But here the Diatribe will
sharply retort - "Ecclesiasticus by saying, "if thou wilt keep,"
signifies that there is a will in man, to keep, and not to keep: otherwise, what is the
use of saying unto him who has no will, "if thou wilt?" Would it not be
ridiculous if any were to say to a blind man, if thou wilt see, thou mayest find a
treasure? Or, to a deaf man, if thou wilt hear, I will relate to thee an excellent story?
This would be to laugh at their misery"
I answer: These are the arguments of human reason, which is wont to shoot forth many
such sprigs of wisdom. Wherefore, I must dispute now, not with Ecclesiasticus, but with
human reason concerning a conclusion; for she, by her conclusions and syllogisms,
interprets and twists the Scriptures of God just which way she pleases. But I will enter
upon this willingly, and with confidence, knowing, that she can prate nothing but follies
and absurdities; and that more especially, when she attempts to make a shew of her wisdom
in these divine matters.
First then, if I should demand of her how it can be proved, that the freedom of the
will in man is signified and inferred, wherever these expressions are used, 'if thou
wilt,' 'if thou shalt do,' 'if thou shalt hear;' she would say, because the nature of
words, and the common use of speech among men, seem to require it. Therefore, she judges
of divine things and words according to the customs and things of men; than which, what
can be more perverse; seeing that, the former things are heavenly, the latter earthly.
Like a fool, therefore, she exposes herself, making it manifest that she has not a thought
concerning God but what is human
But, what if I prove, that the nature of words and the use of speech even among men,
are not always of that tendency, as to make a laughing stock of those to whom it is said,
'if thou wilt,' 'if thou shalt do it.' 'if thou shalt hear?' How often do parents
thus play with their children, when they bid them come to them, or do this or that, for
this purpose only, that it may plainly appear to them how unable they are to do it, and
that they may call for the aid of the parent's hand? How often does a faithful physician
bid his obstinate patient do or omit those things which are either injurious to him or
impossible, to the intent that, he may bring him, by an experience, to the knowledge of
his disease or his weakness? And what is more general and common, than to use words of
insult or provocation, when we would show either enemies or friends, what they can do and
what they cannot do?
I merely go over these things, to shew Reason her own conclusions, and how absurdly she
tacks them to the Scriptures: moreover, how blind she must be not to see, that they do not
always stand good even in human words and things. But the case is, if she see it to be
done once, she rushes on headlong, taking it for granted, that it is done generally in all
the things of God and men, thus making, according to the way of her wisdom, of a
particularity an universality.
If then God, as a Father, deal with us as with sons, that He might shew us who are in
ignorance our impotency, or as a faithful physician, that He might make our disease known
unto us, or that He might insult His enemies who proudly resist His counsel; and for this
end, say to us by proposed laws (as being those means by which He accomplishes His design
the most effectually) 'do,' 'hear,' 'keep,' or, 'if thou wilt,' 'if thou wilt do,' 'if
thou wilt hear;' can this be drawn herefrom as a just conclusion; therefore, either we
have free power to act, or God laughs at us? Why is this not rather drawn as a
conclusion - therefore, God tries us, that by His law He might bring us to a knowledge
of our impotency, if we be His friends; or, He thereby righteously and deservedly insults
and derides us, if we be His proud enemies.' For this, as Paul teaches, is the intent of
the divine legislation. (Rom. iii. 20; v. 20. Gal. iii. 19, 24.) Because human nature is
blind, so that it knows not its own powers, or rather its own diseases. Moreover, being
proud, it self-conceitedly imagines, that it knows and can do all things. To remedy which
pride and ignorance, God can use no means more effectual than His proposed law: of which
we shall say more in its place: let it suffice to have thus touched upon it here, to
refute this conclusion of carnal and absurd wisdom: 'if thou wilt' - therefore
thou art able to will freely.
The Diatribe dreams, that man is whole and sound, as, to human appearance, he is in his
own affairs; and therefore, from these words, 'if thou wilt,' 'if thou wilt do,' 'if thou
wilt hear,' it pertly argues, that man, if his will be not free, is laughed at. Whereas,
the Scripture describes man as corrupt and a captive; and added to that, as proudly
contemning and ignorant of his corruption and captivity: and therefore, by those words, it
goads him and rouses him up, that he might know, by a real experience, how unable he is to
do any one of those things.
- Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, Section 52)
No comments:
Post a Comment