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, 249 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.” 250 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. 251
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, 252 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, 253 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), 254 he at length concedes that a Temple had indeed been built to him, under Solomon.
But then he abates the force of his concession, 255 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: 256 “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, 257 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. 258
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 259 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
