M I L E S T O N E S O F T H O U G H T

Erasmus - Luther

DISCOURSE ON

FRE,E, WILL

Translated and edited by

ERNST F. WINTER

Iona College

FREDERICK UNGAR PUBLISHING CO., INC.

NDW YORK

. ' i . r i - , j i j , - i r . . i i j i L . r \ i i i l t j f -1 , . :1 ! \ /. a i . . t i t . : . : , ( I l r ;J f - l { : ,

,t i ]( rl, ,. i I , ,1 ;. 1". qi.r .r1 .-

5 r l g 1 ' r 1 . . , t ;

-:-

Par t One

ERASMUS

T H E F R E E W I L L

I

A D I A T R I B E O R S E R M O NC O N C E R N I N G F R E E W I L L

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam

P R E F A C E : M A N A N D T R U T H

Auoro the many dificulties encountered in Holy Scripture-and there are many of them-none presents a more per-plexed labyrinth than the problem of the freedom of thewill. In ancient and more recent times philosophers andtheologiansl have becn vexed by it to an astonishing degree,

1 Arguments criticizing the free will are easier to frnd and to pre-sent than those in its delense and explanation. Darly GreeL viewswere aheady varied and obscure. The Eleatics, Democtitus ar.d theSroirr generally opposed the freedom of the will. The Pythagoreans,Sactates, Plato, Atistotle and Eti.urus attempted, various explana-tions in its d€fense. Cf. Dom David Amand,, Fatalism et liberti dansfantiquitl gr ecque, Louvain, 1945. Socrates and Plato held that the

sood, being identical with the true, imposes itself irresistably on thewiil and the intellect. once it is clearly known and qnderstood. Evilresults from ignorance. Aristotl€ disagrees partly and appeals to ex-pe ence. Vice is voluntary. Chance plays a role in some actions.The irresistible influence of his Prime Mover, however, males theconception of a genuine moral freedom a difficulty for him. Epicu-rus advocated lree will, in order to assuage man's fear caused byb€li€f in iresistible fate.

Medieval thought developed a complex theology of the free will.Preeminent among thc thcologians ls St. Augustine ol Hi?po whotaught the freedom of the will against the Manichaeans, but thenecessity of grace against the Pelagians. This two-{old apologeticgave rise later to interprctation diflerences, of which the Erasmus-Luther controv€ny is just one example..!1. Thomas Aquinas de-veloped some aspects of Augustine's teachings. Will is rationalappetite. Free will becomes simply th€ elective pow€r for choosing

4 DISCOURSE ON F&EE WILL

but, as it seems to me, rvith more exertion than success ontheir part. Reccntly, Carlstadt and Eck restored intercst inthe problem, dcbating it, horvever, with moderation., Soonthereafter, Martin Luthcr took up the whole controvcrsyonce more-and in a rather heatcd fashion with hislormal Assertion concerning the lreedom of the will.,, And

diflerent forms oI desired beatitudes. How are man's future acts notnecessary, despite God's infallible prevision? God does not exist intime: past and future alike arc ever prescnt. How about God'somnipotent providence? Docs it infringe on man's freedom by itspefect conirol over all happenings?'Iwo schools of thought arrrongthe Scholastics, both logically continuing ccrtain of Aquinas' teach-ings, came to the fore. This Scholasticism irritated both Erasmusand Luther. It developed the finer poinrs. often ignored by Erasmusand challenged by Luther's assertions. The Dominican or fhomistschool saw God as prcnoving man iu accord with his frec naturc.Divine foreknowlcdge and God's providenrial control of the world,shistory are in harmony with man,lvho is by nature and dcfinition afree cause. Animals are not. Thcy are in harmony wirh rheir naturc.a d o p r i n q p a r r i c u l u r . o . r r s . s l , y n F , . $ i r y . T h . J o . u i r o r l \ t o ' i n i , rschool does not think this explains freedom of the human wi

sufli-ciently. They conceive the relation of divine action to man,s willto be concurrent rather than prc,motive, exempting God morecl .ar ly f rom al l rcspon. ib i l i ry tor nan. s in.

Some of the complexity wirh which generations of thinkers havebeen grappling can be found in rhc Erasmus-Lurher debate. In asense it is a disorganized summary of rhe classicat and medievaldebates. Thercafter. beginning perhaps with Spinoza, a new ration-alism enters the debatc. Of this Erasmus is somethins of a Dre-cur.or . exuding r .a,o ' JLI ,ness on ht pdrt . For an uo.r . -daLepr" ,nnrar ion of rhF enr i r^ panoram/! \ce l \ {onir rer T. Ajhr . T/ i?Idea ol Fteedon: A Dial . , t ical Exanj inar ion ot Lhe ton, .pr i .n orFreedom (see Biblography).

" Andreas Cat lnadt ( l4BO-t541), a p ioneer of the protestantRefomat ion, was askcd by Lurher to defend his Thesis of 1517 ata public disputation ("Divine grace and hunran free will,,) at theUniversity of Leipzig (June 27, t5l9). He larer came to opposeLuther as a "compromiser."

Johann Maier ron l ik ( t486-t513), German Carhol ic theoto-gian, chal lenged Car lstadt io th is dcbate. He rcmained forcrrostamong those working lor the overthrov/ of Luthcr." Erasmus refers to , - { r r r / t tu ann;um art icutatun D. Mart . Luth.per bulam L€oni ' X damnatatur , (1520) in the Wcimar edi t ion

DRASNIUS: T I IE FREE WILL 5

although mcrre than onel has answered hls Asrertion,I, too,encouraged by rny friends, am going to try to scc whetler,by thc following brief discussion, the truth might notbecome more visible.

1 ) Lut her's S up po s e d I nl allibility

Here some will surely close their ears and exclaim, "Oh

prodigyl Erasmus dares to contend with Luther, a fly withan elephant?" In order to assuage such people, I only wantto state at this point, if they give me the time for it, that Ihave actually never sworn allegiance to the words ofLuther. Nobody should therefore consider it unseemly ifI should openly disagrce with him, if nothing else) as oneman from another. It is therefore by no means an outrageto dispute over one of his dogmas, especially not, if one, inorder to discovcr truth, confronts Luther with calm andscholarly arguments. I certainly believe that Luther willnot feel hurt if somebody difiers in some instances fromhis opinion, because he pennits himself not only to argueagainst the decisions of all the doctors of the church, but

of Luiher's works (henccforth referred to as ll.A., i.e., WeimarerAusgabe), l f .A. VI I , p. 9 l f f . Luther h imsel f seems to have pre-

ferred his freer cerrnan rendition, Crund und Ursache alLer ArtikelD. Mart in Luther, so duch r i ;mische Bul le unrechtLich urdammtsind, W.A. \rII, p. 309 fi. Article 36, restating the 13th Heidelbergthesis, asserts that the lree will is a mere frction. Ariicle 31 assertsthat a pious man sins doing good works. Article 32 asserts that agood work is a mortal sin. Cf. chaptcr IV, footnote 5.

' Among the major tracts against Luther we find, besides EcL'sObel isc i ( .1518), thc fo l lowing: Henry VI I I , Assert io septen sacra-mentorum (1521\. which carned him the title Defender of theFaith; St. Thonas More, Eruditisimi aid CuI. Rossi oqus Leeansquo pulchet t ;nrc tetee; t dc re le l l i t insanas Luther i calumnias \1523),written at thc request of Henry VIII, in answer to Luther's reply tothe rcyal Asiertio; St. John Fisher, The sermon ol Iohan thebyishot af Rochester made agayn :,)e tererisyous doctryn ol Matt;nLurher (1521), on which Erasmus rel ied heavi ly . Cf . chapter VI ,footnotc l .

r

6 orscouRsE oN FR-srE wrLL

also appeals against all schools, church councils and popes.Since he asserts this freely and openly, his friends must nothold it against me if I do likewise.

2) Objectiuity and Scept;cism

Let no one misinterpret our battle. We are not twogladiators incited against each other. I want to argue onlyagainst one of Luther's teachings, illuminating, iJ this bepossible, in the subsequent clash of scriptural passagcs andargumentsr the truthr the invcstigation of which has ahvaysbeen the most reputable activity of scholars. There rvill beno invective, and for ttvo reasons: it does not behoovcChristians so to act; and moreovcr) the truth, which byexcessive quarreling is oftcn lost, is discovered with greatercertainty without it.

I am quite aware that I am a poor match in such acontest; I am less cxperienccd than other men, and I havealways had a decp-seated aversion to fighting. Conse-quently I have alrvays preferred playing in the lreer 6cldof the muses, than fighting ironclad in close .combat. Inaddition, so great is my dislike of asscrtions that I preferthe views of the sceptics whcrever the inviolable authorityof Scripture and the decision of the Church permit aChurch to which at all times I willingly submit my orvnviews, whcther I attain what she prescribes or not. And asa matter of fact, I prcfcr this natural inciination to one Ican obseNe in certain people who are so blindly addictedto one opinion that they cannot tolerate whateler diflersfrom it. Whatevcr they read in Holy Scripture, they distortto servc the opinion to which they have once and for allenslaved themselvcs. Their casc is likc that of the youngman who loves a girl so much that he fancies hc sees herimage evcryrvhere. Or to use a better comparison: theyare like those who in thc heat of battle turn everything athand, be it a pitcher or a plate, into a missilc. Are peoplcthus alTected able to lorrn an objective judgment? Or isit not rather thc result of such disputations that both con-

ERASMUS: T I IE I IREE .WILL

7

testants palt sPitting upon each other in contcmpt? There

will always bi many such PeoPler the kind the Apostle

Petcr desiribes as, "the unlearncd and the rmstable," such

as "distort thc Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Peter

3 , 1 6 ) .

3) Huuing an OPen Mind

For these reasons then, I rnust confcss that I have notyet formed a definite opinion on any of the numerous tradi-

iional vieuus regarding the frecclom of the r'r'ill; all I am

willing to asseri is that the rvill enjoys somc powcr of free-

dom. My reading of Martin Luthcr's lssLrtion was qutte

unprejudiced, except that I felt towards hirn a lavor such

as a lawycr feels tou'ards a hard presscd defendant'

Though Luther's argumcnt is dcfended with cvery means at

his diiposai and prcsentcd with gleat vcrve, I must honestly

confess that he has not yct convinced rne'

If someone wishes to declare me slow-witled or ignorant

on account of all this, I tould not want to argue the Point'providcd it is pcrrnittcd lor intellectually \{eaker lersons to-argLre

rtith bctter cndo*'cd ones for the sake of learning'

Mor"ou"., Luther himsclf attributed very l itt le to erudition,

but a gleat deal to the SPirit $'ho instills at timcs in the

intellcciually rveak rvhat he denics to the wise This I am

saying to those rvho loudly proclaim that Luther has more

l"orr.,i.,g itt his little finger than Erasmus in his cntire bodl'

,uhici I am not now going to refute. As hostile as those

people wish to be in this allair, they will have to admit that

my iase shall not be $'eakcned by the judgment. of a feu

foolhardy peoplc, if I conccde to Luther in this disputation

that he iho"li not bc burdcned wiLh the pleceding judg-

mcnt of doctorsr councils, scholarsr popes ancl cmpero's

Evcn iI I have understcod rvhat Luthcr discusses, it is alto-

eether Dossiblc that I arn mistaken 'Iherefore, I merely

ivant to anal-vze and not to judge. to inqttirc and not to

dogmatizc. I am ready to lcarn from antone \\-ho advances

ljomething more accurate or more reliable, though l would

8 DrscouRsD oN FREE WILLrather persuade mediocre :on. such matters. r, il,%i*,i,.#:#il:..ffi??i:flilhelps piety.

4) Difrculties in the ScriptureHoly Scripture contains

want us to penetrate ,." cl"^tl:it Jit which God does not

d.,., i."dG';;;i;,"iilil;,lj,"il]".j .;:,T:T;;?i,r+;-i1",f,ff

"."il.:Hff tJ,::;l:X;l';:tl*i1r]*i":36::' )l"Jl i:' ;tlxilt;l#-'k Tlfi:lT,

,1d tater frightens then and Fit. ;;;;i;,;jr#

;:'"lfi 'j*" #,fi,J" Xiiiil'iLi,':'.:f i;.::i:;ffiffi1il Tff:,'jitl:r,1.t- .";h';"', '' 6i;;';:1**#",xiih**;ii+."'f{"".:i*;*Ti1-;. . tv t o i , r , , t tor* r , i i i , r . " ' l t t " "

I I 33 r . and r r i rh Jsai . i .r,.., r.;, ."" ",.i..ij " i:;jii';l,:! ;f :H:: IrTly f l:il: :il_1ilff :,:""ii?:11 ;3: ffi H: l'.:*"_:"ffi *\*lli-,::ff ,TI'#ll3J'i;::i'ff :.iHl'r'u'.o"t"-prut.5) Essence ol Christian piety

.In my opinion the implications of the lreedom of the;:!f i,:;! i: lll':ffi *: i:, ff,..Ji :At"r"*d'..#rvhat. lies behind us; if *,e hu.," L""o,'" ilJrd t;'*;

ffllilj .ffjj, :Tl""f::: f. :T:'..,*1 ffJ*::t :;' lomlonius Meta, Spanish eea'":*;*: ri.lTii":rl f

";fl #;ll:Jt#::*ri i#

:iiixil 8:fi *,il:r"P;**"' ""' D'r,'hi.-;,;;.:: ,;: ;i";;

ERASMUS: THE FREE WILL 9

the Lord, without which neither the human will nor its

strivins is eficctive; for all evil let us consider ourselves

."rpotriibl", but let us ascribe all good to Divine B€nevo-

lenie alone, for to It we owe evcn what we are; and in all

things must we believe that whatever delightful or sad

happens to us during life, God has caused it for our salva-

tion, and that no injustice can come from Him who is by

nature just, even if something should befall us which we

deem undeserved; nobody should despair of forgiveness by

a God who is by nature most merciful. In my opinion, it

used to be sufficient for Christian piety to cling to these

truths.

6) -lt lan's Limited Capa, i ly to K nou)

Men were not wont to intrllde upon these concealed, even

superlluous questions with irrcligious curiosity, namely,

whether God's foreknowledge i$ contingent; whether our

will can contribute anything to our cternal salvation, or

whether it simply undergoes the action of oPerative grace;

whether everything we do, good or evil, is done out of mere

nccessity. or whether we are rather in a state of passive

acceptance. Some things God wishes to remain totally

,rnknown to us. such as the day of our death and the day

of the last judgment. "It is not lor you to know the times

or dates which the Father has fixed by his own power"

lAc ts I .7 ) . Or . "But o [ the day or hour no one knows '

neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father

onlv" (tr4ark 13,32 ).In other instances God wishes that we investigate by

venerating Him in mystic silence. Therefore Holy ScdPture

contains numerous passagcs which have puzzled many,

without cver anyonc succecding in comPletely clarifying

thcm. For example, there is the question of the distinction

of the persons in God; the union of the divine and human

naturci in Christ; the problem of irremissiblc sin 6

Othcr thinus He wantcd us to know with the utmost

" \{ark 3, 29.

a

IO DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

clarity, as for example. lhe precepts for a morally good life.I hrs rs obvtously rhe word of God which one does nor have

to fetch down from high heaven, or a distant sea, but whichone rather finds near at hand, nameiy in our mouths and inour hearts.T This indeed must be leamed well bv all. Thcremaining is better committed to Cod. lt is more devout toadore the unknown than to investigate the unexplorable.

Yo*-.--utry quarrels have arisen from investigations intothe distinction of persons in the Holy Trinity,

"the manner

oI procession. oI rhe Holy Spirir. the virgin birth? Whardlsturbances ha\e been cauqed in the world bv thc fiercecontenlions concerning the concept ion oI the r i iqin motheroI Cod? What are t-he results oI rhese laborious- invesrisa_lions excepr that wc experience a great loss oI conco,d, a-"ndIove each other le.s, while we wi,h to know roo much?

Besides, there are certain kinds of tr-uth which. eventh*ough they could be Lnown. would noner,hele.s be unwiselyofiered for indiscrirninate consideration. perhaps what thesophisis used to say abour God. rhar, given his nature, he ispresent as much in the cavity of a beetle as in heaven, hassome truth to it (I blush to reproduce their actual shamefulremark).3 It would be unprofitable to discuss this matterpublicly. Furthermore, the assertion that there are threegods,. even if it can be truly stated dialectically, wouldcertainly cause great olTense, if presented to the untutoredmasses. Were I certain-which is not the case-that con-fession, as we har.e it now, was neither instituted bv Christ.nor cou ld e rer h l re been invented h t man, and ,onse-quently nobody could require it, and that furthermore nosatisfaction is needed for offenses committed. I wouldnonethele(s lear ro publicize such an opinion. because, lromw_hat I can seer most men are prone to moral turpitude.Now, obligatory confession restrains or at least moieratesthis propensity., There exist certain sicknesses of the body' D"uarononry 30. I l-14 and Romans 10, 6-8.t Luther, as well as Erasmus, criticized some Scholastics as ,,so-

!h ists. ' ' i .e . . those wel l . r r rsed in-sper. ious reasoninq and arcumFnr, .Lurner srrongly cr l t tcrzed conlession,

ERASMUS: THE FREE WILL I I

which it is the lesser evil to bear than to remove, as forexample, if we had to bathe in the warm blood ofslaughtered children in order to remove leprosy. There are,indced, errors which it is better to ignore, than to eliminate.Paul has differcntiated betwccn the peraissibie and theexpedient.lo The truth may be spoken but it does not ser-veeveryone at all times and under all circumstances. If I lverecertain that a wrong decision or definition had been reachedat a synod, it vould be permissible but not expedient tospeak the truth conccrning it. Wicked mcn should not thusbe olTercd an occasion to disdain the authority of the

Fathcrs, cspecially when they have conscientiously andscrupulously made decisions. I rvouid prefcr to say that atthe tirne of thc decision thcy acted on thc evidence theyhad, and later practical cxigencies persuade us to modifythcir judgmcnts.

7) Unsuitableness ot' Luther's Teachings

Let us assume the truth ol rvhat Wycliffe1l has taughtand Luther has asscrted, namely, that everything we dohappens not on account of our free will, but out of sheerneccssity. What could bc more useless than to publish thisparadox to thc wolld? Secondly, let us assume that it is

tnte, as Augustine has rcritten somewhereJ that God causesboth good and evil in us," and that he rewards us for his

good works rvrought in us and punishes us for the evil deeds

done in us. What a loophole the publication of this opinion

would open to godlessness among innumerable people? In

particulir: mankind is lazy, indolent, malicious, and, in

lddition, incorrigibly prone to cvery impious outrage. How

many weak oncs would continue in thcir perpetual and

'" 1 Corinthians 2, 1-6. Erasmus prefe$ throushout using the

Latin {or "expedient," rather than the word "prudential."

" lohn \ \ 'vc i i f le ( lJ30-1384), onf ot the far lv inf l r "nr ia l Enql ish

r . fo"rm"rs k i "d, a. a p l , r lo"ophi ,a l r '31;s l lo expla;n predcst inar ion

and free rvill." Erasmus was admittedly rot wctt versed in Augustinian theology

and philosophy.

12 DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

laborious battle against tJ.reir own flesh? \{hat wickedfellow would henceforth tr]/ to better his conduct? Whocould love with all his heart a God rvho fires a hell witheternal pain, in order to punish there poor mankind for hisown evil deeds, as if God enjoyed human distrcss? jUostpeople would react as they are sketched above. people areun iversa l l y iqnor .n t and car na l -minded. They rend rowardsunbelief, wickedncss and blasphemy. Therc is no sense inpouring oil upon the fire.

Thus Paul, thc prudent disburscr of the divine word,frequently consults char.ity and prcfers to pursue whatserves the neighbor, rather than what is perrr-rissible. Amonqrhe marure ho speaL, with thc wisdom he posrr-sse.. Buibeloro the weak he displals no orher knowledqe bur rhat ofJesus Chrirt. rhe crucified.r- Holy Scripturr- knows how toadjust its language to our human condition, In it arepassages where God is angry, ericvcd, indignant, furious;where he threatens and hates. Again in other places hc hasmercy, hc regrets, he changcs his intentions. This does notmean that such changes really take place in the nature ofGod. These are rather modes of expression, benefittins ourr'r ca k minded nc.s and Jullne.s. The r.rme ur-uLl"nce slrnuld.I b,.l ieve. adr-,rn .rl l wlro her.e raken up pruaching Lhedivine s'ord. Sorne things can bc noxious, because like winefor the feverish, they are not fitting. Hencc such mattcrsmight be treatcd in discourses alnong the educated or alsoin theological schools, although it is not expedient eventhere I think unless done u'ith caution. Delinitcly. it seem$to mp. i t i s no t on ly unsu i rab le . h r r t r ru ly p" rn ic ious to car r )on such disputations when evcrybody can listen.

In short, one should be pcrsuaded to waste ncither timenor ingenuity in such labyrinths; neither to rcfute nor toendorse Luther's teachings. Pcrhaps I deserve the reproachof having been too verbose in this prcface. But all of itappears more important than thc disputation propcr.'" 1 Corinthians 2. 1-6.

I I

I N T R O D U C T I O N :O B J E C T I V E C R I T E R I O N F O R

T R U T H

SrNcE Luther recognizes no authority of any author, how-ever approved, except that of the canonical books, I gladlyaccept this diminution of labor. Both among the Greeksand the Latins exist innumerable thinl<ers who dealexplicitly or cursorily with the freedom of the will. It wouldhave been a formidable task to gather all the quotationsfor and against free will; to explain every passage as wellas to refute it. This irksome exertion would have beenwasted on Luthcr and his friends, particularly since theynot only hold different opinions, but also contradict them-selves extensively.

B) Authority of the Church Fathers

Nevertheless I wish to remind the reader, if he thinks weare holding the scale to Luther's, with our scriptural pass-ages and firm reasoning, that he now visualize in additionthe entire long list of most erudite men who have enjoyedthe approval of many centuries up to thc prcsent day, andamong whom most have distinguished themselves by anadmirable knowledge of Scripturc, and commended them-selves by thcir picty. Some gave thcir lives as testimony tothe teachings of Christ which they had defended in theirwritings. Such among the Greeks are: Origen, Basil,Chrysostom, Cyril, John Darnascene and Theophylactus;among the Latins: Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Hilary,

Jerome and Augustine. I could also mention Thomas

r3

T4 DISCOURSE ON IiREE wlLL

Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Durandus of Saint-Pourgain, JohnCapreolus, Gabriel Biel, Giles of Rome, Gregory oI l{iminiand Alexander of Hales.l 1'heir powerful and subtlc argu-mentation, in my opinion, nobody can completely disdain,not to speak of the authoritative decisions of many uni-versitics, councils and popes.

From Apostolic times to this day no author has hithertocompietely denied the freedom of the will, save Manichaeusand John Wycliffe alone.'� Lorenzo Valla's authority, who

' Or ieen 1,185-254) was onc of the most prol inc wr i iers of theearly Church. His interests in Platonism and in giving philosophya rccognized place in the creeds of thc Church nade him a contro-\ersial figure. Erasmus was particularly influenced by his scriptural

St . Ba. ' ;L the Great (330-? 379-?), ear ly Church Father, as wasSt. John Chry\ostol r (3 '14?.+07). St . C, / t l (315?-386?), b ishop ofJerusalem. St . John of Damascus (675-749), theologian and doctorof the Eastern Church. qr inrar Sel l imius Flarens Tertu l l ianus(160?-230?), ccclesiast ical wr i ter and creator of Chr ist ian Lat inliterature, was one of the most original and controversial Christianwri tcrs. He inf lucnccd Erasmus. St . Cypian (200-258), Afr icaDbishop; Sr. Hi lary (d ied 367), b ishop of Poi t ;ers, Francc; , .9t . ln ,brose ol M; lan (339-39i) , Lar in Church Father. Jr . lerone (310-120) is best known for h is c lassical t ranslar ion of the Old, andrc\ is iorr of the Ncw Testarnent . known as the Vulcate Bible. St .August ine of Hippa (354-430), b ishop and Church Father. Sr.Thomar Aquinas (1225-12i1) , thcologian and phi losophcr, cat lcdtht Angel ic Doctor . Dans Saotar (1 'J65?-1308?), nedieval theolo-Sian at Oxford and Colognc. Dutan. lus ol Saint-Pourgain (d.1332), phi losopher and thcologian wi th a vast l i terary product ion,Lnown as Doctor rcsolut issnnus. lahn Cdprcolus (d. 14,1.1) , rhcolo-gian. cal led Pr incc of Thomjsts. Cabiel Bi t l (d. 1495), Germanscholast ic phi losopher, ;n l lucnccd l ,uther and NIc lanchthon. Gi laral Ronrc ( t215-1316), I ta l ian thcologian and phi losophcr, cal lcdDocror fundat iss imus. Alexander oJ Hales (d. 1245), Engl ish phi-iosopher and theoJogian.' Munichaeu.s, N{ani or lrlancs (his fol1ou'ers arc called Mazi-chd?ant) .4as a cnost ;c teachcr (d. 273), prcach;ng an ectect iccrccd composed of rv i ld fancies and some l lcbrcw, Buddhist , andChr isr ian concepts, center ing around thc rcalms of l jght and dark-ness, good and evil. Augustine t'as for nnre years a Manichaean,p | . ' n r | r u h i s c o n , c r , i o r r o C h r . . i a r i , l .

almost seems to agrce with them, has little weight amongtheologians." Manichaeus' teaching has always been sharplyrejected by all the world. Yet, it is questionable whether itwould not ser\-c bctter than Wyclifle's. The forrner explainsgood and evil by the two natures in man, but in such a waythat rve owe thc good acts to God on account of his crea-tion, and bccausc we can, despite the power of darkness,implore the creator for help. This can help us to sin lessand to do good more readily. If everything reduces itselfto pure necessity, where does Wycliffe leave us any roomfor prayer or our own striving?

To return to $'hat I havc been savine before. Once thercader o i my d i .pu l . r ion rccocn izcs thar my f i5h t ing eqr r ip -ment is equal to that oI the advcrsary, lct him decide forhimself. whether to attribute morc to thc decisions of allthe many scholars, orthodox Iaithful, saints, martyrs) theo-logians of ancient and rnore recent times: of all the uni-versities, as rvell as ol the many councils, bishops and popes,or morc to the private opinions of one or two men. I don'twant to make the number of voices or the rank of thespeakers dccidc an issueJ as is customary in human as-semblies. I know it happens frequently that the better partyis voted dorvn by the majority. I knorv what the majorityesteems is not always thc bcst. I knorv, when investigatingtruth, there is no harrrr in adding to the diligence of one'spredecessors. I admit that it is right that the sole authorityoI Holy Scripturc surpasses thc voices of all mortals.

But rve arc not invol.,'cd in a controversy regarding Scrip-turc.

'fhe same Scripture is being loved and revered byboth parties. Our battle concerns the sense of Scripture. If" L-r"r, Valta (4}5ltr:5?) was forcmost among Itatian Hu-manists. IIe, too, wrote a dialogue on free will. See Cassirer et al.,The Renai.rsance Philotophy ol Man, ldJitcrs\ty of Chicago Press,1948 pp. 147-182. Both Erasnus and Luther c la imed him. In asense Valla anticipated Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten, and Luther inhis phi losophical , cr i t ical and excget ical worLs. ( |b id. , p. 154).Erasmus edited Vall^'s Annotatianes in Nouum Testamentum. ctit\-cal of the Vulgate's version.

ERASMUS: THD FREE 'WILL

rr 6 DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

ERASMUS: THE FREE IV ILL

revcaling to little ones,a that is, thosc simple and foolish inthc eycs oI this rvorld,i u'hat lle concealed from the wiseand prudent ones, that is, the scribes, pharisees, and phi-losophers. Dominic and Francis might havc been such fools,if they could have follon'ed their own spirit. But since St,Paul during his own lifctime, when the gift of the Spidtwas alive, had already to order His verification, that is,whethel His manifcstation really came from God,€ whatshall happen during our worldly times? How can v'e judgethe Spirit? According to erudition? On both sides we findscribes. According to conduct? On both sides there aresinners. True) on one side stands the entirc choir of saintswho steadlastly held to the freedom of the will. They statethe truth, but they were human. Yet I am comparing mento men, instead o{ men to God.

If it is objected: $'hat can large numbers contribute toan understanding of the Spirit? I answer: what can a smallnumber of people? If thcy object: l.!'hat can a bishop'smiter contribute to an understanding of Holy Scripture? Ianswer: what can a hood and cowl? If they say: what canphilosophical understanding contribute? I answer: whatcan ignorance? If they say: u'hat can a congregated synod,in which perhaps noboc'ly is inspired by the Spirit, con-tibute to an understanding of Scripture? I answer: lchatcan the private gathering of a fel,' contribute, none ofwhorn probably has the Spirit?

l0) Miracles and Exem.plary Lile

Paul exclaims, "Do you seck a proof of the Christ whospeaks in me?" (2 Corinthians 13,3 ). Apostles were believedonly if their doctrines were accompanicd by n.riracles. Butnowadays anybody demands faith lrom others by affirminghis having the evangelical spirit. 1'he apostles had to routvipers, hcal the sick, raise the dead, confer the gift ofi .ttn"- t t, zs.' I Corinthians l, 27." 1 Corinthians 12, 3 ; words are actually taken from I John 4, l.

r 7ingenuity and erudition contribute anything to scripturalinterpretation, what could be more acute and perspicaciousthan the Greek mind? How about wide:criprural readine?Nor have the Latins been wanting in eithel. If they wcireby nature less fruitful than the Grceks, they equaled themin industriousness and accepted their. helpiul lnheritance.If, on the olher hand, one looks ttro.e to i virtuous courseof life than to erudition, it is obvious which men stand onthe side of free will. Lct us set aside what the lawyers call anodious comparison. I do not wi.h to compare some heraldsoI [his new gospcl with rhe o]der ones.

9) Inspiration by the Holy Spirit

At this point someone may object: what is the nced ofan interpreter when Scripturc itself is quite clear? If it isreally so clear. why have all rhe ercelleni peopln here acredlike blind men for so manv centuries. cspecially in so im-portant a matter as my opponents hold it to bc? If nothingwere dark in Scripture, r,rhrt need for prophecy was rh.rieven during apostolic t imes? This was Lhe eifl oi thn SDirir.Now. i t i s quesr ionah le whcther th is ,ha i i .meL ic c i f i hasceased. l ike the poucr to heal anrl lhc gifr of rongues didcease. If it did not cease, one has to ask, to whom was ittransferred ? If this talent and grace of prophecy have beentransferred to everybody, any interpretation bccomes hiehlyproblomatical; i[ to nobody. we would ,t i l ] not have anassured interpretation, since even scholars are toilinc withobscuriries: if to the .uccessors of rhe Apostles. then thevwill object that many of them compietely lacked theapostolic spirit. And yet, other things being cqual, we canpresume with greater probability that God communicatedHis Spirit to those who have been ordained, iust as onecon\iders i l more prohable rhar qrace wil l f l tw to thebaptized, rathcr than to the non-baptized.

Let us admit that the possibility actually exists for theSpirit to reveal to a sirnplc la1.man what is not revealed tomany scholars, since indeed Christ thanks His Father for

r

r8 DIscouRsE oN aREE WILL

tongues by the laying on of hands. Only thus $'ere theybelieved and hardly even thus, since they taught paradoxes.Nowadays certain people present even greater paradoxes? tocommon opinion! Nonetheless, none of them has comeforward who could heal just one lame horse. If at leastsome of them would demonsrate) not quite a miracle, butyet the sinceity and simplicity of an apostolic life, it couldtake the place of the missing miracle amongst us more slow-witted people.

I do not want to accuse Luther, whom I don't knowpersonally, but whose writings have made a mixed impres-sion on me. I am addressing this to others who are betterknown to me and who intefupt us by saying, "They weresimply men," every time we advance an intcrpretation byan orthodox elder for the purpose of understanding a con-troversial passage. When we ask, what are the marks of atrue scriptural interpretation, since both sides are repre-sented only by human beings, their answer is "'I'he mark ofthe Holy Spirit." If you ask why the Holy Spirit shouldhave forsaken the side which is also distinguished bymiracles, and be found rather amongst them, they answeras if during all thcse hundreds of ycars there had bccn noGospel in the world. If one misses among thern a conductof life commensuratc with the Spirit, they ansrver that thcyare saved by faith and not by works. If one misses miracles,they say these have stopped long ago and are no longerneeded, since now the light of Scripture shines so wonder-fully. If one contests that Scripture is clear in our case,other"wise so many excellent men would also have beenblind, one has moved in a full cycle to the beginning of theargument.

1l\ Infall ible Church

Let us assume that he who has the Spirit is sure of themeaning of Scripture. How can I also possess the certaintywhich the other pretends to have? What can I do when

EILA.SMUS: TI{F, FREE WILL I9

several persons claim dificrent interprctations, but eachone swears to har,e the Spirit? Moreovcr, since the Spiritdoes not inspire thc same person rvith everything, some whohare the Sp i r i t may be mi . raken on . r pu in r .

This then f want to reply to those rvho discard rvithouthesitation the old interprctation of sacred boolis, andinstead submit their orvn, as if an oracle had proclaimed it.Finally, cven though Christ's Spirit might permit His peoplero De ln error ln an unlmportant question on u,hich man,ssalvation does not depcnd, no onc could believe that thisSpirit has dcliberately overlooked error in His Church for1300 ycars, and that He did not deem onc of all the piousand saintly Church Fathers worthy enough to be inspired,with *}to,, they contcnd, is the very essenie of all evangeli_cal teaching.

12) Plea lor Gentle Listening

But now, in order finally to conclude, lct the othersdecide what they ruish to assume for thcmselvcs. I for mypart do not auogate to myself doctrine, nor sanctity, nor doI depcnd on my intellcct. I simply want to offer withcarnestness what moves my soul. If someonc undertakes toteach me, f rvould not consciousiy oppose truth. If myopponcntsJ houevcr, prelcr to slandcr me, although I dis-pute truthlullv and tvitliout slandcr, rather than quanel,then everyonc will miss the Spirit of the Gospels amon!thosc u'ho continuously speak oI it. paul cxhorts, ,,tsut himwho is weak in faith, rcceive,, (Romans 14,1 ). Christ wil lnot extingLrish a smohing rvick.3 The Apostlc petcr says, ,,Beready alrvays \rith an ansuer to c! cryonc who asks a'reasonfor the hope that is in you. Yet, do so rvith gladness andI e a r - . I P c r e r l . l i - 1 b . . I i m y o p p o n e n t . r . . p o n d . . . t r a s m u sis i iLe rn o l . l r ' i r rn - .k in un : ,b1" to h . ld thc ncrv n inc r rh ichthey offer to thc world," and if their sclf-confidence is sogreatj they at lcast ouqht to consider us as Christ dida l , Iat thew 12, 20.' Mattherv 9, 17.

" Luther cal led his 1517 theses "theoloeical oaradoxa."

20 DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

Nicodemus,lo and as the Apostles did Gamaliel.r l'he Lord

did not repcl the former, who, though ignorant, was dcsir-

ous oI lcaining. Nor did thc Apostles sPurn Gamaliel rvho

desired to suspend his jrrdgment until the nature of the

matter $'ould show by that spirit it was being lcd

1.3) Definit ion ol Free WilL

I have completcd half of this work. 'l'o those ruhorn I

haYe convinced, as I intended, that it rvere better not to

cavil and quibble about such questions, especially not beforc

the common peoplc, I will not havc to present the furthc-rproof to whicl I shall norv procced, hoping that truth will

prevail evcrywhere, l'hich r,vill perhaps sparklc Irom a

compa.ison of scriptur:rl passages likc fire struck from flint'

Nobody can deny that Sacred Scripture contalns many

passagcs stating the obvior.rs freedom of the hunran rvill On

ih" othe. hund, thcrc are some passages n'hich scem to deny

the fonner. Yct, it is certatin that ScriPture cannot contra-

d ic t iL ' l f . \ in r 'o a l l p .q5 . rL 'cs a re i r r .p i rc ,J 1 ,1 thu " rm ' S1 ' r r i r '

Ther , [o re , ne r l r . - r l l f i t s t examine lho5e pJ \sJrc \ \ h rch

conlinn our view and then we shall try to dispose oI tliose

that seem to be oPPosed.By freeclom of the wili we understand in this connectlon

the power of the human rviJl whereby man can apPly to or

turn arvay from that which lcads unto etcrnal salvation'

' " John 3.

" Acts 5, 34.

I I I

O L D T E S T A M E N T P R O O F SS U P P O R T I N G T H E F R E E W I L L

14) Ecclesiasticus l5: Choose Good or Euil

-fhose who take a lrce will for granted usually quoteEcclesiasticus 15, 14-18:

9'd.na4i non ltnm the beginning. and lplt him in thehand o l h t " o t n roun" r l . I l r added h i , rommandncnt andprccepts. ll th.ou u;k keep the camman(lments anil per_l-arm. aceftable fdelity loreuer, they shall preserue thee.He hath rtt.u.atcr and lire be/ore thee; nr;fth larth thyhand to which thou wilt, Belore man is lile and d.eati,good and euil, that uhich he shall choose shatt be giuei

I do nor cxpec l rhar an lbody u i l i que . t ion rhe au thor i rvo [ th is book becau.c i r rvas o [ o ld no t conre inqd in th iHebraic canon, as Jerorne indicates. The Church of Christhas reccived it into her canon with great unanimity. Inci-denta l l l . I do nor qu i r , r ,e , , wh1 r l r " Hebrerus de . ided toexc lL t le i r [ rom t l r l i r canon. rvh i le J r rhe \ i rme r imc inc lud_ing Solomon's Provcrbs and the Canticle of Canticles. Who_ever has read a l ' n ( i \e l ) c rn r , . , rc l i i r t rcs . w l rv the lcwscrc ludet l f iom the i r can , 'n r i re l r * r ruo l r . ,oks o i E . i ras ,the story of Susanna and of the dragon Bel, attached to thebook of Daniel, as r.cll as thc bool<s.fudirh and Esthcr anda few oihcrs. They numbcred thesc among the apocr1,pha.1But in Ecclesiaslicus certainly nothing disturbs the reader.' Apacl jpha, a rerm used to dcs.r ibc that bocly of rc l ig ious l i tera-ture closcly associated with thc Old and N.*-f*t"-J"t, U"t-."_garded as noncanonical Je! , ish or Chr ist ian scr iptures.

36 FREE WILL

quotations, since Scripture abounds in them. It is lilielooking for water in the ocean. Consequently, as alreadystated, a large part of Scripture would obviously be in-effectual if one accepts the last two of the above-mentionedthree opinions [against the freedom of the will].'1

Finally, there are several places in Scripture whichobviously ascribe contingency to God, yes, even a certainmutability. For example in Jeremias 1B,B and 10:

Il that ndtion against uhich I haue spoken, shall repent oltheir eail,I also uil l repent ol the euil that I ha"-e thoughtto do to them . . . Il it shall do eril in my sight, that itobey not my t,oice, I uil l repent ol the goal that I hauesPoken to do unto it,

Now we know very well that ScriPture in this instance,as in many others, speaks in human terms. God is notconfused by mutability, Actually, one only says of God thathe has abandoned his anger and has become mcrciful afterwe have bcttered ourselves and he deigns us rvorthy of hisgrace; conversely, that he has deprived us of grace and hasbecome angry whenever we have changed for the lvorseand he punishes and humbles us.

The prophet Isaias spoke to Ezechias in 4 Kings 20,1:"Thou shalt die and not live." But soon after much weep-ing the same prophet assures with his message: "I haveheard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears, and behold Ihavc healed thce," etc. And again in 2 Kings 12'10 Nathantells David: "The sword shall neler depart from thy house"etc. But no sooner has David said: "I have sinned againstthe Lord." Nathan says to David: "The Lord also hathtaken away thy sinl thou shalt not die." As in these, so in

other passages, it is improper to think of a changeable God.Yet, we cannot but realize that there dwells a flcxible willin us. If necessity guides it towards evil, how can sin beattributed to it? Or if it is guided by necessity towardseood. why doer God change f tom aneer (o mt rc ) . s incewe deserue also in this case no requital?

' lf"""i"o the views of Carlstadt and Luther. C{. Section 21.

N E W T E S T A M E N T P R O O F S

S U P P O R T I N G T H I i F R E E W I L L

Trrus far the discussion has centered on prooJs taken from

,-h. Old T".,t-"n1. Some PeoPIe could di'pute thcsc' had

lil:;; ;iil;";i ir.'" ui'a ''t

those that were not abol-

iiria^ i"il"""it"a more probatory strength through- the

A;;;";. L; .t. th","fore -turn

to the books of the New

Tcstament.In the New Testanent we meet first of all the place

*h;;"'al;t, weeps over the destruction of Jerusalem''

I:';::':#;,!::;:':r',I!",ii,l:,ril:;'"'ti:"'Jx!"ii'if :l"i"iir"ri'tni

atita'"n together' as a hen gathets her young'under

her wings, but thou tt)oull ltt not!

If all had happened me)cly ttrrough necessity' could Jem-

salem not lrave bpcn jrrsrif ied in answering the weeptng

l.^rrl "Whv do vou totrnent youlself with uselcss weeping?

ii it-*,- r.1,. *; if r lrat we 'hould not l isten lo the prophets'

;;; ; i l i ,;; send rhem' Whl do vou blame us lor what

y ou wiJ lcd. whi le we n"": ":''0,, i::"'Lill,,i',f,1'i"],'il;You wished to collect usr but Yo

" i1 . ,1 " . -L" *a us no t to , ^ ish i t ' '

I In rea l i t l - l howerer '

if.r" t".a, .f the Lord do not blame a ncr essity in tlre Jews'

i",'tt,ft"t ,ft"it wicLed and obstinate will: I wanted to

q ,a ther yor r . bu t 1ou d i r l no l wan l i r '

i- i tu-uttt '"*:g, al

IV

3 7

38 DrscouRsE oN FREE wrLL

24 1 Commandments and Exhortations; Reward and. Punishment

Again: "If thou wilt enter into lifc, kcep the command-mcnts" (Matth. 19,17). How could onc ask somebody "if

thou wilt be perfect, co, scll what thou hast" (Matth.19,21). "If anyone wishes to come aftcr me, let hirn dcnyhimself, and take up his cross daily, and follorv mc" (Luke9,23). Although this is a very dif l icult commandmcnt,neverthcless the appeal is to thc rvill. Subscqucntly, "For

he who would save his l i fc rvil l lose it" (Luke 9,24).\{ouldn't even the clearest commandment of Christ besenseless, if lve could expect nothing from thc hurnan rvill?"Amen. amcn I say to you" and again "Amcn I say toyou" (Matth. 5,22 and 2B). "II you love rnc, keep mycommandments" (John 14,15). FIou' olten does John aloncimpress this upon usl The rvord "if" does not at all implyneccssity, as, Ior example, "If you abide in me, and if myu'ords abide in you" (John 15,7), as uell as, "If thourvilt bc pcrfect" (Matth. 19,21).

lVhen Scripture talks oI good and bad works, as \rell asof reward, I don't understand how necessity f its in. Neithernaturer nor necessity can earn merit. Our Lord Jesus saysmoreover, "llcjoice and cxult, because your rervard isgreat in heavcn" (Matth. 5,12).

What does thc parable of the laborers in thc vineyardtell us? Are thcrc workers.rvho dorr't work? Each onereceived contractually one denarius as a kind of rernuncr-ation for his u'ork. Onc hears this objection: a rervard issomething God owes us, because he has pledged his willto us, in case .rve believe in his promise. Ilolvever, faithitself is a rvork and the free rvill parricipatcs to a consid-erablc measure in it by turning to or away frorn faith.Why was the servant praised who had increased thc fortuneoI his rnaster by his diligence, and rvhy rvas the idlc onedamned, iI man in such a case \sas not rcsponsiblc?, AndFlututrn"ru 2., l+ go.

ERASMUS: TI IE FRIIE WILL 39

again in Matthew 25,35 Christ mcntions not necessity, but

the good n'orks of men, when hc invites zrll to participate

in his eternal kingdom. You gave mc to eat, you gave me

to drink, you took me in, you clothed me and so on. Again

those on his left hand hc does not reproach with necessity,but rvith the rvilling omission of rvorks: you have seen mehungry, here was an opportunity for a good rvork, but you

did not give mc to eatr etc.The cntire Gospel is filled with cxhortations. "Come to

me, all you who labor and are burdcned" (NIatth 11,2B),"rvatch" (\,Iatth. 2'1,42), "pray" (Matth. 5,44), "ask . . .

scek knock" (\{anh. 7.7). "take heed bewate"(Mark 8,15). \{hat is the meaning of thesc many parables

conccrning thc word of God which "rve should prcserve"(N4atth. 13,1-B)? Concerning the bridegroom u4rom we

should hasten to mcct (\{atth. 25,1-13); conccrning the

thicl coming at night, digging lor trcasures (Matth. 24,43;1 Thessalonians 5,2); concerning the house rvhich must be

built on rock (Matth. 7,2't). OI coursc, these parablcs are

to spLrr us to cxertion, diligcnce and zeztlJ and not to ourruin by bt:ing indillclent towards thc grace of God.

'lhese

&'ords would be supcrlluous ald powcrlcssJ if evcrythingcould bc reduced to necessity.

The sarnc can be said o{ cvangelical thrcats: "But woe

to you, Scribcs and Pharisees, h,vpocrites" (I{atth. 23,13),"Woe to thc Corozaim!" (\ ' Iatth 11,21 ) . Futi le would

also be reproaches l ikc, "O unbclieling gcncration, horvkrng shall I be rvith you? Horv long shall I put uP withyou?" (lr ' Izrrk 9,18). "Scrpents, brood of vipers, how arcyou to escapc the juclgment of hell?" (Mzrtth 23,33). The

Lord spcaks, "'I'[tercfore, b,v thcir lruits yoLr rvill knowthcm" (\Iatth. 7,20). "l 'ruits" rncan to hirn works, andthcsc he designalcd to bc ours. Rut they could not be ours,iI all happencd of neccssity. Hc Plavs on thc cross, "Fathcr,

forgile thi:rn, for thcv do not know rvhat thcy are doing"(Luke 23,3'l). Horv rrtuch corrcctcr lvould it have been tojusti ly t lrcm, that t lrt:y had no frec rvil l , and rvere incapableoI acting dilTerent),v, cven if tltey had rvished to do so.

4O DISCOURSE ON TREE WILL

Again John says, "He gavc the power of becoming sonsof God to those bclieving in his nir,me" (John 1,12). Howcould power to become cirildren of God be givcn to thosewho are not yet sons of God, if there is no freedom of thewill? When some had taken oflense at the words of themaster and had fallen away from him, he said to hiscliscipies: "Do you also wish to go away?" (John 6,63).Had the former fallen away out of nccessity iather thantheir own impulsc, why did hc ask the others, whetherthey too were going to leave him?

But we don't want to bore the readcr with the enumer-a t ion -o f a l l such pa"saces . - l

l r ry ex i . t in .uch pro fus ion(ha t they occur eas i l y ro e r r r lonn b1 rhem"ehr . . .

25) God's Judgment

Now \ae want to investigate whether also in Faul, thezealous advocate of grace, who storms the works of ftheJewish] laws, we find sorncthing rvhich implies the freedomof the rvill. Thus rve rneet above all a passage in thc Epistleto the Romans: "Dost thou dcspise the richei of his good-ness and patience and long-suffering? Dost thou not knowthat thc greatncss of God is meant to lead thee to rcpent-ance?" (Romans 2,4). How could thc disdain of a com-mandmcnt be imprrtccl, if therc is no lrce wil l? And horvcould God invite us to do penance, whcn he has causc<limpenitence? And hou' could a condemnation Lrc justif icd,when the judge himscll has cornpelled the lcommittingoI anl outrage? But Paul had just l inished saying, ,,and weknow that the judqment of God is accorcling to truthagainst those who do such things,, (Romans 2,2). Herche speaks of "doing," and of a judgment accor.ding totruth. Where is mere necessity? Where is the wil l thatmerr:ly suffcrs? l\{arl i rvcil rvhom Paul does blame for evil:"But according to thy hardness and unrcpentcd heart, thoudost treasure up to thyself tvrath in the day of wrath, andof thc revelation of the just judgrnent of God who *.i l lrender to evcry man according to his u,orks,, (Romans

ER{SMUS: T I IE FREE WILL 4 '

2,5 ). The reference here is to a just judgment of.God and

to works which deser-ve punishment. II God ascribes to us

only his orvn good works which he pedorms through us.

and we thus earn glory, honor and immortality, then his

goodness appears plausible. Although even in such a case

inc Apostle adds, "life eternal indeed he will give to those

who by patience in good works seck glory and honor.and

itlr-otiaiity" (Ilomans 2,7). But how could it be justified

that "wrath and indignation . . tribulation and anguisli'

(Romans 12,8-9) shall be visited uPon the transgressor, if

he is doing nothing freely, but everything through necessitv?

26) Running the Race

lVould not already the Pauline parable of the runncr.

the prize and the crown of victory be untcnable, if nothing

*"r" utt.ib.rt"d to our striving? In 1 Corinthians 9,2't rve

read: "f)o you not know that thosc who run in a racer aLl

incleed run, but one receives the prize? So run as to obtain

it." And lhe adds], "they Irun] indced to receive a

perishablc crown, but rlc an imperishable one." A prize

ian only be l'on by somebocly r"'ho has fought. Only one

who had earned it can receive it as a presentation. Further-

rnore: "Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the

life eternal" (1 Timothy 6,12). Wherever a competit ion

takes place, u'e are cicaling rvith a voluntary striving, zrnd

there cxists the dangcr that a relaxation in cncleavor rvill

deprive one of the prizc. This is completely diflerent rvhere

everything happens through nccessity Also: "And again,

one who enters a contest is not crowned unless he has

competed according to the rules" (2 'f imothy 2,5) And

[two verses] before: "Conduct thysclf in work as a good

soldier of Christ Jesus" (2 'f imothy 2,3) The industrious

husbandman is mentionecl (2 ' l ' irnothy 2.6) 'I 'he compett-

tor obtains a prizc, the soldier his rewardJ llie countryman

his harvcst. Thc same: "I have fought the good fight, I

have linished the corrrsc, . . . For the rest, thcre is laid up

for me a ctorvn of justice, which the Lord, thc just Judte,

42 D]SCOURSE ON FREE WILL

wi l l g ive me in thar day 2 ' l

imorhy 4 .7 , . Such words ashett. cro\4 n. jLrsr judqc. to givr-. ro fight. _ro mc sccmdi f f i cu l t ro be re ronc i led w i rh merc nec is . i r l . whercby thewill does absolutely nothing but endure.

27 ) Warding oI the I,l/ orks of Darkness

But also[ the Apostle] James attributed human sin notto nFre .q i l ) . nor to a Cod opera t ins rv i th jn us . bur rodepra \ed concup iscencc . "Le t no man say when he istempted,_that he is tcmptcd by God. . l3ut everyone istempted by his own passion. l'hen when passion has con_ceived, it brings forth sin,' (James 1,13-15).

The sins of man, Paul calls ,.the works of thc flesh,,,and not the works of God.3 He obviously dcsignates as"flesh" what James calls concupiscence. In the Acts of theApostles this question is put to Ananias: ,,Why has Satantempred rhy hcer r / Acrs 5 .31 . pau l . too , a r i r ibur r . , e r i ld r .ed . to lhe sp i r i t s o f rh , .a i r about u . who work on l l reunbelievers.a "What harmony is there between Christ andBelial?" (2 Corinthians 6,15). ,,Either make thc tree goodand its fruits good, or makc the tree bad and its fruits;ad,,(lVlatth. 12,33). How can some people dare to ascribe toan unsurpassably good God the worst of fruits? AlthoughSetan can cntice hum;rn cnncupiscence by exrcrnol meei..o r - a lso b ! rn t { rnJ l ones . roored in l tuman c i rcumsranccs ,the enticement itself does not nccessitate sinning, as lonjas \ \e wanr ro cor r rbar i t and imp)orc d iv ine a id . Ju . t thcsr rne . when Lhe Sp i r i r o i Chr i , t cx t i rcs us to gno; dpcds ,it does not constitute a compulsion, but raticr an aid.lVith James agrees also Ecclesiasticus 15,21: ,,He hathcommanded no man to do wickeclly, and he hath givenno rnan i i cen" . to s in . No!v . r r ,mpx ls ign i . e ren

-mor .

l i r i : r i cornmandmt .nr . Even c le . r r r r i s what p . ru l r r r i tes :"II. anyonc, therefore, has cleansed himseif from thesc, hewill be a vcssel for honorable use', (2 Timothy 2,1). IIowic r tu r iu . ' , s , tg .I Ephcsians 2, 2.

ERASMUS: THE FRB,E WILL 43

could someone keep clcan, if hc is totally incapable oI

doing anything?I inow that this is a mode of {igurative cxpression' For

the rnoment I am quite satisfrcd that it contradicts those

who want to ascribe evcrything to mere necessity' The

same mode of expression is found in 1 John 3,3: "And

everyone who has this hope in FIim rnakcs himself holy,

iust as He is holy." I again admit to my oPPonents that

ihis is a m,rde of cxpression. They also must Permit us to

emplo \ o tca . iona l l y f igura t i te u 'Jne o f \ \o lds tsu t i t i s im-

prd"n i fo . l l i em ro in ic rp re t he m. . ' k ' ' s h imsc l f ho ly ' to

mean "he is made holy by God, whether hc likcs it or not "

"Lct us lay asidc the rvorks of darkness" (l{omans 13,12),"Strip ofi t irc old rnan with his deeds" (Colossians 3,9),

exclaims Paul. I'Iow can we be commanded to lay aside

something, if we are incapablc? The same: "To wish is

within my powcr, but I do not find thc strength to accom-

plish what is good" (Rornans 7,18). Paul obviously admits

irere that it is in the po\{'cr oI nan to want to do good'

28) Virtuous Endeauors Un;te uith Diu;ne Grace

Norv the will to do good works is in itself a good work'

Otherwisc an evil will could not be something bad. Nobody

denies that already the will to kill is something evil. And

again, "Thc spirits of the Prophcts are under the control

oi the prophets" (1 Corinthians 1'1,32). Whoever is driven

by thc Holy Spirit is influenccd by it, yet is also free to

keep silcnt about it. FIow mu(rh lrcer is the volit ion of man!

Those, to be sure, lr'ho al-e driven by a fanatical spirit can

not kcep cluict, even iI they wanted toJ and often don't

understand thcmsehes what thcy are sayingHere belongs also thc passagc admonishing Timothy:

"Do not neglcct the grace grantcd thee" (1 'f imothy 4,14)''I'his cleclarcs that it is in orrr porver to turn away flom

offered grace. I'he same in another passage: "His grace

in mc has not been fruit less" (1 Corinthians 15,10). The

Apostlc inlorms us that he has not left unused divine grace'

44 DISCOURSE o1\- FREE WILL

How could he assert this, if hc had done nothing? ,,Do)ou accord ing ro )our pan s t r i ve d i l i venL ly to ,upp iy 1ou,fa f th w l rh v in t | r (2 perc r 1 . i7 . and so on . nnd a i i , r lelu r ther on : "Thc . re fo re . h re l l r ren . s t r i ve e ren rnor l b1 qoodr , ro r ls to make your ca l l ing and e lec t ion ,u .c ! . . ,2 'p , : r ; ;r . l l r , . -He le je n pos t le wants our v i r tuous cndcavor , , tounite_with divine grace, in order to reach perfection gradu_ally through righteous decds.

But I fear it could seem to some that this is an im_modera te h"a . l r ing rocn lhpr o f p t . .aen! encounrc led erc ry_wnere rn scnprure . \ \ ' hen p lu l u r i rc . : . .A I I Scr ip iu rc i sinspircd by God and useful for teaching, for rcproachinn,Io r ,conver r ine . . Io r

- ins r r r rc r ine . in ju . t i r - , . . . i f ; - . i i lJ . Ib , . . rh . r l ' noLrJd obr iouJy be no r , ,om lo r e l l rh i . , i ie \e ry lh rnq hap l rep16 on arco l rn t o f purc and unero ida l r lenecessity. What purpose would thc many eulogies aboutpious men in Ecclcsiasticus 44 serve, if human zea-l desenednothins? Wll.1r's rhe me.rning of ohedience. p.nir"d ", ".fwner " . l r mJn tn h ls tood . rs we l l as e r i l uorL . i . ju . r atool of God's, likc the hatchet for the carpenter?

29) Luther's Assertion

We all vould be such tools, if the teachings ol Wycliffewere true. Accordingly, everythins happens on account ofpure neccssity, be it before or after the reception of arace:may they be good, evil or ethically inaie"."r,t iort..Luther agrces with this. In ordcr to forestall ulryloay n.",r.-tnq mr- .o f in ren t inc th i . . l c t n re r luo te l r i . o rvn 's .e1 j , 1 r1 . r , ,nl rom hrs .4Jrar l io . .

Thi.r article must be reroked.. I haz:e exprcssetl it ;mbrob-trly, uhen I said that thc lrce uil l , t4or" nt tri"l"n'irolr,xs rcauy an emfty name. I should haae raid struightt 'ar_

_lr*d\ that the t 'ree uil l is really o 1;rt;on orA i ' ioiet

l, l l ,T:-!:Ll:9 rhn panar Rurl. tL u,c" D"min?.cond.mnins qr

u r n r s p r o p o s r r r o n s a r h p r . r i c j l , J u n e t 5 , I i 2 0 l , a n d w r o r ; i na n s w F r _ t h ^ A , , p , ! i o . S e c h a p r r r I . i o o r n o r e 3 . t r a s m u s w r o r e m u r ho f h i D i o t r i b e a e a i n . r r h i s A r r i c l ^ : t b o r r h e A . . e t t i o .

ERASMUS: TITE !'REE wlLL 45

uithout reality, because it is in no man's po&)er to plan anyet'il or good. As the article ol Wyclife, condemned atConstance, correctly teaches: eL)erything takes place byabsolute necessity.

I have delibcrately omitted many passages from the Acts

[oI the Apostles] and the Apocalypse lof St. Johnl, other-wise I might be boring the reader. Sumce it to say that

many passages have, not without reason, induced intelligentand pious men not to abandon free will completely. [Inconclusion] it is not at all true that those who trust intheir own works are driven by the spirit of Satan anddelivered to damnation.

6c| DrscouRSE oN FREE WILL

human? Of course, the opponent would be victorious, rvereit permissible to inter?ret Scripture according to his mo-mentary whim, while we would not be pcrmitted to followthe interpretations of the Church Fathers, nor produce our

The passage "stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt"(Ecclesiasticus 15,17) is, of course, so clear that it needs nointerpretation. It means that grace will stretch out yourhand at will.ln The interpretation of the most trustworthyDoctors of the Church, on the contraryJ must be a dream,if we do not want to call it the imputation of Satan, asothers did.

Now, the quoted passages which seem to contradict eachother are easily reconciled, if we join together our will withthe help of divine grace. Instead of this clear solution whenmentioning the parable of the potter (Isaias 45,9), and theaxe (Isaias 10,15), they attack us with words which theywant to be understood literally, since this is advantageousto their cause. Yet in this other casc, they abandon unhesi-tatingly the words of Holy Scripture, and offer an inter-pretation rvhich is almost as bold as saying, "[Pope] Peterwrote," while anothcr interprets this as meaning that some-one else in the house writes and not he, Peter.

'" Is meant ironically, of course. This frequent type of jocundity

belongs to the Humanist style just as do the Humanists' antipathiesfor scholastic subtleties and dialectical complexities, and their lovefor pagan classics, stylistic predilection, and witty disputation.

L U T H E R ' S P R O O F S A G A I N S TT H E F R E E W I L L

Ws w,\xr to examinel now how valid are Martin Luther's

[arguments] with which he rvishes to topple thc freedom

of the will from its throne.

42) Weakness ol Human Nature

He quotes a passage from Genesis: "My spirit shall not

remain in man {orever, since he is flesh" (Genesis 6,3)'

Scripturc undcrstands by "flcsh" here not simply a godless

purrio,-r, o, Paul sometimes uses it when commanding the

mortification of the flesh,2 but rathcr the u'cakness of our

naturc inclined towards sin, as Paul again implies whcn he

cails the Corinthians carnal, as little childrcn in Christ,

with no capacity yet for solid doctrines,"Moreover Jerome remarks it his Hebraic Questionsa that

the Hebrew diflers lrom our Latin text, namely, "my spirit

will not judge these men in eternity, because they are

Imerely] flesh." These words betray God's gentleness rather

ihan setcrity. "Flesh" refers to man, by nature weak and

inclined to evil. In turn God's wrath is called "spirit."

' Hcre thc reader will 6nd a strong reliance on the Bishop of

Rochester, Fisher's treatment. Cf. chapter I, footnote'l" Romans B, 13.3 1 Cor inth ians 3, 1f i .' Cf. chaptcr II, footnote 1. The so-called Hebraic questions of

invest igat ions are Iound in lcrome's Du s i tu et nominibus hebra;

corun, wh;ch is a translation of thc Onemasticon of Eusebius, with

Jerome's additions and corections

6 '

VI

63O2 ERASMUS: THE FREE WILL

DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

Accordingly, God affirms he does not want to rctain manfor eternal punishment, but rather out of mercy lhe wants]to punish him already here fon earth]. This utterancerefers not to all mankind, but only to the mcn of those days,terribly corrupted by abominable vices. It states exp)icitly"these men." God did not just refer to all men of thosedays, because Noah, for example, was praised as a just managreeable to God.

43) Inclination to Euil

One can contradict in the same way [what Lutherquotesl : "The inclination of man's heart is evil {rom hisyouth" (Genesis 8,21), and "Man's every thought and allthe inclination of his heart werc only evil" (Genesis 6,5).The tendency towards evil existing in most men does notcompletely cancel out the freedom of the will, even rvhenone cannot overcome evil without the help of divine grace.If, horvever, a change of mind depcnds never on the humanwill, but everything is accomplished by God according tosome necessity, why has man then been grantcd a timeintenal for doing penance? "His lifetime shall be onehundred and tlventy yea6" (Genesis 6,3). According toJerome's Ilrbralc Questions this passage rcfers not to theIifetime of manJ but to the timc of thc Great Flood. It wasolTered to man, as a chance of changing their minds, if theywished to. Or if they did not wish to, to merit divinepunishment as a people contemptuous of the Lord'sleniency.

14) Forgit:ing Grace

Furthcrmorc ILuther] quotes Isaias 40,2: "She hathreceivcd of thc Lord double for all her sins." Jerome inter-prets this as refclring to divine punishment and not theforgiveness of sin. True, Paul says: "Where the offcnseshave abounded, grace has aboundcd yet more" (Romans5,20). It docs not follow from this that befole thc reception

of sancti{ying grace man cannot prePare himsell with thc

help of God "an-d

morally good *'orks for the Iavor o{ divine

n.u.e. W" read of the centuion Cornelius, who was not

iet bapti'cd nor filled with the Holy Spirit: "Thy- prayen

Ld tniv u1-, havc gone uP and hale been remembered in

the sigirt of God" (Acts 1d,4). If all works done before the

re."piion of the highest grace wcre cvil, is it then evil works

that must gain God's favor for us?

+5) S Pirit and Fleslt

From the same chapter in Isaias [Luthcr] also quotes

(Isaias 40,6-B) :

All f le,h is g,a.?.,tnd all gl ' ty theteol as th? frau?: ol t,he

fu ld . fhc p tas i : u t th ' rcd , and th ' f louer t l la l l cn ' De-'cause

the siirit ol the Lord has blown upon it ' ' ' But the

Lotd endureth I orezter.

It seems to mc that this passage has been lorced [byLutherl to refer to grace and free will Jerome maintains

that "spirit" signifies divinc wrath, and "flesh" the natural

weaknc^ss of m"an, which has no power against God, and"flou'er" the vainglory resulting from good luck in material

transactions. t-he Jews prided themselves in their temple'

their circumcisioni theii sacrifice,s and the Greeks prided

themseives in their wisdom.6 Since, however, the wrath of

God has manifested itself in the Gospel, all this pride and

haushtiness has come to naught.Birt man is not entirely flesh. There are, too, the soul and

the spirit by rvhich we strive towards the honorable This

part;I the;oul we call reason, or i1"1epovtxiv, i c, the direc-

ii"c fac,llty. C)r sltould one presume that philosophers did

not strive for the honorable, though thcy taught it to be

a thousand times better to sufTer death than commit an

infamous action, even i{ rve could knolv beforehand that

mcn would not noticc and God would forgive it? But fallen

' Romans 2, 17 fi.o 1 Corinthians 1,22.

64 DrscouRSE oN FREE \,wLL

nature judges often wrongly, as the Lord says, "You do notknow of what manner of spirit you are" (Luke 9, 55 ).?

It rvas just such an erroneous judgment wht:n the dis-ciplcs, desiring revenge, appealed to thc story of Eliasrcquesting heavenly fire to consume trvo leadcrs with theirfifty men.s Even in good men the human spirit is diflerentfrom God's Spirit, as Paul says: "'I'he Spirit himscl{ givestestimony to our spirit that we are sons of God" (llornans8,16). If someone rrants to contend that even thc mostdistinguishcd human quality is nothing but flesh, i.c. agodless disposition, it rvould be easy to agrecJ except that hefirst prove this assertion from Scripture.

"'I-hat which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that whichis born of thc Spirit is spirit" (John 3,6). John teaches thatthose who bclicvc the Gospeis are born of God (1 John 5,1)and bccomc children of God (John 1,12), yes, even gods(John 10,34). And Paul distinguishcs the carnal man rvhodocs not understand the divine, from thc spiritual rvhojudecs everything rightly.s And on another occasion hespeaks again of a new creatule in Christ.l! If the cntireman, even the one reborn through faith, u,ere nothing clsebut f lcsh,'1 rvhere is the spirit born of Spirit, the fact ofbeine children of God, and the nerv creature? I rvish to beenliehtened on that! Until then I like to appcal to theauthority of the Church Fathers who teach that certaingerminal concepts of the ethical good are rvithin man by

' This passagc scems a good example of the Erasmian ryirit ofcommon sense and conciliation. He wants to avoicl the extremeson either side of the controversy. He seems to bc saying: man isnot all flesh; with his reason hc can strive for marLy good things:but reason is dimmcd by the lallen nature of man; therclore man'sreason needs the enl ightenment of Cod's Spir i t . This is the burdenof the quotes from Luke and Paul.3 L u k e 9 , 5 4 .' I Corinthians 2, 14 fi.' " 2 Cor inth ians 5, 17." This is not precisely what Luthcr would say, but a typical ex-ample oI Rcnaissance liking for cxaggeration. lhough Erasmusdecries this, he, too, falls prey to it at tlmes.

ERAS}IUS: TI IE FREE WILL 65

his naturc, and that he consequently recognizes and lbllowsin some way the ethical good, although coarser inclinationsare added, enticing him to the opposite.

Finally, the will capable of turning here and there isgenerally called a free will, despite its more ready assent toevil than to good, because of our remaining inclination tosin. Yet no one is forced to do evil unless he consents.

46) Diuine Guidance

Luther then quotes from Jeremiah: "I knorv, O Lord,

that the way of a man is not his; neither is it in a man towalk, and to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10,23). This per-tains to thc occurrence of happy and unhappy circLrm-stances, rather than the possibility of a free will. Frequentlyman plungcs profoundly into misfortune, when he is verycareful to avoid it. This does not eliminate the freedom ofthe will-neither among those hit by misfortune, bccausethey did not forsce its coming, nor among those causing it,because they don't humiliate the enemy with the sameintention as docs God, namcly by castigating. If one none-theless forces these words to apply to the freedom of thewill, everyone would have to admit that without the graceof God nobody can lieep the right course in life. Our dailyprayer is: "Lord, my God, make smooth thy way beforeme" (Psalm 5,9). Nonetheless, we continue to strive withall our strength. We pray: "Incline, O God, my heart tothy precepts" (Psalm 11B,36). Whoever begs for help doesnot abandon his undertaking.

Furthermore [Luther] quotes; "It is the part of man toprcpare the soul and of the Lord to govern the tongue"(Proverbs 16,1). [I say;] This also concerns what canhappen or does not happen, without him thereby loosingeternal salvation. But how could man resolve this [freely]in his heart, when Luther firmly maintains that everythinghappens of necessity? In the sarne chapter it says: "Lay

open thy works to the Lord, and thy thoughts shall bedirected" (Proverbs 16,3): It reads "thy works" and "thy

OO DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

thoughts." Both words could not be said, if God workseverything in us, both good and evil. "By rncrcy and truthiniquity is redeemed" (Proverbs 16,6). These and manyother passages from the Proverbs support the acceptanceof a free will.

Now, [Luther] quotes from the same chapter: "The

Lord hath made all things for himself; the wicked also forthe evil day" (Proverbs 16,' l). [I answer: ] God has creatednothing evil by its nature. Nevertheless in his unfathomablewisdom he turns ali things, even evil, to our advantage andto his glory. Even Lucifer was not created as the evil one,but ratler, since his voluntary defection, God set him asidefor cternal punishment, in order to train the pious ones byhis malice, and to punish the godless.

It does not become any more dimcult when [Luther]quotes: "As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the kingis in the hand of the Lord" (Proverbs 21,1). [I say:] Theone who guides does not necessarily force. Nonetheless, asmentioned belore, nobody denies that God could forcefullyinfluence the thinLing capacity of man, expel his originalintentions and inculcate another, yes, even deprive him ofhis intellect. But this does not change the fact that normallyspeaking our wills are lree.

If that is Solomon's opinion which Luther here interprets,namcly that all hearts are in the hand of the Lord, rvhydoes he proclaim it to be somcthing special rvith the heartof a king? This passage agrees even more so u'ith what weread in Job 34,30: "lVho maketh a man that is a hypocriteto reign for the sons of thc pcople?" The same in Isaias 3,4:"And I will give children to bc their princes, and theeffeminate shall rule over thcm." Whcn God, propitious tohis people, inclines the heart of a king towards good, heis not necessarily forcing the will. Instead, to incline [thehcart]to evil means that [God] offendcd by thc sins of apeople, does not recall the soul of a foolish, rapacious,warring and despotic prince lto come to his scnses], butpennits him to be senselessly driven by his passions, in orderto castigate the peoplc through [the king's] malice. Should

it happen that God drives such a guilty king to evil, itwould be wrong to lorn a generalization from such aspecial case.

Such proofs as Luthcr assembles then from the Proverbscould be gathcred in huge number-s But this would serve

more their accumulation than their victory. Rhetoriciansgenerally tluow such arguments about them. Most of the

iime these can be applied convcnientJy to an interpretationfavorable to free will, or to one against it.

47 ) Nothing without Christ

Luther considers Christ's saying in John 15,5: "Without

me you can do nothing," just as accurate a javelin as theone Achilles used. In my opinion it is possiblc to resPondin more than one way. First, "unable to do" usually means

to be unable to rcach what one strivcs for. This does not

exclude the possibility oI the striver proceeding in sorne wayjust the sarne. In this sense it is conplctely correct that we

can do nothing without Christ. IIe speaks of the evangelicalfruit rvhich can be found only among those who abide in

the l i le on the vinc, i.e. in Jesus Christ. Paul uses this mode

of speaking when he says: "So then neither he who plants

is anlthing, nor he who lvatcrsr but God who gives thegrowth" (1 Corinthians 3,7). That which is considered of

little moment and is of no value is called "nothing." The

sarnc: "[II I] do not havc charit l ' , I am nothing" (1 Corin-

thians 13,2). Followed by: ". . . i t profits me nothing" (1

Corinthians 13,3), and again: "He calls things that are not

as though they rvere" (l{omans 4,17) Once more, he calls,

according to Osee, those who are not his people, despised

and rejectcd ones.lr A similar modc of expression is con-tained in the Psahns: "I am a worrn and not a man"( P s a l m 2 1 , 7 ) .

If one rvere to press this exprcssion "nothing," thcn it

would not be possible to sin without Christ. I believe Christmeans here his grace, if one docs not want to escape to an

" Romans 9, 25 fi quoting Osee 1, 9 and 2, 24.

ERASMUS: T I IE FREE WILL 67

68 DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

already discarded [view] that sin is nothing [real]. yetevcn this [not being without Christ] is in a sense correct,since without Christ we would neither be here. nor live. normove. IMy opponents l g ran t tha t comet imes rhe f rce w i l lwithout gracc is capable of sin. Even Luther has held thisat the beeinnins of his Assertio.

VII

P O S T S C R I P T O N A P P A R E N T

P R O O F S A G A I N S T T H E F R E E

W I L L

48) Reasonable Interpretation ol Additional Passages'

Here bclong the words of John the Baptist "No one ca:r

receive anythlng unless it is given to him {rom heaven"

r lohn 3 .2 i t . H"ence i t doe. no t lo l low t l ra t we la 'k lhe

i i u l t r o , use o [ { re " w i l l . the fec t tha t f i re wJr rms usJ

ao-". ' f.o- hcaren; rhc fact that wc seck by a naturaljmpu l .c thc u \e fu l and aru id the hermIu l ' comns f rom

heav, r r ; Lhe fac t thar a f te r s in t l re w i l l i ' e \ ( i led lo bc l le r

"noa* "o-"t from heaven; the lact that we can obtain

*,1 " pt"u.ing to Cod rhroueh our rears almsgivinq and

i ,u1 , r r . ao- " " ' l rom heaven ln thn mcant ime our w i l l i s'not'inactive,

even if man can rcach the goal of-his striving

on lv w i th rhc f rna l ass i ' ranc" o i e rece But s incc i t i s a

min i rnum wh ich r re cont r ibu l r - . the en l i rc a f fa i r i s a t t r lb -

uted to God. Just as a mariner steering his ship safely

inrol,ott t t"nuv slorm into lrort doe' nol say "l have saved

,nu J i r r . " bu t ie rher "God has 'aved i t " Nerer the less h is

,.t u.ti ,"ul were not idle. Similarly, a farmer does not say

,uh"lt tot irrg a rich han'est into his barn, "I have produccd

th is 1e2r '5 -

ch harvnr t . " bu t ra ther "God has q i ren i t '

Who 'uou ld say , ho \ \Pvcr . tha t the Ia rmer has con l r ibu ted

i-Tfi].r.,. to rhe passagc on cracc (John 3' 27)' God.speak-i n s r h r o u e h m c n ( M a r r h ' w 1 0 2 0 ) t h ' l u l l t n s P o - s ' r o l g r a c e

( i h n 6 , a a 1 , r h i n k i n s i n C " r J . b u t l i t i n g i n m a n ' 2 : ' i ' I l : " ' q " '

3 , 5 ) , , " d I h e o r i g i n o f a l l e o o d t o b F l o u n d r n L ; o d r l ! ' o r l n -

th ians 4, 7 ) .

69

I

70 DISCOURSE ON I'REE 'VYILL

nothing to the prospcring oI the fruits of the earth? Amonscommon sayings are thcse: God has given you beautifulchildren, though their father has helped to generate them;God, restoted my healrh. though rhe doctor-helpcd elong;rne Rrnq nas o\elcorne lu\ enemics. rhnu"-h gencrals andsoldiers have contriLruted their good share. I{othing cangrow, if heaven does not send the rain. Neverthelessigoodsoil produces good fruits, while bad soil can produc! nogood fruits. Rut since human endea\or alone aicomplishesnorh ing w i rhout d i r ine hc lp . e rer l th ing is a r r r ibu ied rodtvtne benclaclion. "Unless the Lord brri ld thc houre, rheylabor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord guard the citnthe guards watch in vain', (psalms 126,1) . Inlthe meantimethe,builders and rhe guards do no( cea,e in their buildingand in their vigilance.

Furthermore in Matthew 10,20: ,,For it is not you whoare speal. in q... but rhe Spirir oI lour Farher who ,pcaksthrough yo-u.' This pa."aqe seoms al f ir.L siqht ro annul f ielreedom ol the \a.i l l . Bul in fecr ir wants to free us lromdistresine anxiery. rahen prem,.ditaring on r.rhat to .ay inbehall of Chti ' t. Orhcr-wise it would l,e a sin. iI preacirerswere to prepare rhemrelvcs carelully for their "acredcermons. Not cverlone should expect lhatj because rheSpirir oncc inspired uncouLh dist.ipl.., he (oo would be rbleto p reach a . i f he had bccn g i ren r l re g i f r o I tongues. Th ismay have happencd once. noner l re le . . l rhe rec ip ienr l hadto cor{orm.his will to the inspiration of the Holy 3pirii, andactcd together with him. This is obviously the-dutv oi thefrec wil l. Or should rve assume lhal Cod h.r. ,poLen ro usthrough the mouth of the Apostles, as he dirl *ith Buluu-through the mouth of a donkey?,

A passage {rom John could drive us further into thecorner: "No one can come to me unless the Father whosent me draw him" (John 6,.14). The word ,,draw,' secmsto point to neccssity tnd cxcluJe rhc free wil l. But actuallyi t i r a n6n1 161s61 drawing . I r cau \ r . { a person to wJn l a

ERASIIUS: TIIE FREE WILL ?I

thine iust as readily as he can refuse it And as \{e show a

i['l *: Ltn*,*#.'ffi ::J::l':-; i;iT'-:':"":x:*i:t';"':fitJ?|)tttn?obo",','a""'ood what John savs:

,*,"nnhni:: Hi:#iiii"J.*t"'!kil il'ii;r*: tt i****;l'i:'t *: ,*tili ff 1*xwillinqly. Thus we read: "Drav

't:; ,;?Tj[i::".1]"'. ,t'"," are also passac.es 'hi:,h ::iT

l;"1T::l"':Hij:l'"i:il:fl::"':"';l"LT:"li#l!,'i;;ffi"tv";, ;; or,, suffitic"cy is from God" (2 Corinthians

nj-:i=,-*:=::""..1:4itt*h:miililt'l:i';1;;:'1""Iil'l,lilll"nii' ll#*"i::l+l, l:Jp"t., i.t i-,. the free wil l Grace

il'""1r:""'$,'lr:;',1',flff ,llT".i:J,"':JlT""'ff il:?":lJilil^;;;:;;;ti'"man will are eflective The main cause

L-#:H;*Hi*:a%;'il::*lll;:':ii liiJ'l"f i:$*,n::itl n ".'::tis':1.':::;",i";'xJ'.x:-'U;J;.Tt';.-'Jl"'.1,,.1,,':.:J,;,0:#: ll;5:::ii:.1*:l:ff j l,l"ii:::I:l:'::1,':l'::' j:"il.,j' ir,i, .."ra a-

::lf t *;ru;r*:,ii;'f" T::. T"ff:::. li"",Alhimself either.""i".'.,''f-'*."fa

dcny that all good has its origin in God

="1-*;.*:'i-#$;"i;::*l*'3:":'Ji+'''J,"":;J'":it,",r6v

' Numbers 22, 23 ff.

72 DrscouRsE ON F.REE WILr_

as a source? Paul inculcates this, in order to deprive us ofour arrogance and overconfidence, as also when he says:"What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if tliouhast- r'eceived it, wht dost thou boast as if thou hast notrece ived i t l ' r I Cor in th ian" 4 .77 . you hear va inq ln ry bp ingres t ra in rd in th is rayrne ' . ' l h i , i s qhau t l .e s " .v rn t , roo ]would ltear who accounted to his rnaster for the prolit madeon usury.a If he attributed to himself his well_investecllaL<.rrs, [the master may ask] rvhat have you receivcd thatyou Oid not possess? And nevertheless, tire master praiseshim 1or his untiring strenuous elTorts.'I 'he

same long is_ sung in James 1,17: ,,Every good gift

and cve-ry perfect gift is from above,,, and pairl in Ephesiianst : l

] : " l lm rnho worLs a l l lh incs accord ing ro rhe counse l

o l h rs rv i l l . ' ' - fhese words a im ar th i , thar \ \e shou ld nor

arrogate -anything to us, blrt attribute everything to the

grace of God who has callcd us while ll,e turned ariay fromhim. has- c lean.ed us rh rouqh [ r i rh . and ,vho ha . a lsocr i rn , tcd I ha t our w i l l can cooperare u i rh h i " s rJ , c . a l r houc hthe latter by itself would bc completely sufficient and'inno necd of any help coming from thc human will,

49) To Rule and to Efect

. .1he passagc in Ph i l ipp ians 2 , i3 , , ,For i t i s God who o fhrs <run good pleasure lvorks in you both the rvil l and thepcllonnance," docs not exclude the lree rvil l . If you relate"oI.his good pleasure" to manr as Ambrose of \,f i lan does,r . u l l . u n d f l s r a n d r h a r t h e g o o d u i l l r o o f c r l r c . r " r r r h t h c, l l . c r \ p ! r ' r . c J r . t b n f o r e , P h i l i l , p i a n . 2 . 1 2 , r v e r e a d :"Worl< out your salvation rvith fcir ancl trcmlling.,, Onecan conclude from this that both God rvorks in us, and thatour rvil l and effort stri lc solicitorrsly rvith God. Nobody' l r " u l d . l r . r r . c I o r ( j ( . 1 r l r i . i n r c r l , r c r r r i o n . b . c r , , . . . l . s r a r . . l ,r m r n , d i i r t e l y I ' I e c , L I i n t i s r l r , p e * r r u . \ ! r , r k o r 1 r ) , ,

s J l \ a _l ton

. iuy '$oAe. sh ich . i :n i f ie , n rorc r opdr r11 . ro ro i l , . .than tlie word irepTeir,, rvhich is attributed t" Coa, Coa" trIatthcw 25, 20 0.

ERdSMUS: TIIE IREE WILL 73

h"ina 3 tr. ,v. i ,v. the one who effects and rules' But:v€py€;

::;:;: ; l;i;, ; iltin I *' l, " "1 : H:l'; :"ff tl -rll#that both ruling and efiecting me;

,"-.hli ;r;l;r;"lv thar Lorh cod and man *ork'

^*t;ililn:";L:i1*:il;*l$ri"-;Tsltii,l"f : ;Hi' :i HJiHif f; JT

'jn*ffi i*;

5;;;:,:::';l;5'liN.,;T::l'.- courd'�hc rwo con'�ra-a i., or'y .,u' " *"n " be t econciled'.arco,tfJif

,:t ;l["ti::

l?li lll, i{{'i:i,1:#rui:l*""'1"" "'}ii iilT*:xi,rlT:t ffi"i ff ,*,n;ff:i n ;ir*"trt,l W*$*' r'' Wll,l i,*:miU] ;,;", I ;:l;;;, !i,i:f i,.,r'n".i",, r,"r".,. accord.in g

r iiliJlr: :::illl'**"'ill. ll:#lt":"'J,: #::

;+'* :i+* I ii:*l,*:':# .ttq,*,ii l,l :i*ii- [it, llt ::il1'j:":,:]'r *' ;i1;

*i{}ti,im tq $ ;t'*li iHnlrft xr::"-* Jlil*,1,1$:i:l,':l';:i:':H: sfJ" Cf. Erasmus, Section 48'

74 DISCOURSE ON !.REE WILL

correction.,aimed at rhe su.picion of insolence and nor atrne poss tb l t t t y o l cooper r t ion in acr ion .uoq coes no t wanL man to a r ibu te eve ly lh ing to h im-self. nor eren when he merirs ir. .,When y;; ;""r;;;;;

everything that was commanded you, ,.; ,!.-;;"-;;_proftablc 5nrvanrs: wc havn done what it was our" d,r,u ,.,do ' .Luke 17 ,10 , . Woutd he no t d is r ingu i "h - h t ; . " j i ; ; ;keeps all &e commandments of God? I d" ;;; k;;;whethcr .uch a man can be found an).where. Ana--u"i.tho.e who might accomplish this 3pe 161'4 i; ;" ' :;

,,;:

unworrhy servants.' Nobody denies their accom piishrne;s;ralner are lhe) taushl to a\oid danqcrous arrqqallce.

Man says one thing, God anothe"r. lf"" ."i" fr" i. .TT1T, a" unworthy one at that. What does God sav?"Wel l done, good servanr , . l l uke 19 .177; N. l . ; ; " ; ; ;r . ca l you servanrs . bu l f r iend , . . rJohn 15 .157. H i ca l l srhem 'b rerhren , , rJohn 20 .J7 ; ins tead o I , . . " . "uno. . .

enJrnose who call themscl\ cs unr,r orthy seruants, God cal]s hissons.6 And indeed those who have just called themsclvesservants God sLunmons: ,.Come, blssed .f -y f.ifr".:;

, iYiL, l l - t l , , r . ,and,they hear.o[ rhcir g."7 a*i. ' . r

wnlcn they lhemse lves knew nothrng .

"I-l:elieve it to be an excellent kelito the understandineo[ Holy Scriprures. if we pay ",,"n,ion ,o r"t r, ;;;;;:m eacn passaqe. Onr^e one recognizes ,hi", on" ,uil l 6nd i,fr:1". lo

setpcr trom the parabies and cxamplc. such asate 10 the po in l . In lhe parab lc o f tho s rcuard r , r ho aboutro,oc retre\cd ol hrs posr. falrif ics lhe notcs o[ his ma:ter.soeDlors . there rs much th r t does no l . rdd to the s rnse o f rheparaLJe. t Qn ly rh i " can bn sarhered l rom i r , r_hur " , , , . , , , ^n"snou ld s l r r \e to d is r r ibure mosr f rcc l l . rhc reby a id jnq h i :neighbor, the gifts he has received f.o'm G"d, 6"f;' j";;;ovcltake him.

Thc same concerns the parable we .Just mentroned above:

ERASMUS: THE FREE WILL ?5

But *h i rh o l you is the 'c ' hau ing a \Pruan l p lou ing o ltend.ing sheep, who uill say to h;m an hit return lrom thefielt l. "Conte at once aniL recline at table!" But @ill he notiay to him,"Prepare my supper, and gird thysell and ser.tteme titl I hare eaten and iLrunk; and alter@ards thou thy'v t l rhd t t ?a l and dr ink) " Doc , he thank tha l le tuant lo rdo'ing what he comtnandeiL him? I do not think so'

The sum total of this parable is that one ought simply

to obey the commandments of God and do zealously one's

duty without claiming any Praise for it.

Otherwise the Lord himself dissents from this parable

when he gives himself as a serwant, while granting his dis-

ciples the honor of reclining at table.s He also expresses

thanks when he exclaims: "Well done good seNants"

(Luke 19,17), and "Come blessed" (Matthew 25'3+.) '

ih.,s, he is not saying: "The Lord will judge you unworthy

of grace, unprofitable servants, after you have done every-

thing," but rather says: "You say, we are unprofitable

servints" (Luke 17,10). Paul who worked more than all

the rest calls himself the least among the Apostles and

unworthy to be called APostle.eSimilarly: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?

And vet not one of them will fall to the ground without

your iathcr's leave" (Matthew 10,29). First we must bear

in mind what the Lord is discussing. He does not wish to

teach the so-called forced necessity of all happenings His

example aims rather at taking from his disciples their fear

of men. They should realize that they stand under God's

Drotection. and that no man can halTn them without his'oermi.sion.

This he will only do if it furthers them and

th" gorp"l. Paul says: "Is it for the oxen that God has

"u."i" lt Corinthians 9,9). Obviously the subsequent re-

marks of the Evangelist contain an hyperbole, i e an ora-

torical exaggeration, "As for you, the very hairs of your

head are ail numbered" (Matthew 10,30). How much

" Romans 9, 26.' Luke 16, 1-9.

" John 13, 4 f i .

I 1 Corinthians 15,9.

76 DISCOT]RSE ON FRDE WILL ERASMUS: T1IE FREE WILL ?7

hair falls daily to the ground; is it also counted? So, u,.hat:..th" l"r!9:" of this hypcrbolc? Obviousty that whichfollows it, "Therefore, do not bc afraicl ', (Matthew 10.21).Ju"r as thc"e modes of e\pre.\ion have rhe purpose tornmore the fear o [ man and to s t rengrhen h i * t rusr in God.rvithou-t whose provitlenr e nothinq heppens, so the above_quotations do not purport to abolish ihe free will, but todcter us lrom alrogance which the Lord hates. The best isto attribute everything to the Lord. He is miid and willnot only give what is oursr but also that which belongs tonrm,

, How couid one state thal Lhe prodigal son'0 had squan_

opr rd .h rs . por - on o l lh . p roper ty . i [ hc nerer had a par tof it in his hands? What hn po..e.sed he had receiredl rom rhe fa thcr . \Ve roo acLnowledge rhdr a l l the q i f t s o fnarrre are eilrs of Cod. fle pe..essctl his porLion eien aLthc 1 i11r " 1 . r i . fa rher has s r i l l r c ta innd i t in h is hanc l " andindeed possessed it more securely. What does it mean thathe demanded his portion and separated himself from hisfather? Obviously it means that rnan claims title Ior him_sel{ to the gifts of nature, and does not use thcm to fullillGod's commandments, but to satisfy his carnal desires.lVhat is the mcaning of this hunger? It mcans an afiictionby rvhich God goads on the sinner's disposition to knowand to abhor himsclf, and to undertake tle desired returnto the father. lVhat signifies the son speaking to himself,planning to confess and to return horne? It sisnifics thewi l l o f man tu rn inq to \vard , q rar e , wh ic l r he . i r im, r laL .dhim, and which, as stated, one calls the prcvenicnt one.r1What sisni0es the father who hastens to mect his son? Hesignifies the grace of God which furthers our rvill. so thatwe can accompli 'h that which we r,rish.

This interpretation, even if it were my own invention.would ccrtainly be more probable than that of my oppo_nents who intcrpret "stretch forth thy hand to.rhich iho,,

rvilf ' (Ecclesiasticus 15,17) to mcan, "the grace of God

,r.",.fit ou, your hand at rvill," only in ordcr- -to^ "prove"

that the rvili of man can accomplish nothing l' Since my

i"*.o."r*i.", horvever, is handed down from the orthodox

f"'f,r ir. ' , f do not sce rvhy on' should de'pise ir ' l .hi ' pnr-

; " j ; ; "1 ; ro rh . 1 ,uo . " i Jo- p l ' ' i ng h ( r t \ \o mi ics i e '

hcr entirc ProPcrty' into the treasury "---i o.t, nittui -".it ..'.' hc gain who orves completely

to him frorn whom he rcceived these forccs all he is able

i" a. ft"lrit natural intelligence and {ree rlill? Nevertheless'

God crcdits us prccisely \'vith this that we clo not turn our

hearts awav fiom his grace, and that we concentrate our

,rui.,rul ubititi"t on simplc obedicnce This proves at. least

rh ; ' ; , ; can a .compl i ih snmeth inq Lu t r l r ' r t ne \er the lqss

he a .c r ibe . thc sum to ta l o f a l l h is do ins ' ro und ' \ r l ro . l s

the author whence orgmates man's ability to unite.his

;;;;;; i; God's g.acei This is what Paul means' whe'n

l"-t.oi, "gu the g-race of God I am what I am" (1 Cor-

i",nll"t fS,iOl. I ie recogni'es the author' But whcn you

f r " " r . " f f i . q rac" has no t bcen [ tu i t l css ib id \ ' thcn ]ou

t " - " " i t " ,n " human rv i l l who 'L sLr iv in l (oopeta les .$ i th

)l ' i .. ] , rp. Thc 'ame is indicated whtn it sals: 'Not I '

i",^ift" gJ..-.f God rvith me" (ibid )' For jr.r Greek it is

i1 oi,r' ipo't.And the Hebrew prophet of wisdom rvished that divine

-ira.-'."it, him; standing at his side and working with

;ir-;;--S[" assists ;s a moclerator and heiper' like an archi-

1s , 1 .L ,ppo, r inq h i . a .s is tan t . o rder ing w l r ' r r i s to bc done '

,ho* inn ' rh" . i1 rp t1 11 ' rhod l f l re cornm"nces to do some-

, l t i t * , " t . "a f t , she r r i l l re ra l l h i ro ' end a ' roon r r hc f ' r i l s '

;h ; ' ; " . , " " . , J h is c id . lh . r 'o tk i s ascr ibed 1o rhc arch i tec l '

*l,ft.ti *ft"* nap nothing could have becn accomplished'

N" r , r r t " t " . . nobo iy t tou ld say r l r r t he lpers and.appre l -

t i cc . l r r re no sha le in thc rvork t \ 'ha t { 'P \c r ' vY l raL tne

urJir"., l. for thc aPPrentice, grace is for our will'

'o Cf. Luke 15, 1l f ." Cf. chapter I I I , footnote 3 and 11.

" Cf. Erasmus, Section 41.' " Ma rk 12 ,41 f I ." Wisdom 9, 10.

Z8 DIscouRsE oN FtujE wrLL

Therelore Paul says. "In like manncr the Spirit alsohelps our weakness" (Romans 8,26). One doeJ not callanother weak who can do nothing, but one whose str.cngthis insufficient for completing his undcrtaking. Nor is hecalled a helper who does everything alone. All Scriptureexclaims: help, aid, assistance and support. But who iouldbe designated as helper unless hc helpcd one doing some-thing?'fhe potter does not "help', the clay in the formingoI a-vessel, nor the carpenter his axe in the making of abench.

50\ Frcc 14/i l l and Good Uy'ork, Made pot,ible throughGrace

We oppose those who conclude like this: ,,Man is unableto- accomplish anything unlcss God,s grace helps him.Therefore there are no good rvorks of man.,, We proposethe rathcr more acceptable conclusion: Man is ible toaccomplish all things, if God's gracc aids him. Thereforeit is possible that all works of man be good.

- Al many passages as thcre are in Holy Scripture men-tioning [God's] help, as many are there establishing thefreedom of the will. Thesc passage$ are innumerab]le. Iwould have won already, if it depended on the merenumber of proofs,

VII I

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

51) Need for a Lloderate OPinion

Up to now we have been compiling scriptural passages

establishing the freedom of the will, while conversely others

seem to canccl it out completcly. Since the Holy Spirit,

who inspired both, can not contradict himself, we are

forccd, whether *'e like it or not) to seek a more moderateopinion.

When one has arrivcd at this view, others at that viewi

both reading the same Scripturc, it is duc to the fact that

each looked for something else and interpreted that which

he read for his own purpose. Whoever pondered the great

religious indiflcrence of man and the grcat danger of

despairing of salvation, has, while trying to avert this calam-ity, succumbed unsuspectingly to another danger, and hasascribed too much to the free rvill. 'fhe others instead-

who considercd how cnormously dangerous for true piety

the trust of man in his olvn prowess and merits can be,

and how unbearablc the arrogance of ccrtain persons is

who boast of thcir good works and sell them to othersaccording to measur-emcnt and weight like sclling oil andsoap-having vcry studiously avoided this danger, have

eithcr diminishcd the freedom of the will so that it couldcontribute absolutely nothing to good rvorks, or they haveelininated it all togcthcr by introducing an absolute neces-

sity in all happenings.

bO DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

52) Some Reformers' Views Justifed

Evidently these people considered it quite apt for thesimple obedience of a Christian that man depend com-pletely on the will of God when he places his entire rustand all his hopcs in his promises; when he, conscious ofhis own wrctchedness, admires and loves his immensemercy which he gives us plentifully without chargc; whenhe, furthermore, subjects himself complctely to his will, nomatter whether he wants to save or destroy him; rvhen heaccepts no praise whatsover for his eooJ worl,s, and rathcrascribes all glory to His grace, thinking that man is nothingelse but a living tool of the divinc Spirit, rvhich the latterhas cleansed and sanctified for himseif throush his un-desened goodness , and uh i rh hc gu ides nnd gor . .nsaccording to his inscrutable wisdom; furthermore, whenthere exists nothing anybody could claim as his own accom-plishment, and when he hopes for eternal lifc as rervard{or steadfast faith in God, not because he had earned itby his orvn good works, but because the goodncss of Godwas pleased to promise that reward to those who havetrust in him; whcreby, consequently, man has thc duty tobeg God assiduou.ly lor impar rlne and auemenring hisSpirit in us, to thank him for every success and to adorein ali case" Cod's omniporence. to admire evenl,r lrere hisrvisdom, and to love everywhere his goodness.

fhcse utteranccs are also very praiservort\ to me, be-cause they agree with Holy Scripture. They conform tothe creed of those rvho died once and for all to this rvorld,through their baptism har.e becn buricd with Clrrist, andafter thc mortification of the flesh live hcnceforth with thcSpirit of Jesus, into u.hose body they have been ingrafted,through faith.l 'I his is incontestably a pious and captivatingconception, which takes from us every conceit, which trans-fers all giory and confidence to Christ, which expcls fromrrs the iear o f men rnd demons. and u h ich , though mak ing

' NIeant is the Mystical Body of Christ, CI. Romans 6, 4.

EI{ASIIUS: TI.[E FREE .\^/ILL

8I

us distrustful of our human potentialities, makes us none-thclcss strong and courageous in God. I'his we applaudfreely, up to the point of exaggeration fwhich we want toavoidl .

53) Errors and Injustice in the Relormers

But the rational soul in me has many doubts when Ihear the following: there is no merit in man; all hisrvorks, evcn the pious ones) are sin; our will can do nomore than thc clay in the potters hand; everything rve do

or want to do is reduccd to unconditional necessity.First, rvhy do you read so often that the saints, rich in

good n'ork, have acted rvith justice, have walked uprightin the sight oI God, never deviating to the right or to theleft, if cvcrything is sin, even what the most pious does---lin Iact] such a sin that one for whom Christ has diedwould nonethcless be condemned to inferno, were it notfor God's mercy?

Secondly, why does onc so often hcar of reward, if thereis no merit it all? Holv would disobcdience of those follow-ing God's commandmonts be praiscd, and disobcdience bedarnncd? Why does Holy Scripturc so Irequently mentionjudgment, iI merit cannot be weighed at all? Or why mustwc stand before the scat oI judgment if nothing has hap-pencd according to our rvill, but evcrything according tomr:re necessity? It is disturbing to think of all the manyadmonitions, commandmcnts, threats, exhortations andcomplaints, if wc can do nothing, but God's unchangeablervill causcs the willing as rvcll as the carrying out in us.He rvants us to pIay perseveringly. He rvants us to watch,

to fight and to struggle for the reward oI eternal life. Whydoes hc continuously want to be asked, when he has al-rcacly dccided rvhetlicr to give us or not to give us, andwhen hc himself, unchangeable, is unable to change hisresolutions? Why does hc command us to strive laboriouslyfor rvhat hc has decidcd to give {rcely? God's grace fightsand triumphs in us when rve are afllicted, ejected, derided,

FREE WILL

tortured and killed. Such atrocities the martyrs sulTered.Nonetheless [such a martyr] is to have no merit. Indeed,it is calied a sin, if he submits his body to tortures, in thehope of heavenly life. tsut why would an exceedingly merci-ful God wish to be thus engaged with his martyrs? Cruelwould appear a man if he did not give, unless havingtortured to despair, that which hc had [already] decidedto bestow freely upon his friend.

Perhaps, as soon as one confronts this obscurity in thedivine decision, one ought to adore that which we are notsupposed to comprehcnd. so rhat man sJts, "he is rhe Lord,he can do everything he wishes, and since he is by naturegood, everything he wiils can only be very good.,, It is stillplausible enough to say that God crowns his gifts in us;he permits his benefits to be our advantage; he deigns withundeserved goodness to attribute to us what he has causedin us, well desencd, as it were, if we tmst in him, and inorder to obtain immortality. But I don't know how thosecan be consistent who exaggerate God's mercy towards thepious in such a way as to permit him to be ahnost cruelagainst the others,

A goodness which imputcs to us its excellencc might pos-sibly be tolerable to a pious soul. But it is dililcult to ex-plain how it is compatible with justice (not to speak withmercy), to condemn the others, in whom God did notdeign to cause good, to eternal tortrrres, aithough on theirown they could not possibly effect any good, since theyeither possesscd no {rec will, or only one good for sinning.

54) Two lllustratiue Stories

If a king were to cive enormous booty to one rvho haddone nothing in a rlar, and to those lvho had doni: thefightinrr barely just their salary. he could rcspond to themurmuring soldiers: am I injuring 1'ou by rivins thc othersfrcely and gratuitously? Ilut rcallyJ how could one considerhim just and gcntle, if hc crowned macnificently for hisvrctory a genclal rvhom he had furnished u'ith machines,

EIIASMUS: THE FRED \\ ' IL]- 83

troopsJ nloney and all sLrpplies aplenty for rvar, rvhile an-other, whom he had throlvn into war witllout armaments,Lc ordcred put to death on account of the rvar's unhappyencl ing? I3clore dying, could he not say rvith just ice to thekirg: rvhy clo you punish me for rvhat happened thloughyoul lault? l I you had equipped me similal l ,v, I rvould havewon Loo.

Again, i i a lord emancipates an undeselving servant,hc can ansrvel the remaining grunbling servants: You loscnothins i f I am l i i ld to t l i is one; you st i l l have yourmcasure. Evcrybody rvould judgc the lord cruel and unjustthough, ur:r-c he to h:Lvc his sclvant floggcd for his stature,or protrucl ing noscj or somc o'. l icr lack oI clegance. \ \ouldhe not be justificd in cornplaining against tlic lord rvhohad him floglccl: rvhy should I sufTcr punishment lorsomething that is lot in my pou'cr to changc? ' \ ,nd he

rvould bc quite just i i ied in say' ing this i f i t rvele in thelord's lxxvcr to chanqc thc delccts of thc sclYant's body,just as i t is in thc hand oI Clod to chansc our wil l . Or i ft l rc lord lr :rd gi\ tn thc scrvant that rvir ich norv olfends him,l i l ic cuit ing of l his nor;r: , or hideorrsly dclorni i lg his faceq'ith -.cals, just as Gotl, atrrrcling to thc opinion oI some,has u,or ' l ied al l cvi l in us. Or tal ic thc cxarnplc of a lordgiving orders to do a glcat dcal to a se^ant l ,ying inchains, "go here. clo thal, run. come back," and thrcatenshirn greatlv i I he uere r lol lo ol)c,v. l lut [ the lord] cl id notset I the scrvent] loosc, r 'al lLer hc f loggccl the disobedienLIcl iou'. Woulcl not the servant just ly cotsicler the lord in-slrtc and r:rucl. i I hr: had hirn f loeqcd to cle:rth becausc heh;:rd not dorxr th:Lt rrhit:h rvas not irr his pou'cr?

5 5'1 R e.t e r i: ttt i o n s C a tt c e r tt in g J us t i li c at i o n b 1' I.^ a i t h

[Let us contir lrc: ] In this al iair t lc,v grcatly cxalt lai thand lovc of God. \Ve hold these cqually dear' . \Yc arcconvirrccd that the l i fe of Christ ians is so contaminatedrvith l ' ic l i rxhrcss, sterrming from nothing else but from thecoldncss and chorvsiness of our l i i i th l lhich is a superf iciai

E4 DrscouRSE oN FREI WILL

beJicf in rvords, rvhile, according to Paul, he is justiliedrvho rvithin his heart bclicves. I do not cspccially u,ant toquarrei rvith those.rvho attributc cvelything to lzLith as thefountainhead, although it seems to me that faith ancl lovc.and love and laiLh corne about and nurtiue cach othcrrnutually. Certainly faith is nurturecl by love, as the flarnein a larnp is nulturcd by the oil. For rvc hale grcater lait lrin him rshom rve lovc dearly. There is no scarcity of voir:cswho, more corlectly, take faith as the beginning of sal-Vation and not its sum total. But l i 'c don,t \\,ant to .l l .gLreabout that.

56) Dxaggcrating and Underratint

But care should bc tal<en not to deny the lreedom oI thcrvill, rvhilc prraising faith. I'or if this happens, there is notclling horv the plobiem of divine justice and rnercy coul<ibe solvcd.

Thc ancierts could not explain such di€ficulties. Somefelt cornpcilcd to asslrme two gods: one for the Old'I 'csta-ment, rvho u as able to bc only just, but not sinultaneouslyrnerciful, and one lor thc Ne\r 'I'e stament, r'ho could onlybe mr:rciful, but not just. This godless idea Tertull ian hassufficiently lcfuied.'� N{eni, as alrcady mentioned,:r f anciecltwo naturcs in man, one tvhich is incapablc oI not sinnine,and onc incapablc of not cloins good. Pclagius, utro rvasconcernccl aborrt Gocl's justice, attributed rnorc to fi.cc rvil lthan to neccssitl. Not too distant fr.om tlt is position arc thcfScotists] rvlur asclibc to hurnan rvil l at least the abil ity tocarn rviLh natural poucrs through cthically good rvor.ks thathiqhcst glace, by rvhich rvc arc jrrsti l ied. 'fhcl,secm

to meto be irrviting man to stri,, c by aflir.ming good hope inobtainin!. ' sah'ation. Also Cornclius by giving alms and bvpra)inq' has melitccl Jrcing i irstructed by Pcter, l i l ic Phil\r' '

l " * ra i " ' ler tu l l ian 's largest cxtant work, A. t r€r 'us Marciorrcn( c . 2 0 7 ) . C f . c h : r P l c r I I , I q r t n o r c l .3 Ol . chapter I l . Iootu. , te 2.' A c t s 1 0 . 4 l .

DRAS}IUS: THE FREE \TILL 35

instructed the IDthiopian] errnuch.5 \ 'Vhcn Augustinesearched zealously lor Chlist in the Epistlcs of Paul, hedcscrvcd fincling hin. Ilcre r'r,c coulci state, in order toassuage thosc rtho lrermit man no possibility fol any goodunlcss indt:btcd to God, that lvc o\\'c our t:ntire life workto God. rvithout'.r 'hom rvc corrld accomplish nothing; fur-thcrmorc, that thc fr.rc rvill contr-ibutcs vcry little to anelTi:ct; f inall,v, that it is also a lolk cI clir, ine grace that\\.(- 'can turn our ltcart to tl lc things of selr,ation and co-operate rvith qrace. A.ugustine gainecl a rnorc unlavorabler ierv of the lree rvil l , because of his i lqht rvith PclagiLrs thanhr: had Ircld bcforr:. Lutlrr:r, on l lrc othcr hancl, rho at6rst :rttr ibutccl sorncthing to thc frr:e rvil l , hrs come tcdcny it completrly in thc heat of his clcfcnt:. l hus Ly-curqus \!as crit icrizccl bv thc Grr:cl<s because in his hatredof drunkenness he oicleled the ri les cut do$n.. \rhereasby adcling a l itt le more water to thir uine dlunkcnncssu'ould havc becn avoidcd rvit lxrut losing thc usc of u'irrc.

5i '1 IIuman liatt;re a:'.d Salt. 'alion

In mv opinion the lrec l i l l could Lavr: bccn so clcllr,edas to avoid overconficlcnce in our nrcrits and the otherdisadr anlages rvhich Luther shlrns. as u'ell as to aroid suchas we rccitcd abovc, and sti l l not losc thc aclvantagcs rvhichLuther admires. -fhis. it secrrs to me, is accomplishecl bythose lvho attribute ever,vthing to the pull int by glacer,' 'hich is the first to e\cite orrr spirit, ancl attributc onl,vsomcthing to human rvil l in its cffort to continuc end notwithcLaw lrom clivine grace. Rrrt since a1l things have threeparts, a bctinnint, a <nntinrration and an encl. grace isattributed to th,. two extremities, and onlf in continuationdoes thr: free uil l effect something. Trvo causcs rnect inthis s;rrne work, the grace ol God and thc human r,vill, erace

' Acts B, 26 lI." LycurgLrs (gth centrry B.C.) , Sperten lawgiver. Secms a con-fusion wi th Domit ian. See Suetonius, Zi rcr o l lhe Caesart , Dotni"l ian, VI I , 2.

86 DIscouRSE oN FRnE wILL

beinq thc principal cause and wil l a scconclarv, since i t is

impotent rvi ihout thc prirrcipal cause, rn'hi lc thc latter has

suff icicnt stren.qth by i tsclf . Thus, rvhi le tho f irc burns

throrrgh i ts natural strength, the principal causc is st i l l

Gocl, u'ho acts through the f ire. (}od alone rvould indeed

suffice, and r,r'ithoLrt Him fire cottltl not buln. Due to this

combination, man lnust ascribe his total sah al ion to divincgrace, since i t is vcry l i t t lc that the fn:c u' i l l can effect,

and evel i that corncs from divine grace rvhich has at l l rst

crcatcd frce l i l l ancl then rcdecnied ancl healed i t . Thus

are placatccl. i f the,v can be placatccl. those rrho \,vi l l not

tolerate that man has some good rvhich he does not orle

to God. He ou'cs this also to God. but in anothcr u'a,v and

undcr another t i t le. JLrst as an inhcri tance corning in cqual

sharc to the chi ldlen. is not cal lecl a benevolencc, bccau-"e

it belonqs by common lew to al l . I f bt '1'ond this cornmon

riqht a clonation is rnade Lo this or that chi ld, i t is cal l :d

l iberal i tv. Blrt chi l t ln:n one qrati tude to thcir Parents also

rrnder the t i t le of thcir inheritance.I rr i l l t lv to cxplcss in patables nhat * 'c have been

saying. Eren the healthl 'cvc of a man docs not see in the

darkness, and ruhen i t is bl i lc lcd. i t cloes not scc anything

in l iqht either. ' lhus

the rvi l l can do nothinq. thoush free,

i f r i th<lrarvinq from gracc. Rut thc onc rvith good elcs can

close his e,ves bcfolc thc l iqht anC scc n.thjng. He can also

turn his c;es arva,v. They ui l l not sec uhat lrc coulcl har-e

secn. Thc onc rvith bl incl evcs o\r 'cs hjs grat i tLrdc in the

first placc to Gocl. ancl onlY thcn to the doctor. I lelore

sinninq our clcs \re.e healthv. Sin has nrined thcm. Who-

ever se.s. r ' l rat can he pl ide himsclf in? He can impute to

himself his caul ious closing ancl trrrninq auav of the c1'cs

Listcn to another parablc. A father raiscs his chi ld. rvhich

is vet unable to rva)] i , rvhich has fal lcn and lhich cxelts

himself, ancl shorvs hi in an apple. pleccd iu front of him.

Thc bof i ikcs to go and qet i t . bLrt ( lrr(r to l i is rveal i bones

rvorr ld soon lrave fa] len atain, i I the fathcr hacl not srrp-

portcd him bv his hand arxl quided his stcl. 's. Thrrs the

chi ld comcs. lcd bv the lat lrcr. to the aPi) lc rvhich the

DRASMUS: TrrE FRIIE wrLL 87

father places willingly into his hand, like a reward for his

*alkini. fhe chilJ co.rld not havc raised itself without

thc fatier's hclp; would not have seen the apple without

rh" futh".'. showing; would not have stepped forward

witho.,t the {ather's- helping his weak little stepsl would

not have reached the applc without the fathcr's placing it

into his hand. What can the child claim for himsclf? Yet'

hc dicl do something, but he must not glory in his own

strength, since he owes evcrytlting to thc father'

L"i.,i utrr.,-" it is the same with God What does the

child do? As the boy is bcing heipcd up, he makes an

eiTort and tries to accomrnodate his weak stePs to the

father's guirlance. The {ather could havc pulled him against

fis will."A childish whim could have refused the apple

The father could have given the apple rvithout his running'

but hc would rather g-ive it in tlis manncr, because lt ls

bctter for the boy. I readily admit thai our striving con-

ributes less to the gainiDg of etcrnal life, than the boy's

running at the hand of his father'

58) Crlticism ol Carlstadt: Gtrtce and Freedom like

Soul and llodY

Herc u,e saw how littlc is attributed to thc frecdom of

thc will. Neverthcless to solne it still secms too much They

u,ant onlv grace to act in us, and want our will only to

sufler [pasJ.clyl, l ike a tool of the Divine SPirit, so that

thc eoJ can. under no circumstances, be callcd ours, unlcss

divii" qoodnc* imputes it tr ' ' us frcrly Clace is cffectire

in u . nJr rh ro ' rgh rhe i re ' rv i l l . l " t t r r i th in f rcc w i l l ' j r rs t as

[thc,v say] the causality of the Potter is u'ithin the clay

and not through itWhcnce comcs then thc mention of the crorvn and the

retarcl? It is said that God crowns his gifts in us, and

orders that his favor be our reward Whatever he has

efTectcd in us. hc givcs, in ordr:r to rnake us worthy of part-

nership in his cele.stial kingdorn Hcre I don't see how they

define a frer: rvill which elTccts nothing For' if they said

88 DtscouRSE oN FRIE wrLL

that moved by gr:rce it acts simultancously, it lvould becasier to explain. Just as accordinq to the natural philoso-phers our botly obtains its lirst r:novcrncnts from thc soul,rvithout which it coti ld not move at all. yot it not only docsmove, but also moves other things, and just as a partncrof rvork participates also in its honor. II God so works inus as the pottcr on the clay, what gcxrd or eril cor.rld beimputed to us? For, we must not bli lg into this discLrssionthe soul of Jesus Christ, who too $as a tool of thc DivineSpirit. And if thc neakness of thc body stands in thc u'ayof man mcrit ing anything, so [Christl before his de:Lth u'asterrilied: hc u'ished that not his u'ill, but that of theFathcr be done.' And nonetheless they acknorvledge this[wil i] to be the fountain of merit, though depriving allothcr saints of all thc mcrit of their good worlis.

59) Addressed to Luther

Those rvho deny any lreedom oI thc n'ill and affirm abso-lutc necessity, adrnit that God rvorks in m.rn not only thegood lvorks, but also cvil ones. lt seens to follou' that inas-much as man can never be the author of good rlorks, hecan also never bc callcd the author of e,,i l oncs. l his opin-ion seems obviously to attribute cruclty ancl injustict: toGod, something rcligious earr: airhor r,ehcmentl). (Hervould no lorret:r be Ciocl iI anything vicious ancl irnperfecti lere met in hirn). Nonethclcss thost: holding such an im-plausible l icrv have an answcr: IIe is Gocl; IIc is able todo only the best and rlost beautifLrl. If yorr obserrc thcfitt ingness of the universe, crcn *'hat is evil in itself, is soodin it and i l lustrates the glorv of God. No crcature canadjuclee thc Creator's intcntions. \ ' Ian nrust srrbject hirn-self comPlctely to them. In fact, if it phases God to darnnthis or that one, nobody must gnrmblc, but accept whzltpleases him, and be convinced that hr: docs everything 1brthe best. Wirat rvoulcl come of it i I man u,cr-c to ask Godnhy he did not make hirn an angel? lVouldrr't Cod ansrvcr' rrtu,,n-"* zo.:s.

ERASI I IUS: THD FREE WILL

rightly: you irnpuclent one! If I had mad: you a frog, couldyou then complain? The same, if the frog disputes rvith

God: why have you not made mc a peacock, conspicuor.rsIor its multicolored feathers? Would not God be justified

in saying: ungratelul onel I could have made you a fungusor a bulb, but now you jump, drink and sing. Again, if a

basilisk or snakc rvere to say: why have you made me a

dcadly anirnal hated by all, and not a shcep? lVhat would

God answcr? Doubtlessly he would say: I like it this way.

It suits the dccoration and order of the universe You have

suffered as little injury as all the flies, gnats and other

insects. Each I have fashioned to apPear as a miracle forhirn *'ho contemplates it. And a spider, is she not a bcau-

tiful animal, even if differcnt from the elephant? 'I ruly,

therc is a greater miracle in the spider than in thc elephant.Are you not satisflcd in being a perfect animal in yourkind? Poison rvas not .qiven to you to kill others with, butto protcct yourself and your l i tt le oncs. Just as oxcn havehorns, lions have clalvs, wolves teeth, horses hoofs. Everyanirn:rl has its utility. The horse bcars burdens, the oxplou's, the donkcy and dog help at uork, thc sheep servesman lor lood :Lncl clothing. and you are needcd for makingmedicine.

60) Further Exaggeration antl. Di l l icult ie s

Ilut iet us ceasc reasoning lv'ith those devoid of reason.We bcgan our disputation with man, created in the imageand likcness oI God, and for rvhose p)easure He createdall things. We note that somc arc born rvith hcalthy bodiesand good minds, as though born for virtuc, again others

riith monstrous bodies arld horrible sickncss, others so stupidthat they almost have fallen to the levcl of brute animals,sonlc cven rnore brutish than tlre brutcs, others so disposcdtorvard disgraceful passions, that it sccms a strong fatc isimpeliing thcm, others insane and possessed by thc devils.Florv u'ill nc explain the qtrestion of God's justice andrncrcy in such cases? Shall rve say rvith Paul: "O the

89

go DISCOURSD ON FRI

depth . . ." (l{omans 11,33)? I tbink this uould be better

than to jLrdgc with impious rashrtcss God's decisions, rvhich

man cannot explore. And truly, it is even more diliicult to

explain how God crowns his favors in some rvith immortal

iife, and punishes his rnisdeeds in others with eternal sufier-

ing. In oider to delend such a paradox thcy resort to other

paiaclo*es and to maintain the battlc against their adver-

iary. Thcy immensely exaggcrate original sin which. sup-

poiedly has corrupted even the most excellent faculties of-human nat.,re, makes man incapable of anything, save only

ignoring and hating God, and not even aftcr gracc and

iustificalion by faith can he ellcct any work which rvouldn't

Le s in . Thcy mako tha( inc l inar ion ro s in in us . renr ' r in ing

after the sin of our first parents, an invincible sin in itself,

so that not one divine prccept cxists which evcn a man

justified by faith could possibly keep. All the command-

ments of God have supposed no other PurPosc than to

arnplify the gr:rce ol God, which, irrespcctive oI merit,

grants salvation.Howevcr, they seem to me to minimizc God's rnercy in

one placc, in order to enlarge it elseu'licre, in thc sane

,nunn"r, u, one placing parsimoniously belore his.{uests a

verry small breakfast, in order to make dinner apPear more

splendidly; or just as imitating a paintcr rvho darkens that

ipart of a canvasl which will bc closcst to thc sPot hc

wishes to be emitting the light in the picture.

At {irst they make God almost ctLel, who. bccause o1

somcbody else's sin, rages against all mankind' cruel espe-

ciallv sincc those who sinncd havc done pcnance artcl uercpunished seve.ely as long as thcy lived Sccondll', rvhen

ihey say that evcn thosc justilied by laith can do nothing

but sin, so lhat loving and trusting God we deserve God's

hatrcd ancl clisfavor: doesn't this dirninish divine gracc that

man jLrsti i ied by faith can sti l l do nothing else but sin?

Morcover, whiie God has burdencd man rvith so many

commandments rvhich have no elTect othcr than to make

him hate God more and make his damnation Dlore scvere)

does this not make God a harsher tYrant than cven Dio-

ERASI IUS: THD FREN, WILL 9 I

nysius of Sicily, who zcalously issued many laws which, ashe suspcctcd, rvould not be observed by the multitude,unless strictly enforced? At first he closed his eyes to this,but soon, seeing that almost everybody tlansqrcssed in someway, began to call thcm to accortnt, rendering them allpunishable. And yet, God's lavr's were such that they couldhave easil,v been obsen'cd if only men had $,anted to do so.

I do not lrant to invcstigate norv, why they teach it tobe impossible lor us to kccp all oI God's commandments,for that is not our purposc hcre. lVe rvish to shorv howthey. by eagerly enl:Lrging grace on accotrnt of salvation,havc actually obscured it in others. I do not see how such

[vit'ls] can endurc. They liquidate the freedorn of thewill and teach that rnan is driven by the Spirit of Christrvhosc nature cannot bcar lellowship with sin. At thc sametime, they say man does nothing but sin after havinglcceived grace.

Luther seems to enjo)' such exaggerations. He pushesother people's exaggerations even further, driving orrt badknots rvith l'orse rvcdges, as the sa-ying goes. Some had clar-ingly advanced anothcr cxaggeration, selling not only theirown, ilut also the mcrits of all the saints. What hind ofu'orks fis meant] : songs, chanting the psalms, fcating o{]6shes, fasting, drcssing fsirnply], t i t les? -I 'hus Luthcr droveone nail through rvith another, u,hen he said the saints hadno nrerits whatsoever, and that the works of cven thc mostpious men were sin and would adduce ctcrnal damn:Ltionif faith and divine mercy had not come to the rescue. Theothcr side was rnaking a considcrablc profit $ith conlessionand rcparation. lluman conscicncc u'as thereby exccedinglyentanglcd. Likervisc, all kinds of strange thinqs u'cre rclatcdconccrning purgatory. The opponents [i.c. Luther] correctthese mistakes by sayin-q confession is the Devil's invention,and should not be rcquired, and they think no satisfactionis neccssary for sin, because Christ has atoned for the sinof all; and think there is no purgatory. One side goes sofar as to say that the orders of any prior oI a monasteryare binding under pain of hell, while thcy have no scruples

92 DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL

in promising eternal life to those who obcy them. 'l'he

opponents ansrver this cxaggeration by saying that all theorders of popes, councils and bishops are heretical andantichristian. 'Ihc

one side exalts papal po.w'er in an exag-gerated way, the other side speaks of the pope such thzrt Ido not dare to rcpcat it. Again, one sidc says the vows ofmonls and priests fettcr man foreler under punishmentof hell, the others say such vows are godless and not to bemade, and oncc madc, to be broken.

61) Differences between Exhortation and Doctrine

Ihc whoie lvorld is norv shaken by the thundcr andlightning born oI tlie collision of such exaggerations. Ifboth sidcs hold fast to *reir cxaggeration, I forescc sur:h abattle as between Achil lcs and Hector: since both lvereheadstrong, only death could separate thern. 'I ruc, there isthc popular saying, iI you want to straightcn a cun'ed stick,bend it in the opposite direction. But this applies to thecorrection of morals. I do not know whether to employ itin matters of dogma.

In the case oI exhortations and dissuasion I sec sonretimesa place for an exasgeration. If one wishes to encourage thetimid man, one *'oulcl be right in exhorting: 'Don't fear,God will speak and clo everything in you." Arrd in orderto dampen a man's godless insolence, you rnight profitablysayJ man can do nothing but sin; and to thosc \rho de-mand that their dogmas bc thought eclual to thc canonir:albooks say tliat all men are liars.

When in thc investigation oI tmth, howevcr, axioms arcpropoundcd, I bclieve onc rnust not use paradoxes, bccausethey arc so similar to riddles. I like modelation best.Pclagius attributes much too much to the lree lviil; Scotusattributcs quite a bit. But Luther mutilates it at f i$t byamputating its right ann. And not content with this, hehas kil led thc freedorn of the rvil l and has remor.ed it alltogcther.

I like the sentimcnts of those who attributc a little to the

ERASMUS: TI IE FREE WILL 93

freedom of the will, the most, however, to grace. One mustnot avoid the Scylia of arrogance by going into the Charyb-dis of desperation and indolcnce. In resetting a disjointcdlimb, one must not dislocate it in the opposite dircction,but put it back in its place. Onc rnllst not f ight with anenemy in such a marncr that turning the face, you arecaught o{T guard.

According to this modcration man can do a good, albeitimperfect work; man should not boast about it; there willbe some mcrit, but man owes it completcly to God. TheIife of us mortals aborrnds in many infirmities, imperlectionsand viccs. lVhocver *'ishes to contemplatc himsclf, rvilleasily lorver his head.3 But we do not assurne that even ajustif ied man is capable of nothing but sin, especially be-cause Christ speaks of rebirth ald Paul oI a new creature.' Why, you ask, is an,vthing attributcd to the freedom olthe rvil l , then? It is in order to justify blaming the godlessones rvho resist spitefully the grace of God; to preventcalumnies attributing cruelty and injusticc to God; to pre-vent despair in us; to plevent a false scnsc of security: tostimulate our efforts. Ior these rcasons thc flcedorn of thewill is asserted by all. Yet it is, horvcrtr, incflectuzrl rvithoutthe continuous grace of God, in older not to arrogate any-thing to oursclvcs. Someone sa,vs, what's the good of thcfrecdom of thc rvill, if it does not efTect anything? I ansrvcr,rvhat's thc good of the entire man, if God treats hirn likethe potter his cla,v. or as he can deal rvith a pcbble?

625 Final Conclusions

Hence, iI i t has sufficiently been demonstra'.ed, thismat te r i s e . fo l lowr : I t do"s no t l romotc p ie l ) lo in \eqr i -gate this anv lurthcr than rnust bc, cspecially beforc thoservho arc unlcarncd. We have provcn that our opinion ismore cvidcnt in scriptural tcstimony than thc opinion ofthe oppomrnts. It is a fact that Holy Scripturc is in mostinstances either obscure and fisurative. or sccmsr a1 firstt 'Ctit,r' means corrb of a rooster.

DISCOTIRSE O\ F I1EE \ \ i ILL

sight, to contradict itself. 'Ihcrclor.e, whcthcr u,e likc it or.

not, $'e somelimcs hacl to rccede Ironr thc literal mcaning,and had to adjrrst its mcaninq to an interpretation. Finall1,.it has been plainly shovun how many unreasonable, not tosay absurd tliings follorv, iI we climinate the freedom ofthc u'i11. It has been made plain that the opinion, as I havcbccn elucidating it, rvhcn acceptcd, does not climinate thepious and Christian things Luther argues for-concerningthe highcst love of God; the rejcction oI exclusive faith inmerits, works and our strength; the complete trust in Godaccording to his promises. Flcnce, I want the rcader toconsider whether he thinks it is lair to condemn thc opin-ion olTcred by the Church Fathers, approvcd for so manycenturies by so many people, and to acccpt some paradoxcswhich are at present disturbing the Christian u,orld. If thclatter are trlrcJ I admit fr.eely to my mcntal sloth and in-abil ity to grasp. I knon-for certain that I am not resistirrgthe truth, that I lovc from the bottorn of my hcart tr.ueer . rn : " l i ca l I ih " r ry . a r rd rhar I Jc r , . . r c r t . rv rh i r r i l . - 'd r ' " r ' . c rothc Gospcls. Thus I am here not as a jrrdge, as I said atthe outset, but as a disprrtcr. Nevertirelcss, I can tnrly afirmthat I havc served religiously in this debate, as was de-manded once upon a tirne of judges tNing mattcrs of lifeand death.'fhouch I am an old man, I 'rn neithcr ashanrcdnor irked to be taught by a youngcr if hc tcaches rvithcvangelical gcntleness more er.ident truths.

Here some will say: Erasmus should lcarn about Christand disrcgard human prudcnce. 1'his nobody undcr.stands,unless he has the Spirit of Cod.

Norv, if I do not yet understand u'hat Christ is, certainly\{e must have gone far astray from our topic and goal,though I should love nothing rnore than to lcarn whichSpirit so many doctors and Christian peoplc possessedbecause it seems probable that the people believed rvhattheir bishops have alrcady taught for thirtccn centuries ,who did not understand this.

I have come to the end. It is for others to juclgc.

Part Two

LUTHER

T H E B O N D A G E O F ' T H E W I L L