For, our business 75 is not content with an external teacher. Besides Him who plants and waters without, it desires the Spirit of God also (that He may give the increase, and being Himself life, He may teach the doctrine of life within the soul — a thought which imposed on me). Still, whereas this Spirit is free, and breathes not where we would, but where He himself wills, I should have observed that rule of Paul’s, “Be instant in season, out of season,” for we know not at what hour the Lord shall come. What if some have not yet experienced the teaching of the Spirit through my writings, and have been dashed to the ground by your Diatribe! It may be that their hour has not yet come.
And who knows but that God may deign to visit even you, my excellent Erasmus, by so wretched and frail a little vessel of His, as myself? Who knows but that I may come to you in a happy hour (I wish it from my heart of the Father of Mercies through Christ our Lord) by means of this treatise, and may gain a most dear brother? For, although you both think ill and write ill on the subject of Freewill, I owe you vast obligations for having greatly confirmed me in my sentiments, by letting me see the cause of Freewill pleaded by such and so great a genius, with all his might — and yet, after all, so little is effected that it stands worse than it did before. Here is an evident proof that Freewill is a downright lie, since, like the woman in the Gospel, the more it is healed by the doctors, the worse it fares. I will give unbounded thanks to you if the event is that you are made to know the truth through me, even as I have become more fixed in it through you. Yet, each of these results is the gift of the Spirit, not the achievement of our own good offices. 76
We must therefore pray God to open my mouth and your heart, and the hearts of all men, and to be present himself as a Teacher in the midst of us, speaking and hearing severally within our souls. Once more, let me beg of you, my Erasmus, to bear with my rudeness of speech, even as I bear with your ignorance on these subjects. God does not give all his gifts to one man; nor have we all power to do all things; or, as Paul says, “There are distributions of gifts, but the same Spirit.” 1Cor 12.11 It remains, therefore, that the gifts labour mutually for each other, and that one man bear the burden of another’s penury by the gift which he has received himself; thus we fulfil the law of Christ. (Gal 6.2.)
PART I. ERASMUS’ PREFACE REVIEWED.
SECTION 1. Assertions defended.
I WOULD begin with passing rapidly through some chapters of your Preface, by which you sink our cause and set up your own. 77 And first, having already found fault with me in other publications, for being so positive and inflexible in my assertions, in this you declare yourself to be so little pleased with my assertions, that you would be ready to go over and side 78 with the Sceptics on any subject in which the inviolable authority of the divine Scriptures, and the decrees of the Church, would allow you to do so. Indeed, on all occasions, you willingly submit your own judgment to that of the Church, whether you understand what she prescribes or not. This is the temper you like.
I give you credit, as I should, for speaking with a benevolent mind which loves peace; but if another man were to say so, I would perhaps inveigh against him, as is my way. I would not, however, allow even you, though writing with the best intention, to indulge so erroneous an opinion.
11-12 [long note]
For it is not the property of a Christian mind to be displeased with assertions — indeed, a man must be absolutely pleased with assertions, or he will never be a Christian. Now, that we may not mock each other with vague words,79 I call ‘adhering with constancy, affirming, confessing, maintaining, and invincibly persevering,’ an ASSERTION. Nor do I believe that the word ‘assertion’ means anything else, either as it is used by the Latins, or in our own age. Again, I confine ‘assertion’ to those things which have been delivered by God to us in the sacred writings. We do not want Erasmus, or any other Master, to teach us in doubtful matters, or in matters that are unprofitable and unnecessary, those assertions which are not only foolish but even impious — those very strifes and contentions which Paul more than once condemns. 80 Nor do I assume that you speak of them in this place, unless by adopting the manner of a ridiculous Orator, you have chosen to presume one subject of debate and discuss another (like the one who harangued the Rhombus); or with the madness of an impious Writer, you are contending that the article of Freewill is dubious or unnecessary. 81
We Christians disclaim all intercourse with the Sceptics and Academics, but we admit into our family asserters who are twofold more obstinate than even the Stoics themselves. How often the Apostle Paul demands that Plerophory, 82 or most assured and most tenacious ‘assertion’ of what our conscience believes! In Romans 10 he calls it ‘confession,’ saying, “and with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom 10.10.) And Christ says, “He who confesses me before men, I will also confess him before my Father.” (Mat 10.32.) Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us. (1Pet 3.15.) And what need is there for many words? Nothing is more notorious and more celebrated among Christians than Assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Indeed, the Holy Ghost is given to them from heaven, that He may glorify Christ and confess him even unto death. Unless this is not asserting: to die for confessing and asserting! In short, the Spirit is such an assertor that He even goes out as a champion to invade the world, and reprove it of sin, as though he would provoke it to fight. And Paul commands Timothy to “rebuke, and to be instant out of season.” (Joh 16.8; 2Tim 4.2) But what a droll sort of rebuker he would be, who neither assuredly believes, nor with constancy asserts, the truth which he rebukes others for rejecting. I would send the fellow to Anticyra.83 But I am far more foolish myself, in wasting words and time on a matter that is clearer than the sun. What Christian would endure that assertions should be despised? This would be nothing else but a denial of all religion and piety at once; or an assertion that neither religion, nor piety, nor any dogma of the faith, is of the least moment. And why, I ask, do you also deal in assertions?
You say, ‘I am not pleased with assertions, and I like this temper better than its opposite.’
But you would be understood to mean nothing about confessing Christ and his dogmas in this place. I thank you for the hint, and out of kindness to you, I will recede from my right and from my practice, and will forbear to judge your intention, reserving such judgment for another time, or for other topics. Meanwhile, I advise you to correct your tongue and your pen, and hereafter to abstain from such expressions. For however sound and pure your mind may be, your speech (which is said to be the image of the mind) is not so. For if you judge the cause of Freewill to be one which it is not necessary to understand, and to be no part of Christianity, then you speak correctly; but your judgment is profane. On the contrary, if you judge it to be necessary, then you speak profanely and judge correctly. But then, there is no room for these mighty complaints and exaggerations about useless assertions and contentions: for what have these to do with the question at issue?
SECT. 2. Erasmus shown to be a Sceptic.
But what do you say to those words of yours in which you speak not of the cause of Freewill only, but of all religious dogmas in general — ‘that if the inviolable authority of the divine writings and the decrees of the Church allowed it, you would go over and side with the Sceptics, so displeased are you with assertions.’
What a Proteus is in those words, ‘inviolable authority and decrees of the Church!’ — as if you had a great reverence, truly, for the Scriptures and for the Church, but hint that you wished you were at liberty to become a Sceptic. What Christian would speak this way? If you say this about useless dogmas concerning matters of indifference, what novelty is there in this? In such cases, who does
