from Athanasius. Erasmus was essentially a scholar, Luther a reformer; the one was absorbed in
literature, the other in religion. Erasmus aimed at illumination, Luther at reconstruction; the former
reached the intellect of the educated, the latter touched the heart of the people. Erasmus labored
for freedom of thought, Luther for freedom of conscience. Both had been monks, Erasmus against
his will, Luther by free choice and from pious motives; and both hated and opposed monkery, but
the former for its ignorance and bigotry, the latter for its self-righteousness and obstruction of the
true way to justification and peace. Erasmus followed maxims of worldly wisdom; Luther, sacred
principles and convictions. The one was willing, as he confessed, to sacrifice "a part of the truth
for the peace of the church," and his personal comfort; the other was ready to die for the gospel at
any moment. Erasmus was a trimmer and timeserver, Luther every inch a moral hero.
Luther wrote upon his tablet (1536), "Res et verba Philippus; verba sine re Erasmus; res
sine verbis Lutherus; nec res nec verba Carolostadius." But Luther himself was the master of words
and matter, and his words were deeds. Melanchthon was an improved Erasmus on the side of
evangelical truth.
It is easy to see how far two men so differently constituted could go together, and where
and when they had to part. So long as the Reformation moved within the church, Erasmus
sympathized with it. But when Luther, who had at first as little notion of leaving the Catholic
Church, burnt the Pope’s bull and the decretals, and with them the bridge behind him, Erasmus
shrank back, and feared that the remedy was worse than the evil. His very breadth of culture and
irresolution became his weakness; while Luther’s narrowness and determination were his strength.
In times of war, neutrality is impossible, and we must join one of the two contending armies.
Erasmus was for unity and peace, and dreaded a split of the church as the greatest calamity; and
yet he never ceased to rebuke the abuses. It was his misfortune, rather than his fault, that he could
not side with the Reformation. We must believe his assertion that his conscience kept him from
the cause of the Lutherans. At the same time he was concerned for his personal comfort and literary
supremacy, and anxious to retain the friendship of his hierarchical and royal patrons. He wished
to be a spectator, but not an actor in "the Lutheran tragedy."
Erasmus hailed the young Melanchthon with enthusiastic praise of his precocious genius
and learning, and continued to respect him even after his breach with Luther. He stood in friendly
correspondence with Zwingli, who revered him as the prince of humanists. He employed
Oecolampadius as his assistant, and spoke highly, though evasively, of his book on the eucharist.
He was not displeased with Luther’s attacks on indulgences and monasticism, and wrote to Zwingli
that he had taught nearly every thing that Luther teaches, but without his coarseness and paradoxes.^526
In a letter of reply, dated Louvain, May 30, 1519, he courteously but cautiously and condescendingly
accepted Luther’s compliments and friendship, but advised him to moderate his tone, and to imitate
Paul, who abolished the law by allegorical interpretation; at the same time he frankly admitted that
he had not read his books, except portions of the commentary on the Psalms,^527 and that he considered
it his duty to keep neutral, in order to do the more for the revival of letters. In conclusion he expressed
(^526) "Videor mihi fere omnia docuisse quae docet Lutherus, nisi quod non tam atrociter, quodque abstinui a quibusdam aenigmatibus
et paradoxis." In Zwingli’s Opera, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, vol. VII. 310.
(^527) After the bull of excommunication, it required special permission to read the books of the heretic. In a letter to Bombasius, Sept.
23, 1521, Erasmus says that he begged Jerome Aleander for permission, but was denied unless he were to obtain it in express words from
the Pope. Drummond, II. 85 sq.