He was buried with the greatest honours-the chief magistrate, the senators, professors and students of Basil, joining in the funeral procession. His name was given to the theological seminary of that city.

The city of Rotterdam, his natal place, also rendered great honours to his memory. The Latin school was called after him; a bronze statue of him erected, and the following verses inscribed on the small house where he was born :

"Edibus his ortus mundum decoravit Erasmus

Artibus ingenuis, religione, fide.

Fatalis series nobis invidit Erasmum

At Desiderium tollere non potuit."*

The knowledge of Erasmus consisted almost entirely in a profound acquaintance with the classics and theology, to which he had applied, during a long life, a clear understanding and uncommonly strong memory. His extensive acquaintance with the classics, is seen not only in works where deep erudition is expected, but in his lighter effusions, in which the choicest flowers of ancient lore are scattered in a manner so profuse and unostentatious, that it is apparent they are drawn from an abundant store. It may be doubted whether he possessed the exactness of some who have devoted themselves exclusively to critical labours, but many of his remarks show an observation and acuteness in noticing the niceties of languages, which demonstrate that he could have taken the first rank in that line.

How far his knowledge of the scholastic divinity extended, cannot be well pointed out, for he viewed it with contempt, and made but little use of it in his writings. His theology was acquired from long and careful studies of the Scriptures themselves, and of the fathers of the Church, many of whom he gave to the world with commentaries indicative of the profound attention he had bestowed upon them. Even in theology he might have had rivals, but certainly no one combined that same familiar knowledge of the classics and theology together. He first showed the theologians that they were helpless without scholarship, and pointed out to scholars the noble ends to which their learning might be employed.

*We have preferred the inscription as given in Ireland's tour, 1, 29, because he says he copied it on the spot, and gives an engraving of the house. Le Clerc, in his edition of Erasmus, gives the two first lines only, in which. Jo, Alb. Fabricius concurs, Syl. Opusc. 361. Other writers give this inscription, "Hæc est parva domus magnus quâ natus Erasmus."--Butler's Life of Erasmus. Burigni, vie d'Erasme, i. 18. Itineraire des Pays Bas, 118. Amsterd. 1824.

Among the striking peculiarities of his writings, are sagacity without paradox or artificial refinement, and good sense untainted by common-place truisms. He could not confine himself to strict analytic order, and hence, in his Dissertations, amidst profound arguments and sensible observations, there is a rambling which often confuses, but which is sufficiently agreeable in his Letters. Wit and humour in Erasmus always seem welling in ease and abundance from a native source, but amidst his numberless sarcastic sayings and arch allusions, there is a general air of pleasantness and bonhommie indicative of a kind and benevolent heart.

A few solecisms, a word occasionally of questionable authority, a modern idiom here and there, have caused his style to be censured by critics, without sufficiently pointing out its distinctive qualities. In the main it is good-very good. Were a writer in our language to roll Chaucer, Gower, Shakspeare, Johnson, Addison, Burke, Cobbett, Boxiana, and more if you please in poetry and prose of different ages and styles, into one vast vocabulary, it would be doing in English, in some measure, what Erasmus has done in Latin, with the addition of the faults before enumerated. He has sometimes taken words from authors of inferior note, and has not always distinguished between the usual language of prose, and words more particularly belonging to poetical diction. Yet, generally, he takes the words most commonly in use, in their most common acceptation, and writes fluently, expressively, and above all, clearly. There is, particularly in his Letters, an extemporary ease and gaiety which shows the power he had acquired over the Latin, in expressing the most varied subjects and nicest gradations of thought, which can only be accounted for from his exclusive use of that language in his intercourse with the world.

His active exertions and powerful example added an impetus to learning wherever he resided, and throughout his works, he never appears so happy as when aiding it or hearing of its success. From many of his publications, neither honour nor recompense could be derived, whence it is evident that the desire of facilitating the acquisition of knowlege was the only motive of his toils. His labours to diffuse a more correct morality, were not less vigorous and unceasing. Learning, argument and wit were constantly levelled at the vices and follies of the Church, or employed in inculcating a better system. To strike at the root of the errors that then obscured Christianity, he took the best, indeed, the only plan to exhibit the Testament in its purity, by which the learned could see and judge for themselves,

and a new impulse be given to biblical researches. Even his labours on the Fathers had the effect of shewing how differently those primitive lights of the Church interpreted the Scriptures, from the theologians who then reigned triumphantly in the schools, and whose tetric subtleties so quickly vanished before a more intelligible theology.

Most writers have owned the immense effect produced on the religious world by the writings of Erasmus; indeed, it is apparent from looking at the history of that period, whatever stand other writers might have had with the learned, that he was the writer of the people-that either in Latin or the vernacular language, he was read by noble and by citizen, by clergy and by layman. In all reforms, it is difficult to say what specific effect has been produced by one, where many have joined, before a definite result is obtained. It is also true, that we often consider men as the originators, who are merely the active, prominent champions of principles well understood and widely spread. Still, in absence of testimony, it is correct to assign him the place of precedence, who has embodied, systematized and brought into action a successful body of principles in the same manner as the victory is attributed to a chief who throws himself at the head of a people in a successful revolt. The Reformation then, and whatever benefits have resulted from it, are really to be dated from Erasmus and not Luther. In vain would the latter have toiled, had it not been for the previous labours of the former.

Luther often said of Erasmus, that he knew how to detect error, not to establish truth; which means in plain English, Erasmus would not destroy an edifice because he saw some errors in its construction. If any one in the present day is so far gone in bigotry and illiberality, as to deny that a Catholic may be a Christian, to him all argument would be lost; to all others, the whole conduct of Erasmus in religion may be explained, by supposing him to own the corruptions of the Church like Bossuet, and to submit implicitly to its decrees like Fenelon. He had seen such men as Colet, Warham, Fisher, prelates of exalted virtues, to whom the Reformation can produce no superiors, and to this standard he wished to bring the whole Church. Nor were the instances cited at all rare. Throughout the works of Erasmus, numbers of the higher clergy, and even of the monks, are spoken of as equally honouring Christianity by their devotion, and mankind by their talents and learning. By such men as these, a reformation of all that was really useless or vicious in

* Robertson, Roscoe, &c.

the Church, was desired. The persecutions against Pico, Valla, Reuchlin, Faber and Erasmus, sprung not from this source. While Faber was chased from Paris by the Sorbonne, and Reuchlin beset by the clamorous monks, Erasmus still received the protection of bishops, cardinals and popes, who praised his labours and advised him to disregard his detractors. Even Leo is said to have expressed no disapprobation of the first proceedings of Luther, and to have regarded his opponents as envious monks. Why then did the Reformation not take place? Because it required that prejudices, long established, should be removed from the many by degrees, that light should be so extensively diffused, that errors should be manifest even to the least clear-sighted. In politics and religion, as in every thing else, where the guide runs too fast, we either lose sight of him or tire by the way; and he who wishes to effect reformation of any kind, must suit his advances to those he wishes to lead on.

Without discussing the merits of the Reformation, we have always thought that the precipitous zeal of Luther was, probably, an injury to the cause of religion and freedom. The number of writers engaged in showing the abuses of the Church, were producing their effect on the wise, the learned, the powerful. Keeping up the discussions in Latin, they particularly addressed themselves to the most enlightened portion of the community, and were constantly increasing the number of intelligent cooperators. This extension of knowledge would soon have produced either a Reformation in the Church itself, or a much larger secession from it.

As Erasmus pointed out the abuses of the Church so clearly, and then refused to join the Reformers, the followers of Luther have loaded him with reproaches and censures, which have been in many cases, handed down with scrupulous exactness, without remembering that most of the judgments of that age were necessarily tinctured with prejudice and passion. The whole of these ungenerous opinions are collected and well enforced by Milner in his Church History, and reduce themselves to these; 1st. He was too timid, that he approved of the first acts of Luther, and then receded. Yet surely this charge is a singular one, when in his Letters to the close of his life, he continually asserted the early merits of Luther, republished those works unchanged, which gave most offence to the monks, and in his later productions, equally attacked those abuses that drew his first animadversions.

2d. That his conduct exhibited perpetual double-dealing. Erasmus thought both parties wrong, and that both parties were

See Sleidan, Milner, &c. quoting from Bandello.

right in many things. With these impressions, it is not to be wondered that both Romanist and Reformed received his alternate praises and censures, and that he still cultivated the acquaintances of amiable and learned men, without reference to their religious opinions. Indeed, he says he has no objection at all to a Jew, if he be a good man-an opinion, liberal in the extreme in that age. The unreserved manner in which his letters are written, and which he knew would be published, are strong evidences of his candour, when he was aware that they would often give offence to the leading men of the two contending parties.

3d. It is said he was too fond of the great. He happened to have many of the great for his friends and correspondents, and nothing more. But he writes with the same kindness and fulness to his untitled and unknown friends, as to bishops or princes. What did he desire of the great? Places or dignities? He refused them regularly. Did he wish money? He was regardless of it. Did he covet high society? He detested courts. Did he seek pleasure? His pleasure was in books alone.

It is evident that the longer Erasmus lived, the more he disapproved of the Reformers. Their violent publications, the scandalous lives of many, the revolts of the rustics, of Muncer, of the Anabaptists, and the slaughters that followed all alienated one of his peaceable and tranquil disposition. The Lutherans too lost much of his respect by their uncertainty of doctrine* and the intemperate quarrels that divided them into angry sects. When urged to join the Reformers, he says, "fight among yourselves: Zuingle and Ecolampadius against Luther and Pomeranus; and again, Balthasar against the former, and Farel against Pellicanus. Shall I, at the hazard of my life, nay, of my salvation, connect myself with such a dis

cordant faction?"

What were the sentiments of Erasmus of religion, we think are clear and consistent throughout his works-his letter to Slechta, perhaps, exhibits them in a shorter space, and more

*See Bossuet. Hist. Var.-Eckius, Enchirid. Eckius, the celebrated opponent of Luther, Bodenstein, (Carolostadt) Ecolampadius, (Hausschein) employs some curious arguments against the Lutherans. In arguing against the marriage of the Priests, he says, "it is true that the Priests married under the Jewish dispensation, and that the command," 'to increase and multiply,' was obligatory then, but that was in the beginning of the world, when population was needed, but that that reason no longer exists. Cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex. p. 188. In endeavouring to show that the common people should not read the Bible, he gives as a proof of the difficulty of understanding, that the devil, who is undoubtedly possessed of talents, quoted Scripture to Jesus Christ, (Matt. iv.) and yet mistook the true meaning, as has been showed by Jerome.-Eckius Enchirid. Loc. com. adversus Lutherum. p. 71.