CHAPTER XIV

CONTINUED ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY POSITION: QUARREL WITH HUTTEN

But retribution was awaiting him in the person of Ulrich von Hutten, who inflicted a terrible punishment on his peace of mind in return for his puerile policy of blowing now hot and now cold. As preliminary to this we shall give part of a long letter written by Erasmus to Marcus Laurinus, Dean of the College of St. Donatianus at Bruges, whose acquaintance he had made during an investigation of the college library, where he had been fortunate enough to find many manuscripts of the Gospels. After going through the constant and ever-repeated list of his grievances against his so-called calumniators at Louvain, and giving for his leaving that University a reason which the event proved to be untrue, he goes on to tell Laurinus of the strenuous efforts which the Lutherans are making to win him to their side. Since we have already rehearsed this point, we may pass over to his effort to show Laurinus that he is a staunch anti-Lutheran. He writes:

Again, there are among those who favor Luther some who gnash their teeth and are furious because out of timidity of mind, as they put it, I am deserting the evangelical cause, and not only deserting it, but also attempting to strengthen that of the Popes, or, as they say, the papist cause. Now I have often enough already answered others on this point, but I will very willingly discuss the subject with any Lutheran whatsoever, provided he have a regard for justice; and I opine that I shall be able to prove my case from the points which he shall grant me. For firstly I shall ask him what he thinks of Luther. Undoubtedly he will declare him to be a holy and evangelical man, and a restorer of Christian piety. Then I shall ask him whether those who are devoted to him resemble him in this. Without doubt he will assert that to be so. Then I shall ask him whether it be in accord with the Gospel to drag anyone into their sect by force and artifice, especially when they know that the profession of such a belief as theirs is no less dangerous than was the profession of a Christian in the early days. It was the practice of the Jews to scour land and sea in order to entrap one proselyte into the net of the law. The Apostles attracted none by human artifices, and concealed the identity of those who had professed the name of Christ until the moment of acknowledging their faith was at hand.

I could say the same thing if the profession of the Lutheran faction were only a profession of evangelical belief, and if anyone could make that profession secretly amongst them at any time. Now

I leave to others to decide as to what kind of a profession of faith theirs is. Whatever it is, it originated without my knowledge and progressed in spite of my warnings, even to the extent that a great part of the world began to applaud the spectacle. Then came the Captivity of Babylon, the Abrogation of the Mass, the defense of the entire doctrine of Huss; besides other things which their being written in the Saxon tongue prevented me from reading. And yet, although so far I have pronounced no verdict on the dogmas of Luther, for many reasons, but principally because I perceived the matter to lie beyond the scope of my comprehension, yet I have given evidence in many of my letters that I am entirely averse to any association with the followers of Luther, and that I desire a little more Christian moderation in those of his writings which I have happened to read, and wish for less bitterness. Here I shall again call on my Lutheran friend to say whether or not he deems that an excellent and praiseworthy deed which he performs at great risk of his own life and serious risk to the lives of others. He will reply, I suppose, that it is truly apostolic, and worthy of eternal remembrance. Well, now, with your permission, who would not deem me the most arrogant of living mortals were I to arrogate so much praise to myself, when I did not deserve the least little bit? Nay, who would not think me more insane than ever Orestes was, if I were to angle for a most empty glory purchased at the risk of my life? Long since, many monarchs and church dignitaries have felt persuaded that I was the source, the originator, the defender, and the supporter of the entire teaching of Luther, and that, moreover, the books which are in circulation under his name are really mine. Ought I in silence to suffer such glory to be given to me? St. John the Baptist cries out "I am not the Christ!" and does it become me to remain silent? But they will say, "You have given too much proof of this in many epistles." Nay, so far, in so many epistles, I have yet been hardly able to persuade some people, so deeply infixed was this impudent lie in the minds of the many.

With respect to moderation and abuse, again shall I question my Lutheran friend whether or not he deems it expedient to spread the teaching of Luther as widely as possible throughout the world, and to make it commendable to both the highest and the lowest. Of a surety he will answer that it is especially expedient. Why then are some of them angry with Erasmus for desiring to see removed from his books two things which particularly destroy confidence and alienate the minds of all good men?—I allude to his arrogance and his uncontrolled abuse. And yet these things are so remarkably manifest that those who defend him most warmly have no excuse which they may offer save that my sins have so deserved, so that I am scourged as with scorpions by this harsh scolder. The first thing that made me suspicious about the spirit of Luther was the ferocity of his pen and his ever-ready abuse; and I have no doubt. that others have had the same experience..

1 Eras. Ep. 1342, 11. 729-90.

1

He goes on to tell how terribly Luther excoriated the book which Henry VIII wrote against him in defense of the Seven Sacraments, and seeks to show how unwise it was for Luther to do so, considering the power of kings. Then he resumes the thread of his argument as follows:

I should like here again to summon my Lutheran friend, whom I have chosen as a rather just judge. The causes of indignation are of this sort. I appeared in some letters of mine, I know not where, to offer a hope that, if I were allowed, and had the leisure, I should write in behalf of the peace of the Christian world and of the dignity of the Apostolic See. Now how does such a promise adversely affect Luther? But they pretend that I have written against him something, I know not what, which is certainly not true so far, although all the rest of the world is preparing to write against him. Why should they be angry with me alone if I bestir myself in the same direction, having been ordered to do so by those whom it were scarcely safe to refuse? But I think my critic will concede me this that Luther is not so perversely unjust as to be angry if one dissents from him in anything, since he permits himself to differ, not only from all the Doctors of the Church, but also from the decrees of the Councils; or consider himself injured, if someone, abstaining from abuse, search out the truth by the testimony of the Scriptures (to which he attributes prime importance) and by solid reasoning. For he summons all, and the Roman Pontiff summons all no less insistently than Luther, to argue out the case by means of solid reasonings and by the testimony of the Scriptures. Hence it was not just for them to threaten me, before they had seen with what reasoning and with what moderation I would write."

After this he goes on to tell how many books written by Luther and his friends were attributed to him, notably the Captivity of Babylon, for which he had to bear the blame amongst his own friends.

Let us hear then the rest of my offenses. "He still esteems highly and acknowledges the Roman Church," they say. "He still demands that the Roman Pontiff be honored, and he writes that no good man has ever withdrawn himself from that jurisdiction." These and many other things of the same sort appear in their letters. Of jurisdiction I have never written. At times I have written that all pious men respect the dignity of the Pope. For who would not respect the dignity of him who represents for us by his evangelical virtues Christ Himself? And I add the following whenever I defer to the dignity of the Pope: nobody knows in what the true dignity of the Pope consists; nor is this stated in one place in my lucubrations. But I have learned from the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles that honor is to be given to even heathen kings, unless they command us to do what is plainly impious. By that rule I * Idem, 11. 816-34.

2

deem no bishop's dignity should be contemned. And is it not impious to despise a good bishop? But they paint for themselves those whom they wish to contemn. "And who is the Roman Pontiff?" they exclaim. "Is he not a burner of the Gospel, an enemy of God, a seducer of all Christian people?" If they are speaking of such a Pontiff as that, he would never be approved by me. And yet, even if there were such, it is not for me to hurl them from their throne, for Christ still lives, and holds in His hand the whip to scourge such from His temple.

"But there is no hope," they say, "that a better one than Leo will follow." Now I am not the judge of Leo; he has his own Judge by whom he stands or falls. If so many good ones precede him, why may there not be the hope that Popes similar to those early ones may follow? But of that I allege nothing, lest I may seem to flatter. When adjured to do so by the impious high-priest, Christ himself made answer; nor was he wholly silent when ordered to speak by Pilate. How did Paul plead his cause before Festus, Felix, and Agrippa? did he not call them tyrants, servants of the Devil, slaves of sin, and enemies of God, who were presently to be sentenced to eternal fire? Now, see what those people would have replied to anyone who would excuse me for my forbearance. "That is the way Erasmus should speak:" my critic says, "Pope, thou art Antichrist; bishops, you are seducers; your See of Rome is abominable to God';" and many other even more detestable things of the same tenor. They do not approve of the forbearance of Erasmus, unless they preface their praise with such things as those, so evangelically, forsooth. This first I shall enquire from my critic, whether he thinks such demands which he makes of me are just? and then whether he considers them useful in this Lutheran affair? If I were to write such things as those against good Popes, would I not appear somewhat unjust? If I were to rage in that manner against bad Popes, what else should I do than stir up hornets' nests to sting myself and many others?"

As the reader has perceived by this time that the letter is purely subjective, that it is not a question of the right or wrong of Luther's teaching, but an appeal to Luther's friends not to be too hard on him if he shall feel compelled to stay with the papal party, we need not follow it any further. There is one point in it, however, which has some interest for us here, in that he here first touches on the subject of Freewill, which he was afterwards to amplify and issue as his first real contribution against Luther.

There remains still to be discussed my very greatest offense. In my Paraphrase, in which I explain the ninth chapter of the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans, I attribute a small degree of efficacy to Freewill, following therein Origen and Jerome. Now, since my Paraphrase is a sort of commentary, and since I profess in many passages that I am following the approved and early interpreters, Idem, 11. 886-925.

10

what crime do I commit if I follow here and there Origen and Jerome, writers in my estimation who are not to be contemned in the matter of the Scriptures? Moreover, my book appeared before Luther had promulgated his dogma, or rather that of Wickliffe, that whatever we do either of good or evil is of absolute necessity. For my Paraphrase was printed at Louvain in 1517, and existed some months in manuscript at Antwerp previous to being printed, and a certain person was called quite Erasmian because he believed as I do about Freewill, and differed from Luther. But they pardoned him for it on the ground that he was a young man with a bright future, who would in a short time feel differently about the matter.

Here again I call on my fair-minded critic, and ask him why I should be brought to book as the author of this opinion, when I had written it before Luther had promulgated his dogma, all the theologians, both ancient and modern, Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, Hilary, Arnobius, Scotus, and Thomas, being in agreement with me on the point; and why anyone who dissents from Luther should be called Erasmian rather than Hilarian or Jeronymite, especially since I did not undertake to treat the matter at any length in my Paraphrase, but casually passed over it, just as did St. Paul, who did not deign to there respond to an insincere questioner. And yet observe, dear reader, how much less weight I there attribute to Freewill than do either the ancient writers or the later universities. I suspect that these are the words in the ninth chapter by which they are offended. When I propounded that monstrous question which is put to God, and by which some endeavor to fasten on him an injustice, "No," I say, "there is something resides in our own will and our own effort, but it is so little that, compared with the gratuitous beneficence of God, it seems to be nothing at all. No one is damned except by his own fault; no one is saved unless by the grace of God: therefore He deems those worthy whom he wishes, but in such a way that it is a reason for you to be grateful, not to complain." Those words appear in my Paraphrase.18

I saw herein the peril of Scylla on the one hand drawing us to a trust in works, which I confess to be the greatest pest of religion; on the other hand I beheld a Charybdis, an evil still more formidable by which many are now held, saying, "We will follow our inclinations; for whether we torment ourselves or indulge our will, yet what God has once decreed for us will happen." Thus I so qualified my pronouncement on the matter as to allow some little weight to Freewill, lest I should open a window to so capital a stupidity that, throwing away all effort towards a better life, everybody should do as he pleased. And yet I wrote this quite unaware that there was anyone who wished to remove entirely all power of Freewill, a dogma such that, even if it struck me as being true, yet should I hesitate to spread it in naked words among the populace.

See Paraphrasis Erasmi in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (in Libri Paraphraseōn, Tom. II, Cap. IX, p. 44, Basle. 1524).