I understand ‘the will of the flesh’ to mean the pains with which that people exercised themselves in law works. For the flesh, here, signifies carnal persons who do not have the Spirit. They have the will and the endeavour; but since there is no Holy Ghost in this will and endeavour, they have them carnally. I understand ‘the will of man’ to mean the pains which mankind in general takes to find favour with God — all men, whether under the law or without the law — the Gentiles, say, or whomever you will. The meaning, therefore, is that they are not made sons of God either by a birth of the flesh, nor by a zeal for the law, nor by any other human means, but only by a divine birth.
If, then, they are not born of the flesh, nor trained by the law, nor obtained by any human discipline, but are born again of God — it is plain that Freewill is of no avail here. For I think the word ‘man’ is taken here in the Hebrew sense, as anyone whatsoever; just as ‘flesh’ is taken, by contrast, for the people of Israel who do not have the Spirit: and ‘will’ is taken for the highest power in man; that is, the principal ingredient in Freewill.
But grant that we may not understand each word correctly, still the sum and substance of the assertion is most plain. Namely, by this division — in saying that men are not made the sons of God except by being born of God — John rejects whatever is not of divine begetting. This is effected, according to his own interpretation, by believing in his name. Now, the will of man, or Freewill, is necessarily included in this rejection, as not being a thing born of God, nor yet of faith. If Freewill availed anything, the will of man would not be rejected by John. Nor would men be withdrawn from it, and sent to faith and new birth only. Otherwise it might be said to him, which was said in Isa 5.20, “Woe to you who call good evil.” But now, since he equally rejects ‘bloods,’ ‘the will of the flesh,’ and ‘the will of man,’ it is certain that the will of man has no more power towards making sons of God, than bloods or fleshly nativity. Now, no one considers it doubtful whether fleshly birth makes, or does not make, sons of God. Paul tells us so in Rom 9.8: “Those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” He proves this by the examples of Ishmael and Esau. 735
SECT. 25. John the Baptist’s testimony.
The same John introduces the Baptist speaking thus; “Of whose fulness have all we received, grace for grace.” Joh 1.16
He speaks of grace received by us out of the fulness of Christ; but for the sake of what merit, or endeavour? For the grace, he says, truly of Christ: 736 just as Paul also speaks in Rom 5.15. “The grace of God, and the gift by grace of one man Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.” Where now is the endeavour of Freewill, by which grace is procured?
Here John says, not only that grace is received without any endeavour of ours, but even by another’s grace, or another’s merit — namely, that of one man, Jesus Christ. Either it is therefore false that we receive our grace for the sake of another’s grace; or else it is evident that Freewill is nothing. For these two things cannot stand together: that the grace of God is on the one hand so cheap as to be obtained commonly, and everywhere, by the paltry endeavour of any man you please; and on the other hand, it is so dear as to be freely bestowed upon us only for and by the grace of one so great a man.
I would at the same time admonish the advocates of Freewill in this place, that in asserting Freewill, they are deniers of Christ. For if I obtain the grace of God through my own endeavour, then what need is there of the grace of Christ for my receiving grace? Or what is lacking to me once I have obtained the grace of God? But Diatribe has said, and all the Sophists also say, that we obtain the grace of God by our own endeavour; and we are prepared for receiving it, not of condignity indeed, but of congruity. 737 This absolutely denies Christ; for the Baptist testifies here that we receive grace for the sake of Christ’s grace. As for that figment about condignity and congruity, I have already confuted it, showing that these are empty words which in reality mean merit of condignity. 738 They have more impiety in them than the Pelagian assertions; as I have declared. So that the impious Sophists, with Diatribe at their head, deny the Lord Christ who bought us, more than the Pelagians or any heretics have done — so utterly incompatible is grace with any particle or power of Free will.
However, that the advocates for Freewill deny Christ, is proved not only by this Scripture, but by their own life. Hence, they make Christ to no longer be a sweet Mediator, but a tremendous Judge whom they are endeavouring to appease by the intercessions of his Virgin Mother, and of the Saints. Moreover, they do this by many works, rites, superstitions, and vows of their own invention. The object of all this is to make Christ favourable to them, so that he may give them his grace. On the other hand, they do not believe that he intercedes with God, and obtains grace for them through his blood — grace for grace, as it is said here. And as they believe, so it is done unto them. They truly and deservedly have Christ for their inexorable Judge, so long as they forsake him in his office of most powerful Mediator and Saviour; and so long as they account his blood and grace more worthless than the pains and endeavours of Freewill.
SECT. 26. Nicodemus’ case.
Let us also hear an example of Freewill. Nicodemus, I warrant you, is a man in whom nothing was lacking which Freewill can effect. Which is it that this man omits —pains or endeavour? He confesses Christ to be a true witness, and to have come from God; he mentions his miracles; he comes by night to hear and to compare the rest. Does this man not seem to have sought the things which belong to piety and salvation, by the power of Freewill? But see how he founders! When he hears Christ point out to him the true way of salvation by new birth, does he recognise that way, or confess that he has ever sought it? No indeed; he so revolts from it, and is so confounded, that he not only says he does not understand it, but he even turns away from it as impossible. How can these things be, he asks? And this is no wonder indeed. For who ever heard that a man must be born again, of water and of the Spirit, if he would be saved?
Who ever thought that the Son of God must be lifted up, to the end that all who believe in him might not perish, but have eternal life. Have the acutest and best philosophers ever mentioned this? Have the princes of this world ever learned this science? Has any man’s Freewill ever made an attempt at it? Does Paul not confess it to be wisdom hidden in a mystery? It was foretold by the Prophets, it is true. But it was revealed by the Gospel, having been kept secret and unknown to the world, from eternity. 739
What shall I say? Shall we consult experience? Even the whole world, even human reason, even Freewill herself, is compelled to acknowledge that she neither knew nor heard of Christ before the Gospel came into the world. Now, if she did not know, much less has she sought, or been able to seek, or to endeavour after him. But Christ is the way, the truth, the life, and the salvation. She confesses, therefore, whether she would or not, that by her own powers she has neither known, nor been able to seek those things which belong to the way, the truth, and the salvation. Still however, in opposition to this very confession and our own experience, we play the madman. We maintain by a mere war of words, that we have a certain power remaining in us, which both knows and can apply itself to the things that pertain to salvation. This is as good as saying that this power knows and can apply itself to Christ the Son of God, who was lifted up for us; 740 whereas no one has ever known, or could have thought of such a person.
Still, this ignorance is not ignorance, but knowledge of Christ — that is, of the things which pertain to salvation! Do you not yet see, and almost feel with your hands, that the assertors of Freewill are downright mad when they call it knowledge, which they themselves confess is ignorance. Is this not to call darkness light? (Isa 5.20) — so mightily does God shut the mouth of Freewill, according to her own confession and experience. And yet, with all this, she will not
