WE

CHAPTER XI.

THE GERMAN REFORMATION.

E come now to a new phase in the life we are studying. Among many writers it has become a theory that there were two Thomas Mores, as there were two Henries called the Eighth; that as the king degenerated, under the influence of baffled lust and wounded pride, from a pious and affable prince to a sensual and cruel despot, so too his minister degenerated, under the influence of political and social fears, from a liberal and somewhat sceptical philosopher, to a bigoted persecutor. Horace Walpole, describing the portrait of Sir Thomas, painted by Holbein in 1527, writes: "It is Sir Thomas More in the rigour of his sense, not in the sweetness of his pleasantry. Here is rather that single, cruel judge, whom one knows not how to hate, and who, in the vigour of abilities, of knowledge and good humour, persecuted others in defence of superstitions that he himself had exposed; and who, capable of disdaining life at the price of his sincerity, yet thought that God was to be served by promoting an imposture; who triumphed over Henry and death, and sunk to be an accomplice, at least the dupe, of the Holy Maid of Kent!"*

There is no doubt much coxcombry in all this balanced antithesis, yet it expresses the perplexity which the apparent contrast between the earlier and later life of More has excited in deeper minds than Walpole's. The perplexity, however, is

* Anecdotes of Painting, vol. i. 70 (ed. Wornum).

self-created by those who, turning over the pages of the Utopia or the Praise of Folly, dream of a sceptical, rationalistic, Utopian More; and contrast him with the More who has depicted himself in his epitaph as the sworn enemy of malefactors and heretics-words most true, yet easily misunderstood at the present day. Postponing for future consideration the charge of persecution, I will here confine my remarks to his Latin controversial writings, and especially to the book against Luther. Tindale hinted at some such contrast as that described above, and Sir Thomas replied as follows: "Of Erasmus' book on the Praise of Folly, Tindale saith, that if it were in English every man should then well see that I was then far otherwise minded than I now write. If this be true, then the more cause have I to thank God of amendment. But surely this is not true; for, God be thanked, I never had that mind in myself to have holy saints' images or their holy relics out of reverence. Nor if there were any such thing in Moria, that thing could not yet make any man see that I were myself of that mind, the book being made by another man, though he were 'my darling' never so dear. Howbeit, that book of Moria doth indeed but jest upon the abuses of such things, after the manner of the disour's* part in a play, and yet not so far neither by a great deal as the 'Messenger' doth in my Dialogue, which I have yet suffered to stand still in my Dialogue, and that rather yet by the counsel of other men than myself." +

Nor did Erasmus ever hint that any revolution had taken place in the mind of his candid, his darling More, any otherwise than he admits a change in his own view of things. The world had changed, and new opponents had arisen, who aroused new feelings and required a new language; but neither More nor Erasmus defended what they had before ridiculed, nor attacked what they had before encouraged.

Disour, i.e., clown, jester.

+ English Works, p. 422.

More, it is said, was in his early days a zealous reformer; in his later days he was a conservative and resisted the reformers. But Reform is an ambiguous word. More had lamented the prevalence of evil works among professing Catholics. It surely does not follow that he should have welcomed the reform of Luther, whose principal outcry was against the importance attached by Catholics to good works.* More declared war, as Pace tells us, against certain scholastic theologians, who affirmed too dogmatically things that were obscure and altogether outside the faith. Was he, on that account, to accept Luther contradicting the first principles of Catholic faith?

But if the consistency of More is admitted, what is to be said on the charge of asperity and scurrility brought against his controversial writings? This question cannot be shirked by a biographer of More. To begin with the accusation of scurrility. Of More's book against Luther, published in 1523, Bishop Atterbury has said: "It is throughout nothing but downright ribaldry, without a grain of reasoning to support it; so that it gave the author no other reputation but that of. having the best knack of any man in Europe at calling bad names in good Latin' It is difficult to suppose that Atterbury had ever read the book of which he could thus write. It is replete with keen irony and powerful reasoning, as well as earnest and touching exhortation. That it is a pleasant book to read I do not contend, nor that it is free from language that is rude and nasty. But whether the language deserves the name of ribaldry depends on the

"Luther's most earnest remonstrances were directed not against bad but against good works, and the stress laid upon them by the advocates of the old religion. If that religion had been in its practice so generally corrupt as it is represented to have been by modern writers, such denuntiations were idle" (Dr. Brewer, Introduction to Letters and Papers, p. 228). Tindale used to call zeal for good works "popeholiness". Atterbury's Epistolary Correspondence, etc., iii. 452.

question whether, when Shakespeare's Ajax boxes the ears of Thersites and calls him a "whoreson cur," he thereby places himself on a level with Thersites, pouring out his foul venom on Agamemnon, Achilles, and all the princes of the army. Sir Thomas More complains that he could not clean the mouth of Luther without befouling his own fingers.

But let us understand the facts. In 1520, Luther published his treatise called the Babylonian Captivity in which he finally broke with the Church, railed at the Pope, and called on the world to embrace an entirely new religion, under the name of genuine Christianity. In 1521, Henry printed his book called Defence of the Seven Sacraments. Luther replied in a treatise so scurrilous, that it has probably no parallel in literature. Certainly such language had never before been addressed to a king or prince. It cannot be said that Henry had drawn this upon his own head. He had not attacked Luther, but stepped in as the Church's champion, to ward off the blows Luther was aiming at her. On the whole his defence is dignified, and he uses language no stronger than had been used in all ages, by saints and doctors, against inventors of novelties and disturbers of unity. In this book of Henry's More had no other share than that, after it was written, he had arranged the index.* But, against his will, he was drawn into the controversy. It was not possible for the king to reply to an attack such as Luther's. When Luther, a few years later, wrote an insincere apology for his virulence, Henry answered as it became him; but even had he wished it, his advisers could

The words of Sir Thomas are that "after it was finished, by His Grace's appointment, and consent of the makers of the same, he was only a sorter out and placer of the principal matters therein contained " (Life of Roper, p. 25). Mr. Bruce in the Archæol. (xxiii. 67) has a dissertation on the authorship of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. He understands the words of Sir Thomas as I have taken them. I do not enter further into this matter, since I have published an essay on the subject, called "Defender of the Faith". (Catholic Truth Society.)

not have allowed him in 1523 to carry on a war of words with a foul-mouthed German boor. Some of his subjects undertook to avenge the "Defender of the Faith". Fisher, Bishop of

Rochester, weighed as a theologian the original contentions of Luther, the English king's replies, and Luther's scornful reiterations. The king, however, in all probability, himself suggested to More that his wit would be well employed in chastising the insolent friar. This I gather from More's own words. Apologising for certain expressions, he says: "I doubt not, good reader, that your fairness will pardon me that in this book you read so often what causes you shame. Nothing could have been more painful to me than to be forced to speak foul words to pure ears. But there was no help for it, unless I left Luther's scurrilous book utterly untouched, which is a thing I most earnestly desired."

It does not follow that, because More engaged in the controversy against his inclination, his method of conducting it was contrary to his conscience or his better judgment. He saw that Luther deserved to be trounced; he merely regretted that the task had been committed to him. He pleaded for leave to wear a mask while performing the unpleasant duty, and took the name of William Ross, an Englishman, supposed to be on a visit to Italy. His book is not a treatise on Lutheranism, for Lutheranism as a system had not yet been enunciated, and was still incomplete in the brain of its author. He refutes indeed both the denials and the assertions of Luther as they occur, but it is with Luther himself and Luther's language to Henry that he is dealing. The Wittenburg doctor, in the midst of his paroxysms of fury and hurling of nicknames, still wished to be taken for a prophet, zealous for his master's honour; and More's object was to turn into utter ridicule this pretension, by showing that he was simply an enraged and fanatical buffoon.*

* If such a designation seems too strong, let me cull a few specimens of his language. The king is "rex infelix, stolidissimus, delirus, nugigerulus, sceleratissimus, sacrilegus; latro, asinus, porcus, truncus, antichristus,

ALL