I. ERASMUS DOES NOT DIE (1518).
The monks of Cologne were disappointed. Erasmus did not die. His illness
turned out not to be the plague. After four weeks’ nursing at the good
printer’s house, he was well enough to be removed to his own lodgings
within the precincts of the college. Thence he wrote to Beatus Rhenanus in
these words:--
_Erasmus to Beatus Rhenanus._[718]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Erasmus describes his illness.]
‘My dear Beatus,--Who would have believed that this frail delicate
body, now weaker from increasing age, after the toils of so many
journeys, after the labours of so many studies, should have survived
such an illness? You know how hard I had been working at Basle just
before.... A suspicion had crossed my mind that this year would prove
fatal to me, one malady succeeded so rapidly upon another, and each
worse than the one which preceded it. When the disease was at its
height, I neither felt distressed with desire of life, nor did I
tremble at the fear of death. All my hope was in Christ alone, and I
prayed for nothing to him except that he would do what he thought
best for me. Formerly, when a youth, I remember I used to tremble at
the very name of death!...’
Had Erasmus fallen a victim to the plague and died at the house of Martins
the printer, as the friar had reported, and the convivial monks had too
readily believed, it does not seem likely that his death would have been
as dark and godless as they fancied it might have been. As it was, instead
of dying without lighted tapers and crucifix and transubstantiated wafer,
or, in monkish jargon, ‘_sine lux, sine crux, sine Deus_,’ their enemy
_still lived_, and the disappointed monks, instead of ill-concealed
rejoicings over his death, were obliged to content themselves for many
years to come with muttering in quite another tone, ‘It were good for that
man if he had never been born.’[719]
II. MORE AT THE COURT OF HENRY VIII. (1518).
[Sidenote: The sweating sickness.]
[Sidenote: Death of Ammonius.]
While the plague had been raging in Germany, the sweating sickness had
been continuing its ravages in England. Before More left for Calais it had
struck down, after a few days’ illness, Ammonius, with whom Erasmus and
More had long enjoyed intimate friendship. Wolsey also had narrowly
escaped with his life, after repeated attacks. When More returned from the
embassy he found the sickness still raging. In the spring of 1518 the
court was removed to Abingdon, to escape the contagion of the great city;
and whilst there, More, who now was obliged to follow the King wherever he
might go, had to busy himself with precautionary measures to prevent its
spread in Oxford, where it had made its appearance.[720]
[Sidenote: Greeks and Trojans at Oxford.]
Whilst at Abingdon, he was called upon, also, to interfere with his
influence to quiet a foolish excitement which had seized the students at
Oxford. It was not the spread of the sweating sickness which had caused
their alarm; but the increasing taste for the study of Greek had roused
the fears of divines of the old school. The enemies of the ‘new learning’
had raised a faction against it. The students had taken sides, calling
themselves Greeks and Trojans, and, not content with wordy warfare, they
had come to open and public insult. At length, the most virulent abuse had
been poured upon the Greek language and literature, even from the
university pulpit, by an impudent and ignorant preacher. He had denounced
all who favoured Greek studies as ‘heretics;’ in his coarse phraseology,
those who taught the obnoxious language were ‘_diabolos maximos_’ and its
students ‘_diabolos minutulos_.’
More, upon hearing what had been passing, wrote a letter of indignant but
respectful remonstrance to the university authorities.[721] He and Pace
interested the King also in the affair, and at their suggestion he took
occasion to express his royal pleasure that the students ‘would do well to
devote themselves with energy and spirit to the study of Greek
literature;’ and so, says Erasmus, ‘silence was imposed upon these
brawlers.’[722]
[Sidenote: A foolish preacher at Court.]
On another occasion the King and his courtiers had attended Divine
service. The court preacher had, like the Oxford divine, indulged in abuse
of Greek literature and the modern school of interpretation--having
Erasmus and his New Testament in his eye. Pace looked at the King to see
what he thought of it. The King answered his look with a satirical smile.
After the sermon the divine was ordered to attend upon the King. It was
arranged that More should reply to the arguments he had urged against
Greek literature. After he had done so, the divine, instead of replying to
his arguments, dropped down on his knees before the King, and simply
prayed for forgiveness, urging, however, by way of extenuating his fault,
that he was carried away by the spirit in his sermon when he poured forth
all this abuse of the Greek language. ‘But,’ the King here observed, ‘that
spirit was not the spirit of _Christ_, but the spirit of _foolishness_.’
He then asked the preacher what works of Erasmus he had read. He had not
read any. ‘Then,’ said the King, ‘you prove yourself to be a fool, for you
condemn what you have never read.’ ‘I read once,’ replied the divine, ‘a
thing called the “Moria.”’... Pace here suggested that there was a decided
congruity between that and the preacher. And finally the preacher himself
relented so far as to admit:--‘After all I am not so _very_ hostile to
Greek letters, because they were derived from the Hebrew.’ The King,
wondering at the distinguished folly of the man, bade him retire, but with
strict injunctions never again to preach at Court![723]
So far, then, from More’s new position having extinguished his own
opinions or changed his views, he had the satisfaction of being able now
and then to advance the interests of the ‘new learning,’ and to act the
part of its ‘friend at court.’
III. THE EVENING OF COLET’S LIFE (1518-19).
[Sidenote: The sweating sickness.]
The sweating sickness continued its ravages in England, striking down one
here and another there with merciless rapidity. It was generally fatal on
the first day. If the patient survived twenty-four hours he was looked
upon as out of danger. But it was liable to recur, and sometimes attacked
the same person four times in succession. This was the case with Cardinal
Wolsey; whilst several of the royal retinue were attacked and carried off
at once, Wolsey’s strong constitution carried him through four successive
attacks.[724]
[Sidenote: Colet three times attacked by it.]
During the period of its ravages Colet was three times attacked by it and
survived, but with a constitution so shattered, and with symptoms so
premonitory of consumptive tendencies, as to suggest to him that the time
might not be far distant when he too must follow after his twenty-one
brothers and sisters, and leave his aged mother the survivor of all her
children.
Meanwhile an accidental ray of light falls here and there upon the
otherwise obscure life of Colet during these years of peril, revealing
little pictures, too beautiful in their simple consistency with all else
we know of him to be passed by unheeded.
The first glimpse we get of Colet reveals him engaged in the careful and
final completion of the rules and statutes by which his school was to be
governed after his own death. Having spent a good part of his life and his
fortune in the foundation of this school, as the best means of promoting
the cause which he had so deeply at heart, one might have expected that he
would have tried, in fixing his statutes, to give permanence and
perpetuity to his own views. This is what most people try to do by
endowments of this kind.
No sooner do most reformers clear away a little ground, and discover what
they take to be truths, than they attempt, by organising a sect, founding
endowments, and framing articles and trust-deeds, to secure the permanent
tradition of their own views to posterity in the form in which they are
apprehended by themselves. Hence, in the very act of striking off the
fetters of the past, they are often forging the fetters of the future.
Even the Protestant Reformers, whilst on the one hand bravely breaking the
yoke under which their ancestors had lived in bondage, ended by fixing
another on the neck of their posterity. Those who remained in the old
bondage found themselves, as the result of the Reformation, bound still
tighter under Tridentine decrees: whilst those who had joined the exodus,
and entered the promised land of the Reformers, found it to be a land of
almost narrower boundaries than the one they had left. Freed from Papal
thraldom it might be, but bound down by an Augustinian theology as rigid
and dogmatic as that from which they had escaped.
If Colet did not do likewise, he resisted with singular wisdom and success
a temptation which besets every one under his circumstances. That Colet
strove to found no sect of his own has already been seen. If the movement
which he had done so much to set agoing had produced its fruits--if a
school or party had been the result--he had not called it, or felt it to
be, in any way his _own_; he might call it ‘Erasmican’ in joke, and leave
Erasmus indignantly to repudiate ‘that name of division;’ but Erasmus
expressed the view of Colet as well as his own when he said to the abbot,
‘Why should we try to narrow what Christ intended to be broad?’
Perfectly consistent with this feeling, Colet did not now show any anxiety
to perpetuate his own particular views by means of the power which, as the
founder of the endowment, he had a perfect right to exercise. The truth
was, I think, that he retained the spirit of free enquiry--the mind open
to light from whatever direction--to the last, in full faith that the
facts of Christianity--in so far as they are facts--must have everything
to gain and nothing to lose from the discovery of other facts in other
fields of knowledge. As I have before pointed out, the Oxford Reformers
felt that they were living in an age of discovery and progress; they never
dreamed that they had reached finality either in knowledge or creed; it
would have been a sad blow to their hopes if they had been told that they
had. They took a humble view of their own attainments, and had faith in
the future.
[Sidenote: Colet settles the statutes of his school.]
In this spirit do we find Colet in these days of peril from the sweating
sickness, and conscious that his shattered health must soon give way,
settling the statutes of his school with a wisdom seldom surpassed even in
more modern times.
First, with great practical shrewdness, instead of putting his school
under the charge of ecclesiastics or clergymen, he intrusted it entirely
‘to the most honest and faithful fellowship of the _Mercers_ of London.’
As Erasmus expressed it, ‘of the whole concern, he set in charge, not a
bishop, not a chapter, not dignitaries, but married citizens of
established reputation.’[725] Time had been when Colet had regarded
‘marriage’ as almost an unholy thing. But he had seen much both of the
church and the world since then; and as perhaps his faith in Dionysian
speculations had lessened, his English common sense had more and more
asserted its own. He had, as already mentioned, wisely advised Thomas More
to marry. In his ‘Right fruitful Admonition concerning the Order of a good
Christian Man’s Life,’ from which I have quoted before, he had said, ‘If
thou intend to marry, or be married, and hast a good wife, thank our Lord
therefor, for she is of his sending.’ So now he intrusted his school to
‘married citizens;’ and Erasmus adds, ‘when he was asked the reason, he
said, that nothing indeed is certain in human affairs, but that yet
amongst _these_ he had found the least corruption.[726]... He used to
declare that he had nowhere found less corrupt morals than among married
people, because natural affection, the care of their children, and
domestic duties, are like so many rails which keep them from sliding into
all kinds of vice.’[727]
In defining the duties and salaries of the masters of his school, he
provided expressly that they might be married men (and those chosen by him
actually were so);[728] but they were to hold their office ‘in no rome of
continuance and perpetuity, but upon their duty in the school.’ The
chaplain was to be ‘some good, honest, and virtuous man, and to help to
teach in the school.’
Respecting the children he expressed his desire to be that they should not
be received into the school until they could read and write fairly, and
explained ‘what they shall be taught’ in general terms; ‘for,’ said he,
‘it passeth my wit to devise and determine in particular.’
Then, last of all, he added the following clause, headed, ‘Liberty to
Declare the Statutes:’--
[Sidenote: Colet wisely gives power to alter the statutes.]
‘And notwithstanding these statutes and ordinances before written, in
which I have declared my mind and will; yet because in time to come many
things may and shall survive and grow by many occasions and causes which
at the making of this book was not possible to come to mind; in
consideration of the assured truth and circumspect wisdom and faithful
goodness of the most honest and substantial fellowship of the Mercery of
London, to whom I have committed all the care of the school, and trusting
in their fidelity and love that they have to God and man and to the
school; and also believing verily that they shall always dread the great
wrath of God:--_Both all this that is said, and all that is not said,
which hereafter shall come into my mind while I live to be said, I leave
it wholly to their discretion and charity_: I mean of the wardens and
assistances of the fellowship, with such other counsel as they shall call
unto them--good lettered and learned men--_they to add and diminish of
this book and to supply it in every default_; and also to declare in it
every obscurity and darkness as time and place and just occasion shall
require; calling the dreadful God to look upon them in all such business,
and exhorting them to fear the terrible judgment of God, which seeth in
darkness, and shall render to every man according to his works; and
finally, praying the great Lord of mercy, for their faithful dealing in
this matter, now and always to send unto them in this world much wealth
and prosperity, and after this life much joy and glory.’[729]
This done, he wrote in the Book of Statutes the following
memorandum:--‘This book I, John Colet, delivered into the hands of Master
Lilly the 18th day of June 1518, that he may keep it and observe it in the
school.’[730]
[Sidenote: Colet prepares his tomb at St. Paul’s.]
Having completed the statutes of his school, Colet turned his attention to
a few other final arrangements, including certain reforms in the church of
St. Paul’s.[731] He had already prepared a simple tomb for himself at the
side of the choir of the great cathedral with which his labours had been
so closely connected, and the simple inscription, ‘Johannes Coletus,’ was
already carved on the plain monumental stone which was to cover his grave.
Thus he was ready to depart whenever the summons should arrive. But the
pale messenger came not yet.
Meanwhile Colet retained his interest in passing events. If he seemed to
take little part in public affairs, it was not owing to his want of
interest in them. It would almost seem that he sympathised much during
this quiet season with Luther’s attack upon Indulgences, and was a reader
of those of his works--chiefly pamphlets--which had reached England. This,
however, rests only upon the remark of Erasmus, that he was in the habit
of reading heretical books, declaring that he often got more good from
them than from the Schoolmen;[732] and the further statement made
incidentally by Erasmus to Luther, that there were in England some men in
the highest position who thought well of his works.[733] His close
retirement may be accounted for as well by his shattered health as by the
circumstance that Bishop Fitzjames still lived in his grey hairs to harass
him.
It was probably to secure a safe retreat in emergency beyond the
jurisdiction of this bigoted bishop that Colet was building his ‘nest,’ as
he called it, within the precincts of the Charterhouse--not in London, but
at Sheen, near Richmond. Whether he ever really entered this ‘nest,’ so
long in course of preparation, does not appear. Perhaps there was no need
for it.
[Sidenote: Colet receives a letter from Marquard von Hatstein.]
Little as of late he had mixed himself up with public affairs, he was
still looked up to by those who, through the report of Erasmus, recognised
his almost apostolic piety and wisdom. Thus, in his quiet retirement, he
received a letter from Marquard von Hatstein, one of the canons of Maintz,
a connection of Ulrich von Hutten’s,[734] mentioned by Erasmus as ‘a most
excellent young man;’[735] one of the little group of men who, under the
lead of the Archbishop of Maintz, had boldly taken the side of Reuchlin
against his persecutors--a letter which shows so true an appreciation of
Colet’s character and relation to the movement which was now known as
‘Erasmian,’ that it must have been exceedingly grateful to the feelings of
Colet, now that he had set his house in order, and was ready to leave in
other hands the work which he himself had commenced.
_Marquard von Hatstein to John Colet._[736]
‘I have often thought with admiration of _your_ blessedness, who born
to wealth and of so illustrious a family have added to these gifts of
fortune manners and intellectual culture abundantly corresponding
therewith. For such is your learning, piety, and manner of life, such
lastly your Christian constancy, that notwithstanding all these gifts
of fortune, you seem to care for little but that you may run in the
path of Christ in so noble a spirit, that you are not surpassed by any
even of those who call themselves “mendicants.” For they in many
things simulate and dissimulate for the sake of sensual pleasures.
‘When recently the trumpet of cruel war sounded so terribly, how did
you hold up against it the image of Christ! the olive-branch of peace!
You exhorted us to tolerance, to concord, to the yielding up of our
goods for the good of a brother, instead of invading one another’s
rights. You told us that there was no cause of war between Christians,
who are bound together by holy ties in a love more than fraternal. And
many other things of a like nature did you urge, with so great
authority, that I may truly say that the virtue of Christ thus set
forth by Colet was seen from afar. And thus did you discomfit the dark
designs of your enemies. Men raging against the truth, you conquered
with the mildness of an apostle. You opposed your gentleness to their
insane violence. Through your innocence you escaped from any harm,
even though by their numbers (for there is always the most abundant
crop of what is bad) they were able to override your better opinion.
With a skill like that with which Homer published the praises of
Achilles, Erasmus has studiously held up to the admiration of the
world and of posterity the name of England, and especially of Colet,
whom he has so described that there is not a good man of any nation
who does not honour you. I seem to myself to see that each of you owes
much to the other, but which of the two owes most to the other I am
doubtful. For he must have received good from you: seeing that you are
hardly likely to have been magnified by his colouring pen. You,
however, if I may freely say what I think, do seem to owe some thanks
to him for making publicly known those virtues which before were
unknown to us. Still I fancy you are not the less victor in the matter
of benefits conferred, since you have blessed Erasmus, a stranger to
England, otherwise an incomparable man, with so many
friends--Mountjoy, More, Linacre, Tunstal, &c....
‘Having commenced my theological studies, I have learned from the
conversation and writings of Erasmus to regard you as my exemplar. I
wish I could really follow you as closely as I long to do. I long, not
only to improve myself in letters, but to lead a holier life. Farewell
in Christ. VI. Cal. Maii, Anno MDXX.’ (should be probably 1519).[737]
IV. MORE’S CONVERSION ATTEMPTED BY THE MONKS (1519).
Erasmus was as much hated by the monks in England as by the monks at
Cologne; but they found their attempts to stir up ill-feeling against him
checkmated by the influence of More and his friends.
More’s father was known to be a good Catholic, and probably to belong, as
an old man with conservative tendencies was likely to do, to the orthodox
party. He himself was now too near the royal ear to be a harmless adherent
of the new learning--as they had learned to their cost before now. He was
so popular, too, with all parties! If only he could be detached from
Erasmus and brought over to their own side, what a triumph it would be!
[Sidenote: More receives a letter from a monk.]
So an anonymous letter was written by a monk to More, expressing great
solicitude for his welfare, and fears lest he should be corrupted by too
great intimacy with Erasmus; lest he should be led astray, by too great
love of his writings, into the adoption of his new and foreign doctrines!
The good monk was particularly shocked at the hints thrown out by Erasmus
in his writings, that, after all, the holy doctors and fathers of the
Church were fallible.
He took up the vulgar objections which the letter of Dorpius, and a still
more recent attack upon Erasmus, by an Englishman named Edward Lee, had
put into every one’s mouth, and tried to persuade More to be wise in time,
lest he should become infected with the Erasmian poison.
More’s letter in reply to the over-anxious monk has been preserved.[738]
[Sidenote: His reply.]
He indignantly repelled the insinuation that he was in danger of
contamination from his intimacy with Erasmus, whose New Testament the very
Pope had sanctioned, who lived in the nearest intimacy with such men as
Colet, Fisher, and Warham; to say nothing of Mountjoy, Tunstal, Pace, and
Grocyn. Those who knew Erasmus best, loved him most.
Then turning to the charge made against Erasmus, that he denied the
infallibility of the fathers, More wrote:--
[Sidenote: Alludes to Luther’s clinging by tooth and nail to Augustine.]
‘Do _you_ deny that they ever made mistakes? I put it to you--when
Augustine thought that Jerome had mistranslated a passage, and Jerome
defended what he had done, was not _one of the two_ mistaken? When
Augustine asserted that the Septuagint is to be taken as an indubitably
faithful translation, and Jerome denied it, and asserted that its
translators had fallen into errors, was not one of the two mistaken? When
Augustine, in support of his view, adduced the story of the wonderful
agreement of the different translations produced by the inspired
translators writing in separate cells, and Jerome laughed at the story as
absurd, was not one of the two mistaken? When Jerome, writing on the
Epistle to the Galatians, translated its meaning to be that, Peter was
blamed by Paul for dissimulating, and Augustine denied it, was not one of
them mistaken?... Augustine asserts that demons and angels also have
material and substantial bodies. I doubt not that even _you_ deny this! He
asserts that infants dying without baptism are consigned to physical
torments in eternal punishment--how many are there who believe this now?
unless it be that Luther, _clinging by tooth and nail to the doctrine of
Augustine_, should be induced to revive this antiquated notion....’[739]
I have quoted this passage from More’s letter because it shows clearly,
not only how fully More had adopted the position taken up by Erasmus, but
also how fully his eyes were open to the fact, that the rising reformer of
Wittemberg did ‘_cling by tooth and nail to the doctrine of Augustine_,’
and was likely, by doing so, to be led astray into some of the harsh
views, and, as he thought, obvious errors of that Holy Father.
[Sidenote: But his own view not Pelagian.]
At the same time the following passage may be quoted as proof that, in
rejecting the Augustinian creed, More and his friends did not run into the
other extreme of Pelagianism.
He had told the monk at the beginning of his letter, that after he had
shown how safe was the ground upon which Erasmus and he were walking in
the valley, he would turn round and assail the lofty but tottering
citadel, from which the monk looked down upon them with so proud a sense
of security. So after he had disposed of the monk’s arguments, he began:--
‘Into what factions--into how many sects is the order cut up! Then, what
tumults, what tragedies arise about little differences in the colour or
mode of girding the monastic habit, or some matter of ceremony which, if
not altogether despicable, is at all events not so important as to
warrant the banishment of all charity. How many, too, are there (and this
is surely worst of all) who, relying on the assurances of their monastic
profession, inwardly raise their crests so high that they seem to
themselves to move in the heavens, and reclining among the solar rays, to
look down from on high upon the people creeping on the ground like ants,
looking down thus, not only on the ungodly, but also upon all who are
without the circle of the enclosure of their order, so that for the most
part nothing is holy but what they do themselves.... They make more of
things which appertain specially to the religious order, than of those
valueless and very humble things which are in no way peculiar to them but
entirely common to all Christian people, such as the vulgar
virtues--faith, hope, charity, the fear of God, humility, and others of
the kind. Nor, indeed, is this a new thing. Nay, it is what Christ long
ago denounced to his chosen people, “Ye make the word of God of none
effect through your traditions.”...
‘There are multitudes enough who would be afraid that the devil would come
upon them and take them alive to hell, if, forsooth, they were to set
aside their usual garb, whom nothing can move when they are grasping at
_money_.
[Sidenote: More relates an anecdote.]
‘Are there only a few, think you, who would deem it a crime to be expiated
with many tears, if they were to omit a line in their hourly prayers, and
yet have no fearful scruple at all, when they profane themselves by the
worst and most infamous lies?... Indeed, I once knew a man devoted to the
religious life--one of that class who would nowadays be thought “most
religious.” This man, by no means a novice, but one who had passed many
years in what they call regular observances, and had advanced so far in
them that he was even set over a convent--but, nevertheless, more careless
of the precepts of God than of monastic rites--slid down from one crime to
another, till at length he went so far as to meditate the most atrocious
of all crimes--a crime execrable beyond belief--and what is more, not a
simple crime, but one pregnant with manifold guilt, for he even purposed
to add sacrilege to murders and parricide. When this man thought himself
insufficient without accomplices for the perpetration of so many crimes,
he associated with himself some ruffians and cutpurses. They committed the
most horrible crimes which I ever heard of. They were all of them thrown
together into prison. I do not wish to give the details, and I abstain
from the names of the criminals, lest I should renew anything of past
hatred to an innocent order.
‘But to proceed to narrate the circumstances on account of which I have
mentioned this affair. I heard from those wicked assassins that, when they
came to that religious man in his chamber, they had not spoken of the
crime; but being introduced into his private chapel, they appeased the
sacred Virgin by a salutation on their bent knees according to custom.
_This being properly accomplished, they at length rose purely and piously
to perpetrate their crime!_...
‘Now, I have not mentioned this with the view either to defame the
religion of the monks with these crimes, since the same soil may bring
forth useful herbs and pestiferous weeds, or to condemn the rites of those
who occasionally salute the sacred Virgin, than which nothing is more
beneficial; but because people trust so much in such things that under the
very security which they thus feel they give themselves up to crime.
‘From reflections such as these you may learn the lesson which the
occasion suggests. That you should not grow too proud of your own
sect--nothing could be more fatal. Nor trust in private observances. That
you should _place your hopes rather in the Christian faith than in your
own_; and not trust in those things which you can do _for yourself_, but
in those which you cannot do _without God’s help_. You can fast by
yourself, you can keep vigils by yourself, you can say prayers by
yourself--and you can do these things by the devil! But, verily, Christian
faith, which Christ Jesus truly said to be in spirit; Christian hope,
which, despairing of its own merits, confides only in the mercy of God;
Christian charity, which is not puffed up, is not made angry, does not
seek its own glory,--none, indeed, can attain these except by the grace
and gracious help of God alone.
‘By how much the more you place your trust in those virtues which are
common to Christendom, by so much the less will you have faith in private
ceremonies, whether those of your order or your own; and by how much the
less you trust in them by so much the more will they be useful. For then
at last God will esteem you a faithful servant, when you shall count
yourself good for nothing.’
That these passages prove that More and his friends had not set aside
monasticism, or even Mariolatry, as altogether wrong, cannot be too
clearly recognised. In an age of transition it is the _direction_ of the
thoughts and aims of men which constitutes the radical difference or
agreement between them, rather than the exact distance that each may have
travelled on the same road. Luther himself had not yet in his hatred of
ceremonies travelled so far as the Oxford Reformers, though in after years
he went farther, because he travelled faster than they did. Upon these
questions they were very much practically at one. And if here and there
the three friends observed in Luther an impetuosity which carried him into
extremes, much as they might differ from some of his statements, and the
tone he sometimes adopted, their respect for his moral earnestness, and
their perception of the amount of exasperation to which his hot nature was
exposed, made them readily pardon what they could not approve. They had as
yet little idea--though More’s letter showed that they had _some_--much
less than Luther himself had--how practically important was the difference
between them. For the moment their two orbits seemed almost to coincide.
They seemed even to be approaching each other. They seemed to meet in
their common hatred of the formalism of the monks, in their common attempt
to grasp at the spirit--the reality--of religion through its forms and
shadows. They had little idea that they were crossing each other’s path,
and that ere long, as each pursued his course, the divergence would become
wider and wider.
V. ERASMUS AND THE REFORMERS OF WITTEMBERG (1519).
[Sidenote: Luther protected by the Elector of Saxony.]
In the summer of 1518 Melanchthon had joined Luther at Wittemberg. During
the remainder of that year the controversy on Indulgences was going on.
Rome had taken the matter up. Luther had appeared before the Papal legate
Cajetan, and from his harsh demand of simple recantation, had shrunk with
horror and fled back into Saxony. The legate had threatened that Rome
would never let the matter drop, and urged the Elector of Saxony to send
Luther to Rome. But he had made common cause with the poor monk, and
refused to banish him. Leo X. was afraid to quarrel with Frederic of
Saxony, and under the auspices of Miltitz, aided by the moderation of
Luther and the firmness of his protector, a little oil was thrown on the
troubled waters. But in the spring of 1519, when the Papal tenths came to
be exacted, murmurs were heard again on all sides. Hutten commenced his
series of satirical pamphlets, and it became evident that the storm was
not permanently laid, the lull might last for a while, but fresh tempests
were ahead.[740]
It was during this interval of uncertainty that the first intercourse took
place between Erasmus and the Wittemberg Reformers.
[Sidenote: Melanchthon’s opinion of Erasmus.]
Letters had already passed between Melanchthon and Erasmus; they had been
known to one another by name for some years, and were on the best of
terms. Thus Melanchthon, in writing to a friend of his in January 1519,
spoke of Erasmus as ‘the first to call back theology to her
fountain-head,’[741] and of Luther as belonging to the same school. He
freely admitted how much greater was the learning of Erasmus than that of
Luther, and when in March he received from Froben a copy of the ‘Method of
True Theology,’ told Spalatin that ‘this illustrious man seemed to have
touched upon many points in the same strain as Luther, for in these
things,’ he said, ‘they agreed;’ adding, that Erasmus was ‘freer than
Luther, because he had the assistance of real and sacred learning;’ and he
mentioned this as an illustration of what he had just been saying, ‘that
every good man thought well of their cause.’[742]
[Sidenote: Erasmus’s opinion of Melanchthon.]
Erasmus, on his side, also spoke in the highest possible terms of
Melanchthon. He had great hopes from his youth that he might long survive
himself, and if he did, he predicted that his name would throw that of
Erasmus into the shade.[743]
Whilst, however, Erasmus thus freely acknowledged the friendship and
merits of Melanchthon, he was careful not to commit himself to an approval
of all that Luther was doing. And surely it was wise; for that his strong
Augustinian tendencies were well known to the Oxford Reformers, has
already been seen in More’s letter to the anonymous monk.
[Sidenote: What he says of Luther to Melanchthon.]
On April 2, 1519, in reply to a letter from Melanchthon[744] mentioning
Luther’s desire of his approval, Erasmus wrote, that ‘while every one of
his friends honoured Luther’s private life, _as to his doctrine there were
different opinions_. He himself had not read Luther’s books. Luther had
censured some things deservedly, but he wished that he had done so as
happily as he had freely.’ At the end of this letter he expressed his
affectionate anxiety lest Melanchthon should be wearing himself out by too
hard study.[745]
[Sidenote: Luther writes to Erasmus.]
On March 28, Luther had written a letter to Erasmus, which probably
crossed this on the way between Wittemberg and Louvain. It was a letter in
which he had not made the slightest allusion to any difference of opinion
between himself and Erasmus. On the contrary, he had spoken as though he
held Erasmus in the greatest possible honour. He had spoken of his having
a place, and ‘reigning’ in the hearts of all who really loved literature.
He had been reading the new preface to the ‘Enchiridion,’ and from it and
from his friend Fabricius Capito he had learned that Erasmus had not only
heard but approved of what he had done respecting indulgences. And with
much genuine humility he had begged Erasmus to acknowledge him, however
ignorant and unknown to fame, buried as it were in his cell, _as a brother
in Christ_, by whom he himself was held in the greatest affection and
regard.[746]
[Sidenote: Erasmus replies to Luther.]
To this Erasmus, on May 30, replied, in a letter in which he _did_ address
Luther as a ‘brother in Christ.’ He said he had not yet read the books
which had created so much clamour, and therefore could not judge of them.
He had looked into his Commentaries on the Psalms, was much pleased with
them, and hoped they would prove useful. Some of the best men in England,
even some at Louvain, thought well of him and his writings. As to himself,
he devoted himself, as he had done all along, to the revival of good
literature [including first and foremost the Scriptures]. And it seemed to
him, he said, that more good would come of courteous modesty than of
impetuosity. It was by this that Christ drew the world under his
influence. It was thus that Paul abrogated that Judaical law, treating it
all as typical. It were better to exclaim against _abuses_ of pontifical
authority than against the Popes themselves. ‘May the Lord Jesus daily
impart to you abundantly’ (he concluded) ‘of his own Spirit to his own
glory and the public good.’[747]
Thus he seems to have said the same things to both Melanchthon and Luther.
In the same strain, also, he wrote to others _about_ them.
[Sidenote: What Erasmus says about Luther to others.]
To the exasperated monks, who charged him with aiding and abetting Luther
in writing the books which had caused such a tumult, he replied that, as
he had not read them, he could not even express a decided opinion upon
them.[748]
To Cardinal Wolsey he wrote, that he had only read a few pages of Luther’s
books, not because he disliked them, but because he was so closely
occupied with his own. Luther’s life was such that even his enemies could
not find anything to slander. Germany had young men of learning and
eloquence who would, he foretold, bring her great glory. Eobanus, Hutten,
and Beatus Rhenanus were the only ones he knew personally. If these German
students were too free in their criticisms, it should be remembered to
what constant exasperation they had been submitted in all manner of ways,
both public and private.[749]
To Hutten, who was perhaps the most hot-headed of these German young men,
and whose satire had already proved itself more trenchant and bitter than
any in which Erasmus had ever indulged, he urged moderation, and said
that for himself he had rather spend a month in trying to explain St. Paul
or the Gospels than waste a day in quarrelling.[750]
[Sidenote: Erasmus is writing his ‘Paraphrases.’]
Erasmus was, in fact, working hard at his ‘Paraphrases.’ That on the
Epistle to the Romans had been already printed in 1517, in the very best
type of Thierry Martins, and forming a small and very readable octavo
volume. Those on the next seven epistles[751] now followed in quick
succession in the spring of 1519. How fully the heart of Erasmus was in
his work is incidentally shown by the fact that, being obliged to write a
pamphlet in defence of a former publication of his, he cut it short by
saying that he had rather be working at the Paraphrase on the ‘Galatians,’
which he was just completing.[752] And Erasmus was preparing, in addition
to these Paraphrases on the Epistles, others, at Colet’s desire, more
lengthy, on the Gospels. Here was work enough surely on hand to excuse him
from entering into the Lutheran controversy--work precisely of that kind,
moreover, which he had told Luther that he was devoting himself to. It was
the work which, when he was longing for rest, and his zeal for the moment
was threatening to flag, Colet had urged him to go on with through good
and evil fortune; and which he himself, in his letter to Servatius, had
said he was determined to work at to the day of his death. It is clear
that he was in earnest when he told Hutten that he ‘had rather spend a
month in expounding St. Paul than waste a day in quarrelling.’
It seems to me, therefore, that the attitude of Erasmus towards Luther
was that, not of a coward, but of a man who knew what he was about.
VI. ELECTION OF CHARLES V. TO THE EMPIRE (1519).
On January 12, 1519, Maximilian had died. It is not within the scope of
this history to trace the steps and countersteps, the plots and
counterplots, the bribery and treachery--the Machiavellian means and
devices--in which nearly every sovereign in Europe was implicated, to the
detriment of both conscience and exchequer, and which ended in placing
Charles V., then absent in Spain, at the head of the German empire. With
the accession of the new emperor commenced a new political era, which
belongs to the history of the Protestant Reformation, and not to that of
the Oxford Reformers.
Erasmus was too hard at work at his Paraphrases to admit of his meddling
in politics, even though he himself had an honorary connection with the
court of the prince who was the successful candidate, and had written his
‘_Christian Prince_’ expressly for his benefit.
Colet was living in retirement, suffering from shattered health, too
closely watched by the restless eye of his bishop to take any part in
public affairs.[753]
Even More, though now a constant attendant upon Henry VIII., was probably
not initiated into continental secrets, and even had he shared all the
counsels of Wolsey, any part which he might play would be purely
executive, and belong rather to the history of his own political career
than to that of the fellow-work of the three friends. He probably had
little or nothing really to do with Wolsey’s plottings to secure the
empire for his master, in order that he might, on the death of Leo X.,
secure the Papal chair for himself. But there was one circumstance
connected with the election of the Emperor of too much significance to be
passed over in this history without distinct mention--the part which Duke
Frederic of Saxony played in it; and this shall simply be alluded to in
the words of Erasmus himself.
[Sidenote: Noble conduct of the Elector of Saxony.]
‘The Duke Frederic of Saxony has written twice to me in reply to my
letter. Luther is supported solely by his protection. He says that he has
acted thus for the sake rather of the _cause_ than of the person [of
Luther]. He adds that he will not lend himself to the oppression of
innocence in his dominions by the malice of those who seek their own, and
not the things of Christ.’ And Erasmus goes on to say, that ‘when the
imperial crown was offered to Frederic of Saxony by all [the electors],
with great magnanimity he had refused it, the very day before Charles was
elected. And’ (he writes) ‘Charles never would have worn the imperial
title had it not been declined by Frederic, whose glory in refusing the
honour was greater than if he had accepted it. When he was asked who he
thought should be elected, he said that no one seemed to him able to bear
the weight of so great a name but Charles. In the same noble spirit he
firmly refused the 30,000 florins offered him by our people [_i.e._ the
agents of Charles]. When he was urged that at least he would allow 10,000
florins to be given to his servants, “They may take them” (he said) “if
they like, but no one shall remain my servant another day who accepts a
single piece of gold.”’ ‘The next day’ (continues Erasmus) ‘he took horse
and departed, lest they should continue to bother him. This was related to
me as entirely reliable, by the Bishop of Liege, who was present at the
Imperial Diet.’[754]
Well did the conduct of the Elector of Saxony merit the admiration of
Erasmus. Would that Charles V. had merited as fully the patronage of the
wise Elector!
It was a significant fact that, after all the bribery and wholesale
corruption by which this election was marked, the only prince who in the
event had a chance of success, other than Charles, was the one man who was
superior to corruption, and would not allow even his servants to be
bribed, who did not covet the imperial dignity for himself, but firmly
refused it when offered to him--the protector of Luther against the Pope
and the empire--the hope and strength of the Protestant Revolution which
was now so rapidly approaching.
VII. THE HUSSITES OF BOHEMIA (1519).
While the election of the Emperor was proceeding the famous disputation at
Leipzig took place, which commenced between Carlstadt and Eck, upon the
question of grace and free-will, and was continued between Eck and Luther
on the primacy of the Pope--that remarkable occasion on which, after
pressing Eck into a declaration that all the Greek and other Christians
who did not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope, were heretics and lost,
Luther himself was finally driven to assert, probably as much to his own
surprise as to that of his auditors, ‘that among the articles on which
the Council of Constance grounded its condemnation of John Huss, were some
fundamentally Christian and evangelical.’
[Sidenote: Luther finds he is a Hussite.]
Well might Duke George mutter in astonishment ‘_a plague upon it_.’ A few
months later Luther himself, after pondering the matter over and over with
his New Testament and Melanchthon, was obliged to exclaim, ‘I taught
Huss’s opinions without knowing them, and so did Staupitz: we are all of
us Hussites without knowing it! Paul and _Augustine_ are Hussites! I do
not know what to think for amazement.’[755]
[Sidenote: Letter from Schlechta to Erasmus.]
[Sidenote: The Pyghards of Bohemia.]
Meanwhile, before Luther had come to the conclusion _that he himself_,
with St. Augustine, was a _Hussite_, Erasmus had been in correspondence
with Johannes Schlechta, a Bohemian,[756] on the religious dissensions
which existed in Bohemia and Moravia, and with special reference to the
_Hussite_ sect of the ‘_Pyghards_,’ or United Brethren.[757] Schlechta had
informed Erasmus that, setting aside Jews and unbelieving philosophers
who denied the immortality of the soul, the people were divided into three
sects:--First, the Papal party, including most of the magistrates and
nobility. Secondly, a party to which he himself belonged, who acknowledged
the Papacy, but differed from other good Catholics in dispensing the
Sacrament in both kinds to the laity, and in chanting the Epistle and
Gospel at mass, not in Latin, but in the vulgar tongue; to which customs
they most pertinaciously adhered, on the ground that they were confirmed
and approved in the Council of Basle (1431).[758] Thirdly, the sect of the
‘Pyghards’ [or ‘United Brethren’], who since the times of John Zisca[759]
had maintained their ground through much bloodshed and violence. These, he
said, regarded the Pope and clergy as manifest ‘Anti-christs;’ the Pope
himself sometimes as the ‘Beast,’ and sometimes as the ‘Harlot’ of the
Apocalypse. They chose rude and ignorant and even married laymen as their
priests and bishops. They called each other ‘brothers and sisters.’ They
acknowledged no writings as of authority but the Old and New Testaments.
Fathers and Schoolmen they counted nothing by. Their priests used no
vestments, and no forms of prayer but ‘the Lord’s Prayer.’ They thought
lightly of the sacraments; used no salt or holy water--only pure
water--in baptism, and rejected extreme unction. They saw only simple
bread and wine, no divinity, in the Sacrament of the Altar, and regarded
these only as signs representing and commemorative of the death of Christ,
who they said was in heaven. The suffrages of the saints and prayers for
the dead they held to be vain and absurd, and also auricular confession
and penance. Vigils and fasts they looked upon as hypocritical. The
festivals of the Virgin, Apostles, and Saints, they said, were invented by
the idle; Sunday, Christmas, Good Friday, and Pentecost they observed.
Other pernicious dogmas of theirs were not worthy of mention to Erasmus.
If, however (his Bohemian friend added), the first two of these three
sects could but be united, then perhaps this vicious sect, now much on the
increase, owing to recent ecclesiastical scandals, might, by the aid of
the King, be either _exterminated_ or forced into a better form of creed
and religion. Erasmus, he concluded, had now the whole circumstances of
these Bohemian divisions before him.[760]
Here, then, Erasmus was brought into direct contact with the opinions of
the very sect to which Luther was gradually approaching, but had not yet
discovered his proximity.
The reply of Erasmus may be regarded, therefore, as evidence of his views,
not only on the opinions and practices of the Hussites of Bohemia, but
also as foreshadowing what would be his views with regard to the opinions
and practices of Luther and the Protestant Reformers so soon as they
should publicly profess themselves Hussites.
[Sidenote: Reply of Erasmus.]
‘You point out,’ (Erasmus wrote) ‘that Bohemia and Moravia are divided up
into three sects. I wish, my dear Schlechta, that some pious hand could
unite the three into one!’
The second party (Erasmus said) erred, in his opinion, more in scornfully
rejecting the judgment and custom of the Roman Church than in thinking it
right to take the Eucharist in both kinds, which was not an unreasonable
practice in itself, though it might be better to avoid singularity on such
a point. As to the ‘Pyghards,’ he did not see why it followed that the
Pope was Antichrist, because there had been some bad popes, or that the
Roman Church was the ‘harlot,’ because she had often had wicked cardinals
or bishops. Still, however bad the ‘Pyghards’ might be, he would not
advise a resort to violence. It would be a dangerous precedent. As to
their electing their own priests and bishops, that was not opposed to
primitive practice. St. Nicholas and St. Ambrose were thus elected, and in
ancient times even kings were elected by the people. If they were in the
habit of electing ignorant and unlearned men, that did not matter much, if
only their _holy life_ outweighed their ignorance. He did not see why they
were to be blamed for calling one another ‘brothers and sisters.’ He
wished the practice could obtain amongst all Christians, if only the fact
were consistent with the words. In thinking less highly of the Doctors
than of the Scriptures--that is, in preferring God to man--they were in
the right; but altogether to reject them was as bad as altogether to
accept them. Christ and the Apostles officiated in their everyday dress;
but it is impious to condemn what was instituted, not without good reason,
by the fathers. Vigils and fasts, in moderation, he did not see why they
rejected, seeing that they were commended by the Apostles; but he had
rather that men were _exhorted_ than _compelled_ to observe them. Their
views about festivals were not very different from Jerome’s. Nowadays the
number of festivals had become enormous, and on no days were more crimes
committed. Moreover, the labourer was robbed by so many festivals of his
regular earnings.
As to the cure for these diseases of Bohemia: he desired _unity_, and
expressed his views how unity could be best attained.
[Sidenote: Erasmus thinks the Church should be broad and tolerant.]
‘In my opinion’ (he wrote) ‘many might be reconciled to the Church of Rome
if, instead of everything being defined, we were contented with what is
evidently set forth in the Scriptures or necessary to salvation. And these
things are _few_ in number, and the _fewer_ the easier for _many_ to
accept. Nowadays out of one article we make six hundred, some of which are
such that men might be ignorant of them or doubt them without injury to
piety. It is in human nature to cling by tooth and nail to what has once
been defined. The sum of the philosophy of Christ’ (he continued) ‘lies in
this--that we should know that all our hope is placed in God, who freely
gives us all things through his son Jesus; that by his death we are
redeemed; that we are united to his body in baptism in order that, dead to
the desires of the world, we may so follow his teaching and example as not
only not to admit of evil, but also to deserve well of all; that if
adversity comes upon us we should bear it in the hope of the future reward
which is in store for all good men at the advent of Christ. Thus we should
always be progressing from virtue to virtue, and whilst assuming nothing
to ourselves, ascribe all that is good to God. If there should be anyone
who would inquire into the Divine nature, or the nature (_hypostasis_) of
Christ, or abstruse points about the sacraments, let him do so; only let
him not try to force his views upon others. In the same way as very
verbose instruments lead to controversies, so too many definitions lead to
differences. Nor should we be ashamed to reply on some questions: “God
knows how this should be so, it is enough for me to believe that it is.” I
know that the pure blood and body of Christ are to be taken purely by the
pure, and that he wished it to be a most sacred sign and pledge both of
his love to us and of the fellowship of Christians amongst themselves. Let
me, therefore, examine myself whether there be anything in me inconsistent
with Christ, whether there be any difference between me and my neighbour.
As to the rest, _how_ the same body can exist in so small a form and in so
many places at once, in my opinion such questions can hardly tend to the
increase of piety. I know that I shall rise again, for this was promised
to all by Christ, who was the first who rose from the dead. As to the
questions, with what body, and how it can be the same after having gone
through so many changes, though I do not disapprove of these things being
inquired into in moderation on suitable occasions, yet it conduces very
little to piety to spend too much labour upon them. Nowadays men’s minds
are diverted, by these and other innumerable subtleties, from things of
vital importance. Lastly it would tend greatly to the establishment of
concord, if secular princes, and especially the Roman Pontiff, would
abstain from all tyranny and avarice. For men easily revolt when they see
preparations for enslaving them, when they see that they are not to be
invited to piety but caught for plunder. If they saw that we were innocent
and desirous to do them good, they would very readily accept our
faith.’[761]
It will be seen that the point of this letter turns not _directly_ upon
the difference which Luther had discerned between himself and Erasmus
(viz. that the one rejected and the other accepted the doctrinal system of
St. Augustine), but rather upon questions involving the duty and object of
‘_the Church_.’ From More’s delineation of the Church of Utopia, it has
been seen that the notion of the Oxford Reformers was that the Church was
intended to be broad and tolerant, not to define doctrine and enforce
dogmas, but to afford a practical bond of union whereby Christians might
be kept united in one Christian brotherhood, in spite of their differences
in minor matters of creed. In full accordance with this view, Erasmus had
blamed Schlechta and his party, in this letter, not for holding their
peculiar views respecting the ‘Supper,’ but for making them a ground for
separation from their fellow-Christians. So also he blamed Schlechta
(himself a dissenter from Rome) for his harsh feelings towards the
‘Pyghards’ and his wish ‘to exterminate’ them. So, too, whilst
sympathising strongly with the poor ‘Pyghards’ in many of the points in
which they differed from the Church of Rome, he blamed them for jumping to
the conclusion that the Church was ‘Antichrist,’ and for flying into
extremes. So, too, he blamed the Church herself, as he always had blamed
her, for so narrowing her boundaries as to shut out these
ultra-dissenters of Bohemia from her communion.
Now it is obvious that at the foundation of the position here assumed by
Erasmus, and elsewhere by the Oxford Reformers, lay the conviction that
many points of doctrine were in their nature uncertain and unsettled--that
many attempted definitions of doctrine, on such subjects as those involved
in the Athanasian Creed, in the Augustinian system, and in scholastic
additions to it, were, after all, and in spite of all the ecclesiastical
authority in the world, just as unsettled and uncertain as ever; in fact,
mere hypotheses, which in their nature never _can_ be verified.
[Sidenote: The point at issue between the Oxford Reformers and those who
held by the Augustinian system.]
Here again, therefore, was _indirectly_ involved the point at issue
between Erasmus and Luther; between the Oxford and the Wittemberg
Reformers. For the latter in accepting the Augustinian system still
adhered, in spirit, to the scholastic or dogmatic system of theology. To
treat questions such as those above mentioned as open and unsettled seemed
to them to be playing the part of the sceptic. Luther was honestly and
naturally shocked when he found Erasmus hinting that the doctrine of
‘original sin’ was in some measure analogous to the epicycles of the
astrologer. He was equally shocked again when Erasmus, a few years after,
treated the question of the Freedom of the Will as one insoluble in its
nature, involving the old philosophical questions between free-will and
fate.[762] And why was he shocked? Because the Augustinian system which
he had adopted, treated these questions as finally concluded. And how were
they concluded? By the judgment of the church based upon a verbally
inspired and infallible Bible.
Luther did not indeed assert so strongly the verbal inspiration of the
Bible, much less of the Vulgate version, as Dr. Eck and other Augustinian
theologians had done; yet his standing-point obliged him practically to
assume the truth of this doctrine, as it obliged his successors more and
more strongly to assert it as the years rolled on. And so, whilst
rejecting, even more thoroughly than Erasmus ever did, the ecclesiastical
authority of the Church of Rome, yet it is curious to observe that, in
doing so, Luther did not reject the notion of ecclesiastical authority in
itself, but rather, amidst many inconsistencies, set up the authority of
what he considered to be the _true_ church against that of the church
which he regarded as the _false_ one. As a consistent Augustinian he was
driven to assume, in replying to the Wittemberg prophets on the one hand
and the scepticism of Erasmus on the other, that there is a true church
somewhere, and that somewhere in the true church there is an authority
capable of establishing theological hypotheses. He was not willing that
the Scriptures should be left simply to the private judgment of each
individual for himself. He even allowed himself to claim for the public
ministers of his own church--‘the leaders of the people and the preachers
of the word’--authority ‘not only for themselves but also for others, and
for the salvation of others, to judge with the greatest certainty the
spirit and dogmas of all men.’[763]
Not that Luther always consistently upheld this doctrine any more than
Erasmus consistently upheld its opposite. Luther was often to be found
asserting and using the right of private judgment against the authority of
Rome, as Erasmus was often found upholding the authority of the Catholic
Church and her authorised councils against the rival authority of Luther’s
schismatic and unauthorised church. In times of transition, men _are_
inconsistent; and regard must be had rather to the direction in which they
are moving than the precise point to which at any particular moment they
may have attained. And what I wish to impress upon the reader is
this--that not only Luther, but all other Reformers, from Wickliffe down
to the modern Evangelicals, who have adopted the Augustinian system and
founded their reform upon it, have practically assumed as the basis of
their theology, first, the plenary inspiration of each text contained in
the Scriptures; and, secondly, the existence of an ecclesiastical
authority of some kind capable of establishing theological hypotheses; so
that, _in this respect_, Luther and other Augustinian reformers, instead
of advancing beyond the Oxford Reformers, have lagged far behind, seeing
that they have contentedly remained under a yoke from which the Oxford
Reformers had been labouring for twenty years to set men free.
[Sidenote: The power of St. Augustine.]
In saying this I am far from overlooking the fact, that the Protestant
Reformers, in reverting to a purer form of Augustinian doctrine than that
held by the Schoolmen, did practically by it bring Christianity to bear
upon men with a power and a life which contrasted strangely with the cold
dead religion of the Thomists and Scotists. I am as far also from
underrating the force and the fire of St. Augustine. What, indeed, must
not that force and that fire have been to have made it possible for him to
bind the conscience of Western Christendom for fourteen centuries by the
chains of his dogmatic theology! And when it is considered, on the one
hand, that the greatest of the Schoolmen were _so loyal_ to St. Augustine,
that some of their subtlest distinctions were resorted to expressly to
mitigate the harshness of the rigid results of his system, and thus were
attempts, not to get from under its yoke, but _to make it bearable_;[764]
and, on the other hand, that the chief _reactions_ against scholastic
formalism--those of Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, Calvin, the Portroyalists,
the Puritans, the modern Evangelicals--were _Augustinian_ reactions; so
far from _under_-estimating the power of the man whose influence was so
diverse and so vast, it may well become an object of ever-increasing
astonishment to the student of Ecclesiastical History.
At the same time, these considerations must raise also our estimate of the
need and the value of the firm stand taken 350 years ago by the Oxford
Reformers against this dogmatic power so long dominant in the realm of
religious thought. It has been seen in every page of this history, that
they had taken their standpoint, so to speak, _behind_ that of St.
Augustine; behind even the schism between Eastern and Western Christendom;
behind those patristic hypotheses which grew up into the scholastic
theology; behind that notion of Church authority by which these hypotheses
obtained a fictitious verification; behind the theory of ‘plenary
inspiration,’ without which the Scriptures could not have been converted,
as they were, into a mass of raw material for the manufacture of any
quantity of hypotheses--behind all these--on the foundation of _fact_
which underlies them all.
The essential difference between the standpoints of the Protestant and
Oxford Reformers Luther had been the first to perceive. And the
correctness of this first impression of Luther’s has been singularly
confirmed by the history of the three-and-a-half centuries of Protestant
ascendency in Western Christendom. The Protestant movement, whilst
accomplishing by one revolutionary blow many objects which the Oxford
Reformers were striving and striving in vain to compass by constitutional
means, has been so far antagonistic to their work in other directions as
to throw it back--not to say _to wipe it out of remembrance_--so that in
this nineteenth century those Christians who have desired, as they did, to
rest their faith upon honest facts, and not upon dogmas--upon evidence,
and not upon authority--instead of taking up the work where the Oxford
Reformers left it, have had to begin it again at the beginning, as Colet
did at Oxford in 1496. They have had, like the Oxford Reformers, to combat
at the outset the theory of ‘plenary inspiration,’ and the tendency
inherited along with it from St. Augustine, by both Schoolmen and
Protestant Reformers, to build up a theology, as I have said, upon
unverified hypotheses, and to narrow the boundaries of Christian
fellowship by the imposition of dogmatic creeds so manufactured. They have
had to meet the same arguments and the same blind opposition; to bear the
same taunts of heresy and unsoundness from ascendant orthodox schools; to
be pointed at by their fellow-Christians as insidious enemies of the
Christian faith, because they have striven to present it before the eyes
of a scientific age, as what they think it really is--_not_ a system of
unverified hypotheses, but a faith in _facts_ which it would be
unscientific even in a disciple of the positive philosophy to pass by
unexplored.
VIII. MORE’S DOMESTIC LIFE (1519).
By the aid of a letter from Erasmus to Ulrich Hutten,[765] written in July
1519, one more lingering look may be taken at the beautiful picture of
domestic happiness presented by More’s home. This history would be
incomplete without it.
[Sidenote: More forty years old.]
[Sidenote: His first wife.]
The ‘young More,’ with whom Colet and Erasmus had fallen in love twenty
years ago, was now past forty.[766] The four motherless children,
Margaret, Elizabeth, Cicely, and John, awhile ago nestling round their
widowed father’s knee, as the dark shadow of sorrow passed over the once
bright home in Bucklersbury, were now from ten to thirteen years old. The
good stepmother, Alice Middleton, is said to have ruled her household
well, and her daughter had taken a place in the family circle as one of
More’s children. There was a marked absence of jarring or
quarrelling,[767] which in such a household bore witness to the goodnature
of the mistress. She could not, indeed, fill altogether the void left in
More’s heart by the loss of his first wife--the gentle girl brought up in
country retirement with her parents and sisters, whom he had delighted to
educate to his own tastes, in letters and in music, in the fond hope that
she would be to him a lifelong companion,[768] and respecting whom, soon
after his second marriage, in composing the epitaph for the family tomb,
in which _she_ was already laid, he had written this simple line:--
‘Cara Thomæ jacet hic Joanna uxorcula Mori!’[769]
[Sidenote: His second wife.]
The ‘dame Alice,’ though somewhat older than her husband and matronly in
her habits, ‘nec bella nec puella,’ as he was fond of jokingly telling
her, out of deference to More’s musical tastes, had learned to sing and to
play on the harp;[770] but, after all, she was more of the housekeeper
than of the wife. It was not to her but to his daughter Margaret that his
heart now clung with fondest affection.
[Sidenote: More’s true piety.]
More himself, Erasmus described to Hutten as humorous without being
foolish, simple in his dress and habits, and, with all his popularity and
success, neither proud nor boastful, but accessible, obliging, and kind to
his neighbours.[771] Fond of liberty and ease he might be, but no one
could be more active or more patient than he when occasion required
it.[772] No one was less influenced by current opinion, and yet no man had
more common sense.[773] Averse as he was to all superstition, and having
shown in his ‘Utopia’ what were regarded in some quarters as freethinking
tendencies, he had to share with Colet the sneers of the ‘orthodox,’ yet a
tone of unaffected piety pervaded his life. He had stated times for
devotion, and when he prayed, it was not as a matter of form, but from his
heart. When, too, as he often did, he talked to his intimate friends of
the life to come, Erasmus tells Hutten that he evidently spoke from his
heart, and not without the brightest hope.[774]
[Sidenote: The children’s animals.]
[Sidenote: Their celebrated monkey.]
He was careful to cultivate in his children not only a filial regard to
himself, but also feelings of mutual interest and intimacy. He made
himself one of them, and took evidently as much pleasure as they did in
their birds and animals--the monkey, the rabbits, the fox, the ferret, and
the weasel.[775] Thus when Erasmus was a guest at his house, More would
take him into the garden to see the children’s rabbit hutches, or to
watch the sly ways of the monkey; which on one occasion so amused Erasmus
by the clever way in which it prevented the weasel from making an assault
upon the rabbits through an aperture between the boards at the back of the
hutch, that he rewarded the animal by making it famous all over Europe,
telling the story in one of his ‘Colloquies.’[776] Whereupon so important
a member of the household did this monkey become, that when Hans Holbein
some years afterwards painted his famous picture of the household of Sir
Thomas More, its portrait was taken along with the rest, and there to this
day it may be seen nestling in the folds of dame Alice’s robes.
[Sidenote: Their interest in his pursuits.]
If More thus took an interest in the children’s animals, so they were
trained to take an interest in his pictures, his cabinet of coins and
curiosities, and his literary pursuits. He did everything he could to
allure his children on in acquiring knowledge. If an astronomer came in
his way he would get him to stay awhile in his house, to teach them all
about the stars and planets.[777] And it surely must have been More’s
children whom Erasmus speaks of as learning the Greek alphabet by shooting
with their bows and arrows at the letters.[778]
[Sidenote: Letter to his children in verse.]
Unhappily of late More had been long and frequently absent from home.
Still, even when away upon an embassy, trudging on horseback dreary stages
along the muddy roads, we find him on the saddle composing a metrical
letter in Latin to his ‘sweetest children, Margaret, Elizabeth, Cicely,
and John,’ which, when a second edition of his ‘Epigrams’ was called for,
was added at the end of the volume and printed with the rest by the great
printer of Basle[779]--a letter in which he expresses his delight in their
companionship, and reminds them how gentle and tender a father he has been
to them, in these loving words:--
Kisses enough I have given you forsooth, but stripes hardly ever,
If I have flogged you at all it has been with the tail of a peacock!
* * * * *
Manners matured in youth, minds cultured in arts and in knowledge,
Tongues that can speak your thoughts in graceful and elegant language:--
These bind my heart to yours with so many ties of affection
That now I love you far more than if you were merely my children.
* * * * *
Go on (for you can!), my children, in winning your father’s affection,
So that as now your goodness has made me to feel as though never
I really had loved you before, you may on some future occasion,
* * * * *
Make me to love you so much that my present love may seem nothing!
What a picture lies here, even in these roughly translated lines, of the
gentle relation which during years of early sorrow had grown up between
the widowed father and the motherless children!
It is a companion-picture to that which Erasmus drew in colours so
glowing, of More’s home at Chelsea many years after this, when his
children were older and he himself Lord Chancellor. What a gleam of light
too does it throw into the future, upon that last farewell embrace between
Sir Thomas More and Margaret Roper upon the Tower-wharf, when even stern
soldiers wept to behold their ‘fatherly and daughterly affection!’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: More’s character.]
This was the man whom Henry VIII. had at last succeeded in drawing into
his court; who reluctantly, this summer of 1519,[780] in order that he
might fulfil his duties to the King, had laid aside his post of
under-sheriff in the city and his private practice at the bar; ‘who now,’
to quote the words of Roper, ‘was often sent for by the King into his
traverse, where sometimes in matters of astronomy, geometry, divinity, and
such other faculties, and sometimes of his worldly affairs, he would sit
and confer with him. And otherwhiles in the night would he have him up
into the leads there to consider with him the diversities, courses,
motions, and operations of the stars and planets.
‘And because he was of a pleasant disposition, it pleased the King and
Queen after the Council had supped for their pleasure commonly to call for
him to be merry with them. Till he,’ continues Roper, ‘perceiving them so
much in his talk to delight that he could not once in a month get leave to
go home to his wife and his children (whose company he most desired), and
to be absent from court two days together but that he should be thither
sent for again; much misliking this restraint of his liberty, began
thereupon somewhat to dissemble his nature, and so by little and little
from his former mirth to disuse himself.’[781]
This was the man who, after ‘trying as hard to keep out of court as most
men try to get into it,’ had accepted office on the noble understanding
that he was ‘first to look unto God, and after God to the King,’ and who
under the most difficult circumstances, and in times most perilous,
whatever may have been his faults and errors, still
Reverenced his conscience as his King,
and died at last upon the scaffold, a martyr to integrity!
IX. THE DEATH OF COLET (1519).
Erasmus was working hard at his Paraphrases at Louvain, when the news
reached him that _Colet was dead_! On the 11th September Pace had written
to Wolsey that ‘the Dean of Paul’s had lain continually since Thursday _in
extremis_, but was not yet dead.’[782] He had died on the 16th of
September 1519.
[Sidenote: The grief of Erasmus on hearing of it.]
[Sidenote: His estimate of Colet’s character.]
When Erasmus heard of it, he could not refrain from weeping. ‘For thirty
years I have not felt the death of a friend so bitterly,’[783] he wrote to
Lupset, a young disciple of Colet’s. ‘I seem,’ he wrote to Pace, ‘as
though only half of me were alive, Colet being dead. What a _man_ has
_England_ and what a _friend_ have _I_ lost!’ To another Englishman he
wrote, ‘What avail these sobs and lamentations? They cannot bring him back
again. In a little while we shall follow him. In the meantime we should
rejoice for Colet. He now is safely enjoying _Christ_, whom he always had
upon his lips and at his heart.’[784] To Tunstal, ‘I should be
inconsolable for the death of Colet did I not know that my tears would
avail nothing for him and for me;’[785] and to Bishop Fisher, ‘I have
written this weeping for Colet’s death.... I know it is all right with him
who, escaped from this evil and wretched world, is in present enjoyment of
that Christ whom he so loved when alive. I cannot help mourning in the
public name the loss of so rare an example of Christian piety, so
remarkable a preacher of Christian truth!’[786] And, in again writing to
Lupset, a month or two afterwards, a long letter, pouring his troubles, on
account of a bitter controversy which Edward Lee had raised up against
him, into the ears of Lupset, instead of, as had hitherto been his wont,
into the ears of Colet, he exclaimed in conclusion, ‘O true theologian! O
wonderful preacher of evangelical doctrine! With what earnest zeal did he
drink in the philosophy of Christ! How eagerly did he imbibe the spirit
and feelings of St. Paul! How did the purity of his whole life correspond
to his heavenly doctrine! How many years following the example of St.
Paul, did he teach the people without reward!’[787] ‘You would not
hesitate,’ finally wrote Erasmus to Justus Jonas, ‘to inscribe the name of
this man in the roll of the saints although uncanonised by the Pope.’
[Sidenote: More’s estimate of Colet’s character.]
‘For generations,’ wrote More, ‘we have not had amongst us any one man
more learned or holy!’[788]
The inscription on the leaden plate laid on the coffin of Dean Colet[789]
bore witness that he died ‘to the great grief of the whole people, by
whom, for his integrity of life and divine gift of preaching, he was the
most beloved of all his time;’ and his remains were laid in the tomb
prepared by himself in St. Paul’s Cathedral.
X. CONCLUSION.
[Sidenote: The fellow-work of the Oxford Reformers accomplished.]
With the death of Colet this history of the Oxford Reformers may fitly
end. Erasmus and More, it is true, lived on sixteen years after this, and
retained their love for one another to the last. But even _their_ future
history was no longer, to the same extent as it had been, a joint history.
Erasmus never again visited England, and if they did meet during those
long years, it was a chance meeting only, on some occasion when More was
sent on an embassy, and their intercourse could not be intimate.
[Sidenote: The Protestant Reformation a new movement under which theirs
was submerged.]
The fellow-work of the Oxford Reformers was to a great extent accomplished
when Colet died. From its small beginnings during their college
intercourse at Oxford it had risen into prominence and made its power felt
throughout Europe. But now for three hundred years it was to stop and, as
it were, to be submerged under a new wave of the great tide of human
progress. For, as has been said, the Protestant Reformation was in many
respects a new movement, and not altogether a continuation of that of the
Oxford Reformers.
As yet the ‘tragedy of Luther’ had appeared only like the little cloud no
bigger than a man’s hand rising above the horizon. But scarcely had a year
passed from Colet’s death before the whole heavens were overcast by it,
and Christendom was suddenly involved, by the madness of her rulers, in
all the terrors of a religious convulsion, which threatened to shake
social and civil, as well as ecclesiastical, institutions to their
foundations.
[Sidenote: The future course of the survivors could not alter the
fellow-work of the past.]
How Erasmus and More met the storm--how far they stood their ground, or
were carried away by natural fears and disappointment from their former
standing-point--is well worthy of careful inquiry; but it must not be
attempted here. In the meantime, the subsequent course of the two
survivors could not alter the spirit and aim of the fellow-work to which
for so many years past the three friends had been devoting their lives.
Their fellow-work had been to urge, at a critical period in the history of
Christendom, the necessity of that thorough and comprehensive reform which
the carrying out of Christianity into practice in the affairs of nations
and of men would involve.
[Sidenote: Nature of the Reform urged by the Oxford Reformers.]
[Sidenote: Religious Reform.]
Believing Christianity to be true, they had faith that it would work.
Deeply imbued with the spirit of Christianity as the true religion of the
heart, they had demanded, not so much the reform of particular
ecclesiastical abuses, as that the whole Church and the lives of
Christians should be reanimated by the Christian spirit. Instead of
contenting themselves with urging the correction of particular theological
errors, and so tinkering the scholastic creed, they had sought to let in
the light, and to draw men’s attention from dogmas to the facts which lay
at their root. Having faith in free inquiry, they had demanded freedom of
thought, tolerance, education.
[Sidenote: Political Reform.]
Believing that Christianity had to do with secular as well as with
religious affairs, they had urged the necessity, not only of religious but
also of political reform. And here again, instead of attacking particular
abuses, they had gone to the root of the matter, and laid down the _golden
rule_ as the true basis of political society. They not only had censured
the tyranny, vices, and selfishness of princes, but denied the divine
right of kings, assuming the principle that they reign by the consent and
for the good of the nations whom they govern. Instead of simply asserting
the rights of the people against their rulers in particular acts of
oppression, they had advocated, on Christian and natural grounds, the
equal rights of rich and poor, and insisted that the good of the _whole
people as one community_ should be the object of all legislation.
[Sidenote: International Reform.]
Believing lastly in the Christian as well as in the natural brotherhood of
nations, they had not only condemned the selfish wars of princes, but also
claimed that the golden rule, instead of the Machiavellian code, should be
regarded as the true basis of international politics.
Such was the broad and distinctively _Christian_ Reform urged by the
Oxford Reformers during the years of their fellow-work.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Their demand for Reform, though listened to, refused.]
And if ever any reformers had a fair chance of a hearing in influential
quarters, surely it was they. They had direct access to the ears of Leo
X., of Henry VIII., of Charles V., of Francis I.; not to mention
multitudes of minor potentates, lay and ecclesiastical, as well as
ambassadors and statesmen, whose influence upon the politics of Europe was
scarcely less than that of princes. But though they were courted and
patronised by the potentates of Europe, _their reform was refused_.
The destinies of Christendom, by a remarkable concurrence of
circumstances, were thrown very much into the hands of the young Emperor
Charles V.; and, unfortunately for Christendom, Charles V. turned out to
be the opposite of the ‘Christian Prince’ which Erasmus had done his best
to induce him to become. Leo X. also had bitterly disappointed the hopes
of Erasmus. When the time for final decision came, in the Diet of Worms
the Emperor and the Pope were found banded together in the determination
to refuse reform.
[Sidenote: Reform of Luther.]
In the meantime the leadership of the Reform movement had passed into
other and sterner hands. Luther, concentrating his energies upon a
narrower point, had already, in making his attack upon the abuse of
Indulgences, raised a definite quarrel with the Pope. Within fifteen
months of the death of Colet, he had astonished Europe by defiantly
burning the Bull issued against him from Rome. And summoned by the Emperor
to Worms, to answer for his life, he still more startled the world by
boldly demanding, in the name of the German nation from the Emperor and
Princes, that Germany should throw off the Papal yoke from her neck. For
this was practically what Luther did at Worms.[790]
[Sidenote: Luther’s battle-cry at the Diet of Worms.]
The Emperor and Princes had to make up their minds, whether they would
side with the Pope or with the nation, and they decided to side with the
Pope. They thought they were siding with the stronger party, but they were
grievously mistaken. Their defiance of Luther was engrossed on parchment.
Luther’s defiance of _them_, and assertion of the rights of conscience
against Pope and Emperor, rang through the ages. It stands out even now as
a watershed in history dividing the old era from the new.
[Sidenote: The refusal of Reform followed by a period of Revolution.]
In the history of the next three centuries, it is impossible not to trace
the onward swell, as it were, of a great revolutionary wave, which,
commencing with the Peasant War and the Sack of Rome, swept on through the
Revolt of the Netherlands, the Thirty Years’ War, the Puritan Revolution
in England, and the foundation of the great American Republic, until it
culminated and broke in the French Revolution. It is impossible not to
see, in the whole course of the events of this remarkable period, an
onward movement as irresistible and certain in its ultimate progress as
that of the great geological changes which have passed over the physical
world.
It is in vain to speculate upon what might have been the result of the
concession of broad measures of reform whilst yet there was time; but in
view of the bloodshed and misery, which, humanly speaking, might have been
spared, who can fail to be impressed with the terrible responsibility, in
the eye of History, resting upon those by whom, in the sixteenth century,
the reform was refused? They were utterly powerless, indeed, to stop the
ultimate flow of the tide, but they had the terrible power to turn, what
might otherwise have been a steady and peaceful stream, into a turbulent
and devastating flood. They had the terrible power, and they used it, of
involving their own and ten succeeding generations in the turmoils of
revolution.
APPENDIX A.
EXTRACTS FROM MS. Gg. 4, 26, IN THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY,
TRANSLATIONS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AT PAGES 37, 38 OF THIS WORK.
_Fol. 4 b._ ‘Quapropter concludit Paulus justificatos ex fide, et soli deo
confidentes per Jesum reconciliatos esse deo, restitutosque ad gratiam; ut
apud deum stent et maneant ipsi filii dei, et filiorum dei certam gloriam
expectent. Pro qua adipiscenda interim ferenda sunt omnia patienter: ut
firmitas spei declaretur. Quæ quidem non falletur. Siquidem ex dei amore
et gratia erga nos ingenti reconciliati sumus, alioquin eius filius pro
nobis etiam impiis et contrariis deo non interiisset. Quod si alienatos a
se dilexit, quanto magis reconciliatos et diligit et dilectos conservabit.
Quamobrem firma et stabili spe ac letitia esse debemus, confidereque deo
indubitanter per Jesum Christum; per quem unum hominem est ad deum
reconciliatio. Nam ab illo ipso primo homine, et diffidentia,
impietateque, et scelere ejusdem, totum humanum genus deperiit.
_f. 5 b._ ‘Sed hic notandum est, quod hec gracia nichil est aliud, quam
dei amor erga homines; eos videlicet, quos vult amare, amandoque inspirare
spiritu suo sancto, qui ipse est amor, et dei amor, qui (ut apud Joannem
evangelistam ait salvator) ubi vult spirat. Amati autem et inspirati a deo
vocati sunt, ut, accepto amore, amantem deum redament et eundem amorem
desiderent et expectent. Hec exspectacio et spes, ex amore est. Amor vero
noster est, quia ille nos amat, non (ut scribit Joannes in secunda
epistola) quasi nos prius dilexerimus deum: sed quia ipse prior dilexit
nos, eciam nullo amore dignos, siquidem impios et iniquos, jure ad
sempiternum interitum destinatos. Sed quosdam, quos ille novit et voluit,
deus dilexit, diligendo vocavit, vocando justificavit, justificando
magnificavit. Hec in deo graciosa dileccio et caritas erga homines, ipsa
vocacio et justificacio et magnificacio est: nec quicquid aliud tot verbis
dicimus quam unum quiddam, scilicet amorem dei erga homines eos quos vult
amare. Item cum homines gracia attractos, vocatos, justificatos, et
magnificatos dicimus, nichil significamus aliud, quam homines amantem deum
redamare.
_f. 18._ ... ‘aperte videas providente et dirigente deo res duci, atque ut
ille velit in humanis fieri; non ex vi quidem aliqua illata, quum nichil
est remotius a vi quam divina actio: sed cum hominis natura voluntate et
arbitrio, divina providentia et voluntate latenter et suaviter et quasi
naturaliter comitante, atque una et simul cum eo incedente tam
mirabiliter, ut et quicquid velis egerisque agnoscatur a deo, et quod ille
agnoverit statuitque fore simul id necessario fiat.
_ff. 79, 80._ ‘Hominis anima constat intellectu et voluntate. Intellectu
sapimus. Voluntate possumus. Intellectus sapientia, fides est. Voluntatis
potentia, charitas. Christus autem dei virtus, i.e. potentia, est, et dei
sapientia. Per christum illuminantur mentes ad fidem: qui illuminat omnem
hominem venientem in hunc mundum, et dat potestatem filios dei fieri, iis
qui credunt in nomine ejus. Per christum etiam incenduntur voluntates in
charitatem: ut deum, homines, et proximum ament: in quibus est completio
legis. A deo ergo solo per christum et sapimus et possumus; eo quod in
christo sumus. Homines autem ex se intellectum habent cæcum, et voluntatem
depravatam in tenebrisque ambulant et nesciunt quid faciunt....
‘Christus autem (ut modo dixi) dei virtus, et dei sapientia est. Qui sunt
calidis radiis illius divinitatis acciti ut illi in societate adhereant,
hii quidem sunt _tercii_ [1. Jews; 2. Gentiles; 3. Christians], illi quos
Paulus vocatos et electos in illam gloriam, appellat: quorum mentes
presentia divinitatis illustrantur; voluntates corriguntur; qui fide
cernunt clare sapientiam christi, et amore ejusdem potentiam fortiter
apprehendunt.’
APPENDIX B.
EXTRACTS FROM MS. ON I. CORINTHIANS. EMMANUEL COLLEGE MS. 3. 3. 12.
(_a_) ‘Deus autem ipse animi instar totus in toto est, et totus in
qualibet parte: verumtamen non omnes partes similiter deificat (dei enim
animare deificare est), sed varie, videlicet, ut convenit ad
constructionem ejus, quod est in eo unum, ex pluribus. Hoc compositum
eciam ex deo et hominibus, modo templum dei, modo ecclesia, modo domus,
modo civitas, modo regnum, a _dei_ prophetis appellatur.... In quo quum
Corinthei erant, ut videri voluerunt et professi sunt: sapienter sane
Paulus animadvertens si quid laude dignum in illis erat, inde exorditur,
et gracias agit de eo quod præ se ferunt boni, quodque adhuc fidei et
ecclesiæ fundamentum tenent; ut hoc leni et molli principio alliciat eos
in lectionem reliquæ epistolæ, faciatque quod reprehendit in moribus eorum
facilius audiant. Nam si statim in initio asperior fuisset graviusque
accusasset, profecto teneros adhuc animos et novellos in religione,
presertim in gente ilia Greca, arrogante et superba, ac prona in
dedignationem, a se et suis exhortationibus discussisset. Prudenter igitur
et caute agendum fuit pro racione personarum, locorum et temporum: in
quibus observandis fuit Paulus certe unus omnium consideratissimus, qui
proposito fini ita novit media accommodare: ut quum nihil aliud quesierat
nisi gloriam Jesu christi in terris, et amplificationem fidei ac
charitatis, homo divina usus solertia nihil nec egit nec omisit unquam
apud aliquos, quod ejusmodi propositum vel impediret vel retardaret.
Itaque jam necessario correcturus quamplurima per literas in Corinthiis,
qui, post ejus ab eis discessum, obliqua acciderant, acceptiore utitur
principio et quasi quendam aditum facit ad reliqua, quæ non nihil amara
cogitur adhibere, ut salutaris medicinæ poculum, modo ejus os saccharo
illiniatur, Corinthii libenter admittant et hauriant. Quanquam vero
Corinthii omnes qui fuerunt ex ecclesia christum professi sunt, in
illiusque doctrina et nomine gloriati sunt: tamen super hoc fundamento
nonnullorum erant malæ et pravæ edificationes partim ignorantia partim
malicia superintroductæ. Fuerunt enim quidam parum modesti, idemque non
parum arrogantes, qui deo et christo et christi apostolis non nihil
posthabitis, ceperunt de lucro suo cogitare, ac freti sapientia seculari,
quæ semper plurimum potuit apud Grecos, in plebe sibi authoritatem
quærere, simulque opinionem apostolorum, maxime Pauli, derogare; cujus
tamen adhuc apud Corinthios (ut debuit) nomen plurimum valuit. At illi
nescio qui invidi et impatientes laudis Pauli, et suam laudem ac gloriam
amantes, attentaverunt aliquid institutionis in ecclesia, ut eis venerat
in mentem, utque sua sapientia et opibus probare potuerint, volueruntque
in populo videri multa scire et posse ac quid exposcit christiana religio
nihil ignorare, facileque quid venerat in dubium posse solvere et
sententiam ferre. Qua insolentia nimirum in molli adhuc et nascente
ecclesia molliti sunt multa, multa passi eciam sunt quæ ab institutis
Pauli abhorruere. Item magna pars populi jamdudum et vix a mundo tracti in
eam religionem quæ mundi contemptum edocet et imperat, facile retrospexit
ad mundanos mores: et oculos in opes, potentiam, et sapientiam secularem
conjecit. Unde nihil reluctati sunt, quin qui opibus valuerunt apud eos
iidem authoritate valeant. Immo ab illis illecti prompti illorum nomina
sectati sunt, quo factum fuit ut partes nascerentur et factiones ac
constitutiones sibi diversorum capitum: ut quæque conventicula suum caput
sequeretur. Ex quo dissidio contentiosæ altercationes proruperunt et omnia
simul misere corruerunt in deterius. Quam calamitatem Corinthiensis
ecclesiæ quorundam improbitate inductam, illius primus parens Paulus
molestissime tulit, non tam quod conati sunt infringere suam authoritatem,
quam quod sub malis suasoribus qui bene ceperint navigare in christi archa
periclitarentur. Itaque quantum est ausus et licuit insectatur eos qui
volunt videri sapientes, quique in christiana republica plus suis ingeniis
quam ex deo moliuntur. Quod tamen facit ubique modestissime, homo
piissimus, magis querens reformationem malorum quam aliquorum
reprehensionem. Itaque docet omnem et sapientiam et potentiam a deo esse
hominibus per Jesum christum, qui dei sui patris eterni virtus et
sapientia est, cujus virtute sapiat oportet et possit quisque qui vere
sapiat aliquid et recte possit; hominum autem sapientiam inanem et falsam
affirmat: Item potentiam vel quanquumque quandam enervationem et
infirmitatem: atque hec utraque deo odiosa et detestabilis, ut nihil
possit fieri nec stultius nec impotentius, neque vero quod magis deo
displiceat, quam quempiam suis ipsius viribus conari aliquid in ecclesia
christiana: quam totam suum solius opus esse vult deus; atque quenquam in
eo ex se solo suoque spiritu sapere, ut nulla sit in hominibus prorsus
neque quod possunt bonitate, neque quod sapiunt fide, neque denique quod
sunt quidem spe, nisi ex deo in christo gloriatio, per quem sumus in ipso,
et in deo, a quo sane solo possumus et sapimus, et sumus denique quicquid
sumus. Hoc in tota hac epistola contendit Paulus asserere: verum maxime et
apertissime in prima parte: in qua nititur eradicare et funditus tollere
falsam illam opinionem, qua homines suis viribus se aliquid posse
arbitrantur, qua sibi confisi, tum deo diffidunt, turn deum negligunt. Quæ
hominum arrogantia et opinio de seipsis, fons est malorum et pestis, ut
impossible sit eam societatem sanam et incolumem esse, in qua possunt
aliquid, qui suis se viribus aliquid posse arbitrantur. Secundum vero
Pauli doctrinam, quæ est christi doctrina et evangeliis consona (siquidem
unus est author et idem spiritus) nihil quisquam ad se ipsum, sed duntaxat
ad deum spectare debet, ei se subjicere totum, illi soli servire, postremo
ab illo expectare omnia et ex illo solo pendere: ut quicquid in christiana
republica (quæ dei est civitas) vel vere sentiat, vel recte agat ab illo
id totum credat proficisci, et acceptum deum referat.’--_Leaf_ a 4, _et
seq._
(_b_) ‘Quod si quando voluerit quempiam preditum sapientia seculari,
cujusmodi Paulus et ejus discipulus Dionysius Areopagita ac nonnulli alii
veritates sapientiæ suæ, et accipere et ad alios deferre: profecto hi
nunciaturi aliis quod a deo didicerint, dedita opera nihil magis
curaverunt quam ut ex seculo nihil sapere viderentur; existimantes
indignum esse ut cum divinis revelatis humana racio commisceatur: nolentes
eciam id committere quo putetur veritati credi magis suasione hominum quam
virtute dei.
‘Hinc Paulus in docta et erudita Grecia nihil veritus est, ex se videri
stultus et impotens, ac profiteri se nihil scire nisi Jesum christum et
eundem crucifixum: nec posse quicquam nisi per eundem ut per stulticiam
predicationis salvos faciat credentes et ratiocinantes confundet.’--_Leaf_
3, 4.
(_c_) ‘Idem etiam potentes non sua quidem potentia et virtute, sed solius
dei per Jesum christum dominum nostrum, in quo illud venerandum et
adorandum miraculum, quod deus ipse coierit cum humana natura; quod
quiddam compositum ex deo et homine (quod Greci vocant “Theantropon”) hic
vixit in terris, et pro hominum salute versatus est cum hominibus, ut eos
deo patri suo revocatos reconciliaret: quod idem præstitit in probatione
et ostensione virtutis defensioneque justiciæ usque ad mortem, mortem
autem crucis: quod deinde victa morte, fugato diabolo, redempto humano
genere, ut liberam habeat potestatem, omnino sine adversarii querela,
eligendi ad se quos velit, ut quos velit vocet, quos vocet justificet.
Quod (inquam) sic victa et prostrata morte, mortisque authore, ex morte
idem resurrexit vivens, ac vivum se multis ostendit, multisque argumentis
comprobavit. Quod tum postremo cernentibus discipulis sursum ut erat deus
et homo ascendit ad patrem, illic ex celo progressum sui inchoati operis
in terris, et perfectionem despecturus, ac quantum sibi videbitur continuo
adjuturus. Quod deinde post hæc tandem opportuno tempore, rebus maturis,
contrariis deo rationibus discussis, longe et a creaturis suis
exterminatis injusticia videlicet et ignorantia, in quarum profligatione
nunc quotidie dei et sapientia et virtus in suis ministris operatur,
operabiturque usque in finem. Quod tum (inquam) post satis longum
conflictum et utrinque pugnam inter lucem et tenebras, deo et angelis
spectantibus, tandem ille idem dux et dominus exercituum, qui, hic primus,
bellum induxit adversariis et cum hostibus manum ipse conseruit, patientia
et morte vincens, in subsidium suorum prelucens et prepotens, rediet, ut
fugata malitia et stultitia, illustret et bona faciet omnia: utque
postremo, resuscitans mortuos, ipsam mortem superet sua immortalitate, et
absorbeat, ac victuros secum rapiat in celum, morituros a se longe in
sempiternam mortem discutiat in tenebras illas exteriores, ut per ipsum in
reformato mundo sola vita deinceps in perpetuum sapientia et justitia
regnet.’--_Leaf_ b. 5.
(_d_) ‘Quamobrem non ab re quidem videtur factum fuisse a deo, ut illo
vulgo hominum et quasi fæce in fundo residente longe a claritate
posthabita, qui in tam altam obscuritatem non fuerint delapsi, prius et
facilius a divine lumine attingerentur, qui fuerunt qui minus in vallem
mundi miserique descenderunt, qui altius multo extantes quam alii, merito
priores exorto justiciæ sole illuminati fuerunt; qui supra multitudinem
varietatem et pugnam hujus humilis mundi, simplices, sui similes, et
quieti, extiterunt, tanto propiores deo quanto remotius a deo distaverint.
Quod si deus ipse est ipsa nobilitas, sapientia, et potentia; quis non
videt Petrum, Joannem, Jacobum, et id genus reliquos, etiam antequam
veritas dei illuxerat in terras, tanto aliis sapientia et viribus
præstitisse, quanto magis abfuerint ab illorum stultitia et impotentia, ut
nihil sit mirum, si deus, cujus est bonis suis, meliores eligere et
accommodare, eos habitos stultos et impotentes delegerit, quando quidem
revera universi mundi nobiliores fuerunt, a vilitateque mundi magis
sejuncti, altiusque extantes: ut quemadmodum id terræ quod altius eminet,
exorto sole facilius et citius radiis tangitur; ita similiter fuit necesse
prodeunte luce quæ illuminaret omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum,
prius irradiaret eos qui magis in hominibus eminuerint et quasi montes ad
hominum valles extiterint. Ad alios autem qui sunt in imo in regione
frigoris, nebulosa sapientia obducti, et tardius penetrant divini radii,
et illic difficilius illuminant et citius destituunt, nisi forte
vehementius incumbentes rarifecerint nubem et lenifecerint hominem ut
abjectis omnibus quæ habet, evolet in christum. Quod si fecerit, tum
emergit in conditionem et statum Petri ac talium parvulorum quos dudum
contempserit, ut per eam viam ascendat ad veritatem qui ipse est christus
qui dixit, “Nisi conversi fueritis et efficiamini sicut parvuli non
intrabitis in regnum cælorum.” Qui parvuli, sine dubio, sunt majores illis
qui magni in mundo reputantur, ac ideo jure a deo ad sua mysteria
antepositi.’--_Leaf_ b. 8.
(_e_) ‘Angustis sane et minutis sunt animis qui hoc non vident, quique
sentiunt de secularibus rebus contendendum esse, et in hisce jus quærendum
suum; qui ignorant quæ sit divina justitia, quæ injustitia; quique etiam
homunciones, quorum stultitia haud scio ridenda ne sit magis quam
deflenda, sed certe deflenda; quoniam ex ea ecclesia calamitatem sentit,
ac pæne eversionem. Sed illi homunciones perditi (quibus hoc nostrum
seculum plenum est) in quibusque sunt etiam qui minime debent esse
ecclesiastici viri, et qui habentur in ecclesia primarii. Illi (inquam)
ignari penitus evangelicæ et apostolicæ doctrinæ, ignari divinæ justitiæ,
ignari christianæ veritatis, soliti sunt dicere causam dei, jus ecclesiæ,
patrimonium christi, bona sacerdotii, defendi a se oportere et sine
peccato non posse non defendi. O angustia! O cæcitas! O miseria istorum,
qui quum ineunt rationem perdendi omnia, non solum hæc secularia, sed illa
quoque etiam sempiterna; quumque ipsa perdunt, putant se tamen eadem
acquirere, defendere et conservare; qui ipso rerum exitu ubique in
ecclesia homines, ipsis piscibus oculis durioribus, non cernunt quæ
contentionibus judiciisque dispendia religionis, diminutio auctoritatis,
negligentia christi, blasphemia dei, sequitur. Ea etiam ipsa denique, quæ
ipsi vocant “bona ecclesiæ,” quæque putant se suis litigationibus vel
tenere vel recuperare; quæ quotidie paulatim et latenter tum amittunt, tum
ægre custodiunt, siquidem magis vi quam hominum liberalitate et charitate,
quo nihil ecclesia indignius esse potest. In qua procul dubio eadem debet
esse ratio conservandi quæ data fuerint quondam, quæ fuerit comparandi.
Amor dei et proximi, desiderium celestium, contemptus mundanorum, vera
pietas, religio, charitas, benignitas erga homines, simplicitas,
patientia, tolerantia malorum, studium semper bene faciendi vel omnibus
hominibus ut [in constanti] bono malum vincant, hominum animos conscitavit
ubique tandem ut de ecclesia christi bene opinarentur, ei faveant, eam
ament, in eam benefici et liberales sint, darentque incessanter, datisque
etiam data accumulent, quum viderant in ecclesiasticis viris nullam
avaritiam, nullum abusum liberalitatis suæ. Quod si qui supremam partem
teneant in christiana ecclesia (id est sacerdotes) virtutem (quæ
acquisivit omnia) perpetuo tenuissent adhucve tenerent; profecto si staret
causa, effectus sequeretur, vel auctus vel conservatus, hominesque
ecclesiastici non solum quieti possiderent sua; sed plura etiam acciperent
possidenda. Sed quum aquæ (ut ait David) intraverant usque animos nostros,
quumque cupiditatis et avaritiæ fluctibus obruimur, nec illud audimus,
Divitiæ si affluant, nolite cor apponere, quumque neglecta illa virtute et
justitia et studio conservandi amplificandique regni dei in terris, quod
sacerdotio nec exposcenti nec expectanti ejusmodi acquisivit omnia, animos
suos (proh nephas!) in illos appendices et pendulas divitias converterint,
quod onus est potius ecclesiæ quam ornamentum, tunc ita illo retrospectu
canes illi et sues ad vomitum, et ad volutabrum luti, infirmaverunt se
amissa pulchra et placida conservatrice rerum virtute; ut quum vident
recidere a se quotidie quod virtus comparavit, impotentes dimicant et
turpiter sane confligunt inter se et cum laicis cum sui nominis infamia et
ignominia religionis, et ejus rei etiam quam maxime quærunt indies majore
dispendio ac perditione non videntes cæci, si qui [ ] acquisierit
aliquid necessario ejus contrarium idem auferre oportere. Contemptus mundi
mundanarumque rerum quem docuit christus comparavit omnia; contra earundem
amor amittet et perdet omnia. Quis non videt quum virtute præstitimus, nos
tunc bona mundi jure exigere non potuisse nisi quatenus tenuiter ad victum
vestitumque pertineat quo jubet Paulus contenti simus. Quis (inquam) non
videt multo minus nunc nos exigere debere, quum omnis virtutis expertes
sumus, quumque ab ipsis laicis nihil fere nisi tonsa coma, et corona,
capitio, et demissa toga, differimus, nisi hoc dicat quispiam (deridens
nos), quum nunc sumus relapsi in mundum, quæ sunt mundi et partem nostram
in mundo nos expostulare posse; ut non amplius dicamus, Dominus pars
hæreditatis nostræ; sed nobis dicatur, Mercedem vestram recepistis. O bone
deus, quam puderet nos hujus descensus in mundum, si essemus memores
amoris dei erga nos, exempli christi, dignitatis religionis christianæ,
professionis et nominis nostri.’--_Leaf_ d. 3-5.
(_f_) ‘Hic obstupesco et exclamo illud Pauli mei, “O altitudo divitiarum
sapientiæ et scientiæ dei.” O sapientia admirabiliter bona hominibus et
misericors, ut jure tua pia benignitas altitudo divitiarum potest
appellari, qui commendans charitatem tuam in nobis voluisti in nos tam
esse liberalis ut temetipsum dares pro nobis, ut tibe et deo nos
redderemur. O pia, O benigna, O benefica sapientia, O os, verbum, et
veritas dei in homine, verbum veridicum et verificans, qui voluisti nos
docere humanitus ut nos divinitus sapiamus, qui voluisti esse in homine ut
nos in deo essemus. Qui denique voluisti in homine humiliari usque ad
mortem, mortem autem crucis, ut nos exaltaremur usque ad vitam, vitam
autem dei.’
APPENDIX C.
ON THE DATE OF MORE’S BIRTH.
The following correspondence in ‘Notes and Queries’ (Oct. 1868) may be
considered, I think, to set at rest the date of Sir Thomas More’s birth.
No. 1 (Oct. 17, 1868).
‘Some months ago I found the following entries, relating to a family of
the name of More, on two blank leaves of a MS. in the Gale collection, in
the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. The class mark of the volume is
“O. 2. 21.” Its contents are very miscellaneous. Among other things is a
copy of the poem of Walter de Biblesworth, printed by Mr. Thomas Wright in
his volume of _Vocabularies_ from the Arundel MS. The date of this is
early fourteenth century. The names of former possessors of the volume are
“Le: Fludd” and “G. Carew;” the latter being probably Sir George Carew,
afterwards Earl of Totness. The entries which I have copied are on the
last leaf and the last leaf but one of the volume. I have added the dates
in square brackets, and expanded the contractions:
‘“M{d} quod die dominica in vigilia Sancti Marce Evangeliste Anno Regni
Regis Edwardi quarti post conquestum Anglie quartodecimo Johannes More
Gent. maritatus fuit Agneti filie Thome Graunger in parochia sancti Egidij
extra Crepylgate london. [24 April, 1474.]
‘“M{ed} quod die sabbati in vigilia sancti gregorij pape inter horam
primam & horam secundam post Meridiem eiusdem diei Anno Regni Regis
Edwardi quarti post conquestum Anglie xv{o} nata fuit Johanna More filia
Johannis More Gent. [11 March, 1474-5.]
‘“M{d} quod die veneris proximo post Festum purificacionis beate Marie
virginis videlicet septimo die Februarij inter horam secundam et horam
terciam in Mane natus fuit Thomas More filius Johannis More Gent. Anno
Regni Regis Edwardi quarti post conquestum Anglie decimo septimo. [7 Feb.
1477-8.]
‘“M{d} quod die dominica videlicet vltimo die Januarij inter horam
septimam et horam octauam ante Meridiem Anno regni Regis Edwardi quarti
decimo octauo nata fuit Agatha filia Johannis More Gentilman. [31 Jan.
1478-9.]
‘“M{d} quod die Martis videlicet vj{to} die Junij inter horam decimam &
horam vndecimam ante Meridiem natus fuit Johannes More filius Johannis
More Gent. Anno regni Regis Edwardi quarti vicesimo. [6 June, 1480.]
‘“Me{d} quod die lune viz. tercio die Septembris inter horam secundam &
horam terciam in Mane natus fuit Edwardus Moore filius Johannis More Gent.
Anno regni regis Edwardi iiij{ti} post conquestum xxj{o}. [3 Sept. 1481.]
‘“M{d} quod die dominica videlicet xxij{o} die Septembris anno regni regis
Edwardi iiij{ti} xxij{o} inter horam quartam & quintam in Mane nata fuit
Elizabeth More filia Johannis More Gent.” [22 Sept. 1482.]
‘It will be seen that these entries record the marriage of a John More,
gent., in the parish church of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and the births of
his six children, Johanna, Thomas, Agatha, John, Edward, and Elizabeth.
‘Now it is known that Sir Thomas More was born, his biographers vaguely
say, _about_ 1480 in Milk Street, Cheapside, which is in the parish of St.
Giles, Cripplegate; that he was the son of Sir John More, afterwards Lord
Chief Justice, who, at the time of his son’s birth, was a barrister, and
would be described as “John More, gent.”; and that he had two sisters,
Jane or Joane (Wordsworth’s _Eccl. Biog._ ii. 49), married to Richard
Stafferton, and Elizabeth, wife to John Rastall the printer, and mother of
Sir William Rastall (born 1508), afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the
Queen’s Bench.
‘The third entry above given records the birth of Thomas, son of John
More, who had been married in the church of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and
may be presumed to have lived in the parish. The date of his birth is
Feb. 7, 1477-8; that is, according to modern reckoning, 1478, and
therefore “_about_ 1480.” Oddly enough, the day of the week in this entry
is wrong. It is Friday, which in 1477-8 was Feb. 6. But Thomas was born
between two and three in the morning of Saturday, Feb. 7. The confusion is
obvious and natural.
‘The second and last entries record the births of his sisters Johanna and
Elizabeth. The former of these names appears to have been a favourite in
the family of Sir John More, and was the name of his grandmother, the
daughter of John Leycester.
‘I may add, that the entries are all in a contemporary hand, and their
formal character favours the supposition that they were made by some one
familiar with legal documents, and probably by a lawyer.
‘This remarkable series of coincidences led me at first to believe that I
had discovered the entry of the birth of Sir Thomas More. But, upon
investigation, I was met by a difficulty which at present I have been
unable to solve. In the life of the Chancellor by Cresacre More, his
great-grandson, the name of Sir Thomas More’s mother is said to have been
“Handcombe of Holliwell in Bedfordshire.” This fact is not mentioned by
Roper, who lived many years in his house, and married his favourite
daughter, or by any other of his biographers. The question, therefore, is
whether the authority of Cresacre More on this point is to be admitted as
absolute. He was not born till nearly forty years after Sir Thomas More’s
death, and his book was not written till between eighty and ninety years
after it. We must take into consideration these facts in estimating the
amount of weight to be attached to his evidence as to the name of his
great-great-grandmother.
‘Were there then two John Mores of the rank of gentlemen, both apparently
lawyers, living at the same time, in the same parish, and both having
three children bearing the same names; or was John More, who married Agnes
Graunger, the future Chief Justice and father of the future Chancellor? To
these questions, in the absence of Cresacre More’s statement, the
accumulation of coincidences would have made it easy to give a very
positive answer. Is his authority to be weighed against them?
‘Stapylton’s assertion that Sir Thomas More had no brothers presents no
difficulty, as they may have died in infancy. The entries which I have
quoted would explain why he was called Thomas, after his maternal
grandfather.
‘If any heraldic readers of “Notes and Queries” could find what are the
arms quartered with those of More upon the Chancellor’s tomb at Chelsea,
they would probably throw some light upon the question. Mr. Hunter
describes them as “three bezants on a chevron between three unicorns’
heads.”
‘WILLIAM ALDIS WRIGHT.
‘Trinity College, Cambridge.’
No. 2 (Oct. 31, 1868).
‘There can, I think, be no reasonable doubt that Mr. Wright’s discovery
has set at rest the perplexing question of the true date of Sir Thomas
More’s birth. In the note in the Appendix to my “Oxford Reformers” I was
obliged to leave the question undecided, whilst inclined to believe that
the weight of evidence preponderated in favour of the received date--1480.
What appeared almost incontrovertible evidence in favour of 1480 was the
evidence of the pictures of Sir Thomas More’s family by Holbein. The most
certainly authentic of these is the original pen-and-ink sketch in the
Basle Museum. Upon Mechel’s engraving of this (dated 1787), Sir Thomas’s
age is marked “50,” and at the bottom of the picture is the inscription,
“Johannes Holbein ad Vivum delin.: Londini: 1530.” This seemed to be
almost conclusive evidence that he was born in 1480. If Sir Thomas was
born in Feb. 1478, according to the newly discovered entries, and was
fifty when the picture was sketched by Holbein, the sketch obviously
cannot have been made in 1530, but two or three years earlier.
‘Now if it may be supposed that the sketch was made during the summer or
autumn of 1527, I think it will be found that all other chronological
difficulties will vanish before the newly discovered date.
‘1. More himself would be in his fiftieth year in 1527.
‘2. Ann Cresacre, marked on the sketch as “15,” would have only recently
completed her fifteenth year, as, according to her tombstone, she was in
her sixty-sixth year in Dec. 1577; and according to the inscription on the
Burford picture she was born in 3 Henry VIII.
‘3. Margaret Roper, marked on the sketch “22,” would be born in 1505 or
1506, and this would allow of More’s marriage having taken place in 20
Henry VII. 1505, as stated on the Burford picture.
‘4. Sir Thomas would be forty-one in July, 1519, and this accords with
Erasmus’s statement in his letter to Hutten of that date (_Epist._
ccccxlvii.)--“ipse novi hominem, non majorem annis _viginti tribus_, nam
_nunc non multum excessit quadragesimum_.” He would be only one year past
forty. Erasmus first became acquainted with More probably in the course of
1498, when (being born in February) he was in his twentieth year. The
“viginti tribus” must in any case be an error.
‘5. John More, jun., marked “19” in the sketch, would be “more or less
than thirteen” as reported by Erasmus in 1521. (_Epist._ dcv.)
‘6. More’s epigram, which speaks of “quinque lustra” (_i.e._ twenty-five
years), having passed since he was “quater quatuor” (sixteen), and thus
makes him forty-one when he wrote it, would (if he was born in 1478) give
1519 as the date of the epigram; and this corresponds with the fact, that
the Basle edition of 1518 (_Mori Epigrammata_, Froben) did not contain it,
while it was inserted in the second edition of 1520.
‘7. There is a passage in More’s “History of Richard III.,” in which the
writer speaks of having himself overheard a conversation which took place
in 1483.
‘Mr. Gairdner, in his “Letters, &c. of Richard III. and Henry VII.” (vol.
ii. preface, p. xxi), rightly points out that, if born in 1480, More,
being then only three years old, could not have remembered overhearing a
conversation. But if born in Feb. 1478, he would be in his sixth year, and
could easily do so.
‘On the whole, therefore, the newly discovered date dispels all the
apparent difficulties with which the received date is beset, if only it
may be assumed that the true date of the Basle sketch was 1527, and not
(as inscribed upon Mechel’s engraving and upon the English pictures of the
family of Sir Thomas More) 1530.
‘Since I published my “Oxford Reformers” I have obtained a photograph of
the Basle sketch itself, which dispels this difficulty also, as it bears
upon it _no date at all_.
‘The date, 1530, on the pictures appears to rest upon no good authority.
Holbein, in fact, had left England the year before. I therefore have
little doubt that the remarkable document discovered by Mr. Wright is
perfectly genuine.
‘Should the arms quartered with those of More upon the Chancellor’s tomb
at Chelsea prove to be the arms of “Graunger,” the evidence would indeed
be complete.
‘FREDERIC SEEBOHM.
‘Hitchin.’
No. 3 (Oct. 31, 1868).
‘Mr. Wright will find the lineage of Sir Thomas More and his father
discussed at some length in my “Judges of England,” vol. v. pp. 190-206;
and I have very little doubt that the John More whose marriage is recorded
in the first entry was the person who afterwards became a Judge (not Chief
Justice, as Mr. Wright by mistake calls him), and that Thomas More, whose
birth is recorded in the third entry, was the illustrious Lord Chancellor.
The only difficulty arises from John More’s wife being named “Agnes
daughter of Thomas Graunger;” but this difficulty is easily discarded,
since Cresacre More, who wrote between eighty and ninety years after the
Chancellor’s death, is the only author who gives another name, and his
other biographer, who wrote immediately after his death, gives the lady no
name at all.
‘John More married three times; and he must have been a very young man on
his first marriage with Agnes Graunger (supposing that to be the name of
his first wife), by whom only he had children.
‘I have stated in my account that there were two John Mores who were
contemporaries at a period considerably earlier, one of Lincoln’s Inn and
the other of the Middle Temple. Of the lineage of the latter there is no
account; but of the former I have stated my conviction that he was the
father of the John More whose marriage is here recorded, and consequently
the grandfather of Sir Thomas More; and thus, as both the John Mores had
originally filled dependent employment in Lincoln’s Inn, the modest
description of his origin given by Sir Thomas in his epitaph, “familiâ non
celebri, sed honestâ natus,” is at once accounted for.
‘EDWARD FOSS.’
No. 4 (Oct. 31, 1868).
‘Permit me to set your correspondent right in a minor particular, which he
looks to as confirming his theory, though I trust he may be able to
substantiate it otherwise. Mr. Wright says--“Milk Street, Cheapside ... is
in the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate:” it is not so, as several
parishes intervene; Milk Street is _within_ the walls, whereas St. Giles’s
is _without_. Mr. Wright might have seen this by the wording of his first
quotation:--“in parochia Egidij extra Crepylgate;” the word “extra”
implies beyond the walls. Milk Street is in the _ward_ of Cripplegate
Within, not in the _parish_ of St. Giles Without, Cripplegate--a
distinction not obvious to strangers.
‘A great part of the district now called Cripplegate _Without_ was
originally moor or fen: we have a Moorfields, now fields no more; and a
“More” or Moor Lane. I cannot suppose the latter to have been named after
the author of “Utopia;” but as he really emanated from this locality,
possibly his family was named from the neighbouring moor. The Chancellor
bore for his crest “a Moor’s head affrontée sable.” I would not wish to
affront his memory by adding more, but your readers will find something on
this subject _antè_, 3rd S. xii. 199, 238.
‘A. H.’
No. 5 (Nov. 5, 1868).
‘I am indebted to your correspondents, Mr. Foss and A. H., for their
corrections of two inaccuracies in my paper on Sir Thomas More.
Fortunately, neither of these affects the strength of my case. It is
sufficient that Milk Street and the church of St. Giles’, Cripplegate, are
so near as to render it probable that a resident in the one might be
married at the other. If, therefore, for “the same parish” I substitute
“the same ward,” my case remains substantially as strong as before. My
mistake arose from not observing that the map in Strype’s edition of
Stow’s _Survey_, which I consulted, was a map of Cripplegate Ward, and not
of the parish of St. Giles’.
‘Before writing to you, I had, of course, consulted Mr. Foss’s _Judges of
England_, but found nothing there bearing upon the point on which I wanted
assistance, viz., the name and arms of Sir Thomas More’s mother.
‘WILLIAM ALDIS WRIGHT.
‘Trinity College, Cambridge.’
APPENDIX D.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES AND PREFERMENTS OF DEAN COLET, IN ORDER OF
TIME.[791]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of| Description of | Authority | Date of
Appointment Preferment, &c. | | Avoidance
---------|-----------------------|------------------------|--------------
Aug. 6, |Rectory of St. Mary, |Reg. Norw. xii. f. 116, |Sept. 16, 1519
1485 | Denington, Suffolk | quoted by Kennett | per mortem
| | |
(?) |Prebend of Goodeaster, |Wharton, _de Decanis_, |Jan. 26, 1503
| in Collegiate Church | p. 234 | per resign.
| of St. | |
| Martin-le-Grand | |
| | |
(?) |Vicarage of St. Dunstan|Reg. Hill, Lond., quoted|Sept, 21, 1505
| and All Saints, | by Kennett | per resign.
| Stepney | |
| | |
Sept. 30,|Rectory of St. |Reg. Episcop. apud ædes |End of 1493
1490 | Nicholas, Thyrning, | Bucdenæ, quoted by |
| Hunts and Northampton| Kennett |
| | |
March 5, |Prebend of Botevant, in|Le Neve’s _Fasti_ |
1493-4 | Cathedral Church of | (1854), vol. iii. p. |
| York | 176 |
| | |
|[During this interval, | |
| Colet was apparently | |
| on the Continent] | |
| | |
Dec. 17, |Deacon |Reg. Savage, Lond., |
1497 | | quoted by Kennett |
| | |
March 25,|Priest (by Knight said |Memorand. a Willi. |
1497-8 | to be on Feast of | Smyth, Lincoln, quoted|
| ‘_St. Ann_,’ i.e. | by Kennett |
| July 26, in error | |
| probably for | |
| ‘_Ann_unciation,’ | |
| i.e. March 25) | |
| | |
1501(?) |S.T.B. (Bachelor of |Anthony à Wood (sub anno|
| Divinity) | 1501, on mere |
| | conjecture, apparently|
| | dating back from the |
| | assumed date of the |
| | D.D.), quoted by |
| | Kennett |
| | |
1502 |Prebend of Durnesford, |Wharton, _de Decanis_, |
| in Cathedral Church | p. 234. |
| of Salisbury | |
| | |
1504 |S.T.P. (Doctor of |Ant. à Wood, sub anno |
| Divinity) | 1504 (probably only |
| | conjectured by Wood, |
| | as there appears to be|
| | no record at Oxford), |
| | quoted by Kennett |
| | |
May 5, |Prebend of Mora, in |Reg. Hill. f. 51, quoted|Sept. 16, 1519
1505 | Cathedral Church of | by Le Neve, _Fasti_, | per mortem
| St. Paul, London | ii. 411 |
| | |
1505 (?) |Deanery of St. Paul’s, |Le Neve, ib. p. 411. |Ditto ditto
| London | |
| | |
1516 |Treasurership of |Reg. Cicestrense, quoted|
| Chichester Cathedral | by Le Neve, i. 268 |
| (Dean Colet?) | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX E.
CATALOGUE OF EARLY EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF ERASMUS IN MY POSSESSION.
A.D.
1506. D. Erasmi &c. Adagiorum Collectanea, Rursus ab eodem recognita atque
aucta ... [also] Erasmi varia epigrammata.
In ædibus Joannis Barbier xviii. Martij M.DVI.
1506. D. Erasmi &c. Adagiorum Collectanea, Rursus ab eodem recognita atque
aucta ... [but without the epigrams].
Ex ædibus Ascensianis pridie natalis dominici M.DVI.
1508. Erasmi Rot. Adagiorum chiliades tres, ac centuriæ fere todidem.
Venetiis in ædibus Aldi, mense Sept. MDVIII.
1511. Moriæ Encomium Erasmi Roterodami Declamatio.
Argentorati in ædibus M. Schurerii, mense augusto anno M.D.XI.
1512. Collectanea Adagiorum &c. Erasmi. Ex Tertia Recognitione. (With
prefatory letter of Schurerius dated xiiii. Calendas Julii MDIX.)
Argentorati [Strasburg] stanneis calamis denuo exscripta in officina
Matthiæ Schurerii, mense Junio anno M.D.XII.
1512. De ratione studii, &c.
Officium discipulorum ex Quintiliano.
Concio de puero Jesu, &c.
Expostulatio Jesu ad mortales.
Carmina scholaria.
Argentorati, Ex ædibus Schurerianis mense Julio M.D.XII.
1513. De Duplici Copia rerum ac verborum Commentarii duo. [A reprint of
the first edition of Paris.]
Argentorat. M. Schurerius exscripsit, mense Januario M.D.XIII.
1514. De ratione studii, &c.
Officium discipulorum ex Quintiliano.
Concio de puero Jesu ad mortales.
Carmina scholaria.
Argentorati ex ædibus M. Schurerii, mense Augusto, anno M.D.XIIII.
1514. Parabolarum sive Similium liber. (Prefatory letter of Erasmus to
Ægidius dated MDXIIII. Idibus Octobreis.)
Argentorati ex ædibus Schurerianis, mense Decembri MD.XIIII. (First
edition?)
1514. Opuscula aliquot, Erasmo Rot. castigatore et interprete. Cato ...
amplectens præcepta Mimi Publiani, Septem Sapientum celebria dicta,
Institutum Christiani hominis, &c.
Colonie in edibus Martini Werdenensis, XII. Kalendas Decembres.
1514(?). De duplici Copia Verborum ac rerum commentarii duo. Ab Authore
ipso diligentissime recogniti et emaculati atque in plerisque locis aucti.
Item Epistola Erasmi ad Jacobum Vuymphelingium Selestatinum.
Item Parabolæ, &c.
Argentorat. Schurerius.
1515. Enchiridion Militis Christiani. (Without the letter to Volzius.)
Lypsi in ædibus Valentini Schumans.. Sexto Calendae Septembris,
M.D.XV.
1515. Enchiridion Militis Christiani. (Without the letter to Volzius.)
Disputatio de Tedio et Pavore Christi.
Exhortatio ad virtutem, &c.
Precatio ad Virginis filium Jesum.
Pæan virgini Matri, &c.
Obsecratio ad Mariam ...
Oratio in laudem pueri Jesu.
Enarratio allegorica in Primum Psalmum.
Carmen de casa natalitia pueri Jesu.
Carmina complura de puero Jesu.
Carmina de angelis.
Carmen Græcanicum Virgini sacrum Mariæ.
Argentorati apud M. Schurerium, mense Septembri, M.D.XV.
1515. Erasmi Roterodami Ennarratio in Primum Psalmum Davidicum.
Martini Dorpii ad eundem Epistola, de Moriæ Encomio, &c.
Erasmi ad Dorpium Apologia.
Louanii Theodoricus Martinus excudebat, Mense Octobr, MDXV.
1515. Cato Erasmi. Opuscula aliquot: Precepta Mimi Publiani; Septem
sapientum celebria dicta; Institutum christiani hominis, &c.
Colonie in edibus Quentell. M.CCCCC.XV.
1516. Novum Instrumentum.
Basileæ in ædibus Joannis Frobenii Hammelburgensis, Mense Februario
Anno M.D.XVI.
1516. Collectanea Adagiorum, &c.
Argentorati M. Schurerius ... exscripsit, Mense Maio M.D.XVI.
1516. Enchiridion, &c. (containing the same matter as the Strasburg
edition of 1515).
Argentorati apud M. Schurerium, Mense Junio, M.D.XVI.
1516. Institutio Principis Christiani ... cum aliis nonnullis,
viz.:--Precepta Isocratis, &c.; Panegyricum gratulatorium, &c. ad
Principem Philippum; Libellus Plutarchi de discrimine adulatoris et amici.
Louanii apud Theodoricum Martinum Alustensem, Mense Augusto, MDXVI.
1516. Erasmi Roterodami Epistolæ; ad Leonem X, ad Cardinalem Grimannum, ad
Cardinalem S. Georgii, ad Martinum Dorpium. Ejusdem in laudem urbis
Selestadii Panegyricum Carmen.
Lypsiæ impressit Valentinus Schuman. A.D. M.CCCCC.XVI.
1517. Aliquot Epistole saneque elegantes Erasmi Roterodami, et ad hunc
aliorum eruditissimorum hominum, antehac nunquam excusæ præter unam et
alteram. (Containing 39 letters.)
Lovanii apud Theodoricum Martinum, anno M.D.XVII. mense Aprili.
1517. Scarabeus, cum scholiis.
Basileæ apud Joannem Frobenium, Mense Maio, M.D.XVII.
1517. Bellum.
Basileæ apud Joannem Frobenium, Mense Aprili, M.D.XVII.
1517. De Octo Orationis Partium constructione Libellus ... Erasmo autore.
Basileæ; In officina Adæ Petri, mense Augusto, M.D.XVII.
1517. Enchiridion, etc. (containing the same matter as the Strasburg
edition of 1515).
Argentorati apud M. Schurerium mense Novembri, M.D.XVII.
1517. In epistolam Pauli ad Romanos Paraphrasis. (First edition.)
Louanii Ex officina Theodo. Martin. Mense Novembri, M.D.XVII.
1518. Aliquot Epistolæ saneque elegantes Erasmi Roterodami, et ad hunc
aliorum eruditissimorum hominum. (Containing 56 letters.)