This is the way in which Diatribe continually argues against her own thesis. She is engaged by it, not to maintain any such position as this, but to show a certain power of endeavouring in Freewill. However, she is so far from proving it, that she makes little mention of it in the whole series of her arguments. Indeed, she rather proves the contrary, so as to be, herself, the ridiculous speaker and arguer everywhere. 349
With respect to its being ridiculous, it is according to the simile you introduced — that a man tied by the right arm is bid to stretch out his hand to the right, when he can only stretch it to the left. Would it be ridiculous, I ask, if a man who was tied by both hands, were to proudly maintain or ignorantly presume that he could do what he pleased on both sides of him? To bid such a man to stretch out his hand to whichever side he likes, is not with the design of laughing at his captive state, but to evince the false presumption of his own liberty and power, or to make notorious to him, his ignorance of his captivity and misery. Diatribe is always dressing up for us a man of her own invention, who either can do as he is bid, or at least knows that he cannot. But such a man is nowhere to be found. And if there were such a man, then it would indeed be true that, either impossibilities are ridiculously enjoined of him, or else the Spirit of Christ is given in vain. 350
But the Scripture sets before us a man, who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, and dead, but who adds this plague of blindness (through the agency of Satan his prince) to his other plagues; and so he thinks that he is at liberty, happy, unshackled, able, in good health, and alive. For Satan knows that if man were acquainted with his own misery, he would not be able to retain a single individual of the race in his kingdom. And that is because God could not choose but at once to pity and help him, once he had come to recognise his misery, and cried out for relief. Seeing that he is a God so greatly extolled throughout the whole Scripture, as being near to the contrite in heart, that in Isa 61.1-3, Christ declares himself to have been even sent into the world by Him, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the poor, and healing the broken-hearted. Luk 4.18
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 that is commanded. But the legislator Moses’ business is the very opposite of this: HE is to lay open man’s misery to him by the law so that, having hereby broken his heart, and confounded him with the knowledge of himself, he may prepare him for grace, 351 and send him to Christ, and so he may be saved forever. What the law does, therefore, is not ridiculous, but exceedingly serious and necessary. 352
Those who are now brought to understand these matters, understand at the same time, without any difficulty, that Diatribe proves absolutely nothing by her whole series of arguments; while she does nothing but get together a parcel of imperative verbs from the Scriptures, of which she knows neither the meaning nor the use. Having done so, she next adds her own consequences and carnal similes, and thus mixes up such a potent cake, 353 that she asserts and proves more than she had advanced, and argues against herself.
It will not be necessary, therefore, to pursue my rapid course 354 through her several proofs any further, since they are all dismissed by dismissing one, as they all rest on one principle. Still, I will go on to recount some of them, that I may drown her in the very flood in which she meant to drown me. 355
SECT. 23. Isa. 1.19; 30.21; 45.20; 52.1-2; and some other passages considered; they prove too much; no distinction between Law and Gospel, etc.
In Isaiah 1.19 we read, “If you are willing, and will hear, you will eat the good of the land.” It would have been more consistent, as Diatribe thinks, to have and said, If I am willing;’ ‘If I am unwilling;’ on the supposition that the will is not free.
The answer to this suggestion is sufficiently manifest from what has been said above. But what congruity would there be in its being said here, ‘If I will, you shall eat of the good of the land?’ Does Diatribe, from her exceeding wisdom, 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 wills?
So it is in Isaiah 30, 356 “If you seek, seek; turn, and come.” Diatribe says, ‘To what purpose is it that we exhort those who have no power at all over themselves? Is it not as though we said to a man bound with fetters, move yourself that way?’
Rather say, 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 everything to Freewill? Whereas, only a sort of endeavour was to be proved, and that was not ascribable to Freewill.
I would say the same about that testimony in Isa 45.20, “Assemble yourselves, and come; turn to me, and you shall be saved: “and of that in Isa 52.1-2, “Arise, arise, shake yourself from the dust, loose the chains from off your neck.” Also that in Jer 15.19: “If you will turn, I will turn you; and if you will separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as my mouth.” But Malachi makes still more evident mention of the endeavour of Freewill, and of the grace which is prepared for the endeavourer. He says, “Turn to me, says the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn to you, says the Lord.” 357
In these passages, our Diatribe reveals no difference at all between law words and gospel words. So truly blind and ignorant is she, that she does not see which is Law and which is Gospel. Out of the whole book of Isaiah, she does not bring a single law word, except that first one, ‘If you have been willing.’ All the other passages are made up of gospel words, by which the contrite and afflicted are called to take comfort from offers of grace. 358
But Diatribe makes law words of them. And I ask, what good will someone do in theology, or in the Scriptures, who has not yet gotten 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 a one must confound everything — heaven and hell, life and death — and he will take no pains to know any thing at all about Christ. Later I will admonish my Diatribe more copiously on this subject. Look now at those words of Jeremiah and Malachi: ‘If you will turn,’ ‘I will turn you,’ and, ‘Turn to me, and I will turn to you.’ Does it follow, ‘Turn,’ therefore you can turn? Does it follow, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart,’ therefore you shall be able to love him with all your heart? What is the conclusion, then, from arguments of this kind, if not that Freewill does not need the grace of God, for she can do everything by her own power? How much more properly are the words taken, just as they stand! 359 ‘If you have been turned, I also will turn you,’ that is, ‘if you stop sinning, I also will stop punishing;’ and if you lead a good life when you are converted, I also will do you good, and will turn your captivity and your evils. 360
But it does not follow from these words, that a man can turn to God by his own power; nor do the words affirm this. They simply say, ‘If you are converted,’ admonishing man what he ought to be. Now, once he has known and seen this, he would seek the power which he does not have, from the source where he might gain it. 361 That is, if Diatribe’s Leviathan (her appendage and consequence, I mean) did not get in the way, saying, ‘It would be said in vain,
