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 223 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. 224
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 glory.” 225
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 226 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.’ 227 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. 228
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. 229
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? 230 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. 231 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,’ 232 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, 233 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,’ 234 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 I state it to be.
Therefore, there is another
