Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 95:380 (Oct 1938)
Article: The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation Part 2
Author: Charles A. Nash

BSac 95:380 (Oct 38) p. 445

The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation
Part 2

Charles A. Nash

(Continued from the July-September, 1938, Number)

{Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original printed edition were numbered 20–34, but in this electronic edition are numbered 1–15 respectively.}

II. Erasmus and the Reformation in Germany

From this brief historical sketch of the great humanist we turn to consider his relation to that movement known in history as the Reformation. The most logical starting point for such a study is his relation to the Reformation in Germany, for geographically Erasmus was nearer to that country than to other reformation lands, and the Reformation received its major impetus in that land.

It is, perhaps, difficult to determine the extent of the influence of Erasmus in preparing the way for the movement for reform in the Church, but it is an acknowledged fact that he did in some measure influence the movement in its initial period. C. G. McCrie says:

“Much has been said and written about the place to be assigned to Erasmus in the Protestant Reformation and the relation in which he stood to Luther. Everyone knows what the monks of the day said: ‘Erasmus laid the egg, but Luther hatched it’; and what Erasmus retorted, ‘Yes, but the egg I laid was a hen, and Luther hatched a gamecock.’”1

Reference has already been made to Froude’s description of the performance played before the Emperor Charles V, on the eve of the Augsburg Diet in 1530, in which the company

BSac 95:380 (Oct 38) p. 446

gave their reading of the times and the men that dealt with them, which comes nearer the mark than that of the monks. Erasmus was pictured as unable to accomplish what he undertook, while Luther is set forth as doing what Erasmus was impotent to do.

In these two references we have presented the fact that Erasmus had some relation to the reform movement. The monks conceived the relation to be that of the egg to the chicken, and the players before the Emperor saw Erasmus as one who desired reform, but who was unable to realize his desire. Erasmus desired reform within the Church, but he was not the man to lead in accomplishing the reform. He was not a leader of men; his influence is to be found elsewhere.

By the time the Reformation was well begun, 1518, it was plain, once for all, that Erasmus had not the qualities in him out of which great leaders of men in critical times are made. No one would have more readily acknowledged this than he, and nothing was further from the line of his ambition than such leadership. After reasonable deductions have been made...