Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England (review)

James McConica published a foundational study of the influence of Erasmus in England c. 1500 to c. 1553 (Oxford, 1965). Bruce Mansfield followed this with the first of his three studies of Erasmus’s Nachleben (Toronto, 1979). That volume extended its scope from England to Germany, the Netherlands, and France c. 1550 to c. 1750. Now Gregory Dodds returns to England c. 1558 to c. 1689, focusing on Erasmus’s religious writings.

Chapters 1 and 2 discuss Erasmus’s Latin Paraphrases of books of the New Testament. In 1547 King Edward VI decreed that every church should have an English Bible and the English Paraphrases of the Gospels. In 1559, after the Marian years, Elizabeth decreed the same. Dodds notes some of the theological changes made by the translators, especially in Erasmus’ prefaces. This topic invites further study.

Chapter 3 highlights English translations of two of Erasmus’s spiritualia. Although it appeared in only one edition, The Complaint of Peace (London, 1559) is central to Dodds’s definition of “Erasmianism.” Throughout his book Dodds emphasizes Erasmus’s ideal of peace so much that one could infer Erasmus’ faith lacked content. His eirenic colloquy, “An Examination Concerning the Faith,” affirms that he and Luther both believe the Apostles’ Creed. Of course, they have different interpretations of “the holy catholic church” and “the remission of sins.” In other chapters Dodds discusses Erasmus’s treatise on free will, De libero arbitrio.

Chapter 3 also examines Elizabethan translations of the Enchiridion: John Gough’s abridged version (London, 1561) and the full text (London, 1576). Before these there were nine editions of the full text as well as Miles Coverdale’s abridgement (Antwerp, 1545). Perhaps William Tyndale made the livelier translation (London, 1533), which was revised by a conservative linguist (London, 1534). Later editors changed “pope” to “Bishop of Rome” under schismatic Henry VIII and Protestant Edward VI, and “pope of Rome” under Catholic Mary I. The latter phrase was retained under Protestant Elizabeth I. Throughout the sixteenth century, the devotional Enchiridion (twelve editions) was more popular than the satirical Praise of Folly (three editions).

In the material of chapters 4 to 8, Mansfield and Dodds overlap. They study some of the same leaders, but Dodds is particularly interested in their attitudes toward the doctrine of predestination: assertion of divine sovereignty versus affirmation of human freedom. John Foxe the martyrologist and James I are pro predestination. Against it are the biographers of Thomas More, Archbishop William Laud, the Great Tew Circle, Cambridge Platonists, Latitudinarians, Elizabeth I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II.

Within his shorter timespan, Dodds studies more individuals than Mansfield. The Presbyterians Thomas Cartwright and William Perkins are propredestination, but so are Archbishop John Whitgift and Bishop Joseph Hall. Against predestination are Bishop John Jewel, theologian Richard Hooker, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, and Quakers, but so is the Nonconformist Richard Baxter. Dodds shows that one cannot simply equate episcopacy with free-will theology or Presbyterianism with predestination.

Dodds is not content with pointing out explicit references to Erasmus or a middle position in the writings of his authors. He considers their actions and the reactions of their opponents. Dodds demonstrates his main thesis—that early-modern English leaders employed the rhetoric of moderation to try to enforce conformity in church polity—thus explaining the title of his book, Exploiting Erasmus.

The Glorious Revolution, in Dodds’s words, marks “the failure of the Erasmian dream of tolerance within the unified body of a single church” (p. 264). In 1689, Parliament granted religious toleration to Protestants who were not members of the Church of England. Freedom of worship was extended to Catholics in 1829 and to Jews in 1858.