|
EXORDIUM.
Sect. 28.—AT your entrance, then,
upon the disputation, you promise—'that you will go according to the Canonical
Scriptures: and that, because Luther is swayed by the authority of no other
writer whatever'—
Very well! I receive your promise! But however, you do
not make the promise on this account, because you judge that these same writers
are of no service to your subject; but that you might not enter upon a field of
labour in vain. For you do not, I know, quite approve of this audacity of mine,
or, by what other term soever you choose to designate this my mode of
discussion.
For you say—'so great a number of the most learned men,
approved by the consent of so many ages, has no little weight with you. Among
whom were, some of the most extensively acquainted with the sacred writings, and
also some of the most holy martyrs, many renowned for miracles, together with
the more recent theologians, and so many colleges, councils, bishops, and popes:
so that, in a word, on your side of the balance are (you say) learning, genius,
multitude, greatness, highness, fortitude, sanctity, miracles, and what not!—But
that, on my side, are only a Wycliffe and a Laurentius Valla (although Augustine
also, whom you pass by, is wholly on my side), who in comparison with the
others, are of no weight whatever; that Luther, therefore, stands alone, a
private individual, an upstart, with his followers, in whom there is neither
that learning nor that genius, nor multitude, nor magnitude, nor sanctity, nor
miracles. 'For they have not ability enough (you say) to cure a lame horse. They
make a show of Scripture, indeed; concerning which, however, they are as much in
doubt as those on the other side of the question. They boast of the Spirit also,
which however, they never show forth.'—And many other things, which, from the
length of your tongue, you are able to enumerate in great profusion. But these
things have no effect upon us, for we say to you, as the wolf did to the
nightingale, which he devoured, "You are Sound, and that's all!"—"They
say (you observe,) and upon this only, they would have us believe them."
I confess, my friend Erasmus, that you may well be
swayed by all these. These had such weight with me for upwards of ten years,
that I think no other mortal was ever so much under their sway. And I myself
thought it incredible that this Troy of ours, which had for so long a time, and
through so many wars stood invincible, could ever be taken. And I call God for a
record upon my soul, that I should have continued so, and have been under the
same influence even unto this day, had not an urging conscience and an evidence
of things, forced me into a different path. And you may easily imagine that my
heart was not of stone; and that, if it had been of stone, it would at least
have been softened in struggling against so many tides, and being dashed to and
fro by so many waves, when I was daring that, which, if I accomplished, I saw
that the whole authority of those whom you have just enumerated, would be poured
down upon my head like an overwhelming flood.
But this is not a time for setting forth a history of
my own life or works; nor have I undertaken this discussion for the purpose of
commending myself, but that I might exalt the grace of God. What I am, and with
what spirit and design I have been led to these things, I leave to Him who
knows, that all this is carrying on according to his own Free-will, not
according to mine: though even the world itself ought to have found that out
already. And certainly, by this Exordium of yours, you throw me into a very
offensive situation, out of which, unless I speak in favour of myself, and to
the disparagement of so many fathers, I shall not easily extricate myself. But I
will do it in a few words.—According to your own judgment of me, then, I stand
apart from all such learning, talents, multitude, authority, and every thing
else of the kind.
Now, if I were to demand of you these three things,
What is the Manifestation of the Spirit? What are Miracles? What is
Sanctification? As far as I have known you from your letters and books, you
would appear so great a novice and ignoramus that you would not be able to give
three syllables of explanation. Or, if I should put it to you closely, and
demand of you, which one among all those of whom you boast, you could to a
certainty bring forth, either as being or having been a saint, or as having
possessed the Spirit, or as having wrought miracles, I apprehend you would have
hot work of it, and all in vain. You bring forth many things that have been
handed about in common use and in public sermons; but you do not credit, how
much of their weight and authority they lose, when they are brought to the
judgment of conscience. There is an old proverb, "Many were accounted saints on
earth, whose souls are now in hell!"
Sect. 29.—BUT we will grant you,
if you please 'that they were all saints, that they all had the Spirit, that
they all wrought miracles' (which, however, you do not require.) But tell me
this—was any one of them made a saint, did any one of them receive the Spirit or
work miracles, in the name, or by virtue of "Free-will," or to confirm the
doctrine of "Free-will"? Far be such a thought (you will say,) but in the name,
and by virtue of Jesus Christ, and for the confirmation of the doctrine of
Christ, all these things were done. Why then do you bring forward the sanctity,
the spirit, 'and the miracles of these, in confirmation of the doctrine of
"Free-will,"' for which they were not wrought and given?
Their miracles, Spirit, and sanctity, therefore, belong
to us who preach Jesus Christ, and not the ability and works of men. And now,
what wonder if those who were thus holy, spiritual, and wonderful for miracles,
were sometimes under the influence of the flesh, and spoke and wrought according
to the flesh; since that happened, not once only, to the very apostles under
Christ Himself. For you do not deny, but assert, that "Free-will" does not
belong to the Spirit, or to Christ, but is human; so that, the Spirit who is
promised to glorify Christ, cannot preach "Free will." If, therefore, the
fathers have at any time preached "Free-will," they have certainly spoken from
the flesh, (seeing they were men,) not from the Spirit of God; much less did
they work miracles for its confirmation. Wherefore, your allegation concerning
the sanctity, the Spirit, and the miracles of the fathers is nothing to the
purpose, because "Free-will " is not proved thereby, but the doctrine of Jesus
Christ against the doctrine of "Free-will."
But come, shew forth still, you that are on the side of
"Free-will," and assert that a doctrine of this kind is true, that is, that it
proceeds from the Spirit of God—shew forth still, I say, the Spirit, still work
miracles, still evidence sanctity. Certainly you who make the assertion owe this
to us, who deny these things. The Spirit, sanctity, and miracles ought not to be
demanded of us who maintain the negative, but from you who assert in the
affirmative. The negative proposes nothing, is nothing, and is bound to prove
nothing, nor ought to be proved: it is the affirmative that ought to be proved.
You assert the power of "Free-will" and the human cause: but no miracle was ever
seen or heard of, as proceeding from God, in support of a doctrine of the human
cause, only in support of the doctrines of the divine cause. And we are
commanded to receive no doctrine whatever, that is not first proved by signs
from on high. (Deut. xviii. 15-22.) Nay, the Scripture calls man "vanity," and
"a lie:" which is nothing less than saying, that all human things are vanities
and lies. Come forward then! come forward! I say, and prove, that your doctrine,
proceeding from human vanity and a lie, is true. Where is now your shewing forth
the Spirit! Where is your sanctity! Where are your miracles! I see your talents,
your erudition, and your authority; but those things God has given alike unto
all the world!
But however, we will not compel you to work great
miracles, nor "to cure a lame horse," lest you should plead, as an excuse, the
carnality of the age. Although God is wont to confirm His doctrines by miracles,
without any respect to the carnality of the age: nor is He at all moved, either
by the merits or demerits of a carnal age, but by pure mercy and grace, and a
love of souls which are to be confirmed, by solid truth, unto their glory. But
we give you the choice of working any miracles, as small an one as you please.
But come! I, in order to irritate your Baal into
action, insult, and challenge you to create even one frog, in the name, and by
virtue of "Free-will;" of which, the Gentile and impious Magi in Egypt, could
create many. I will not put you to the task of creating lice; which, neither
could they produce. But I will descend a little lower yet. Take even one flea,
or louse, (for you tempt and deride our God by your 'curing of the lame horse,')
and if, after you have combined all the powers, and concentrated all the efforts
both of your god and your advocates, you can, in the name and by virtue of
"Free-will," kill it, you shall be victors; your cause shall be established; and
we also will immediately come over and adore that god of yours, that wonderful
killer of the louse. Not that I deny, that you could even remove mountains; but
it is one thing to say, that a certain thing was done by "Free-will," and
another to prove it.
And, what I have said concerning miracles, I say also
concerning sanctity.—If you can, out of such a series of ages, men, and all the
things which you have mentioned, shew forth one work, (if it be but the lifting
a straw from the earth,) or one word, (if it be but the syllable MY,) or one
thought of "Free-will," (if it be but the faintest sigh,) by which men applied
themselves unto grace, or by which they have merited the Spirit, or by which
they have obtained pardon, or by which they have prevailed with God even in the
smallest degree, (I say nothing about being sanctified thereby,) again, I say,
you shall be victors, and we vanquished; and that, as I repeat, in the name and
by virtue of "Free-will."
For what things soever are wrought in men by the power
of divine creation, are supported by Scripture testimonies in abundance. And
certainly, you ought to produce the same: unless you would appear such
ridiculous teachers, as to spread abroad throughout the world, with so much
arrogance and authority, doctrines concerning that, of which you cannot produce
one proof. For such doctrines will be called mere dreams, which are followed by
nothing: than which, nothing can be more disgraceful to men of so many ages, so
great, so learned, so holy, and so miraculous! And if this be the case, we shall
rank even the stoics before you: for although they took upon them to describe
such a wise man as they never saw, yet they did attempt to set forth some part
of the character. But you cannot set forth any thing whatever, not even the
shadow of your doctrine.
The same also I observe concerning the Spirit. If you
can produce one out of all the assertors of "Free-will," who ever had a strength
of mind and affection, even in the smallest degree, so as, in the name and by
virtue of "Free-will," to be able to disregard one farthing, or to be willing to
be without one farthing, or to bear one word or sign of injury, (I do not speak
of the stoical contempt of riches, life, and fame,) again, the palm of victory
shall be yours, and we, as the vanquished, will willingly pass under the spear.
And these proofs you, who with such trumpeting mouths sound forth the power of
"Free-will," are bound to produce before us. Or else, again, you will appear to
be striving to give establishment to a nothing: or to be acting like him, who
sat to see a play in an empty theatre.
Sect. 30.—BUT I will easily prove
to you the contrary of all this:—that such holy men as you boast of, whenever
they approach God, either to pray or to do, approach Him, utterly forgetful of
their own "Free-will" and despairing of themselves, crying unto Him for pure
grace only, feeling at the same time that they deserve everything that is the
contrary. In this state was Augustine often; and in the same state was Bernard,
when, at the point of death, he said, "I have lost my time, because I have lived
wrong." I do not see, here, that there was any power spoken of which could apply
itself unto Grace, but that all power was condemned as being only averse;
although those same saints, at the time when they disputed concerning
"Free-will," spoke otherwise. And the same I see has happened unto all, that,
when they are engaged in words and disputations, they are one thing; but
another, when they come to experience and practice. In the former, they speak
differently from what they felt before; in the latter, they feel differently
from what they spoke before. But men, good as well as bad, are to be judged of,
more from what they feel, than from what they say.
But we will indulge you still further. We will not
require miracles, the Spirit, and sanctity. We return to the doctrine itself. We
only require this of you:—that you would at least explain to us, what work, what
word, what thought, that power of "Free-will" can move, attempt, or perform, in
order to apply itself unto grace. For it is not enough to say, there is! there
is! there is a certain power of "Free-will!" For what is more easily said than
this? Nor does such a way of proceeding become men the most learned, and the
most holy, who have been approved by so many ages, but must be called baby-like
(as we say in a German proverb.) It must be defined, what that power is, what it
can do, in what it is passive, and what takes place. To give you an example (for
I shall press you most homely) this is what is required:—Whether that power must
pray, or fast, or labour, or chastise the body, or give alms; or what other work
of this kind it must do, or attempt. For if it be a power it must do some kind
of work. But here you are more dumb than Seriphian frogs and fishes. And how
should you give the definition, when, according to your own testimony, you are
at an uncertainty about the power itself, at difference among each other, and
inconsistent with yourselves? And what must become of the definition, when the
thing to be defined has no consistency in itself?
But be it so, that since the time of Plato, you are at
length agreed among yourselves concerning the power itself; and that its work
may be defined to be praying, or fasting, or something of the same kind, which
perhaps, still lies undiscovered in the ideas of Plato. Who shall certify us
that such is truth, that it pleases God, and that we are doing right, in safety?
Especially when you yourselves assert that there is a human cause which has not
the testimony of the Spirit, because of its having been handled by philosophers,
and having existed in the world before Christ came, and before the Spirit was
sent down from heaven. It is most certain, then, that this doctrine was not sent
down from heaven with the Spirit, but sprung from the earth long before: and
therefore, there is need of weighty testimony, whereby it may be confirmed to be
true and sure.
We will grant, therefore, that we are private
individuals and few, and you public characters and many; we ignorant, and you
the most learned: we stupid, and you the most acute: we creatures of yesterday,
and you older than Deucalion; we never received, and you approved by so many
ages; in a word, we sinners, carnal, and dolts, and you awe-striking to the very
devils for your sanctity, spirit, and miracles.—Yet allow us the right at least
of Turks and Jews, to ask of you that reason for your doctrine, which your
favourite Peter has commanded you to give. We ask it of you in the most modest
way: that is, we do not require it to be proved by sanctity, by the Spirit, and
by miracles, (which however, we could do in our own right, seeing that you
yourselves require that of others): nay, we even indulge you so far, as not to
require you to produce any example of a work, a word, or a thought, in
confirmation of your doctrine but only to explain to us the doctrine itself, and
merely to tell us plainly, what you would have to be understood by it, and what
the form of it is. If you will not, or cannot do this, then let us at least
attempt to set forth an example of it ourselves. For you are as bad as the Pope
himself, and his followers, who say, "You are to do as we say, but not to
do, as we do." In the same manner you say, that that power requires a
work to be done: and so, we shall be set on to work, while you remain at your
ease. But will you not grant us this, that the more you are in numbers, the
longer you are in standing, the greater you are, the farther you are on all
accounts superior to us, the more disgraceful it is to you, that we, who in
every respect are as nothing in your eyes, should desire to learn and practice
your doctrine, and that you should not be able to prove it, either by any
miracle, or by the killing of a louse, or by any the least motion of the Spirit,
or by any the least work of sanctity, nor even to bring forth any example of it,
either in work or word? And further, (a thing unheard of before) that you should
not be able to tell us plainly of what form the doctrine is, and how it is to be
understood?—O excellent teachers of "Free-will!" What are you, now, but
"Sound only!" Who now, Erasmus, are they who "boast of the Spirit but
shew it not forth?" Who "say only, and then wish men to believe them?" Are not
your friends they, who are thus extolled to the skies, and who can say nothing,
and yet, boast of, and exact such great things?
We entreat, therefore, you and yours, my friend
Erasmus, that you will allow us to stand aloof and tremble with fear, alarmed at
the peril of our conscience; or, at least, to wave our assenting to a doctrine,
which, as you yourself see, even though you should succeed to the utmost, and
all your arguments should be proved and established, is nothing but an empty
term, and a sounding of these syllables—'There is a power of "Free-will!"'—There
is a power of "Free-will!"—Moreover, it still remains an uncertainty among your
own friends themselves, whether it be a term even, or not: for
they differ from each other, and are inconsistent with themselves. It is most
iniquitous, therefore, nay, the greatest of miseries, that our consciences,
which Christ has redeemed by His blood, should be tormented by the ghost of one
term, and that, a term which has no certainty in it. And yet, if we should not
suffer ourselves to be thus tormented, we should be held as guilty of unheard-of
pride, for disregarding so many fathers of so many ages, who have asserted
"Free-will." Whereas, the truth is, as you see from what has been said, they
never defined any thing what ever concerning "Free-will": but the doctrine of
"Free-will" is erected under the covering, and upon the basis of their name: of
which, nevertheless, they can shew no form, and for which, they can fix no term:
and thus they delude the world with a term, that is a lie!
Sect. 31.—AND here, Erasmus, I
call to your remembrance your own advice. You just now advised—'that questions
of this kind be omitted; and that, Christ crucified be rather taught, and those
things which suffice unto Christian piety'—but this, we are now seeking after
and doing. What are we contending for, but that the simplicity and purity of the
Christian doctrine should prevail, and that those things should be left and
disregarded, which have been invented, and introduced with it, by men? But you
who give this advice, do not act according to it yourself: nay you act contrary
to it: you write Diatribes: you exalt the decrees of the Popes: you honour the
authority of man: and you try all means to draw us aside into these strange
things and contrary to the Holy Scriptures: but you consider not the things that
are necessary, how that, by so doing we should corrupt the simplicity and
sincerity of the Scriptures, and confound them with the added inventions of men.
From which, we plainly discover, that you did not give us that advice, from your
heart; and that you write nothing seriously, but take it for granted that you
can, by the empty bulls of your words, turn the world as you please. Whereas you
turn them no where: for you say nothing whatever but mere contradictions, in all
things, and every where. So that he would be most correct, who should call you,
the very Proteus himself, or Vertumnus: or should say with Christ, 'Physician,
heal thyself.'—'The teacher, whose own faults his ignorance prove, has need to
hide his head!'—
Until, therefore, you shall have proved your
affirmative, we stand fast in our negative. And in the judgment, even of all
that company of saints of whom you boast, or rather, of the whole world, we dare
to say, and we glory in saying, that it is our duty not to admit that which is
nothing, and which cannot, to a certainty, be proved what it is. And you must
all be possessed of incredible presumption or of madness, to demand that to be
admitted by us, for no other reason, than because you, as being many, great, and
of long standing, choose to assert that, which you yourselves acknowledge to be
nothing. As though it were a conduct becoming Christian teachers, to mock the
miserable people, in things pertaining to godliness, with that which is nothing,
as if it were a matter that essentially concerned their salvation. Where is that
former acumen of the Grecian talent, which heretofore, at least covered lies
under some elegant semblage of truth—it now lies in open and naked words! Where
is that former dexterously laboured Latinity—it now thus deceives, and is
deceived, by one most empty term!
But thus it happens to the senseless, or the malicious
readers, of books: all those things which were the infirmities of the fathers or
of the saints, they make to be of the highest authority: the fault, therefore,
is not in the authors, but in the readers. It is as though one relying on the
holiness and the authority of St. Peter, should contend that all that St. Peter
ever said was true: and should even attempt to persuade us that it was truth,
when, (Matt. xvi. 22.) from the infirmity of the flesh, he advised Christ not to
suffer. Or that: where he commanded Christ to depart from him out of the ship.
(Luke v. 8.) And many other of those things, for which he was rebuked of Christ.
Men of this sort are like unto them, who, for the sake
of ridicule, idly say, that all things that are in the Gospel are not true. And
they catch hold of that, (John viii. 48.): where the Jews say unto Christ, "Do
we not say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" Or that: "He is
guilty of death." Or that: "We found this fellow perverting our nation, and
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar." These, do the same thing as those
assertors of "Free-will," but for a different end, and not willfully, but from
blindness and ignorance; for they, so catch at that which the fathers, falling
by the infirmity of the flesh, have said in favour of "Free-will," that they
even oppose it to that which the same fathers have elsewhere, in the power of
the Spirit, said against "Free-will": nay, they so urge and force it, that the
better is made to give way to the worse. Hence it comes to pass, that they give
authority to the worse expressions, because they fall in with their fleshly
mind; and take it from the better, because they make against their fleshly mind.
But why do we not rather select the better? For there
are many such in the fathers.—To produce an example. What can be more carnally,
nay, what more impiously, sacrilegiously, and blasphemously spoken, than that
which Jerome is wont to say—'Virginity peoples heaven, and marriage, the earth.'
As though the earth, and not heaven, was intended for the patriarchs, the
apostles, and Christian husbands. Or, as though heaven was designed for gentile
vestal virgins, who are without Christ. And yet, these things and others of the
same kind, the Sophists collect out of the fathers that they may procure unto
them authority, carrying all things more by numbers than by judgment. As that
disgusting carpenter of Constance did, who lately made that jewel of his, the
Stable of Augeas, a present to the public, that there might be a something to
cause nausea and vomit in the pious and the learned.
Sect. 32.—AND now, while I am
making these observations, I will reply to that remark of yours, where you
say—'that it is not to be believed, that God would overlook an error in His
Church for so many ages, and not reveal to any one of His saints that, which we
contend for as being the grand essential of the Christian doctrine'—
In the first place, we do not say that this error was
overlooked of God in His Church, or in any one of His Saints. For the Church is
ruled by the Spirit of God, and the Saints are led by the Spirit of God. (Rom.
viii. 14.) And Christ is with His Church even unto the end of the world. (Matt.
xxviii. 20.) And the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. iii.
15.) These things, I say, we know; for the Creed which we all hold runs thus, "I
believe in the holy Catholic Church;' so that, it is impossible that she can err
even in the least article. And even if we should grant, that some of the Elect
are held in error through the whole of their life; yet they must, of necessity,
return into the way of truth before their death; for Christ says, (John x. 28,)
"No one shall pluck them out of My hand." But this is the labour, this the
point—whether it can be proved to a certainty, that those, whom you call the
church, were the Church; or, rather, whether, having been in error throughout
their whole life, they were at last brought back before death. For this will not
easily be proved, if God suffered all those most learned men whom you adduce, to
remain in error through so long a series of ages—Therefore, God suffered His
Church to be in error.
But, look at the people of Israel: where, during so
many kings and so long a time, not one king is mentioned who never was in error.
And under Elijah the Prophet, all the people and every thing that was public
among them, had so gone away into idolatry, that he thought that he himself was
the only one left: whereas, while the kings, the princes, the prophets, and
whatever could be called the people or the Church of God was going to
destruction, God was reserving to Himself "seven thousand." (Rom. xi. 4.) But
who could see these or know them to be the people of God? And who, even now,
dares to deny that God, under all these great men, (for you make mention of none
but men in some high office, or of some great name,) was reserving to Himself a
Church among the commonalty, and suffering all those to perish after the example
of the kingdom of Israel? For it is peculiar to God, to restrain the elect of
Israel, and to slay their fat ones: but, to preserve the refuse and remnant of
Israel, (Ps. lxxviii. 31.; Isaiah i. 9., x. 20-22., xi. 11-16.)
What happened under Christ Himself, when all the
Apostles were offended at Him, when He was denied and condemned by all the
people, and there were only a Joseph, a Nicodemus, and a thief upon the cross
preserved? Were they then said to be the people of God? There was,
indeed, a people of God remaining, but it was not called the people of God; and
that which was so called,
was not the people of God. And who knows who are the people of God, when
throughout the whole world, from its origin, the state of the church was always
such, that those were called the people and saints of God who were not so while
others among them, who were as a refuse, and were not called the people and
saints of God, were the People and Saints of God? as is manifest in the
histories of Cain and Abel, of Ishmael and Isaac, of Esau and Jacob.
Look again at the age of the Arians, when scarcely five
catholic bishops were preserved throughout the whole world, and they, driven
from their places, while the Arians reigned, every where bearing the public name
and office of the church. Nevertheless, under these heretics, Christ preserved
His Church: but so, that it was the least thought or considered to be the
Church.
Again, shew me, under the kingdom of the Pope, one
bishop discharging his office. Shew me one council in which their transactions
were, concerning the things pertaining to godliness, and not rather, concerning
gowns, dignities, revenues, and other baubles, which they could not say, without
being mad, pertained to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless they are called the
church, when all, at least who live as they do, must be reprobates and any thing
but the church. And yet, even under them Christ preserved His Church, though it
was not called the Church. How many Saints must you imagine those of the
inquisition have, for some ages, burnt and killed, as John Huss and others, in
whose time, no doubt, there lived many holy men of the same spirit!
Why do you not rather wonder at this, Erasmus, that
there ever were, from the beginning of the world, more distinguished talents,
greater erudition, more ardent pursuit among the world in general than among
Christians or the people of God? As Christ Himself declares, "The children of
this world are wiser than the children of light." (Luke xvi. 8.) What Christian
can be compared (to say nothing of the Greeks) with Cicero alone for talents,
for erudition, or for indefatigability? What shall we say, then, was the
preventive cause that no one of them was able to attain unto grace, who
certainly exerted "Free-will" with its utmost powers? Who dares say, that there
was no one among them who contended for truth with all his efforts? And yet we
must affirm that no one of them all attained unto it. Will you here too say, it
is not to be believed, that God would utterly leave so many great men,
throughout such a series of ages, and permit them to labour in vain? Certainly,
if "Free-will" were any thing, or could do any thing, it must have appeared and
wrought something in those men, at least in some one instance. But it availed
nothing, nay it always wrought in the contrary direction. Hence by this argument
only, it may be sufficiently proved, that "Free-will" is nothing at all, since
no proof of it can be produced even from the beginning of the world to the end!
Sect. 33.—BUT to return—What
wonder, if God should leave all the elders of the church to go their own ways,
who thus permitted all the nations to go their own ways, as Paul saith,
Acts xiv. 16; xvii. 30?—But, my friend Erasmus, THE CHURCH OF GOD INDEED, IS NOT
SO COMMON A THING AS THIS TERM, CHURCH OF GOD: NOR ARE THE SAINTS OF GOD INDEED,
EVERY WHERE TO BE FOUND LIKE THE TERM, SAINTS OF GOD. THEY ARE PEARLS AND
PRECIOUS JEWELS, WHICH THE SPIRIT DOES NOT CAST BEFORE SWINE; BUT WHICH, (AS THE
SCRIPTURE EXPRESSES IT,) HE KEEPS HIDDEN, THAT THE WICKED SEE NOT THE GLORY OF
GOD! Otherwise, if they were openly known of all, how could it come to pass that
they should be thus vexed and afflicted in the world? As Paul saith, (1 Cor. ii.
8.) "Had they known Him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
I do not say these things, because I deny that those
whom you mention are the saints and church of God; but because it cannot be
proved, if any one should deny it, that they really are saints, but must be left
quite in uncertainty; and because, therefore, the position deduced from their
holiness, is not sufficiently credible for the confirmation of my doctrine. I
call them saints, and look upon them as such: I call them the church, and look
upon them as such—according to the law of Charity, but not according to the law
of Faith. That is, charity, which always thinks the best of every one, and
suspects not, but believeth and presumes all things for good concerning its
neighbour, calls every one who is baptized, a saint. Nor is there any peril if
she err, for charity is liable to err; seeing that she is exposed to all the
uses and abuses of all; an universal handmaid, to the good and to the evil, to
the believing and to the unbelieving, to the true and to the false.—But faith,
calls no one a saint but him who is declared to be so by the judgment of God,
for faith is not liable to be deceived. Therefore, although we ought all to be
looked upon as saints by each other by the law of charity, yet no one ought to
be decreed a saint by the law of faith, so as to make it an article of faith
that such or such an one is a Saint. For in this way, that adversary of God, the
Pope, canonized his minions whom he knows not to be saints, setting himself in
the place of God. (2 Thess. ii. 4.)
All that I say concerning those saints of yours, or
rather, ours, is this:—that since they have spoken differently from each other,
those should rather be selected who have spoken the best: that is, who have
spoken in defense of Grace, and against "Free-will": and those left, who,
through the infirmity of the flesh, have borne witness of the flesh rather than
of the Spirit. And also, that those who are inconsistent with themselves, should
be selected and caught at, in those parts of their writings where they speak
from the Spirit, and left, where they savour of the flesh. This is what becomes
a Christian reader, and a 'clean beast dividing the hoof and chewing the cud.'
(Lev. xi. 3., Deut. xiv. 6.) Whereas now, laying aside judgment, we swallow down
all things together, or, what is worse, by a perversion of judgment, we cast
away the best and receive the worst, out of the same authors; and moreover,
affix to those worst parts, the title and authority of their sanctity; which
sanctity, they obtained, not on account of "Free-will" or the flesh, but on
account of the best things, even of the Spirit only.
Sect. 34.—BUT as you say—"what
therefore shall we do? The Church is hidden, the Saints are unknown! What, and
whom shall we believe? Or, as you most sharply dispute, who will certify us? How
shall we search out the Spirit? If we look to erudition, all are rabbins! If we
look to life, all are sinners! If we look to the Scripture, they each claim it
as belonging to them! But however, our discussion is not so much concerning the
Scripture (which is not itself sufficiently clear,) but concerning the sense of
the Scripture. And though there are men of every order at hand, yet, as neither
numbers, nor erudition, nor dignity, is of any service to the subject, much less
can paucity, ignorance, and mean rank avail any thing."—
Well then! I suppose the matter must be left in doubt,
and the point of dispute remain before the judge so that, we should seem to act
with policy if we should go over to the sentiments of the Sceptics. Unless,
indeed, we were to act as you wisely do, for you pretend that you are so much in
doubt, that you professedly desire to seek and learn the truth; while, at the
same time, you cleave to those who assert "Freewill," until the truth be made
glaringly manifest.
But no! I here in reply to you observe, that you
neither say all, nor nothing. For we shall not search out the Spirit by the
arguments of erudition, of life, of talent, of multitude, of dignity, of
ignorance, of inexperience, of paucity, or of meanness of rank. And yet, I do
not approve of those, whose whole resource is in a boasting of the Spirit. For I
had the last year, and have still, a sharp warfare with those fanatics who
subject the Scriptures to the interpretation of their own boasted spirit. On the
same account also, I have hitherto determinately set myself against the Pope, in
whose kingdom, nothing is more common, or more generally received than this
saying:—'that the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous, and that the Spirit, as
the Interpreter, should be sought from the apostolical see of Rome!' than which,
nothing could be said that was more destructive; for by means of this saying, a
set of impious men have exalted themselves above the Scriptures themselves; and
by the same, have done whatever pleased them; till at length, the Scriptures are
absolutely trodden under foot, and we compelled to believe and teach nothing but
the dreams of men that are mad. In a word, that saying is no human invention,
but a poison poured forth into the world by a wonderful malice of the devil
himself, the prince of all demons.
We hold the case thus:—that the spirits are to be tried
and proved by a twofold judgment. The one, internal; by which, through the Holy
Spirit, or a peculiar gift of God, any one may illustrate, and to a certainty,
judge of, and determine on, the doctrines and sentiments of all men, for himself
and his own personal salvation concerning which it is said. (1 Cor. ii. 15.)
"The spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man." This
belongs to faith, and is necessary for every, even private, Christian. This, we
have above called, 'the internal clearness of the Holy Scripture.' And it was
this perhaps to which they alluded, who, in answer to you said, that all
things must be determined by the judgment of the Spirit. But this judgment
cannot profit another, nor are we speaking of this judgment in our present
discussion; for no one, I think, doubts its reality.
The other, then, is the external judgment; by which, we
judge, to the greatest certainty, of the spirits and doctrines of all men; not
for ourselves only, but for others also, and for their salvation. This judgment
is peculiar to the public ministry of the Word and the external office, and
especially belongs to teachers and preachers of the Word. Of this we make use,
when we strengthen the weak in faith, and when we refute adversaries. This is
what we before called, 'the external clearness of the Holy Scripture.' Hence we
affirm that all spirits are to be proved in the face of the church, by the
judgment of Scripture. For this ought, above all things, to be received, and
most firmly settled among Christians:—that the Holy Scriptures are a spiritual
light by far more clear than the sun itself, especially in those things which
pertain unto salvation or necessity.
Sect. 35.—BUT, since we have been
persuaded to the contrary of this, by that pestilent saying of the Sophists,
'the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous;' we are compelled, first of all, to
prove that first grand principle of ours, by which all other things are to be
proved: which, among the Sophists, is considered absurd and impossible to be
done.
First then, Moses saith, (Deut. xvii. 8.) that, 'if
there arise a matter too hard in judgment, men are to go to the place which God
shall choose for His name, and there to consult the priests, who are to judge of
it according to the law of the Lord.'
He saith, "according to the law of the Lord"—but how
will they judge thus, if the law of the Lord be not externally most clear, so as
to satisfy them concerning it? Otherwise, it would have been sufficient, if he
had said, according to their own spirit. Nay, it is so in every government of
the people, the causes of all are adjusted according to laws. But how could they
be adjusted, if the laws were not most certain, and absolutely, very lights to
the people? But if the laws were ambiguous and uncertain, there would not only
be no causes settled, but no certain consistency of manners. Since, therefore,
laws are enacted that manners may be regulated according to a certain form, and
questions in causes settled, it is necessary that that, which is to be the rule
and standard for men in their dealings with each other, as the law is, should of
all things be the most certain and most clear. And if that light and certainty
in laws, in profane administrations where temporal things only are concerned,
are necessary, and have been, by the goodness of God, freely granted to the
whole world; how shall He not have given to Christians, that is to His own
Elect, laws and rules of much greater light and certainty, according to which
they might adjust and settle both themselves and all their causes? And that more
especially, since He wills that all temporal things should, by His, be
despised. And "if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and
to-morrow is cast into the oven," how much more shall He clothe us? (Matt. vi.
30)—But, let us proceed, and drown that pestilent saying of the Sophists, in
Scriptures.
Psalm xix. 8, saith, "The commandment of the Lord is
clear (or pure), enlightening the eyes." And surely, that which enlightens the
eyes, cannot be obscure or ambiguous!
Again, Psalm cxix. 130, "The door of thy words giveth
light; it giveth understanding to the simple." Here, it is ascribed unto the
words of God, that they are a door, and something open, which is quite plain to
all and enlightens even the simple.
Isaiah viii. 20, sends all questions "to the law and to
the testimony;" and threatens that if we do not this, the light of the east
shall be denied us.
In Malachi, ii. 7, commands, 'that they should seek the
law from the mouth of the priest, as being the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.'
But a most excellent messenger indeed of the Lord of Hosts he must be, who
should bring forth those things, which were both so ambiguous to himself and so
obscure to the people, that neither he should know what he himself said, nor
they what they heard!
And what, throughout the Old Testament, in the 119th
Psalm especially, is more frequently said in praise of the Scripture, than that,
it is itself a most certain and most clear light? For Ps. cxix. 105, celebrates
its clearness thus: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my paths."
He does not say only—thy Spirit is a lamp unto my feet; though he ascribes unto
Him also His office, saying, "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the land of
uprightness." (Ps. cxliii. 10.) Thus the Scripture is called a "way" and a
"path:" that is from its most perfect certainty.
Sect. 36. NOW let us come to the
New Testament. Paul saith, (Rom. i. 2,) that the Gospel was promised "by the
Prophets in the Holy Scriptures." And, (Rom. iii. 21,) that the righteousness of
faith was testified "by the law and the Prophets." But what testimony is that,
if it be obscure? Paul, however, throughout all his epistles makes the Gospel,
the word of light, the Gospel of clearness; and he professedly and most
copiously sets it forth as being so, 2 Cor. iii. and iv.; where he treats most
gloriously concerning the clearness both of Moses and of Christ.
Peter also saith, (2 Pet. i. 19,) "And we certainly
have more surely the word of prophecy; unto which, ye do well that ye take heed,
as unto a light shining in a dark place." Here Peter makes the Word of God a
clear lamp, and all other things darkness: whereas, we make obscurity and
darkness of the Word.
Christ also often calls Himself, the "light of the
world;" (John viii. 12. ix. 5,) and John the Baptist, a "burning and a shining
light," (John v. 35.) Certainly, not on account of the holiness of his life, but
on account of the word which he ministered. In the same manner Paul calls the
Philippians shining "lights of the world." (Phil. ii. 15), because (says he,) ye
"hold forth the word of life." (16.) For life without the word is uncertain and
obscure.
And what is the design of the apostles in proving their
preaching by the Scriptures? Is it that they may obscure their own darkness by
still greater darkness? What was the intention of Christ, in teaching the Jews
to "search the Scriptures" (John v. 39,) as testifying of Him? Was it that He
might render them doubtful concerning faith in Him? What was their
intention, who having heard Paul, searched the Scriptures night and day, "to see
if these things were so?" (Acts xvii. 11.) Do not all these things prove that
the Apostles, as well as Christ Himself, appealed to the Scriptures as the most
clear testimonies of the truth of their discourses? With what face then do we
make them 'obscure?'
Are these words of the Scripture, I pray you, obscure
or ambiguous: "God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). "The Word was
made flesh." (John i. 14,) and all those other words which the whole world
receives as articles of faith? Whence then, did they receive them? Was it not
from the Scriptures? And what do those who at this day preach? Do they not
expound and declare the Scriptures? But if the Scripture which they declare, be
obscure, who shall certify us that their declaration is to be depended on? Shall
it be certified by another new declaration? But who shall make that
declaration?—And so we may go on ad infinitum.
In a word, if the Scripture be obscure or ambiguous,
what need was there for its being sent down from heaven? Are we not obscure and
ambiguous enough in ourselves, without an increase of it by obscurity,
ambiguity, and darkness being sent down unto us from heaven? And if this be the
case, what will become of that of the apostle, "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction?" (2 Tim. iii. 16.) Nay, Paul, thou art altogether useless, and all
those things which thou ascribest unto the Scripture, are to be sought for out
of the fathers approved by a long course of ages, and from the Roman see!
Wherefore, thy sentiment must be revoked, where thou writest to Titus, (chap. i.
9) 'that a bishop ought to be powerful in doctrine, to exhort and to convince
the gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of vain talkers, and deceivers of minds.'
For how shall he be powerful, when thou leavest him the Scriptures in
obscurity—that is, as arms of tow and feeble straws, instead of a sword? And
Christ must also, of necessity, revoke His word where He falsely promises us,
saying, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not
be able to resist," (Luke xxi. 15.) For how shall they not resist when we fight
against them with obscurities and uncertainties? And why do you also, Erasmus,
prescribe to us a form of Christianity, if the Scriptures be obscure to you!
But I fear I must already be burdensome, even to the
insensible, by dwelling so long and spending so much strength upon a point so
fully clear; but it was necessary, that that impudent and blasphemous saying,
'the Scriptures are obscure,' should thus be drowned. And you, too, my friend
Erasmus, know very well what you are saying, when you deny that the Scripture is
clear, for you at the same time drop into my ear this assertion: 'it of
necessity follows therefore, that all your saints whom you adduce, are much less
clear.' And truly it would be so. For who shall certify us concerning their
light, if you make the Scriptures obscure? Therefore they who deny the
all-clearness and all-plainness of the Scriptures, leave us nothing else but
darkness.
Sect. 37.—BUT here, perhaps, you
will say—all that you have advanced is nothing to me. I do not say that the
Scriptures are every where obscure (for who would be so mad?) but that they are
obscure in this, and the like parts.—I answer: I do not advance these things
against you only, but against all who are of the same sentiments with you.
Moreover, I declare against you concerning the whole of the Scripture, that I
will have no one part of it called obscure: and, to support me, stands that
which I have brought forth out of Peter, that the word of God is to us a "lamp
shining in a dark place." (2 Peter i. 19.) But if any part of this lamp do not
shine, it is rather a part of the dark place than of the lamp itself. For Christ
has not so illuminated us, as to wish that any part of His word should remain
obscure, even while He commands us to attend to it: for if it be not shiningly
plain, His commanding us to attend to it is in vain.
Wherefore, if the doctrine concerning "Free-will" be
obscure and ambiguous, it does not belong unto Christians and the Scriptures,
and is, therefore to be left alone entirely, and classed among those "old wives'
fables" (1 Tim. iv. 7.) which Paul condemns in contentious Christians. But if it
do belong unto Christians and the Scriptures, it ought to be clear, open, and
manifest, and in every respect like unto all the other most evident articles of
faith. For all the articles of faith which belong unto Christians ought to be
such, as may not only be most evident to themselves but so defended by manifest
and clear Scriptures against the adversaries, as to stop the mouths of them all,
that they shall not be able in any thing to gainsay. And this Christ has
promised us, saying, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your
adversaries shall not be able to resist." But if our mouth be weak in this part,
that the adversaries are able to resist, His saying, that no adversary shall be
able to resist our mouth, is false. In the doctrine of "Free-will," therefore,
we shall either have no adversaries, (which will be the case if it belong not
unto us;) or, if it belong unto us, we shall have adversaries indeed, but such
as will not be able to resist.
But concerning the inability of our adversaries to
resist, (as that particular falls in here,) I would, by the way, observe that it
is thus:—It does not mean, that they are forced to yield with the heart, or to
confess, or be silent. For who can compel men against their will to yield,
confess their error, and be silent? 'What (saith Augustine), is more loquacious
than vanity?' But what is meant by their mouths being stopped, their not having
a word to gainsay, and their saying many things, and yet, in the judgment of
common sense, saying nothing, will be best illustrated by examples.
When Christ, put the Sadducees to silence by proving
the resurrection from the dead, out of that Scripture of Moses. (Mat:. xxii.
23-32.) "I am the God of Abraham, &c., God is not the God of the dead but of the
living;" (Exod. iii. 6,) this they were not able to resist, nor had they a word
to gainsay. But did they, therefore, cease from their opinion?
And how often did he, by the most evident Scriptures
and arguments, so confute the Pharisees, that the very people saw them to be
confuted openly, and they themselves felt it. Nevertheless, they still
perseveringly continued His adversaries.
Stephen, (Acts vi. 10,) so spoke, that, according to
the testimony of Luke, "they could not resist the spirit and the wisdom with
which he spake." But what did they? Did they yield? No! from their shame of
being overcome and their inability to resist, they became furious, and shutting
their eyes and ears they suborned false witnesses against him. (Acts vi. 11-l3.)
Behold how the same apostle, standing in the council,
confutes his adversaries, while he enumerates to that people the mercies of God
unto them from their beginning, and proves to them, that God never commanded a
temple to be built unto Him: (for it was upon that point they then held him as
guilty, and that was the subject in dispute.) At length however, he grants, that
there was a temple built under Solomon. But then he takes up the point in this
way: "but the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." And to prove
this, he brings forward Isaiah the prophet, lxvi. 1, "What is the house that ye
build unto Me?" And, tell me, what could they here say against a Scripture so
manifest? Yet still, not at all moved by it, they stood fixed in their own
opinion. Wherefore, he then launches forth on them saying, "Ye uncircumcised in
heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, &c." (Acts vii 51.) He
saith, "ye do resist," although they were not able to resist.
But let us come to our own times. John Huss preached
thus against the Pope from Matt. xvi. 18—'The gates of hell shall not prevail
against my church. Is there there any obscurity or ambiguity? But the gates of
hell do prevail against the Pope and his, for they are notorious throughout the
world of their open impiety and iniquities. Is there any obscurity here either?
ERGO: THE POPE AND HIS, ARE NOT THE CHURCH CONCERNING WHICH CHRIST SPEAKS.'—What
could they gainsay here? How could they resist the mouth that Christ had given
him? Yet, they did resist, and persist until they had burnt him:
so far were they from yielding to Him, in heart. And this is the kind of
resistance to which Christ alludes when He saith, "Your adversaries shall not be
able to resist." (Luke xxi. 15.) He says they are "adversaries;" therefore they
will resist, for otherwise, they would not remain adversaries, but would become
friends, And yet He says, they "shall not be able to resist." What is this else
but saying—though they resist, they shall not be able to resist?
If therefore, I also shall be enabled so to refute the
doctrine of "Free-will, " that the adversaries shall not be able to resist,
although they persist in their opinion, and go on to resist
contrary to their conscience, I shall have done enough. For I know well, by
experience, how unwilling every one is to be overcome; and (as Quintillian
says,) 'that there is no one, who would not rather appear to know, than to be
taught.' Although, now-a-days all men, in all places, have this proverb on their
tongue, but more from use, or rather abuse, than from heart-reality—'I am
willing to learn, and I am ready to follow what is better, when I am taught it
by admonition: I am man, and liable to err.' Because, under this mask, this fair
semblance of humility, they can with plausible confidence say; 'I am not fully
satisfied of it.' 'I do not comprehend it.' 'He does violence to the
Scriptures.' 'He asserts so obstinately.' And they nestle under this confidence,
taking it for granted, that no one would ever suspect, that souls of so much
humility could, ever pertinaciously resist and determinately impugn the known
truth. Hence their not yielding in heart, is not to be imputed to their malice,
but to the obscurity and duplicity of their arguments.
In the same manner did the philosophers of the Greeks,
act; who, that the one might not appear to give up to the other, though
evidently confuted, began, as Aristotle records, to deny first principles. In
the same way we would mildly persuade ourselves and others, that there
are in the world many good men, who would willingly embrace the truth, if there
were but one who could plainly shew which it is; and that, it is not to be
supposed, that so many learned men, in such a course of ages, were all in error,
and did not know that truth.—As though we knew not, that the world is the
kingdom of Satan, where, in addition to the natural blindness that is engendered
in our flesh, and those most wicked spirits also which have dominion over us, we
grow hardened in that very blindness, and are bound in a darkness, no longer
human, but devilish.
Sect. 38.—BUT you ask—"if then
the Scripture be quite clear, why have men of renowned talent, through so many
ages, been blind upon this point?" I answer: they have been thus blind, to the
praise and glory of "Free-will;" in order that, that highly boasted-of 'power,'
by which a man is 'able to apply himself unto those things that pertain unto
eternal salvation,' might be eminently displayed; that very exalted power, which
neither sees those things which it sees, nor hears those things which it hears,
and much less, understands and seeks after them. For to this power, applies that
which Christ and the evangelists so often bring forward out of Isaiah vi. 9,
"Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see and
shall not perceive." What is this else but saying, that "Free-will," or the
human heart, is so bound by the power of Satan, that, unless it be quickened up
in a wonderful way by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself see or hear those
things which strike against the eyes and ears so manifestly, as to be as it were
palpable by the hand? So great is the misery and blindness of the human race!
Thus also the Evangelists themselves, when they wondered how it could be that
the Jews were not won over by the works and words of Christ, which were
evidently incontrovertible and undeniable, satisfied themselves from that place
of the Scripture, where it is shewn, that man, left to himself, seeing seeth
not, and hearing heareth not. And what can be more monstrous! "The light (saith
Christ) shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." (John i.
5.) Who could believe this? Who hath heard the like—that the light should shine
in darkness, and yet, the darkness still remain darkness, and not be
enlightened!
Wherefore, it is no wonder in divine things, that
through so many ages, men renowned for talent remained blind. It might have been
a wonder in human things, but in divine things, it would rather have been a
wonder if there had been one here and there that did not remain blind: that they
all remained utterly blind alike, is no wonder at all. For what is the whole
human race together, without the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil (as I have
said) and a confused chaos of darkness? And therefore it is, that Paul, (Ephes.
vi. 12,) calls the devils, "the rulers of this darkness." And, (1 Cor. ii. 8,)
he saith, that none of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of God. What
then must he think of the rest, who asserts that the princes of this world are
the slaves of darkness? For by princes, he means those greatest and highest
ones, whom you call 'men renowned for talent.' And why were all the Arians
blind? Were there not among them men renowned for talent? Why was Christ
foolishness to the nations? Are there not among the nations men renowned for
talent? "God (saith Paul) knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain,"
(1 Cor. iii. 20.) He chose not to say "of men," as the text to which he refers
has it, but would point to the first and greatest among men, that from them we
might form a judgment of the rest.—But upon these points more at large, perhaps,
hereafter.
Suffice it thus to have premised, in Exordium, that the
Scriptures are most clear, and that by them, our doctrines can be so defended
that the adversaries cannot resist: but those doctrines that cannot be thus
defended, are nothing to us, for they belong not unto Christians. But if there
be any who do not see this clearness, and are blind, or offend under this sun,
they, if they be wicked, manifest how great that dominion and power of Satan is
over the sons of men, when they can neither hear nor comprehend the all-clear
words of God, but are as one cheated by a juggler, who is made to think that the
sun is a cold cinder, or to believe that a stone is gold. But if they fear God,
they are to be numbered among those elect, who, to a certain degree, are led
into error that the power of God may be manifest in us, without which, we can
neither see nor do any thing whatever. For the not comprehending the words of
God, does not arise, as you pretend, from weakness of mind; nay, nothing is
better adapted to the receiving of the words of God, than a weakness of the
mind; for it was on account of these weak ones, and to these weak ones, that
Christ came, and it is to them he sends His Word. But it is the wickedness of
Satan enthroned and reigning in our weakness, and resisting the Word of God:—for
if Satan did not do this, a whole world of men might be converted by one Word of
God once heard, nor could there be need of more.
Sect. 39.—BUT why do I go on
enlarging? Why do I not conclude this discussion with this Exordium, and give my
sentence against you in your own words, according to that saying of Christ, "By
thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned?"
(Matt. xii. 37.) For you say that the Scripture is not quite clear upon this
point. And then, suspending all declaration of your own sentiment, you discuss
each side of the subject, what may be said for, and what against, and
nothing else whatever do you do, in the whole of this book of yours; which, for
that very reason, you wished to call DIATRIBE (The Collation) rather than
APOPHASIS (The Denial), or something of that kind; because, you wrote with a
design to collect all things, and to assert nothing. But if
the Scripture be not quite clear upon this point, why do those of whom you
boast, not only remain blind to their side of the subject, but rashly and as
fools, define and assert "Free-will," as though proved by a certain and all-sure
testimony of Scripture,—that numberless series of the most learned men, I mean,
whom the consent of so many ages has approved, even unto this day, and many of
whom, in addition to an admirable acquaintance with the Sacred Writings, a piety
of life commends?—Some have given, by their blood, a testimony of that doctrine
of Christ, which they had defended by Scriptures. If you say what you say, from
your heart, it is surely a settled point with you, that "Free-will" has
assertors, who are endowed with a wonderful understanding in the sacred
writings, and who even gave testimony of that doctrine by their blood. If this
be true, they certainly had clear Scripture on their side, else, where would be
their admirable understanding in the Sacred Writings? Moreover, what lightness
and temerity of spirit must it be, to shed ones blood for a matter uncertain and
obscure? This is not to be the martyrs of Christ, but the martyrs of devils!
Now then, do you just set the matter before you, and
weigh it in your mind, and say, to which of the two you consider the greater
credit should be given; to the prejudices of so many learned men, so many
orthodox divines, so many saints, so many martyrs, so many theologians old and
recent, so many colleges, so many councils, so many bishops and high-priest
Popes, who were of opinion that the Scriptures are quite clear, and who
(according to you) confirmed the same by their writings and by their blood; or
to your own private judgment, who deny that the Scriptures are quite clear, and
who, perhaps, never spent one single tear or sigh for the doctrine of Christ, in
the whole of your life? If you believe they were right in their opinion, why do
you not follow them in it? If you do not believe they were right, why do you
boast of them with such a trumpeting mouth, and such a torrent of language, as
though you would overwhelm us head and ears with a certain storm or flood of
eloquence? Which flood, however, will the more heavily rush back upon your own
head, whilst my Ark is borne along in safety on the top of the waters! Moreover,
you attribute to so many and great men, the utmost folly and temerity. For when
you speak of them as being men of the greatest understanding in the Scripture,
and as having asserted it by their pen, by their life, and by their death; and
yet at the same time contend yourself, that the same Scripture is obscure and
ambiguous, this is nothing less than making those men most ignorant in
understanding, and most stupid in assertion. Thus I, their poor private
despiser, do not pay them such an ill compliment, as you do, their public
flatterer.
Sect. 40.—HERE, therefore, I hold
you fast in a last-pinch syllogism (as they say). For either the one or the
other of your assertions must be false. Either that, where you say, 'those men
were admirable for their understanding in the Sacred Writings, for their life,
and for their martyrdom;' or that, where you say, that 'the Scriptures are not
quite clear.' But since you are drawn more this latter way, that is, to believe
that the Scriptures are not quite clear, (for this is what you harp upon
throughout the whole of your book), it remains evident, that it was either from
your own natural inclination towards them, or for the sake of flattering them,
but by no means from seriousness, that you called those men, 'men of the
greatest understanding in the Scripture, and martyrs of Christ;' merely in order
that you might blind the eyes of the inexperienced commonalty, and make work for
Luther by loading his cause with empty words, odium, and contempt. But, however,
I aver that neither of your assertions are true, and that both are
false. For, first of all, I aver, that the Scriptures are quite clear: and next,
that those men, as far as they asserted "Free-will," were most ignorant of the
Sacred Writings: and moreover, that they neither asserted it by their life, nor
by their death, but by their pen only; and that, while their heart was traveling
another road.
Wherefore this small part of the Disputation I conclude
thus.—By the Scripture, as being obscure, nothing ever has hitherto, nor ever
can be defined concerning "Free-will;" according to your own testimony.
Moreover, nothing has ever been manifested in confirmation of "Free-will," in
the lives of all the men from the beginning of the world; as we have proved
above. To teach, then, a something which is neither described by one word
within the Scriptures, nor evidenced by one fact without the Scriptures, is
that, which does not belong to the doctrines of Christians, but to the very
fables of Lucian. Except, however, that Lucian, as he amuses only with
ludicrous stories from wit and policy) deceives and injures no
one. But these friends of ours, in a matter of importance which concerns eternal
salvation, madly trifle to the perdition of souls innumerable.
Thus I might here have concluded the whole of this
discussion, even with the testimony of my adversaries making for me, and
against themselves. For no proof can be more decisive, than the very
confession and testimony of the guilty person against himself. But however, as
Paul commands us to stop the mouths of vain talkers, let us now enter upon the
Discussion itself, and handle the subject in the order in which the Diatribe
proceeds: that we may, FIRST, confute the arguments adduced in support of
"Free-will": SECONDLY, defend our arguments that are confuted: and, LASTLY,
contend for the Grace of God against "Free-will."
|
