The Washington times., 1901-08-18
A sixteenth Century Scholar.


The book is not supposed to be a con
plete biography. but deals rather wit
Erasmus as a factor in the Reform;
ton. Notwithstanding this. there
much of the mans personality in II
book. OF his work in the Reformatio
the author says:
There were men in this vast con-
flict of ideas to whom il was given
to lead others along some visible and
definite road to some determi Rab BILE end !:
Thomas a Kempis along the way of
faith to the haven of religious peace;
Luther and Calvin along the way of
doctrinal clearnesS through ecclesias-
teal revolution to deliberate recon
struction: Descartes through a single.
all-inclusive philosophical proposition
to ultimate certainty Of thought: the
great artists through painting the
thing as they saw it to a new basis
of esthetic judgment. The special func-
tion of Erasmus in the Great Adjust
ment was, as he conceived it, to bring
men back to the standards of a true
Christianity by constant reference to
the principles of ancient learning and
by an appeal to the tribunal of
common sense. His activity took
many forms; but he was always,
whether through classical treatise
or encyclopedia collection or satiri-
cal dialogue or direct moral ap-
peal-always and everywhere the
preacher of righteousness His sue
cesses were invariably along this line.
His failures were caused by his in
capacity to perceive at what moment
the mere appeal to the moral sense
was no longer adequate. His services
to the Reformation were warmly re-
cognized even by so violent an OPP
ponent as Hutton; his personal limita-
tons We're in danger of making those
of
the point where he and those with
whom he ought to have worked parted
company"
In later chapter he says:
THE boldness of Luther was not
that of man defiant by nature. who
enjoys the game of give and take, but
rather that of the man who puts off
the moment of his attack until he can
do so. no longer, and then lets himself
go, driven from behind, as it were. by
will greater than his own, and
against which he is powerless.
With nature and method like this
Erasmus could never have had much
sympathy. Compare their two views
Of Italy. We have seen Erasmus seek
ing there the rewards of scholarship,
cultivating the society of learned mea,
playing the role of the famous schol-
ar himself. making himself acceptable
to the powers that were, getting out of
Italy what he could-then coming
away and letting all the shafts of his
biting satire play upon this society
where he had been feeling himself at
home. He could eat the bread and
take the pay of Aldus. and then hold
him up to the laughter of the world.
Luther went to Italy at almost the
same time on an errand from the Sax
on Augustinians to the general chapter
at Rome. He Travelled as a monk,
stopping at the houses of his order
along the way. At Rome he visited all
the shrines of the saints. like the most
pious of pilgrims. He was almost sor-
~, he says. that his parents were liv-
Ing, SO many were the advantages Of
fered to the souls of the departed at
these affairs of divine grace. He per-
formed his commission, went back to
his place, and continued for seven
years longer to fulfill his duties as
monk priest. and teacher, without any
man system. Only in his preaching
and writing one can trace the steady
advance of confidence in his guiding
principle of faith as the one sufficient
guarantee of life justified or 'ad-
justed' TO the divine requirement. He
did not seek the fight; he waited in
his place until the battle sought him
out and then he dared not refuse the
challenge.
Luther nailed his Theses on Indul-
Church at Wittenburg on the last day
of October in the year 1877. - Proba-
bly, there was no other man in Europe
from whom a decisive word In his ia
vor would have been so welcome to
Luther as a word at this moment from
Erasmus. Nor, on the other hand. was
there a champion whom the existing
system would more gladly have seen
on Its side. The word was not spoken,
but neither did Erasmus array HIM
self as yet frankly In opposition to
Luther Indeed, we have no reason to
believe that the issue in all its mag
nitude was clearly present TO his
thought
Some things he saw only too clearly.
His clever. analytical mind perceived
that usages and forms might in them
selves be innocent or even helpful,
harmful In the extreme. So his in
stinct was IN every case to say: Let
us amend the wrong use of these
things, but let us not disturb the in
nocent and helpful practice itself:
Whatever subject he touched called
cut at once this overtime discriminating
power. He drew picture of the thing
he wanted 10 express and believed
himself to be heightening the effect of
this picture when he refined upon 1t
the very effect he had aimed at was
defeated. The art of fine distinctions
was an admirable one. The question
Of the hour, however, was not to be
solved IN that way. The time had
come when men Were going down deep
below those retinements and were
about TO ask the fatal question;
:, forms and systems which
could not bear the strain of daily use
by plain human nature without gross
abuses were not better reformed out
Of existence once for ALL Erasmus
70 nd al will
vanish Quite true. but If all men
were good there would be no need of
at all The question was.
the experiment had not been
Issue which Erasmus seems not to
have grasped.
'Of all charges brought against him
on 10th sides that of timidity is the
done our work but badly so far II we
lave not made II clear that Erasmus be-
ieyed in his right to bring all human
TO judgment at the bar of
mis- own mind and conscience. Nothing
which offended his own sense of right
could be wholly acceptable to him. In
10 far he was an individual, and claim
d his right as such. As an individual,
With mind and conscience of his own,
ne had a right, not only to have opln-
ons upon every SUBJECT OF human In
crest. but TO express them. There was
10 call upon him, any more than upon
!. hundred others. to address himself
o kings, princes. prelates. popes, in
luisitors, and instruct them as to their
luty in a great public crisis. He did
his out OF some impelling sense of
iuty and of right. II we may put any
confidence in anything he ever said or
Id, We may rely upon this: That he
'elt himself the spokesman of a cause
greater than his own-;he cause OF a
'ree and sane scholarship.
HE was an individual. but of the
fifteenth. not of the eighteenth CEN
Jury. The great word OF deliverance
70 the modern mind, the 'cogito ergo
Ium,' had not yet been spoken. Man
was still content to think of himself
Is hemmed in by standards OF thought
and action not created for him by his
,wn mind. but given TO him as a part
3f his human Inheritance from the ira
1itions of the past. No estimate OF in
iividuRl force can be complete without
his limitation. II Erasmus had lived
In the eighteenth century, he might
Il, ta