In Praise of Folly
it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath no sword let him sell his
garment, and buy one_. Now when the whole doctrine of our Saviour
inculcates nothing more frequently than meekness, patience, and a
contempt of this world, is it not plain what the meaning of the place
is? Namely, that he might now dismiss his ambassadors in a more naked,
defenceless condition, he does not only advise them to take no thought
for shoes or scrip, but even commands them to part with the very clothes
from their back, that so they might have the less incumbrance and
entanglement in the going through their office and function. He cautions
them, it is true, to. be furnished with a sword, yet not such a carnal
one as rogues and highwaymen make use of for murder and bloodshed,
but with the sword of the Spirit, which pierces through the heart, and
searches out the innermost retirements of the soul, lopping off all our
lust, and corrupt affections, and leaving nothing in possession of our
breast but piety, zeal, and devotion: this (I say) in my opinion is the
most natural interpretation.
But see how that divine misunderstands the place; by sword (says he)
is meant, defence against persecution; by scrip, or purse, a sufficient
quantity of provision; as if Christ had, by considering better of it,
changed his mind in reference to that mean equipage, which he had before
sent his disciples in, and therefore came now to a recantation of what
he had formerly instituted: or as if he had forgot what in time past he
had told them, _Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute
you, and say all manner of evil against you for my sake. Render not evil
for evil, for blessed are the meek_, not the cruel: as if he had forgot
that he encouraged them by the examples of sparrows and lilies to take
no thought for the morrow; he gives them now another lesson, and charges
them, rather than go _without a sword, to sell their garment, and
buy one_; as if the going cold and naked were more excusable than
the marching unarmed. And as this author thinks all means which are
requisite for the prevention or retaliation of injuries to be implied
under the name of sword, so under that of scrip, he would have
everything to be comprehended, which either the necessity or conveniency
of life requires.
Thus does this provident commentator furnish out the disciples with
halberts, spears, and guns, for the enterprise of preaching Christ
crucified; he supplies them at the same time with pockets, bags, and
portmanteaus, that they might carry their cupboards as well as their
bellies always about them: he takes no notice how our Saviour afterwards
rebukes Peter for drawing that sword which he had just before so
strictly charged him to buy; nor that it is ever recorded that the
primitive Christians did by no ways withstand their heathen persecutors
otherwise than with tears and prayers, which they would have exchanged
more effectually for swords and bucklers, if they had thought this text
would have borne them out.
There is another, and he of no mean credit, whom for respect to his
person I shall forbear to name, who commenting upon that verse in the
prophet Habakkuk (_I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction, and the
curtains of the land of Midian did tremble_), because tents were
sometimes made of skins, he pretended that the word tents did here
signify the skin of St. Bartholomew, who was flayed for a martyr.
I myself was lately at a divinity disputation (where I very often pay my
attendance), where one of the opponents demanded a reason why it should
be thought more proper to silence all heretics by sword and faggot,
rather than convert them by moderate and sober arguments? A certain
cynical old blade, who bore the character of a divine, legible in the
frowns and wrinkles of his face, not without a great deal of disdain
answered, that it was the express injunction of St. Paul himself, in
those directions to Titus (_A man that is an heretic, after the first
and second admonition, reject_), quoting it in Latin, where the word
_reject_ is _devita_, while all the auditory wondered at this citation,
and deemed it no way applicable to his purpose; he at last explained
himself, saying, that _devita_ signified _de vita tollendum hereticum_,
a heretic must be slain. Some smiled at his ignorance, but others
approved of it as an orthodox comment And however some disliked that
such violence should be done to so easy a text, our hair-splitting and
irrefragable doctor went on in triumph. To prove it yet (says he) more
undeniably, it is commanded in the old law [_Thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live_]: now then every _Maleficus_, or witch, is to be killed,
but an heretic is _Maleficus_, which in the Latin translation is put for
a witch, _ergo, &c_. All that were present wondered at the ingenuity of
the person, and very devoudy embraced his opinion, never dreaming that
the law was restrained only to magicians, sorcerers, and enchanters:
for otherwise, if the word _Maleficus_ signified what it most naturally
implies, every evil-doer, then drunkenness and whoredom were to meet
with the same capital punishment as witchcraft But why should I squander
away my time in a too tedious prosecution of this topic, which if drove
on to the utmost would afford talk to eternity? I aim herein at no more
than this, namely, that since those grave doctors take such a swinging
range and latitude, I, who am but a smattering novice in divinity, may
have the larger allowance for any slips or mistakes.
Now therefore I return to St. Paul, who uses these expressions [_Ye
suffer fools gladly_] applying it to himself; and again [_As a fool
receive me_], and [_That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but
as it were foolishly_]; and in another place [_We are fools for Christ's
sake_]. See how these commendations of Folly are equal to the author of
them, both great and sacred. The same holy person does yet enjoin and
command the being a fool, as a virtue of all others most requisite and
necessary: for, says he [_If any man seem to be wise in this world, let
him become a fool that he may be wise_]. Thus St. Luke records, how
our Saviour, after his resurrection, joining himself with two of his
disciples travelling to Emmaus, at his first salutation he calls them
fools, saying [_O fools, and slow of heart to believe_], Nor may this
seem strange in comparison to what is yet farther delivered by St. Paul,
who adventures to attribute something of Folly even to the all-wise God
himself [_The foolishness of God_ (says he) _is wiser than men_];
in which text St. Origen would not have the word foolishness any way
referred to men, or applicable to the same sense, wherein is to be
understood that other passage of St. Paul [_The preaching of the cross
to them that perish, foolishness_]. But why do I put myself to the
trouble of citing so many proofs, since this one may suffice for all,
namely, that in those mystical psalms wherein David represents the
type of Christ, it is there acknowledged by our Saviour, in way of
confession, that even he himself was guilty of Folly; _Thou_ (says he)
_O God knowest my foolishness?_ Nor is it without some reason that
fools for their plainness and sincerity of heart have always been
most acceptable to God Almighty. For as the princes of this world
have shrewdly suspected, and carried a jealous eye over such of their
subjects as were the most observant, and deepest politicians (for thus
Caesar was afraid of the plodding Cassius, and Brutus, thinking
himself secure enough from the careless drinking Anthony; Nero likewise
mistrusted Seneca, and Dionysius would have been willingly rid of
Plato), whereas they can all put greater confidence in such as are of
less subtlety and contrivance So our Saviour in like manner dislikes
and condemns the wise and crafty, as St. Paul does expressly declare
in these words, _God hath chosen the foolish things of the world_; and
again, _it pleased God by foolishness to save the world_; implying that
by wisdom it could never have been saved. Nay, God himself testifies
as much when he speaks by the mouth of his prophet, _I will destroy
the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the understanding of the
learned_. Again, our Saviour does solemnly return his Father thanks
for that he had _hidden the mysteries of salvation from the wise,
and revealed them to babes_, i.e., to fools; for the original word
_vnpriois_, being opposed to _oooois_ if one signify wise, the other
must foolish. To the same purpose did our blessed Lord frequently
condemn and upbraid the scribes, pharisees, and lawyers, while he
carries himself kind and obliging to the unlearned multitude: for what
otherwise can be the meaning of that tart denunciation, _Woe unto you
scribes and pharisees_, than woe unto you wise men, whereas he seems
chiefly delighted with children, women, and illiterate fishermen.
We may farther take notice, that among all the several kinds of brute
creatures he shews greatest liking to such as are farthest distant from
the subtlety of the fox. Thus in his progress to Jerusalem he chose to
ride sitting upon an ass, though, if he pleased, he might have mounted
the back of a lion with more of state, and as little of danger. The Holy
Spirit chose rather likewise to descend from heaven in the shape of a
simple gall-less dove, than that of an eagle, kite, or other more lofty
fowl.
Thus all along in the holy scriptures there are frequent metaphors and
similitudes of the most inoffensive creatures, such as stags, hinds,
lambs, and the like. Nay, those blessed souls that in the day of
judgment are to be placed at our Saviour's right hand are called sheep,
which are the most senseless and stupid of all cattle, as is evidenced
by Aristotle's Greek proverb, a sheepishness of temper, a dull,
blockish, sleepy, unmanly humour. Yet of such a flock Christ is not
ashamed to profess himself the shepherd. Nay, he would not only have all
his proselytes termed sheep, but even he himself would be called a lamb;
as when John the Baptist seeth Jesus coming unto him, he saith, _Behold
the Lamb of God_; which same title is very often given to our Saviour in
the apocalypse.
All this amounts to no less than that all mortal men are fools, even the
righteous and godly as well as sinners; nay, in some sense our blessed
Lord himself, who, although he was the _wisdom of the Father_, yet
to repair the infirmities of fallen man, he became in some measure a
partaker of human Folly, when he _took our nature upon him, and was
found in fashion as a man_; or when _God made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him_. Nor
would he heal those breaches our sins had made by any other method
than by the _foolishness of the cross_, published by the ignorant and
unlearned apostles, to whom he frequently recommends the excellence
of Folly, cautioning them against the infectiousness of wisdom, by the
several examples he proposes them to imitate, such as children, lilies,
sparrows, mustard, and such like beings, which are either wholly
inanimate, or at least devoid of reason and ingenuity, guided by
no other conduct than that of instinct, without care, trouble, or
contrivance. To the same intent the disciples were warned by their lord
and master, that when they should be _brought unto the synagogues, and
unto magistrates and powers_, they shall _take no thought how, or what
thing they should answer, nor what they should say_: they were again
strictly forbid to _enquire into the times and seasons_, or to place
any confidence in their own abilities, but to depend wholly upon divine
assistance.
At the first peopling of paradise the Almighty had never laid so strict