So, on the other hand, if God works in us the will which has been changed and softly whispered to by the Spirit of God, again it wills and acts according to its own sheer lust, proneness, and self-accord, and is not compelled. So that, it cannot be changed into another sort of will by any opposite excitements, nor overcome or compelled even by the gates of hell. But it goes on willing and liking and loving good, just as before it willed and liked and loved evil. For experience again proves how invincible and constant holy men are, while they are goaded on to other objects, by force— to the extent that they are thereby more provoked to will: just as fire is inflamed by the wind, rather than extinguished by it! So that, in this case, there is no freedom in the will to turn itself another way, nor to will something else, as the free will might choose, so long as the Spirit and God’s grace remain in the man.
In short, if we are under the power of the god of this world — being destitute of the work and Spirit of the true God, we are held captive by him at his will, as Paul says, 2Tim 2.26; so that, we cannot will anything but what he wills.
For he is himself that armed strong-man, who so keeps his palace that those whom he possesses are at peace, lest they stir up any commotion or thought against him. Otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas Christ affirms that it does stand. And we willingly and cordially do this will of his, agreeably to the nature of our will. Our will, if it were compelled, would not be a Will — for compulsion is more properly Non-will, if I may say so. 156 But if a stronger will comes upon it, and having conquered it, carries it off as a spoil, then again, we become servants and captives through His spirit (which, however, is royal liberty), to will and do of our own desire, just what He himself wills. Thus, the human will is placed as a sort of packhorse, in the midst of two contending parties. If God has mounted, it wills and goes where God pleases. As the Psalmist says, “I have become as a beast of burden, and I am ever with you.” 157 (Psa 73.22-23) If Satan has mounted, then it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor is it in its own choice, which of the two riders it runs to or seeks as its rider; but the riders themselves contend for the acquisition and possession of it. 158
SECT. 25. Erasmus convicted by his own concession: the folly and madness of man’s claiming Freewill.
What if I were to prove from your own words, in which you assert Freewill, that there is no such thing as Freewill, so as to convict you of unwarily denying the conclusion which you endeavour with so much wariness to establish? Truly, if I do not succeed in this, I swear to revoke all that I have written against you, from the beginning to the end of this book; and to confirm all that your Diatribe either asserts or questions against me.159
You represent the power of the free will as something very diminutive, and altogether inefficacious without the grace of God. Do you not acknowledge this? I ask and demand, then, if the grace of God is lacking, or is separated from this little something of power, what will it do by itself? 160
It is inefficacious, you say, and it does nothing that is good. Then it will not do what God or his grace would have done (for we suppose here, that the grace of God is in a state of separation from it), and what the grace of God does not do, is not good. It follows, therefore, that the free will, 161 without the grace of God, is not absolutely free, but is immutably the captive and slave of evil, since it cannot, of itself, turn to good. Let but this be allowed, and I will give you leave to make the power of the free will not only that small something, but the power of an angel; a power, if you can, that is truly divine. Still, if you add this unhappy appendage — that it is inefficacious without the grace of God — you will instantly take away all its power. What is an inefficacious power, but no power at all?
To say, then, that the will is free, and has power, but that its power is inefficacious, is what the Sophists call ‘an opposite in the adjunct.’ It is as if to say, the will is free, but it is not free. It is like saying, fire is cold, and earth is hot. Let fire possess even an infernal degree of heat; if it neither warms nor burns, but is cold and it makes cold, I will not call it fire, much less hot — unless you choose to consider it as a painting or an engraving of a fire.
If, however, we declare Freewill to be that power which renders man a fit substance to be seized by the Spirit and imbued with the grace of God, as a being created to eternal life, or to eternal death, then we would speak properly. For we also confess this power (that is, this fitness) in the will, or as the Sophists say, this disposable quality and passive adaptedness, which everybody knows is not implanted in the trees and in the beasts. For ‘God has not created heaven for geese and ganders,’ as it is said. 162
It stands fixed, even by your own testimony, therefore, that we do all things by necessity, and nothing by Freewill, so long as the power of the free will is nothing, and neither does nor can do good, in the absence of grace. Unless you, by a new use of terms, choose to mean ‘completion’ by ‘efficacy,’ intimating that Freewill can begin and can will a good work, though not complete it — which I do not believe. But more of this later.
It follows from what has been said, that Freewill is a title which altogether belongs to God, and cannot join with any other being, save the Divine Majesty. For that Divine Majesty, as the Psalmist sings, can and does effect all that He wills in heaven and earth. (Psa 135.6) But if this title is ascribed to men, then you might just as well ascribe divinity itself to them — a sacrilege which none can exceed.
So that, it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this word when they would speak of human power, and to leave it for God only; and having done this, to remove it from the mouth and discourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their God. 163 No, but if they must by all means ascribe some power to man, then they should teach that it be called by some other name than ‘Freewill;’ especially when, as we all see and know, the common people are miserably seduced and beguiled by this term. They hear in it, and conceive from it, something far different from what theologians entertain in their minds, and affirm. For ‘Freewill’ is too magnificent, extensive, and copious a term. The common people suppose by it (as both the force and the nature of the word require) that a power is meant, which can turn itself freely to either side, and is of such an extent as not to yield or be subjected to anyone. If they knew that the fact is otherwise, and that scarcely a small particle of a little spark is signified by it, and that this very small particle is quite inefficacious by itself — no, that it is the captive and slave of the devil — it would be strange if they did not stone us as mockers and deceivers, for uttering a sound so very different from our meaning. And this too, is when it is not even a settled and agreed upon thing among us yet, what we really do mean by it! For “he who speaks deceitfully,” says the wise man, “is detestable;” 164 especially, if he does so in matters of piety, where eternal salvation is at stake.
We have lost the substance which is expressed by so glorious a name; or rather, we have never possessed it. Indeed, the Pelagians would have it that we do possess it — they are beguiled by this word, as you are. Why do we so obstinately retain an empty name, to the mocking and endangering of the common people who believe?
It is the same sort of wisdom as that by which kings and princes either retain, or claim and vaunt themselves to possess, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, when all the while they are almost beggars, and are as far as possible from possessing those kingdoms and countries. This, however, is a folly that may be borne, since they neither deceive nor beguile anyone; they only feed themselves on vanity, to no profit at all. But in the case before us, the soul-danger and the deception are most injurious.
Who would not laugh at (or rather hate) that unseasonable
