doubt. The lobster comes
nearest to the description : of which it is said ; 'At the same
time that they cast their shell, they change also their stomach
and intestines. The animal, while it is moulting, is said to
feed upon its former stomach, which wastes by degrees, and
is at length replaced with a new one.' — Bingley's Animal
Biography, vol. iii. p. 511. But the pelican seems the more
probable allusion here ; whose method of taking its suste
nance from its pouch, might well account for the figment
of its eating itself, or preying on its own stomach. The
scolopendra discharges its own bowels, in order to disgorge
the hook ; and the scorpion, inclosed with burning coals,
stings itself to death : but neither of these seems applicable
here. The name bestia is said to he ascribed properly to wild
and noxious animals, but not confined to these ; whilst bellua
expresses size rather than fierceness.

c See Luther's commentary on Deuteronomy, in loco : where
he notices and chides this unjustifiable use, which the Sophists
make of it. He gives another turn to the " secret things" of
the preceding chapter ; considering them as secrets revealed to
Israel, that he may obey. Also, he understands St. Paul's appli
cation of this text as an accommodation of the original words,
not a quotation according to their true sense, as spoken byt
Moses. But his comment will be found strongly to confirm the!
view which I have given of this text, in notex. Moses's wordj
can only be fulfilled, he says, under the Gospel : yet Moses
says, " See, I have set before thee this day life and death, &c."
Then what more natural, than to understand him as calling
upon them to see the Gospel in their Law, and to yield a gospel
obedience to that Law ? which every spiritual Israelite no
doubt did.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 197

for the purpose of making what they please of sc. xxx.

them. But now, if you have no eyes, turn your

ears at least to what is here spoken, or strike your
hand over the letters/ Moses says, 'it is not
above thee, nor placed afar off, nor seated in
heaven, nor beyond the sea/ What is the mean
ing of ' above thee?' fafar off?' ' seated in
heaven?' f across the sea?' Will they even
make our grammar and the commonest words ob
scure to us, till they make it impossible for us to
say any thing that is certain; just to carry their
point, that the Scriptures are obscure?

According to my grammar, it is not quality
or quantity of human strength, but distance of
place, which is meant by these words. It is not a
certain power of the will, but a place which is
above us, that is expressed by ' above thee.' So
the words ' afar off/ ' across the sea/ ' in heaven,'
do not denote any power in man, but a place re
moved from us upwards, to the right hand, to the
left hand, backwards or forwards. There may be
those perhaps, who will laugh at my thick-headed
way of speaking, when with out-stretched hands
I present a sort of chewed morsel6 to these full-
grown gentlemen, as though they had not yet
learned their ABC, and teach them that syl
lables must be combined into words. But what
can I do, when I see men hunting for darkness in
the midst of such clear light, and studiously wish
ing to be blind, after reckoning up such a series
of ages to us, so many geniuses, so many saints,
so many martyrs, so many doctors ; and after
vaunting this passage of Moses with such vast
authority, although they deign not to inspect the

d Manibus palpa.~\ ' If you cannot see, or hear, submit to
have your finger put upon each letter, that you may trace it
out ;' as a child is taught to read.

e Prcemansum porrigentem .] Proem. A word of doubtful au
thority, but well fitted to express the first process in the art of
teaching, by which the scholar eats as it were out of the
master's mouth.

198 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. syllables of which it consists, or to put so much of
constraint upon their own thoughts as to consider
for once the passage of which they make their boast.
Go tell us now, Diatribe, how it comes to pass,
that one obscure individual sees what so many
public characters and the nobles of so many
ages have not seen. Assuredly, this passage
proves them to have been not seldom blind, were
it but a little child that should sit in judgment1
upon them.

Then what doth Moses mean by these most
obvious and most clear words, but that he has dis
charged his office as a faithful lawgiver to perfec
tion? Having brought it to pass that there
should be no cause, why they did not know, and
have in array before them, all the commands of
God ; and that no place should be left to them
for urging by way of excuse, that they did not
know or had not commandments, or must seek
them from some other quarter. The effect of
wrhich would be, that, if they should not keep
them, the fault would be neither in the law, nor
in the lawgiver, but in themselves ; since they
have the law, and the lawgiver has taught them,
so that there is no plea of ignorance remaining
for them, but only a charge of negligence and of
disobedience. ' It is not necessary/ says he, ( to
fetch laws from heaven' or from the parts beyond
the seas, or from afar off; nor canst thou pretend
either that thou hast not heard them, or that
thou dost not possess them : thou hast them near to
thee, they are what thou hast heard by the com
mand of God from my lips ; thou hast understood
them with thine heart, and hast received them to
be read and expounded by the mouth of the
Levites/ which are in the midst of thee, con-

f Tractandas accepisti.'] In Dent. xxxi. 9 — 13. the ordinance
is, " And Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests,
the sons of Levi, which bare the ark, the covenant of the Lord,
and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded
them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 199

linually: this very word and book of mine is sc.xxxi.
witness. It remains only that thou mayest do
them/ — What is here ascribed, pray, to Freewill?
Save that she is required to fulfil the laws which
she has, and the excuse of ignorance and want of
laws, is taken away.8

These are nearly all the texts which Diatribe Someofthc
adduces from the Old Testament in support of nillinvX*"
Freewill ; by releasing which,1' we leave none re- nesses for
maining, which are not released as well as they FreewllL
— whether she bring more, or be intending to
bring more — since she can bring nothing but a
parcel of imperative, or conjunctive, or optative
verbs, by which is signified not what we can do,
or are doing (as I have so often replied to Dia-

of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place
which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all
Israel, in their hearing. Gather the people together," &c. &c.
See also vv. 24 — 26. Also Josh. viii. 31 — 35. Also Nehem.
viii. 1 — 8. Also 2 Chron. xvii. 7 — 9. xxx. 22. — I render the
expression ' ore assiduo' continually : but, if I could have
found authority for the use of the word ' assiduus,' I should
rather have given it a reference to what is said in Nehemiah,
" And the Levites caused the people to understand the law,
&c. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and
gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."
— Luther is correct then in suggesting, that the Levites (in
cluding the priests under this name) were to handle or dis
course on the law to the people, not simply to read it : and,
although he anticipates the injunction as given on this oc
casion, it had in substance been given before (see Deut. x.
8, 9.)> at the second delivering of the Tables.

6 I do not quite fall in with Luther's interpretation of this
text, as I have hinted in note x of Sect, xxviii. and note c of
Sect. xxx. — (Why are we to rshut out Paul in our interpretation
of it ? Is not the Holy Ghost the best commentator upon the
Holy Ghost's words ?) — But I do not the less resist its ap
plication in support of Freewill. ' The thing required is nigh
thee ; what ought to be in thy mouth and in thy heart.' Is
it therefore immediately and necessarily there ? and that, of our
own giving and getting ?'

h Quibus solutis.'] Sol. ' Quodligatumest, avinculis libero ;'
' the bands of these captive texts having been loosed :' they
had been tied and bound in the service of Freewill.

200

PART III.

SECT.
XXXII.

New Test.
Scriptures
for Free
will, begin
ning with
Mat. xxiii,
37—39.
considered:

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

tribe so often repeating the same thing) ; but what
we ought to do, and what is required of us, to
the end that our own impotency may become
notorious to us, and the knowledge of sin be vouch
safed. These texts indeed, if they prove any
thing, through the addition of consequences and
similes which are the invention of human reason,
prove that Freewill possesses not only endeavour,
or some small particle of desire; but an entire
power and the freest ability to do -all things,1
without the grace of God, and without the aid of
his Holy Spirit.

So that nothing is further from the thing proved
by this wrhole discourse, trodden into us, as it
has been, by continual repetitions, than the propo
sition which she had undertaken to prove ; namely,
f that approvable opinion, by which Freewill is
determined to be so impotent that it can will
nothing good without grace, and is compelled to
serve sin, and possesses endeavour which is not to
be ascribed to its own energies : ' a monster for
sooth, which can at the same time do nothing by
its own energies, yet possesses a power of endea
vouring, in its own energies ; and so consists by
a most manifest contradiction.1"

We come now to the New Testament, where a
large force of imperative verbs is again mustered
in the wretched service of Freewill, and the
auxiliaries of carnal reason, such as consequences
and similes, are fetched in : like a picture, or a
dream, in which you should see the king of the
flies, with his lances of straw and shields of hay,
set in battle array against a real and wrell-appointed
army1 of human warriors. — Such is the kind of

' Totam vim, opposed to a fraction ; liberrimam potestatem,
' the absolute and unrestrained use of this integral power.'

k Qu(E constat contradictione manif.~] Its constituting elements
are power and no power ; which cannot subsist together:
•what becomes of the compound then ?

1 Veram etjustam aciem.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 201

warfare which the human dreams of Diatribe SECT.
carry on against troops of divine testimonies.

First marches forth, like the Achilles of the
flies, that text in Matt, xxiii. " O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, and thou wouldest not?" 'If
all things are done by necessity, says she, might
not Jerusalem have justly answered the Lord,
Why consume thyself with vain tears? If thou
wast unwilling that we should listen to the
Prophets, why didst thou send them? why im
pute to us what has been done by thine own will,
our necessity ?' So much for Diatribe. — My reply
is, granting for the moment, that this inference
and proof of Diatribe's is good and true ; what is
proved, pray? that approvable opinion, which
says that Freewill cannot will good? Why, here
is proved a will that is free, every whit whole,
and able to do every thing which the Prophets
have spoken ! Diatribe did not take upon herself
to prove this sort of will in man. Nay, let
Diatribe herself be the respondent here, and let
her tell us why, if Freewill cannot will good, it
is imputed to her that she did not hear the Pro
phets ; whom, as being teachers of good, it was
not possible for her to hear, through her own
strength ? Why does Christ weep vain tears,1" as
though they could have willed, what he assuredly
knew that they could not will ? Let Diatribe
deliver Christ from a charge of madness, I say,
in support of that approvabJe opinion of hers, and
straightway our opinion will have been liberated
from this Achilles of the flies. So that this text

m Luther seems to have confounded this passage in Matt,
xxiii. with Luke xix. 41 — 44. " And when he was come near, he
beheld the city, and wept over it." &c. &c. It is remarkable
that the words which are so closely parallel in Luke xiii. were
not spoken at the same time with those recorded in Matt, xxiii.
The latter were spoken in the Temple at the close of the
Lord's public ministry : the former, whilst he was yet in
Galilee.

202 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. of Matthew either proves a complete Freewill, or
fights against Diatribe herself, as stoutly as against
us, and lays her prostrate with her own weapons."
I assert, as I have done before, that the secret
will of God, as regarded in the majesty of his
own nature, is not matter of debate ;° and that
the rashness of man, which, through a continual
perverseness, is always leaving necessary topics
to attack and encounter it, should be called away
and withdrawn from occupying herself in scruti
nizing those secrets of His majesty, which it is
impossible to penetrate/ seeing He dwelleth in
light which no man can approach unto ; as Paul
testifies. (1 Tim. vi. 16.) Let her rather occupy
herself with the incarnate God, or (as Paul speaks)
with Jesus the crucified : in whom are all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, but hiddenly.'1
He will teach her abundantly what she ought to
know, and what not. It is the incarnate God
then, which speaks here. ' I would, and thou
wouldest not.' The incarnate God, I say, was
sent into the world for this purpose, that he might
be willing, that he might speak, that he might
do, that he might suffer, that he might offer r all

n Suo illam jaculo.'] Nothing less than a complete Freewill
can repel the objection here brought by Diatribe : therefore,
either there is a complete Freewill — which she denies — or all
such objections have no weight at all.

0 Luther expresses this more briefly, but obscurely : ' de
secrets, ilia voluntate majestatis non esse disputandum.'

P Scrutandis. attingereJ] Scrnt. comes nearest to our ' rum
mage :' ( videtur esse a scrutis, quasi sit ita in loco aliquo
pnetentare, et versare omnia, ut etiam scruta misceantur."
Hence applied to a dog hunting by the scent. It expresses
the search for a thing, rather than the improper handling of
the thing found. So Luther applies it here ; as is plain from
' attingere : ' ' the attaining to, or reaching the thing which
was gone after.'

1 See 1 Cor. i. 23. ii. 2. Coloss. ii. 3. In this latter text,
Luther gives the sense strictly according to the original, which
our version does not j eV ia tlai. . . .

r See above, Sect, xxiii. note a.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 203

things which are necessary for salvation, unto all SECT.
men : although he stumbles upon many, who, XXXI1-
being* either left or hardened by that secret will
of His majesty, receive him not ; willing as he is,
speaking, working, offering as he does : which is
just what John says, ' The light shineth in dark
ness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not:'
and again, cHe came unto his own, and his own
received him not/

Thus, it is the act of this incarnate God to
weep, wail, and groan over the destruction of the
wicked, whilst the will of Majesty leaves and re
probates some, on purpose that they may perish :
nor ought we to inquire why he does so, but to
reverence God, who is both able and willing to do
such things. — No one, I suppose, will here cavil,
that the will of which it is said, ' how often would
I/ was exhibited to the Jews even before God's
incarnation ; inasmuch as they are charged with
having slain the Prophets which lived before
Christ, and, by so doing, with having resisted
his will. Christians know, that every thing
which was done by the Prophets was done by
them in the name of that Christ which was to
come ; of whom it had been promised that he
should become the incarnate God. So that what
soever has been offered to man by the ministers
of the word from the beginning of the world, may
be rightly called the will of Christ.8

8 Luther gives two answers to this cavil from Matt, xxiii. —
1. It is equally inconsistent with Diatribe's statement. 2. It
is the incarnate God, not the God of Majesty, who here
speaks. I must strongly object to this latter solution. It im
plies a difference, nay a contrariety, between the mind of
God and the mind of Christ ; and thus destroys the very end
for which Christ came — even the manifestation of God as His
express irna«;e — by not only negativing the fulfilment of that
design, but absolutely intimating that he has given us false
views of God, by shewing a mind which is the reverse of His :
as though He Avilled salvation, where God wills destruction.
Yet he tells us, " I came not to do mine own will but the will
of Him that sent me." " My meat is to do the will of Him
that sent me, and to finish his work." " I do nothing of my-

204 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. But reason, who is quick-scented and saucy,

will say here, f An admirable refuge this, which

SECT.

XXXIII. seif. but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

" I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest

The reality me out of the world." And truly, though we shall know far
of God's more of Cod hereafter than we can know here — so that " Whe-
secrct will ^her tjicre be knowledge, it shall vanish away" — our knowledge
maintained of Qo(1 shall gtm be derived to us through Christ (" the lamb

which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall
lead them unto living fountains of waters"), and we shall never
know any thing of God contrary to that which Jesus has exhi
bited of Him.

The true answer to this cavil, however, has in substance
been given already. (See Sect, xxviii. notes l v x.) God
standing in peculiar relations to Israel, as his typical nation
and his visible church, had from the beginning been calling
that people to repentance. Their history, their institutions,
their lively oracles, their ordinary and extraordinary ministers,
had caused them to be peculiarly, and above the rest of man
kind, without excuse, even before Christ came. These were
so many ' I woulch, and ye would nots :' not Christ saying
and willing one thing, and the Father another ; but Christ
by the Father's commandment calling to them, and they re
fusing. But now he had come personally and visibly amongst
them, and could say, " If I had not come and spoken unto them,
they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin.
He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done
amongst them the works which none other man did, they had
not had sin ; but now have they both seen and hated both me
and my Father." (John xv. 22 — 24.) And what is all this,
but God in certain assumed relations uttering his voice to those
connected with him by these relations (in other words, declar
ing his legislative will), which those, to whom it is uttered,
ought without doubt to obey ; and which if they did obey, they
would according to his promise live. But ' ought to obey' is
not ' therefore have power to obey ;' and ' have not power to
obey,' is not ' therefore the command is given in vain.' Here
is, man manifested ; and God, by his dealings with him. If
Israel ' would/ he would have been gathered ; if Jerusalem
' would,' she would have remained unto this day. But it was
only by a grace not belonging to those relations by which God
had at that period connected himself with Israel, that Israel
could then have been made willing : he had all given to him
which belonged to those relations ; to withhold trial, or to
administer super-creation and super-covenant grace that he
might stand, was no part of the dues which God had made
himself debtor to him to perform • and therefore Israel — -justly,
and no more than justly, tried — having manifested what was in
him with such aggravations of guilt, incurred a sentence which
is declared to have been the requital of all the righteous blood

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 205

you have discovered : so then, as often as you are SECT.
pressed by the force of your adversary's argu- XXXIIL

that had been shed upon the earth from Abel to Zecharias.
(vv. 35, 3G.) — The guilt of that generation was indeed ex
treme ; but who shall say that it was not the concentrated
guilt of the intermediate ages and generations of that people,
together with their own, which was so shortly to be visited
upon them ? Carnal reason will not hear of the children being
visited for their fathers' sin -, but both Scripture and ex
perience testify this reality to the spiritual mind. — The
incarnate God, then, has no will contrary to the God of Ma
jesty ; or more intelligibly, Christ s will and the Father's
are one ; Christ's tears (see above, note m) imply not any
repugnance to the divine counsel ; the legislative is here, as
in the former instances, the executor of the personal will. —
With respect to the tears which he shed over that woe which
he was shortly to inflict, and of which he well knew the length
and breadth, the depth and height ; it may be remarked, that
the Lord Jesus had a human soul, as part of his complete
human person, distinct from his divine person (See Part ii.
Sect. viii. note r); and that such expressions might, without
impropriety, be referred to that part of his complex frame.
" We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin." He had all the sinless feelings
of a man, and might therefore not incongruously weep at such
a woe. But where is the contradiction to Scripture and right
reason in understanding God himself to be moved with com
passion at the very grief and pain which He in just judgment
inflicts ? " Therefore my bowels are troubled for him."
" Have I any pleasure at all in the death of him that dieth ?"
" For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of
men."

It is pleasing to notice, how nearly Luther approximates to
the truth — viz. ' That Christ was eternally fore-ordained as
Christ, and did by a covenant subsistence assume his person
and personal relations, as the risen God-man, before the foun
dation of the world' — in the defence Avhich he makes against
the cavil, ' Christ was not yet come.' He declares that every
thing was done by the Prophets in His name, and that all
expressions of mercy from the beginning may be rightly called
the will of Christ : which will, according to his representation
of it, is perfectly distinct from that of the Father (his language
implies, contrary to it), so that there must have been a dis
tinct agency of Christ from the beginning. Verily, this is so ;
though not exactly as he understood and would have repre
sented it : and I have often been surprised that, whilst most of
those who know any thing of Christ are ready enough to ac
knowledge, that regard was had to his sacrifice from the begin-

206 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. ments, you have but to run back to this terrible
• will of sovereignty, and you compel your an
tagonist to silence, when he has become trouble
some; just as the astrologers evade all questions
about the motions of the whole heavens, by their
invention of Epicycles/1

I answer, ' It is not my invention but a direction
confirmed by the divine Scriptures. Thus speaks

ning (for how else could any soul of man, as Abel, Enoch,
Abraham, David, &c. &c. have been pardoned and accepted) ;
so few distinctly recognise his personal subsistence and agency,
as Christ, from the same period • although it be in this regard
that he is called " the Word," " the Word of life," " the life,"
" that eternal life," &c. and although a distinct personal agent, to
use the blessed materials of his future coming and dying in the
flesh — as a Priest-king — was not less necessary to the salvation
and glorification of every individual of the saved who lived and
died before those events had been realized ; than was the article
of his death. — In what Luther says about abstaining from what
he calls ' the secret will of majesty,' he speaks indistinctly,
injuriously, and contradictorily : indistinctly, because there is
an use as well as an abuse of such inquiries, Avhich he ought to
have discriminated ; injuriously, because his observations would
go the length of deterring men from even the recognition of such
a will, and so would mar the joy and fear and gratitude and love
of the Lord's people ; contradictorily, because he afterwards re
cognises and makes assertions about it. Christ for sootti impinges
upon some of God's reprobates ! — Still, a hint or two may be
borrowed with advantage from Luther's statement. God, in
addressing himself to the world as he does by the ' every where
to be preached ' Gospel, does clearly set himself forth to as
many as have a heart in any degree softened and turned to-
wards him, in the form and character of the Father of mercies
not willing that any should perish. Such ought not to be de
terred and affrighted by the knowledge that he has his repro
bates. The melting heart is not the heart of a reprobate.
But is he to shut his eyes to the fact that God has his
reprobates ? Nay, that fact combined with the consciousness
of his own personal impotency, turns unto him for a testimony.
Neither can he regard God as he ought now, or in any future
stage of his experience, without it ; for without it, the God
whom he serves is not the true God.

1 Epicycles.'] ' A little circle, Avhose centre is in the circum
ference of a greater : or a small orb, which, being fixed in the
deferent of a planet, carries it round its own axis, whilst it is
itself carried round the axis of the planet. — An invention of
some bungling philosophers to account for the anomalies of
planetary motion.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 207

Paul in Rom. ix. "Why doth God complain SECT.
then ? Who shall resist his will ? O man, who art XXXIIL
thou that contendest with God ?" " Hath not the
potter power?" and the rest. And before him,
Isaiah, in his 58th chapter, had said, " For they
seek me daily, and desire to know my ways, as a
nation which hath done righteousness : they ask
of me the ordinances of justice, and desire to draw
near to God." In these words, I imagine, it is
abundantly shewn to us, that it is not lawful for
man to scrutinize the will of sovereignty." Be
sides, this question is of a kind which most of all
leads perverse men to attack that awful will ; so
that it is especially seasonable to exhort them to
silence and reverence, when we prosecute it. In
other questions, where the matters treated of are
such as admit of explanation, and such as we are
commanded to explain, I do not proceed so.

Now if a man will not yield to my admonition, but
persists in scrutinizing the counsels T of that will,

11 This text does not seem to bear upon the point in hand ;
viz. that we ought not to scrutinize the personal will of God ;
or, as he terms it, ' the will of majesty/ or sovereignty.
Luther understands f their seeking of God daily, and desiring
to know his ways, and asking of him the ordinances of justice j'
as if they not only complained of God's appointments towards
them being unjust, but were prying curiously into the secret
springs of them. But does God, speaking by his Prophet,
really mean any more than that they were hypocrites and
formalists, yet expected the acceptance of true and devout
worshippers ? Accordingly they were answered by shewing
them that their fasts were not such as he had chosen, and that
the worship which he accepts is the reverse of theirs. ' Ask
of me the ordinances of justice,1 are the only words which
bear at all upon the subject ; and these do not necessarily
imply, or with any probability here imply, ' a spirit of
curiousness.'

v Rationem Servian."] Rat. More literally, the method of that
will. ' Ratio ' expresses most nearly the ' all about it.' Scrut.
(see last Section, note p) does not necessarily denote a bad
state of mind ; though clearly so here: a mind which doubts
the fact that God has such a will, questions his right to have
it, and cavils at its decisions. To inquire what the word of
God has recorded concerning this will with deep reverence ;

208

PART III.

SECT.
XXXIV.

Matt. xix.
17- and
other like
passages
considered

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

I let him go on and fight with God, as the giants
did of old ; waiting to see what sort of triumphs
he carries off, and very sure in the mean time,
that he will withdraw nothing from our cause, and
confer nothing upon his own. For it will remain
fixed, that either he must prove Freewill to be
capable of doing every thing, or the Scriptures
which he quotes must contradict his own position.
Whichsoever of these be the issue, he lies pros
trate as the conquered man, and I am found
standing upon my feet, as the conqueror.x

Your second text is Matthew xix. 17. " If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
'With what face could it be said, "If thou
wilt/' to a man whose will is not free/ So says
Diatribe.

To whom I reply ; does this saying of Christ's

and meekly, rejoicingly, to submit to that record j would not be
making war as the giants of old did against Jupiter.

x See here a confirmation ofmy remark in Sect, xxviii. note *,
that it is against the impugners and deniers of that will which
is distinct from God's legislative will, not against its sober
investigators and maintainers, that Luther is protesting ! His
answer to the cavil from Matt, xxiii. and like passages is,
' Aye, but there is another wrill behind this, which is contrary
to this, and which we must be content to leave, with asserting
it. God as revealed, or, as he afterwards describes him,
Christ, the incarnate God, wills only life ; but there is another
will of God, a will not expressed by this incarnate God, which
wills death ; and therefore these things which appear to prove
Freewill (by inference) may still be said, and yet man be in
bondage : because, whilst he deplores, he doth also not deplore.
This latter will is not to be searched into, or acted upon ; it is
only to be asserted and believed : deny it, if you dare ; you
will only be running your head against the wall, making war
against God. — For objections to this statement, and for a more
consistent answer to the cavil, &c. &c. see note s of the last
Section. — Luther says worse than he means, but he means
ignorantly. It had not been given him to know the mystery of
God and the Father, and of Christ : lie did not understand how
that God is not hiding himself behind Christ, but making himself
seen in Christ ; so that it shall be truly said, " He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father : if ye had known me, ye should
have known my Father also ; and from henceforth ye know
him, and have seen him." (John xiv. 9. 7.)

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 209

then establish that the will is free ? Why, you SECT.
meant to prove that Freewill can will nothing XXXIV-
good, and will necessarily serve sin, if grace
be out of the way. With what face then do you
now make it all free ?

The same shall be said to the words, f If thou
wilt be perfect/ ' if any man will come after me/
( whosoever will save his soul/ ' if ye love me/ ( if
ye abide in me/ (Nay, let all the conjunctions ' if,'
and all the imperative verbs, as I have said/ be
collected together — by way of assisting Diatribe in
the number, at least, of her quotations.) ' All these
precepts are unmeaning/ she says, if nothing be
attributed to the human will. How ill does that
conjunction, 'if' agree with mere necessity!'

I answer ; if they be unmeaning, it is your own
fault that they are so, or rather are nothing at all :
you make this nonentity of them by asserting that
nothing is ascribed to the human will, so long as
you represent that Freewill cannot will good, and
here on the other hand representing, that it can
will all good ; unless it be, that the same words
are both hot and cold in the same instant, as
you use them, at once asserting every thing and
denying every thing.* Truly I am at a loss to think,
why an author should have been pleased to say the
same thing so many times over, forgetting his
thesis perpetually, unless perchance, through
mistrust of his cause, he had a mind to gain the
victory by the size of his book, or to wear out
his adversary by making it tedious and burthen-
some to peruse. — By what sort of consequence, I
would ask, does it follow that will and power must

y See above, Sect. xx.

2 Frigent.] See above, Sect. xxix. note v.

a It is you who take away all warmth and life from such
passages as these, by making the will a contradiction ; it can
do nothing, it can do all things : these assertions destroy each
other, and leave a nought as the result, unless they mean op
posite things, such as ' yes/ and ' no/ at the same instant.

P

210 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART HI. forthwith be present to the soul, as often as it is

said, ' If thou wilt/ 'if a man will/ 'if them

shalt be willing/ Do not we most frequently
denote impotency and impossibility, rather than
the contrary, by such expressions ? As in these
examples : 'If thou wilt equal Virgil in singing,
my Ma3vius, thou must sing other songs ; ' ' If thou
wilt surpass Cicero, my Scotus, thou must ex
change thy subtilties for the most consummate
eloquence ; ' ' If thou wilt be compared with David,
thou must utter Psalms like his/ By these con
ditionals, it is plain that things impossible of
attainment to our own powers are denoted,
whilst by a divine power all things are possible to
us. Thus it is with the Scriptures also : what
may be done in us by the power of God, and
what we cannot do of ourselves, is declared by
such like words.

Besides, if such things were said about actions
absolutely impossible, as those which even God
also would never at any time do by us, then
would they be rightly called either cold or ridi
culous, as being said to no purpose. But the
truth is, these expressions are used not only to
show the impotency of Freewill, which causes
that none of these things be done by us ; but at
the same time to intimate that all such things are,
at some time or other, about to be and to be
done — howbeit by another's power, even God's :
if we quite admit that there is in such like
words some intimation of things which are to
be done, and which are possible. As if a man
should interpret them thus : ' If thou shalt be wil
ling to keep the commandments/ that is, ' If thou
shalt at some time possess a will (thou wilt pos
sess it however, not of thyself, but of God — who
will give it to whom it shall be his will to give it)
to keep the commandments, they also shall pre
serve thee/ Or, to speak more freely, these verbs,
particularly the conjunctive verbs, seem to be

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 21 1

inserted thus on account of God's predestination SECT.
also — as being that which we do not know — and to
involve it : as if they should mean to say, ' If '
thou wilt/ f If thou shalt be willing' — that is, ( If
thou shalt be such in the sight of God as that he
shall count thee worthy of this will to keep the
commandments — thou shalt be saved/ Each of
these two things is couched under this trope :b
namely, that, on the one hand we can do nothing
of ourselves ; and on the other, whatever we do,
God worketh it in us. I should speak thus to
those who would not be content to have it said,
that our impotency only is expressed by these
words, but would maintain, that a certain power
and ability of doing those things which are en
joined, is proved by them. Thus it would at once
be true, that we could do none of the things com
manded, and could at the same time do all of
them ; if we should apply the former assertion to
our own powers, the latter to the grace of God.c

Thirdly, Diatribe is affected by this consider- Erasmus's
ation : ' Where there is such frequent mention objection
of good and bad works, says she ; where there ceptsPare
is mention of reward ; I do not see how there can given, and

b TropoJ] Any figurative mode of speech, as opposed to one
that is plain, simple, and straight forward j whatever be the
particular nature of the obliquity : whether grammatical, as
here ; or rhetorical.

c Luther gives three answers to these texts. 1. Erasmus
inconsistent with himself. 2. They teach human impotency.
3. They insinuate the possibility of divine help, and glance at
his predestinative favour. — In some instances, doubtless, as in
Matthew xix. and its parallels (Mark x. Luke xviii.), a peculiar
design may also be traced — the teaching of the natural man's
impotency, and the hint at what God, according to his eternal
purpose, will do in his people — but all these, multifarious as they
are, may be resolved into, ' the Lawgiver speaks :' whose voice
implies not either power in man, or promise in God. The end
is not always conviction of sin in mercy ; sometimes it is
f" whom he will he hardeneth ;" but always, it is man made
to shew what he is, unto the more perfect manifestation of God
by him. See Sect, xxviii. notes t v x.

212

PART III,

merit is
ascribed
to Free
will, consi
dered. —
Erasmus
inconsist
ent with
himself.

SECT.
XXXVI.

New Tes
tament
precepts
are ad
dressed to
the con-

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

be place for mere necessity. ' Neither nature,
nor necessity, says she, hath merit/ d

Nor do I forsooth understand how there can
be this place ; save, that the 'approvable opinion7
asserts mere necessity in saying that Freewill can
will nothing good, but here attributes even merit
to it. Freewill has made such advances during
the growth of this book and disputation of Dia
tribe's, that now she not only has desire and
endeavour for her own (howbeit, by a strength
not her own); nay, she not only wills and does
good, but even merits eternal life; because Christ
says in the fifth of St. Matthew (ver. 12), " Re
joice and be exceeding glad, for your reward is
abundant in the heavens." Your reward ; that is,
FreewilPs reward : for so Diatribe understands
this text, making Christ and the Spirit to be
nothing; for what need is there of these, if we
have good works and merits through Freewill ? — I
mention this, that we may see how common it is
for men of excellent abilities to be wont to show
a blindness in matters which are manifest to even
a dull and uncultivated mind; and how weak
an argument drawn from human authority is, in
divine things : where divine authority alone has
weight.6

Two distinct topics must here be spoken to :
first, the precepts of the New Testament; and
secondly, merit. I shall dispatch each of these in
few words, having spoken of them rather pro
lixly on other occasions. The New Testament
properly consists of promises and exhortations,
just as the Old properly consists of laws and

d Natura, necessitas.~\ By ' nature/ in this connection, I sup
pose he means ' an inherent, settled, constitution of things ;'
which produces actions involuntarily : by ' necessity,' ' a com
pulsory influence' exercised upon such a constitution, from
without.

e The inconsistency is Erasmus's : his Freewill is necessity ;
but, according to him, is the subject of reward.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED.

threatenings. For, in the New Testament, the SECT.
Gospel is preached ; which is nothing else but a XXXVI-
discourse offering the Spirit, together with grace, verted not
unto that remission of sins which hath been to those in
obtained for us by the crucifixion of Christ : and Freewi11-
all this gratuitously, because the mercy only of God
the Father befriends us, unworthy as we are, and
deserving damnation, as we do, rather than any
thing else. Then follow exhortations, to stir up
those who are already justified, and have obtained
mercy, unto a strenuousness in bringing forth the
fruits of that freely bestowed righteousness and
of the Spirit, and unto the acting of love in the
performance of good works, and unto the bearing
of the cross and of all the other tribulations of
the world with a good courage. This is the sum
of all the New Testament. — How entirely ignorant
Diatribe is of this matter, she abundantly shows
in not knowing how to make the least difference
between the Old Testament and the New ; for
she sees almost nothing in either, save laws
and precepts, by which men are to be formed to
good manners. What new birth is ; what re
newal, regeneration, and the whole work of the
Spirit ; she sees not at all : to my utter wonder
and astonishment, that a man who has laboured
so long and so studiously in the Scriptures should
be so perfectly ignorant of them.

So then, this saying, " Rejoice and be exceed
ing glad, for much is your reward in the hea
vens," squares just about as well with Freewill as
light agrees with darkness. For Christ therein
exhorts not Freewill, but his Apostles (who not
only were in a state above Freewill, as being
already partakers of grace and just persons; but
were even established in the ministry of the word;
that is, in the highest station of grace), to bear the
tribulations of the world. But we are engaged
in discussing Freewill, specially as she subsists
without grace ; who is instructed by laws and
threatenings (that is, by the Old Testament) into

214 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. the knowledge of herself, that she may run to the
promises set forth in the New/

f Such is Luther's representation of the New Testament as
contrasted with the Old, and of the Gospel. The New is
' promises and exhortations ;' the Old is ' law and threaten
ing^. ' The Gospel is f the Spirit, and grace unto salvation,
offered to all men ; through Christ, who died for all.'* — For
some objections to this statement, as it respects ' offers of
grace,' see above, Sect, xxiii. note a; as it respects the oppo
sition between the Law and the Gospel, see above, Sect. xxiv.
note '. — The Gospel is certainly to be preached to all j to the
reprobate as well as to the elect ; but with what propriety this
can be called ' an offer of grace ' to all, or to any, may be fairly
questioned : much more, with what consistency such language
can be used by one who so stoutly maintained, as Luther did,
both the impotency of the natiiral man, and the God-made
difference between the elect and the reprobate. With such views
as Luther had of the atonement, as though Christ had shed his
blood for those from whom it was the Father's good pleasure
to hide the mysteries of his kingdom ; and with such a want
of insight into the first principle of divine counsel, operation,
and revelation — even God's design of manifesting himself}
in short, with such a want of insight into God ; it was im
possible that he should not speak inconsistently. Indeed it
would be little, if inconsistency were all. Such language is
illusive, perplexing, and subversive to man ; and, whilst it
aims to beautify God, defames him ! He is correct, however,
to some considerable extent : he nobly asserts, that salva
tion is altogether gratuitous, the produce of the Father's
mercy, conferred upon the hell-deserving through the alone
merit of Christ's death. He nobly asserts, that the precep
tive parts of the New Testament are for the called and jus
tified only. — But why is the Old Testament to be thus set in
array against the New ? Where is ' the law and threaten-
ings ' in the book of Genesis ? What more truly Evangelical
words are to be found in the New Testament, than in Isaiah
and the other Prophets ; in the Psalms, and in Luther's favour
ite book of Deuteronomy ? ' The Old Testament, as our
7th Article wisely speaks, is not contrary to the New : for
both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered
to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God
and man, being both God and man.' — The truth is, even the
Law itself, as I have already remarked, is ' Gospel in enigma j'
and the scribe that is instructed in the New Testament finds
the Old its best commentator and confirmer ; what has in
structed the same family in its tenderer years, and now makes
the " young men" perfect. — / should speak rather differently

* Note, he distinguishes between the Spirit and grace, though not very
correctly; it is the Spirit as given to the justified, of which he speaks : but
this is part of the grace of God ; that is, " of the things which are freely
given to us of God."

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 215

But as to merit, or a reward being proposed, SECT.
what is this but a sort of promise ? This proves XXXVIL
not that we have any power; for nothitig else is TT

, , ., , , I,1 .c ' i 11 i i Merit and

expressed by it, but that, it a man shall have done reward
this or that thing, then he shall have a reward. maycon-
But our question is, not how* a reward, or what necessity.
sort of a reward, shall be rendered to a man ; but
whether we can do those things to which a
reward is rendered. This was the thing to be
proved. Is it not a ridiculous consequence :
The reward of the judge is proposed to all that
are in the course; therefore all can run and ob
tain ? If Caesar shall have conquered the Turk,
he shall enjoy the kingdom of Syria : therefore
Ca3sar can conquer, and does conquer the Turk.
If Freewill rules over sin, it shall be holy to the
Lord ; therefore Freewill is holy to the Lord. —
But I will say no more about these superlatively
stupid and palpably absurd reasonings ; save, that
it is most worthy of Freewill to be defended by
such exquisite arguments. Let me rather speak
to this point ; that ( necessity has neither merit,

of the Apostles. They were to be what he describes, with
the exception of one of them j but they ivere not this yet.
If they could be truly said to know Christ at all, till the day
of Pentecost was fully come, they knew him " after the flesh."
(2 Cor. v. 16.) But it is not to the Twelve exclusively, that
the Lord addresses these words (Matt. v. 12.), nor of them
exclusively that he speaks. His precepts were for the regu
lation of their conduct, and of the conduct of all his converted
people (whilst walking through the wilderness of this world
in his kingdom), as they should hereafter be called, one by one,
into vital union with him : that union, of which his elect have
the sacrament in their baptism, but the reality, when either
before or after the receiving of that sacrament, the Spirit has
been given, to convert and to dwell in them. — Luther's argu
ment, however, is not shaken by this distinction. The Lord
speaks as to real members of his kingdom ; to persons there
fore, who are above and beyond that state of Freewill which is
the matter of dispute. — Already Luther has shewn Erasmus in
consistent with himself in arguing from this text (see Sect,
xxxv.) : his second answer is, ( this text (to which all other
New Testament precepts might be added) does not apply.'

g Quo modo.~] How, in point of action ; what he must do
that he may be entitled.

216 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

PART in. nor reward.' If we speak of a necessity of com-
"" pulsion, it is true : if we speak of a necessity of
immutability, it is false.11 Who would give a
reward, or impute merit, to an unwilling work
man? But to those who wilfully do good or evil,
even though they cannot change this will by their
own power, there follows, naturally and neces
sarily, reward or punishment; as it is written,
" Thou wilt render unto every man according to
his works." It follows naturally, ' if you plunge
into water, you will be suffocated ; if you swim
out, you will save your life.'

To be brief; in the matter of merit, or reward,
the inquiry is either about the worthiness, or
about the consequence, of actions. If you look
at worthiness, there is no such thing as merit ;
there is no such thing as reward. For, if Free
will can will nothing good of itself, and wills good
only through grace (we are speaking, you know,
of Freewill as separate from grace, and are in
quiring what power is proper to each), who does
not see that this good will, together with its
merit and its reward, is of grace only? And
here again, Diatribe is at variance with herself in
arguing the freedom of the will from merit, and
is in the same condemnation with me whom she
opposes : since it fights equally against herself
as against me, that there is merit, that there is
reward, that there is liberty; after she has asserted,
as she does above, that Freewill can will nothing
good, and has undertaken to prove such a sort of
Freewill.

If you look at the consequences of actions,
there is nothing either good or bad, which has not
its reward. And we get into mistakes from this
cause, that, in speaking of merits and rewards,
we agitate useless considerations and questions
about the worth of actions — which is none — when

h For this distinction, see above, Part i. Sect. xi. Sect.

XXV.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 217

we ought to be debating only about the conse- SECT.
quences of them. For hell and the judgment of XXXVI1-
God await the wicked by a necessary conse
quence,, even though they themselves neither de
sire, nor think of such a reward for their sins ;
nay, though they exceedingly detest and, as Peter
says, execrate it.' In like manner, the kingdom
awaits the godly, though they neither seek it, nor
think of it themselves ; being a possession pre
pared for them of their Father, not only before
they were themselves in existence, but even be-
'fore the foundation of the world.

Nay, if these latter were doing good that they
might obtain the kingdom, they never would
obtain it; and would belong rather to the com
munity of the wicked, who, with an evil and
mercenary eye, " seek their own,"k even in
God. But the sons of God do good through a
gratuitous good pleasure ; not seeking any re
ward, but simply seeking the glory, and aiming
to do the will, of God : they are prepared to do
good, even though according to an impossible
supposition, there were no such thing as either
kingdom or hell-fire. I think these things are
quite sure from that single saying of Christ in
Matt. xxv. " Come ye blessed of my Father,
receive the kingdom, which hath been prepared

1 Detestentur, execrentur .] For proper meaning of ' detes-
tor,' see above, Part 5. Sect. vii. note l. It is opposed to
' obtestor;' as calling God to witness, unto evil and not unto
good. ' Malum alicui imprecari, Dcos testes ciendo ,-' ' execrari.'
Here, however, I understand it literally, according to its
derived meaning ; and so, ' exsecror ;' which properly denotes
' removing out of sacred relations,' or subjecting to a curse. —
The allusion is to 2 Pet. ii. 10 — 15. " But these. . . . speak evil
of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in
their own corruption ; and shall receive the reward of un
righteousness." B\a«T0i7/iHj/Te9. The original text makes the
reference plainer than our version.

k " All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus
Christ's." (Phil. ii. 21.) Not content with seeking their own
glory, &c. &c. in their dealings with man, they seek it even
from the hands of God : He is to do them good, not himself.

218 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

PART HI. for you from the foundation of the world." How
do they earn that, which is even now theirs, and
which was prepared for them before they were
born ? So that we should speak more correctly,
if we should say, the kingdom of God doth
rather earn us for its possessors, than we it;
placing merit where they place reward, and
reward where they place merit. For the king
dom is not to be prepared, but hath been pre
pared ; but the children of the kingdom are to be
prepared, not themselves to prepare the king-s
dom: that is, the kingdom earns her children, :
not the children the kingdom. Hell, in like man
ner, doth rather earn her children, and prepare
them, than they it ; since Christ says, " Depart
ye cursed into everlasting fire, which hath been
prepared for the devil and his angels."1

1 Erasmus objects, that c so much mention of good works
and reward, in Scripture, is inconsistent with mere necessity j
which can have no merit.'

Luther answers, though not exactly in this order : 1. Merit
and reward are as inconsistent with your Freewill (which can
will nothing good) as with mine. 2. Reward is a matter of
promise ; which implies nothing of power, the alone thing in
question. 3. Merit and reward are not inconsistent with a
necessity of immutability, though they be inconsistent with a
necessity of compulsion. (See above, note h.) Merit is not
necessarily merit of worth ; reward may be a consequence of
actions, in which there is no merit of worth. 4. The king
doms of heaven and hell earn their children^ severally; not
they them.

The two first of these answers are valid; and, if it were
merely so many rounds of the boxer, or so many grapple-
ments of the wrestler, of which we are watching the result,
we must give the palm to Luther : he has supplanted, he has
knocked down his antagonist. But we want to hear some
thing against merit and reward : and here, Luther is evasive
and subtle in his reasoning, though correct in his conclusion.
Necessity of immutability does not necessarily imply absence
of merit ; because that which the Avill cannot do for itself, it
may be changed by another to do. Luther has supplied the
basis of a solid and satisfactory answer, in his fourth reply;
Avhilst he has neither opened it, nor appears to be sensible of
its force and marrow. ' The kingdoms earn their children
severally, not they them.'

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 219

Then what mean those declarations which pro- SECT.
mise the kingdom and threaten hell ? What XXXVIIL

Upon Luther's principles, it is impossible to give a solid an- are'oro_
swer to the objection of ' merit.' For, if Christ has died alike m;ses an(i
for all ; if he has done and suffered the same both for the elect threaten-
and for the reprobate 5 so that there is no difference between ings in
them, as far as respects HIS merit (which is the essence of the Scripture,
doctrine of Universal Redemption) ; then, either there must be
merit in the individuals of the elect, or there is with God
repect of persons : HE makes a different award to some from
what he does to others, alike meritorious or unmeritorious,
through partiality. Nor will it suffice to say (as Luther does),
this reward is mere matter of consequence, like the man swim
ming out of water, &c. God sees somewhere that which makes
it the demand of His justice that he should put a difference :
and, since this is not in Christ, it must be in the individuals
themselves. The true answer is, that God has assumed dis
tinct, super-creation relations to his elect, in Christ; which
render it imperative upon him to give them grace and glory,
each in its season. This is the true meaning of the kingdom
of heaven earning her sons : there are relations of and be
longing to that kingdom, which communicate the power that is
necessary to the inheriting of that kingdom, in consistency
with all that God is, and to the manifestation of him as that
God which he is. So again, with respect to the kingdom of
hell : that kingdom has relations which have procured its in
habitants and inheritors. The devil has had a power given to
him, by which he has drawn legions into his service, and
is bringing those legions to be his companion in torments j
legions, not of devils only, but of reprobate and accursed men :
from which number, as equally ruined by the devil and self-
destroyed with the rest, the elect people of God, through their
super-creation relations to him in Christ, or, as it has just now
been expressed, through the relations of the kingdom of God
(of which God, of his distinguishing favour, has given to them
to be members), are rescued. Merit and reward are made
nearly as much a stumbling-block to the maintainers of free
grace, as the sin and impotency of the natural man are to the
merit-mongers : with this difference, that the stumbling-blocks
which may be thrown vipon the path of truth are superable and
removable, whilst falsehood may pass by, and cover over,
but she cannot expose and expel her stumbling-blocks.
Too often, however, the sincere and strenuous advocates of
truth defend her cause weakly, and even dangerously. — Who
will be satisfied, for instance, with that answer to an objection
brought against the truth, which assumes that there is no such
thing as " recompense of reward" in the Bible ; no soldier's
crown; no servant's wages ; no agonistic palm ; no 'for* to
the call of the blessed of my Father ; or that all these things and

220 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. meanetli that word < reward/ so often repeated as
- it is, throughout the Scriptures ? " Thy work

sayings are resolvable into what Christ personally hath clone ;
and might, if, according to that will of his and of the Father's
which is represented as no other than perfectly arbitrary, he
saw fit to do so, be bestowed upon his enemies and blasphemers,
just as righteously as upon his servant-friends ? (See John.
xv. 15.)

The true objection to merit and reward is, that, as generally
understood and represented, they suppose something of good
in the natural man; in that self-ruined, self-damned, and self-
made-impotent thing which has merited Hell before he was
born into the world, and can merit nothing but Hell. — But,
what now if it please God to give to this self-ruined, self-
made-impotent thing new powers, under a new relation, and
by a new title ? Is there any thing to prevent God from
accepting an equivalent, if such can be found, for that punish
ment which is the just reward of this his moral creature's sin ;
and, of his own free, sovereign and distinguishing favour (as it
respects the subject of his infinite, everlasting, and inestimable
bounty), placing him in new relations, and endowing him with
new capacities as the fruit of those relations ? And why may not
this new-made creature, so related, so capacitated, and so con
nected, act in a manner worthy of those relations, and so entitle
himself to those results which the God of all grace has seen
fit to attach to the maintenance and fulfilment of those rela
tions ? — This is just the state and case of the eternally fore
known, elect, predestinated, given and received people of God,
in Christ Jesus, their grace and glory Head. Contemplated as
now already self-destroyed and fallen in Adam ; under express
sentence of death, with all that awful hereafter which was
implied though not expressed in that sentence ; the Lord Jesus,
by making himself sin for them, and dying Avith them, renders
it consistent in God to raise them up from the dead, and to
bring them out into a new state of being, with new relations,
capacities, enjoyments and privileges, in him. In a figure,
they are said to have risen with Christ ; in reality, the indubi-
tability of their future rising was publicly sealed, and manifested
to the whole world, by his rising : I say publicly, because it
had been secretly sealed, in the eternal covenant transactions of
the Three in Jehovah, before the worlds. " This is that grace
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
(2 Tim. i. 9.) Regeneration, in its most correct view, is a
partial fulfilment of the personal resurrection of the Lord's
elect : it is the resurrection of the soul or spirit. " The hour
is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of
the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." (John v. 25.)
By it they are brought into a resurrection state ; are shewn to
be of those who shall hereafter rise with a body like His, and

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 221

hath a reward," saith he. " I am thy exceeding; SECT.

O "V"V" V XT' FT T

great reward." Again ; " Who rendereth unto

are now called to serve him in an intermediate state, as " God's
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."*
(Ephes. ii. 10.) Thus they are, essentially, grace receivers of
grace powers, called and enabled to act in a manner worthy of
a grace reward. Here is reward then, not of mere consequence,
but of merit : of merit, which has worth or dignity in it, yet is
all the while grace ; free, distinguishing, sovereign grace.
Thus grace reigneth ; but it is THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS : which
means, if the connection of those words be duly observed, not
merely through Christ's being personally righteous ; but
through, and in a way of righteousness, as it respects the
persons of his people. (Rom. v. 2O, 21. compare with the whole
of Rom. vi. which follows, specially from ver. 14 to ver. 23.) —
Many, doubtless, will cavil at this statement ; but it is for
lack of distinguishing things which essentially differ ; it is for
lack of understanding the true nature, origin, design, consti
tuent subjects, and provisions of the kingdom of God ; it is
for lack of understanding that the members of that kingdom
are persons already saved (" Who hath saved us, and called
us with an holy calling 5" "for by grace ye are saved;"
" unto us which are saved, it is the power of God") ; not
men striving for life to get life, but a/m/e/y-living men ; not
natural men, but men joined unto the Lord, and who are one
spirit with him ; which constitute the reward-earning commu
nity : concerning whom, it is God's glory that they, being
brought out, as they are, in the face and heart of the world —
a world made up of hypocrites, or false professors of his name,
on the one hand ; and of declared enemies and persecutors on
the other — " should walk worthy of the vocation wherewith
they are called ;" fl should walk worthy of God, who hath
called them to his kingdom and glory ;" " should be counted
worthy of his kingdom," and should manifest him to be the
righteous God in recompensing rest (their consummation and
bliss) to them, when he recompenseth tribulation to them that
have troubled them." — If this statement be duly apprehended,

* When we speak of good works, people are apt to run immediately into
the idea of law works, as if the Ten Commandments were to be brought
back again : not considering, that good is a relative term ; and that good
works, therefore, must be those which are consistent with the relations under
which we stand, when performing1 them. If it were possible for renewed
man, I'M the cltiys of hi,? Jiesh, to keep the whole law, he would not thereby
do good works. The law is for creation man ; the Gospel is for super-
creation man. It is the obedience of a redeemed sinner, to which he is
called in Christ Jesus ; an obedience analogous to that fuller and more dis
tinct manifestation of God, which he has made of himself in his new, after-
creation kingdom. To this obedience, as many as have been created, or
builded, in Christ Jesus from the very first, as Abel, &c, have been called
and brought, according to their measure of faith.

222 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. every man according to his works." And Paul
in Romans ii. saith, " To those who by the

patience of good works seek for eternal life :"

and many like sayings.

The answer is, that all these sayings prove

nothing but a consequence of reward, and by no

means a worthiness of merit : m that those, for-

it will give their legitimate force and meaning to numberless
passages of Scripture, which some bring forward to contradict
the truth of God, and others pare down and mutilate to main
tain it. — The essence of the distinction too, that the grace
which earneth reward is truly super-creation grace, furnishes a
sure test by which to try and convict hypocrites. How com
mon is the language, ' O, I know I have nothing that I have
not received.' Yes, but how hast thou received it ? Grace is
that principle in the divine mind which makes distinctions :
grace is not only favour, but free favour ; not only free favour,
but separating favour ; in the case we are considering, is sepa
rating favour, shewn in a way of mercy ; that is, shewn to those
who have deserved a contrary sort of treatment. Hast thou
received then by a new and super-creation title ; which puts
a difference between Adam's alike self-destroyed and wholly-
destroyed sons ? Or, is it that thou hast cultivated thy natural
powers j or, if it pleaseth thee rather, hast improved that gos
pel-grace which is bestowed on all, and has put all into a
capacity of working out their own salvation ? The answer
will unmask the man : grace knows itself, and knows its
origin.

In asserting that the kingdom of hell has earned, and is earn
ing, its subjects through a power which God has given to the
devil, I would be understood to intimate that the devil could
neither be, nor continue to be, without the will of God; and
that hell is filled through his agency : by which, in perfect
consistency with all creation relations and obligations, ruin
was originally brought upon man ; and by which he secures
and retains to himself that spoil, which it is the Father's good
pleasure that he should carry off, to ins glory.

m Sequelam mercedis, meriti dignitatem.'] The expression seems
inverted ; ' worthiness of merit,' for merit which has worth in
it : the meaning clearly is ' reward follows as a consequence,
but there is nothing of meritorious worthiness in the subject.'
Luther, in what follows, overstates the matter of disinterested
ness ; and afterwards virtually contradicts himself. We are
not called to be insensible to the end, but urged to keep it in
view ; and why, but as a source of encouragement ? which he
presently affirms. What, indeed, is that ' following because,'
but an admission of the same thing ? — The cure for servility
is, " to the praise of the glory of his grace"— ' saved

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 223

sooth, who do good, do it not through a servile SECT.
and mercenary disposition to gain eternal life, but xxxvnl-
still seek eternal life ; that is, are in the way by
which they shall arrive at and obtain eternal life.
So that, to seek eternal life, is painfully to strive,
and with urgent labour to endeavour, because it
is wont to follow after a good life. Now, the
Scriptures declare that these things will take
place, and will follow after a good or evil life; in
order that men may be instructed, admonished,
excited, terrified : for, as by the law is the know
ledge of sin and admonishment of our impotency,
yet is it not inferred from this law that we have
any power ; even so, we are admonished and
taught, by those promises and threatenings, what
follows after that sin and impotency of ours,
which the law has pointed out to us ; but nothing
of worthiness is ascribed by them to our merit.

Wherefore, as law words stand in the place of
instruction and illumination, to teach us what we
ought to do ; and, as the next step, what we can
not do : so words of reward, whilst they intimate
what is to happen, stand in the place of exhort
ation and threatening, to stir up, comfort, and
revive the godly," that they may go on, persevere,
and conquer, in doing good, and enduring evil,
least they should be weary or broken-hearted.
Just as Paul exhorts his Corinthian converts,
saying, " Quit yourselves like men;" "knowing
that your labour is not in vain in the Lord/'0

already' — ' the triumph sure' — ' Christ magnified by my
body' — ' God does all our works in us' — ' we will do what
he enables' — ' we will suffer what he appoints to us' — ' happy
by the way' — ' how much more happy when in my Father's
house ! ' — There is nothing mercenary here ; but the end is
neither hidden, nor undesired. — See above, note '.

n Excitantur, consolantur, eriguntur.'] EJCC. is a more general
term, applicable to any that want excitement ; but erig. applies
especially to those who have fallen or been cast down, and so
want raising up. How beautifully this process is described in
Ezek. xxxiv. !

0 Luther quotes these words as if they were parts of the

224

PART III.

SECT.
XXXIX.

Reason
objects to
this ac
count, but
is an
swered
' such is
the will of
God.'

BONDAGE OF THE WILL

Thus God revives Abraham by saying, < I am thy
exceeding great reward.' Just as if you should
cheer a person, by telling him that his works
assuredly please God : a sort of consolation which
the Scripture frequently uses. Nor is it a small
degree of consolation for a man to know that he
pleases God ; though nothing else should follow
from it: which is, however, impossible.

All that is said about hope and expectation
must be referred to this consideration, that the
things hoped for will certainly take place ; al
though godly men do not hope, because of the
things themselves, or seek such benefits for their
own sake. So again, ungodly men are terrified
and cast down by words of threatening, which
announce a judgment to come, that they may
cease and abstain from evil; that they may not
be puffed up ; that they may not grow secure and
insolent in their sins. — Now, if reason should turn
up her nose here and say, ' Why would God have
these impressions to be made by his words, when
no effect is produced by such words, and when
the will cannot turn itself either way? why doth
he not perform what he doth, without taking no
tice of it in the word (seeing he can do all
things without the word ; and seeing the will
neither has more power, nor performs more, ofij
itself, through the hearing of the word, if the
Spirit be lacking to move the soul within; nori
would have less power, or perform less, though
the word were silent, if the Spirit were vouch- j
safed; since all depends upon the power andi
work of the Holy Ghost); my reply is, God has
determined to give the Spirit by the word, and
not without it, having us for his cooperators, to
sound without what he alone and by himself
breathes within, just where he pleases; producing
effects, which he could no doubt accomplish;

same sentence : but the one is part of 1 Cor. xv. 58. the other
of 1 Cor. xvi. 13.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 225

without the word, bat which it is not his SECT.
pleasure so to do. And who are we, that wre XXXIX'
should demand the reason why God wills so ? It
is enough for us to know that God wills so; and
it becomes us to reverence,, to love, and to adore
this will, putting a restraint upon rash Reason.
Even Christ, in Matt. xi. assigns no other cause
for the Gospel being hidden from the wise and
revealed to babes, than that so it seemed good to
the Father.p So he might nourish us without
bread, and he has, in point of fact, given us a
power of being nourished without bread, as he
says in Matt. iv. (f Man is not nourished by
bread alone, but by the word of God."q Still, it
hath pleased him to nourish us inwardly by his
word, through the means of bread ; and that
bread fetched into us from without/

It stands good, therefore, that merit is not
proved by reward ; in the Scriptures, at least :
and again, that Freewill is not proved by merit;
much less such a Freewill as Diatribe has under
taken to prove ; one which cannot will any thing
good, of itself. For, if you should even concede
that there is such a thing as merit, and should

p Here we are reminded again of the defect of Luther's

views. It is not arbitrary will, but counselled will of God

accomplishing the best end by just and necessary means,

which gives occasion to this arrangement. The declaration

of his truth, by the word, to the self-made-impotent is neces-

ary to the manifestation of himself, through his dealings

vith them. The " Even so, Father," would be enough ; but

e has been so kind as to show us more ; and there are

>laces and seasons where this ' more' should be brought into

iht. See Sect, xxviii. notes l v x.

The original text in Deuteronomy viii. says, Ki'itrSs,

j r T

'Every that proceedeth;" meaning no doubt, as the Lord
juotes it, ' every word of command which he gives.'

Thus it is God's word which imparts its power of nou-
ishing to the natural bread ; but still he is pleased to use
hat bread : so, the spiritual bread of the word only nourishes
vhen he gives the word for it to do so ; but still he uses that
piritual bread, when he wills to nourish.

Q

226 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. add those wonted similes and consequences of

Reason ; as, that commandments are given in vain ;

that reward is promised in vain; that threaten-
ings are held forth in vain ; except there be
Freewill : if any thing be proved by these argu
ments, I say, it is that Freewill can of herself do
every thing. For, if she cannot do every thing for
herself, that consequence of reason retains its
place ; ' therefore it is vain to command, it is
vain to promise, it is vain to hold out threaten-
ings/ Thus is Diatribe continually disputing
against herself, whilst opposing me. The truth
meanwhile is, that God alone worketh both
merit and reward in us, by his Spirit; but he
announces and declares each of these to the
whole world, by his outward word ; in order that
his own power and glory, and our impotency
and ignominy, may be proclaimed even amongst
the ungodly, the unbelieving, and the ignorant ;
although none but the godly understand that
word with the heart, and keep it faithfully ; the
rest despising it.
SEC. XL. And now, it would be too tiresome to repeat

the several imperative verbs which Diatribe enu-

Apoiop merates out of the New Testament ; alwavs ap-

for not J r

consider- pending her own consequences, pretending that
ing ail his a}| these expressions are vain, superfluous, un-
textsnsepa- meaning, absurd, ridiculous, nothing at all, ex-
rateiy.— cept the Will be free. I have already declared, to
cavHfrom a high degree of nauseating repetition, what an
Matt. absolute nothing is made out by such expressions
as these ; which, if they prove any thing, prove
an entire Freewill. Now, this is nothing else but
a complete overturning of Diatribe; who under
took to prove such a Freewill as can do nothing
good, and serves sin ; but does really prove one
which can do every thing : so ignorant and so for
getful of her own self is she continually. They are
mere cavils then, when she argues, ( ye shall know
them by their fruits/ saith the Lord : by fruits, he

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 227

means works. He calls these works ours: but SEC.XLI.
they are not ours, if all things be performed by
necessity.

What! are not those possessions most rightly
called ours, which we have not made ourselves, it
is true, but have received from others ? Why
should not those works then be called ours, which
God hath given to us by the Spirit? Shall we
not call Christ ours, because we have not made
him, but only received him? On the other hand,
if we make all those things which are called
ours, why then we have made our own eyes for
ourselves, we have made our own hands for
ourselves, we have made our own feet for our-
vselves; unless we are forbidden to call our eyes,
hands, and feet ours ! Nay, what have we, which
we have not received ; as Paul says ? Shall we
then say, that these possessions are either not
ours, or they have been made by our ownselves ?
But let be now, let be that these fruits are called
ours, because we have produced them ; what
then becomes of grace and the Spirit ? For he
does not say, f by their fruits, which are in some
very small degree and portion theirs, ye shall
know them/5 — These, rather, are the ridiculous,
the superfluous, the vain, the unmeaning sayings —
nay, a parcel of foolish and odious cavils, by which
the sacred words of God are polluted and profaned.

Thus too, that saying of Christ upon the cross
s sported with;1 "Father, forgive them; for they 34-]s
viiow not what they do." (Here, when you would not /or
expect a sentence attaching" Freewill to the Freewill.

s Erasmus argues, it is necessary to their being called

ours,' that they be done by our own natural powers. Then they

re wJiollij done by cur natural powers j for he calls them ours,

vithout addition or subtraction. — Then there is no Spirit and

, -race in our good works. — Another of the ' nimis probats.'

1 Luditur.~] ' Ludo se, dclectationis causa, exercere.' I do
ot know any classical authority for this passive form of the
erb 'ludo.' — Verbum, &c. hiditur.

u Astrueret.~\ ' Juxta struo,' ' prope extruo :' not super-
ructurc/ but 'additional or contiguous structure.' — It is the

Q2 •

228 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. testimony adduced, she betakes herself again to her

consequences.) ( How much more justly, says

she, would he have excused them by saying that
they were those who had not a free will, and
could not, if they would, do otherwise!' And yet,
that sort of Freewill which can will nothing good,
though it be the one in question, is not proved by
this consequence ; but that sort of Freewill which
can do every thing ; which no one contends for,
and which all deny, except the Pelagians. — But
now, when Christ expressly says that they know
not what they do, does he not at the same time
testify, that they cannot will good ? For, how can
you will what you do not know ? There can be
no desire, surely, for an unknown thing. What
can be more stoutly affirmed against Freewill,
than that it is in itself such a perfect nullity, as
not only to be incapable of willing good, but even
of knowing how much evil it is doing, and what
good is. Is there any obscurity in any word
here ? (< They know not what they do." What
is there remaining in Scripture, which may not,
by the suggestion of Diatribe, prove Freewill,
when this most clear and most adversative saying
of Christ is to her an affirmation of it? A man
might just as easily say, that Freewill is proved
by that saying, " The earth was empty v and
void;" or by that, " God rested on the seventh
day :" and the like. Then will the Scriptures be
ambiguous and obscure indeed ! nay, they will
mean all things, and mean nothing, in the same
moment. But such audacious handling of the
word of God argues a mind signally contemptuous
both towards God and towards man ; which de
serves no patience at all."

flying off from the proof alleged, in pursuit of something more
remote ; to which Luther here objects.

v Inanis.'] We say, ' without form ;' but Luther has it
' without substance ;' having nothing in it, or upon it.

x Luther answers, 1. ft is inference. 2. The text is against
you. 3. Such use of Scripture is criminal.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 229

So again, that saying- in John i. " To them SC.XLIL

gave he power to become the sons of God/' she ; —

takes in this wise : ' How can power be given to j^" foi!2'
them, that they should become the sons of God, grace.
if there be no liberty in our will ?'

This passage, also, is a cudgel y for Freewill —
such as nearly all the Gospel of John is — but
adduced in support of it. See, I pray you, John
is not speaking of any work of man's, whether
great or small ; but of the actual renewal and
transmutation of the old man, who is a son of
the devil, into the new man; who is a son of God.
This man is simply passive (as they speak), and
does nothing, but is altogether a thing made. For
John speaks of his being made : " to be made the
sons of God," he says; by a power freely given to
us of God, not by a power of Freewill which is
natural to us.z

But our Diatribe infers from hence, that Free
will is of such power, as to make sons of God ;
prepared else to determine, that this saying of
John is ridiculous and unmeaning. But who has
ever extolled Freewill to such a height, as to
give it the power of making sons of God; espe
cially such a Freewill, as can will nothing good ;
the one, which Diatribe has taken up to prove.a
But let this pass with the rest of those conse
quences, so o.teii repeated; by which, if any thing
is proved, it is nothing • else, but what Diatribe
denies ; namely, that Freewill can do every thing.
What John means is this : that, by Christ's
coming into the world, a power is given to all
men, through the Gospel (that Gospel by which
sprace is offered, and not work demanded), which

y Malleus.'] More properly, ' a mallet ;' ' fabrile instrumen-
um ad tundendum.'

z Ft insitd.~] Ins. properly, 'what is inserted as a graft ;' but
ransferred to signify ' what is natural, innate, inherent.' ' Na-
ivus, innatus, ingenitus.'

a Assumsit.~\ Scil. ad probandum. What he elsewhere ex*
resses by ' probandum suscepit.'

230 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. is magnificent in the extreme ; even that of
becoming the sons of God, if they be willing to
believe ! But this being willing, this believing in
his name, as it is a thing which Freewill never
knew, never thought of before ; so is it a thing,
which she is yet much further from being able to
attain to, by her own powers. Forhowshoald
reason imagine that faith in Jesus, the son of God
and of man, is necessary ; when she does not
even at this day comprehend, nor can believe,
even though the whole creation should as with an
audible voice proclaim it, that there exists a
person, which is at the same time both God and
man. On the contrary, she is the more offended
by such preaching ; as Paul testifies in 1 Cor. i.
so far is she, from being either willing or able to
believe.b

John, therefore, proclaims those riches of the
kingdom of God which are offered to the world
by the Gospel, not the virtues of Freewill : inti
mating at the same time, how few there are that
receive them ; because Freewill, forsooth, resists
the proposal, her power being nothing else,
through the dominion which Satan has over her,
but even to spurn the offer of grace, and of

b We have here Luther's usual, exceptionable expression
about ( offers.' (See Sect, xxiii. note a) ; and his mention of
the person of Christ suggests over again the importance of the
distinction which I remarked in Part ii. Sect. viii. note r. If we do
not keep the divine and the human person of Christ distinct, but
regard him simply as a person who has put another nature, the
human nature, upon his former and eternal, divine nature ; his
whole history and the things said of him are a Babel : not so;
if Ave be brought to apprehend him as the co-equal of th«
Father and of the Holy Ghost acting in and by a human persoi
which he has taken up into union with himself. — The texi
evidently proves nothing for Freewill : it only says " as man]
as received him;" without saying by what power; Avhethe
natural or supernatural. I do not agree with Luther, in it
being the making of the old man into the new man : it is thi
state of privilege and glory, into which the sen of Adam ani
child of the devil has been brought, by that preceding process o
transmutation.

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 231

that Spiritc which would fulfil the law. So ex- SC.XLIII.

quisite is the force of her desire and endeavour to

fulfil the law ! — But, hereafter, I shall shew more
at large, what a thunderbolt this text of John's is
against Freewill. Meanwhile, I am not a little
indignant, that passages so clear in their mean
ing and so powerful in their opposition to Freewill,
should be cited by Diatribe in her favour : whose
dulness is such, that she discovers no difference
between law words and words of promise; for,
having first of all established Freewill, most ri
diculously, by law testimonies, she afterwards
reaches the highest height of absurdity/ by con
firming it with words of promise. This absurdity,
however, is easily explained, by considering with
what an averse and contemptuous mind Diatribe
engages in the discussion. To her it is no matter,
whether grace stand or fall; whether Freewill be
laid prostrate or maintain her seat; if she may but
prove herself the humble servant of a conclave of
tyrants, by tittering a number of vain words to
excite disgust against our cause.

After this we come to Paul also, the most Objections
determined enemy to Freewill, who is never- froin
theless compelled to establish Freewill by what
he says in Rom. ii. " Or despisest thou the ed-
riches of his goodness and patience and long-
suffering ? or knowest thou not that his goodness
leadeth thee to repentance?" How can it be,
that contempt of the commandment is imputed,
where the will is not free ? How can it be, that
God invites to repentance, when he is the author
of impenitence ? How can it be, that damnation

c See note * upon note f, Sect, xxxvi.

d Ineptissimt longe absurdissime.'] Inept. The weaker term ;
denoting properly, ' unaptness/ impertinence/ 'silliness -.' absurd.
' the extreme of incongruity and extravagance.' ' lueptus est
tantum non aptus ; absurdus, repugnans, abhorrens : itaque
absurdus majUs quiddam. significat ;' velut qui surdis auribus
audiri dignus est.

232 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART in. is just, when the judge constrains to the crime?6
I answer, let Diatribe look to these questions.
What are they to me ? She has told us, in her
approvable opinion, that Freewill cannot will
good, and compels us necessarily into the service
of sin. How is it then, that contempt of the com
mandment is imputed to her; if she cannot will
good, and if she have no liberty, but be under a
necessary bondage to sin ? How is it, that God
invites to repentance, when he is the author of
man's not repenting ; in that he deserts, or does
not confer grace upon him, when, being left alone,
he cannot will good? How is it, that the damna
tion is just, where the judge, by withdrawing his
help, makes it unavoidable that the ungodly man
be left to do wickedly ; since, by his own power,
he can do nothing else ? — All these sayings recoil
upon the head of Diatribe : or, if they prove any
thing, prove (what I have said) that Freewill can
do every thing ; in contradiction to what she has
said herself, and every body else. These conse
quences of reason annoy Diatribe, throughout all
her Scripture quotations. It is ridiculous and
unmeaning, forsooth, to attack and exact/ in such
vehement language, when there is not one present
w ho can fulfil the demand ? The Apostle, all the
while, has it for his object to lead ungodly and
proud men to the knowledge of themselves and of
their own impotency, by the means of these threat-
enings ; that, having humbled them by the know
ledge of sin, he may prepare them for grace.5

e Referring, no doubt, to Rom. iii. 5 — 8.

f Invadere et exigere.'] Inv. expresses the assault upon the
person: 'in aliquem locum vaclo;' ingredior (et fere cum
aliquavi, aut impetu), aggredior, irrunipo, irruo. Exig. 'extra
ago j' educo. Sa^pe est reposcere, flagitare, in re pecuniaria :
itemque, exigendo obtinere. — The figure is that of a bailiff
seizing a man's person and demanding payment of a debt.

s It is not necessary to suppose this ulterior design, neither
will it extend to all the cases which the Apostle had in view ;
though such effect is frequently produced by the instrurnen-

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 233

And why need I recount, one by one, all the SC.XLIV.

texts which are adduced from Paul's writings ;

when she does but collect a number of imperative iVlckllfs

r confession

or conjunctive verbs, or such expressions as Paul confessed,
uses in exhorting Christians to the fruits of faith?h
Diatribe however, by adding her own conse
quences, imagines' to herself a Freewill of such
and so great virtue, that, without grace, it can
do every thing which Paul the exliorter pre
scribes ? Christians, however, are not led by
Freewill, but by the Spirit of God. (Rom. viii. 14.)
Now, to be led is not to lead ourselves, but to be
driven along, just as the saw or the hatchet k is
driven along by the carpenter. And here, least
any one should doubt Luther's having said such
absurd things, Diatribe recites his words : which I
deliberately own; avowing, as I do,1 that WicklifPs

tality of these Scriptures. Such appeals are amongst the strong
manifesters of what is in man ; in him as what he has made
himself, not as what God made him ; in him, therefore, without
excuse. By such manifesters, God, as his pleasure is, both
hardeneth and converteth. In chap. ii. it is an exposure of the
heart of the Jew as boasting himself against the heathen ; in
chap iii. it is the infidel disporting himself against the truth :
whose damnation is shewn to be just by the language which he
uses ; the language of a heart, which has made itself vile.

h See Sect, xxxvi. note f Gospel precepts, whether from the
Lord's mouth, or Paul's pen, are words to the Lord's called
only ; shewing how the saved should walk : that we, having been
delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him
without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the
days of our life. (Luke i. 74, 75.)

' Condpit.'] < Translate ponitur pro efformare., compre-
hendere, intelligere ;' ' forms an idea.'

k I cannot think Luther very happy in this illustration : the
hatchet and the saw have no choice in the hand of the carpenter ;
but we are led freely, delightingly .

1 QUCE sane agnosco. Fateor enim.~\ Qn. sa. ag. expresses
the perfect self-possession and consciousness with which he
acknowledges the words as his. Sane. ' Sana mente aut
sensu, ubi nihil fuci aut fraudis est.' But it is not honesty and
simplicity, so much as calmness, sobriety and stedfastness of
judgment, that he claims for himself, in the recognition and
restatement of what he had advanced. Fateor enim implies
avowal made under circumstances which might tempt to the

234 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

PART in. article (' all things are done by necessity ;' that

is, by the unchangeable will of God ; i and our

will, though not compelled indeed to do evil, is
incapable of doing any good by its own power'1")

suppression of it. His adversaries were the persons to make
confession of the evil at Constance, not he .- on his part, it was
proclamation of accordant, not antagonistic, sentiment ; but
still, it was testimony borne in adversity — borne, as with a
halter round his neck.

" Mors sola fatetur
" Quantula sint liominum corpuscula." — Jt'V. x. 171, 2.

Death testifies ; but it is, as an unwilling and compelled witness :
she would rather boast of her prey, than proclaim its littleness.
m This splendid paradox of Wickliff s has been brought into
discussion already (see Part ii Sect, xxii.), and is the very essence
of divine truth, though so offensive to the enemies of truth, and
of many who account themselves its advocates. Wickliff, with
all his blemishes, was a truly great man ; enlightened to see
and teach much of the mystery of God ; more, I am ready to
say, than many that came after him and carried off his palm.
Most of these acknowledged his worth indeed : for more than
a century, those who had light did not disdain to acknowledge
that they walked in his light ; such as the Lollards, Huss,
Jerome, and others. Erasmus gives him to Luther ; and
Luther is not ashamed to receive and confess him. Certainly,
my friend the Dean has not done him justice ; yet he tried,
I admit, and meant to do it him. But this necessity, was what
the Dean did not thoroughly relish, though he tolerated it :
and so he apologized, where Wickliff himself would have
gloried ; and when he professes to give a brief sketch of ' his
doctrines as extracted from his writings and other authentic
documents,' whilst he admits that ' his distinguishing tenet was,
tindoubtedly, the election of grace,' he does not tell us what he
held about it, nor even mention this paradox, which seems to
have been considered as the centre and heart's core of his
creed. — The Dean appears to have attached too much import
ance to Melancthon's judgment, who was so warped by the Sacra-
mentarian Controversy, in which WicklifFs name was drawn out
against the Lutherans, that he went to a great extreme in deny
ing Wickliff s light ; declaring ' that he had found in him, also,
many other errors' (beside this on the sacrament), 'and that
he neither understood nor believed the righteousness of faith.' —
I admit that he had much darkness mingled with his light ;
confusion with his clearness ; pusillanimity with his boldness ;
sophistry with his plainness ; rashness with his honest zeal for
reform. But I am rather inclined to measure a man by what
he has of good, than by what he has also of evil ; and when I
see Wickliff acknowledged as the first open champion and

TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 235

was falsely condemned by the Council of Con- SC.XLIV.

stance ; n or rather by conspiracy and sedition. —

Nay, even Diatribe herself defends him, in con
junction with me ; asserting, as she does, that
Freewill can will nothing good by its own powers,
and serves sin necessarily ; though, in the course
of her proof, she establishes the direct contrary.

declarer against the abominations of Antichrist ; when I read
such profound and luminous testimonies to the " hidden wis
dom " in his writings ; when I hear martyrs calling him their
apostle, and a Cobham ' solemnly professing before God and man
that he never abstained from sin till he knew Wickliff — but that
after he became acquainted with that virtuous man and his de
spised doctrines it had been otherwise with him ; ' when I recollect,
that he was the first who gave the Bible to our nation in English,
and vindicated the right of the common people to read it 5
when I find the more determined of the reformers of the six
teenth century owning him as their forerunner, and their
revilers casting him in their teeth : I am ashamed to ask what
doctrine he held about tithes ; to doubt his sincerity, because
his circumstances drew him into an undesirable degree of mix
ture with carnal statesmen ; to weigh the words which he
dropped, in the hour of the power of darkness, in a pair of
scales j and to ' rejoice in finding evidence,' as the result of
much pious search, ' that this celebrated champion did belong
to the church of Christ.' Huss in the flames, and the Swift
receiving his unintombed ashes, shall be my witnesses that he
spake by the Holy Ghost.

n We have heard of the Council of Constance already (see
Part ii. Sect. viii. note v); it was numerous, turbulent, and long :
it put down three Popes, and erected one ; raved about reform,
and confirmed sword-preaching ;* condemned a dead saint, and
burnt two living ones ; denied necessity, made a Sigismurid
blush, and did one good thing amidst all these bad ones, by
setting Councils above Popes.

* Outrages of the Teutonic knights in Poland and Prussia ; where they
obtained a professed subjection to the Gospel by fire and sword !

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV.

LUTHER DEFENDS CERTAIN TESTIMONIES
AGAINST FREEWILL.

SECTION I.

Erasmus has but two Texts to kill.

LET what has been said suffice in answer to
Diatribe's first part, in which she endeavours to
establish the reality of Freewill ; and let us now
consider her second part, in which she seeks to
confute the testimonies on our side of the ques
tion : those, I mean, by which its existence is
negatived. You will see here what a man-raised
smoke is, when opposed to God's thunders and
lightnings !

First then, after having recited innumerable
texts of Scripture in support of Freewill, as a
sort of army too dreadful to encounter (that she
may give courage to the confessors and martyrs,
and all the holy men and women who stand up
for Freewill ; and may inspire fear and trembling
into all who are guilty of the sin of denying it) ;
she pretends that the host which comes to oppose
Freewill is contemptible in point of numbers, and
goes on to represent that there are but two pas
sages which stand conspicuous above the rest on
this side of the argument : having nothing in her
mind, as it should seem, but slaughter, and making
sure of accomplishing it without much trouble.
One of these is from Exod. ix. " The Lord har
dened Pharaoh's heart :" the other is from Ma-
lachi i. " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 237

hated." Strange, what an odious and unprofitable SECT. n.

discussion Paul did take up, in the judgment of

Diatribe, when he expounded both these at large
to the Romans ! In short, if the Holy Ghost
were not a little knowing in rhetoric, there would
be danger lest his heart should melt within him,
through this great reach of art in pretending such
vast contempt ; and, lest absolutely despairing of
his cause, he should yield the palm to Freewill,
before the trumpet has called the champions into
the lists. Presently, however, I shall come up
as the reserve a to these two Scriptures, and shew
my forces also : and yet, where such is the fortune
of the battle, that one man puts ten thousand to
flight, what need is there of forces ? If one text
of Scripture shall have conquered Freewill, her
innumerable forces will be of no use to her.

Here therefore Diatribe has discovered a new Kills by
method of eluding the plainest texts, by choosing resolving
to understand a trope in the simplest and clearest tropesT
forms of speech. As, in the former instance, when which he
pleading for Freewill, she eluded" the force of all Set's^
the imperative and conjunctive law words by example,
adding inferences, and superadding similies of her
own invention; c so now, on her setting out to plead

a Succenturiatus.'] ' Succenturiati dicuntur, qui explendse cen-
tviria; gratia subjiciunt se ad suppleiuentum ordinnm.' — Luther
would consider himself as ' the leader of an army of reserve ;'
though such army would be unnecessary, since the two inva
lidated texts would keep their ground. — Pugnce for tuna. Luther
speaks here, ' more Ethnicorum;' who, it is well known,
ascribed every thing to Fortune, erecting temples and altars to
her, and accounting ' Fortunatus ' (' favoured of fortune ') the
most illustrioiis title they could ascribe to their generals. But
Luther well knew the God of battles ; nor meant to ascribe
their issue to any other than Him ; " even the Lord strong
and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle !"

b Elusit.~\ It was evading the natural and legitimate inter
pretation of those words, when she practised with them so as to
pass them off for assertives.

cddjectas. fiffictas.'] Adj. ' addere/ ' adjungcre :' afficl. ' sscpius
estjingendo addere,'

238 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. against us, she turns and twists all words of
divine promise and affirmation just which way she
pleases, by discovering- a trope in them : that
Proteus may be alike inapprehensible on both
sides.d Nay, she demands this for herself with
great superciliousness at our hands ; because we,
as she pretends, are wont also ourselves to make
our escape from the pursuer, when hard pressed,6
by discovering tropes. In that passage, for in
stance, ( Stretch out thine hand to whichsoever
thou wilt ;' that is, l grace shall stretch out thy
hand to whichsoever she wills.' ' Make you a
new heart ;' that is, ( grace shall make you a new
heart:' and the like/ It seems a great shame
then, if Luther may have leave to introduce so
violent and forced an interpretation ; but we may
not so much as be allowed to follow the interpreta
tions of the most approved doctors. You see
then, that our dispute here is not about the text,
as it is in itself;8 nor, as in former instances,
about inferences and similies; but about tropes

A UtrobiqueJ] In both parts of the discussion : the former,
where Freewill is maintained ; the latter, where its opponents
are repelled. Incomprehensibilis. ' Uncatchable 5' if there were
such a word !

e Ubi urgemur, elabi.~\ Elab. The primary idea is that of
the snake slipping out of the hand, or water gliding secretly
from its source ; which is tranferred to ' silent escape from a
pursuing enemy.' Urgr. is the state of one driven along by the
goad or spear, when he can advance no further. (See Part i.
Sect. ix. note d.) ' In this state, says Erasmus, they cry out
" trope," " trope ;" as a sort of new discovery which they have
made.'

f Extende manum. Facile vobis.'] See above, Part iii. Sect. vi. —
Ezek. xviii. 31.

s 2Vbra de textu ipso.~] Since it is not interpretation, must
refer to genuineness. It is not, as the question was about
Eccleus. xv. where the authority of the book quoted is doubtful ; •
or other texts which might be named, where the soundness of
some particular verse or word might be disputed, though the
book were authorized ; but whether the acknowledged text is
to be understood tropically, and whether certain proposed
interpretations be admissible.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 239

and interpretations. ' O when shall it be, as SEC. HI.

some, will say, that we get a plain and pure

text,11 without inferences and tropes, for and
against Freewill ? Has Scripture no such texts ?
And shall the cause of Freewill be for ever an
undecided one ? one, not settled by any sure
text, but driven like a reed by the winds: be
cause nothing is brought forwards in debating it,
save a number of tropes and inferences, the produc
tion of men quarrelling mutually with each other ?'

Let us rather judge, that neither inference, nor Trope and
trope, ought to be admitted into any passage of c™s*~e
Scripture, unless an evident context,' and some when only
absurdity, which offendeth against one of the to-^d"
articles of our faith, in the plain meaning/ con
strain us to such interpretation and inference : on
the contrary, that wre ought every where to stick
close to that simple, pure and natural sense of
words, which both the art of grammar, and the
common use of speech as God created it in man,
direct us to.1 For, if any man may, at his plea
sure, invent inferences and tropes for Scripture;
what will all Scripture be, but a reed shaken by
the winds, or a sort of Vertumnus? Then it will
indeed be true, that nothing certain can be
affirmed or proved, as touching any article of
faith ; since you may quibble it away by some pre
tended trope."1 Rather, let every trope be avoided,

h Simplicem, purumque."] Simp. ' Free from figure.' e Pur.
f Free from human additions.'

1 Circumstantia verborum evidens.

k Absurditas rei manifesto:.

1 Quarn grammatical. . . . habetJ] Luther had no doubt whence
the use of speech was derived to man (/te'/3o?re? livQpwiroi} ; how
ever some heathen, and demi-heathen, philosophers may have
made it matter of speculation : even from him, who prompted
its exercise when he brought the animals unto Adam to see
what he would call them (Gen. ii. 19, 20) ; and who afterwards
came down to confound that one language which he had given.
(Gen. xi. 5 — 9.)

111 Quod non queas allquo tropo cavillari.'] You have but to
insinuate, that the texts brought to prove it are figurative, and
do not mean what they seem.

240 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. as the most destructive poison, which Scripture

herself does not compel us to receive.

See what has befallen that great trope-master
Origen, n in expounding the Scriptures !' What just
occasion does he afford to the calumniating Por
phyry !° insomuch, that even Jerome15 thinks it of

n Origen of Alexandria, the great father of mystical and
allegorical interpretation, suffered martyrdom in the 69th year
of his age, A. D. 254. — There was much, no doubt, to condemn
in him, but something also to commend. Whilst strangely
defective in his perceptions of divine truth, he was learned,
upright, disinterested, and laborious : a man of conscience and
of magnanimity. Philosophy and literature Avere his bane. He
did much mischief to the church by his style of interpreting
Scripture, not only in rendering human fancies for a season
fashionable, to the exclusion of plain truth j but, as a remote
consequence, by bringing even the sober use of types and
figures — that pregnant source of lively and particularizing
instruction — into the contempt with which it has now for some
ages been loaded. — Two sentences of his are worthy to be pre
served. On the words, " We conclude that a man is justified
by faith" (Rom. iii.) he says, ' The justification of faith only,
is sufficient ; so that, if any person only believe, he may be
justified, though no good work hath been fulfilled by him.' On
the case of the penitent thief, he writes, ' He was justified by
faith, without the works of the law 5 because, concerning
these, the Lord did not inquire what he had done before j
neither did he stay to ask what work he was purposing to per
form after he had believed; — but, the man being justified by his
confession only, Jesus who was going to Paradise, took him as
a companion and carried him there.' — His Hexapla furnished
the first specimen of a Polyglot.

0 Porphyry, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in the same
century with Origen, made great use of his fanciful interpreta
tions, in reviling Christianity. From the serious pains taken by
the ancient Christians to confute him, it may be presumed that
his works (which are now chiefly lost) were subtle and inge
nious ; but his testimony, like that of most other infidels, has
been made to redound to the establishment, instead of the
subversion, of the Gospel. (See Chap. xxi. Cent. iii. of Milner's
Ecc. Hist, where a remarkable assemblage of testimonies to
this conclusion is skilfully adduced : and see, especially, vol. ii.
of Fry's Second Advent, Avhere Gibbon is made the same sort
of unintentional witness.) — Porphyry censures Origen for
' leaving Gentilism, and embracing the barbarian temerity :*
whereas Origen was, in fact, brought up under Christian j
parents, and a man of Christian habits from his youth. He i
compliments Origen upon his skill in philosophy, but ridicules

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 241

little avail to defend Origen. What has come to SEC. in.
the Arians, through that trope of theirs, by which -
they make Christ a mere nuncupative God?11
What has come to these new prophets in our day,
who, in expounding Christ's words, ' This is my
body/ find a trope, one of them in the pronoun
'this;' another in the verb 'is;' a third in the
noun 'body?'1" It is the result of my observa-

his introduction of it into the Scriptures ; which,, as this enemy
justly teaches, abhor such an associate.

p Jerome, the renowned monk of Stridon, in Pannonia,
had a good deal of the spirit of Origen. Luther says,
even Jerome : a man of prodigious learning, lively eloquence,
and vigorous mind, but of small discernment in the truth;
one taught of man, more than of God. He was born under
Constantine, A. D. 331, the contemporary of Augustine, and his
opponent ; ever, and all his days, a controversialist : peevish
and vain ; self-righteous and superstitious ; but sincere and
devout. — To him the Romish church owes her Vulgate. ' In
his very volunnnous expositions, he speaks at random : is alle
gorical beyond all bounds, and almost always without accuracy
and precision ; lowers the doctrine of illumination in 1 Cor. ii.
to things moral and practical} hints at something like a first
and second justification before God ; asserts predestination, and
as it were retracts it ; owns a good will as from God in one
place, in another supposes a power to choose to be the whole of
divine grace ; never opposes fundamental truths deliberately,
but though he owns them every where, always does so defec
tively, and often inconsistently. It must be confessed, the
reputation of this Father's knowledge and abilities has been
much overrated. There is a splendour in a profusion of ill-
digested learning, coloured by a lively imagination, which is
often mistaken for sublimity of genius. This was Jerome's
case ; but this was not the greatest part of the evil. His
learned ignorance availed, more than any other cause, to give a
celebrity to superstition in the Christian world, and to darken
the light of the Gospel. Yet, when he was unruffled by con
tradiction, and engaged in meditations unconnected with super
stition, he could speak with Christian affection concerning the
characters and offices of the Son of God.' (See Miln. Eccl.
Hist, vol ii. p. 481.

i Deum nuncupativam."] A sort of titular God ; one called

, but not really so. — See above, Part ii. Sect. viii. note r.

r Luther, as we all know, is not very sound here. His con-
ubstantiation of the sacramental elements avoids a trope ; but
he trope here falls in with his admitted exception, ' Scripture
« iierself compels us to receive it.' The same portion of matter
«' unnot be extended in two places at the same moment. The

R

242 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. tion, that, of all the heresies and errors which

have arisen from false expositions of Scripture,

none have proceeded from understanding words
in that simple sense in which they are bandied
amongst men almost all the world over ; but from
neglecting their simple use, and affecting tropes or
inferences which are the laboured offspring of
their own brain.

SECT. IV. For example ; I do not remember, that I have

ever applied such a violent sort of interpretation

Luther de- to the words ' Stretch out thine hand to which-
uledhtropf soever thou wilt/ as to say, < Grace shall stretch
in his in- out thine hand to whichsoever she wills/ —
Surf*" ' Make y°u a new neart / that is, ' Grace shall
"Stretch make you a new heart/ and the like: although
out" and Diatribe traduces me, in a published treatise, as
you." C having spoken thus. In fact, she is so distracted

and beguiled8 by her tropes and inferences, that
she does not know what she says about any body.
What I have really said is, ' when the words
" stretch forth thy hand, Sec. &c." are taken
simply according to their real import, exclusive of

bread therefore, which the Lord held in his hand whilst insti
tuting the ordinance, could not at the same instant be bread
and hand ; or bread and body. The same is true of the cup :
it must have been a distinct substance from the hand which
held it ; and therefore could not be really the Lord's blood ;
which could indeed only be drunk as poured out, and at the
instant when He spake, was yet in his veins. — Add to this, the
simple but decisive illustration which was suggested tq
Zuingle's mind in a dream, and which was so greatly blessed iiw
the use he was afterwards led to make of it. ' You stupid man,
why do not you answer him from the twelfth of Exodus, as it is
there written, " It is the Lord's passover." ' — Luther calls the
Sacramentists promiscuously ' the new prophets :' not very]
ingenuously 5 for even Carolstadt disclaimed all connection with)
the Celestial Prophets, as they were called — whilst Zuingle ana
(Ecolampadius, in whom the sinews of the contest were, afforded
no pretence for such imputation. — Miln. Eccles. Hist. vol. iv.
chaps, vi. ix. pp. 772 — 810, 990, &c. 1127. 8.

8 Distenta et illusa.'] Dist. ' Distractus, duplici cura occu-
patus ; cui duo sirnul res, diversis partibus, curam injiciuBt.
Rectiusa. ' distineo/ quam f distendo/ ducitur.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 243

opes and inferences, they express no more than SECT.IV.
demand that we stretch out our hand : by which
miand, is intimated to us what we ought to do;
;cording to the nature of the imperative verb, as
^plained by grammarians, and applied in common
>eech.'

Diatribe, however, neglecting this simple use of
.e verb and dragging in her tropes and infer-
ices by force, interprets thus : " Stretch out
ine hand;" that is, 'thou canst stretch out thine
md by thine own power :' " Make you a new
>art ;" that is, c ye can make you a new heart.'
Believe in Christ;" that is, ' ye can believe/
hus, it is in her account the same thing whether
ords be spoken imperatively, or indicatively ; if
)t, she is prepared to represent Scripture as
liculous and vain. Yet these interpretations,
lich no scholar1 can bear, may not be called
olent and far-fetched/ when used by theologians ;
it are to be welcomed, as those of the most

proved doctors who have been received for

es !¥

But it is very easy for Diatribe to allow of
:>pes and to adopt them in this text : it is no

itter to her, whether what is said be certain or
i certain. Nay, her very object is to make every
;ng uncertain; counselling as she does, that all

1 Nulll grcimmaticoforcndfis.'] Gram. ' ad grammatical!! per-
i:ns :' but this term, it seems, was especially applied to those
I1,) interpreted classical writers ; sucli as Donatus, Festus,
linius, Asconius and others ; not to teachers of grammar :
Oaring from grammatista, which is sometimes used invi-

•ty.

, Ajf'ectatas ] So, in the last section, ' affectatis proprio
«;;bro tropis :' ' nimio, aut pravo, uffactu et studio cupitus,
ly-situs.' ' De re majore studio et cura conquisit& et elabo-
Our Eng-lish term 'affected,' opposed to 'natural,'
ies the same thing : what is factitious, and the result ot
£ :t. It is not ' the design, wherewith,' that is marked in

e two passages, but ' the labour and search employed.'
Has. . . . probatissimorum sunt doctorum.] The sentence is
grammatical.

R2

244 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. dogmas on Freewill should be left to themselve

rather than investigated. It would have bee

enough for her, therefore, to get rid of sayings li
which she feels herself to be hard pressed, in ar
wray she can.x But I — who am in earnest and n«i
in sport, and who am in search of most indub
table truth, for the establishing of the conscience
of men — must act very differently. For me, I sa
it is not enough that you tell me, there may be\
trope here. The question is, whether there oiic/i
to be, and must be a trope here. If you have n>
shewn me, that there must necessarily be a trojf
here; you have done nothing. Here stands tlj
\vord of God, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart!
If you tell me, it must be understood, or may \
understood, ( I will permit it to be hardened ;'
hear what you say, that it maybe so understood,
hear that this trope is commonly used in popul1
discourse; just as, fl have ruined you; becaur
I did not instantly correct you, when you we,'
going astray.' But this is not the place for sut
sort of proof. It is not the question, whether su«
a trope be in use. It is not the question, whethf
a person might use it in this passage of Pauf
writings. The question is, whether it would
safe for him to use it, and certain that he used:
rightly, in this place ; and whether Paul meant ]
use it. We are not inquiring about anoth'
man's — the reader's use of it — but about Paul,
the author's own use of it.

What would you do with a conscience
should question you in this way ? ' Lo, God t
author of the book says, " I will harden Pharaot-
heart." The meaning of the word 'harden*'
obvious and notorious. But a human reader te;
me, ( to harden, in this place, is to give occasi1
of hardening, inasmuch as the sinner is n

x Utcunque amoliri dicta.] Arnol. dicr. prop, de iis <•
magno conatu et molimine dimoventur.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 245

istantly corrected/ With what authority, with SECT. v.

hat design, with what necessity, is that natural

eaning of the word so tortured for me ? What
my interpreting reader be mistaken? Where
it proved, that this torturing of the word ought

> take place here ? It is dangerous, it is even
upious, to torture the word of God without
jcessity, and without authority. Will you next
[tor this labouring little soul/ ' Ori^en thought

o •* o o

• ?' Or thus ; ( cease to pry into such matters,

;eing they are curious and vain/ She will reply,

Vfoses and Paul ought to have had this admoni-

[)n given to them, before they wrote ; or rather,

od himself. To what end do they distract us

ith curious and vain sayings ?'

This wretched evasion of tropes, then, is of no Diatribe

rvice to Diatribe; but we must keep strong- must ,

^ " Dl'OVC DV

>ld of our Proteus here, till he make us perfectly Scripture
re that there is a trope in this identical passage. or miiaclc»

., , 0 • , fj that the

ther by the clearest scripture proofs, or by very pas.

ident miracles. We do not give the least be- sage in

fto her mere thinking so, though it be backed

the toil and sweat of all ages.2 But I go fur-

er, and insist that there can be no trope here,

t that this saying of God must be understood

its simplicity, according to the literal meaning

the words. For it is not left to our own will

! make, and re-make, words for God as we please :

e what would be left in all Scripture, which

A)ilmu1(E.~] We are reminded of the Emperor Adrian's
jiimula vagula blnndula.' Anim. vel dontemptus, vel blanditiaj
i!sa. Here, it implies 'tenderness:' a weakling soul, ten-
'j;y felt for, by the Lord and by his messengers.

Industrid conscntienteJ] Indttst. ' Vis ingenii qua (mippium

> igitamus, et adipiscimur. Itaque su]>ra naturam et ingenium

< it studium, et artem, et laborem.' He refers to the ' affec-
ft,i tropis ' and ' afFectatas interpretationes,' which he repre-

< led in the last section. There was much of scholastic art
n cloistered industry in them ; but he must have light from

< -en — the Holy Ghost's testimony either in the word, or in
h e palpable, new-wrought miracle — before he would be satis-
leithat there is a trope in these words.

246 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. does not just come back to Anaxagoras's phil-

;sophy,a ' Make what you please of any thiiu'

Suppose I should say, " God created the heaveij
and the earth ;" that is., ' he set them in order ; bj
he did not make them out of nothing/ Or, ' Tr\
created the heavens and the earth;' that is, tl
angels and the devils, or the righteous and tl
wicked. Upon this principle, a man has but
open the book of God, and by and by he is
theologian. b Let it be a settled and fixed pri
ciple then, that, when Diatribe cannot prove th
there is a trope in these passages of ours whi<
she is refuting,0 she be obliged to concede
us, that the words must be understood accordii
to their literal import; even though she shou
prove that the same trope is of most frequent u
elsewhere, both in all parts of Scripture and
common discourse. If this principle be atlmitte
all our testimonies which Diatribe meant to co
fute, have been defended at once ; and her co
futation is found to have effected absolutely n
thing, to have no power, to be a mere nothing.
When she interprets that saying of Most
therefore, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart," (
mean ' My lenity in bearing with a sinner, lead
others, it is true, to repentance, but it shall rend«
Pharaoh more obstinate in his wickedness;' th:
is a pretty saying, but there is no proof that

a Anaxagoras, a philosopher of Clazomenae, the preceptor t|
Socrates, amongst many other paradoxes, is said to have insiste
that ' snow was black, because made of water.'

b Quis non. . . . Theologus.~\ If a man's own whimsies, withoi
search or proof, are to be protruded as doctrines and interpret?
tions of Scripture ; we have but to open the book and consult ot
fancy, and straightway we may dub ourselves divines.

c Quos diluitJ] Dil. properly ' lavando aufero,' as the wate
washes the sides of the canal, or the heavy rain washes away th
labours of the husbandman : hence transferred to the remove
of filth from any substance ; and particularly, in a forensi
sense, to the purging of a charge. ' Diluere crimen est purgare
refellere, criminibus respondendo et accusationes refutando
' Si nollem ita diluere crimen,, ut dilui.' — Cic. pro Milon.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 247

ought to speak so ; and we, not content with a SECT. v.
mere l ipse dixit,' demand proof. "

So she interprets that saying1 of Paul's plau
sibly ; " He hath mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth ;" that is,
e God hardeneth, when he doth not instantly chas
tise the sinner ; he hath mercy, when he presently
inviteth to repentance, by afflictions.' But what
proof is there of this interpretation?

So that of Isaiah, " Thou hast made us to err
from thy ways, thou hast hardened our heart from
thy fear."d What if Jerome, following Origen,
interpret thus; ( The man is said to seduce who
does not straightway call back from error.' Who
shall assure us that Jerome and Origen interpret
this passage rightly ? And what if they do ? It
is our compact, that we will contest the matter
not on the ground of any human teacher's autho
rity, but on that of Scripture only. Who are
these Origens and Jeromes then, which Diatribe,
forgetting her solemn covenant, throws in my
teeth? when as, of the ecclesiastical writers, there
be none almost, who have handled the Scriptures
more foolishly . and more absurdly, than Origen
and Jerome.

In a word, such a licentiousness of interpreta
tion comes to this ; by a new and unheard of sort
of grammar all distinctions are confounded: so that,
when God says, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart,"
you change persons and understand him to say,
' Pharaoh hardens himself through my lenity/
( God hardens our heart;' that is, we harden our
own hearts, through God's deferring to punish
us. <e Thou, O Lord, hast made us to err;" that
is, we have made ourselves to err, through thy
not chastising us. So, ' God's having mercy,*
no longer signifies ' his giving grace,' or 6 exer-

d Isaiah Ixiii. 17. Our authorized version reads it as a ques
tion, " O Lord, why hast-thou made us to err, &c."

248 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. cising compassion/ ' forgiving sin/ ( justifying/
or ( delivering from evil / but, on the contrary,
'•his inflicting evil and punishing.'

You will at last make it out by these tropes,
that God had pity on the children of Israel, when
he carried them away into Assyria and to Ba
bylon : for there it was that he chastised his
offenders, there it was that he invited them to re
pentance by afflictions. On the other hand, when
he brought them back and gave them deliverance,
he did not pity but harden them ; that is, by his
lenity and pity, he gave occasion to their being
hardened. Thus, the sending of Christ the Sa
viour into the world, shall not be called an act of
mercy in God, but an act of hardening; since by
this mercy he hath given men occasion to harden
themselves. On the other hand, in having laid
Jerusalem waste, and destroyed6 the Jews unto
this very day, he shows mercy towards them ;
inasmuch as he chastises them for their sin, and
invites them to repentance. In carrying his saints
to heaven at the day of .judgment, he will not
perform an act of mercy but of induration : inas
much as he will give them an opportunity of
abusing his goodness. In thrusting the wicked
into hell ; herein, he will shew mercy, because it
will be chastising the sinner. Who ever heard,
pray, of such compassions and such wraths of God
as these ?

What, if good men are made better by the for-

' Perdidit.~\ f A7ro\\vu), awo/JaXXw, destruo, everto, depcrdo,
Si vocem spectes, est a per et do ; si notionem, a Tre.pOw, vasto,
esse videtur.' There is a miraculous peculiarity in Israel's case,
as a nation : perishing, he does not perish ; destroyed, he still is
preserved. I had therefore hesitated to render perd. according to
its natural and proper meaning ; and was disposed to adopt ' give
up,' ' abandon/ ' cast off,' or ' scatter ;' which would not, it
seems, have been incongruous with its essential meaning. But
why should Luther have used this term in preference to the
others ; and has not their dispersion been in fact their destruc
tion, as a state, city, and nation 9

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 249

bearance, as well as by the severity of God ; still, SECT. v.
when we speak of good and bad men promis
cuously, these tropes will make the mercy of God
wrath, and his wrath mercy, by a most perverse
use of speech : since they call it wrath, when God
is conferring benefits ; and pity, when he is in
flicting judgments. Now, if God shall be said
to harden, when he is conferring benefits and
bearing with evil;f and shall be said to have
mercy, when he is afflicting and chastising; why
is he said to have hardened Pharaoh rather than
the children of Israel, or even the whole world?
Did he not confer benefits upon the children of
Israel ? does he not confer benefits upon the
whole world ? does he not bear with the wicked?
does he not send his rain upon the evil and upon
the good? — Why is he said to have had com
passion on the children of Israel, rather than upon
Pharaoh ? Did he not afflict the children of
Israel, in Egypt and in the desert?8 I grant that
some abuse, and others rightly use, God's wrath
and goodness. But you define hardening to be
' God's indulging the wicked with forbearance
and kindness;' * God's having compassion to be*
that he does not indulge, but visits and cuts
short. So far as God is concerned therefore, he
does but harden by perpetual kindness ; he does
but shew mercy by perpetual severity.11

1 Benefadt. tolerat.~\ Benef. " heapeth his benefits ;" tol.
" endureth with much long-suffering."

s If God hardens by conferring benefits, why is he said to
have hardened Pharaoh rather than the children of Israel ? If
God shews mercy by afflicting, why is he said to have had
mercy on Israel in afflicting him, and not on Pharaoh ?

h Luther admits that there is a different effect produced in
different characters ; ' the good profit by both good and evil ; '
' some use, and others abuse, both kindness and wrath.' But
the question here is, what character shall we assign to God s
dispensations of judgment and of mercy as falling generally
upon men ; xipon good and evil intermixed : cum simul de bonis
et mails loquimur ? The result will be, God's mercy is anger;
and his anger, mercy. — The truth is, God does harden by

250 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. But this is the best of all, that, ' God is said

to harden, when he indulges sinners with for-

SECT. vi. bearance . anc[ to pity, when he visits and afflicts,
T inviting to repentance bv severity.' What did

Erasmus' » . J J

trope trod oinit, pray, in the way of afflicting, cnas-
makes tishig, calling Pharaoh to repentance? Do we
of Moses, n°t number ten plagues, as inflicted in that land?
and leaves If your definition stands good ; that, f to have
tied. ^ niercy is straightway to chastise and call the
sinner ; ' assuredly, God had mercy upon Pharaoh.
Why then does not God say, I will have mercy
upon Pharaoh, instead of saying I will harden
Pharaoh's heart? For, when he is in the very
act of pitying him ; that is, as you will have it,
of afflicting and chastising him ; he says, ' I will
harden him ; ' that is, as you will have it, ( I will
do him good, and will bear with him : ' what can
be more monstrous to hear, than this ? What has
now become of your tropes, your Origen, your
Jerome, and your most approved doctors ; whom
the solitary individual, Luther, is rash enough to
contradict? But it is the foolishness of the flesh
which compels you to speak thus ; sporting as
she does with the words of God, which she cannot
believe to have been spoken in earnest.

The text itself therefore, as written by Moses,
proves incontrovertibly, that these tropes are
mere inventions, and of no worth in this place ;
and that something very different and far greater —
over and above the bestowal of benefits, together
with affliction and correction — is meant by the
words, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart:" since
we cannot deny that both these expedients were
tried in Pharaoh's case, with the greatest care

mercies as Veil as judgments ; and does soften by judgments,
as well as mercies : but both the hardening and the softening
are distinct from the dispensations which arc made the instru
ment of producing them. It is a variety in the spirit which
meets with them, and upon which they act, which causes
variety J.n the result.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 251

and pains. For what wrath and correction could SEC. vil.

be more urgent, than that which he was called to '

endure, whilst stricken with so many signs and
plagues, that even Moses himself testifies the
like were never seen! Nay, even Pharaoh him
self was moved by them more than once, as though
he repented : albeit, not moved to purpose,' nor
abidingly. At the same time, what forbearance
and kindness could be more abundant, than that
which so readily took away his plagues, so often
forgave his sin,k so often restored his blessings, so
often removed his calamities ? Each sort of dis
pensation, however, is unavailing ; the Lord still
says, ' I will harden Pharaoh's heart/ You see
then, that even though your hardening and your
mercy (that is> your glosses and tropes) should
be admitted in their highest degree, use, and
exemplification — such as they are exhibited
to us in Pharaoh — there still remains an act of
hardening; and the hardening of which Moses
speaks must be of one sort, and what you are
dreaming of, another.

But since I am fighting with men of fiction Necessity
and with ghosts, let me also be allowed to con- sti1.1 re-

i . . i • i , mams, and

jure up my ghost and imagine, what is im- youdonot
possible, that the trope which Diatribe sees in dear God.
her dream is really used in this passage ; that
I may see how she evades the being compelled
to affirm, that we do every thing by God's alone
will, and by a necessity that is laid upon us ;
as also, how she will excuse God from being him
self the author1 and blameworthy cause of our
induration. If it be true, that God is said to

' Permovetur.'] — ' Valde movetur : ' what goes through the
substance, and disturbs it throughout ; not merely stirs the
surface and margin.

k Remittit peccatum.~] So far as withdrawing present judg
ment may be taken as a sign of forgiveness : but was his sin
blotted out ? any one of the sins which had instrumeatally
provoked the visitation ?

1 Autor et culpa.

252 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. harden us, when he bears with us through an ex-
" ercise of his lenity,, and does not forthwith punish
us ; each of the two following principles still
remains. First, man does nevertheless necessa-
sarily serve sin. For, when it has been granted
that Freewill can not will any thing good (and
such a sort of Freewill is what Diatribe has under
taken to prove), it is made no better by the for
bearance of a long-suffering God, but is necessarily
made wrorse ; unless through the mercy of God,
the Spirit be added to it. So that all things still
happen by necessity; as it respects us.

Secondly, God seems to be as cruel in bearing
with men out of lenity, as he is thought to be
through our representation ; who say, that he
hardens in the exercise of that inscrutable will of
his.1" For, since he sees that Freewill can will
nothing good, and is made worse by his lenity in
bearing with us, this very lenity exhibits him in
the most cruel form, as one that is delighted with
our calamities : seeing he could heal them, if he
would; and could avoid bearing with us if he
would; or rather, could not bear with us, except it
were his will to do so : for who could compel him
to do so, against his will ? If that will therefore
remains, without which nothing happens in the
world; and it be granted, that Freewill can
will nothing good; all that is said to excuse
God, and to accuse Freewill, is said to no pur
pose. For Freewill is always saying, c I cannot,
and God will not : what can I do ? Let him shew
me mercy, forsooth, by afflicting me ; I am never
the forwarder for it, but must be made worse ;
except he give me the Spirit. This he does not
give ; which he would give, if it were his will to
do so : it is certain therefore, that he wills not
to give it.'n

m Volcndo voluntate illd imperscrutabili.'] See above, Part iii.
Sect, xxviii. notes l v x.

n Luther's drift is, ' There must be a will of God distinct

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 253

Nor are the similes, which she adduces, at all SEC.VIII.
to the purpose, when she says, 'As mud is hard-
ened by the self-same sun which melts wax ; and,
as the cultivated ground produces fruit by means sun and
of the self-same shower from which the untilled !'am *e'
sends forth thorns ; even so, by the self-same
forbearance of God, some are hardened and
others converted/

We do not divide Freewill into two different
sorts, making one to be mud and the other wax ;
or one to be cultivated ground, and the other
neglected ground : but we speak of one sort of
Freewill, which is equally impotent in all men ;
which is nothing else but the mud, nothing else but
the untilled ground, in these comparisons — seeing
it is what cannot will good. Nor does Paul say
that God, in his character of the potter, makes
one vessel to honour and another to dishonour,
out of a different lump of clay; but " of the SAME
lump, saith he, the potter maketh, &c." So
that, as the mud always becomes harder, and the
uncultivated ground more thorny, by the sun
and rain, severally; even so, Freewill is always
made worse, as well by the indurating mildness
of the sun as by the liquefying violence of the
rain.0 If the definition of Freewill then be one,
and its impotency the same in all men ; no reason
can be assigned, why one man's Freewill attains
to grace, arid another man's does not ; if no other
cause be declared than the forbearance of an
enduring God and the correction of a pitying one :
for it is assumed, by a definition which makes no
distinctions, that Freewill in every man is a
power which can will nothing good. Then it will

from that which he has revealed for the regulation of man's
conduct : what he calls ' the inscrutable will,' or ' will of the
hidden God.' — My quarrel against him is, that he does not
shew the connection and coincidence between these two wills ;
and does not shew a reason for this apparently harsh conduct.
See, as before.

0 Tempestate plucue liquefaciente.

254 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. follow, that neither does God elect any man,

neither is there any place left for election ; but

man's Freewill alone elects, by accepting or re
jecting forbearance and wrath. But deprive God
of his wisdom and power in election, and what
do you make him but a sort of phantom of for
tune; whose nod is the rash ordainer of all
things ?p Thus, we shall at length come to this,
that men are saved and damned, without God's
knowing it : seeing, he has not separated the saved
and the damned by a determined election ; but —
bestowing on all, without distinction, first a kind
ness which bears with them and hardens them;
then a pity which corrects and punishes them —
has left it to men, to determine whether they will
be saved or damned ; and himself, meanwhile, has
just stepped out perhaps to a banquet of the
Ethiopians, as Homer describes him.q

Aristotle also paints just such a God for us;1

p Cujzis nummeomnia temere fiunt. Chance is the God.

*J Zeus <y«/> f.ir 'Qiccavov /LLCT' apL.vfJ.ova^
X#t£"os t-fli] ILCTCL caiTa' Qeol S' lifia
AoiceKttT?^ £e TOI avOis eXcvaerai

ILIAD, A. 423—425.

r Aristotle, the disciple and opponent of Plato, the tutor of
Alexander, the great master of rhetoric, belles lettres, logic,
physics, metaphysics, and heathen ethics, was in theology
little better than an Epicurean ; one of those ' who have learned
that the Gods spend a life without care.' (Hor. 1. Sat. v. 101.)
It is said in excuse for the less explicit parts of his system, that
' he attached himself to the principles of natural philosophy,
rather than those of theology.' He maintained the existence
of a God as the great mover of all things ; which have been
put into motion from eternity, and will continue in motion to
eternity. Thus lie maintained the eternity of matter as well
as of God. He painted this God finely : ' the necessary being;'
' the first, and the most excellent of beings;' 'immutable, in
telligent, indivisible, without extension :' ' He resides above
the enclosure of the world ,' ' He there finds his happiness'in
the contemplation of himself.' — How apt is the expression, by
which Luther describes him as painting God ! (pinxit) a rhe
torical term applied to that sort of discourse ' which is embel
lished with tropes and figures, such as display much genius, but
charm by their sweetness, rather than edify by their intelligence.'

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 255

one who sleeps, for example, and suffers any that SEC.VIH.

will, to use and to abuse liis goodness and his

severity.6 And how can reason judge otherwise
of God, than Diatribe here does ? For, as she
herself snores away, and despises divine things ;

Aristotle's God, then, is one who keeps order in the heavens,
but interferes in a very limited degree with earth. ' All the
movements of nature are in some sort subordinated to him ; He
appears to be the cause and principle of every thing; He
appears to take some care of human affairs. But, in all the
universe, He can look upon nothing but Himself; the sight
of crime and of disorder would defile his eyes : He could not
know how to be the author either of the prosperity of the
wicked, or of the misery of the good. His superintendence is
like that of the master of a family, who has established a cer
tain order of things in his household, and takes care that the
end which he has in view be accomplished, but shuts his eyes
to their divisions and their vices, and only takes care to obviate
the consequences of them. He stamped the impress of his
will upon the universe, when first he projected it like a bail
from his hand ; and it is by a general, not minute, superintend
ence, that he sustains it. The perpetuation of the several
species of beings is his grand object: which he secured by his
one first impulse.'* — Has Luther calumniated this philosopher?
Yet was this heathen teacher made the great model for instruc
tion to the Christian church, both as to form and substance, for
many ages. During the second period of the reign of the
schoolmen, which began early in the thirteenth century, his
reputation was at its height : the most renowned doctors wrote
elaborate commentaries upon his works. The predominance of
his philosophy — ' a philosophy, which knew nothing of original
sin and native depravity ; which allowed nothing to be crimi
nal, but certain external flagitious actions ; and which was
unacquainted with any righteousness of grace, imputed to a
sinner' — was itself a corruption, and the fruitful source of other
corruptions, which cried aloud for reformation, mid which TUB
IEFORMERS of the sixteenth century exposed and suppressed.
' ',See Miln. Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 283.)

1 Correplione.~\ The word has occurred several times be-
! ore, and I have rendered it by ' correction,' ' chastening,'
severity.' It properly denotes ' the snatching of a substance
lastily up,' and is applied sometimes to the seizure of the body
»y disease. Hence, it is transferred to a figurative ' cutting
hort;' "At that time the Lord began to cut Israel short"
2 Kings x. C23.) ; and so, to 'reprehension, chiding and
hastisement ' in general.

* I am indebted to the AbW Barthelemi's Anacharsis for this concise but
loquent view of Aristotle's Theology, vol. v. chap. Ixiv.

256 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. so, she judges even of God, that he in some sort

snores away; and, having nothing to do with the

exercise of wisdom, will and present power * in
electing, separating and inspiring, has committed
to men this busy and troublesome work of accept
ing and rejecting his forbearance and his wrath.
This is what we come to, whilst coveting to mete
out, and excuse God, by the counsel of human
reason; whilst, instead of reverencing the secrets
of His Majesty, we break in to scrutinize them —
overwhelmed with his glory, instead of uttering
one single plea in excuse for him, wTe vomit forth
a thousand blasphemies ! We forget our own-
selves also the mean while, and chatter, like mad
people, both against God and against ourselves,
in the same breath; though our design is to speak
with great wisdom, both for God and for our
selves. You see here, in the first place, what
this trope and gloss of Diatribe's makes of God :
but do you not also see, how vastly consistent she
is with herself in it? She had before made Free
will equal and alike in all, by including all in one
definition; but now, in the course of her dispu
tation, she forgets her own definition, and makes
a cultivated Freewill one, and an uncultivated
Freewill another ; setting out a diversity of Free-
wills, according to the diversity of works, habits,
and characters; one that can do good, another
that cannot do good : and this, by its own powers,
before grace received; by which powers of its
own, she had laid it down in her definition, that
Freewill could not of itself will any thing good.
Thus it comes to pass, tliat, if we will not leave
to the sole will of God both the will and the power
to harden, and to shew mercy, and to do every
thing; we must ascribe to Freewill herself the
power of doing every thing, without grace : al
though we have denied that it can do any thing
good without grace.

1 Sap. vol. prcBsentid elig, discern, inspir. omissd.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 257

The simile of the sun and rain, then, is of no SEC.ix.

force as to this point. A Christian will use

that simile with far greater propriety, consider
ing the Gospel to be that sun and rain (as Ps.
xix. and Heb. vi. do) ; the cultivated ground, the
elect; the uncultivated, the reprobate. The
former of. these are edified and made better by
the word; the latter are offended and made
worse: whereas Freewill, when left to herself,
is in all men the uncultivated ground; yea, the
kingdom of Satan.

Let us also look into her reasons for imagining Erasmus's
this trope in this place. It seems absurd, says {^JoT*
Diatribe, that God, who is not only just but also cizingcon-
good, should be said to have hardened a man's sidered-
heart in order to manifest his own power by the
man's wickedness. So she runs back to Origen ;
who confesses, that God gave occasion to the in
duration, but flings back the blame upon Pharaoh.
Origen has, besides, remarked that the Lord
said, " For this cause have I raised tliee up :" He
does not say, ' for this cause have I made thee.y
No : for Pharaoh would not have been wicked,
if he had been such as God made him ; God hav
ing beheld all his works, and they were very good.
So much for Diatribe.

Absurdity, then, is one of the principal reasons Absurdity
for not understanding Moses's and Paul's words j}0.1 a suf"
in their simple and literal sense. But what ar
ticle of faith is violated by this absurdity, and
who is offended by it ? Human reason is of
fended : and she forsooth, who is blind, deaf,
foolish, impious and sacrilegious in her dealings
with all the words and works of God, is brought
n here to be the judge of God's works and words.
Upon the same principle, you will deny all the
irticles of the Christian faith ; inasmuch as it is
:he most absurd thing possible, and, as Paul
:ays, " to the Jews a stumbling block, and
o the Gentiles foolishness," that God should

son.

258 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. become man,, the son of a virgin ; that lie should
• have been crucified; that he should be sitting at
the right hand of the Father. It is absurd, I say,
to believe such things. Let us therefore invent some
tropes like those of the Arians, to prevent Christ
from being God absolutely? Let us invent some
tropes like those of the Manicheans/ to prevent

u Simpliciter, opposed to figuratively. See Sect. iii. note ().

v The Manichees, so called from Manes their founder, arose
in the reign of the Emperor Probus, A. D. <277- ' Like most of
the ancient heretics, they abounded in senseless whims, not
worthy of any solicitous explanation. This they had in com
mon with the Pagan philosophers, that they supposed the
Supreme Being to be material, and to penetrate all nature.
Their grand peculiarity was to admit of two independent prin
ciples, a good and an evil one, in order to solve the arduous
question concerning the origin of evil. Like all heretics, they
made a great parade of seeking truth with liberal impartiality,
and were thus qualified to deceive unwary spirits, who, far
from suspecting their own imbecility of judgment, and re
gardless of the word of (rod and hearty prayer, have no idea of
attaining religious knowledge by any other method than by
natural reason.' ' Like all other heretics they could not stand
before the Scriptures. They professedly rejected the Old
Testament, as belonging to the malignant principle ; and, Avhen
they were pressed with the authority of the New, as corrobo
rating the Old, they pretended the New was adulterated. —
Is there any new thing under the sun ? Did not Lord Boling-
broke set up the authority of St. John against St. Paul ? Have
we not heard of some parts of the Gospel as not genuine, be*
cause they suit not Socinian views ? Genuine Christian prin
ciples alone will bear the test, nor fear the scrutiny of the
WHOLE word of God.' — Augustine, who lived about a century
after they had first arisen, describes them to the life ; after
having himself smarted under the poison of their arrows,
for about twelve years : seduced partly by their subtile and
captious questions concerning the origin of evil, partly by
their blasphemies against the Old Testament saints. —
With respect to the person of Christ, their heresy was like
that of the Gnostics, or Docetae : worthy children of Simon
Magus ! They held that the Lord Jesus Christ had no proper
humanity ; the mere phantasm of a man having glided, as
Luther here describes it, through the virgin's womb, and after
wards expired upon the cross. — ' Yet though my ideas were
material, says Augustine, I could not bear to think of God
being flesh. That was too gross and low in my apprehensions.
Thy only begotten son appeared to me as the most lucid part
of thee, afforded for our salvation, I concluded that such a

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 259

his being a real man ; and let us make him out to SECT.IX.

be a sort of phantom, which glided through the

virgin (like a ray of the sun through a piece of
glass), and was crucified. A nice way of handling
Scripture !

And yet these tropes get us no forwarder, and Does not
do not serve to evade the absurdity : for it still
remains absurd in the eye of reason that this just
and good God should demand impossibilities of
Freewill ; and when Freewill cannot will good,
but by necessity serves sin, should nevertheless
impute it to her ; and so long as he withholds the
Spirit, should not be a whit more kind, or more
merciful, than if he were to harden or permit men
to be hardened. Reason will be again and again
repeating, that these are not the acts of a kind
and merciful God. These things so far exceed
her apprehension, and she so wants power to take
even her own self captive, that she cannot believe
God to be good if he should act and judge so;
but setting faith aside, demands that she should
be able to touch and see and comprehend how
it is that He is just and not cruel. Now she
would have this sort of comprehension if it were
said of God, f he hardens nobody, he damns
nobody ; on the contrary, he pities every body,
he saves every body ;' so as that hell should be
destroyed, and the fear of death removed, and no
future punishment dreaded. Hence it is, that she
becomes so boisterous and so vehementx in ex-
nature could not be born of the Virgin Mary, without par
taking of human flesh, which I thought must pollute it.
Hence arose my fantastic ideas of Jesus, so destructive of all
piety. Thy spiritual children may smile at me with charitable
sympathy, if they read these my confessions ; such however
were my views.' — Milner in Augustine's Confessions, Eccles.
Hist. vol. ii. pp. 314 — 327.

x SEstuat et contendit.~] JEst. denoting violent heat in gene
ral, is especially applied to the boiling and swelling of the sea,
when it ebbs and flows, or rises in surges and waves. Contend.
expresses the full stretch of every nerve and muscle in close
conflict.

s2

260 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. cusing and defending the just and beneficent God.

Faith and the Spirit, however, judge differently;

they believe God to be good, although he should
destroy all men. And of what use is it, that we
are wearied to deatli with these elaborate specu
lations that we may be enabled to remove the
blame of induration from God to Freewill.
Let Freewill do what she can, with all her
means y and all her might in exercise, she will
never furnish an example of avoiding to be har
dened where God has not given his Spirit, or of
earning mercy where she has been left to her
own powers. For, what is the difference whether
she be hardened or deserve to be hardened ; since
hardening is necessarily in her, so long as that
impotency, by which, according to Diatribe her
self], she cannot will good, is in her. Since the
absurdity then is not removed by these tropes, or, if
removed, is removed but to make way for greater
absurdities, and to ascribe all power to Freewill;
away with these useless and misleading tropes,
and let us stick to the pure and simple Mrord of
God.

SECT. x. < The other principal reason why this trope

should be received is, that the things which God

made^u* -hath made are very good : and God does not
things very say, I have made thee for this very thing, but for
good not a this very thing I have raised thee up/

reason. First I answer, that this was said before the

fall of man, when the things which God had
made were very good. But it follows presently,
in the third chapter, how man was made evil,
deserted of God and left to himself. From this
man, so corrupted, all men are born, and born

>" Toto mundo totisque viribus.~\ Mundus is properly ' the
stuff of the world' — the materials of which it is constituted —
and is transferred thence to all kinds of furniture and provi
sion — specially to 'women's dress and ornaments '•' ' instru-
mentum ornatus muliebris.' I would not be sure that Luther
has not some allusion to 'Madam Diatribe's' adornments
here.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 261

wicked ; Pliaroah amongst the rest. As Paul SECT- x-
says, " We were all by nature the children of
wrath, even as others." God therefore did make
Pharaoh wicked ; that is, out of a wicked and
corrupted seed. As he says in the Proverbs of
Solomon, " The Lord hath made all things for
himself, yea, even the wicked man for the day of
evil" (not indeed by creating wickedness in him,
but by forming him out of an evil seed and
ruling him.) It is not a just conclusion there
fore, f God formed the wicked man, therefore he
is not wicked/ For how can it be that he is
not wicked, springing as he does from a wicked
seed ? As he says in Psalm li. " Behold I was
conceived in sins." And Job says, " Who can
make clean that which has been conceived of
unclean seed?" For although God does not make
sin, still he ceases not to form and to multiply a
nature which has been corrupted by sin, through
the withdrawal of the Spirit: just as if a car
penter should make statues of rotten wood.
Thus men are made just such as their nature
is, through God's creating and forming them of
that nature.2

z Luther has not exactly hit the nail upon the head here.
He declares that God makes ' wicked man;' and that he so
makes him, through the faultiness of the materials which he ha»
to work with, being fitly compared to ' a carpenter who should
make statues of rotten wood.' Moreover, this faultiness of the.
materials arose from the sin of the first man; who was created
having the Spirit, what he elsewhere calls ' the firstfruits of
the Spirit,' (Part iii. Sect, xviii.) which he lost by his sin and
fall ; being thenceforth deserted of God, and loft to himself. — I
deem both these propositions objectionable and false. Neither
doth God make sinners ; neither did he withdraw the Spirit
from Adam by reason of his sin, and so, through him, from the
race which has sprung from him ; for he never had it. — When
God created man in his own image, he created every man.
The substance of every individual man and woman which exists,
hath existed, and shall exist till the trumpet shall sound and
the dead shall be raised, was enclosed in the first man, Adam.
No new matter of human kind has been brought into existence
since that moment 5 no human being has been created thcro-

262 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. Secondly I answer, if you will have those
words, " were very good," to be understood of

fore, posterior to it. (See Locke's Essay, book ii. chap. xxvi.
sect. 2.) T^or was this creation the mere production of a mass
of human substance, like so much clay in the hands of a potter
which was afterwards to be moulded into distinct vessels.
Distinctness and individuality of subsistence was given to the
several individuals of the human race in that instant. This
appears, as Avell from other considerations which might be
stated, as from these eminently; 1. Man is spoken of, and
spoken to, as plural. (" Let them have dominion." " Male and
female created he them" " God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be ye fruitful and multiply." " And called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created.") 2. God is de
clared to have created them male and female : a fact which the
Lord Jesus refers to (Matt. xix. 4, 5. Mark x. 6.), as indicative
of his Father's will concerning marriage. (It is clearly not the
formation of Eve to which he refers, but that act of creation
which distinctly preceded the making of the help-meet.)
3. God is said to have chosen his people to be in Christ before
the foundation of the world ; which implies that the whole race
was contemplated as personally and individually subsistent, in
a state prior to the exercise of that choice. — Having thus given
a distinct personal subsistence to every individual of the human
race in Adam, when the Lord God added the procreative
power, and gave command to exercise it ; essentially he did
make every individual : the substance about to come forth, in
the Lord's time, into manifest existence and distinct personal
•agency, was already formed ; the power and the authority
which would be necessary to its production, were superadded;
Then, if this was God's ' condidit' (Luther's term — ' made,'
'formed,' 'builded'), hath He made ' wicked man ?' Is not
that saying of the Preacher hereby, and hereby only, shewn to
be true, " God hath made man upright?" (Eccles. vii. 29.) —
The only consideration, which can have any shew of involving
God in the propagation of the wicked, is, that he did not at
once destroy the offender, and those who had offended in him.
But, without here suggesting counsel and design (we are deal
ing with facts), the living substances were formed; the power
and the authority for production had been given ; a curse was
upon them, which they must be brought out into manifest
existence that they might be seen and known to bear. — I
cannot but remark, that these, or some such reasons, which
arise out of the reality of their previous distinct subsistence,
seem absolutely necessary to the vindication of God from the
charge of propagating sin. — If it be asked then, but how could
those who had no eye to see, no ear to hear, no hand to put
forth, commit an act of disobedience ? The answer is, Adam was
the sole personal agent (" By one man sin entered into the world j "

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 263

the works of God after tlie fall, you will observe SECT. x.
they are spoken not of us, but of God. He does

" by one man's offence death reigned by one ;" " by the offence
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation") ; but
every individual of the race was enclosed in, and was part of
his substance, so that he could not do any thing in which any
one of them was not one Avith him. — My head offendeth ; but
Avhcre is my hand and my foot, in the transgression and in its
punishment ? — That this is the Scripture view of the fall — ' one
personal agent 5 but every human being partaker Avith him in
the offence' — is decisively shewn from Romans v. 12. Whether
e(j)' ii* be rendered in whom, (" through him in whom all sin
ned" — which I greatly prefer), or for that : the words Avhich
follow make it plain, that 'all men' are dealt Avith — or rather,
all men, from Adam to Moses, were, dealt Avith — on the
ground of the first transgression. — I have no other clue to my
own character ; I have no other clue to my OAVH state. Nor
can I othenvise explain Avhat is thus made clear in the spirit
and behaA'iour of other men. — And does not the church of
England recognise this account of the matter in her baptismal
service, Avhen she prays that the infant ' may receive remission
of his sins by spiritual regeneration;' and afterwards instructs
the priest to speak to the god-fathers and god-mothers in this
wise ; ' Ye have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ Avould
A'ouehsafe to release him of his sins.' What sins r — This is
the reality of ' original sinj' Avhence floAved ' original guilt/
whence floAved ' depravation of nature,' so commonly mistaken
for it. This alone constitutes every son and daughter of fallen
Adam a fallen creature ; not merely child of the fallen, but
themselves, individually and personally, fallen from their own
original uprightness, in him. — I haA'c hinted that this is not the
place to speak of counsel and design ; Avith Avhich all this Avas
done : but it is obA'ious that hereby a Avay Avas made for that,
further and more complete developemcnt of God (by the as
sumption of neAV relations), Avhich could not be made by simple
creation, but to Avhich creation was the stepping-stone. (See
Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes l and v.)

Luther is again in mistake (see Part iii. Sect, xviii. note l)
about the creation state of man ; speaking as though the pos
session of the Spirit were a part of his endowments. — ' Deser-

tus a Deo ac sibi relictus' ' naturam peccato, subtracto

spiritu, vitiatam.' — The Lord God having formed his animal
structure out of the dust of the ground — a compound mass —
breathed into his nostrils breath of " lifes," and man became
a living soul. This continuity of soul and body — simple soul,
and compounded body — soul, which Avas an image of Him that
is a Spirit ; and body, in Avhich he resembled and Avas pur-
taker Avith the brutes — constituted his essential nature ; the
solution of Avhich continuity constitutes death. So constituted.

264 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. not say, man saw the things which God had
made, and they were very good. Many things

he had capacities with which to learn, and sources of instruc
tion from which to derive much knowledge of God. The Lord
God conversed with him face to face, and he dwelt amongst the
teaching creatures of His hand ; even as he was himself the
most teaching of all creatures. But where is the Spirit ?
meaning the Holy Ghost. Had he possessed this — had the
Spirit dwelt and walked in Him — that is, been continually pre
sent with Him, acting in Him and by Him — he had possessed
union with God : a privilege which was not essential to his
condition and relation as the moral creature of God, but which
might, or might not, be added to it. That it was not added is
plain, as from other considerations, so from this ; that if it was
added, then it was either conquered in the temptation, or with
drawn previous to it : I know not what a conquered Holy
Ghost can mean ; and if withdrawn prior to the temptation, its
withdrawal would constitute him a different creature from that
to which the temptation law had been given.* — But now,
being simply a creature, and therefore mutable, he was liable
to fall by temptation. Accountability implies account to be
rendered ; account implies trial ; trial implies the presence of
that in the tried substance which may be turned to evil. Was
not this precisely Adam's state and constitution ? ' Good,'
* very good,' as he came out of the hands of his Creator, his
good might be made evil. Those appetites and passions, the
appendages of his will ; \vhich, in his creation, and until evil
was suggested from without, were pure, fixed on fit objects,
and acted in purity ; were liable to be turned to other objects,
and thus to become evil. Desire of knowledge, desire of
pleasant food, taking pleasure in what is beautiful to the eye —
all of which were sound and pure in creation — might thus, by
suggestions thrown in, become evil : as infectious fever, or the
serpent's bite, poisons healthful blood. If no evil were sug
gested, there would continue only good ; the suggestion, by
being entertained, mars them. — Then, was God debtor to
Adam, to withhold temptation from him ; or to minister super-

* Luther's misapprehension has much to do with a mistake about the
Spirit's actings. He seems to have thought, as many now do, that there
might be a sort of ' fast and loose' playings of the Spirit. The Spirit,
when given, acts in earnest and efficaciously. — Would Luther say, ' does he
always act efficaciously in the Lord's called people, now?' I answer, the
cases are not parallel. We have the Spirit not as our own, and in our Adam
selves, but in Christ. When we fall, it is not ' the Spirit conquered,' but
the Spirit not energizing : what could not have happened to Adam. — Luther's
expressions are ambiguous as to the period when the Spirit was withdrawn ;
whether before, or after the temptation. In a former note (Part iii. Sect, xviii.
note t) I have dealt with him as representing it to have been withdrawn
before the temptation. A careful comparison of the several passages in
which he refers to it leads me to conclude, that he supposed it not withdrawn
till after the sin had been committed.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 265

seem very good to God, and are so; which to us SECT.xr.

appear very bad, and are so. Thus afflictions,

calamities, errors, hell, nay all the best works of
God, are, in the sight of the world, very bad and
damnable. What is better than Christ and the
Gospel ? but what more hateful to the world ?
How those things then shall be good in the sight
of God, which are evil in our eyes, is a mystery
known to God only, and to those who see with
God's eyes; that is, who have the Spirit. But
there is no need of so subtile a strain of argu
mentation just yet.a The former answer is suffi
cient for the present.

It is asked perhaps, how God can be said to How God
work evil in us ; as for example, to harden, to J
give men up to their lusts, to tempt, and the sidered.
like? We ought, forsooth, to be contented with
the words of God, and simply b to believe what
they affirm ; since the works of God quite surpass
all description. But, by way of humouring rea
son, which is another name for human folly, I am
content to be silly and foolish, and to try if I can
at all move her by turning babbler.0

In the first place, even reason and Diatribe
concede that God worketh all things in all things ;
and that nothing is effected, or is efficacious
without him. He is omnipotent; and this apper-
taineth to his omnipotency, as Paul says to the

creation aid, fortified as he was by creation endowments, to
keep him from falling- ; or to heal his wounds, and restore
soundness and peace to him, when as he had freely fallen ?

a Tarn acutd <Hsputatione.~] A sharp, keen, refined distinction :
something like what is ascribed to the " word of God" (Heb.
iv. 12.) " piercing- even to the dividing asunder of the soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow." Disp. ' the act of dis
puting,' or ' the debate held.'

b Simpliciter credere.'] ' Simply,' as opposed to arguments and
investigations. Faith receives implicitly what God explicitly
declares.

c Balbaticndo .] Properly, to ' lisp, stammer, or stutter.' There
seems to be some allusion to 2 Cor. xi. " Would to God yo
could bear with me a little in my folly : and indeed bear with
me." " I speak as a fool." " I speak foolishly."

266 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. Epliesians.d Satan then and man having fallen

from God, and being deserted by him, cannot will

good ; that is, cannot will those things which
please God, or which God wills. They are turned
perpetually towards their own desires, so that
they cannot but seek what is their own, and not
his.6 This will and nature of theirs therefore,
which is thus averse from God, still remains a
something. Satan and the wicked man are not a
nothing, having no nature or will, though they
have a nature which is corrupt and averse from
God. This remainder of nature, therefore, in the
wicked man and in Satan, of which we speak,
seeing it is the creature and work of God,
is not less subject to omnipotency and to divine
actings, than all the other creatures and works of
God.

Since then God moves and actuates all things
in all things, it cannot be but that he also moves
and acts in Satan and in the wicked. But he acts
in them according to what they are, and what he
finds them ; that is, since they are averse from him
and wicked, and are hurried along by this im
pulse of the divine omnipotency, they do only
such things as are averse from him and wicked.
Just as a horseman, driving a horse which is lame
in one or two of his feet, drives him according to
his make and power ; and so the horse goes ill.
But what can the horseman do? he drives the
horse such as he is in a drove of sound horses ;
he makes him go ill, the others well ; f it cannot
be otherwise, unless the horse be cured. By this
illustration you see how it is, that, when God
works in bad men and by bad men, evil is the
result; but it cannot be that God doeth wickedly,
although he works evil by the agency of evil

d Ephes. i. 2.

e Self is their idol, to the dethronement of God. Their own
interests and gratification, not God's, are sought. Philip, ii. 21.

f Illo male, istis bene.~] More literally, ' he docs well with,
and he does ill with.' dzit cum must be understood.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 267

men, because he, being good himself, cannot do SECT.XI.

wickedly ; s but still lie uses evil instruments

which cannot escape the seizure and impulse of
his power. The fault therefore is in the instru
ments, which God does not suffer to remain idle,
that evil is done ; God, meanwhile, himself being
the impeller of them. Just as if a carpenter should
cut ill by cutting with an axe that is f toothed and
sawed/ Hence it arises, that the wicked' man
cannot but go astray and commit sin continually ;
inasmuch as being seized and urged by the power
of God, he is not allowed to remain idle; but
wills, desires, acts, just according to what he is.h

B This is very much like saying ' docth good because he is
good, and is good because he is good.' — It is too much like the
( ipsc dixit* of the Pythagoreans.

h The amount of Luther's explanation of the mystery of
God's agency in the wicked, as given in his folly, is, 1. That
they are still real existences. 2. Still God's creatures. 3. That
he works all things in them, even as he does in all his crea
tures. 4. That he works in them according to their nature :
that hence he docs all their evil in them, but docs no evil himself.
All this is true ; but it is baldly told, and wants opening,
confirmation, and some additions. He ought to shew us how
man came to be what he is, in consistency with God's volun
tarily contracted obligations to him ; he ought to shew us the
nature and manner of his agency in the wicked ; he ought to
shew us how God, in consistency with himself, ordained and
wrought the fall, and continues wicked man in being ; yea,
Avorks wickedness by him, instead of destroying him and put
ting an end to the reign of evil. — I say, he ought to have s"hcwn
these things ; because, though he talks of ' silliness' and ' fool
ishness,' and ' babbling,'* it is plain that he means a serious
and sober solution of the difficulty. — Then, with respect to the
first of these shewings, man, as we have seen in a former note,f
had a constitution imparted, and a state assigned to him, in
which trial was implied, and in which he ought to have overcome
temptation. There was no dereliction of the Creator's engage
ments, no withdrawal of any possession or privilege, no
gainsaying discession or addition, with respect to God's
previous announcements, either in the operation of the
fall, or in the inflictions which followed it. The mutability of
the creature, as simple creature — the accountability of moral
creature — and the distinct source (not creation, but super-

* Lilet ineptirc, sttrllescere, et balluticndo tentarc,
t See above, Sect. x. note z.

268

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

SEC. XII.

How God
hardens.

PART iv. These are sure and settled verities, if we, in
the first place, believe that God is omnipotent;

creation) of the Spirit's within energizings — unveil a just God ;
that is, one who leaves nothing undone which he had freely
bound himself to do, and does nothing which he ought not to
do. — Then, with respect to the second of these sheAvings,
Luther compares God's agency in the wicked to a drover
driving on a lame horse (he means it not irreverently) ; which
excites the idea of physical rather than moral influence : but ,
the truth is, God acts in the wicked as in the righteous, by
setting, or causing to be set, such considerations before the
will, as constrain it to choose his will. This is moral neces
sity ; such a will so addressed cannot choose differently. — Then,
with respect to the third of these shewings, God's most gra
cious and everlasting design of making himself known to, and
enjoyed by, certain creatures of his hands, according to what
He really is, affords the ample and adequate reason for all that
complex, yet simple, system of operation, by which he has been
dealing with man from the creation to this hour, and shall
continue to and tliroughout eternity to deal with him : — with
man, his great manifester, not only in the blessed human per
son of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Part ii. Sect. viii. note r), but
also in every individual substance of the whole human race ;
which is made to manifest itself, that he may manifest himself
by his doings with it. — A sight like this justifies wisdom to her
children : and, although these considerations may seem to apply
themselves exclusively to God's dealings with the wicked ; or
at farthest, with men ; they will require but little extension, to
comprehend all creatures. Evil has been introduced into the
creation of God, and is not destroyed, but continues therein,
and shall so continue, unto God's glory : because he could not
be manifested as what he is — the union and concentration of
all moral excellency — THE TRUTH, TUB LOVE, THE POWER, THE
WISDOM — the good one — without it. — And what is this ' evil,'
which has thus come into, and thus abides in God's world ? a
person — as we are apt to account it, having scriptural autho
rity for so speaking of it ; but thinking so of it, too often to our
hurt ": — Hear what a venerable confessor of the Church has to
say about it.* ' I now began to understand, that every crea
ture of thine hand is in its nature good, and that universal
nature is justly called on to praise the Lord for his goodness.
(Psalm cxlviii.) The evil which I sought after has no positive
existence ; were it a substance, it would be good, because every
thing individually, as well as all things collectively, is good.
Evil appeared to be a want of agreement in some parts to others.
My opinion of. the two independent principles, in order to
account for the origin of evil, was without foundation. t Evil

* Augustine's Confessions, in Miln. Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p,342.
f See above, Sect. ix. nyte v.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 269

and, in the second, that the wicked man is the SEC. xn.

creature of God, but being averse from him, and

left to himself, without the Spirit of God, cannot
will or do good. God's omnipotence causes that
the wicked man cannot escape the moving and
driving of God ; but, being necessarily subjected
to God, he obeys him. Still his corruption, or
aversation from God, causes that he cannot be

is not a thing- to be created ; let good things only forsake their
just place, office and order, and then, though till be good in
their nature, evil, which is only a privative, abounds and pro
duces positive misery. I asked what was iniquity, and I found
it to be no substance, but a perversity of the will, Avhich de
clines from thee, the supreme substance, to lower things, and
casts away its internal excellencies, and swells with pride
externally.' — If it be true then, that the creature, as creature, is
essentially mutable (what Augustine, and the schoolmen after
him, applies to the now corrupted state of the human Avill*
being equally applicable to the will of man — to the will of every
moral creature — in its essence ; viz. that it is vertible); if there
subsist what may fitly be compared to a chord in every moral
creature, which may be so touched as to yield a jarring note,
and by its vibration to produce discord throughout the whole
instrument ; if this chord, which is not in itself evil, may be
so touched by that which is not evil neither, but good (is not
self-love such a chord, and is not the sense of God's incompa
rable excellency, or the intimation of superiority in some other
like creature of God's, or the suggestion of some flaw, blemish,
or deficiency in the creature itself — each of which ought only to
excite humility, submission, and gratitude — such a touch ":) ;
can we have any difficulty in conceiving how Satan was with
drawn from his uprightness, when as he was yet only good,
and nothing but good was to be heard and seen around him ? —
I am not ignorant that some would divert us altogether from
contemplations of this kind : but why are we told so much
about the devil, if we are to have no thoughts about
his history and origin ? We are taught that ' pride was
his condemnation' (1 Tim. iii. 6.); " that he was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth" (John viii.
44.) ; " that he kept not his first estate, but left his own habit
ation" (Jude 6.) ; " that there was war in heaven." (Rev.
xii. 7-t) Who shall be ashamed to meditate and explore what
God hath revealed unto his own justification (Rom. iii. 4.) and
to our furtherance and joy of faith r (Phil. i. 25.)

* See Part iii. Sect. i.

•f I am aware, that these wort's arc in their connection to be understood
prophetically ; but there was a foundation for the allusion.

270 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. moved and dragged along, according to good.

God cannot relinquish the exercise of his omni-

potency because of the wicked man's aversation ;
neither can the wicked man change his aversation
into good will. Thus it conies to pass, that he of
necessity errs and sins perpetually, until he be
rectified by the Spirit of God. Howbeit, in all
these Satan as yet reigns in peace and keeps his
palace in quietness, in subordination to this im
pulse of the divine onmipotency. After this fol
lows the business of hardening; which is in this
wise. The wicked man, as I have said (and the
same is true of Satan his prince also), is occupied
altogether with himself and his own matters ; he
does not inquire after God, nor care for those
things which are God's; but seeks his own wealth,
his own glory, his own works, his own wisdom,
his own power ; a kingdom, in short, of his own ;
and what he wants is to enjoy these things in
peace. Now, if any one resist him, or have a
inind to diminish ought from these possessions,
his aversion, indignation, and rage with which he
is stirred up against his adversary, are not less
vehement than his desire with which he pursues
after these possessions : and he is just as incapable
of restraining his rage as he is of restraining his
desire and pursuit ; and just as incapable of re
straining his desire as of putting an end to his
existence : of which he is incapable, inasmuch as
he is the creature of God, though a vitiated one.

This is the history of that rage of the world
against God's Gospel. That stronger than he,
which is to conquer the quiet possessor of the
palace, comes by the Gospel ; condemning those
desires of glory and riches, and of his own wis
dom and righteousness ; in short, every thing in
which he confides. This same provoking of the
wicked, which is effected by God's saying or doing
something contrary to their wishes, is the harden
ing and burdening of them. For, whereas they

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 271

are averse of themselves through the very corrup- SEC.XIII.

tion of tlieir nature, they are also turned yet more

out of the way, and made worse, by being resisted
and robbed, under their averseness. Thus, when
God was proceeding to snatch his usurped domi
nion out of the hands of the wicked Pharaoh, he
provoked him, and did yet more harden and
weigh down his heart by assailing him with the
words of Moses, who threatened to take away
his kingdom, and to withdraw the people from his
dominion : meanwhile, he gave him not the Spirit
within, but allowed his own wicked and corrupt
nature, in which Satan was reigning, to grow red
hot, to boil over, to rage and get to its height,
accompanied with a sort of vain confidence and
contemptuousness.

Let not any one think therefore, that God, Mistakes
when he is said to harden, or to work evil in us Prohlblted«
(for to harden is to make evil), does so by creating
evil as it were anew in us: just as you might
fancy a malignant vintner, full of mischief himself,
whilst none is in his vessel, to pour or mix poi
son into or with the same ; the vessel all the
while doing nothing itself, save that it receives
or endures the malignancy of the mixer. For ••
when they hear it said, that God works both good
and evil in us, and that we are subjected to
the operations of God by a mere passive neces
sity ; many seem to fancy, that man, a good sort
of creature, or at least not a bad one, is, in some
such way as this, made the subject of a bad work
of God's. These persons do not sufficiently
consider what a restless sort of actor God is, in
all his creatures, and how he suffers none of them
to have a holyday. But let him who would have
any understanding about such sayings settle it
thus with himself; that God works evil in us
(that is, by us), not through any fault of his, but
through our own faultiness : we being by nature
evil, and God good, he hurries us along by means

272 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. of his own agency (such is the nature of his omni-
• potency), and, good as he is in himself, cannot
do otherwise than work evil by an evil instru
ment; which he makes a good use of however
(such is his wisdom), by turning it to his own
glory and our salvation.1

In like manner, he finds the will of Satan evil
without creating it so; what has become such,
through God's deserting of him and Satan's sin
ning; and finding it so, he lays hold of it in the
course of his operations, and moves it whither
soever he will : yet this will does not cease to be
evil, because God thus moves it. Just so, David
says of Shimei (2 Sam. xvi. 10.), " Let him curse,
for God hath commanded him to curse David." —
How does God command him to curse ? such a
malignant and wicked act ! There was no exter
nal commandment of this kind to be found any
where. David then has regard to this consi
deration, that the omnipotent God speaks, and it
is done ; that is, he doeth all things by his eternal
word. So then, the divine agency and omnipo-
tency seizes hold of the will of Shimei, together
with all his members — that will which was already
, evil, and which had aforetime been inflamed
against David ; who met him just at the right
moment, as having deserved such a cursing — and
even the good God commands (that is, he speaks
the wrord and it is done) this curse, which is
poured out by a wicked and blasphemous organ,
inasmuch as he seizes hold of that organ, and car
ries it along with him in the course of his own
agency.

SEC. xiv. Thus he hardens Pharaoh, when he presents his
words and works to his wicked and evil will ;
which that will hates, through innate faultiness,

Pharaoh's
case consi
dered.

> The wheels of God's omnipotent providence (see Ezek. i.
15 — 21.) carry the evil as well as the good along with them in
their goings : and this unto God's glory ; but is it unto salva
tion also } — This is Luther's defective view.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 273

no doubt, and natural corruption. Now, when SEC.XIV.

God does not change this will inwardly by his

Spirit, but persists in presenting and obtruding
his words and works ; and when Pharaoh, on the
other hand, considering his strength, wealth and
power, confides in them, through the same natural
pravity ; it comes to pass, that, being puffed up
and exalted by his own fancied greatness, on the
one hand, and being rendered a proud despiser
by the meanness as well of Moses as of the word
of God which comes to him in an abject form,
on the other; he is first hardened, and then more
and more provoked and aggravated, the more
Moses urges and threatens him. This evil will
of his, however, would not of itself be stirred up
to action, or hardened ; but since the omnipotent
actor drives it along as he does the rest of his
creatures, by an inevitable impulse, will it must.
Add to this, that He at the same time presents
from without that which naturally irritates and
offends it; so that Pharaoh cannot avoid being
hardened any more than he can avoid the agency
of the divine omnipotence, and the aversation or
malignancy of his own will. So that Pharaoh's
hardening by God is completed thus ; he sets
before his maliciousness that which he of his own
nature hates from without; after this he ceases
not to stimulate that evil will, just such as he finds
it, by his own omnipotent impulse within. The
man meanwhile, such being the wickedness of his
will, cannot but hate what is contrary to himself^
and confide in his own strength. Thus he is made
obstinate to such a degree, that he neither hears
nor has any understanding, but is hurried away
under the possession of the devil, like one mad
and raving. k

k Luther's account of ' hardf.ing' is, 1. God actuates the
wicked as well as the rest of his creatures, according to
their nature. <2. Satan is in them unresisted and undisturbed.
3. They can only will evil. 4. God thwarts them by word, or

T

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

view of the case be satisfactory, I have
gained my cause ; we agree to explode tropes and

or deed, or both. All this is correct j but it is not the whole
of the matter ; neither does he put the several parts of the
machinery together, cleverly 5 neither does he shew an end. (See
above, Sect. xi. note h. All these things are of God, through
God, and to God. (Rom. xi. 36.) The natural man has been
brought into the state in which he is, of, through, and to him.
And what is that state ? earthly, sensual, devilish soul (James
iii. 16.), possessed by the devil; to whom it was given up, as a
prey, in the day of apostasy. Luther distinguishes the ' moving
and driving,' or ' seizing and moving,' of God, from his < word
and work.' It is a fine image which he draws of God giving
motion to f all creature.' But if this idea be examined, it will
be found to amount to no more than that God keeps all his
creatures in a state of being which is accordant to their nature ;
and that the wicked therefore are, by the necessity of their
nature, kept by him in a state of activity, and not allowed to be
torpid, or, as Luther facetiously expresses it, ' to have a holy-
day.' Particular actings of God, then, upon this substance of the
human soul, such and so related, are what he expresses by
God's ' thwarting word and work :' but this thwarting word
and work extends only to the outside of the man ; forls qffert —
forts objicit. All this while, Satan's is an agency with which, as
it respects others, God does not interfere : he is no agent, no
minister of His. You might almost judge from his language
in some places (contradicted it is true by others), that he ac
counted Satan a sort of independent chief.- — Now here, if I mis
take not, the root of the matter lies. Satan is an agent and
minister of God. (See Job i. 11. 1 Kings xxii. 1 9 — 23. 1 Chron.
xxi. 1. Compare 2 Sam, xxiv. 1. Zech. iii. 1 — 3.) Nor can I
•understand the expressions so repeatedly applied to the case of
Pharaoh, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart ;" nor " Whom he
will he hardeneth;" nor "God hath given them the spirit
of slumber/' nor "Thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent •" and the like — without recurring to this
agency : which obviously meets their full and express import,
whilst nothing else, or less, does. — And what is the effect of
this agency but such as hath been already ascribed to the ope
ration of God ? (see note h, as before) hereby ' He sets, or
causes to be set, such considerations (it might be added, and
causes such to be withheld — for Satan throws dust into men's
eyes ; hinders them from seeing, as well as causes them to see
wrongly) before the mind of His free-agent, as morally constrain
him to choose what He hath willed. — O what is there that can
give peace under the realizing consciousness of his being and
•agency, but the assurance that he is in truth only this agent of
God for good, and nothing but good, to his chosen ? — God's
hardening, therefore, I define generally to be ( that special opera-

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 275

the glosses of men, and to understand the words SEC.XIV.
of God literally, that it may not be necessary to
make excuses for God, or accuse him of injustice.
When he says, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, he
speaks in plain language, as if he should say, I
will cause that the heart of Pharaoh shall be hard
ened; or, that it shall be hardened through my
doings and workings. How this is effected, we
have heard : it shall be by my exciting his own
evil will inwardly by that general sort of impulse by
which I move all things, so that he shall go on under
his own bias, and in his own course of willing ;
nor will I cease to stimulate him, nor can I do
otherwise. I will at the same time present him
with a word and a work, which that evil bias of
his will fall foul of; since he can do nothing else
but choose ill, whilst I stimulate the very sub
stance of the evil which is in him, by virtue of my
omnipotency.

Thus was God most sure, and thus did he with
the greatest certainty pronounce, that Pharaoh
should be hardened, as being most sure, that
Pharaoh's will could neither resist the excitement
of his omnipotency, nor lay aside its own mali
ciousness, nor receive Moses as a friend when pre
senting himself to him as an adversary ; but that
his will would remain evil, and he would neces
sarily become worse, harder and prouder, whilst,

tion of God upon the reprobate soul, by which, through the
agency of Satan (whose Lord and rider he is), combined with
his own outward dispensations of word and work, he shuts and
seals it up in its own native blindness, aversation and enmity to
wards himself.' There have been however, and doubtless are,
certain special and splendid exemplifications of this operation,
each having its minuter peculiarities, whilst the same essential
nature pervades all. — Pharaoh is one of these. — Indeed the whole
history of the Exodus is one of the most luminous displays,
which the Lord God hath ever made, of the design he is pur
suing and accomplishing in having and dealing with creatures;
second only to the marvellous and complicated history of the
Lord's death : whereuuto also it was appointed ; whereunto also
it hath been recorded.

T2

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

still be
asked.

PART IV. in pursuing his own natural bias and course, he

encountered an opposition which he did not like,

and which he despised through a confidence in
his own powers. Thus, you see it here confirmed
even by this very assertion, that Freewill can do
nothing but evil ; seeing that God, who neither
is mistaken through ignorance, nor lies through
wickedness, so confidently promises the hardening
of Pharaoh's heart; being sure forsooth, that an
evil will can will only evil, and, if a good which
contravenes its own lust be proposed to it, can
only be made worse thereby.1

SEC. xv. It remains therefore, that a man may ask,

' Why doth not God cease from that very stimu-

imperti- ]ation of his omiiipotency by which the wicked

nent ques- . I j- -, • i J

tionsmay man's will is stirred up to continue in its wicked
ness, and to wax worse?' I answer, ' This is to
desire that God should cease to be God for the
sake of the wicked, if you wish his power and
agency to cease ; in fact, it is to desire that God
should cease to be good, least they should be
made worse/ — But why doth he not at the same
time change those evil wills which he excites?
This appertaineth to the secrets of his Majesty ;
in which his judgments are incomprehensible.
We have no business to ask this question; our
business is to adore these mysteries : and if flesh
and blood be offended here and murmur, let it
murmur, pray : it will get no forwarder however ;
God will not be changed for these murmurs.
And what if ungodly men go away scandal
ized in great numbers ? The elect will remain
notwithstanding. — The same answer shall be given
to those who ask, ' Why he allowed Adam to fall,

1 " Let my people go that they may serve me," is a good
demand ; but is directly contrary to Pharaoh's will, its course
and propensity. (See the preceding note.) — Luther makes this
act of God negative ; save, as respects God's g-eneral and par
ticular operations in his providence. He does not change the
will ; he keeps his moral creature in being ; he thwarts his in
clinations. — What is Satan, meanwhile ; and what does he ?

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 277

and why he goes on to make all of us, who are SEC.XVI.

infected through the same sin; when he might '

have kept him from sinning, and might either have
created us from another stock, or have purged
the corrupted seed first?' He is God : whose will
has no cause or reason1" which can be prescribed
to it for rule and measure ; seeing it hath no equal
or superior, but is itself the rule of all things. If
it had any rule or measure, or cause or reason,
it could not any longer be the will of God. For
what he wills is not right, because he ought to
will so, or ought to have willed so : on the con
trary, because he wills so, therefore what is done
must be right. Cause and reason are prescribed
to the creature's will, but not to the Creator's;
unless you would set another Creator over his
head."

By these considerations the trope-making Dia- The trope

m Nulla est causa, nee ratio.'] Can. is the correlative of effect ;
' what gives origin to this will :' rat. ' the principle, rate,
method, and design of its operations ;' which supposes some
extrinsic standard. There is no siich source, or standard, for
God's will : no cause which produces it ; no Tightness which it
exemplifies.

n The defects of Luther's theology are strongly manifested
in this paragraph. He has no answer to give, where a satis
factory one is at hand : God continues to move the wicked,
because it is for his glory that they should go on to act, just
such as they are. — For the same cause he ordained and brought
about, or, as Luther speaks, permitted Adam's fall. — God does
not create* wicked men. (See above, Sect. x. note z.) — God's
will is cause and reason to itself: but he has a reason for
all he does ; and this reason, so far as respects his actings with
which we have to do, is resolvable into self-manifestation.
(See former notes.) — As to these and such like questions,
which Luther judges it improper to ask, the whole matter is,
doth the word of God furnish an answer to them, or not ? If
it does, we are bound to entertain them and supply the true

* Strange that he should use the word ' creare,' as applied to our gene
ration from Adam. — ' When a thing is made up of particles which did all of
them before exist, but that very thing, so constituted of preexisting particles,
had not any existence before ; this, when referred to a substance produced
in the ordinary course of nature by an internal principle, but set on work by
and received from some external agent or cause, nnd working by insensible
ways which we perceive not, we call generation.' — Locke's Essay, vol. i. chap,
xxvi. sect. 2.

278 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. tribe is sufficiently confuted., I think ; but let us
come to the text itself, that we may see what sort
°f agreement there is between herself and her

text. trope. It is customary with all those who elude
arguments by tropes, to despise the text itself
stoutly, and make it their only labour to pick out
some one word, and torture it with tropes, and
crucify it by the sense they impose upon it, with
out having the least regard to the surrounding
context, or to the words which follow and pre
cede, or to the author's scope or cause. Thus it
is with Diatribe here : nothing heeding what
Moses is about, or what is the aim of his dis
course, she snatches this little word ( I will
harden' (which offends her) out of the text, and
fashions it after her own pleasure; not at all
considering in the meanwhile, how it is to be
brought back and inserted again into the text,
and to be fitted in so as to square with the body
of the text. This is just the reason, why Scripture
is accounted not quite clear, by those most learned
doctors who have had the greatest possible accept
ance amongst men for so many ages. What won
der ? The sun himself could not shine if such
tricks were played with him.0

But to omit what I have already shewn, that
Pharaoh is not properly said to be hardened
because he is endured by God with lenity, and
not forthwith punished ; since he was chastened
with so many plagues : if to endure through the
divine lenity, and not straightway to punish, be
called hardening, what need was there for God

answer. How much better than to leave the caviller strong
in his unanswered cavils ! And what is the result ? a knoivn
God instead of an unknown ; a God whom we revere, admire,
and delight in, when we should otherwise only tremble and
shudder before him !

0 Artibus petitus.'] Pet. ' made the subject of attack ; whe
ther by violence, stratagem, or supplication :' probably has allu
sion here to some magical incantations by which sorcerers
pretended to darken the sun ! — See Hor, Epod. v. xvii.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED.

so often to promise that he would (as a future act) SE- xvir-

harden Pharaoh's heart, when now the miracles

were in performance — Pharaoh all the while being
a man who, before these miracles, and before this
hardening-, having been endured through the
divine lenity, and not punished, had inflicted so
many evils upon the children of Israel, in his full
blown pride, the offspring of his prosperity and
wealth? So then, this trope is nothing at all to
the purpose here ; since it might be applied pro
miscuously to all who sin under the endurance of
divine indulgence. At this rate, we might say
that all men are hardened : since there is no man
who does not commit sin ; and no man could
commit sin, if he were not endured with divine
indulgence. This hardening of Pharaoh there
fore is something different from, and beyond, that
general endurance of the divine lenity.p

Rather, Moses's object is not so much to an- Moses's
nounce Pharaoh's wickedness, as God's truth and ^?ta|nob
mercy : that the children of Israel may not for- such re-
sooth mistrust the promises of God, by which he Peated. tes-
had engaged to liberate them. This deliverance to God's
being a vast thing, he forewarns them of its dif- design and
ficulty, that their faith may not falter; knowing
as they thus would, that all these things had been is to
predicted, and were receiving such an accom-
plishment, through the arrangement of that very
person who had given them the promises. Just
as if he should say, I am delivering you, it is most
true ; but you will hardly believe it, Pharaoh will
make such a resistance, and will so put off the
event. But trust in my promises not a whit
the less : all this very putting-off of his will be
effected by my workings, that I may perform the

P The word lenitas, which occurs so frequently in this pas
sage, properly denotes ' softness," ' gentleness,' ' kindness,' as
opposed to ' roughness,' ' harshness,' ' severity ;' and seems
most aptly to express that ' forbearance,' or ' indulgence,'
with which the Lord God suffereth long, and is kind.

280 BONDAGE OF THE WILL;

PART IV. more and the greater miracles, to confirm you in
your faith, and to shew my power ; that you may
hereafter place the greater confidence in me with
respect to all other things. — This is just what
Christ also does, when he promises the kingdom
to his disciples at the last supper : he foretels
very many difficulties — his own death, and their
manifold tribulations — that when the event should
have taken place, they might hereafter believe in
him much more.'1

Indeed, Moses sets this meaning very clearly
before us, when he says, " But Pharaoh shall" not
let you go, that many signs may be wrought in
Egypt." And again : " To this end have I stirred
thee up, that I might shew in thee my power, and
that my name might be declared in all the earth."
You see here, that Pharaoh is hardened for this
very purpose, that he may resist God, and may put
off' the redemption of Israel ; in order that occa
sion may be made for shewing many signs, and
for declaring the power of God; to the end, that
he may be spoken of and believed in, throughout
all the earth. What is this else, but that all
these things are spoken and done to confirm faith,
and to comfort the weak, that they may freely
trust in God hereafter, as the true, the faithful,
the powerful and the merciful One? As if he
would say to his little ones in softest words, ' Be
not terrified bv Pharaoh's hardness of heart : I

*/ *

am the worker of that very hardness also, and I
hold it in my own hands; I who am your deliverer
will use it with no other effect, than that it shall
cause me to work many signs, and to declare

i " Now I tell you before it come (Judas' s treachery"), that,
when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He." " And
now I have told you before it come to pass (his going to the
Father), that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."
" But these things have I told you (their own persecutions),
that, when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told
yoxi of them." — (John xiii. 19. xiv. 29. xvi. 4.)

r Exod. vii. 4. xi. 9.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 281

my greatness, to the end that ye may believe in SE. xvir.
me/s

Hence that saying, which Moses repeats after
nearly every plague, " And the heart of Pharaoh
was hardened, that he did not let the people go,
as the Lord had spoken." What is this saying,
" As the Lord had spoken," but that God might
be seen to be true, who had declared beforehand
that he should be hardened ? If there had been
any vertibility here, any freeness of will in Pha
raoh, such as had power to incline towards either
side ; God could not with such certainty have
foretold his induration — but since the Promiser
here is one who can neither be mistaken, nor tell
a lie, it was necessarily and most assuredly to
come to pass, that he should be hardened ; and
this could not be, unless the induration were alto
gether without the limits of man's power, and
stood only in the power of God : just as I have
described it above ; to wit, God wras certain that
he should not omit the general exercise of his
omnipotency in the person of Pharaoh, or because
of Pharaoh ; seeing, it is what he even cannot
omit.

Furthermore, he was equally sure that the will
of Pharaoh, naturally wicked and averse from
Him, could not consent to the word and work of
God which was contrary to it ; so that, whereas

8 Luther circumscribes the design. Doubtless, God would
comfort and encourage his people by these acts and predic
tions : but self-manifestation was His one ultimate object ; and
in order to this, the confounding, and the rendering yet more
inexcusable, of his enemies, as well as the emboldening of his
beloved ones. — Was there not "also a manifestation of what
human nature is, hereby made in his own people r Did they all
believe, after all these signs ? Whence those hankerings after
Egypt ? Whence those, " It had been better for us to have
served the Egyptians ?" — The whole is resolvable into that
great first principle, ' God shewing what he is, by his dealings
with the human nature as exhibited both in the elect and in
the reprobate — in his friends and in his enemies.' But what a
maze, or rather what a mass of inconsistency, is this history, and
not this history only but all the Bible, without that principle ?

282 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. the impulse to will was preserved inwardly in
1 Pharaoh by God's omnipotency, and a contradic

tory word and work of God was thrown to meet
it from without/ nothing else could be the result,
but a stumbling and a hardening of the heart,
in Pharaoh. For, if God had omitted the acting
of his omnipotency in Pharaoh at the moment
when he threw the contradictory message of
Moses into his path, and if Pharaoh's will be
supposed to have acted itself alone, by its own
power ; then possibly there might have been
ground for questioning to which of the two sides
it would have inclined itself. But now, seeing
that he is driven and hurried along to an act of
willing — no violence, it is true, being done to his
will, because he is not forced against his will ; but
a natural operation of God hurrying him away to
a natural acting of his will, such an one as it is,
and that is a bad one — it follows that he cannot
but run foulu of the word, and by so doing be
hardened. — Thus, we see that this text fights
manfully against Freewill : inasmuch as God who
promises cannot lie ; and if he does not lie, Pha
raoh's heart cannot but be hardened.

I Occursu oljecto.~\ It is contrived that this word and work
of God should come into contact with the edge of the will
excited into action by omnipotency, through an act like that of
throwing a bone to a dog, or casting a stumbling-block in the
path of a traveller.

II ImplngereJ] Imp. (se scilicet subaudito) est ' ire impac-
tum,' ' prsecipitem ferri in aliquid.' — Here, as before, we have
God's actuation, the man's will, and the trying, provoking dis
pensation. But there seems a little confusion in the admission
concerning the man's (Pharaoh's) own will, as separated from
the divine impulse. He seems now to make the crisis of the
evil lie there. I can understand that there might be inertness
in the case which he supposes : but if there be an act of will,
in an essentially bad will, I cannot understand how it should be
other than evil. (See above, note k.) — The case is merely
hypothetical, put for the sake of illustration (but, like many
other intended illustrations, confusing rather than distinguish
ing the object on which it would shine), and impossible : for
God acts always, and therefore actuates the wicked always j
that is, keeps them in their place and state as moral agents—
which is a state of activity.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED.

But let us look at Paul also, who adopts this SE.XVIII.

passage from Moses in Rom. ix. How sadly is • •

Diatribe tormented here ; she twists herself into £aul's re~
all manner of shapes, to avoid losing Freewill, this pas-
One while she says it is the necessity of a conse- sase »?
fjuence, but not the necessity of a consequent. Diatribe
One while it is an ordered will, or will signified/ hard put to
which may be resisted ; whereas a will of good Jo"0
pleasure is that which cannot be resisted ! One
while the passages adduced from Paul do not
oppose Freewill, because they do not speak of the
salvation of man. One while the foreknowledge
of God presupposes * necessity; another while it
does not. One while grace prevents the will —
causing it to will — accompanies it on its way,
and gives the happy issue. One while the first
cause effects every thing; another while it acts
by second causes, itself doing nothing. By these
and such like mocking words, she only aims to
•get time, and to snatch the cause meanwhile out of
pur sight, and drag it some whither else. She
gives us credit for being as stupid and heartless,
'.or as little interested in the cause, as she herself
iis. Or as little children, when frightened or at
play, cover their eyes with their hands, and think
nobody sees them, because they see nobody;
>,even so Diatribe, not being able to bear the rays,
or rather the lightnings, of the clearest possible
words, uses all sorts of pretences to make it ap
pear that she does not see the real truth; that
she may persuade us, if possible, to cover our
yes, so as not even to see it ourselves. But all
:hese are the marks of a convinced mind, which

' Ordinatam sen voluntatem signi.~] The distinction amounts
o that of ' regulated' and 'absolute:' will limited and re
strained by ordinance, or by some outward sign which has
•evealed it ; and will of pure, uncontrolled good pleasure. The
brmer of these, it is intimated, may be resisted ; the latter
iannot.

x I understand ponit in a logical sense, ' takes for granted 5*
issumes as a datum.

284 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. struggles rashly against invincible truth. That
figment of the necessity of a consequence as
differing from the necessity of a consequent, has
been confuted already. (Part i. Sect, xi.) Let
Diatribe invent and re-invent, cavil and re-cavil,
as much as she pleases, if God foreknew that
Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily be
came a traitor ; nor was it in the power of Judas,
or of any creature, to do otherwise, or to change
his will, though he did what he did by an act of
willing, and not by compulsion. But to will that
act was the operation of a substance which God
put into motion by his own omnipotency, as he
also does every thing else. For it stands as an
invincible and self-evident proposition, that ' God
neither lies, nor is mistaken.' The words under;
our consideration are not obscure or doubtful
words, although all the learned of all ages may
have been blind; so as to understand and inter
pret them otherwise. Prevaricate as much as
you may, your own conscience, and that of all
men, is compelled to acknowledge, if God be nots
mistaken in that which he foreknows, the very
thing foreknown must necessarily take place.
Else who could trust his promises, who Avould
fear his threatenings, if what he promises or
threatens do not necessarily follow ? or, how
can he promise or threaten, if his foreknowledge
deceives him, or can be thwarted by our muta
bility? This excessive light of undoubted truth
manifestly stops every mouth, puts an end to all
questions, and decrees a victory in spite of all
evasive subtilties. We know very well that the
foreknowledge of man is beguiled. We know
that an eclipse does not happen because it is
foreknown, but is foreknown because it is going
to happen. But what have we to do with this
sort of foreknowledge ? we are arguing about
the foreknowledge of God. Deny to this the
necessity of the thing foreknown being effected,

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 285

and you take away the faith and fear of God ; SEC.XIX.

you throw down all God's promises and threaten-

ings; nay, you deny the very being of God. —
But even Diatribe herself, after a long struggle,
in which she has tried all her arts, is at length
compelled by the force of truth to make confession
of our sentiment, and says;

' The question about the will and purpose of Diatribe's
God is a more difficult one. For God wills the sionTand
same things which he foreknows. And this is retractions
what Paul subjoins; " Who resisteth his will, if exP°sed-
he pitieth whom he will, and hardeneth whom he
will?" For if he were a king, he would do what
he liked, so that no one should be able to resist
him; he would be said to do what he would.
Thus the will of God, as being the principal cause
of all events, seems to impose a necessity upon
our will.' This is what she says.

And I thank God that Diatribe has at last
recovered her senses. What is become of Free
will now ? But this eel slips again out of our
hands, by saying in a moment ;

'But Paul does not resolve this question; on
the contrary, he chides the inquirer ; nay, but O
itnan, who art thou that repliest against God?'

O exquisite evasion ! Is this what you call hand-

iling the word of God? to deliver a mere ipse dixit

'in this manner, by your own sole authority, of your

own head, without producing testimonies of Scrip-

jture, without working miracles? let me rather say,

thus to corrupt some of the clearest words that God

ever spake ? Paul does not resolve this question :

jvvhat is he doing then ? ' He chides the inquirer/

|$ays she. Is not this chiding the most complete

resolution of the question ? What was in fact

jisked in this question concerning the will of God?

Was it not asked whether he puts a necessity

ipon our will ? Paul answers, that " Thus (that

s, because he does so) he hath mercy (He says)

)n whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he

286 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv, hardeneth. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him

' that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." y

Not content with having resolved the question,
Jie moreover introduces those who, in opposition
to this answer, murmur for Freewill — prating, that
neither is there any such thing as merit, neither
are wre condemned by any fault of our own ; and
the like — for the very purpose of putting a stop
to their indignation and murmurs ; saying,

" Thou sayest then unto me, why doth he yet
find fault ? For who shall resist his will 1" Do
you notice the personification ?z They, upon hear
ing that the will of God imposes a necessity upon
us, blasphemously murmur and say, ' Why doth
he yet find fault?' that is, why doth God so press,
so drive, so demand, so complain? why doth he
accuse? why doth he condemn? as if we men
could do what he demands, if we pleased. He
has no just cause for this complaint — let him
rather accuse his own will — there let him prefer
his complaint — there let him press and drive.
For who shall resist his will? who can obtain
mercy, when he does not choose they should?
who can melt himself, if it be his will to harden ?
It does not lie with us to change His will, much
less to resist it: that will chooses that we should
be hardened; by that will we are compelled to be
hardened — whether we will or no.

If Paul had not resolved this question, or had

y Luther makes some confusion in the order of the verses,
putting the 18th in the place of the 15th. But his argument
is not dependent upon the transposition. The more explicit
testimony of verse 18 is implied in verse 15 ; but verse 18
precedes both the cavil and the reproof.

z Prosopopoeia.'] ' The introducing of imaginary persons:'
literally,, ' the making of persons ;' — a well-known figure of
rhetoric. Paul had before been simply stating truth in plain
language. Now he brings in a supposed objection. Luther
asks Erasmus whether he notices this ? It was essential to his
correct understanding of the passage, that he should have
remarked this change in the Apostle's mode of address : that
he does personify, and wltat sort of persons he fabricates.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 287

not unequivocally determined that a necessity is SEC.XIX.

imposed upon us by the divine prescience, what

need was there to introduce persons as murmur
ing and alleging that it is impossible to resist
his will? For who would murmur or be indig
nant, if he did not think that this necessity
had been determined? The words in which he
speaks of resisting the will of God are not ob
scure. Is it doubtful what he means by ' resisting,'
or by 'will;' or ' of whom' he speaks, when he
speaks of the will of God? Let unnumbered
thousands of the most approved doctors be blind
here, and let them feign that Scripture is not
clear, and let them be afraid of a difficult ques^
tion. We have got some most clear words, of this
import ; " He pitieth whom he will ; whom he will,
he hardeneth." Also, " Thou sayest to me there
fore, why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his
will ?»

Nor is it a difficult question ; nay, nothing can
be plainer to common sense than that this conse- .
quence is certain, solid and true : f If God fore
knows an event, it necessarily comes to pass ;'
when it has been presupposed, upon the testi
mony of Scripture, that God neither errs nor is
deceived/ I confess that the question is a diffi
cult one — nay, one which it is impossible to re
solve — if you should in the same instant determine
,0 maintain both God's foreknowledge and man's
iberty. For what is more difficult, or rather more
mpossible, than to contend that contradictions
ind contraries are not at variance with each other;
>r that a number is at the same time ten and
line ? There is no difficulty in the question we
ire handling, but the difficulty is gone after and
i .. .

a Errat.faUitur.~\ Err. a mistake in his own apprehensions.
•all. appearances beguile him. It is not disappointment as to
lie event, which is the subject of remark here ; but an ob-
jct seen afar off made to appear different from what it really

288 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. brought in, just as ambiguity and obscurity are

gone after and introduced by violence into the

Scriptures. — So then, he stops the mouths of those
wicked ones who have been offended by those
most plain words (and why offended, but be
cause they perceive that the divine will is ful
filled by means of our necessity, and because
they perceive it to have been unequivocally deter
mined that there is nothing of liberty or of Free
will left to them, but that all things are depend
ent upon the will of God only) ; he stops their
mouths I say, but it is by bidding them be still,
and reverence the Majesty of the divine power
and will,b over which we have no right of control,
whilst it has full power over us, to do what
seemeth it good : not that there is any injury done
to us by its operations, since it owes us nothing;
having received nothing from us, and having pro
mised nothing to us but just so much as it chose
and was pleased to do.
SEC. xx. Here then is the place, here is the time, for

adoring, not the fictitious inhabitants of those

Where Corycian caves, but the real IMajesty of God in
encelbr " his fearful wonders, and in his incomprehensible
the Scrip- judgments ; and for saying <f Thy will be done,
tm-es hes. ag «n jieaven^ so jn earth." On the other hand,

we are never more irreverent and rash, than when
we attempt and accuse these very mysteries and
judgments, which are unsearchable. Meanwhile,
we imagine that we are exercising an incredible
degree of reverence in searching the holy Scrip
tures. Those Scriptures, which God has com
manded us to search, \ve do not search in one
direction ; but in another, in which he has for
bidden us to search them, we do nothing but

b MajestatemJ] A form of expression common amongst men,
with application to earthly potentates. ' His Majesty' does
so and so. It is a sort of personification of the sovereign's
state, power, and excellency. So here, of God's power and

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 289

search them with a perpetual temerity, not to say SEC. xx.

blasphemy. Is it not such a search, when we

rashly endeavour to make that most free fore
knowledge of God accord with our liberty ; and
are ready to detract from the prescience of God if
it do not leave us in possession of liberty ; or, if
it induce necessity, to say with the murmurers
and blasphemers, ' Why doth he yet find fault?
who shall resist his will? what is become of the
most merciful God ? what is become of Him
who willeth not the death of a sinner ? Has
he made us that he might delight himself with
man's torments ?' and the like ; which shall be
howled out for ever amongst the devils and the
damned ?

But even natural reason is obliged to confess,
that the living and true God must be such an one
as to impose necessity upon us, seeing he himself
is free : as for instance, that he would be a
ridiculous God, or more properly an idol, if he
should either foresee future things doubtfully, or
be disappointed by events ; when even the Gen
tiles have assigned irresistible fate to their gods.a
He would be equally ridiculous, if he had not
power to do all things, and did not effect all
things; or if any thing be really brought to pass
without him. Now if the foreknowledge and
iOinnipotency of God be conceded, it follows natu
rally, by an undeniable consequence, that we were
not made by ourselves, neither do we live by
ourselves, neither do we perform any thing by
'ourselves, but all through His omnipotency. And
Inow, since he both knew beforehand that we
should be such a sort of people, and goes on to
make us such, and to move and govern us as
such ; what can be imagined in us, pray, that is

c Faium in-elnctnlile.'] Even those, who made the fatal sis
ters superior to Jupiter himself, still had an uncontrolled
jrdainer of events ; inexorable, infallible, invincible fate.

U

290

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. free to have a different issue given to it from that

which he foreknew,, or is now effecting?

So that God's foreknowledge and omnipotency
are diametrically opposite to man's Freewill. For
either God will be mistaken in his foreknowledge,
and disappointed in his actings (which is impos
sible), or we shall act, and act according to his fore
knowledge and agency. By the omnipotency of
God, I mean not a power by which he might do many
things which he does not; but that acting omni
potency, by which he doeth all things, with power,
in all things : it is after this manner, that the
Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipo
tency and prescience of God, I say, absolutely
abolishes the dogma of Freewill. Nor can the
obscurity of Scripture, or the difficulty of the
subject, be made a pretext*1 here. The words are
most clear, even children know them: the subject
matter is plain and easy; one which approves
itself even to the natural judgment of common
sense : so that, let your series of ages, times and
persons, who write and teach otherwise, be never
so great, it profiteth you nothing.
SEC.XXI. This common sense, or natural reason, is most

highly offended forsooth, that God should leave

What car- men^ should harden them, should damn them, of

his own sheer will; as if he were delighted with
the sins and torments of the wretched, which are
so great and eternal : whereas he is declared to be
a God of so great mercy and goodness. It has
been deemed unjust, cruel and insufferable to
entertain such a sentiment concerning God ; with
which so many, and those such great men, during
so many ages, have also been offended. — And
who would not be offended? I myself have been

d Pr(Etexi.~] Properly, ' a fine web of art spread before a sub
stance to cover, or disguise it.' — Judidum naturale, like ratio
naturalis above, opposes ' natural ' to ' spiritual.' The conclu
sions are so obvious, that we need not the Spirit to draw them.

nal reason
hates.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 291

offended at it, more than once, to the very depth, SEC.XXI
and lowest depth0 of despair, so as to wish that I
had never been created a man : until I learned
how salutary that despair was, and how near of
kin to grace. Hence all this toil and sweat in
putting forward' the goodness of God, and accus
ing the will of man: here lay the discovery of
those distinctions between God's regulated and
absolute will, between the necessity of a conse
quence and of a consequent, and much of like
kind ; which have produced no result however,
save that the ignorant have been imposed upon
by " vain babblings, and by oppositions of science
falsely so called."' Still there has always re
mained this sting infixed in the deep of their
hearts, both to the learned and to the unlearned,
if ever they have come to be serious ; that they
could not believe the prescience and omnipotency
of God without perceiving our necessity.

Even natural reason, though offended by this
necessity, and making such vast efforts to remove
it, is compelled to admit its existence, through
the conviction of her own private judgment; which
would be the same, even if there were no Scrip-

f 4byssum.~\ ' Alyssus est profunditas uquarum impenetrabilis,
sive speluncce aquarum latentium, de quibus fontes et ihimina
procedunt, vel qurc occulte subtereant. Hence applied to ' the
abyss.' " They besought him that he would not command
ithem to go out into ihe abyss. ' (Gr.) " Art thou come hither
Ito torment us before the time ?" — Luther had felt the very hell
of despair.

' And in the lowest deep,
A lower deep still threatening to devour me
Opens wide.'

f Pro cxcusandd bonitate Dei."] Excus. ' Item, in cxcnsa-
jtionem affero.' — For regulated and absolute will see above,
'Sect. xix. where he distinguishes these as rolunt. ordin. scu signi,
md volunt. placiti. — For consequence and consequent, see Part i.
Sect xi.

g 1 Tim. vi. 20. avnOcacis. ' Doctrina opposite,' ' quaestio
juae ad disceptandum proponitur.' — Not what is commonly un-
lerstood by opposition ; but men setting out to canvass doe-
Tines with a great display of school-learning, and maintaining
.heses which were opposite to the truth.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. ture. For all find this sentiment written in their

hearts, so as to recognise and approve it, even

against their will, when they hear it discussed :
first, that God is omnipotent, not only in what he
is able to do, but also in what he actually does,
as I have said ;h else he would be a ridiculous
God : secondly, that he knows and foreknows all
things, and can neither mistake, nor be misled.
These two things being conceded through the
testimony of their heart and senses, by and by
they are compelled to admit by an inevitable
consequence, that we were not made by our own
will, but by necessity; and hence, that we do not
any thing in right of Freewill, but just as God
hath foreknown and doth direct us, by a counsel
and an energy which is at once infallible and
immutable. So then, we find it written at once
in all hearts that there is no such thing as Free
will : although this writing be obscured, through
the circumstance of so many contrary disputa
tions, and so many persons of such vast authority
having, for so many ages, taught differently. Just
as every other law, which (according to Paul's
testimony) has been written in our hearts, is
recognised when rightly handled, but obscured,
when distorted by ungodly teachers and laid hold
of by other opinions.1

sc. xxii. I return to Paul. Now, if he be not solving
ihis question, and concluding human necessity
from the prescience and will of God, what need

Paul's ar
gument

h See above, Sect. xx.

1 Paul's testimony can only respect the fact that a law may
be written in our hearts, which is not outwardly taught and
professed : for it is neither the same law, of which Paul
speaks ; neither does he testify any thing- about the handling1,
or about the recognition of that law. (Rom. ii. 13 — 16.) —
Luther supposes this law of necessity to lie at the bettom of
our hearts, so that, when we hear it duly and truly set out, we
by the exercise of our natural powers accord with it ; whilst
it may be made illegible, and effaced, by false teaching and
prejudice.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 293

has he to introduce the simile of the potter sc. xxn.
making, out of one and the same lump, one vessel -
to honour and another to dishonour? Yet the

thing- made doth not say to its maker ' why hast dishonest
thou made me thus ? ' It is men that he is and cow-
speaking of: whom he compares to clay, and JJjJJjd
God to the potter. There is no meaning in the escape, but
comparison ; nay, it is absurd and adduced to cannot-
no purpose, if he do not mean that our liberty is
nothing. Nay, Paul's whole argument in support
of grace is abortive. The very scope of his *
whole Epistle is to shew that we can do nothing,
yea even then, when we seem to be doing good ;
as he saith in the same place, ' how that Israel,
by following after righteousness, hath not how
ever attained to righteousness; but the Gentiles,
which followed not, have attained to it : ' k of
which I shall speak more at large when I produce
my own forces.

But Diatribe, disguising the whole body of
Paul's argument, together with its scope, consoles
herself meanwhile with garbled and corrupted
words.1 It is nothiug to Diatribe, that Paul after
wards, in Rom. xi. exhorts them, on the other
hand; saying, " Thou standest by faith ; see that
thou art not lifted up." And again : " They also,
if they believe, shall be gralfed in," &c. He says
nothing there about the powers of man ; but uses
imperative and conjunctive verbs, the effect of
which has been sufficiently declared already."1

k Rom. ix. 30. — I have not marked the words as a Scripture
quotation, because they are not exact. He says in the same
place : the intervening verses are all dependent upon verse 24,
being so many quotations to shew, that it was God's avowed
purpose to call a body of Gentiles into his church, and to save
only a remnant of Israel.

1 Excisis et depravatis.~\ Exc. words ' cut out' from the text,
in which they stand connected with others. Depr. ' turned
awry,' f made crooked ;' their meaning, through this violent
separation, distorted and polluted.

m See above, Part iii. Sect, xxxiv.

21)4 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. Nay, Paul himself, in the very same place, as if
to prevent the vaunters of Freewill, does not say
that they can believe; but, " God is able to graft'
them in," says he. — To be short, Diatribe proceeds
with so trembling and hesitating a step in handling
these texts from Paul's writings, that she seems,
in conscience, to dissent from even her own words.
For, in those places where she ought most of all
to have gone on and proved her doctrine, she
almost always breaks off the discourse with a —
' But enough of this ;' or, < I will not investigate
this point now ;' or, f It is no part of this subject;'
or, ' They would say so and so ;' and many like
expressions." Thus she leaves the matter in the
midst, making it doubtful whether she would
rather seem to be standing up as a champion
for Freewill, or only to be shewing her skill in
parrying off Paul with vain words." All this she
does after a law and manner of her own ; as one
who is not in earnest whilst pleading this cause.
But we ought not to be thus indifferent ; thus to
skim the ears of corn; thus to be shaken like a
reed with the winds : but, first to assert con
fidently, steadfastly, fervently; and then to de
monstrate by solid, apposite, and abundant proof
the doctrine we maintain. p

Then again, how exquisitely does she contrive
to preserve liberty in union with necessity, when
she says, Nor does every sort of necessity exclude
freedom of will. As for instance, God the Father
necessarily begets the Son; but he begets him
willingly and freety, inasmuch as he is not com
pelled to beget him. Are \ve disputing now,

n Excutiam. instituti.'] Excut. ' concutere, scrutamli ct cxplo-
randi causa.' Inst. ' scopus, proposition, inceptum.' irpoaipeatf

0 Pro libero arbitrio dicer e. Eludere Paulnm.

P Super arhtas incedere.~] See above, Part iii. Sect. vi. note b.
' Certo' opposed to ' hesitatingly ;' constanter, to ' variableness
of statement;' ardenttr, to ' indifference;' solidc, to ' insub
stantial;' dextrc, to a ' clumsiness, and want of address;'
copiose, to ' scantiness of materials.'

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED.

pray, about compulsion and force ? Have I not sc. xxil.
in all my writings testified, that I speak of a
necessity of immutability?'1 I know that the
Father willingly begets; I know that Judas be
trayed Christ through an act of his will. But I
affirm that this will was about to be in this very
Judas, certainly and infallibly, if God foreknew it.
If what I affirm be not yet sufficiently understood,
' let us refer one sort of necessity — that of vio
lence — to the work; another sort of necessity —
that of infallibility — to the time.' Let him who
hears me understand me to speak of the latter of
these two necessities, not of the former ; that is,
I am not discussing whether Judas became a
traitor willingly or unwillingly, but, whether at
the time fore-appointed of God it must not infal
libly come to pass, that Judas, by an act of his
own will, betrays Christ.

But see what Diatribe says here : ' If you
look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, Judas
was necessarily to become a traitor ; but Judas
might have changed his will/ Do you even know
what you are saying, my Diatribe? To omit,
what has been already proved, that the will can
but choose evil; how could Judas change his will
in consistency with the infallible foreknowledge
of God ? could he change the foreknowledge of
God, and make it fallible? Here Diatribe gives
in, deserts her standard, throws away her arms,
and flies; referring the discussion, as none of hers,
to those scholastic subtilties which distinguish
between the necessity of a consequence and the
necessity of a consequent:" a sort of quibble

i See above, Part iii. Sect, xxxvii. note h.

1 In consistency with what has been said before (Part i.
Sect, xi.), but with a minute variety in the application, Judas's
treachery, they would say, was necessary, but he was not
a necessary traitor : he must betray, but not therefore ne
cessarily ; that is, according to their account of the matter,
compulsorily.

296 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. which she has no mind to pursue. It is very
prudent in you doubtless, after having conducted
your cause all the way into the midst of a crowded
court5 — when now a pleader is most of all neces
sary — to turn your back, and leave the business of
replying and defining1 to others. You should
have acted this counsel from the first, and
abstained from writing altogether ; according to
that saying, ( The man who knows not how to
contend abstains from the weapons of the field/"
It was not expected of Erasmus, that he should
remove v that difficulty, ' how God with certainty
foreknows, yet our actions are contingent/ This
difficulty was in the world long before Diatribe's
time. But it was expected that he should reply
and define. However, being himself a rheto
rician, whilst we know nothing about it, he calls
in a rhetorical transition to his aid, and — carrying
us ignoramuses along with him, as if the matter
in debate were one of no moment, and the whole
discussion were mere quirk and quibble, — dashes
violently out of the midst of the crowd, wearing
his crown of ivy and laurel."

s The ' mediae turbac' are the multitudes surrounding the
judicial tribunal: ' non usitaih. frequentid stipati sumus.' — Cic.
' Perduxeris ' expresses the pomp and the labour with which
he had dragged on the cause to issue.

I Respondendi et definiendi.'] Rcsp. has respect to the adver
sary's argument, which should be invalidated or taken off :
defin. is the explanatory statement of the advocate's own case.
See above, Part i. Sect. ix.

II Hor. Art. Poet, v. 379.

v Moveret.~\ There is a peculiar force, if I mistake not, in
' moveret :' he does not say ' remoA'e,' though I have ventured,
with good authority, to give it that force ; rather, it is a heavy
body which he cannot ' wag.'

x Luther thus ridicules his claim to skill and victory. In
many sorts of competition, and for many sorts of merit, it was
customary to crown the concmerors with various materials-
sometimes precious, sometimes of no value — as the highest
tribute of honour which could be received. Here therefore
he represents Erasmus as crowning himself ,- by a feint of rhe
toric abandoning his cause, and assuming to be a conquering

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 297

But you have not gained your end by this SECT.
stratagem, brother ! There is no skill in rhetoric XXIIL
so great as to be able to deceive a sincere con
science : the sting of conscience is mightier than
eloquence with all her powers and figures. We
shall not suffer the rhetorician to pass on here to
another topic, that he may hide himself: it is not
the place for this exhibition. The hinge of the
several matters in dispute, and the head of the
cause is attacked here : it is here that Freewill
is either extinguished, or shall gain a complete
triumph. But instead of meeting this crisis, no
sooner do you perceive your danger, or rather
perceive that the victory over Freewill is sure ;
than you pretend to see nothing but metaphysical
subtilties in the question. Is this acting the part
of a trusty theologian? Are you serious in the
cause ? How comes it then, that you both leave
your hearers in suspense, and the discussion in a
state of confusion and exasperation.-' Still how
ever, you would be thought to have done your
work very honourably, and would seem to have
carried off the palm. Such cunning and wili-
nessz may be endurable in profane causes; but in
theology, where simple and undisguised truth is
the object of pursuit — that souls may be saved —
it is most hateful and intolerable.

The Sophists also have felt the invincible and Much joy
insupportable force of this argument ; and have J^^ ^
therefore feigned this distinction between the Diatribe in

Bacchus, and an unrivalled Apollo, by wearing the emblems
of those divinities.

y Pertiirbatum ct exaspcratum."] Perturb, implies want of order
and distinctness ; no first, second, and third, either in reply
or advancement : exasp. the heat and ruffle with which it is
maintained ; we speak of ' angry' debate.

z f'afrifia ct rersutia.~\ Vof. expresses the subtile invention
which devises ; vcrsut. the versatility and adroitness with which
the crafty counsel is executed : opposed afterwards by simplex,
' what is inartificial ;' and apcrta, ' what is manifest to the
view.'

298 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. necessity of a consequence and of a consequent :

but how fruitless this distinction is, has been

then- ne- shewn already.a They also, like yourself, are not
aware what they say, and how much they admit

a conse

quent, against themselves. For, if you allow the neces
sity of a consequence, Freewill is vanquished and
laid prostrate, and is nothing aided by the conse
quent's being either necessary or contingent.
What is it to me, that Freewill does what she
does willingly and not by compulsion? it is enough
for me that you concede, e it must necessarily be
that Judas do willingly what he does ; and that
the event cannot be otherwise, if God hath so
foreknown it.' If God foreknows that Judas will
betray the Lord, or that he will change his will to
betray him ; whether of the twain he shall have
foreknown vwill necessarily come to pass : else
God will be mistaken in his foreknowings and
foretellings ; which is impossible. The necessity
of the consequence effects this ; if God foreknows
an event, that very event necessarily happens.
In other words, Freewill is a nothing. This
necessity of the consequence is neither ob
scure, nor ambiguous : if the great doctors in all
ages have even been blind, they must still be
obliged to admit its existence, since it is so mani
fest and so certain as to be palpable.5

But the necessity of the consequent, with which
they comfort themselves, is a mere phantom, and
fights, as the saying is, diametrically with the ne
cessity of the consequence. For example ; it is
the necessity of a consequence, if I say ' God
foreknows that Judas will be a traitor ; therefore
it will certainly and infallibly come to pass, that
Judas is a traitor.' In opposition to this neces-

a See above, note r.

b PalpariJ] ' What you may stroke with the hand.' The
gentlemen which have no eyes may still receive sense-testi
mony to it.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 299

sity of the consequence, you console yourself in SECT.
this way: But since Judas may change his will to xxiv.
betray; therefore there is no necessity in the con- "
sequent. I demand of you, how these two asser
tions agree with each other : ' Judas may not be
willing to betray;' and ' it is necessary, that
Judas be willing to betray/ Do they not directly
contradict and fight against each other ? ' He
shall not be compelled (say you) to betray, against
his will/ — What is this to the purpose ? You
have been affirming something about the necessity
of a consequent; that it is not rendered necessary,
forsooth, by the necessity of the consequence ;
but you have affirmed nothing about the compul
sion of the consequent. Your answer ought to
have been touching the necessity of the conse
quent; and you produce an example which shews
compulsion in the consequence. I ask one ques
tion and you reply to another. All this is the
produce of that half asleep half awake state of
mind, in which you do not perceive how perfectly
inefficient that device is, the necessity of a con
sequent/

So much for the first of the two passages ;d The other
which respects the induration of Pharaoh, and admi"ed

text de-

c Comme)itum.~] The subtilty means ' Judas has still a -will,

which is not forced ; therefore there is Freewill still.' — Who

says 'forced?' But can it choose otherwise? A will, that

i can only make one choice, is in bondage. — The example of

Judas is introduced by Erasmus, not Luther.

d See Part iv. Sect. i. — The course of this long, elaborate,
and invincible argument may be traced by the side notes
attached to each section ; but the reader will forgive me if I
endeavour to assist him by the following short summary.
Erasmus endeavours to evade this plain text by a trope.
1. Tropical interpretations are generally inadmissible. 2. Ab
surdity of the proposed one. 3. It does not remove the diffi
culty. 4. Certain illustrations objected to. 5. The causes
assigned for introducing it examined. (>. How God hardens ex
plained. 7- Diatribe exposed, and Luther's view maintained by
an appeal to the context. Also, by an appeal to Paul's comment ;
which introduces Erasmus's evasion and that of the Sophists. —
jln the course of these considerations several topics are ad-

300 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. involves all the texts of like kind, amounting to

a phalanx — and that an invincible one. Let us

now examine the second, about Jacob and Esau ;
of whom, when not yet born, it was said " The
elder shall serve the younger." Diatribe evades
this passage by saying, ' It has nothing properly
to do with the subject of man's salvation. God
may will that a man be a servant or a poor man,
whether the man will or no, without his being
rejected from eternal salvation/

Nothing See how many side-paths and holes of escape a
salvation, slippciy mind seeks after, which is intent upon
So'Jerome flying away from truth; but still she does not
had said. qujte accomplish her flight. Let us suppose, if
you will, that this text does not appertain to
man's salvation (of which I shall speak hereafter),
is it to no purpose then, that Paul adduces it?
Shall we make Paul ridiculous, or absurd, in the
midst of so serious a discussion ? Howbeit, this is a
fancy of Jerome's; who, with abundant arrogance
on his brow, whilst he is committing sacrilege
with his mouth, has the audacity in more places
than one to affirm, that those Scriptures which
oppose in Paul, do not oppose in their proper
places,0 from which he quotes them. What is this
but to say, that, in laying the foundations of
Christian doctrine, Paul does but corrupt the
divine Scriptures, and beguile the souls of the
faithful, by a sentiment which is the coinage of
his own brain, and which is intruded upon the
Scriptures by violence ? Such is the honour,
which the Spirit ought to receive, in the person of
that holy and choice instrument of God, Paul !
Now, whereas Jerome ought to be read with
judgment, and this saying of his to be classed

mitted by the way : such as the state of man, limits of inquiry,
carnal reason's objections, &c. . . .

e Pugnant.~\ Said Avith reference to some particular doctrine
not named — the doctrine of Freewill doubtless, as maintained
by Jerome and those who teach like him.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 301

amongst the many which that gentleman (through SECT.
his listlessness in studying, and his dulness in XXV-
understanding Scripture) has written impiously ;
Diatribe snaps up this very saying without
any judgment, and does not deign to mitigate
it, as she might at least do, with a gloss of some
sort, but both judges and qualifies the Scriptures
by this saying, as an oracle which precludes all
doubt. Thus it is, that we take the ungodly say
ings of men as so many rules and measures for
interpreting the divine word : and can we any
longer wonder that it has become ambiguous and
obscure, and that so many of the Fathers are
blind to its real meaning, when it is thus made
impious and profane ?

Let him be anathema therefore who shall say, paui de-
' those words do not oppose the doctrine in their fended in
original places, which do oppose as quoted by GenTxxv.
Paul.' This is said, but not proved ; and is said 21—23.
I by those, who neither understand Paul nor the N°thlllf

-111-1 i- gained by

passages cited by him, but deceive themselves by supposing
i taking the words in their own sense; that is, an thc service
impious one. For although this text in particular
(Gen. xxv. 21 — 23.) were meant of temporal ser
vitude' only (which is not true); still it is rightly
and efficaciously quoted by Paul to prove, that,
not for the merits of Jacob or of Esau, but through
him that calleth, it was said to Sarah8 "The

f What is, in fact, gained by this distinction ? The prin
ciple is the same ; ' God of his sovereign will putting a differ
ence.' — Just so it is, with respect to national and personal elec-
.tion. Yet some seem to think that they have hooked a great
'fish, in discovering, that Great Britain may have been elected to
hear the Gospel without any of her children having been
;elected to receive it !

8 Sarah.'] Clearly, it should be Rebekah. Sarah was dead
when this prophecy was delivered, which is expressly said to
have been delivered to Rebekah. "And she (Rebekah) said,
[f it be so, &c. And the Lord said unto her." Gen. xxv. 22, 23.
The preceding mention of Sarah in Rom. ix. accounts for the
mistake.

302 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. elder shall serve the younger." — PauPs question
is, whether they attained to what is said of them
by the virtue or merits of Freewill ; and he
proves that, not by the virtue or merits of Free
will, but only by the grace of him that called
him, Jacob attained to what Esau did not. This
he proves by invincible words of Scripture : such
as, that they were not yet born ; and again, that
they had done neither good nor evil. The weight
of the matter lies in this proof ; this is the point
under debate. But Diatribe, through her ex
quisite skill in rhetoric, passing over and dis
guising all these things, does not at all debate the
question of merits (although she had undertaken
to do so, and although PauPs handling of the
subject requires it), but quibbles about tem
poral servitude (as if this were any thing to
the purpose) ; only that she may appear not to
be conquered by those most mighty words of
Paul. For what could she have to yelp out
against Paul, in support of Freewill ? what
profit was there of Freewill to Jacob ? what
hurt of the same to Esau ? when it had been
settled by the foreknowledge and ordination of
God what sort of a lot each of them should re
ceive : namely, that the one should serve, and the
other should rule ; when as yet neither of them
was born, or had done any thing. The rewards,
which each shall receive, are decreed before the
workmen are born, and have begun to work. It
is to this point, that Diatribe ought to have
directed her reply. This is what Paul insists
upon, that they had done nothing good or evil
as yet; but still the one is ordained to be the
master and the other the servant, by a divine judg
ment. The question is not, whether this ser
vitude have respect to eternal salvation, but by
what merit this servitude is imposed upon a man
who has not merited any thing. But it is most

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 303

irksome to maintain a conflict with these depraved11 SECT.
endeavours to torture and elude Scripture. xxvi.

Howbeit, that Moses is not treating of their Theservice
temporal servitude and dominion only, and that is not
Paul is rig-lit in this also, that he understands him r^-af bu"1"
to speak with reference to their eternal salvation spiritual,
(although this be not so important to the point in
hand, I will not however sutler Paul to be defiled
with the calumnies of sacrilegious men '), is
proved from the text itself. The divine answer k
given to Rebekah in the book of Moses is, " Two
manner of people shall be separated from thy
womb ; and the one people shall overcome
the other people, and the elder shall serve the
younger/' Here two sorts of people are mani
festly distinguished from each other. The one
is received into the free favour of God, although
the younger, so as to overcome the elder ; not by
strength, it is true, but through God's befriending
him. How else should the younger conquer the
elder, except God were with him ? Now, since
the younger is about to become the people of

h Pravls.'] Nearly allied in meaning to the torquendce Scrip
ture which follows ; ' what is crooked and awry.' — No objec
tion, it is obvious, can be drawn from the statement in this
paragraph, and from St. Paul's argument, to what has been
'advanced in a former note (see above, Sect. x. note z.) on the
•subject of original sin. The question is about the difference
.between Jacob and Esau. Both alike fallen and self-destroyed
In Adam, the question is how either of these receives dis-
jtinguishing benefits, whether of a temporal or eternal nature.
|With respect to manifest existence and distinct personal
Agency, neither of them, it is plain, had done good or evil,
'when the words were spoken to llebekah. That which alone
coxild constitute any difference on a ground of Freewill or
merit, there had as yet been no opportunity of displaying.

1 See last section. The question of Freewill is not affected.
Erasmus follows Jerome, whom Luther has pronoxmced sacri-
.egious. .

k Oraculum.~\ It is said of llebekah, that " she went to in-
inire of the Lord." Oraculum therefore, 'an answer, counsel,
>r sentence from the Gods,1 is the fit term by which to charac-
-erise what was said to her.

304 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. God,1 it is not only external dominion or ser-

vitude, that is treated of here, but every thing

which appertaineth to the people of God ; that
is, the blessing of God, the word, the Spirit, the
promise of Christ, and the eternal kingdom :
which is even yet more largely confirmed by the
Scripture afterwards, where it describes Jacob
as being blessed, and as receiving the promises
and the kingdom. Paul intimates these several
things briefly, when he says, " the elder shall
serve the younger:" sending us back to Moses,
as one who treats them more at large. So that,
in opposition to the sacrilegious111 comment of
Jerome and Diatribe, you may say, that all the
passages which Paul adduces fight yet more
stoutly against Freewill in their original places,
than in his writings. A remark which holds

O

good, not only with respect to Paul, but with re
spect to all the Apostles ; who quote the Scrip
tures as witnesses to, and assertors of their doc
trine. Would not it be ridiculous to quote as a
testimony, that which testifies nothing, and does
not bear upon the question ? If those be accounted
ridiculous amongst philosophers, who prove an
unknown thing by one yet more unknown, or by
an argument which is foreign to the subject;
with what face shall wTe ascribe this absur
dity to the chief leaders and authors of the doc
trine of Christ ; on which the salvation of souls
depends ? especially in those parts of their writ
ings in which they treat of the main articles of the

1 Isaac's descendants in the line of Jacob were not only to
be the typical family — the community which shadowed out the
Lord's elect church — but also to be the visible church for a
season, and to contain within them the true seed : so that all
the spiritual blessings of God were comprehended in this supe
riority which is announced as the portion of Jacob.

m Sacrilegcon."] ' Qui sacra legit,'1 i. e. furatur. Thus, sacri
lege is beautifully defined by Johnson to be ' the crime of
robbing heaven.' Jerome and those who followed him were
guilty of this.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 305

faith. But such insinuations become those, who have SECT.
uo real reverence for the divine Scriptures?"

That saying of Malachi's which Paul annexes, Dhtribe>s
" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," evasions
she tortures by three distinct productions of her ofiMabc.i.
industry.0 The first is, ' If you insist upon the u'bya
letter/ God does not love as we love ; nor does tloPe Put
he hate any man : since God is not subject to
affections of this kind/

What is it I hear? Is it not made the ques
tion, how God loves and hates ; instead of why
he loves and hates ? By what merit of ours he
loves or hates, is the question. We know very
well, that God does not hate or love, as we do ;
since we both love and hate mutably ; but he
loves and hates according to his eternal and im
mutable nature : so far is he from being the sub
ject of accident and affection. And it is this very
thing which compels Freewill to be a mere no
thing ; namely, that the love of God towards men
is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards
them eternal ; not only prior to the merit and
operation of Freewill, but even to the very mak
ing of the world; and that every thing is wrought
in us necessarily, according to his having either
loved us or not loved us, from eternity : insomuch
that not only the love of God, but even his manner
of loving, brings necessity upon us. — See here

" Qui sacris scripturis serib non affiduntur.~\ Luther has a
peculiar use of the word nfficio, or rather afficior, which I recog
nise here — ' affected to' — denoting a mind interested in,
having its affections excited towards an object.

0 Triplid industrid tor(]iiet.~] A peculiar use of the word
industrid — which commonly denotes ' a state, or act, of mind* —
to express ( the result of that act;' and this in an unfavour
able sense : ' a laboured excogitation, in which there is neither
genius, nor the Spirit.' (See above, Sect. v. note z.)

p .Si literam urgeasJ] By way of forcing a tropical inter
pretation of the text, she intimates that the literal cannot pos
sibly stand. ' If you drive the letter;' that is, force us to take
it whether we will or no.

306 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. what Diatribe's attempts at escape have profited
- her; every where she but runs aground the more,
the more she strives to slip away : so unsuc
cessful a thing is it to struggle against truth.
But let your trope be allowed : let the love of
God be the effect of love, and the hatred of God
the effect of hatred ; are these effects wrought
without, or beside,q the will of God ? Will you
also say here, God doth not will as we do; neither
is he subject to the affection of willing ? If these
effects take place then, they take place only \vhen
he wills : and what he wills, that he either loves
or hates. Tell me then, by what merit on their
part severally, Jacob is loved and Esau is hated
before they are born and perform any act? It
appears therefore, that Paul doth most excellently
introduce Malachi to support the sentiment of
Moses (namely, that God called Jacob before he
was born, because he loved him, and not because
he was loved before by Jacob, or because he was
moved by any merit of his to do so); that it might
be shewn in the case of Jacob and Esau, what
our Freewill can do/

SECT. The second of these laboured excogitations is,
__ _ ' 'that Malachi seems not to be speaking of the
hatred by which we are eternally damned, but of

speaks of a temporary affliction. It is a reprehension of

those wll° would build UP Edom.'

Here is a second word of reproach for Paul,
as doing violence to Scripture : so entirely do we
cast off our reverence for the majesty of the Holy
Spirit, if we may but establish our own conclu-

<J Citra et prater.] More literally, ' on this side and beyond :'
implying therefore that they are altogether of him and through
him and to him.

r Erasmus says it is not love and hate, but the effect of these.
Luther replies, if effect, it is God's will that effects, and the
effect is what he approves : he approves one sort of event to
Jacob therefore, and another to Esau. — How much forwarder
are you ?

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 307-

sions. But we will bear this insult for a while. SECT.

"

and see what good it does. Malachi speaks of
temporal affliction. What comes of this ? or
what is this to the point in hand ? Paul is prov
ing from Malachi that this affliction was brought
upon Esau without any merit of his, by the mere
hatred of God ; that he may conclude Freewill to
be nothing. Here it is you are pressed : to this
point you ought to direct your answer. We are
disputing about merit, you speak of reward ; and
in such a way as not however to elude what you
was meaning to elude : nay, in even speaking of
reward you acknowledge merit.5 But you pre
tend that you do not see this. Tell me then, what
was the cause in the divine mind for loving Jacob
and hating Esau, when they were not yet in

I being. — Again ; it is false, that Malachi speaks
only of temporary affliction ; nor is his business
with the destruction of Edom : you pervert the
whole meaning of the Prophet by this laboured
subtilty. The Prophet makes it quite plain what

i he means, by using the clearest terms : his mean-
'; ing is to upbraid the Israelites with their ingra
titude, because, whilst he has been loving them,
j they in return are neither loving him as a father,
nor fearing him as a master. The fact of his
i having loved them he proves both by Scripture
i and by actual performance. For instance, although

I 1 Jacob and Esau were brothers, as Moses writes
in Gen. xxv. he had however loved and chosen
Jacob before he was born (as we have just shewn),

s To make this text consist with Freewill, there must be
ground of love and of hate in the personal mind and conduct of
the two persons. — What follows is a muster's view of Malachi's
prophecy, and decisive as to the question. Judah's reproach is
that he has been freely, distinguishingly loved, and has been
so treacherous. The essence of the reproach is the freeness of
the love : and what is this temporality, which extends from
generation to generation, and which comprehends as its cen
tral portion ' the eternal God had,' in opposition to ( not had,
but had for an enemy ?'

x2

308 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. but had so hated Esau as to have reduced his

country to a wilderness. Moreover he hates,

and persists in hating, with such pertinacity, that,
after having brought Jacob back from captivity
and restored him, still he suffered not the Edom-
ites to be restored ; but, even if they should say
they would build, himself threatens them with
destruction. If the Prophet's own plain text1
does not contain these things, let the whole world
charge me with telling a lie. It is not the teme
rity of the Edomites then, which is reprehended
here, but the ingratitude (as I have said) of the
sons of Jacob ; who do not see what he is con
ferring upon them, and what he is taking away
from their brothers the Edomites, for no reason
but because he hates the one, and loves the
other."

How will it now stand good, that the Prophet
is speaking of temporary affliction ? when he de
clares in plain terms, that he is speaking about
two distinct nations of people, who had descended
from the two Patriarchs : that the one of these
had been taken up to be his people, and had been
preserved ; the other had been abandoned, and
at length destroyed. Now the act of taking up
a people as a people, and not taking them up as
such, has not respect to temporal good or evil
only, but to every thing. For our God is not the
God of our temporal possessions only, but of
every thing we have and look for : nor will he
choose to be, your God, or to be worshipped by
you, with half a shoulder, or a limping foot, but
with all your strength and with all your heart ; so
as to be your God both here and hereafter, in all
circumstances, cases, times, and works.

1 Textusipse apertus Prophsta.] Ipse, without any additions
of mine ; apertus, what requires no opening to make its mean
ing clear.

" Hie odit, illic amat."] More literally, 'hates in the one
quarter, and loves in the other.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 309

The third of these elaborate excogitations is, sc.xxix.
' By a tropological form of expression, he declares
that he neither loves all the Gentiles nor hates all
the Jews; but some out of each. By this tro- trope for
pical interpretation it is made out. says she, that iews ..and

1 . f Gentiles.

this testimony has no voice tor proving neces
sity, but for repelling the arrogance of the Jews.
Having made this way of escape for herself, she
next goes out by it to the length of maintaining,
that God is said to -hate those who are not yet
born, inasmuch as he knows beforehand that they
will do things worthy of hatred. Thus the hatred
and love of God are no obstacle to Freewill. She
comes at last to the conclusion, that the Jews
have been cut oft' from the olive tree by the merit
of unbelief; that the Gentiles have been grafted
into it by the merit of faith — making Paul the
author of this sentiment — and gives hope to them
that have been cut off, that they shall again be
grafted in; and fear to them that have been
grafted in, lest they should be cut off'/

Let me die, if Diatribe knows herself what she
is saying. But perhaps there is here also some
rhetorical figure, which teaches scholars to obscure
the sense, wherever there is any clanger of being-
entrapped by the word. I see none of those
tropical forms of speech here, which Diatribe
imagines to herself in her dreams, but does not
prove : no wonder then, that the testimony of
Malachi does not oppose her, if taken in a
tropological sense ; when it has no such sense at
all. Again ; our subject of disputation is not
that cutting oft' and grafting in of which Paul ,
speaks afterwards/ when he exhorts. We know

v I insert the word ' afterwards ' to give clearness. It is
evidently the eleventh chapter to which lie refers. — There can
not be a more pernicious practice in the interpretation of Scrip
ture (whilst there is scarcely any more common), than that of
dragging in words which are somewhere thereabouts, but do really
stand in quite a different connection, and have a perfectly dif-

310 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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

She takes her third passage from Isaiah xlv.
The simile " ^°^1 the C^a7 sav ^° ^s potter, what makcst

ferent scope ; to ascertain the meaning of a proposed text. An
argument, or rather an illustrative exhortation of the eleventh
chapter, separated from the preceding by many intervening
subjects of discussion, is adduced by Erasmus to determine
the meaning of an express affirmation in the early part of
the ninth.

x According to Paul's distinction of offices in Rom. xii. 6 — 8.
" Having then gifts, &c. ; or he that teacheth, on teaching ;
or he that exhorteth on exhortation."

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 311

tliou?" And from Jeremiah xviii. "As the clay is sc. xxx.

in the hand of the potter, so are ye in my hand." •

'These words, again, are much stronger combatants t}le ^and

T» i i ' j.i ji T^ i of the pot-

Ill raul, she says, than in the .Prophets from ter, Paul

whence they are taken ; in the Prophets they does not
are spoken of temporal affliction,, but Paul applies Sp^ai
them to eternal election and reprobation' — giving afflictions
Paul a black-eye for his temerity, or for his evaded
ignorance. force.

But, before we see how she proves that neither
of these passages exclude Freewill, let me first
observe, that Paul does not appear to have taken
this passage from the Prophets, nor does Diatribe
prove that he has. Paul is wont to bring in the
name of the writer, or to protest that he takes his
sentiment from the Scriptures : neither of which
he does here. It is therefore more probable that
Paul uses this general simile (which different
writers adopt for the illustration of different
causes), in a sense of his own, for the illustration
of the cause which he has in hand. Just as he
does with that simile, " A little leaven corrupteth
the whole lump ;" which, in 1 Cor. v., he adapts
to corruptive manners, and elsewhere casts in the
teeth of those who were corrupting the word of
God : just as Christ also makes mention of the
leaven of Herod and of the Pharisees. So then,
although the Prophets may speak especially of
temporal affliction (a point which I decline speak
ing to now, that I may not be so often occupied
and put off with questions foreign to the subject);
still Paul uses it in a sense of his own, against
Freewill. But, how far it is shewn that Freewill
is not taken away, if we be clay to the afflicting
hand of God ; or why Diatribe insists upon this
distinction; I know not: since it is unquestion
able, that afflictions come upon us from God against
our own will, and put us under the necessity of
bearing them, whether we will or no, nor have
we it in our own power to avert them ; although

312 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. we are exhorted, it is true, to bear them with a

willing mind/
sc.xxxi. But it is worth while to hear Diatribe prose-

cute her cavil, that Paul does not exclude Free-

The cavil wilj jn njs argumentation, by introducing this
2°Thnii. simile. She objects two absurdities ; one of which
repelled, she gathers from Scripture, the other from reason.
The Scriptural one runs thus.

When Paul had said in 2 Tim. ii. that in a
great house there are vessels of gold and of sil
ver and of wood and of earth ; some for honour,
and some for dishonour ; he presently adds, " if a
man shall have cleansed himself from these he
shall be a vessel unto honour, &c." Upon this,
Diatribe reasons thus : ( What could be more
foolish than if a man should say to an earthen
urinal, if thou shalt have purged thyself, thou
shalt be a vessel of honour? which however would
be rightly enough said to a cask possessed of
reason, which has the faculty of accommodating
itself to the will of its master, when admonished
what that will is.' From these hints she would
collect that the simile does not square in all
respects, and is so far parried, as to prove no
thing. I answer, first, to the exclusion of this
cavil, that Paul does not say, if a man shall have
cleansed himself from his own filth, but from
these ; that is, from the vessels of reproach : so
that the sense is, if a man shall abide in a state
of separation from these ungodly teachers, and
shall not have mixed himself with them, he shall
be a vessel of honour, &c. But, what if I should
also grant that this text of Paul's has no more

>' Erasmus says the Prophets speak only of temporal afllic-
tions. What of this \ You do not disprove bond-will by this
distinction, if it be just : rather, you adduce an instance of
bond-will. These afflictions come, lie, remain against our
will. How much does this shew of freedom ? — Voluntarie<
WTe are taught indeed to make God's pleasure ours ; but,
whether we be enabled to do so, or not, his pleasure only is
done.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 313

efficacy than Diatribe wishes to give to it ; that sc.xxxi.

is, that the simile proves nothing? how will she

prove that Paul means just, the same thing in that
passage from Rom. ix. which we are discussing?
Is it enough, to quote another passage, and to
have no care at all whether it have the same
scope or a different one ? There is not any easier
or commoner failure in the interpretation of Scrip
ture, as I have often shewn, than that of paral
lelizing different passages of Scripture, as being
alike;7' so that similitude of texts (on the ground
of which Diatribe here vaunts herself) is even
more inefficacious than this simile of ours which
she is confuting. But, not to be contentious, let
me grant that each of these passages in Paul's
writings means the same thing : and that a simile
(which without controversy is true) does not
always, and in all particulars, square with the
thing illustrated. Indeed, if it did, it would be
neither simile nor metaphor, but the very thing
itself; according to the proverb, ' Simile halts,
and does not always run upon all fours/

But here is Diatribe's error and offence ; she

overlooks the cause of the comparison which

Dught to be looked at more than all the rest, and is

captious #nd contentious about words : whereas

the meaning is to be sought, as Hilary says, not

>nly from the words used, but also from the causes

which give occasion to them. Thus the force of a

5i mile depends upon the cause of the simile. Why

jlien does Diatribe leave out the matter for the sake

)f which Ppail uses the simile, and catch at what he

jiays over and above the cause of the simile.

VVHiat he says, ' If a man shall have cleansed

limself,' belongs to exhortation ; what he says, 'In

i great house are vessels, &c.' belongs to teach-

ng: so that, from all the circumstances of Paul's

z Velut

he exact

chariot.'

similes conptare.'} I have given the idea rather than
word : it is ' pairing, like horses joined together in

314 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. '

PART iv. words and sentiment, you would understand him
to be making* a declaration about the diversity
and use of vessels. The meaning therefore is,
' Since so many are now departing from the faith,
we have no consolation but in that we are sure,
the foundation of God standeth firm, having this
seal to it ; the Lord knoweth them that are his,
and every one who calleth upon the name of the
Lord departeth from iniquity/ Thus far we have
the cause and the force of the simile ; namely,
' that the Lord knoweth them that are his/ Then
follows the simile; namely, 'that there are different
vessels, some to honour, and some to disgrace/
Here ends the doctrine ; namely, ( that vessels do
not prepare themselves, but their master prepares
them/ Rom. ix. means also the same thing; 'that
the potter hath power, &c/ Thus doth Paul's
simile remain unshaken, as most efficacious to
prove that Freewill is nothing before God.a

After these follows the exhortation, " If any
man shall have purged himself from these ;" the
force of which expressions is well known from
what has been said above. It does not follow from

a Coram Deo.~] Referring to a distinction which I have
already objected to (See Part i. Sect. xxv. note ' ) ; as though
there were some objects and considerations, with regard to
which it is not a nothing. — Erasmus argues against the con
clusion drawn from the simile of the potter, chiefly by appeal
ing to 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21. Luther says, 1. You mistake the
words " from these." 2. If the simile be inefficacious here, this
does not prove it so in Rom. ix. You must prove the simili
tude which you assume. 3. This passage, rightly interpreted,
does mean the same, and does prove the very thing in dis
pute. — The account which Luther gives of this text, in
its connection and construction, is perfectly correct. Ruin
aboundeth ; " the nevertheless solid foundation of God stand
eth ;" evil does not contradict his Avill and plan, but fulfils it.
In a great house there are vessels of two sorts. God's eternal
separation of his people is manifested, realized, and consum
mated by their own God-enabled voluntary separation in time —
through his Spirit working in due season. 6c/u.e\io<? expresses
the whole elect church of God laid by him as a sort of huge
foundation-stone with inscriptions. See Zechar. Hi. 9.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 315

hence,, that he can therefore cleanse himself: nay, SECT.
if any thing be proved by these words, it is that
Freewill can cleanse itself without grace ; since
he does not say,, ' if grace shall have cleansed any
one/ but ' if he shall have cleansed himself/
Abundance however has been said. about impera-
ive and conjunctive verbs: and the simile, let it
observed, is not expressed in conjunctive
verbs, but indicative ; < as there are elect and
•eprobate, so there are vessels of honour and of
gnominy.' In a word, if this evasion be admitted,
auPs whole argument falls to the ground. To
what purpose would he introduce persons mur-
nuring against God as the potter, if the fault
vere seen to be in the vessel and not in the pot-
er? Who would murmur at hearing that one
worthy of damnation is damned ?b

Diatribe culls a second absurdity from Madam Reason's
Reason, commonly called Human Reason; namely, c*vl1 f1'0.?1
that the fault is not to be imputed to the vessel
)ut to the potter : especially since he is such a
ootter as creates the very clay itself and moulds
t. Here is a vessel cast into eternal fire, says
Diatribe, which has committed no fault but that
)f not being its own master/

Nowhere does Diatribe more openly betray Set forth
icrself than in this place. For here is heard, in au~
)ther words it is true, but with the same meaning,
ivhat Paul represents profane men as saying :
1 |f Why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his
fjvill?" This is that verity which reason can
: jieither apprehend, nor endure. This is what
>in"ends so many persons of excellent talents,
• eceived for so many ages ! Here forsooth they
lemand of God that he should act according to
uman law, and do what seeineth right to them; or

b On the contrary supposition to that assumed and reasoned
pon by Paul, the vessel is not the potter's workmanship, as
aving been made by him just such as he is ; but his own.
Vhy defend the potter then ?

316 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. cease to be God. The secrets of his Majesty
." shall profit him nothing. Let him give a reason

why he is God, or why he wills or does what
hath no appearance of justice ; as you would call
a cobbler or a tailor to come and stand at your
judgment-seat. The flesh does not think fit to put
such an honour upon God as to believe him just
and good, when he speaks and acts above and
beyond the rules prescribed in Justinian's Codex,
or the fifth book of Aristotle's Ethics. Let the
creative majesty give place to one single dreg
of his creation, and let the famed Corycian cave
change places with its spectators, and stand in
awe of them, not they of it! So then, it is absurd
that he damns a person who cannot avoid de
serving damnation : and because this is such an
absurdity, therefore it must be false that " he hath
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he
will he hardeneth." But he must be brought
to order, and laws must be prescribed to him,
that he may not condemn any one who has not
first deserved it according to our judgment. Thus
only can they be satisfied with Paul and his
simile ; namely, by his recalling it, and allowing
it to have no meaning, but so moderating it, that
according to Diatribe's explanation, the potter
here makes a vessel to dishonour, on the ground of
previous deservings : just as he rejects some Jews
And con- for unbelief; and takes up the Gentiles for their
faith. But if God's work be such that he have
respect to merits, why do they murmur and ex
postulate ? How come they to say, ' Why doth
he find fault? who resisteth his will?' What need
is there for Paul to stop their mouths ? For who
wonders, I will not say who is indignant or ex
postulates, if he be condemned of his own desert?
Again ; what becomes of the power of the potter
to make what he pleases, if he be subjected to
merits and laws ? He is not suffered to do what
he will, but is required to do what he ought,

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 317

Respect to merits is quite at variance with the SECT.
power and liberty of doing what he pleases : as XXXIIL
the householder in the parable proves, when he "
opposes liberty of will in the disposal of his good
things to the murmurs of his labourers who de
manded a distribution according to right. These
are amongst the considerations which invalidate
Diatribe's gloss.

But let us suppose pray, that God ought to be Exposed
such an one as hath regard to merits in the Jjjj^erby
damned. Shall we not equally maintain arid allowr, why"™*
that he looks at merits also in the saved. If we cavi.'
have a mind to follow Reason, it is equally unjust SvTtloa *
that the unworthy be crowned, as that the unwor- of the
.thy be punished. Let us conclude then, that saved?
iGod must justify on the ground of previous de-
servings; or we shall declare him unjust, as being
(delighted with evil and wicked men, and inviting
•ihein to impiety by crowning them with rewards.
IBut woe unto us — who would then be indeed
wretched beings — if this were our God. For who
ifchen should be saved ? — See how good for nothing
is the human heart ! When God saves the un
worthy without merit; nay, when he justifies the
ungodly with much demerit ; this heart does not
accuse him of unfairness : this heart does not then
limperiously demand of him why he wills thus —
;;hough it be most unfair, according to her ownc
•tidgment — but, forasmuch as it is advantageous
jind acceptable to herself, she counts this fair
!md good. But, when he condemns the unde-
jserving — seeing it is disadvantageous to herself —
khis is unfair, this is intolerable: here comes in
jexpostulation, murmuring, blasphemy.

You see then that Diatribe and her friends do not

: udge according to equity in this cause, but accord-

ng as their interest is affected. If she had regard

to equity, she would expostulate with God for

c Luther personifies ' the heart,' or rather ' the wicked-
jiess of the heart :' which I have therefore ventured to make
feminine.

318 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. crowning the unworthy, just as much as she does

for condemning the undeserving: she would also

commend and extol God for condemning the
undeserving, just as much as she does for
saving the unworthy. In each case there is
equal unfairness, if you refer the matter to
our own judgment ; unless it be not equally
unrighteous to commend Cain for his murder, and
make him a king ; as it would be to cast innocent
Abel into prison, or put him to death. When it
is found then, that reason commends God for
saving the unworthy, but finds fault with him for
condemning the undeserving, she stands con
victed of not commending God as God, but as
one who promotes her own personal interest : in
other words, she looks at self and her own things
in God, and commends them; not at God and the
things of God. The truth however is, that if
you are pleased with God for crowning the un
worthy, you ought not to be displeased with him
for condemning the undeserving. If he be just in
the one case, why not in the other ? In the former
case, he scatters favour and pity upon the unwor
thy ; in the latter, he scatters wrath and severity
upon the undeserving: in both cases excessive
and unrighteous according to man's judgment,
but just and true according to his own. For, how
it be just that lie crowns the unworthy, is incom
prehensible at present ; but we shall see how,
when we come to that place, where he will no
longer be believed, but with open face beheld. So
again, how it be just that he condemns the unde-j
serving, is incomprehensible at present; but wei
receive it as matter of faith, until the Son of ma

be revealed/

d Luther blunders a good deal here, whilst he says many
excellent things. — In dealing with this cavil, ' the fault then
is in the potter,' he first sets forth its audacity, next repels
Erasmus's gloss by it, then maintains that it is an interested
judgment, not a judgment of equity, by which God is con
demned. — Much of the difficulty is, no doubt, resolvable into

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 319

Diatribe however, being sorely displeased with SECT.
this simile of the potter and the clay, and not a little

the sovereignty of God ; that sovereignty which is so bitterly must ^e
offensive to the carnal mind, whilst without the light of it we understood
cannot stir a step in God. Whence came creation in all and with quali-
every part of its wide range j whence come blessing and curs- fications.
ing, either as foreordained or as fulfilled ; whence come heaven
and hell, and inhabitants for each ; whence comes the devil,
•whence comes the fall of man ; whence comes sealed ruin on
the one hand, and whence comes free restoration arid glorifica
tion on the other ; but from him who makes no appeal to the
creature for his vindication, but says 'I have lifted up my hand
that it shall be so ?' — But there is'a worthy end for all this ; which
Luther saw not, and therefore did not assign : the sight of which,
however, makes the difference of a cruel God and a wise one. (See
Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes l v x.) — It is not true that God con
demns the undeserving, or that he crowns the unworthy. Luther
did not discern the mystery of the creation and fall of every
individual man in Adam (see Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note l,
Part iv. Sect. x. note2), neither did he understand the mystery of
the predestinative counsel. Every individual of the human race
became a hell-deserving sinner in Adam ; every individual of the
saved is saved by virtue of new relations assumed by God, and
given to him in Christ — as one previously self-ruined, whom
Christ has rendered worthy to be taken up from his ruin, by
having shared it with him. Predestination is fulfilment fore-
arranged ; as is the execution, such was the covenanted design.
It is self-destroyed ones therefore that are predestinated to hell ;
even as it is Christ-made worthy ones that are predestinated to
life. — Luther knew nothing about God's assuming relations,
much less about his assuming distinct relations ; and shews
once more how impossible it is to give any consistent account
of the salvation of the righteous, on the basis of universal
redemption : such a redemption must leave either partiality in
God, or merit in man. Luther will have it indignos to avoid
merit, and therefore leaves God . ' a respecter of persons.' — lie
does not say a word too much about sovereignty, but he puts
it in its wrong place, and omits what ought to be added to it —
the end for which it is exercised. The place is, ' God de
termining to make creatures with opposite destinies — some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt —
vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.' And that we may not
even in heart murmur here, we must have an adequate end
shewn to us. It is shewn to as many as have an eye to see it j
' he determines to make, and he does make them, to his own
glory — the manifesting of himself, according to what he really
is.1' " What if God, willing, &c." (Rom. ix. 22— 24.)— In the
fulfilment of this design sovereignty is not the hinge ; there is
nothing from first to last, in the varieties of the way or of the

320 . BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. indignant to be so hunted by it, is reduced at
length to the extremity of producing different
passages from Scripture, of which some seem to
ascribe all to man and some all to grace, and then
contending in her passion, that both these ought
to be understood with a sober explanation,6 and
not to be taken strictly. Else, if we urge this
simile, she in her turn is prepared to urge us with
those imperative and conjunctive texts ; especially
with that of Paul's, " If a man shall have
purged himself from these." Here she represents
Paul to contradict himself, and to attribute all to
man, except a sober explanation come to his aid.
flf then an explanation of the text be admitted
here, so as to leave room for grace, why may not
the simile of the potter also admit of qualification,
so as to leave room for Freewill ?'

I answer, it is no matter to me whether you take
the words in a simple sense, or in a double sense,
or in a hundred senses/ What I say is, you
gain nothing, you prove nothing (of what you seek
to gain and prove), by this sober explanation. It
ought to be proved, that Freewill can will nothing

end, but what approves itself to right reason. — Luther seems to
think that the salvation of the righteous escapes animadver
sion : the fact that there is such a state may ; but if the true)
nature of that state, and the true way to it, be faithfully
opened, they are scarcely less offensive to the carnal mind>
than the damnation of the lost.

e Interpretations sand.'] I do not venture to render by 'quaH
lined interpretation,' though this appears to be nearly the
meaning : ' a sound,' as opposed to extravagant, sense is to be
assigned to the words, in contradistinction to their simple
literal meaning; which, it is implied, would be extravagan
and contradictory. A peculiar use of ' interpretatio,' whic
both Cicero and Quintilian recognise ; from whom Erasmu
no doubt borrowed it : ' a giving of the sense, instead of ren
clering the words ;' much as the Levites did when they rea
the law to the people after the captivity. Nehem. viii. 7 ', 8
See Part iii. Sect. xxx. note f.

f Simpliciter, dupliciter, centuplicJ] Luther puns upon th
word simpliciter : which is properly opposed to figurative, o
tropical.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 321

good. But in this place, ee If a man shall have SECT.
purged himself from these," the form of expression XXXIV-
being conjunctive, neither is any thing, neither is
nothing proved; Paul is only exhorting. Or if you
add Diatribe's consequence and say, ' he exhorts
in vain, if man cannot cleanse himself ;' then it is
proved that Freewill can do every thing without
grace. And so, Diatribe disproves herself.

I still wait for some passage of Scripture there
fore, which teaches this explanation; I do not
give credit to those who make it out of their own
heads. I deny that any passage is found which
ascribes all to man. I deny also that Paul is at
variance with himself, when he says " If a man
shall have cleansed himself from these." I affirm
that the variance in Paul is not less a fiction, than
the explanation which she extorts from it is a
laboured invention ; and that neither of them is
demonstrated. This indeed I confess, that, if it
be lawful to increase the Scriptures with these
consequences and appendages of Diatribe's — as
when she says, injunctions are vain if we have
not powrer to fulfil them — then Paul is really at
variance with himself, and all Scripture with him,
because then the Scripture is made different from
what it was before. Then also she proves, that
Freewill can do every thing. But what wonder
if, in that case, what she says elsewhere be also
at variance with her ; ' that God is the alone doer
of every thing ?' But this Scripture, so added to,
is not only at war with us, but with Diatribe her
self also, who has laid it down that Freewill can
will nothing good. Let her therefore deliver her
self first of all, and say how these two things
agree with Paul, ' Freewill can will nothing
good;' and, cif a man shall have cleansed himself;
therefore he can cleanse himself, or else it is said
in vain.' You see therefore that Diatribe is
plagued to death, and overcome, by this simile of
the potter, and that all her effort is to elude the

y

322 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. force of it ; not heeding, in tlie mean while, how
much her interpretation injures the cause which
she has undertaken to defend, and how she is con
futing and making a jest of herself.6
SECT. I, on the contrary, as I said before, have
xxxv- never been ambitious of interpretations, nor have
~~~ I ever spoken after this manner, " extend the
always ' " hand;" that is, ' grace shall extend it.' h ' These
maintained are Diatribe's fictions about me, to benefit her own
conaisten-1 cause. My affirmation has always been, that
cyof there is no variance in the words of Scripture,
— i"ius-re auc^ no need of ' explanation ' for the purpose of
tratesitin untying a knot. It is the assertors of Freewill
affirmed wno make knots where there are none,' and dream
out discrepancies for themselves. For example ;
those two sayings, " If a man shall have cleansed
himself," and "God worketh all in all," are in no
wise opposite : nor is it necessary, by way of
untying a knot, to say, God does something and
man does something. The former of these texts
is a conjunctive sentence; which neither affirms
nor denies any work or power in man, but pre
scribes what work or power there ought to be
in a man. There is nothing figurative here, no
thing which needs explanation ; the words are
simple, the sense is simple, if you do not add con
sequences and corruptives after the manner of
Diatribe. Then indeed the sense would become
unsound : but whose fault would it be ? not the
text's, but its corrupter's.

The latter text, " God worketh all in all," is
an indicative sentence, affirming that all work, all
power is God's. In what respect then do two
places disagree, of which one has nothing to do

* All this alleged inconsistency in Scripture is the fruit of
your additions ; by the aid of which you create inconsisten
cies, hut you also contradict your own positions.

h Affectavimus, extende.'] See above, Sect. iv. text and notes j
particularly note u.

1 Nodos in scirpo qucerunt."] See above, Part i. Sect.xxvi. note '.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 323

with the power of man, and the other ascribes all SECT.
to God? Rather, do they not most perfectly ^
agree with each other ? But Diatribe is so
plunged over head and ears, choked and sobbed,k
by entertaining that carnal thought, ' it is vain
to command impossibilities/ as not to be able
to restrain herself, whenever she hears an im
perative or conjunctive verb, from at once
appending her own indicative consequences to it,
and saying — ' There is something commanded,
therefore we can do it, else it would have been
folly to command it.' Upon this, she sallies forth
and makes boast of her victories every where, as
though she had demonstrated that those con
sequences, together with her own imagination,
were as much a settled thing, as the divine autho
rity. Upon this, she does not hesitate to pro
nounce that in some passages of Scripture every
thing is ascribed to man ; that there is a discre
pancy therefore, a repugnacy in those places,
which must be obviated by an explanation : not
seeing, that all this is the figment of her own brain,
without a single letter of Scripture to confirm it;
that it is, besides, a figment of such kind, as, if
idmitted, would confute no one more stoutly than
lerself. For, would she not prove by it, if she
?rove any thing, that Freewill can do every
hing? — the express contrary to that which she
las undertaken to prove.

Upon the same principle it is, that she so often in merit
epeats the words, ' If man does nothing there is and ,re~8

c A.\ £> Wai'd' &C'

10 room tor merit ; where there is no place tor she con-
nerit, there is no place for punishment or for tradicts

'• herself —

proves an

Again she does not see how much more stoutly absurdity
he confutes herself by these carnal arguments,

k Corrupta."] The figure is that of a man drowned ; and the
ist term expresses the state of his substance, when now it has
cen long under water. It is like Virgil's ( cererem corruptam
ndis.'

Y2

324

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. than she does me. For what do these con-
sequences prove, save that all attainable merit is
by Freewill? What room will there then be for
But in fact grace ? Besides, if you shall say Freewill earns
ri» pnww a very little, and grace the rest, why does Free-
Paul' * will receive the whole reward ? Shall we also in-
stands. vent a very small degree of reward for her ? If
there must be place for merit,, that there may be
place for reward ; the merit should be as big as
the reward. — But why do I lose my words and
my time about a thing of nought? Though even
all which Diatribe is contriving should be built
up and stand ; and though it should be partly
man's work, and partly God's work, that we have
merit ; still they cannot define this very work in
which our merit consists, of what sort, and how
big it is — so that we are disputing about goats
'hair.1 Well then, since she proves none of those
things which she asserts — neither discrepancy,
nor qualified interpretation — nor can exhibit a
text of Scripture which ascribes all to man ; bul
all these things are phantasms of her own imagina
tion; Paul's simile of the potter arid his clay
maintains its ground, unhurt and irresistible, a
proof that it is not of our own will, what sort of
vessels we are formed; and that those exhorta
tions of Paul's, "If a man shall have purged him-j
self" and the like, are models to which we oughij
to be conformed, but are no proofs of either our
performance or our endeavour. Let this suffice
with respect to those passages about Pharaoh';
hardening, about Esau, and about the potter.
SECT. Diatribe comes at length to those passage;
XXXVIL which are cited by Luther in. opposition to Free
Gen vi 3 w^> intending to confute them also ; of which the
maintain- first is that from Gen. vi. " My Spirit shall no
always abide in man, because he is flesh." She
confutes this passage in various ways. First, sh(

1 Land caprind.~\ See above, Part ii. Sect. iii. note 1.

ed-

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 325

urges that "flesh" does not signify ( sinful affec-

tion' here, but 'infirmity.' Secondly, she in- xxxvir>

creases Moses's text: because his saying pertains "

to the men of that age, not to the whole human race,

therefore she would say, ' in those men ;' yet

again, not applying it to even all the men of that

age, since Noah is excepted. Lastly, she urges

that this saying imports something else in the

Hebrew language ; that is to say, the clemency

and not the severity of God, according to Jerome :

meaning possibly to persuade us, that, as this say

ing appertaineth not to Noah but to the wicked ;

so the severity and not the clemency of God

appertaineth to Noah, the clemency and not the

severity of God appertaineth to the wicked ! —

But we will pass over these fooleries of Diatribe's,

who is every where telling us that she counts the

Scriptures a fable. I care not what Jerome says

in his trifling way here : it is certain he proves

nothing ; and we are not inquiring what Jerome

thinks, but what the Scripture means. Let the

perverters of Scripture pretend, that the Spirit of

Grod means his indignation. I affirm that she

"ails in her proof two ways : first, in that she

;annot produce a single text of Scripture in

.vhich the Spirit of God is taken for God's indig-

lation ; whilst kindness and sweetness on the con-

:rary are every where ascribed to him: secondly,

n that if she could by any means prove, that it is

iome where or other taken for indignation, still

ihe cannot forthwith prove, that it necessarily

bllows it must also be taken so here. So again,

et her pretend that the flesh is taken for infir-

aity, still she just in the same degree proves

lothing. For, Avhereas Paul calls the Corinthians

Carnal, he certainly does not mean to impute

nfirmity, but fault to them — complaining as he

loes, that they were oppressed with sects and par

ies ; which is not infirmity, or incapacity to re-

eive more solid doctrine, but the old leaveu of

326 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. malice : which he commands them to purge out.
Let us examine the Hebrew.

" My Spirit shall not always be judging man,
because he is flesh/' This is word for word what
Moses says : m and, if we would give up our own

m I am disposed to give rather a different turn to the declara
tion, thoiigh in no wise affecting Luther's argument. All he
wants to shew is, that they are words of anger, not of pity and
palliation. But since the word which we render "strive " and
which Luther renders "judge " properly signifies ' debate ' or
' judgment given after discussion ;' why might not the senti
ment be "My Spirit shall not be always proving that man is
flesh 5" or " shall not always be reproving him for being
flesh?" The great reason for continuing man in existence
after the original and damning transgression was, that he
might shew himself what he is, as he has made himself; so
different from what God made him. The Lord here says, he
will carry on this work of manifestation — this controversy, as
it may be called — no longer than for one hundred and twenty
years. There seems to be no great importance in the an
nunciation that he would not strive because he is flesh. He
was so from the first moment of transgression; and not more so
now, than from that moment. But the manifestation having
been carried far enough, there was now a reason why it should
cease. This trial, or controversy, or judgment, or proof, or
reproof, was effected by the divine Spirit both mediately and
immediately acting upon their spirit. Luther confines it to the
effect of their intercourse with others ; such as Noah, and those
of the Lord's people who had lived and were living with those
generations of men : in whom the Spirit of God was. But did
not that Spirit also act upon these disobedient ones, without
their intervention ? that Spirit, which, according to Luther,
' moves and drives ' all God's creatures. — ' "pyi appendere

litem vel causam agere — quomodo ' disceptare ' signift. et
' judicare.' fut VV"T1 disceptabit. Gen. vi. 3.' (Sim. Lex. Hebr.
in loc.) — ' 1*111 Contendit. prop, appendit. 2. Judicavit, i. e.
appendit bilance judicii. 3. In judicio contendit. To judge,
to strive, to litigate.' (Robertson's Clavis Pentateuch in loco.)
' Inasmuch as,' ' for that.' Robertson. Simon de

rives it rather differently, and explains by ' eV TU>' seducere
eos ; i. e. dum seducit eos ipsa caro.

Luther seems to lose the particular point of the preceding
verses, when he speaks of the ' sons of men ' marrying wives ;
it is the sons of God seeing the daughters of men, &c. meaning
surely those who practised and made profession of his worship,

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 327

dreams, the words are sufficiently clear and ma- SECT.
mfest, I think, as they stand there. But the XXXVH-
words which go before and which follow after,
connected as they are with the bringing on of the
flood, sufficiently shew that they are the expres
sions of an angry God. They were occasioned by
the fact of the sons of men marrying wives through
the mere lust of the flesh, and then oppressing
the earth with tyranny, so as to compel God to
hasten the flood, through his anger; scarcely
allowing him to defer for an hundred years what
he would otherwise never have brought upon the
earth. Read Moses carefully, and you will see
that he clearly means this. But what wonder that
the Scriptures are obscure, or that you set up not
only Freewill, but even Divine will through their
means, if you be at liberty to sport with them as if
you were looking for scraps and shreds of Virgil in
them." This forsooth is untying knots and putting
an end to questions by a qualified interpretation !
But Jerome and his friend Origen have filled
the world with these trifling conceits, and have
been the originators of this pestilent precedent
for not consulting the simplicity of Scripture.0

It was enough for me, that it be proved from
this text, that divine authority calls men flesh ;
and in such manner flesh, that the Spirit of God
could not continue amongst them, but at a fixed
period must be withdrawn from them. He ex
plains presently what he means by declaring that
his Spirit shall not always judge amongst men;
by prescribing the space of an hundred and twenty
years, as that in which he should still judge. He

in opposition to those who had thrown it off. The great
offence and provocation seems to have been given by that hypo
critical remnant, to and concerning which Enoch, as appears
from Jude, verse 15, had previously prophesied.

n Virgilicentonas.~\ More literally, ' Virgilian centos."
0 Simplicitati scripturarum studeretur.~\ i. e. taking care to
maintain a plain sense where it is practicable, in opposition to a
figurative one.

328 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. opposes the Spirit to the flesh, because men,

• being flesh, do not receive the Spirit ; and he,

being Spirit, cannot approve the flesh : whence it
would arise, that he must be withdrawn after an
hundred and twenty years. So that we may un
derstand the passage in Moses thus : ( My Spirit,
which is in Noah and my other saints, reproves
those wicked men by the word they preach, and
by the holy life they lead (for to judge amongst
men is to exercise the ministry of the word
amongst them1' — to reprove, rebuke and entreat,
in season and out of season); but in vain. For
they, being blinded and hardened by the flesh,
become worse the more they are judged : just as
it is, whensoever the word of God comes into the
world ; men are made worse, the more they are
instructed. And this is the cause why the wrath
of God is now hastened, just as the flood also
was hastened in that day ; not only do men sin
now-a-days, but even grace is despised, and as
Christ says, ( Light is come but men hate light/

Since men are flesh therefore, as God himself
testifieth, they can mind nothing but the flesh ; so
that Freewill can have no power but to commit
sin : and since, with even the Spirit of God
calling amongst them and teaching them, they
grow worse ; what would they do when left
to themselves, without the Spirit of God ? — Nor
is it any thing to the purpose here, that Moses
speaks of the men of that age. The same is true
of all men, since all are flesh, as Christ says in
John iii. 6. " That which is born of the flesh is
flesh." How great a malady this is, he teaches
us himself on the same occasion, when he says,
" No one can enter into the kingdom of God, ex
cept he have been born again." Let the Chris
tian know therefore, that Origen and Jerome, and

p OJftcio verbi inter eos agere.~\ Implying more than mere
preaching • he has before said ( per verbum prsedicationis et
vitam piorum :' it is word administered by mouth, and life.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 329

all their tribe, are guilty of a pernicious error in SECT.
denying that the flesh is to be taken for ungodly XXXVII»
affection in these places. For that expression in
1 Cor. Hi. " Ye are yet carnal " bespeaks ungod
liness. Paul means that they had ungodly per
sons still amongst them; and further, that the
godly, so far as they mind carnal things, are
carnal; although they have ..been justified by the
Spirit.

In short, you will observe in Scripture that
wheresoever the flesh is treated of in opposition
to the Spirit, you may almost always understand
by the flesh every thing that is contrary to the
Spirit. For instance ; " The flesh profiteth no
thing." But where it is treated of absolutely,
you may know that it denotes the bodily nature
and condition : as " They two shall be one flesh."
" My flesh is meat indeed." " The word was
made flesh." In these places you may change the
Hebrew idiom and say ' body/ instead of flesh :
the Hebrew language expressing by one word
' flesh/ what we do by the words ' flesh ' and
' body/ I wish indeed that it had been so trans
lated, by distinct terms, throughout the whole
canon of Scripture, without exception. — So that
my text from Gen. vi. will still maintain its place
boldly, I think, as the opponent of Freewill: since
it is proved, that the flesh, as here spoken of, is
that same substance of which Paul says in Ro
mans viii. that " neither can it be subjected to
the will of God" (as we shall see when we come
to that place); and of which Diatribe says her
self, that it can will nothing good.'1

q It is impossible to understand this text so as that it shall
not be a decisive testimony against Freewill. Whether it be
that ' God would cease to prove man, what he is,' or ' cease to
judge him, because he is such an one ;' what he is remains the
same ; and that is something so vile that God cannot any
longer tolerate it. — I confess that I greatly prefer understand
ing the flesh in Rom. vii. viii. as the bodily part of the saint j
which, whilst he remains in this world, is unrenewed. But

330 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. The second passage is from Gen. viii. " The
imagination and thought of man's heart are prone

xxxviii *° ev^ from n*s youth'" And i*1 chap. vi. " Every
_____ thought of man's heart is intent upon evil con-
Gen, viii. tinually." She puts off this by saying, ' The prorie-
21. and _ ness to evil, which is iii most men, does not alto-
tained"ai " gether take away the freedom of the will.'

But does Gocl, pray, speak of most men, and
not rather of all men, when, as if repenting himself

what difference does this make as to the question of Freewill ?
Every individual man is by natural constitution " enmity
against God;" so far as that natural constitution remains in
the saint, he also is enmity. The passage under consideration
either says, or implies, being he is flesh, he is contrary to the
Spirit and offensive to Gocl. What is the state of his will
then ? — I would rather understand the word ' flesh ' here, of
his whole substance or constitution than, as Luther and most
other divines do, of ' an affection ' of it. Indeed, I consider
that much jargon has been introduced into theology by this
distinction. It has led to what is called the doctrine of two
principles (the term ' principle ' being a very indefinite one,
and a shelter for almost every thing that is unknown or wishes
to be obscure) ; whereas I believe there are few if any places
in Scripture, in which it may not be understood of ' the human
substance,' either in its complexity as soul and body, or in
its dividuality, as body only. — I by no means subscribe to
the interpretation which Luther assigns to some of the texts
he adduces. " The Jlesh profiteth nothing " is not ' evil affec
tion ' but ' the natural substance of man ' as contrasted with
* the Spirit.' "The word was made flesh," does not declare
body in opposition to soul, but that whole human person which
the second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity did verily and
actually assume into union with himself when the fulness of
the time was come. So " my flesh is meat indeed " does not
exclude his soul as made an offering for sin : neither does the
" one flesh" which the church is made to be with Christ ex
clude him that is joined to the Lord from being one Spirit. —
As a hint to shew that, if Luther's interpretation and distinction
with respect to the term ' flesh ' be admitted, a third must at
least be added (viz. this sense which comprehends the whole
human substance, and so constitutes a title which distinguishes
man from all other creatures) ; I would mention Psalm cxlv. 21.
Luke iii. 6. Isaiah xl. 5,6. John xvii. 2. 1 Cor. i. 29. to which
others without number might be added. — Luther speaks with.
sufficient exactness of the presence and withdrawal of the
Spirit to make it clear that he did not understand Him to have
dwelt in the ungodly ; whilst he omits a very important part of
His agency. (See above, note m.)

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 331

after the flood, lie promises to those which re- SECT.

*V"V "V" \f 1 1 T

mained of men, and to those which should come
after, that he would not any more bring a flood
because of man ; subjoining as the reason, that
man is prone to evil? As if he should say,
' Were man's wickedness to be regarded, there
must never be any cessation from a flood : but I
do not mean hereafter to look at man's deserv-
ings &c.' So you see God affirms that men were
evil both before the flood and after it; making it
to be nothing, what Diatribe says about most men.
Then again, this proneness or propensity to evil
seems a matter of small moment to Diatribe; as
though it were within the limits of our own power
to raise it up r or restrain it : whereas the Scrip
ture means to express by this proneness that con
stant seizure and impulse of the will towards evil.
Why has not Diatribe consulted the Hebrew text
even here also? in which Moses says nothing
about proneness ; that you may have no ground
for cavilling. For thus it is written in chap. vi.
" Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
is only evil all his days." He does not say intent
upon, or prone to evil, but absolutely evil ; and
that nothing but evil is imagined and thought of
by man all his life. The nature of its wickedness
is described; that it neither does, nor can clo other
wise, seeing it is evil : for an evil tree cannot
bear any other than evil fruit, according to Christ's
testimony. As to Diatribe's cavil, ( Why is space
given for repentance, if repentance be in nowise
dependent upon the will, but every thing is
wrought by necessity?' my reply is, you may say
the same of all the precepts of God : why does he
enjoin, if all things happen by necessity ? He
commands, that he may instruct and admonish men
what they ought to do, that having been humbled
by the recognition of their own wickedness they

r Erigere.] See Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note n.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. may attain to grace ; as hath been abundantly
- declared.8 So that this text, also, still stands its

ground invincibly, as the antagonist of Freewill.
SECT. The third passage is that of Isai. xl. " She hath

""

received of the Lord's hand double for all her

Isaiah sins." Jerome, says she, interprets it of divine

xi.2. main- vengeance, not of grace given in return for evil

tamed. deeds. This means, ' Jerome says so, therefore it

is true.' I affirm that Isaiah asserts a certain pro

position in most express words, and Jerome is

cast in my teeth ; a man, to speak in the gentlest

terms, of no judgment or diligence. What is be

come of that promise, on the faith of which we

made a compact that we would plead the Scrip

tures themselves, not human commentaries?1

This whole chapter of Isaiah, according to the
Evangelists, speaks of remission of sins as an
nounced by the Gospel ; in which they affirm that
( ' the voice of him that crieth " pertaineth to
John the Baptist. Now is it to be endured,
that Jerome should, after his manner, obtrude
Jewish blindnesses upon us as the historical sense
of the passage, and then his own silly conceits by
way of allegory to it; that, through a perver
sion of grammar, we may understand a passage,
which speaks of remission, to speak of vengeance ?
What sort of vengeance is it, pray, which has
been fulfilled by preaching Christ?" — But let us

s See above Part iii. Sect. xxii. &c.

* See Part ii. Sect. i.

11 There is a vengeance connected with the preaching of
Christ ; yea, and a necessary part of that preaching. " To
preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of ven
geance of our God." The kingdom of God has enemies that
would not be reigned over by the King, to be trodden under
foot, as well as princes to be seated on thrones. There are
souls to be cut off amongst the people by not hearing that
Prophet, as well as souls to be gathered by hearing him. "WE
are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved
and in them that perish. To the one we are a aavour of life
unto life; and to the other a savour of death unto death."
The Lord Jesus said of his Jewish opposers, " If I had not

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 333

look at the words themselves in the Hebrew. SECT.
Be comforted (says he), be comforted, O my XXXIX-
people ; or, comfort ye, comfort ye my people,
saith your God. I imagine he does not inflict
vengeance who commands consolation. It fol
lows; "speak to the heart of Jerusalem and pro
claim unto her." To speak to the heart is an He
braism ; meaning", to speak good, sweet and
soothing things : as, in Genesis xxxiv. Sichem
speaks to the heart of Dinah, whom he had defiled ;
that is, he soothed her in her sadness with soft
words — as our translation has it. What those
good and sweet things are, which God hath com
manded to be spoken for their consolation, he
explains by saying, " For her warfare is finished,
insomuch that her iniquity is pardoned ; seeing,
she hath received of the Lord's hand double for
all her sins." — ( Warfare/ which our manuscript
copies exhibit faultily by the word ' malice/
appears to the audacious Jewish grammatists/ to
denote a stated time : for thus they understand
that saying in Job vii. The life of man upon the
earth is a ( warfare/ that is, there is an appointed
time to him. I prefer considering the term ( war
fare ' to be used literally, according to its gram
matical sense; understanding Isaiah to speak of
the course and labour of the people under the
law, which was like that of combatants in the

come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin." The
manifestation of what is in man — of the Satanic enmity of the
human heart — is peculiarly effected by the preaching' of Christ.
But it is not the/on» of that dispensation to condemn ("God
sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world"),
though aggravated guilt and increased condemnation be the
actual result of his coming. Nor is Luther's argument in
validated by this result : the people to be comforted are not
objects of vengeance, but of favour.

v Grammatistif!.] Not grnmmatirux, but grammafefr/ .- a
name of reproach, which he applies here to the Jewish Rabbins ;
who were sciolists in literature, though vast pretenders, and
took great liberties with the sacred text. See above, Sect. iv.
note t.

334 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. stadium. For thus Paul by choice compares both

the preachers and hearers of the word to soldiers;

as, when he commands Timothy to fight as a good
soldier, and to war a good warfare : and repre
sents the Corinthians to be running in a race
course. So again, " No man is crowned except
he strive lawfully." He clothes both the Ephe-
sians and the Thessalonians with armour,, and
boasts that he has himself fought the good fight:
and the like in other places." So in 1 Kings
(I Samuel) it is written in the Hebrew text,
that the sons of Eli slept with the women who
were performing service (literally, ' warring') at
the door of the tabernacle of the covenant : of
whose wrarfare Moses also maketh mention in
Exodus/ Hence too, the God of that people is
called the Lord of Sabaoth ; that is, the Lord of
warfare or of armies.

Isaiah therefore declares, that the warfare of a
legal people with which they were harassed under
the law, as with an insupportable burden (accord
ing to the testimony of Peter in Acts xv.), should
be finished; and that they, being delivered from
the law, should be translated into the new service of
the Spirit. Moreover, this end of their most hard
service, and this succession of a new and most
free one shall not be given them through their
merit (since they could not even bear that service),
but rather through their demerit; because their
warfare is finished in this manner, through their
iniquity being freely forgiven them. Here are no
obscure or ambiguous words. He says that their
warfare shall be finished, because their iniquity is
forgiven them ; plainly intimating, that they, as
soldiers under the law, had not fulfilled the law —
neither could have fulfilled it — but had been war
ring in the service of sin, and had been sinner

x 2 Tim. ii. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 12. 1 Cor. ix. 24—27. 2 Tim. ii. 5.
Ephes. vi. 1 Thess. v. 2 Tim. iv. 7.

y Exod. xxxviii. 8. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 22.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 335

soldiers : as if God should say, I am compelled to ,S?9T;
forgive them their sins, if I would have the law
fulfilled by them ; nay, I am compelled at the
same time to take away the law, because I see
that they cannot but sin — and that most of all,
when they are militating; that is, labouring to
shew the model of the law2 through their own
strength. The Hebrew phrase " her iniquity
hath been forgiven," denotes ' gratuitous good
pleasure :' by which iniquity ' is made a present oP
(forgiven) without any merit, nay with absolute
demerit. This is what he subjoins.

" For she hath received of the Lord's hand
double for all her sins." This, as I have said,
means not only remission of sins, but even a
finished warfare ; which is nothing else but — the
law, which was the strength of sin, being taken
away; and sin, which was the sting of death,
being forgiven — to reign in twofold liberty,
through the victory of Jesus Christ : this is
what Esaias means by his " Of the hand of the
Lord." They have not obtained these things by
their own strength or merits, but have received
them through the conquests and free gift of
Christ. " In all their sins," is an Hebraism ;
agreeing to what is expressed in Latin by for or
on account of their sins : just as in Hosea xii. it
is said, Jacob served in his wife ; that is, for
his wife. And in the 17th Psalm, they have com
passed me round in my soul ; that is, for my
soul. Tsaiah therefore represents our merits, in
a figure, to be the procuring cause of this two
fold liberty ; namely, the finished warfare of the
law, and forgiveness of sin; because these (our
merits) have been only sins, and all of them
sins.

Shall we then suffer this most beautiful and

z Lcgem exprimere.'] Properly, ' to press, wring, strain, or
squeeze out}' hence applied figuratively to models in wax,
marble, or canvass.

336 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. invincible text against Freewill to be polluted
with Jewish filth,, such as Jerome and Diatribe
have daubed upon it? God forbid ! On the con
trary, my friend Esaias keeps his ground as
the conqueror of Freewill, and makes it clear
that grace is given, not to the merits or endea
vours of Freewill, but to its sins and demerits;
and that Freewill can, by its own powers,
do nothing but maintain the warfare of sin —
insomuch that even the very law, which is sup
posed to have been given as a help to her, was
an intolerable burden, and made her yet more
sinner whilst militating under it.a

a Militantem .~] The word ' milito,' which occurs in divers
forms throughout this passage, expresses ' the whole state of a
soldier* as to doing and suii'ering, in preparation, conflict, ant
endurance. — Luther goes far afield for his solution and de
fence of this text 5 1. Warfare is her legal service. 2. She
only sinned in that service. 3. She was rewarded for sin, not
merit — The truth, if I mistake not, lies nearer home. Why not
understand " double for all her sins" as a phrase to denote,
that e great and manifold as her sins had been, she was re
ceiving the double of them in divine favour.' Double is a finite
put for an infinite. (So Isa. Ixi. 7- Jerem. xvi. 18. xvii. 18
Zech. ix. 12. Rev. xviii. 6'.) Her warfare is the whole interva
of her toil and labour. — I cannot but think that the prophecy
in its consummation is still future ; though it has already re
ceived a partial fulfilment. Jerusalem's warfare is not yet
accomplished : but the whole space from the Lord's first
coming in the flesh to his hereafter coming in glory is com
prehended in this prophecy ; in which it will at length be seen
that the Jerusalem ' which then was' had an interest. The
visible church received this ' double ' at the coming, or rather
at the ascension, of the Lord Jesus ; when her covenant of
condemnation was exchanged for a covenant of righteousness.
But the prophecy looks farther ; even to the end of that
new dispensation which John Baptist began, when the true
church — " the church of the first-born, which are written in
heaven" — shall receive its consummation and bliss ; and the
national Israel, which has been running a parallel with it
throughout the whole of its history, shall receive and enjoy
what it has never yet truly possessed — its Canaan and
its Temple. Thus, I neither understand the ' warfare,' nor
the ' double,' with Luther's strictness ; I might rather say,/ar-
fetched-ness : nor do I place this text where he would place-
it, as a testimony against Freewill. It is only by implicatioa

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 337

As to what Diatribe argues, that f although SECT.XL.
sin abounds through the law, and where sin hath
abounded, grace also abounds; but it does not

follow hence, that man, assisted by the help of help.—

Corneli

God, cannot, even before grace makes him ac- Cornelius

ceptable, prepare himself, by means of works
morally good, for the divine favour : '

I shall wonder, if Diatribe be speaking here of
her own head, and have not culled this flower
from some document sent or obtained from some
other quarter ; which she has entwined into her
own nosegay.1' She neither sees, nor hears, what
her own words mean. If sin aboundeth by the
law, how is it possible that a man can prepare
himself by moral works for the divine favour ?
How can works profit, when the law does not
profit? or what else is it for sin to abound by the
law, but that works done according to the law
are sins ? But of this in another place. — Then
what is it she says, that ( man assisted by the
help of God can prepare himself by good works ?'
Are we arguing about God's help, or about Free
will? What is not possible to the divine help?
But this is just what I said, Diatribe despises the
cause she is pleading, and therefore snores and
gapes so in the midst of her talk.

But she adduces Cornelius the centurion, as
an example of a man whose prayers and alms
have pleased God, before he was yet baptized,
and inspired with the Holy Spirit.

a testimony against Freewill ; it is a broad, palpable testi
mony to " reigning grace :" sin is requited with super-
abounding, free favour ; and it is implied that there has been,
and could be, nothing but sin going before. — The hypothetical,
and therefore questionable; nature of Luther's interpretation is
manifested by his own testimonies: all rest upon ' militia j1
which he makes law -service, lint does not he cite the Gospel
also called a warfare ? To whom are these sayings in Timothy,
the Corinthians, Ephesians, &c. addressed ?

b Libro suo inseruerit.'] I have ventured to maintain Luther's
figure of ' decerpserit.'

Z

338 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. I also have read Luke's account in the Acts ;

' but I have never found a single syllable which

indicates that the works of Cornelius were morally
good Avithout the Holy Spirit, as Diatribe dreams.
On the contrary,, I find that he was a just man,
and one that feared God : for so Luke calls him.
But for a man to be called a just man and one
that fears God, without the Holy Spirit, is to call
Belial Christ. — Then again, the whole argument
in that passage goes to prove that Cornelius was
one clean in the sight of God : even the vision,
which was sent down from heaven to Peter, and
wrhich also rebuked him, testifies this; nay, the
righteousness and faith of Cornelius are cele
brated by Luke in such great words, and by such
great deeds, that it is impossible to doubt them.
Diatribe however, with her friends the Sophists,
contrives to be blind, and to see the contrary,
with her eyes open, amidst the clearest light of
words and evidence of facts. Such is her want of
diligence in reading and observing the Scriptures;
which in that case may well be defamed as ob
scure and ambiguous. What though he had not
yet been baptized, and had not yet heard the tes
timony to Christ's resurrection ! Does it follow
from thence that he had not the Holy Spirit? On
the same principle, you will say that John the
Baptist also, with his father and mother — next,
Christ's mother and Simeon — had not the Spirit !
But away with such thick darkness !°

SEC.XLI. My fourth text, taken from the same chapter of

Esaias, " All flesh is grass, and all the glory

c Cornelius, if I distinguish rightly, was a quickened man,
but not a converted man : one begotten again from death by
the Holy Ghost, but not yet turned to the Lord — for how could
he be turned to him whom he knew not ? and how could he
know him of whom he had not heard ? But he had already
been brought by the Spirit of Christ into a state to receive
Him when he should be manifested by preaching ; and the
Lord had reserved, and still doth reserve, this honour for his
outward word, and for his accredited ambassadors.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 339

thereof as the flower of grass; the grass wither- SEC.XU.
eth, and the flower thereof falleth, because the
Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it;" &c. seems
to my Diatribe to suffer very great violence when
drawn to the subject of grace and Freewill. Why
so, pray ! Because Jerome, says she, takes the
Spirit for indignation, and the flesh for the infirm
state of man ; which cannot stand against God.
Again are the trifling conceits of Jerome pro
duced to me instead of Esaias. I have a harder
fight to maintain against the weariness wittrwhich
Diatribe's carelessness consumes me, than against
Diatribe herself. But I have said very lately
what I think of Jerome's sentiment. — Let us com
pare Diatribe's self with herself. Flesh, says she,
is the infirm state of man. Spirit is the divine
indignation. Has the divine indignation nothing-
else then to dry up, but only this wretched and
infirm condition of man; which it ought rather
to raise up than to destroy ?

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

z2

340 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. wonderful praise and ample spoils assuredly/ d

in drying up a wretched creature, or men that are

in a state of unhappiness, instead of scattering
the proud and putting down the mighty from their
seat, and sending the rich empty away; as Mary
sings.6
sc. XLII. But let us bid adieu to our spectres, and fol-

• low Esaias. The people, says he, is grass. Now

fcrterpret- ^ie Pe°P^e ^s no* merely flesh, or the infirm state
ation. of human nature, but comprehends whatsoever is
contained in the people ; namely, rich men, wise
men, just men, holy men : unless the Pharisees,
the elders, the princes, the chiefs, the rich, &c.
were not of the people of the Jews. Its glory is
rightly called the flower of grass ; forasmuch as
they boasted of their dominion, their government,
and especially of their law, of God, of righteous
ness and wisdom ; as Paul argues in Rom. ii. iii.
ix. When Esaias therefore says, " all flesh;"
what is this else but all the grass, or all the
people ? For he does not simply say, " flesh,"
but " all flesh." Now there pertaineth to the
people soul, body, mind, reason, judgment and
whatsoever can be mentioned or discovered that
is most excellent in man. For he who says " all
flesh is grass" excepts no one, but the Spirit which
dries it up. So neither does he omit any thing
who says, " the people are grass." Let there be
Freewill then, let there be whatsoever is accounted
highest and lowest in the people, Esaias calls all
this flesh and grass : seeing that these three nouns,
flesh, grass, people, according to the interpret
ation of the very author of the book, mean the
same thing in this place.

Then again, you affirm your own self, that the
wisdom of the Greeks, and the righteousness oil
the Jews, which were dried up by the Gospel,
are grass, or the flower of grass. Do you think

d Virg. ./En. iv. 93. e Luke i. 51, 52.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 341

that wisdom was not the most excellent thin"- sc. XLII.
which the Greeks possessed ? Do you think that
righteousness was not the most excellent thino*
which the Jews could work ? Shew me any thing
that was more excellent than these. What be^
conies of your confidence then, by which you
gave even Philip a black-eye/ as I suppose; say
ing, < If any man should contend that what is best
m man is nothing else but flesh— that is to say,
wickedness— I will be ready to agree with him^
provided he but shew by Scripture testimonies
that what he asserts is true?'

You have here Esaias proclaiming with a loud
voice that the people which hath not the Spirit of
the Lord is flesh ; although even this loud voice
does not make you hear. You have your own
self's confession (made perhaps without knowing
what you was saying), that the wisdom of the
Greeks is grass, or the glory of grass; which is
just the same thing as calling it flesh. Unless
you should choose to contend that the wisdom of
the Greeks does not appertain to reason, or ' the
leading thing/ e as you ca}| jt by a Greek term .

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

f Etiam Philippum su«illabas.'\ Philip Meluncthon— who
maintained a good deal of friendly intercourse with Erasmus,
and was much more to his mind than Luther and the rest of
the reformers : this explains etiam.

* To I

342 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. demanding11 — and scurry away, as your manner is,
to another subject; holding forth to us in the
mean while, how that John says, ' Believers are
born of God and made sons of God ; yea Gods
and new creatures/ You give no heed to the
conclusion which the division leads to, but teach
us in superfluous words who those are whom
the other part of the division comprehends :
trusting in your rhetoric, as if there was nobody
to observe this most crafty transition and dissi
mulation of yours.1

It is hard to give you credit for not being art
ful and chameleon-like here. The man, who labours
in the Scriptures with the wiliness and hypocrisy
which you employ over them, may safely enough

h Referring to his challenge above ; ' provided he but
shew/ &c.

1 Luther's argument is, Freewill is called ' flesh' here ; for
it is part of ' the people' — which, with all that is in it, gets the
name of 'flesh' here : for ' people/ ' flesh/ ' grass/ are declared
by Isaiah himself to be the same thing. — You ought according
to your own previous confession therefore to submit ; and, with
respect to the real nature of flesh, we have it from our Lord's
own mouth in John iii. — I do not fall in with his reasoning : if
flesh mean what he says it does in John, must it also mean the
same here ? Bvit why must it mean what he says, in John ? why
not there as well as here mean ' the whole substance and con
stitution of man / not ' body only/ nor ' ungodly affection.' (See
above, Sect, xxxvii. notei.) 'All flesh/ is ' all human beings
' the people ' generally distinguishes the Jews from the rest
of the world ; and so gives emphasis here. It is man's mor
tality, moreover, rather than his sin, which is brought into view
here ; as set in contrast with the imimitability of God. (See
the whole context from ver. 3 to ver. 8, and compare with
1 Pet. i. 9A, 25.) The great subject of the prophecy^is, THE
GLORY Jehovah shall be revealed : God — who is not, like man,
grass and a liar — hath spoken it. — In the word 'grass/ I
follow our English version, which has the authority of the
original text — Ti?n herba virens a -ttn viruit. But Luther
has fcenum ; grass in the state of ' cut and withered.' Thus,
again we have a testimony against Freewill by implication
only : and, though we need not wonder, as Erasmus does, how
this should be dragged into the dispute (for if man be grass,
what is his will ?) ; 1 cannot help remarking, what I shall
have occasion to do hereafter more freely, that Luther would
have done wisely in keeping back some of his witnesses.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 343

profess that lie is not yet taught by the Scrip- sc. XLH.

tures, but that he wishes to be taught; whereas

he wishes nothing less, and only chatters thus,
that he may disparage that most clear light which
is in the Scriptures, and may give a grace to his
own obstinacy. Thus the Jews maintain unto this
day, that what Christ and the Apostles and the
Church have taught is not proved by the Scrip
tures. Heretics cannot be taught any thing by
the Scriptures. The Papists have not yet been
taught by the Scriptures, although even the stones
cry out the truth. Perhaps you are waiting for
a passage to be produced from the Scriptures,
which shall consist of these letters and syllables,
tf The principal part in man is flesh ;' or ( that
which is most excellent in man is flesh;' and till
then, mean to march off as an invincible conqueror.
Just as though the Jews should demand that a
sentence be produced from the Prophets consist
ing of these letters ; ' Jesus, the son of a car
penter, born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, is
the Messiah, and the Son of God.'

Here, where you are compelled to admit our
conclusion, by the manifest sentiment, you pre
scribe the letters and the syllables which we are
to produce to you : elsewhere, when conquered
both by the letters and the sentiment, you have
your tropes; your knots to untie, and your sober
explanation. Every where you find something to
oppose to the divine Scriptures : and no wonder,
when you do nothing else hut seek for something
to oppose to them* One while you run to the
interpretations of the ancients ; another while to
the absurdities of reason : when neither of these
serve your purpose, you talk about things that
are afar off, and things that are nigh, just that
you may avoid being confined to the text imme
diately before you. What shall I say? Proteus
is no Proteus, as compared with you. But you
cannot slip out of our hands even by these arti-

344 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. fices. What victories did the Arians boast, be
cause those letters and syllables 6{tiO&(no$ 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 con
quered — 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 vic
tory 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
text which is before you. It is not matter of
faith with us, but we both see and feel, that the
whole human race is born of the flesh : we
are therefore compelled to belieA^e what we do
not see ; namely, that the whole human race is
JJesh, upon the authority of Christ's teaching.
Now therefore, we leave it to the Sophists to
doubt and dispute whether the Tjyepovfxa,, 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 sub
ject, ' 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

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 345

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, ' all
things' — meaning ' all persons' — all human beings — are flesh.
— I have hinted already (sec the last note) that I do not
agree with Luther in his interpretation of this most autho
ritative text (John iii. G.) on which he bottoms his whole
argument here, as he did before. lie 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
' wicked,' or ' wickedness.' / say ' flesh' means the same in
the subject and in the predicate j ' that which is born of man
is man.' What this i.s, as to its nature, properties and qua
lities, 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 com
plete 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?" (Job xv. 14 — 1G.) " Behold I was shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm li.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, adul-
| teries, fornications, murders, thefts, eovetousiiess, wickedness,
deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolish
ness : 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. G. but I make it a step to ex
plicit 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 ' Vauglian's Clergyman's Appeal,' chap. iii. sect. iii. and
:hap. v. sect. ii. iv. where some account is given of the nature state of man,
ind of the sanctification of the Lord's people, which I deem satisfactory.

346

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. As to what you say therefore, that ' every affec
tion1 of man is not flesh, but there is which is

called soul, there is which is called spirit ; by the

He;ithen~ tatter of which we strive after whatsoever things

virtue is are honourable111 — -just as the philosophers strove,

horr* ab~ w^° *auSRt 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," 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 men
tion, and se^y 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. Scasvola, 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 affectusJ] 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 constitu
tion 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 dishonour
able : the Ka\ov of the Greeks ; something more exalted than
the TTpcirov, even as that AVUS also more exalted than the SIKO.IOV,

n See above, Part ii. Sect. xx. note x.

0 It should rather be C. Screvola ; that ScaeA^ola Avho hazarded
his life to rid his country of Porsenna ; that Regulus Avho dis
suaded from peace with Carthage though he went back to die
for it.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 347

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 seek
ing 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 robbery, 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 (^y^oy/xov)., that prin
cipal part of man, striving after things honour
able — in other words, exhibiting itself as the rob
ber 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 illus
trious 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.'

348 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. por we llulst o-rant this peculiarity amongst many
others to the Hebrew tongue, that when it says,,
( Man is flesh or spirit/ it means the same that
we do, when we say, ' Man is carnal or spiritual :'
just as the Latins say, i 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 Scrip
ture 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, c 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 1' 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 un
godly.11 Again,'1 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 impium justified.'] 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 intro
duces : to call ' flesh' is to call ' wicked ; ' for it is to say,

1. that he hath not the Spirit (which alone maketh godly) ;

2. that he is a member of the devil's kingdom.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 349

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
fighting against each other. These considerations
prove that the most consummate virtues amongst
the heathens — the best sayings of their philoso
phers, and the most eminent actions of tlieir
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- Conse-
tribe's assertion to stand good, that the whole J^™,8 of
constitution of man is not flesh ; that is, wicked : sumption
but that part of it, which we call spirit, is honest resi>ect.ing
and sound. See what absurdity follows hence,

not in the siiHit of human reason it is true ; but is not

^ it i j

with reference to the whole religion of Christ,
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

350 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 king
dom 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 him
self 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. e if £[ie whole man, says she, when even rege-
" nerated by faith,* is nothing1 else but flesh, what

Luther J

falsely

r See Part i. Sect xxii. Part iii. Sect, xxxii. Part. iv. Sect.

xx. xxxii.

s Luther's order in the last two sections is, 1. Your praise of
the heathens is false. CZ. Man is ' 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 ad
versary, he kicks him when he is down :' but his objections are
solid and unanswerable.

1 There is an ambiguity in the expression ' renatus per

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 351

becomes of the spirit which is born of the Spi- sc- XLV-
rit? what becomes of the son of God? what "

charged.

Authority

fidem.' Faitli is the fruit and effect of regeneration strictly of the an-
and properly so called ; that is, ' 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 g°od. f°r
in the more enlarged sense of regeneration, which includes !!° u"r
state as well as character (what is more properly called new C0ntrad'icts
birth, born again) regeneration may be said to be the fruit of
faith: " Ye are all the children of God in Christ Jesus by
faith j" that is, manifested to be such — visibly and acknow-
ledgedly 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 ; 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 Resur
rection ; of our having died and risen again with Christ — into
w^hom 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 ; who
already have that which is to be had in this life of the resur
rection 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 wrhich 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 resurrec
tion. It is this signing, scaling 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 ? Why is baptism administered to the non-
elect ? — I am not careful to answer these questions of the
natural man. Infant b;iptism 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 non-
elect ! Why it has been the mystery of God from the begin
ning to bring out and draw to himself his elect, amidst

352 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. becomes of tlie 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 impos
sible that I could stand my ground here ! Mean
while, 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 ;
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 naturei
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 resur
rection state ; and the communion of the body and blood, the
sacrament of their continual life therein. — The phrase ' rena-
tus per fidem" then, which both Erasmus and Luther adopt;
is allowable as expressive of that state into which the eternalljl
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 bij and
in the Spirit. — Then what has this state of theirs to do wittj
the question of Freewill ; or rather, with all that has just beeri
argued about man's being- flesh — whatever be meant by tha^
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.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 353

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 religious
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 Spi
rit 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 hatli not been born again
by faith is flesh : I affirm further, that the regenerate
man is flesh, only so far as pertaineth to that re
mainder" 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 remem
ber what you say either against me, or for your-

" Secundum relifjuias.~] Luther speaks of this remainder, as
nany other divines do, in a manner which implies that the
vork of the Spirit upon the substance of the soul in regene-
ation is incomplete : whereas it shall receive no increase or
.Iteration for ever. The body only is unreuewcd, and shall
emain so till the resurrection. The variety is in the ener-
;izings of the within-dwelling Spirit : which, unto God's
;lory in our real good, are neither uniform nor perpetual; and
o give occasion to the unrenewed part of our frame, and to
>ur enemies without, to gain many a transient victory over
,s. — What I have already said and referred to, about ' flesh'
nd ' spirit,' will serve to shew that my account of this
emainder would differ some little from Luther's. — See above,
ect. xlii. notes ' and k. See also Tart ii. Sect i. note f.

2 A

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. self. For in believing, upon the authority of the
ancients, that some seeds of honesty are im
planted 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 re
mind you of the point which is at issue in the
cause you have undertaken to plead ; from which
you are perpetually departing through forgetful-
ness, 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
in the power of anv man to walk and direct his

x.. -;•_>, &t, i m* . i •

defended, steps." This text, she says, appertains to pros
perity of event, rather than to the power oi
Freewill.

Here again Diatribe confidently introduces her
gloss at pleasure, as if she had a sort of plenipo
tentiary authority over Scripture. But what need
was there of such authoritativeness in the man, toj
enable him to consider the sense and scope of
the Prophet ? ' It is enough, says Mr. Erasmus j
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, thai
whilst the Prophet sees himself engaged in teaclh
ing 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 Isaiak xl. 6, 7- bj
1. Making Jerome and Erasmus ridiculous. 2. Maintaining
Isaiah. 3. Appealing to Erasmus's vain shew of candour anr
exposing it. 4. Entertaining the cavil ' not all.' 5. llepell-
ing false charges, and charging inconsistencies.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 355

fore, to hear and to will good. Perceiving this, SC.XLVL

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 ex
planation of the text — the same sort of trick
which is practised in the attempt to evade the
necessity of a consequence. They do 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
ipon the will of God alone, be under our control ?
>an the effort of Freewill obtain eternal salvation,
vhen it cannot keep the printer's dagger, or
iven a hair of one's head in its place? Have we
ao power to get possession of the creature, and
ihall we havex power to get possession of the
Creator? Why are we so mad? For a man
o 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
3 much more liable to be deceived, and has less

* For objections to this distinction, see abore, Fart i. Sect.
XV. note !.

Pertinct igitur.'] More literally, ' It most of all perta.ns to
vents, that a man strive,' &c.

2A2

356 BONDAGE OF THE WILL

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 ifi
you shall say, Codrns cannot pay half a crown, i
but he can pay millions of guineas. I am sur-|
prised 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.

' Besides, if you force it never so much, says
she, that it may bear upon the subject of Free
will, does not every body confess that no one
can maintain an upright course of life with
out the grace of God ? Still however, we strive
in the mean while ourselves also, according to
our ability; inasmuch as we pray daily, "O Lord
my God, direct my way in thy sight." He whoi
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 clone so, she would be!
thought to have satisfied everybody; so confident
is she in her own authority. — The thing to be;

z Creatis eventibus. divinis eventibus.'] Luther has said (see, as
at note x), that a dominion has been given to man over the infe
rior 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 j that is, events which are convers
ant with creatures only, and events which are conversant with
God also : these, in which he has to deal with creatures, are
of small moment with respect to those in which he has to deal
with the Creator. Temporal prosperity is of the former ; sal
vation is of the latter. — I deny the justness of the distinction;
and must allow, that we have rather too much of the gla
diator in this paragraph. Luther's defence of his text is cor
rect ; but to give his adversary another thrust when he is
fallen, he goes into refinements which will not stand. Doubt
less, spiritual things are higher than temporal things, but each
is under the sole dominion of God.

a See Part iii. Sect. xliv. note m.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 357

proved was,, whether we strive by means of our SECT.
own strength; the thing she proves is, that she XLV"-
endeavours something by praying. Is she mock
ing us, pray ? Is she making fun of the Papists ?
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 what 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.xvi.i.
Proverbs xvi. (f 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 surely, that, if we even
grant this to be its meaning, 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
iin the works and events of God/ c

But observe how sharp she is : ' How can it be
'man's work to prepare the .heart, when Luther
affirms that every thing is done by necessity ?'

I reply ; ' 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
fields is broad and palpable, and only loses force by allowing
that it may allow a cavil,

c See last section.

358

BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

SECT.
XLVIII.

Much in
Proverbs
for Free
will.

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 uncer-,
tain: as the Preacher says, "In the morning sow
thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine
hand, because thon 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, ' that in
the book of Proverbs many things are said in
fa\our of Freewill •/ such as this, ( 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, ' confess ;' therefore thou canst con~
fess : ' thy works ;' therefore thou doest them.
So that saying, " I am thy God," you will under
stand to mean, 'thouinakest me thy God/ "Thy
faith hath made thee whole/' dost thou hear?
" thy faith." Expound thus, ' thou makest thy
self 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, " 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

Prov. xvi.
4.

d See Part iv. Sect. x. note z.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 359

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 Prov.xxi.l.
any efficacy in her view, " The heart of the king
is in the hand of the Lord; he inclineth it whither
soever he will." 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. By
jGod's inclining of the heart is meant, not that
sleepy lazy thing which Diatribe pretends, but that
:inost efficacious operation of God, which the man
cannot avoid or change ; and by which he neces
sarily 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, Diatribe 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 ; ' God suffering the king to
bo 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 omni
potent God; forasmuch asf every man's will is

e See aboA'e, Sect. xi. note h.

f Q«ia.] I should have liked qnd instead of quia, if there had
Deen any authority for it. — For the principle maintained, see
ibove, Sect. xi. and note h.

360

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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, how
ever private, cannot will before God g except as
God inclines him, the same must 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 lawT,h or work : else there
would be no such thing as examples in the Scrip
tures.'

After this, having affirmed that many testimo
nies, such as Luther collects from this book of

Johnxv 5 Proverbs, might indeed be brought together, but
they would be such as by a commodious inter
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

£ Coram Deo.~] Referring, I suppose, to the former distinc
tion 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. ~\ ' Jus (a jubeo, ut quidam volunt) est univer-
sim id quod legibus constitution est, sive naturalibus, she divi-
nis, 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 csset sui juris ac mancipii respublica.' — Cic.

' Luther defends his quotations from Proverbs, and withdraws
the chot us from Erasmus's old song, by 1. Necessity does not
preclude human agency, but quickens it. *2. They are impera
tive 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.

SECT.
XLIX.

maintain
ed.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 361

John xv. " Without me ye can do nothing." SECT.
&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 inter
pretations, 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
' nothing,' and slays it by the aid of many words 'n°thing5
and many examples ; dragging it to this result by
a commodious interpretation, that ( 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 per
fectly. 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 is to

362

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. shew, by so many words and examples, how this
word ' nothing ' may be taken here for ' some
thing 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 inter-

O

pretation therefore amounts but to this, if to any
thing, that this passage of John's is made uncer
tain 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 !

But the finest thing of all is to see how con
sistent she is with herself. e 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 be-
fals 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 interpret
ation by which she proves that ( nothing ' means
the same with ' small and imperfect.' Perhaps
we ought also to interpret the adverb ( not' com-
modiously, 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 reign
ing 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;
she will use them as though they were.

SECT. L.

Inconsist
ency
charged.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 363

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
this law every where in their interpretations of
the Scriptures, and insist upon understanding
'nothing' and ' not ' to denote an imperfect sub
stance. As ' without him was nothing made ;'
that is, ' very little/ ' The fool hath said in his
heart there is no God;' that is, c God is imper
fect/ ' 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 inter
pretation 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 ! ' 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 pes
tilent nature than this cornmodiousness which you
recommend. Hear thou therefore, mighty con-
queress 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 -\vilfulness of the false prophets : we have
the tinder ready, and they strike the spark.

364 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART iv. signification of the word, laughing at thy armies

no less than at thy triumphs !

More in- What is now become of that approvable
consisten- opinion, which declares that Freewill can will

C16S

nothing good ? But perhaps the principle of
commodious interpretation hath arrived here at
last,, making out that ( nothing good' means
f something ffood/ by an altogether unheard of
art both of grammar and of logic which explains
( nothing0 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 roar
ing 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 endea
vour 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 will 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 impel
lers 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.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 365

For, either the kingdom of Satan is a nigre 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, 6 Luther drives on his cause with a
mighty force of Scripture, but all his Scripture is
pulled to pieces by one little word?"11 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, whe
ther 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
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 ' 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.'

366 BONDAGE OF THE WILL:

PART iv. their natural meaning, unless the contrary shall
~~; " have been demonstrated:11 which Diatribe neither
of 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

2.Fiomthe Secondly, the very sequel of the discourse —
sequel of which Diatribe in her valour despises,q although
bie.P 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 burneth." 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.

0 Lortge potentiss. et callidiss. niundi.~\ There is a 'little ambi
guity in the expression ; 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.

<J Fortiter contemnit.'] The taunt is obscure ; but I under
stand it to insinuate, that Diatribe has a good deal of that
' better part of valour, which is discretion.'

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 367

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 ( Nothing ;'
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 continu
ally 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
6 Nothing' must be taken literally here, according
to its natural import/

Let us now look also into the examples by 3. By re-
wliich she proves that 'nothing' is in some places fating Dia-
taken for 4a little;' in order to shew, that in this
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 AVC cannot be wrong
in seizing the general outline, and maintaining the broad prin
ciple Avhich is illustrated ; where that can be distinctly ascer
tained. — Perhaps I should not interpret this parable just as
Luther does. I consider it as a representation of the visible
church ; exhibiting two sorts of members, fruitful and unfruit
ful. The fruitful only are Christ's true ones ; and their fruitful-
ness is dependent altogether upon a real, continued and imob-
structed union with himself. It is with reference to their con
tinuance in him, that this nothingness is spoken of. Should they
be cut off from him — suppose them to have been neArer so fruit
ful — (thus the parable speaks) their fruitfully ss would cease —
entirely cease. Both the end and the way require that the nothing
be an absolute nothing. — Luther cannot state the result of non
union, or dis-union, more awfully than I would do ; but I
should question the parable's setting this out Avith the minuteness
Avhich he assigns to it, and do not see it necessary to the con
clusion he is sustaining. It is quite enough that the disunited
branch is a cast-away Availing for the burning.

368 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 endea
vours 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, ( 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

9 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 ; but
they are not so.

I Verba, ui vacant. ,] Ut roc. i. e. ' quatenus vocabula sunt,
sive dictiones quibus res singular vocantur, aut voce efferuntur.'

II 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;
here refers to it as a spectator.

TEXTS .AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 369

which she adduces from Paul, "Neither is he SECT.
that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, but L1L
God that giveth the increase." What is of very } ...
little moment, and useless of itself, he calls
' 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 waterer 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 cleai*ly express this. But grant
ing 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 f a something/ and not ( a mere nothing.' v

So again, with regard to that saying in 1 Cor. xiii. I Cor. xiii.
" If I have not charity, I am nothing." I do not 2*
see why she adduces this example, except it be
ithat she is in quest of number and multitude, or
ithinks that we are in want of arms with which to
'dispatch her. For the man who has not charity
's truly and strictly ' nothing' before God. I

T Mer&m 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
n the sight of God, though not an absolute nothing in itself. —
This conclusion however is drawn from a double misapplication
)f the text : it is act, instead of effect j and it is act of the
hearer, not of the speaker.

37Q BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART IV. maintain the same thing with respect to Freewill.

So that this example also stands up for me against

Diatribe herself, unless it be that Diatribe is even
yet 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 { nothing •/ 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 sub
ject. — What we affirm is, that man without the
grace of God still remains under the control ofi

CJ

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 \ve 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. " A man can

* Quo loco pugnemus.'] The same with ' status causa;;' the
question at issue.

y We are reasoning about ' existence of grace,' or { 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.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 371

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 instruc
tions, 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 ' nothing,' which was at
last to be made ( 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 redun
dancy 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 fttzw.] We shall see hereafter, that Luther is mis-

'taken in his view of this text ; but the conclusion remains :
the ' nothing' is distinct from natural endowments. — Plato's

'chaos is that ' rudis indigestaque moles,' out of which, ' being
itself eternal,' he taught that the eternal God, according to an

|2ternal draught or model in his own mind, had, in his own
ippointed time, created the world. — Leucippus of Abdera,

i\. c. 428. was the first who invented the famous system of
itoms and a void, which was afterwards more fully explained by

i Democritus and Epicurus. The void was nothing, till the infi-

| lity of eternal atoms rushed into it by a blind and rapid
novement, and thus settled into a world — Aristotle's ' infi-

; lite ' is his ' first moveable ' eternally put into motion by his
\ first Mover,' and made to be what it is, at its one first projection,
)y Him. There is not much of essential difference therefore
>etween Plato's chaos, Leucippus's vacuum, and Aristotle's
nrinite : they are each a name for some supposed state in
vhich the world that now is subsisted antecedently to its pre-
lent one. — For some account of Plato, see Preface ; see also

I 'art ii. Sect. v. note u, where I have followed Seneca's account
>f his term ' idea.' — For some account of Aristotle, see Part iv.

I >ect. viii. note r.

372

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 e 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 Bap
tist — if 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 details c a great many similes ; by
which all she does is to carry off the foolish

SECT.
LIII.

Diatribe's
troop of

a Detriverunt.'] A figure taken from threshing, or more proi
perly 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 ; ' even the Sophists have trodden the
floor of their schools ' to better purpose than she. See Intro
duction, p. 3, note a.

b Luther maintains his Achillean lance, by 1. Exposing the stale-{
ness, 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. 'Nothing' cannot mean
' a little ' in this text. 5. Does not in any of the texts which
she adduces.

c Enumerat implies ' the number in full tale ' — an ostenta
tious display of numbers.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 373

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, sim;les
but still the mariner conducts it into port ; so that naught,
the mariner does something. It is a distinct work ^ndagamst
forsooth, which this simile ascribes to God on the what she
one hand — that of preserving — and to the mariner ousht 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 exqui
site and apt simile ! d

So the husbandman carries the productions of
the earth into his barns, but God has given them.
iHere again, distinct works are ascribed to God
and to man ; unless she chooses to make the hus
bandman 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 operat
ing God ? Are we now disputing about coopera
tion 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
3nly of a gourd. A cask was to be turned,
svhy comes there out a pitcher?6

I also know, that Paul works together with
jod in teaching the Corinthians ; himself preach-
ng without, whilst God teaches within: where ihe
|vork of the two operators is a different one. In
(ike manner, he also works together with God,
vhen he speaks in the Spirit of God : and the
,vork 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

; and the agent in each, one.
e Hor. Art. Poet. v. %%. — I do not find any classical allusion
DF the gourd,

374 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 accord
ing to the measure of its own power, which God
hath given to it. So true is it, that even all wick
ednesses f 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 king
dom — 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 led by 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 omnipo
tency, 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 ; whe
ther this be without the confines of his kingdom

f Omnia etiam impia.~] ' All wicked substances : ' men and devils.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 375

by the acting of his general omnipotency, 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 re
newal and kingdom ; and afterwards, when he
has been created anew, does nothing, endeavours
nothing, towards continuing himself in that king
dom; 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.*
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.'1 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 ' nothing ;' absolute nothing?

Read the Diatribe in this part for five or six inconsist-
leaves together, and you will find that all she does ^Lu^of
is, first by lugging in similes of this sort, and after- Diatribe-
wards by citing some of the most beautiful passages takes UP
and parables from Paul's writings and from the j'e'Sind
Gospels, to teach us that innumerable texts (as she pursues
expresses it) are to be found in the Scriptures, JJ^esby"
which declare the cooperation and helping gifts inversion.
of God. Now, if I collect from these testimonies,

8 Renovata creatura."] Sometimes called ' the new creation ;'
but with less propriety : this new is all made out of the old j
which 'new' does not imply, but 'renewed' does.

h Cooper aremur.'] 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.'

376 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. \

PART iv. tliat man can do nothing without the helping
grac^ of God, 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 tiresome
ness), that she preserves such a perfect consist
ency throughout her whole performance, always
handling other topics than those which she pro
posed to treat. However, if she has delighted
herself with talking nonsense on so grave a sub
ject, 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 Public^ traducere."] A peculiar use of tradiic. ' to expose to
ridicule or dishonour,, to disgrace.' So ' traducit avos.'- — Juv. viii.
17. ' Rideris, multbque magis traduceris.' — Martial. ' Miseram
traducere calvam.': — Id.

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 377

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/ 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 ; there
fore Scripture establishes Freewill. What art
of logic is it pray, from wrhich 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 her
self, 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 infer
ence 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 ques
tion is to be decided by numbers then, I have con
quered. For wherefore have we need of grace ;

k Encomion.'] A Greek derivative ; whence our English
word ' 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
personating men distracted.

378 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 impotency of Freewill is in the
same instant proclaimed. This is that sound con
clusion, and that legitimate consequence, which
not even the gates of hell shall overthrow.
SECT. Here I make an end of maintaining my own texts
L ' 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 con
sidered 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 pre
cepts, 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 punish
ment — then again, that it is difficult to defend the
mercy, or even the justice of God, if God con
demns those who sin necessarily — and other dis
agreeable consequences, which have so moved the
greatest men as to overthrow them —

I have given an answer to all these considera
tions already. Nor do I either tolerate, or receive,
that golden mean which advises, with good inten
tion, 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

TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 379

inefficacious power to Freewill remain in force ; SECT.
as I have already shewn. We must therefore come
to the extremity of denying Freewill altoge
ther, and referring every thing to God ; and
then we shall find that the Scriptures are not
inconsistent with themselves, and that our in
conveniences are either removed or rendered
tolerable.

There is one thing, however, which I depre
cate, 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 disputa
tion ; 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 tes
timony should be borne to me by the world, in the
cause of God. May God himself confirm this tes
timony 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 deceit
fully, 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

380 BONDAGE OF THE WILL;

PART iv. the man who doeth the work of the Lord negli
gently."1

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 know
ledge and the matter you put forth" 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 unfre-
quently 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.0

m Negligenter.'] Our version says deceitfully, but has neg
ligently in the margin.

n Re ipsd.~] ' The material Avhich he worked up :' as dis
tinguished not only from his name, but from the dress of
language which he put upon it.

0 Nihil humani alienum.'] ' Homo sum, nihil a me human!
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.

381

PART V.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE.

SECTION I.

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 wreapon, to
pierce him through and through as he lies dead,
with many more. 1 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 SECT 11.
upon his argument in behalf of the grace of God
against Freewill. « The wrath of God, says he,

382 BONDAGE OF THE WILL

PART v. is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and

' unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in

sentence unrighteousness." In these words you hear a
upon Free- general sentence pronounced upon all men, that
will> they are under the wrath of God. What is this
else, but that they are worthy of wrath and punish
ment? 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 un
just, 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 sen
tence upon it as ungodly and unjust. Now that
which is ungodly, and deserves wrath, endea
vours and hath power, not for grace, but against
it*

Luther will be laughed at here for his careless
ness, as not having examined Paul's text suffi
ciently; and soine 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, ' 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; there
fore all men are worthy of wrath/ Besides, it is
not the relative that is used in the Greek text —

* Luther's argument is, c Paul declares that wrath is
revealed upon " all men." If so, it is revealed upon Free
will. — His labour therefore is to shew that this text mejvns
so much. — That it does mean so much is shewn, 1. From the
very words. 2. From the preceding context.

b Ebraicatur .] 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.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 383

of those who — but the article ; as thus, c The SECT n.

wrath 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, { Our Father which art in
heaven ;' which might otherwise be expressed
thus, ' Our heavenly Father/ or ' Our Father in
the heavens/0 For the expression is used to dis
tinguish 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 con
strain 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 : ' To the Jews and to the

c An epithet which implies the reason of the Lord's con
duct ; and which I should venture to render by ' 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 proceed
ing 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 salva
tion ; 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, be
cause they hold ' the truth' in unrighteousness ; they hold
the truth in unrighteousness because God has made him
self 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 " all men :" and this
he clearly has.

384 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

PART v, Greeks— that is, to all men— the Gospel of the
power of God is necessary, in order that be
lievers may be saved from the wrath which is
revealed/ When he declares the Jews — who ex
celled 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 ? Again ; whom
will you except amidst those Jews and Greeks,
when Paul embraces them all without any dis
tinction 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 emi
nent 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 un
godly and unjust. Must we not suppose, that
the rest of the Apostles also did, by a like sen
tence, 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 ;
Jew and Greek, like Jew and Gentile, comprehending the
whole human race. Luther understands Paul to express that
nation in its iadividuality, 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 'honestum.' See Part iv. Sect, xliii.
note m. See also Part ii. Sect. viii.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 385

condemnation under the curse and dominion of SECT.III.
this wrath ?

This passage of Paul's therefore stands boldly, A pubiish-
and insists that Freewill, or the most excellent edGosPel

i • . -IT • proves

thing1 in men, even in those who are most enn- want of
nent, even in those who are endowed with the j™°wledge
law, justice, wisdom and all virtues, is ungodly turai man,
and unjust, and deserves the wrath of God : else as wel1 as
Paul's argument falls to the ground ; whereas if
it stand, his division, by which he distributes
salvation to those who believe the Gospel and
wrath to all the rest, leaves no man in the mid
way 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 yet
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 Paul's 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/ So
then Paul, comprehending all men without ex
ception in one mass here, concludes that all of
them are ungodly, unjust, and ignorant of righte
ousness 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 Horn. ii. 1 Cor. i.
Galat. iii. Coloss. iii.

2 c

386

PART V.

SECT IV.

Experi
ence con
firms
Paul's ar
gument.
Freewill
neither
conceives
the truth,
nor can
endure it.

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 igno
rant and sitting in darkness — why then of them
selves they are ignorant. Now those that know
not a righteousness of salvation are assuredly
under wrath and damnation ; and cannot extri
cate themselves therefrom through their igno
rance, 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, wrho ever conceived that

o -7

this is the way to righteousness and salvation — i
forsooth to believe in Him, who is at the samei
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 oli
this wrath of God, which Paul here declares td
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 atrocious!}
unto this very day. And yet who would dare tc
say that there hath not been a single individual
in such a multitude of people, who hath cnltivatec
his free will, and endeavoured to effect something
by its power ? How comes it then, that all met
try after something different from this, and that
the most excellent of the most excellent of men
have not only neglected to cultivate this metlioc
of righteousness, yea, and been ignorant of it;
but, when now it has been published and re
vealed, have repelled it with the most consum-

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 387

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 Gen
tiles 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
junder 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
jvery Freewill have done nothing but wage war
against grace. Go now, and say that Freewill
endeavours after good, when goodness and righte
ousness itself is a stumbling-block and foolishness
to her ! Nor can you say that this saying per
tains to some, but not to all. Paul speaks indis-
:riminately 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
jis the power and wisdom of God." He does not
isay, ' to some Gentiles, to some Jews ;' but sim-
to the Gentiles and to the Jews who are not
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
jGentiles who have not the grace of God : Paul
says that the righteousness of God is foolishness
ito them, and they abhor it ! So much for this
amiable endeavour of Freewill after good.5

I « Luther's account of this text is, 1. The words are a testi
mony. 2. This testimony is confirmed by (1.) the preceding
Context (2.) fact and experience. — I deem him mistaken in
ais view, both of the text and context. (See above, note c.) The
;ext does not refer to ' the truth' as preached by the Gospel,
neither does it make any division or exception, It is the

,
jply,

388

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY. Again; see whether he does not himself ad
duce the very chiefest of the Greeks as examples

SECT. v.

Paul ex
pressly

nature state of ' 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
Gospel ? " The truth" is either ' the substance of God,'* or
' the doctrine of that substance' — what states it out ; and con
sequently, 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 Avorks of nature (that is, Avorks of God in
creation as distinguished from those of super-creation or re
demption.) So that those who had not the Gospel might still
be charged AA'ith 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,
" Because that which may be knoAvn of God is manifest in
them 5 for God hath sheAved it unto them. For the invisi-
ble 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 know
ledge, 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. iAr. 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 Avith just the same reference and scope in each
Avhereas it is there the rejecting infidel, here the un-evangelized
neglecter and contenmer of God, that is the subject of re
mark. — Still the testimony against FreeAvill is entire. Even
the conclusion from the sixteenth Averse, and from the seven
teenth Averse, is not abated : " The Gospel is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the JCAV
first, and also to the Greek •" therefore both JCAV and Greek
needeth salvation — therefore they neither have, nor know it
by FreeAvill. " Therein is the righteousness of God revealed
from faith to faith -," therefore righteousness is not kmnvn
without it — is not known by Freewill ; it is by faith — and

* I do not forget that the Lord Jesus Christ is both personally and mysti
cally called THE TRUTH ; but if this title be examined, it will be found that
He has it, in both these regards, rubordinately ; as the grand Displayer,
Declarer, Word, and Glory of God the Father — the created image of the
Uncreated Reality.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 389

of his 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 n*P^s thoef
their reasonings; that is, by their wily disput- theGreeks,
ations.11 and after-

What, does he not here lay his hands upon demnstile"
what is highest and most excellent amongst the Jewsindis-
Greeks, when he lays hold of their reasonings?
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

I 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

j his hand.'

11 Luther does not quote the words in the order in which we
I have them in our version, and in which they stand in the ori-
i ginal text. " Because that, when they knew God, they glo
rified him not as God, neither were thankful : but became vain
I 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
I propriety of Luther's distinction here between the wiser of
i them, and the rest of the nation. He appears to have understood
j the words ' 0ao-/coi>Tc<? cn'ai ao<pol,' as expressing those who
j said they were wise amongst them. But there is nothing par-
; titive 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 was a refined and philosophical nation, boasted
j itself of its wisdom. The philosophers led the way in much
i of the idolatry and sin, but the people followed them ; and
it is of the whole, inclusively but not exclusively of the philo-
, sophers, that the Apostle delivers his testimony. Luther's
, argument, however, is not affected by this distinction ; he only
j wants to have it secured that the greatest and best of their
community are comprehended in the censure.
1 1 Cor. iii. 18—20.

390 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, and they worshipped idols, and performed the
monstrous acts which he records in the follow
ing verses. k If the best endeavours and per
formance, 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 con
demns 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. " Thou, by
the letter and circumcision, dishonourest God,"
says he. And again ; " 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
\vith the greatest earnestness of endeavour ?
Just as he often bears them record, that they have
a zeal for God, that they follow after the righte
ousness of the law, that they are labouring day
and night to obtain salvation, that they live
blameless ! l 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 con
sequence 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 with
out a murmur — but seems clearly to refer to such passages as
Philipp. iii. 6. Luke i. 6. — Luther's representation of these

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 391

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 epi-
i of his own interpreter. Making a sort of epi- logue

i . i • i. • i ••• i r establishes

logue m to his argument, in chap. in. he says, his mean-
" What then ? do we excel them ? By no means. ins-
For we have charged" both Jews and Greeks
with being all under sin."

Jews requires chastening : they yielded but an outward observ
ance 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 letter-morality of Moses ! It
suits his view of the Apostle's argument ; but that view is
incorrect. (See above, Sect. ii. note c.) The Apostle is shew
ing that the law-having Jew is no better than the uncove-
nanted Gentile : " but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir
cumcision is made uncircumcision." (Rom. ii. 25.)

m Felut epilogum faciens.~] Epil. ' Postrema pars orationis
qua congregantur et repetuntur ea, quse dicta sunt ,• Latine
peroratio, cumulus, conclusio : ab cV<Xeya<, insuper dico, dictis
addo, repeto.'

n Causati sumus.~\ TrpoipiaaaficOa. — We say, proved ; but Lu
ther is more correct, as 'appears both from the etymology of
the word and from the discourse which follows : Trpoan. ante
causam ajfero; ante arguo. Most commentators however, and
Sleusner amongst the rest, assign a sense to it like ours; al
though this be the only place in the New Testament where the

392 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY. 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 Gentiles 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 unrighte
ousness of men." In the words which follow he
proves this by experience; for that they, being
displeasing to God, were subjected to so many
vices, 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, c 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; which looks'as
if he considered what had preceded as little more than laying a
charge. — Some MSS. read the simple verb IJTKKT. 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.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 393

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 Pauijusti-
from the Scriptures; whether the words are more fiedm.hls
to the point as we read them in Paul, than as we q
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 abomina
ble ; there is none that doeth good ; no, not one."
And the rest.

Let who can give me a commodious interpret
ation here ; let who dares invent his tropes ;
complain that the words are ambiguous and ob
scure, 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 all 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 pre
vents the Jews from thinking that these things do
not belong to them, by asserting that they do espe
cially 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."1'

P That I deny : here he speaks of Jews only ; there, by
the combination of the two names he comprehended all men.

394 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 honour
able 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 :
" 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 yourselves;
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 cre
ation, and through him to the whole race. But this is apocry
phal, 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 com
munity 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 re'st of mankind
be supposed to be dealt with according to this law, and as
though they were under it ; this 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

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 395

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 un
profitable? 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 to
wards 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 wouldest 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 there
fore, 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 esta
blished the guilt of the Jews also. He has therefore made good
his charge, that f all men' hold the truth in unrighteousness.

396 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, 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 know
ledge 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 de-
spisers 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 her
self 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-
til eri be in a state of error, and the will in a state
of averseness, what good can the man either do
or attempt ?
SEC. vm. But some one may perhaps venture upon a

sophistical distinction, and say, that, although the

The Pro- wj|| ^arn asjde and the understanding be igno-

demnation rant in action, the will notwithstanding is able
includes to endeavour, and the understanding to get know-
t. 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
' Man does not seek after God/ as it would be to
say f Man cannot seek after God :' an assertion
which may be collected hence ; 6 If there were a
power or force in man to will good — seeing he is
not suffered to rest, or take his pastime, through

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 397

the impulse of the divine omnipotency, as I have SEC.VIII.

shewn above" — it could not be, but that this power

were moved towards something1, 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 igno
rant 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 un
done, 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 un
belief; 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.

398

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

words in
Rom. iii
19, 20.
insisted
upon.

PARTY. But Paul goes on to testify that he is speaking

of all men, and especially of the best and most

"T' IX" excellent of men;s saying, "That every mouth
Paul's bio- ma.Y be stopped, and all the world may become
" guilty before God. Because by the deeds of the
law is no flesh justified before aim."

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 God, e 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 some
thing, it is false that the whole world is guilty, or
under charge of guilt before God; l 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 be
fore 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.

4 Deo obnoxius sen reusJ] UTTO'^IKOS -nS 6cw. Obnox. in this
distinction expresses ' liable to charge/ Reus, 'one actually
arraigned.' YTTO'O. T. 6. comprehends the two, fone charged
with crime at the suit of God.'

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 399

of God/1 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 te ham
mer which breaketh the rock in pieces," as Jere
miah says : " They are all gone out of the way/'
" 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 ab
solutely, 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 understandeth, 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. " They
build, I will throw down?"v

u Qad interp. reata obstrictusJ] Interp. See above, Part iv.
Sect, xxxiv. note e. Re. ' 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 ' fulfil;' it is a mere accommo
dation of Malachi's words, which have no reference to this
subject. — Luther refines here too much ; and is again guilty
of arguing per sequclam. ' The whole world is guilty. Whv
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 infer
ence, their whole substance and all its affections must be
bad ; but this is not asserted. Just so, in the last section ;
' Man seeketh not after God' is the same as saying ' Man
cannot seek after God / which he proves by argument and
inference.

400 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY. 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 ( 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, ' 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 unpro
fitable, 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 under
standing 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 law itself, as a sort of divine
helper, which instructed and encouraged them ; if
these persons, I say, be charged with ungodli
ness, 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 wrhole 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 great
est zeal, or with moderate zeal, or with no zeal at
all, it matters not : all could yield but a perform
ance of the deeds of the law; and the deeds of
the law do not justify. If they do not justify,

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 401

they prove their fulfillers to be ungodly, and SECT. x.

leave them so. But the ungodly are guilty per-

sons, 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 by saying, that by the deeds of the law
he means the ceremonial ordinances, which have kw of
become deadly since the death of Christ. whidl Paul

I reply ; this is that ignorant mistake of Je- sped
rome's, which, in spite of Augustine's bold resist
ance, 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 suf
ficiently 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 w^orks ;
else how will his argument stand, by which he
comes to the conclusion, that all are unrighteous,

x Luther misapprehends the condemnation here pronounced
,i)y the Apostle. It is not that the works of the law are evil ;
ir that the works of men, so far as they be a fulfilment of it,
lire evil ; but that they do not really perform these works. If
:hey really performed these works, such testimonies as those
above would not have been borne against them. The fact that
juch 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,
ire condemned by it. — Luther is again in error about the word

flesh ;' it is not sinful affection here, any more than in
;he former instances : it is a name for the human species ;
' no flesh" is ' no human being.' The argument however is
lot shaken. If the deeds of the law be never so good, but man
md Freewill instead of attaining to them are condemned by
;hem ; what is man, and what is Freewill ?

2 D

402 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

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 ordi
nances ? 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 cere
monial ordinances have become deadly and un
lawful 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 " by the deeds of the law" is meant ( all
the works of the whole law:5 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 abro
gated."

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 403

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
of all the laws which are written in the book of the
law, as often as he mentions the works of the law.

What is still more wonderful, he absolutely
cites Moses when pronouncing a curse upon those
who continue not in the law, whereas he himself
pronounces those cursed who are of the deeds of
the law, adducing an opposite passage to confirm
his opposing sentiment; inasmuch as the former
[Moses) is negative, the latter (Paul) is affirma
tive. — But he does so, because the matter stands
thus before God : those who are most zealous of
the deeds of the law do least of all fulfil the
law ; for that they lack the Spirit, who is the ful-
filler of the law : which they may attempt, it is
'true, to fulfil through their own powers, but can
'sffect nothing. Thus each saying is true : accord
ing to Moses they be accursed who do not con
tinue ; according to Paul they be accursed who
ire of the deeds of the law : for each of these
writers requires the Spirit in his performer.
Without this Spirit, the deeds of the law, how
much soever be done, do not justify, as Paul
says : and for the same reason, they do not con
tinue in all the things which are written, as Moses
says.*

z The cavil is, Paul speaks of ceremonial works exclusively ;
Luther's answer is, 1. Paul's argument would be defective.

2 D 2

404 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY. In fine, Paul abundantly confirms what I am

• here advancing, by his own division of persons.

SECT. XI. .

2. Grace would be a mere trifle. 3. These works have not

Paul's become deathly. 4. They were a part of the law requirements
meaning as much as the decalogue, and have never been abrogated,
is, ' works 5 "When treating the same subject in Galatians iii. he ex-
of the law, pressiv says. ( All things which are written in the book of the
done m f , •

the flesh

condemn'* ^e *rue ant^ short answer to this cavil is, the whole law
ceremonial and moral is one institution, and Paul makes no
exceptions or distinctions. Luther goes wide, and says many
exceptionable things. What he says about r not abrogated,'
is ambiguous, inconclusive, and unnecessary. Does he mean that
the law in both its parts is still standing, just as it was ? W;is
it the Apostle's place here to say ' not abrogated,' if he' con
sidered it so ? as he does explicitly in Romans vi. vii. 2 Cor. iii.
Ephes. ii. Colos. ii. Galat. iv. 1 Tim. i. Is it true, that what
has been the law shall not be spoken of under the name of the
law, except it be still in force and reigning ? Did the Jews, to
whom I say only, he says firstly (see last note), this argument
is addressed, require any assertion of its authority ? — What he
says to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between Paul and
Moses, which forms the basis of his interpretation and position
here, he says under a misapprehension of both Paul's and
Moses's meaning, and says unwisely and untruly. (Compare
Deut xxvii. 1 — 26, with Galat. iii. 10.) Paul has it not for his
object to condemn as many as are doers of the law, but " as many
as are of the works of the law 5" that is, 'all those who are
looking for justification, in whole or in part, from their obedi
ence to the law.' What inconsistency is there between this
interdict of Paul's, and Moses's curse, denounced upon every
one that continueth not in all things, &c. r — Paul neither takes
away this curse, nor condemns the fulfiller : he condemns the
attempt to fulfil, not because it succeeds, but because it fails,
and must ever fail. — ' They both require the Spirit in their
performer : Moses's cursed continues not, because he has
not the Spirit ; Paul's cursed is not justified, because he does
the works without the Spirit.' Now there is no consideration
about either power or motive, in either. Moses in effect says,
' fulfil ;' without inquiring or teaching how: and Paul says,
' aiming to be justified by the law curses, because man cannot
fulfil it, and there is a curse upon him who doth not.' But
so far is the Spirit from being the law fulfiller (legis consum-
mator), as Luther entitles him; that he who hath the Spirit,
after justification, does not " continue in all things," and would
be condemned still, if that were required of him ; nor is it in
any wise his aim to do so. His aim is to do the whole will of
God, in that relation into which he has now manifestly and con
sciously been brought by Him in Christ, as God shall be pleased

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 405

He divides men who are the doers of the law into SECT.xi.
two parties : the one he makes spiritual doers,
the other carnal doers ; leaving none between the
two. For thus he speaks, " By the deeds of
the law shall no flesh be justified/' What
does this mean, but that they work at the law
without the Spirit, seeing- they are flesh; that is,
ungodly and ignorant of God : whom those works
profit nothing? Thus, in Gal. iii. using the same
division, he says, " Received ye the Spirit from
the deeds of the law, or from the hearing of faith ?"
And again, Rom. iii. " Now the righteousness of
God without the law is manifested." And again,
" We judge that a man is justified by faith with
out the deeds of the law/' From all which, as put
together, it becomes plain and clear, that the
Spirit is opposed by Paul to the works of the
law — just as it is to all other things which are not
spiritual, and to all the powers and pretences of
the flesh — so as to make it certain, that this is
the sentiment of Paul, agreeing with Christ in
John iii. that all which is not of the Spirit (be it
never so specious, so holy and so excellent) is
flesh ; and therefore, that even the most beautiful

u

to make known that will to him, and to enable him, by his
Spirit which dwelleth and walketh in him : a rule, if rule it
can be called, far more extensive and copious than the law, and
of a totally different character ; the law of an eternally saved
and glorified sinner, walking in Christ with God — his Father,
his Friend, his Portion, his exceeding Joy. — What he says
here, and in other places, about the justification of the Spirit, is
fallacious. His language implies that, if the obedience of those
who are " of the works of the law ' were yielded in the Spirit,
it would justify ; and that it was for lack of this gift, that
Moses's worshippers did not escape their curse, by "continuing
in all things." Now, though it be true that the Spirit justifies
the Lord's called people (1 Cor. vi. 11.), as it did " God mani
fest in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii. 16.), by proving whose, and who,
and what they are ; this is perfectly distinct from any act of
obedience which removes curse, or earns acceptance. — All
he wants from Galatians, however, he has : ' Paul, treating
the same subject there, expressly comprehends the whole
law.'

406 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART V. works of the divine law are of this character, by

' whatsoever powers they may happen to have been

wrung out. For the Spirit of Christ is necessary ;
without which they are all deserving only of
damnation. Let it be a settled point then, that
Paul means by the deeds of the law not those
which are ceremonial only, but all the works of
the whole law. It will at the same time be settled,
that whatsoever be done without the Spirit, in
doing the deeds of the law, is condemned. But
this power of Freewill — the most excellent thing
forsooth in man — seeing it is of Freewill properly
so called that we are now treating, is without the
Spirit. Whereas, to be of the works of the law
is such a thing, that nothing better can be said of
a man. He does not say, you observe, ' as many
as are of sins and of transgression against the
law;' but " as many as are of the deeds of the law;"
that is, the best of men — men zealous for the law —
who, besides the power of Freewill, have even
been assisted by the law ; that is, instructed and
exercised therein.1

a I object to Luther's interpretations and conclusions in this
section. He infers a division of law workers from the words no
fash; by which Paul expresses not division, but universality. No
Jlesh (see above, Part iv. Sect, xxxvii. note k) is no human being.
The argument drawn from this supposed division therefore —
that it is the deeds of the law done without the Spirit, which
fail to justify, and do absolutely condemn — falls to the ground.
In the several passages which he quotes, the opposition is
not between the Spirit and the deeds of the law, but between
the Law and the Gospel. (Gal. iii. Rom. iii.) Nor do I allow
the parallel between this text and John iii. 6. any further than
that the word ' flesh ' is used in the same sense in both ; but
that, not Luther's sense. I must object to the assertion, that
it is the absence of the Spirit which makes the deeds of the
law damnable ; which would not be damnable, if He were pre
sent in them : as if any works of man in the flesh, performed
with or without the Spirit, ' could endure the severity of God's
judgment !' — All I can allow to Luther, therefore, in this sec
tion is, ' By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified
in his sight;' therefore Freewill, even with the help of
the law, is still condemned ; for with that help she cannot
justify. Then what is she without it ? — And is not this enough ?

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 407

If then Freewill assisted by the law, and occu- SECT.
pied in the law with all its might, profits nothing, XIL
and does not justify, but is left in ungodliness and
flesh; what are we to think that it can do alone,
and without the law? shew sin.

" By the law, says he, is the knowledge of
sin." He shews here, how much, and how far, the
law profits a man ; in other words, that Freewill
is so blind, when left to herself, as not even to
know sin, but to stand in need of the law for a
teacher. Now what can he endeavour towards
the taking away of sin, who does not know what
sin is ? This is what he can do ; he can take sin
for no sin, and what is not sin for sin ; as expe
rience abundantly shews. How does the world
persecute the righteousness of God which is
preached in the Gospel, vilifying it as heresy,
error, and all other the worst possible names, by
the instrumentality of those very persons, whom
she accounts the best of men, and the most zealous
for righteousness and godliness. Meanwhile,
she makes a boast and brag of her own works and
actions, which are in reality sin and error, as
though they were righteousness and wisdom.
Paul doth therefore stop the mouth of Freewill
with this word of his, by teaching that sin is
shewn her by the law ; she being herself one who
does not know what is sin : so far is he from
V

Luther misapprehends the scope of the Apostle's argument.
He is not reasoning and declaring about man as with, and as
without, the Spirit : but having shewn what man is, both Jew
and Gentile, from Scripture ; he is arguing, how impossible
it is that he should be justified by the law. The argument is
against justification by the law, as preparatory to his opening of
justification by the Gospel ; not against man's natural impo-
tency and imbecility, whilst without the Spirit. — Luther makes
' not justified' to mean the same as ( damned.' It implies damn
ation, certainly; but Luther's expressions and argument inti
mate, that damnation is brought and incurred by doing these
deeds without the Spirit ; whereas, in fact, that damnation had
already been incurred, before the law came ; and was only con-
tinued and manifested thereby, instead of being removed.

408 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, granting to her any power of striving after
good.

And here that question of Diatribe's, so often
repeated throughout her whole treatise, ' Tf we
can do nothing, what is the use of so many laws,
so many precepts, so many threatenings, so many
promises/ is answered. Paul here replies, " By
the law is the knowledge of sin." He gives a far
different answer to this question, from what man,
or Freewill, thinks for. Freewill is not proved,
says he, by the law ; she does not work together
with it unto righteousness : for righteousness is
not by the law, but the knowlege of sin. This is
the benefit, this the effect, this the office of the
law, to be a light to the ignorant and blind : and
such a light, as shews disease, sin, wickedness,
death, hell, the wrath of God, to be ours; but
does not help, or release us from them. She is
contented with having shewn us what our state is.
Upon this, the man knowing his disease of sin, is
sad, is afflicted, yea despairs. The law does not
help him ; much less can he help himself. Another
light is necessary to shew him his remedy. This,
is the word of the Gospel, displaying Christ as the
deliverer from all these. It is not Reason or Free
will which makes Him known: nay, how should
she make him known, when she herself is very
darkness, needing the light of the law to shew her
that self-disease, which she sees not by her own
light, but imagines to be soundness.13

b How clearly do these latter words of Paul confirm the view
given in the former note as to his meaning and design ! ' The
law cannot justify, for it exposes this state of man which I haAre
been charging upon him ; it just manifests what he is.' He
does not say makes sin, or makes him a sinner; but is, or leads
to, knowledge and acknowledgment of sin. What connection
would this clause have with the preceding sentence, if the
object were to shew, that man's law deeds done without the
Spirit do not justify, implying that with the Spirit they do ? —
But how strong is the argument, when correctly opened,
against Freewill ! She does not even know, what is sinful and
what is not ; nor how vile she is, through her propensity to it. —

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 409

In Galatians too, he treats the same question SECT.
in just the same way, when he says, what then is xm*

the law ? and answers this question, not as Dia- Confirmed

tribe would, by saying that it proves there is such by Gai. m.

a thinp- as Freewill, but by saying, "It was *9-and™
j • j /. .I i r j. • ,M ,! Rom.v.20.

ordained for the sake of transgressions, until the

seed should come, to which he had made the pro
mise." For the sake of transgressions, he says :
not to restrain them, as Jerome dreams (since
Paul maintains, that it was promised to the Seed
which should come, that He should take away and
should restrain sin, by the free gift of righteous
ness) ; but to increase transgressions, as he writes
in Rom. v. " The law stole in, that sin might
abound."0 Not that there were no sins, or that

Luther reads the word "justified" in the present tense, for which
I do not find any authority : the future defines the sense both of
Sion and of cffwypw^n ; that it is therefore, not because, and
' increased or perfected knowledge,' not ' acknowledgment.'
The law not only shews what is sin to a greater extent, but
also its power over us, and its malignity, or " exceeding sinful-
ness :" it exacerbates and excites by forbidding and requiring
(see Rom. vii. 7 — 12.) ; and what must that soul, or Freewill
be, which is provoked to evil by such a cause ?

c Luther does not see quite the whole of this great text,
though he sees much of it. To understand it, we must connect
what has gone before with it ; beginning with verse 12.
" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin : even so death passed upon all men through him
in whom all sinned. For until the law sin was in the world ;
.but sin is not imputed when there is no law." — Man — the
whole race — sinned in and with the first man ; each indivi
dual, distinctly and personally, having been created with,
and being inseparable from him, when he personally com
mitted the one transgression. — Though sins were committed
afterwards by the several individuals of the race, as brought
out, one after another, into manifest existence; these were
not imputed, but they were dealt with on the ground of the
first transgression, in whick they were distinctly, individually
and personally, parties; by means of their union and unity
with Adam. — The law afterwards " stole in," that the offence
might be multiplied; or, as in Galatians, because of offences ;* that

•With whatever little variety this text maybe read and understood— whe
ther added because of, or put into the hand of a Mediator because of — it must
imply, if it do not express, the same broad truth, that the law had no other
effect and design than to multiply transgressions. — Again, the application of

410 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. sins did not abound, without the law, but inas-
— — — — — much as transgressions were not known to be
transgressions, or such great offences, but the
greater part, and the greatest of them, were
accounted righteousnesses. Now if sin be not
known, there is no room for remedy, and no hope,
because they would not bear the hand of the
physician ; as being whole in their own eyes, and
having no need of a physician. The law there
fore is necessary in order to make sin known ;
that, by knowing the baseness and vastness of his
sin, the proud man, who seemeth whole in his own
eyes, may be humbled, and may sigh and pant
after the grace which is set before him in Christ.
See what a simple sentence is here ! " By the
law is the knowledge of sin." Yet this sentence
of itself is quite powerful enough to confound and
overturn Freewill. For if it be true, that she
knows not of herself what sin and wickedness is,
as Paul says both here, and in Rom. vii. ("I had
not known lust to be sin, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet") how shall she ever know

is, that there might be more than one offence ; that many offences
might be added to the first. It is not, therefore, merely the
communication of the knowledge of sin, that Avas sought and
conveyed by that institution, but multiplication of transgres
sion ; that, with regard to the Lord's people, who are the
displayers of God, specially as that God which is love — love to
the uttermost — love in the way of grace and mercy — the God
of all grace might be shewn as what He is, in the much more
abounding of grace, where sin hath abounded. — Sin has never
been imputed by God to man, any more than by man to himself,
without express and absolute enactment. The command, or
prohibition, in the garden was of this sort ; and there hath been
none given since, save the law — which was confined to one
family, the seed of Abraham, for a while the visible church —
and a second, declaredly an universal one, " Repent ye and
believe the Gospel." On the former of these universal com
mands death was suspended ; on the latter, life. He that
believeth — which implies repentance — shall be saved ; he that
believeth not — which implies impenitence — shall perish.

Rom. vii. 7. is equally just when that text is understood in its fulness — the
provocation which the law gives to sin — as in its inferior and more common
interpretation, of mere teaching.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 41 1

what is righteousness and goodness ? If she does SECT.
not know what righteouness is, how shall she ever XIV*
strive after it ? We know not sin — in which we
have been born, in which we live and move and
have our being ; say rather, which lives and
moves and reigns in us — how then should we
know righteousness which reigns without us, in
the heavens ! What a mere nothing, and less than
nothing, do these words make of that wretched
thing called Freewill !d

These tilings being so, Paul makes proclama- Rom. Hi.
tion with full confidence and authority, saying, 2|— 25.
" But now the righteousness of God without the mTnythun-
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and derboits
the Prophets ; the righteousness of God, I say, Freewill.
by faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all
them that believe in him. For there is no dis
tinction : for all have sinned and come short of
the glory of God; being justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus; whom God hath set forth as a propitiation
by faith in his blood, &c."

Here Paul utters nothing but thunderbolts First thun-
against Freewill. First, the righteousness of God derbolt-
without the law, says he, is manifested : he sepa
rates the righteousness of God from the righteous
ness of the law; because the righteousness of faith
comes by grace, without the law. What he says,
" without the law/' can mean nothing else, than
that Christian righteousness is perfectly inde
pendent of the works of the law ; so as that the

d The whole force of the argument from this clause, " By the
;law, &c." is, ' if the law, which does so little, be necessary,
what is Freewill by itself?' Luther, however, did not thoroughly
apprehend the nature and design of that interposed covenant
xnd dispensation ; its twofold relation to Israel, as the elect
sation, and as the visible church — its universal typicality — its
itrict temporariness — and its precise adapted ness to teach sin ;
i;hat is, to teach those who have made themselves sinners
iefore they are born into the world, and as such are under
:he wrath of God, how just that wrath is.

412 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. works of the law are of no worth or power for the

obtaining of it. As he says soon after, " We

determine that a man is justified by faith without
the works of the law:" and as he has said already,
" By the deeds of the law no flesh is justified
before him." From all which it is most plain,
that the endeavour or desire of Freewill is abso
lutely nothing: for, if the righteousness of God
consists without the law and without the works of
the law, how shall it not much more consist with
out Freewill ? Since it is the highest endeavour
of Freewill to be exercised about amoral righteous
ness, or the works of the law ; by which its blind
ness and impotency is aided. This word ' without'
clears away works morally good, clears away
moral righteousness, clears away preparations for
grace : in short, invent what you may as a perform
ance which Freewill is equal to, Paul will persist
in saying, ( the righteousness of God has nothing
to do with this/

Now, although I should grant that Freewill
might by its own endeavour make advances some
whither ; that is, to good works, or the righteous
ness of the civil law or the moral law ; still it
advances no way at all towards the righteousness
of God, nor does God account its endeavours
worthy of any regard towards obtaining his righte
ousness, when he says that his righteousness
availeth without the law. If then Freewill maketh
no advances towards the righteousness of God,
what would it be profited by advancing through its
own performances and endeavours (were this pos
sible) even to the holiness of angels? — These
surely are no obscure or ambiguous words ; here
is no place left for any tropes. Paul manifestly
distinguishes two sorts of righteousness; ascrib
ing the one to the law, the other to grace: affirm
ing, that the latter is freely given without the
former and its works ; but that the former does
not justify or avail any thing, without the latter. —

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 413

Let me be made to see then, how Freewill can SECT.
subsist and be defended amidst these objections.

The second thunderbolt is, that he says the Second
righteousness of God is manifested, and is in thunder-
force, unto all and upon all who believe in Christ; bolt-
and that there is no difference.

Again he in the clearest terms divides the whole
human race into two parts, and gives the righte
ousness of God to believers, whilst he takes it
away from unbelievers. Is any one so mad then,
as to doubt that the power or endeavour of Free
will is something different from faith in Christ?
Now Paul denies that any thing, which subsists
without the limits of this faith, is righteous before
God; and, if not righteous before God, it must be
sin. For with God there is nothing left in the
midway between righteousness and sin, as a
sort of neutral substance, which is neither righte
ousness, nor sin. Else, Paul's whole argument
would fail, which proceeds upon this division of
tilings ; namely, that whatsoever is done and carried

; on amongst men, is either righteousness or sin :
righteousness, if it be done in faith ; sin, if done
without it. With men indeed there are actions,
it is true, of a middle and neutral character, in
which they neither owe nor yield any thing to each
other mutually ; but the ungodly man sins against
God, whether he eat or drink, or whatsoever
he do, because he is perpetually using God's

; creatures wickedly and ungratefully, without
giving glory to God from his heart at any
moment.6

e The believer alone is righteous before God. It is not pre
tended by those, with whom Luther reasons, that Freewill makes
any man a believer : it is a power and exercise distinct from,
and prior to faith. If the faithful man, then, alone is just, what
! is the Freewill man — and of what character is his act ? — It is
scarcely necessary to notice here, that Luther speaks of God's
manifested righteous ones. Those who have been justified from
everlasting, in the covenant transactions between the divine
persons, referred to the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ

414

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

SECT.
XVI.

Third

thunder
bolt.

Fourth
bolt.

PARTV. This also is no light thunderbolt, that he says,
" All have sinned and are come short of the glory
of God: neither is there any difference." What
could be said more clearly, pray ? — I will suppose
a man to act by his Freewill ; tell me, whether
this man sins in that self-endeavour of his. If
he does not sin, why does Paul not except, but
involve him amongst the rest, without any dis
tinction ? Assuredly, he who says all have sinned
excepts none in any place, at any time, for any
performance, for any endeavour. If you except a
man for any endeavour or work, you make Paul a
liar; because this Freewill worker, orendeavourer,
is also numbered amongst the all, and in the all, and
Paul ought to have given him reverence, and not
to have numbered him so freely, and so generally,
amongst the sinners.

So again, it is no light thunderbolt, his saying
that they are devoid of the glory of God. — The
glory of God may be understood with a difference
here, actively and passively. Paul contrives this
by his use of the Hebrew idioms, in which he is
frequent. Actively, the glory of God is that with
which God glories in us ; passively, that with
which we glory in him. I think it should be
understood passively here: just as the faith of
Christ, in Latin, expresses the faith which Christ
has ; but by the Hebrews the faith of Christ is
understood to mean the faith which we have
towards Christ. So the righteousness of God, in

(the Father's will appointing to receive them as just, through the
merits of the most precious death and passion of his dear Son)
are manifested to be such, by the blessed Spirit's acting upon
and wiihln them in due season, and thereby enabling, yea con
straining them to believe. Now therefore they have conformed
with that edict of God, described above (Sect. xiii. note c),
which says, " Repent ye and believe the Gospel :" nor is it
until this manifestation has thus been made, that any of their
personal actings become the acts of the righteous ; or can in
in any sort, consequently, be accounted as righteous acts. The
acts of Freewill therefore, being performed before the man has
entered into this state, are acts of sin.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 415

Latin, means the righteousness which God pos- SECT.
sesses : but by the Hebrews is understood to
mean the righteousness which we have from God,
and before God. Thus I understand the glory of
God, not Latin-wise but Hebrew-wise, as denoting
the glory which we have in God, and before God,
and which may be called glory in God. He, then,
glories in God, who knows of a surety, that God
has a favour towards him, and counts him worthy
of a kind regard, so that what he does is pleasing
in his sight, or what displeases is freely forgiven
and borne with.

If then the endeavours of Freewill be not sin,
but goodness, in the sight of God, assuredly she
may boast, and with confidence in that glory may
say, 'this pleases God/ 'God looks with an eye
of favour upon this/ ( God ascribes a worthiness
to this and accepts it, or at least bears with and
forgives it.' For this is the sort of glory which
the faithful have in God ; which they who have
not, are rather confounded before him. But Paul
denies this to all men here, affirming that they are
absolutely devoid of this glory : which experience
also proves. Ask all the party of Freewill endea-
vourers without exception, and, if you can shew me
one, who seriously from his heart can say of any
one desire and endeavour of his, ' I know this is
well pleasing to God / I will acknowledge myself
conquered, and will yield the palm to you. But I
know that no such man will be found. Now, if
this glory be wanting, so that conscience dares not
certainly to know or to be confident, that this parti
cular act is pleasing to God, we may be sure that it
does not please God. Because, as the man believes,
so it is with him : for he does not believe that he
certainly pleases God — which, however, is neces
sary; since this is the very crime of unbelief, to
doubt of the favour of God : who would have us
believe with the most assured faith, that he favour-
eth us. Thus we prove by the very testimony of
their own conscience, that, since Freewill is desti-

416 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, tute of the glory of God. she is perpetually siib-

jecting herself to the charge of unbelief, together

with all her powers, desires and endeavours.'
Fifth bolt. But what will the defenders of Freewill say at
last to that which follows; " being justified freely
by his grace ?" What is this " freely ?" What
is this " by his grace ?" How do endeavour and
merit square with a gratuitous and freely given
righteousness? Perhaps they will say here, that
they ascribe the least thing possible to Freewill ;
by no means a merit of condignity. But these
are empty words ; for the very aim of Freewill
is to make room for merit. This has been Dia
tribe's perpetual complaint and expostulation —
' If there be not freedom in the will, what place
is there for merit ? If there be not place for merit,
what place for reward ? To what shall it be im
puted, if a man is justified without merit ?'
~- Paul replies here, that there is absolutely no
such thing as merit, but that all men are justified
freely, as many as are justified; and that this is not
imputed to any thing but the grace of God : but
with the gift of righteousness is bestowed at the
same time the kingdom, and eternal life. Where
is now the endeavour, the desire, the pains, and
the merit of Freewill ? What is the use of these
things ? You cannot complain of obscurity and
ambiguity; the matter and the words are most
clear and most simple. For what if they do attri
bute the least thing possible to Freewill ; still they
teach us that we can obtain righteousness and

f It will be seen presently, that I consider Luther wrong in
the account which he here gives of " the glory of God j" but he
is excessive and erroneous, even upon his own representation of
his thunderbolt. Freewill, he says, is evil because destitute of
' the glory of God;' by which he understands ' assurance that
we please God.' She is in fact guilty of unbelief, in not having
it. This is outrageous : because faith is not ' I believe God
has a favour to me ;' but ' I believe in God :' neither is it true
that God has a favour to every body. What are Luther's repro
bates? Then, if every body is to believe this, many are to
believe a lie.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 417

grace by this very little thing. For they do not SEC.XVI.

resolve that question ' Why does God justify this

man and leave the other in his sins/ otherwise
than by setting up Freewill ; that is to say, that
the one man has endeavoured, and the other has
not : and that God respects the one of these cha
racters for his endeavour, and despises the other,
that he may not be unjust, as he would be if he acted
otherwise. Yea although they pretend both in their
writings and in their speakings, that they do not
obtain grace by merit of condignity, and do not
call it merit of condignity, still they mock us with
a 'word, and do not less hold fast the thing. For
what excuse is it, that they do not call it merit of
condignity, when they still ascribe to it every thing
which belongs to merit of condignity? for in
stance, that he who endeavours finds favour with
God ; he who does not endeavour finds none.
Is not this plainly merit of worth ? Do they not
make God a respecter of works, of merits, and of
persons ? For instance ; that the one has himself
to blame for lacking grace, because he hath not
endeavoured ; the other, because he hath endea
voured, gets grace ; who would not have had it, if
he had not endeavoured. If this be not merit of
worth, I should be glad to know what can be
called merit of worth. You might trifle in this
manner with all sorts of words, and say, it is not
indeed really merit of condignity, but it does
what merit of condignity usually does. The thorn
is not a bad tree, it only does what a bad tree
does. The fig-tree is not a sound tree, but it
,does what a good tree usually does. Diatribe
forsooth is not an abandoned woman, but only
-says and does what abandoned women are wont
to do.g

s Luther's bolts are five ; 1. The righteousness of God is
here declared to be perfectly distinct from the righteousness
Df the law. C2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. 3. All have
sinned. 4. All have come short of the glory of God. 5. The

2E

418 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. These defenders of Freewill have met with the

• misfortune described in that old savin o- < He

sc. XVH.

justified are all justified freely. — I should rather consider this
Sophists magnificent and comprehensive passage as one vast bolt j the
worse than very emission of which lays Freewill prostrate, because it
~ declares what her state was, to give occasion to such emission.
This vast bolt, however, may be considered as expanding itself
into several smaller bolts, each of which contuses Freewill. —
Luther breaks the shock of this bolt, in some measure, by not
exactly discerning the order of the Apostle's argument. He con
siders Paul as speaking of the preached Gospel, in its reception
and effects, from chap. i. 16 ; whereas from i. 18. to iii. 20. he is
setting out the condemnation of all men, first of the Greek,
and secondly of the Jew, as without the Gospel : and then,
having previously shewn that there is nothing but condemna
tion without it, both without and with the law, he proceeds to
open the Gospel as the revelation of the counsel and perform
ances of God's free favour, with which Freewill neither has,
nor can have, any thing to do j and which her necessities have
rendered necessary, if every individual of mankind — already
shewn to be in a damned state — were not to be continued in
that damned state for ever and ever. — Some of his bolts also
1 consider Luther as interpreting erroneously ; whilst each,
truly interpreted, is a bolt indeed !

" But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets."
The righteousness of God is that righteousness which God
freely bestows ; which, on many accounts, might specially be
called HIS ; but which is specially so called, in opposition to
man's own righteousness — a law righteousness — the result of
a man's own personal obedience. " Not having mine own
righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through
the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith." (Phil. iii. 9.) — Luther speaks much of distinctness and
opposition, but he did not discern the extent of this ; and was
for bringing the law in again, after having cast it out. But
the words xwP*9 vd^a banish all connection with the law for
ever; just as xwP^19 XPlffr* (Ephes. ii. 12.) and xwp"ig e'/"^ (John
xv. 5.) declare entire severance from Christ : indeed what is
severance, except it be perfect ? — " Even the righteousness of
God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all
them that believe." — I say, by the faith of Jesus Christ, mean
ing the Gospel, as strictly opposed to the Law, and so pre
serving a distinctness from that which follows, " them that
believe" — the distinguishing character of those to whom the
Gospel is made the power of God unto salvation : it is unto
these — preached especially for their benefit — they are as it were
its point of rest ; and upon these — they are efficaciously, con
sciously, and manifestatively invested with it, even as they

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 419

falls into Scylla by wishing to avoid Charybdis/ sc. xvn.
Through a desire of dissenting from the Pel a-

have covenantly, secretly, and to the eye of God and his Christ,
possessed it from all eternity. " Inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world ;" "According to his
own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before
the world began." — (Matt. xxv. 34. 2 Tim. i. 9.) — " For there
is no difference : for all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God." The Jew and the Greek are invested with
this righteousness alike, through the instrumentality of this
preached Gospel : He is hereby shewn and declared to be the
God of the Gentile as well as of the Jew, and to be no respecter
of persons ; even as all — that is, both Jew and Gentile alike —
have manifested themselves to be sinners, and nothing but
sinners (for those who had the law transgressed it, as well as
those who had it not), so proving that there was no possibility of
acceptance with God — that is, of being made righteous — in any
other way. I consider the sin here spoken of to be the sin
committed by every individual man whilst living and acting
in this world, which rendered it impossible that he should
obtain the glory of God on a law ground, even if his original
sin and guilt were remitted : which it was the special design
of the law covenant and dispensation to make manifest. The
word ^/IO/JTOZ/ denotes a time prior to this manifestation of
God's righteousness : it is not are sinning, or have sinned, but
have in time past been sinning — as the Apostle has shewn dis
tinctly of both these parties, which together constitute the
whole human race — and are now therefore " left behind in the
race" by the glory of God. This is the proper import of the
word vffTcpSvrai : which applies specially to the Jews who had
the covenant of eternal life — that is, " of the glory of God" —
proposed to them, on the ground of their own personal obe
dience ; which could not be so properly said of the Gentiles,
•whilst their conduct had been such as to make it manifest that
(they could have no claim under such a covenant if they had
been allowed to be candidates and competitors for its prize. —
ill do not accord with Luther in his idea of this glory : it is the
ilsame thing which is spoken of, Rom. v. 2. ("rejoice in hope
lof the glory of God"), and in 1 Peter v. 1. (" a partaker of
[the glory which shall be revealed.") It is that manifested
excellency which God has provided for his people ; and which
(is with the greatest fitness called His glory— the glory of
;G0(1 — because the state into which He will in due time intro
duce his human people will be one of His most glorious mani-
!festers : they will in their measure, both individually and col
lectively, when thus brought into, and displayed in, the com
pleteness of their union with the Image of the Invisible One,
shew Him forth as He is. By this glory— which, if it be to
[be received upon a law ground, requires spotless perfection

420 BONDAGE OF THE WILL:

PARTV. gians, they began with denying merit of condig-
nity, and, by the very ground on" which they deny,

in him who wins it — they had all been outstripped and over
come, so as to have no part in it. — " Being justified freely by
his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."
These words open the nature of God's righteousness, as well as
the origin and ground of its bestowal. Justified is from the same
root with righteousness, and expresses properly ' making the
unjust just :' it is God's method of absolving a sinner from his
offences by taking them clean away ; the origin of this removal
is free favour, and the way of it is Christ's blood-shedding. It is
a cleansing which we receive without money and without
price, from, and unto the display of, that portion of God
which we distinguish by the name of grace ; but it is a cleans
ing which he has rendered himself just in freely bestowing —
that is, which he freely bestows in perfect consistency with
his justice — through the price which Christ paid, by joining
himself to them in their damned state, living with them as
The Righteous One in and under their curse, and at length
dying with them, and for them, a death of shame, agony, and
complicated torments. The expression is peculiar, " The
redemption which is in Christ Jesus ;" marking the peculiar
and elect objects of this redemption : it is a deliverance,
through payment of a valuable consideration, had and received
by means of union with Christ Jesus — sought and obtained,
therefore, for those only, to whom the Father (as both Covenant
and Scripture speak) hath vouchsafed this most precious of all
gifts, which implies and conveys all the rest — union with, being
in, Christ. " According as he hath chosen us in Him" — that is, to
be in Him; that we should be in Him — "before the foundation
of the world." — Hereby, as it is afterwards declared, God is
shewn to be righteous, though the justifier of sinners ; who
are manifested to have had this covenant union, of His free
gift, from everlasting, and therefore to have been of the num
ber of those, for the sake of whom He did so come, live, and
die — by having faith given to them in due season, through the
regeneration and within agency of the Holy Ghost, and so
differencing themselves from others, to whom, according to
the will of God, the free grace proclamation is made, and the
second universal commandment (which the more private and
peculiar one of the law had established to be the only prac
ticable method of salvation and glory) — Repent ye and believe
the Gospel — hath been in common with them delivered, whilst
it is by them exclusively obeyed.

Thus doth this ordnance text of Luther's fire a sort of volley
against Freewill, of which every shot is death. ' Righteous
ness of God' — ' without the law ' — ' the faith of Jesus Christ' —
all them that believe ' — c no difference ' — ' all have sinned ' — ' all
come short of glory' — ' justified freely' — 'by His grace' —

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 421

do more strongly affirm it; denying with word sc.xvn.
and peri what in reality and in heart they affirm, "~~""~"~~~
and making themselves twofold worse than the
Pelagians. First, inasmuch as the Pelagians sim
ply, candidly, and ingenuously confess and assert
merit of condignity, calling a boat a boat, a fig-
tree a fig-tree; and teaching what they think. But
our friends,11 though they think and teach the same
thing as these, beguile us meanwhile with lying
words, and with a false shew of dissenting from the
Pelagians, when in reality they do nothing less than
this ; so that, if you look at the character we per
sonate, you see in us the most determined ene
mies of the Pelagians ; if you look at our real
mind, we are double Pelagians. Secondly, inas
much as, by this assumption, we estimate and
purchase the grace of God at a far lower rate
than the Pelagians. They assert, that it is not
some small thing which is in us, whereby we ob
tain grace, but many great, whole, full, and per
fect endeavours and performances. Our friends,
on the contrary, account it to be a very small
thing, and next to nothing, by which we earn
grace.

If we must be in error therefore, those persons
err more honestly and with less pride, who affirm
that the grace of God is purchased at a great
price, reckoning it to be dear and precious ; than
those who teach that it is bought for a little, and
!for a very little, accounting it mean and con-
itemptible. But Paul beats them both together

\t through the redemption' — ' a propitiation by blood' — ' that
ihe might be just' — ' the justifier of him that believeth:' here
rare no less than thirteen bolts, thirteen death-blows for Free
-will, whilst the very existence of the Gospel declares the Free
will state of those to whom it is sent.

h Nostri verb.~\ Friends, inasmuch as they profess to be anta
gonists of the Pelagians together with us. — What follows — ' si
hypocrisin spectes' — ' hac hypocrisi' — is by a figure taken
jfrom the histrionic art ; that peculiar species of simulation, of
.which the stage-player is guilty, when he puts on his mask,
and personates a character in the drama,

422 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART V. into one mass by a single word, when he says

that " all are justified freely ;" and again, " that

they are justified without the law ;" " without the
deeds of the law." In asserting a free justifica
tion as the justifier of all men, he leaves none to
work, or merit, or prepare themselves, and leaves
no work that can be called congruous or de
serving, but breaks in pieces, by one stroke of
this thunderbolt, both the Pelagians with their
entire merit, and the Sophists with their little modi
cum of merit. Free justification does not allow
you to set up workers of any sort ; inasmuch as
e free gift/ and ' prepare yourself by some work/
are manifest opposites. Again; justification by
grace allows not of any personal worthiness : as
he says afterwards also, in chap. xi. " If by grace,
then is it no more of works ; otherwise grace is
no more grace :" just as also in chap. iv. he
says, " Now to him that worketh is the reward
reckoned, not of grace, but of debt." So that
my friend Paul stands up as the invincible de
stroyer of Freewill, laying two whole armies flat
on their faces, with a single word. For if we be
justified without works, all works are condemned,
both small and great; he excepts none, but ful
minates equally against all.

sc.xvui. See here, also, how drowsy all our friends have

been ; and of what profit it is to a man, if he have

overlooked leanec^ upon the authority of the old Fathers,
Paul. approved as those have been, through ( such a

series of ages/ Have not they also been all
equally blind; rather, have not they also over
looked Paul's most clear and most express words?
Is it possible, that any thing could be said
clearly and expressly for grace, in opposition to
Freewill, pray, if Paul's discourse be not clear
and express ? He pursues his argument in a way
of comparison,1 making his boast of grace in

1 Per contentionem."] Referring to Paul's continual and re
peated opposition of grace to works, in this and the following

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 423

opposition to works ; and then, in the clearest SECT.
and plainest terms, declares, ' that we are justi
fied freely ; and that grace is not grace, if it be
procured by our works — most explicitly excluding
all works in the matter of justification, that he
may establish only grace, and gratuitous justifi
cation : k and do we still look for darkness in the
midst of this light ; and, when we cannot ascribe
great things and every thing to ourselves, do we
endeavour to ascribe very small and inconsiderable
things to ourselves, just to carry the point that
justification is not free, and without works, by the
grace of God? As if, forsooth., the man who denies
that we are supplied with the greater things, and
the all things which are necessary to justifica-

, tion, doth not much more deny, that we are supplied
with the little things and the few — when he is
maintaining all the while, that we are justified
only by his grace, without works of any kind,
and even without the law itself; in which all
works, both great and small, both works of con-
gruity, and works of condignity, are compre
hended? — Go now and boast of the authority of
the ancients, and trust to their sayings ; all of
whom to a man, as you perceive, have overlooked
Paul, that most clear and explicit doctor ! Nay,
they have, as it were, designedly got out of the

1 way of this day-star, or rather of this sun ;
being engrossed, forsooth, with the carnal imagin
ation, that it seemed absurd there should be no
place left for merits.

Let me adduce the example of Abraham, which Paul'scita"
Paul subsequently adduces. "If Abraham, says example of

chapter, as also in chapters x. xi. Contention, or compcirison,
is a figure which Paul abounds in ; letter and spirit j law and
faith ; God's righteousness and their own righteousness ; life
and death ; flesh and Spirit, &c. &c. are set out by him in the
most forcible manner, through this sort of competition.

k Solam gratiam. gratuitam justificationem.'] Sol. gr. as op
posed to grace mixed with works : gr. just, justification with
out any personal worth.

424

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

Abraham
searched
and ap
plied.

PARTY, he, was justified by works, he hath glory; but
not before God. For what saith the Scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to
him for righteousness."

Here again, observe Paul's division; he dis
tinctly mentions two righteousnesses of Abraham :
one of works, which is moral and civil, but by
which he denies that he was justified before God,
though just before men by it. Moreover, he has
glory with men, although even this man also
comes short of the glory of God, by this righte
ousness. Nor can any one say, that the works1
of the ceremonial law are here condemned ; since
Abraham lived so many years before the law.
Paul speaks simply of the works of Abraham ;
and those, none other than his best. It would be
ridiculous to reason whether a man be justified by
bad works. If then Abraham be not just by any
works of his, but, except he be clothed with
another righteousness, that of pure faith, be left,
both as to his person and as to all his works,
under the charge of ungodliness; it is plain, that
no man makes any advances towards righteous
ness, by his own works : and further, that no
works, no desires, no endeavours of Freewill are
of any avail before God ; but are all accounted
ungodly, unjust and wicked. If the man be not
just, his works and desires are not just; if not
just, they are damnable, and worthy of wrath.
The other righteousness is that of faith, which doth
not stand in any works, but in God's favour and
manner of accounting of us, through grace. And

see how Paul dwells upon that word

accounting

1 Gloriam apud homines. Vacat glorid Dei.'] Here again, Lu
ther has the mistake already noticed (see notes g h), respecting
the glory of God. It is quite in another sense that all are said
to come short, and Abraham not to boast. He had no cause
of boasting before God, because he was not justified to God by
his works ; else he would have had : as he might boast him
self before men, because he was shewing himself to be one
justified to God, by his works done after justification.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 425

of us ;' how he urges, repeats, and beats it into SECT.
us. X1X-

" To him who worketh, says he, is the reward
reckoned not of grace but of debt. But to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous
ness ; according to the purpose of the grace of
God." Then he adduces David speaking in like
manner of the reckoning of grace ; m and saying,
" Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not
imputed sin, &c."

Nearly ten times in that same chapter he re
peats the word ' imputation.' To be short; Paul
compares the worker and the non-worker : leav-
;ing none between these two. He denies that
, righteousness is imputed to the worker: to the
non-worker he asserts that righteousness is im
puted, if he but believe. It is not possible for
Freewill to escape or slip away here with her
endeavour, or pains : for she must be numbered
either with the worker, or the non-worker. If
with the wrorker, you hear in this place that no
righteousness is imputed to her ; if with the non-
worker, who however believes in God, righteous
ness is imputed to her. But then she will not be
Freewill ; she will be the new creature — the soul
i renewed by faith." Now, if righteousness be not
imputed to him that worketh, it is plain that his
works are nothing but sins, wicked and ungodly
acts in the sight of God.

Nor is it possible for any Sophist to turn saucy,
and say, ' though the man be wicked, yet his

m Reputationc gratia."] ' The account which grace takes of
character:' — rep. is most correctly englished by ' reckon j*

1 but Luther uses it throughout the whole of this passage inter
changeably with ' imputo.'

n Renovata creatura per fidem] As if the Lord's people were
renewed by faith ! whence comes their faith then ? So he
had said above, acquiescing in Erasmus's term, ' renatus per
fidem ;' which I there called ambiguous, but we now see to

! have been meant wrongly. — See above, Part iv. Sect. xlv.
note l.

426 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. work may not be wicked.' For Paul lays hold, not

on the person of the man simply, but on the man

at work, for this very purpose, that he may de
clare in the most explicit terms, how that the very
works and endeavours of the man are condemned,
whatsoever those may be, and under whatsoever
name or species they may be classed. Moreover,
it is of good works that lie treats, because it is of
justification and merit that he is discoursing —
and when he speaks of a man that worketh, he
speaks universally of all working men, and of all
their works ; but especially of good and honest
works : else his division into worker and nori-
worker would not stand.
SEC. xx. I here omit those most powerful arguments

1 ' which are drawn from the purpose of grace, from

omits r promise, from the power of the law, from original
much sin, and from the election of God ; of which there
which he -g no£ one j^ wnat alone, and by itself, utterly

might m- _. -ti T\ •* t>

sist upon, takes away Jb reewill. Jb or it grace comes irom
the purpose or predestination of God, it comes
by necessity, not by our pains or endeavour; as
I have already shewn. So, if God promised
grace before the law, as Paul argues both here
and in Galatians ; then it does not come from our
works, or from the law; else the promise will be
nothing. So, faith also will be nothing (yet it is
said that Abraham was justified by it before the
law), if works have any efficacy. So, whereas the
law is the strength of sin, only manifesting, and not
taking away, sin ; it makes the conscience guilty
before God, and threatens wrath : this is what is
meant by that saying, " The law worketh wrath."
How then could it be, that righteousness is ob
tained by the law ? And, if we are not profited
by the law, how can we be profited by Freewill
when acting without it.0

0 ' No Freewill' follows from God's " purpose and grace :"
ce Whom he did foreknow, them he did predestinate ; whom
he did predestinate, them he also called." The calling is of

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 427

Again ; seeing, we are all under sin and damn- SEC. xx.

ation through the one offence of the one man

Adam, how can we attempt any thing which is
not sin, and which is not damnable ? For when
he says all, he excepts no one ; neither the power
of Freewill, nor any workman ; whether he work
or work not, endeavour or endeavour not, he will
necessarily be comprehended amongst the all,
with the others. Nor could we have sinned,
and been condemned, by that single sin of
Adam's, unless it were our sin. For who could
be condemned for another man's sin, especially
in the sight of God? But that sin is not made
ours by imitation, or by some subsequent act of
ours ; since this could not be that one sin of
Adam, as being that which we, and not he, hath
done : it becomes ours, by birth. But this is not
the place for discussing that question. However,
original sin suffers not that Freewill do any thing
else, save sin and be damned.p

predestination therefore, not of Freewill ; " according to the

, eternal purpose \vhich he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
— ' No Freewill' follows from God's promise, which was ante
cedent to the law, and therefore cannot be dependent upon our

! works j which are by the law : indeed, in its very nature, as
Paul argues, promise is opposed to work. — ' No Freewill' fol
lows from faith (" the just shall live by faith ;" " they which

'be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham") ; of which the
law — that is, works — is not. (Galat. iii. 11,12.) — ' No Free
will ' follows from the law : for even the law worketh wrath —

1 and yet she is a help ; Freewill does not even know what sin

i is, without her.

P Luther has his eye, all the way, upon Romans v. 12 — 19.
His account is, Adam's sin is ours ' nascendo — by our being

| born of him, as we are 5 born of him who did it .- making us
voluntary agents in being born, and God the propagator of sin,
in causing that we should be born from him — or, as he has

i described it, making us out of him. (See above, Part iv.
Sect. x. 5 and, for objections to his statement, note z there
upon.) However, Luther's conclusion is right, though he
arrives less correctly at it : the truth is, we are born having
previously sinned, guilty, " children of wrath ;" how then can

iwe do any thing good ? Luther — how near is he to the truth,

iyet does not reach it ! Observe, he will not have it ' sin after
birth/ and he will have it ' our own and not Adam's only :' but

428

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. These arguments, then, I omit, because they are
most manifest, and most powerful : besides, I have
said something about them already. Now, if I
had a mind to recite all that Paul only has said
to the subversion of Freewill, I could not do this
better, than by discussing the whole of Paul's
writings in the form of a perpetual commentary,
and shewing that this so vaunted power of Free
will is confuted in almost every single word of
his : just as I have done in these third and fourth
chapters. My special object in thus exhibiting
these chapters has been ; first, to shew the stupid
drowsiness with which we have all nodded over
his writings — reading them, clear as they are, in
such a way as not to have the least idea that they
contain the strongest possible arguments against
Freewill — secondly, to shew the folly of that
confidence which leans on the authority and
writings of the old doctors — and thirdly, that I
might leave it as matter of thought, what these
most manifest arguments are capable of effecting,
if handled with diligence and judgment.

For my own part I am greatly astonished, that,
whereas Paul so often uses those universal terms
'All/ 'None/ ' Not/ < Nowhere/ < Without/
as for instance, " They are all gone out of the
way," " There is none righteous," " There is
none that doeth good, no not one," " All have
been made sinners, and damned, by the offence of
one." " We are justified by faith without the law,
without works;" (so that, if a man had a mind to
speak otherwise, he could not however speak more
clearly, or more explicitly) ; it is a matter of sur
prise to me, I say, how it hath come to pass, that,

he has not ' that distinct individuality of subsistence given to us
in the creation of the Man, which makes us truly one with him
in his deed 5' neither has he 'the power and order before
given ;' neither has he ' God's veracity to be shewn in inflict
ing the curse.' (See as above.) He is somewhat clearer,, how
ever, than our ninth Article ; which wants distinctness, as well
as fulness.

SEC.XXI.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 429

in opposition to these universal words and senti- SEC.XXI.

ments, contrary, nay contradictory, ones have pre-

vailed. As for instance ; ( There are some who do
not go out of the way, who are not unjust, not
wicked, not sinners, not damned. There is some
thing- in man which is good, and leans towards
good :' as if the man, whosoever he be, that in
clines to good, were not comprehended in that say
ing 'All,' ' None/ ( Not/ I, for my part, should
not have any thing to oppose or reply to Paul, if I
wished it ; but should be compelled to comprehend
the power of my Freewill, together with its endea
vour, amongst those 'alls' and 'nones,' of which
Paul speaks; unless some new art of grammar, or
some new use of speech, be introduced.

One might perhaps be allowed to suspect a
trope, and to torture the words, which I have
selected, into some other meaning, if he used such
an expression but once, or only in one place. But,
in fact, he uses such expressions perpetually —
and not only so, but uses both affirmatives and
negatives together ; so handling his sentiment in
a way of contrast and distribution — by which he
arrays the several parts against each other, on
both sides — that not only the nature of the words,
and the sentence itself, but the subsequent, pre
ceding, and immediate context also, together with
the scope and very body of the whole discussion,
unite in establishing one common conclusion, that
Paul means, e without faith in Christ there is
nothing but sin and damnation.*1 It was in this

i The words above cited are a sufficient illustration of
Luther's meaning in the several terms — ' words/ ' sentence,'
' contrast,' ' division/ ' context/ ' scope/ ' discussion at large/
' mind of the writer.' — Extra Jidcm Christi, I translate accord
ing to Luther's meaning, not according to my own view of the
Apostle's argument. .Both here and in Galatians, it is common
to represent Paul as speaking of ' faith in Christ' as opposed
to ' works/ But in both places it is ' the Law' as opposed to
€ the Gospel/ of which he is speaking : in both places he is
shewing, in opposition to Judaizcrs, ' that the Law cannot

430

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

SC. XXII.

Paul's
crown.

PART V. way, that I promised to confute Freewill, so that

• all my adversaries should not be able to resist

me. I think I have done so : even though they
should not yield to my sentiment, as vanquished ;
or hold their peace. It is not within the compass
of my power to bring them to this : this is the gift
of God's Spirit.

But, before we hear the Evangelist John, let us
add Paul's finish to his argument on this subject,
as contained in that Epistle ; prepared, where this
shall not satisfy, to set the whole of Paul's
writings in array against Freewill, by a perpetual
commentary. In Romans viii. after r dividing the
whole human race into two parts, flesh and
Spirit, as Christ also does in John iii. he speaks
thus : e They that are after the flesh do mind
the things of the flesh ; but they that are
after the Spirit do mind the things of the Spirit/

save ; the Gospel only can.' — But then, that this Gospel may
save, ' it must be believed with the heart j' ' Christ must be
believed in and into.' Under the right interpretation of these
passages then, two steps are wanting to Luther's conclusion,
' Paul condemns Freewill.' Paul says only, ' Without the faith
of Christ there is nothing but sin and damnation.' But that
faith must be received, or obeyed, before it can save ; and that
reception or obedience is ' not of the nature power of Freewill,
but of the supernature power of God's Spirit.' — There are texts,
more than enough, to prove both these points ; I would rather
say, Scripture is explicit enough in her witness to both these
points — (" Taking vengeance on those that know not God, and
those that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." —
" No man can come unto me, except the Father, which hath
sent me, draw him :") so that there can be no question what
is truth in this matter ; though Luther does not come at his
conclusion legitimately, through misuse of his premises.

r Ulii genusJ] Referring to the preceding verses, " Them
which are in Christ Jesus ; who walk not after the flesh, but
after the Spirit." — As to what folloAVs, it has been seen already
(Part iv. Sect. xlii. notes ' k) that I do not admit the parallel.
Paul clearly divides men into two classes ; but the Lord, in
John iii. is shewing the necessity of a new and spiritual
birth. The opposition is not between those who have, and
those who have not, this birth; but between nature power of
procreation, and Spirit power of procreation; Adam produces
his like, and the Holy Ghost produces His like.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 431

That Paul, here, calls all carnal who are not spi- sc. XXH.

ritual, is plain both from the division and oppo-

sition between flesh and Spirit, and also from
Paul's own words which follow. " Ye are not
in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if but the Spirit of
Christ dwell in you. Now if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." For what
else does he mean here, by the words ' Ye are not
in the flesh, but in the Spirit/ than that those who
have not the Spirit are necessarily in the flesh?
But he who is not Christ's — whose is he else, than
the devil's ? It stands good therefore, that those
who have not the Spirit are in the flesh, and under
Satan.

Let us now see, what he thinks of the endea
vour and power of Freewill in the carnal.
:( They that are in the flesh cannot please God."
A.nd again ; " The mind of the flesh is death :"
ind again, <( The mind of the flesh is enmity
xgainst God." Again, "It is not subject to the
aw of God, neither indeed can be."s Let the
idvocate for Freewill answer me here, how that
which is death, which is displeasing to God, which
s enmity against God, which is disobedient to
jod, and which cannot obey him ; can endeavour
ifter good ! For he has not been pleased to say,
: the mind of the flesh is dead, or hostile to God ;'
;)ut <f is death itself, is enmity itself:" to which it
s impossible, that it be subjected to the law of God,
>r please God; as he had also said just before,
' For what the law could not do, in that it was

8 Sensus carnis. non est subjcctus.'] Sensus, ' the mind in
iction ;' or rather the result of that action ; ' what it thinks or
desires.' It is not so properly the mind, or desire, that is not
md cannot be subject (as is commonly understood) ; but the
lesh, that is, the unrenewed body itself: 0/Jo'm/yun, according
•o the analogy of language, should be ' the desire formed,'
lot ' the faculty forming it,' and therefore, it is not this 0/^oV^ia
>ut the substance that forms it (the flesh — aup^), which ought
.o be subject, but is not.

432 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, made weak by the flesh, God hath done/ &c.
I know, as well you do, Origen's tale about three

* Legl impossibile."] Luther does not explain, as we might
have wished him to do, this most difficult text : but the consi
derations which we have already entertained respecting the
flesh and the Spirit will assist us to unravel it. — In the pre
ceding chapter, Paul had been describing a very remarkable
temptation, with which, for his own good and that of the
church, he had been visited since his conversion. He had been
tempted to think that he must still obey the law ; and, having
been put upon trying to do this, had acquired a deep know
ledge of his own state : which is also that of every called child
of God. He discovered, that he had a law in his members (his
body) which warred against the law of his mind, and brought
him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his mem
bers. He sighed for deliverance from that body — fitly called
a dead body — whose law made him so wretched. He was:
assured that he should one day possess it, through the gift of
God in Christ Jesus. At present, however, his state was that
of a person serving two laws, in the two distinct parts of his
frame. But still, even now, he was not condemned. Why ?
because he was a man in Christ.* Why, as a man in Christ,
had he no condemnation ? Because the Holy Ghost, as had by
him in Christ, had delivered him from the thraldom and bond
age of that law which still reigned in his members. Why
had he the Holy Ghost in Chriet Jesus ? Because God, by
sending his own Son in flesh of sin, had condemned sin in
the flesh ; that is, had executed sentence of death upon this
sinful flesh, and could now, in consideration of that sentence
so borne, raise up both Him and that people for whom and
with whom he had borne that sentence, into a new state of
being, in which they should be the subjects of spiritual influ
ences in both parts of their frame : in whom even here,
whilst tabernacling in their flesh of sin, the foretaste and lirst-
fruits of this grace is shewn in their being renewed, and dwelt
in, by the Holy Ghost. f Thus, they have that done for them
which the law could not do, because it was weak through
our flesh's being what it is ; they are enabled to fulfil the
righteousness of the law — or rather to yield to God a service

* I perfectly approve Griesbacli's improved reading, which casts " Who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," as read in chap. viii. 1.
into the interior margin. It breaks the connection of the argument ; and
may very naturally be supposed to have been interpolated from verse 4.

-f I have here stated the reality, which is more commonly set forth by the
Holy Ghost in figure ; the dying, quickening, rising, and now sitting of the
Lord's elect in and with Him. (See Rom. vi. Ephes. i. ii. Coloss. ii. iii.)
God's eternal, covenanted design of raising them up, in Christ, from that
death into which they were contemplated as having brought themselves by
their fall in and tt'tV/^Adam, is the basis .and element of this reality.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 433

sorts of affection, one of which is called the flesh by SC. xxrr.
him ; another, the soul ; another, the spirit ; and of —

which is far more righteous, because more adapted to that full
manifestation which He has now made of himself, than a law
obedience would, or could be. — Hereafter, as he proceeds to
shew most triumphantly, in the progress of this chapter, the
other part of their frame will also have its triumph : the body
which has death in it, and has yet assuredly to die, shall be
quickened by the same Spirit which hath already quickened
and dwelt in their souls, and shall live. This, which had been
lanced at in chap. vii. 25. and is so distinctly affirmed in
-v. 11. 21. 23. of this chapter, receives its seal and crown in

Cor. xv. where the prean is sung, and the victory ascribed to
ts giver and communicator. " But thanks be to God which
'iveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ." — I have
ound it impossible to render a consistent account of these two
kapters (to which the precedent sixth may be added), verse by
erse, and clause by clause, on any other principle than this"-
fhich makes ' flesh' the substance of the body, and ' spirit' the
enewed mind. (See Part iv. Sect, xxxvii. xli. xlii. and much that
as elsewhere gone before.) There is much emphasis in verse 1.
lowbeit * (that is, although with the flesh they serve the law
f sin) there is now (opposed to I thank God, chap. vii. 25. for
'hat shall be) no condemnation (all these out-breakings and
lanifestations of evil are forgiven, and not allowed abidingly
) mar the peace of their souls — for " Who shall lay any thing,
c. &c." viii. 33 — 39.) to them which are in Christ Jesus.'f (It

of the Lord's called that he here bears this testismony, as
spears from the context : a testimony, which is in the Lord's
me realized to all his elect, and for the same reason — God
is condemned their sin which is in their flesh — " Who is he
;at condemneth ? It is Christ that died.") Hath made me free : an

* The argument is closely connected and compacted from verse 24. of the
iceding chapter. He pants. He thanks God. He sums up his state.
ovv. ovtiev &pa vvv.

The people of God arc said to be in Christ Jesus, with reference to two
tinct states : in Him, by covenant and prcdestinative union from before
•• worlds (" According as he hath chosen us in Him, &c." " Grace
ich was given us in Him, &c.") ; in Him by realized, conscious and effi-
'jtious union, through the calling of the Holy Ghost. (" Andronicus and
• lia. . . .who also were in Christ before me." " I knew a man in Christ,
'<•") A third state may be distinguished as that of sacramental union (see
rt iv. Sect. xlv. note l), which is distinct and separable from the other two :
Ij.ring analogy to that entrance which the Lord had into his kingdom, by
lj baptism. — The blessedness here described belongs to his called, but it is
i> ordained, earned and waiting portion of all his elect ; who, as they are
< : by one brought by the Holy Ghost into the knowledge of this grace,
Hard themselves as those who have virtually died in and with Christ, and
v:> therefore are dead, and have their life hid with Christ in God. Hence
' y live and walk after that part of their frame which lives — into which
' i has already been introduced ; not according to that which is virtually
< d.

2 P

434 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. which the soul is the middle one — what may be
turned towards either side, the flesh or the spirit.
But these are his own dreams ; he only tells, he
does not prove them. Paul here calls whatsoever has
not the Spirit flesh, as I have already shewn.u So

habitual deliverance is not incompatible with an occasional
ravished subjection — such as he has described in chap. vii. The
law of sin and death is clearly the law of evil which is in the mem
bers, or flesh, or body. The impossibility of the law — the law
gave no power, and therefore could not possibly get itself to
be obeyed by a creature whose substance is such as fallen
man's. Likeness of flesh of sin does not deny reality any more
than in Philip, ii. 7- Condemned etc. not only passed the sen
tence but inflicted the judgment.* Righteousness of the
law is not what is commonly meant by it, ' the act, or
ground, of justification j* but ' the enactment' — ' the matter of
the statute' — Sucaiw/ua, not ciicaioavvi]. Wlio walk — denoting
habitual conduct, aim and principle. — Their conformity with
the law is circuitous, not direct ; incidental, not deliberate
and designed. They <c walk in the Spirit" (Gal. v. 16.) ; that
is, ' in or after their renewed mind :' just as it is said here,
Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. — I cannot
forbear remarking what a close parallel that whole chapter
(Gal. v.) is to this seventh and eighth of Romans, and how truly
the whole rule or law of the Lord's called ones (" Ye have
been called unto liberty") is set out in the four words which I
have recited above. For what is, not only the whole law, but
even the whole volume of Scripture to us, save so far as it is
apprehended and received by our renewed mind, through the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost ?

u I cannot agree with Luther here. Origen is more nearly
right than he, if by soul may be imderstood ' the will with its
affections ;' and the distinction is surely recognised in Scrip
ture, when Paul prays for the Thessalonians " that their whole
spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. v. 23.) According
to Luther, ' those that are after the flesh,' and ' the flesh/ are
the same substance 5 whereas, in truth, the distinction of cha
racter is made by these constituent parts of their frame, accord
ing to which they walk (that is, habitually act) severally
The natural man (^V^IKOS) lives after his flesh, and is carnal:

* Compare 1 Peter iv. 1 — 6. also iii. 18 — 22. ' Christ's flesh condemned
and made to suffer or die,' is not only the burden of Scripture, but tin
essence of the reality of the foundation of God's new creation transactions
in Him : even as the knowledge of this body of ours, what it was in it!
formation, what it was in and became by the Fall, what it is to the unregene-
rate, and specially what it is to the regenerated sons and daughters o:
Adam, is one of the great keys to the mystery of man, and to christiai
experience.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 435

that those highest virtues of the best of men are sc- xxn.
' in the flesh ;' that is, are dead, enemies to God,
not subject to the law of God, nor capable of
being subjected to it, and displeasing to God.
For Paul does not only say that they are
not subjected, but that neither can they be sub
jected. So Christ also in Matthew vii. te A cor
rupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." And
in Matthew xii. " How can ye, being evil, speak
good things?" You see here, that we not only
speak evil, but even cannot speak good. And he
who in another place says, that we, being evil,
know how to give good gifts to our children, still
•denies that we do good even in the very act of
giving good things; inasmuch as the creature of
God (which we give) is good ; but neither are
[we ourselves good, nor do we give our good
ihings well : and when so saying, he speaks to all ;
yea, even to his disciples. So that these twin
^sentiments of Paul stand good: "The just lives
•by faith ;" and " Whatsoever is not of faith is
sin:" of which the latter flows from the former.
For if there is nothing but faith by which we can
be justified; it is evident, that those who have not

he spiritual man (Trvcvfiarucos) — he who has a Trvcufia — that is,
an Holy-Ghost-renewed spirit' — lives after his renewed spirit,
nd is spiritual. Thus the spirit and the man, and the flesh
nd the man, are distinct substances severally j though the
)ne includes the other. — Still, Luther's conclusion is not
ffected. He who does not live after the spirit, but after the
lesh, does only evil ; because that flesh, after which he lives
only evil ; ' defecated' evil : and, except and until a man be
enewed in the spirit of his mind, and thus be made spiritual,
ic neither does, nor can do any thing good. Nay further, if
te be thus renewed, and when he hath been thus renewed, it
s only so far as his renewed spirit be impelled and sustained
>y the Holy Ghost, that he either resisteth evil, or worketh
food. There are seasons, when, for the fuller manifestation
>f God unto his real good, the Holy Ghost, who never leaves
lis temple, is but as the friend who sitteth by, neither speak -
ng, nor putting out a finger to help. So far as he is left to
he endeavour and power of Freewill, therefore, all that is here
•aid by Paul about not pleasing God, &c. belongs to him.

436 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. faith are not yet justified. Now those who are not

• ' justified are still sinners; and sinners are corrupt

trees, which can do nothing but sin, and bear cor
rupt fruit. So then, Freewill is nothing but the
servant of sin, death and Satan : which neither
doeth, nor is able to do or to attempt, any thing
but evil.v
sc.xxni. Add that example in chapter x. taken from

• Esaias, " I have been found of them that sought

Grace ex- me no(;. j have been made manifest to those

emplined

v Luther adduces these expressions in Romans viii. as the
crown of Ptuil's testimony against Freewill. The flesh —
meaning, as I maintain, the natural, unrenewed substance of
man, with all that is in it (and the unrenewed man has
nothing else) — is enmity against God. — He confirms this say
ing by two of Christ's, which say we can do nothing else ; not
merely that we do evil, but that we can do nothing else, from
our very composition ; being like 'corrupt trees,' "being evil."
And in another place: 'Ye "being evil," do evil, even whilst
ye are giving good gifts.' — Then, by insinuation and impli
cation, he proves the same from Paul's twin sayings. If the
just man lives by faith, he that hath not faith is not just;
and, if not just, he is a sinner. — If whatsoever be not of
faith is sin, whatever is done by mere Freewill is sin ; be
cause Freewill has nothing to do with faith, but is by the suppo
sition perfectly distinct from it : neither has faith any thing to do
with Freewill, but has another origin. Whatsoever it doth there
fore, not being of faith, is sin. So that Freewill is only sin. —
I object to the application of these two texts in this connec
tion. It is the eternal state of the already justified person, which
is proclaimed by " shall live." (See Ilabak. ii. 4. Galat. iii. 11.
Heb. x.38.) Faith then is the acceptable principle; without which
(it is implied) there shall be no acceptance to any man. Freewill
has no faith ; therefore does nothing acceptable. — But still
the fair application is, shall not live; not does only sin. —
" Whatsoever is not of faith, &c." if Luther interprets rightly,
proves his point ; because Freewill, not acting in and by faith,
can do nothing, therefore, but what is sin. — But that text means,
' if a man is not satisfied as to the rectitude of his own aet, hut
doubts about it,' it is sin. — This text therefore does not fairly
apply ; because Freewill may have no doubts — yet still is
damned, whether she doubt or not. On the other hand, a
person may sin in some particular act, by acting Avithout
faith, yet not be a condemned person : it is of such that Paul
speaks. — Thus, although the principles which Luther would
establish from these two texts be true ; these texts, rightly
understood, do not prove them.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 437

who inquired not after me." He says these things sc.xxm.
about the Gentiles; because it hath been given to

them to know and hear of Christ,, when they could
not even think of him before, much less seek after called.
him, or prepare themselves for him, by the power
of Freewill. It is abundantly plain from this
example, that grace comes so truly gratuitously,
that not even a thought about it, much less any
thing of endeavour or pains precedes its approach.
Thus Paul also, when he was Saul, what did he
by that most exalted degree of Freewill which he
possessed ? Assuredly, he was revolving the best
and most honest things in his mind, if mere rea
son be inquired of. But see what endeavour it is
of his, by which he finds grace : he is not seeking
it ; nay, it is even by raving like a madman
against it, that he receives his portion. On the
other hand, speaking of the Jews in the ninth chap
ter, he says that the Gentiles which did not follow
after righteousness have attained to righteousness,
even the righteousness which is of faith ; but that
Israel which followed after the law of righteous
ness hath not attained to the law of righteous
ness. What can any advocate for Freewill
mutter against these sayings ? The Gentiles,
when filled to the full with impiety and all sorts
of vices, receive righteousness freely from a pity
ing God. The Jews, seeking after righteous
ness with the greatest pains and endeavours, are
disappointed. Is not this just to say, that the
endeavour of Freewill is vain, whilst endeavour
ing after the best things; and that she herself
rather makes bad worse, stumbles and runs back
ward. x No one can say that they have not tried
hard, with the utmost power of Freewill. Paul
himself bears them this testimony in his tenth
chapter, "That they have a zeal for God, but not

* Sublapsum rcferri.'] ' Omnia nirsus

In pejus mere, ac retro sublapsa referri.'

Virg. G. I, v. 200. 201.

438 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. according to knowledge." In the Jews therefore,
b none of those excellencies are wanting which we
ascribe to Freewill, and yet nothing follows ; nay,
the contrary result follows. In the Gentiles none
of those excellencies which we ascribe to Freewill
are present, but still the righteousness of God
follows. What is this, but to have it confirmed,
as well by the most manifest example of both
nations, as by the clearest testimony of Paul at
the same time, that ( grace is bestowed freely
upon the undeserving, nay upon the unworthiest
of human beings ; whilst it is not obtained by
any pains, endeavours, or performances, great or
small, even of the best and most respectable of
men, though seeking and following after righte
ousness with a burning zeal/ y

sc.xxiv. Let us also come to John, who is of himself an
abundant and able devastator of Freewill. In the
vei7 beginning of his Gospel, he ascribes such a
blindness to Freewill, as that she is not able to
see the light of truth — so far is she from having
power to endeavour after it. For thus speaks he,
" The light shineth in darkness, but the darkness
comprehendeth it not." And presently : " He
was in the world, and the world knew him not. He
came unto his own, and his own received him not."
What does he mean, think you, by the world ?
Will you except any man from the number
included under this name, except he be created
anew by the Holy Ghost ? Indeed, it is a pecu
liar use2 which this Apostle makes of the word

y For some considerations which seem desirable, to mitigate
the harshness of this statement, see above, Part iv. Sect.
xxxiv. note d; also Part iv. Sect. x. Part iii. Sect, xxxviii.
note l.

z Peculiaris.~] Luther means peculiar to this Apostle, as con
trasted Avith the other sacred writers : but it is not confined to
John. Paul has it also, Ephes. ii. 1<2. Coloss. i. G. It may
be doubted too, whether he ever speaks of the world uni
versally ; that is, of a strict ' all men,' e all mankind ;'
though his contrast is varied. Sometimes it is the world at

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE.

' world/ expressing the whole race of man, with- sc.xxiv.
out exception, by it. Whatever he says about
the world, therefore, is meant concerning Freewill,
as that which is the most excellent thing in man.
Now it is said by this Apostle, ' that the world
knew not the true light. The world hateth Christ
and his people. The world knoweth not, neither
seeth the Holy Ghost. The whole world lieth in
wickedness ; or in the wicked one. All that is in
the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life. — Love not the world.'
Again ; te Ye are of the world, saith he. The
world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because
I testify of it that its deeds are evil." All these
and many like sayings, then, are so many procla
mations about Freewill ; that is, about the prin
cipal constituent part, which reigneth in the
world, under the empire of Satan. For even this
John speaks of the world in a way of opposition ;
meaning by it, whatsoever of the world is not
translated into the Spirit ;a as Christ says to his

large, opposed to the Jews ; sometimes the multitude of the

unregenerate, opposed to the called people of God, as Luther

afterwards distinguishes (" Nam et ipse Johannes, #c.") : which

is a more correct distinction than Christ's people, and the

seed of the wicked one. For, until called by the effectual

working of the Holy Ghost, the children of the kingdom are

i often found to be as fierce opponents of the truth, and of its

children, as the devil's seed. What was Paul > — Luther does

! not notice the former of these oppositions, but it is a necessary

one to mark. Clearly, it obtains in the words under consi-

I deration. " He was in the world (that is, in the material

! world — on the earth) and the world knew him not : he came unto

i his own, &c." The contrast here is between the world at

| large, and his peculiarly connected ones, the Jews. And so,

in John iii. " God so loved the world, &c." It is all kindreds

i and tongues, and languages, &f\ contrasted with the natural

, seed of Abraham. The clear sense here assists in establishing

this use of the term, and serves to confirm the ascription of it

to John iii. 16, &c.

* Translation in spiritumJ] We might render 'made spiritual ;'
but this would efface the distinction which he means to mark.
He opposes Christ to the world ; making Christ the Spirit, in
contrast with Adam, the flesh. So, by realized union with
Christ, we are transferred from the world into the Spirit.

440 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. Apostles., " I have taken you out of the world,

p ' and have constituted you, 8cc." If now there

were any in the world, who strove for good by
the power of Freewill — as must be the case if
Freewill could really do any thing — John ought
properly to have moderated his expression out of
respect to these, that he might not involve them
by a general expression in the multitude of
crimes, of which he accuses the world. From his
not doing so, it is evident that he charges Free
will with all the crimes with which he charges the
world ; since whatever the world does, it does by
the power of Freewill- that is, by the under
standing and the will, the most excellent of its
constituent parts. It follows :

" But as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become the sons of God; even to
them which believe in his name : which were
born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God."

Having made this division, he rejects from
the kingdom of Christ ' bloods/ ' the will of
the flesh/ and ( the will of man/ By ' bloods'
I suppose him to mean the Jews ; that is, those
who had a mind to be sons of the kingdom, be
cause they were sons of Abraham and of the
Fathers ; boasting forsooth of their descent. — •
By ( the wrill of the flesh' I understand the pains
with which that people exercised themselves in
law works. For the flesh, here, signifies carnal
persons which have not the Spirit ; as being those
who have will and endeavour, but, since there is
no Holy Ghost in this will and endeavour, have
them carnally. By c the will of man/ I under
stand the pains which mankind in general, all
men take — whether under the law, or without the
law — the Gentiles, say, or whom you will — to
find favour with God. The meaning therefore is,
neither by a birth of the flesh, nor by a zeal for the
law, nor by any other human means, are they made
sons of God, but only by a divine birth. If then

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 441

they are not born of the flesh, nor trained by the
law, nor obtained by any human discipline, bat
are born again of God ; it is plain that Freewill is
of no avail here. For I think the word 'man/
here, is taken, in the Hebrew acceptation, for any
one whatsoever; just as ' flesh* is taken, by contrast,
for the people of Israel not having the Spirit :
and tfwill/ again, for the highest power in man;
that is, the principal ingredient in Freewill.

But grant that we may not understand each
word correctly, still the sum and substance of
the assertion is most plain ; namely, that John,
by this division, rejects whatsoever is not of
divine begetting, in saying that men are not made
the sons of God but by being born of God ;
which is effected, according to his own inter
pretation, by believing in his name. Now in this
rejection, the will of man, or Freewill, not being
a thing born of God, nor yet faith, is necessarily
included. If Freewill availed any thing, the will
of man ought not to be rejected by John ; neither
ought men to be withdrawn from it, and sent to
faith and new birth only : else that might be said
to him, which was said in Isaiah v. " Woe unto
you who call good evil." But now, since he
equally rejects ' bloods/ fthe will of the flesh/ and
' the will of man/ it is certain, that the will of man
Ihas no more power towards making sons of God,
than bloods or fleshly nativity. Now, no one
'Counts it doubtful whether fleshly birth makes, or
doth not make, sons of God ; as Paul also tells us
iin Romans ix. "They which are the children of
'the flesh, these are not the children of God :"
which he proves by the examples of Ishmael and
Esau.h

b ' The will of the flesh' and ' the will of man' separated and
distinguished, and both named, must, upon every conceivable
interpretation of those terms, exclude every thing belonging to
the human will from this generative power; and therefore
decide the question as to the power of Freewill, in bringing us

442 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. The same John introduces the Baptist speaking

thus ; " Of whose fulness have all we received,

sc. xxv. grace for grace."

He speaks of grace received by us out of the
list's testi- fulness of Christ ; but for the sake of what merit,
or endeavour? For the grace, says he, forsooth
of Christ :c just as Paul also speaks in Romans v.
(< The grace of God, and the gift by grace of one
man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
Where now is the endeavour of Freewill, by

to the inheritance of God's children. But I should rather
understand ' bloods' to express natural birth generally (we
have not it by descent from our parents) ; ' will of the flesh'
for our own personal and individual will, which we have by na
ture ; and ' will of man' for the ordinance and appointment of
man generally : it is not a human device ; what men have chosen
and procured for themselves, or what can, in any individual
instance, be conferred by man, one or many, willing it to ano
ther. A man may leave his estate at death, or confer a liberal
gift in his lifetime, but he cannot will or bestow new birth. —
Luther speaks as if we were ' begotten' by believing (' nascendo
ex Deo, quod fit credendo in nomine ejus') ; like Erasmus's
1 renatus per fidem,' which, as we saw, he does not object to :
but the truth is, we must be begotten again before we can
believe ; and then, believing, we take our place amongst God's
adopted children. So that there is a sense in which we are rege
nerated by faith, inasmuch as it is by faith we are manifested to be
of the Lord's children : but the birth, or generation more pro
perly, spoken of in verse 13. is prior to faith ; so that it can
not in this view be said, ' nascor ex Deo, credendo in nomine
Jesu Christi.' (See above, Part iv. Sect. xlr. note *• -, also
Part v. Sect. xix. note n.)

c Pro gratid scilicet Christi."] Luther seems to understand
him as saying ' grace in return for, or on account of, his grace :'
that is, the grace which Christ has himself shewn. So he clearly
explains himself afterwards, when he says rgratiam eis impetrat
per suum sanguinem.' In this view, it is parallel with the pas
sage which he cites from Romans v. — It is more commonly
interpreted ' grace for grace ;' that is, one degree or measure of
grace for another. But Luther is the more correct : although
the grace which we have from Christ is in reality grace given
to us by the Father in the same instant in which the grace is
given to Christ, by means of which he has done and endured
every thing personally; still it comes to us, and is actually
conferred upon us, in the way of fruit and consequence of his
actings — grace bestowed on us, for the sake of grace acted
previously by himself.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 443

which grace is procured? Here John says, not sc. xxv.
only that grace is received without any endea
vour of ours, but even by another's grace, or
another's merit ; namely, that of one man, Jesus
Christ. Either therefore it is false, that we
receive our grace for the sake of another's grace ;
or it is evident that Freewill is nothing; for the
two cannot stand together — that the grace of God
is on the one hand so cheap, as to be obtained
commonly, and every where, by the paltry endea
vour of any man you please ; and on the other so
dear, as to be freely bestowed upon us for and
by the grace of one so great a man only.

I would at the same time admonish the advo
cates of Freewill in this place, that in asserting
Freewill they are deniers of Christ. For, if I obtain
the grace of God through my own endeavour, what
need is there of the grace of Christ for my receiving
of grace ? or, what is wanting to me, when I have
obtained the grace of God? But Diatribe has
said, all the Sophists also say, that we obtain the
grace of God by our own endeavour, and are
prepared for the reception of it, not of condig-
nity indeed, but of congruity: which is abso
lutely denying Christ, for whose grace's sake
the Baptist here testifies that we receive
grace. For, as to that figment about condig-
nity and congruity, I have already confuted it;
shewing that these are empty words which in
reality mean merit of condignity/ and have more
impiety in them than the Pelagian assertions; as
ll have declared. So that the impious Sophists,
with Diatribe at their head, deny the Lord Christ
who bought us, more than the Pelagians, or any
heretics have done: so utterly incompatible is
grace with any particle or power of Free
will. — Howbeit, that the advocates for Freewill

d Meritum condignum.~] ' Worthy merit/ i. e. ' merit worthy
of the reward which is proposed to be given to it / ' merit of
worth to the uttermost.'— See above, Sect. xvi.

444

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. deny Christ, is proved not only by this Scrip-
' ture but by their own life. Hence it is, that
they make Christ to be no longer a sweet
Mediator, but a tremendous Judge ; whom they
are endeavouring to appease by the intercessions
of his Virgin Mother, and of the Saints; more
over by many works, rites, superstitions, vows of
their own invention : the object of all which is to
make Christ favourable to them, that he may give
them his grace. On the other hand, they do not
believe that he intercedes with God, and obtains
grace for them through his blood ; and grace, as
it is here said, for grace. And as they believe,
so it is done unto them. They have Christ truly
and deservedly for their inexorable Judge;
whilst they forsake him in his office of most pow
erful Mediator and Saviour, and account his blood
and grace a more worthless thing than the pains
and endeavours of Freewill.

Let us also hear an example of Freewill. Nico-
demus, I warrant you, is a man in whom nothing
was wanting which Freewill can effect : what is
it of pains or endeavour, which this man omits ?
He confesses Christ to be a true witness,
and to have come from God; he makes mention
of his miracles, he comes by night to hear and to
compare the rest. Does not this man seem to
have sought the things which belong to piety and
salvation, by the power of Freewill? But see
how he founders ! When he hears the true way
of salvation by new birth pointed out to him by
Christ, does he recognise that way, or confess
that he has ever sought it? Nay, he so revolts
from it, and is confounded, that he not only says
he does not understand it, but even turns away
from it, as impossible. — How can these things
be, says he ? And no wonder indeed : for who
ever heard that a man must be born again of
water and of the Spirit, if he would be saved ?
Who ever thought that the Son of God must

sc.xxvi.

Nicode-
mus's case.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 445

be lifted up, to the end that all that believe in him SECT.
might not perish, but have eternal life. Have the XXVI-
acutest and best of philosophers ever made
mention of this ? Have the princes of this world
| ever learned this science? Has any man's Free
will ever made an attempt at it ? Does not Paul
confess it to be wisdom hidden in a mystery ?
foretold, it is true, by the Prophets, but revealed
by the Gospel ; so as to have been from eternity
kept secret and unknown to the world.0

What shall I say ? Shall we consult experience ?
Even the whole world, even human reason, even
Freewill herself is compelled to acknowledge, that
she neither knew nor heard of Christ, before the
Gospel came into the world. Now, if she did not
know, much less hath she sought, or been able to
seek, or to endeavour after him. But Christ is
the way, the truth, the life and the salvation. She
confesses therefore, whether she would or no,
that by her own powers she has neither known,
nor been able to seek those things, which are
belonging to the way, the truth and the salvation.
Still however, in opposition to this very confession
and our own experience, we play the madman;
and maintain, by a mere war of words, that we
have a certain power remaining in us, which both
knows and can apply itself to the things that ap
pertain to salvation: which is as good as saying,
knows and can apply itself to Christ the Son of God,

e It is most true, that the Gospel mystery is strictly matter
of revelation, and not within the discovery of natural reason.
But it is also true, that it has been the will of God there should
be intimations, of this mystery, hereafter to be revealed, and
traces of such intimations amidst all nations, from the begin
ning. The kingdom of God was announced immediately after
the fall, in the denunciation upon the serpent ; and it has been
part of the counsel and work of God, that it should be spoken
of, and looked for, and that the eternal separation between the
two parts of the human race into hell and into heaven, should be
made on the ground of it. — Still, it is not that Freewill has
found this out — but God has shewn it.

446

PART V.

SECT.
XXVII.

John xiv.
forestalled.
Way,
truth, &c.
are ex
clusive.

.;: BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

who was lifted up for us ; f whereas no one has
ever known, or could have thought of such a
person. Still, this ignorance is not ignorance, but
knowledge of Christ ; that is, of the things which
appertain to salvation ! Do you not even yet see,
and almost feel with your hands, that the assertors
of Freewill are downright mad ; when they call
that knowledge, which they confess themselves to
be ignorance. Is not this to call darkness light ?
(Isaiah v.) So mightily doth God shut the mouth
of Freewill, according to her own confession and
experience; but, with all this, she will not hold
her tongue, and give glory to God.s

Again, when Christ is called the way, the truth
and the life ; and that, by way of comparison — so
that whatever is not Christ, is neither way, but
out of the way; nor truth, but a lie ; nor life, but
death — Freewill, being neither Christ, nor in
Christ, must have its dwelling place in error,
falsehood and death. Where then is to be found,
and whence is to be proved, that middle and neu
tral substance — this substance of Freewill for
sooth — which not being Christ (that is, the way,
the truth and the life), still does not neces
sarily become error, falsehood and death? For, if
what is said about Christ and his grace were not
all said by way of comparison, in opposition to
their contraries; as for example, that out of Christ
there is none but the devil ; out of grace, there is
nothing but wrath ; out of light, there is nothing
but darkness ; out of the way, there is nothing
but error ; out of the truth, there is nothing but

r Pro nobis exaltatum.'] Exalt, is a word of doubtful meaning1,
which might refer to his seat at the Father's right hand ; but I
understand it with allusion to the Lord's words, " And I if I
be lifted up" (vtymOio, John xii. 32.), as explained by the
comment, " this he said, signifying what death he should die."

s Nee sic tamen tacere.'] A sort of ogu/uwpov, like ' stremna
inertia,' ' concordia discors ;' but there is no real inconsist
ency : Freewill should be silent for herself, and give glory to
God.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 447

falsehood; out of life, there is nothing but death :* SECT.
what would all the discourses of the Apostles,
and all Scripture amount to ? all surely would be
said in vain, since it would not force the conclu
sion that Christ is necessary to us (which however
is their great object); inasmuch as some middle
substance might be discovered, which of itself
is neither evil nor good, belongs neither to Christ
nor to Satan, is neither true nor false, neither
alive nor dead — yea, perhaps, is neither any thing
nor nothing — yet shall be called the noblest and
most excellent endowment of all that is found
in the whole human race.

Choose which you will, therefore : if you grant
that the Scriptures speak by way of comparison,
you can ascribe nothing to Freewill which is not
contrary to what is in Christ; you must say of it,
that error, death, Satan, and all evil reigns in it.
If you do not grant that they speak by way of
comparison, you in that case enervate the Scrip
tures to such a degree, that they effect nothing,
and do not prove Christ to be necessary. And
thus, in establishing Freewill, you make Christ
void, and tread all Scripture under foot. Again ;
whilst you pretend in words to be confessing
Christ, you really and with your heart deny him :
for, if Freewill is not all error and damnation, but
sees and wills things honest and good, and things
which pertain to salvation, she is whole, and has
no need of Christ for her doctor ; nor hath Christ
redeemed that part of our nature : for what need is
there of light and life, where there is light and life?
Now, if this be not redeemed by Christ, the best
ingredient in the composition of man is not
redeemed ; but is of itself good and sound. In
this case, God, also, is unjust in condemning any
man, because he condemns that which is best in

h The word extra is used throughout the whole of this pas
sage, to denote distinctness : there are but two sorts of sub-
Stances ; to be without the one, is to be within the pther.

448

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. man, and which is sound ; in other words, he

condemns the innocent. For there is no man who

has not Freewill : and, though a bad man abuses
his Freewill, still we are taught that the power itself
is not extinguished in him, so as neither to strive,
nor be able to strive, for good. Now if it be such,
without doubt it is holy, just and good, and there
fore ought not to be condemned, but to be sepa
rated from the man that is to be condemned. But
this cannot be ; and if it could be, in that case the
man, no longer having Freewill, would no longer
be a man, and would neither merit evil nor good,
neither be damned nor saved, but must be an
absolute brute, and no longer an immortal being.
It remains therefore, that God is unjust who con
demns that holy, just and good power, which has
no need of Christ, in and with a bad man.'

But let us go on with John. "He whobelieveth
on him, says he, is not judged. He whobelieveth
not, hath been judged already,1" because he be-
lieveth not in the name of the only begotten Son
of God-

1 Luther's argument is, Scripture speaks by way of com
parison (See above, Sect, xviii. note ') ; therefore Freewill,
which confessedly is out of Christ, must be sin, death, Satan,
error, &c. &c. If you deny that Scripture speaks by compa
rison, 1. You make Scripture void. 2. You deny Christ.
3. You make God unjust. — His reasoning is subtile, but con
clusive. — See the same sort of argument pursued, and re
marked upon, Part iv. Sect. xliv. note '.

k Jam judicatus est.~] Already as opposed to the judgment
day : he need not Avait for that ; the preaching of Christ tries
him, of what sort he is, whether he be a doer of evil, or a
doer of the truth — as appears from vv. 20,21. The secret is,
a regenerated soul, when Christ is preached, knows, owns and
receives him : he who rejects Christ, thereby proves that he is
not regenerated, but is in his nature state ; devilish, and pos
sessed by the devil. — It is supposed, that the state here described
is the abiding, unchanged, yea dying state of the man. Every
deliberate rejection of Christ, when preached, gives ground of
awful apprehension ; but it is final rejection, which stamps this
judgment. Such being his mind towards Christ, he needs not
the process of the last judgment to declare whether he be " in
God," or not,

SECT.
XXVIII.

John iii.

18. 36.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 449

Tell me, whether Freewill is in the number of SECT."
the believers, or no ? If she be, again she has no xxvni-
need of grace, seeing- she believes in Christ of "
herself, which Christ, however, she of herself nei
ther knows, nor has any conception of. If she
be not, she has been judged already: and what is
this, but that she hath been condemned before
God ? Now God condemns nothing- but what is
wicked. She is wicked therefore: and what pious
act can an impious thing* attempt ? Nor can Free
will, I suppose, be excepted here ; since he speaks
of the whole man, which he says is condemned.
Besides, unbelief is not a gross affection, but that
highest sort of affection which sitteth and reigneth „
in the citadel of the will and understanding; just
as its contrary, faith, *does. Now to be unbe
lieving, is to deny God and make him a liar.
(1 Johni. 10.) If we believe not, we make God a
liar.1 Now, how can that power which is Contrary
to God, and which makes him a liar, strive after
good? If this power were not unbelieving and
ungodly, he ought not to have said of the whole
man, " he hath been judged already," but to have
spoken thus : ' the man hath been judged already
with respect to his gross affections ; but with
respect to his best and most excellent one, he is
not judged, because it strives after faith, or rather
is even now believing/

Thus, as often as the Scripture says, " Every
man is a liar," we shall say upon the authority of
Freewill, e On the contrary, the Scripture rather
lies, because man is not a liar in his best part,
that is, in his understanding and will, but only in
his flesh, blood and marrow; so that all from
whence man has his name — that is, understanding
and will — is sound and holy/ So, in that saying

1 Luther refers only to 1 John i. lint the testimony is
squally strong 1 John v. 10. " He that believeth not God hath
jnade him a liar ; because he believeth not the record that God
ijave of his Son."

2 G

450 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART V. of the Baptist's, " He that believeth on the Son,
1 hath everlasting life : but he that believeth not

the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God
abideth on him;" by ' upon him ' we must under
stand, i upon his gross affections the wrath of God
remaineth ;' but upon that eminent power of Free
will — upon his understanding and will forsooth —
grace and eternal life abideth. It appears from
this example, that, in order to maintain Freewill,
you, by a synecdoche,"1 turn and twist what is said in
the Scriptures against ungodly men so as to con
fine it to the brutish part of man ; hereby keeping
the rational and truly human part of him safe and
sound. In this case, I will render my thanks to
the assertors of Freewill ; since I shall not feel the
least concern for my sin, being confident that my
understanding and will, that is, my Freewill,
cannot be condemned, inasmuch as it is never
extinguished, but always remains sound, just and
holy. But if my understanding and will are to be
happy, I shall rejoice that my filthy and brutish
flesh is separated and condemned ; so far am I
from wishing that Christ should be its redeemer.
You see whither the dogma of Freewill carries us,
even to the denying of all divine and human, tem
poral and eternal realities, and to the deluding of
itself with so many monstrous fictions !
Johniii. So again, the Baptist says, "a man cannot
^' receive any thing except it shall have been given

him from heaven."

Cease, Diatribe, to display your great fluency
here, by enumerating all the things which we
receive from heaven ! We are not arguing about
nature, but about grace; we are not inquiring
what sort of persons we are upon earth, but what
in heaven and before God. We know that man
is constituted lord of the things beneath him;

m Per synecdochenJ] Syn. ' A figure by which part is taken
for the whole, or the whole for part .-' here. Diatribe makes it
the whole of man put for his grosser part.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 451

over which he has power and Freewill, that they SECT.
may obey him, and may do what he wills and XXVIIL
thinks. But this is our question, whether he has
Freewill towards God, so that God obeys and
does what man wills ; or, whether God, rather, has
Freewill over man, so that he wills and does what
God wills, and can do nothing but what God shall
have willed and done. Here the Baptist says,
that he can receive nothing, except it be given him
from heaven : so that Freewill is nothing."

So again, " He that is of the earth is earthly, John ill.
and speaketh of the earth ; he that cometh from 31t
heaven is above all."

Here again he makes all earthly (and says that
they mind and speak earthly things) who are not
of Christ, and leaves none between the two. But
Freewill, surely, is not he that cometh from heaven.
So that it must be of the earth, and must mind
and speak the things of the earth. Now, if there

n Hie dicit.'] That is, according to Luther (who assumes
that the things here spoken of are things of God, not of the
creature), determines this question ; it is God's will, not man's,
that is done. — I have already objected many times to the dis
tinction which Luther here again resorts to (see above, Part iv.
Sect. xlvi. note x) ; nor can I allow this text to be a direct tes
timony against Freewill. — John is accounting for the superior
honour paid to Jesus above himself: he had just been informed
concerning Jesus, " All men come to Him." The principle of
the remark therefore is, I can have no more of honour than it
is the will of God to bestow upon me. And he goes on to say,
that he never claimed to be Christ, and consequently never
claimed to receive the honour which it had been the Father's
good pleasure to appropriate to Him. It is honour and dis
tinction therefore, not spiritual power and capacity, of which
John here speaks. — But it is honour in and of the kingdom of
1 God ; which is preceded by a gift of super-creation power
exciting and leading to it. As the honour, so the precedent
power is of God, and according to the measure in which he
has ordained to bestow, and does produce it. — However, non
tali auxilio. If Luther understands it, ' we must have power
given to enable us to receive power,' it is a testimony : but
its meaning is far simpler than this. What we have, we
have received : if another has more, it is because God has
given it.

2 a 2

452 BONDAGE OF THE WILL,

TARTV. were any power in any man, which at any time,

in any place, in any work, did not mind earthly

things, the Baptist ought to have excepted this
man, and not to have said generally concerning
all out of Christ, that they are earthly, and speak
of the earth.0

John viii. So, afterwards in chap. viii. Christ also says,
66 Ye are of the world ; I am not of the world :
ye are from beneath, I am from above."

The persons to whom he spake had Freewill,
to wit, understanding and will ; and yet he says
" they were of the world." Now what news
would it be, if he should say they were of the
world, with respect to their flesh and gross affec
tions? Did not the whole world know this before?
Besides, what need is there to say that men are
of the world in that part in which they are

0 This is a testimony borne to Jesus by John, in contrast
with himself : though filled with the Holy Ghost even from his
mother's womb, and having the hand of the Lord with him
(Luke i. 15. 6G.), he had not been born 'by the Holy Ghost's
coming upon a virgin mother, and the power of the Highest' 8
overshadowing her ;' 'he had not come down from heaven /
he had not ' come from above/ ' come from heaven/ (and, as
compared with Him, was earthly in his words (see Luke i. 3n.
John iii. 13. 31. vi. 38. 41, 42.*), as well as in his frame and
formation.) Luther misunderstands the text — does not see its
glory, and does not elicit its testimony against Freewill cor
rectly. It is however a testimony : if John only so far as he
had a gift from heaven was other than earthly, and had com
paratively so little of this gift as fitly to call himself earthly —
what is 'Freewill/ 'nature man/ 'that which is nothing but
earth,' instead of being such an one as John by the grace of
God had been made. It is not ' Christ's people/ and ' the
world/ which are opposed to each other here by the names
' earthly ' and 'heavenly/ but Christ and John singly: John
was a man in nowise different from other men as to his natural
frame, he was truly and solely a son of Adam : but Christ's
human person, as to its spiritual part, was from heaven.

* I do not refer to 1 Cor. xv. 47. because I consider it as belonging1 to
another subject — Christ the risen head of his risen people, come down the
second time from heaven to raise his dead ones : — it is of Christ as walking
upon this earth that the Baptist here testifies, he cometh or (what is the same
in import here] hath come from heaven; and so in the other passages to
which I have referred.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 453

brutish ; when, at this rate, the beasts also are SECT.
of the world? p

Again, what does that saying of Christ's in Johnvi
John vi. " No one cometh unto me, except my 44.
Father shall have drawn him," leave to Freewill ?q
He says, it is necessary that a man hear and learn
from the Father himself; and afterwards, that all
must be taught of God. (vv. 44, 45.) Here for
sooth he teaches that not only the works and pains
of Freewill are vain, but that even the word of
the Gospel (of which he is here treating) is heard
in vain, except the Father himself speak, teach,
and draw within. No man can come, says he :
that power forsooth, by which a man is enabled to
make any endeavour after Christ; that is, after
those things which are appertinent to salvation ;
is asserted to be nothing. Nor is that saying of
Augustine's which Diatribe adduces for the pur
pose of blurring this most clear and most mighty
! passage — that God draweth just as we draw a
sheep by shewing it a bough — of any service to
IFreewill. She will have it, that this simile proves
•there is a power in us to follow the drawing of
!God. But this simile is of no avail here : foras
much as God shews us not one good thing only,
'but all his good tilings, and even Christ himself —

p Surely the Lord means more by ' from beneath ' here, than
illhe Baptist did ; who spuke of himself — or, according to
•Luther, ' of himself and all that are Christ's.' The Lord
jspeaks of these Jews as the devil's seed, whose throne and
[habitation are beneath the earth : whilst his own origin, as well
las throne, was and is heaven. (See that whole discourse
fJohn viii. especially from v. 21 to the end of the chapter.) —
[Luther's conclusion however is correct. He bore this testi-
jmony to their best and finer part, not to the grosser. An
'(objection may indeed be taken ' These were expressly and

emphatically children of the wicked one; and therefore their
lease is somewhat different from that of the children of the

kingdom. The answer is, not as it respects nature — Freewill
jand all nature powers.

i Vcnit ad me.] The original text is stronger ; " is able to

come unto me."

454 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, his Son ; but still no man follows him, unless the
Father shew him something else within, and in
other ways draw him : nay, the whole world per
secutes that Son, whom he shews. This com
parison of Augustine's squares perfectly enough
with the case of the godly ; who are now sheep,
and know their shepherd Gojl. These, who live
by the Spirit and are moved by the Spirit, follow
whithersoever God willeth, and whatsoever he
shall have shewn them. But the ungodly cometh
not, even when he hath heard the word, except the
Father draw and teach within ; which he does by
bestowing the Spirit. In them is another drawing,
distinct from that which is without; in them
Christ is shewn by the illumination of the Spirit,
through which the man is married off to Christ by
a most delightful ravishment, and rather endures
the act of a speaking teacher and a drawing God,
than performs one himself by seeking and running/

r Illuminaiionem Spirittts."] Not f the enlightening of the
man's own soul,' but ' the throwing of light upon Christ :' the
blessed Spirit casts his bright beams upon the face, or person,
of the Lord Jesus Christ • and so wins to him. — A most beautiful
and accurate description this, of that Holy Ghost violence, with
which the soul is converted. One can hardly help saying to
Luther, O si sic omnia! A single testimony, like this broad and
irresistible one, opened as he opens it, is worth a mmdred
abstruse and obscure ones ; of which it is a question in the
first place, whether they bear at all upon the subject — secondly, '
how they exactly bear upon it — and thirdly, with what degree
of effect. — I am not meaning to disparage Luther's testi
monies — which, with a few exceptions, are clear, and strong to
the point ; but I think the question might be safely rested upon
this single text — considered in its connection — and that, on such
a subject, to bring those which will admit of a doubt, or of a
possible misconstruction — in short to use any other implement
than a sledge-hammer — is unwise. Even Luther might have
Biade his proofs clearer and stronger ; and they would have
lost nothing by being fewer. The impression is weakened by
being extended ; and many small blows, of which one or two
beat the air, render the victory doubtful, in the sight of the
by-standers. (See above, Part iv. Sect. xlii. note '.) — But
what have we here ? It is not only that the words are so
express it is impossible to evade them, and that to cite them

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 455

I will bring yet one more text from this same SECT.
John, who in his sixteenth chapter says, "The spirit xxx'
shall reprove the world of sin, because they have ~
not believed in me." (John xvi. 9.) Here you Jotmxvi.9.
see it is sin not to believe in Christ. But this sin,
surely, is not fixed in the skin or in the hair, but
in the very understanding and will. Now, when
he charges the whole world with this sin, and it
is ascertained by experience that this sin of theirs
is as unknown to the world as Christ himself —
seeing- it is that which is revealed by the reprov
ing of the Spirit — it is plain that Freewill, together
with its will and understanding, is considered as
captured, and condemned for this sin, before God.
So then, whilst Freewill is ignorant of Christ and
does not believe in him, she cannot will or endea
vour after any good thing, but is necessarily the
slave of this unknowrn sin. In short, since the
Scriptures preach Christ in a way of comparison
and opposition every where, as I have said;
representing every thing which hath not the
Spirit of Christ as the subject of Satan, ungod
liness, error, darkness, sin and the wrath of God;
how many soever testimonies there be which
speak of Christ, these will, all and every of them,
fight against Freewill. Now such testimonies are
innumerable ; nay, they make up the whole of

is even more impressive than to enlarge upon them, but they
must mean what they say — ' There is no power whatsoever in
the natural man to come to Christ ' — because otherwise they
have no meaning at all, in this context. — The Lord is account
ing for their murmurs, in which they muttered out a rejection
of him. 'You reject me! What wonder? It cannot be
otherwise, seeing ye are not drawn to me of God.' — And when he
repeats the same sentiment at the 65th verse, it is to account
for the same fact, and is followed by a consequence which
would naturally result from such a declaration ; but which no
other sentiment would account for. " From that time many
of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then
said Jesus unto the twelve, " Will ye also go away ?" The
testimony therefore is so unequivocal, as well as so decisive,
that Freewill has not even a heel to lift up against it.

456 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. Scripture. So that if we try this cause at the
"~ judgment seat of Scripture, I shall conquer every
way ; s there not being a single jot or tittle remain
ing, but what condemns the dogma of Freewill.

Now although our great theologians and main-
tainers of Freewill either know not, or pretend not
to know, that the Scripture thus preaches Christ
in the way of comparison and opposition, still all
Christians know this, and publicly confess it.
They know I. say, that there are two kingdoms in
the world, which are most adversative to each
other ; that Satan reigns in the one, and is on this
account called by Christ the Prince of this world,
and by Paul the God of this age; holding all men
captive at his will, who have not been torn from
him by the Spirit of Christ, as the same Paul
witnesseth ; and not suffering them to be torn
from him by any force, save by the Spirit of God;
as Christ testifies in his parable of the strong man
keeping his palace in peace. In the other reigneth
Christ: whose kingdom is continually resisting
and fighting with that of Satan. Into this kingdom
we are translated, not by our own power, but by
the grace of God; by which we are delivered from
this present wicked age, and snatched out of the
hands of the power of darkness. The knowledge
and confession of these kingdoms, as fighting per
petually against each other with such might and
resolution, would be of itself sufficient to confute
the dogma of Freewill : seeing that AVC are com
pelled to serve in the kingdom of Satan, unless we
be rescued from it by a divine power. These

8 Omnibus modis r,icero.~] Omn. mod. like iravri Tpdvif, or
*caT<i ^^av^a rpdirov, of the Greeks, expresses the manner in which
any act is^ done, or event accomplished : ' By what arts and
means soever, or with what spirit and turn of mind soever, the
contest be carried on, I shall have conquered so as not to leave
a single jot or tittle for Freewill.' — The argument is, Scrip
ture preaches Christ by antithesis ; therefore, whatsoever
preaches Christ excludes Freewill. But Christ is preached
every where : therefore Freewill is opposed every where.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 457

things, I say, the vulgar know, and by their SECT.
proverbs, prayers, efforts and whole life, abund- XXXI-
antly confess.1

I omit that truly Achillean argument of mine, Omits to
which Diatribe in her noble courage has left jJ^nJXJlJ
untouched; namely, that in Romans vii. and Gala- between
tians v. Paul teaches us that the conflict between fle.sl? and
flesh and spirit is so mighty in the sanctified and cause' no
godly, that they cannot do the things which they attempt
would. I argue thus from it: if the nature of man is te
so wicked, that in those who have been born again to repel
of the Spirit, not only it does not endeavour after ^said
good, but even fights against and opposes good; how about it.
should it endeavour after good in those who, being
not yet regenerated, are serving under Satan, in
the old man ? For Payl does not speak of the gross
affections only in that place, through which as a
sort of common outlet Diatribe is wont to slip like
an eel out of the hands of every Scripture; but
reckons heresy, idolatry, dissensions, contentions,
mischiefs, which reign in those highest powers of
the soul — the understanding and the will, say —
amongst the works of the flesh. If then the flesh
maintains a conflict against the spirit, by means of

1 How strange that this enlightened and enlightening view
of the two kingdoms should be so little realized, substantiated
and applied! this, which needs only to be carried back to the
period of the fall, and thence continued downwards to the end
of the world, with an understanding, that this is not the crea
tion state of man, and the things of man, but the counsel
and scheme of God as made way for by the creation and the
fall — to render all Scripture, history, observation and expe
rience, simple and intelligible ! — Luther evidently did not
comprehend them in the fulness of their origination,, design,
operations and results ; but the substance is here — and we can
scarcely help breathing out the vain wish that he had, for his
own comfort, and that of others whom the Lord hath not dis
dained to edify by his writings, been enabled to put the
elements, with which he here furnishes us, together, in their
beginning and endings, and in the connection of the interme
diate parts, in a workmanlike manner. He has the materials ;
but he neither models, nor lays the foundation, nor buildeth
thereon. Still, what grace in his day to have seen so much !

458 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, these affections,, in the saints; much more will it

fight against God in the ungodly, and their Free- l

will. On this account Horn. viii. calls it enmity
against God.u

I should be glad,, I say, if any body would take
off this argument for me., and defend Freewill
from it.

For my own part, I confess that, if it could any
how be, I should be unwilling to have Freewill
given to me, or any thing left in my own hand,
which might enable me to endeavour after salva
tion : not only because in the midst of so many
dangers and adversities on the one hand, and of
so many assaulting devils on the other, I should
not be strong enough to maintain my standing
and keep my hold of it (for one devil is mightier
than all men put together, and not a single indi
vidual of mankind would be saved) ; but because,
if there were even no dangers, and no adversities,
and no devils, still I should be compelled to toil
for ever as uncertainly, and to fight as one that
beateth the air.v For, though 1 should live and
work to eternity, my own conscience would never
be sure and secure how much she ought to do,
that God might be satisfied with her. Do what
she might, there would still be left an anxious
doubt, whether it pleased God, or whether he
required any thing more; as the experience of all

self-righteous persons x proves, and as I, to my

•.

u I have already shewn that I do not coincide with Luther in
his representation of the flesh and the spirit : that I consider
the flesh and the spirit to be the unrenewed body and the
renewed mind, severally, of the Lord's called people. But
this difference does not affect the argument here. If the
renewed man, who has the Spirit, have this conflict to main
tain ; what is the wholly unrenewed man before God, and what
his endeavour after good ?

v Laborare.'] The allusion is evidently to 1 Cor. ix. 96. —
but he does not use the word currerc. Paul says -rpe^w.

x Justitiar iorumJ] I do not find the word, except as bad
Latin for 'a justice !' but the connection determines it to mean

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 459

own great misery, have learned abundantly by so SECT.
many years of conflict.

But now, since God has taken my salvation out
of the hands of my own will, and has received it
into those of his own ; and has promised to save
me, not by my own work or running, but by his
own grace and mercy ; I am at ease and certain,
because he is faithful and will not lie to me, and
because he is moreover great and powerful, so
that no number of devils, no number of adver
sities, can either wear Him out, or pluck me out of
his hand. No one/ says he, shall pluck them out
of my hand ; for my Father who gave them me, is
greater than all. Thus it comes to pass, that, if
all are not saved, some, however, rray, many are ;
whereas by the power of Freewill none absolutely
would be, but we should all to a man be lost?
Moreover, we are fearlessly sure that we please
God, not by the merit of our own work, but by the
favour of his mercy, which he hath promised us ;
and that, if we do less than we ought, or ought
amiss, he does not impute it to us, but with a
fatherly mind forgives and amends it. Such is
the boast of every saint in his God.z

here, ' persons who are going about to establish their own
righteousness,' in opposition to 'those who have learned that
there is a God-righteousness and have been led to submit
to it.' — ' Justicers,' or ' righteousness-mongers.'

y Quiets' implies more than no man; no person, man or devil.

z The defects of Luther's theology are apparent in this
paragraph. He gives quietness, but not triumph ; quietness
too, we know not why — when a reason might be assigned. We
are to live, assuredly to live ; we do not yet live : we are to
work too, that we may live ; and our workings must be for
given and amended. — He did not see Christ's peculiar and
peculiarizing headship : he did not see that the efficacy of
Christ is his enabling God, by His dying, to raise up the cursed
from their curse after suffering a part of it ; that they live, even
now, in a risen Christ as though they had risen with him ; and
that it is eternal life already received and acted — just in such
measure as He is pleased to bestow of it — which constitutes
the acceptable service they are now rendering : which service He,
as he hath appointed, and just in such measure and manner

460

BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART V.

SECT.
XXXII.

stated.

Exposed.

But if this disturb us, that, it is difficult to
maintain the mercy and equity of God, in that he
damns the undeserving — namely, ungodly men
who are even of such a sort, that, being born in
Difficulty ungodliness, they cannot by any means help being
ungodly, remaining so, and being damned ; yea,
being compelled by the necessity of their nature
to sin and perish (as Paul speaks, " We were all
the sons of wrath even as others "), being created
such as they are, by God himself, out of a seed
which became corrupted through that sin which
was Adam's only —

In this state of things, we must honour and
reverence the exceeding great mercy of God in
his dealings with those whom he justifies and
saves although most unworthy of such benefits,
and must at least make some small concession to
his divine wisdom, believing him to be just, when
to us he seems unjust. For, if his justice were
indeed such as might by human apprehension be
pronounced just when it is judged, it would clearly
not be divine justice, but would differ nothing
from that of man. Now, seeing that God is the
one true God, and is moreover totally incompre
hensible, and inaccessible to human reason ; it is
natural, nay it is necessary, that his justice also
be incomprehensible : just as Paul also cries out,
saying, " O the depth of the riches both of the
Avisdom and knowledge of God, how incomprehen
sible are his judgments and his ways unsearch
able." (Rom. xi. 33.)

Now they would not be incomprehensible, if we
could, throughout the whole of them, conceive why

as he hath appointed, will reward. — But all this upon the basis
of Christ's super-creation headship, and their relations to God,
in Him : the merit of their acceptance having1 been wrought
already, to the uttermost, by Him only; and they having only
to enter into and enjoy their portion — a mixed one here, an
unmixed one hereafter. See Part iii. Sect, xxxvili. note *.
John iii. 36. v. 24. x. 28. xvii. 3. 1 John v. 10.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 401

they are just. What is man compared with God ? SECT.

Y ^j ^ T i r

What is our power capable of, as compared with * * '
his ? What is our strength compared with his
might ? What is our knowledge compared with
his wisdom ? What is our substance compared
with his substance? In short, what is every
thing of ours, as compared with everything of his? a

Now if, with no other preceptress than nature, Reproved,
we confess that man's power, strength, wisdom,
knowledge, substance and every thing of ours is
absolutely nothing, when compared with God's
power, God's strength, God's wisdom, knowledge,
and substance; what is this perverseness of ours,
that we pull and hale God's justice and judgment
only,b arrogating so much to our own judgment
as to try whether we cannot comprehend, judge
and estimate the judgment of God? Why do we
not in like manner say here also ; our judgment is
nothing, if it be compared with the divine judg
ment ? Ask reason herself, whether she be not
compelled by conviction to acknowledge, that she
is foolish and rash in not allowing the judgment
of God to be incomprehensible, when she con
fesses all the other properties of God to be incom
prehensible? What ! in all other things we con
cede a divine majesty to God ; it is in his judg
ment only, that we are prepared to deny it to him,
and cannot, even for this little while, give him credit
for being just, when he has promised us, that, after
he shall have revealed his glory, it shall come to
pass, that we all of us do then both see and feel,
that he has been, and is just.

I will give an example to confirm this belief, And paiii-
and to console that evil eye,c which suspects God

a Ad H Hits omma.~\ I do not venture to render, ' as com
pared with its like of His;' but Luther means so, presuming
that our image-ship extends to every divine property.

b Justitiam et judicium.~] Just. The principle of justice j
jud. the faculty of judgment.

c Ad consulandum.~\ An odd expression in this connection ;
but he means, to console the spirit which is tempted to see with

462 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PARTY, of injustice. Behold, God so governs this mate-

rial world in outward things, that, if you observe

and follow the judgment of human reason, you
are compelled to say, either there is no God, or
there is an unjust God ; as that poet says, " I am
often solicited to think that there are no Gods/"'
For, see how true it is, that the wicked are most
prosperous, and the good, on the other hand, most
unfortunate ; even proverbs, and experience, who
is the mother of proverbs, testifying, that 'the
wickeder men are, the more fortunate/ ee The
tabernacles of the wicked abound," says Job; and
the 73d Psalm complains that sinners abound
with riches, in this world.d Is it not most unjust
in the judgment of all men, pray, that the wicked
should be prospered and the good afflicted?0 Yet

evil eye : c an evil eye is one which is either unsound generally,
or is infected with the particular disease o£ envy, malice and
blasphemy.' See Matt. vi. 23. xx. 15. Mark vii. 22.

d Job xii. 6. Psalm Ixxiii. 12. Our version says, " The
tabernacles of robbers prosper." " Behold, these are the
ungodly who prosper in the world ; they increase in riches."

e Luther feels a difficulty in reconciling the condemnation of
the reprobate with God's justice. In fact he acknowledges
that he cannot ; begs off, and makes unwarrantable conces
sions. This difficulty arises from his imperfect conception of
the creation and fall of man. If every individual of the human
race had a distinct personal subsistence given to him, in the
creation of Adam ; and, consequently, had a distinct personal
subsistence in him, when he brake his commandment; and, as
this distinct substance, was one with him who by his alone per
sonal agency did break that commandment (the union of these
many distinct substances in and with his one substance nowise
contradicting the alone and distinct agency of the one first
man, Adam) ; where is the injustice of God's bringing out
each of these distinct individuals, one after another, into
manifest existence and distinct personal agency, and — having
given to them individually, for the most part, the opportunity
of shewing what they are according to their own making of
themselves, not according to his making of them — inflict
ing upon them the judgment which he had distinctly
fore-announced, which by their disobedience as one with
Adam they had wilfully incurred, and which for the most
part they have by their own subsequent actings in this world
proved to be their due, suitable, and self-made portion ? If

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 463

such is the course of the world. It is here, that SECT.
even the greatest wits have fallen to the depth of XXX1IL

God has been pleased to make provision for the mitigation,
removal and reversal of this sentence in some of those who
have justly incurred it, clearly they who suffer have justly
incurred it ; and therefore God is only just in inflicting it. —
Through not discerning the mystery of the creation, Luther
accounted God the creator of these wicked ones, as we have
several times seen ; and, through not, in consequence, discerning
their participation in the fall, he accounted God their debtor to
give them an equivalent for that Freewill, or rather that know
ledge of only good, which Adam had possessed, and which he did
not see how they had forfeited : I say knowledge of only good,
because Adam had no more of Freewill properly so called, than
we have, as hath been shewn. With respect to the justice of
God in this transaction then, there can be no question ; though
Luther makes one. Justice is the fulfilment of relations ; God
had fulfilled all His, when man incurred his fore-announced
curse — then what does justice require, but that it be ex
acted? Again ; with respect to God's right of instituting
such relations as He did between himself and the human race
in Adam, there can be no question. God has a right to form
any creature that he is pleased and has power to form. To be
consistent with himself, he will give them due relations, and
will fulfil his own part in those relations. Now, what was
wanting in the relations he gave to Adam ? Did He not give
him reason and knowledge, by which he ought to have resisted
the temptation ? And if Adam had enough, what could the
distinct substances which were in him complain, if God put their
safety upon the issue of his obedience ? What difference
would there have been, or could they pretend that there would
have been, in the result, if each of them distinctly and personally
had undergone the same trial ? — But I do not deem this con
sideration at all necessary: it is the union and unity of each
individual of the human race, still retaining his individuality,
with Adam, which constitutes his original sin and his original
guilt ; and from which the loss of his creation state and of his
creation character was derived. — The only question that can be
asked in all this mystery respects the goodness, that is, the loving-
kindness of God. It is here that Paul puts the difficulty ; here
that he calls for submission ; and here that he assigns the
principle of the procedure. " Is there not unrighteousness r"
For it will come to this, no man hath done otherwise than
God designed. The answer is, God has exercised his right of
the potter, and has exercised it for a great and wise reason. —
" What if etc. r" — The man whose eyes the Lord hath opened
will see, and will search into, these things, and will justify God
at his heart. Nor will Paul, with his Isaiah, condemn him. He
is using what God hath done and hath revealed unto the very

464 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. denying that there is a God, and of feigning that

Fortune turns and twists every thing, as the whim

takes her : such were the Epicureans and Pliny.
Following close upon these, Aristotle, to deliver
that first Being of his from misery, is of opinion,
that he does not see any of the things that exist,
but himself; because he considers that it would'
be most painful to him to see so much of evil, so
much of injustice.'

The Prophets, on the other hand, who believed
that there is a God, are more tempted with the
suggestion of God's injustice : as Jeremiah, Job,
David, Asaph and others. What do you imagine
Demosthenes and Cicero to have thought, when,
after having done all they could, they received
such wages as they did, in a wretched death?5
Yet this injustice of God, which is exceedingly
probable, and/ inferred by such arguments as no
power of reason or light of nature can resist, is
most easily removed by the light of the Gospel
and the knowledge of grace ; which teaches us,
that the wicked flourish, it is true, in their body,

end for which He hath done and hath revealed it. See Partiii.
Sect, xxxviii. note '. Part iv. Sect. x. note z, Sect. xi. note h,
and Sect, xxxiv. note d.

f Luther's mention makes it douhtful to which of the two
Plinies he refers; whether to the great naturalist or his
nephew : neither of them, however, saw in the works of nature
any thing more than matter : both were amiable, as natural
men, and the former was a monument of philosophy and
industry, called by some the martyr of nature, but more fitly
called the martyr of curiosity and self-will. The latter was a
wellbred, lettered persecutor of Christians ; but too proud to
inquire into their doctrines, and not afraid, though reluctant,
to shed their blood. For some excellent remarks upon his
character, see Miln. Eccl. Hist. vol. i. pp. 166 — 172. — For a
hint at the Epicureans, who were like their master — ' Epicuri
de grege porcus ' — See above, Part i. Sect. v. note 1. — For a
confirmation of what is here said about Aristotle, see above,
Part iv. Sect. viii. note r.

s Demosthenes, abandoned in fact by his countrymen, after
having fled to the temple of Neptune in Calauria, sucked his
poisoned quill : Cicero was delivered up to his philippicized
Antony.

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 465

but they perish in their souls : so that we have SECT.
the brief solution of all this insolvable question in a |
single short sentence, 'There is a life after this life,
in which whatsoever hath not been punished and
rewarded here shall hereafter be punished and
rewarded; seeing that this life is nothing but the
precurse, or rather beginning, of the life to come/
If the light of the Gospel then, which owes all its
power to the word and faith, be so efficacious,
that this question, handled as it had been in all
ages but never answered, is so thoroughly made
an end of and laid to sleep ; what will happen,
think you, when the light of the word and of faith
shall have ceased, and when the reality, even the
divine Majesty itself, shall be revealed as it is?
Do you not think, that the light of glory will then
be able to solve, with the greatest ease, that ques
tion which in the light of the word, or of grace, is
insolvable ; seeing that the light of grace hath so
readily solved a question, which could not be
olved by the light of nature ? Let it be conceded,
that there are three great lights — the light of
nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory —
according to the common distinction, which is a
good one. In the light of nature, it is a fact not
to be explained, that it is just the good man be
afflicted, and the bad man prosper. But the light
of grace resolves this question. In the light of
grace it is inexplicable, how God condemns the
man, who cannot, by any power of his own, do
otherwise than sin, and be guilty. In this case, the
light of nature, as well as the light of grace,
declares that the fault is not in wretched man but
jn unjust God. For how can they judge other
wise of God? seeing he crowns a wicked man
gratuitously without any merits, and does not
crown another but condemns him — who perhaps
is less, or at the worst not more wicked. — But
the light of glory proclaims something else, and,
when it arrives, will shew God, whose judgment

466 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART v. is for the present that of incomprehensible justice,

to be only that of most just and most manifest

justice ; teaching us, in the mean time, to believe,
the certainty of this event, admonished and con
firmed, as we are, in and unto the expectation of it,
by the example of the light of grace, which accom
plishes a like prodigy with respect to the light of
nature.1'
SECT. Here I shall put an end to this treatise ; pre-

xxxiv. pared, if need be, to plead the cause yet further ;
although I consider, that I have in this said

argument! abundantly enough to satisfy the pious mind,1
which is willing to yield to the force of truth
without pertinacity. For, if we believe it to be
true, that God foreknows and predestinates every
thing ; moreover, that he can neither be mis
taken, nor hindered, in his foreknowledge and pre
destination ; and, once more, that nothing is done
without his will (a truth which reason herself is com
pelled to yield) ; it follows, from the testimony of
the selfsame reason, that there can be no such
thing as Freewill in man or angel, or any crea
ture. So again ; if we believe Satan to be the

h If the observations of the preceding note be correct, we do
not want Luther's illustration, with its distinctions. We need
not wait for the decision and discoveries of the great day, to
see God just. Nor are his assumptions admissible. God has
never left the eternity of man and the future judgment without
witness. If these things have been obscured, it is not by God's
having put them into the dark, but because men have wilfully
shut their eyes to them. The new creation kingdom was
announced at the fall — and has been variously preached ever'
since, to the whole earth. The kingdom of grace does notj
leave God under the suspicion of injustice ; man has made,
himself that damned thing which he is. The elect are nod
crowned sinners. The union of the elect with Christ, and the'
lack of this union, with its consequent self-left state, in the repro-r
bate, explains both dooms, in perfect consistency with divinejl
equity. The illustration, therefore, is both unneeded and untrue : ^
unneeded,inasmuch as the spiritualman even now sees the inflexi-'
ble justice of God to be without spot — what it assuredly is ; and]
untrue, inasmuch as Luther's insolvable questions are resolvecPJ
under those lights which he declares to be severally inadequate.'

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 467

Prince of this world, who is perpetually plotting S^CT.
and fighting against the kingdom of Christ, with
all his might, so that he doth not let his captives
of human kind go, unless he be driven out by a
divine power; again it is manifest, that there can
be no such thing as Freewill.

So again, if we believe original sin1 to have
so ruined us, as to make most troublesome work
even for those who are led by the Spirit, through
striving, as it does, against good in Ihern; it is
clear, that nothing is left in man as devoid of the
Spirit, which can turn itself to good, but only
what turns itself to evil. Again ; if the Jews,
who followed after righteousness with all their
might, have fallen headlong the rather into un-
righteousnes ; and the Gentiles, who were follow
ing after unrighteousness, have freely and un-
hopedly attained to righteousness ; it is manifest,
as in the former instances, by very deed and
experience, that man without grace can will
nothing but evil. In fine ; if we believe Christ to
have redeemed man by his blood, we are obliged
to confess that the whole man was undone ; else
we shall make Christ either superfluous, or the
redeemer of the vilest part in man : which is blas
phemous and sacrilegious."

' A still inferior view to what he has giren us before of
original sin, but a very common one : he here takes it for
that vitiation of nature, which is the consequence of it — instead
of that first sin, which gave origin to the vitiation. — But the
argument against Freewill is not affected ; the consequent
vitiation is in nowise less than he represents it to be.

k He briefly recites certain additional considerations, which
must, each of them, be conclusive upon this subject. 1. God's
foreknowledge and predestination. 2. Satan's lordship over
the world. 3. Original sin. 4. The case of the apostate
and rejected Jews, as contrasted with the conversion of the
Gentiles. 5. Christ the Redeemer unnecessary, or his benefit
vilified.

468 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

CONCLUSION.

Luther admonishes, thanks^ counsels., prays.

"Now therefore I beseech thee in the name of
Christ., my Erasmus, that thou wouldest at length
perform what thou hast promised : thou pro-
misedest that thou wouldest be willing to submit
thyself to the man who should teach thee better
things. Have done with respect of persons. I
confess, thou art a great man, adorned with many
of the noblest gifts by God ; not to mention
others, with genius, and learning, and eloquence,
even to a miracle. On the other hand, I have
nothing, and am nothing ; save that I could
almost glory in being a Christian. Again ; I
greatly commend and extol you for this thing
also, that you are the only man of all my antago
nists that hath attacked the heart of the subject,
the head of the cause ; instead of wearing me out
with those extraneous points, the Papacy, Pur
gatory, Indulgences, and a number of like topics,
which may more fitly be called trifles, than matters
of debate : a sort of chase, in which nearly all my
opponents have been hunting me hitherto in vain.
You are that single and solitary individual, who
hath seen the hinge of the matters in dispute, and
hath aimed at the neck : I thank you for this
from my heart — it is far more to my taste to be
occupied in debating this question, so far as time
and leisure are accorded me. If those wrho have
heretofore attacked me had done the same ; if

CONCLUSION. 4(59

those who arc just at this time making their boast
of new spirits, and new revelations, would do so;
we should have less of sedition and divisions, as
well as more of peace and concord. But God
thus stirs up Satan to punish our ingratitude.3

Howbeit, unless you can plead this cause in a
style somewhat different from your Diatribe, I
could earnestly wish that you would be content
with your own proper good, and would cultivate,
adorn and advance the cause of literature and the
languages, as you have heretofore done, with
great profit and praise. By this pursuit of yours
you have even served me not a little ; insomuch
that I confess myself greatly your debtor, even as
1 most assuredly venerate you, and sincerely look
up to you as my superior, in that particular.
God hath not yet willed, nor given to you, that
you should be equal to this cause ! Pray do not
think that I say this with any arrogancy.

And yet I do implore the Lord to make you as
much my superior in this particular speedily, as
you already are in all others. Nor is it any thing
new, that God should instruct a Moses by Jethro,
or a Paul by Ananias. As to what you say, that
you have failed, miserably indeed, of your aim, if
you do not know Christ; I think, you must be

a Ita per Satanam.'] Very true as to instrumentality. But
whence then comes this ingratitude ? Could not God cure it ?
Could not he drive out the Canaanite altogether from the
land ? Regenerate man, and a revived church, is still Adam ;
and it is the glory of God to save and glorify an Adam. He
must be shewn therefore, or rather must shew himself what he
is. His Canaan is not yet the Lord's world — neither is he yet
the risen God-man. The time of ingratitude is yet ; and is
yet, because the Lord's real and designed glory requires that it
should be so. — There is something satisfying, and cheering, and
enlightening, in this view of the Lord's present dealings with
his church and people, which reconciles us to what must other
wise be a constant burden and distress — and which leaves no
more questions to be asked. Luther had not distinct percep
tions of the origin, and nature, and design of evil ; and whilst
he talked much of Satan, did not understand him well enough
to put him in his place.

470 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

aware yourself what sort of a saying this is. AIJ
will not therefore be in the wrong, because you or
I, if it be so, are in the wrong. God is declared
to be a God that is wonderful in his saints; so
that we may count those for saints, who are the
farthest off from saintship. Nor is it hard to sup
pose, that you, being a man, may neither rightly
understand, nor with sufficient diligence observe,
either the Scriptures or the sayings of the Fathers,
by whose guidance you imagine that you have ob
tained your aim. We have a pretty good hint
to this effect, when you write that you do not assert
at all, but confer. The man who sees clearly through
the whole of his subject, and understands it cor
rectly, does not write thus. I, for my part, have
not conferred, but asserted, in this book ; yea, and
I do assert. Neither is it my desire to appoint any
man judge in this cause : I persuade all to receive
my decree. The Lord, whose cause this is, shine
upon you — and make you a vessel unto honour
and glory ! Amen.

London: Printed by A, APPLKOAIU, SUmlbrd-strect.

SOLD BY T. HAMILTON,

FOR THE SAME AUTHOR.

1. THE CALVINISTIC CLERGY DEFENDED,

AND THE DOCTRINES OF CALVIN MAINTAINED, in a Letter
to the REV. JAMES BERESFORD, M.A. Rector of Kib-
worth. Second Edition. 8vo. Price 8s.

2. BLOOD NOT REQUIRED ; or, THE CLERGY
MAN'S PRIVATE APPEAL TO THE UNDERSTANDINGS AND
CONSCIENCE OF HIS HEARERS ON THE GREAT SUBJECTS
ov HIS MINISTRY 12mo. Price 5s.

3. SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS,
MINISTRY AND CHARACTER OF THE LATE REV.
THOMAS ROBINSON, A.M. 8vo. Price 12s.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

BJ Luther, Martin

l^Y? Cn ^e bondage of will;

L815 Trans, by E. T. Vaughan

loco

C.I
ROBA