‘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 260 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. 261 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) 262
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? 263 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,264 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 265 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 need of more. 266
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.” 267 (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, 268 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 269 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’ 270 — 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. 271
SECT. 20. Erasmus reduced to a dilemma.
Here I hold you fast, then, by a horned syllogism, as they call it. 272 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
