September 1524.
Translated from Latin.
In the name of JEsu.
Diatribe, or Treatise on Free Will by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.
First read, then judge.
Among the difficulties, of which there are not a few in the holy scriptures, there is hardly a more inextricable labyrinth than that of free will. For this matter has wonderfully occupied the minds of the worldly wise, and then also of the divine scholars, both ancient and modern, but, as I believe, with more trouble than good. Recently, however, it has been brought back on track by Carlstadt and Eck, but in a more moderate dispute: soon after, however, it has been driven more vehemently by Martin Luther, whose "assertion" (assertio 1) of free will is present. Although he has been answered from various sides, I too, at the behest of good friends, want to try whether the truth can be put in a brighter light through our little fight. Although I know well that some will shout with plugged ears: "against the stream", Erasmus dares to start a war with Luther, a mosquito with an elephant. In order to silence this, I will, if otherwise a small silence can be obtained, hold up nothing else for the present than that I never swore on Luther's words. Therefore, no one should consider it improper for me to contradict him publicly, as a human being.
1) This is the Xssortio omnium artieulorum I), Imtü. per dullum Deonw X. cknmnatorum. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 1752.
Luther himself will not take offense if someone departs from his opinion, since he takes the liberty not only of all church teachers but also of all universities and conciliarities. I certainly believe that Luther himself will not take it amiss if someone departs from his opinion, since he takes the liberty of appealing not only to the decrees of all church teachers, but also to those of all universities, conciliar bodies, and popes: since he himself freely and publicly admits this, his friends must not blame me if I repeat it. But so that no one understands this fight as it tends to be between fencers who have been hounded together, I want to deal with a single doctrine of Luther, for no other reason than that, where it can be, the truth may be made clearer by the opposing writings and proofs, the investigation of which has always been very honorable to those who have taken care of it. The dispute should be conducted without vituperative words, partly because it is most appropriate for Christians, and partly because in this way the truth can be found most safely, which is often lost by too heated an argument. I was well aware of how unskilled I would be in this argument, since hardly anyone can be so inexperienced in such things, because I have always had an abhorrence of arguments through a secret instinct of nature, and therefore it would have been much better for me to play in the open field of the muses than to fight with the sword in the vicinity. Moreover, I have no pleasure at all in firm assertions, that I would easily depart to the opinion of the skeptics, where it would concern the inviolable reputation of the holy scripture and the resolutions of the church, to which I would gladly submit my reason everywhere.
*) This writing has been published individually several times under the title: De iidero nrditrio sive eoUEo, Desiäerii Drnsmi Rotorockn. - Drimum leZito, äeinäe juäiento. An edition in octavo was published by Johann Frobenius at Basel in September 1524, as reported in the Erlangen edition, oxx. var. ar^., vol. VII, p. 114. Another without indication of place, time, and printer has been in Walch's hands, who considers the same to be a reprint; this may perhaps be identical with the one published by the Erl. Ausg. I. above. Another appeared at Cologne in 1524 in octavo, as von der Hardt, autoArnpü. Dutüer, Dom. I, p. 201, states. In our hands is one under the above title at Strasbourg in October 1524 ber Johannes Knobluchius (also written Knoblouch, cf. Weim. Edition, Vol. II, at the end. First correction) published very "rrecte edition in small octavo. 6 sheets. Last page blank. Our translation is based on this edition. In the collection of the works of Erasmus, which was procured in Leyden 1703-1706 by Joh. Clericus, the diatribe Dom. IX, x>. 1215.
I may or may not understand what it prescribes. I would rather have such a mind than as I see in some who are impotently devoted to an opinion and cannot bear anything that disputes with it; but what they read in Scripture they twist to prove their opinion, to which they have once given themselves, like young people who love a girl beyond measure and imagine, wherever they go and stand, that they see their beloved. that they see their beloved, yes, that I make a better comparison, as with those who have got into a heated quarrel, everything that comes into their hands by chance, be it jug or plate, is used as a projectile. But how can there be a right judgment among people who are so minded? Or what use are such disputations, except that each goes away spat upon by the other? But there will always be many such people, who, as the apostle Peter describes them [2 Ep. 3:16], are unlearned and frivolous, and confuse the Scriptures to their own condemnation.
As for my opinion, I confess that the ancients teach many things about free will, of which I have no certain conviction, except that I believe that free will has some power. I have read Martin Luther's "Statement" with an impartial mind, except that I have formed a certain favorable opinion of him, but not in any other way than a judge tends to be favorable to a hard defendant. And although he treats and pursues the matter with all his might and great spirit, he has not yet convinced me, which I sincerely confess. If someone wants to attribute this either to my slow mind or to my ignorance, I will not argue with him, if one only leaves the slower ones the freedom, even if only for the sake of learning, to enter into a dispute with those who have received a richer measure of divine gifts, all the more so since Luther attributes the least to scholarship, the most, on the other hand, to hearty courage, 1) which sometimes also introduces lesser things that it denies to the highly knowledgeable. This may be noted by those who bravely cry out that Luther has more erudition in his little finger than Erasmus has in his whole body, which I truly do not want to refute now. From these, although unreasonable judges, I will nevertheless hopefully obtain this, that, if in this dis-
1) Hereby Erasmus, in oblique representation, aims at what Luther wrote to him in the previous letter, since he reproaches Erasmus for his lack of bravery.
If I give in to Luther in any way, it will not be held against me, it will be to the detriment of teachers, conciliums, high schools, popes and the emperor, so that one or the other's imprudent judgment does not make my whole deal worse. Although it seems to me that I have understood everything that Luther teaches there, it is still possible that I am mistaken in my opinion, and for this very reason I want to behave as a disputing party, but not as a judge, as an examiner, but not as one who recites doctrines, and I am willing to accept instruction from anyone if I am told something better or more reasoned. However, I gladly advise the moderately gifted not to argue too persistently about questions of this kind, because it is much easier to injure Christian harmony than to promote godliness. For there are certain mysteries in the Holy Scriptures which God does not want us to fathom further, and if we were to undertake to fathom them, the further we get, the more and more blind we become, so that in this way we might recognize both the unfathomable majesty of divine wisdom and the weakness of the human spirit. Just as Pomponius Mela tells of a certain Corycian 2) cave, which at first attracts and draws people to itself by its special pleasantness, until at last, when they have gone farther and farther into it, a horror and the majesty of the deity dwelling there drives them away. Therefore, when it has come to this, I think it is more advisable and godly to exclaim with Paul: "O what depth of riches, both of wisdom and knowledge of God, how incomprehensible are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways," Rom. 11, 33. And with Isaiah: "Who instructs the spirit of the Lord and who instructs him?" Is. 40, 13, as wanting to fathom what exceeds human understanding. There is much to be expected from the time when we will no longer see through a mirror in a dark word, but will behold the glory of the Lord with an unveiled face. So, according to my understanding, as far as free will is concerned, what we have learned from the Holy Scriptures, when we are on the path of godliness, we should strive valiantly for what is ahead and forget what is behind; but when we are in sin, we should make every effort, resort to the means of repentance, seek God's mercy in every way, without which we will not be able to see the glory of the Lord.
2) The cave of the nymph Corycia at Parnassus.
neither the will nor the effort of man can do anything. If we find something bad in ourselves, we must attribute it to ourselves; but if it is something good, we must attribute it to divine grace alone, to which we even have to thank our very being. By the way, whatever may happen to us in this life, be it something pleasant or sad, we should believe that it has been sent to us by God for our good, and that God, who is just by His nature, cannot do anyone an injustice, even though it sometimes seems to us that something happens to us that we do not deserve; no one should despair of forgiveness from God, who is by His nature exceedingly merciful. To hold on to this, I say, would be, in my judgment, enough for Christian godliness; and it would not have been necessary, out of an unchristian presumption, to penetrate into such secret, not to say superfluous, things: Whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen; whether our will works something in matters that concern eternal bliss; whether it behaves only sufferingly in the face of the working grace; whether we do everything we do, whether good or evil, out of pure necessity, or rather behave sufferingly in doing so. There are things that God has absolutely willed to be unknown to us, such as the Day of Death and the Day of Judgment. "It behooves you not to know the time or hour which the Father has reserved for His power," Apost. 1, and Marc. 13: "But of the day and hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, neither the Son; but the Father only." Of some things God has willed that we should inquire into them in such a way that we should worship Him in hidden silence. Accordingly, there are many passages in the divine books, which, although many have fumbled with them, none has entirely removed the ambiguity, as: of the distinction of persons; of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ; of sin, which shall never be forgiven. Of other things, God has willed that they be known to us in the fullest way. Among them are the regulations on how to live rightly. Namely, this too is God's word, which is not to be fetched from on high by ascending to heaven, nor to be introduced from afar by sailing the sea, but it is near to us in our mouths and in our hearts. All this must be learned thoroughly, the rest is more properly commanded by God, and it is more Christian to worship unknown things than to fathom unsearchable things.
to want. How many investigations of questions, or rather of disputes, have not been aroused to us by the distinction of persons; the manner of the beginning of all things; the distinction of birth and exit? What unrest has not been caused in the world by the advocacy of the conception of the God-bearer? Rather, what has been done with these troublesome questions so far, than to prove less love with great loss of harmony, while we want to be wiser than we should be. There are also some things that are of such a nature that even if they were true and one could know them, it would not be advisable to reveal them to the ears of all kinds of people. Perhaps it is true what the sophists are wont to gossip, that God is by His nature as much in a dung beetle's den (lest I add something even more insolent, which they do not hesitate to add) as in heaven: and yet it would be something useless if one wanted to argue about it before the great multitude. So it would certainly cause great annoyance among the inexperienced rabble if one were to say that there were three gods, which one can well say according to the rules of the art of disputing. If I knew, which is not otherwise, that our confession, which is now in use among us, was neither instituted by Christ, nor could it be decreed by men, and for that very reason should not be demanded by anyone; likewise that atonement for sins is not demanded; I would still have misgivings about making this opinion known publicly, because I see that most people are too inclined to vices, which the necessity of confession now completely prevents, or at least keeps in check. There are bodily diseases which are borne with far less harm than they are expelled, as if one wanted to wash himself with warm blood of murdered children to cure leprosy with it. Thus there are certain errors that can be kept quiet with far less harm than they can be eradicated. Paul knows to make a difference between what one has the power to do and what is pious. To speak the truth is in our power; but it is not pious with all and sundry, nor at all times, nor in any way. If I knew that something had been wrongly decided or determined in an assembly, I would have the power to speak the truth publicly; but it would not be pious, lest one should give evil minds cause to disparage the reputation of the fathers, even in their godly and holy ordinances, and I would rather say: so it should have been done.
The new law is based on the principle that the new law should be applied in the same way as the old law.
Let us assume that it is true in a certain sense what Wiclef taught and Luther asserted: what we do is not done by our free will but by mere necessity, what could be more useless than to spread this strange thing in the world? Again, let us assume that it is true in a certain sense what Augustine writes somewhere: God works both good and evil in us; he rewards in us his good works and also punishes in us his evil works. What a great door this publicly spread speech would open to countless people to godlessness, especially in view of the great laziness, sleepiness, malice and irrevocable inclination of people to all kinds of godlessness? What weak man would endure the incessant and arduous strife against his flesh? Which wicked man would be anxious to improve his life? Who would think of loving God with all his heart, who is said to have made hell burn with eternal torment, so that there he might punish his misdeeds on the wretched, as if he were pleased with the punishments of men? This is how most people will interpret it, because most people have a crude and carnal mind, which is inclined to unbelief, to shameful deeds, to blasphemy, so that one must not first pour oil on the fire. That is why Paul, as a wise steward of God's mysteries, so often counsels love, and would rather that one should do what is good for one's neighbor than what one has the power to do in and for oneself. He had great wisdom, which he preached to the strong, but to the weak he said that he knew nothing but Jesus crucified. The holy scripture has its own language, which is according to our weakness. For in it we read how God is angry, grieved, unwilling, grim, threatens, hates, but also how he lets himself complain, how he is repentant and changes his judgment; not that such changes really take place with God, but because he wanted to make himself comfortable with our weakness and sluggishness with such expressions. I believe that all those who have taken upon themselves the office of stewards of God's secrets must also use this prudence. Some things are harmful precisely because they are not suitable, just as wine is not suitable for someone who is afflicted with a fever. Accordingly, one could have discussed such things in learned conversations, or also on
I believe that they are not even pious there, if it is not done with caution; but to act such fairy tales in the public arena in front of a motley crowd, I consider not only useless, but even pernicious. Therefore, I would rather that this be recognized, that one should not waste time or acumen with such confused things (labyrinthis), as Luther's teaching either refutes or asserts.
4 It would be rightly considered that I would have made this preface too long, if it did not belong almost more to the matter than the disputation itself. Since Luther does not accept the reputation of any writer, not even the most proven one, and only wants to hear the canonical writings, I am very happy to mention this abbreviation of the work. For since among the Greeks as well as among the Latins there are innumerable ones that deal with free will either extensively (ex professo) or occasionally, it would cause me no small amount of work to bring together from each one what he said for or against free will, and I would have to devote a great deal of laborious work to interpreting the meaning of each individual passage and to refuting or corroborating its reasons for proof, which, however, would be in vain with Luther and his friends, especially since they [the scribes] are not only not in agreement among themselves, but also frequently contradict themselves. However, I would like to remind the reader that, if it appears that I am doing the same with Luther in the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and in sound reasons of proof, he should then consider the numerous series of the most learned men, whose opinion has been unanimously approved for so many hundred years up to the present day. Most of them, apart from their admirable insight into the holy scriptures, are recommended by a godly way of life; some of them, moreover, have confirmed with their blood the Christian doctrine which they have defended in their writings, as among the Greeks Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, John Damascenus, Theophylactus; among the Latins Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Arnobius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Jerome, Augustine, not to mention such people as Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, Capreolus, Gabriel, Aegidius, Gregorius, Alexander, whose covenant and perspicacity in giving evidence no one can easily completely despise, not to mention the reputation of so many high schools, conciliarities and popes. From the time of the apostles to the present day
There has not yet been a single scribe who has completely abolished the power of free will than only Manichaeus and John Wiclef. For the reputation of Laurentius Valla, who seems to be almost on a par with them, does not carry much weight among divine scholars. But whether the teachings of Manichaeus, which have been unanimously laughed at and scorned by the whole world, are less useless for godliness than those of Wiclef, I do not know. For Manichaeus derives good and evil works from two natures in man, but in such a way that we have to thank God for the good works of our condition. However, against the power of darkness, he still leaves the defense (causus) that one can invoke the help of the Creator, by which strengthened we sin less and accomplish the good more easily. But since Wiclef ascribes everything to a mere necessity, what does he leave for our prayer or effort?
But I turn again to what I had begun to talk about. If the reader will perceive that my weapons in this disputation are the same with which my opponent fights, then he should consider once in himself whether he judges that more weight is to be attached to the reputation of so many scholars, so many orthodox believers, so many saints, so many martyrs, so many old and new divine scholars, so many high schools, so many conciliarities, so many bishops and popes, than to one or the other's private part. Not that I want to measure their judgment according to the number of votes or the dignity of those who speak, as happens in human assemblies. I know that it is not seldom the case that the greater part outvotes the better part; I know that what pleases most is not always best; I know that in the investigation of truth there will never be a lack of things that can be added to the diligence of the forefathers. It is fair, I confess, that the prestige of the holy Scriptures alone is higher than all men's judgments and opinions. But here there is no dispute about the Scriptures. Both parts accept the same scripture and hold it in high esteem; rather, the dispute is over the understanding of the scripture. And if in the interpretation of it a sharp mind and erudition are emphasized, who has a more perceptive and penetrating mind than the Greeks? Who is more skilled in the Scriptures than they? The Latins were not lacking either in intellect or in knowledge of the Scriptures; even if they were inferior to the Greeks in natural ability, they were at least able, supported by what they had learned, to interpret the Scriptures.
The people of the world, who had left behind them, were equal to the diligence of the Greeks. If in such an evaluation one looks more at the sanctity of life than at erudition, then one sees what splendid men the part that asserts the free will of man has had. Away with the spiteful comparison, as the legal scholars speak. For I would not compare certain preachers of a new gospel with those of old. Here I hear: What need is there of an interpreter, if the Scripture is clear? If it is clear, why have such excellent men been blind for so many hundreds of years, and in such an important matter, as they want it to be regarded? If the Scriptures are nowhere obscure, what was the need for prophecy in the apostles' day? It was a gift of the Holy Spirit. But I do not know whether this gift of grace has ceased, just as the gift of healing and speaking foreign languages has ceased. If it has not ceased, the question is to whom it has been directed. If to any one, all interpretation is uncertain; if to none, no interpretation is reliable, because scholars are still tormented with so many obscure passages. If on the proper successors of the apostles, they will cry out against it that the apostles had already had many successors for many centuries, who have nothing of the apostolic spirit. But of these, all other things being equal, it is most probable that God infused the Spirit into those to whom He gave the ministry, just as we are more likely to believe that grace was given to a baptized person than to an unbaptized one. And what must be admitted is that the Spirit might reveal to some lowly and ignorant man something that he has not revealed to many learned men, just as Christ thanks his Father that what he would have hidden from the wise and prudent, that is, from the scribes, Pharisees, and worldly men, he would have revealed to the unlearned, that is, to the simple and foolish in the sight of the world. Such foolish people might have been Dominicus and Franciscus, if they had been allowed to follow their spirit. But since Paul already commands in his time, when this gift of the spirit was still in bloom, that one should test the spirits whether they are of God, what must not happen in our carnally minded time? By what shall we test the spirits? By scholarship? There are masters on both sides. By life? On both sides are poor sinners. On the one side is the whole chorus of saints, who are the free
Will claim. That is true, they say; but they were only men. But I only compare men with men; not men with God. I hear: what helps the great multitude to the understanding of the spirit? I answer: what helps the small number to it? I hear: what does the bishop's hat help to the understanding of the holy scripture? I answer: what does the war cloak or the robes help to it? I hear: what helps the science of worldly wisdom to the knowledge of the Scriptures? I answer: what helps ignorance? I hear: what is the use of an assembled synod for the understanding of the Scriptures, in which it is possible that hardly anyone has the Spirit? I answer: what is the use of the private meetings of a few, among whom it is even more probable that there is no one who has the Spirit? Paul calls out to us: "Seek ye that ye may know him which speaketh in me, even Christ", 2 Cor. 13:3. The apostles were not believed, unless miraculous works had confirmed their teaching. Since the apostles drove out snakes, healed the sick, raised the dead, communicated the gift of tongues to others with the laying on of hands, only then were they believed; but they were hardly believed when they taught things that seemed strange. Since, according to the general opinion, almost even stranger things are said, none of these people has ever appeared who could have healed even a lame horse. And 0 that only some without miraculous works would like to prove the honesty and simplicity of the apostolic behavior, which could serve us slow ones instead of miraculous works. I did not actually say this about Luther, whom I do not know personally, and when I read the writings of this man, I get a different impression (varie afficior); but about several others who are more closely known to me, who, when a dispute arises about the understanding of Scripture and we refer to the interpretation of the old orthodox teachers, immediately make themselves heard: they were men. If you ask them by what reason we can know which is the true interpretation of Scripture, since there are men on both sides, they answer: by the characteristic of the Spirit. If you ask why some of those who have become known to the world through miraculous works should have lacked the Spirit more than they? they answer as if there had been no gospel in the world for thirteen hundred years. If you ask them to live according to this spirit, the answer is that they are justified by faith and not by works. If you ask for miracles
If you try to see the works, they say that they have long since ceased to exist and are no longer necessary in the light of the Scriptures, which are so bright. If you claim here that the Scriptures are not clear in those places which so many great men could not have understood, the circle begins again from the beginning. If we now admit that he who has the spirit can be sure of the meaning of the Scriptures, how can I be made sure of what he takes for granted? What is to be done when many people give different opinions, each of whom swears that he has the Spirit? Moreover, since the spirit does not communicate everything to everyone, even he who has the spirit can sometimes err and be mistaken. This is said against those who so easily reject the interpretations of the ancients in the sacred books and want to impose theirs on us as if they had been revealed to them from heaven. Finally, even if we admit that the Spirit of Christ might have allowed his church to err in trifles on which man's salvation does not depend, how can it be believed that for thirteen hundred years he should not have cared for the error of his church, and that he should not have considered any of so many eminently holy men worthy to admit to him that which they claim to be the main part of the whole gospel doctrine?
6 But that I may come to an end, let them see for themselves what others take for granted. I do not boast of doctrine and holy living, nor do I rely on my mind; but I will speak plainly what I think. If anyone undertakes to teach me, I will not resist the truth with my knowledge and will. But if they were to hurl invectives at me, who is engaging with them in all civility, without vituperation or blasphemy, more in conversation than in argument, who will not miss the evangelical spirit in them, which they constantly speak? Paul calls out to us, "Receive the weak in faith." Rom. 14, 1. Christ does not want to "extinguish the smoldering wick," Isa. 42, 3. Matth. 12, 20. and Peter admonishes: "Be ready at all times to answer to everyone who demands the reason for the hope that is in you, and do this with meekness and fear." 1 Petr. 3, 15. If they answer that Erasmus, as an old hose, cannot contain the must of the spirit, which they put before the whole world, they may, if they have so much confidence in themselves, at least do with me only as Christ did with Nicodemus and the apostles with Gamaliel.
have made. The Lord did not reject him as an eager learner, even though he was in gross ignorance: nor did the young people reject him who did not want to come forward and speak his mind until the outcome of the matter taught them in which spirit they were led.
Now half of this paper is finished. If I have convinced my readers of what I have presented, that it is better not to argue too superstitiously about such things, especially before the rabble, then the proof, to which I now proceed, would not be necessary, and I wish that the truth prevails everywhere, which will perhaps shine forth by holding the scriptures against each other, like the fire when one pushes two pebbles against each other. First of all, it cannot be denied that there are many passages in the Holy Scriptures which seem to prove that man has a free will. Again, there are other passages which seem to abolish it altogether. But now it is known that the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves, because they come entirely from One Spirit. Therefore, I will first cite those passages that confirm our opinion, and only then will I endeavor to invalidate those that seem to stand in our way.
(8) Furthermore, by free will we understand here the faculty of the human will, according to which man is able either to turn to that which leads to eternal bliss, or to turn away from it. Those who assert free will refer primarily to what we read in the book that bears the title: Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Sirach, Cap. 15, 14-17: "God created man from the beginning and gave him the choice. If thou wilt, keep the commandments, and do that which pleaseth him in right trust. He has put fire and water before you; reach for whichever you like. Man has before him life and death; whichever he wills, that shall be given him." I do not believe that anyone will object to the prestige of this book, which, according to Jerome's testimony, was not considered canonical by the Ebrews in ancient times, but which the Christian church has included in its canon with general acclaim. I also see no reason why the Eberians would have excluded this book from their Canon, since they included the Proverbs of Solomon and the Song of Songs, a love song, in it. For what caused them to exclude the last two books of Ezra: the history of Susanna and Daniel and of the dragon of Babylon; the book of Judith, Esther, and the book of the Lord?
some others did not include in their canon, but counted among the so-called Hagiographa [i.e. Apocrypha], one can easily guess, if one only reads these books carefully. But in this book [Sirach] nothing of this kind is repugnant to the reader. Therefore, the mentioned passage explains that Adam, our progenitor, was created in such a way that he had an uncorrupted mind, which could distinguish what to do or not to do. To this was added the will, which was also an uncorrupted but free will, so that it could turn away from good and turn to evil if it wanted to. In such a state the angels were created before the devil with his followers fell away from his creator. In those who have fallen, the will is so thoroughly corrupted that they cannot turn to the better again; but in those who have remained firm, the good will is so confirmed that it can no longer turn to evil. In man the right and free will was such that he could have remained in the state of innocence without new grace, but in such a way that without the help of new grace he could not have attained the blessedness of immortal life which the Lord Jesus promised to his own. Although all this cannot be proven with clear testimonies of the Scriptures, the orthodox fathers have spoken of it not improbably. As far as Eve is concerned, not only the will but also the mind seems to be corrupted in her, hence the source of all good and evil flows. For the serpent may have persuaded them that they were empty threats, with which the Lord had forbidden that they should not touch anything from the tree of life. With Adam, the will seems to have been more corrupted because of an intemperate love for his bride, whose senses he preferred to follow than the command of God; although I think that also with him the mind was corrupted, from which the will arises. This power of the spirit, by means of which we form a judgment, which one may call either sense or understanding, or if one prefers (there is nothing in it), reason, has been darkened by sin, but not completely lost. The will, according to which we choose or avoid something, has been corrupted to such a degree that it could not improve itself by its natural ability; but, having lost its freedom, it had to be a servant of sin, to which it had voluntarily surrendered. But by God's grace, after man's sin had been remitted, he was made free in such a degree that, according to the Pelagians,
The only way that man can attain eternal life without the help of a new grace, however, is to thank God alone for his blessedness, who both created and restored his free will. According to the opinion of the orthodox, he could thus persevere in good by means of divine grace, which always assists man in his endeavors, so that an inclination to evil would remain with him from the remnant of the once ingrained sin. But just as the sin of the first parents was passed on to the descendants, so also the inclination to sin has passed on to all, which grace, which destroys sin, restrains to such an extent that it can be defeated, but not completely eradicated. Not that grace is not able to do this, but because it was not good for us. Just as in the case of those who do not have grace (I am putting a special case) the mind is darkened but not entirely lost, so it is probable that in such the power of the will is not entirely lost, but has become incapable of doing good. What the eye is to the body, the mind is to the soul. This is illuminated partly by the natural light, which is implanted in all, although not to the same degree, of which the Psalm says: "Lord, lift up over us the light of your countenance," Ps. 4, 7, and partly by the commandments and the holy word of God, as our Psalmist also says: "Your word is the lamp of my foot," Ps. 119, 105. Therefore a threefold law arises for us. The law of nature, the law of works and the law of faith; that I make use of the words of Paul. The law of nature is completely implanted in the human heart, both among the Scythians and the Greeks, and prescribes that it is wrong for us to do to others what we would have them not do to us. Without the light of faith, without the help of the Holy Scriptures, the wise men of the world have recognized from the creatures the eternal power of God and His divinity, and have bequeathed to us many good rules of life, which correspond exactly to the evangelical commandments, also exhorting with many words to virtue and abhorring shame and vice. And it is probable that they, too, had a will that was somewhat inclined to respectability, yet unable to attain eternal blessedness, if grace through faith were not added. The law of works commands and threatens punishment. This makes sin twice more grievous and brings death, not that this law is evil, but that it imposes such things as we cannot perform without grace. The law of faith, though
Although it requires more difficult things than the law of works, it makes what is in itself impossible not only easy but also sweet by means of the rich grace of God. Accordingly, faith heals the mind corrupted by sin, and love helps up the weak will. In a sense, this was a law of works [Gen. 2:16, 17]: "Thou shalt eat of every tree of the garden: but of the tree of knowledge, good and evil, shalt thou not eat. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Again, through Moses was given the law of works: "Thou shalt not kill; but if thou kill, thou shalt be killed again." "Thou shalt not commit adultery; but if thou commit adultery, thou shalt be stoned." Ex. 20. Deut. 5. But what does the law of faith speak? it commands to love one's enemies, it commands to take up one's cross daily, it commands to despise one's life. "Fear not, little host, for yours is the kingdom of heaven," Luc. 12:32; likewise, "Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world," Jn. 16:33; and, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age," Matt. 28:20. This law was demonstrated by the apostles themselves, who, though they had been beaten for the name of Jesus, went away from the council with joy. Hence also Paul says: "I can do all things through Him who makes me mighty," Phil. 4, 13. This is what Sirach [15, 15.] says: "He has given His law and His commandment." To whom? At first to the two progenitors of the human race by themselves; afterward to the Jewish people by Moses and the prophets. The law indicates what God wants to have, and it prescribes punishments for the disobedient, but rewards for the obedient. Only the choice is left to their will, which he has created for them freely, or in such a way that they can want both [good or evil]. And again, "if thou wilt keep the commandments, they will keep thee." And again, "reach unto which thou wilt." Sir. 15, 16. If man had not known the difference of good and evil and the divine will, it could not have been imputed to him if he had chosen wrongly. If man had not had free will, sin could not have been imputed to him, which ceases to be a sin if it is not committed with free will, unless an error or a binding of the will has arisen from the sin. Thus, what a person has had to suffer is not imputed to him.
9. although now this passage, which we have taken from Sirach
The reasoning that we have given, which seems to apply especially to the first parents, also applies in a certain way to all the descendants of Adam; but it would not apply to them if there were no power of free will in us. For though the freedom of the will has been violated by sin, yet it is not altogether lost, and though it has become limp, so that before we obtain grace we are much more inclined to evil than to good, yet we are not altogether deprived of it, Except that the abomination of vice and the habit of sin, which have now become, as it were, another nature, sometimes so darken the soul's power of judgment, and so restrict the freedom of the will, that it seems as if the latter were entirely lost, and the latter entirely taken from us. But how much free will is possible for us after we have sinned and before we are granted grace, in this the opinions of the ancients and the moderns are wonderfully different, in that one imagines one thing and the other something else. Those who wanted to prevent despair and certainty, and to stimulate people to hope and fervent efforts, attached more importance to free will. Pelagius taught that once the human will had been made free and healed by grace, there would be no need for a new grace, but with the help of free will one could attain eternal blessedness, but in such a way that man would have to thank God for this blessedness, without whose grace the will of man would not be free in an effective way to do good. And this very faculty of the soul, according to which man chooses what he has recognized as good and turns away from what is contrary to it, is a benefit of the Creator, who could have produced a frog instead of a man. The Scotists are still more inclined to free will, and believe that its capacity is so great that before man has attained grace that cancels sin, he can, by the powers of nature, do morally good works, as they call them, and through them, not according to worthiness (non de condigno, that is, completely), but according to equity (de congruo, that is, to some extent), merit the grace that makes pleasant (gratiam gratum facientem); so they are wont to express it. Others are just the opposite and claim that God has just as great an abhorrence for all works, no matter how morally good, as for wicked deeds such as adultery and death, because they do not come from faith and love toward God. This latter opinion seems to be all too harsh, especially since some worldly wise people, as they have some knowledge of
God, so they could possibly have some trust and love for God, and not have done everything out of vain honor, but out of love for virtue and respectability, which, as they teach, one should chase after, only for its own sake. For he who for the sake of vain honor puts himself in danger for the good of the fatherland does a work which is good in its nature, but whether it is a morally good work I do not know. St. Augustine and those who follow him consider how great a ruin it is for true godliness when man relies on his own strength, and therefore they are more inclined in favor of the grace that St. Paul inculcates everywhere. Therefore, he does not admit that man, who is subject to sin, can change his life by his own strength or do anything that will help him to blessedness, because he is driven from above by the undeserved grace of God to want what is useful and good for eternal life. This grace is called by some the preceding grace, but by Augustine the working grace. For faith, which is the door to blessedness, is also a gift of grace from God. The love that comes from faith, through a richer gift of the Holy Spirit, he calls cooperating grace, because it constantly assists those who strive until they attain what they strive for, but in such a way that, since both free will and grace bring about one and the same work, grace does everything, not merely cooperates (dux sit operis, non comes). Although in this opinion others again make a distinction and say: if one considers the work according to its nature, then the human will is the noblest cause of it; but if one considers it according to what one earns with it, then grace is the more distinguished cause. Furthermore, faith, which makes us desire that which leads us to salvation, and love, which makes us not desire it in vain, are not distinguished both by time and by nature; yet both can increase little by little. Since, then, grace is so much as a benefit given freely, we may well put a threefold, or, if you will, a fourfold grace. One that is implanted in us by nature and stained by sin, but, as I said, not entirely lost, which some call the natural influence (influxus naturalis). This grace is common to all: it remains even in those who persist in sins. For they are free to speak or to be silent, to sit or to stand up, to assist a poor person, to read spiritual books, to listen to a sermon, but
so that, according to the opinion of some, these actions do not help to eternal life. But there are also those who, considering the immeasurable goodness of God, say that man does benefit from such good works insofar as he is thereby prepared for grace and God moves him to mercy. Although there are others who claim that even this cannot happen without special grace. Because this grace is common to all, it is not called a grace, since it is indeed a grace, just as God does greater miraculous works every day in bringing forth, sustaining, and governing everything than if He were to heal a leper or deliver a possessed man from the devil; and yet these things are not called miraculous works because they are granted to all equally every day. The other is a special grace, since God, according to His mercy, impels the sinner, who has earned nothing before, to repentance, but in such a way that He does not yet pour out the supreme grace that cancels sin and makes man pleasing to Him. Therefore, a sinner displeases himself by means of the other grace, which we have called the active grace, and although he has not yet given up the desire to sin, yet, by giving alms, praying, being diligent in holy practices, listening to sermons, appealing to pious souls to pray to God for him, and doing other so-called morally good works, he behaves, as it were, as one who is soliciting the highest grace. But they are of the opinion that the grace that we now call the other grace is available to all people through the goodness of God, because divine goodness gives each individual in this life convenient opportunities through which they can get along again, if they make what is left of their free will as much as possible available to the grace of God, which, as it were, invites them, not drives them, to a better life. But that, they think, is up to our will, whether we want to turn our will to grace or turn away from it, just as it is up to us to open our eyes before a light that is brought in and to close them again. Since God, according to His immeasurable love for the human race, does not want a man to be deceived in his expectations, even with regard to grace, which they call pleasing grace, if he otherwise seeks it with all his might, it follows that no sinner may be safe, but also not fall into despair; it also follows that no one is lost except through his own fault. Accordingly, there is an inherent grace; there is an impelling grace.
There is also a grace which we have called the cooperating grace, which gives strength to the will and promotes the work begun; finally, there is also a grace which guides us to the end. These last three kinds of grace they consider to be one and the same grace, although it is given different epithets because of its effects in us. The first stimulates, the second promotes, the third completes. Therefore, those who are farthest from Pelagius' opinion attribute the most to grace, and almost nothing to free will, but they do not abolish it altogether. They say that man cannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything good, cannot continue in it, cannot accomplish anything without the main thing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems quite probable, because it leaves man an effort and endeavor, and yet does not admit that he should attribute the least to his own powers. But the opinion of those is harsher who maintain that free will can do nothing but sin; that grace alone works good in us, not through free will, or with free will, but in free will; that our will does nothing more here than the wax, when it must take on some form in the hand of the artist, as the artist wills it. These seem to me to want to escape the reliance on human merit and works, and fall deeper into it, 1) as one is wont to speak. The hardest sounding opinion is that of those who say that free will is an empty name, that it has no power, nor has it ever had any capacity, neither with the angels, nor with Adam, nor with us, neither before grace, nor after grace; but that God works both evil and good in us, and that everything that happens, happens out of pure necessity. With these two latter opinions I will have to deal primarily.
(10) This I have had to state somewhat more extensively, so that the more inexperienced reader (for for the unlearned we write unlearned) may the more easily understand our other proofs, for which reason we have given the passage from Sirach first, because in it the origin and the power of free will seems to us to be described most clearly. And now we want to go through the other testimonies of the Scriptures in a quicker course. The-
1) ut pratztsr 6U8um. A saying from Terence: itu kuMUs, N6 prutztsr eusum i.e.: Do not pass by your own house door when you are pursued.
This will happen if we only remember that this passage is different in the Aldinic edition than it is read today in the Latin Bible. Because in the Greek text it does not say: "they will preserve you. Also Augustinus, who quotes this passage several times, does not add this part; also I think that it has been called instead of. According to this, just as God presented man in Paradise with the choice between life and death: "If you obey my commandments, you will live; but if not, you will die; avoid evil, choose good; so he also addresses Cain in Genesis 4:6, 7: "Why are you angry? and why is your spirit disguised? Is it not so? if thou art righteous, thou art pleasant; but if thou art not righteous, sin rests at the door; but let it not have its way, but reign over it." He sets before him a reward if he would choose what is godly; but he also sets before him a punishment if he would rather choose what is contrary to it, thus indicating that the desire for evil could easily be overcome, and that it would bring with it no necessity to sin. What the Lord says to Moses agrees with these passages: "I have set before you the way to life and the way to death; choose the good and walk in it. What can be said more clearly! God shows what is good and what is evil: he shows the various rewards of both, life and death; but the choice he leaves to man's free will. It would be ridiculous to say to someone: Choose! in whose power it would not be to direct himself here or there, just as if one wanted to say to someone who stands still at a crossroads: Here you see two paths, go whichever one you want, since only one would be open to him. Again Deut. 30:15-19: "Behold, I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways, and keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, and live, and be multiplied; and that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thou turnest thine heart, and obeyest not, but art deceived, and worshippest other gods, and serveest them, I declare unto thee this day, that thou shalt perish, and shalt not long abide in the land, when thou goest in over Jordan to possess it. I take heaven and earth to be witnesses over you this day; I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, that you may choose life, and that you and your seed may live." Here you hear
again the word "present", you hear the word "choose", you hear the word "turn away", which would be pronounced in vain if the will of man were not free for good, but only for evil. Otherwise, it would be like saying to someone who was tied in such a way that he could only stretch out his arm to the left side: "Behold, you have the most delicious wine on your right and poison on your left; reach for whichever you like. This also agrees with what the Lord says in Isaiah Cap. 1, 19. 20: "If you will obey me, then you shall enjoy the good of the land. But if ye refuse and disobey, ye shall be devoured by the sword." If man had absolutely no free will for good, or as some say, neither for good nor for evil, what do these words mean: "will ye", or "will ye not" and "refuse ye"? it would have been better if it had said: if I will, if I will not. Since many such sayings are said to sinners, I do not see how it can be avoided that a will is not also attributed to them, which in some way has freedom to choose what is good. We would rather call this a thought or movement of the mind than the will, because the will has certainty and arises from deliberation. This is also what the Lord says in this same prophet, Cap. 21:12: "If ye ask, ask; repent ye, and come again." 1) What is the use of calling on them to convert and come back, if they are not at all capable of themselves? Is it not just as if one would say to one who is in chains, whom one does not want to unchain: Get thee hence, come and follow me? Likewise with the same prophet, Cap. 45, 22: "Gather yourselves together and come near; turn to me, and you will be saved, the end of the world." Again, Cap. 52, 1. 2: "Arise, arise, get thee out of the dust, loose thyself from the bands of thy neck." Also in Jeremiah, Cap. 15, 19.: "Where thou cleavest to me, I will cleave to thee; where thou teachest the pious, but from the wicked, thou shalt be my teacher." When God says: where you teach them but; He thereby indicates a freedom in choosing. Zechariah still more clearly indicates the effort of the free will and the grace that is ready for him who strives, in these words: "Turn unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord." Zech. 1, 3. Ezech. 18, 21. But the Lord speaks thus:
1) According to the Vulgate.
"Where the wicked turneth from all his sins which he hath committed, he keepeth all my statutes. "2c And soon after [v. 22], "All his transgressions which he hath committed shall not be remembered." Item [v. 24]: "But where the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and doeth evil. "2c In this chapter it is often repeated: where he turneth, where he doeth, where he committeth, both in good and in evil. And where is there anyone who would say that man does nothing, but acts only as a sufferer in the face of the working grace? "Cast away from you," God also says, "all your transgressions," Ezek. 18, 31; and 33, 11: "Why do you want to die, you of the house of Israel?" 18, 23: "I do not want the death of the sinner, but that he converts and lives." Does the holy God here lament the death of his people, which he himself works on them?' If he does not want death, then it is certainly to be attributed to our will if we are lost. But what can be attributed to him who can do nothing, neither good nor evil? To those who are not able to will, the mysterious psalmist sings this song in vain: "Forsake evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it," Ps. 37:27. But what is the use of citing a few passages of this kind, since the whole of Scripture is full of such exhortations? [Joel 2:12.:] "Turn ye unto me with all your heart." [Jonah 3:8.:] "Let every man turn from his wicked way." [Isa.46, 8.:] "Ye transgressors, enter into your hearts." [Jer. 18, 8:] "Let every man turn from his wicked way, and I will repent of the evil that I thought to do them because of their wickedness." [Deut. 26:15:] "Will ye not obey me, that ye may walk in my commandments." Since the whole of Scripture speaks of almost nothing else than conversion, of the desire, of the endeavor to become better, all this must have no force if the necessity of doing either good or evil were once introduced. There would also be as many promises, as many threats, as many exhortations, as many reproaches, as many prayers, as many blessings and curses that happen to those who either reform or to those who do not want to convert. The sinner is blessed 1) at every hour. Ex 32:9: "I see that they are a stiff-necked people." "What have I done to you, my people?"
1) We have read ingomitnr instead of inAsmusrit, which the text offers, because the sentence: HunoumHue grain inAtznausrit psoontor seems to us to make no sense here.
Mich. 6, 3. item: "They have thrown my rights behind them", and Ps. 81, 14.: "If my people had obeyed me, Israel would have walked in my ways." "He that would have good days, let his tongue beware of evil," Ps. 34:13. In hearing the words: who will, you hear something of free will. Since such expressions occur everywhere, does not the reader immediately get the idea: What do you promise under a condition that is based on your will alone? Why do you complain, because everything I do, be it good or bad, is worked in me by you, I may want or not? Why do you reproach me, since it is not up to me to keep what you have given and to reject the evil that you impose? Why do you ask, since everything depends on you and is done according to your will? Why do you bless me as if I had done what I was supposed to do, since everything I have done is due to you? Why do you curse, since I necessarily had to do evil? What is the use of so many commandments, if it is not in anyone's power to keep what is commanded? For there are those who say that even a justified man, who stands in faith and love, cannot fulfill any of the divine commandments; but that all good works, because they are done in the flesh, would bring us to condemnation, unless God, according to His mercy, indulged us in them for the sake of the merit of faith. But now the speech that the Lord pronounced through Moses, Deut. 30, 11-14, clearly shows us that what is commanded is not only in us, but that it also becomes easy for us (in proclivi), in that he says: "The commandment that I command you today is not hidden from you, nor too far away, nor in heaven, for you to say: Who shall take us up to heaven, and fetch us to hear and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall pass over the sea to fetch us, that we may hear and do? For the word is almost near thee in thy mouth, and in thine heart to do it." And yet there he speaks of the greatest commandment [Deut. 30:2], "That thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul." What is the use of the expressions: will you hear, will you keep, will you turn, if none of these things is in our power?
(11) I will not be prolix in enumerating passages of this kind, for the books of the Old and New Testaments are full of them everywhere, and one can
He who diligently seeks such things may well be said to be going through the sea to seek water. Thus, as I have said, a good part of the Scriptures seems to be powerless if one accepts the last or penultimate opinion. However, there are also some passages in the divine books that seem to attribute some randomness and variability to God. One of these is what we read in Jer. 18:8, 9: "If this people turn from their wickedness, and I speak against them, then I will also repent of the evil that I thought to do to them; but if they do evil in my sight, and disobey my voice, then I will also repent of the good that I promised to do to them. We know, of course, that the Scriptures speak here in a human way, which they also do not infrequently; because with God no change takes place. But it is said of Him that He will turn an angry God into a merciful God, if He makes us worthy of His grace as soon as we mend our ways; again, it is also said of Him that He will turn a merciful God into an angry God, if He punishes and torments us as soon as we fall back into a worse life. Again 2 Kings 20, 1. Hezekiah has to hear the words: You will die and not remain alive." Soon after the tears he hears through the same prophet [Isaiah v. 5.]: "I have heard your prayer and have seen your tears and have kept you alive" 2c Likewise 2 Sam. 12, 10. David heard from the Lord through Nathan the words, "The sword shall not depart from thy house for ever. "2c But soon after he said [v. 13.], "I have sinned against the Lord," he hears a gracious saying, "So also the Lord hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die." Although in these and similar passages the figurative way of speaking excludes the mutability of God, one cannot avoid the assumption that the will in us can be directed here and there; if it tends to evil out of absolute necessity, why is sin attributed to man? If, however, it directs itself to the good by necessity, why does God, who was angry before, become merciful to us, since we have as much grace to thank Him for there as here?
(12) Let this be enough from the Old Testament, against which someone might object, if these testimonies were not of such a nature that they are not only not obscured by the light of the Gospel, but rather receive greater power through it. We will therefore turn to the books of the New Testament. The first passage that comes to mind is Matth. 23, 37,
where Christ laments the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and breaks out into these words: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often have I desired to gather thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." If all things are done together by necessity, could not Jerusalem justly have answered the complaining Lord: Why do you torment yourself with vain tears? If it was not your will that we should listen to the prophets, why did you send them? Why do you impute to us what has happened according to your will and out of necessity that compels us? You wanted to gather us together and at the same time you did not want the same thing to happen to us, since you yourself worked in us precisely that which we did not want. Now, in the words of Christ to the Jews, it is not the necessity that is accused, but the evil and contrary will. I wanted to gather you together, and you did not want to. Again, elsewhere it is said: "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments", Matth. 19, 17. How could it be said to him who has no free will: Will you? Item [v. 21.], "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell," 2c Item Luc. 9:23: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." In this so difficult commandment you hear that our will is remembered. Soon after it says fB. 24], "He that will save his life shall lose it." Are not all the glorious commandments of Christ of no effect if nothing is attached to the human will? "But I say unto you," 2c Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 2c, and, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," John 14:23. How much is not the keeping of the commandments inculcated in John! How badly does the connective word "if" rhyme with mere necessity? "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you," John 15:7, "if you want to be perfect." 2c Where good and evil works are so often mentioned, and where the reward is thought of, I do not see how a mere necessity can take place. Neither nature nor necessity has any merit. For thus saith our Lord Jesus, Matt. 5:12: "Be glad and of good cheer, because your reward in heaven is great." What does the simile of the laborers who were hired into the vineyard mean? Are they also laborers who work nothing? The penny, because one became one with them, is given to them as a reward for their work. Someone might say that the reward is called
that which God owes to give to some extent, who has made Himself obligatory to man on condition that he would believe His promises. But this faith is also a work, in which the free will has to do something, if he makes himself comfortable to believe or turns away from it. Why then is the servant praised who has increased his master's goods by his diligent work, and why is the lazy and useless servant rejected if we do nothing about it? And again Cap. 25.When Christ invites all to inherit the eternal kingdom, he remembers no necessity, but tells of their good works: "You have fed me, you have watered me, you have sheltered me, you have clothed me. 2c Even to the goats on the left, he does not refer to necessity, but to the voluntary omission of works: "You have seen me hungry, you have been given opportunity to do good; yet you have not fed me" 2c Are not all the Evangelia full of exhortations: Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden; watch, pray, ask, seek, knock, watch, take heed? To what purpose do so many parables serve, but to keep the word of God, to go out to meet the bridegroom, of him who planted the weeds by night, of the house that is to be founded on a rock? They encourage us to diligence, to effort, to diligence, so that we do not miss the grace of God and perish. This seems to be either powerless or superfluous if one wants to relate everything to necessity. The same is to be said of the evangelical threats: Woe to you scribes! Woe to you hypocrites! Woe to you, Chorazim! Also, the reproaches would be in vain [Marc. 9, 19.], "O faithless and perverse kind, how long shall I be with you, how long shall I tolerate you?" "Ye serpents and vipers, how shall ye escape the everlasting fire?" "By their fruits," saith the Lord, "ye shall know them" [Matt. 23:33, 7:20]. The fruits he calls works, and these he calls our works: but how can they be our works, if everything is done by necessity? On the cross Christ asked: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [Luc. 23, 34]. With how much better right would he have excused them, because they have no will, nor can they act differently, even if they wanted to. Again John writes: "He has given them power to become children of God who believe in His name" [John 1:12]. How is power given to those to become God's children who are not yet so, if our will
has no freedom? When some of them took offense at the words of the Lord and went away from him, he said to the rest of the disciples, "Do you also want to go? [But if they did not go away voluntarily, but out of necessity, why did he ask the others if they also wanted to go away?
But we do not want to burden our reader with the citation of all such passages, which cannot be counted and are easily found by everyone, but rather examine whether we do not also find passages in Paul, who diligently asserts grace and constantly puts down the works of the law, in which he establishes free will. Above all, we are struck by the passage Rom. 2, 4, where he says: "Do you despise the riches of goodness, patience and long-suffering? Do you not know that God's goodness leads you to repentance?" How can contempt of the commandment be imputed where there is no free will? or how can God entice us to repentance, since He is the author of impenitence? or how can condemnation be just, where the Judge compels us to iniquity? And yet Paul said shortly before, "For we know that God's judgment is right against those who do these things." Here you hear about an action and you hear about a judgment that is right. Now where is the mere necessity? Where is the will that behaves in no other way than suffering? But behold, to whom does Paul ascribe their wickedness? "You, according to your hardened and impenitent heart, heap wrath upon yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, which will be given to each one according to his works." Here, too, you hear of the righteous judgment of God, and you hear of works that deserve punishment. If God alone were to count His good works, which He works through us, to us for glory and honor and incorruptibility, it would be a kindness worthy of applause (although the apostle also adds here: "with patience in good works" and again: "seeking eternal life"). But by what right do wrath, disgrace, gloom and anguish come upon a man who does evil, but works nothing voluntarily, but everything by necessity? And how can the comparison of other passages of Paul exist with this, of those who walk in the lines, of the jewel, of the crown, if nothing can be added to our efforts? 1 Cor. 9, 24. He says: "Do you not know that those who run in the ranks all run, but one gains the crown? Run therefore, that ye may lay hold on it." 2c And soon after, "Those thus struggling, that they may gain a perishable thing.
But we have received an imperishable crown. No one is crowned except the one who fights, and the crown is given to them as a reward, because they have earned this honor. Again, 1 Tim. 6:12: "Fight," he says, "the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life." Where there is a struggle, there is also a voluntary effort, there is also danger that if you desist you will lose the reward. This also falls away when everything happens by mere necessity. Further, 2 Tim. 2:5: "Though a man fight, yet is he not crowned, because he fights aright," and further on [v. 3]: "Suffer thyself to be a good fighter for Jesus Christ." The apostle also remembers a husbandman who works A fighter gets a crown, a man of war the pay, the husbandman the fruits. Likewise in this same epistle Cap. 4:7: "I have," says Paul, "fought a good fight; I have finished the race. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." It seems difficult to me to connect the struggle, the crown, the righteous judge, the words "give," "fight," with the mere necessity of all things, with the will that does nothing but suffers. So also Jacob ascribes the sins of men not to a necessity, or to God Himself working in us, but to their own evil desire. "God," he says, "tempts no one, but each one is tempted when he is tempted and lured by his own lust. After that, when lust hath conceived, it begetteth sin." [The evil deeds of men Paul calls works of the flesh, not works of God, and calls flesh just what Jacob calls lust. Apost. 5, 3. Ananias is thus addressed: "Why has Satan filled your heart?" Likewise, in Eph. 6:12, Paul attributes evil works to the spirit that rules in the air and works in the children of unbelief. What kind of fellowship does Christ have with Belial? "Or plant," He says, "a good tree, and the fruit will be good; or plant a rotten tree, and the fruit will be rotten." [Matth. 12, 33.] How then could anyone dare to attribute the most evil fruit to God the Lord, who after all is goodness itself? Although man's lust is provoked and enticed, either by Satan, or by things that are outside of him, or otherwise by a cause that is within him, this provocation does not bring about the necessity to sin, if we want to resist [the provocation] and call upon God for His help, just as the spirit
Christ, who impels us to good works, does not compel us to do so, but assists us. Sirach Cap. 15, 21. agrees with Jacob: "God," he says, "does not call anyone to be ungodly and does not allow anyone to sin. But he who compels someone does more than he who commands something. Paul writes even more clearly in 2 Timothy 2:21: "If anyone purifies himself from such people, he will be a holy vessel to honor." How shall he purify himself who does nothing? I am well aware that this is based on an obscure expression; but let it suffice for now that this saying is very repugnant to those who want to ascribe everything to a mere necessity. Likewise John 1 Ep. 3, 3: "Every one that hath such hope in him purifieth himself, even as he also is pure." I will admit here that this is a rather fanciful way of speaking, if, on the other hand, you will allow us to take recourse to this means in other passages as well. And yet it would be an audacious figure if one made this interpretation: he purifies himself, that is, he is purified by God, he may want to or not. "Let us put off," says Paul, "the works of darkness" [Rom. 13:12]. Likewise, "Put off the old man with his works" [Col. 3:9]. But how shall we put off and go forth, if we can do nothing? Item Rom. 7:18: "To will I have, but to do that which is good I cannot find." Here Paul seems to admit that it is in man's power to will what is good; but now to will to do good is already a good work; otherwise to will to do evil could not be considered evil. Just as it is evil to want to kill, apart from all disputes. Again, 1 Cor. 14:32 says, "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." If the Holy Spirit drives someone, he drives him in such a way that it is at his liberty whether he wants to keep silent; much more does the will of man, left to itself, have power over itself. For those who are driven by an enthusiastic spirit cannot remain silent, even if they want to, and often do not even understand what they are saying. The apostle's admonition to Timothy also belongs to this: "Do not neglect the gift that has been given to you" [1 Tim. 4:14]. By this he indicates that it is up to us to reject the grace we have received; elsewhere, however, he says: "His grace to me was not in vain" [1 Cor. 15:10], and indicates that he did not resist God's grace. But how would he not have resisted if he did nothing? Peter, 2 Ep. 1, 5, says: "Put all your diligence into it and reach out in your faith.
Virtue" 2c, and soon after: "Therefore, dear brethren, do all the more diligently to make your profession and election firm." So he wants us to unite our diligence with the grace of God, so that we may reach perfection step by step, from one virtue to another.
(14) I am almost afraid that it might seem to someone that I am becoming too extensive by compiling these testimonies that occur everywhere in the divine books. For since Paul, 2 Tim. 3, 16, writes: "All Scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for punishment, for correction, for chastening," 2c, none of this seems to take place anywhere, if everything happens by a mere and unavoidable necessity. What is the use of so many praises of holy people in Sirach in the 44th and several following chapters, if nothing is due to our diligence? What is the use of obedience, which is praised everywhere, if we are such a tool to God for good and evil works, as the carpenter is to his axe? And we are all such tools if the teaching of Wiclef is true, namely that everything good and evil, even that which is neither good nor evil, both before and after grace, happens out of mere necessity, which opinion Luther also approves. And so that no one may accuse me as if I had only invented it, I will put his words from the assertions (assertionibus 1) here. He says: Unde et hunc articulum necesse est revocare. Male enim dixi, quod liberum arbitrium ante gratiam sit res de solo titulo, sed simpliciter debui dicere: liberum arbitrium est figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine re, quia nulli est in manu quippiam cogitare mali, aut boni; sed omnia, ut Wiclefi articulus Constantiae condemnatus recte docet, de necessitate absoluta eveniunt [that is: I must therefore also revoke this article. For I have not spoken rightly that free will, before grace acts, is a thing only in name; but I should have said par excellence that free will is a name without a thing, because it is in no one's capacity to think anything evil or good,
1) The scripture, against whose 36th article the whole diatribe is directed and from which this citation has been introduced, is the Asssrtio oruniurn artwulorurn Martini Imtllsri xsr dnUani Csonis X. novissiinarn darnnatoruin. 1520. The passage can be found opp. var. arZ., Vol. V. p. 230. This writing also appeared in German, edited by Luther himself, under the title: Grund und Ursach aller Artikel ü. s. w., but in many places completely deviating from the Latin. The 36th article comprises 9 pages in the aforementioned Latin edition, while it takes up only 3 pages in the German edition, Erl.
but everything happens by an absolute necessity, as the article of Wiclef, who was condemned at Constance, quite rightly teaches]. I diligently pass over many passages in the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John, so that I will not be burdensome to my reader.
15 These many testimonies have caused learned and pious men, not without reason, not to want to completely abolish free will, let alone to be driven by the evil spirit and to incur condemnation by trusting in their works. Now it is time for me to bring some testimonies of the Scriptures for the opposite, too, which, according to their appearance, completely abolish free will. It is true that there are some in the Bible, but among them two are the most important, which are clearer than the others, and which the apostle Paul treats in such a way that, according to first appearances, he ascribes nothing at all either to our works or to the powers of free will. One passage is Ex. 9:12 and is referred to by Paul in Rom. 9:17: "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not hear them." And again, "Therefore have I raised thee up, that my power might appear in thee; and that my name might be declared in all lands." Paul explains this passage in this way, and at the same time cites another passage with the same wording, which is taken from Ex. 33:19 [Rom. 9:15]: "For God said to Moses, 'To whom I am gracious, I am gracious; and on whom I have mercy, I have mercy. So now it is not up to anyone's will or running; but up to God's mercy." The other passage is Malachi 1, 2. 3. and is also referred to by Paul in Rom. 9, 11. 12. 13: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: neither do I love Jacob, but hate Esau." Paul interprets these words thus: "Before the children were born, and had done neither good nor evil; that the purpose of God might be according to election, it was said unto them, not of works of merit, but of the grace of the caller, that the greater should serve the lesser: as it is written, Jacob have I loved; but Esau have I hated." Since it seems to be inconsistent that God, who is not only just but also good, is said to harden the heart of a man so that he may glorify his power through his wickedness: so Origen lib. III. xxxx xxxxx unties this knot in such a way that, while admitting that God had given occasion for the hardening, he places the blame on Pharaoh, who, according to his wickedness, would have become even more stiff-necked as a result, by which he should have been
to lead them to repentance. Just as after the same downpour a cultivated land bears the most beautiful fruit, but a wild one bears domes and thistles, and just as from the same rays of the sun the wax becomes soft and the dung becomes hard: so the gentleness of God, according to which he has patience with the sinner, leads some to repentance, but made others more obstinate in wickedness. He thus has mercy on those who recognize God's goodness and mend their ways; on the other hand, those are hardened who, despising His goodness, postpone their repentance and increase in wickedness. Origen proves the figurative meaning, according to which an action is attributed to the one who has only caused it, first of all from the ordinary use of speech, where a father is wont to say to his son: I have brought you to ruin, because he did not immediately chastise him when he had done wrong. Isaiah, Cap. 63:17, speaks in the same character: "Why hast thou caused us, O Lord, to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts, that we feared thee not?" Jerome interprets this passage in the same way as Origen: "God is hardened if he does not immediately punish the sinner, and has mercy if he immediately tempts him to repentance through tribulation." This is also what the angry God says in Hosea: "I will not resist when your daughters become harlots" [Hos. 4:14]. Again he also chastises by grace and speaks Ps. 89, 33.: "I will punish their sin with the rod and their iniquity with plagues." In this same character he also speaks Jer. 20:7: "O Lord, thou hast persuaded me, and I have been persuaded; thou hast been too strong for me, and thou hast won." It is said of him that he persuaded man when he did not draw him away from sin, of which Origen thinks that this serves for a more complete recovery, just as experienced surgeons prefer to draw a scar over a wound little by little, because the more corrupted juices are drawn out of the opening of the wound, the more lasting health results. Furthermore, Origen also notes that the Lord does not say: Just for this purpose I have made you; but: Just for this purpose I have raised you up. Otherwise Pharaoh would not have been godless if God had created him like this, who looked at all his works, and behold, they were very good. But now, with his will that could be directed to both sides, he voluntarily turned to evil, preferring to follow his head rather than obey the command of God. This wickedness of Pharaoh was used by God for His glory and for the salvation of His people, so that it would be clearer to see that the people, who were in disobedience to the divine will, were not to be treated as evil.
If they were to oppose Him, they would be making a futile effort, just as a wise king or head of a household uses the anger of some whom he hates to punish the wicked. And yet, one does not tread too close to the freedom of our will when one says that the outcome of a matter is up to God, or that He directs the efforts of men according to His hidden counsel differently than they had intended. Thus, just as He directs the efforts of the wicked for the good of the pious, so the efforts of the pious do not achieve the purpose they set before themselves unless God assists them with His grace. This is what Paul adds Rom. 9, 16: "So then it is not up to anyone to will or to run, but up to God's mercy." God's mercy precedes our will, is with it in its endeavor and gives a happy outcome. In the meantime, we will, run, attain; but in such a way that we ascribe precisely what is ours to God, of whom we are entirely our own. One may well solve the difficulty of divine foreknowledge, that it imposes no necessity on our will; but in my opinion no one has done this more happily than Laurentius Valla. For foreknowledge is not a cause of what actually happens, since we human beings can also foreknow many things that do not happen because we foreknow them, but we foreknow them because they will happen; just as a solar eclipse does not happen because the astrologers predicted that it would happen, but they predicted it because it will happen.
By the way, the question of God's will and purpose is even more difficult. For God wills precisely what he knows beforehand, and he must will it in a certain way, because he does not prevent what he knows will happen, although it is in his power. And this is what Paul [Rom. 9, 19. 18.] gives to understand: Who can resist his will, if he have mercy on whom he will, and if he cast out whom he will? For if there were a king who could bring forth whatever he would, and whom no one could resist, he would be said to do whatever he would. Thus the will of God, because it is the main cause of all that happens, seems to impose a necessity on our will. And even Paul does not resolve this question, but gives a rebuke to the one who wants to argue about such things: "O man, who are you that you want to be right with God? But the rebuke applies only to the one who maliciously murmurs against God, as when a master murmurs to his servant,
But he would answer quite differently if an understanding and well-intentioned servant modestly demanded to know from the Lord why he wanted to have done so what seemed to be useless. God wanted Pharaoh to perish badly, and this he wanted according to his righteousness, it was also good that he perished; nevertheless, he was not compelled by the will of God to be obstinately godless. Just as if a master, aware of the wickedness of his servant, gave him something that would give him the opportunity to sin, he would also be caught at it and would have to suffer punishment, as an example to others. The Lord knows beforehand that he would sin and follow his evil inclination; he wants him to come to ruin; he wants him, so to speak, to commit a sin: nevertheless, this does not excuse the servant who has sinned through his own wickedness. For he deserved punishment before, because his wickedness was known to everyone. But how can we begin to speak of merit where there is a constant necessity and the will has never had any freedom? What we have said about the outcome of things, that God often turns what happens differently from what men have intended, is true most of the time, but not all the time, and happens more often to the wicked than to the pious. The Jews, who crucified the Lord Christ, thought to destroy him; but God turned their ungodly plot to the glorification of his Son and the salvation of the whole world. On the other hand, Cornelius the centurion, who made himself pleasing to God by good works, obtained what he wanted. And to Paul, when he had completed his course, was added the crown to which he aspired.
(17) I do not want to examine here whether God, who is the first and highest cause of all that happens, does some things through secondary causes in such a way that he does nothing in the meantime; or whether he does everything in such a way that the secondary causes only cooperate with the main cause, although they would otherwise not be necessary. There is certainly no doubt that God can turn the natural effect of all secondary causes into the opposite, if he only wants to. For example, he can make fire cool and wet, water hard and dry, the sun darken, rivers freeze, rocks become liquid; poison acquires a sustaining and food a killing power. Just as the fire
In the Babylonian furnace he refreshed the three men and also burned the Chaldeans. Whenever God does such things, it is called a miracle. In this way he can deprive the palate of taste, the eyes of discernment; he can stupefy the powers of reason, memory and will and compel them to do what is pleasing to him, as he did with Balaam, who came to curse and could not: another the tongue spoke, another the heart wanted. But this, which happens only to a few, must not be made general. But even with such, God wills what He wills, for just causes, though unknown to us. No one can resist this will, but one can resist the revealed will, or, as they say in schools, the outward will (voluntati signi) very often. Does not Jerusalem resist him, which did not want to be gathered, since God wanted to gather it? But someone might say: Thus, there is a double necessity in the outcome of a matter, in that neither the foreknowledge of God can be lacking, nor can his will be hindered. However, not every necessity excludes free will; just as God the father necessarily begets the son and yet begets him willingly and freely because he was not forced to do so. One can also assume a necessity in human affairs that does not exclude the freedom of our will. God foresaw that Judas would betray the Lord, and what he foresaw, he also wanted to a certain extent. Therefore, if you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God and the immutability of His will, it was inevitable that Judas betrayed the Lord, and yet Judas was able to change his will; or at least he had the ability not to follow the evil will. Yes, you say: How? if he had changed his will? The foreknowledge of God would not have been wrong, nor would his will have been hindered, because he would have known and wanted that he would change his mind. Those who examine the matter according to scholastic sophistry assume the necessity of the consequence, but reject the necessity of what follows. They use these words to explain their opinion. They say that it necessarily follows that Judas would have betrayed the Lord if God had powerfully willed this from eternity; on the other hand, they say that it does not follow that he would necessarily have betrayed Christ because he had done such an ungodly act according to his evil will.
18 But it is not my intention here to dwell on such quibbles. What is written in Exodus 7: "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," can have the same meaning as the words of Paul, Romans 1:28: "God gave them over in a wrong way," so that sin and the punishment of sins are one and the same work. But whom God gives in a wrong way, He gives because of what they have deserved before, like Pharaoh, because he, prompted by so many miracles and signs, would not let the people go, and like the worldly wise, because they, although they knew the divinity of the true God, worshipped stone and wood. But where there is a mere and constant necessity, there is neither good nor evil merit. Moreover, it cannot be denied that God is involved in every action, since every action is something real and in a certain way good, e.g. loving an adulteress or wanting to do so. Incidentally, the wickedness of the action does not come from God, but from our will, except that, as I have said, one could say in a certain sense that the evil will is worked in us by God, because he lets it go wherever man wants and does not hold it back by his grace. In this way, it is said that God has corrupted man because He has allowed him to fall into ruin when He could have preserved him. But this is enough, as far as this passage is concerned.
(19) I will now deal with the other passage about Esau and Jacob, of whom, before they were born, the divine saying was: "The greater shall serve the lesser," as we read in Genesis 25:23. These words do not actually refer to man's blessedness. For God can will that man, willingly or unwillingly, be a servant or live in poverty, and yet not be excluded from eternal blessedness. But as for what Paul adds from Malachi 1: "Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated," if one wants to press the letter, God does not love as we love; nor does he hate anyone, because such emotions do not belong to him. Moreover, as I said, the prophet there does not seem to speak both of the hatred by which we will be damned for eternity, but rather of a temporal plague. Likewise, God is also attributed a wrath and a fury. There those are rebuked who wanted to rebuild Edom, which God wanted to leave desolate. Furthermore, as far as the figurative speech is concerned, God does not love all the people.
Therefore this testimony of Paul is not very strong to prove the necessity, but rather to stop the arrogance of the Jews, who believed that the evangelical grace really belonged to them, because they were Abraham's descendants, and therefore they had an abhorrence of the Gentiles and did not want them to be excluded into the fellowship of the evangelical grace. The apostle explains this soon after when he says: "Whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." Now because God, for just and holy causes, hates, or loves, those whom he hates, or loves; the hatred and love which he bears to those who are yet to be born is no more contrary to the freedom of the will than the hatred and love to those who are already born. He hates those who are not yet born, because he certainly knows that they would do what is to be hated; those who are already born he hates, because they really do what is worthy of hatred. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, have been rejected and the Gentiles, who were not His people, have been accepted. Why are the Jews cut off from the olive tree? Because they would not believe. Why were the Gentiles grafted in? Because they obeyed the gospel. Paul himself mentions this cause in Romans 11 and says: "They were broken because of their unbelief", because they did not want to believe; but he gives good hope to those who were cut off that they could be grafted in again if they refrained from unbelief and wanted to believe; and he frightens those who were grafted in that they would be cut off if they rejected the grace of God. "You stand," he says, "by faith, do not be proud; but fear," and soon after he says, "lest you be proud." All this indicates that Paul writes this for the purpose of removing the pride of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews.
The third passage is Isa. 45:9: "Woe to him that contendeth with his maker, even the broken piece with the potter of clay. Says also the clay to his potter, What makest thou? thou proveest not thy hands by thy work." Jer. 18:6 is expressed even more clearly: "Can I not also deal with you, O house of Israel, like this potter? says the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye of the house of Israel in mine hand." These testimonies prove in Paul [Rom. 9, 21-23.] more than in the prophe-
from which they are taken. For Paul states them as follows: "Has not a potter power to make of one lump a vessel of honor and another of dishonor? Therefore, when God was about to show wrath and to make known His power, He bore with great patience the vessels of wrath prepared for condemnation, that He might make known the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy which He had prepared for glory. 2c In both prophetic passages, the people who grumble against God are punished, who were afflicted for their correction. The prophet rebukes them for their ungodly speeches, just as Paul rebukes the ungodly backtalk by saying: "Who are you, O man? In this we must submit to God, not unlike a wet clay to the hands of the potter. But this does not completely abolish the freedom of the will; nor does it completely exclude that our will cooperates with God's will for eternal bliss. For Jeremiah immediately follows with an exhortation to repentance, which passage we have already mentioned. This exhortation would be in vain if everything happened out of necessity. That Paul's speech was not intended to completely deny the power of free will, but rather to dampen the ungodly grumbling of the Jews against God, who were rejected from the grace of the gospel because of their stubborn unbelief, into which the Gentiles were accepted because of their faith, he himself explains in 2 Tim. 2, 20. 21. and says: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, and some of honor, but some of dishonor. If anyone purifies himself from such people, he will be a sacred vessel for honor, useful to the master of the house and prepared for all good works. The Scriptures need such equivocations for the sake of teaching, but in such a way that they are not suitable for the matter in all respects. What else would be more simple than if someone said to an earthenware dish: if you clean yourself, you will be a vessel of use and honor? But this is rightly said to a vessel endowed with reason, which, when remembered, is able to do the will of the Lord. Moreover, if it is admitted that man is inferior to God, as the clay is in the hands of the potter, then all the blame, no matter how the vessel turns out, falls on no one else but the potter, especially if it is such a potter who himself has created and prepared the clay according to his will. This vessel, which therefore has nothing
The one who deserves it, because he is not his own master, will be thrown into the eternal fire. We therefore explain the parable in the way it is used for the sake of doctrine. If we want to apply all its superstitious elements to what we are dealing with here, we will be forced to say many ridiculous things. This potter here makes a vessel of dishonor, because of the reward [i.e. punishment] previously earned, just as he rejected some Jews because of their unbelief, but from the Gentiles he made a vessel of honor because of their faith. Why do those who urge us on with the words of Scripture, and who simply want to understand the simile of the potter and the clay, not allow us to simply accept the other passage: "if then any man purify himself" 2c? In this way Paul would contradict himself. In the first passage he attributes everything to God, but in the other passage everything to man. And yet the doctrine in both passages is a sound doctrine; although something else is done in this passage, something else in that passage. In the first, the mouth of the one who murmurs against God is shut; the other invites to diligent effort and warns against security or despair.
21 The passage Isa. 10, 15 is not unlike this: "May an axe boast against the one who cuts with it? or a saw defy the one who cuts with it? as he can boast who guides and lifts the stick, and guides it as easily as if it were not wood. This is spoken against the godless king, whose anger God needed to punish his people. The latter attributed everything that happened by divine permission to his wisdom and powers, although he had been an instrument of divine wrath. He was an instrument, alone a living instrument endowed with reason. And if an axe or a saw were also such tools, it would be nothing inconsistent to say that they also did something at the same time as the carpenter. The servants are living tools of their masters, as Aristotle teaches; so would be the axes, saws, hoes, plows, if they could move by their own power, like the tripods and cauldrons that Vulcanus had forged so that they went into battle of their own free will. The master of the house commands and orders everything that is necessary, and the servant could do nothing without his master; nevertheless, no one could say that the servant, by following the master's command, does nothing. Furthermore, this equation does not serve to abolish the freedom of the human will, but only the pride of a man.
of the godless king, who attributed what he had done not to GOtte but to his power and wisdom.
What Origen quotes from Ezekiel: "I will take away the stony heart from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" [Ezech. 36, 26.], is just as easily refuted. In the same figurative sense a teacher might say to his pupil when he makes speech mistakes: I will take away from you the coarse uncouth (barbaram) speech and give you an educated (romanam) speech. Nevertheless, he demands diligence from his student, although the student cannot change his language without the help of the teacher. What does the stony heart mean? A heart that is ungovernable and stubborn in wickedness. What does the heart of flesh mean? A heart that is docile and allows itself to be governed by the grace of God. Those who accept free will nevertheless admit that the mind stubborn in wickedness cannot be made docile to true repentance without the help of God's grace. The one who makes your mind flexible also requires your effort, so that you may become skillful. David prays, "Create in me, O God, a clean heart" [Ps. 51:12]. Paul, on the other hand, says, "He who purifies himself. "2c Ezekiel says, "Make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" [Ezek. 18:31.] David, on the other hand, cries, "Give me a new certain spirit." David prays, "Blot out all my sins"; while John says, "Every one that hath such hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" [1 John 3:3]. David asks, "Deliver me from the debt of blood"; whereas the prophet Isaiah says, "Loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, thou captive daughter of Zion" [Isa. 52:2.Paul says: "Let us put away the works of darkness" [Rom. 13, 12]; likewise Peter: "Put away therefore all malice, and all deceit, and hypocrisy, and envy, and all speaking evil" [1 Petr. 2, 1]. But Paul Phil. 2, 12. says: "Create ye salvation with fear and trembling"; whereas 1 Cor. 12, 6. the same says: "There is One God, who worketh all things in all." Such passages are found in more than six hundred scriptures. If man does nothing, why does the apostle say, "Create"? But if man does something, why does he say, "God works all things in all"? If someone turns the latter to his advantage, man does nothing; if another needs the former for his opinion, man does everything. If a man does nothing at all, there is no merit. Where there is no merit, there can be no merit.
There are neither punishments nor rewards. If a man does everything, he does not need grace, which Paul mentions so often. Certainly, the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration the canonical books have been distinguished, does not contradict itself. Both parts accept and recognize the inviolable glory of Scripture. Only one must look for an explanation that resolves the knot of doubt. Those who say that free will is nothing will make this interpretation: "Reach out to what you will," that is, grace will stretch out your hand to what it wills; "Make you a new heart," that is, the grace of God will create in you a new heart; "Everyone who has such a hope purifies himself," that is, grace purifies him; "Let us put away the works of darkness," that is, grace makes us put them away. The Scriptures repeat this much and often: he has done right; he has done wrong. As often as such things occur, we should always explain it this way: God has produced and worked right and wrong in man. If I were to present here the interpretation of the old orthodox teachers or of the conciliar, one would immediately answer: they were men. With such a violent and forced explanation, may I not also say that Luther was a man? They have won the game, of course, if they are allowed to interpret the Scriptures as they see fit; but we are not to accept the explanation of the ancients, nor are we to put forward our own explanation. This passage of Scripture is, in their opinion, so clear that it needs no interpretation: Reach after what thou wilt, that is, grace will stretch forth thy hand after what it wills; but what the most approved teachers have interpreted is said to be a dream, I will not say what yet others have pronounced, an inspiration of Satan. But the passages that seem to contradict each other can easily be brought into harmony with each other, if we only connect the effort and the aspiration of our will with the support of divine grace. In the simile of the potter and the axe, they remain stiff and firm in saying that the words must be accepted as they are because it suits their opinion; here, however, they impudently depart from the words of Scripture and interpret them as boldly as if one said: Peter writes, and another interpreted it thus: no, he does not write himself, but another writes in his house.
Now let us see how far that which Martin Luther puts forward holds the sting, the
to put down the power of free will. He refers to Gen. 6, 3. and 8, 21.: "Men will no longer let my spirit punish them. For they are flesh." Here the Scripture does not simply understand by flesh the ungodly inclination, as Paul uses it several times in this sense, when he wants to have one kill the work of the flesh, but the weak nature that is inclined to sin. Just as Paul called the Corinthians carnal, because they, as little children in Christ, were not yet capable of strong food. And Jerome, in the Hebrew Investigations, notes that according to the Hebrew text it sounds differently than we read, namely: "My Spirit will not judge these people forever, because they are flesh", that in this way these words do not indicate the severity, but the goodness of God. For the flesh he calls the weak nature inclined to evil; but the spirit he calls indignationem, and says that he does not want to inflict eternal punishment on men there; but that he wants to punish them here by grace. But this saying does not concern the whole human race, but only the people who lived at that time and were very corrupt by shameful vices. That is why he says: "These people". So this speech does not necessarily address all people who lived at that time, because Noah is praised as a righteous and pleasing man to God. Likewise, one can also dissolve what is drawn from Gen. 8, 21: "For the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil from youth", likewise from Gen. 6, 5: "All thoughts and desires of the heart are only evil forever". The inclination to evil, however, which is found in most people, does not completely abolish the freedom of the will, although one cannot completely overcome it [inclination to evil] without the help of God's grace. If no part of the change of mind depends on our will, but God does everything according to a certain necessity, why then was a time limit given to people to repent? "I will give them a hundred and twenty years." For Jerome wants this passage in the Hebrew investigations to be understood not from the duration of human life, but from the time until the flood, which was given to them as a time limit, so that in the meantime they might repent if they wanted to, and, if they did not want to, they should be considered as deserving God's severity (ultionem), because they despised God's leniency.
24. which he further takes from Isa. 40, 2:
Jerome interprets the divine punishments, but not the grace, which God gives to the people for their misdeeds, as "she received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sins". For if Paul says: "Where sin has become powerful, grace has become even more powerful" [Rom. 5, 20.It does not follow from this that man, before he is made a partaker of the grace that makes him pleasurable, cannot, with divine assistance, prepare himself for such grace by morally good works, as we read that to Cornelius the centurion, before he had been baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit, it was said: "Thy prayer and thine alms are come up in remembrance before God" [Acts 10:4]. If all works that one does are evil before the attainment of the highest grace, do evil works bring us to God's mercy? What he also cites from this very chapter of Isaiah [Is. 40, 6]: "All flesh is hay, and all its goodness is like a flower of the field. The hay withers, the flower fades, for the Spirit of the Lord blows in it; but the word of our God endures forever," seems to me to be drawn too forcibly to grace and free will. Namely, Jerome takes here the spirit for the divine displeasure; the flesh for the weak constitution of man, which against God is not able to do anything; the flower for the glory, which arises from advantages in bodily things. The Jews boasted of their temple, their circumcision, their sacrifices; the Greeks boasted of their wisdom; but through the Gospel the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven and all their glory is gone. But not every inclination of man is flesh, but there is a part which is called the soul, there is another which is called the spirit, through which we strive for what is honorable; this part of the soul we call reason, or the noblest part, unless there was no striving for honorability among the worldly wise, who taught that one must want to die a thousand times rather than commit a shameful act, although we knew that no man would suffer it, and that God would forgive it. But the corrupt reason often judges wrongly. "Know ye not," saith Christ, "of what spirit children ye are?" [Out of an error they sought revenge, because earlier on Elijah's prayer fire fell from heaven, which consumed the captains over fifty with their people. That even the pious have a spirit in them, which is different from the spirit of God, is shown by Paul Rom. 8, 16: "The same spirit gives
Testimony to our spirit that we are the children of God. But if anyone should claim that what is most noble in human nature is nothing but flesh, that is, evil desire, I will soon agree with him, if he proves what he says with testimonies from the holy Scriptures. Christ says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John teaches that those who believe in the Gospel would be born of God and become children of God, even like God. Paul makes a distinction between a carnal man, who does not hear what is of God, and a spiritual one, who judges everything spiritually. Otherwise he also calls the latter a new creature in Christ. If the whole man born again through faith is nothing but flesh, where is the spirit born of the spirit? where is the child of God? where is the new creature? I would like to be instructed about this. Meanwhile, I rely on the reputation of the ancients, who teach that a seed of respectability is implanted in the human heart, so that they recognize to some extent what is respectable and strive for it; but that gross lusts and desires have been added, which lure man astray. The will that can be directed here and there is called free will; although it is perhaps more inclined to evil than to good because of the tendency to sin that remains in us, no one is urged to do evil unless he consents to it.
(25) What he also draws from Jer. 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that a man's doings are not in his power, nor is it in anyone's power how he shall walk or how he shall direct his course," concerns more the outcome of happy and sad circumstances than the ability of free will. For the more people take care that they do not fall into misfortune, the deeper they often fall into it. But even this does not abolish the freedom of the will, neither in those who have to suffer it because they did not foresee the future misfortune, nor in those who inflict it because they do not harm their enemies with the intention in which God causes such misfortune through them, namely, to chastise them. And if one wants to forcibly attribute this to free will, then everyone must admit that it is in no one's power to walk rightly before Himself without the grace of God, and daily we pray: "O Lord God, direct my path before You" [Ps. 5:9]. Nevertheless, we also strive ourselves to the best of our ability. We pray: "Incline my heart to your testimonies" [Ps. 119, 36]. He who asks for help does not cease from his efforts.
26 Likewise, he refers to Proverbs 16:1: "A man may set before him in his heart, but from the Lord comes what the tongue shall speak. This saying also refers to the outcome of a thing that may or may not happen without harm to eternal blessedness. But what about the fact that a man can imagine something in his heart, since Luther claims that everything is guided by necessity? Solomon says there [v. 3]: "Command the Lord thy works, and thy counsels shall continue." Here you hear of your works and of your plots, none of which could be said of you if God worked everything, both good and evil, in us. [V. 6.:] "By goodness and faithfulness iniquity is reconciled" rc. This and many other things which argue for the opinion of those who assert the freedom of the will can be read there. But to this, which he cites from the same chapter [v. 4]: "The Lord makes everything for his own sake, even the wicked to be evil," I answer thus: God did not create anything evil in and of itself; however, according to his ineffable wisdom, he knows how to govern everything in such a way that he also turns evil to our good and to his glory. He also did not create the devil evil, but after he has voluntarily fallen away from him, he retains him for eternal punishment, by his wickedness he exercises the pious and punishes the wicked.
27. not much stronger is the proof which he takes from Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as rivers of water, and he inclines it whithersoever he will." He does not immediately compel who inclines; yet, as I have said, no one will deny that God can drive a man through his mind, hinder what he wanted, give him another will, even take away his understanding. And yet, free will in us retains its rightness. If this is Solomon's opinion, as Luther interprets it, why does he pronounce this as something special about the heart of a king, since the hearts of all men are in the hand of the Lord? This passage agrees more closely with that which we read Job 34, 30.: "He let a hypocrite reign over them, to press the people." Item Isa. 3, 4.: "I will give them young men to be princes, and childish ones shall rule over them." When God, who is gracious to His people, inclines the heart of a king toward good, He does no violence to the freedom of his will. To incline the heart to evil, on the other hand, means that when God, who is angry at the sins of His people, inclines the heart of a childish prince to robbery, He does not do violence to the freedom of His will,
The king, who is very much inclined to war and tyranny, does not withdraw from it, but lets him go according to his own lusts and desires, so that the people may be chastened by his wickedness. Even if it were to happen that God would drive a king who acts so wickedly to wickedness, one must not make a special case into a generally valid sentence. Such testimonies as Luther brings forward from the Proverbs of Solomon could be collected in heaps from everywhere; but they would serve more for abundance than for victory. Speakers are in the habit of throwing around evidence of this kind. For most of them are of the nature that they suffer a skilful interpretation and can be used either for or against free will.
Luther considers this to be a sword of Achilles and an irresistible weapon, that Christ says in the Gospel of John, Cap. 15, 5: "Without me you can do nothing. But in my opinion, one can answer this in more than one way. In general, people say that he does nothing who does not achieve what he desires, and yet he who makes an effort often makes significant progress. In this sense it is very true that without Christ we can do nothing. For there he speaks of the evangelical fruits, of which others do not partake, except those who remain in the vine, that is, in Jesus Christ. In this figure Paul also speaks 1 Cor. 3, 7: "So then neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God who gives the fruit." That which is of little use, and that which is useless in itself, he calls nothing. Likewise 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I had not love, I should be nothing." And soon after [v. 3]: "it would be of no use to me." Again Rom. 4:17: "He calleth unto that which is nothing, that it may be." Similarly, from Hosea [Cap. 1, 23. Rom. 9, 26.] he calls that which is not his people a despised and rejected people. In such a flowery sense it is also said in Ps. 22, 7: "I am a worm and not a man." Otherwise, if one wanted to take the word "nothing" in the strictest sense, one would not even be able to sin without Christ. But I think that Christ means here as much as the grace of Christ, if they do not take refuge in what has already been rejected, that sin is nothing. And this is true in a certain sense, because without Christ we neither are, nor live, nor weave. Now they themselves admit to us that sometimes free will without grace has a capacity to sin, and Luther himself had said this in the beginning of his "Assertion" (as
sertionis 1). This includes what John the Baptist says: "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven" [John 3:27]. It does not follow that free will has no power and that it cannot be used. That the fire warms comes from God; that we, according to our natural understanding, strive for what is useful and flee what is harmful comes from God; that the will, after the fall, is driven to something better comes from God; that through tears, alms and prayer we attain that grace which makes us pleasing to God comes from God. However, our will is not entirely idle in this; although it should not attain what it strives for, except through the help of grace. But because this is the least and the least that we do, the work is completely attributed to God; just as a shipman, who has brought his ship out of a dangerous storm happily into the harbor, does not say: I have preserved the ship, but God has done it, and yet his art and his diligence have not been inactive. In the same way, a farmer who brings rich fruit from the field into the barn does not say, "I gave the grain so abundantly," but rather, "God gave it: God has given it. But who would say that the husbandman contributed nothing to the bringing forth of the fruit? It is also common to say: God has given you beautiful children, since the father helped to produce them; likewise, God has made me well again, since the physician also helped to do so, just as we say: the king has won the victory over the enemies, since the generals and soldiers did the best work. Nothing grows without rain from above, and yet a good soil brings forth fruit, and an evil soil brings forth no good fruit. Since man cannot bring this about by his own efforts unless divine grace is added, most of it is attributed to divine goodness. "Where the Lord does not build the house, those who build it labor in vain. Where the Lord keepeth not the city, the watchman watcheth in vain" [Ps. 127:1]; yet meanwhile the labor of the carpenters in building the house, and the watchfulness of the watchmen in keeping it, do not cease. "It is not ye," saith JESUS, "that speak; but it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" [Matt. 10:20]. At first sight this passage seems to abolish free will; in fact, however, it
1) Cf. the note to § 14.
We should not be anxious to think beforehand about what we should say in the cause of Christ, otherwise preachers who prepare themselves diligently for a sermon would sin. But not all may expect this, because the Spirit once inspired the simple disciples what they should say, just as he also inspired the gift of speaking foreign languages. And even if he inspired it to them, their will in speaking agreed with the inspiration of the Spirit and worked with the active Holy Spirit. From this again the freedom of the will becomes apparent, if we do not want to assume that God spoke through the mouth of the apostles as Balaam spoke through the mouth of the donkey.
But even stronger he insists on Joh. 6, 44: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him. The word "draw" seems to contain a necessity and to exclude the freedom of the will. But this is not a forcible drawing, but he only makes you want what you cannot want, just as we show a boy an apple and he runs to it, and just as we show a sheep a green branch from pasture and it follows us: in the same way God also knocks on our hearts with his grace, and if we want, we take hold of it. This is how we must understand the words of John 14:6: "No one comes to the Father except through me." Just as the Father honors the Son and the Son honors the Father, so the Father draws to the Son and the Son to the Father. But we are drawn in such a way that we immediately run willingly. Thus we read: "Lead me after you, and we will run" etc.
(30) From Paul's letters, several passages can also be found which seem to deprive free will of all ability. The type is 2 Cor. 3, 5: "Not that we are able to think anything of ourselves, but of ourselves; but that we are able is from God. Here, however, the freedom of the will can be helped in a twofold way. For first of all, some orthodox fathers assume three degrees of human activity: the first is thinking, the second willing, and the third accomplishing. In the first and third degree, they concede that free will has no capacity to act. For the heart is impelled by grace alone to think something good, and it is by grace alone that what the heart has thought is accomplished. Only in the middle degree, that is, in consent, grace and the human will are active at the same time, but in such a way that grace is the main agent.
(principalis) cause and our will the lesser (minus principalis). But since the whole thing is attached to the one who has completely brought it about, man must not appropriate anything from a good work, because this, that he can will and cooperate with divine grace, is God's gift. Furthermore, the preposition "from" indicates the origin and source, and Paul clearly states: from ourselves, as from ourselves, that is, from ourselves. This could also be said of the one who admits that man wants to do good powerfully from natural forces, because he does not have these forces from himself either. For who denies that all good comes from God as from one source? And this is what St. Paul often inculcates, so that he may remove our pride and trust in ourselves, which he also does elsewhere: "What do you have, O man, that you have not received? but if you have received it, what do you boast about, as if you had not received it? [1 Cor. 4:7.] Here you hear the apostle rejecting all glory by this saying. This would also have been said to the servant who enumerates to his master what gains he had acquired by usury, if he had attached to himself the praise of well-applied labor: What hast thou that thou hast not received? And yet his master praises him because of his tirelessly diligent work. In the same way Jacobus Cap. 1, 17. speaks: "All good gifts and all perfect gifts come down from above", and Paul Eph. 1, 11.: "Who works all things according to the counsel of His will." This is so that we do not arrogate anything to ourselves, but gratefully attribute everything to the grace of God, who called us apostates, who cleansed us through faith, who also gave us this gift, so that our will can work with his grace, although grace could be alone everywhere and would not even need the assistance of human will.
What is written in Phil. 2, 13: "God works in us both the willing and the doing, according to his good pleasure" does not exclude free will. For when it says, "according to his good pleasure," and you apply this to man, as Ambrose explains it, you see from this that the good will is active at the same time as the working grace. Just before it is said [v. 12.], "Create ye salvation with fear and trembling." From this you can infer that both God works in us with His grace, and that our will and diligence work with God at the same time. Lest anyone think this explanation reprehensible, there is, as I said, before this
In the first passage: "Create that ye may be saved"; which is more correctly taken in the sense of "making an effort" than the word which is attributed to God; God is the one who works; but actually means that which works and drives. But since both "to create" and "to work" are equally valid, this passage clearly shows that both man and God the Lord work. What then does man work, if our will is as valid with God as clay is with the potter? "For it is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks in you" [Matth. 10, 20.fi This is said to the apostles, and yet we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter spoke. "Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, spoke to them" [Acts 4:8]. How are these contradictory phrases connected: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit", and "Peter spoke, full of the Holy Spirit"? Unless the Spirit speaks in the apostles in such a way that at the same time they also speak in obedience to the Spirit, and yet it is also true that they do not speak, not as if they did not work anything, but that they are not the main authors of the speech. Likewise we read of Stephen, "They could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit that spake by him" sApost. 6, 10.]; and yet he himself speaks before the assembly. Thus Paul says: "I live, but now not I, but Christ lives in me" sGal. 2, 20.fi And yet according to the saying of the same Paul "the righteous man of his faith lives" [Rom. 1, 17. Habac. 2, 4.] How can I therefore say of one who lives that he does not live? namely because he has to thank the Spirit of God for his life. And 1 Cor. 15, 10. "Not I, but the grace of God which is with me." If Paul had done nothing, why would he have said before: he had worked? "But," saith he, "I have labored much more than they all." If what he had said was true, why does he improve his speech here, as if he had not spoken the former with deliberation? His improvement was not so that one would recognize that he had not done anything, but rather so that it would not appear as if he had attributed to his strength something that he had accomplished with the help of God's grace. Thus, by this improvement, he only rejects the suspicion of pride, but not the participation in the work. For God does not want man to attribute anything to himself, even though there is something that he could rightfully attribute to himself. "When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are useless servants,
We have done what we were obligated to do" [Luc. 17, 10.] Would not he do something excellent who would keep all the commandments of God? But whether such a one can be found at all, I do not know. And yet those who do such things should say: We are useless servants. That they have done everything is not denied, but they are only warned to beware of dangerous pride. Man speaks differently, God speaks differently. Man says: I am a servant and a useless servant at that. But what does the Lord say? "O devout and faithful servant" [Luc. 19, 17] and: "Henceforth I do not say that you are servants, but friends" [Joh. 15, 15.] He calls them brothers instead of servants, and those who call themselves useless servants, God calls His children. These same ones, who now consider themselves worthless servants, will one day be addressed by the Lord as follows: "Come, you blessed of my Father" [Matth. 25, 34], and will hear their good works, of which they themselves did not know that they had done them, praised. But I think we have the main key to understanding the Scriptures if we pay attention to what is said in this passage. When we have understood this, we can take out of the similes or examples what serves the purpose.
In the parable of the steward who, because the office was to be taken from him, fraudulently changed the letters of his master's debtors, there are many things that do not contribute to the meaning of the parable; but we only extract this, that each one must strive with all diligence to use the gifts received from God abundantly for the service of his neighbor, before death overtakes him. Likewise in the parable, from which we have quoted before, it says [Luc. 17, 7-9.]: "What man is there among you who has a servant to plow for him or to feed the cattle when he comes home from the field, that he should say to him, 'Go quickly and sit down at the table'? Is it not so, that he saith unto him, Prepare me to eat supper, and dress thyself, and serve me, until I eat and drink; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink also? Does he also thank the same servant for doing what he was commanded? I mean it not." The content of this parable is that men should obey the divine will, wait diligently for their office, and not arrogate to themselves the slightest praise. Incidentally, the behavior of Christ himself conflicts with this parable, in that he behaved as a servant, since he allowed his disciples the honor of being allowed to sit down at the table. He gives thanks by
Says, "Ye godly and faithful servant"; likewise, "Come hither, ye blessed." And therefore he does not put the words like this: "So also, when you have done everything, the Lord will not consider you worthy of any grace and will regard you as useless servants, but says: "Say, we are useless servants. Thus Paul, who had labored much more than the others, calls himself the least of the apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle. Likewise it is written in Matt. 10:29, "Do not two sparrows buy a penny? nor does one of them fall to the ground without your father." Above all, we must see what the Lord is talking about here. He does not want to prove the forced necessity (Diomedäsam nsosssituttziu) of all things here; rather, this example aims at the fact that he may remove the fear of men from his disciples, because they see that God cares for them and that no man can harm a hair of their head without his permission; but he will allow nothing of the kind, if it would not be beneficial for them and the Gospel. In another place Paul says [1 Cor. 9:9], "Doth God care for oxen?" But in what follows in the evangelist there also seems to be an exaggerated speech (hyperbole): "But now all the hairs of your head are numbered." How many hairs do not fall daily on the earth? are these also counted? What was the purpose of the hyperbole here? Certainly, it should express what follows: Do not be afraid.
(33) Just as by such pompous speeches man's fear is taken away and his trust in God is strengthened, without whose providence nothing happens at all, so the ones we have mentioned above do not have the intention of completely destroying free will, but only of deterring people from arrogance, to which the Lord is hostile. It is safest to ascribe everything to the Lord; he is kind and will give us not only what is ours, but also what is his. How could it be said of that prodigal son that he carried through his paternal fortune if he had not had such in his hands? What he had, he got from his father. And we must admit that all natural gifts are gifts from God. The son had his inheritance even then, when it was still in his father's hands, and there it was better kept. Now what does it mean to claim his inheritance and go from his father? It means as much as to usurp the gifts of nature and use them not to keep the commandments of God, but to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. What does hunger mean? The anxiety, through which
God drives the sinner's heart to recognize himself, to be displeased with himself and to have a desire to repent and go to the Father. What does it mean that the son beat within himself and was anxious for a confession of his sins and for the return? It means the will of the man who accepts the propelling or, as it is otherwise called, antecedent grace. What does it mean that the Father went to meet the Son? The grace that helps our will to accomplish what we want. Even if I had invented this interpretation myself, it would still be more probable than the opinion of those who, in order to show that the will of man has no effect, interpret the words: stretch out your hand as you will, thus: grace stretches out your hand as it wills. But since the above statement has been handed down from the orthodox fathers, I do not see why it should be despised. It also includes that a poor widow put two mites, that is, all her possessions into the God box. Dear, what merit can a man claim, who has to thank the one who has given him the powers to do everything he can do by natural reason and with his free will? And yet, God credits us with this, if we do not turn our mind and will away from His grace and drive the natural forces to simple obedience. This proves at least so much that it is not wrong: man works something; but everything he does he should ascribe to God as the author, from whom it comes that man can connect his endeavor with the grace of God. Paul speaks thus: "By God's grace I am that I am" [1 Cor. 15:10]. There he acknowledges GOtt as the author. But if you hear further: "and His grace to me has not been in vain," you see that the human will is at the same time based on the grace of God. This is what he indicates when he says: not I, but God's grace, x xxx xxxx, which is with me. That Hebrew preacher of wisdom desires the assistance of the divine wisdom to be with him and to work with him [Wis. 9, 10]. She stands by as a governor and helper, as a master builder stands by his journeyman and tells him what to do, shows him how to do it, rebukes him when he has begun to do something wrong, and helps him where he lacks something. The work is attributed to the master builder, without whose help it could not have been completed; nevertheless, no one will say that the journeyman and apprentice have done nothing.
I have done in the process. What the master builder does for his apprentice, grace does for our will. Paul says Rom. 8, 26: "The same also the Spirit helpeth out our weakness." No one calls weak the one who can do nothing at all; but rather the one who lacks sufficient strength to do what he strives for is called weak; nor is the one who does everything alone called a helper. All Scripture speaks of assistance, help, means of help, support. But if one says that one helps someone, except one who does something, one does not say of the potter that he helps the clay to make a vessel, or of the carpenter that he helps the axe to make a bench. To those who thus conclude that man can do nothing without the help of God's grace; therefore, no work of man is good, let us oppose, as I believe to be the case, a more probable conclusion: man can do everything with the help of God's grace; therefore, all works of man can be good. Therefore, as many passages as there are in the Holy Scriptures that refer to assistance, there are also as many passages that assert free will, and there is an innumerable number of them. Therefore, if we judge the matter according to the number of testimonies, I have won.
So far, we have compared the passages of Scripture that assert free will with those that seem to abolish it altogether. But since the Holy Spirit, from whom they derive, cannot contradict himself, we must, willingly or unwillingly, exercise some moderation in our opinion. Incidentally, the fact that from one passage of Scripture one person has drawn this opinion, another another, is due to the fact that each one has directed his attention to something different and has interpreted what he read in such a way as suited his purpose. Those who considered among themselves how sluggish men were in the practice of godliness, and what a wicked thing it would be to doubt the blessedness, in wanting to remedy this evil, before they knew it, got into another, and attached too much to the free will of man. Again, others have considered what great harm it would do to true godliness if man were to trust in his own powers and merits, how intolerable is the pride in some who boast of their good works and even sell them to others by measure and weight, as one sells oil and soap; but in carefully avoiding this evil, they have either done too little for the cause, as
if free will had no effect at all on a good work, or they completely eliminated the freedom of the will and introduced an absolute necessity of all things. They thought that it was very fitting for the simple obedience of a Christian heart that the whole person should depend on God's will, place all hope and trust in his promises, and, in recognition of his own great misery, admire and love his immeasurable mercy, which does such great things for us without our merit, and submit completely to his will, whether he wants to preserve us or destroy us; not presuming the least praise for good works, but giving all praise to the grace of God, and thinking that man is nothing but a living instrument of the Holy Spirit, which He has purified and sanctified for him according to His undeserved goodness, which He governs and arranges according to His unsearchable wisdom; there is nothing here that anyone can attribute to his powers, and yet expect with complete confidence from him the reward of eternal life, not because he deserves it by his good works, but because it has pleased his goodness to promise it to those who trust in him. In this, man's task is to pray diligently that God would give us His Spirit and increase it in us; that we give thanks when we have done something good; that we revere His power in all things, admire His wisdom everywhere, love His goodness everywhere. This speech also finds quite an entrance with me. For it agrees with the holy Scriptures and with the confession of those who, having once died to the world, are buried with Christ through baptism, that they put to death their flesh, and thereafter live and are driven by the Spirit of Jesus, into whose body they are implanted through faith. Certainly, this is a godly and pleasant opinion, which removes all pride from us, which transfers all glory and trust to Christ, which drives out of us all fear of men and devils, and which, when we despair of our own ability, makes us courageous and confident in God. We gladly agree with these, as long as they do not fall on exaggerated speeches (hyperbolas). For when I hear that man deserves nothing at all, that all works, even those of the pious, are sin; when I hear that our will proves as ineffective as the clay in the potter's hand; when I hear that everything we do or want should be done out of absolute necessity: many doubts arise in my mind. First of all, why do we so often read that the saints, who are full of good works
have acted righteously, have acted rightly in the sight of God, have not departed either to the right or to the left, if all that the extremely godly do is sin, and such sin that if God did not help them with His mercy, He would cast down into hell the one for whom Christ died? How do we so often hear talk of a reward when there is no merit at all? Why is obedience praised in those who obey the divine commandments, and disobedience punished in those who disobey? Why is judgment so often mentioned in the Scriptures when there is absolutely no reward for merit? Or why do we have to be brought before the judge when nothing happens according to our will, but everything happens within us out of necessity? This thought also stands in my way: what is the use of so many exhortations, so many commandments, so many threats, so many warnings, so many complaints, if we do nothing, but God works everything in us, the willing and the doing, according to His unchanging will? He wants us to pray diligently, to watch, to fight, to strive for the jewel of eternal life. Why does he want to be called upon so earnestly for what he himself has decided to give us or not to give us, and yet he cannot change these decisions because of his immutability? Why do we have to strive with so much work for what he has decided to give us for free or out of grace? We are afflicted, we are expelled, we are mocked, we are martyred and even killed, so the grace of God fights, conquers and overcomes in us. A martyr endures all wrath, and yet not the slightest merit is attributed to him; indeed, it is still called a sin that he lets his body be tormented under the hope of eternal life. But why did the most merciful God want to work in such a way in the martyrs? A person would be considered unmerciful if he did not want to give to his friend what he had decided to give for free, because he would let himself be tortured to the point of despair. But if one comes to the hidden wisdom of God, then we may well be commanded to worship that which we are not to understand, that man should say: He is the Lord, he can do what he wants, and because he is by nature the epitome of good, then that must also be the best thing that he wants.
35. it is also quite likely that god will reward his own gifts in us and that his goodness shall be our reward, and he will
He has worked in us according to his undeserved goodness, and he wants to credit it to those who trust in him as something he owes for the attainment of immortality. Only I do not know how this can be compatible with each other, that those who make the mercy of God to the pious so great, almost accuse God of cruelty against others. Godly ears can hear good talk about the goodness of the One who attributes His goodness to us; But it is difficult to explain how it can be in accord with the justice (not to say the mercy) of God that he should inflict eternal punishment on others whom he has not deemed worthy to work good in them, since they are not able to do anything good for themselves, because they either have no free will at all or, if they have it, they cannot use it for anything but sin. If a king were to give an immense reward to a man who has done nothing in war, while the others who have been brave receive nothing except their regular pay, he might well reply to the grumbling soldiers: Are you wronged, then, when I want to be generous to these out of mercy? But how could he be considered just and merciful if he richly rewarded the victories of a commander whom he had provided with armor, troops, money, and all that was superfluous for war, and on the other hand punished another, whom he had thrust into war without any armor, with his life because of his defeat? Would not the latter, before he had to die, justly say to his king: "Why then do you punish me for what has happened through your fault? If you had equipped me in the same way, I would have won in the same way. Again, if a lord freed a servant who did not deserve it, he might well reply to the other servants who grumbled about it, "Nothing is lost to you because I am so kind to this one; you have what is due to you. But everyone would consider the master cruel and unjust if he had a servant whipped, either because he is of long stature, or because he has a very big nose, or because he otherwise does not look handsome enough. Would he not, with every right, grumble to the master who wants to give him a beating: Why should I suffer punishment for what is not in my power? And he would be able to say this with even better right if it were in the Lord's power to remedy the defect of the body in the servant, just as it is in the power of God to change the will of others; or if the Lord were to give the servant the defect he is offended by,
than if he had cut off his nose or scarred his face hideously, as God, according to some, works all evil in us. Again, with regard to orders, if a master ordered his servant, who was in chains and bonds in the penitentiary, to go there, do this, run and come back, and threatened him harshly where he did not want to be obedient, but he did not release him and let the disobedient servant be beaten: would not the servant rightly consider the master furious or cruel if he had him whipped to death because he had not done what was not in his power?
(36) Furthermore, we gladly hear that they exalt faith and love towards God to a tremendous degree; in that we think that the life of Christians is stained with so many vices comes solely from our dead and sleepy faith, which consists only in words and sits on the tongue, since, according to Paul [Rom. 10:10], one becomes righteous only "if one believes from the heart. I do not want to get into a big argument with those, who draw everything on faith as the source and the main thing, although I think that faith arises from love, and love arises from faith and is sustained by it. Without doubt, love nourishes faith, just as the light in a lamp gets its nourishment from oil. For whom we love dearly, we trust all the more gladly. There are also those who claim that faith is much more the beginning of our blessedness than the end. However, we do not argue about this. By the way, we should be careful that by emphasizing faith we do not deprive the will of all its freedom. For if this is abolished, I do not see how the question of the justice and mercy of God can be solved. Since the ancients could not help themselves from such difficulties, some had to assume two gods: one God of the Old Testament, of whom they said that he was only just, but not also merciful; the other of the New Testament, of whom they said that he was only merciful, but not also just; whose ungodly fiction Tertullian sufficiently refutes. Manichaeus dreamed, as we have said, that there were two natures in man: one had to sin, and the other could do nothing but good. Pelagius, fearing the justice of God, ascribes too great a power to free will, from which opinion those do not deviate far, who are not convinced of human justice.
They have so much ability that they could earn the highest grace, through which we become righteous, by natural forces, through morally good works. These, as I think, wanted to drive man to eager striving by the good hope of the blessedness to be attained. Just as Cornelius, through his prayer and
Alms earned that Peter preached to him, and the chamberlain that Philip taught him. Because St. Augustine carefully searched for Christ in Paul's letters, he deserved to find him. Those who do not admit that man can do anything good that does not come from God, we can satisfy by saying that nevertheless the whole work remains a work of God, without whom we can do nothing, and what the free will does is something very small; and this is the very gift of God, that we can direct our hearts to things that belong to blessedness, or cooperate with grace. Augustine, after the dispute with Pelagius, restricted free will more narrowly than before. Luther, on the other hand, who had previously granted free will some capacity, allowed himself to be carried away by the heat of the defense, so that he abolished it altogether. Among the Greeks, Lycurgus is not well spoken of; I believe because he had the vines cut out of hatred for drunkenness, since if he had provided wells nearby, he would have already prevented drunkenness, so that the use of wine would not be lost. In my opinion, the freedom of the will could have been asserted in such a way that the reliance on our merit would have been avoided and other disadvantages that Luther does not want to have, including those disadvantages that we have stated above, and yet the advantages that Luther holds dear would not have been lost along with them. This seems to be the case with those who attribute the initial impulse of the mind entirely to grace and only attribute some power to the human will as it progresses, if it does not withdraw from God's grace. But since all things have three parts: Since all things have three parts: beginning, progress, and end, they attribute the first and last to grace and say that only in the progress does free will have an effect, but in such a way that in each individual action two causes come together, namely, the grace of God and the will of man, but in such a way that grace is the main cause and the will the next cause after it, because it can do nothing without the main cause, whereas the main cause has enough power for itself. Just as the natural power
of the fire burns; and yet the main cause of it is God, who at the same time works through the fire. This cause alone would be enough, and without it also the fire could not work anything, if it were separated from it. Because of this nature (temperatura), man must attribute all his blessedness to divine grace, since there is very little that free will can do here, and even what it can still do comes from the grace of God, who first created free will and then also made it free and healthy.
And in this way those can be satisfied, if they can be satisfied otherwise, who do not want to hear that man has something good about him, which he does not have to thank God for. He also has to thank God for it, but in a different way and under a different title. Just as the inheritance, which by right belongs to the children, is not called a benefit, because according to the general law it is granted to all; but if something has been given to this or that person beyond the common law, it is called a gratuity; but the children also have to thank the parents under the title of the inheritance. I will try to explain what I have said also by similes. A man's eye, though sound, sees nothing in the dark, and if it is blinded, it sees nothing even in broad daylight; so also the will can do nothing, though it has its liberty when it is at the mercy of grace. But he who has good eyes can close his eyes before the light, so that he does not see; he can also turn his eyes away from the light, so that he no longer sees what he could have seen. But he who has had his eyes blinded by a certain defect has more to be thankful for, first of all to the Creator, then also to the physician. Before sin our eyes were good, but sin has corrupted them. What then can he boast of who sees? He can take credit for something, if he diligently covers or averts his eyes. Now hear another simile: The father helps up his child, who cannot yet walk and has fallen, who exerts himself as much as possible, and points out to him an apple that lies before him; the child feels like going, but would soon have fallen again because of his weak limbs, if the father did not offer his hand to the child, support him and govern his walk. Thus, under the father's guidance, the child comes to the apple, which the father voluntarily gives to him as a reward for walking. The child could not have been in
It would not have perceived the apple if the father had not pointed to it. It would not have been able to walk carefully if the father had not constantly come to the aid of its weak steps. Finally, it would not have been able to obtain the apple if the father had not given it into its hands. What can the child attribute to himself here? And yet it did something, only it cannot boast of its powers, because it has to thank the father for everything. However, we want to assume that this is the same with God. What does the child do now? As soon as the father wants to help him up, he makes an effort as best he can, and adjusts his weak gait according to his instructions, as much as he can. The father could pull it, even if it did not want to, and the childish will could resist and despise the apple; the father could give the apple to the child without it having to run after it, but he would rather give it to it in this way, because it is better for the child that way. I readily admit that our effort contributes even less to the attainment of eternal life than the effort of the child whom the father leads by the hand. And although we see that very little is attributed to free will here, some still think that too much is done to the matter, for they want grace alone to work in us and our will to behave in all things only as an instrument of the Holy Spirit, so that in no way can good be called ours, except insofar as divine goodness imputes it to us without merit. For grace does not work in us by free will, but rather by free will, just as the potter shows his work by the clay, but not by the clay. Where does it come from, then, that the crown and the reward are thought of? Yes, they say, God the Lord crowns His gifts in us and wants His good deeds to be our reward, and what He has worked in us He imputes to us according to His grace, so that we may be transferred to the kingdom of heaven. Here I do not see how they assert a free will, since it is not supposed to behave effectively. For if they said that it was set in motion by grace in such a way that it acted at the same time driven by grace, the explanation would not be so difficult. Just as, according to the opinion of the teachers of nature, our body receives its first movement from the soul, since it could not move without the soul, and yet it not only moves itself, but also sets other things in motion, and, as it were, acts as a helper in the work.
of the honor. If God works on us as the potter works on the clay, what can be attributed to us either for good or for evil? For the soul of Jesus Christ, which was also an instrument of the Holy Spirit, must not be involved in this question. If the weakness of the flesh stands in the way, so that man can earn nothing, then he (Christ) also was terrified before death and wanted that not his, but the Father's will be done. And yet they admit that this [Christ's will] is the source of merit, even though they deny the merit of good works to all other saints.
By the way, even those who say that there is no free will at all, but that everything happens through absolute necessity, God works everything in all, not only good, but also evil. From this it seems to follow that, just as man can in no way be the cause of good works, he can also in no way be called the cause of evil works. Although this opinion obviously accuses God of cruelty and injustice, from which speech Christian ears have a great abhorrence (in that he would cease to be God if anything vicious or imperfect were found in him), those who cherish such a reprehensible opinion do not lack excuses. They say: he is God, everything he does must be the best and most beautiful; If you look at the beauty of the universe, even that which is evil in itself is good here and glorifies God, and it is not up to any creature to master the Creator's counsel, but man must completely submit to it in all things, so that if it pleased God to condemn this or that, he must not grumble about it, but must accept what God pleases, and be convinced that he does everything in the best way, and can do nothing else than what is best. What would happen if man said to God, "Why did you not make me an angel? Wouldn't God rightly answer such a person: "Impudent man, if I had created you as a frog, could you also complain about it? Likewise, if the frog wanted to be right with God: Why did you not create me as a peacock adorned with many colors? Wouldn't God rightly say to him: "You ingrate, I could have created you as an earth sponge or as a bolle; but now you are jumping, boozing and croaking. Again, if a basilisk or a snake were to say, "Why have you made me an animal that is hateful and deadly to everyone, and not instead
to a sheep? What would God answer? Without a doubt, He would say: I liked it that way, and the beauty and order of the world brought it about that way. You have been wronged as little as the flies, mosquitoes and other insects, each of which I have formed in such a way that it must be an immense wonder to those who look at it attentively. And is the spider therefore not an admirable and beautiful little animal, because it is very unlike the elephant? Yes, it is really a far greater miracle with a spider than with an elephant. Is it not enough for you that you are a perfect creature after your own kind? The poison was not given to you to kill others with it, but to defend yourself and your young with it, just as the oxen were provided with horns, the lions with claws, the wolves with teeth and the horses with hooves for this very purpose. Each animal has its use. The horse carries loads, the ox plows, the donkey and the dog are also helpful in the work, the sheep serves man for food and clothing: you need for medicine.
But let us stop reasoning with those who have no reason. We have begun our disputation from man, whom God created in His own image and likeness [Gen. 1:26], and for whose sake He made all things. But since we perceive that some people by nature have excellent bodies and an excellent mind, and are born, as it were, to virtue, others, on the other hand, are strangely formed, others are subject to terrible diseases, still others are so stupid that they are almost on the same level as unreasonable animals, some are even more brutish than cattle, others are so inclined to vices that they seem to be carried away to them by a mighty fate, others are even nonsensical and possessed by the devil: how then shall we resolve the question of the justice and mercy of God here? Shall we exclaim with Paul: "O what depth" 2c? I think this is better than to judge with ungodly iniquity about the counsels of God, which are inscrutable to man. But it is even more difficult to explain how God crowns his good deeds with eternal glory in some cases, but punishes his evil works eternally in others. But in order to defend this strange proposition, they resort to other strange ideas to maintain their cause against their opponents. They make original sin immeasurably great, thereby also corrupting the most glorious powers of human nature to such an extent.
that man can do nothing more by his own strength than not to know God and to hate Him, and not even after being justified by the gift of faith is he able to do any work that is not sin. They make this inclination to sin, which has remained in us from the sin of the first parents, a sin itself, and an insurmountable one, so that there is not a single commandment of God which even a man justified by faith could keep, and all the commandments of God have no other intention than that the grace of God be glorified thereby, which gives blessedness regardless of merit. In the meantime, however, they seem to me to make God's mercy small in one place, so that they can make it all the greater elsewhere; just as if someone wanted to serve a very small lunch to the guests, so that the evening meal would be all the more glorious to the eyes; or as if one wanted to imitate the painters, who, when they want to give light to a painting, shade what lies first. For at first they make God almost cruel, because he shows his wrath on the whole human race because of foreign sin, especially since those who sinned repented and were punished so severely as long as they lived. Then, when they say that even those who have been justified by faith have done nothing but sin, so that by loving God and trusting in Him we have earned nothing but His hatred and disfavor, are they not in this way minimizing the grace of God, which justifies man by faith in such a way that he can still do nothing but sin? Moreover, since God burdens man with so many commandments that are of no use but to increase hatred against God and to increase condemnation, do they not make God even more merciless than the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius? The latter diligently gave many laws, which he knew that most of them would not keep if they did not insist on them, and at first he looked through his fingers; but as soon as he perceived that almost all of them sinned against them, he began to punish them. Thus he made them all worthy of punishment. And yet his laws were such that they could easily have been observed if one had wanted to. I will not now examine the reason why, in their opinion, we cannot possibly fulfill all of God's commandments, for we have not undertaken to do so; but I have only wished to show above that they, out of all too great a desire to destroy the grace in the work of blessedness, have been able to do so.
make them quite large, make them smaller in other things. Of some things I do not see how they can exist. They abolish free will and teach that man is now driven by the spirit of Christ, whose nature cannot bear communion with sin. Nevertheless, they maintain that man, even after he has attained grace, does nothing but sin.
40 Luther seems to have taken a liking to such exaggerated speeches (hyperbolis) in order to counter the exaggerated speeches of others, as a hard branch, also a hard wedge, as one is wont to say. Some were also audaciously falling for hyperbole, selling not only their own merits, but also the merits of all the saints. But what are these works? Chants, murmuring of psalms, eating of fish, hunger, clothes and empty names. Thus Luther drove out one nail with another, saying that the saints had no merits at all, but that all works, even of the most pious, were sins and would have brought us eternal damnation if faith and divine mercy had not come to our aid. On the other hand, confession and pardon were openly used to ensnare human consciences, as well as purgatory, from which they have pretended all sorts of strange things. The opponents seek to correct this error by saying that confession was invented by the devil; or, wanting to express themselves even more modestly, they say that it should not be demanded, that no satisfaction is needed for sin, because Christ atoned for the sin of all men; finally, that there is no purgatory. Furthermore, one part goes so far as to say that the ordinances of some little monastic priest bind in such a way that their transgressors must suffer the punishments of hell; besides, they have no hesitation in assuring eternal life to those who keep them. The opposing party counters this exaggerated speech by saying that all the decrees of the popes, conciliar authorities and bishops are heretical and anti-Christian. In this way, one part exalts papal authority beyond all measure, the other speaks of the pope in such a way that I cannot tell. Again, one part claims that the vows of the monks and clergy bind a man to the punishment of hell and forever; the other part says that such vows are ungodly and not to be taken, and if one has taken them, one must not keep them.
41. from the collision of the like
hyperbolic speeches now arises this flashing and thundering, by which now the whole world is shaken. If both parts continue to remain stiff and firm in their exaggerated speeches, I foresee that such a fight and quarrel will take place among them as between Achilles and Hector; because they were both equally heated, nothing but death could separate them. It is generally said that if you want to straighten a crooked stick, you have to bend it to the opposite side. This is well for the improvement of morals; but whether one may suffer such a thing in points of doctrine, I do not know. I have seen from time to time that hyperbolic expressions find their place in admonitions or warnings. For example, if you wanted to speak courage to a fearful person, you would quite rightly say to him: "Do not fear, God will speak and do everything in you. In order to dampen the ungodly arrogance of men, you would perhaps not say without benefit that man can do nothing but sin, and you would usefully reproach those who demand that their teachings be regarded as equal to the canonical Scriptures with the word that man can do nothing but lie. But where, in the investigation of truth, one accepts generally true principles (xxxxxxxx),
I believe, one must refrain from such strange speeches, which are not far from riddles, at least in such things I like the middle road best. Pelagius attached far too much to free will, and Scotus enough. Luther at first only mutilated him and deprived him of his right arm, and because soon after that was not enough for him, he even knocked him to the ground and removed him from the means.
I put up with the opinion of those who attribute something to free will and the most to grace. For it is not necessary to escape the Scylla of presumption and pride in such a way as to be led into the Charybdis of despair or security; it is not necessary to treat a dislocated limb in such a way as to twist it to the opposite side, but to restore it to its proper position; it is not necessary, with the face turned toward the enemy, to fight in such a way that before we know it he gives us a wound in the back. If we follow this middle road, the situation is such that man can do a good, though imperfect, work of which he may not boast; there will be some merit, which, however, he must attribute entirely to God. In this life, mortals have so many weaknesses, shortcomings and vices in themselves that if
If only each one will look at himself, he will soon lower the comb; although we do not suppose that even a justified man can do nothing but sin, especially since Christ speaks of regeneration, and Paul of a new creature. You may object: Why then is something granted to free will? This is done in order to justly impute something to the wicked, who wickedly resist God's grace; in order to exclude from God the blasphemy of cruelty and injustice; in order to exclude from us despair; in order to exclude security; in order to drive us to eager striving. For these reasons, almost everyone claims freedom of will, which has no power without the constant grace of God, so that we do not presume anything ourselves. Yes, someone would like to say: What is the use of free will if it has no effect? I answer: What is the use of the whole man, if God acts with him in such a way as the potter acts with the clay, and as he can act with a pebble?
43. Therefore, when it has been sufficiently proved that this subject is of such a nature that it would not be conducive to true godliness, especially among the simple-minded, if it were examined more deeply than it ought to be; when we have shown that this opinion has its ground in several and clearer testimonies of Scripture than the contrary opinion; when it has been established that the sacred Scriptures in most places either make use of obscure, flowery speeches or contradict themselves at first sight, and that for this very reason we have sometimes had to depart, willingly or unwillingly, from the words and the letter and form our opinion according to the interpretation; if it has also finally been shown how many clumsy, I do not want to say inconsistent things follow from the complete rejection of free will; if it is evident that this generally accepted opinion, as I have presented it, does not overturn anything of what Luther spoke in a godly and Christian way about the highest love for God, about the throwing away of all trust in merit, in works, and in our powers, about the complete trust that one is to place in God and in His promises: I give the reader this to consider, whether he thinks it fair to reject the opinion of so many church teachers, which so many peoples have approved of for so many centuries, and to accept certain unheard-of things, which are now causing unrest in Christendom.
judge. If these are correct, I freely confess that I have an unlearned head that cannot grasp them; this I know for certain, that I do not resist the truth, that I heartily love the truly evangelical freedom, and that I have an abhorrence of everything that is contrary to the Gospel. So I do not present here the person of a judge, as I said above, but of a disputing party (disputatoris), and yet I can say with truth that I have observed in disputing the conscientiousness that was sought from sworn judges in matters of life and death in former times. And even though I am an old man, I will not be ashamed or disgusted to learn from a young man, if he has a Protestant attitude.
He is a gentle man who presents more obvious things. Here I will have to hear, I already know: Erasmus only learn to know Christ, and leave human cleverness behind; no one understands this but the one who has the Holy Spirit. If I do not yet understand what Christ is, then one has certainly strayed far from the right goal, although I would like to learn this, what kind of spirit so many Christian teachers and peoples have had, because it is likely that the people believed just what the bishops taught, now already thirteen hundred years ago, who have not seen this. I have explained the matter, others may judge.
End of the Diatribe, or Treatise on Free Will by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.
Other writings that belong to Luther's dispute against Erasmus, namely various judgments of Luther about Erasmus, letters of Luther concerning Erasmus to Spalatin, Hausmann, Lang, and Caspar Börner; Amsdorf's letter to Luther together with his answer to it, and Luther's preface to the book of Antonius Corvinus about Erasmus' proposal for church unification, can be found in the appendix to this volume, no. 3 to no. 12, and in the 15th volume, appendix, no. 76, Col. 157. 3 to No. 12 and in the 15th volume of the old edition, Appendix, No. 76, Col. 157; likewise a letter to Justus Jonas, dated October 19, 1527, Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 1061, and another, dated October 8, 1527, to Michael Stiefel, ibid. Col. 1060; Luther's Table Talks on Erasmus, Walch, St. Louis edition, Vol. XXII, Col. 1073 et seq, Cap. 37, §§ 106-135; Cap. 4, § 23; Cap. 15, § 25; Cap. 22, § 40; Cap. 27, § 135; Cap. 73, § 11; Cap. 76, § 26, para. 2; and in Appendix No. II, Nos. 288. 289. 354. 405. 679. 1116. 1544. and 1671. Some other writings bearing on this subject are mentioned in the introduction to this section.