III. CHAP. and good works of the living profit the dead, especially if they had made provision for these services in their lifetime. But let not those," he says, "who cannot believe this, rave against the simplicity of others, but only be the more zealous of good works themselves." In like manner of the invocation of the saints he argues, that "those characters must still be supposed to retain power with God after death, at whose instance, and through whose instrumentality, he wrought miracles while they lived:"" and, if they are not conscious of the prayers which we address to them, yet Christ is, who loves simple souls, and will give us what we ask, if not through the saints, yet certainly for them."1 « Superstition, indeed, is to be reproved, but simple affection or regard of this kind is to be borne with, even though it be joined with some degree of error." Thus does he palliate dominant evils, which he cannot defend, and call that simplicity and pious affection, which he cannot but feel to be superstitious and dangerous, if not even absolutely idolatrous and thus does he, in effect, exhibit himself as the apologist of those, who were the bitter enemies of all real reformation. "How much better," observes the honest and manly Seckendorf, "to call a spade a spade!" And thus also, we may further remark, while he softens down, and puts a favourable construction on the gross errors and corrupt practices of the ruling party, does Erasmus apply harsh terms to the opposition made to those corruptions and errors by the other side. "Let them not rave (obstrepant) against the simplicity of others." Let them worship the Father, the "Si minus per sanctos, certe pro sanctis." Son, and the Holy Spirit themselves, and not with disgusting officiousness disturb (deturbent odiose) those, who, without superstition, implore the intercession of the saints." These are the terms applied to the only men who were likely to correct the prevailing evils, and who, at least as far as Luther and his colleagues, and such as they approved, were con-cerned, confined their opposition to arguments, and protests, and other peaceable proceedings; while their adversaries indeed raged against them, as far as they could do it, with fire and sword, with banishment, confiscation, and death; of which we shall see many instances in the period of this chapter. Again, with regard to image-worship, he says: "The zeal of those who rage against images is not, in my opinion, altogether without reason, though it is excessive: for idolatry, or the worship of images, of which there is still danger, is a horrible crime." Yet he talks of pictures and statues as being " a more vivid kind of poetry; "and, as Plato would not banish all poetry from his republic, but only that which conveyed unworthy notions of the gods, so," he says, "whatever superstition has crept in by means of images ought to be corrected, and yet their proper use preserved. Let those therefore, who think that no honour is to be paid to the images of the saints, enjoy their own opinion, but let them not rail at others who, without superstition, so venerate images, from love to the characters represented by them, as a wife may kiss the ring or the girdle of her absent husband!"-What idle trifling is this, with which to treat grave and serious points, affecting the worship of God and the safety of souls! What principle is there so A. D. 1533: III. CHAP. 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 controversy, would no more have admitted of his modifications than of their changes-in short would yield nothing at all. He threatens those, therefore, who should stand out, with the wrath of God and the vengeance of the emperor,-who, though forbearing, "would at length execute whatever he had once resolved." "Rashness," he says, " and attempts like those of the Cyclops against heaven never succeed: violence, undirected by wisdom, draws down its own ruin." 1 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 adImitted 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 vastly 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 |