ERASMUS' SKEPTICISM.
Sect. 2. - BUT what will you
say to these your declarations, when, be it remembered, they are not
confined to "Free-will" only, but apply to all doctrines in general
throughout the world - that, "if it were permitted you by the
inviolable authority of the sacred Writings and decrees of the
church, you would go over to the sentiments of the Skeptics?" -
What an all-changeable Proteus is
there in these expressions, "inviolable authority" and "decrees of
the church!" As though you could have so very great a reverence for
the Scriptures and the church, when at the same time you signify,
that you wish you had the liberty of being a Sceptic! What Christian
would talk in this way? But if you say this in reference to useless
and doubtful doctrines, what news is there in what you say? Who, in
such things, would not wish for the liberty of the skeptical
profession ? Nay, what Christian is there who does not actually use
this liberty freely, and condemn all those who are drawn away with,
and captivated by ever opinion? Unless you consider all Christians
to be such (as the term is generally understood) whose doctrines are
useless, and for which they quarrel like fools, and contend by
assertions. But if you speak of necessary things, what declaration
more impious can any one make, than that he wishes for the liberty
of asserting nothing in such matters? Whereas, the Christian will
rather say this - I am so averse to the sentiments of the Skeptics,
that wherever I am not hindered by the infirmity of the flesh, I
will not only steadily adhere to the Sacred Writings every where,
and in all parts of them, and assert them, but I wish also to be as
certain as possible in things that are not necessary, and that lie
without the Scripture; for what is more miserable than uncertainty.
What shall we say to these things
also, where you add - "To which authorities I submit my opinion in
all things; whether I follow what they enjoin, or follow it not." -
What say you, Erasmus? Is it not
enough that you submit your opinion to the Scriptures? Do you submit
it to the decrees of the church also? What can the church decree,
that is not decreed in the Scriptures? If it can, where then remains
the liberty and power of judging those who make the decrees? As
Paul, I Cor. xiv., teaches "Let others judge." Are you not pleased
that there should be any one to judge the decrees of the church,
which, nevertheless, Paul enjoins? What new kind of religion and
humility is this, that, by our own example, you would take away from
us the power of judging the decrees of men, and give it unto men
without judgment? Where does the Scripture of God command us to do
this?
Moreover, what Christian would so
commit the injunctions of the Scripture and of the church to the
winds, - as to say "whether I follow them, or follow them not?" You
submit yourself, and yet care not at all whether you follow them or
not. But let that Christian be anathema, who is not certain in, and
does not follow, that which is enjoined him. For how will he believe
that which he does not follow? - Do you here, then, mean to say,
that following is understanding a thing certainly, and not doubting
of it at all in a skeptical manner? If you do, what is there in any
creature which any one can follow, if following be understanding,
and seeing and knowing perfectly? And if this be the case, then it
is impossible that any one should, at the same time, follow some
things, and not follow others: whereas, by following one certain
thing, God, he follows all things; that is, in Him, whom whoso
followeth not, never followeth any part of His creature.
In a word, these declarations of
yours amount to this - that, with you, it matters not what is
believed by any one, any where, if the peace of the world be but
undisturbed; and if every one be but allowed, when his life, his
reputation, or his interest is at stake, to do as he did, who said,
"If they affirm, I affirm, if they deny, I deny:" and to look upon
the Christian doctrines as nothing better than the opinions of
philosophers and men: and that it is the greatest of folly to
quarrel about, contend for, and assert them, as nothing can arise
there from but contention, and the disturbance of the public peace:
"that what is above us, does not concern us." This, I say, is what
your declarations amount to. - Thus, to put an end to our fightings,
you come in as an intermediate peace-maker, that you may cause each
side to suspend arms, and persuade us to cease from drawing swords
about things so absurd and useless.
What I should cut at here, I
believe, my friend Erasmus, you know very well. But, as I said
before, I will not openly express myself. In the mean time, I excuse
your very good intention of heart; but do you go no further; fear
the Spirit of God, who searcheth the reins and the heart, and who is
not deceived by artfully contrived expressions. I have, upon this
occasion, expressed myself thus, that henceforth you may cease to
accuse our cause of pertinacity or obstinacy. For, by so doing, you
only evince that you hug in your heart a Lucian, or some other of
the swinish tribe of the Epicureans; who, because he does not
believe there is a God himself, secretly laughs at all those who do
believe and confess it. Allow us to be assertors, and to study and
delight in assertions: and do you favor your Skeptics and Academics
until Christ shall have called you also. The Holy Spirit is not a
Skeptic, nor are what he has written on our hearts doubts or
opinions, but assertions more certain, and more firm, than life
itself and all human experience.
Sect. 3. - Now I come to the next
head, which is connected with this; where you make a "distinction
between the Christian doctrines," and pretend that some are
necessary, and some not necessary." You say, that "some are
abstruse, and some quite clear." Thus you merely sport the sayings
of others, or else exercise yourself, as it were, in a rhetorical
figure. And you bring forward, in support of this opinion, that
passage of Paul, Rom xi. 33, "O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and goodness of God!" And also that of Isaiah xl. 13, "Who
hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been His
counselor?"
You could easily say these things,
seeing that, you either knew not that you were writing to Luther,
but for the world at large, or did not think that you were writing
against Luther: whom, however, I hope you allow to have some
acquaintance with, and judgment in, the Sacred Writings. But, if you
do not allow it, then, behold, I will also twist things thus. This
is the distinction which I make; that I also may act a little the
rhetorician and logician - God, and the Scripture of God, are two
things; no less so than God, and the Creature of God. That there are
in God many hidden things which we know not, no one doubts: as He
himself saith concerning the last day: "Of that day knoweth no man
but the Father." (Matt. xxiv. 36.) And (Acts i. 7.) "It is not yours
to know the times and seasons." And again, "I know whom I have
chosen," (John xiii. 18.) And Paul, "The Lord knoweth them that are
His," (2 Tim. ii. 19.). And the like.
But, that there are in the
Scriptures some things abstruse, and that all things are not quite
plain, is a report spread abroad by the impious Sophists by whose
mouth you speak here, Erasmus. But they never have produced, nor
ever can produce, one article whereby to prove this their madness.
And it is with such scare-crows that Satan has frightened away men
from reading the Sacred Writings, and has rendered the Holy
Scripture contemptible, that he might cause his poisons of
philosophy to prevail in the church. This indeed I confess, that
there are many places in the Scriptures obscure and abstruse; not
from the majesty of the thing, but from our ignorance of certain
terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a
knowledge of all the things in the Scriptures. For what thing of
more importance can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the
seals are broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher,
and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light, Christ made
man: that God is Trinity and Unity: that Christ suffered for us, and
will reign to all eternity? Are not these things known and
proclaimed even in our streets? Take Christ out of the Scriptures,
and what will you find remaining in them?
All the things, therefore,
contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some
places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to
know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest
light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the
things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are
obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however,
the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole
world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also
still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not
if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of
it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other
representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say
that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are
in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in
the Open market place can see it plainly?
Sect. 4. - WHAT you adduce,
therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to
nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things
which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries,
are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay,
brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our
understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the
Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.)
"Their sound is gone out into all the earth." (Psalm xix. 4.) And
"All things that are written, are written for our instruction."
(Rom. xv. 4.) And again, "All Scripture is inspired from above, and
is profitable for instruction." (2 Tim. iii. 16.)
Therefore come forward, you and all
the Sophists together, and produce any one mystery which is still
abstruse in the Scriptures. But, if many things still remain
abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the
Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding,
who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth.
As Paul saith concerning the Jews, 2 Cor. iii. 15. "The veil still
remains upon their heart." And again, "If our gospel be hid it is
hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world hath
blinded." (2 Cor. iv. 3-4.) With the same rashness any one may cover
his own eyes, or go from the light into the dark and hide himself,
and then blame the day and the sun for being obscure. Let,
therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous
perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the
all-clear Scriptures of God.
You, therefore, when you adduce
Paul, saying, "His judgments are incomprehensible," seem to make the
pronoun His (ejus) refer to Scripture (Scriptura). Whereas Paul does
not say, The judgments of the Scripture are incomprehensible, but
the judgments of God. So also Isaiah xl. 13, does not say, Who has
known the mind of the Scripture, but, who has known "the mind of the
Lord?" Although Paul asserts that the mind of the Lord is known to
Christians: but it is in those things which are freely given unto
us: as he saith also in the same place, 1 Cor. ii. 10, 16. You see,
therefore, how sleepily you have looked over these places of the
Scripture: and you cite them just as aptly as you cite nearly all
the passages in defense of "Free-will."
In like manner, your examples which
you subjoin, not without suspicion and bitterness, are nothing at
all to the purpose. Such are those concerning the distinction of
Persons: the union of the Divine and human natures: the unpardonable
sin: the ambiguity attached to which, you say, has never been
cleared up. - If you mean the questions of Sophists that have been
agitated upon those subjects, well. But what has the all-innocent
Scripture done to you, that you impute the abuse of the most wicked
of men to its purity? The Scripture simply confesses the Trinity of
God, the humanity of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. There is
nothing here of obscurity or ambiguity. But how these things are the
Scripture does not say, nor is it necessary to be known. The
Sophists employ their dreams here; attack and condemn them, and
acquit the Scripture. - But, if you mean the reality of the matter,
I say again, attack not the Scriptures, but the Arians, and those to
whom the Gospel is hid, that, through the working of Satan, they
might not see the all-manifest testimonies concerning the Trinity of
the Godhead, and the humanity of Christ.
But to be brief. The clearness of
the Scripture is twofold; even as the obscurity is twofold also. The
one is external, placed in the ministry of the word; the other
internal, placed in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of
the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures, but
he that hath the Spirit of God. All have a darkened heart; so that,
even if they know how to speak of, and set forth, all things in the
Scripture, yet, they cannot feel them nor know them: nor do they
believe that they are the creatures of God, nor any thing else:
according to that of Psalm xiv, 1. "The fool hath said in his heart,
God is nothing." For the Spirit is required to understand the whole
of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the external
clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all
things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth
into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world.
Sect. 5. - BUT this is still more
intolerable, - Your enumerating this subject of "Free-will" among
those things that are "useless, and not necessary;" and drawing up
for us, instead of it, a "Form" of those things which you consider
"necessary unto Christian piety." Such a form as, certainly, any Jew
or any Gentile utterly ignorant of Christ, might draw up. For of
Christ you make no mention in one iota. As though you thought, that
there may be Christian piety without Christ, if God be but
worshipped with all the powers as being by nature most merciful.
What shall I say here, Erasmus? To
me, you breathe out nothing but Lucian, and draw in the gorging
surfeit of Epicurus. If you consider this subject "not necessary" to
Christians, away, I pray you, out of the field; I have nothing to do
with you. I consider it necessary.
If, as you say, it be
"irreligious," if it be "curious," if it be "superfluous," to know,
whether or not God foreknows any thing by contingency; whether our
own will does any thing in those things which pertain unto eternal
salvation, or is only passive under the work of grace; whether or
not we do, what we do of good or evil, from necessity, or rather
from being passive; what then, I ask, is religious; what is grave;
what is useful to be known? All this, Erasmus, is to no purpose
whatever. And it is difficult to attribute this to your ignorance,
because you are now old, have been conversant with Christians, and
have long studied the Sacred Writings: therefore you leave no room
for my excusing you, or having a good thought concerning you.
And yet the Papists pardon and put
up with these enormities in you: and on this account, because you
are writing against Luther: otherwise, if Luther were not in the
case, they would tear you in pieces tooth and nail. Plato is a
friend; Socrates is a friend; but Truth is to be honored above all.
For, granting that you have but little understanding in the
Scriptures and in Christian piety, surely even an enemy to
Christians ought to know what Christians consider useful and
necessary, and what they do not. Whereas you, a theologian, a
teacher of Christians, and about to draw up for them a "Form" of
Christianity, not only in your skeptical manner doubt of what is
necessary and useful to them, but go away into the directly
opposite, and, contrary to your own principles, by an unheard of
assertion, declare it to be your judgment, that those things are
"not necessary:" whereas, if they be not necessary, and certainly
known, there can remain neither God, nor Christ, nor Gospel, nor
Faith, nor any thing else, even of Judaism, much less of
Christianity! In the name of the Immortal God, Erasmus, what an
occasion, yea, what a field do you open for acting and speaking
against you! What could you write well or correctly concerning
"Free-will," who confess, by these your declarations, so great an
ignorance of the Scripture and of Godliness? But I draw in my sails:
nor will I here deal with you in my words (for that perhaps I shall
do hereafter) but in your own.
Sect. 6. - THE "Form" of
Christianity set forth by you, among other things, has this - "That
we should strive with all our powers, have recourse to the remedy of
repentance, and in all ways try to gain the mercy of God; without
which, neither human will, nor endeavor, is effectual." Also, "that
no one should despair of pardon from a God by nature most merciful."
-
These statements of yours are
without Christ, without the Spirit, and more cold than ice: so that,
the beauty of your eloquence is really deformed by them. Perhaps a
fear of the Popes and those tyrants, extorted them from you their
miserable vassal, lest you should appear to them a perfect atheist.
But what they assert is this - That there is ability in us; that
there is a striving with all our powers; that there is mercy in God;
that there are ways of gaining that mercy; that there is a God, by
nature just, and most merciful, &c. - But if a man does not know
what these powers are; what they can do, or in what they are to be
passive; what their efficacy, or what their inefficacy is; what can
such an one do? What will you set him about doing?
"It is irreligious, curious, and
superfluous, (you say) to wish to know, whether our own will does
any thing in those things which pertain unto eternal salvation, or
whether it is wholly passive under the work of grace." - But here,
you say the contrary: that it is Christian piety to "strive with all
the powers;" and that, "without the mercy of God the will is
ineffective."
Here you plainly assert, that the
will does something in those things which pertain unto eternal
salvation, when you speak of it as striving: and again, you assert
that it is passive, when you say, that without the mercy of God it
is ineffective. Though, at the same time, you do not define how far
that doing, and being passive, is to be understood: thus, designedly
keeping us in ignorance how far the mercy of God extends, and how
far our own will extends; what our own will is to do, in that which
you enjoin, and what the mercy of God is to do. Thus, that prudence
of yours, carries you along; by which, you are resolved to hold with
neither side, and to escape safely through Scylla and Charybdis; in
order that, when you come into the open sea, and find yourself
overwhelmed and confounded by the waves, you may have it in your
power, to assert all that you now deny, and deny all that you now
assert.
Back to TOC-> |