Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2019
No religious issue in the Reformation was debated more bitterly than the theory of the forgiveness of sins. To Roman Catholics forgiveness meant the sacrament of penance, and its necessity was so evident to John Eck that he called auricular confession ‘the nerves of our religion and of Catholic discipline'. To Luther forgiveness meant personal certitude and salvation by faith—it meant the destruction of the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance. So important were these doctrines to Lutheranism that Melanchthon could completely summarize Luther's contribution to the church as his teaching of'the correct manner of penance and the correct use of the sacraments'. Significantly, Melanchthon adds this proof that Luther's greatness lies in these reforms: ‘many consciences testify this to me'.
1 E. Fischer, Zur Geschichte der euangelischen Beichte. I. Die katholische Beichtpraxis bei Beginn der Reformation und Luthers Stellung dazu in den Anfängen seiner Wirksamkeit (Leipzig, 1902, Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche VIII, no. 2), p. 117.1 should like to acknowledge here my gratitude to Prof. M. P. Gilmore for his help on this paper.
2 Helmut Appel, Anfechtung und Trost in Spdtmittelalter und bei Luther (Leipzig, 1938, Schriftendes Vereinsfür Reformationsgeschichte CLXV),p. 126 and passim; E.Fischer, op. cit., pp. I, 198, 211-212; Hartmann Grisar, Luther (London, 1913-1917), IV, 72.
3 On the usefulness to the historian of the determination of orthodoxy see Lucien Febvre, Au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle (Paris, 1957), p. 68. To understand why it is impossible to separate Erasmus’ opinions from the way he expresses them there is nothing better than Hanna H. Gray, ‘Renaissance Humanism: the Pursuit of Eloquence', in Jour, of the History of Ideas XXIV, (1963), 497-514, and especially 497-502, 510-514. For a good discussion of what Erasmus considered the essential articles of faith of the Christian see Erasmus’ Inquisitio defide, ed. Craig R. Thompson (New Haven, 1950, Yale Stud, in Religion xv), ‘Introduction', pp. 38-49, 76-77.
4 Erasmus to John Glapion, c. 21 April 1522, in Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi, ed. P. S. Allen et al. (Oxford, 1906-1947), v, 50,11. 77-80 (hereafter cited as Allen). The text of this poem is in Erasmi opera omnia, ed. J. Clericus (Leiden, 1703-1706), v, 1357-1359 (hereafter cited as LB). I have followed the text in The Poems of Desiderius Erasmus, ed. Cornells Reedijk (Leiden, 1956), pp. 304-313. Reedijk (p. 304) comments on the significance of the Christiani hominis institutum: ‘among Erasmus’ writings it has always taken the place of an independent work, it was reprinted many times and we may therefore assume that it constituted an important factor in the propagation of Erasmus’ conception of a pure and simple Christian faith'.
5 Erasmus, Novum instruments omne … una cü annotationibus (Basel, 1516), pp. 241, 245, 378, 379, 493, hereafter cited as Annotationes (1516); Novum testamentum omne (Basel, 1522), p. 427, hereafter cited as Annotationes (1522); cf. LB, vi, 17E-18B, 773F-774D. For the importance of this change to Luther see Preserved Smith, Erasmus (New York, 1923), pp. 167-168. The note to 2 Cor. vii. 10 also shows Erasmus’ preoccupation with amendment as the chief part of penitence.
6 Erasmus, Annotationes (1516), pp. 396, 606; Annotationes (1522), pp. 263, 596; cf. LB, vi, 10370, 507F-508B.
7 Allen, iv, 621-622.
8 Erasmus, Apologia ad conclusiones Stunicae (1524), LB, IX, 389B-D.
9 Ibid. ‘Eat nunc Stunica, et videat quid Lutherus doceat de Confessione, ac postea clamet in omnibus, et per omnia mini cum illo convenire.'
10 Erasmus, Responsio ad annotationes Edvardi Lei (1520), LB, IX, 255-262; see especially 256B, 258-259B.
11 Ibid., 258C-F, 259D. In an attempt at conciliation, Erasmus wrote in 1519 to Albert of Brandenburg an explanation of Luther's stand: ‘Ausus est in materia Confessionis scrupulos aliquot discutere, sed in qua monachi sine fine illaqueant hominum conscientias' (19 October 1519, Allen, iv, 103, 11. 148-149). But compare this statement with his attempt in 1524 to separate himself from Luther on this question: ‘Alicubi queror onus confessionis quorundam laqueis aggrauatum. Lutherus, vt aiunt, docet reiiciendam omnem confessionem, vt perniciosam’ (Erasmus to Jodocus Jonas, 10 May 1521, Allen, iv, 491,11. 221-223). I can find no evidence in the Annotations, however, to indicate that Erasmus was concerned in 1516 with the confessional's torment of the penitent's conscience.
12 Ibid., 262E (italics mine).
13 Erasmus, Exomologesis sive modus confitendi (1524), LB, v, 1450-153B (italics mine). His view that the shame of the confessional is salutary also directly contradicts the criticisms of Luther.
14 Ibid., 153C-160B; see especially 153D-F, 156P, 157A, 1580-E, 159B-C.
15 Ibid., 168A-170C (italics mine).
16 Erasmus, Apologia adversus monachos quosdam hispanos (1528), LB, IX, 1063C-P.
17 Erasmus, Exomologesis, LB, v, 170A. This does not absolutely contradict the assertion of the third advantage of confession, that it is more important for the priest to drive out despair than presumption. It is actually more important to drive out despair because of the traditional identification of despair as an unforgivable sin. When Erasmus says it is more difficult to eliminate hypocrisy he is making a statement about human behavior. In this context, it is more important to cure hypocrisy than despair because hypocrisy is more likely than despair and more difficult to eliminate. In the former context, despair is a greater evil because it is a more serious sin.
18 Ibid., 160B-C; 162B.
19 Erasmus to the Theologians of Louvain, 1 July 1525, Allen, vi, 109, 11. 86 ff.; to John Longlond, 1 Sept. 1528, Allen vn, 461, 11. 29-55; to Hermann Wied, 19 March 1528, Allen vn, 363,11. 64 ff.; to John Botzheim, 13 August 1529, Allen, VIII, 254, 11. 106-111.
20 There are many examples of Erasmus’ ‘classical’ attitude toward death. The Declamatio de morte (LB, iv, 617 ff.) emphasizes that death is natural and, as even pagan examples show, should not be the cause of excessive mourning. One should be prepared for it as if every day were one's last. In ‘The Godly Feast', Chrysoglottus quotes with approval the sentiment of De senectute that it would be foolish to wish to be a child again; Theophilus agrees that few really would wish to return to childhood as he notes that ‘Recollection of pleasant things is often accompanied by shame or a bad conscience, so that the mind shrinks from recalling them no less than it shrinks from recalling sorrows…. it is only after souls have drunk large draughts of forgetfulness from the river Lethe that they are at last enthralled by desire for the bodies they left behind’ (Ten Colloquies of Erasmus, tr. Craig R. Thompson, New York, 1957, pp. 155-157). But the most fascinating and personal example of Erasmus’ equanimity before death is a letter to Beatus Rhenanus in which he reflects on the frailty of human life and yet says that he is becoming more and more free of the fear of death and the desire for life: ‘In vno Christo tota spes erat, a quo nihil aliud praecabar nisi vt daret quod mihi saluberrimum esse iudicaret. Iuuenis olim, vt memini, ad nomen etiam mortis solebam inhorrescere. Hoc certe profeci accessione aetatis, mortem leuiter metuo, neque metior hominis felicitatem longaeuitate’ (c. 15 October 1518, Allen, ra, 401,11. 258-270). For the classical ideas of death and consolation see Sister Mary Evaristus Moran, The Consolations of Death in Ancient Greek Literature (Washington, D.C., 1921), and Sister Mary Edmond Fern, The Latin Consolatio as a Literary Type (St. Louis, 1941). A. Tenenti's It Senso delta morte nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1957) includes a discussion of Erasmus’ ideas of death and dying in its analysis of these themes in Italian and French humanism. Although Tenenti does not focus on the theology of forgiveness, he asserts that Erasmus makes holy living the essence of holy dying.
21 Erasmus, Depraeparatione ad mortem (1534), LB, v, 1293-1296 passim; see esp. 1295BC, 1296C-D, 1296P, 1297B, 1299A-C.
22 Ibid., 1301D, 1302A.
23 Ibid., 1302B-E.
24 Ibid., 1305C-F. For the sixteenth century's fascination with the circumstances of death see Nikolaus Paulus, Luthers Lebensende (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1898, Erläutemngen und Ergänzungenzu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, ed. Ludwig Pastor, vol. 1, pt. 1).
25 Ibid., 1307F-1309F. ‘The Godly Feast’ also attacks the doctrine of certitude. This passage may not mention Luther by name; but it mentions the most distinctive feature of his theory of the forgiveness of sins—and it identifies it as ‘arrogance': ‘Chrysoghttus. How fortunate are they who await death in such a spirit! But in Cato's speech, splendid though it is, one might object to the self-confidence as expressive of an arrogance that ought to be very far from a Christian. Hence I think I've never read anything in pagan writers more proper to a true Christian than what Socrates spoke to Crito shortly before drinking the hemlock: “Whether God will approve of my works,” he said, “I know not; certainly I have tried hard to please him. Yet I have good hope that he will accept my efforts.” Diffident as he was about his own deeds, yet by reason of his earnest desire to obey the divine will he conceived a strong hope that God in his goodness would accept them, because he had endeavored to live righteously’ ﹛Ten Colloquies, p. 158).
26 Erasmus to Jodocus Gaverius, 1 March 1523?, Allen, v, 240,11. 64-96 (my italics). Many examples show that a natural death and a long life are not necessarily either desirable or characteristic of the good (pp. 241-247, 11. 130-297).
27 The Poems of Desiderius Erasmus, ed. Cornells Reedijk, pp. 309-310, 312-313.
28 Erasmus, Annotationes (1516), pp. 303, 606; Annotationes (1522), pp. 112, 596; cf. LB, VI, 174F, 1037c. Erasmus’ reply to Stunica on the distinction between apostolic anointing, which purported to cure the body, and contemporary usage, which did not, is the defense of a scholar who insists he does not declare on the dogmatic question of the sacrament of extreme unction: ‘What Stunica suspects here I cannot imagine. Certainly I have said nothing against this sacrament, and indeed I never thought of it. I have shown the old and the new use, just as I have pointed out the original ritual of baptism, and compared the new ritual with it’ (LB, IX, 381F, 389D-E).
29 Erasmus, Exomologesis (1524), LB, v, 145-146, I6OA-B, 169A-D.
30 Erasmus, Dechrationes ad censuras Colloquiorum (1532), LB, IX, 936B-C (italics mine).
31 Erasmus, Paraclesis (1516), p. 526.
32 Bibliotheca Erasmiana (Ghent, 1893), Ier série, pp. 154-157; Bataillon, Erasme et I'Espagne (Paris, 1937), p. 599.
33 Erasmus, De praeparatione ad mortem (1534), LB, v, 1303A-D.
34 Ibid., 1304B (italics mine).
35 Ibid., 1305F-1306C.
36 Ibid., 1310F-1311C (italics mine).
37 Ibid., 1311D-1318E.
38 Eva-Maria Jung, ‘On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century Italy', Jour. of the History of Ideas XIV (1943), 512-513, 520, 525.
