retraction of every error that was pointed out to him. But Erasmus was not St. Augustine, for in a lengthy letter he essayed to make Fisher doubt the evidence of his own eyes. Even Jortin calls this letter "artful and eloquent"; but in spite of all his artfulness and eloquence Erasmus could not move Fisher from the stand he had taken on the Colloquies. We will reproduce a few paragraphs of his attempted defense:

As for the passages you allege are objected to by those people, I would answer simply that there is nothing of that nature in my Colloquies, nor are boys made any the worse by reading them. But those are the comments of a few who, you might say, have been born for no other purpose than to spread calumny. Yet I am not willing to be hurried on to abuse of their Order. But in human affairs there is no body which does not have its particular ulcers. Hitherto they have exercised their tyranny on raw youths and palpable dunces; now it irritates them that the young are learning something which they themselves do not know. Hence these tears. my Colloquies, so far is there from being anything obscene or lewd that they even treat chastely those things which are lewd by nature, as for instance, in the colloquies of "The Youth and the Maiden,' and "The Youth and the Harlot"; and I consider that I have paid particular attention to it that tender youth shall derive nothing lewd from my writings.

13

In

It is evident that he was incorrigible, and that "e'en though vanquished, he could argue still." But it was not alone his obscenity that was objected to, for his blind and mortal hatred of the monks so evident in the Colloquies was equally regretted. Juan Maldonado, one of the Imperial Councillors and a near friend of his, wrote to him deprecating the quarrel which existed between him and his monastic brethren, and advising him to make friends with them again.

Not to conceal from you my regard, I am extremely anxious that you make friends again with the monks and, having resumed your pen, so show them what your intention has been that those amongst them who excel in character and learning (for there are very many of them worthy to be listened to by the rest) may perceive that you are naturally actuated by a desire to instruct them and not to abuse them, that you are wont to criticize those of any Order, some of whom, having abandoned the paths of their predecessors and having been carried away by the pleasures of the senses, deem that they are sufficiently performing their duty to their Order to which they belong if they imitate their masters in their dress."

But Maldonado was only wasting his time, for this monachophobia was now a part of Erasmus' very fibre, grafted on to his very nature, and not to be separated from him any more than his right arm. He persisted in saying that his Colloquies were harmless, and that the monks deserved more than he was giving them. It is only when he thought 18 Ibid., col. 1099B. 14 Eras. Ep. 1742, 11. 183-91.

of his friends in England that he at all moderated his tone. He must not wound the gentle soul of Archbishop Warham, and he can almost see the kindly prelate's surprised and reproachful look. For a fleeting moment his conscience pricks him, and he writes to the Archbishop to try to reassure him: "Grant," he says, "that there are things in my books which might have been expressed more circumspectly; of a surety they can show you nothing impious." And a few lines further on: "They are railing at my Colloquies over there, although there is scarcely another book more conducible to the banishing from the minds of men opinions about silly things."

99 15

Augustine Steuchus, a celebrated divine and exceptional scholar, attempted the useless task of mildly expostulating with him and giving him some good advice, but it was wasted effort and served only to exasperate him. A few sentences from the letter of Steuchus will suffice:

I believe you do not condemn sanctity itself, but only superstition and ignorance. But many say that you ought to have done it more temperately and in a better way. For what was the use of attacking, for instance, the defects of certain people, as you did in your Colloquies? How many noxious drafts you gave them to drink? How many fountains of blasphemy you opened up? Is that your prudence, Erasmus, O most worthy censor? If you deem that anyone has in some way detracted from your fame, the smart thereof pierces to the very bottom of your heart, and you prepare your refutations and responses. And do you not think that others feel the smart when you defame them so cruelly? "The name of a whole people must be reflected on very gently," you say. How do you observe that rule, you who, to reach one or two, blast the reputation of a whole Order? Many also wonder why, at your time of life, you insidiously inject into your Colloquies, which in other ways are full of your eloquence and acumen, so many wicked things. Now, I am not defending the lives or manners of lazy or superstitious monks; but I say that there is a better way to redress these evils than by exposing the offendings of a few individuals to be gazed at and noted by the public. . . . I maintain, Erasmus, that many things in your books have hitherto displeased me, especially those things which have bred up for us many contemners of sacred matters."

16

99 17

Swift once said, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love, one another." This would seem to be true of Erasmus, who lost no opportunity of fleshing his hatreds and satisfying his grudges, totally regardless of the effect such action on his part might have on the welfare of the Church at large. Apparently unconscious of the bitter and uncharitable feelings he was exciting in those he attacked, and the gaping and deadly wounds he was inflicting with his own hand on the Church of Christ, he either would not or * Thoughts on Various Subjects.

18 Eras. Ep. (LB) col. 1052.

18 Ibid., col. 1926.

17

could not realize what scandal he was giving to the young. And this disastrous effect he was unwittingly accomplishing, not because he was attacking the monks, not because he was ridiculing fasting and abstinence, not because he was throwing contempt on the religious habits and superstitions of the people, nor because he was making the ceremonial of the Church a subject for jest, but because by these things he was bringing about something which he himself did not foresee, the abolishing of all reverence, and the questioning of all authority, civil as well as ecclesiastical. He could not see this, but Luther saw it clearly.

This letter of Steuchus is perhaps one of the most important in the whole correspondence. Erasmus answered it, but he no longer tried to defend the Colloquies. This was 1531, and his ideas were changing.

CHAPTER X

HUTTEN'S ATTEMPT TO FORCE ERASMUS TO TAKE POSITION; PRIVATE

CONCLAVE ON LUTHER: ERASMUS' LOST OPPORTUNITY; LUTHER
BEFORE THE DIET OF WORMS.

In our account of the Colloquies we have been again led to anticipate the natural order of events, and must now go back to Erasmus at the moment when he was being urged to champion Luther. At first he had spoken well of him. Answering a letter of Melancthon in which the latter tried to elicit from him an expression of his opinion on Luther, he says: "With us [at Louvain] everyone praises the life of Martin Luther, but about his sentiments there are varying opinions. Some things he has criticized wisely; but would that he had been as happy as he has been bold!” 1

So far he had conducted himself with consummate skill in most difficult circumstances, and had made excellent capital out of the mistakes and weaknesses of his opponents. Writing to Albert CardinalArchbishop of Mainz and Imperial Elector, Erasmus does not hesitate to uphold Luther, but aims at the same time to give the impression that he himself was speaking from a totally disinterested standpoint, which was far from true. Luther had so far fought the fight against Rome with ammunition borrowed from the armory of Erasmus; but strangely enough, while the older and more wily man plainly perceived that he was being drawn upon in this way and rejoiced thereat, the younger man seemed quite oblivious of his source of supply. In spite of himself, Luther's soul had been perverted by the cynicism and lack of sincerity of Erasmus. Erasmus had sowed the wind; soon the world would reap the whirlwind. This is how Erasmus puts his own personal attitude towards Luther before the Archbishop of Mainz:

About those propositions of Luther's to which they object, I make no question at present; what I do question, however, are the method and the occasion adopted. Luther has dared to cast doubts on indulgences; but others before him have made exceedingly rash statements about them. He has had the temerity to speak somewhat moderately about the power of the Roman Pontiff, but others had previously written of it in extravagant terms, of whom the principal writers were the three Dominicans: Alvarus, Sylvester, and the Cardinal of St. Sixtus. He has been so bold as to contemn the conclusions of St. Thomas, which, however, the Dominicans esteem almost more than the four Gospels. He has presumed to raise some scruples about the matter of Confession, a subject 1 Eras. Ep. 947.

which the monks use perpetually for entangling the consciences of men. He has not hesitated in a measure to cast aside the judgments of the Schoolmen, to which these latter attach too much importance, although they are not in exact accord about them, for they change them eventually, introducing new ones to take the place of the old.

It has distressed pious minds to hear in the universities scarcely a single discourse about the doctrine of the Gospel, to see those sacred authors so long approved by the Church now considered antiquated, to hear in sermons very little about Christ, but a great deal about the power of the Pope, and the opinions of recent writers thereon. Every discourse openly manifests self-interest, flattery, ambition, and pretence. Even though Luther has written somewhat intemperately, I think that the blame should rest on these very happenings. Whoever favors the doctrine of the Gospel favors the Roman Pontiff, who is the chief herald thereof, although the rest of the bishops are also likewise heralds. All the bishops act in the place of Christ, but among these the Roman Pontiff is preeminent. Of him we must have this feeling: that he desires nothing but the glory of Christ, whose servant he glories in being. They merit very little consideration who ascribe to him through flattery what he himself does not claim and what is not necessary for his Christian flock. And yet some who are causing these tumults are not doing it from zeal for the Pontiff, but are abusing his power for their own enrichment and unjust domination. We have, in my opinion, a pious Pontiff; but in these tempestuous times there are many things of which he is not aware, many things also which even if he wished to do so he could not control, but as Maro says:

Fertur equis auriga, neque audit currus habenas.

He therefore aids the pious endeavors of the Pontiff who exhorts him to the doing of those things which are especially worthy of Christ. It is evident that there are some who incite his Holiness against Luther, nay, against all who dare to murmur a syllable against their dogmas. But great princes like yourself should consider what the constant good will of the Pontiff indicates rather than some favor obtained of him by underhand means. . . .

Luther has written much that was imprudent rather than impious, of which the worst in their estimation is that he pays little tribute to Thomas, that he lessens the profits from the indulgences, that he shows small regard for the Mendicant Orders, that he defers less to the dogmas of the Schools than to the Gospels, and that he pays no regard to the crafty subtleties of human disputants."

Allowing for his usual exaggeration in asserting that the Dominicans thought almost more of St. Thomas than of the Gospel, and that in the universities Christ was seldom spoken of, Erasmus has here yielded to Melancthon's plea for some moral support in behalf of Luther, and has