I therefore conclude this little disputation 273 thus. A
ccording 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. 274 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.
PART III. LUTHER CONFUTES ERASMUS’ TESTIMONIES
IN SUPPORT OF FREEWILL.
SECTION 1. Erasmus’ Definition of Freewill examined.
AND first, as bound in duty, I will begin with your very definition of Freewill; which is as follows:
‘Moreover, by Freewill here, I mean that power of the human will, whereby a man is able to apply himself to those things which lead to eternal salvation, or to turn himself away from them.’
Doubtless with great prudence, you lay down a bare 275 a definition here, without opening any part of it as is customary with others: perhaps afraid of more shipwrecks than one! I am therefore compelled to beat out the several parts of it for myself. The thing defined, if it is strictly examined, is certainly of a wider range than the definition. It is therefore what the Sophists would call a defective definition, which is their term for those which do not fill up the thing defined. 276 For I have shown above, that Freewill belongs to none but God only. You might, perhaps with propriety, attribute will to man. But to attribute free will to him in divine things 277 is too much, since the term Freewill, in the judgment of all ears, is properly applied to ‘that which can do, and which does,’ towards God, whatever it pleases, without being confined by any law or command.
You would not call a slave free, who acts under the command of his master. With how much less propriety do we call a man or an angel free, when they live under the most absolute subjection to God (to say nothing of sin and death), so as not to subsist for a moment by their own strength.
Instantly, therefore, even at the very doors of our argument, we have a quarrel between the definition of the term, and the definition of the thing. The word signifies one thing, and the thing itself is understood to be another. It would be more properly called vertible will,278 or mutable will. For thus Augustine (and after him, the Sophists) extenuates the glory and virtue of that word Free, adding this disparagement to it: they speak of the vertibility of the free will.’ It would become us to speak this way, that we might avoid deceiving the hearts of men by inflated, vain, and pompous words. Augustine also thinks that we should speak in sober and plain words, observing a fixed rule. For in teaching, a dialectic simplicity and strictness of speech is required — not big swelling words, and figures of rhetorical persuasion. 279
SECT. 2. Definition continued.
But, lest I seem to take pleasure in fighting for a word, I will acquiesce for the moment in this abuse of terms, great and dangerous as it is, so far as to allow a ‘free’ will to be the same as a ‘vertible’ will. I will also indulge Erasmus with making Freewill ‘a power of the human will,’ as though Angels did not have it — since, in this performance, he professes to treat only human Freewill. Otherwise, in this particular also, the definition would be narrower than the thing defined.
I hasten to those parts of the definition on which the subject hinges. Some of these are sufficiently manifest; others flee the light, as though a guilty conscience made them afraid of everything. Yet a definition ought to be the plainest and most certain thing in the world; for to define obscurely, is just like not defining at all. These parts are plain: (1) a power of the human will; (2) by which a man is able; (3) unto eternal salvation. But those other words, ‘to apply himself;’ and again, ‘those things which lead;’ and again, ‘to turn himself away;’ — these are the words of the hoodwinked fencer. 280 What will we then divine that phrase ‘to apply himself’ to mean? Again, ‘to turn himself away’? What are those words, ‘which lead to eternal salvation’? What corner are they slinking into? I perceive that I have to deal with a veritable Scotus or Heraclitus; 281 who wears me out with two sorts of labour.
First, I have to go in search of my adversary, and grope for him in the dark amidst pitfalls, with a palpitating heart (it is a daring and dangerous enterprise); and if I do not find him, then I have to fight with hobgoblins, and beat the air in the dark, to no purpose.
Secondly, if I manage to drag him into the light, then at length, once I am worn out with the pursuit, I have to close with him in an equal fight.
By ‘a power of the human will,’ then, is meant, I suppose, an ability, faculty, disposedness, or suitedness to will, to refuse, to choose, despise, approve, reject, and perform whatever other actions there are of the human will. But I do not see what is meant by this same power ‘applying itself’ and ‘turning itself away,’ if it is not this very willing and refusing, this very choosing and despising, this very approving and rejecting — in short, if it is not ‘the will performing its very office.’ So that we must suppose this power to be ‘a something interposed between the will itself and its actings:’ a power by which the will itself draws out the operation of willing and refusing, and by which that very act of willing and refusing is elicited. It is not possible to imagine or conceive anything else here. If I am mistaken, let the fault be charged upon the author who defines it, not upon me who is searching out his meaning. For it is rightly said by the jurists, that the words of the one who speaks obscurely, when he might speak more plainly, are to be interpreted against himself. And here, by the way, I could be glad to know nothing of these Moderns 282 with whom I have to deal, and their subtleties: for we must be content to speak grossly, 283 so that we may teach and understand.
‘The things which lead to eternal salvation,’ are the words and works of God, I suppose. These are set before the human will, that it may either apply itself to them, or turn away from them. By the words of God, I mean the Law as well as the Gospel: works are demanded by the Law; and faith by the Gospel. 284 For there are no other things that lead either to the grace of God, or to eternal salvation, save the word and work of God — since grace, or the Spirit, is the life itself to which we are led by the word and work of God. 285
SECT. 3. Definition continued.
But this life, or eternal salvation, is an incomprehensible thing to human conception, as Paul cites from Isaiah (in 1Cor 2.9): “What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man, are the things which God has prepared for those who love him.” For this also is placed among the chief articles of our faith. In confessing them, we say, ‘and the life ever-lasting,’ And what the power of Freewill is, in receiving this article, Paul declares in 1Cor 2.10: “God,” he says, “has revealed them to us by his
