Not to mention that her aim is to show, by so many words and examples, how this word ‘nothing’ may be taken here for ‘something small and imperfect.’ It is as if, truly, we were disputing about what might be taken so, when the thing to be proved is whether it ought to be taken so. The whole of her magnificent interpretation therefore amounts but to this, if anything: that this passage of John’s is made uncertain and ambiguous. And what wonder is this, when it is Diatribe’s one and only object to make out that the Scriptures are everywhere ambiguous (lest she be compelled to use them); and the testimonies of the Fathers are decisive 648 — that she may have liberty to abuse the Scriptures. This is strange reverence for God, which makes His words useless, and man’s words profitable!
SECT. 50. Inconsistency charged. An advantage is given to heretics.
But the finest thing of all is to see how consistent she is with herself. ‘Nothing’ may be understood as ‘a little.’ And in this sense, she says, it is most true that we can do nothing without Christ. For he speaks of Gospel fruit, which befalls none but those who are abiding in the Vine; that is, Christ.
Here, she herself confesses that fruit befalls none but those who abide in the Vine; and she does this in that self-same commodious interpretation by which she proves that ‘nothing’ means the same as ‘small and imperfect.’ Perhaps we should also interpret the adverb ‘not’ commodiously, so as to signify that gospel fruit befalls men outside of Christ in some measure, or in a small and imperfect degree. Thus we would announce that ungodly men, without Christ, with the devil reigning in them and fighting against Christ, may yield some portion of the fruits of life; in other words, that the enemies of Christ may act for Christ. But no more of this.
I would like to be informed here, how heretics are to be resisted, who will avail themselves of this law everywhere in their interpretations of the Scriptures, and insist upon understanding ‘nothing’ and ‘not’ as denoting an imperfect substance. Such as, ‘without him was nothing made;’ that is, ‘very little’ was made. ‘The fool has said in his heart there is no God;’ that is, ‘God is imperfect.’ ‘He has made us and not we ourselves;’ that is, we made a very little of ourselves. And who can number the passages of Scripture in which the words ‘nothing’ and ‘not’ occur? Should we say here that the suitableness of the interpretation is to be looked at? What heretic does not consider his own interpretation suitable? What! I suppose this is an untying of knots, to open such a window of licence to corrupted minds and deceiving spirits! 649 To you, who make havoc of the certainty of sacred Scripture, I can readily believe that such a licence of interpretation would be commodious. But to us who are labouring to settle the consciences of men, nothing can arise of a more inconvenient, a more hurtful, a more pestilent nature than this commodiousness which you recommend. Hear, therefore, mighty conqueress of Luther’s Achilles. Unless you prove that ‘nothing’ in this place, not only may but must be taken for ‘a little,’ you will get nothing by all this multitude of words and examples, except that you have been fighting fire with dry stubble. What have I to do with your maybe, when you are required to prove that it ‘must be’? Until you have done this, I stand fast in the natural and grammatical signification of the word, laughing at your armies, no less than at your triumphs!
What has now become of that approvable opinion which declares that Freewill can will nothing good? But perhaps the principle of commodious interpretation has arrived here at last. It makes out that ‘nothing good’ means ‘something good,’ by an altogether unheard-of art, both of grammar and of logic, which explains that ‘nothing’ means the same as ‘something.’ This is what logicians would consider an impossibility, since they are contradictory? What becomes of the assertion that we believe Satan is the prince of this world, reigning (according to Christ and Paul) in the wills and minds of men, who are his captives and serve him? That roaring lion,1Pet 5.8 truly, is the implacable and restless enemy of the grace of God and of man’s salvation. Will he allow it to come to pass, that man, who is his slave and a part of his kingdom, should endeavour after good, by any motion towards it, at any moment, such that he may escape Satan’s tyranny? Would he not rather with all his might, incite and urge man both to will and to do what is contrary to grace? The righteous, who act under the influence of the divine Spirit, barely resist him so as to will and to do what is good — such is his rage against them.
You pretend that the human will is a thing placed in a free medium, and left to itself. You have no difficulty in pretending at the same time, that the effort of the will is towards either side. This is because you imagine that both God and the devil are afar off, mere spectators of this mutable and free will. You do not believe that they are impellers and agitators of this bondwill of ours, each of them most determined warriors on the side on which he acts. Believe this fact only, and our sentiment stands in full strength, with Freewill laid prostrate at its feet, as I have already shown.
For, either the kingdom of Satan is a mere nothing in men, and so Christ is a liar; or else, if his kingdom is such as Christ describes it to be, then Freewill is nothing but Satan’s captive packhorse, which cannot have freedom unless the devil is first of all cast out by the finger of God.
Do you perceive from this, my Diatribe, what it is, and of what power, which your author (detesting Luther’s positiveness of assertion) tends to say, ‘Luther drives his cause with a mighty force of Scripture, but all his Scripture is pulled to pieces by one little word?” 650 Who does not know that the whole body of Scripture might be pulled to pieces by one little word? We knew this well enough before we ever heard the name of Erasmus. But the question is, whether it is satisfactory that the Scripture should be pulled to pieces by one little word? The matter in dispute is, whether it is rightly pulled to pieces thus, and whether it must be pulled to pieces thus. Let a man direct his view to this point, and he will see how easy it is to pull the Scriptures to pieces, and how detestable Luther’s positiveness is. But the truth is, he will see that it is not a parcel of little words, nor yet all the gates of hell, that can do anything towards accomplishing this object.
SECT. 51. Luther proves the negative.
Let us then do what Diatribe cannot do for her affirmative. Though we have no business doing so, let us prove our negative. By force of argument, we will extort the concession that the word ‘nothing’ here, not only may, but must be taken to signify not ‘a little,’ but what it naturally expresses. I will do this by arguments made in addition to that invincible one which has already given me victory; namely, that words should be kept to their natural meaning, unless the contrary has been demonstrated. 651 Diatribe neither has done this, nor can do it here.
First, then, I extort this concession from the very nature of the case. It has been proved by testimonies of Scripture, which are neither ambiguous nor obscure, that Satan is by far the most powerful and crafty Prince of the princes of this world,652 as I have said. Under his reign, the human will — which is now no longer free and its own master, but the slave of sin and Satan — cannot will anything but what this prince of hers is pleased to let her will. Nor will he allow her to will anything good. Even if Satan did not rule her, sin itself, whose servant man is, would be a sufficient clog upon her to prevent her willing good. 653
Secondly, the very sequel of the discourse — which Diatribe in her valour despises, 654 although I had commented on it very copiously in my assertions — extorts the same concession. For Christ goes on thus, in John 15.6: “If a man does not abide in me, he
