Page images
PDF
EPUB

of sympathy with the main purpose of their lives, his eulogy often degenerated into that tone of condescending patronage, which M. Renan was accustomed to use when speaking of the Hebrew Prophets and the Christian Apostles. He could not, and did not, conceal his opinion that the Reformers, although they had discarded the superstitions of Rome, remained under the power of a rival superstition not less irreconcilable with modern enlightenment. A sceptical man of the nineteenth century, writing of the religious prophets of the sixteenth, he perplexed his reflecting readers by the fervour of his admiration; for if the Reformers had no authentic religious mission to give to mankind a new form of faith, it is hard to justify their action in destroying the existing sanctions of morals and social order. The great schism which divided nations as well as churches, and the wars which followed, were too heavy a price to pay for a somewhat speedier disappearance of superstitious practices which would inevitably have vanished with the gradual progress of enlightened ideas.

Mr Froude's agreement with Erasmus did not rest upon similarity of temperament; for the Mr Froude of the History at all events retained the imperious ecclesiastical temperament, and would have preferred to rule opinion by scorn and anathemas rather than by arguments addressed to the understanding. His temperament, therefore, drew him towards the Reformers; but no similarity of temperament could bridge the chasm of opinion by which he was separated from them. With Erasmus, on the other hand, he was in as complete agreement as a writer of the nineteenth century could well be.

His Biography of Erasmus is, in its main lines, a powerful and conclusive Apologia. If English readers persist in misunderstanding Erasmus, it will not be the fault of Mr Froude, whose admirable translations of his frank and unreserved letters leave no room for further misunderstanding. In former times the character of Erasmus was an enigma, because of the current assumption that every Christian must be either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. As he was neither, partisan writers, with their accustomed want of charity, solved the enigma by alleging that he was a Protestant by conviction, who refused to declare himself from dread of unpleasant consequences. The greatest scholar of the German Renaissance has thus been execrated for centuries by Protestant tradition as a worldly time-server, and Catholics did not care to defend one who had spoken disrespectfully of their Church. Mr Froude has not found it difficult to vindicate his memory from this charge, and he is not an over-partial advocate. We doubt, indeed, if he quite liked Erasmus. At all events, he has thrown no veil over his weaknesses, which are writ large in his correspondence.

1

1

Heine, he sometimes represented himself as worse than he was, writing most humiliating confessions to amuse himself and to shock his correspondents. He was certainly lacking in self-respect, and in the feeling of honourable independence. A dependent all his life, he had never any scruple in begging money and favours from his rich friends. Like the musician, Wagner, he estimated at their full value his services to his fellow-men, and he considered that persons of wealth should be willing to place him in those circumstances of easy comfort, in which he could do his work to the best advantage. The only apology that can be made for him is, that it was the custom of the age; poor scholars could not subsist save through the bounty of the great. And if Erasmus asked without delicacy, he gave without grudging to those poorer than himself. It may be added that he never bartered his freedom of thought or of speech in exchange for honour and pensions. Nevertheless, it would have been well for the reputation of Erasmus had he been a less importunate beggar.

A second prejudice, not so well founded, has been excited against Erasmus by the light, sarcastic tone he often adopted when writing of religious subjects. This may have been a symptom of the absence of profound religious faith, which is usually, although not always, serious in tone. But it is no proof of his insincerity, but rather of an honesty of character which kept him back from saying more than he really felt. It was his misfortune to have been trained in a religion and a theology for which he felt a profound disdain. His sense of reverence was therefore weakened in his youth, and he never quite recovered it. Later in life he discovered a religion in the New Testament which won his lasting regard; and it was the principal aim of his literary activity to make the New Testament known, and to recommend its practical teachings. But with regard to the dogmatical teaching even of the New Testament, especially as contained in the writings of St Paul and St John, he always remained uncertain, if not sceptical. The convictions needful for the religious Prophet he never possessed. It was a mark therefore of sincerity of character that he did not assume the Prophet's garment, but contented himself with the half-playful tone proper to the man of letters. Everywhere in his writings he insinuated his religious opinions, and they were always on the right side in matters of practice, but he never preached them. Those, however, who are acquainted with his writings can hardly have failed to note the accent of subdued fervour with which he always spoke of the practical side of New Testament religion.

The most serious charge against Erasmus is his alleged "Great Refusal" to cast in his lot with Luther, although convinced of the righteousness of his cause. To this charge the letters in Mr Froude's

volume furnish a complete answer. Erasmus agreed with Luther in his condemnation of the evil policy of the Popes, and of the ridiculous religion of the Friars. He desired to reform both by the help of these luminaries of learning and the Gospel; but here his agreement with Luther ended. Luther likewise wished to purify the doctrine of the Church, but he never doubted that a new system of dogma must be substituted for that of the schoolmen. Of the need for dogma he thus wrote in a letter quoted by Mr Froude : "Christians require certainty, definite dogmas, a sure Word of God which they can trust to live and die by. For such certainty Erasmus cares not." Whether Erasmus cared for such certainty or not, we cannot say; but he did not believe that it was attainable in the present life. Of doctrinal discussions he wrote: “ May not a man be a Christian who cannot explain philosophically how the Nativity of the Son differs from the Procession of the Holy Spirit? If I believe in the Trinity in Unity, I want no arguments. If I do not believe, I shall not be convinced by reason. The sum of religion is peace, which can only be when definitions are as few as possible, and opinion is left free on many subjects. Our present problems are said to be waiting for the next Ecumenical Council. Better let them wait till the veil is removed and we see God face to face." In another letter, when writing of a proposed Crusade against the Turks, he thus expressed his opinion of the injury done to practical religion by doctrinal subtleties and debates: "Reduce the Articles of Faith to the fewest and simplest. Show them that Christ's yoke is easy, that we are shepherds and not robbers, and do not mean to oppress them. The cry is only for pardons, dispensations, and indulgences, and the trade goes on in the name of popes and princes, and even of Christ Himself. Ask a question of the scholastic divines and the casuists, and you are told of qualifications, of equivocations, and such like. No one of them will say to you, Do this and leave that. They ought to show their faith in their works, and convert Turks by the beauty of their lives." Had Erasmus, with such views, joined hands with Luther, he might have escaped bodily martyrdom, as did Luther-Erasmus frankly confessed he had no ambition to become a martyr-but he could hardly have escaped a spiritual martyrdom through association with men with whom he was in imperfect sympathy. Mr Froude expresses the opinion that the reply of Erasmus to Luther's first letter was entirely honourable to him. The same remark may be made with regard to his conduct through the whole controversy, if we fairly take into account his opinions and his position. He spoke highly of Luther's character and of his general aims; these he continued to defend even when writing to men in power who were Luther's enemies, and he steadily refused to write against

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

him, although he was strongly pressed to do so. It is true he regretted the vehemence of Luther's language; he counselled greater moderation, and he condemned his revolt against the authority of the Pope. As Erasmus attributed the evil condition of the Church and the Lutheran revolt itself to the evil policy of the Popes, it may seem that he ought in consistency to have approved of the action of Luther. But Erasmus looked upon the remedy as worse than the disease. The Popedom might be reformed; but if the sole centre of ecclesiastical and social order were destroyed, he saw nothing but disaster before the Church and the world. He had no belief in the possibility of a democratic reform of the Church : appeals to the mob were hateful to him, and he was aware that every previous attempt at reform, which had thrown off the authority of the Papacy, had ended in failure and in disaster. He foresaw more clearly than Luther did that the end of the Protestant movement would be schism and religious war, and his hatred of war amounted to a passion. "I have preached all my life," he wrote, "and shall not change my ways at the end of it." While Luther was predicting a speedy fulfilment of the most glorious prophecies of Isaiah through the preaching of the Gospel, Erasmus was looking forward to a schism of the Church and of the nations. There may have been something grander in Luther's faith than in the forebodings of Erasmus; and the new order which finally emerged may have recompensed Europe for the wars and tumults which the Reformation brought in its train. But the new order was not established by the evangelical means which Luther approved of, but by an alliance of the party of evangelical reform with scholars and princes, who transformed it into an organised system of dogma and polity which had considerable affinities to that of Rome. It is always a profitless task in studying history to consider what might have been; we must remember, as Mr Froude remarks, that the future course of things was hidden alike from Luther and from Erasmus. "Let any man of seventy," writes Mr Froude, "look back over what he has witnessed in his own time. Let him remember what was hoped for from political changes or wars, or from each step in his personal life, and compare what has really resulted from those things with what he once expected; how difficulties have shown themselves which no one foresaw; how his calculations have been mocked by incidents which the wisest never dreamt of; and he will plead to be judged, if his conduct comes under historical review, by his intentions and not by the event."

More than once in the course of his delightful volume Mr Froude counsels his readers to look at the history of the sixteenth century through the eyes of Erasmus. If we do so, we shall not always fully understand its splendid idealism, we shall not perhaps

fathom its profound religious passion; but we shall possess in him a more impartial guide than we could have in any other man of his time; for Erasmus did justice alike to the Reformers and to the good intentions of Leo X. An ecclesiastical trimmer, to use the word in no unfavourable sense, can never enjoy the plaudits of the Claque of the Catholic or Protestant party; but he will help those who desire to do so, to form a just judgment of the characters of men who lived in a period of passionate strife, and cannot be estimated aright through the eyes of the partisans on either side.

JOHN GIBB.

Introduction to the New Testament.

By F. Godet, D.D., Professor in the Faculty of the Independent Church of Neuchatel. Particular Introduction. I. The Epistles of St Paul. Translated from the French by William Affleck, B.D. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Demy 8vo, pp. xiii. 621. Price, 12s. 6d. net.

New Testament Theology; or, Historical Account of the Teachings of Jesus, and of Primitive Christianity according to the New Testament Sources.

By Dr Willibald Beyschlag, Professor of Theology, Halle. Translated by Rev. Neil Buchanan, M.A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 2 vols. demy 8vo, pp. xxiii. 419, xii. 522. Price, 188. net.

WHEN they appeared in their original French and German, these two books were reviewed at length in this Journal. We have now the satisfaction of seeing them in a suitable English dress. They are both books of importance, and they have been fortunate in their translators. The English rendering, in both cases, is in general a trustworthy bit of work. It also reads pleasantly, giving as good a representation of the original as may be fairly expected in view of the differences in the idioms of the languages. It is by no means easy to reproduce in English the admirably lucid, free, and attractive style in which Professor Godet is a master. Mr Affleck, however, has done his task carefully and well.

These two books by no means move on the same plane. They have characteristic and far-reaching differences. But both are weighty contributions to the study of the New Testament, and to that of the Pauline writings in particular. The importance of Professor Godet's volume lies largely in its sober and admirably constructed defence of the Pauline authorship of the disputed 1 Vol. III. p. 142, etc., and p. 391, etc.

« PreviousContinue »