SECT. 40. Episode on God’s help — Cornelius rescued.
Diatribe argues that,
‘Even though sin abounds through the law, and where sin has abounded, grace also abounds — it does not follow from this, that man, assisted by the help of God (even before grace makes him acceptable), cannot prepare himself for divine favour, by means of morally good works.’
I wonder if Diatribe is speaking here of her own head, and has not culled this flower from some document sent or obtained from some other quarter, which she has entwined into her own nosegay. 608 She neither sees nor hears what her own words mean. If sin abounds 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, if not that works done according to the law are sins? But more about this in another place. Then, what is it that 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 Freewill? What is not possible for divine help? But this is just what I said: Diatribe despises the cause that she is pleading; and therefore she snores and gapes so, in the midst of her talk.
She adduces Cornelius the centurion, as an example of a man whose prayers and alms pleased God, before he was yet baptized and inspired with the Holy Spirit.
I too 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 without the Holy Spirit, as Diatribe dreams. On the contrary, I find that he was a just man, and one who feared God: for so Luke calls him. But for a man to be called a just man and one who fears God, without the Holy Spirit, is to call Belial Christ.609 — Then again, the whole argument in that passage goes to prove that Cornelius was clean in the sight of God.610 Even the vision which was sent down from heaven to Peter, and which also rebuked him, testifies of this. Indeed, the righteousness and faith of Cornelius are celebrated 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 — doing so with her eyes open, amidst the clearest light of words and evidence of facts. Such is her lack of diligence in reading and observing the Scriptures — which in that case, may well be defamed as obscure and ambiguous. What, clean though he had not yet been baptized, and had not yet heard the testimony of Christ’s resurrection! Does it follow from this that he did not have the Holy Spirit? On the same principle, you would say that John the Baptist also, with his father and mother — next, Christ’s mother, and Simeon — did not have the Spirit! But away with such thick darkness! 611
SECT. 41. Isaiah 40.6-7 maintained.
My fourth text is taken from the same chapter of Isaiah, “All flesh is grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass; the grass withers, and its flower falls, because the Spirit of the Lord blows upon it;” etc. This seems to my Diatribe, to suffer great violence when it drawn to the subject of grace and Freewill. Why so, I ask? Because Jerome, she says, takes the Spirit for indignation, and the flesh for the infirm state of man, which cannot stand against God. Again, the trifling conceits of Jerome are presented to me, instead of Isaiah. I have a harder fight to maintain against the weariness with which Diatribe’s carelessness consumes me, than against Diatribe herself. But I have very recently said what I think of Jerome’s sentiment. Let us compare Diatribe’s self with herself. Flesh, she says, is the infirm state of man. Spirit is the divine indignation. Does the divine indignation have nothing else to dry up, then, but only this wretched and infirm condition of man, which it should rather raise up than destroy?
But this is a finer touch still. —
‘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 righteousness 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 Isaiah, who explains himself in words that are not figurative, where he says, “Truly the people are grass.”. He does not say, ‘Truly the infirm condition of man is grass,’ but “the people are grass;” and he asserts it with an oath. What are the people then? Only the infirm condition of man? Indeed, I do not know what Jerome means by ‘the infirm condition of man;’ whether he means ‘the creature itself,’ or ‘the wretched lot and state of man.’
But, whichever of the two it is, the divine indignation assuredly ‘carries off wonderful praise and ample spoils,’ 612 in drying up a wretched creature, or men who are in a state of unhappiness, instead of scattering the proud, and pulling down the mighty from their seat, and sending the rich away empty; as Mary sings. 613
SECT. 42. The true interpretation.
But let us bid adieu to our spectres, and follow Isaiah. The people, he says, are grass. Now, the people are not merely flesh, or the infirm state of human nature. Rather, the word comprehends whatever is contained among the people: namely, rich men, wise men, just men, holy men — unless the Pharisees, elders, princes, chiefs, rich, etc. were not of the people of the Jews. Its glory is rightly called the flower of grass; for they boasted of their dominion, of their government, especially their law, of God, of righteousness and wisdom; as Paul argues in Romans 2, 3, 9. When Isaiah therefore says, “all flesh;” what else is this if not all the grass, or all the people? For he does not simply say, “flesh,” but “all flesh.” Now, what pertains to the people is their soul, body, mind, reason, judgment, and whatever else can be mentioned or discovered that is most excellent in man. For the one who says “all flesh is grass” excepts no one, but the Spirit which dries up the grass. Neither does the one who says, “the people are grass” omit anything. Let there be Freewill, then; let there be whatever is accounted highest and lowest in the people; Isaiah calls all of this “flesh” and “grass,” seeing that these three nouns — flesh, grass, people — mean the same thing in this place, according to the interpretation of the very author of the book.
Then again, you yourself affirm that the wisdom of the Greeks, and the righteousness of the Jews, which were dried up by the Gospel, are grass, or the flower of grass.
Do you think that wisdom was not the most excellent thing which the Greeks possessed? Do you think that righteousness was not the most excellent thing which the Jews could work? Show me anything that was more excellent than these. What becomes of your confidence, then, by which I suppose you gave even Philip Melancthon a black-eye? 614
‘If any man contends that what is best in man is nothing but flesh — that is to say, wickedness — I would be ready to agree with him, provided he but shows by Scripture testimonies, that what he asserts is true.’
You have Isaiah proclaiming here with a loud voice, that the people, those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord, is flesh — although even this loud voice does not make you hear. You have your own confession (made perhaps without knowing what you were saying), that the wisdom of the Greeks is grass, or the glory of grass; which is the same as calling it flesh. Unless you choose, instead, to contend that the wisdom of the Greeks does not pertain to reason, or to ‘the leading thing,’ 615 as you call it by a Greek term — the principal part of man. Hear yourself at least — if you despise me — when being taken captive by the force of truth, you affirm 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.” Joh 3.6 This passage evidently proves that what is not born of the Spirit, is flesh. Otherwise that division of Christ would not stand, by which he divides all men into two parties, the flesh and the Spirit. You have the nerve to pass over this passage, I say, as if it did not teach you what you were demanding. 616
And you scurry away to another subject, as is your manner. You hold out to us meanwhile, how John says, ‘Believers are born of God, and made sons of God; indeed, gods and new creatures.’ 617
You give no heed to the
