Erasmus Trust

1668 Words4 Pages

To Trust or Not To Trust Erasmus?

“Before Luther was known, everyone liked Erasmus.” This commentary made by Stunica reflects how many opinions of Erasmus’ works and defenses shifted into a different pedestal of criticism. In one of Erasmus’s letters responding to Luther, it is not hard to notice how utterly disturbed he was with being associated with Luther’s radicalism and much worse, being blamed for all of it. The situation was taken personally offensive to Erasmus and severe enough for him to have said, “No words of mine could describe the storm raised here by your books. Even now it is impossible to root from men’s minds the most groundless suspicion that your work is written with assistance from me and that I am, as they all it, …show more content…

He was seen in their eyes to be crafty in his method of defense, and didn’t officially become a heretic. Some seemed to believe Erasmus wasn’t so much of a troublemaker as much as one who desired unnecessary attention by means of writing radical nonsense. In other words, he should have been penalized, but was never penalized. They probably wondered why he was still considered a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Two witnesses expressed this sense of frustration: one from Edward Lee and the other from Stunica. Lee characterizes Erasmus as an expert of manipulation saying that, “He uses artificial praise as an incentive to make some-one study literature or keep wavering friend within the bounds of duty, but if someone does not understand this gentle, being preoccupied with ambition and blinded by a desire for recognition, he drops the pretense and uses open criticism.” It seemed to really bother Lee that Erasmus wouldn’t make his direct point in the first place, and wish he would. His astute method by what E. Rummel described as his four tactics, is what saved Erasmus from becoming an official …show more content…

Eustachius’ insight, according to Augustijn, “can help us to read the Enchiridion with the eyes of his contemporaries.” His fear was a hypothetical one: one fear was if the traditional ways of the church become inferior to a person’s inner devotion to God from coming primarily from the heart, Christianity would become too internalized and therefore loose its rich, liturgical historical significance along with it’s appreciation for it. This does not mean that Eustachius only believed in true devotion to God by the outward practices alone, but he argued for the case of the external and internal belonging together to express devotion to God. In the eyes of Eustachius, to place the outward, liturgical practices as less important was to loose what was the core of religion. The bodily and symbolic practices of the church were no doubt, almost everything that defined religion for Eustachius. Jacques Etienne even defined Erasmus’s idea of true piety as “religion of the pure spirit.” This was not exactly the intention of Erasmus, but it is how those who were familiar or read the Enchiridion perceived his point. Whether this was an honest critique or not isn’t very clear. It sounds as if Eustachius gave an honest examination, and it’s possible that he did, but many other critiques have also held the appearances of saving the church, when really they yearned to

Open Document