II. THE SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1518-19).

II. THE SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1518-19).

The time had come for Erasmus more fully and publicly to reply to the various attacks which had been made upon the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’

Its most bitter opponents had been the ignorant Scotists and monks who were caricatured in the ‘Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.’ ‘There are none,’ wrote Erasmus to a friend, ‘who bark at me more furiously than they who have never seen even the outside of my book. Try the experiment upon any of them, and you will find what I tell you is true. When you meet any one of these brawlers, let him rave on at my New Testament till he has made himself hoarse and out of breath, then ask him gently whether he has read it. If he have the impudence to say “_yes_,” urge him to produce one passage that deserves to be blamed. You will find that he cannot.’[703]

To opponents such as these, Erasmus had sufficiently replied by the re-issue of the ‘Enchiridion’ with the new prefatory letter to Volzius.

But there was another class of objectors to the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ who were not ignorant and altogether bigoted, and who honestly differed from the views of Erasmus; some of them, like Luther, because he did not follow the Augustinian theology; others, like Eck, who adhered to Augustine’s theory of verbal inspiration; others, again, who were jealous of the tendencies of the ‘new learning,’ and saw covert heresies in all departures from the beaten track.

[Sidenote: Second edition of the New Testament.]

The reply of Erasmus to these was a second edition of his New Testament; and this was already in course of publication at Froben’s press.[704]

Erasmus took pains in the second edition to correct an immense number of little errors which had crept into the first. But in those points in which it was the expression of the views of the Oxford Reformers, he altered nothing, unless it were to express them more clearly and strongly, or to defend what he had said in the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’

Thus the passage condemned by Luther, in which the resort by theologians to the doctrine of ‘original sin’ was compared to the invention of epicycles by mediæval astronomers, was retained in all essential particulars without modification.[705]

So, too, the passages censured by Eck as inimical to the Augustinian theory of the inspiration of the Scriptures, were not only retained, but amplified, while opportunity was taken to strengthen the arguments in favour of the freer view of inspiration held by the Oxford Reformers.[706]

Again; the main drift and spirit of the body of the work remained unchanged. Its title, however, was altered from ‘Novum Instrumentum’ to ‘Novum Testamentum.’

In speaking of the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ it was observed, that perhaps the most remarkable portion of the work was the prefatory matter, especially the ‘Paraclesis.’

[Sidenote: ‘Paraclesis.’]

This ‘Paraclesis’ remained the same in the second edition as in the ‘Novum Instrumentum,’ including the passages quoted in a former chapter, urging the translation of the New Testament into every language, so that it might become the common property of the ploughman and the mechanic, and even of Turks and Saracens, and ending also with the passage in which Erasmus had so forcibly summed up the value of the Gospels and Epistles, by pointing out how ‘living and breathing a picture’ they presented of Christ ‘speaking, healing, dying, and rising again, bringing his life so vividly before the eye, that we almost seem to have seen it ourselves.’

[Sidenote: ‘Ratio Veræ Theologiæ.’]

Next to the ‘Paraclesis,’ in the first edition, had followed a few paragraphs treating of the ‘method of theological study.’ This in the second edition was so greatly enlarged as to become an important feature of the work. It was also printed separately, and passed through several editions under the title, ‘_Ratio Veræ Theologiæ_.’

Erasmus in this treatise pointed out, as he had done before, the great advantages of the study of the New Testament in its original language, and urged that all branches of knowledge, natural philosophy, geography, history, classics, mythology, should be brought to bear upon it, again assigning the reason which he had before given,--‘that we may follow the story, and seem not only to read it but to _see_ it; for it is wonderful how much light--how much _life_, so to speak--is thrown by this method into what before seemed dry and lifeless.’

[Sidenote: Example of the historical method from Origen.]

Contrasting the results of this method with that commonly in use in lectures and sermons, he exclaimed, ‘How these very things which were meant to warm and to enliven, themselves lie cold and without any life!’ And then, to give an example of the true method, he recommended the student to study the homily of Origen on ‘Abraham commanded to sacrifice his son,’ in which a type or example is set before our eyes, to show that the power of faith is stronger than all human passions. The object [of Origen] is to point out, dwelling on each little circumstance, by what and how many ways the trial struck home over and over again to the heart of the father. ‘Take, he said, thy _son_. What parent’s heart would not soften at the name of son? But that the sacrifice might be still greater, it is added--thy _dearest_ son--and yet more emphatic--_whom thou lovest_. Here surely, was enough for a human heart to grapple with.... But Isaac was more than merely a son, he was the son of promise. The good man longed for posterity, and all his hope depended on the life of this one child.

He was commanded to ascend a high mountain, and it took him _three days_ to get there. During all the time, what conflicting thoughts must have rent the heart of the parent! his human affections on the one side, the Divine command on the other. As they are going, the boy carrying the wood, calls to his father who bears the fire and the sword, “Father!” and he replies, “What dost thou want, my son?” How must the heart of the old man have throbbed with the pulsations of his love! Who would not have been moved with loving pity for the simplicity of the obedient boy, when he said, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the victim?” In how many ways was the faith of Abraham tried! And now mark with what firmness, with what constancy, did he go on doing what he was commanded to do. He did not reply to God, he did not argue with him concerning his promised faithfulness, he did not even mourn with his friends and relations over his childlessness, as most men would have done to lighten their grief.

Seeing the place afar off, he told his servants to stop, lest any of them should hinder his carrying out what was commanded.... He himself built the altar; he himself bound the boy and put him on the wood; the sword quivered in his grasp, and would have slain his only son, on whom all his cherished hope of posterity depended, had not suddenly the voice of an angel stayed the old man’s hand.’[707]

Thus (continued Erasmus), but more at length and more elegantly, are these things related by Origen, I hardly know whether more to the pleasure or profit of the reader; although, be it observed, they are construed _altogether according to the historical sense_; nor does he apply any other method to the Holy Scriptures than that which Donatus applies to the comedies of Terence when elucidating the meaning of the classics.

It would almost seem that Erasmus might have read Luther’s letter to Spalatin in which he complained of St. Jerome’s adhering upon principle to the _historical_ sense, and mourned over the tendency he had seen in Erasmus to follow his example. Luther spoke of this literal historical method of interpretation as the reason why, in the hands of commentators since St. Augustine, the Bible had been a _dead_ book. Erasmus thought, on the other hand, that the only way to restore the position of the Bible as a _living_ book was to apply to it the same method which common sense applied to all other books; to resume, in fact, that literal and historical method which had been neglected since the days of St. Jerome, and which Origen had so successfully applied to the story of Abraham in the passage he had cited. It is singular also that, in quoting from Origen this example of the skilful application of the historical method, he was quoting from the father whose rich imagination was mainly responsible for the theory of ‘the manifold senses.’

The adoption of the common sense historical method of interpreting the Scriptures, made it possible and needful to rest faith in Christianity on its own evidences rather than upon the dogmatic authority of the Church, her fathers, doctors, schoolmen, or councils. To this Erasmus seems to have been fully alive. He was not prepared to throw aside the authority of the general consent of Christians, especially of the early fathers, as a thing of naught, but he was too conscious of the fallibility of all such authority to rest wholly upon it. Besides, one evident object he had in view was to gain back again to Christianity those disciples of the new learning who, in revulsion from the Christianity of Alexander VI., Cæsar Borgia, and Julius II., were trying to satisfy themselves with a refined semi-pagan philosophy. And no ecclesiastical authority could avail to undo what ecclesiastical scandal had done in that quarter.

The stress which in this little treatise Erasmus laid upon internal evidence will be best illustrated by a few examples.

Take first the following argument for the truth of Christianity.

[Sidenote: Argument for the truth of Christianity.]

He recommends the student ‘attentively to observe, in both New and Old Testaments, the wonderful compass and consistency of the whole story, if I may so speak, of Christ becoming a man for our sake. This will help us not only more rightly to understand what we read, but also to read with greater faith. For no _lie_ was ever framed with such skill as in everything to comport with itself. Compare the types and prophecies of the Old Testament which foreshadowed Christ, and these same things happening as they were revealed to the eye of faith. Next to them was the testimony of angels--of Gabriel to the Virgin at his conception, and again of a choir of angels at his birth. Then came the testimony of the shepherds, then that of the Magi, besides that of Simeon and Anna. John the Baptist foretold his coming. He pointed him out with his finger when he came as he whose _coming_ the prophets predicted. And lest we should not know what to hope for from him, he added, “Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world!”...

‘Next observe the whole course of his life, how he grew up to youth, always in favour with both God and man.... At twelve years of age, teaching and listening in the temple, he first gave a glimpse of what he was. Then by his first miracle, at the marriage feast, in private, he made himself known to a few. For it was not until after he had been baptized and commended by the voice of his Father and the sign of the dove; lastly, not until after he had been tried and proved by the forty days’ fast and the temptation of Satan, that he commenced the work of _preaching_. Mark his birth, education, preaching, death; you will find nothing but a perfect example of poverty and humility, yea of innocence. The whole range of his doctrine, as it was consistent with itself, so it was consistent with his life, and also consistent with his nature. He taught innocence; he himself so lived that not even suborned witnesses, after trying in many ways to do so, could find anything that could plausibly be laid to his charge.

He taught gentleness: he himself was led as a lamb to the slaughter. He taught poverty, and we do not read that he ever possessed anything. He warned against ambition and pride: he himself washed his disciples’ feet. He taught that this was the way to true glory and immortality: he himself, by the ignominy of the cross, has obtained a name which is above every name; and whilst he sought no earthly kingdom, he earned the empire both of heaven and earth. When he rose from the dead, he taught what he had taught before. He had taught that death is not to be feared by the good, and on that account he showed himself risen again. In the presence of the same disciples he ascended into heaven, that we might know whither we are to strive to follow. Lastly, that heavenly Spirit descended which by its inspiration made his apostles what Christ wished them to be. You may perhaps find in the books of Plato or Seneca what is not inconsistent with the teaching of Christ; you may find in the life of Socrates some things which are certainly consistent with the life of Christ; but this wide range, and all things belonging to it in harmonious agreement _inter se_, you will find in _Christ_ alone. There are many things in the prophets both divinely said and piously done, many things in Moses and other men famous for holiness of life, but this complete range you will not find in any _man_.’[708]...

From this general view of the ‘wonderful compass and consistency of the whole story’ let us pass with Erasmus to details. We shall find him following the same method in treating of each point, taking pains to rest his belief rather on the evidence of _facts_ than upon mere dogmatic authority.

[Sidenote: Proofs of the innocence of Christ.]

Thus in treating of the ‘_innocence_ of Christ,’ it would have been easy to have quoted a few authoritative passages from the Apostolic epistles, and to have relied upon these, but Erasmus chose rather to rest on the variety of evidence afforded by the many different kinds of witnesses whose testimony is recorded in the New Testament. After alluding to the testimony of the voice from heaven, of John the Baptist, and of the _friends_ of Jesus, he thus proceeds:--

‘... The men who were sent to take him bore witness that “never man spake as this man.”... _Pilate_ also bore witness, “I am pure from the blood of this _just man_; see ye to it.” Pilate’s _wife_ also bore witness, “have nothing to do with that _just person_.”... Hostile judges recognised his innocence, rejecting the evidence of the many witnesses. They declared, and themselves were witnesses, that the suborned men _lied_: they had nothing to object but the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple.... The wretched _Judas_ confessed, “I have sinned, in betraying _innocent_ blood.” The centurion at the cross confessed, “truly this was the Son of God.” The wicked Pharisees confessed that they had nothing to lay to his charge why he should be crucified, but the saying about the temple. Thus was he so guiltless, that nothing could even be _invented_ against him with any show of _probability_.’[709]

[Sidenote: Proofs of Christ’s humanity.]

In the same way, in order to show that Christ was truly a _man_, instead of quoting texts to prove it, he pointed to the facts ‘that he called himself the “Son of man;” that he grew up through the usual stages of growth; that he slept, ate, hungered, and thirsted; that he was wearied by travel; that he was touched by human passions. We read in Matthew that he pitied the crowd; in Mark, that he was angry and grieved and groaned in spirit; in John, that his mind was moved before his passion; that such was his anguish in the garden that his sweat was like drops of blood; that he thirsted on the cross, which was what usually happened during crucifixion; that he wept over the city of Jerusalem; that he wept and was moved at the grave of Lazarus.’[710]

[Sidenote: Proofs of the divinity of Christ.]

And in the same way to prove Christ’s divinity, Erasmus pointed to his miracles, and their consistency with his own declarations. Again he wrote, ‘Who indeed would look for true salvation from a mere man?... He said that he was sent from heaven, that he was the Son of God, that he had been in heaven. He called God his Father; and the Jews understood what he meant by it, for they said, “Thou, a man, makest thyself God.” Lastly, he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down the Paraclete, by whom the Apostles were suddenly refreshed.’[711]

[Sidenote: The mode by which Christ influenced the world.]

Another subject upon which Erasmus dwelt was ‘the way which was adopted by Christ to draw the world under his influence.’ He showed how the prophets and the preaching of John had prepared the way for him. ‘He did not seek suddenly to change the world; for it is difficult to remove from men’s minds what they have imbibed in childhood, and what has been handed down to them by common consent from their ancestors. First, John went before with the baptism of repentance; then the Apostles went forth, not yet announcing the coming Messiah, but only that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. By means of poor and unlearned men the thing began, ... and for a long while he bore with the rudeness and distrust of even these, that they might not seem to have believed rashly. Thomas pertinaciously disbelieved, and not until he had touched the marks of the nails and the spear did he exclaim, “My Lord and my God!” When about to ascend to heaven, he upbraided all of them for their hardness of heart and difficulty in believing what they had seen....

He added the evidence of miracles, but even these were nothing but acts of kindness. He never worked a miracle for anyone who had not faith. The crowd were witnesses of nearly all he did. He sent the lepers to the priests, not that they might be healed, but that it might be more clearly known that they were healed.... And for all the benefits he rendered, he never once took any reward, nor glory, nor money, nor pleasure, nor rule, so that the suspicion of a corrupt motive might not be imputed to him. And it was not till after the Holy Spirit had been sent that the Gospel trumpet was sounded through the whole world, _lest it should seem that he had sought anything for himself while alive_. Moreover, there is no testimony held more efficacious amongst mortals than blood. By his own death, and that of his disciples, he set a seal to the truth of his teaching. I have already alluded to the consistency of his whole life.’[712]

[Sidenote: Precepts of the New Testament.]

These passages will serve as examples of the means by which, in this treatise, Erasmus sought to bring out the facts of the life of Christ as the true foundation of the Christian faith, instead of the dogmas of scholastic theology. After thus thoughtfully dwelling upon the facts of the life of Christ, he proceeds to examine his teaching, and he concludes that there were two things which he peculiarly and perpetually inculcated--faith and love--and, after describing them more at length, he writes, ‘Read the New Testament through, you will not find in it any precept which pertains to _ceremonies_. Where is there a single word of meats or vestments? Where is there any mention of fasts and the like? _Love_ alone He calls _His_ precept. Ceremonies give rise to differences; from love flows peace.... And yet _we_ burden those who have been made free by the blood of Christ with all these almost senseless and more than Jewish constitutions!’[713]

Finally, turning from the New Testament and its theology to the Schoolmen and theirs, he exclaimed, ‘What a spectacle it is to see a divine of eighty years old knowing nothing but mere sophisms!’[714] and ended with the sentences which have already been quoted as the conclusion of the shorter treatise prefixed to the ‘Novum Instrumentum.’

This somewhat lengthy examination of ‘the method of true theology’ will not have been fruitless, if it should place beyond dispute what was pointed out with reference to the ‘Novum Instrumentum,’ that its value lay more in its prefaces, and its main drift and spirit as a whole, than in the critical exactness of its Greek text or the correctness of its readings. If it could be said of the ‘Novum Instrumentum’ that much of its value lay in its preface--in its beautiful ‘_Paraclesis_’--it may also be said that the importance of the second edition was greatly enhanced by the addition of the ‘_Ratio Veræ Theologiæ_.’

And as, like its forerunner, this second edition went forth under the shield of Leo X.’s approval, with the additional sanction of the Archbishops of Basle and of Canterbury, and with all the prestige of former success, it must have been felt to be not only a firm and dignified, but also a triumphant reply to the various attacks which had been made upon Erasmus--a reply more powerful than the keenest satire or the most bitter invective could have been--a reply in which the honest dissentient found a calm restatement of what perhaps he had only half comprehended; the candid critic, the errors of which he complained corrected; and the blind bigot, the luxury of something further to denounce.[715]