Theological Origins of Modernity

148 chapter five
irony for which Erasmus was famous. Erasmus’s questions, like those of
Socrates, are anything but innocent. Th ey are rather an attempt to lure
others into a discussion in which their deepest beliefs can be shown to be
contradictory. Th is was a style perfected by Academics such as Arcesilaus
and Carneades in their debates with the Stoics, and it is a style that Erasmus
adopts here, hoping to draw the assertive Luther into a discussion that will
leave him suspended in uncertainty. Erasmus, of course, does not mean to
promote total skepticism. He accepts the principal tenets of the Christian
faith and nowhere calls them into question. However, he does not believe
that Scripture can be interpreted with the absolute certainty Luther claims
and hopes through a discussion to get Luther to recognize this fact and act
more moderately, seeking consensus rather than delivering pronouncements
from on high.
Erasmus justifi es this approach not as the surest road to absolute truth
but as the surest way to avoid error and the internecine confl ict that results
from the fanatical defense of what are really only probable opinions. In
this indirect way, he thus suggests that Luther’s assertive position is unjustifi
able and that it is likely to promote public confusion and violence rather
than piety. Th e implication is of course that Luther is acting contrary to
principles of Christian charity and the pacifi stic teachings of Christ. 49
In opposition to this claim to indubitable knowledge and a monopoly
on morality, Erasmus raises the question of a criterion. What is missing in
Luther’s assertion of his own infallibility, according to Erasmus, is a criterion
of the truth. 50 Th e question of the criterion was not new to Erasmus.
It was the club that the ancient skeptics used against the Stoics (and it was
the club that Catholic apologists would use against their Protestant rivals
for the next one hundred and fi ft y years). It calls into question the subjective
foundation of experience that Luther and his followers rely on. How,
Erasmus asks, can you Luther be sure that Wycliff was a holy man and
the Arians heretics? 51 Both make claims to know the truth but they do
not agree. Moreover, how can the truth you are subjectively certain of be
evaluated by others? Why should we trust your subjective impression or
for that matter our own more than that of anyone else? One might claim
that such certainty is warranted because it comes from God, but this claim
is complicated by the fact that others make similar claims that do not agree
with your own. Scripture also suggests that God may not want his teachings
to be immediately clear to all. Furthermore, how do you know that it
is God rather than Satan who fi lls you with this sense of certainty? 52 And if
you do have the truth, why are there so many great men who stand against
you and only three who agree with you—Valla, Hus, and Wycliff —the fi rst