Now, if it is far from the kingdom and Spirit of God, it must necessarily follow that it is under the kingdom and spirit of Satan — there being no middle kingdom between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan; these perpetually fight against each other. These considerations prove that the most consummate virtues among the heathens — the best sayings of their philosophers, and the most eminent actions of their citizens —however well they may be spoken, and however honourable they may appear in the sight of the world — are truly but flesh in the sight of God, and services rendered to Satan’s kingdom; that is, they are impious and sacrilegious, and in all respects evil.
SECT. 44. Consequences of this assumption respecting a part in man which is not ‘flesh.’
But let us for a moment suppose that Diatribe’s assertion stands good: that the whole constitution of man is not flesh (i.e., wicked); but part of it, which we call spirit, is honest and sound. See what absurdity follows from this — not in the sight of human reason, it is true; but with reference to the whole religion of Christ, and to the principal articles of the faith. For if the most excellent part in man is not ungodly, lost, and damned, but only the fleshly part — that is, the grosser and inferior affections — then what sort of a Redeemer would we make Christ out to be? Would we represent the worth of his most precious blood-shedding as so small, that it only redeemed the vilest part in man; while the most excellent part in man is strong of itself, and has no need of Christ? From now on, then, we must preach Christ, not as the Redeemer of the whole man, but of man’s most worthless part, that is, the flesh; while man is his own redeemer in his better part.
Choose whichever of the two you please. If the better part of man is sound, it does not stand in need of Christ as a Redeemer.
If it does not stand in need of Christ, then it triumphs over Christ with a glory superior to his for curing itself, which is the better part; whereas Christ cures only the more worthless. Then again, the kingdom of Satan will also be nothing. It will reign over the viler part of man, while it is itself rather ruled by man, as to his better part. Thus it will be brought to pass by this dogma concerning the principal part of man, that man is exalted above both Christ and the devil; that is, he will be made God of Gods, and Lord of Lords. What then becomes of that approvable opinion, which affirmed that Freewill can will nothing good? Here, on the contrary, Diatribe contends that this same Freewill is the principal part, and the sound part, and the honest part — that which has no need even of Christ, but can do more than God himself and the devil can. I mention this, as in former instances, 627 my Erasmus, so that you may see again, how dangerous a thing it is to attempt sacred and divine things without the Spirit of God, under the rash guidance of human reason.
If, then, Christ is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, it follows that the whole world is under sin, damnation, and the devil; and the distinction between principal parts, and not principal parts, avails nothing. For ‘the world’ signifies men who relish worldly things in all parts of their frame. 628
SECT. 45. Luther falsely charged. Authority of the ancients is abused, but good for nothing — if good, it contradicts Erasmus.
‘If the whole man, even when regenerated by faith, 629 is nothing but flesh, what becomes of the spirit which is born of the Spirit? What becomes of the son of God? What becomes of the new creature? I would like to be informed about these things.’
So much for Diatribe. Where to, where to so fast, my dearest Diatribe? What are you dreaming about? You desire to learn how it is that the spirit in man, which is born of the Spirit of God, can be flesh? O how happy and secure is this victory, under the flush of which you insult over your vanquished one, as though it were impossible that I could stand my ground here! Meanwhile, you would gladly make an ill use of the authority of the ancients, who talk about certain seeds of honesty being sown by nature in the minds of men. First of all, you may, if you please and for all I care, use or abuse the authority of the ancients.
It is your look-out, what you believe when you believe men who dictate their own opinions without any authority from the word of God. And perhaps it is not a matter of religious anxiety which torments you so much, about what any man believes. For you so easily give credit to men, without heeding whether what they say is certain or uncertain in the sight of God.
I too have my question to propose for information: when did I ever teach what you so freely and so publicly impute to me? Could anyone be so mad as to say that the man who has been born of the Spirit is nothing but flesh? I decidedly separate flesh and Spirit as substances that are at variance with each other. And I affirm, in unison with the sacred oracle, that the man who has not been born again by faith, is flesh. I further affirm that the regenerate man is flesh, only so far as it pertains to that remainder 630 of the flesh in him, which fights against the first-fruits of the received Spirit. I cannot think you so base as to wilfully have feigned this by way of exciting ill-will against me. Otherwise, what could you have imputed to me of a more atrocious nature? But either you know nothing of my matters, or you seem unequal to the weight of the subject. You are so pressed and confounded by it, that you do not sufficiently remember what you say either against me, or for yourself. For in believing, upon the authority of the ancients, that some seeds of honesty are implanted in the minds of men by nature, you again speak with a degree of forgetfulness, having asserted before that Freewill can will nothing good. I do not know how this inability to will anything good, is compatible with some seeds of honesty. Thus I am perpetually compelled to remind you of the point which is at issue in the cause you have undertaken to plead — the one from which you are perpetually departing through forgetfulness, and maintaining a proposition different from the one you set out with. 631
SECT. 46. Jer. 10.23-24 defended.
Another passage is Jer 10.23-24: “I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not his; nor is it in the power of any man to walk and direct his steps.” This text, she says, pertains to the prosperity of event, rather than to the power of Freewill.
Here again, Diatribe confidently introduces her gloss at her pleasure, as if she had a sort of plenipotentiary 632 authority over Scripture. But what need is there for such authoritativeness in this man, to enable him to consider the sense and scope of the Prophet? ‘It is enough,’ says Mr. Erasmus; ‘therefore it is so.’ If we allow the adversaries of the truth, this lust for glossing, what will they not gain? Let him teach us this gloss from the context, then, and we will believe him. On the contrary, I will show from that very context, that while the Prophet sees himself engaged in teaching the ungodly with so much importunity, and to no purpose, he at the same time perceives that his word avails nothing unless God teaches it within. And therefore, it is not at the disposal of man to hear and to will good.
Perceiving this, and alarmed at the thought of God’s judgment, he begs Him to correct him with justice, if he must be corrected absolutely; but that he not be delivered over to the wrath of God, together with the ungodly, whom God suffers to be hardened and to continue in unbelief. 633
But let us suppose, however, that this passage is to be understood as speaking of prosperous and adverse events. What if this very gloss were to most effectually subvert Freewill? This new evasion is invented, it is true, in order for persons who are unpractised and unskilled in falsehood, may fancy they have received a satisfactory explanation of the text. This is the same sort of trick which is practised in the attempt to evade the necessity of a consequence. They do not see that they are that much more ensnared and entrapped by these evasions, than by the plain meaning of the words — so misled are they by these new terms! Why, if the event of temporal concerns and transactions over which man is constituted lord and master (Genesis 1), is not under our own control, then how will that celestial substance, the grace of God, which is dependent upon the will of God alone, be under our control? Can the effort of Freewill obtain eternal salvation, when it cannot
