Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans

Chapter 5: Erasmus’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans

Chapter 5 Erasmus’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans Introduction In the twentieth century the Augustinian priest Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) was respected by an outstanding series of illustrious Catholic historians and theologians, beginning with Cardinal Gasquet, H. Grisar, R. Padberg, H. de Lubac, G. Chantraine, L. Bouyer, L. Halkin, J. Olin, R. DeMolen, and H. Pabel. The most formidable of these was perhaps Lubac, who displays a unique mastery of the total corpus of Erasmus’s writings and finds Erasmus’s Catholic orthodoxy to be both sincere and constant.1 Lubac was particularly impressed with Erasmus’s patristic scholarship. Indeed, the writings and personalities of the Church Fathers accompanied Erasmus of Rotterdam from his youth until the day of his death.2 Alongside the New Testament, the Fathers played an essential role in Erasmus’s program for renewing the Church and theology.3 The learning and holiness of the Fathers and the superiority of their writings was so obvious to Erasmus that he was deeply tormented by the loss of so many of their works. He wrote, “I can scarcely refrain from tears as I read the lists of ancient authors and see what wealth we have lost. My grief 129 increases when I compare the quality of our losses with what we now commonly read.”4 Proof of Erasmus’s devotion to the Fathers is seen in what is perhaps his most staggering scholarly achievement: twelve published critical editions of the Greek and Latin writings of the Church Fathers.5 Erasmus completed editions of the writings of Jerome (1516), Cyprian (1520), Arnobius (1522), Hilary (1523), John Chrysostom (1525), Irenaeus (1526), Athanasius (1527), Ambrose (1527), Augustine (1529), Gregory of Nazianzus (1531), Basil (1532), and Origen (1536).6 Erasmus has rightly been described as “the great patrologist of the age.”7 Before turning to the role that Origen’s CRm played in Erasmus’s program of ressourcement, I will briefly describe the context of Erasmus’s theological mission, which involved him in conflicts on two principal fronts. On the one hand, his contemporary Catholic representatives of scholastic theology accused Erasmus of heresy and innovation and forced him to write apologies.8 Though deeply wounded by these accusations from fellow Catholics, Erasmus refused to allow these disturbances to drive him into schism. He wrote the following to Archbishop Alfonso Fonseca on 25 March 1529: Stephen was struck down with stones only once, Sebastian was pierced with darts only once—I believe that their sufferings were lighter than mine. For very many years now I have been pierced by the tongues of men who have the poison of asps on their lips. I have been struck on all sides by insults hurled like stones. Their many assaults would draw me away from the orthodox party if for any reason I could be torn away from the pledge [ fide] I once gave to the church, the Bride of Christ.9 Five days later, Erasmus once again looked back retrospectively on the lifetime of attacks he had endured from fellow Catholics. He assessed them in a letter to Louis Ber: It is not obscure for what frivolous reasons these people first rose up against me. To the great advantage of theology I cultivated languages and more polite literature, which they now pretend to support , although more than forty years ago they left no stone unturned to destroy and uproot them when they were just beginning to spring 130 Origen and the History of Justification up. And that was the seedbed of this present tragedy [the Protestant schisms]. I exhorted the theologians that, leaving aside their little questions which have more of ostentation than of piety, they should betake themselves to the very sources [ fontes] of the Scriptures and to the ancient Fathers of the Church. Moreover, I did not wish that scholastic theology should be abolished, but that it should be purer and more serious. That, unless I am mistaken, is to support, not to hurt it.10 Such texts provide evidence against the allegation of Yves Congar, who said that Erasmus’s theological program was not content to reform or complement scholasticism, but intended to replace and suppress it.11 To be sure Erasmus reproached the form of scholastic theology that was then current, for distancing itself from Scripture and for its infidelity to the mind of the Fathers.12 But Erasmus’s aim...