ous revolution. Christmas Day, 1521, he celebrated the Lord's Supper in his church, leaving out all the most essential features of the Roman liturgy,-the confession, the consecration of the elements, the elevation of the host, the reservation of the cup for the clergy, etc. On January 20, 1522, he married in a most ostentatious way. The destruction of images, the abolition of monasteries, and other sweeping reforms, were in preparation. Meanwhile the students and the mob bombarded the house of the canons with stones, and interrupted the service when it was not in accordance with the latest frenzy; and the whole community was on the verge of chaos and anarchy. Luther's reappearance in the city (March 6, 1522) brought back order and quiet; and all the rash and premature reforms were set aside. Carlstadt himself was treated with leniency, even with regard, by Luther; but he felt sick and humiliated.13

We need not follow Carlstadt further throughout his tempestuous career, but he was a thorn in the very flesh of Luther, whose hand he was forcing. Luther had caused a little trickle in the dam of religious unrest, but Carlstadt, he perceived, was bent on tearing out whole sections, thus causing an inundation, a proceeding for which the archreformer was not at all prepared. So he wrote to Spalatin, his confidant in all his difficulties, and said:

Pray for me, I beg, and be pleased to trample under foot this Satan at Wittemberg who has stood up against the Gospel in the name of the Gospel. We are now fighting with that angel who was turned into an angel of light. It will be difficult for Carlstadt to yield up his opinion; but Christ will compel him, if he does not yield of his own accord."

And again a week later he writes to Wencelaus Link:

Satan has made an irruption into this sheepfold of mine, and has found out how to change the freedom of the spirit into an occasion of the flesh, and to throw everything into confusion by means of the most pertinacious schisms, having thrown aside all service of love. Carlstadt and Gabriel are the authors of these monstrous goings-on."

15

Luther deemed he had a mission from God to reform the Church, and was surprised that others imagined themselves inspired to do the same thing. This gave him food for reflection, but not for long. He was too much occupied with Carlstadt and other disturbing elements to pay much attention to Erasmus. The latter was perturbed, to put it mildly, when he saw the monks and nuns throughout Germany rushing forth from their monasteries, forsaking their vows, and in many 18 Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, in loco. N. Y., 1882.

14

De Wette, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 150.

15 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 156.

instances entering the bonds of matrimony. He hardly knew what to think about this himself, but was being importuned to express himself on the subject and called timid for not so doing by the Lutherans. This exasperated him, and he answered angrily:

What I may do for the Gospel is nobody's business. Men who rush rashly into every crime pretend that I am timid. But if my conscience would let me, or if I could see any benefit resulting to the Gospel, they would not find me timid. It is a wonderful result of the Gospel that the images are banished from one town; but oh, that they would banish from their hearts their most monstrous idols which are so much more evident in those who boast of being followers of Luther!

In olden days those who had wives forsook them freely out of love for the Gospel; now, forsooth, the Gospel is flourishing if a few men marry wives with a handsome dowry. I do not say this to censure absolutely the marrying of priests, provided it be done either from necessity, or with the consent of superiors, or without disturbance, and with a sincere heart. Now, I am afraid that many marry for no other reason than that it is contrary to the rules of their superiors. I know how impure is the celibacy of some of them. But does the marrying of a wife insure chastity? What if a priest, who previously had a concubine, now has both a wife and a mistress? And yet to all Papists, for thus they [the Lutherans] style them, I have always declared that marriage should not be forbidden to those priests who are to be ordained hereafter, if they cannot remain continent; nor would I say anything else were I arguing the matter with the Sovereign Pontiff, not that I do not prefer continence, but that I see very few who practise it. But, meanwhile, what is the need of such a multitude of priests? I never advised any of them to marry, neither did I manifest dislike to one wishing to marry.

If a monk will lay aside all his malice with his cowl, I shall not object to his throwing it off whenever he wishes. Now everywhere they are throwing them off rashly without any permission from their superiors, and from bad monks they become worse laymen. Nor does this changing of costume bring about anything else except the doing with more impunity whatever pleases their wishes. There are some, I admit, whose cowl hampers characters born for better things. There are others again that are born with such a disposition that they should be restrained by ten cowls rather than be left to their own sweet will. Certainly, the cowl has fed many who are now exposed to the danger of learning from a compelling poverty to make free with what does not belong to them. But what do you say of those in advanced years who, in spite of the entreaties of friends, knowingly, willingly, and with their eyes open, have betaken themselves to the cowl? Let such be ashamed of their fickleness, at least. At present they are boasting of it as something wonderful, and draw others after them by their exam

ple. But of these on another occasion. Farewell in Christ. Basle, 1524.1

16

This is an important letter, for in it Erasmus comes out flatly for the marriage of priests. Luther prescribed marriage for priests on the ground that celibacy was against divine law. Erasmus, on the other hand, would allow them to marry from his favorite doctrine of expediency. He seems to have believed in the modern doctrine that few men, even though priests, can be continent, and consequently advises marriage for them if they so desire. The Catholic Church has proved that he was wrong, for she still insists on continence in her clergy, and the few lapses in her ranks in this regard show that it is possible. It is only a matter of discipline, however, and not of dogma; and that is surely within her own province.

16 Eras. Ep. 1459, 1.79 ad fin.

CHAPTER XVI

"DE LIBERO ARBITRIO": EFFECT ON ERASMUS' POSITION;

EFFECT ON LUTHER

But all this time, for no particular reason that is evident, Erasmus still hesitated to launch against Luther his much heralded work, On Freewill. It was perhaps due to the fact that he very much wanted to make it unanswerable that he took so much time on it. He knew that Luther not only considered him no great theologian but even took no pains to hide his opinion on the matter, as we learn from a letter of Luther to Oecolampadius, who was then working on a commentary on the Prophet Isaiah:

.. May the Lord strengthen you in your undertaking, the exposition of Isaiah, although I hear by letter that Erasmus takes no pleasure therein. But do not let his displeasure disturb you. He has performed the task to which he was called: he has reinstated the ancient languages, and recalled them from pagan studies. Perhaps he, like Moses, will die in the land of Moab, for he is powerless to guide men to those higher studies which lead to divine blessedness. I should very much like him to cease expounding the Scriptures, for he is not equal to the task. . . . He has done enough in exposing the evil, but he cannot show forth the good (as I see it) or point the way to the promised land.'

This piqued the pride of Erasmus, and he decided that, when he did enter the lists against Luther, the latter should be compelled to revise his opinion, if not on Freewill, then at least on Erasmus' theological abilities. So he resolved to take his own time in the writing of his work and to do it exceedingly well. But there was one man in Germany who did not enjoy this delay, who was tired of such dilatory tactics and did not hesitate to say so. This was Duke George, ruler of that part of Saxony which was not subject to the sway of his cousin Elector Frederick, Luther's protector. Erasmus had always desired the good opinion of Duke George, who on his side much admired the great writer and had long looked to him to defend the Church against Luther. But he had at length lost patience with him and wrote him a stinging letter of reproach for his remissness. In this letter, dated from Dresden, May 21, 1524, he told Erasmus what he thought of him, and said that it was much to be wished that God had put it into his head three years ago to separate himself from Luther's faction, and to show by some work of his that he had nothing in common with Luther. He pointed out how easy it would have been at that time to have quenched the flame that had since caused this great conflagration:

1 De Wette, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 352-3.

* See Eras. Ep. 1384, 11. 51 sqq.

To tell you what I think [said the Duke], it was your fault; for if, while there was still time and the evil had not become so firmly rooted, you had taken the same resolution to attack Luther that you have now taken, . . . we should not be where we are at present. But because up to this you have not declared open war against him, but have been satisfied to attack him secretly, gently, and as if you did not wish to do him much harm, there have been varying opinions about you. Some have thought that you were really an enemy of Luther; others imagined that you had an understanding with him, although you would have the world believe otherwise."

Although he did not receive this letter previous to his launching his De libero arbitrio, he knew from many sources the Duke's bitter feeling towards him, and although, too, the following letter is not an answer to the one just given, it will serve to show how hard it was for Erasmus to bring himself to the task of writing against Luther:

Most illustrious Prince. That hitherto I have not obeyed the exhortations of your Highness arose from many reasons, but from two in particular. First, because I felt that on account of my years and disposition I was unequal to such a very risky business, and secondly, because, from some strange trait of my nature, I have always shrunk from gladiatorial contests of this nature. For what is accomplished by the screeds which are now flying around everywhere, other than what is usually done in the gladiatorial arena? Moreover, whatever Luther's doctrine may be, I have always regarded himself as a necessary evil in these universally corrupt phases of the Church's condition; and I was in hopes that from him, as from a somewhat bitter and violent remedy, something of healthgiving efficacy might be developed in the body of Christian people. But now, since I find that many take my moderation for a collusion with Luther, with whom I have never had any private understanding; and since I see that under the pretext of the Gospel there is being brought forth a new sort of characters who are shameless, insolent, and ungovernable, who, in a word, are such that not even Luther himself can endure them; and yet with the same recklessness with which they contemn bishops and rulers, they contemn even Luther himself; I enter the arena at almost the same age at which Publius the actor entered on the stage; and how happy the issue of it is to be, I know not, though I certainly trust that it may be profitable and beneficial to the republic of Christ.

I am sending to your Majesty my book On Freewill, concerning which I saw your most erudite epistle some time ago. I have been spurred on in this matter by the letter of his Serene Majesty of England, and by that of Clement VII, but far more forcibly by the wickedness of some of those brawlers, who will destroy the Gospel and learning together unless they are restrained. I desired the tyranny of the Pharisees to be destroyed, not changed; but, if it is to be preserved, I would prefer the Popes and bishops just as » Ibid., 1448, II. 39-50.