The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More

by Frederic Seebohm

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.

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]...