Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur"

Martin Luther is often criticized for allegedly adding the word "alone" to his German translation of Romans 3:28. Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of "alone" in Romans 3:28. There's another popular historical snippet sometimes used similarly to defend Luther's translation, this time from Reformed theologian Charles Hodge:

That a man is justified by faith. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, allein durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III., says, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.

According to Hodge, Erasmus similarly knew that others previous to Luther used the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Erasmus is claimed to have said, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur" (The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers). The quote seems suspicious. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521 and released a finished version in 1522. Certainly Erasmus had some sympathy to Luther's cause early on, but by 1524 their polite ties were severed over the freedom / bondage of the human will and the relationship of faith and works. It would be surprising to find Erasmus defending Luther at any time on this issue! 

It seemed simple enough to search out the context of this statement from Erasmus (especially since it was a renowned Reformed scholar citing it!).  However, the exact opposite occurred: I could not locate it. I did discover though that Erasmus said something like it without mentioning Luther... at all. 

Documentation

I'm going to work backward in searching for the sources Hodge mentions. He says, "See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse." "Tholuck" refers to Fred Augustus Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: With Extracts from the Evangelical Works of the Fathers and Reformers (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844). Hodge certainly appears to be citing Erasmus via Tholuck verbatim on page 113. Notice the Erasmus citation is almost exact except Hodge cites "De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III" while Tholuck cites "De ratione conciondi 1.3." 

"Koppe" appears to refer to Johann Benjamin Koppe, and I think Hodge had in mind Koppe's Novum Testamentum Koppianum.  I could find no extant copies online to see exactly what Hodge was referring to from this source. Koppe wrote in the eighteenth century, so seeing exactly what Hodge was referring to would be interesting since it predates Tholuck's nineteenth century comment. 

"De Ratione Concionandi"refers to the book by Erasmus, Ecclesiastes: On the Art of Preaching (Ecclesiastes: sive de ratione concionandi) (1535).  I spent some time searching the works of Erasmus for any of the volumes of "De Ratione Concionandi." Of the volumes I was able to locate, I found no instance of the exact quote "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." I'm not alone in this. In the nineteenth century, James Morison did the same thing. He states, 

Tholuck says that Erasmus (Liber Concion. lib. iii.) remarks,—vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc seculo in Luthero, reverenter in patribus auditur,—“The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers." Hodge repeats the quotation and the reference. We do not know where Tholuck picked it up. But while the observation seems to bespeak, by its peculiar felicity and piquancy, an Erasmian origin, it is certainly not to be found in that great repository of felicities, and wisdom, and wit, and semi-garrulities,—the Liber Concionandi.

To answer Morison's question, Tholuck could have picked up the quote from any number of sources. 

If one does a search specific to eighteenth century books, a number of hits appear with attribution to Erasmus. The quote goes back further. In the early seventeenth century, Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard states, "Erasmus wrote to someone: 'The word 'alone' which in our time has been assailed by so many outcries in Luther, is reverently heard and read in the fathers" (Latin source, English translation from On Justification through Faith - Theological Commonplaces, p. 317). The quote makes it all the way back to the sixteenth century: In 1591, Martin Chemnitz also cites it: "Therefore we can correctly say with Erasmus: 'This word sola, which has been attacked with so much noise in the era of Luther, was reverently heard and read among the fathers'" (English source). Still though, there is no meaningful reference. There is a sixteenth century source that predates Chemnitz by ten years (1581) that includes some important aspects of the quote:

Notice some striking similarities to the quote under scrutiny. First, the source is said to be "Eccl 3." Second, some of the quote is exactly presented: "vox Sola, tot clamoribus hoc seculo lapidata." There are blatant dissimilarities as well. First, Luther is not mentioned. Second, the church fathers are not mentioned, but rather, Hilary of Poitiers is. If one searches the writings of Erasmus focusing on Hilary rather than Luther, significant clues are revealed. Note the following observations from The Collected Works of Erasmus: 

The author cites "book 3 CWE 68 967" for footnotes 828 and 829. "CWE 68" stands for "Collected Works of Erasmus." "book 3" refers to "The Evangelical Preacher, book one (Ecclesiates sive de ratione confitendi) (1535)." This appears to correspond to the reference given above by Tholuck (De ratione conciondi 1.3) On page 966-967, Erasmus states: 

Interestingly, footnote 1399 states, "Erasmus is no doubt alluding to Martin Luther and the central theological issue of the Reformation, justification by faith alone (sola fides)."
  

Conclusion

I think it's probable to say that "book 3 CWE 68 967" (expounded above) is the original source of the quote eventually used by Hodge and others. I'm uncertain who added "hoc saeculo in Luthero" to the quote. Erasmus penned his original words in 1535. Martin Chemnitz was the first I could locate adding Luther to the citation (1591). Was it Chemnitz? I don't know. If it was, his basic crime would be adding explicit meaning to what Erasmus was probably implying (i.e., Luther) and changing Hilary to "fathers." Also, the context of the comment from Erasmus was not an exegetical exposition of Romans 3:28, but rather, a passing comment made on Matthew 9:6.  What I find most interesting is that if Erasmus had Luther in mind, he penned these words about a decade after his harsh battle with Luther. I find that amazing: Erasmus was able to get beyond his personal encounter with Luther and still defend his translation of including "alone"... in a roundabout way.  

Addendum

 

This source posits the early Erasmus agreed with Luther in some sense about "faith alone." 

Luther: "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and there is nothing left"

Did Luther say, "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and there is nothing left"? This popular Luther quote circulates cyberspace, often found in pictorial form, like that pictured above. Yes, Luther appears to have said something like this... as did theologian John Stott: "Take Christ from Christianity, and you remove the heart from it; there is practically nothing left," and also, "Take Christ from Christianity, and you disembowel it; there is practically nothing left." Let's take a closer look at Luther's version.

Documentation
Of the cyber-pictures using the quote I checked, none provided a reference. Similarly, a basic Google search for the quote did not yield a reference. A Google Book search gave some interesting hits. A 2008 book uses the exact quote without a reference, mentioning Luther's interaction with Erasmus. Another Google Books hit states: "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and what more will you find in them? [De servo arbitrio WA 18:606]." Even though it places the quote in the form of a rhetorical question, it sounds a lot like the quote in question.

"De servo arbitrio" refers to Luther's response to Erasmus, "The Bondage of the Will" (1525). This seems like a likely candidate for the source. WA 18:606 reads,

The sentence in question is "Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies?" De servo arbitrio has been translated into English a number of times. The quote can be found in LW 33:26 and also in the Packer / Johnston translation on page 71.

Context

I admit, of course, that there are many texts in the Scriptures that are obscure and abstruse, not because of the majesty of their subject matter, but because of our ignorance of their vocabulary and grammar; but these texts in no way hinder a knowledge of all the subject matter of Scripture. For what still sublimer thing can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals have been broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher [Matt. 27:66; 28:2], and the supreme mystery brought to light, namely, that Christ the Son of God has been made man, that God is three and one, that Christ has suffered for us and is to reign eternally? Are not these things known and sung even in the highways and byways? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find left in them?

The subject matter of the Scriptures, therefore, is all quite accessible, even though some texts are still obscure owing to our ignorance of their terms. Truly it is stupid and impious, when we know that the subject matter of Scripture has all been placed in the clearest light, to call it obscure on account of a few obscure words. If the words are obscure in one place, yet they are plain in another; and it is one and the same theme, published quite openly to the whole world, which in the Scriptures is sometimes expressed in plain words, and sometimes lies as yet hidden in obscure words. Now, when the thing signified is in the light, it does not matter if this or that sign of it is in darkness, since many other signs of the same thing are meanwhile in the light. Who will say that a public fountain is not in the light because those who are in a narrow side street do not see it, whereas all who are in the marketplace do see it? (LW 33:25-26)

Conclusion
In the complete context of LW 33:24-28 (a section entitled, "The clarity of Scripture"), Luther's comment about Christ, while important, is actually more of a passing comment. Luther was reacting to Erasmus's point that there were many passages in Scripture that are obscure:

Thus there are many passages in the sacred volumes on which many commentators have tried their skill, but no one has really removed their obscurity, as for example: the distinction between the persons in the Godhead, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, and the unforgivable sin. (LW 33:24 fn. 13; cf. Diatribe EAS 4,12 f)

For those difficult areas like "the Trinity" or the two natures of Christ, for Luther, Scripture confesses them, and how exactly they are what they are is not necessary to know. What we need to know "has been placed in the clearest light." Luther was gearing up to attack Erasmus on the scriptural clarity of nature of the will of man and its freedom in regard to salvation.

Luther lived with Katie for 1 1/2 years before marrying her?

Here's a comment from one of Rome's defenders from a discussion board. The charge against Luther this time is in regard to his relationship with his wife, Katherina von Bora:

If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship… Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein. [CARM boards 3/26/16]

Origin of the Myth
There are multiple charges in this comment, most of them typical of Rome's defenders. The comment though that was atypical was,  "Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her." A "paramour" is "a lover, especially the illicit partner of a married person." This is old school Roman polemic, hearkening back to the sixteenth century when Rome's defenders where scandalized by a monk marrying a nun. I'm not sure if the person making this charge was using the term in the sense that Luther was married to the church (so his relationship was Katherine was illicit), or if the person was simply using a fancy term to sound intelligent. I'm going to assume the later. I searched the phrase and came up with some exact hits to various Internet forums (2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2016). It appears the person posting this comment either previously posted the same content elsewhere or is currently plagiarizing. I suspect the former, and not the later.

Where was this notion taken from? For this current defender of Rome, I'm not sure, nor did I come across any elaboration. The myth itself may have originally come from a contemporary of Luther's: Cochlaeus. Katherina von Bora was said to be promiscuous, and that Luther eventually married her after she lived with him for two years. (see here for details). The myth did survive all the way up to the twentieth century, though tempered. Father Patrick O'Hare refers to Luther and Katie as, "the Adam and Eve of the 'new gospel' of concubinage." In his book, The Facts About Luther, O'Hare stated:

It is well known that he was pretty generally and often openly accused by his enemies, both Catholic and Protestant, of extremely grave moral delinquencies. No doubt there was considerable exaggeration in the accusations brought against him, but it nevertheless remains true that many of his faults and failings against morality cannot be denied or gainsaid. As a matter of fact he was openly blamed for his well known and imprudent intimacy with Katherine Von Bora before his marriage and Melanchthon severely censured him for his lack of personal dignity, his loose behavior and coarse jests in the company of his intimates and even in the presence of the nuns he helped in violation of Germanic law to escape from their convents (p.317).

[I]n violating the laws of God and disregarding his vow of chastity by taking a partner unto himself, he committed an act of perfidy and his union, even from a legal standpoint, was no marriage. Katherine Von Bora was only his companion in sin and the children brought into the world through the unholy alliance were illegitimate children (p. 344).

O'Hare then goes on to elaborate by delving into letters written at the time, insinuating that Luther married von Bora to stop the gossip about their relationship (p.345-347). O'Hare states,

His remarks in the letter as to certain rumors no doubt concern suspicions which were cast upon Luther's relations with Bora before their marriage. His conduct with Bora previous to wedding her called forth from both friends and enemies severe and apparently well-grounded criticism. Luther himself admits that his marriage was hastened precisely because of the talk that went the rounds concerning him and Bora. Burgenhagen said that "evil tales were the cause of Dr. Martin's becoming a married man so unexpectedly." And Luther himself wrote to his friend, Spalatin, that "I have shut the mouth of those who slandered me and Katherine Bora." It is not proven that he was openly immoral with her before marriage, but it is certain that there was so much talk going on about his intimacy with the ex-nun, that he thought it advisable to marry her sooner than he had expected (p.347).

The Facts: Luther did Not Live with Katherine von Bora Before Marrying

In response: of the biographical information available, the bare facts are as follows:

1. April 1523, Katherina Von Bora escaped from a convent with a group of nuns.
2. The group of nuns temporarily stayed in the Wittenberg castle untill homes were found for them.
3. Katherina stayed at the home of Philipp Reichenbach and Lucas Cranach
4. Luther married Katherina on June 13, 1525.

Or, to go beyond the bare facts, here's testimony from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar:

Of the twelve who escaped from Nimbschen, nine, who were without resources, found a refuge in various houses at Wittenberg, while only three went to their relatives in the Saxon Electorate. To begin with, from necessity and only for a short time, the nine found quarters in the Augustinian monastery which had remained in Luther's hands, in which he still dwelt and where there was plenty of room; later they found lodgings in the town. Luther had to provide in part for their maintenance. Catherine von Bora was lodged by him in the house of the Town-clerk, Reichenbach. [source]

For a helpful biographical article, see Katharina von Bora, the Woman at Luther's Sideby Martin Treu (Lutheran Quarterly XIII, 1999).


Erasmus and Rumors on Luther's Marriage
There were a number of rumors surrounding Luther's marriage believed by some of Rome's defenders- especially that Luther had sexual relations with her before their marriage, and got her pregnant. The offspring was popularly believed to be the Antichrist. Rome's defenders even produced abusive satires about their marriage. In regard to Luther and Katherina, Erasmus passed along this witty comment , "If there is truth in the popular legend, that Antichrist will be born from a monk and a nun (which is the story these people keep putting about), how many thousands of Antichrists the world must have already!"  According to Richard Marius, Erasmus initially believed the popular rumor that Kathrine von Bora had given birth a few days after her wedding. On page 438 of Martin Luther The Christian Between God and Death (Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1999), Marius states:

His forecast that his enemies would reproach him was on the mark. Then and for centuries afterward Catholic antagonists had proof that all Luther had ever wanted was sex, and since he married a former nun, it seemed he had now lived out yet another of the bawdy stories told of nuns and monks lusting for one another. His most bitter foes crowed over the marriage in monotonous fury in print. Erasmus knew of it by October and wrote to friends ironically about it. He passed on the canard that Katherine had given birth to a child a few days after the wedding (10). By March 13 he had learned that the rumor was false, although he understood (correctly) that Katherine was now pregnant. He ruminated on the 'popular legend' that the Antichrist would be born to a monk and a nun- a tale probably circulating about Luther's coming child. If that prophecy were true, he said with bitter wit, 'How many thousands of Antichrists had the world already known!'(11) He expressed the wistful hope that marriage might make Luther more gentle, but by this time he had seen Luther's vehement On the Bondage of the Will, and he had given up all hope that Luther might moderate his language.

(10) October 10, 1525; EE no. 1633; 6:197-199.
(11) March 13, 1525; EE no. 1677; 6:283-284.

Here are specific comments from Erasmus:

The comments from Erasmus ultimately served as a defense for Luther. Bayle's Dictionary was a popular eighteenth century apologetic dispelling numerous myths on various theological figures. Bayle did an entry entitled, "Bora." (see this overview as well). Bayle use the testimony of Erasmus under point #F.

Post-Trent Variance

Donald Prudlo writes on the variance within post-Trent Catholic Scriptural interpretation, using Matthew 16:18 as a primary example:

The creative element in post-Trent biblical theology cannot be underestimated. Though Catholic scriptural scholarship of the period was very engaged in controversy with the reformers, it was also in the midst of one of its most innovative eras. As shown, spirited controversies took place within Catholicism that produced substantial advances in theology. Catholic thinkers did not simply respond to Protestant challenges; rather, they were actively delving deeper into scriptural sources. One prominent example was the controversy over the interpretation of the word "petra" in the famous papal proof-text Matthew 16:18: "I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Certainly Catholics reacted to Protestant interpretations of this passage (which tried to minimize the person of Peter, and especially of his successors), but spirited discussion also took place within Catholic circles, and the tradition attached multiple meanings to the word "petra." Erasmus, who interpreted "petra" not as Peter, but as a reference to Peter's confession of faith, was not alone. Several other Catholic writers also adopted this terminology, notably Jean d'Arbres (d. 1569), a strongly anti-Calvinist writer. John Major (1467-1550) and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples both interpreted "petra" as Christ himself. In doing this, they were faithful to the common patristic and medieval interpretation of the text. However, a surprisingly new interpretation adopted by Cajetan and Sixtus of Siena made "petra" stand for Peter. Surely they had polemical reasons for this move, which served to undergird the power of the papacy, but nevertheless such a reading was innovative, novel, and quite literal. Indeed, these differing positions were not necessarily opposed. Cardinal Jacques-Davy Duperron (1556-1618) responded to a pamphlet by King James VI of England by stating that interpreting "petra" as faith and as Peter were both admissible readings, corresponding to the ancient division of senses in the scriptures. These examples should clearly demonstrate the problem of trying to articulate a common position among Counter-Reformation scriptural theologians. Such controversies indicate that Catholic thought was, ironically, at once reactionary and innovative.¹

________________________

1. "Scripture and Theology in Early Modern Catholicism," in Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, ed. Justin Holcomb (New York University Press, 2006), 147.

Erasmus as a Problem, not a Reformation Solution

I recently posted Erasmus was Wrong, Luther was Right, Says Roman Catholic Scholar. In that entry, I took a brief look at Roman Catholic scholar Harry J. McSorley's condemnation of the position argued by Erasmus against Luther on the will.

Erasmus's Diatribe was well received. The Pope, Emperor, and Henry VIII all approved of the work. That's not hard to imagine- when the leading scholar of the day sides against the enemy of the Roman Church, whatever he put forth probably would've been seen as a helpful hand.

It's interesting to note that certain later Roman Catholic scholars have quite a negative perspective on the abilities of Erasmus as a defender of Romanism. For instance, Franz Xaver Kiefl evaluated the debate between Luther and Erasmus and found that Luther understood Christianity on a much deeper level than did Erasmus. He notes Erasmus was a man of Renaissance learning. Kiefl notes the negative impact of the Renaissance on Christianity, and contrarily sees Luther’s positive impact of being God’s “powerful instrument of Providence” in the work of Church “purification”.

Similarly, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz was troubled by the work of Erasmus. Lortz saw Erasmus as the threat to the Church, not Luther. Lortz explains that this view is not new: during the sixteenth century the papal nuncio Aleander recognized it also:

“There was only one man on the Catholic side who in some measure recognized in time the danger embodied by Erasmus. This was the papal nuncio, Aleander, himself a humanist of some standing... [he said] ‘God forbid that we see fresh papal briefs to Erasmus couched in the same tone as that printed at the beginning of his New Testament and containing an approving explanation by the pope of a work in which he expresses views on confession, indulgences, divorce, papal authority, etc., which Luther has simply to take over. But the poison of Erasmus works even more dangerously…”

“Erasmus at length came into contact with Luther. But Catholics did not see the true Erasmus even in this controversy. They applauded his book on free will, because it contradicted Luther; but they failed to see that the primary aim of the book was to propose an optimistic morality that left little room for grace, sin and redemption" [Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), p. 7]

In his book The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), Lortz goes into greater detail. Lortz outlines the deficiency of humanism as an interpretive framework by which to do theology. Recall, Erasmus was a leading humanist scholar. Lortz notes,

"Through its contact with antiquity, humanism emphasized the natural powers of man, particularly the power of his will... this new approach was incapable of grasping the real nature of salvation, and the function of grace in the process of salvation was neglected. Both points of view showed dangerous tendancies to interpret Christianity in a moralistic sense, so that humanism became a force that tended to destroy Christianity (p. 64-65).

Lortz though clarifies this in regard to Erasmus:

"Though he did not deny the reality of grace and talked of the insuffiiency of man despite his free will in a most orthodox manner, he did preach Christianity primarily as morality. In the practical order he so emphasized man's own powers of intellect and will that he came dangerously close to moralism.

-snip-

In his disputation on freedom of will, any number of times we are told in the most orthodox fashion, at times quite emphatically, that all of man's powers and gifts come from God, that man must beware of pride and self-sufficiency, that everything a man can do with his intellect and will belongs to God (Diatribe,75). But for one thing, this Diatribe was written by Erasmus as a proof of his orthodoxy, and secondly, the picture of man which Erasmus gives us in his pedagogical and moral tracts, in his letters and by his example, is more to the point. The answer is not too encouraging. At the very least we are forced to assert that he did not draw the practical consequences from his statements that attribute everything to God and His Grace. (p.73)

Of course, Luther pounced on this. Luther saw the inconsistency in the argumentation of Erasmus. Lortz views this inconsistency of Erasmus's position by explaining that he had an underlying skepticism towards dogma. Lortz states,

[Erasmus] has no more concept of dogma as an exact statement of Chrisitan teaching than did the men of the Enlightenment or modern liberal Protestants. No one recognized this fact more clearly and made more of it than Luther in the First Preface to his work Vom geknechteten Willen" (p. 71-72).

-snip-

We must say something more on the adogmatism mentioned before. If, as Erasmus thought, dogma is something superfluous; if, as he thought, the doctrine of Christianity could and should be restricted to a few general points, Erasmus was quite near the erroneous interpretation which would equate Christianity with monotheism. When this is done, Christianity becomes indistinguishable from the other higher religions and thus, relativism is just around the corner.

If all this is true, then we have to agree that Erasmus constituted a grave threat to the Church—not because of the frequently frivolous and mocking criticism he directed at it, but because of his adogmatism, moralism, and relativism.

The pope at the time was the humanist Leo X who had a great regard for Erasmus and was quite unaware of the threat which the latter constituted for the Church. Thus we find the papal delegate Alexander writing from the Diet of Worms in 1521: "For heaven's sake, don't send us any more privileges for Erasmus. The man is doing far more harm than Luther ever can." Luther was precisely the one who recognized and rejected the danger from the quarter of the humanists. With all the violence of his characteristically one-sided approach, Luther turned from the cultural morality he found in the humanists to the religion of faith as he found it in St. Paul [pp. 73-74].

From time to time, I come across Roman Catholic laymen attempting to argue that Erasmus eventually beat Luther in their written debate, or that "Luther met his match." Based on the comments of McSorley and Lortz, I simply don't see how a Roman Catholic would ever want to assert that.

Erasmus was Wrong, Luther was Right, Says Roman Catholic Scholar

Would a Roman Catholic theologian ever side with Luther against Erasmus on whether the will is free or not? Yes.

The book pictured to the left is Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970). Yes, it's my copy. The book is an anthology of chapters from Roman Catholic theologians on aspects of Luther. One chapter is entitled Erasmus versus Luther- Compounding the Reformation Tragedy by Harry J. McSorley, C.S.P. Around the time of the writing of this chapter, Father McSorely had written an entire critique of Luther's battle with Erasmus: Luther Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will.

While Father McSorley doesn't agree with all of Luther's argumentation in the Bondage of the Will, he does stand with Luther in condemning the position argued by Erasmus. Remember, it was the Papacy that prodded Erasmus to engage Luther and write De libero arbitrio.

I found many of McSorley's comments honestly revealing. The following are but a small sample:

First, Erasmus shows little appreciation of the genuine meaning of Luther's thesis of the unfree will, namely, that the will of fallen man apart from grace is totally incapable of doing anything for salvation, totally unfree to do anything that is good in God's sight. Instead of coming to grips with this biblical concept of man's slavery to sin, Erasmus concentrates his attention on the secondary, non-biblical supporting argument which Luther used in the Assertio--the argument from the absolute necessity of all events (p.111).

Secondly, and more unfortunately, we find the leading scholar of the Roman Church doing a bad job in presenting the Church's teaching on free will. Erasmus defines free will as "the power of the human will by which man can apply himself toward or turn himself away from the things which lead to eternal salvation." This is a seriously defective definition of free will. Instead of defining free will in terms of the ability to choose between certain alternatives, Erasmus defines free will in terms of salvation--without mentioning grace. Erasmus gives no hint in his definition that man the sinner is enslaved to sin until he is liberated by grace. The definition is surely one of the "extraordinary blunders" which, according to P. Hughes, characterize De libero arbitrio (p.112).

A third striking fact about De libero arbitrio is Erasmus' unawareness that the Church, centuries before, had taken an official stand against a modified version of Pelagianism that came to be known, late in the sixteenth century, as Semipelagianism. Erasmus was not alone in his unawareness of the Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.) and its confirmation by Pope Boniface II in 531. As H. Bouillard has pointed out, the decrees of Orange II were in some way lost during the middle ages and are cited by no authors from the tenth until the mid-sixteenth centuries. This did not mean that the doctrine of Orange II was lost. Such biblically oriented theologians as Bernard, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory of Rimini, who recognized Augustine as their theological master, especially in the doctrine of grace, were all agreed that the sinner is a slave to sin unless he is liberated by the prevenient grace of Christ. Thomas, without knowing of the decrees of Orange II, was even able to say that it is a "truth of faith" that the very beginning of faith is in us from God (p.112).

Now, several years after his excommunication, Luther finds the leading Catholic intellectual saying that the following Neo-Semipelagian position is a tenable option: ". . . [H]aving not yet received the grace which forgives sin, man can, by his natural powers, perform works which, as they say are morally good, by which justifying grace is merited not de condigno but de congruo..." (p.113).

Erasmus reveals his total unawareness of the Church's rejection of Semipelagianism in the Hyperaspistes, his lengthy response to Luther's reply to him in De servo arbitrio. Of the Ockham-Biel opinion, Erasmus says that as far as he knows it has not been rejected by the Church (p. 113).

Further, developing the concept of "natural" or "common" grace that he had mentioned in De libero arbitrio, Erasmus distinguishes a "human faith, " which is "a type of knowledge preparatory to the light of faith, "from a "faith which through grace justifies." Then he explains: ". . as there are degrees of justice, so there are degrees of gifts until you reach that which is merely natural. But even this is grace, since God is the author of nature. Thus Augustine is needlessly afraid of saying that the initium gratiae arises from man." Erasmus seems completely unaware that Pelagius had said exactly the same thing to Augustine: free will is a donum Dei; therefore no other donum is necessary! In this sense Pelagius could also say as Erasmus does: "We ascribe everything to God's goodness" (p. 113-114).

We have not compared Erasmus' opinion to the teachings of Orange II and Trent in order to indict Erasmus as a heretic. His unawareness that the Church had once taken a definitive stand in favor of the doctrine of fallen man's bondage to sin exculpates him from the charge of formal error or heresy. That the decrees of the Second Council of Orange went astray and that a new form of the old Semipelagian error arose among late medieval theologians would seem to be more than anything else the result of negligence in the exercise of the Church's teaching office (p.114).

As for Erasmus, it is sufficient to point out that his views on grace and free will are not normative for Roman Catholics. The Catholic commitment to the grace of God is recorded above all in Scripture and in the Councils of Orange II, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.Secondly, in De servo arbitrio Luther presents the most powerful biblical argument for fallen man's bondage to sin that the Church had heard since St. Augustine. Such a reformation proclamation was truly needed in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. It is no exaggeration to say that until the Council of Trent reaffirmed what was taught by the Second Council of Orange, Martin Luther was one of the few theologians in Germany who unhesitatingly defended the biblical and Catholic teaching on man's bondage to sin. He proclaimed that fallen man could do nothing whatever without grace to prepare himself for salvation. This he did at a time in which many, many Catholics - -including Erasmus--had either lost this truth or were uncertain about it" (p.117).