‘What could be more foolish than if a man were to say to an earthen urinal, if you purge yourself, you will be a vessel of honour? However, this 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 gather that the simile does not square in all respects, and it is so far parried, as to prove nothing. I answer, first, to the exclusion of this cavil, that Paul does not say, if a man cleanses himself from his own filth, but from these; that is, from the vessels of reproach. So the sense is, that if a man abides in a state of separation from these ungodly teachers, and has not mixed himself with them, then he will be a vessel of honour, etc. But, what if I were also to grant that this text of Paul’s has no more efficacy than Diatribe wishes to give to it — that is, that the simile proves nothing?
How will she prove that Paul means the same thing in that passage from Rom 9.13, which we are discussing? Is it enough to quote another passage, and to have no care at all whether it has the same scope or a different one? There is no easier or commoner failure in interpreting Scripture, as I have often shown, than to parallelize different passages of Scripture, as being alike. 579 Thus, the similitude of texts (on the ground by which Diatribe vaunts herself here) 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 does not always, in all particulars, square with the thing illustrated (without controversy, this is true). Indeed, if it did, it would be neither a simile nor a metaphor, but the very thing itself, according to the proverb, ‘Simile halts, and does not always run on all fours.’
But here is Diatribe’s error and offence: she overlooks the cause of the comparison which ought to be looked at more than all the rest, and she is captious and contentious about words. Rather, the meaning is to be sought, as Hilary says, not only from the words used, but also from the causes which give rise to them. Thus the force of a simile depends on the cause of the simile. Why then does Diatribe leave out the matter for which Paul uses the simile, and halt at what he says over and above the cause of the simile?
What he says, ‘If a man cleanses himself,’ belongs to exhortation; the phrase, ‘In a great house are vessels,’ etc., belongs to teaching. So that, from all the circumstances of Paul’s words and sentiment, you would understand him to be making a declaration about the diversity and use of vessels.
The meaning is therefore,
‘Since so many are now departing from the faith, we have no consolation except that we are sure the foundation of God stands firm, having this seal to it: the Lord knows those who are his, and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord departs from iniquity,’ 580
Thus far we have the cause and the force of the simile; namely, that the Lord knows those who are his.’ Then follows the simile itself; namely, that there are different vessels, some for honour, and some for disgrace.’ Here the doctrine ends; namely, ‘that vessels do not prepare themselves, but their master prepares them.’ Romans 9.21 also means the same thing: ‘that the potter has power,’ etc. Thus, Paul’s simile remains unshaken and it is most efficacious to prove that Freewill is nothing before God. 581
After these follows the exhortation, “If any man purges himself from these;” the force of these expressions is well known from what has been said above.
It does not follow from this, that he can therefore cleanse himself. Indeed, if anything is proved by these words, it is that Freewill can cleanse itself without grace — since Paul does not say, ‘if grace has cleansed anyone,’ but ‘if he cleanses himself.’ However, much has been said about imperative and conjunctive verbs. 582 And the simile, let it be observed, is not expressed in conjunctive verbs, but indicative. Just as there are elect and reprobate, so there are vessels of honour and of ignominy. In a word, if this evasion is admitted, Paul’s whole argument falls to the ground. But to what purpose would he introduce persons murmuring against God as the potter, if the fault were seen to be in the vessel, and not in the potter? Who would murmur at hearing that one worthy of damnation is damned? 583
SECT. 32. Reason’s cavil from this simile, set forth in its audacity.
Diatribe culls a second absurdity from Madam Reason, commonly called Human Reason:
‘The fault is not to be imputed to the vessel, but to the potter: especially since he is the sort of potter that creates the very clay itself and moulds it. Here is a vessel cast into eternal fire, which has committed no fault except that of not being its own master,’
Nowhere does Diatribe more openly betray herself than in this place. For here is heard what Paul represents profane men as saying: ‘Why does he find fault? Who resists his will?” (It is said in other words, it is true, but with the same meaning.) This is that verity which reason can neither apprehend, nor endure. This is what offends so many persons of excellent talents, received for so many ages! Here, truly, they demand that God should act according to human law, and do what seems right to them; or cease to be God.
The secrets of his Majesty will profit God nothing. Let him give a reason why he is God, or why he wills or does what has no appearance of justice — as if you were calling a cobbler or a tailor to come and stand at your judgment-seat. The flesh does not think it fit to put such an honour upon God, as to believe that He is just and good, when he speaks and acts above and beyond the rules prescribed in Justinian’s Codex, or in the fifth book of Aristotle’s Ethics. Let the creative majesty give way 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 in awe of it! So then, it is absurd that God should damn a person who cannot avoid deserving such damnation. And because this is such an absurdity to the flesh, it must therefore be false that, “He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he wills he hardens.” Rom 9.18 But he must be brought to order, and laws must be prescribed for God, so that he may not condemn anyone who has not first deserved it according to our judgment. Thus only can they be satisfied with Paul and his simile; namely, they allow Paul’s recalling it to have no meaning. Rather, they so moderate it that, according to Diatribe’s explanation, the potter here makes a vessel for dishonour on the ground of previous deservings — just as God rejects some Jews for their unbelief; and takes up the Gentiles for their faith. But if God’s work is such that he regards our merits, then why do men murmur and expostulate? How come they say, ‘Why does he find fault? Who resists his will?’ What need is there for Paul to shut their mouths? For who can wonder (I will not ask, who is indignant or expostulates) if he is condemned by his own deserving? Again; what becomes of the power of the potter to make what he pleases, if he is subjected to merits and laws? He is not allowed to do what he wills, but he is required to do what he should.
Respect to merits is quite at variance with the power and liberty of doing what he pleases. This is proven by the householder in the parable, who opposes the liberty of his will in the disposal of his good things, to the murmurs of his labourers who demanded a distribution according to rights. These are among the considerations which invalidate Diatribe’s gloss.
SECT. 33. Exposed further by asking, why not cavil against the salvation of the saved?
But let us suppose, say, that God were such that he regards merits in the damned. Will we not equally maintain and allow that he also looks at merits in the saved? If we have a mind to follow Reason, then it is equally unjust to have the unworthy be crowned, as to have the unworthy be punished. Let us conclude, then, that God must justify on the ground of previous deservings; or else we would declare him unjust, as being delighted with evil and wicked men, and inviting them to impiety by crowning them with rewards for it. But woe to us — who would then indeed be wretched beings — if this were our God. For who then would be saved?
See how good for nothing the human heart is! When God saves the unworthy without merit — indeed,
