rmation. He gave the Renaissance,
in its origin purely Pagan, a Christian direction, and prevented the
divorce of learning from religion. He also protested against the
confusion of Christianity with asceticism, and against belief in the
superior sanctity of monks. He turned his satire upon corruption in
high places, and did not spare the Holy See. His residence in
England, his friendship with More, his admiration for the earlier
and better part of Henry VIII.'s career, connected him with events
of which Froude had Himself traced the development. Luther moved him
sometimes to sarcasm. Toleration and comprehension were the
watchwords of Erasmus. "Reduce the dogmas necessary to be believed,"
he said, "to the smallest possible number; you can do it without
danger to the realities of Christianity. On other points, either
discourage inquiry, or leave every one to believe what he pleases-
then we shall have no more quarrels, and religion will again take
hold of life." The subject was not a new one to Froude. He had
lectured on Erasmus and Luther at Newcastle five-and-twenty years
before. The contrast between the two reformers is perennially
interesting. Goethe, a supreme critic, thought that reform of the
Church should have been left to Erasmus, and that Luther was a
misfortune.

But then Goethe, though he understood religious enthusiasm, did not
see the need for it, and would have tolerated such a Pope as Leo X.,
who had excellent taste in literature, rather than see issues
submitted to the people which should be left for the learned to
decide.

The weak point of Froude's Erasmus is the inaccuracy of its verbal
scholarship. "Sir," said Dr. Johnson of a loose scholar, "he makes
out the Latin from the meaning, not the meaning from the Latin."
This biting sarcasm would be inapplicable to Froude, who knew the
dead languages, as they are called, well enough to read them with
ease and enjoyment. But he took in the general sense of a passage so
quickly that he did not always, even in translating, stop to
consider the precise significance of every word. Literal conformity
with the original text is of course not possible or desirable in a
paraphrase. What Froude did not sufficiently consider was the
difference between the translation and the translator himself, who
cannot paraphrase properly unless he renders literally in his own
mind. Froude gave abundant proof of his good faith by quoting in
notes some of the very passages which