The _Colloquia_ gave rise to much more hatred and contest than the _Moria_, and not without reason, for in them Erasmus attacked persons.
He allowed himself the pleasure of ridiculing his Louvain antagonists.
Lee had already been introduced as a sycophant and braggart into the edition of 1519, and when the quarrel was a.s.suaged, in 1522, the reference was expunged. Vincent Dirks was caricatured in _The Funeral_ (1526) as a covetous friar, who extorts from the dying testaments in favour of his order. He remained. Later sarcastic observations were added about Beda and numbers of others. The adherents of Oecolampadius took a figure with a long nose in the _Colloquies_ for their leader: "Oh, no," replied Erasmus, "it is meant for quite another person."
Henceforth all those who were at loggerheads with Erasmus, and they were many, ran the risk of being pilloried in the _Colloquia_. It was no wonder that this work, especially with its scourging mockery of the monastic orders, became the object of controversy.
Erasmus never emerged from his polemics. He was, no doubt, serious when he said that, in his heart, he abhorred and had never desired them; but his caustic mind often got the better of his heart, and having once begun to quarrel he undoubtedly enjoyed giving his mockery the rein and wielding his facile dialectic pen. For understanding his personality it is unnecessary here to deal at large with all those fights on paper.
Only the most important ones need be mentioned.
Since 1516 a pot had been boiling for Erasmus in Spain. A theologian of the University at Alcala, Diego Lopez Zuniga, or, in Latin, Stunica, had been preparing Annotations to the edition of the New Testament: "a second Lee", said Erasmus. At first Cardinal Ximenes had prohibited the publication, but in 1520, after his death, the storm broke. For some years Stunica kept persecuting Erasmus with his criticism, to the latter"s great vexation; at last there followed a _rapprochement_, probably as Erasmus became more conservative, and a kindly att.i.tude on the part of Stunica.
No less long and violent was the quarrel with the syndic of the Sorbonne, Noel Bedier or Beda, which began in 1522. The Sorbonne was prevailed upon to condemn several of Erasmus"s dicta as heretical in 1526. The effort of Beda to implicate Erasmus in the trial of Louis de Berquin, who had translated the condemned writings and who was eventually burned at the stake for faith"s sake in 1529, made the matter still more disagreeable for Erasmus.
It is clear enough that both at Paris and at Louvain in the circles of the theological faculties the chief cause of exasperation was in the _Colloquia_. Egmonda.n.u.s and Vincent Dirks did not forgive Erasmus for having acridly censured their station and their personalities.
More courteous than the aforementioned polemics was the fight with a high-born Italian, Alberto Pio, prince of Carpi; acrid and bitter was one with a group of Spanish monks, who brought the Inquisition to bear upon him. In Spain "Erasmistas" was the name of those who inclined to more liberal conceptions of the creed.
In this way the matter acc.u.mulated for the volume of Erasmus"s works which contains, according to his own arrangement, all his _Apologiae_: not "excuses", but "vindications". "Miserable man that I am; they just fill a volume," exclaimed Erasmus.
Two of his polemics merit a somewhat closer examination: that with Ulrich von Hutten and that with Luther.
[Ill.u.s.tration: XXI. MARTIN LUTHER AS A MONK]
[Ill.u.s.tration: XXII. ULRICH VON HUTTEN]
Hutten, knight and humanist, the enthusiastic herald of a national German uplift, the ardent hater of papacy and supporter of Luther, was certainly a hot-head and perhaps somewhat of a muddle-head. He had applauded Erasmus when the latter still seemed to be the coming man and had afterwards besought him to take Luther"s side. Erasmus had soon discovered that this noisy partisan might compromise him. Had not one of Hutten"s rash satires been ascribed to him, Erasmus? There came a time when Hutten could no longer abide Erasmus. His knightly instinct reacted on the very weaknesses of Erasmus"s character: the fear of committing himself and the inclination to repudiate a supporter in time of danger.
Erasmus knew that weakness himself: "Not all have strength enough for martyrdom," he writes to Richard Pace in 1521. "I fear that I shall, in case it results in a tumult, follow St. Peter"s example." But this acknowledgement does not discharge him from the burden of Hutten"s reproaches which he flung at him in fiery language in 1523. In this quarrel Erasmus"s own fame pays the penalty of his fault. For nowhere does he show himself so undignified and puny as in that "Sponge against Hutten"s mire", which the latter did not live to read. Hutten, disillusioned and forsaken, died at an early age in 1523, and Erasmus did not scruple to publish the venomous pamphlet against his former friend after his demise.
Hutten, however, was avenged upon Erasmus living. One of his adherents, Henry of Eppendorff, inherited Hutten"s bitter disgust with Erasmus and persecuted him for years. Getting hold of one of Erasmus"s letters in which he was denounced, he continually threatened him with an action for defamation of character. Eppendorff"s hostility so thoroughly exasperated Erasmus that he fancied he could detect his machinations and spies everywhere even after the actual persecution had long ceased.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] Melanchthon, _Opera, Corpus Reformatorum_, XII 266, where he refers to _Querela pacis_, which, however, was not written before 1517; _vide_ A. 603 and I p. 37.10.
CHAPTER XVIII
CONTROVERSY WITH LUTHER AND GROWING CONSERVATISM
1524-6
Erasmus persuaded to write against Luther--_De Libero Arbitrio_: 1524--Luther"s answer: _De Servo Arbitrio_--Erasmus"s indefiniteness contrasted with Luther"s extreme rigour--Erasmus henceforth on the side of conservatism--The Bishop of Basle and Oecolampadius--Erasmus"s half-hearted dogmatics: confession, ceremonies, worship of the Saints, Eucharist--_Inst.i.tutio Christiani Matrimonii_: 1526--He feels surrounded by enemies
At length Erasmus was led, in spite of all, to do what he had always tried to avoid: he wrote against Luther. But it did not in the least resemble the _geste_ Erasmus at one time contemplated, in the cause of peace in Christendom and uniformity of faith, to call a halt to the impetuous Luther, and thereby to recall the world to its senses. In the great act of the Reformation their polemics were merely an after-play.
Not Erasmus alone was disillusioned and tired--Luther too was past his heroic prime, circ.u.mscribed by conditions, forced into the world of affairs, a disappointed man.
Erasmus had wished to persevere in his resolution to remain a spectator of the great tragedy. "If, as appears from the wonderful success of Luther"s cause, G.o.d wills all this"--thus did Erasmus reason--"and He has perhaps judged such a drastic surgeon as Luther necessary for the corruption of these times, then it is not my business to withstand him."
But he was not left in peace. While he went on protesting that he had nothing to do with Luther and differed widely from him, the defenders of the old Church adhered to the standpoint urged as early as 1520 by Nicholas of Egmond before the rector of Louvain: "So long as he refuses to write against Luther, we take him to be a Lutheran". So matters stood. "That you are looked upon as a Lutheran here is certain," Vives writes to him from the Netherlands in 1522.
Ever stronger became the pressure to write against Luther. From Henry VIII came a call, communicated by Erasmus"s old friend Tunstall, from George of Saxony, from Rome itself, whence Pope Adrian VI, his old patron, had urged him shortly before his death.
Erasmus thought he could refuse no longer. He tried some dialogues in the style of the _Colloquies_, but did not get on with them; and probably they would not have pleased those who were desirous of enlisting his services. Between Luther and Erasmus himself there had been no personal correspondence, since the former had promised him, in 1520; "Well then, Erasmus, I shall not mention your name again." Now that Erasmus had prepared to attack Luther, however, there came an epistle from the latter, written on 15 April 1524, in which the reformer, in his turn, requested Erasmus in his own words: "Please remain now what you have always professed yourself desirous of being: a mere spectator of our tragedy". There is a ring of ironical contempt in Luther"s words, but Erasmus called the letter "rather humane; I had not the courage to reply with equal humanity, because of the sycophants".
In order to be able to combat Luther with a clear conscience Erasmus had naturally to choose a point on which he differed from Luther in his heart. It was not one of the more superficial parts of the Church"s structure. For these he either, with Luther, cordially rejected, such as ceremonies, observances, fasting, etc., or, though more moderately than Luther, he had his doubts about them, as the sacraments or the primacy of St. Peter. So he naturally came to the point where the deepest gulf yawned between their natures, between their conceptions of the essence of faith, and thus to the central and eternal problem of good and evil, guilt and compulsion, liberty and bondage, G.o.d and man. Luther confessed in his reply that here indeed the vital point had been touched.
_De libero arbitrio diatribe_ (_A Disquisition upon Free Will_) appeared in September 1524. Was Erasmus qualified to write about such a subject?
In conformity with his method and with his evident purpose to vindicate authority and tradition, this time, Erasmus developed the argument that Scripture teaches, doctors affirm, philosophers prove, and human reason testifies man"s will to be free. Without acknowledgement of free will the terms of G.o.d"s justice and G.o.d"s mercy remain without meaning. What would be the sense of the teachings, reproofs, admonitions of Scripture (Timothy iii.) if all happened according to mere and inevitable necessity? To what purpose is obedience praised, if for good and evil works we are equally but tools to G.o.d, as the hatchet to the carpenter?
And if this were so, it would be dangerous to reveal such a doctrine to the mult.i.tude, for morality is dependent on the consciousness of freedom.
Luther received the treatise of his antagonist with disgust and contempt. In writing his reply, however, he suppressed these feelings outwardly and observed the rules of courtesy. But his inward anger is revealed in the contents itself of _De servo arbitrio_ (_On the Will not free_). For here he really did what Erasmus had just reproached him with--trying to heal a dislocated member by tugging at it in the opposite direction. More fiercely than ever before, his formidable boorish mind drew the startling inferences of his burning faith. Without any reserve he now accepted all the extremes of absolute determinism. In order to confute indeterminism in explicit terms, he was now forced to have recourse to those primitive metaphors of exalted faith striving to express the inexpressible: G.o.d"s two wills, which do not coincide, G.o.d"s "eternal hatred of mankind, a hatred not only on account of demerits and the works of free will, but a hatred that existed even before the world was created", and that metaphor of the human will, which, as a riding beast, stands in the middle between G.o.d and the devil and which is mounted by one or the other without being able to move towards either of the two contending riders. If anywhere, Luther"s doctrine in _De Servo Arbitrio_ means a recrudescence of faith and a straining of religious conceptions.
But it was Luther who here stood on the rockbed of a profound and mystic faith in which the absolute conscience of the eternal pervades all. In him all conceptions, like dry straw, were consumed in the glow of G.o.d"s majesty, for him each human co-operation to attain to salvation was a profanation of G.o.d"s glory. Erasmus"s mind after all did not truly _live_ in the ideas which were here disputed, of sin and grace, of redemption and the glory of G.o.d as the final cause of all that is.
Was, then, Erasmus"s cause in all respects inferior? Was Luther right at the core? Perhaps. Dr. Murray rightly reminds us of Hegel"s saying that tragedy is not the conflict between right and wrong, but the conflict between right and right. The combat of Luther and Erasmus proceeded beyond the point at which our judgement is forced to halt and has to accept an equivalence, nay, a compatibility of affirmation and negation.
And this fact, that they here were fighting with words and metaphors in a sphere beyond that of what may be known and expressed, was understood by Erasmus. Erasmus, the man of the fine shades, for whom ideas eternally blended into each other and interchanged, called a Proteus by Luther; Luther the man of over-emphatic expression about all matters.
The Dutchman, who sees the sea, was opposed to the German, who looks out on mountain tops.
"This is quite true that we cannot speak of G.o.d but with inadequate words." "Many problems should be deferred, not to the oec.u.menical Council, but till the time when, the gla.s.s and the darkness having been taken away, we shall see G.o.d face to face." "What is free of error?"
"There are in sacred literature certain sanctuaries into which G.o.d has not willed that we should penetrate further."
The Catholic Church had on the point of free will reserved to itself some slight proviso, left a little elbow-room to the consciousness of human liberty _under_ grace. Erasmus conceived that liberty in a considerably broader spirit. Luther absolutely denied it. The opinion of contemporaries was at first too much dominated by their partic.i.p.ation in the great struggle as such: they applauded Erasmus, because he struck boldly at Luther, or the other way about, according to their sympathies.
Not only Vives applauded Erasmus, but also more orthodox Catholics such as Sadolet. The German humanists, unwilling, for the most part, to break with the ancient Church, were moved by Erasmus"s attack to turn their backs still more upon Luther: Mutia.n.u.s, Zasius, and Pirckheimer. Even Melanchthon inclined to Erasmus"s standpoint. Others, like Capito, once a zealous supporter, now washed their hands of him. Soon Calvin with the iron cogency of his argument was completely to take Luther"s side.
It is worth while to quote the opinion of a contemporary Catholic scholar about the relations of Erasmus and Luther. "Erasmus," says F. X.
Kiefl,[19] "with his concept of free, unspoiled human nature was intrinsically much more foreign to the Church than Luther. He only combated it, however, with haughty scepticism: for which reason Luther with subtle psychology upbraided him for liking to speak of the shortcomings and the misery of the Church of Christ in such a way that his readers could not help laughing, instead of bringing his charges, with deep sighs, as beseemed before G.o.d."
The _Hyperaspistes_, a voluminous treatise in which Erasmus again addressed Luther, was nothing but an epilogue, which need not be discussed here at length.
Erasmus had thus, at last, openly taken sides. For, apart from the dogmatical point at issue itself, the most important part about _De libero arbitrio_ was that in it he had expressly turned against the individual religious conceptions and had spoken in favour of the authority and tradition of the Church. He always regarded himself as a Catholic. "Neither death nor life shall draw me from the communion of the Catholic Church," he writes in 1522, and in the _Hyperaspistes_ in 1526: "I have never been an apostate from the Catholic Church. I know that in this Church, which you call the Papist Church, there are many who displease me, but such I also see in your Church. One bears more easily the evils to which one is accustomed. Therefore I bear with this Church, until I shall see a better, and it cannot help bearing with me, until I shall myself be better. And he does not sail badly who steers a middle course between two several evils."
But was it possible to keep to that course? On either side people turned away from him. "I who, formerly, in countless letters was addressed as thrice great hero, Prince of letters, Sun of studies, Maintainer of true theology, am now ignored, or represented in quite different colours," he writes. How many of his old friends and congenial spirits had already gone!
A sufficient number remained, however, who thought and hoped as Erasmus did. His untiring pen still continued to propagate, especially by means of his letters, the moderating and purifying influence of his mind throughout all the countries of Europe. Scholars, high church dignitaries, n.o.bles, students, and civil magistrates were his correspondents. The Bishop of Basle himself, Christopher of Utenheim, was a man after Erasmus"s heart. A zealous advocate of humanism, he had attempted, as early as 1503, to reform the clergy of his bishopric by means of synodal statutes, without much success; afterwards he had called scholars like Oecolampadius, Capito and Wimpfeling to Basle. That was before the great struggle began, which was soon to carry away Oecolampadius and Capito much further than the Bishop of Basle or Erasmus approved. In 1522 Erasmus addressed the bishop in a treatise _De interdicto esu carnium_ (_On the Prohibition of eating Meat_). This was one of the last occasions on which he directly opposed the established order.
The bishop, however, could no longer control the movement. A considerable number of the commonalty of Basle and the majority of the council, were already on the side of radical Reformation. About a year after Erasmus, Johannes Oecolampadius, whose first residence at Basle had also coincided with his (at that time he had helped Erasmus with Hebrew for the edition of the New Testament), returned to the town with the intention of organizing the resistance to the old order there. In 1523 the council appointed him professor of Holy Scripture in the University; at the same time four Catholic professors lost their places.
He succeeded in obtaining general permission for unlicensed preaching.
Soon a far more hot-headed agitator, the impetuous Guillaume Farel, also arrived for active work at Basle and in the environs. He is the man who will afterwards reform Geneva and persuade Calvin to stay there.
Though at first Oecolampadius began to introduce novelties into the church service with caution, Erasmus saw these innovations with alarm.
Especially the fanaticism of Farel, whom he hated bitterly. It was these men who r.e.t.a.r.ded what he still desired and thought possible: a compromise. His lambent spirit, which never fully decided in favour of a definite opinion, had, with regard to most of the disputed points, gradually fixed on a half-conservative midway standpoint, by means of which, without denying his deepest conviction, he tried to remain faithful to the Church. In 1524 he had expressed his sentiments about confession in the treatise _Exomologesis_ (_On the Way to confess_). He accepts it halfway: if not inst.i.tuted by Christ or the Apostles, it was, in any case, by the Fathers. It should be piously preserved. Confession is of excellent use, though, at times, a great evil. In this way he tries "to admonish either party", "neither to agree with nor to a.s.sail"
the deniers, "though inclining to the side of the believers".
In the long list of his polemics he gradually finds opportunities to define his views somewhat; circ.u.mstantially, for instance, in the answers to Alberto Pio, of 1525 and 1529. Subsequently it is always done in the form of an _Apologia_, whether he is attacked for the _Colloquia_, for the _Moria_, Jerome, the _Paraphrases_ or anything else. At last he recapitulates his views to some extent in _De amabili Ecclesiae concordia_ (_On the Amiable Concord of the Church_), of 1533, which, however, ranks hardly any more among his reformatory endeavours.
On most points Erasmus succeeds in finding moderate and conservative formulae. Even with regard to ceremonies he no longer merely rejects. He finds a kind word to say even for fasting, which he had always abhorred, for the veneration of relics and for Church festivals. He does not want to abolish the worship of the Saints: it no longer entails danger of idolatry. He is even willing to admit the images: "He who takes the imagery out of life deprives it of its highest pleasure; we often discern more in images than we conceive from the written word".
Regarding Christ"s substantial presence in the sacrament of the altar he holds fast to the Catholic view, but without fervour, only on the ground of the Church"s consensus, and because he cannot believe that Christ, who is truth and love, would have suffered His bride to cling so long to so horrid an error as to worship a crust of bread instead of Him. But for these reasons he might, at need, accept Oecolampadius"s view.