Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/580

 ERASMUS

512

ERASMUS

tim of hair-splitting philosophy, which culminated in Scholasticism. With the latter there appeared in the Church that Pharisaism which based righteousness on good works and monastic sanctity, and on a ceremo- nialism beneath whose weight the Christian spirit was stifled. Instead of devoting itself to the eternal salva- tion of souls. Scholasticism repelled the religiously in- clined by its hair-splitting metaphysical speculations and its over-curious discussion of unsolvable mys- teries. The religious life, he held, was not furthered by discussions concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, or the causa jormalis efpciens, and the character indelebilis of baptism, or gratia gratis data or acquisita; of just as little consequence was the doctrine of origi- nal sin. Even his concept of the Blessed Eucharist was quite rationalistic and rescmljled the later teach- ing of Zwingli. Similarly he rejecte<l the Divine ori- gin of the primacy, of confession, the indissolubility of marriage, and other fundamental principles of Chris- tian life and the ecclesiastical constitution. He would replace these traditiuncuhv ami constitutiiincu- Iw hominum by the simple words of the Scriptures, the interpretation of which should be left to the intlividual judgment. The disciplinary ordinances of the Church met with even less consideration; fasts, pil- grimages, veneration of saints and their relics, the prayers of the Breviary, celibacy, and religious orders in general he classed among the perversities of a for- malistic Scholasticism. Over against this " holiness of good works" he set the "philosophy of Christ", a purely natural ethical ideal, guided by human sagacity. Of course this natural standard of morals oiiliterated almost entirely all differences between heathen and Christian morality, so that Erasmus could speak with perfect seriousness of a "Saint" Virgil or a "Saint" Horace. In his edition of the Greek New Testament and in his "Paraphrases" of the same he forestalled the Protestant view of the Scriptures.

Concerning the Scriptures, Luther did not express himself in a more rationalistic manner than Erasmus; nor did he interpret them more rationalistically. The only difference is that Luther said clearly and posi- tively what Erasmus often merely suggested by a douljt, and that the former sought in the Bible, above all other things, the certainty of justification by Christ, while the latter, with an almost Pelagian defin- iteness, sought therein the model of a moral life. Substantially the same fundamental principles and arguments were put forth by the representatives of eighteenth-century "Enlightenment" to attain ex- actly the same results. It must be added, however, that the attitude of Erasmus towards the religious questions of his time was conditioned rather by liter- ary interests than by profound interior conviction. His demeanour was apt to be influenced by anxiety for peace and by personal considerations; moreover, in contrast to Luther, it was the refined and scholarly public, not the common people, that he sought to in- fluence by his writings. He, therefore, laboured for a reform of the Church that would not be antagonistic to the pope and the bishops, nor productive of a vio- lent rupture, but which, through the dissemination of a larger enlightenment, would eventually but gradually result in the wished-for reorganization. This was to be the work, however, not of the common people, but of scholars and princes. Hence he tried subsequently to check the Lutheran movement by some kind of

Eeaceful compromise. With a scholar's love of peace, e was from the beginning disinclined to enter deeply into the current religious dispute. For a time his reform ideas seemed to have some prospect of success, especially during the reigns of Adrian VI and Paul HI. As soon, however, as the Lutheran movement was seen to mean <lefinitivc .separation from the Church, it was clear that a rigorous adherence to the latter was the only logical attitude and the one most capable of defence. In the first years of the Reformation many

thought that Luther was only carrying out the pro- gramme of Erasmus, and this was the opinion of those strict Catholics who from the outset of the great con- flict included Erasmus in their attacks on Luther. Given the wavering character of Erasmus, such at^ tacks were to provoke on his part a very equivocal attitude, if not plain double-dealing. He gave Luther clearly to untlerstand that he agreed with him, and urged only a less violent manner and more considera- tion for the pope and ecclesiastical dignitaries. At the same time he affected in public an attitude of strict neutrality, and as time went on withdrew more and more from Luther. In 1519 he WTote to Luther: " I observe as strict a neutrality as possible, in order to advance scholarship, which is again beginning to flourish, by my modesty rather than by passion or violence." That close relations between these two fundamentally different characters were maintained as late as the Diet of Worms, though both soon clearly saw the difference in their points of view and their attitudes, was largely due to Melanchthon. Though Erasmus had prepared the way for him, Luther was greatly dissatisfied with him because of his strongly rationalistic concept of original sin and the doctrine of grace. As early as 1517 Luther thus expressed him- self concerning Erasmus: "My liking for Erasmus declines from day to day. . . . The human is of more value to him than the Divine. . . . The times are now dangerous, and I see that a man is not a more sincere or a wiser Christian for all that he is a good Greek or Hebrew scholar." Luther felt hurt, moreover, by the cool and reserved manner in which Erasmus passed judgment on Ms wi-itings and actions. Nevertheless, Erasmus always opposed any persecution of Luther, and frequently and in no measured terms condemneo the Bull of excommunication. At the same time, he declined any association with Luther, and protested his ignorance of the latter's writings and his own com- plete submission to the highest ecclesiastical authority. But with all this he took the part of Luther in his correspondence with the Elector Frederick of Saxony. He expressed his views concerning Luther's doctrine in twenty-two " Axiomata" adtlressed to the Elector's court chaplain, Spalatinus, which, to his disgust, were soon afterwanls printed. In this memoir and in other writings addressed to the emperor and to friends at Rome, Erasmus proposed arbitration by a court of scholars; he complained, moreover, of the violent at- tacks made on himself by the monks, and asserted his absolute neutrality and his fidelity to Rome. The latter assurance was all the more necessary as the papal legate Aleander in his reports to Rome put the authorities on their guard against Erasmus, and ac- cused him of being an accomjilice in the religious re- volt. " The poison of Erasmus has a much more dan- gerous effect than that of Luther, who by his notorious satirical and insulting letters has injured his own teaching. "

While Erasmus, by his relations with the Roman Curia, was able to checkmate the aforesaid and similar hostile complaints, in Germany he continued to be regarded with distrust and even with hatred, senti- ments that acquired new strength when, in spite of repeated entreaties, he refused to appear publicly against Luther. Insinuations and charges of tliis kind were brought against him, especially by the theolo- gians of Louvain. Consequently, in 1521. he moved to Basle, where the presence of numerous humanists of the LIpper Rhine seemed to assure him a peaceful exi.stence. Even here his attitude continued for a considerable time uncertain. To Duke tieorge of Saxony he expressed himself most favourably concern- ing Luther and blamed both the Bull of excommunica- tion and the imperial edict against the reformer; yet in his correspondence with the emperor and with Adrian VI he denied all association with Luther, and reverted again to his plan of reconciliation by means