PART II. LUTHER COMMENTS ON SECTION 1. Canonical Scriptures are to be the standard of appeal. Human authority, all against Luther, is admitted but depreciated.
Now, therefore, when you are about to enter upon your disputation, you promise to plead the Canonical Scriptures only, since Luther does not hold himself bound by the authority of any other writer.
I am satisfied, and I accept your promise, even though you do not make it on the basis of judging those other writers unprofitable to the cause, but to spare yourself useless labour. For you do not quite approve of this audacity of mine, or whatever else the principle must be called, by which I regulate myself in this instance.
You are not a little moved, truly, by so numerous a series of the most learned men, who have been approved by the common consent of so many ages. Among them are to be found men of the greatest skill in sacred literature, some of the most holy of our Martyrs, and many celebrated for their miracles. Add to these a number of more modern theologians, so many Universities, Councils, Bishops, and Pontiffs. In short, on the one side stands erudition, genius, numbers, grandeur, high rank, fortitude, sanctification, miracles, and what not? But on my side, there is only Wickliff and one other, Laurentius Valla, whose weight is nothing in comparison with the former (though Augustine also, whom you pass over, is altogether with me).
There remains none but Luther, you say — a private man, a man of yesterday — and his friends, who have neither so much learning, nor so much genius; no numbers, no grandeur, no sanctification, no miracles — who cannot even heal a lame horse. They make a parade of Scripture, which they, as well as the opposite party, nevertheless consider to be equivocal. They boast of the Spirit also; but they give no signs of possessing it. —And if you pleased, you could specify a great many other particulars. — There is nothing on our side, therefore, but what the wolf acknowledged of the devoured nightingale; 'You are a voice,' he said,
'and nothing else.' 'They talk,' you say; 'and for this only, they expect to be believed.'
I confess, my Erasmus, that you are not without good reason moved by all these things. I was so much affected by them myself for more than ten years, that I think no other person was ever equally harassed by such conflicts. And it was utterly incredible to me, that this Troy of mine could ever be taken, which had proved itself to be invincible for so long a time, and during so many wars. No, I call God for a record upon my soul, that I would have continued in my opinion, and would still be impressed to this day with the same feelings [as yours], if it were not that the goadings of my own conscience, and the evidence of facts, constrained me to judge differently. You can have no difficulty in conceiving that, although my heart is not a heart of stone, yet if it were one, it might have melted in the struggle and collision with such waves and tides is I brought upon myself, by daring to do an act which would, as I perceived it, cause all the authority of these persons whom you have recounted, to come down upon my own head with all the violence of a deluge.
But this is not the place for me to construct a history of my life, or of my works; nor have I taken this book in hand with the design of commending myself, but that I might extol the grace of God. What sort of a man I am, and with what spirit and design I have been hurried into these transactions, I commit to that Being, who knows that all these things have been effected, not by my own Freewill, but by His. However, even the world itself should have become sensible of this long ago. It is evidently a very invidious situation into which you throw me by this exordium of yours, from which it is not easy for me to extricate myself without trumpeting my own praises, and censuring so many of the Fathers. But I will be short. In erudition, genius, numbers, authority, and everything else, I allow the cause to be tried at your judgment-seat, and acknowledge myself the inferior.
But if I were to turn upon my judge, and propose these three questions to you — What is the manifestation of the Spirit? What are Miracles? What is Sanctification? — you would be found too inexpert and too ignorant
(so far as I know you from your letters and from your books) to answer me one syllable.
Or, if I were to go on and demand of you which of all these heroes of whom you boast, you could certainly show to have been, or to be sanctified, or to have had the Spirit, or to have displayed real miracles, my conviction is that you would have to work very hard, and all in vain.
Much of what you say is borrowed from common use and public discourse, which loses more than you suppose of its credit and authority when summoned to the bar of conscience. The proverb is true,
'Many pass for saints on earth, whose souls are in hell.'
SECT. 2. The excellencies of the Fathers were not of, or for Free will.
But let us grant, if you please, that all of them were sanctified, had the Spirit, and worked miracles (a concession which you do not ask for). Tell me, was any one of them sanctified, did any one of them receive the Spirit and work miracles in the name of or by the power of Freewill; or to confirm the doctrine of Freewill? God forbid, you will say: all these things were done in the name of and by the power of Jesus Christ; and in support of the doctrine of Christ. Why, then, do you adduce their sanctification, their having the Spirit, and their miracles, in support of the doctrine of Freewill, for which they were not given and worked? Their miracles, therefore — their having the Spirit, and their sanctification — are all ours, who preach Jesus Christ in opposition to the powers and works of men. Now, what wonder is it, if those men (holy, spiritual, and workers of miracles as they were) being every now and then forestalled by the flesh, have spoken and acted according to the flesh?
This happened more than once to the Apostles themselves, when living under the immediate eye of Christ. For you do not deny, but even assert, that Freewill is not a matter of the Spirit, or of Christ, but a mere human affair; so that the Spirit which was promised, that he might glorify Christ, cannot possibly preach Freewill. Therefore, if the Fathers have sometimes preached Freewill, then they have assuredly spoken by the flesh, as men, and not by the Spirit of God. Much less have they worked miracles so that they might support it. Thus, your allegation respecting the Fathers, as having been sanctified, having the Spirit, and working miracles, is inapplicable — since it is not Freewill, but the dogma of Jesus Christ which is proved thereby, as opposed to that of Freewill.
SECT. 3. Luther challenges him to show effects of Freewill in the three particular excellencies which he has selected out of Erasmus' catalogue.
But come now, you who are on the side of Freewill, and assert that a dogma of this sort is true; that is, it has come from the Spirit of God. Still, still I say, manifest the Spirit, publish your miracles, display your sanctification. Assuredly you who assert it, owe these things to us who deny it. The Spirit, sanctification, miracles, should not be demanded of us who deny it; they should be demanded of you who assert it. For a negative advances nothing, is nothing, is not bound to prove anything, nor should it be proved itself. An affirmative ought to be proved. You affirm the power of Freewill; a human substance. But no miracle has ever yet been seen or heard of, as performed by God, for any dogma in support of a human thing, but only for one in support of a divine thing. We have it in charge to receive no dogma whatsoever, which has not first been proved by divine attestations. (Deu 18.15-22.) Moreover, the Scripture calls man a vanity and a lie; in effect, this is saying that all human things are vanities and lies.
Come then, come I say, and prove that your dogma in support of a human vanity and lies, is true. Where now is your manifestation of the Spirit?
Where is your sanctification? Where are your miracles? — I see talents, erudition, and authority — but God has given these to the Gentiles also.
And yet we will not compel you to great miracles, such as that of healing a 184 185 lame horse, lest you complain of a carnal age. However, God is in the habit of confirming his doctrines by miracles, without any regard to the carnality of the age. He is not moved by the merits or demerits of a carnal age, but by mere pity and grace, and by a love of establishing souls in solid truth, unto His glory. You are at liberty to work a miracle as small as you please. No, by way of provoking your Baal to exertion, I jeer at you, and I challenge you to create even a single frog in the name and by the power of Freewill — the impious Gentile magicians in Egypt were enabled to create many of these. I will not put you to the trouble of creating lice, which they also were not able to bring forth. I will set you a still lighter task: take but a single gnat or louse (since you tempt and mock my God with your fleer about healing a lame horse). And if with the whole united force, and the whole conspiring efforts, of both your
God and yourselves, you are able to kill it — in the name and by the power of Free will — then you will be proclaimed conquerors; and it will be admitted that you have maintained your cause, and we will come quickly and adore this God of yours — the marvellous slayer of a louse!
It is not that I deny your having the power to remove even mountains; but because it is one thing to assert that some act has been performed by the power of Freewill, and another to prove it.
What I have said of miracles, I say also of sanctification. If in so great a series of ages and of men, and of all the things which you have named, you are able to show a single work (let it be but lifting a straw from the ground); or a single word (let it be but the syllable 'my'); or a single thought (let it be but the feeblest sigh) — proceeding from Freewill — by which they have either applied themselves to grace, or earned the Spirit, or obtained the pardon of sin, or have negotiated anything with God (let it be as diminutive as you please — we will not talk about their sanctification); you will again be the victors, and we will be the vanquished! But then, it must be through the power and in the name of Freewill! For, as to what is done in men through the power of a divine creation, it has Scripture testimonies in abundance. You certainly ought to exhibit some work of this kind, if you would not make yourselves ridiculous teachers by spreading dogmas throughout the world, with all this superciliousness and authority, about a thing of which you produce no record. For those things (the most disgraceful thing imaginable) are called dreams, when they produce no result whatsoever for persons of "such great consequence, living through such a series of ages, men of the greatest erudition and sanctity, who also have the power of working miracles." The result will be that we prefer the Stoics before you. Although they too described a wise man such as they never saw, they still endeavoured to exhibit the likeness of some part of him in their own character. But you have absolutely nothing to show; not even the shadow of your dogma.
So again, with respect to the Spirit — if out of all the assertors of Freewill, you can show me one who possessed even so small a degree of strength of mind, or good feeling, that it might enable him to despise a single farthing, to forego a single roll of the die, or to forgive a single word or letter of injury (I will not talk of despising wealth, life, and fame), in the name and through the power of Freewill, then take the palm again, and I will be content to be sold as your captive. You should at least show us this, after all your big, swelling words, boasting of Freewill. Otherwise, you will again seem to be wrangling about goats' wool, or like the noble
Argian, seeing plays in an empty theatre.
SECT. 4. The saints practically disclaim Freewill, however they may dispute about it.
But, in contradiction to your statement, I will easily show you that holy men, such as you vaunt yourself to possess, as often as they come to pray or plead with God, approach him with an utter forgetfulness of their own
Freewill — despairing of themselves, and imploring nothing but pure grace alone, which they acknowledge to be far removed from their own deservings.
Such a man Augustine frequently proves himself to have been; such did Bernard when, in his dying-hour, he said, 'I have lost my time, for I have lived abominably.' I do not see any power alleged in these expressions, which applies itself for grace. Rather, they accuse these men of absolutely turning away from all the power which a man has. And yet, in their disputations, these self-same holy men sometimes spoke a different language about Freewill. This is just what happens, as I perceive it, to all mankind: they are one sort of people while intent upon words and reasonings; and another when feeling and acting. In the former instance, they speak a language which differs from their later feelings; in the latter, their feelings contradict their previous language. But whether they are actually pious or impious, men are to be measured by their feelings, rather than their discourse.
SECT. 5. However they may dispute about it, Luther demands a definition of Freewill; a specification of its parts, powers, properties, and accidents.
But we give you still more. We do not demand miracles, the Spirit, or sanctification. We return to the dogma itself, demanding only that you at least show us what work, what word, what thought, this power of the free will stirs up or attempts to perform, in order that it may apply itself to grace. It is not enough to say, 'there is a power,' 'there is a power,' 'there is a certain power, I say, in the free will;' for what is easier than to say this?
Nor is this worthy of those most learned and most holy men who have been approved by so many ages. 'The babe must be named,' as the German proverb has it. You must define what that power is, what it does, what it allows, what are its accidents.
For example; speaking as one who is most dull of apprehension, I would ask, is it the office of this power either to pray, or to fast, or to labour, or to subdue the body, or to give alms, or to do anything else of this kind, or does it make any attempt at these things? If it is a power, then it will be trying to achieve something. But here, you are more silent than the Seriphian frogs, and fishes.
And how is it possible that you should define it when, according to your own testimony, you are still uncertain what the power itself is; being at variance with each other, and each of you inconsistent with himself?
What will become of the definition when the thing defined means one thing in one place, and another in another place?
But let it be granted that, since the time of Plato, there has at length been some sort of agreement among you about the power itself. Let it further be defined, as its office, that it prays, or fasts, or does something of this sort, which still, perhaps, lies concealed in the maze of Plato's 'Ideas.'
Who will assure us that the dogma is true, that it is well-pleasing to God, and that we are safe in maintaining it? Especially, when you yourselves confess that it is a human thing, which does not have the testimony of the For it was bandied by the philosophers, and existed in the world before Christ came, and before the Spirit was sent from heaven. Thus it is made most certain that this dogma was not sent from heaven, but had been born long before, out of the earth — so that a great deal of testimony is necessary to confirm it as certain and true.
Let us, then, be private men and few; while you are publicans and even a multitude; let us be barbarians, and you most learned; let us be stupid, and you most ingenious; let us be men of yesterday, and you older than Deucalion; let us be men of no acceptance; and you, men who have received the approbation of ages; let us, in fine, be sinners, carnal, and sottish; and you be men fitted to excite fear in the very devils — by your sanctity, the Spirit which is in you, and your miracles. Give us, at least, the right of Turks and Jews: that of demanding a reason for your dogma, agreeable to what your great patron St. Peter has commanded you.
We ask this, however, with the greatest modesty. For we do not demand that it be proved to us by sanctification, by the Spirit, and by miracles, as we might do according to your own law, which is to demand these things of others. No, we even allow you not to give us any instance of thought, word, or deed in your dogma; but to teach us the simple, naked proposition. Declare the dogma itself, at least: what you wish to be understood by it; what its form is.
If you will not, or cannot give us an example of it, then let us at least try to give you one. Imitate the Pope and his cardinals, at least, who say, 'Do what we say, not according to our works,' Even so, if you say what work that power requires to be performed by its subjects, we will apply ourselves to it, leaving you to yourselves. What! Shall we not even get this from you? The more you exceed us in numbers, the more ancient you are, the greater, the better in all respects than we — that much more disgraceful is it to you, that you are not able to prove your dogma — by the miracle of even slaying a louse, or by any small affection of the Spirit, or by any small work of holiness — to us, who are a mere nothing in your presence, and wish to learn and perform your dogma. No, you are not even able to exemplify it in a single deed or word. More than this, you are not even able to declare the very form or meaning of the dogma (such a thing as never was heard of), so that we at least, might imitate it.
Delightful teachers of Freewill! What are you now, but a voice, and nothing else? Who are those now, Erasmus, that boast of the Spirit, and show nothing of it; that only speak, and suddenly expect to be believed?
Are not these admired ones of yours, the men who do all this? Though extolled to the skies, they do not even answer, and yet they make such great boasts and demands.
We ask it as a favour, therefore, of yourself and of your party, my Erasmus, that you would at least grant to us that, being terrified with the danger incurred by our conscience, we may be allowed to indulge our fears, or at least to defer our assent to a dogma which you yourself perceive to be nothing but an empty word, and the sound of so many syllables (to wit, 'There is such a thing as Freewill;' 'there is such a thing as Freewill'), even if you had attained the summit of your object, and all your positions had been proved and allowed. Then, again, it is still uncertain, even amidst your own party, whether this word exists or not, since they are at variance one with another, and each is not agreed with himself. It is a most unfair thing — no, it is the most wretched thing imaginable — that the consciences of those whom Christ has redeemed with his own blood, should be harassed with the mere phantom of a single petty word, and that word be of doubtful existence. Yet, if we do not allow ourselves to be thus harassed, we are accused of an unheard-of pride for having despised so many Fathers, of so many ages, who have asserted the doctrine of Freewill. But the truth is, they have laid down no distinct propositions at all concerning it, as you perceive from what has been said. And the dogma of Freewill is set up under the cover of their name, while its maintainers are unable to exhibit either its species, or its name. It is thus that they have contrived to delude the world with a SECT. 6. Erasmus' advice turned against himself: presumption, cruelty, and lack of discernment, are charged upon him.
And here, Erasmus, I summon your own and not another's counsel to my aid; you who persuade us above that we ought to desist from questions of this kind, and rather teach Christ crucified, and those things that may suffice for Christian piety. For a long time now, such has been the nature of our questions and discussions. For what else are we aiming at, but that the simplicity and purity of Christ's doctrine may prevail; and that those dogmas which have been invented and introduced by men, may be abandoned and disregarded. But, while you give us this advice, you do not act it, but do just the contrary. You write Diatribes, you celebrate the decrees of Popes, you boast in the authority of men, and you try all means to hurry us into those matters which are strangers and aliens to the holy Scriptures, and to agitate on unnecessary topics, in order that we may corrupt and confound the simplicity and genuineness of Christian piety, with the additions of men.
Hence, we readily perceive that you have not given us this counsel from your heart; and that you do not write anything seriously, but trust to the vain and puerile ornaments of your language, as that which may enable you to lead the world wherever you please. Meanwhile, in point of fact, you lead it nowhere; for you utter nothing but sheer contradictions throughout the whole, and in every part. So that, you would be most fitly characterised by someone who called you Proteus or Vertumnus — or who accosted you with the words of Christ, and said, "Physician, heal yourself!" It is disgraceful to the teacher when the fault which he reproves, reproves himself.
Until you shall have proved your affirmative, therefore, we persist in our negative. And we venture to make it our boast at the tribunal of our judge
(even if that judge were the whole band of holy men you vaunt as having on your side; or if it were the whole world); that we do not, and should not admit a dogma which is really nothing, and of which it cannot be shown with certainty, what it is. We will moreover charge you with an incredible degree of presumption, or insanity, in demanding that this dogma be admitted by us without any reason, except that it pleases your
High Mightinesses — who are so many, so great, and so ancient — and that we assert the existence of a thing which you yourselves confess to be a mere nothing.
Is it really a conduct worthy of Christian teachers, to delude the poor wretched common people, in the matter of piety, with a mere nothing, as though it were something of great moment to their salvation? Where now is that sharpness of Grecian wit, which previously invented lies that at least had some show of beauty? But on this subject, it utters only naked and undisguised falsehoods. Where now is that Latin industry, not inferior to the Grecian, which in this instance so beguiles, and is beguiled, with the vainest of words? But thus it happens to unwary or designing readers of books: they make all those dogmas of the Fathers and of the Saints, which are the offspring of their infirmity, to be of the highest authority — the fault not being of the authors, but the readers. Just as if, leaning on the sanctity and authority of St. Peter, someone contended that all which Peter ever said is true — including Mat 16.22, when through infirmity of the flesh, he exhorted Christ not to suffer; or when he commanded Christ to depart from him, out of the ship (Luk 5.8); and many others for which he was reproved by Christ himself.
SECT. 7. Injustice done to the Fathers, by choosing their bad sayings and leaving their good.
Men of this sort are like those who, by way of sneering at the Gospel, chatter that all is not true which is in the Gospel; and they lay hold of that word where the Jews say to Christ, "Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan, and have a devil?" (Joh 8.48) or that, "He is guilty of death;" or "We have found this fellow subverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar."
The assertors of Freewill sayings, do exactly the same thing (with a different design, it is true; and not willingly, but through blindness and ignorance), when they lay hold on what the Fathers, having fallen through infirmity of the flesh, say in support of Freewill. And they oppose it to what the same Fathers have, in the strength of the Spirit, said elsewhere against it. After this, they presently go on to make the better give way to the worse. Thus it comes to pass that they give authority to the worse sayings, because they make for the judgment of their flesh; and they withdraw it from the better, because they make against that judgment [of the Spirit].
Why do we not rather choose the better? Many such sayings are in the works of the Fathers. To give you an instance: what saying can be more carnal — indeed, what saying can be more impious, more sacrilegious, and more blasphemous — than that usual one of Jerome's? 'Virginity fills heaven, and marriage fills earth,' — as if earth, and not heaven, were the due of those patriarchs, apostles, and private Christians who have married wives; or as if heaven were the due of vestal virgins among the heathens, without Christ! Yet the Sophists collect these and similar sayings from the Fathers, maintaining a contest of numbers, rather than of judgment, to get themselves the sanction of their authority. Just like that stupid fellow, Faber of Constance, who recently presented his
Margaritum (more properly called his stable of Augeas) to the public, so that the pious and learned might have their nauseating and vomiting draught.
SECT. 8. Objection that God should have disguised the error of his 'It is incredible that God should have disguised the error of his
Church for so many ages, and not have revealed to any of his saints what we maintain to be the very head of evangelical doctrine.'
I reply, first, that we do not say that this error has been tolerated by God in his Church, or in any of His saints. For the Church is governed by the Spirit of God; the saints are led by the Spirit of God (Rom 8.14); Christ remains with his Church even to the end of the world (Mat 28.20); and the Church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Tim 3.15) I say, we know these things. For thus says even our common creed; 'I believe in the holy Catholic Church;' so that it is impossible for her to err in the least article.
And even if we were to grant that some elect persons are held in error all their lifetime, they must still, before death, return into the way; because
Christ says (Joh 10.28), "No one shall pluck them out of my hand." But this must be your labour and your achievement — even to make it appear with certainty, that those whom you call the Church, are the Church; or rather, that those who were wanderers all their lifetime, have not at length been brought back to the fold before they died. For it does not directly follow, if God has allowed all those whom you adduce, to abide in error (scattered through as long a series of ages as you please, and men of the greatest erudition, if you please), that therefore he has allowed his
Church to abide in error.
Look at Israel, the people of God: of all their kings, so many in number, and reigning during so long a period, not even one is mentioned who did not err. And under Isaiah the Prophet, all men, and all who were public of that people, had departed into idolatry to such a degree that he thought himself left alone. Yet, in the meantime, while God was going to destroy kings, princes, priests, prophets, and whatever could be called the people or church of God, He reserved to himself seven thousand men. 1Kng 19.18
But who saw or knew these to be the people of God? So then, who will dare to deny that God has even now preserved for himself a Church among the common people, concealed under those principal men (for you mention none but men of public office and name) and has left all those to perish, as he did in the kingdom of Israel? After all, it is God's peculiar right and act, to entangle the choice men of Israel, and to slay their fat ones (Psa 78.31), but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel alive; as What happened under Christ himself, when all the Apostles were offended, and he was denied, and condemned by the whole people?
Scarcely one or two, Nicodemus and Joseph, and afterwards the thief upon the cross, were preserved to him. But were these, at that time, called
'the people of God'? There was, indeed, a people of God remaining, but it was not called so. What was called so, was not that people. Who knows whether such may not have been the state of the Church of God always, during the whole course of the world from its beginning: that some have been called the people and saints of God, who were not really so; while others, abiding as a remnant in the midst of them, have been his people or saints, but have not been called so? This is shown by the history of Cain and Abel, of Ishmael and Isaac, of Esau and Jacob.
Look at the Arian period. This is when scarcely five Catholic bishops were preserved in all the world, and those were driven from their sees — the Arians reigned everywhere under the public name, and filled the office of the Church. Nevertheless, under the dominion of those heretics, Christ preserved his Church; but it was in such a form that by no means was it supposed to be, or regarded as, the Church.
Under the reign of the Pope, show me a single bishop discharging his duty; show me a single Council in which matters of piety were treated — and not robes, dignity, revenues, and other profane trifles, which none but a madman can attribute to the Holy Spirit. Yet they are called the Church, when all who live as they did — whatever may be said of others — are in a lost state, and anything rather than the Church. However, Christ preserved his Church under these; yet not so as to have it called the Church. How many saints, do you think, have these sole and special inquisitors of heretical depravity, burnt and slain in the course of some ages for which they have now reigned? Such saints were John Huss and the like, in whose time, no doubt many holy men lived, who were of the same spirit.
Why do you not rather express your admiration at this, Erasmus: that from the beginning of the world, there have always existed among the heathens, men of more excellent genius, greater erudition, and more ardent study, than among Christians, or the people of God? Just as Christ himself confesses that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. (Luk 16.8) What Christian is worthy to be compared with but Cicero, in genius, erudition, and diligence — not to mention the What shall we then say to have been the hindrance, that none of them has been able to attain to grace? Certainly they have exercised the free will with all their might. And who will venture to say that none of them has been most eagerly bent upon arriving at the truth? Yet, it must be asserted that none of them has reached it. Will you say here also, that it is incredible that God should have left so many and such great men to themselves, throughout the whole course of the world, and suffered them to strive in vain? Assuredly, if Freewill were anything, or could do anything, it must have been something, and have done something in those men — in some one of them at least. But it has effected nothing; indeed, its effect has always been the opposite. So that, Freewill may be fully proved to be nothing, by this single argument: that from the beginning of the world to the end, no sign can be shown of it.
SECT. 9. The Church is not yet manifested; the saints are hidden.
But to return to the point. What wonder is it, if God suffers all the great ones of the Church to walk in their own ways, when he has thus left all nations to walk in their own ways; as Paul says in the Acts 14.16? The Church of God is not so vulgar a thing, my Erasmus, as this name by which it is called, 'The Church of God.' Nor do the saints of God meet us up and down everywhere, so commonly as this name of theirs does: 'The Saints of God.' They are a pearl and noble gems, which the Spirit does not cast before swine, but as the Scripture says, keeps hidden so that the wicked may not see the glory of God.
Otherwise, if these were openly recognised by all people, how could it happen that they should be so afflicted and persecuted in the world? As Paul says, "If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of SECT. 10. Distinction between judgment of faith, and judgment of charity.
I do not say these things as if denying that those whom you mention were saints, or were the Church of God. I say so because it cannot be proved
(should anyone be disposed to deny it) that these specific persons were saints; but it must be left altogether uncertain. And consequently, an argument drawn from their saintship is not of sufficient credit to confirm any dogma. I call them saints, and I account them such; I call them, and I think them to have been, the Church of God.
But that is by the law of love, not by the law of faith — that is, by charity — which thinks all good of every man, and is in no way suspicious. And it believes and presumes all good of her neighbours, calls any baptized person you please, 'a saint.' Nor is there any mischief if she is mistaken, because it is the lot of charity to be deceived, exposed as she is to all the uses and abuses of all men. She is a general helper to the good and to the evil, to the faithful and to the unfaithful, to the true and to the false. But faith calls no man a saint unless he is declared such by a divine judgment, because it is the property of faith not to be deceived. So that, whereas we should all be accounted saints mutually, by the law of charity; still, no one should be decreed a saint, by the law of faith — as though it were an article of faith that this or that man is a saint. It is in this way, that the Pope, that great adversary of God who sets himself in the place of God, canonizes his saints, whom he does not know that they are saints.
I affirm only this, with respect to those saints of yours (or rather of ours): that since they are at variance among themselves, those should have been followed who rather spoke the best things — that is, against Freewill and in support of grace; and those should have been left who, through infirmity of the flesh, witnessed to the flesh rather than the Spirit. Again, those writers who are inconsistent with themselves, should have been adopted and embraced where they speak after the Spirit, and left where they savour the flesh. This was the role of a Christian reader, a clean animal that parts the hoof and chews the cud.
But our course, instead, has been to postpone the exercise of judgment, and to devour all sorts of meat indiscriminately. Or what is still more unrighteous, by a perverse exercise of judgment, we rejected the better and approved the worse in these same authors. And after having done so, we affixed the title and authority of their saintship to those very parts which are worse: a title which they have deserved for their better parts, and for the Spirit only; but not for their Free will, or flesh.
SECT. 11. Erasmus' perplexity and advice stated, in some degree admitted, but amended.
'What shall we do then? The Church is a hidden community: the saints are not yet manifested. What and whom will we believe? Or as you most shrewdly argue, who will assure us? How will we test their spirit? If you look to erudition, there are Rabbis on both sides. If you look to the life, sinners are on both sides. If you look to Scripture, both parties embrace it with affection. Nor is the dispute so much about Scripture
(which even yet is not quite clear) as about the meaning of Scripture.
Moreover, on both sides there are men who, if they do not promote their cause by their numbers, erudition, or dignity, much less do they promote it by their fewness, ignorance, and meanness. The matter is therefore left in doubt, and the dispute still remains in the hands of the judge. So it seems as though we should act most prudently in withdrawing, as a body, into the sentiment of the Sceptics, unless we would rather choose to follow your best of all examples: those who profess to be in just such a state of doubt that it enables you to testify that you are still a seeker and a learner of the truth; inclining to that side which asserts the freedom of the will, only just until truth has made herself manifest.'
To this I reply, 'What you say here is the truth, but not the whole truth,'
For we will not test the spirits by arguments drawn from the erudition, life, genius, multitude, dignity, ignorance, rudeness, paucity, or meanness of the disputants. Nor do I approve those who place their refuge in a boast that they have the Spirit. For I have had a very severe contest this year, and I am still maintaining it, with those fanatics who subject the Scriptures to the interpretation of their own spirit. No, it is on this ground that up to here I have inveighed against the Pope himself. In his kingdom, nothing is more commonly urged, or more commonly received, than this saying: that 'the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous;' that 'we must seek the interpreting spirit from the Apostolic See of Rome,'
There cannot be a more pernicious assertion than this, from which ungodly men have taken occasion to exalt themselves above the Scriptures, and to fabricate just what they pleased — till at length, having quite trodden the Scriptures underfoot, we were believing and teaching nothing but the dreams of madmen. In a word, this saying is no human invention, but a mouthful of poison sent into the world by the incredible malice of the very prince of all the devils.
SECT. 12. There are two tribunals for the spirits of men; one private, the other public.
This is our assertion: that the spirits are to be tested and proved by two sorts of judgment. One of these is internal, by which the man who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or special gift of God — for his own sake, and for his own individual salvation — judges and discerns the dogmas and thoughts of all men, with the greatest certainly.
The Apostle speaks of this judgment in 1Cor 2.15: "He that is spiritual judges all things, and is judged by no man." This judgment pertains to faith; and it is necessary to every private Christian. I have called it above,
'the internal clearness of Holy Scripture,' Perhaps this is what was meant by those who replied to you, that 'everything must be determined by the judgment of the Spirit,' But this judgment is of no profit to any other person besides ourselves. And it is not the subject of inquiry in this cause. Nor does anyone, I dare say, doubt that this judgment is just what
Therefore, there is another judgment which is external, and by which we — not only for ourselves, but for others, and for the salvation of others — judge the spirits and dogmas of all men, with the greatest certainty. This is the judgment of the public ministry, an outward office, appealing to the word. This is what belongs chiefly to the leaders of the people, and the preachers of the word. We use it to confirm the weak, and to confute
Above, I called this 'the external clearness of Holy Scripture,' Our assertion is this: 'Let all the spirits be tried in the face of the Church, at the bar of Scripture,' For it ought to be a first principle, most firmly maintained among Christians, that the Holy Scriptures are a spiritual light, far brighter than the sun; especially in those things which pertain to salvation, or are necessary.
SECT. 13. Clearness of Scripture proved by testimonies from the Old But since, for a long time now, we have been persuaded to a contrary opinion by that pestilent saying of the Sophists, that 'The Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous,' I am compelled, in the first place, to prove that very first principle of ours, by which all the rest are to be proved, and which would appear absurd and impossible to philosophers.
First, then, Moses says (Deu 17.8) that if any difficult cause should arise, they must go up to the place which God has chosen for his name, and there consult the Priests, who must judge it according to the law of the "According to the law of the Lord," he says. But how will they judge, unless the law of the Lord, with which the people must be satisfied, were externally most plain? Otherwise it would be enough to say, 'They shall judge according to their own spirit,' No, the truth is, that in every civil government, all the causes of all the subjects are settled by the laws. But how could they be settled, unless the laws were most certain, and like so many shining lights among the people? For if the laws were ambiguous and uncertain, not only would it be impossible for any causes to be decided, but there could be no certain standard of manners. Laws are made for this very purpose: that the manners of the people may be regulated by a certain model; and the principles by which causes are to be determined, may be defined. That which is to be the standard and measure of other things, should itself be measured by the surest and clearest of all things: and such a thing is the law. Now, this light and certainty in their laws is both necessary, and also conceded freely to the whole world by a divine gift. If it is so in secular governments (which are conversant about temporal things), then how is it possible that God should not have granted laws and rules of much greater light and certainty to his Christian people (his chosen, truly) — laws and rules by which to direct their own hearts and lives individually, and to settle all their causes, since He would have temporal things be despised by his children?
For, "if God so clothes the grass, which is here today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more shall he clothe us?" But let us go on to overwhelm this pestilent saying of the Sophists with Scripture.
Psalm 19.8 says, "The commandment of the Lord is lightsome, or pure; enlightening the eyes." I presume that what enlightens the eyes, is not obscure or ambiguous.
So too, Psalm 119.130 says, "The door of your words enlightens; it gives understanding to your little ones." Here he attributes to the words of God, that they are 'a door,' 'something set open;' — what is exposed to the view of all, and enlightens even the little ones.
Isaiah 8.20 sends all questions "to the law and to the testimony;" threatening that the light of the morning will be denied to us, unless we
In Malachi 2.7, he commands them to seek the law from the mouth of the Priest, as being the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. He is truly a poor messenger or ambassador of the Lord, if he speaks those things which are both ambiguous in themselves, and obscure to the people, so that he is as ignorant of what he speaks, as they are of what they hear.
And what is more frequently said to the praise of Scripture, throughout the whole of the Old Testament, but especially throughout the hundred and nineteenth Psalm, than that it is in itself a most certain and a most evident light?
For thus he celebrates its clearness: "Your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths," (v. 105.) He does not say, 'only your Spirit is a lamp unto my feet,' though he assigns its office to this also, saying, "your good Spirit shall conduct me in a right land." Thus it is called both a 'way' and 'a path;' doubtless, from its exceeding great certainty.
SECT. 14. The clearness of Scripture is proved by testimonies from the New Let us come to the New Testament. Paul says in Rom 1.2, that the Gospel was promised by the law and the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures. And in Rom. 3.21, that the righteousness of faith was witnessed by the law and the Prophets. But what sort of a witnessing was this, if it was obscure?
No, he not only makes the Gospel 'the word of light,' 'the gospel of clearness,' in all his Epistles, but he does this professedly, and with great abundance of words, in 2Cor 3 and 4. There he reasons boastfully about the clearness of Moses as well as of Christ.
Peter also says, 2Pet 1.19, "We have a very sure word of prophecy; to which you do well to take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place."
Here Peter makes the word of God a clear lamp, and all other things darkness; and will we make obscurity and darkness of it?
Christ so often calls himself "the light of the world," and John the Baptist "a burning and a shining light" — not because of the sanctity of their lives, doubtless; but because of the word. Just as Paul calls the Philippians
"bright lights of the world," "because you hold fast the word of life," he says. For without the word, life is uncertain and obscure.
And what are the Apostles about, when they prove their own preachings by the Scriptures? Is it that they may darken their own darkness to us, by greater darkness? Or is it to prove the more known thing by one that is more unknown? What is Christ about, in Joh 5.39, when he teaches the Jews to search the Scriptures; as being his witnesses, truly? Is it that he may render them doubtful about having faith in him? What are those persons about in Acts 18.2, who upon hearing Paul, read the Scriptures day and night, to see whether those things were so? Do not all these things prove that the Apostles, as well as Christ himself, appeal to the Scriptures, as the clearest witnesses to the truth of their discourses? With what face, then, do we represent them as obscure?
I beg to know whether these words of Scripture are obscure or ambiguous: "God created the heavens and the earth;" and "the word was made flesh;" and all those affirmations which the whole world has received as articles of faith. And where were they received from, if not from the Scriptures? And what are those about, who still preach to this day? Do they interpret and declare the Scriptures?
If the Scripture which they declare is obscure, then who is to assure us that even this declaration of it is certain? Another new declaration? Who will declare that also? At this rate, we will have an endless progression. In fine, if Scripture is obscure or doubtful, what need was there for it to be declared to us by God from heaven? Are we not sufficiently obscure and ambiguous, without having our obscurity, ambiguity, and darkness increased from heaven? What then will become of that saying of the Apostle, "All Scripture, having been given by inspiration from God, is profitable for teaching, for reproving, and for convincing?" (2Tim 3.16)
No, it is absolutely useless, Paul! And what you attribute to Scripture must be sought from the Fathers, who have been received for a long series of ages, and from the Roman see! Your sentence, therefore, must be revoked, which you write to Titus, that "a bishop must be mighty in sound doctrine, that he may be able both to exhort and to refute the gainsayers, and to stop the mouth of vain-talkers and soul-deceivers."
How can he be mighty, if you leave him Scriptures that are obscure — that is, arms of flax, and for a sword, light stubble? Then Christ must also recant his own word, who falsely promises us, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist." How will they not resist, if we fight against them with obscure and uncertain weapons? Why do you also, Erasmus, prescribe a form of Christianity to us, if the Scriptures are obscure to you?
But I think I have been burdensome, even to men of no sensibility, in making so long a delay, and thus wasting my forces on a proposition which is most evident.
But it was necessary to overwhelm that impudent and blasphemous saying, 'The Scriptures are obscure,' so that you also might see, my
Erasmus, what it is you say, when you deny that the Scripture is quite clear. For you must assent to me, at the same time, that all your saints whom you adduce, are much less clear. For who will assure us of their light, if you make out the Scriptures to be obscure? So that, those who deny that the Scriptures are most clear and most evident, leave us nothing but darkness.
SECT. 15. The conclusion: if the dogma of Freewill is obscure, it is not in Scripture.
But here you will say, 'All this is nothing to me; I do not say that the Scriptures are obscure on all subjects (for who would be mad enough to say so?); but only on this, and the like,' My answer is, neither do I assert these things in opposition to you only, but in opposition to all who think as you do. And again, in opposition to you distinctly, I affirm with respect to the whole Scripture, that I will not allow any part of it to be called obscure. What I have cited from Peter stands good here, that "the word of God is a lamp shining to us in a dark place." Now, if there is a part of this lamp which does not shine; it will become part of the dark place, rather than part of the lamp itself. Christ has not so enlightened us, as to wilfully leave some part of his word dark, when at the same time, he commands us to give heed to it. For in vain he commands us to give heed, if it does not shine.
So that, if the dogma of Freewill is obscure or ambiguous; it does not belong to Christians and to the Scriptures, and should be altogether abandoned, and ranked among those fables which Paul condemns
Christians for wrangling about.
For if it belongs to Christians and to the Scriptures, then it ought to be clear, open, and evident, and just like all the other articles of the faith, which are most evident. For all the articles which Christians receive, should not only be most certain to themselves, but also fortified against the assaults of other men, by such manifest and clear Scriptures, that they shut every man's mouth from having the power to say anything against them. As Christ says in his promise, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist." If our mouth is therefore so weak in behalf of this dogma, that our adversaries can resist it, then what Christ says is false: that no adversary can resist our mouth.
So that, we will either meet with no adversaries while maintaining the dogma of Freewill (which will be the case if it does not belong to us); or if it does belong to us, then we will have adversaries, it is true; but they shall be such as cannot resist us.
SECT. 16. Meaning and exemplifications of the promise, 'All your adversaries shall not be able to resist.'
But this inability of the adversaries to resist (since its mention occurs here) does not consist in their being compelled to abandon their own mindset, nor in being persuaded either to confess, or to be silent.
For who would compel the unwilling to believe, to confess their error, or be silent? What is more loquacious than vanity? asks Augustine. But their mouth is so far stopped, that they have nothing to say in reply. And even if they say much in reply, yet in the judgment of common sense, they say nothing. This is best shown by examples. When Christ had put the Sadducees to silence by citing Scripture (Mat 22.23-32), and proving the resurrection of the dead from the words of Moses (Exo 3.6), "I am the God of Abraham," "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" — upon this, they could not resist or say anything in reply. But did they therefore recede from their opinion? And how often did he confute the Pharisees, by the most evident Scriptures and arguments, so that the people clearly saw them convicted, and they themselves perceived it?
Still, however, his adversaries continued. Stephen, in Acts 7, so spoke, according to Luke, that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit which spoke in him." But what was their conduct? Did they yield?
Far from it. Being ashamed to be overcome, and having no power to resist, they go mad; and stopping their eyes and ears, they suborn false witnesses against him. (Act 6.10-14) See how he stands before the council, and confutes his adversaries!
After having enumerated the benefits which God had bestowed upon that people from their origin, and having proved that God had never ordered a Temple to be built to him (for he was tried on this charge, and this was the point of fact at issue), he at length concedes that a Temple had indeed been built to him, under Solomon.
But then he abates the force of his concession, by subjoining in this manner; "However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands." And in proof of this, he alleges the last chapter of the Prophet
Isaiah, "What house is this that you build for me?" (Isa 66.1) Tell me, what could they say now, against so plain a Scripture? But not at all moved by it, they remained fixed in their own sentiment. This leads him to inveigh against them also: "You uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost." 'They resist,' he says — whereas, in point of fact, they were not able to resist.
Let us come to the men of our day, as when John Huss disputes in this manner against the Pope, from Mat 16.18, etc. "The gates of hell do not prevail against my Church." (Is there any obscurity or ambiguity in these words?)
But against the Pope, and his abettors, the gates of hell do prevail, since they are notorious for their manifest impiety and wickednesses all over the world. (Is this also obscure?) Therefore, the Pope and his partisans are not that Church of which Christ speaks. What could they then say against him; or how could they resist the mouth which Christ had given him? Yet they did resist, and persevered in their resistance, till they burnt him: so far were they from altering their mind. Nor does Christ suppress this when he says, 'the adversaries shall not be able to resist,' They are adversaries, he says; therefore they will resist. If they did not resist, they would not be adversaries, but friends; and yet they will not be able to resist. What is this, but to say that in resisting, they will not be able to resist?
SECT. 17. We must be content with this sort of victory. Our adversary will not confess himself beaten.
Now, if we are also able to so confute Freewill, that our adversaries cannot resist — even if they retain their own mindset, and in spite of conscience, hold fast to their resistance — we will have done enough. For I have had abundant experience that no man chooses to be conquered. As Quintilian says, 'there is no one who would not rather seem to know, than to be a learner.' Even this is a sort of proverb in everybody's mouth among us, more from use (or rather abuse) than affection: 'I wish to learn; I am ready to be taught; and when taught better things, I wish to follow them. I am a man; I may err.' The truth is, men use such expressions as these because, under this fair mask, just as under a show of humility, they are allowed to confidently say, 'I am not satisfied; I do not understand him; he does violence to the Scriptures; he is an obstinate assertor' — because they are sure, truly, that no one can suspect such humble souls as theirs, of being pertinacious [stubborn] in their resistance to truth; and of making a stout attack upon truth, once they have recognised her presence.
So then, it should not be ascribed to their own perverseness, that they keep their old mind; but to the obscurity and ambiguity of the arguments with which they are assailed.
This was just the conduct of the Greek philosophers also. So that none of them might seem to yield to another, even though manifestly overcome, they began to deny first principles, as Aristotle recites. Meanwhile, we kindly persuade ourselves and others, that there are many good men in the world who would be willing to embrace the truth, if they only had a teacher who could make things plain to them; and that it is not to be presumed that so many learned men, through such a series of ages, have been in error, or that they have not thoroughly understood the truth. As if we didn't know that the world is the kingdom of Satan in which, besides the blindness adherent as a sort of natural excrescence to our flesh, spirits of the most mischievous nature have dominion over us, so that we are hardened in that very blindness — no longer held in chains of mere human darkness, but of a darkness imposed on us by devils.
SECT. 18. Why great geniuses have been blind about Freewill: viz. that they might expose Freewill. But it is no wonder that the natural man is blind to the things of God.
'If the Scriptures are quite clear, then why have men of excellent understanding been blind on this subject for so many ages?'
I answer, they have been thus blind, to the praise and glory of Freewill. So that this magnificently boasted power by which man is able to apply himself to those things which concern his everlasting salvation; this power, I say, which neither sees what it sees, nor hears what it hears
(much less understands or seeks after these things), might be shown to be what it is.
For to this belongs what Christ and his Evangelists so often assert from Isaiah, "Hearing, you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing, you shall see and shall not perceive." (Isa 6.9) What does this mean, if not that the free will, or the human heart, is so trodden underfoot by Satan that, unless it is miraculously raised up by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself either see or hear those things which strike upon the very eyes and ears, so manifestly as to be palpable to the hand. Such is the misery and blindness of the human race. For it is thus that even the Evangelists themselves cite this passage of Scripture, after expressing their wonder that the Jews were not taken with the works and words of Christ, which were absolutely irresistible and undeniable. This suggests, truly, that left to himself, man, though seeing, does not see; and hearing, he does not hear. What can be more marvellous? "The light," John says, "shines in darkness, and the darkness apprehends it not." (Joh 1.5)
Who would believe this? Who ever heard the like? That the light shines in darkness, and yet the darkness remains darkness, and is not made light?
Besides, it is not at all wonderful that men of excellent understanding have for so many ages been blind in divine things. In human things, it would be wonderful. In divine things, the wonder is rather that one or two are not blind; while it is no wonder at all if all, without exception, are blind. For what is the whole human race, without the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil, as I have said? It is a confused chaos of darkness.
This is why Paul calls the devils, "the rulers of this darkness;" and says in 1Cor 2.8, "None of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of God!"
What do you suppose he thought of the rest, when he asserts that the princes of the world were slaves of darkness? For, by princes he means the foremost and highest persons in the world, those whom you call men of excellent understanding. Why were all the Arians blind? Were there not men of excellent understanding among them? Why is Christ
"foolishness" to the Gentiles? Are there not men of excellent understanding among the Gentiles? Why is he "a stumbling-block" to the Jews? Have there not been men of excellent understanding among the Jews? "God knows the thoughts of the wise;" says Paul, "for they are vain."
He would not say, "of men," as the Psalm itself has it; Psa 94.11 but he singles out 'the first and best among men,' that we may estimate the rest of them from these.
I will perhaps speak more at large about these things, later. Suffice it for an exordium, to have premised that 'the Scriptures are most clear;' and that 'our dogmas may be so defended by these, that our adversaries will not be able to resist.' Those dogmas which cannot be so defended, are other people's, and do not belong to Christians. Now, if there are those who do not see this clearness, and are blind, or stumble in this sunshine, then these, on the supposition that they are ungodly men, show how great is the majesty and power of Satan in the sons of men — even such that they neither hear nor apprehend the clearest words of God. It is just as if a man, beguiled by some sleight-of-hand trick, supposed the sun to be a piece of unlighted coal, or imagined a stone to be gold! On the supposition that they are godly persons, let them be reckoned among those of the elect, who are led into error a little, so that the power of God may be shown in us. Without this power, we can neither see nor do anything at all. For it is not weakness of intellect (as you complain), which hinders the words of God from being apprehended. On the contrary, nothing is more adapted to the apprehension of the words of God, than weakness of intellect. For it is because of the weak, and to the weak, that Christ both came, and sends his word. Luk 5.31 But what hinders is the mischievousness of Satan, who sits and reigns in our weakness, resisting the word of God.
If it were not for this acting of Satan, the whole world of men would be converted by one single word of God, once heard; nor would there be any
SECT. 19. Erasmus is shown to admit that Scripture is clear.
And why do I plead so long? Why do we not finish the cause with this exordium, and pronounce sentence against you on the testimony of your own words, according to that saying of Christ, "By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Mat 12.37)
You assert that the Scripture is not clear on this point. And then, as though the sentence of the judge were suspended, you dispute on both sides of the question, advancing all that can be said both for and against Freewill. This is all that you seek to gain by your whole performance. For the same reason, you have chosen to call this a Diatribe rather than an Apophasis, or anything else: because you write with the intention of bringing all the materials of the cause together, without affirming anything. If the Scripture is not plain, then why are those of whom you boast — that is, so numerous a series of the most learned men, whom the consent of so many ages has approved even to this very day — are not only blind on this subject, but even rash and foolish enough to define and assert Freewill from the Scripture, as though that Scripture were positive and plain.
Most of these men come recommended to us, you say, not only by a wonderful knowledge of the sacred writings, but by piety of life. Some of them, after having defended the doctrine of Christ by their writings, gave testimony to it with their blood. If you say this sincerely, it is a settled thing with you, that Freewill has assertors endowed with wonderful skill in the Scriptures, and who have borne witness to it with their blood, as a part of Christ's doctrine. If this is true, they must have considered the Scripture as clear. Otherwise, how could they be said to possess a wonderful skill in the sacred writings? Besides, what levity and temerity of mind would it have been in them, to shed their blood for a thing that is uncertain and obscure? This would not be the act of Christ's martyrs, but of devils. Now, therefore, you also 'set before your eyes and weigh with yourself, whether you judge that more ought to be attributed to the prior judgments of so many learned men, so many orthodox men, so many holy men, so many martyrs, so many ancient and modern theologians, so many universities, so many councils, so many bishops, and so many popes — who have thought the Scriptures clear, and have confirmed their opinion by their blood as well as by their writings — than to your own single judgment, which is that of a private individual, denying that the Scriptures are clear' — when maybe you never issued one tear, or one sigh, for the doctrine of Christ.
If you believe that these men thought correctly, then why not follow their example? If not, then why boast with such a puffed cheek and full mouth, as if you would overwhelm me with a tempest and flood of words? This, however, falls with still greater force upon your own head, while my ark rides aloft in security. For you, in the same instant, attribute the greatest folly and temerity to so many and such great ones, when you write that they were most skilful in the Scriptures, and yet they asserted by their pen, by their life, and by their death, a sentiment which you nevertheless maintain to be obscure and ambiguous. What is this, if not to make them most ignorant in knowledge, and most foolish in assertion? As their private despiser, I would never have paid them such honour as you do, their public commender.
SECT. 20. Erasmus reduced to a dilemma.
Here I hold you fast, then, by a horned syllogism, as they call it. For one or the other of these two things that you say must be false: either that 'these men were worthy to be admired for their knowledge of the sacred writings, life, and martyrdom;' or that 'the Scripture is not plain.'
But since you would rather be driven upon this horn, that the Scripture is not plain (what you are driving at throughout your whole book), it remains that when you pronounced them to be most expert in Scripture, and martyrs for Christ, you did it either in fun or in flattery. It was certainly not done seriously, merely to throw dust in the eyes of the common people, and to give Luther trouble by loading his cause with hatred and contempt, through vain words. However, I pronounce neither true; but both false. I affirm, first, that the Scriptures are most clear; secondly, that those persons, so far as they assert Freewill, are most ignorant of the Scriptures; and thirdly, that they made this assertion neither with their life, nor by their death, but only with their pen — and that was absent-mindedly.
I therefore conclude this little disputation thus. According to your own testimony, 'By Scripture — seeing that is obscure — nothing certain has yet been determined, nor can be determined, on the subject of Freewill.'
'By the lives of all men from the beginning of the world, nothing has been shown in support of Freewill.' This is what I argued above. Now, it is no part of Christian doctrine to teach anything which is neither enjoined by a single word in Scripture, nor demonstrated by a single fact out of Scripture; rather, it belongs to the 'true stories' of Lucian. Except that Lucian — sporting as he does on ludicrous subjects, in mere jest and wittingly — deceives nobody and hurts nobody.
But these antagonists of ours play the madman on a serious subject — even one pertaining to eternal salvation — to the destruction of innumerable souls.
SECT. 21. Luther claims victory already, but will proceed.
Thus, too, I might have put an end to this whole question about Freewill, since even the testimony of my adversaries is on my side, and at war with theirs — for there is no stronger proof against an accused person, than his own proper testimony against himself. But, since Paul commands us to stop the mouths of vain babblers, let us take the very pith and matter of the cause in hand, treating it in the order in which Diatribe pursues her march. Thus, I will first confute the arguments adduced in behalf of Freewill; secondly, I will defend our own confuted arguments; and lastly,
I will make my stand for the grace of God, in direct conflict with Freewill.