Is the will of man, when it is outside the state of grace, free or rather subservient and captive?
Thesis.
The will of man outside of grace is not free in actions that either oppose or contradict each other, but is necessarily subservient and imprisoned, even though it is free from all compulsion.
In order to prove this thesis, it must first be noted that opposite acts of the will are: Willing and not willing, each of which indicates a certain resolution [positivura est]. Contradictory actions are willing and not willing, likewise not willing and not not willing; that is, one time he wills, the other time he neither wills nor does not will, but remains undecided and without action. Secondly, it is to be noted that we speak only of the freedom of the will with respect to merit and non-merit; for with respect to other things subordinate to it, I do not deny that the will is free, or considers itself free both with respect to opposite and contradictory things.
On these premises I prove the first part of the thesis, namely, that he is not free in contradictory actions. For if he is free not to choose his will, it follows that he would also be free to guard against every future sin. But this is false, yea, heretical, and contrary to the saying of St. Gregory, "Sin, which is not washed away by penance, by its weight immediately draws to another." But if it is free, it cannot be drawn to another; rather, if it cannot avoid the pull, it is not free. I prove it also by the common saying that the will cannot long subsist without mortal sin apart from grace, therefore not without captivity of its freedom. Finally, I prove it by the saying of the apostle 2 Tim. 2, 26: "That they may again be free.
would break out of the devil's snare, by which they are bound to his will." But the will of the devil is that they should will and do evil.
Second part of the thesis.
That he is not free in opposite actions, I prove by the saying Gen. 8, 21.: "The thinking of the human heart is evil at all times." But if it is at all times inclined to evil, then it is consequently never inclined to good, which is opposed to evil. But that this happens in a free and at the same time necessary way, I prove in this way, that the natural will possesses its willing or unwillingness no less than any natural thing possesses its activity, and that it is no more deprived of its activity than anything else. But it is impossible for volition to be forced and not free; consequently, it is necessarily free and necessarily has free volition. Therefore both are true:
The falling man is not able not to fall and that from his forces.
The falling man is able not to fall, and that from foreign forces.
Thus the will, when it is out of grace or in falling, is not able not to fall and not to will evil from its powers; but it is not able to fall or to refrain from falling by the grace of God. So I leave it with this thesis for a moment, since it is proven.
From this I draw this conclusion:
Since there is no righteous man on earth who does not sin in doing good, the unrighteous man sins much more when he does good.
It is proven by sayings of the Scriptures:
First, by the saying Isa. 64:6: "But now we are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an unclean garment." If righteousness is unclean, how will unrighteousness be? And Eccl. 7:21: "There is not a righteous man upon the earth, which is
I delight in the law of God according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, which opposeth the law in my mind, and taketh me captive to the law of sin"; and Ps. 32:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity." 1)
Corollary:
That the righteous sins even in doing good is clear.
First, from Ecclesiastes 7:21: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." But here it is said by some that every righteous man sins, but not when he does good. To these one answers: If this is what this saying wanted, why does it waste so many words? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit takes pleasure in much and foolish talk? For this mind would be sufficiently expressed thus: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin"; why does he add: "who does good"; as if another were a righteous man who acts wickedly? For no one but a righteous man acts well. But where he speaks of sins apart from good works, he says thus [Prov. 24:16], "The righteous falleth seven times in the day." Here he does not say, "The righteous falleth seven times in the day when he doeth good." For it is a similitude: just as if someone strikes with a rusty and rough hatchet, though the worker is a good workman, yet the hatchet makes only bad, difficult, and unshapely cuts: so also God, when He works through us 2c. 2)
Secondly, from the apostle's saying, Rom. 7:19: "The evil that I do not want, that I do; the good that I want, that I do not," and further on [v. 22]: "I delight in God's law according to the inwendi-
1) In the old edition of Walch, a section of two colums is inserted here, which follows later in the original, namely Weim. Ausg. 1,369H- 29-371 Z. 2. In the duplicate of this writing, Walch, old edition, vol. V, 2366 ff. this section is in correct sequence Columne 2371-2373, ยง 8 and K 9.
2) This paragraph is already from word to word in the explanation of the 6th dhefe in the previous section.
But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind. Behold, he has both pleasure and displeasure in the law of God; at the same time he wants the good according to the spirit, and yet he does not do it, but the opposite. This opposite is therefore a certain non-will that is always there when there is a will. Through this he acts well, through the other evil. The unwillingness is of the flesh and the willing is of the spirit. Therefore there is as much sin as there is unwillingness, difficulty, necessity, resistance, and as much merit as there is willingness, inclination, freedom, joy; for these two are mixed with each other in all our life and activity. But where there is only non-will, there is also already mortal sin and apostasy; but a whole will is not found in this life. That is why we always sin when we do good, although sometimes less, sometimes more. For this is the reason why there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. But there is such a righteous man only in heaven. Therefore, just as man is not without this unwillingness, neither does he work without it, and therefore he is not without sin. For how could he work without it, since he cannot live and be without it? So also the Scripture speaks [Prov. 20, 9.], "Who can say, I am pure in heart?" Likewise Gal. 5, 17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another, that ye do not do the things that ye would. "2c
Thirdly by the saying Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for before you no living man is righteous". Here I ask whether such a righteous man, whom one imagines, since he is in fact already in a very glorious merit, is also to be counted among the living? If he is among the living, then he is not righteous. But how would this be possible if he did not sin in this merit of his?
This I prove from reason:
Every one who does less than he ought sins; but every righteous man who does good does less than he ought; hence. The under
I prove the first sentence thus: Everyone who does not do good out of full and perfect love for God does less than he should; but every righteous person is of this kind. I prove the upper sentence by the commandment [Deut. 6, 5]: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart and with all your might," 2c, of which the Lord says, Matth. 5, 18: "Not the smallest letter shall pass, nor a tittle of the law, until it all be done." Therefore, we must love God with all our strength, or we sin. But the sub-clause that we do not love Him with all our strength has already been proven above, because the non-will in the flesh and in the members hinders this perfection, that not all members or powers love God, but it resists the inner will that wants to love God.
But, say those: God does not demand such a perfect commandment from us. I ask: from whom then does He require it? Perhaps from stone or wood? or from cattle? This is an error; for Rom. 3:19 says: "We know that what the law says, it says to those who are under the law." Therefore it is commanded and required of us. Through this completely wrong interpretation of this saying: God does not require perfection, it came to be said that it is not a sin even if one does not do something in the most perfect love, while God does not require it only because He forgives it; but not because it is permitted and it would not be sin. Otherwise he would have changed his commandment, which is contrary to his own saying, Matth. 5, 18.: "Not the smallest letter will pass, nor a tittle of the law, until it all comes to pass."
Now I make objections to it:
First of all, John says in his canonical epistle [1 John 3:9]: "Whoever is born of God does not sin. Likewise, God, Gen. 20, 6, gives Abimelech the testimony that he acted in the simplicity of his heart; consequently, he did not sin. And Ps. 86, 2. says: "Keep my soul, for I am holy"; and what other passages can be drawn here.
I answer, Both are true; for he that is born of GOD sinneth not; and
he sins after all. Or was Paul, Rom. 7, not born of God? Or did John also lie against himself when he said [1 Joh. 1, 8]: "If we say we have no sin, we are liars"? For he sins in the same work: because of the will of the flesh; he does not sin: because of the opposite will of the spirit.
Therefore, you say: How then shall we fulfill the law of GOD? I answer: Because we do not fulfill it, therefore we are sinners and disobedient to God. And this is not a venial sin by its nature, for nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven [Revelation 21:27]. Therefore, any sin must also result in condemnation, because Christ says that not even the smallest letter or tittle shall pass away until it all comes to pass. Therefore, St. Augustine, in the 1st book of his Retractations, in the 19th chapter, says quite correctly: "All divine commandments are fulfilled, if what does not happen is forgiven." Consequently, the commandments of GOD are fulfilled, more by GOD forgiving for the sake of His mercy, than by man working through his justice, for the mercy of GOD is greater than the justice of man. This is what those say: GOtt does not require perfection; where they should say: GOtt forgives. But to whom? To those who are sure, and to those who do not believe in that sin? Let this be far from them, but from those who say: Forgive us our debts by acknowledging and hating this evil of theirs out of a sincere heart; as it is also said in Ezk 20:43: "And you will be displeased with all your wickedness that you have done" 2c
This is also what Psalm 32, v. 6. says: "For this all the saints will ask you in due time." If he is a saint, he has no iniquity except that which is forgiven him in sin. For what then does he ask? Of course for the one that is still to be forgiven, because for the forgiven one he rather gives thanks. Then also, if he had wanted to speak of the past, he should not have said, "all saints," but "all sinners will ask you for it." For a saint is one whose iniquities are forgiven, and a saint asks forgiveness for the iniquity. A wun-
The prophet does not speak of himself, but of those whom he saw as sanctified and as saints through the forgiveness of their sins. And yet he says that they ask for forgiveness, if it were not to be supposed that the prophet either lies or flatters by naming those saints whose sins are not forgiven; but then he should have said that they ask "to be forgiven" or "for forgiveness of sins.
So:
This is the sweetest mercy of God the Father, that He does not devise, but rather makes sinners blessed, bearing with us in our sins and accepting our lives and works worthy of all condemnation, until He makes us perfect and brings us to perfection. In the meantime, we live under the shelter and shadow of his wings and escape his judgment through his mercy, not through our righteousness.
Therefore, away with these proofs, which are only smoke from men: "One and the same action cannot be accepted and not accepted by God, for then it would follow that it is good and at the same time not good." I answer: Consequently, can man not at the same time fear God's judgment and trust in His mercy? I therefore say that any good action is accepted and not unaccepted, and again that it is not accepted but unaccepted. For it is accepted by pardon, and so is not unaccepted; for he pardons by his mercy what is less worthy of acceptability: but the same act is also unaccepted, that is, sin, inasmuch as it is an act from the wickedness of the flesh. But nevertheless GOD forgives it in this time and requires it both in this time and in the time to come. For there is by no means any action that God accepts unacceptably (such expressions are invented from the human heart), but every one of our actions forgives and requires it.
he spares. But those presume that there could be someone whom he accepts without forgiveness, which is wrong. So when he pardons, he neither accepts nor does not accept, but pardons. And so in our works he accepts his mercy, that is, the face of Job [Job 42:8. according to the Vulgate], namely, the righteousness of Christ for us. For this is the mercy seat of GOD, who pardons our works and makes them pardonable, so that what is too little in us we replace with His fullness. For he alone is our righteousness until we are conformed to his image.
Anew I prove:
To the first: [Rom. 7, 18.]: "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwells nothing good", much less will there be anything good in those who find all flesh and blood. For the apostle speaks in his own person and in the person of all the righteous. If therefore these, doing what is apart from them, and according to grace, do not yet do what they ought, however hard they may strive, how much more will those who, without grace, do what is in them, and do not strive, do the opposite of what they ought! But here again they say: It is true, they do it deficiently, but this deficiency is not sin. I answer: By its nature it is sin; but to those who sigh over it, God does not impute it.
On the other hand by the saying, Gen. 6, 5. [Cap. 8, 21.]: "All thinking of the human heart is evil from youth." Here he does not speak of "thinking," but of "all thinking," and everything that man thinks is evil, because he seeks what is his, and cannot do otherwise without the grace of God.
Third: 1 Cor. 13, 5 is attributed to love alone that it does not seek what is yours, without which, as the apostle Phil. 2, 21 states, all seek what is theirs, not what is Jesus Christ. But to seek his own is a mortal sin.
To the fourth: Hos. 13, 9. it says: Israel, thou bringest thyself into evil, or thou bringest thyself into evil: for thy salvation is with me alone. He does not say, "Righteousness is yours, but calamity; you bring nothing but calamity upon yourself.
Fifth: "An evil tree cannot bear good fruit" [Matth. 7:18].
Sixth, "He that is not with me is against me." [But to be against Christ is a mortal sin, and not to be with Him is to be out of grace.
The seventh: "He that abideth not in me is cast away as a branch, and is withered: and they gather them together, and cast them into the fire, and they burn." [John 15:6] Behold, "to be apart from Christ" is to merit the fire, and to wither continually; peradventure by any thing that may be done; which peradventure cannot be understood of venial sins.
Eighth: Were not the foolish virgins rejected [Matth. 25, 1. ff.], not because they did not work, but because they worked without oil? They did good of themselves, but not of grace, for they sought their own glory; from this vice it is impossible for man to be free without grace.
Ninth: "God rains on the good and the ungrateful" [Matth. 5, 45.], but ungrateful is the one who does not accept God's goods as received from God, which is a mortal sin, and so the works are necessarily outside of grace.
Tenth: "He who commits sin is the servant of sin" [John 8:34]. How is it possible for a servant of the devil, a prisoner of sin, to do anything other than sin, which he serves? How can he do a work of light who is in darkness? how can he do the work of a wise man who is a fool? how can he do the work of a healthy man who is sick? and many such things. So all that he does are works of the devil, works of sin, works of darkness and works of foolishness.
To the eleventh: If man's being is under the power of darkness, how not also his working? The tree is under the bondage of the devil and its fruits are denied to be under it!
The twelfth: That saying Ps. 94, 11, which the apostle refers to: "The Lord knows the thoughts of men to be vain," and Ps. 33, 10: "The Lord makes void the counsel of the Gentiles, but rejects the thoughts of the nations, and rejecteth the devices of the
Princes." [Here I ask: Do you understand by the thoughts of men those which man thinks of himself? If so, you hear that they are rejected and not only dead, but also displeasing before the judgment of God. But if they are thoughts that man does not think out of himself but out of an evil inclination, he would not have to call them thoughts of men. It is certain that he understands the thoughts that men produce out of the impulse of their natural reason, otherwise he would have had to call them foolishness. Now God rejects the wisdom of men, how much more the foolishness.
To the thirteenth: Prov. 3:5, "Rely not on thy understanding." This is to be understood either in general or in particular. If in general, then no precept of reason is unrejected and undamned. If in particular, as many think, then sometimes it is permissible to rely on oneself and one's understanding, contrary to this explicit text.
To the fourteenth: If a man can do a good thing of himself without sin, he may therefore justly glory in himself according to the measure of the good that is done by him. So let him say that he is good, wise, and strong, and let the flesh boast before the face of God, contrary to the apostle [1 Cor. 1:31], who expressly says, "He that boasteth, let him boast of the Lord."
To the fifteenth: Ps. 81:13: "I have left them in the stupor of their heart." Behold, this is the penalty of sin, that man is left to his heart, consequently [what comes from man's heart] is mortal sin. But his heart is also all man's will outside of grace. Otherwise he would have said, "I have left them in the enemy's conceit, to walk after the counsel of the enemy, and not after theirs."
To the sixteenth: Rom. 14, 23: "That which is not of faith is sin", which St/Augustine understands of faith in Christ, although others interpret it of conscience. But faith in Christ is also a good conscience, as Peter says [1 Petr. 3, 21.]: "the covenant of a good conscience with God," that is, that it is well related to God.
trusts. Therefore, if a work without faith were not mortal sin, it would follow that Paul was struggling so much with a venial sin there, which is wrong, since no man can live without venial sin. Consequently, everything that does not proceed from faith is mortal sin and condemnable, because it is also against conscience, the conscience, I say, of faith in Christ, because he does not act in trust in Him. For he does not believe that he pleases God in order to earn something with it, and yet he acts in such unbelief and conscience.
To the seventeenth: The position of the sinner would be better than that of the righteous, for the righteous sins in his deeds moderately, and the wicked does not sin. Therefore it is necessary to admit a greater sin than a merely venial one. Likewise, "The righteous fear their works" [Job 9:28, according to the Vulgate], how much more are the works of the wicked to be feared! or again, the position of the wicked would be better than that of the righteous, since the latter fears, but the latter is sure.
To the eighteenth: If grace be given to the man that doeth as much as is in him, then might the man know that he is in grace. This is proved: Either man knows that he is doing what is in him, or he does not know. If he knows, then he also knows that he has grace, since they say that grace is given to him who does what is in him. But if he does not know it, this doctrine is in vain, and its consolation ceases; for he may do what he will, but he does not know whether he has done what is in him. Consequently, he always remains in doubt.
To the nineteenth: The question is what kind of work a man does when he does what is in him. If one cannot state one, why does one teach to do what one does not know what it is? But if there is one, let it be stated; and indeed some state as such a work the act: To love God above all things.
Here (to digress a little) I say, first of all, that such teachers do not attribute anything to the grace of God, except that it serves as a certain adornment to our works, not that it can cure the sick.
The grace is not to heal the weak, but to adorn the strong. We can do works, but not adorned ones, and so grace is the most contemptible thing and a gift that is not necessary for our sake, but, as they say, because of the will and purpose of the governor.
But what Christian would want to endure such blasphemy? So Christ died for us in vain, but he suffered for the sake of God's intention; we were not in need of him, but the intention of the one who governs. We could have fulfilled the law, but God was not satisfied with that; He wanted to demand His grace from man over and above the law. And so, not a Pelagius comes again, but a worse blasphemer than Pelagius. Thus we find that GOD is loved by nature above all things, and one is not ashamed to say, "above all things." But I still answer: If the act of loving God is as much as doing as much as there is in Him, then it is still certain that man does not know when he loves, and therefore also not when he does as much as there is in him, or how and what he should do in order to do as much as there is in him: or else, he must be certain with regard to grace, which all deny.
If one were to say: he must strive to do as much as is in him, I answer: Again, I ask whether he knows that he strives and how he strives, and what one should do to strive? If one knows, then again one is certain; but if one does not know, then again the teaching is void. Yes, this effort is either the same as doing what is in it, and the same question returns; or it is something else. Thus man does not do by doing what is in him, but by striving to do what is in him. Therefore, by doing what is in him, he does not yet do what is in him.
To the twentieth: Therefore let us leave such empty words and consult experience. Let each one do what is in him when he is angry, provoked and tempted; yes, let him prepare himself for enlightenment about what he does not know, and let us see whether he attains it. Rather, he works and catches
We want to see what he does and what happens.
Twenty-first: If man receives grace by doing as much as is in him, it seems impossible that not everyone, or at least the greatest part of men, will be saved. I ask: If man is wanton, sins 2c, whether man does such a work himself, or another? Of course, he himself. Does he do it from himself and his powers, or from another and from other powers? From himself and his powers. Therefore, when a man sins, he does what is in him. Therefore, on the contrary, when he does what is in him, he sins.
But here one says: I speak of a man and of forces, in so far as they are naturally good, not how he abuses them. I answer: But the natural powers are always abused, because they are sick; the creature is good, but weakened. Nor does it act apart from its diseases, but it acts as afflicted with the disease. Therefore it can act only as a weakened one, even if it is good, just as a rusty axe is an iron, but works only as a rusty one, although it is an iron.
To the twenty-second: So why do we concede an insurmountable evil desire? Do what is in you and have no evil desire. But you cannot. Therefore you do not fulfill the law by nature. But if you do not fulfill this, you will fulfill much less that of love. Likewise: Do what is in
And be not angry with him that offendeth thee. Do what is in you and do not fear danger.
To the twenty-third: Do what is in you and do not be afraid of death. I pray, what man is not afraid, is not fainthearted in death? Who does not flee it? And yet, from the fact that God wants us to suffer it, it is obvious that by nature we love our will more than God's will. For if we loved God's will more, we would gladly submit to death, even consider it a gain, just as we do when our will is done. Therefore, what we speak is fiction. He who hates death (that is, the will of God) or does not love it, loves God less by far than himself, yes, hates him; only we are all of such a kind. Where then is the love of God above all? Behold, we love God no more than our life and our will: what shall I say of hell? Who does not hate it?
The twenty-fourth: The Lord's Prayer itself is already sufficient witness that we are bad workers in our whole life. For imagine one who does what is in him, whether he must pray: Hallowed be thy name; thy will be done; or rather, he is hallowed; he is done? But if he says, Let him be sanctified, he confesses that he is defiled. If he says: be done; so he confesses his disobedience. But if this happens to sons and saints, how much more to the ungodly!
Anno 1518.