The fellow-work of the Oxford Reformers accomplished.The Protestant Reformation a new movement under which theirs was submerged.
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 eventheirfuture 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.
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.
The future course of the survivors could not alter the fellow-work of the past.Nature of the Reform urged by the Oxford Reformers.Religious Reform.Political Reform.
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.
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’sattention from dogmas to the facts which lay at their root. Having faith in free inquiry, they had demanded freedom of thought, tolerance, education.
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 thegolden ruleas 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 thewhole people as one communityshould be the object of all legislation.
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 distinctivelyChristianReform urged by the Oxford Reformers during the years of their fellow-work.
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 mentionmultitudes 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.
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]
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 ofthem, 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.
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 measuresof 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.
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 sunttercii[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.’
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, adeiprophetis 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 cogituradhibere, 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 exdeo 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.’—Leafa 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 utex 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.’—Leaf3, 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: utquepostremo, 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.’—Leafb. 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 inmundo reputantur, ac ideo jure a deo ad sua mysteria antepositi.’—Leafb. 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 quisupremam 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.’—Leafd. 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.’
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 ofVocabulariesfrom 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:
‘“Mdquod 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.]
‘“Medquod die sabbati in vigilia sancti gregorij pape inter horam primam & horam secundam post Meridiem eiusdem diei Anno Regni Regis Edwardi quarti post conquestum Anglie xvonata fuit Johanna More filia Johannis More Gent. [11 March, 1474-5.]
‘“Mdquod die veneris proximo post Festum purificacionis beate Marie virginis videlicet septimo die Februarij interhoram 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.]
‘“Mdquod 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.]
‘“Mdquod die Martis videlicet vjtodie 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.]
‘“Medquod 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 iiijtipost conquestum xxjo. [3 Sept. 1481.]
‘“Mdquod die dominica videlicet xxijodie Septembris anno regni regis Edwardi iiijtixxijointer 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,about1480 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’sEccl. 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 livedin the parish. The date of his birth is Feb. 7, 1477-8; that is, according to modern reckoning, 1478, and therefore “about1480.” 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 wouldhave 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 annisviginti tribus, namnunc 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 datedispels 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 itno 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 JohnMores 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 iswithinthe walls, whereas St. Giles’s iswithout. 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 thewardof Cripplegate Within, not in theparishof St. Giles Without, Cripplegate—a distinction not obvious to strangers.
‘A great part of the district now called CripplegateWithoutwas 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 subjectantè, 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’sSurvey, 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’sJudges 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.’
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES AND PREFERMENTS OF DEAN COLET, IN ORDER OF TIME.[791]
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.