Bondage of the Will

Sections 28 through 40 of the Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, translated by Henry Cole. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Exordium. Section 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 labor 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 their 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 Vala, 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 is 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 much 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 exhortium of yours, you throw me into a very offensive situation, out of which, unless I speak in favor 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 everything 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 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. Section 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, show 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. Show forth still, I say, the Spirit. Still work miracles. Still evidence sanctity. Certainly, you who make the assertion 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. Deuteronomy 18, 15 through 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 showing 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 the 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 and one as you please. But come, I, in order to irritate your bale 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, show forth one work, if it be but the lifting of 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 anything 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, whoever 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. Section 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 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 a verse, 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 labor, 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 serifian 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 sprang 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, our 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 favorite 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 show 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 the 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 anything whatever 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 show no form, and for which they can fix no term, and thus they delude the world with a term that is a lie. Section 31 In 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 honor 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 bowls of your words turn the world as you please. Whereas you turn them nowhere, for you say nothing whatever but mere contradictions in all things and everywhere. 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 assemblage of truth? It now lies in open and naked words. Where is that former dexterously labored 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, Matthew 16, 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 5, 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 8, 48, where the Jews say unto Christ, Do we not say well that thou art a Samaritan and hast the 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 asserters 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, failing by the infirmity of the flesh, have said in favor of free will, that they even oppose it to that which the same fathers have elsewhere in the power of the spirit, 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, people's 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. Section 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. Romans 8, 14 And Christ is with his church even unto the end of the world. Matthew 28, 20 And the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3, 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 10, 28 No one shall pluck them out of my hand. But this is the labor, this is 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 of 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 everything 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, Romans 11 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. Psalm 78 31 Isaiah 1 9 10 20 through 22 11 11 through 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, 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 everywhere, burying 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, show me, under the kingdom of the Pope, one bishop discharging his office. Show 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, pertain to the spirit. Nevertheless, they are called the church when all, at least who live as they do, must be reprobates and anything 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 Hus 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 16.8 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 preventative 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 the 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 labor in vain? Certainly, if free will were anything, or could do anything, 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. Section 33 But to return What wonder if God should leave all the elders of the church to go their own way, who thus permitted all the nations to go their own ways, as Paul saith, Acts 14.16 and 17.30. 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 everywhere 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 not see 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 Corinthians 2.8. 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 anyone 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 everyone and suspects not, but believeth and presumes all things for good concerning its neighbor, calls everyone 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, and 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 in 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 Thessalonians 2.4 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 the 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 savor of the flesh. This is what becomes a Christian reader and a clean beast dividing the hoof and chewing the cud. Leviticus 11.3 Deuteronomy 14.6 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 flesh, but on account of the best things, even of the Spirit only. Section 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 rabbis. If we look to life, all are sinners. If we look to the Scripture, they all 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 anything. 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 skeptics. 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 free will 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 sole resource is in boasting of the spirit. For I had the last year and still have 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 sea 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 underfoot, 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, anyone 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 Corinthians 2.15, 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 called above 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. Section 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 Deuteronomy 17, 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 clauses settled but no certain consistency of manners. Since, therefore, laws are enacted that manners may be regulated according to a certain form and questions and 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 clothed the grass of the field which today is and tomorrow is cast into the oven how much more shall he clothe us? Matthew 6 30 But let us proceed and drown that pestilence saying of the sophists in scriptures Psalm 19 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 119 130 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 8 20 sends all questions to the law and to the testimony and threatens that if we do not do this the light of the east shall be denied us in Malachi 2 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 said himself 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 Psalm 119 105 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 ascribed them to him also his office saying thy good spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness Psalm 143 10 thus the scripture is called a way and a path that is from its most perfect certainty section 36 now let us come to the New Testament Paul saith Romans 1 2 that the gospel was promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures and Romans 3 21 that the righteousness of faith was testified by the law and the prophets but what testimony is that if it is 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 Corinthians 3 4 where he treats most gloriously concerning the clearness both of Moses and of Christ Peter also saith 2 Peter 1 19 and we certainly have more surely the word of prophecy unto which ye do well that ye take heed as into 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 in darkness of the word Christ also often calls himself the light of the world John 8 12 9 5 and John the Baptist a burning and shining light John 5 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 Philippians 2 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 5 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 17 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 Genesis 1 1 the word was made flesh John 1 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 dependent 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 2nd timothy 3 16 Nay Paul thou art altogether useless and all those things which thou ascribest unto scripture are to be sought for out of the fathers approved by a long course of ages and from the roman sea wherefore thy sentiment must be revoked where thou writest to Titus chapter 1 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 21 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 but here perhaps you will say all that you have advanced is nothing to me i do not say that the scriptures are everywhere 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 2nd peter 1 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 command to us to attend to it is in vain wherefore if the doctrine concerning free will be obscure and ambiguous it does not belong to christians and the scriptures and is therefore to be left alone entirely and classed among those old wives fables 1st timothy 4 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 likened to 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 anything 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 they're not having a word to gainsay and they're 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 matthew 22 23 through 32 i am the god of abraham and so forth god is not the god of the dead but of the living exodus 3 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 6 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 suborn false witnesses against him acts 6 11 through 13 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 that they 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 64 1 what is the house that ye build unto me and tell me what could they hear say against the 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 and so forth acts 7 51 he sayeth ye do resist although they were not able to resist but let us come to our own times john hoss preached thus against the pope from matthew 16 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 gain say 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 21 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 well know by experience how unwilling everyone is to be overcome and as quintillion says that there is no one who would not rather appear to know than to be taught although nowadays 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 am willing to follow what is better when i am taught it by admonition i am a 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 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 show 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 the 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 section 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 6 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 have 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 shown 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 1 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 remain 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 ephesians 6 12 calls the devils the rulers of this darkness and first corinthians 2 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 assert 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's 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 first corinthians 3 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 exhortium 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 offended unto this son 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 anything 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 section 39 but why do i go on enlarging why do i not conclude this discussion with this exhortium 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 matthew 12 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 apophysis the denial or something of that kind because you wrote with the 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 man 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 commands some have given by their blood a testimony of that doctrine of christ which they have defended by scriptures if you say what you say from your heart it is surely a settled point with you that free will has asserters 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 one's 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 greatest 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 section 40 here therefore i hold you fast in a last pinch syllogism as you 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 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 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 seduced in support of free will secondly defend our arguments that are confuted and lastly contend for the grace of god against free will end of section 40