I. ERASMUS ARRIVES AT BASLE--HIS LABOURS THERE (1518).
Erasmus arrived at Basle on Ascension Day, May 13, 1518.[686]
[Sidenote: Erasmus reaches Basle and falls ill.]
But though he had escaped the robbers, and survived the toils of the
journey, he reached Basle in a state of health so susceptible of
infection, that, in the course of a day or two, he found himself laid up
with that very disease which he had mentioned in his letter to Colet as
prevalent at Basle, and as one great reason why he had shrunk from going
there.[687]
But even an attack of this ‘plague’ did not prevent him from beginning his
work at once.
[Sidenote: His reply to Dr. Eck.]
Whilst suffering from its early symptoms, during intervals of pain and
weakness,[688] he wrote a careful reply to a letter he had received from
Dr. Eck, Professor of the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria,
complaining, as Luther had already done, indirectly through Spalatin, of
the anti-Augustinian proclivities of the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’[689]
Luther and Eck had already had communications on theological subjects.
The Wittemberg theologian had sent to his Ingolstadt brother for his
approval, through a mutual friend, a set of propositions aimed against the
Pelagian tendencies of the times.[690]
But Eck and Luther, whilst both admirers of St. Augustine, and both
jealous of Erasmus and his anti-Augustinian proclivities, rested their
objections on somewhat different grounds.
[Sidenote: Dr. Eck holds to plenary inspiration.]
Luther looked coldly on the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ mainly because he thought
he found in its doctrinal statements traces of Pelagian heresy. Dr. Eck
objected not so much to any error in doctrine which it might contain, as
_to the method of Biblical criticism which it adopted throughout_. He
objected to the suggestion it contained, that the Apostles quoted the old
Testament from memory, and, therefore, not always correctly. He objected
to the insinuation that their Greek was colloquial, and not strictly
classical.
With regard to the first point, he referred to the well-known, and, as he
thought, ‘most excellent argument of St. Augustine’ against the admission
of _any_ error in the Scriptures, lest the authority of the _whole_ should
be lost. And with regard to the second, he charged Erasmus with making
himself a preceptor to the Holy Spirit, as though the Holy Spirit had been
wanting in attention or learning, and required the defects resulting from
his negligence to be now, after so many centuries, supplied by Erasmus.
He made these criticisms, he wrote, not in the spirit of opposition, but
because he could not agree with the preference shown by Erasmus to Jerome
over Augustine. It was the one point in which the Erasmian creed was at
fault. Nearly all the learned world was Erasmian already, but this one
thing all Erasmians complained of in Erasmus--that he would not study the
works of St. Augustine. If he would but do this, Eck was sure he would
acknowledge that it would be rash indeed to assign to St. Augustine any
other than the highest place amongst the fathers of the Church.[691]
[Sidenote: Reply of Erasmus.]
Erasmus replied[692] to the first objection, that, in his judgment, the
authority of the whole Scriptures would _not_ fall with any slip of memory
on the part of an Evangelist--_e.g._ if he put ‘Isaiah’ by mistake for
‘Jeremiah’--because no point of importance turns upon it. We do not
forthwith think evil of the whole life of Peter because Augustine and
Ambrose affirm that even after he had received the Holy Ghost he fell into
error on some points; and so our faith is not altogether shaken in a whole
book because it has some defects.
With regard to the colloquial Greek of the Apostles, he took the authority
of Jerome, and Origen, and the Greek fathers as good evidence on that
point.
With respect to his preference for Jerome over Augustine, he knew what he
was about. His preference for Jerome was deliberate, and rested on good
grounds. When he came to the passage in Eck’s letter, where he stated that
all Erasmians complained of his one fault--not reading Augustine--he could
not read it without laughing. ‘I know of nothing in me,’ he wrote, ‘why
anyone should wish to be _Erasmian_, and I altogether hate that term of
division. We are all _Christians_, and labour, each in his own sphere, to
advance the glory of Christ.’ But that he had not read the works of
Augustine! Why, they were the very first that he did read of the writings
of the fathers. He had read them over and over again. Let his critics
examine his works, they would find that there was scarcely a work of St.
Augustine which was not there quoted many hundred times. Let him compare
Augustine and Jerome on their merits. Jerome was a pupil of Origen, and
one page of Origen teaches more Christian philosophy than ten of
Augustine. Augustine scarcely knew Greek; at all events was not at home in
Greek writers. Besides this, by his own confession, he was busied with his
bishopric, and could hardly snatch time to learn what he taught to others.
Jerome devoted _thirty-five years_ to the study of the Scriptures.
In the meantime, in conclusion, he observed that the difference of opinion
between himself and Eck upon these points need not interrupt their
friendship, any more than the difference of opinion upon the same point
between Jerome and Augustine interrupted theirs.
Having despatched this reply to Eck, and recovered from what proved a
short but sharp attack of illness, Erasmus wrote to More on the 1st of
June to advise him of his safe arrival at Basle, of his illness and
recovery, and to express the hope that a few months would see his labours
there accomplished. If the Fates were propitious, he hoped to return to
Brabant in September.[693]
* * * * *
What were the works which he had come to Basle to publish during these
tumultuous times?
[Sidenote: New editions of works of Erasmus.]
The second edition of the New Testament will require a separate notice
by-and-by. A new and corrected edition of More’s ‘Utopia’ was already in
hand, and waiting only for a letter which Budæus was writing to be
prefixed to it.[694] A new edition of the ‘Institutio Principis
Christiani’ was also to come forth from the press of Froben.[695]
It might seem hopeless to put forth works such as these, expressing views
so far in advance of the practices of the times, but the fact that new
editions were so rapidly called for proved that they were eagerly read. In
the same letter in which Erasmus ridiculed to More the projected
expedition against the Turks, and spoke of the violence of the German
press and the satire which had just appeared, ‘_Julius de Cœlo exclusus_,’
he spoke of his having seen another edition of the ‘Utopia’ just printed
at Paris.[696]
In the previous year, 1517, Froben had printed a sixth edition of the
‘Adagia,’ which had now expanded into a thick folio volume, and become a
receptacle for the views of Erasmus on many chance subjects. In this
edition he had expressed his indignant feelings against the political
anarchy and Papal scandals of the period, and he told More to look
particularly at what he had written on the adage, ‘_Ut fici oculis
incumbunt_;’[697] in which was an allusion to the ‘insatiable avarice,
unbridled lust, most pernicious cruelty, and great tyranny’ of princes;
and to the evil influence of those ecclesiastics who, ever ready to do the
dirty work of princes and popes, abetted and mixed themselves up with the
worst scandals.[698] And again it is remarkable to find how rapidly this
ponderous edition of the ‘Adagia’ must have been sold to admit of another
following in 1520, still further increased in bulk--a large folio volume
of nearly 800 pages.
[Sidenote: Collections of letters printed.]
[Sidenote: Letter to Volzius.]
In addition to these reprints, two separate collections of some of his
letters were printed by Froben in 1518,[699] evidently intended to aid in
spreading more widely those plain-spoken views on various subjects which
he had expressed in his private letters to his friends during the last few
years. Another edition was also called for of the ‘Enchiridion;’ and
Erasmus, on his arrival at Basle, burning as well he might with increased
indignation against the scandals of the times, wrote a new preface, in the
form of a letter to Volzius, the Abbot of a monastery at Schelestadt--a
letter which, containing in almost every line of it pointed allusion to
passing events, was eagerly devoured by thinking men all over Europe, and
passed through several editions in a very short space of time.
It was a letter in which he repeated the conviction which he had learned
twenty years before from Colet, that the true Christian creed was
exceedingly simple, adapted not for the learned alone, but for _all_ men.
And upon this ground he defended the simplicity of his little handy-book,
contrasting it with the ‘_Summa_’ of Aquinas. ‘Let the great doctors,
which must needs be but few in comparison with other men, study and busy
themselves in those great volumes.’ The ‘unlearned and rude multitude,
which Christ died for, ought to be provided for also.’ ‘Christ would that
the way should be plain and open to every man,’ and therefore, we
ourselves ought to endeavour, with all ‘our strength to make it as easy as
can be.’[700]
He then alluded to the war against the Turks, and hinted that it would be
better to try to convert them. Do we wonder, he urged, that Christianity
does not spread? that we cannot convert the Turks? What is the use of
laying before them the ponderous tomes of the Schoolmen, full of ‘thorny
and cumbrous and inextricably subtle imaginations of instants,
formalities, quiddities,’ and the like? We ought to place before them the
simple philosophy of Christ contained in the _Gospels_ and _Apostolic
Epistles_, simplifying even their phraseology; giving them in fact the
pith of them _in as simple and clear a form as possible_. And of what use
would even this be if our lives belied our creed? They must see that we
ourselves are servants and imitators of Jesus Christ, that we do not covet
anything of theirs for ourselves, but that we desire their salvation and
the glory of Christ. This was the true, pure, and powerful theology which
in olden time subjected to Christ the pride of philosophers and the
sceptres of kings.
Erasmus then, after a passing censure of the scandals brought upon
Christianity by the warlike policy of priests and princes, the sale of
indulgences, and so forth, proceeded to criticise the religion of modern
monks, their reliance on ceremonies, their degeneracy, and worldliness.
‘... Once the monastic life was a _retreat_ or _retirement_ from the
world, of men who were called out of idolatry to Christ: now those who are
called monks are found in the very vortex of worldly business, exercising
a sort of tyrannical rule over the affairs of men. They alone are holy,
other men are scarcely Christians. _Why should we thus narrow the
Christian profession, when Christ wished it to be as broad as
possible?_[701] Except the big name, what is a _state_ but one great
monastery? Let no one despise another because his manner of life is
different.... In every path of life let all strive to attain to the mind
of Christ [_scopum Christi_]. Let us assist one another, neither envying
those who surpass us, nor despising those who may lag behind. And if
anyone should excel another, let him beware lest he be like the Pharisee
in the Gospel, who recounted his good deeds to God; rather let him follow
the teaching of Christ, and say, “I am an unprofitable servant.” No one
more truly has faith than he who distrusts himself. No one is really
farther from true religion than he who thinks himself most religious.
Nothing is worse for Christian piety than for what is really of the world
to be misconstrued to be of Christ--for human authority to be preferred to
Divine.’[702]
It was a letter firm and calm in its tone, and well adapted to the end in
view. It was dated from Basle, in August, 1518.
The ‘Enchiridion,’ with this prefatory letter, was published in September,
together with some minor works, amongst which was the ‘Discussion on the
Agony in the Garden,’ including Colet’s reply, in which he had expressed
his views on the theory of the ‘manifold senses’ of Scripture, the whole
forming an elegant quarto volume printed in the very best type of Froben.
Another beautiful edition was published at Cologne in the following year.
II. THE SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1518-19).
The time had come for Erasmus more fully and publicly to reply to the
various attacks which had been made upon the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’
Its most bitter opponents had been the ignorant Scotists and monks who
were caricatured in the ‘Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.’ ‘There are none,’
wrote Erasmus to a friend, ‘who bark at me more furiously than they who
have never seen even the outside of my book. Try the experiment upon any
of them, and you will find what I tell you is true. When you meet any one
of these brawlers, let him rave on at my New Testament till he has made
himself hoarse and out of breath, then ask him gently whether he has read
it. If he have the impudence to say “_yes_,” urge him to produce one
passage that deserves to be blamed. You will find that he cannot.’[703]
To opponents such as these, Erasmus had sufficiently replied by the
re-issue of the ‘Enchiridion’ with the new prefatory letter to Volzius.
But there was another class of objectors to the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ who
were not ignorant and altogether bigoted, and who honestly differed from
the views of Erasmus; some of them, like Luther, because he did not follow
the Augustinian theology; others, like Eck, who adhered to Augustine’s
theory of verbal inspiration; others, again, who were jealous of the
tendencies of the ‘new learning,’ and saw covert heresies in all
departures from the beaten track.
[Sidenote: Second edition of the New Testament.]
The reply of Erasmus to these was a second edition of his New Testament;
and this was already in course of publication at Froben’s press.[704]
Erasmus took pains in the second edition to correct an immense number of
little errors which had crept into the first. But in those points in which
it was the expression of the views of the Oxford Reformers, he altered
nothing, unless it were to express them more clearly and strongly, or to
defend what he had said in the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’
Thus the passage condemned by Luther, in which the resort by theologians
to the doctrine of ‘original sin’ was compared to the invention of
epicycles by mediæval astronomers, was retained in all essential
particulars without modification.[705]
So, too, the passages censured by Eck as inimical to the Augustinian
theory of the inspiration of the Scriptures, were not only retained, but
amplified, while opportunity was taken to strengthen the arguments in
favour of the freer view of inspiration held by the Oxford Reformers.[706]
Again; the main drift and spirit of the body of the work remained
unchanged. Its title, however, was altered from ‘Novum Instrumentum’ to
‘Novum Testamentum.’
In speaking of the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ it was observed, that perhaps the
most remarkable portion of the work was the prefatory matter, especially
the ‘Paraclesis.’
[Sidenote: ‘Paraclesis.’]
This ‘Paraclesis’ remained the same in the second edition as in the ‘Novum
Instrumentum,’ including the passages quoted in a former chapter, urging
the translation of the New Testament into every language, so that it might
become the common property of the ploughman and the mechanic, and even of
Turks and Saracens, and ending also with the passage in which Erasmus had
so forcibly summed up the value of the Gospels and Epistles, by pointing
out how ‘living and breathing a picture’ they presented of Christ
‘speaking, healing, dying, and rising again, bringing his life so vividly
before the eye, that we almost seem to have seen it ourselves.’
[Sidenote: ‘Ratio Veræ Theologiæ.’]
Next to the ‘Paraclesis,’ in the first edition, had followed a few
paragraphs treating of the ‘method of theological study.’ This in the
second edition was so greatly enlarged as to become an important feature
of the work. It was also printed separately, and passed through several
editions under the title, ‘_Ratio Veræ Theologiæ_.’
Erasmus in this treatise pointed out, as he had done before, the great
advantages of the study of the New Testament in its original language,
and urged that all branches of knowledge, natural philosophy, geography,
history, classics, mythology, should be brought to bear upon it, again
assigning the reason which he had before given,--‘that we may follow the
story, and seem not only to read it but to _see_ it; for it is wonderful
how much light--how much _life_, so to speak--is thrown by this method
into what before seemed dry and lifeless.’
[Sidenote: Example of the historical method from Origen.]
Contrasting the results of this method with that commonly in use in
lectures and sermons, he exclaimed, ‘How these very things which were
meant to warm and to enliven, themselves lie cold and without any life!’
And then, to give an example of the true method, he recommended the
student to study the homily of Origen on ‘Abraham commanded to sacrifice
his son,’ in which a type or example is set before our eyes, to show that
the power of faith is stronger than all human passions. The object [of
Origen] is to point out, dwelling on each little circumstance, by what and
how many ways the trial struck home over and over again to the heart of
the father. ‘Take, he said, thy _son_. What parent’s heart would not
soften at the name of son? But that the sacrifice might be still greater,
it is added--thy _dearest_ son--and yet more emphatic--_whom thou lovest_.
Here surely, was enough for a human heart to grapple with.... But Isaac
was more than merely a son, he was the son of promise. The good man longed
for posterity, and all his hope depended on the life of this one child. He
was commanded to ascend a high mountain, and it took him _three days_ to
get there. During all the time, what conflicting thoughts must have rent
the heart of the parent! his human affections on the one side, the Divine
command on the other. As they are going, the boy carrying the wood, calls
to his father who bears the fire and the sword, “Father!” and he replies,
“What dost thou want, my son?” How must the heart of the old man have
throbbed with the pulsations of his love! Who would not have been moved
with loving pity for the simplicity of the obedient boy, when he said,
“Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the victim?” In how many ways
was the faith of Abraham tried! And now mark with what firmness, with what
constancy, did he go on doing what he was commanded to do. He did not
reply to God, he did not argue with him concerning his promised
faithfulness, he did not even mourn with his friends and relations over
his childlessness, as most men would have done to lighten their grief.
Seeing the place afar off, he told his servants to stop, lest any of them
should hinder his carrying out what was commanded.... He himself built the
altar; he himself bound the boy and put him on the wood; the sword
quivered in his grasp, and would have slain his only son, on whom all his
cherished hope of posterity depended, had not suddenly the voice of an
angel stayed the old man’s hand.’[707]
Thus (continued Erasmus), but more at length and more elegantly, are these
things related by Origen, I hardly know whether more to the pleasure or
profit of the reader; although, be it observed, they are construed
_altogether according to the historical sense_; nor does he apply any
other method to the Holy Scriptures than that which Donatus applies to the
comedies of Terence when elucidating the meaning of the classics.
It would almost seem that Erasmus might have read Luther’s letter to
Spalatin in which he complained of St. Jerome’s adhering upon principle to
the _historical_ sense, and mourned over the tendency he had seen in
Erasmus to follow his example. Luther spoke of this literal historical
method of interpretation as the reason why, in the hands of commentators
since St. Augustine, the Bible had been a _dead_ book. Erasmus thought, on
the other hand, that the only way to restore the position of the Bible as
a _living_ book was to apply to it the same method which common sense
applied to all other books; to resume, in fact, that literal and
historical method which had been neglected since the days of St. Jerome,
and which Origen had so successfully applied to the story of Abraham in
the passage he had cited. It is singular also that, in quoting from Origen
this example of the skilful application of the historical method, he was
quoting from the father whose rich imagination was mainly responsible for
the theory of ‘the manifold senses.’
The adoption of the common sense historical method of interpreting the
Scriptures, made it possible and needful to rest faith in Christianity on
its own evidences rather than upon the dogmatic authority of the Church,
her fathers, doctors, schoolmen, or councils. To this Erasmus seems to
have been fully alive. He was not prepared to throw aside the authority of
the general consent of Christians, especially of the early fathers, as a
thing of naught, but he was too conscious of the fallibility of all such
authority to rest wholly upon it. Besides, one evident object he had in
view was to gain back again to Christianity those disciples of the new
learning who, in revulsion from the Christianity of Alexander VI., Cæsar
Borgia, and Julius II., were trying to satisfy themselves with a refined
semi-pagan philosophy. And no ecclesiastical authority could avail to undo
what ecclesiastical scandal had done in that quarter.
The stress which in this little treatise Erasmus laid upon internal
evidence will be best illustrated by a few examples.
Take first the following argument for the truth of Christianity.
[Sidenote: Argument for the truth of Christianity.]
He recommends the student ‘attentively to observe, in both New and Old
Testaments, the wonderful compass and consistency of the whole story, if I
may so speak, of Christ becoming a man for our sake. This will help us not
only more rightly to understand what we read, but also to read with
greater faith. For no _lie_ was ever framed with such skill as in
everything to comport with itself. Compare the types and prophecies of the
Old Testament which foreshadowed Christ, and these same things happening
as they were revealed to the eye of faith. Next to them was the testimony
of angels--of Gabriel to the Virgin at his conception, and again of a
choir of angels at his birth. Then came the testimony of the shepherds,
then that of the Magi, besides that of Simeon and Anna. John the Baptist
foretold his coming. He pointed him out with his finger when he came as he
whose _coming_ the prophets predicted. And lest we should not know what to
hope for from him, he added, “Behold him who taketh away the sin of the
world!”...
‘Next observe the whole course of his life, how he grew up to youth,
always in favour with both God and man.... At twelve years of age,
teaching and listening in the temple, he first gave a glimpse of what he
was. Then by his first miracle, at the marriage feast, in private, he made
himself known to a few. For it was not until after he had been baptized
and commended by the voice of his Father and the sign of the dove; lastly,
not until after he had been tried and proved by the forty days’ fast and
the temptation of Satan, that he commenced the work of _preaching_. Mark
his birth, education, preaching, death; you will find nothing but a
perfect example of poverty and humility, yea of innocence. The whole range
of his doctrine, as it was consistent with itself, so it was consistent
with his life, and also consistent with his nature. He taught innocence;
he himself so lived that not even suborned witnesses, after trying in many
ways to do so, could find anything that could plausibly be laid to his
charge. He taught gentleness: he himself was led as a lamb to the
slaughter. He taught poverty, and we do not read that he ever possessed
anything. He warned against ambition and pride: he himself washed his
disciples’ feet. He taught that this was the way to true glory and
immortality: he himself, by the ignominy of the cross, has obtained a name
which is above every name; and whilst he sought no earthly kingdom, he
earned the empire both of heaven and earth. When he rose from the dead, he
taught what he had taught before. He had taught that death is not to be
feared by the good, and on that account he showed himself risen again. In
the presence of the same disciples he ascended into heaven, that we might
know whither we are to strive to follow. Lastly, that heavenly Spirit
descended which by its inspiration made his apostles what Christ wished
them to be. You may perhaps find in the books of Plato or Seneca what is
not inconsistent with the teaching of Christ; you may find in the life of
Socrates some things which are certainly consistent with the life of
Christ; but this wide range, and all things belonging to it in harmonious
agreement _inter se_, you will find in _Christ_ alone. There are many
things in the prophets both divinely said and piously done, many things in
Moses and other men famous for holiness of life, but this complete range
you will not find in any _man_.’[708]...
From this general view of the ‘wonderful compass and consistency of the
whole story’ let us pass with Erasmus to details. We shall find him
following the same method in treating of each point, taking pains to rest
his belief rather on the evidence of _facts_ than upon mere dogmatic
authority.
[Sidenote: Proofs of the innocence of Christ.]
Thus in treating of the ‘_innocence_ of Christ,’ it would have been easy
to have quoted a few authoritative passages from the Apostolic epistles,
and to have relied upon these, but Erasmus chose rather to rest on the
variety of evidence afforded by the many different kinds of witnesses
whose testimony is recorded in the New Testament. After alluding to the
testimony of the voice from heaven, of John the Baptist, and of the
_friends_ of Jesus, he thus proceeds:--
‘... The men who were sent to take him bore witness that “never man spake
as this man.”... _Pilate_ also bore witness, “I am pure from the blood of
this _just man_; see ye to it.” Pilate’s _wife_ also bore witness, “have
nothing to do with that _just person_.”... Hostile judges recognised his
innocence, rejecting the evidence of the many witnesses. They declared,
and themselves were witnesses, that the suborned men _lied_: they had
nothing to object but the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of
the temple.... The wretched _Judas_ confessed, “I have sinned, in
betraying _innocent_ blood.” The centurion at the cross confessed, “truly
this was the Son of God.” The wicked Pharisees confessed that they had
nothing to lay to his charge why he should be crucified, but the saying
about the temple. Thus was he so guiltless, that nothing could even be
_invented_ against him with any show of _probability_.’[709]
[Sidenote: Proofs of Christ’s humanity.]
In the same way, in order to show that Christ was truly a _man_, instead
of quoting texts to prove it, he pointed to the facts ‘that he called
himself the “Son of man;” that he grew up through the usual stages of
growth; that he slept, ate, hungered, and thirsted; that he was wearied by
travel; that he was touched by human passions. We read in Matthew that he
pitied the crowd; in Mark, that he was angry and grieved and groaned in
spirit; in John, that his mind was moved before his passion; that such was
his anguish in the garden that his sweat was like drops of blood; that he
thirsted on the cross, which was what usually happened during crucifixion;
that he wept over the city of Jerusalem; that he wept and was moved at the
grave of Lazarus.’[710]
[Sidenote: Proofs of the divinity of Christ.]
And in the same way to prove Christ’s divinity, Erasmus pointed to his
miracles, and their consistency with his own declarations. Again he
wrote, ‘Who indeed would look for true salvation from a mere man?... He
said that he was sent from heaven, that he was the Son of God, that he had
been in heaven. He called God his Father; and the Jews understood what he
meant by it, for they said, “Thou, a man, makest thyself God.” Lastly, he
rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down the Paraclete, by
whom the Apostles were suddenly refreshed.’[711]
[Sidenote: The mode by which Christ influenced the world.]
Another subject upon which Erasmus dwelt was ‘the way which was adopted by
Christ to draw the world under his influence.’ He showed how the prophets
and the preaching of John had prepared the way for him. ‘He did not seek
suddenly to change the world; for it is difficult to remove from men’s
minds what they have imbibed in childhood, and what has been handed down
to them by common consent from their ancestors. First, John went before
with the baptism of repentance; then the Apostles went forth, not yet
announcing the coming Messiah, but only that the kingdom of heaven was at
hand. By means of poor and unlearned men the thing began, ... and for a
long while he bore with the rudeness and distrust of even these, that they
might not seem to have believed rashly. Thomas pertinaciously disbelieved,
and not until he had touched the marks of the nails and the spear did he
exclaim, “My Lord and my God!” When about to ascend to heaven, he
upbraided all of them for their hardness of heart and difficulty in
believing what they had seen.... He added the evidence of miracles, but
even these were nothing but acts of kindness. He never worked a miracle
for anyone who had not faith. The crowd were witnesses of nearly all he
did. He sent the lepers to the priests, not that they might be healed, but
that it might be more clearly known that they were healed.... And for all
the benefits he rendered, he never once took any reward, nor glory, nor
money, nor pleasure, nor rule, so that the suspicion of a corrupt motive
might not be imputed to him. And it was not till after the Holy Spirit had
been sent that the Gospel trumpet was sounded through the whole world,
_lest it should seem that he had sought anything for himself while alive_.
Moreover, there is no testimony held more efficacious amongst mortals than
blood. By his own death, and that of his disciples, he set a seal to the
truth of his teaching. I have already alluded to the consistency of his
whole life.’[712]
[Sidenote: Precepts of the New Testament.]
These passages will serve as examples of the means by which, in this
treatise, Erasmus sought to bring out the facts of the life of Christ as
the true foundation of the Christian faith, instead of the dogmas of
scholastic theology. After thus thoughtfully dwelling upon the facts of
the life of Christ, he proceeds to examine his teaching, and he concludes
that there were two things which he peculiarly and perpetually
inculcated--faith and love--and, after describing them more at length, he
writes, ‘Read the New Testament through, you will not find in it any
precept which pertains to _ceremonies_. Where is there a single word of
meats or vestments? Where is there any mention of fasts and the like?
_Love_ alone He calls _His_ precept. Ceremonies give rise to differences;
from love flows peace.... And yet _we_ burden those who have been made
free by the blood of Christ with all these almost senseless and more than
Jewish constitutions!’[713]
Finally, turning from the New Testament and its theology to the Schoolmen
and theirs, he exclaimed, ‘What a spectacle it is to see a divine of
eighty years old knowing nothing but mere sophisms!’[714] and ended with
the sentences which have already been quoted as the conclusion of the
shorter treatise prefixed to the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’
This somewhat lengthy examination of ‘the method of true theology’ will
not have been fruitless, if it should place beyond dispute what was
pointed out with reference to the ‘Novum Instrumentum,’ that its value lay
more in its prefaces, and its main drift and spirit as a whole, than in
the critical exactness of its Greek text or the correctness of its
readings. If it could be said of the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ that much of its
value lay in its preface--in its beautiful ‘_Paraclesis_’--it may also be
said that the importance of the second edition was greatly enhanced by the
addition of the ‘_Ratio Veræ Theologiæ_.’
And as, like its forerunner, this second edition went forth under the
shield of Leo X.’s approval, with the additional sanction of the
Archbishops of Basle and of Canterbury, and with all the prestige of
former success, it must have been felt to be not only a firm and
dignified, but also a triumphant reply to the various attacks which had
been made upon Erasmus--a reply more powerful than the keenest satire or
the most bitter invective could have been--a reply in which the honest
dissentient found a calm restatement of what perhaps he had only half
comprehended; the candid critic, the errors of which he complained
corrected; and the blind bigot, the luxury of something further to
denounce.[715]
III. ERASMUS’S HEALTH GIVES WAY (1518).
[Sidenote: Erasmus leaves Basle.]
[Sidenote: Reaches Louvain ill.]
After several months’ hard and close labour in Froben’s office in the
autumn of 1518, Erasmus left Basle, jaded and in poor health. As he
proceeded on his journey to Louvain his maladies increased. Carbuncles
made their appearance, and added to the pains of travel. He reached
Louvain thoroughly ill; and turned into the house of the hospitable
printer, Thierry Martins, almost exhausted. A physician was sent for. He
told Martins and his wife that Erasmus had the plague, and never came
again for fear of contagion. Another was sent for, but he likewise did not
repeat his visit. A third came, and pronounced it not to be the plague. A
fourth, at the first mention of ulcers, was seized with fear, and though
he promised to call again, sent his servant instead. And thus for weeks
lay Erasmus, ill and neglected by the doctors, in the house of the good
printer at Louvain.[716]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Joy of the monks at the report of the death of Erasmus.]
Some monks were drinking together at Cologne, a city where Erasmus had
many bigoted enemies. One of the fraternity of preaching friars brought
to them the news that Erasmus was dead at Louvain! The intelligence was
received with applause by the convivial monks, and again and again was the
applause repeated, when the preacher added, in his monkish Latin, that
Erasmus had died, like a heretic as he was, ‘_sine lux, sine crux, sine
Deus_.’[717]