CHAP. III. sacred, that may not be compromised and frittered away by verbiage of this kind? Justly indeed does Jortin remark, that, if none had arisen to do more than Erasmus would have done, we might have been involved in all the delusion and superstition of popery to this day. In like manner of the veneration of relics: he thinks" Paul would have allowed every man his own opinion on such subjects." Preposterous as the sentiment is, was such the plan of the Romish church, to allow men their own opinion on any subject? With regard to confession, those who did not think it appointed by Christ might yet retain it "as salutary, attended with various advantages, and sanctioned by the practice of many ages." He would, however, restrict it within much narrower limits than were commonly assigned to it. Concerning the mass, or celebration of the Lord's supper, Seckendorf remarks, that of all the observances which Erasmus requires to be retained, and requires it as if they had really been discontinued, there was scarcely one which Luther had not preserved. Having treated some other topics in a similar manner, passing over, however, the questions of the authority of the pope, the marriage of the clergy, purgatory, and others of considerable importance, he concludes with a flattering encomium of the moderation and conciliatory mind of the emperor, of Ferdinand, of the kings of France and England, of the pope, and others; and says all would be well, if "other princes and states" would direct their attention a right way;-implying that the real obstacles to peace were on the side of the protestants: whereas their opponents, though they might be glad to avail themselves of Erasmus's name in the A. D. 1533. on Eras The divines of Strasburg appear to have received this work of Erasmus with more favour than it deserved; for they translated it into German, and dispersed it pretty widely. This drew from Musculus, formerly of their city, but Musculus now of Augsburg, and a Zuinglian, an expos- mus's tulation, in a letter to Bucer. "I fear," he says, Treatise. "lest, through an excessive and morbid desire of concord, you should tamper with the truth that has been taught and acknowledged among you which God prevent!" "We know with whom we have to enter into concord; men who have not repented of their abominable doctrine and manner of life, so as to depart from it even a hair's breadth. Accursed be that concord which cannot be established but at the expence of truth and of Christ's kingdom!" "Erasmus," he observes," bends all his force to shew, that there is no salvation out of the unity of the church." This, as applied to an external church, Musculus reprobates; and admits it only of the spiritual church, or body of Christ, of which we are constituted members by a lively faith.2 1 Seck. iii. 49-53. 2 Seck. iii. 52. Scultet. 187, 188. CHAP. III. Corvinus, on the same. 1534. Anthony Corvinus, also, a Hessian divine, wrote an answer to Erasmus's treatise, and Luther prefixed a preface to his work. Luther and Luther, praises the elegance and moderation of Corvinus, which, he says, he could not imitate in such controversies as these: he would restrain himself, however, and allow that Erasmus and his followers meant well; but the terms of agreement, which they proposed, could not be admitted with a safe conscience. "The union of charity," he says, "is one thing, that of faith another; and the former we have ever promoted. We have always been ready to yield and to suffer whatever could be granted or endured without violating our faith. Never have we thirsted after their blood, much less shed it. We have injured them in nothing: on the contrary we have strenuously supported them against the seditious and fanatical spirits, and (as many of themselves confess,) have done more to defend them against these people than they did themselves. On this account we have incurred the more bitter hatred of such furious persons, who abhor the Lutherans much more than they do the papists; while the latter cease not to shed our blood, and to pursue us with fire and sword, and with every species of cruelty, for no other reason than because we cannot, contrary to our consciences, place their human traditions on a footing with God's word, or rather exalt them above God himself and his worship. God, therefore, will judge between us, whether the hindrance to concord is found with us or with them. The union of charity, I say, we have sought with our whole souls: but the union of faith, or doctrine, between us is in vain sought by Erasmus, through the medium of mutual concession; for, so far from conceding any 6 thing whatever, our adversaries have even exacted things, which, before Luther arose, they had themselves condemned. Their whole cry is, The church, The church;' and they give that name to impious men, who presume to think and determine above the scriptures, and contrary to the scriptures, and that (as they pretend,) by divine authority! And Erasmus confirms their error, by every where promising to follow the church, and considering every thing as doubtful and undetermined till the church has decided it. If this be right, we have only to say, 'I believe that the papists are the church, and that whatever they determine is the truth;' and thus we shall all be safe. But assuredly the mind which fears God, and dreads eternal death, and desires everlasting life, cannot thus rest in doubtful and uncertain doctrines. It must have the sure word of God to go upon. This sceptical uncertainty, therefore, of Erasmus's divinity, I censured in my work on the Bondage of the Will. I speak not now of controversies agitated concerning the question, what the scriptures really teach, but of things taught, and enforced by violence, which are independent of scripture, and contrary to scripture.-Erasmus, therefore, had better abstain from theology, (which requires a mind seriously and simply loving and seeking after the word of God,) and employ his eloquence on subjects more adapted to his genius."1 Seckendorf remarks, that, "whatever new and more accurate methods of discussion may have been invented, hardly any thing can be pointed out, tending to establish divine truth, and to demonstrate the necessity of reformation, 1 Seck. iii. 53, 54: ubi plura. A. D. 1533. CHAP. III. Death of Erasmus : July 1536. Persecutions of George Duke of Saxony. 1532-3. which Luther has not anticipated; and that this one preface might suffice to teach us, how to form our judgment of all attempts made to produce conciliation and agreement. To render such attempts feasible or admissible, all necessary truths must be established from the scriptures alone, and nothing imposed, as requisite to be believed, but upon that only ground; nor any thing given up which is on that ground established in other things moderation and concession are to be had recourse to, for the sake of peace: and, even where agreement cannot be attained, yet charity is to be cultivated." As this is the last time that our attention will be directly called to Erasmus, we may here state, that he died three years afterwards, at Basle, aged about seventy years; having exhibited, says Seckendorf," many indications of piety near the end of his life." On his deathbed, he received with kindness Conrad Pellican of Zurich, with whom he had previously had sharp contentions; and he asked Pellican's forgiveness of any offence he might have given him. He also made honourable mention of Bullinger. "These," observes the same historian, "were not the proceedings of a man, who held all that separated from the church of Rome to be out of the pale of salvation."2 About this time Luther gave high offence to duke George of Saxony. The occasion was as follows. The duke had taken measures for ascertaining the number of Lutherans among his subjects: and, in consequence of the discoveries thus made, he ordered seventy or eighty families at Leipsic, comprising nearly 1 Milner, v. 320. (910.) 2 Seck. iii. 137, 138. |