ERASMUS
2T9
ERASTUS
for gold than for the safety of souls ; who think they do eiioiigh if they dress themselves in theatrical cos- tamo, and under the name of the most reverend, most hol_v, and most blessed f.ithers in God, pronounce a blessinj; or a curse ; and, lastly, she boldl}' assails the court of Rome and the pope himself, who, she says, takes only the pleasures of his station, and leaves its duties to St. Peter and St. Paul. Among the curious wood-cuts, aftar the marginal drawings of Hans Hol- bein, with which the book was adorned, the pope ap- pears with his triple crown. It produced an indescrib- able effect: twenty-seven editions appeared even dur- ing the lifetime of Erasmus ; it was translated into all languages, and greatly contributed to confirm the age in its anticlerical dispositions" (Ranke, I. c). But the personal character of Erasmns was not fitted for- such storms as those of the Reformation. Intellectu- alh', he was too many-sided and too undecided ; mor- allv, he was of too flaccid a fibre, too timid, and too fond of ease, to devote him?elf to a certain strife with very uncertain issues. Moreover, he never had pro- found religious convictions or experience. The monks, nevertheless, were right to a certain extent in their saying that "Erasmus laid the egg; Luther hatched it." At first Erasmus regarded Luther with favor as a coadjutor in his attacks upon the ignorance of the monlvs, and in his plans for the reformation of litera- ture. But Luther saw the weakness and spiritual poverty of Erasmus, and expressed his fears in letters to Sp ilatin and Lange as early as 1517 ; while Eras- mus, in letters to Zwingle, depreeated the hasts and vehemence of Luther. In 1519 (March 28) Luther wrotj a friendly letter to Erasmus, who says in reply (April 30) : "I hold myself aloof from the controver- sies of the times to devote mj' whole strength to liter- ature. After all, more is to be gained lij' moderation than by passion ; so Christ conquered the world. It is better to write against those who have abused the authority of the papacy than against individual popes." In 1520, Frederick, elector of Saxony, meeting Eras- mus at Cologne, asked his opinion of Luther; his replj^ was, Liitheriu peccavit in du^biis, nempe quod tetlglt co- roiiani pontijicis et ventres monachorum : " Luther has committed two blunders ; he has ventured to touch the crown of the pope and the bellies of the monks . . . but his language is too violent," etc. He expressed similar cautions in a letter to Justus Jonas at the time of the Diet of AVorms (1521). The earnest Ulrich von Hutten sought to draw Erasmus openly to the Protes- tant side, but in vain. In 1522 Hutten published an Erposttdxtio cum Erasino, abounding in bitter invec- tive, to which Erasmus replied in Spongla aduersus Jlutleni asperffims (Basel, 1523) (see Gieseler, Church Jlis/or//, ed. by Smith, iv, § 3). Luther is said to have condemned both these pamphlets as disgraceful. Lu- ther wrote (1524) to Erasmus an earnest letter, urging him, if he would not join the Reformers, at least to re- frain from open opposition. " You might, indeed, have aided us much by your wit and your eloquence ; but, since j-ou have not the disposition and the cour- age for this, we would have you serve God in your own way. Only we feared, lest our adversaries should entice you to write against us, and that necessity should ccnnpel us to oppose you to your face. If you cannot, dear Erasmus, assert our opinions, be persuad- ed to let them alone, and treat of subjects more suited to your taste" {Bibliolh. Sacra, 1862, p. 129). " From this tiuie Erasmus complains incessantly of the hostil- ity of the Evangelicals. Tlio haughty style in which Luther offered him peace (in the letter above cited) could only have the effect upon that ambitious man of giving additional weight to the request which reached him at the same time from England, that he would take revenge up(m Luther for his attack upon the royal author (Henry VllI). And so, to assail the formida- ble Luther in tlie weakest part of his theological S3's- tem, Erasmus wrote his treatise De Libera Arbitrio
(Sept. 1524). Luther replied with his usual bitterness in his De Servo Arbitrio (Dec. 1525). Erasmus replied in like coin in his Hyperaspistes (1526). Thus the re- nowned Erasmus now passed over into the ranks of the enemies of the Reformation, though he did not cease to recommend conciliatory measures towards it" (Gieseler, I. c).
The writings of Erasmus were collected and pub- lished in 1540-41 (9 vols. foL), and also by Clericus (Leclerc), under the title Des. Era^mi Opera Omnia, emendatoria et anctlora, etc. (L. Bat. 1703-6, 10 vols, in 11, fol). He edited many of the- fathers, viz. Origen, Irenajup, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Lactantius, and translations of selections from them are given in his Opera. The separate editions of his more popular works (the Encomium, Adagia, CiUoguh, etc.) arc very numerous. There are English versions of the follow- ing : Paneggric upon Follg (two translations : one by Chaloner, the other by Kennet ; often printed) ; Collo- quies (1671, and often, especially in selections) ; En- chiridion Mililis, by W. do Wordc (1533, 16mo, and often) ; Christian's Manual (from the Enchiridion Mil- itis, London, 1816, 8vo) ; Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher (chiefly from Erasmus, London, 1797, small 8vo) ; Bs Contemptu Miindi (Lond. 1533, 16mo) ; De Immensa Dei Jfisericordia (1533, and often). Many of Erasmus's smaller tracts were also translated. There are several biographies of Erasmus (none verj' good), viz. Beatus Rhenanus, in Erasmi Opera, torn, i (1540); Leclerc's,^ in vol. i of Erasmi Opsra (1703) ; IMerula, Vita Erasmi (Leyden, 1607, 4to) ; Knight, Life of Erasmus (London, 1720, 12mo) ; Burigny, Me d'Erasme (Par. 1757, 2 vols. 12mo); Jortin, Life 'of Erasmus (Lond. 1758, best ed. 1808, 3 vols. 8vo ; abridged by Laycey, London, 1805, 8vo); Hess, Leben des Erasmus (Zurich, 1790); But- ler, LAfe of Erasmus (London, 1825, 8vo); Nisard, in Etudes sur la Renaissance (Par. 1855) ; Miillcr, Leben d;s Erasmus (Hamb. 1828, 8vo ; reviewed by Ul;m..nn, Studlen u. Krit. 1829, p. 1); Glasius, On Lrcis:nus as Church Reformer (a crowned prize-essay in the Dutch language, The Hague, 1850). See also Bayle, Dic- tionary (s. v. Erasmus); Dupin, Auteurs EccUs. torn, xiii ; AVaddlngton, llistorg of the Reformation (London, 1841), ch. xxiil; IMerle d'Aubigne, History of the Ref- ormation, vol. i; Iloefer, Noiiv. JJiogr. Genirale, xvi, 207 ; Hallam, History of Literafure (Harper's ed.), i, 134 sq. ; Mackintosh, Miscellaneous Works (London, 1851), i, 190 sq. ; Christ. Examiner, xlix, 80; Christian Revietr, April, 1858 ; Quart. Review, 1859, art. i ; Theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, p. 531 ; Bibliotheca Sacra, xix, 106 ; Brit, and For. Ev. Review, July, 1867, p. 517 ; H. Rogers, in Good Words, Feb. 1868.