Nay, I will expostulate more fully with this wisdom of the Diatribe. Ecclesiasticus does not say, ‘if thou shalt have the desire and the endeavour of keeping,’ (for this is not to be ascribed to that power of yours, as you have concluded) but he says, “if thou wilt keep the commandments they shall preserve thee.” Now then, if we, after the manner of your wisdom, wish to draw conclusions, we should infer thus: - therefore, man is able to keep the commandments. And thus, we shall not here make a certain small degree of desire, or a certain little effort of endeavour to be left in man, but we shall ascribe unto him the whole, full, and abundant power of keeping the commandments. Otherwise, Ecclesiasticus will be made to laugh at the misery of man, as commanding him to ‘keep,’ who, he knows, is not able to ‘keep.’ Nor would it have been sufficient if he had supposed the desire and the endeavour to be in the man, for he would not then have escaped the suspicion of deriding him, unless he had signified his having the full power of keeping.
But however, let us suppose that that desire and endeavour of “Free-will” are a real something. What shall we say to those, (the Pelagians, I mean) who, from this passage, have denied grace in toto, and ascribed all to “Free-will?” If the conclusion of the Diatribe stand good, the Pelagians have evidently established their point. For the words of Ecclesiasticus speak of keeping, not of desiring or endeavouring. If, therefore, you deny the Pelagians their conclusion concerning keeping, they, in reply, will much more rightly deny you your conclusion concerning endeavouring. And if you take from them the whole of “Free-will,” they will take from you your remnant particle of it: for you cannot assert a remnant particle of that, which you deny in toto. In what degree soever, therefore, you speak against the Pelagians, who from this passage ascribe the whole to “Freewill,” in the same degree, and with much more determination, shall we speak against that certain small remnant desire of your “Free-will.” And in this, the Pelagians themselves will agree with us, that, if their opinion cannot be proved from this passage, much less will any other of the same kind be proved from it: seeing, that if the subject be to be conducted by conclusions, Ecclesiasticus, above all makes the most forcibly for the Pelagians: for he speaks in plain words concerning keeping only, “If thou wilt keep the commandments:” nay, he speaks also concerning faith, “If thou wilt keep the faith:” so that, by the same conclusion, keeping the faith ought also to be in our power, which, however, is the peculiar and precious gift of God.
In a word, since so many opinions are brought forward in support of “Free-will,” and there is no one that does not catch at this passage of Ecclesiasticus in defence of itself; and since they are diverse from, and contrary to each other, it is impossible but that they must make Ecclesiasticus contradictory to, and diverse from themselves in the self same words; and therefore, they can from him prove nothing. Although, if that conclusion of yours be admitted, it will make for the Pelagians against all the others; and consequently, it makes against the Diatribe; which, in this passage, is stabbed by its own sword!
Sect. LIV. - BUT, as I said at first, so I say here: this passage of Ecclesiasticus is in favour of no one of those who assert “Free-will,” but makes against them all. For that conclusion is not to be admitted, ‘If thou wilt - therefore thou art able;’ but those words, and all like unto them, are to be understood thus: - that by them man is admonished of his impotency; which, without such admonitions, being proud and ignorant, he would neither know nor feel.
For he here speaks, not concerning the first man only, but concerning any man: though it is of little consequence whether you understand it concerning the first man, or any others. For although the first man was not impotent, from the assistance of grace, yet, by this commandment, God plainly shews him how impotent he would be without grace. For if that man, who had the Spirit, could not by his new will, will good newly proposed, that is, obedience, because the Spirit did not add it unto him, what can we do without the Spirit toward the good that is lost! In this man, therefore, it is shewn, by a terrible example for the breaking down of our pride, what our “Free-will” can do when it is left to itself, and not continually moved and increased by the Spirit of God. He could do nothing to increase the Spirit who had its first-fruits, but fell from the first-fruits of the Spirit. What then can we who are fallen, do towards the first-fruits of the Spirit which are taken away? Especially, since Satan now reigns in us with full power, who cast him down, not then reigning in him, but by temptation alone! Nothing can be more forcibly brought against “Free-will,” than this passage of Ecclesiasticus, considered together with the fall of Adam. But we have no room for these observations here, an opportunity may perhaps offer itself elsewhere. Meanwhile, it is sufficient to have shewn, that Ecclesiasticus, in this place, says nothing whatever in favour of “Free-will” (which nevertheless they consider as their principal authority), and that these expressions and the like, ‘if thou wilt,’ ‘if thou hear,’ ‘if thou do,’ shew, not what men can do, but what they ought to do!
Sect. LV. - ANOTHER passage is adduced by our Diatribe out of Gen. iv. 7.: where the Lord saith unto Cain, “Under thee shall be the desire of sin, and thou shalt rule over it.” - “Here it is shewn (saith the Diatribe) that the motions of the mind to evil can be overcome, and that they do not carry with them the necessity of sinning.” -
These words, ‘the motions of the mind to evil can be overcomes’ though spoken with ambiguity, yet, from the scope of the sentiment, the consequence, and the circumstances, must mean this: - that “Free-will,” has the power of overcoming its motions to evil; and that, those motions do not bring upon it the necessity of sinning. Here, again; what is there excepted which is not ascribed unto “Free-will?” What need is there of the Spirit, what need of Christ, what need of God, if “Free-will” can overcome the motions of the mind to evil! And where, again, is that ‘probable opinion’ which affirms, that “Free-will” cannot so much as will good? For here, the victory over evil is ascribed unto that, which neither wills nor wishes for good. The inconsiderateness of our Diatribe is really - too - too bad!
Take the truth of the matter in a few words. As I have before observed, by such passages as these, it is shewn to man what he ought to do, not what he can do. It is said, therefore, unto Cain, that he ought to rule over his sin, and to hold its desires in subjection under him. But this he neither did nor could do, because he was already pressed down under the contrary dominion of Satan. - It is well known, that the Hebrews frequently use the future indicative for the imperative: as in Exod. xx. 1-17. “Thou shalt, have none other gods but Me,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and in numberless other instances of the same kind. Otherwise, if these sentences were taken indicatively, as they really stand, they would be promises of God; and as He cannot lie, it would come to pass that no man could sin; and then, as commands, they would be unnecessary; and if this were the case, then our interpreter would have translated this passage more correctly thus: - “let its desire be under thee, and rule thou over it,” (Gen. iv. 7.) Even as it then ought also to be said concerning the woman, “Be thou under thy husband, and let him rule over thee,” (Gen. iii. 16.) But that it was not spoken indicatively unto Cain is manifest from this: - it would then have been a promise. Whereas, it was not a promise; because, from the conduct of Cain, the event proved the contrary.
Sect. LVI. – THE third passage is from Moses, (Deut. xxx. 19.) “I have set before thy face life and death, choose what is good, &c.” - “What words (says the Diatribe) can be more plain? It leaves to man the liberty of choosing.” -
I answer: What is more plain, than, that you are blind? How, I pray, does it leave the liberty of choosing? Is it by the expression ‘choose’? - Therefore, as Moses saith ‘choose,’ does it immediately come to pass that they do choose? Then, there is no need of the Spirit. And as you so often repeat and inculcate the same things, I shall be justified in repeating the same things also. - If there be a liberty of choosing, why has the ‘probable
opinion’ said that “Freewill” cannot will good? Can it choose not willing or against its will? But let us listen to the similitude, -
- “It would be ridiculous to say to a man standing in a place where two ways met, Thou seest two roads, go by which thou wilt, when one only was open.” -
This, as I have before observed, is from the arguments of human reason, which thinks, that a man is mocked by a command impossible: whereas I say, that the man, by this means, is admonished and roused to see his own impotency. True it is, that we are in a place where two ways meet, and that one of them only is open, yea rather neither of them is open. But by the law it is shewn how impossible the one is, that is, to good, unless God freely give His Spirit; and how wide and easy the other is, if God leave us to ourselves. Therefore, it would not be said ridiculously, but with a necessary seriousness, to the man thus standing in a place where two ways meet, ‘go by which thou wilt,’ if he, being in reality impotent, wished to seem to himself strong, or contended that neither way was hedged up.
Wherefore, the words of the law are spoken, not that they might assert the power of the will, but that they might illuminate the blindness of reason, that it might see that its own light is nothing, and that the power of the will is nothing. “By the law (saith Paul) is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. iii. 20.): he does not say - is the abolition of, or the escape from sin. The whole nature and design of the law is to give knowledge only, and that of nothing else save of sin, but not to discover or communicate any power whatever. For knowledge is not power, nor does it communicate power, but it teaches and shows how great the impotency must there be, where there is no power. And what else can the knowledge of sin be, but the knowledge of our evil and infirmity? For he does not say - by the law comes the knowledge of strength or of good. The whole that the law does, according to the testimony of Paul, is to make known sin.
And this is the place, where I take occasion to enforce this my general reply: - that man, by the words of the law, is admonished and taught what he ought to do, not what he can do: that is, that he is brought to know his sin, but not to believe that he has any strength in himself. Wherefore, friend Erasmus, as often as you throw in my teeth the Words of the law, so often I throw in yours that of Paul, “By the law is the knowledge of sin,” - not of the power of the will. Heap together, therefore, out of the large Concordances all the imperative words into one chaos, provided that, they be not words of the promise but of the requirement of the law only, and I will immediately declare, that by them is always shewn what men ought to do, not what they can do, or do do. And even common grammarians and every little school-boy in the street knows, that by verbs of the imperative mood, nothing else is signified than that which ought to be done, and that, what is done or can be done, is expressed by verbs of the indicative mood.
Thus, therefore, it comes to pass, that you theologians, are so senseless and so many degrees below even school-boys, that when you have caught hold of one imperative verb you infer an indicative sense, as though what was commanded were immediately and even necessarily done, or possible to be done. But how many slips are there between the cup and the lip! So that, what you command to be done, and is therefore quite possible to be done, is yet never done at all. Such a difference is there, between verbs imperative and verbs indicative, even in the most common and easy things. Whereas you, in these things which are as far above those, as the heavens are above the earth, so quickly make indicatives out of imperatives, that the moment you hear the voice of him commanding, saying, “do,” “keep,” “choose,” you will have, that it is immediately kept, done, chosen, or fulfilled, or, that our powers are able so to do.
Sect. LVII. - IN the fourth place, you adduce from Deuteronomy xxx. many passages of the same kind which speak of choosing, of turning away from, of keeping; as, ‘If thou shalt keep,’ ‘if thou shalt turn away from,’ ‘if thou shalt choose.’ - “All these expressions (you say) are made use of preposterously if there be not a “Free-will” in man unto good” -
I answer: And you, friend Diatribe, preposterously enough also conclude from these expressions the freedom of the will. You set out to prove the endeavour and desire of “Free-will” only, and you have adduced no passage which proves such an endeavour. But now, you adduce those passages, which, if your conclusion hold good, will ascribe all to “Free-will.”
Let me here then again make a distinction, between the words of the Scripture adduced, and the conclusion of the Diatribe tacked to them. The words adduced are imperative, and they say nothing but what ought to be done. For, Moses does not say, ‘thou hast the power and strength to choose.’ The words ‘choose,’ ‘keep,’ ‘do,’ convey the precept ‘to keep,’ but they do not describe the ability of man. But the conclusion tacked to them by that wisdom-aping Diatribe, infers thus: - therefore, man can do those things, otherwise the precepts are given in vain. To whom this reply must be made: - Madam Diatribe, you make a bad inference, and do not prove your conclusion, but the conclusion and the proof merely seem to be right to your blind and inadvertent self. But know, that these precepts are not given preposterously nor in vain; but that proud and blind man might, by them, learn the disease of his own impotency, if he should attempt to do what is commanded. And hence your similitude amounts to nothing where you say.
- “Otherwise it would be precisely the same, as if any one should say to a man who was so bound that he could only stretch forth his left arm, - Behold! thou hast on thy right hand excellent wine, thou hast on thy left poison; on which thou wilt stretch forth thy hand” -
These your similitudes I presume are particular favourites of yours. But you do not all the while see, that if the similitudes stand good, they prove much more than you ever purposed to prove, nay, that they prove what you deny and would have to be disproved: - that “Free-will” can do all things. For by the whole scope of your argument, forgetting what you said, ‘that “Free-will” can do nothing without grace,’ you actually prove that “Free-will” can do all things without grace. For your conclusions and similitudes go to prove this: - that either “Free-will” can of itself do those things which are said and commanded, or they are commanded in vain, ridiculously, and preposterously. But these are nothing more than the old songs of the Pelagians sung over again, which even the Sophists have exploded, and which you have yourself condemned. And by all this your forgetfulness and disorder of memory, you do nothing but evince how little you know of the subject, and how little you are affected by it. And what can be worse in a rhetorician, than to be continually bringing forward things wide of the nature of the subject, and not only so, but to be always declaiming against his subject and against himself?
Sect. LVIII. - WHEREFORE I observe, finally, the passages of Scripture adduced by you are imperative, and neither prove any thing, nor determine any thing concerning the ability of man, but enjoin only what things are to be done, and what are not to be done. And as to your conclusions or appendages, and similitudes, if they prove any thing they prove this: - that “Free-will” can do all things without grace. Whereas this you did not undertake to prove, nay, it is by you denied. Wherefore, these your proofs are nothing else but the most direct confutations.
For, (that I may, if I can, rouse the Diatribe from its lethargy) suppose I argue thus - If Moses say, ‘Choose life and keep the commandment’, unless man be able to choose life and keep the commandment, Moses gives that precept to man ridiculously. - Have I by this argument proved my side of the subject, that “Free-will” can do nothing good, and that it has no external endeavour separate from its own power? Nay, on the contrary, I have proved, by an assertion sufficiently forcible, that either man can choose life and keep the commandment as it is commanded, or Moses is a ridiculous law-giver? But who would dare to assert that Moses was a ridiculous law-giver? It follows therefore, that man can do the things that are commanded.
This is the way in which the Diatribe argues throughout, contrary to its own purposed design; wherein, it promised that it would no
t argue thus, but would prove a certain endeavour of “Freewill;” of which however, so far from proving it, it scarcely makes mention in the whole string of its arguments; nay, it proves the contrary rather; so that it may itself be more properly said to affirm and argue all things ridiculously.
And as to its making it, according to its own adduced similitude, to be ridiculous, that a man ‘having his right arm bound, should be ordered to stretch forth his right hand when he could only stretch forth his left.’ - Would it, I pray, be ridiculous, if a man, having both his arms bound, and proudly contending or ignorantly presuming that he could do any thing right or left, should be commanded to stretch forth his hand right and left, not that his captivity might be derided, but that he might be convinced of his false presumption of liberty and power, and might be brought to know his ignorance of his captivity and misery?
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 418
