ease
remain now what you have always professed yourself desirous of being: a
mere spectator of our tragedy'. There is a ring of ironical contempt in
Luther's words, but Erasmus called the letter 'rather humane; I had not
the courage to reply with equal humanity, because of the sycophants'.

In order to be able to combat Luther with a clear conscience Erasmus had
naturally to choose a point on which he differed from Luther in his
heart. It was not one of the more superficial parts of the Church's
structure. For these he either, with Luther, cordially rejected, such as
ceremonies, observances, fasting, etc., or, though more moderately than
Luther, he had his doubts about them, as the sacraments or the primacy
of St. Peter. So he naturally came to the point where the deepest gulf
yawned between their natures, between their conceptions of the essence
of faith, and thus to the central and eternal problem of good and evil,
guilt and compulsion, liberty and bondage, God and man. Luther confessed
in his reply that here indeed the vital point had been touched.

_De libero arbitrio diatribe_ (_A Disquisition upon Free Will_) appeared
in September 1524. Was Erasmus qualified to write about such a subject?
In conformity with his method and with his evident purpose to vindicate
authority and tradition, this time, Erasmus developed the argument that
Scripture teaches, doctors affirm, philosophers prove, and human reason
testifies man's will to be free. Without acknowledgement of free will
the terms of God's justice and God's mercy remain without meaning. What
would be the sense of the teachings, reproofs, admonitions of Scripture
(Timothy iii.) if all happened according to mere and inevitable
necessity? To what purpose is obedience praised, if for good and evil
works we are equally but tools to God, as the hatchet to the carpenter?
And if this were so, it would be dangerous to reveal such a doctrine to
the multitude, for morality is dependent on the consciousness of
freedom.

Luther received the treatise of his antagonist with disgust and
contempt. In writing his reply, however, he suppressed these feelings
outwardly and observed the rules of courtesy. But his inward anger is
revealed in the contents itself of _De servo arbitrio_ (_On the Will not
free_). For here he really did what Erasmus had just reproached him
with--trying to heal a dislocated member by tugging at it in the
opposite direction. More fiercely than ever before, hi