claimed - yavanika.org

MILESTONES OF THOUGHT
Erasmus- Luther
D I S C O U R S EO N
FRE,E,WILL
Translated and edited by
ERNST F. WINTER
Iona College
FREDERICK UNGAR PUBLISHING CO., INC.
NDW YORK
.'i.ri- , jij,-ir..iijiL.r\i iltjf-1,.:1!\/
i
. ai.. tit.:.
,.
,t i ]( rl,
: ,( Ilr;Jf-l{:,
i I , ,1;.1".qi.r.r1.-
5 r l g 1 'r 1. . , t ;
-:-
Part One
ERASMUS
THE FREE WILL
I
A DIATRIBE OR SERMON
CONCERNING FREE WILL
Desiderius
Erasmusof Rotterdam
PREFACE: MAN AND TRUTH
Auoro the many dificulties encountered in Holy Scripture
-and there are many of them-none presentsa more perplexed labyrinth than the problem of the freedom of the
will. In ancient and more recent times philosophers and
theologiansl have becn vexed by it to an astonishingdegree,
1
Arguments criticizing the free will are easier to frnd and to present than those in its delense and explanation. Darly GreeL views
were aheady varied and obscure. The Eleatics, Democtitus ar.d the
Sroirr generally opposed the freedom of the will. The Pythagoreans,
Sactates, Plato, Atistotle and Eti.urus
attempted, various explanations in its d€fense. Cf. Dom David Amand,, Fatalism et liberti dans
gr ecque, Louvain, 1945. Socrates and Plato held that the
fantiquitl
sood, being identical with the true, imposes itself irresistably on the
wiil and the intellect. once it is clearly known and qnderstood. Evil
results from ignorance. Aristotl€ disagrees partly and appeals to expe ence. Vice is voluntary. Chance plays a role in some actions.
The irresistible influence of his Prime Mover, however, males the
conception of a genuine moral freedom a difficulty for him. Epicurus advocated lree will, in order to assuage man's fear caused by
b€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 who
taught the freedom of the will against the Manichaeans, but the
necessity of grace against the Pelagians. This two-{old apologetic
gave rise later to interprctation diflerences, of which the ErasmusLuther controv€ny is just one example..!1. Thomas Aquinas developed some aspects of Augustine's teachings. Will is rational
appetite. Free will becomes simply th€ elective pow€r for choosing
4
DISCOURSE ON F&EE WILL
DRASNIUS:
but, as it seemsto me, rvith more exertion than successon
their part. Reccntly, Carlstadt and Eck restored intercst in
the problem, dcbating it, horvever, with moderation., Soon
thereafter, Martin Luthcr took up the whole controvcrsy
once more-and in a rather heatcd fashion with his
lormal Assertion concerning the lreedom of the will.,, And
diflerent forms oI desired beatitudes. How are man's future acts not
necessary, despite God's infallible prevision? God does not exist in
time: past and future alike arc ever prescnt. How about God's
omnipotent providence? Docs it infringe on man's freedom by its
pefect conirol over all happenings?'Iwo
schools of thought arrrong
the Scholastics, both logically continuing ccrtain of Aquinas' teachings, came to the fore. This Scholasticism irritated both Erasmus
and Luther. It developed the finer poinrs. often ignored by Erasmus
and challenged by Luther's assertions. The Dominican or fhomist
school saw God as prcnoving man iu accord with his frec naturc.
Divine foreknowlcdge and God's providenrial control of the world,s
history are in harmony with man,lvho is by nature and dcfinition a
free cause. Animals are not. Thcy are in harmony wirh rheir naturc.
adoprinq parriculur.o.rrs.s l,y nF,.$iry. Th. Jo.uir or l\to'ini,r
school does not think this explains freedom of the human wi sufliciently. They conceive the relation of divine action to man,s will
to be concurrent rather than prc,motive, exempting God more
cl.arly from all rcspon.ibiliry tor nan. sin.
Some of the complexity wirh which generations of thinkers have
been grappling can be found in rhc Erasmus-Lurher debate. In a
sense it is a disorganized summary of rhe classicat and medieval
debates. Thercafter. beginning perhaps with Spinoza, a new rationalism enters the debatc. Of this Erasmus is somethins of a Drecur.or. exuding r.a,o' JLI,ness on ht pdrt. For an uo.r.-daLe
pr",nnrarion of rhF enrir^ panoram/! \ce l\{onirrer T. Ajhr. T/i?
Idea ol Fteedon: A Dial., tical Exanjinarion ot Lhe ton,.pri.n
or
Freedom (see Biblography).
TIIE
FREE
WILL
5
although mcrrethan onel has answeredhls Asrertion,I, too,
encouraged by rny friends, am going to try to scc whetler,
by thc following brief discussion, the truth might not
become more visible.
1 ) Lut her's Sup po sed I nl allibility
Here some will surely close their ears and exclaim, "Oh
prodigyl Erasmus dares to contend with Luther, a fly with
an elephant?" In order to assuagesuch people, I only want
to state at this point, if they give me the time for it, that I
have actually never sworn allegiance to the words of
Luther. Nobody should therefore consider it unseemly if
I should openly disagrce with him, if nothing else) as one
man from another. It is therefore by no means an outrage
to dispute over one of his dogmas, especiallynot, if one, in
order to discovcr truth, confronts Luther with calm and
scholarly arguments. I certainly believe that Luther will
not feel hurt if somebody difiers in some instances from
his opinion, becausehe pennits himself not only to argue
against the decisions of all the doctors of the church, but
of Luiher's works (henccforth referred to as ll.A., i.e., Weimarer
VII, p. 9l ff. Luther himself seems to have preAusgabe),lf.A.
ferred his freer cerrnan rendition, Crund und Ursache alLer Artikel
D. Martin Luther, so duch ri;mische Bulle unrechtLich urdammt
sind, W.A. \rII, p. 309 fi. Article 36, restating the 13th Heidelberg
thesis, asserts that the lree will is a mere frction. Ariicle 31 asserts
that a pious man sins doing good works. Article 32 asserts that a
good work is a mortal sin. Cf. chaptcr IV, footnote 5.
"
Andreas Catlnadt (l4BO-t541), a pioneer of the protestant
Refomation, was askcd by Lurher to defend his Thesis of 1517 at
a public disputation ("Divine grace and hunran free will,,) at the
University of Leipzig (June 27, t5l9).
He larer came to oppose
Luther as a "compromiser."
(t486-t513), German Carholic theotoJohann Maier ron lik
gian, challenged Carlstadt io this dcbate. He rcmained forcrrost
among those working lor the overthrov/ of Luthcr.
"
Erasmus refers to ,-{rrr/ttu ann;um articutatun D. Mart. Luth.
per bulam L€oni' X damnatatur, (1520) in the Wcimar edition
'
Among the major tracts against Luther we find, besides EcL's
Obelisci (.1518), thc following: Henry VIII, Assertio septen sacramentorum (1521\. which carned him the title Defender of the
Faith; St. Thonas More, Eruditisimi
aid CuI. Rossi oqus Leeans
q u o p u l c h e t t ; n r c t e t e e ; t d c r e l e l l i t i n s a n a sL u t h e r i c a l u m n i a s \ 1 5 2 3 ) ,
written at thc request of Henry VIII, in answer to Luther's reply to
the rcyal Asiertio; St. John Fisher, The sermon ol Iohan the
byishot af Rochester made agayn :,)etererisyous doctryn ol Matt;n
Lurher (1521), on which Erasmus relied heavily. Cf. chapter VI,
footnotc l.
r
6
orscouRsE oN FR-srE
wrLL
also appealsagainst all schools,church councils and popes.
Since he assertsthis freely and openly, his friends must not
hold it against me if I do likewise.
2) Objectiuity and Scept;cism
Let no one misinterpret our battle. We are not two
gladiators incited against each other. I want to argue only
against one of Luther's teachings, illuminating, iJ this be
possible,in the subsequentclash of scriptural passagcsand
argumentsrthe truthr the invcstigation of which has ahvays
been the most reputable activity of scholars. There rvill be
no invective, and for ttvo reasons: it does not behoovc
Christians so to act; and moreovcr) the truth, which by
excessivequarreling is oftcn lost, is discoveredwith greater
certainty without it.
I am quite aware that I am a poor match in such a
contest; I am lesscxperienccd than other men, and I have
always had a decp-seated aversion to fighting. Consequently I have alrvays preferred playing in the lreer 6cld
of the muses, than fighting ironclad in close .combat. In
addition, so great is my dislike of asscrtionsthat I prefer
the views of the scepticswhcrever the inviolable authority
of Scripture and the decision of the Church permit a
Church to which at all times I willingly submit my orvn
views, whcther I attain what she prescribesor not. And as
a matter of fact, I prcfcr this natural inciination to one I
can obseNe in certain people who are so blindly addicted
to one opinion that they cannot tolerate whateler diflers
from it. Whatevcr they read in Holy Scripture, they distort
to servc the opinion to which they have once and for all
enslaved themselvcs.Their casc is likc that of the young
man who loves a girl so much that he fancies hc seesher
image evcryrvhere. Or to use a better comparison: they
are like those who in thc heat of battle turn everything at
hand, be it a pitcher or a plate, into a missilc.Are peoplc
thus alTected able to lorrn an objective judgment? Or is
it not rather thc result of such disputationsthat both con-
ERASMUS:
TIIE
IIREE
.WILL
7
testants palt sPitting upon each other in contcmpt? There
will always bi many such PeoPler the kind the Apostle
"the unlearncd and the rmstable," such
Petcr desiribes as,
"distort
thc Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Peter
as
3,16).
3) Huuing an OPen Mind
For these reasons then, I rnust confcss that I have not
yet formed a definite opinion on any of the numerous tradiiional vieuusregarding the frecclom of the r'r'ill; all I am
willing to asseri is that the rvill enjoys somc powcr of freedom. 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 meansat
his diiposai and prcsentcd with gleat vcrve, I must honestly
confessthat he has not yct convinced rne'
If someonewishes to declare me slow-witled or ignorant
on account of all this, I tould not want to argue the Point'
\{eaker lersons to
providcd
-argLre it is pcrrnittcd lor intellectually
rtith bctter cndo*'cd ones for the sake of learning'
Mor"ou"., Luther himsclf attributed very little 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 conccdeto Luther in this disputation
that he iho"li not bc burdcned wiLh the pleceding judgmcnt of doctorsrcouncils, scholarsrpopes ancl cmpero's
it is altodiscusses,
Evcn iI I have understcodrvhat Luthcr'Iherefore,
I merely
mistaken
I
arn
that
eether Dossiblc
ivant to anal-vzeand 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
ERASMUS: THE
DrscouRsDoN FREEWILL
rather persuademediocre
:
on.
such
matters.
r, il,%i*,i,.#:#il:..ffi??i:flil
helps
piety.
4) Difrculties in the Scripture
Holy Scripturecontains
want us to penetrate,." cl"^tl:it Jit
which God doesnot
d.,.,i."dG';;;i;,"iilil;,lj,"il]".j
"."il.:Hff .;:,T:T;;?
i,r+;-i1",f,ff tJ,::;l:X;l';:tl*
)l"Jli:';tlxilt;l#-'k
i1r]*i":36::'
,1d taterfrightensthen and Fit. ;;;;i;,;jr# Tlfi
:lT,
'j*"
;:'"lfi #,fi,J"
Xiiiil'iLi,':'.:fi;.::i:;
''
.";h';"',6i;;';
ffiffi1ilTff:,'jitl:r,1.tI I 3 3r . a n d r ri r h J s a i . i .
r,..,r.;,
.""",.i..iji:;jii';l,:!
;f:H::IrTlyf 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) Essenceol Christianpiety
.In my opinion the implicationsof the lreedom of the
;:!fi,:;!i: lll':ffi*: i:,ff,..Ji
:At"r"*d'..#
rvhat.liesbehind us; if *,e hu.,"
L""o,'" ilJrd
t;'*;
ffllilj .ffjj,:Tl""f:::
f. :T:'..,*1
ffJ*::t:;
";fl
a'":*;*:
ri.lTii":rl
f #;ll:Jt#::*ri
i#
,;: ;i";;
:iiixil8:fi *,il:r"P;**"'""' D'r,'hi.-;,;;.::
'
lomlonius
Meta, Spanish ee
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€nevolenie 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 salvation, 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 forgivenessby
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) -ltlan'sLimited Capa, ily to K nou)
Men were not wont to intrllde upon theseconcealed,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
"It is not lor you to know the times
of the last judgment.
has fixed by his own power"
Father
or dates which the
"But o[ the day or hour no one knows'
O
r
.
I
.
7
)
.
lActs
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 passagcswhich 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
6
naturci in Christ; the problem of irremissiblc sin
Othcr thinus He wantcd us to know with the utmost
:1**#",xiih**;ii+."'f{"".:i*;*Ti1-;
"
..tvt
o i , r , , tt o r * r , i i i , r . " ' l t t " "
FREE WILL
"
\{ark 3, 29.
a
IO
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
clarity, as for example.lhe preceptsfor a morally good life.
I hrs rs obvtouslyrhe word of God which one doesnor have
to fetch down from high heaven, or a distant sea,but which
one rather finds near at hand, nameiy in our mouths and in
our hearts.TThis indeed must be leamed well bv all. Thc
remainingis better committed to Cod. lt is more devout to
adore the unknown than to investigate the unexplorable.
into
Yo*-.--utry quarrels have arisen from investigations
"the
the distinction of personsin the Holy Trinity,
manner
oI procession.
oI rhe Holy Spirir. the virgin birth? Whar
dlsturbancesha\e been cauqedin the world bv thc fierce
contenlionsconcerningthe conception oI the r iiqin mother
oI Cod? What are t-heresultsoI rheselaborious-invesrisa_
lions exceprthat wc experiencea great lossoI conco,d,a-"nd
Iove each other le.s,while we wi,h to know roo much?
Besides, there are certain kinds of tr-uth which. even
th*oughthey could be Lnown. would noner,hele.s
be unwisely
ofiered for indiscrirninate consideration. perhaps what the
sophisisused to say abour God. rhar, given his nature, he is
present as much in the cavity of a beetle as in heaven, has
sometruth to it (I blush to reproduce their actual shameful
remark).3 It would be unprofitable to discussthis matter
publicly. Furthermore, the assertion that there are three
gods,.even if it can be truly stated dialectically, would
certainly cause great olTense,if presented to the untutored
masses.Were I certain-which is not the case-that confession,as we har.e it now, was neither instituted bv Christ.
n o r c o u l d e r e r h l r e b e e n i n v e n t e dh t m a n , a n d , o n s e quently nobody could require it, and that furthermore no
satisfaction is needed for offenses committed. I would
nonethele(s
lear ro publicizesuch an opinion. because,lrom
w_hatI can seermost men are prone to moral turpitude.
Now, obligatory confession restrains or at least moierates
this propensity., There exist certain sicknessesof the body
' D"uarononry
30. I l-14 and Romans10,6-8.
t
Luther, as well as Erasmus, criticized some Scholastics as ,,so! h i s t s . ' ' i . e . . t h o s e w e l l . r r r s e d i n - s p e r . i o u sr e a s o n i n q a n d a r c u m F n r , .
Lurner srrongly crlttcrzed conlession,
ERASMUS:
THE
FREE
WILL
II
which it is the lesser evil to bear than to remove, as for
example, if we had to bathe in the warm blood of
slaughtered 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 the
expedient.lo The truth may be spoken but it does not ser-ve
everyoneat all times and under all circumstances.If I lvere
certain that a wrong decision or definition had been reached
at a synod, it vould be permissible but not expedient to
speak the truth conccrning it. Wicked mcn should not thus
be olTercd an occasion to disdain the authority of the
Fathcrs, cspecially when they have conscientiously and
scrupulously made decisions.I rvouid prefcr to say that at
the tirne of thc decision thcy acted on thc evidence they
had, and later practical cxigencies persuade us to modify
thcir judgmcnts.
7) Unsuitablenessot' Luther's Teachings
Let us assume the truth ol rvhat Wycliffe1l has taught
and Luther has asscrted, namely, that everything we do
happens not on account of our free will, but out of sheer
neccssity.What could bc more uselessthan to publish this
paradox to thc wolld? Secondly, let us assume that it is
tnte, as Augustine has rcritten somewhereJthat God causes
both good and evil in us," and that he rewards us for his
good works rvrought in us and punishesus for the evil deeds
done in us. What a loophole the publication of this opinion
would open to godlessnessamong 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
"expedient," rather than the word "prudential."
Latin {or
"
\
\
lohn 'vciifle ( lJ30-1384), onf ot the farlv inflr"nrial Enqlish
r.fo"rm"rs ki"d, a. a pl,rlo"ophi,al r'31;sl lo expla;n predcstinarion
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 wicked
fellow would henceforth tr]/ to better his conduct? Who
could love with all his heart a God rvho fires a hell with
eternal pain, in order to punish there poor mankind for his
own evil deeds, as if God enjoyed human distrcss? jUost
people would react as they are sketched above. people are
u n i v e r s a l li yq n o r . n ta n d c a rn a l - m i n d e dT. h e y r e n d r o w a r d s
unbelief, wickedncss and blasphemy. Therc is no sensein
pouring oil upon the fire.
Thus Paul, thc prudent disburscr of the divine word,
frequently consults char.ity and prcfers to pursue what
servesthe neighbor, rather than what is perrr-rissible.
Amonq
rhe marure ho speaL, with thc wisdom he posrr-sse..
Bui
belorothe weak he displals no orher knowledqebur rhat of
JesusChrirt. rhe crucified.r-Holy Scripturr-knows how to
adjust its language to our human condition, In it are
passageswhere God is angry, ericvcd, indignant, furious;
where he threatens and hates. Again in other placeshc has
mercy, hc regrets, he changcs his intentions. This does not
mean that such changes really take place in the nature of
God. These are rather modes of expression,benefittins our
r'rcakmindednc.s and Jullne.s. The r.rme ur-uLl"nce
slrnuld.
I b,.lieve.adr-,rn.rll wlro her.e raken up pruaching Lhe
divine s'ord. Sorne things can bc noxious, becauselike wine
for the feverish, they are not fitting. Hencc such mattcrs
might be treatcd in discoursesalnong the educated or also
in theological schools, although it is not expedient even
there I think unless done u'ith caution. Delinitcly. it seem$
t o m p . i t i s n o t o n l y u n s u i r a b l eh.r r tr r u l y p " r n i c i o u st o c a r r )
on such disputations when evcrybody can listen.
In short, one should be pcrsuaded to waste ncither time
nor ingenuity in such labyrinths; neither to rcfute nor to
endorseLuther's teachings. Pcrhaps I deservethe reproach
of having been too verbose in this prcface. But all of it
appearsmore important than thc disputation propcr.
'" 1 Corinthians
2. 1-6.
II
INTRODUCTION:
OBJECTIVE CRITERION FOR
TRUTH
SrNcE Luther recognizesno authority of any author, however approved, except that of the canonical books, I gladly
accept this diminution of labor. Both among the Greeks
and the Latins exist innumerable thinl<ers who deal
explicitly or cursorily with the freedom of the will. It would
have been a formidable task to gather all the quotations
for and against free will; to explain every passageas well
as to refute it. This irksome exertion would have been
wasted on Luthcr and his friends, particularly since they
not only hold different opinions, but also contradict themselvesextensively.
B) Authority of the Church Fathers
NeverthelessI wish to remind the reader, if he thinks we
are holding the scale to Luther's, with our scriptural passages and firm reasoning, that he now visualize in addition
the entire long list of most erudite men who have enjoyed
the approval of many centuries up to thc prcsent day, and
among whom most have distinguished themselvesby an
admirable knowledge of Scripturc, and commended themselvesby thcir picty. Some gave thcir lives as testimony to
the teachings of Christ which they had defended in their
writings. 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, John
Capreolus, Gabriel Biel, Giles of Rome, Gregory oI l{imini
and Alexander of Hales.l 1'heir powerful and subtlc argumentation, in my opinion, nobody can completely disdain,
not to speak of the authoritative decisions of many universitics,councils and popes.
From Apostolic times to this day no author has hitherto
compietely denied the freedom of the will, save Manichaeus
and John Wycliffe alone.' Lorenzo Valla's authority, who
'
Orieen 1,185-254) was onc of the most prolinc wriiers of the
early Church. His interests in Platonism and in giving philosophy
a rccognized place in the creeds of thc Church nade him a contro\ersial figure. Erasmus was particularly influenced by his scriptural
S t . B a . ' ; Lt h e G r e a t ( 3 3 0 - ? 3 7 9 - ? ) , e a r l y C h u r c h F a t h e r , a s w a s
St. John Chry\ostolr (3'14?.+07). St. C,/tl (315?-386?), bishop of
Jerusalem.St. John of Damascus (675-749), theologian and doctor
of the Eastern Church. qrinrar Sellimius Flarens Tertullianus
(160?-230?), ccclesiasticalwriter and creator of Christian Latin
literature, was one of the most original and controversial Christian
writcrs. He influcnccd Erasmus. St. Cypian (200-258), AfricaD
b i s h o p ; S r . H i l a r y ( d i e d 3 6 7 ) , b i s h o p o f P o i t ; e r s , F r a n c c ; , . 9 t .l n ,
brose ol M;lan (339-39i), Larin Church Father. Jr. lerone (310120) is best known for his classical translarion of the Old, and
rc\isiorr of the Ncw Testarnent. known as the Vulcate Bible. St.
Augustine of Hippa (354-430), bishop and Church Father. Sr.
Thomar Aquinas (1225-12i1), thcologian and philosophcr, catlcd
tht Angelic Doctor. Dans Saotar (1'J65?-1308?), nedieval theoloSian at Oxford and Colognc. Dutan.lus ol Saint-Pourgain (d.
1332), philosopher and thcologian with a vast literary production,
L n o w n a s D o c t o r r c s o l u t i s s n n u s .l a h n C d p r c o l u s ( d . 1 4 , 1 . 1 ) ,r h c o l o gian. called Princc of Thomjsts. Cabiel Bitl (d. 1495), German
scholastic philosopher, ;nllucnccd l,uther and NIclanchthon. Gilar
al Ronrc (t215-1316), Italian thcologian and philosophcr, callcd
Docror fundatissimus. Alexander oJ Hales (d. 1245), English phiiosopher and theoJogian.
'
Munichaeu.s, N{ani or lrlancs (his fol1ou'ers arc called Mazichd?ant) .4as a cnost;c teachcr (d. 273), prcach;ng an ectectic
crccd composed of rvild fancies and some llcbrcw, Buddhist, and
Chrisrian concepts, centering around thc rcalms of ljght and darkness, good and evil. Augustine t'as for nnre years a Manichaean,
p|.' nr|r u his con,cr,ior ro Chr.. iari,l.
ERASMUS: THD FREE
'WILL
almost seemsto agrce with them, has little weight among
theologians."Manichaeus' teaching has always been sharply
rejected by all the world. Yet, it is questionablewhether it
would not ser\-cbctter than Wyclifle's. The forrner explains
good and evil by the two natures in man, but in such a way
that rve owe thc good acts to God on account of his creation, and bccausc we can, despite the power of darkness,
implore the creator for help. This can help us to sin less
and to do good more readily. If everything reduces itself
to pure necessity,where does Wycliffe leave us any room
for prayer or our own striving?
To return to $'hat I havc been savine before. Once the
r c a d e ro i m y d i . p u l . r i o n r c c o c n i z ctsh a r m y f i 5 h t i n ge q r r i p ment is equal to that oI the advcrsary, lct him decide for
himself. whether to attribute morc to thc decisionsof all
the many scholars,orthodox Iaithful, saints, martyrs) theologians of ancient and rnore recent times: of all the universities,as rvell as ol the many councils, bishopsand popes,
or morc to the private opinions of one or two men. I don't
want to make the number of voices or the rank of the
speakers dccidc an issueJ as is customary in human assemblies.I know it happens frequently that the better party
is voted dorvn by the majority. I knorv what the majority
esteemsis not always thc bcst. I knorv, when investigating
truth, there is no harrrr in adding to the diligence of one's
predecessors.I admit that it is right that the sole authority
oI Holy Scripturc surpassesthc voices of all mortals.
But rve arc not invol.,'cdin a controversy regarding Scrip'fhe
same Scripture is being loved and revered by
turc.
both parties. Our battle concerns the senseof Scripture. If
" L-r"r,
Valta (4}5ltr:5?) was forcmostamong Itatian Humanists. 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 claimed him. In a
sense Valla anticipated Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten, and Luther in
his philosophical, critical and excgetical worLs. (|bid., p. 154).
Erasmus edited Vall^'s Annotatianes in Nouum Testamentum. ctit\cal of the Vulgate's version.
r
r6
DISCOURSE ON FREE WILL
ERASMUS:
ingenuity and erudition contribute anything to scriptural
interpretation, what could be more acute and perspicacious
than the Greekmind? How about wide:criprural readine?
Nor have the Latins been wanting in eithel. If they wcire
by nature lessfruitful than the Grceks, they equaled them
in industriousnessand accepted their. helpiul lnheritance.
If, on the olher hand, one looksttro.e to i virtuous course
of life than to erudition, it is obvious which men stand on
the side of free will. Lct us set asidewhat the lawyers call an
odiouscomparison.I do not wi.h to comparesome heralds
oI [his new gospclwith rhe o]der ones.
9) Inspiration by the Holy Spirit
At this point someonemay object: what is the nced of
an interpreter when Scripturc itself is quite clear? If it is
really so clear.why have all rhe ercelleni peoplnhere acred
like blind men for so manv centuries.cspeciallyin so important a matter as my opponents hold it to bc? If nothing
were dark in Scripture,r,rhrt need for prophecywas rh.ri
even during apostolictimes?This was Lheeifl oi thn SDirir.
N o w . i t i s q u e s r i o n a h lw
e h c t h e r t h i s , h a i i . m e L i cc i f i h a s
ceased.like the poucr to heal anrl lhc gifr of ronguesdid
cease.If it did not cease,one has to ask, to whom was it
transferred? If this talent and grace of prophecy have been
transferred to everybody, any interpretation bccomeshiehly
problomatical;i[ to nobody. we would ,til] not have an
assuredinterpretation, since even scholars are toilinc with
obscuriries:if to the .uccessors
of rhe Apostles.then thev
will object that many of them compietely lacked the
apostolic spirit. And yet, other things being cqual, we can
presume with greater probability that God communicated
His Spirit to those who have been ordained, iust as one
con\iders il more prohable rhar qrace will fltw to the
baptized, rathcr than to the non-baptized.
Let us admit that the possibility actually exists for the
Spirit to reveal to a sirnplc la1.manwhat is not revealed to
many scholars, since indeed Christ thanks His Father for
THE
FREE
IVILL
r7
revcaling to little ones,athat is, thosc simple and foolish in
thc eycs oI this rvorld,i u'hat lle concealed from the wise
and prudent ones, that is, the scribes, pharisees,and philosophers.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 Spidt
was alive, had already to order His verification, that is,
whethel His manifcstation really came from God,€ what
shall happen during our worldly times? How can v'e judge
the Spirit? According to erudition? On both sideswe find
scribes. According to conduct? On both sides there are
sinners. True) on one side stands the entirc choir of saints
who steadlastly held to the freedom of the will. They state
the truth, but they were human. Yet I am comparing men
to men, instead o{ men to God.
If it is objected: $'hat can large numbers contribute to
an understanding of the Spirit? I answer: what can a small
number of people? If thcy object: l.!'hat can a bishop's
miter contribute to an understanding of Holy Scripture? I
answer: what can a hood and cowl? If they say: what can
philosophical understanding contribute? I answer: what
can ignorance? If they say: u'hat can a congregatedsynod,
in which perhaps noboc'ly is inspired by the Spirit, contibute to an understanding of Scripture? I answer: lchat
can the private gathering of a fel,' contribute, none of
whorn probably has the Spirit?
l0)
Miracles and Exem.plary Lile
Paul exclaims, "Do you seck a proof of the Christ who
speaksin me?" (2 Corinthians13,3). Apostleswere believed
only if their doctrines were accompanicd by n.riracles.But
nowadays anybody demands faith lrom others by affirming
his having the evangelical spirit. 1'he apostleshad to rout
vipers, hcal the sick, raise the dead, confer the gift of
i
.ttn"- t t, zs.
' I Corinthians
l, 27.
" 1 Corinthians12, 3 wordsare actuallytakenfrom I
John 4, l.
;
r
r8
DIscouRsE oN aREEWILL
tongues by the laying on of hands. Only thus $'ere they
believed and hardly even thus, since they taught paradoxes.
Nowadays certain people present even greater paradoxes?to
common opinion! Nonetheless, none of them has come
forward who could heal just one lame horse. If at least
some of them would demonsrate) not quite a miracle, but
yet the sinceity and simplicity of an apostolic life, it could
take the place of the missing miracle amongst us more slowwitted people.
I do not want to accuse Luther, whom I don't know
personally, but whose writings have made a mixed impression on me. I am addressingthis to others who are better
known to me and who intefupt us by saying, "They were
simply men," every time we advance an intcrpretation by
an orthodox elder for the purpose of understanding a controversial passage.When we ask, what are the marks of a
true scriptural interpretation, since both sides are representedonly by human beings, their answer is "'I'he mark of
the Holy Spirit." If you ask why the Holy Spirit should
have forsaken the side which is also distinguished by
miracles, and be found rather amongst them, they answer
as if during all thcse hundreds of ycars there had bccn no
Gospel in the world. If one missesamong thern a conduct
of life commensuratcwith the Spirit, they ansrverthat thcy
are savedby faith and not by works. If one missesmiracles,
they say these have stopped long ago and are no longer
needed, since now the light of Scripture shinesso wonderfully. If one contests that Scripture is clear in our case,
other"wiseso many excellent men would also have been
blind, one has moved in a full cycle to the beginning of the
argument.
1l\
Infallible Church
Let us assumethat he who has the Spirit is sure of the
meaning of Scripture. How can I also possessthe certainty
which the other pretends to have? What can I do when
"
Luther called his 1517 theses"theoloeicaloaradoxa."
EILA.SMUS: TI{F, FREE WILL
I9
several persons claim dificrent interprctations, but each
one swears to har,e the Spirit? Moreovcr, since the Spirit
does not inspire thc same person rvith everything, somewho
h a r e t h e S p i r i t m a y b e m i . r a k e no n . r p u i n r .
This then f want to reply to those rvho discard rvithout
hesitation the old interprctation of sacred boolis, and
instead submit their orvn, as if an oracle had proclaimed it.
Finally, cven though Christ's Spirit might permit His people
ro De ln error ln an unlmportant question on u,hich man,s
salvation does not depcnd, no onc could believe that this
Spirit has dcliberately overlooked error in His Church for
1300 ycars, and that He did not deem onc of all the pious
and saintly Church Fathers worthy enough to be inspired,
with *}to,, they contcnd, is the very essenieof all evangeli_
cal teaching.
12) Plea lor Gentle Listening
But now, in order finally to conclude, lct the others
decide what they ruish to assumefor thcmselvcs.I for my
part do not auogate to myself doctrine, nor sanctity, nor do
I depcnd on my intellcct. I simply want to offer with
carnestnesswhat moves my soul. If someonc undertakesto
teach me, f rvould not consciousiy oppose truth. If my
opponcntsJhouevcr, prelcr to slandcr me, although I dispute 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 him
who is weak in faith, rcceive,, (Romans 14,1 Christ will
).
not extingLrisha smohing rvick.3The Apostlc petcr says,,,Be
ready alrvays\rith an ansuer to c! cryonc who asksa'reason
for the hope that is in you. Yet, do so rvith gladnessand
I e a r - . I P c r e rl . l i - 1 b . . I i m y o p p o n e n tr.. . p o n d .. . t r a s m u s
i s i i L e r n o l . l r ' i r r n - . k i n u n : , b 1 t"o h . l d t h c n c r vn i n c r r h i c h
they offer to thc world," and if their sclf-confidenceis so
greatj they at lcast ouqht to consider us as Christ did
a
'
l,Iatthew 12, 20.
Mattherv 9, 17.
20
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
Nicodemus,loand as the Apostles did Gamaliel.r l'he Lord
did not repcl the former, who, though ignorant, was dcsirous 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) Definition ol Free WilL
'l'o
those ruhorn I
I have completcd half of this work.
haYe convinced, as I intended, that it rvere better not to
cavil and quibble about such questions,especiallynot beforc
the common peoplc, I will not havc to present the furthc-r
proof 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 passageslikc fire struck from flint'
Nobody can deny that Sacred Scripture contalns many
passagcsstating the obvior.rsfreedom of the hunran rvill On
ih" othe. hund, thcrc are some passagesn'hich scem to deny
the fonner. Yct, it is certatin that ScriPture cannot contrad i c t i L ' l f . \ i n r ' oa l l p . q 5 . r L 'acrse i r r . p i r c ,1J , 1t h u " r m ' S 1 ' r r i r '
T h e r ,[ o r e , n e r l r . - r l fl i t s t e x a m i n e l h o 5 e p J \ s J r c \ \ h r c h
conlinn our view and then we shall try to disposeoI tliose
that seemto 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.
III
OLD TESTAMENT PROOFS
SUPPORTING THE FREE WILL
14) Ecclesiasticusl5: ChooseGood or Euil
-fhose who take a lrce will for granted usually quote
Ecclesiasticus
15, 14-18:
and lplt him in the
9'd.na4i non ltnm the beginning.
h a n do l h t " o t n r o u n " r lI.l r a d d e dh i , r o m m a n d n c natn d
prccepts.ll th.ouu;k keep the camman(lments
anil per_
l-arm.aceftable fdelity loreuer, they shall preseruethee.
He hath rtt.u.atcr and lire be/orethee;nr;fth
larth thy
hand to which thou wilt, Belore man is lile and d.eati,
good and euil, that uhich he shallchooseshattbe giuei
I d o n o r c x p e c lr h a r a n l b o d y u i l i q u e . t i o nr h e a u t h o r i r v
o [ t h i s b o o k b e c a u . ci r r v a so [ o l d n o t c o n r e i n q di n t h i
Hebraic canon, as Jerorne indicates. The Church of Christ
has reccived it into her canon with great unanimity. Incid e n t a l l l . I d o n o r q u i r , r, e , , w h 1 r l r " H e b r e r u sd e . i d e dt o
e x c l L t l ei r [ r o m t l r l i r c a n o n .r v h i l eJ r r h e \ i r m er i m c i n c l u d _
ing Solomon's Provcrbs and the Canticle of Canticles.Who_
e v e r h a s r e a d a l ' n ( i \ e l ) c r n r , . , r c l i itrr c s . w l r v t h e l c w s
c r c l u d e t l f i o m t h e i r c a n , ' n r i r e l r * r r u o l r . , o k so i E . i r a s ,
the story of Susanna and of the dragon Bel, attached to the
book of Daniel, as r.cll as thc bool<s.fudirhand Esthcr and
a few oihcrs. They numbcred thesc among the apocr1,pha.1
But in Ecclesiaslicus
certainlynothing disturbsthe reader.
'
Apacljpha, a rerm used to dcs.ribc that bocly of rcligious
literature closcly associated with thc Old and N.*-f*t"-J"t,
U"t-."_
garded as noncanonical
Je!,ish or Christian scriptures.
36
FREE
WILL
quotations, since Scripture abounds in them. It is lilie
looking for water in the ocean. Consequently, as already
stated, a large part of Scripture would obviously be ineffectual if one acceptsthe last two of the above-mentioned
three opinions [against the freedom of the will].'1
Finally, there are several places in Scripture which
obviously ascribe contingency to God, yes, even a certain
mutability. For example in Jeremias 1B,B and 10:
shallrepentol
Il that ndtionagainstuhich I hauespoken,
their eail,I alsouill repentol the euil that I ha"-ethought
to do to them . . . Il it shall do eril in my sight, that it
obeynot my t,oice,I uill repentol the goal that I haue
to do unto it,
sPoken
Now we know very well that ScriPture in this instance,
as in many others, speaks in human terms. God is not
confusedby mutability, Actually, one only saysof God that
he has abandoned his anger and has become mcrciful after
we have bcttered ourselvesand he deigns us rvorthy of his
grace; conversely,that he has deprived us of grace and has
become angry whenever we have changed for the lvorse
and 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"I have
ing the same prophet assureswith his message:
heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears, and behold I
havc healed thce," etc. And again in 2 Kings 12'10 Nathan
tells David: "The sword shall neler depart from thy house"
"I have sinned against
etc. But no sooner has David said:
"The Lord also hath
the Lord." Nathan says to David:
taken away thy sinl thou shalt not die." As in these, so in
it is improper to think of a changeableGod.
other passages,
Yet, we cannot but realize that there dwells a flcxible will
in us. If necessityguides it towards evil, how can sin be
attributed to it? Or if it is guided by necessity towards
e o o d .w h y d o e r G o d c h a n g ef t o m a n e e r ( o m t r c ) . s i n c e
we deseruealso in this case no requital?
'
lf"""i"o the viewsof Carlstadtand Luther. C{. Section21.
IV
NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS
SUPPORTING THIi FREE WILL
on prooJs taken from
Trrus far the discussionhas centered
di'pute thcsc' had
could
''t
,-h. Old T".,t-"n1. Some PeoPIe
;iil;";i
lil:;;
iiria^i"il"""it"a
ir.'"ui'a thosethatwerenotabolthe
throughstrength
moreprobatory
-turn
to the books of the New
L; .t. th","fore
A;;;";.
Tcstament.
of all the place
In the New Testanent we meet first
of
destruction
the
Jerusalem''
weeps over
*h;;"'al;t,
:l
I:';::':#;,!::;:':r',I!",ii,l:,ril:;'"'ti:"
"i"iir"ri'tni
young
her
gathets
a
hen
as
together'
atita'"n
'under
her wings,but thou tt)oulllttnot!
could Jemnecessity'
If all had happenedme)cly ttrrough
the weeptng
answering
jrrsrified
in
bpcn
lrave
salem not
weeping?
l.^rrl "Whv do vou totrnent youlself with uselcss
prophets'
lo
the
listen
not
'hould
iiit-*,- r.1,. *;if rlrat we
us
lor what
blame
do
Whl
vou
;;; ;il i,;; send rhem'
lcd.whilewen"": ":''0,,
youwiJ
i::"'Lill,,i',f,1'i"],'il;
You wished to collect usr but Yo ' '
u s n o t t o , ^ i s hi t I I n r e a l i t l - l h o w e r e r '
"i1.,1".-L"*a
essityin tlre Jews'
if.r"t".a, .f the Lord do not blame a ncr
I wanted to
will:
obstinate
,ft"it wicLed and
i",'tt,ft"t
i
r
'
w
a
n
l
n
o
l
q , a t h eyr o r r .b u t 1 o u d i r l
i-itu-uttt'"*:g, al
37
38
DrscouRsEoN FREEwrLL
24 1 Commandmentsand Exhortations; Reward and
. Punishment
Again: "If thou wilt enter into lifc, kcep the commandmcnts" (Matth. 19,17). How could onc ask somebody"if
thou wilt be perfect, co, scll what thou hast" (Matth.
19,21). "If anyone wishesto come aftcr me, let hirn dcny
himself, and take up his crossdaily, and follorv mc" (Luke
9,23). Although this is a very diflicult commandmcnt,
neverthclessthe appeal is to thc rvill. Subscqucntly, "For
he who would save his lifc rvill lose it" (Luke 9,24).
\{ouldn't even the clearest commandment of Christ be
senseless,
if lve could expect nothing from thc hurnan rvill?
"Amen. amcn
I say to you" and again "Amcn I say to
you" (Matth. 5,22 and 2B). "II you love rnc, keep my
commandments"(John 14,15).FIou' olten doesJohn alonc
impress this upon usl The rvord "if" does not at all imply
neccssity,as, Ior example, "If you abide in me, and if my
u'ords abide in you" (John 15,7), as uell as, "If thou
rvilt bc pcrfect" (Matth. 19,21).
lVhen Scripture talks oI good and bad works, as \rell as
of reward, I don't understandhow necessity
fits in. Neither
naturer nor necessitycan earn merit. Our Lord Jesus says
moreover, "llcjoice and cxult, because your rervard is
great in heavcn" (Matth. 5,12).
What does thc parable of the laborers in thc vineyard
tell us? Are thcrc workers.rvho dorr't work? Each one
received contractually one denarius as a kind of rernuncration for his u'ork. Onc hears this objection: a rervard is
something God owes us, because he has pledged his will
to us, in case .rve believe in his promise. Ilolvever, faith
itself is a rvork and the free rvill parricipatcs to a considerablc measure in it by turning to or away frorn faith.
Why was the servant praised who had increasedthc fortune
oI his rnaster by his diligence, and rvhy rvas the idlc one
damned, iI man in such a case \sas not rcsponsiblc?, And
Flututrn"ru2., l+ go.
ERASMUS: TIIE
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 me
hungry, here was an opportunity for a good rvork, but you
did not give mc to eatr etc.
"Come to
The cntire Gospel is filled with cxhortations.
me, all you who labor and are burdcned" (NIatth 11,2B),
"rvatch" (\,Iatth. 2'1,42),"pray" (Matth. 5,44), "ask . . .
"take heed
bewate"
knock" (\{anh. 7.7).
scek
(Mark 8,15). \{hat is the meaning of thescmany parables
"rve should prcserve"
conccrning thc word of God which
(N4atth. 13,1-B)? Concerning the bridegroom u4rom we
should hasten to mcct (\{atth. 25,1-13); conccrningthe
thicl coming at night, digging lor trcasures(Matth. 24,43;
5,2); concerningthe houservhich must be
1 Thessalonians
built on rock (Matth. 7,2't). OI coursc,theseparablcsare
our
to spLrr us to cxertion, diligcnce and zeztlJand not to
'lhese
ruin by bt:ing indillclent towards thc grace of God.
&'ords would be supcrlluous ald powcrlcssJif evcrything
could bc reduced to necessity.
"But woe
The sarnccan be said o{ cvangelicalthrcats:
to you, Scribcsand Pharisees,h,vpocrites"(I{atth. 23,13),
"Woe to thc Corozaim!" (\'Iatth 11,21 . Futile would
)
"O unbclieling gcncration,horv
also be reproacheslikc,
krng shall I be rvith you? Horv long shall I put uP with
"Scrpents,brood of vipers, how arc
you?" (lr'Izrrk9,18).
juclgment
of hell?" (Mzrtth 23,33).The
the
you to escapc
"'I'[tercfore, b,v thcir lruits yoLr rvill know
Lord spcaks,
"l'ruits" rncan to hirn works, and
thcm" (\Iatth. 7,20).
thcsc he designalcdto bc ours. Rut they could not be ours,
"Fathcr,
Hc Plavs on thc cross,
iI all happencdof neccssity.
forgile thi:rn, for thcv do not know rvhat thcy are doing"
(Luke 23,3'l). Horv rrtuch corrcctcrlvould it have been to
justily tlrcm, that tlrt:y had no frec rvill, and rvereincapable
oI 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 sons
of God to thosebclievingin his nir,me" (John 1,12). How
could power to become cirildren of God be givcn to those
who are not yet sons of God, if there is no freedom of the
will? When some had taken oflense at the words of the
master and had fallen away from him, he said to his
cliscipies:"Do you also wish to go away?" (John 6,63).
Had the former fallen away out of nccessityiather than
their own impulsc, why did hc ask the others, whether
they too were going to leave him?
But we don't want to bore the readcr with the enumer-l
ation
all such pa"saces. lrry exi.t in .uch profusion
-of
( h a t t h e y o c c u r e a s i l yr o e r r r l o n n b 1 r h e m " e h r . . .
25) God's Judgment
Now \ae want to investigate whether also in Faul, the
zealous advocate of grace, who storms the works of
fthe
Jewish] laws, we find sorncthing rvhich implies the freedom
of the rvill. Thus rve rneet above all a passagein thc Epistle
to the Romans: "Dost thou dcspisethe richei of his goodnessand patience and long-suffering? Dost thou not know
that thc greatncssof God is meant to lead thee to rcpentance?" (Romans 2,4). How could thc disdain of a commandmcnt be imprrtccl,if therc is no lrce will? And horv
could God invite us to do penance, whcn he has causc<l
impenitence?And hou' could a condemnationLrcjustificd,
when the judge himscll has cornpelledthe lcommitting
oI anl outrage?But Paul had just linishedsaying,,,and we
know that the judqment of God is accorcling to truth
againstthose who do such things,, (Romans 2,2). Herc
he speaksof "doing," and of a judgment accor.dingto
truth. Where is mere necessity?Where is the will that
merr:lysuffcrs?l\{arli rvcil rvhom Paul doesblame for evil:
"But
accordingto thy hardnessand unrcpentcdheart, thou
dost treasure up to thyself tvrath in the day of wrath, and
of thc revelation of the just judgrnent of God who *.ill
render to evcry man according to his u,orks,, (Romans
ER{SMUS:
TIIE
FREE
WILL
4'
2,5). The referencehere is to a just judgment of.God and
to works which deser-vepunishment. 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
goodnessappears plausible. Although even in such a case
"life eternal indeed he will give to those
inc Apostle adds,
who by patience in good works seck glory and honor.and
(Ilomans 2,7). But how could it be justified
itlr-otiaiity"
"wrath
and indignation . . tribulation and anguisli'
that
(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
"f)o you not know that thosc who run in a racer aLl
read:
incleed run, but one receivesthe prize? So run as to obtain
"they
it." And lhe adds],
Irun] indced to receive a
perishablc crown, but rlc an imperishable one." A prize
ian only be l'on by someboclyr"'ho has fought. Only one
who had earned it can receive it as a presentation. Further"Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the
rnore:
life eternal" (1 Timothy 6,12). Wherever a competition
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
"And again,
everything happens through nccessity Also:
he has
unless
one who enters a contest is not crowned
'fimothy
And
(2
2,5)
rules"
to
the
competed according
"Conduct thysclf in work as a good
[two verses]before:
'fimothy
2,3) The industrious
soldier of Christ Jesus" (2
'I'he
'l'irnothy
compett2.6)
husbandmanis mentionecl(2
tor obtains a prizc, the soldier his rewardJ llie countryman
"I have fought the good fight, I
his harvcst. Thc same:
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
'l
w i l l g i v e m e i n t h a r d a y 2 i m o r h y4 . 7 , . S u c h w o r d sa s
hett. cro\4n. jLrsrjudqc. to givr-. ro fight. _ro mc sccm
d i f f i c u l tr o b e r e r o n c i l e dw i r h m e r c n e c i s . i r l .w h e r c b yt h e
will does absolutely nothing but endure.
27 ) Warding oI the I,l/orks of Darkness
But also[ the Apostle] James attributed human sin not
t o n F r e . q i l ) .n o r t o a C o d o p e r a t i n s r v i t h j n u s . b u r r o
d e p r a \ e d c o n c u p i s c e n c c" L. e t n o m a n s a y w h e n h e i s
tempted,_that he is tcmptcd by God. . l3ut everyone is
tempted 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 the
Apostles this question is put to Ananias: ,,Why has Satan
t e m p r e dr h y h c e r r / A c r s 5 . 3 1 . p a u l . t o o , a r i r i b u r r . e
, ril
d r . e d .t o l h e s p i r i t so f r h , . a i r a b o u t u . w h o w o r k o n l l r e
unbelievers.a"What harmony is there between Christ and
Belial?" (2 Corinthians6,15). ,,Either make thc tree good
and its fruits good, or makc the tree bad and its fruits;ad,,
(lVlatth. 12,33). How can some people dare to ascribeto
an unsurpassablygood God the worst of fruits? Although
Setan can cntice hum;rn cnncupiscence
by exrcrnol meei..
o r -a l s o b ! r n t { r n J l o n e s .r o o r e d i n l t u m a n c i r c u m s r a n c c s ,
the enticementitself does not nccessitatesinning, as lonj
a s \ \ e w a n r r o c o r r r b a irt a n d i m p ) o r cd i v i n e a i d .
Ju.t thc
s r r n e .w h e n L h eS p i r i r o i C h r i , t c x t i r c su s t o g n o ; d p c d s ,
it does not constitute a compulsion, but raticr an aid.
lVith James agrees also Ecclesiasticus15,21: ,,He hath
commandedno man to do wickeclly,and he hath given
-mor.
n o r n a n i i c e n " . t o s i n . N o ! v . r r , m p x l s i g ni . e r e n
l i r i : r i c o r n m a n d m t . nE
r .v e n c l e . r r r ri s w h a t p . r u l r r r i t e s :
"II. anyonc,
therefore, has cleansed himseif from thesc, he
will be a vcsselfor honorableuse', (2 Timothy 2,1). IIow
icrturiu.', s, tg.
I
E p h c s i a n s2 , 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
The
who want to ascribe evcrything to mere necessity'"And
3,3:
in
1
found
is
same mode of expression
John
everyone who has this hope in FIim rnakcs himself holy,
iust as He is holy." I again admit to my oPPonentsthat
ihis is a m,rde of cxpression.They also must Permit us to
e m p l o \ o t c a . i o n a l l yf i g u r a t i t eu ' J n e o f \ \ o l d s t s u ti t i s i m p r d " n i f o . l l i e m r o i n i c r p r e t h e m . . ' k ' ' sh i m s c l fh o l y ' t "o
"he is made holy by God, whether hc likcs it or not
mean
"Lct us lay asidcthe rvorksof darkness"(l{omans 13,12),
"Strip ofi tirc old rnan with his deeds" (Colossians3,9),
lay aside
exclaims Paul. I'Iow can we be commanded to
"To wish is
same:
The
incapablc?
something, if we are
within my powcr, but I do not find thc strength to accomplish what is good" (Rornans7,18). Paul obviouslyadmits
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
"Thc spirits of the
again,
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(rhlrcer is the volition 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
understandthcmseheswhat thcy are saying
Here belongs also thc passagc admonishing Timothy:
"Do not neglcctthe gracegrantcd thee" (1 'fimothy 4,14)'
'I'his
cleclarcs that it is in orrr porver to turn away flom
"His grace
offered grace. I'he same in another passage:
in mc has not been fruitless" (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
) o u a c c o r d i n gr o ) o u r p a n s t r i v ed i l i v e n L l yt o , u p p i y 1 o u ,
fafth wlrh vint|r (2 percr 1.i7. and so on. nnd
a ii,rle
l u r t h e ro n : " T h c . r e f o r eh.r e l l r r e ns. t r i v ee r e n r n o r l b 1 q o o d
r , r o r l st o m a k e y o u r c a l l i n g a n d e l e c t i o n, u . c ! . . , 2 ' p , : r ; ;
r . l l r , . - H e l e j e n p o s t l ew a n t s o u r v i r t u o u sc n d c a v o r , ,
to
unite_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_
m o d e r a t eh " a . l r i n gr o c n l h p ro f p t . . a e n !e n c o u n r c l e de r c r y _
w n e r e r n s c n p r u r e .\ \ ' h e n p l u l u r i r c . : . . A I I S c r i p i u r c
is
inspircd by God and useful for teaching, for rcproachinn,
I o r , c o n v e r r i n eI .o. r
n.j u . t i r - , . . .
i f ;-.iil
s r r r r c r i ni e
J . I b , . . r h . r l ' n o L r J- idn
obriouJy be no r,,omlor ell rhi., ii
e \ e r y l h r n qh a p l r e p 1 6o n a r c o l r n to f p u r c a n d u n e r o i d a l r l e
necessity.What purpose would thc many eulogies
about
pious men in Ecclcsiasticus44 serve,if human zea-ldesened
nothins? Wll.1r'srhe me.rningof ohedience.p.nir"d ",
".f
w n e r " . l r m J n t n h l s t o o d . r sw e l l a s e r i l u o r L .
i. ju.r a
tool of God's, likc the hatchet for the carpenter?
29) Luther's Assertion
We all vould be such tools, if the teachings ol Wycliffe
were true. Accordingly, everythins happens on account
of
pure neccssity,be it before or after the reception
of arace:
may they be good, evil or ethically inaie"."r,t
iort..
Luther agrceswith this. In ordcr to forestall ulryloay
n.",r.t n q m r - . o fi n r e n t i n ct h i . . l c t n r e r l u o t el r i . o r v n ' s . e 1 j ,
1r1.r,,n
lrom hrs.4Jrarlio..
Thi.r article must be reroked..I haz:eexprcssetlit ;mbrobtrly, uhen I saidthat thc lrce uill, t4or" nt tri"l"n'irolr,
xs rcauy an emfty name.I shouldhaaeraid
struightt'ar_
that the t'reeuill is really o
1;rt;onorA i'ioiet
_lr*d\
rhn panarRurl.tL u,c" D"min?.cond.mnins
qr
l, ll,T:-!:Ll:9
u r n r s p r o p o s r r r o n sa r h p r . r i c j l , J u n e
t5, Ii20l, and wror; in
a 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. trasmus wroremurh
of hi Diotribe aeain.r rhis Arricl^ :tb
or rheA..ettio.
ERASMUS:TITE !'REEwlLL
45
uithout reality,becauseit is in no man'spo&)erto plan any
et'il or good. As the article ol Wyclife, condemnedat
takesplace by
correctlyteaches:eL)erything
Constance,
necessity.
absolute
I have delibcrately omitted many passagesfrom the Acts
[oI the Apostles] and the Apocalypse lof St. Johnl, otherwise I might be boring the reader. Sumce it to say that
many passageshave, not without reason,induced intelligent
and pious men not to abandon free will completely. [In
conclusion] it is not at all true that those who trust in
their own works are driven by the spirit of Satan and
delivered to damnation.
6c|
DrscouRSE
oN
FREE WILL
human? Of course,the opponent would be victorious, rvere
it permissibleto inter?ret Scripture according to his momentary whim, while we would not be pcrmitted to follow
the 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 needsno
interpretation. It means that grace will stretch out your
hand at will.ln The interpretation of the most trustworthy
Doctors of the Church, on the contraryJ must be a dream,
if we do not want to call it the imputation of Satan, as
others did.
Now, the quoted passageswhich seem to contradict each
other are easily reconciled, if we join together our will with
the help of divine grace. Instead of this clear solution when
mentioning the parable of the potter (Isaias 45,9), and the
axe (Isaias 10,15), they attack us with words which they
want to be understood literally, since this is advantageous
to their cause.Yet in this other casc, they abandon unhesitatingly the words of Holy Scripture, and offer an inter"[Pope] Peter
pretation rvhich is almost as bold as saying,
wrote," while anothcr interprets this as meaning that someone elsein 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' antipathies
for scholastic subtleties and dialectical complexities, and their love
for pagan classics, stylistic predilection, and witty disputation.
VI
LUTHER'S PROOFS AGAINST
THE FREE WILL
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) Weaknessol Human Nature
"My spirit shall not
He quotes a passagefrom Genesis:
remain in man {orever, since he is flesh" (Genesis 6,3)'
"flcsh" here not simply a godless
Scripturc undcrstands by
purrio,-r,o, Paul sometimes uses it when commanding the
mortification of the flesh,2but rathcr the u'caknessof 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 Questionsathat
"my spirit
the Hebrew diflers lrom our Latin text, namely,
will not judge these men in eternity, because they are
These words betray God's gentlenessrather
Imerely] flesh."
"Flesh" refers to man, by nature weak and
ihan setcrity.
"spirit."
inclined to evil. In turn God's wrath is called
'
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 Corinthians 3, 1fi.
'
Cf. chaptcr II, footnote 1. The so-called Hebraic questions of
investigations are Iound in lcrome's Du situ et nominibus hebra;
corun, wh;ch is a translation of thc Onemasticon of Eusebius, with
Jerome's additions and corections
6'
O2
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
ERASMUS:
THE
FREE WILL
63
Accordingly, God affirms he does not want to rctain man
for eternal punishment, but rather out of mercy lhe wants]
to punish him already here fon earth]. This utterance
refers 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 those
days,becauseNoah, for example, was praised as a just man
agreeableto God.
grace man cannot prePare himsell with thc
of sancti{ying
"an-d
morally good *'orks for the Iavor o{ divine
help of God
was not
n.u.e. W" read of the centuion Cornelius, who
"Thy- prayen
Spirit:
Holy
the
iet bapti'cd nor filled with
Ld tniv u1-, havc gone uP and hale been rememberedin
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?
43) Inclination to Euil
+5) SPirit and Fleslt
One can contradict in the same way [what Luther
quotesl : "The inclination of man's heart is evil {rom his
youth" (Genesis8,21), and "Man's every thought and all
the inclination of his heart werc only evil" (Genesis6,5).
The tendency towards evil existing in most men does not
completely cancel out the freedom of the will, even rvhen
one cannot overcome evil without the help of divine grace.
If, horvever,a change of mind depcnds never on the human
will, but everything is accomplished by God according to
some necessity,why has man then been grantcd a time
intenal for doing penance? "His lifetime shall be one
hundred and tlventy yea6" (Genesis6,3). According to
Jerome's Ilrbralc Questions this passagercfers not to the
Iifetime of manJ but to the timc of thc Great Flood. It was
olTeredto man, as a chance of changing their minds, if they
wished to. Or if they did not wish to, to merit divine
punishment as a people contemptuous of the Lord's
leniency.
From the same chapter in Isaias [Luthcr]
(Isaias40,6-B):
14) Forgit:ing Grace
Furthcrmorc ILuther] quotes Isaias 40,2: "She hath
receivcd of thc Lord double for all her sins." Jerome interprets this as refclring to divine punishment and not the
forgiveness of sin. True, Paul says: "Where the offcnses
have abounded, grace has aboundcd yet more" (Romans
5,20). It docsnot follow from this that befole thc reception
also quotes
All fle,his g,a.?.,tnd all gl'ty theteolas th? frau?: ol t,he
f u l d . f h c p t a s i : u t t h ' r c d ,a n d t h ' f l o u e rt l l a l l c n 'D e 'cause
the siirit ol the Lord hasblown upon it ' ' ' But the
Lotd endurethI orezter.
It seems to mc that this passagehas been lorced [by
Jerome maintains
Lutherl to refer to grace and free will "flesh"
"spirit" signifies divinc wrath, and
the natural
that
weaknc^ssof m"an, which has no power against God, and
"flou'er" the vainglory resulting from good luck in material
transactions. t-he Jews prided themselvesin their temple'
their circumcisioni theii sacrifice,s and the Greeks prided
themseivesin their wisdom.6 Since, however, the wrath of
God has manifested itself in the Gospel, all this pride and
haushtinesshas 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
i c, the direcpart;I the;oul we call reason,or i1"1epovtxiv,
ii"c fac,llty. C)r sltould one presume that philosophersdid
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 Corinthians1,22.
64
DrscouRSEoN FREE\,wLL
nature judges often wrongly, as the Lord says,"You do not
know of what manner of spirit you are" (Luke 9, 55).?
It rvas just such an erroneous judgment wht:n the disciplcs, desiring revenge, appealed to thc story of Elias
rcquesting heavenly fire to consume trvo leadcrs with their
fifty men.s Even in good men the human spirit is diflerent
from God's Spirit, as Paul says: "'I'he Spirit himscl{ gives
testimony to our spirit that we are sons of God" (llornans
8,16). If someonerrants to contend that even thc most
distinguishcd human quality is nothing but flesh, i.c. a
godlessdisposition, it rvould be easyto agrecJexcept that he
first prove this assertionfrom Scripture.
"'I-hat which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
is born of thc Spirit is spirit" (John 3,6). John teachesthat
thosewho bclicvc the Gospeisare born of God (1 John 5,1)
and bccomc children of God (John 1,12), yes, even gods
(John 10,34). And Paul distinguishcsthe carnal man rvho
docs not understand the divine, from thc spiritual rvho
judecs everything rightly.s And on another occasion he
speaksagain of a new creatule in Christ.l! If the cntire
man, even the one reborn through faith, u,ere nothing clse
but flcsh,'1rvhere is the spirit born of Spirit, the fact of
beine children of God, and the nerv creature? I rvish to be
enliehtened on that! Until then I like to appcal to the
authority of the Church Fathers who teach that certain
germinal concepts of the ethical good are rvithin man by
'
This passagc scems a good example of the Erasmian ryirit of
common sense and conciliation. He wants to avoicl the extremes
on either side of the controversy. He seems to bc saying: man is
not all flesh; with his reason hc can strive for marLy good things:
but reason is dimmcd by the lallen nature of man; therclore man's
reason needs the enlightenment of Cod's Spirit. This is the burden
of the quotes from Luke and Paul.
3 Luke 9,54.
'
I Corinthians 2, 14 fi.
'"
2 Corinthians 5, 17.
"
This is not precisely what Luthcr would say, but a typical example oI Rcnaissance liking for cxaggeration. lhough
Erasmus
decries this, he, too, falls prey to it at tlmes.
ERAS}IUS:
TIIE
FREE WILL
65
his naturc, and that he consequentlyrecognizesand lbllows
in some way the ethical good, although coarser inclinations
are added, enticing him to the opposite.
Finally, the will capable of turning here and there is
generally called a free will, despite its more ready assentto
evil than to good, becauseof our remaining inclination to
sin. Yet no one is forced to do evil unlesshe 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 to
walk, and to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10,23). This pertains to thc occurrence of happy and unhappy circLrmstances,rather than the possibility of a free will. Frequently
man plungcs profoundly into misfortune, when he is very
careful to avoid it. This does not eliminate the freedom of
the will-neither among those hit by misfortune, bccause
they did not forsce its coming, nor among those causing it,
because they don't humiliate the enemy with the same
intention as docs God, namcly by castigating. If one nonetheless forces these words to apply to the freedom of the
will, everyone would have to admit that without the grace
of God nobody can lieep the right course in life. Our daily
prayer is: "Lord, my God, make smooth thy way before
me" (Psalm 5,9). Nonetheless,we continue to strive with
all our strength. We pray: "Incline, O God, my heart to
thy precepts" (Psalm 11B,36).Whoever begsfor help does
not abandon his undertaking.
Furthermore [Luther] quotes; "It is the part of man to
prcpare the soul and of the Lord to govern the tongue"
(Proverbs 16,1). [I say;] This also concernswhat can
happen or does not happen, without him thereby loosing
eternal salvation. But how could man resolve this [freely]
in his heart, when Luther firmly maintains that everything
happens of necessity?In the sarne chapter it says: "Lay
open thy works to the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be
directed" (Proverbs 16,3): It reads "thy works" and "thy
OO
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
thoughts." Both words could not be said, if God works
everything in us, both good and evil. "By rncrcy and truth
iniquity is redeemed" (Proverbs 16,6). These and many
other passagesfrom the Proverbs support the acceptance
of a free will.
Now, [Luther] quotes from the same chapter: "The
Lord hath made all things for himself; the wicked also for
the evil day" (Proverbs16,'l). [I answer:] God has created
nothing evil by its nature. Neverthelessin his unfathomable
wisdom he turns ali things, even evil, to our advantage and
to his glory. Even Lucifer was not created as the evil one,
but ratler, since his voluntary defection, God set him aside
for cternal punishment, in order to train the pious ones by
his 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 king
is in the hand of the Lord" (Proverbs21,1). [I say:] The
one who guides does not necessarilyforce. Nonetheless,as
mentioned belore, nobody denies that God could forcefully
influence the thinLing capacity of man, expel his original
intentions and inculcate another, yes, even deprive him of
his intellect. But this does not change the fact that normally
speakingour wills are lree.
If that is Solomon's opinion which Luther here interprets,
namcly that all hearts are in the hand of the Lord, rvhy
does he proclaim it to be somcthing special rvith the heart
of a king? This passageagreeseven more so u'ith what we
read in Job 34,30: "lVho maketh a man that is a hypocrite
to reign for the sonsof thc pcople?" The same in Isaias 3,4:
"And I will give children to bc their princes, and the
effeminate shall rule over thcm." Whcn God, propitious to
his people, inclines the heart of a king towards good, he
is not necessarilyforcing the will. Instead, to incline [the
hcart]to evil means that [God] offendcd by thc sins of a
people, does not recall the soul of a foolish, rapacious,
warring and despotic prince lto come to his scnses], but
pennits him to be senselessly
driven by his passions,in order
to castigatethe peoplc through [the king's] malice. Should
ERASMUS:
TIIE
FREE
WILL
67
it happen that God drives such a guilty king to evil, it
would be wrong to lorn a generalization from such a
special case.
Such proofs as Luthcr assemblesthen from the Proverbs
could be gathcred in huge number-s But this would serve
more their accumulation than their victory. Rhetoricians
generally tluow such arguments about them. Most of the
iime these can be applied convcnientJyto an interpretation
favorable to free will, or to one against it.
47 ) Nothing without Christ
"Without
Luther considersChrist's saying in John 15,5:
me you can do nothing," just as accurate a javelin as the
one Achilles used. In my opinion it is possiblc to resPond
"unable to do" usually means
in more than one way. First,
strivcs for. This does not
what
one
to be unable to rcach
proceeding in sorneway
oI
the
striver
the
possibility
exclude
just the sarne.In this senseit is conplctely correct that we
can do nothing without Christ. IIe speaksof the evangelical
fruit rvhich can be found only among those who abide in
the lile on the vinc, i.e. in JesusChrist. Paul usesthis mode
"So then neither he who plants
of speaking when he says:
is anlthing, nor he who lvatcrsr but God who gives the
growth" (1 Corinthians 3,7). That which is consideredof
"nothing." The
little moment and is of no value is called
"[II I] do not havc charitl', I am nothing" (1 Corinsarnc:
". . . it profits me nothing" (1
thians 13,2). Followed by:
"He calls things that are not
Corinthians13,3), and again:
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 expressionis con"I am a worrn and not a man"
tained in the Psahns:
( P s a l m2 1 , 7 ) .
"nothing," thcn it
If one rvere to press this exprcssion
I believe Christ
Christ.
would not be possibleto sin without
to escapeto an
not
want
one
docs
grace,
if
means here his
"
Romans 9, 25 fi quoting Osee 1, 9 and 2, 24.
68
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
already discarded [view] that sin is nothing
[real]. yet
evcn this [not being without Christ] is in a sensecorrect,
sincewithout Christ we would neither be here. nor live. nor
m o v e . I M y o p p o n e n t s gl r a n t t h a t c o m e t i m ersh e f r c e w i l l
without gracc is capable of sin. Even Luther has held this
at the beeinnins of his Assertio.
VII
POSTSCRIPTON APPARENT
PROOFS AGAINST THE FREE
WILL
ReasonableInterpretation ol Additional Passages'
"No one ca:r
Here bclong the words of John the Baptist
heaven"
{rom
him
receive anythlng unless it is given to
w
e
l
a'k lhe
t
l
r
a
t
n
o
t
l
o
l
l
o
w
r l o h n 3 . 2 i t . H " e n c ei t d o e .
w
J
r r m su s J
f
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
.
ii ultr o, useo[ {re"
natural
a
by
seck
wc
that
fact
rhc
hcaren;
f.oao-".'
j m p u l . c t h c u \ e f u l a n d a r u i d t h e h e r m I u l ' c o m n sf r o m
h e a v ,r r ; L h ef a c t t h a r a f t e r s i n t l r e w i l l i ' e \ ( i l e d l o b c l l e r
"noa* "o-"t from heaven; the lact that we can obtain
and
*,1 " pt"u.ing to Cod rhroueh our rears almsgivinq
t h n m c a n t i m eo u r w i l l i s
l
n
h
e
a
v
e
n
l
r
o
m
r
r
.
a
o
"
"
'
i'not'inactive,
,u1,
even if man can rcach the goal of-his striving
is a
o n l v w i t h r h c f r n a l a s s i ' r a n c "o i e r e c e B u t s i n c c i t
i
s
a
t
trlbe
n
l
i
r
c
a
f
f
a
i
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
l
r
.
m i n i r n u mw h i c h
ship
safely
his
steering
mariner
a
as
God.
uted to
Just
"l have saved
inrol,ott t t"nuv slorm into lrort doe' nol say
" G o d h a s ' a v e d i t " N e r e r t h e l e shsi s
,nu Jirr." but ierher
does not say
,.t u.ti ,"ul were not idle. Similarly, a farmer
"I have produccd
barn,
his
into
han'est
,uh"lt tot irrg
- a rich
"God has qiren it '
t h i s 1 e 2 r ' 5 c h h a r v n r t . "b u t r a t h e r
W h o ' u o u l d s a y ,h o \ \ P v c r t. h a t t h e I a r m e r h a s c o n l r i b u t e d
i-Tfi].r.,.
on cracc (John3' 27)' God.speakto rhe passagc
48)
'r ol grace
ins rhroueh mcn (Marrh'w 10 20) th' lulltns Po-s
'2
(ihn 6, aa 1, rhinkins in C"rJ. but liting in man
:'i'Il:"'q"'
rn L;od rl !'orln3, 5), ,"d Ihe origin of all eood to bF lound
7
thians 4, ).
69
I
70
DISCOURSE
ON
I'REE
'VYILL
nothing to the prospcring oI the fruits of the earth? Amons
common sayings are thcse: God has given you beautiful
children, though their father has helped to generate them;
God,restotedmy healrh. though rhe doctor-helpcdelong;
rne Rrnq nas o\elcorne lu\ enemics.rhnu"-h gencralsand
soldiers have contriLruted their good share. I{othing can
grow, if heaven does not send the rain. Neverthelessigood
soil produces good fruits, while bad soil can produc! no
good fruits. Rut sincehuman endea\or alone aicomplishes
n o r h i n g w i r h o u t d i r i n e h c l p . e r e r l t h i n g i s a r r r i b u i e dr o
dtvtne benclaclion."Unless the Lord brrild thc houre, rhey
labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord guard the citn
the guardswatch in vain', (psalms126,1). Inlthe meantime
the,buildersand rhe guards do no( cea,e in their building
and in their vigilance.
Furthermore in Matthew 10,20: ,,For it is not you who
are speal.
inq...but rhe Spirir oI lour Farher who ,pcaks
through yo-u.' This pa."aqeseomsal fir.L siqht ro annul fie
lreedom ol the \a.ill.Bul in fecr ir wants to free us lrom
distresine anxiery. rahen prem,.ditaringon r.rhat to .ay in
behall of Chti't. Orhcr-wiseit would l,e a sin. iI preacirers
were to prepare rhemrelvcs carelully for their "acred
cermons.Not cverlone should expect lhatj becauserhe
Spirir oncc inspireduncouLhdist.ipl..,he (oo would be rble
t o p r e a c ha . i f h e h a d b c c n g i r e n r l r eg i f r o I t o n g u e sT. h i s
m a y h a v e h a p p e n c do n c e .n o n e r l r e l e . .
l r h e r e c i p i e n r lh a d
to cor{orm.his will to the inspiration of the Holy 3pirii, and
actcd together with him. This is obviously the-dutv oi the
frec will. Or should rve assumelhal Cod h.r. ,poLen ro us
through the mouth of the Apostles, as he dirl *ith Buluuthrough the mouth of a donkey?,
A passage{rom John could drive us further into the
corner: "No one can come to me unless the Father who
sentme draw him" (John 6,.14).The word ,,draw,' secms
to point to neccssitytnd cxcluJe rhc free will. But actually
i t i r a n 6 n 11 6 1 s 6d1r a w i n g .I r c a u \ r . {a p e r s o nt o w J n l a
'
Numbers 22, 23 ff.
ERASIIUS:
TIIE
FREE WILL
?I
it And as \{e showa
thine iust as readily as he can refuse
i;iT'-:':"":x:
::J::l':-;
Ltn*,*#.'ffi
*:
i['l
*i:t';"':fitJ?|)tttn?obo",','a""'ood
whatJohnsavs:
il'ii;
Hi:#iiii"J.*t"'!kil
,*,"nnhni::
r*:tt i****;l'i:'t
*:,*tiliff1*x
willinqly. Thus we read:
't:;
"Drav
'hi:,h::iT
passac.es
,;?Tj[i::".1]"'. ,t'","arealso
l;"1T::l"':Hij:l'"i:il:fl::"':"';l"LT
God" (2 Corinthians
ffi"tv";, ;; or,, suffitic"cy is from
nj-:i=,-*:=::""..1:4itt*h:m
';1;;:'1""Iil'l,lilll"nii'
ll#*"i::l+l,l:
il:?":lJ
,llT".i:J,"':JlT""'ff
il'""1r:""'$,'lr:;',1',flff
cause
main
The
eflective
will are
ilil^;;;:;;;ti'"man
Jp"t.,i.ti-,.
the free will Grace
i:
liiJ'l"f
L-#:H;*Hi*:a%;'il::*lll;:':ii
".'::tis':1.':::;",i";'
n
$*,n::itl
-'U;J;.Tt';.-'Jl"'.1,,.1,,':.:J,;,0:#:
ll;5:::ii:.1*
j:"il.,j'ir,i,.."raa:l:ff j l,l"ii:::I:l:'::1,':l'::'
li"",Al
T"ff:::.
T::.
::lft *;ru;r*:,ii;'f"
either.
""i".'.,''f-'*."fa
himself
God
dcny that all good has its origin in
="1-*;.*:'i-#$;"i;::*l*'3:":'Ji+'''J,"":
t,",r6v
73
DrscouRsE ON F.REEWILr_
ERdSMUS: TIIE IREE WILL
as a source?Paul inculcates this, in order to deprive us of
our arrogance and overconfidence, as also when he says:
"What
hast thou that thou hast not received? And if tliou
hast-r'eceivedit, wht dost thou boast as if thou hast not
received
i t l ' r I C o r i n t h i a n "4 . 7 7 .y o u h e a r v a i n q l n r yb p i n g
r e s t r a i n r di n t h i s r a y r n e ''.l h i , i s q h a u t l . e s " . v r n t , r o o ]
would ltear who accounted to his rnaster for the prolit made
on usury.a If he attributed to himself his well_investecl
laL<.rrs,[the master may ask] rvhat have you receivcd that
you Oid not possess?And nevertheless,tire master praises
him 1or his untiring strenuous elTorts.
'I'he
same
is_sung in James 1,17: ,,Every good gift
long
and cve-ryperfect gift is from above,,,and pairl in Ephesiians
"llm
t:l
r n h ow o r L sa l l l h i n c sa c c o r d i n gr o r h e c o u n s e l
]:
-fhese
o l h r sr v i l l . ' '
w o r d s a i m a r t h i , t h a r \ \ e s h o u l dn o r
arrogate
to
us, blrt attribute everything to the
-anything
grace of God who has callcd us while ll,e turned ariay
from
h i m . h a s -c l e a n . e du s r h r o u q h [ r i r h . a n d , v h o h a . a l s o
c r i r n , t cIdh a t o u r w i l l c a n c o o p e r a r ue i r h h i " s r J ,c . a l rh o u ch
the latter by itself would bc completelysufficient and'in
no necd of any help coming from thc human will,
But:v€py€;
h"ina 3 tr.,v.i,v. the one who effects and rules'
72
49) To Rule and to Efect
. . 1 h e p a s s a g icn P h i l i p p i a n s2 , i 3 , , , F o r i t i s G o d w h o o f
hrs <run good pleasurelvorks in you both the rvill and the
pcllonnance," docs not exclude the lree rvill. If you relate
"oI.his
good pleasure"to manr as Ambrose of \,filan does,
r . u l l . u n d f l s r a n dr 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
thc
, 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 n2. . 1 2 , r v e r e a d :
"Worl<
out your salvation rvith fcir ancl trcmlling.,, One
can conclude from this that both God rvorks in us, and that
our rvill and effort strilc solicitorrslyrvith God. Nobody
' l r " u l d . l r . r rI .ocr ( 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 nd, i i r t e l Iy' I e c , L I i ni ts r l r , p e * r r u . \ ! r , r ko r 1 r
),, sJl\a_
lton
s h i c h . i : n i f i e , n r o r c r o p d rr 1 1 . r o r o i l , . .
.iuy'$oAe.
than tlie word irepTeir,,rvhich is attributed t" Coa, Coa
" trIatthcw
25, 20 0.
-rll#
; iltinI *' l, ""1
::;:;:; l;i;,
:
tl
:"ff
H:l';
me;
efiecting
and
ruling
that both
man*ork'
,"-.hli ;r;l;r;"lv thar Lorhcod and
^*t;ililn:";L:i1*:il;*l$ri"
'jn*ffi
:i
ltii,l"f:;Hi' HJiHif
f;JT
5;;;:,:::';l;5'liN.,;T::l'.-
i*;
courd' rwo
hc con' ra-
ai.,or'y.,u'" *"n " be t econciled'.arco,tfJif
,:t ;l["ti::
iilT*:
"'}ii
l?lilll,i{{'i:i,1:#rui:l*""'1"
n;ir*"tr
ff,*,n;ff:i
ffi"i
xi,rlT:t
r''Wll,l
i,*:m
t,lW*$*'
g
accord.in
r,"r".,.
iU] ;,;", I;:l;;;, !i,i:fi,.,r'n".i",,
#::
:::illl'**"'ill.ll:#lt":"'J,:
r iiliJlr:
.ttq,*,
:i+*Iii:*l,*:':#
;+'*
*';i1;
:i*ii- ::il1'j:":,:]'r
iil,l
[it,llt
tq$;t'*liiHnl
*i{}ti,im
sfJ
rftxr::"-*
Jlil*,1,1$:i:l,':l';:i:':H
"
Cf. Erasmus,Section48'
74
ERASMUS:THE FREEWILL
DISCOURSE
ON !.REEWILL
correction.,aimed
at rhe su.picion of insolenceand nor at
r n e p o s s t b l t to
t yl c o o p e r r t i o ni n a c r i o n .
u o q c o e sn o t w a n Lm a n t o a r i b u t ee v e l y l h i n g
to himself. 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 ,.,
d o ' . L u k e 1 7 , 1 0 , .W o u t d h e n o t d i s r i n g u i " h ht ; . " 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 accomplishthis 3pe 161'4
i; ;"':;
unworrhyservants.'Nobody deniestheir
accompiishrne;s;
ralner are lhe) taushl to a\oid danqcrous
arrqqallce.
Man says one thing, God anothe"r. lf""
."i" fr" i. .
a" unworthy one at that. What does God
TT1T,
sav?
"Well
d o n e ,g o o d s e r v a n r , l. l u k e 1 9 . 1 7 7 ; N .
l.;;";;;
r . c a l y o u s e r v a n r sb. u l f r i e n d , . . r J o h n
15.157H
. i calls
r h e m ' b r e r h r e n , r, J o h n 2 0 . J 7 ; i n s t e a d , . . " . " u n o . . .
oI
enJ
rnosewho call themscl\cs unr,rorthy seruants,
God cal]shis
sons.6And indeed those who have just
called themsclves
servants God sLunmons: ,.Come, blssed .f
-y f.ifr".:;
tl ,, r.,and,they
hear.o[
rhcirg."7 a*i.'.r
,iYiL,llw
n l c n t h e y l h e m s e l v eksn e w n o t h r n g .
"I-l:elieve it to be an excellent kelito the understandine
o[ Holy Scriprures.if we pay ",,"n,ion ,o r"t
r, ;;;;;:
m eacn passaqe.Onr^eone recognizes,hi",
on" ,uill 6nd i,
setpcrtrom the parabiesand cxamplc. such
as
fr:1".
a t e 1 0 t lo
h e p o i n l . I n l h e p a r a b l co f t h o s r c u a r d
r,h
r o about
ro,oc retre\cdol hrs posr.falrifics lhe notcs
o[ his ma:ter.s
o e D l o r st .h e r er sm u c h t h r t d o e sn o l . r d d t o
t h e s r n s eo f r h e
p a r a L J eQ
. t n l y r h i " c a n b n s a r h e r e dl r o m
i r , r _ h u"r, , , . , , , ^ n "
s n o u l ds l r r \ e t o d i s r r i b u r em o s r f r c c l l . r h c r e b y
aidjnq hi:
neighbor, the gifts he has received f.o'm G"d,
6"f;' j";;;
ovcltake him.
Thc same concernsthe parable we
.Justmentroned above:
" Romans
9, 26.
' Luke 16,
1-9.
?5
B u t * h i r h o l y o u i s t h e ' c ' h a u i n ga \ P r u a npl l o u i n go l
tend.ingsheep,who uill say to h;m an hit return lrom the
fieltl."Conteat onceaniLreclineat table!"But @ill he not
iay to him,"Prepare my supper,and gird thyselland ser.tte
me titl I hare eatenand iLrunk;and alter@ardsthou thy'
v t l r h d t t? a l a n d d r i n k ) "D o c , h e t h a n kt h a l l e t u a n lto r
him? I do not think so'
do'ingwhat he comtnandeiL
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 disciples the honor of reclining at table.s He also expresses
"Well done good seNants"
thanks when he exclaims:
"Come blessed" (Matthew 25'3+.)
'
(Luke 19,17), and
"The Lord will judge you unworthy
ih.,s, he is not saying:
of grace, unprofitable servants,after you have done every"You say, we are unprofitable
thing," but rather says:
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.e
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?
Similarly:
of them will fall to the ground without
not
one
And vet
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 necessityof all happenings His
example aims rather at taking from his disciples their fear
of men. They should realize that they stand under God's
without his
Drotection.
'oermi.sion.and that no man can halTn them
This he will only do if it furthers them and
"Is it for the oxen that God has
th" gorp"l. Paul says:
"u."i" lt Corinthians 9,9). Obviously the subsequentremarks of the Evangelist contain an hyperbole, i e an ora"As for you, the very hairs of your
torical exaggeration,
head are ail numbered" (Matthew 10,30). How much
"
I
John 13, 4 fi.
1 Corinthians15,9.
76
DISCOT]RSE ON
FRDE WILL
hair falls daily to the ground; is it also counted? So, u,.hat
of this hypcrbolc? Obviousty that which
:..th" l"r!9:"
followsit, "Therefore, do not bc afraicl', (Matthew 10.21).
Ju"r as thc"e modes of e\pre.\ion have rhe purpose to
r n m o r et h e f e a ro [ m a n a n d t o s t r e n g r h ehni * t r u s ri n G o d .
rvithou-twhose provitlenre nothinq heppens,so the above
do
_quotations not purport to abolish ihe free will, but to
dcter us lrom alrogance which the Lord hates. The best is
to attribute everything to the Lord. He is miid and will
not only give what is oursr but also that which belongs to
nrm,
How couid one state thal Lheprodigal son'0 had squan_
,
o p r r d . h r sp. o r - o n o l l h . p r o p e r t y .i [ h c n e r e r h a d a p a r t
of it in his hands? What hn po..e.sed he had receired
l r o m r h e f a t h c r .\ V e r o o a c L n o w l e d greh d r a l l t h e q i f t s o f
narrre are eilrs of Cod. fle pe..essctlhis porLion eien aL
t h c 1 i 1 1 r1". r i f. a r h e rh a s s r i l l r c t a i n n di t i n h i s h a n c l "a n d
indeed possessed
it more securely. What does it mean that
he demanded his portion and separated himself from his
father? Obviously it means that rnan claims title Ior him_
sel{ to the gifts of nature, and does not use thcm to fullill
God's commandments, but to satisfy his carnal desires.
lVhat is the mcaning of this hunger? It mcans an afiiction
by rvhich God goads on the sinner's disposition to know
and to abhor himsclf, and to undertake tle desired return
to the father. lVhat signifies the son speaking to himself,
planning to confess and to return horne? It sisnifics the
w i l l o f m a n t u r n i n q t o \ v a r d ,q r a re , w h i c l r h e . i r i m , r l a L . d
him, and which, as stated,one calls the prcvenicnt one.r1
What sisni0es the father who hastens to mect his son? He
signifiesthe grace of God which furthers our rvill. so that
we 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,,
'o Cf. Luke
15, 1l f.
" Cf. chapter
III, footnote3 and 11.
ERASMUS:
T1IE
FREE
WILL
?7
"the grace of God
rvilf' (Ecclesiasticus15,17) to mcan,
"prove"
ou, your hand at rvill," only in ordcr-l'-to^
,r.",.fit
Since my
that the rvili of man can accomplish nothing
orthodox
the
from
down
horvever, is handed
i"*.o."r*i.",
l.hi' pnrir'
de'pise
should
on'
sce
rvhy
f"'f,rir.', f do not
miics i e '
r
t
\
\
o
h
(
i
n
g
p
l
'
'
"
i
J
o
r
h
.
r
o
;"j;;"1;
1,uo.
"
hcr entirc ProPcrty' into the treasury
---i
..'.' hc gain who orves completely
o.t, nittui -".it
he is able
to him frorn whom he rcceived these forccs all
Nevertheless'
rlill?
{ree
and
i" a. ft"lrit natural intelligence
turn our
God crcdits us prccisely \'vith this that we clo not
our
hearts awav fiom his grace, and that we concentrate
least
at.
proves
This
,rui.,rul ubititi"t on simplc obedicnce
ne\erthelqss
r h ; ' ; , ; c a n a . c o m p l i i hs n m e t h i n qL u t r l r ' r t
u
n d ' \ r l r o .l s
r
o
d
o
i
n
s
'
h
i
s
a
l
l
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
h e a . c r i b e .t h c s u m
unite.his
to
ability
man's
orgmates
whence
the author
whe'n
means'
i; God's g.acei This is what Paul
;;;;;;
"gu the g-raceof God I am what I am" (1 Corl"-t.oi,
But whcn you
i",nll"t fS,iOl. Iie recogni'esthe author'
"ffi. qrac" has not bcen [tuitlcss ibid \' thcn ]ou
fr""r.
les.$ith
h u m a n r v i l l w h o ' L s L r i v i n l ( o o p e t a 'Not
t"-""it",n"
I'
it
sals:
whtn
)l'i.. ] , rp. Thc 'ame is indicated
jr.r
is
it
Greek
For
(ibid
God rvith me"
)'
i",^ift" gJ..-.f
i1 oi,r'ipo't.
that divine
And the Hebrew prophet of wisdom rvished
with
working
him; standing at his side and
-ira.-'."it,
archian
like
heiper'
;ir-;;--S[" assists;s a moclerator and
is to bc done'
1 s ,1 . L , p p o , r i n qh i . a . s i s t a n to. r d e r i n gw l r ' r r
c
o
r
n
m
"
n
c
etso d o s o m e l
r
e
l
f
, h o * i n n ' r h " . i 1 r p t 1 1 1 'r h o d
r
o
o
n rr hc f'rils'
a
'
e
n
d
h
i
r
o
'
r
r
i
l
l
r
e
r
a
l
l
,ltit*,"t."aft, she
r
hcarchitecl'
1
o
i
s
a
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
r
'
o
t
k
l
h
.
c
i
d
.
,
J
h
i
s
;h;';".,"".
accomplished'
becn
*l,ft.ti *ft"* nap nothing could have
and.apprelN"r,rrt"t".. noboiy ttould say rlrrt helpers
t
\
'
h
a
t
{
'
P
\
c
r ' v Y l r a Lt n e
r
v
o
r
k
t
h
c
ticc. lrrre no shale in
will'
our
for
is
grace
aPPrentice,
thc
urJir"., l. for
" Cf. Erasmus,Section41.
' " M a r k 1 2 , 4 1f I .
" Wisdom 9, 10.
Z8
DIscouRsE oN FtujE wrLL
Therelore Paul says. "In like manncr the Spirit also
helps our weakness" (Romans 8,26). One doeJ not call
another weak who can do nothing, but one whose str.cngth
is insufficient for completing his undcrtaking. Nor is he
called a helper who does everything alone. All Scripture
exclaims: help, aid, assistanceand support. But who iould
be designated as helper unless hc helpcd one doing something?'fhe potter does not "help', the clay in the forming
oI a-vessel,nor the carpenter his axe in the making of a
bench.
50\ Frcc 14/illand Good Uy'ork,Made pot,ible through
Grace
We oppose those who conclude like this: ,,Man is unable
to- accomplish anything unlcss God,s grace helps him.
Therefore there are no good rvorks of man.,, We propose
the rathcr more acceptable conclusion: Man is ible to
accomplish all things, if God's gracc aids him. Therefore
it is possiblethat all works of man be good.
Al many passagesas thcre are in Holy Scripture mentioning [God's] help, as many are there establishing the
freedom of the will. Thesc passage$are innumerab]le. I
would have won already, if it depended on the mere
number of proofs,
VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
51) Need for a Lloderate OPinion
Up to now we have been compiling scriptural passages
establishingthe freedom of the will, while converselyothers
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 moderate
opinion.
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 calamity, succumbed unsuspectingly to another danger, and has
'fhe
others insteadascribed too much to the free rvill.
for true piety
dangerous
cnormously
how
considercd
who
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 others
according to measur-emcntand weight like sclling oil and
soap-having vcry studiously avoided this danger, have
eithcr diminishcd the freedom of the will so that it could
contribute absolutely nothing to good rvorks, or they have
elininated it all togcthcr by introducing an absolutenecessity in all happenings.
bO
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
WILL
52) Some Reformers' Views Justifed
Evidently these people considered it quite apt for the
simple obedience of a Christian that man depend completely on the will of God when he places his entire rust
and all his hopcs in his promises; when he, conscious of
his own wrctchedness, admires and loves his immense
mercy which he gives us plentifully without chargc; when
he, furthermore, subjects himself complctely to his will, no
matter whether he wants to save or destroy him; rvhen he
acceptsno praisewhatsoverfor his eooJ worl,s, and rathcr
ascribesall glory to His grace, thinking that man is nothing
else but a living tool of the divinc Spirit, rvhich the latter
has cleansed and sanctified for himseif throush his und e s e n e d g o o d n e s sa, n d u h i r h h c g u i d e s n n d g o r . . n s
according to his inscrutable wisdom; furthermore, when
there existsnothing anybody could claim as his own accomplishment, and when he hopes for eternal lifc as rervard
{or steadfast faith in God, not because he had earned it
by his orvn good works, but becausethe goodncssof God
was pleased to promise that reward to those who have
trust in him; whcreby, consequently,man has thc duty to
beg God assiduou.lylor imparrlne and auemenring his
Spirit in us, to thank him for every successand to adore
in ali case"Cod's omniporence.to admire evenl,rlrere his
rvisdom, and to love everywhere his goodness.
fhcse utteranccs are also very praiservort\ to me, because they agree with Holy Scripture. They conform to
the creed of those rvho died once and for all to this rvorld,
through their baptism har.e becn buricd with Clrrist, and
after thc mortification of the flesh live hcnceforth with thc
Spirit of Jesus,into u.hose body they have been ingrafted,
'I
through faith.l his is incontestably a pious and captivating
conception,which takes from us every conceit, which transfers all giory and confidence to Christ, which expcls from
r r st h e i e a r o f m e n r n d d e m o n s a. n d u h i c h , t h o u g hm a k i n g
'
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 nonethclcss strong and courageous in God. I'his we applaud
freely, up to the point of exaggeration fwhich we want to
avoidl .
53) Errors and Injustice in the Relormers
But the rational soul in me has many doubts when I
hear the following: there is no merit in man; all his
rvorks, evcn the pious ones) are sin; our will can do no
more 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 upright
in the sight oI God, never deviating to the right or to the
left, if cvcrything is sin, even what the most pious does
---lin Iact] such a sin that one for whom Christ has died
would nonethclessbe condemned to inferno, were it not
for God's mercy?
Secondly, why does onc so often hcar of reward, if there
is no merit it all? Holv would disobcdienceof those following God's commandmonts be praiscd, and disobcdiencebe
darnncd? Why does Holy Scripturc so Irequently mention
judgment, iI merit cannot be weighed at all? Or why must
wc stand before the scat oI judgment if nothing has happencd according to our rvill, but evcrything according to
mr:re necessity?It is disturbing to think of all the many
admonitions, commandmcnts, threats, exhortations and
complaints, if wc can do nothing, but God's unchangeable
rvill 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. Why
does hc continuously want to be asked, when he has alrcacly dccided rvhetlicr to give us or not to give us, and
when hc himself, unchangeable, is unable to change his
resolutions?Why does hc command us to strive laboriously
for rvhat hc has decidcd to give {rcely? God's grace fights
and 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 the
hope of heavenly life. tsut why would an exceedinglymerciful God wish to be thus engaged with his martyrs? Cruel
would appear a man if he did not give, unless having
tortured to despair, that which hc had [already] decided
to bestow freely upon his friend.
Perhaps, as soon as one confronts this obscurity in the
divine decision, one ought to adore that which we are not
supposedto comprehcnd.so rhat man sJts,"he is rhe Lord,
he can do everything he wishes, and since he is by nature
good, everything he wiils can only be very good.,, It is still
plausible enough to say that God crowns his gifts in us;
he permits his benefits to be our advantage; he deigns with
undeservedgoodnessto attribute to us what he has caused
in us, well desencd, as it were, if we tmst in him, and in
order to obtain immortality. But I don't know how those
can be consistentwho exaggerateGod's mercy towards the
pious in such a way as to permit him to be ahnost cruel
against the others,
A goodnesswhich imputcs to us its excellenccmight possibly be tolerable to a pious soul. But it is dililcult to explain how it is compatible with justice (not to speak with
mercy), to condemn the others, in whom God did not
deign to cause good, to eternal tortrrres, aithough on their
own they could not possibly effect any good, since they
either possesscdno {rec will, or only one good for sinning.
54) Two lllustratiue Stories
If a king were to cive enormous booty to one rvho had
done nothing in a rlar, and to those lvho had doni: the
fightinrrbarely just their salary. he could rcspond to the
murmuring soldiers: am I injuring 1'ouby rivins thc others
frcely and gratuitously?Ilut rcallyJhow could one consider
him just and gcntle, if hc crowned macnificently for his
vrctory a genclal rvhom he had furnished u'ith machines,
EIIASMUS: THE FRED \\'IL]-
83
troopsJ nloney and all sLrpplies aplenty for rvar, rvhile another, whom he had throlvn into war witllout armaments,
Lc ordcred put to death on account of the rvar's unhappy
encling? I3clore dying, could he not say rvith justice to the
kirg: rvhy clo you punish me for rvhat happened thlough
youl lault? lI you had equipped me similall,v, I rvould have
won Loo.
Again, ii a lord emancipates an undeselving servant,
hc can ansrvel the remaining grunbling servants: You losc
nothins if I am liild to tliis one; you still have your
mcasure. Evcrybody rvould judgc the lord cruel and unjust
though, ur:r-c he to h:Lvc his sclvant floggcd for his stature,
or protrucling noscj or somc o'.licr lack oI clegance. \\ould
he not be justificd in cornplaining against tlic lord rvho
had him floglccl: rvhy should I sufTcr punishment lor
something that is lot in my pou'cr to changc? '\,nd he
rvould bc quite justiiied in say'ing this if it rvele in the
lord's lxxvcr to chanqc thc delccts of thc sclYant's body,
just as it is in thc hand oI Clod to chansc our will. Or if
tlrc lord lr:rd gi\tn thc scrvant that rvirich norv olfends him,
lilic cuiting ofl his nor;r:, or hideorrsly dclorniilg his face
q'ith -.cals, just as Gotl, atrrrcling to thc opinion oI some,
has u,or'lied all cvil in us. Or talic thc cxarnplc of a lord
giving orders to do a glcat dcal to a se^ant l,ying in
"go
chains,
here. clo thal, run. come back," and thrcatens
hirn greatlv iI he uere rlol lo ol)c,v.llut [the lord] clid not
set Ithe scrvent] loosc, r'allLer hc floggccl the disobedienL
Icliou'. Woulcl not the servant justly cotsicler the lord inslrtc and r:rucl. iI hr: had hirn floeqcd to cle:rth becausc he
h;:rd not dorxr th:Lt rrhit:h rvas not irr his pou'cr?
5 5'1 R e.ter i: ttt i o n s C a tt c er tt in g J ust i li c at i o n b1' I.^a i t h
[Let us contirlrc: ] In this aliair tlc,v grcatly cxalt laith
and lovc of God. \Ve hold these cqually dear'. \Yc arc
convirrccd that the life of Christians is so contaminated
rvith l'iclirxhrcss, sterrming from nothing else but from the
coldncss and chorvsinessof our liiith llhich is a superficiai
E4
DrscouRSE oN
FREI WILL
beJicf in rvords, rvhile, according to Paul, he is justilied
rvho rvithin his heart bclicves.I do not cspcciallyu,ant to
quarrei rvith those.rvhoattributc cvelything to lzLithas the
fountainhead, although it seemsto me that faith ancl lovc.
and love and laiLh corne about and nurtiue cach othcr
rnutually. Certainly faith is nurturecl by love, as the flarne
in a larnp is nulturcd by the oil. For rvc hale grcater laitlr
in him rshom rve lovc dearly. There is no scarcity of voir:cs
who, more corlectly, take faith as the beginning of salVation and not its sum total. But li'c don,t \\,ant to .ll.gLre
about that.
56) Dxaggcratingand Underratint
But care should bc tal<ennot to deny the lreedom oI thc
rvill, rvhilc prraising faith. I'or if this happens, there is no
tclling horv the plobiem of divine justice and rnercy coul<i
be solvcd.
Thc ancierts could not explain such di€ficulties.Some
felt cornpcilcdto asslrmetwo gods: one for the Old'I'cstament, rvho u as able to bc only just, but not sinultaneously
rnerciful, and one lor thc Ne\r 'I'estament, r'ho could only
be mr:rciful,but not just. This godlessidea Tertullian has
sufficiently lcfuied.' N{eni, as alrcady mentioned,:r f anciecl
two naturcsin man, one tvhich is incapablcoI not sinnine,
and onc incapablc of not cloins good. Pclagius,utro rvas
concerncclaborrtGocl'sjustice, attributed rnorc to fi.cc rvill
than to neccssitl.Not too distant fr.omtltis positionarc thc
fScotists]rvlur asclibc to hurnan rvill at least the ability to
carn rviLhnatural poucrs through cthically good rvor.ksthat
hiqhcstglace, by rvhich rvc arc jrrstilied.'fhcl,secm to me
to be irrviting man to stri,,c by aflir.ming good hope in
obtainin!.'sah'ation.Also Cornclius by giving alms and bv
pra)inq' has melitccl Jrcingiirstructedby Pcter, lilic Phil\r
''
l"*ra
i"'lertullian's
largest cxtant work, A.tr€r'us Marciorrcn
( c . 2 0 7 ) . C f . c h : r P l c rI I , I q r t n o r c l .
3 Ol. chapter
Il. Iootu.,te 2.
'
Acts 10.4 l.
DRAS}IUS:
THE FREE \TILL
35
instructed the IDthiopian] errnuch.5\'Vhcn Augustine
searchedzealouslylor Chlist in the Epistlcsof Paul, he
dcscrvcd fincling hin. Ilcre r'r,c coulci state, in order to
assuagethosc rtho lrermit man no possibility fol any good
unlcss indt:btcd to God, that lvc o\\'c our t:ntire life work
to God. rvithout'.r'homrvc corrld accomplishnothing;furthcrmorc, that thc fr.rc rvill contr-ibutcs vcry little to an
elTi:ct;finall,v,that it is also a lolk cI clir,inegracethat
\\.(-'canturn our ltcart to tllc things of selr,ationand cooperate rvith qrace. A.ugustinegainecla rnorc unlavorable
r iervof the lree rvill, becauseof his ilqht rvith PclagiLrs
than
hr: had Ircld bcforr:. Lutlrr:r, on llrc othcr hancl, rho at
6rst :rttributccl sorncthingto thc frr:e rvill, hrs come tc
dcny it completrly in thc heat of his clcfcnt:. l hus Lycurqus \!as criticrizccl
bv thc Grr:cl<sbecausein his hatred
of drunkennesshe oicleled the riles cut do$n.. \rhereas
by adcling a little more water to thir uine dlunkcnncss
u'ould havc becn avoidcd rvitlxrut losingthc usc of u'irrc.
5i'1 IIuman liatt;re a:'.d Salt.'alion
In mv opinion the lrec lill could Lavr: bccn so clcllr,ed
as to avoid overconficlcncein our nrcrits and the other
disadranlagesrvhich Luther shlrns.as u'ell as to aroid such
as we rccitcd abovc,and still not losc thc aclvantagcs
rvhich
-fhis.
Luther admires.
it secrrsto me, is accomplishecl
by
those lvho attribute ever,vthingto the pullint by glace
r,''hichis the first to e\cite orrr spirit, ancl attributc onl,v
somcthingto human rvill in its cffort to continuc end not
withcLaw lrom clivinegrace.Rrrt sincea1lthings have three
parts, a bctinnint, a <nntinrrationand an encl. grace is
attributed to th,. two extremities,and onlf in continuation
does thr: free uill effect something.Trvo causcsrnect in
this s;rrnework, the grace ol God and thc human r,vill,erace
'
"
Acts B, 26 lI.
LycurgLrs (gth centrry B.C.), Sperten lawgiver. Secms a confusion with Domitian. See Suetonius, Zircr ol lhe Caesart, Dotni"
lian, VII, 2.
86
DIscouRSE
oN
FRnE wILL
beinq thc principal cause and will a scconclarv, since it is
impotent rviihout thc prirrcipal cause, rn'hilc thc latter has
sufficicnt stren.qth by itsclf. Thus, rvhile tho firc burns
throrrgh its natural strength, the principal causc is still
Gocl, u'ho acts through the fire. (}od alone rvould indeed
suffice, and r,r'ithoLrt Him fire cottltl not buln. Due to this
combination, man lnust ascribe his total sah alion to divinc
grace, since it is vcry littlc that the fn:c u'ill can effect,
and eveli that corncs from divine grace rvhich has at llrst
crcatcd frce lill ancl then rcdecnied ancl healed it. Thus
are placatccl. if the,v can be placatccl. those rrho \,vill 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 title. JLrst as an inhcritance corning in cqual
sharc to the childlen. is not callecl a benevolencc, bccau-"e
it belonqs by common lew to all. If bt'1'ond this cornmon
riqht a clonation is rnade Lo this or that child, it is call:d
liberalitv. Blrt chiltln:n one qratitude to thcir Parents also
rrnder the title of thcir inheritance.
I rrill tlv to cxplcss in patables nhat *'c have been
saying. Eren the healthl'cvc of a man docs not see in the
darkness, and ruhen it is blilclcd. it cloes not scc anything
'lhus
in liqht either.
the rvill can do nothinq. thoush free,
if rith<lrarvinq from gracc. Rut thc onc rvith good elcs can
close his e,vesbcfolc thc liqht anC scc n.thjng. He can also
turn his c;es arva,v.They uill not sec uhat lrc coulcl har-e
secn. Thc onc rvith blincl evcs o\r'cs hjs gratitLrdc in the
first placc to Gocl. ancl onlY thcn to the doctor. Ilelore
sinninq our clcs \re.e healthv. Sin has nrined thcm. Whoever se.s. r'lrat can he plide himsclf in? He can impute to
himself his caulious closing ancl trrrninq auav of the c1'cs
Listcn to another parablc. A father raiscs his child. rvhich
is vet unable to rva)]i, rvhich has fallcn and lhich cxelts
himself, ancl shorvs hiin an apple. pleccd iu front of him.
Thc bof iikcs to go and qet it. bLrt (lrr(r to liis rveali bones
rvorrld soon lrave fa]len atain, iI the fathcr hacl not srrpportcd him bv his hand arxl quided his stcl.'s.Thrrs the
child comcs. lcd bv the latlrcr. 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
it
not have reached the applc without the fathcr's placing
Yet'
himsclf?
for
into his hand. What can the child claim
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'
ls
but hc would rather g-ive it in tlis manncr, becauselt
constriving
our
bctter for the boy. I readily admit thai
ributes less to the gainiDg of etcrnal life, than the boy's
running at the hand of his father'
58) Crlticism ol Carlstadt:
Soul and llodY
Gtrtce and Freedom like
Herc u,e saw how littlc is attributed to thc frecdom of
thc will. Neverthclessto solne it still secmstoo much They
u,ant onlv grace to act in us, and want our will only to
sufler [pasJ.clyl, like 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
i n u . n J r r h r o ' r g hr h e i r e ' r v i l l .l " t t r r i t h i n f r c c w i l l ' j r r s ta s
is u'ithin the clay
[thc,v say] the causality of the Potter
and not through it
Whcnce 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
efTectcdin us. hc givcs, in ordr:r to rnake us worthy of partnership in his cele.stialkingdorn Hcre I don't seehow 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 be
casier to explain. Just as accordinq to the natural philosophers our botly obtains its lirst r:novcrncntsfrom thc soul,
rvithoutwhich it cotild not move at all. yot it not only docs
move, but also moves other things, and just as a partncr
of rvork participates also in its honor. II God so works in
us as the pottcr on the clay, what gcxrd or eril cor.rld be
imputed to us? For, we must not blilg into this discLrssion
the soul of JesusChrist, who too $as a tool of thc Divine
Spirit. And if thc neakness of thc body stands in thc u'ay
of man mcriting anything, so [Christl beforehis de:Lthu'as
terrilied: hc u'ished that not his u'ill, but that of the
Fathcr be done.' And nonetheless they acknorvledge this
[wili] to be the fountain of merit, though depriving all
othcr saints of all thc mcrit of their good worlis.
59) Addressedto Luther
Those rvho deny any lreedom oI thc n'ill and affirm absolutc necessity,adrnit that God rvorks in m.rn not only the
good lvorks, but also cvil ones. lt seens to follou' that inasmuch as man can never be the author of good rlorks, he
can also never bc callcd the author of e,,il oncs.l his opinion seemsobviously to attribute cruclty ancl injustict: to
God, something rcligious earr: airhor r,ehcmentl). (He
rvould no lorret:r be CiocliI anything vicious ancl irnperfect
ilere met in hirn). Nonethclcssthost:holding such an implausiblelicrv have an answcr: IIe is Gocl; IIc is able to
do only the best and rlost beautifLrl.If yorr obserrc thc
fittingness
of the universe,crcn *'hat is evil in itself,is sood
in it and illustrates the glorv of God. No crcature can
adjucleethc Creator's intcntions. \'Ian nrust srrbjecthirnself comPlctely to them. In fact, if it phases God to darnn
this or that one, nobody must gnrmblc, but accept whzlt
pleaseshim, and be convincedthat hr: docs everything1br
the best.Wirat rvoulclcome of it iI man u,cr-cto ask God
nhy he did not make hirn an angel?lVouldrr't Cod ansrvcr
' rrtu,,n-"*
zo.:s.
ERASIIIUS:
THD
FREE
WILL
89
rightly: you irnpuclent one! If I had mad: you a frog, could
you then complain? The same, if the frog disputes rvith
God: why have you not made mc a peacock, conspicuor.rs
Ior its multicolored feathers? Would not God be justified
in saying: ungratelul onel I could have made you a fungus
or 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 for
hirn *'ho contemplates it. And a spider, is she not a bcau'I
tiful animal, even if differcnt from the elephant? ruly,
therc is a greater miracle in the spider than in thc elephant.
Are you not satisflcd in being a perfect animal in your
kind? Poison rvas not .qiven to you to kill others with, but
to protcct yourself and your little oncs. Just as oxcn have
horns, lions have clalvs, wolves teeth, horses hoofs. Every
anirn:rl has its utility. The horse bcars burdens, the ox
plou's, the donkcy and dog help at uork, thc sheep serves
man lor lood :Lnclclothing. and you are needcd for making
medicine.
60) Further Exaggeration antl.Di lliculties
Ilut iet us ceasc reasoning lv'ith those devoid of reason.
We bcgan our disputation with man, created in the image
and likcness oI God, and for rvhose p)easure He created
all things. We note that somc arc born rvith hcalthy bodies
and good minds, as though born for virtuc, again others
riith monstrous bodies arld horrible sickncss,others so stupid
that they almost have fallen to the levcl of brute animals,
sonlc cven rnore brutish than tlre brutcs, others so disposcd
torvard disgraceful passions,that it sccms a strong fatc is
impeliing thcm, others insane and possessedby thc devils.
Florv u'ill nc explain the qtrestion of God's justice and
"O the
rncrcy in such cases?Shall rve say rvith Paul:
go
DISCOURSD ON FRI
depth . . ." (l{omans 11,33)? I tbink this uould be better
than to jLrdgcwith impious rashrtcssGod'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 punisheshis rnisdeedsin others with eternal sufiering. In oider to delend such a paradox thcy resort to other
paiaclo*esand to maintain the battlc against their adveriary. Thcy immensely exaggcrate original sin which. supfaculties of
poiedly
-human has corrupted even the most excellent
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
L e s i n .T h c y m a k o t h a ( i n c l i n a r i o nr o s i n i n u s . r e n r ' r i n i n g
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 commandments 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 parsimoniouslybelore his.{uestsa
verrysmall breakfast, in order to make dinner apPear more
splendidly; or just as imitating a paintcr rvho darkens that
to thc sPot hc
ipart of a canvasl which will bc closcst
wishesto be emitting the light in the picture.
At {irst they make God almost ctLel, who. bccauseo1
somcbodyelse'ssin, ragesagainstall mankind' cruel especiallv sincc thosewho sinncd havc done pcnanceartcluerc
punished 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 deserveGod's
hatrcd ancl clisfavor: doesn't this dirninish divine gracc that
man jLrstiiiedby faith can still 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-
ERASIIUS:
THD
FREN, WILL
9I
nysius of Sicily, who zcalously issued many laws which, as
he suspcctcd, rvould not be observed by the multitude,
unless strictly enforced? At first he closed his eyesto this,
but soon, seeingthat almost everybody tlansqrcssedin some
way, began to call thcm to accortnt, rendering them all
punishable. And yet, God's lavr'swere such that they could
have easil,vbeen obsen'cd if only men had $,anted to do so.
I do not lrant to invcstigate norv, why they teach it to
be impossible lor us to kccp all oI God's commandments,
for that is not our purposc hcre. lVe rvish to shorv how
they. by eagerly enl:Lrging grace on accotrnt of salvation,
havc actually obscured it in others. I do not seehow such
[vit'ls] can endurc. They liquidate the freedorn of the
will and teach that rnan is driven by the Spirit of Christ
rvhoscnature cannot bcar lellowship with sin. At thc same
time, they say man does nothing but sin after having
lcceivedgrace.
Luther seems to enjo)' such exaggerations. He pushes
other people's exaggerations even further, driving orrt bad
knots rvith l'orse rvcdges,as the sa-yinggoes.Some had claringly advanced anothcr cxaggeration, selling not only their
own, ilut also the mcrits of all the saints. What hind of
u'orks fis meant] : songs,chanting the psalms, fcating o{]
-I'hus
Luthcr drove
6shes,fasting,drcssingfsirnply], titles?
one nail through rvith another, u,hen he said the saints had
no nrerits whatsoever, and that the works of cven thc most
pious men were sin and would adduce ctcrnal damn:Ltion
if faith and divine mercy had not come to the rescue.The
othcr side was rnaking a considcrablc profit $ith conlession
and rcparation. lluman conscicnccu'as thereby exccedingly
entanglcd. Likervisc, all kinds of strange thinqs u'cre rclatcd
conccrning purgatory. The opponents [i.c. Luther] correct
these mistakesby sayin-qconfessionis the Devil's invention,
and should not be rcquired, and they think no satisfaction
is neccssaryfor sin, becauseChrist has atoned for the sin
of all; and think there is no purgatory. One side goes so
far as to say that the orders of any prior oI a monastery
are binding under pain of hell, while thcy have no scruples
92
DISCOURSE
ON
FREE
ERASMUS: TIIE
WILL
'l'he
in promising eternal life to those who obcy them.
opponents ansrver this cxaggeration by saying that all the
orders of popes, councils and bishops are heretical and
'Ihc
antichristian.
one side exalts papal po.w'erin an exaggerated way, the other side speaksof the pope such thzrt I
do not dare to rcpcat it. Again, one sidc says the vows of
monls and priests fettcr man foreler under punishment
of hell, the others say such vows are godlessand not to be
made, and oncc madc, to be broken.
61) DifferencesbetweenExhortation and Doctrine
Ihc whoie lvorld is norv shaken by the thundcr and
lightning born oI tlie collision of such exaggerations. If
both sidcs hold fast to *reir cxaggeration, I forescc sur:h a
battle as between Achillcs and Hector: since both lvere
headstrong,only death could separate thern. 'I ruc, there is
thc popular saying, iI you want to straightcn a cun'ed stick,
bend it in the opposite direction. But this applies to the
correction of morals. I do not know whether to employ it
in matters of dogma.
In the caseoI exhortations and dissuasionI sec sonretimes
a place for an exasgeration. If one wishes to encourage the
timid man, one *'oulcl be right in exhorting: 'Don't fear,
God will speak and clo everything in you." Arrd in order
to dampen a man's godlessinsolence,you rnight profitably
sayJman can do nothing but sin; and to thosc \rho demand that their dogmas bc thought eclual to thc canonir:al
books say tliat all men are liars.
When in thc investigation oI tmth, howevcr, axioms arc
propoundcd, I bclieve onc rnust not use paradoxes,bccause
they arc so similar to riddles. I like modelation best.
Pclagius attributes much too much to the lree lviil; Scotus
attributcs quite a bit. But Luther mutilates it at fi$t by
amputating its right ann. And not content with this, he
has killed thc freedorn of the rvill and has remor.edit all
togcther.
I like the sentimcnts of those who attributc a little to the
FREE WILL
93
freedom of the will, the most, however, to grace. One must
not avoid the Scylia of arrogance by going into the Charybdis of desperation and indolcnce. In resetting a disjointcd
limb, one must not dislocate it in the opposite dircction,
but put it back in its place. Onc rnllst not fight with an
enemy in such a marncr that turning the face, you are
caught o{T guard.
According to this modcration man can do a good, albeit
imperfect work; man should not boast about it; there will
be some mcrit, but man owes it completcly to God. The
Iife of us mortals aborrndsin many infirmities, imperlections
and viccs. lVhocver *'ishes to contemplatc himsclf, rvill
easily lorver his head.3 But we do not assurnethat even a
justified man is capableof nothing but sin, especiallybecause Christ speaksof rebirth ald Paul oI a new creature.
' Why, you ask, is an,vthing attributcd to the freedom ol
the rvill, then? It is in order to justify blaming the godless
ones rvho resist spitefully the grace of God; to prevent
calumniesattributing cruelty and injusticc to God; to prevent despair in us; to plevent a false scnscof security: to
stimulate our efforts. Ior these rcasons thc flcedorn of the
will is assertedby all. Yet it is, horvcrtr, incflectuzrl rvithout
the continuous grace of God, in older not to arrogate anything to oursclvcs. Someone sa,vs,what's the good of thc
frecdom of thc rvill, if it does not efTectanything? I ansrvcr,
rvhat's thc good of the entire man, if God treats hirn like
the potter his cla,v.or as he can deal rvith a pcbble?
625 Final Conclusions
Hence, iI it has sufficiently been demonstra'.ed,this
matter is e. followr: It do"s not lromotc piel) lo in\eqrigate this anv lurthcr than rnust bc, cspecially beforc those
rvho arc unlcarncd. We have provcn that our opinion is
more cvidcnt in scriptural tcstimony than thc opinion of
the oppomrnts.It is a fact that Holy Scripturc is in most
instances either obscure and fisurative. or sccmsr a1 first
t
'Ctit,r'
means corrb of a rooster.
DISCOTIRSE
O\
FI1EE \\iILL
'Ihcrclor.e,
sight, to contradict itself.
whcthcr u,e likc it or.
not, $'e somelimcs hacl to rccede Ironr thc literal mcaning,
and had to adjrrstits mcaninq to an interpretation.Finall1,.
it has been plainly shovunhow many unreasonable,not to
say absurd tliings follorv, iI we climinate the freedom of
thc u'i11.It has been made plain that the opinion, as I havc
bccn elucidating it, rvhcn acceptcd, does not climinate the
pious and Christian things Luther argues for-concerning
the highcst love of God; the rejcction oI exclusive faith in
merits, works and our strength; the complete trust in God
according to his promises. Flcnce, I want the rcader to
considerwhether he thinks it is lair to condemn thc opinion olTcred by the Church Fathers, approvcd for so many
centuriesby so many people, and to acccpt some paradoxcs
which are at present disturbing the Christian u,orld. If thc
latter are trlrcJ I admit fr.eelyto my mcntal sloth and inability to grasp.I knon-for certain that I am not resistirrg
the truth, that I lovc from the bottorn of my hcart tr.ue
e r . r n : " l i c a Il i h " r r y .a r r d r h a r I J c r , . . rc r t . r v r h i r r .i l- ' d r ' " r ' .rco
thc Gospcls.Thus I am here not as a jrrdge, as I said at
the outset,but as a disprrtcr.Nevertirelcss,
I can tnrly afirm
that I havc served religiously in this debate, as was demanded once upon a tirne of judges tNing mattcrs of life
and death.'fhouch I am an old man, I'rn neithcr ashanrcd
nor irked to be taught by a youngcr if hc tcaches rvith
cvangelicalgcntleness
more er.identtruths.
Here some will say: Erasmusshould lcarn about Christ
and disrcgard human prudcnce. 1'his nobody undcr.stands,
unlesshe 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 which
Spirit so many doctors and Christian peoplc possessed
becauseit seems probable that the people believed rvhat
their 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
THE
BONDAGE OF'THE
WILL