Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/583

 ERASMUS

513

ERASMUS

of a court of arbitration. He also defended with great earnestness his own ortliodoxy against Stunica, who wrote the treatise " Erasmi Rotterdami blaspheniia> et inipietates" (Rome, 1522), to prove that Lutheran errors were to be found in the aforesaid "Annota- tiones" to the New Testament. The same year (1522) the fugitive Von Hutten, on his way to Zurich, attempted, but in vain, to meet at Basle his former friend. Von Hvitten revengetl himself in his " Expos- tulatio cum Erasmo" (1523), in which he laid bare with passionate violence all the weaknesses, all the parvitas et imbecillitas animi of his former patron. Erasmus replied from Basle with his "Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Hutteni", in which, with equal violence, he attacked the character and life of his op- ponent, and defended himself against the reproach of duplicity. He had endeavoured, so he wrote, to hold aloof from all parties; he had, indeed, attacked Ro- man abuses, but he had never attacked the Apostolic See or its teaching.

All sympathetic association of Erasmus with the Reformers now ceased, though Melanchthon tried to stay the final rupture. One after another, the leaders of the religious anti-Roman movement withdrew from the famous humanist, especially Zwingli and (Ecolampadius. This same year Erasmus resolvetl at last to heed the many appeals made to him, especially by Adrian VI and Henry VIII, to write against Luther. For the first time he took a decided stantl, moved, no doubt, by the fear of losing the confidence of both parties. He chose with skill the point on which he would attack Luther. Erasmus had complained much earlier that the new religious movement begat only commotion, moral disorganization, and the in- terruption, if not the complete ruin, of learned studies. These abuses he traced to Luther's denial of free will. He wrote, therefore, in defence of the freedom of the will, an attack on Luther, entitled: "Diatribe de Ubero arbitrio" (1524). The work, it may be said, was couched in a calm and dignified style. Though by no means sufficiently profound in its theological rea- soning, the proofs are drawn with skill from the Bible and from reason. Luther's reply was the " De servo arbitrio" (1524), henceforth the official programme of the new movement. Starting from the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it teaches the absolute incompetency of man in his fallen state to perform moral acts; no franker antithesis to the humanistic ideal could be imagined. Erasmus replied in a work entitled "Hyperaspistes" (1526), but without effect. Luther ignored this reply, except in private letters, in which he showed much irritation. Some years later, however, when the " E.xplanatio Symboli " of Erasmus appeared (1533), Luther attacked him once more in a public letter, to which Erasmus replied in his " .\d- versus calumniosissimam epistolam Martini Lutheri". These passages at arms brought on Erasmus the vio- lent hatred of the Wittenberg reformer, who now called him nothing but a sceptic and an Epicurean. Catholics, however, considered that Erasmus had somewhat rehabilitated himself, although the more extreme still disbelieved in him. He had not ceased to insist on the need of reforms, though he now spoke more composedly of many matters, such as celibacy. In liis later years, it may be said, he held aloof from all religious conflicts, devoted to his humanistic studies and to an intimate circle of such frientls as Boniface .\mcrbach, Beatus Rhenanus, and Glareanus. Nor was he indifferent to contemporary efforts at con- ciliation; he w.as in favour of ecclesiastical reunion. Meantime, the Reformation made rapid progress in Basle, where it took the form, greatly detested by Erasmus, of a violent destruction of images. He re- moved, therefore (1529), to Freiburg in tlie Breisgau, not far from Basle, in which city he could still find congenial Catholic surroundings. He did not relax his efforts for religious peace, in favour of which he V.-;33

exerted all his influence, especially at the imperial court. He also wrote, at the request of Melanchthon and Julius von Pflug, his " De .sarcienda Ecclesiae Con- cordia" (1533), in which he advocates the removal of ecclesiastical abuses in concord with Rome and with- out any changes in the ecclesiastical constitution. Notwithstanding his rupture with Luther, an intense distrust of Erasmus was still widespread; as late as 1527 the Paris Sorbonne censured thirty-two of his propositions. It is a remarkable fact that the atti- tude of the popes towards Erasmus was never inimi- cal; on the contrary, they exhibited at all times the most complete confidence in him. Paul III even wanted to make him a cardinal, but Erasmus declined the honour, alleging his age and ill-health. Natiu-ally weak and sickly, and suffering aU his life from calcuU, his strength in the end failed completely. Under these circumstances he decided to accept the invita- tion of Mary, regent of the Netherlands, to live in Bra- bant, and was preparing at Basle for the journey when a sudden attack of dysentery caused his death. He died with composure and with all the signs of a devout trust in God; he did not receive the last sacraments, but why cannot now be settled. He was buried with great pomp in the cathedral at Basle. Shortly before his death he heard the sorrowful news of the execution of two of his English friends. Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher.

Editions of the classics and the Fathers of the Church kept Erasmus fully employed during the later period of his life at Basle. In his editions of the Fathers Erasmus formed a means of realizing the theological ideal of Humanism, which was to make accessible the original sources of ecclesiastical and theological devel- opment and thus to popularize the historical concept of the Church as against the purely speculative view- point of Scholasticism. As early as 1516-lS Erasmus had published in nine volumes the works of St. Jerome, a theologian to whom he felt especially drawn. In 1523 appeared his edition of St. Hilary of Poitiers; in 1526 that of St. Irenaeus of Lyons; in 1527, St. Am- brose; in 1528, St. Augustine; in 1529 the edition of Epiphanius; in 1530, St. Chrysostom; his edition of Origen he did not live to finish. In the same period he issued the theological and pedagogical treatises: " Ecclesiastes sive Concionator evangelicus" (1535), a greatly admired homiletic work; " Modus confitendi" (1525), a guide to right confession; "Modus orandi Deum"; " Vidua Christiana"; " De civilitate morum puerilium"; "De prsparatione ad mortem", etc.

Opinions concerning Erasmus will vary greatly. No one has defended him without reserve, his defects of character being too striking to make this possible. His vanity and egotism were boundless, and to gratify them he was readj' to pursue former friends with defamation and invective; his flattery, where favour and material advantages were to be had, was often repulsive, and he lacked straightforward speech and decision in just those moments when both were neces- sary. His religious ideal was entirely humanistic: reform of the Church on the basis of her traditional constitution, the introduction of humanistic "enlight- enment" into ecclesiastical doctrine, without, how- ever, l)reaking with Rome. By nature a cold, schol- arly character, he had no real interest in uncongenial questions and subjects, above all no living affectionate sympathy for the doctrines and destinies of the Church. Devoid of any power of practical initiative he was constitutionally unfitted for a more active part in the violent religious movements of his day, or even to sacrifice himself for the defence of the Church. His bit- ter sarcasm had, indeed, done much to prepare the way for the Reformation; it spared neither the most sacred elements of religion nor his former friends. His was an absolutely unspeculative brain, and he lacked en- tirely all power of acute philosophical definition; we need not wonder, therefore, that on the one hand he