THE EXHORTATION.

We flee from this simplicity, as if we fear we might seem to know too little, bringing in from every direction whatever secular literature exists. In doing so, we do not exactly corrupt the most important part of Christian Philosophy, but—and this cannot be denied—we restrict to a few men a thing which Christ intended to be the most common of all. This kind of philosophy is situated more truly in the emotions than in logical syllogisms; it is a way of life rather than a debate; it is an inspiration rather than mere learning; it is a transformation rather than a rational argument. To be "learned" is a lot that falls to only a few; but no one is forbidden from being a Christian, no one is forbidden from being devout, and I will even say this boldly: no one is forbidden from being a Theologian. For that which is most in harmony with nature easily sinks into the minds of all. And what else is the Philosophy of Christ, which He Himself calls rebirth, than the restoration of a nature that was originally well-constituted? Furthermore, although no one has delivered these teachings more perfectly or effectively than Christ, one can find many things in the books of the Gentiles original: "Ethnicorum", referring to pre-Christian Greek and Roman authors which agree with this doctrine. There was never a school of philosophy so crude that it taught that money makes a man happy; none so shameless that it placed the highest good in those common honors or pleasures. The Stoics saw that no one is wise unless he is a good man; they saw that nothing is truly good or honorable except true virtue, and nothing is terrifying or evil except moral foulness alone. Socrates, in the works of Plato, teaches in many ways that an injury should not be repaid with an injury. Likewise, since the soul is immortal, he teaches that those who depart from here into a happier life with the confidence of a well-spent life are not to be mourned. Furthermore, the soul must be led away from the passions of the body by every means and directed toward those things which truly exist, even though they are not seen. Aristotle wrote in his Politics that no thing can be sweet to us if it is not, in some way, held in contempt—with the single exception of virtue. Even Epicurus confesses that nothing in the life of men can be sweet unless a mind is present that is conscious of no evil, from which true pleasure flows as if from a fountain. What of the fact that many men—especially Socrates, Diogenes, and Epictetus—provided a great part of this doctrine in their own lives? Yet since Christ both taught and provided these same things so much more fully, is it not like a miracle that these things are either ignored, neglected, or even laughed at by Christians? If there are things that belong more closely to Christianity, let us follow them and let the old things pass away; but if these are the only things that can truly make a man a Christian, why do we treat them almost as more obsolete and abolished than the Mosaic books? The first thing, however, is to know what He taught; the next is to practice it. For I do not think anyone should consider himself a Christian because he disputes with a thorny and troublesome entanglement of words about instants, relations, quiddities, and formalities These were highly technical terms used in Scholastic logic and metaphysics which Erasmus viewed as unnecessary distractions from the Gospel., but rather if he holds and expresses what Christ taught and displayed. Not that I condemn the study of those who have exercised the powers of their intellect in such subtleties (for I would not wish to offend anyone), but because I think—and truly think, unless I am mistaken—that the pure and genuine Philosophy of Christ is drawn more successfully from nowhere else than from the books of the Gospels and from the Apostolic letters. In these, if anyone philosophizes with piety, praying rather than arguing, and seeking to be transformed rather than to be armed for battle, he will undoubtedly find that there is nothing pertaining to human happiness, nothing pertaining to any function of this life, which is not delivered, discussed, and perfected within them. If we desire to learn anything, why does another author please us more than Christ Himself? If we seek a pattern for living, why is any other example before us rather than the archetype, Christ Himself? If we desire some medicine against the troublesome desires of the mind, why is a remedy sought more readily elsewhere? If we wish to revive a lazy and fainting soul by the sprinkling of reading, I ask you, where will you find sparks equally alive and effective? If it pleases you to call the mind away from the troubles of this life, why do other delights please you more? Why do we prefer to learn the wisdom of Christ from the writings of men rather than from Christ Himself? He promised that He would always be with us even to the end of the age, and He fulfills this especially in these writings, in which He even now lives, breathes, and speaks to us—I might almost say more effectively than when He moved among men. The Jews saw less and heard less than you see and hear in the Gospel writings, provided that you bring the eyes and ears by which He can be perceived and heard. What is the meaning of this? We preserve letters written by a friend, we kiss them, we carry them around, we read them again and again; yet there are so many thousands of Christians who, though they are otherwise learned, have never even read the Gospel and Apostolic books in their entire lives. The Muslims original: "Mahumetani" hold to their own dogmas; the Jews even today learn their Moses from their very cradles. Why do we not show the same respect for Christ? Those who profess the rule of Benedict hold, learn, and soak up a rule written by a man—and he almost an unlearned man original: "idiota", meaning someone without formal academic training and written for the unlearned. Those who are of the Augustinian Order are expert in the rule of their author. The Franciscans adore and embrace the petty traditions of their Francis, and wherever they travel in the world, they carry them with them; they do not believe themselves safe unless the little book is in their pocket. Why do they attribute more to a rule written by a man than all Christians attribute to their own rule, which Christ delivered to all, and which all equally professed in baptism? Finally, what rule could be holier than this (even if you added six hundred others)? And I wish it would happen that just as Paul wrote that the Law of Moses was not glorious compared to the glory of the succeeding Gospel, so the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles would be held so holy by all Christians that other things would not seem holy in comparison to them. What some wish to attribute to Albert the Great, to Alexander, to Thomas, to Aegidius, to Richard, or to Ockham Erasmus is listing the "Great Doctors" of Scholasticism: Albertus Magnus, Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Aegidius Romanus, Richard of St. Victor, and William of Ockham., is entirely up to each person as far as I am concerned. For I would not wish to diminish anyone’s glory or fight with the long-standing studies of men. Let those works be as learned as you like, as subtle as you like, even Seraphic A reference to the "Seraphic Doctor," Bonaventure. if they wish; yet they must admit that these [scriptures] are the most certain. Paul wants the spirits of the prophets to be judged to see if they are from God; Augustine, reading all the books of all men with judgment, claims no more authority for his own. In these writings alone, even what I do not attain, I still adore. Not a school of Theologians, but the Heavenly Father Himself has proven this Author to us by the testimony of His divine voice, and that twice: first at the Jordan at His baptism, then on Mount Thabor at the transfiguration. "This," He said, "is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him." Oh, what solid authority—and truly "irrefragable" An "irrefragable" argument is one that cannot be refuted; Erasmus is playfully using a technical Scholastic term to describe the voice of God., as those men call it! What does "hear Him" mean? Surely, that He is the only teacher, and you should be disciples of Him alone. Let everyone exalt his own author as much as he wants in his studies; this was said of Christ alone without exception. Upon Him first the dove descended, the witness of the Father's testimony. Peter closely reflects His spirit, to whom that Great Shepherd committed His sheep to be fed once, twice, and a third time—to be fed, no doubt, with the food of Christian doctrine. This spirit was as if reborn in Paul, whom Christ Himself called a chosen vessel and a distinguished herald of His name. John expressed in his own writings what he had drawn from that most sacred fountain of the Lord's breast. What, I ask, is similar in Scotus? (I would not want that to seem said as an insult). What is similar in Thomas? Although I admire the genius of the former, and I even venerate the holiness of the latter. Why do we not all philosophize in these great authors? Why do we not carry this in our pockets, why do we not always have these in our hands, why do we not hunt, search, and inquire in these constantly? Why is a greater portion of life given to Averroës A 12th-century Islamic philosopher whose commentaries on Aristotle were central to university education. than to the Gospels? Why is almost an entire lifetime wasted in the decrees of men and in opinions fighting among themselves? Now indeed, let those things belong to the "sublime Theologians" if they wish. But in these [scriptures], certainly, is the first training of the one who will someday be a great Theologian. As many of us as have sworn by the words of Christ in baptism—if we have sworn from the heart—let us be imbued with the dogmas of Christ immediately among the embraces of our parents and the charms of our nurses. For that which a new little vessel of the mind first drinks in sits most deeply and clings most tenaciously. Let the first babbling sound of Christ; let infancy be formed by His Gospels, which so...