Folly emphasizes irony in her satirical characterization of the teachings of a prominent (though unnamed) Catholic theologian. Noting several of his errors and misinterpretations, Folly states:
On top of this our theologue, you recall, intends that by the word “sword” is embraced whatever is necessary for repelling violence [...] And so this interpreter of the divine mind leads forth the apostles equipped with lances, crossbows, slings, and muskets, for the task of preaching Christ crucified. [...] Nor has it disturbed this interpreter [...] that no one has ever heard it told that the apostles used swords or shields against the violence of the heathen, though they would have used them if Christ had meant what the interpreter finds here.
In the introduction, More promised that he would not name any of the targets of his satire in this essay, and he keeps that promise here. Instead, Folly addresses her target only as “our theologue.” This unnamed theologian, Folly claims, has mistranslated and misinterpreted important sections of the Bible in order to defend the Church’s tendency to wage violent war upon its perceived enemies.
As a result, the theologian presents what Folly believes to be an incorrect picture of true Christian faith, imagining “apostles equipped with lances, crossbows, slings,” and other weapons “for preaching Christ crucified.” Folly’s language here emphasizes the irony of this error; Christ’s weapon-bearing apostles, in this interpretation of Christianity, seem better prepared to crucify Christ than to serve him. Here, Folly comes very close to expressing ideas that Erasmus articulates elsewhere under his own name.
