It is the effect of stupor or lethargy to suppose that Freewill is established by those words, ‘Turn,’ ‘If you will turn,’ and the like; and not to perceive that, on the same principle, it would also be established by this saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart;” since the demand in the one case, is equivalent to the command 362 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 for Freewill from that commandment of love; rather, all argue it from these words: ‘If you are willing,’ ‘If you will hear,’ ‘Turn,’ and the like. If it does not follow from the commandment to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart,’ that Freewill is anything, or has any power, then assuredly it does not follow from these words: ‘If you will,’ ‘If you hear,’ ‘Turn,’ and the like. These either demand less, or they demand less vehemently, than the commandment to ‘Love God,’ and ‘Love the Lord.’ 363
Whatever reply is therefore made to that saying, ‘Love God’ — forbidding us to conclude Freewill from it — the same reply is to be made to all other expressions of command or demand, forbidding the same conclusion. Namely, the command to love shows ‘the matter of the law’ 364 — what we ought to do — but it does not show the power of the human will — what we can do; or rather, what we cannot do. The same is shown by all other expressions of demand. It is evident that even the schoolmen, with the exception of the Scotists and the Moderns, 365 assert that man cannot love God with his whole heart. From this it follows that neither can man fulfil any of the other commandments, since they all hang on this, as Christ testifies. Mat 22.40 Thus, it remains a just conclusion, even from the testimony of the scholastic doctors, that the words of the law do not prove a power in the free will; rather, they show what we ought to do, and what we cannot do.
SECT. 24. Mal. 3.7 more particularly considered.
But our Diatribe, with still greater absurdity, not only infers an indicative sense from that saying of Zechariah, ‘Turn to me,’ but she maintains that it even proves a power of endeavouring in Freewill, and grace prepared for the endeavourer.
Here at last she remembers her endeavour. And by a new art of grammar, ‘to turn’ signifies for her the same as ‘to endeavour.’ Thus the sense is, ‘Turn to me,’ that is, ‘endeavour to turn, and I will turn to you,’ that is, I will ‘endeavour to turn’ to you. At last, then, she attributes endeavour even to God — intending perhaps to prepare grace for His endeavourings also. For if ‘to turn’ signifies to endeavour in one place; why not in all?
Again, in that passage of Jeremiah, ‘If you separate the precious from the vile,’ she maintains that not only ‘endeavour,’ but even ‘freedom of choice,’ is proved — what before she had taught us was lost, and 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 compels words of one and the same form, to prove endeavour in one place, and free choice in another, just as she pleases.
But bidding adieu to such vanities, the word ‘turn’ properly has two uses in Scripture: a legal, and an evangelical one. In its legal use, it is an exacter and commander — requiring not only endeavour, but change of the whole life. Jeremiah frequently uses it this way, saying, ‘Turn every one from his evil way,’ ‘Turn to the Lord,’ where it evidently involves an exacting of all the commandments. When it is used evangelically, it is a word of divine promise and consolation. By this use, nothing is demanded from us, but the grace of God is offered to us. Such is that use in Psalm 126: ‘When the Lord turns again the captivity of Zion,’ and Psalm 116, ‘Turn again, then, to your rest, O my soul!’
And thus Zechariah contrives to dispatch both sorts of preaching (law as well as grace) in a very short compendium. It is all law, and the sum of the law, when he says, ‘Return to me.’ It is grace when he says, ‘I will return to you.’ Therefore, as far 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 which are law words, and which are grace words, so that he may not jumble them all together, like the filthy Sophists and this yawning Diatribe. 366
SECT. 25. Eze. 18.23 considered.
For see now, how she treats that famous passage in Ezekiel 18, “As I live, says the Lord, I would not have the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live.” First, ‘It is so often repeated,’ she says, ‘in the course of this chapter — “shall turn away,” “has done,” “has wrought” — in respect to both good and evil. Where then are those who deny that man does anything?’
What an excellent consequence is here! She was going to prove desire and endeavour in Free will, but then she proves the whole act, everything done to the uttermost by Freewill. Where now are those who maintain the necessity of grace and of the Holy Spirit? For this is her ingenious way of arguing:
‘Ezekiel says, If the wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does justice and judgment, he shall live. Why, then, the wicked man presently does so, and he 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 — it is 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 gospel words, ‘I would not have the death of a sinner,’ and gives this turn to it. 367 Does the holy Lord deplore that death of his people, which he works in them himself? If he would not have the death of a sinner, then truly, it is to be imputed to our own will if we perish. But what can you impute to a being who has no power to do anything, either good or evil?
Pelagius also sang the same sort of song when he ascribed to Freewill not only desire and endeavour, but complete power to fulfill and do everything. For these consequences prove this power if they prove anything, as I said before. And therefore, they fight as stoutly, and even more so, against Diatribe herself (who denies this power in Freewill, and would prove endeavour only), as against us who deny Freewill altogether. But without dwelling on her ignorance, I will state the matter as it really is.
SECT. 26. The true meaning of Eze. 18.23 stated.
It is a gospel word, and a word of sweetest consolation to poor miserable sinners, when Ezekiel 18.23 says, “I would not have the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live, by all means.” So is that of Psalm 30.5 also, “For his wrath is but for a moment, and his will towards us is life rather than death.” And that of the Psalm, “How sweet is your mercy, Lord!” Psa 109.21 DRA Also, “Because I am merciful.” Jer 3.12 And that saying of Christ, in Matthew 11.28, “Come to me, all you who labour, and I will refresh you.” Also Exo 20.6, “I show mercy to those who love me, to many thousands.” Indeed, what is more than half of the Scripture but mere promises of grace, by which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered to men? 368 And what other import do these words of promise have than this: “I would not have the death of a sinner?” Is it not the same thing to say, ‘I am merciful,’ as to say, ‘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 the fear of death and judgment, what place would there be for pardon, or for hope?
What sinner would not despair? But, just as Freewill is not proved by other words of pity, or promise, or consolation, so neither is it proved by this, “I would not have the death of a sinner.”
But our Diatribe, again confounding the distinction between law words and words of promise, makes this place from Ezekiel a law word, and expounds it thus: ‘I would not have the death of a sinner; that is, I would not have that he sins mortally, or becomes a sinner
