So too, the husbandman carries the productions of the earth into his barns; but God has given them. Here again, distinct works are ascribed to God and to man — unless she chooses to make the husbandman the creator at the same time, and thus even the joint giver of the fruits. But beyond this, let the same works be assigned to God and to man by these similes, what do they amount to, if not that the creature co-operates with the operating God? Are we now disputing about cooperation, then? Are we not disputing, rather, about the several force and operation of Freewill? What a flight this is! The orator was to have spoken about a palm tree, but has talked only about a gourd. A cask was to be turned; why then does a pitcher come out there? 668
I also know that Paul works together with God in teaching the Corinthians. He preaches without, while God teaches within: here the work of the two operators is a different one. In like manner, Paul also works together with God, when he speaks in the Spirit of God: and the work of the two is the same.
For this is what I assert and maintain, that God, when he works outside the confines of the grace of his Spirit, works all in all, even in the wicked. For being the sole maker of all things, He also solely moves, drives, and carries on all things by the motion of his omnipotence. This these things cannot escape or change, but necessarily follow and obey; each according to the measure of its own power which God has given to it. So true is it, that even all wickednesses 669 work together with him. Again, when he acts by the Spirit of grace in those whom he has made righteous — that is, in his own kingdom — He in like manner drives and moves them. And seeing that they are new creatures, they follow and work together with him; or rather, as Paul says, they are led by him. Rom 8.14
But this was not the place for these things. Our question is not, What can we do when God works? but, What can we do of ourselves? That is, being created out of nothing, can we do or endeavour anything through that general motion of omnipotence, towards preparing ourselves for the new creation of his Spirit? This question should have been answered, instead of turning us aside towards another question. We will answer this question, and our answer is this: before he is created to be a man, he does nothing and endeavours nothing towards making himself a creature; and afterwards, when he has been made and created, he does nothing and endeavours nothing towards continuing himself in being a creature. Rather, each of these events takes place by the sole will of the omnipotent might and goodness of God. He creates and preserves us without ourselves, but He does not work in us without ourselves — seeing that we are those whom he has created and preserved for this very end: that He may work in us, and we may work together with Him. Col 1.29 This is true whether it is outside the confines of his kingdom by the acting of his general omnipotence, or within the confines of that kingdom by the special power of his Spirit.
So (we go on to say), before man is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdom of the Spirit, he does nothing, and endeavours nothing, towards preparing himself for that renewal and kingdom. And afterwards, once he has been created anew, he does nothing, and endeavours nothing, towards continuing himself in that kingdom. Rather, the Spirit alone does each of these things in us, both creating us anew without ourselves, and preserving us once we are so created. As James says, “Of his own will he begat us by the word of his power, that we might be the beginning of his creation;” Jas 1.18 speaking of the renewed creation.670 Still, He does not work in us without ourselves — seeing that we are those whom He has created anew and whom He preserves to this very end: that He might work in us, and that we might work together with Him. 671 Thus, he preaches by us, has pity on the poor by us, comforts the afflicted by us. But what is ascribed to Freewill by this? Rather, what is left to it but nothing; absolute nothing?
SECT. 54. Inconsistency and audacity of Diatribe; takes up one subject and pursues another; argues by inversion.
Read the Diatribe in this part for five or six pages together, and you will find that all she does — first by lugging in similes of this sort, and afterwards by citing some of the most beautiful passages and parables from Paul’s writings and from the Gospels — is to teach us that innumerable texts (as she puts it) are to be found in the Scriptures, which declare the cooperation and helping gifts of God.
Now, if I gather from these testimonies, that man can do nothing without the helping grace of God, then no works of man are good. But she, on the contrary, using a rhetorical inversion, concludes,
‘No indeed, there is nothing which man cannot do with the assistance of God’s grace; therefore, all man’s works may be good. Well then, as many passages as there are in the word of God, which mention divine assistance; there are that many which maintain Freewill. Now, there are countless such passages. I have therefore conquered, if the question is decided by the number of testimonies,’
Thus she says. But do you think Diatribe was quite sober, or of sound mind, when she wrote these words? I will not impute it to malice and wickedness in her, that she preserves such a perfect consistency throughout her whole performance, in always handling topics other than those which she proposed to treat (unless perhaps she has a mind to destroy me by perpetual tiresomeness). However, if she has delighted herself by talking nonsense about so grave a subject, it will be my pleasure, in return, to expose to public scorn the absurdities which she has so wantonly promulgated. 672
First, then, I neither question, nor am I ignorant, that all the works of man may be good if they are done with the help of God’s grace. Secondly, I neither question, nor am I ignorant, that there is nothing which man cannot do with the help of God’s grace. But I cannot sufficiently admire your negligence, that having commenced to write about the power of Freewill, you proceed to write on the power of divine grace. Having done this, as if all were stocks and stones, 673 you are audacious enough to publicly say that Freewill is established by those passages of Scripture which extol God’s helping grace.
Not only do you have the audacity to do this, but even to sing your own paean, 674 as a most glorious, triumphing conqueror! I now know experientially, through this word and deed of yours, what Freewill is, and what her power is. ‘She is mad.’ What can it be in you, I ask, which speaks this way, if it is not this very Freewill?
But mad as you are, hear your own conclusions: Scripture extols the grace of God; therefore Scripture proves Freewill. Scripture extols the help which is derived from God’s grace; therefore Scripture establishes Freewill. What art of logic is it, I ask, from which you learned such conclusions? Why might it not be just the reverse? Grace is preached; therefore Freewill is exploded.675 The help which is afforded by grace is extolled; therefore Freewill is destroyed.
For, to what end is grace conferred? Is it so that the pride of Freewill, who is sufficiently strong of herself, may frolic and sport at a Bacchanalia, 676 decorated with grace, 677 as a sort of superfluous ornament? — Well then, I too will draw an inference by inversion. Though confessedly I am no rhetorician, I will do it with a more solid rhetoric than yours. However many passages there are in the divine Scriptures which mention divine help, that many exclude Freewill. Now there are countless such passages. If the question is to be decided by numbers, then, I have conquered.
For why do we need grace; and for what is the help of grace conferred, if not because Freewill can do nothing, and cannot will good — as this very Diatribe has affirmed in that approvable opinion of hers? When grace is therefore extolled, and the help of grace is proclaimed, the impotency of Freewill is proclaimed in the same instant. This is that sound conclusion, and that legitimate consequence, which not even the gates of hell will overthrow. Mat 16.18
SECT. 55. Luther ends his defense of his own texts.
Here I make an end of maintaining my own texts against Diatribe’s confutation of them, so that my book may not grow to an immoderate size. The rest (if any are worth noticing) will be considered in the assertion of my own sentiment. As to what Erasmus repeats in his Epilogue, that if our sentiment stands, there are ever so many precepts, ever so many threatenings, ever so many promises, that are all made vain. There is no place left either for merit or demerit, for reward or punishment — and there are other disagreeable consequences.
