innovator in the use of words, who, contrary to all common usage, endeavours to introduce such a mode of speaking as to call a beggar rich — not for having any money of his own, but because some king might perhaps give him his? Especially if he were to do this as though in earnest, without any figure of speech such as antiphrasis 165 or irony. So too, if he were to call someone who is sick to death, a man in perfect health, because some other healthy person might possibly make him whole, like himself. So too, if he were to call a most illiterate idiot, a very learned man, because some other learned person might possibly give him letters. It is just the same sort of thing which is said here — ‘man has Free will;’ yes, truly, if God were to give him His. By such an abuse of speech, any man might boast anything about himself: for instance, that he is Lord of heaven and earth — that is, if God would only give it to him. Such, however, is not the language of theologians, but of stage-players and swaggerers.166

Our words should be plain, pure, and sober, 167 or what Paul calls “sound and irreprehensible.” (Tit 2.7-8)
If, then, we are not willing to give up the term altogether (which would be the safest expedient, and most consistent with piety), still, let us teach men to keep good faith in using it only within certain limits. Thus, Freewill is conceded to man, only with respect to those substances which are inferior to himself, and not to those which are his superiors. In other words, let him know that, with regard to his faculties and possessions, he has a right to use them — of doing, and of forbearing to do — according to his own free will; even if this very right is also controlled by God’s free will alone, wherever God sees fit to interpose. But in his actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but he is the captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God, or of the will of Satan. 168

SECT. 26. Luther concludes his review of Erasmus’ Preface by reducing him to a dilemma, and making short work of some of his sharp sayings.
I have said this much on the chapters of your Preface, which even in themselves contain almost the whole of our matter — more of it, I might say, than the body of the book which follows. But the sum of these is what might be dispatched by this short dilemma. Your preface complains either of the words of God, or of the words of man. If it complains of the words of man, then it is all written in vain, and I have no concern with it. If it complains of the words of God, then it is altogether profane. So that, it would have been more profitable to make this our question: Are the words about which we dispute, God’s words, or man’s words? But, perhaps the Proem which follows, and the disputation itself, will discuss this question.
What you repeat in the conclusion of your preface, does not at all disturb me, such as calling my dogmas ‘fables, and useless;’ that ‘we should rather, after the example of Paul, preach Christ crucified;’ that ‘wisdom must be taught among those who are mature;’ that ‘Scripture has its language variously tempered to the state of the hearers,’ which makes you think that it is left to the prudence and charity of the teacher, to preach what he may deem suitable to his neighbour.
All this is absurdity and ignorance. I also preach nothing but Jesus crucified. But “Christ crucified” brings all these things along with it; and moreover, it brings that very wisdom among those who are mature, since there is no other wisdom to be taught among Christians, than that which is hidden in a mystery and belongs to the mature; not to children 169 of a Jewish and legal people, who glory in works without faith.

This is Paul’s meaning in 1Cor 2, unless you would have ‘the preaching of Christ crucified’ mean no more than sounding out the phrase, ‘Christ was crucified.’
As for those expressions, ‘God is angry,’ ‘has fury,’ ‘hates,’ ‘grieves,’ ‘pities,’ ‘repents,’ — we know that none of these things happen to God.
You are looking for a knot in a bulrush. 170 These expressions do not make Scripture obscure, or something that must be modulated according to the varieties of the hearer; except that some people are fond of making obscurities where there are none. These are matters of grammar: the sentiment is expressed in figurative words, but those words which even schoolboys understand. However, in this cause of ours, we are talking about doctrines, not about figures of speech.

PART II. LUTHER COMMENTS ON ERASMUS’ PROEM.

SECTION 1. Canonical Scriptures are to be the standard of appeal. Human authority, all against Luther, is admitted but depreciated.
Now, therefore, when you are about to enter upon your disputation, you promise to plead the Canonical Scriptures only, since Luther does not hold himself bound by the authority of any other writer.

I am satisfied, and I accept your promise, even though you do not make it on the basis of judging those other writers unprofitable to the cause, but to spare yourself useless labour. For you do not quite approve of this audacity of mine, or whatever else the principle must be called, by which I regulate myself in this instance.
You are not a little moved, truly, by so numerous a series of the most learned men, who have been approved by the common consent of so many ages. Among them are to be found men of the greatest skill in sacred literature, some of the most holy of our Martyrs, and many celebrated for their miracles. Add to these a number of more modern theologians, so many Universities, Councils, Bishops, and Pontiffs. In short, on the one side stands erudition, genius, numbers, grandeur, high rank, fortitude, sanctification, miracles, and what not? But on my side, there is only Wickliff and one other, Laurentius Valla,171 whose weight is nothing in comparison with the former (though Augustine also, whom you pass over, is altogether with me).

There remains none but Luther, you say — a private man, a man of yesterday — and his friends, who have neither so much learning, nor so much genius; no numbers, no grandeur, no sanctification, no miracles — who cannot even heal a lame horse. They make a parade of Scripture, which they, as well as the opposite party, nevertheless consider to be equivocal. 172 They boast of the Spirit also; but they give no signs of possessing it. —And if you pleased, you could specify a great many other particulars. 173 — There is nothing on our side, therefore, but what the wolf acknowledged of the devoured nightingale; ‘You are a voice,’ he said, ‘and nothing else.’ ‘They talk,’ you say; ‘and for this only, they expect to be believed.’
I confess, my Erasmus, that you are not without good reason moved by all these things. I was so much affected by them myself for more than ten years, 174 that I think no other person was ever equally harassed by such conflicts. And it was utterly incredible to me, that this Troy of mine could ever be taken, which had proved itself to be invincible for so long a time, and during so many wars. No, I call God for a record upon my soul, that I would have continued in my opinion, and would still be impressed to this day with the same feelings [as yours], if it were not that the goadings of my own conscience, and the evidence of facts, constrained me to judge differently. You can have no difficulty in conceiving that, although my heart is not a heart of stone, yet if it were one, it might have melted in the struggle and collision with such waves and tides is I brought upon myself, by daring to do an act which would, as I perceived it, cause all the authority of these persons whom you have recounted, to come down upon my own head with all the violence of a deluge. 175

But this is not the place for me to construct a history of my life, or of my works; nor have I taken this book in hand with the design of commending myself, but that I might extol the grace of God. What sort of a man I am, and with what spirit and design I have been hurried into these transactions, I commit 176 to that Being, who knows that all these things have been effected, not by my own Freewill, but by His. However, even the world itself should have become sensible of this long ago. It is evidently a very invidious situation into which you throw me by this exordium of yours, from which it is not easy for me to extricate myself without trumpeting my own praises, and censuring so many of the Fathers. But I will be short. In erudition, genius, numbers, authority, and everything else, I allow the cause to be tried at your judgment-seat, and acknowledge myself the inferior.177

But if I were to turn upon my judge, and propose these three questions to you — What is the manifestation of the Spirit? What are Miracles? What is Sanctification? 178 — you would be found too inexpert and too ignorant (so far as I