Desiderius Erasmus Versus Martin Luther

[aron]

The following was published in 1501, by Erasmus. It is part of Chapter 7, of a 38-chapter book, entitled "Enchiridion Militis Christianii", or "The Manual of a Christian Warrior". Chapter 7 is called "On the three parts of man, the spirit, the soul, and the flesh"

These things afore written had been and that a great deal more than sufficient: Origene in his first book upon the epistle of Paul to the Romans maketh this division. nevertheless that thou mayst be somewhat more sensibly known unto thyself, I will rehearse compendiously the division of a man, after the description of Origene, for he followeth Paul making three parts, the spirit, the soul and the flesh, which three parts Paul joined together, writing to the Thessaloniences. That your spirit (saith he) your soul and your body may be kept clean and uncorrupt, that ye be not blamed or accused at the coming of our Lord Jesu Christ. And Esaias (leaving out the lowest part) maketh mention of two, saying, My soul shall desire and long for thee in the night, yea, and in my spirit and my heart strings I will wake in the mornings for to please thee. Also Daniel saith, Let the spirits and souls of good men laud God. The flesh. Out of the which places of scripture Origene gathereth not against reason the three partitions of man, that is to wit, the body, otherwise called the flesh, the most vile part of us, wherein the malicious serpent through original trespass hath written the law of sin, wherewithal we be provoked to filthiness. And also if we be overcome, we be coupled and made one with the devil. The spirit. Then the spirit wherein we represent the similitude of the nature of God, in which also our most blessed maker after the original pattern and example of his own mind hath graven the eternal law of honesty with his finger, that is, with his spirit the Holy Ghost. By this part we be knit to God, and made one with him. In the third place, and in the midst between these two he putteth the soul, which is partaker of the sensible wits and natural motions. Thou must remember the soul and the spirit to be one substance, but in the soul be many powers, as wit, will, memory: but the spirit is the most pure and farthest from corruption, the most high and divine portion of our soul. Capax of God [recognition or awareness of God] immediately wherein God hath graven the law of honesty, that is to say, the law natural, after the similitude of the eternal law of his own mind. She is in a seditious and wrangling commonwealth and must needs join herself to the one part or the other, she is troubled of both parts, she is at her liberty to whether part she will incline. If she forsake the flesh and convey herself to the parts of the spirit, she herself shall be spiritual also. But if she cast herself down to the appetites of the body she shall grow out of kind into the manner of the body. This is it that Paul meant writing to the Chorintes. Remember ye not that he that joineth himself to an harlot is made one body with her: but he that cleaveth to the Lord, is one spirit with him. He calleth the harlot the frail and weak part of the man. This is that pleasant and flattering woman of whom thou readest in the second chapter of Proverbs on this wise. That thou mayst be delivered from a strange woman and from a woman of another country, which maketh her words sweet and pleasant, and forsaketh her husband to whom she was married in her youth, and hath forgot the promise she made to her Lord God: her house boweth down to death and her path is to hell. Whosoever goeth into hell, shall never return: nor shall attain the path of life. And in the vi. chapter. That thou mayst keep thee from an evil woman, and from the flattering tongue of a strange woman, let not thy heart melt on her beauty, be not thou deceived with her beckonings, for the price of an harlot is scarce worth a piece of bread: but the woman taketh away the precious soul of the man. Did he not when he made mention of the harlot, the heart and the soul express by name three parts of the man? Again, in the ix. chapter: A foolish woman ever babbling and full of words, swimming in pleasures, and hath no learning at all, sitteth in the doors of her house upon a stool in a high place of the city to call them that pass by the way and be going in their journey, Whosoever is a child, let him turn in to me: and she said unto a fool and an heartless person, Water that is stolen is pleasanter, and bread that is hid privily is sweeter. And he was not aware that there be giants, and their jests be in the bottom of hell. For whosoever shall be coupled to her, he shall descend into hell. And whosoever shall depart from her, shall be saved. I beseech thee with what colours could more workmanly have been painted and set out either the venomous enticements and wanton pleasures of the poisoned flesh, provoking and tempting the soul to filthiness of sin, or else the importunity of the same crying and striving against the spirit, or the wretched end that followeth when she doth overcome the spirit. To conclude therefore, the spirit maketh us gods, the flesh maketh us beasts: the soul maketh us men: the spirit maketh us religious, obedient to God, kind and merciful. The flesh maketh us despisers of God, disobedient to God, unkind and cruel. The soul maketh us indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor bad. The spirit desireth celestial things: the flesh desireth delicate and pleasant things: the soul desireth necessary things: the spirit carryeth us up to heaven: the flesh thrusteth us down to hell. To the soul nothing is imputed, that is to say, it doth neither good nor harm: whatsoever is carnal or springeth of the flesh that is filthy: whatsoever is spiritual proceeding of the spirit, that is pure, perfect and godly: whatsoever is natural and proceedeth of the soul, is a medium and indifferent thing, neither good nor bad. Wilt thou more plainly have the diversity of these three parts shewed unto thee as it were with a man’s finger? Certainly I will essay. That which is natural deserveth no reward. Thou doest reverence to thy father and mother: thou lovest thy brother, thy children and thy friend: it is not of so great virtue to do these things, as it is abominable not to do them. For why shouldest thou not being a christian man do that thing which the gentiles by the teaching of nature do, yea which brute beasts do? That thing that is natural shall not be imputed unto merit. But thou art come in to such a strait case that either the reverence toward thy father must be despised, the inward love towards thy children must be subdued, the benevolence to thy friend set at nought, or God must be offended. What wilt thou now do? The soul standeth in the midst between two ways: the flesh crieth upon her on the one side, the spirit on the other side. The spirit saith, God is above thy father: thou art bound to thy father but for thy body only. To God thou art bound for all thing that thou hast. The flesh putteth thee in remembrance, saying: Except thou obey thy father, he will disinherit thee, thou shalt be called of every man an unkind and unnatural child, look to thy profit, have respect to thy good name and fame. God either doth not see, or else dissimuleth and wittingly looketh beside it, or at the least, will be soon pacified again. Now thy soul doubteth, the soul doubteth, now she wavereth hither and thither, to whether of either part she turn herself. That same shall she be, that that thing is she went unto. If she obey the harlot, that is to say the flesh (the spirit despised) she shall be one body with the flesh. But if she lift up herself and ascend to the spirit (the flesh set at nought) she shall be transposed and changed to the nature of the spirit. After this manner accustom to examine thyself prudently.

This was published 15 years before Luther protested indulgences at Wittenberg. This was the kind of work I was referencing when I said (on the thread "Was Witness Lee a False Prophet?") that Erasmus had "light". My assertion had nothing to do with the Pope, the Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation.

I remember Witness Lee said he'd gotten the teaching of the three parts of man from Mary McDonough ("God's plan of redemption", published in 1922, reprinted by LSM in 1999). I would argue that Lee was a few centuries out of date, at least, and I also feel that Erasmus (and Origen, as well) did as goor or better a job of explaining this matter than did Witness Lee.

Of course, "better" and "worse" are subjective human assessments. So I am trying to give an example showing why I prefer Erasmus. Can someone give an example of Lee's writing on the three parts of man, which is better (i.e. more useful) to us than this excerpt might be?