The other absurd
objection, the Diatribe gathers from Madam Reason; who is called, Human Reason—that
the fault is not to be laid on the vessel, but on the potter: especially, since He is such
a potter, who creates the clay as well as attempers it. "Whereas,
(says the Diatribe) here the vessel is cast into eternal fire, which merited nothing:
except that it had no power of its own."
In no one place does the Diatribe more openly betray itself, than in this. For it is
here heard to say, in other words indeed, but in the same meaning, that which Paul makes
the impious to say, "Why doth He yet complain? for who hath resisted His will?"
(Rom. ix. 19). This is that which Reason cannot receive, and cannot bear. This is that,
which has offended so many men renowned for talent, who have been received through so many
ages. Here they require, that God should act according to human laws, and do what seems
right unto men, or cease to be God! 'His secrets of Majesty, say they, do not better His
character in our estimation. Let Him render a reason why He is God, or why He wills and
does that, which has no appearance of justice in it. It is as if one should ask a cobbler
or a collar-maker to take the seat of judgment.'
Thus, flesh does not think God worthy of so great glory, that it should believe Him to
be just and good, while He says and does those things which are above that, which the
volume of Justin and the fifth book of Aristotle's Ethics, have defined to be justice.
That Majesty which is the Creating Cause of all things, must bow to one of the dregs of
His creation: and that Corycian cavern must, vice versa, fear its spectators. It is
absurd that He should condemn him; who cannot avoid the merit of damnation. And, on
account of this absurdity, it must be false, that "God has mercy on whom He will have
mercy, and hardens whom He will." (Rom. ix. 18). He must be brought to order. He must
have certain laws prescribed to Him, that he damn not any one but him, who, according to
our judgment, deserves to be damned.
And thus, an effectual answer is given to Paul and his similitude. He must recall it,
and allow it to be utterly ineffective: and must so attemper it, that this potter
(according to the Diatribe's interpretation) make the vessel to dishonour from merit
preceding: in the same manner in which He rejected some Jews on account of
unbelief, and received Gentiles on account of faith. But if God work thus, and have
respect unto merit, why do those impious ones murmur and expostulate? Why do they say,
"Why doth He find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" (Rom. ix. 19). And
what need was there for Paul to restrain them? For who wonders even, much less is
indignant and expostulates, when any one is damned who merited damnation? Moreover where
remains the power of the potter to make what vessel He will, if, being subject to merit
and laws, He is not permitted to make what He will, but is required to make what He
ought? The respect of merit militates against the power and liberty of making what
He will: as is proved by that "good man of the house," who, when the workmen
murmured and expostulated concerning their right, objected in answer, "Is it not
lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" These are the arguments, which
will not permit the gloss of the Diatribe to be of any avail.
- Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, Section 106)
No comments:
Post a Comment