Theological Origins of Modernity

138 chapter five
directing his actions and taking responsibility for them, that man in other
words is not just a creature determined in everything he does by God or
fate but a freely choosing moral being whose actions make a diff erence for
his earthly life and for his salvation.
When Melanchthon read On the Freedom of the Will, he recognized
Erasmus’s moderation and promised him Luther would be moderate as
well. 20 Luther, however, was furious from the moment he discovered that
Erasmus had written against him, describing this act as a “great refusal.” 21
When he received On the Freedom of the Will, Luther was reluctant to read
it, and when he did, he repeatedly wanted to throw it under the bench. While
his response was long in coming, it was hard-hitting and unequivocal. 22
Luther titled his response On the Bondage of the Will. While Luther
had sought to avoid the debate, he proved himself so adept in conducting
it that Erasmus was convinced his response had been ghostwritten
by Melanchthon and Justus Jonas. 23 His suspicions were misguided but
understandable. Luther demonstrated a rhetorical skill in the work that
was as unexpected as it was striking. Despite its rhetorical and theological
brilliance, however, the work is oft en exasperating because it does not
answer many of the questions Erasmus poses and oft en degenerates into a
personal attack on Erasmus.
Erasmus was shocked. He had tried to help Luther and was astounded
by his response, which he believed to be the result of a deep-seated fatalism
and antinomianism. If Luther could turn against someone so near to him,
how could he get along with anyone? And what eff ect would such a teaching
have on the behavior of the masses? For Erasmus, the Peasants’ Rebellion
(1524–26) was the terrifying answer. He was also convinced from Luther’s
reply that there was nothing more he could do to save him from the abyss of
fanaticism. Under such circumstances further discussion was futile.
Erasmus responded to Bondage of the Will with Th e Shield Bearer (Hyperaspistes),
a work published in two long volumes. Th is is a work of pure
self-defense. Luther had blackened his reputation and he had to respond.
He did so at length, considering Luther’s charges one by one. Th e work was
thus not really intended for Luther, and there is no evidence that Luther
ever read it. 24
Whatever the merits of the arguments, in a practical sense Luther won
the debate. Aft er the publication of Bondage of the Will, no reconciliation
between evangelicalism and humanism was possible. Luther thereby
forced those interested in reform to choose between him and Erasmus,
and eff ectively forced Erasmus into the arms of the church. Faced with this
choice, those clamoring for reform could hardly fail to side with Luther.
However, while Luther won in the short term, he was less successful there-