Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/29

 1920 ERASMUS 21 defence of this charge have been shown by a rigid and acute Scottish theologian to be almost identical in phrase with passages in the thoroughly orthodox Waterland/ so that the argument may be dismissed. The other view that he was essentially anti- dogmatic and anticipated the more ' modern spirit ' has more to support it and needs examination. It is clear, to begin with, that Erasmus always keeps his theology in close touch with life ; he never regards any theological debate or conclusion as purely abstract and he always handles it reverently. But he shows an openness of inquiry, a readiness to discuss, which sometimes leads modern readers, as it led men of his own day, to suppose that he regarded many questions as open and that he meant his speculation to be destructive. So we find Bishop Fisher in his own day disliking the Colloquies ^ and leading the English condemnation of them ; in modern days we find Seebohm praising Erasmus for the very same reasons. And in the ' Ichthyo- phagia ', to take the longest and most considerable of the Colloquies, there is much to justify Bishop Fisher and Mr. Seebohm. The characters, the fishmonger and the butcher, although Erasmus had not, I think, the dramatic giit, are learned beyond their tribe, brilliant and acute in their suggestions and in an unrestrained pursuit of them, seeming to go far in their freedom and to reach extreme conclusions. We may suppose that the fishmonger, who accounted for his theological learning by the fact that he often dined with his Dominican customers, must often have shocked his hosts, and we can understand why Farel, ' the ignorant ranter ' as Erasmus called him, was surprised, after a debate with him on the invocation of saints,^ at the difference in their belief and practice. But even here Erasmus was medieval ; he was following the usage of the greater schoolmen and of medieval uni- versity teachers ; like them he thought and speculated freely, following trains of argument whither they led. The later scholastics, those of his own day, were no longer speculative, but merely repeated ancient knowledge and old discussions ; the reformers were well on the way to an equally traditional scholasticism of their own. But we ought not to take Erasmus's treatment of his themes either as mere literary business or as deliberately destructive. He was following the method of medieval teachers and using their freedom, although the method which had been so successful in olden lecture -rooms might have its risks in more modern market-places, where its rules and its • Dr. Marcus Dods in Erasmus and other Essays, p. 55. This writer does full justice to the manliness of thought always found in Erasmus (p. 25) and makes a good defence for him against the charge of hurried critical work on the New Testament. But the press correctors were far behind our own University Press readers. « See Erasmus's reply, Ep. 974. » Ep. 707.