¹ The following abbreviations to More's works will be used in the footnotes of this paper. Complete bibliographical information on the original editions may be found in Gibson, R. W., St. Thomas More: A Preliminary Bibliography of His Works and of Moreana, with a Bibliography of Utopiana Compiled by Gibson, R. W. and Max Patrick, J. (Yale University Press 1961).Google Scholar 1532 — The confutacyon of Tyndales answere made by syr Thomas More Knyght lorde chauncellour of Englonde, Prentyd at London By wyllyam Rastell, 1532.Google Scholar 1533 — The second parte of the confutacion of Tyndals answere … Prentyd at London By wyllyam Rastell, 1533.Google Scholar EW — The workes of Sir Thomas More Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chauncellour of England, wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge. Printed at London … [by Rastell, William] … 1557.Google Scholar ‘Heresies’ — ‘A dialogue concernynge/heresyes & matters of religion,’ EW, sigs. h1–t4^v. Selected Letters — St. Thomas More: Selected Letters, edited by Rogers, Elizabeth Frances (Yale University Press 1961).Google Scholar Correspondence — The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More , edited by Rogers, Elizabeth Frances (Princeton University Press 1947).Google Scholar Other special abbreviations:Google Scholar WA — D. Martin Lathers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar 1883).Google Scholar Answere — Tyndale, William, An answere unto Sir Thomas Mores dialoge (Antwerp, , Cock, S., 1531).Google Scholar

² See Luther's statement in De servo arbitrio, WA 18, 606: ‘Hoc sane fateor, esse multa loca in scripturis obscura et abstrusa, non ob maiestatem rerum, sed ob ignorantiam vocabulorum et grammaticae, sed quae nihil impediant scientiam omnium rerum in scripturis. Quid enim potest in scripturis augustius latere reliquum, postquam fractis signaculis et voluto ab hostio sepulchri lapide, illud summum mysterium proditum est, Christum filium Dei factum hominem, Esse Deum trinum et unum, … Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies? Res igitur in scripturis contentae omnes sunt proditae, licet quaedam loca adhuc verbis incognitis obscura sint. Stultum est vero et impium, scire, res scripturae esse omnes in luce positas clarissima, et propter pauca verba obscura, res obscuras dictare, Si uno loco obscura sunt verba, at alio sunt clara …. ’ Google Scholar

³ ‘Heresies, ,’ EW, sig. ml.Google Scholar

⁴ 1532, sig. O 3^v .Google Scholar

⁵ ‘For in Saxony firste and among al the Lutherans there be as many heades as many wittes. And all as wise as wilde geese. And as late as thei began, yet bee there not onely as many sectes almoste as men, but also the maisters them selfe chaunge theyr mindes and theyr oppynions euery daye and wote nere where to holde them. Boheme is also in y^e same case. One faith in the towne, another in the fielde. One in Prage, another in the next towne. And yet in Prage it self one faith in one strete, another in y^e next. So that if ye assigne it in Boheme, ye must tell in what town. And, if ye name a towne, yet muste ye tel in what strete.’ ‘Heresies,’ EW, sig. m6.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. sig. m2.Google Scholar

⁷ 1533, sig. f3^v. More was quite clearly in that late medieval tradition which placed a moral value on the uncertainty of salvation. The idea has been examined by Oberman, Heiko A., The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Harvard University Press 1963) 185–248. More's position seems very much like that of John Gerson as noted in Oberman's work, 231 note 126.Google Scholar

⁸ Romans 11.13–23.Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Heresies, ,’ EW, sig. 14^v .Google Scholar

¹⁰ ‘Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana: fidelis autem Deus est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id, quod potestis, sed facient, etiam cum tentatione proventum ut possitis sustinere.’ 1 Cor. 10.13. For More's use see 1533, sigs. h3, s1^v, t3, et passim in all the English works.Google Scholar

¹¹ PL 113.890.Google Scholar

¹² 1533, sig. g1^v .Google Scholar

¹³ 1533, sig. e1^v .Google Scholar

¹⁴ Oberman, , op. cit. 222.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 223.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 224–227. This requirement of a ‘middle way’ between presumption and fear did not originate with Gabriel Biel or even in the late Middle Ages. The writer of the little tractate De vera et falsa poenitentia (falsely attributed to St. Augustine) made it basic to his theology. See PL 40.1118. More knew this work and used it, thinking it was genuinely that of St. Augustine: 1533, sigs. A4 and Oo2. It really dates from about the eleventh century.Google Scholar

¹⁷ PL 113.891.Google Scholar

¹⁸ PL 36.313.Google Scholar

¹⁹ More, Thomas, The Answere to the fyrst parte of the poysened booke, whych a namelesse heretyke hath named the souper of the lorde, London, w. Rastell, 1534, folio 31. ‘Heresies,’ EW, sigs. s1–s4^v, 1533, sigs. a5^v–a6^v, t1.Google Scholar

²⁰ Aquinas, , Summa Theologiae 2.2.a.4.q.4.Google Scholar

²¹ 1533, sig. m1^v .Google Scholar

²² Ibid. Google Scholar

²³ PL 33.325.Google Scholar

²⁴ PL 33.322–323.Google Scholar

²⁵ 1533, sig. CC3.Google Scholar

²⁶ If my assumption regarding the gloss to Psalm 32 is correct, it would seem that More is more likely to have taken his interpretation regarding verse 17 from the Glossa ordinaria than from the Enarratio itself. For here is one of the places in which Augustine's stress on the unmitigated power of grace would have been more congenial to the interpretations of the Reformers than to More's. It is clear that Augustine here castigates the pride of trusting in anything but the free grace of God. Especially forbidding, from More's point of view, would be the sentence, ‘Si enim Deus voluerit, liberaberis: si Deus noluerit, cadente equo altius cades’ (PL 36.297). This is not far removed from Luther's dreadful word, ‘Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum, si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut Psalmus dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit, quo vult Satan, nec in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quaerere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum.’ WA 18.635.Google Scholar

²⁷ In the eighth book of the Confutation More mentions ‘the ordynary glose.’ Here he uses it as an authority for the interpretation of Isa. 55.11. He mentions also the ‘interlynyare glose,’ which indicates that he was using a Bible such as that printed by Froben, and Petri, in six volumes in Basel in 1498. See 1533, sig. Pp4^v. Both the interlinear gloss and the Glossa ordinaria as well as the commentary by Nicholas, of Lyra are mentioned by More in Correspondence 182.Google Scholar

²⁸ Psalm 67.7, Vulgate; 68.6, A.V. Google Scholar

²⁹ For the Latin see Correspondence 329; 1532, sig. D1 et passim. For the English see 1533, sig. G2 et passim.Google Scholar

³⁰ Augustine, , citing Cyprian, uses it in his tractate, De baptismo, CSEL 369–370. A slight paraphrase appears in the Confessions, PL 32.770.Google Scholar

³¹ Christi, Caro et sanctum Domini ejici foras non potest, nec alia ulla credentibus praeter unam Ecclesiam domus est. Hanc domum hoc unanimitatis hospitium designat et denuntiat Spiritus Sanctus in Psalmis dicens: Deus qui inhabitare facit unanimes in domo: PL 4.522.Google Scholar

³² 1533, sigs. D4, M2–M2^v, M3. In these passages the title of Cyprian's De imitate ecclesiae is, oddly enough, not mentioned, though More does name Cyprian himself, and his argument follows closely that of Cyprian, even to the use of illustrations which Cyprian uses.Google Scholar

³³ PL 26.1074. This citation is from the Breviarium in Psaimos, a work attributed to Jerome throughout the Middle Ages. In modern times doubts have been thrown upon its authenticity, for it seemed to be a collection of comments from numerous patristic authorities. See ‘Admonitio,’ PL 26. 849–850. But according to the latest scholarship it seems that the homily on Psalm 67 is indeed from Jerome, perhaps by way of a student's notebook. See The Homilies of St. Jerome, tr. Maria, Sister Ewald, Lignari (Catholic University of America Press) xxi–xxx.Google Scholar

³⁴ PL 37.815.Google Scholar

³⁵ PL 37.816. ‘Sed locus sanctus ejus sunt quos, habitare facit unius modi, vel unius moris in domo.’ Google Scholar

³⁶ PL 26.1074.Google Scholar

³⁷ PL 28.1239.Google Scholar

³⁸ WA 8.8.Google Scholar

³⁹ When this paper was presented as a lecture after the annual luncheon of the St. Thomas More Project at Yale University in December, 1966, Professor Roland H. Bainton made an interesting observation regarding this point. He spoke of the problems of the Biblical text in the sixteenth century. They were immense. Manuscript copies of ancient texts were being sought with persistent vigor, but they were still quite hard to come by. He mentioned the difficulties of Erasmus in assembling manuscripts of his Greek New Testament in 1516. Thus the Scriptural citations by the Fathers might well antedate any available manuscripts. Thus More was not necessarily exhibiting a slovenly attitude towards the text when he took a reading from any of the Fathers. In the absence of more scientific canons of textual criticism, he was simply choosing among various authorities available to him. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ 1532, sig. I3, 1533 sig. M2 et al. The ‘but if is the sixteenth-century idiom for ‘unless.’ Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Jerome's, commentary on Isaiah, PL 24.104–105, Augustine's letter no. 120, PL 33. 453, and his De doctrina Christiana, PL 34.43.Google Scholar

⁴² Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. University of Notre Dame Press 1964) 13.Google Scholar

⁴³ Selected Letters 116.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Rupp, Gordon, The Righteousness of God (London 1953) 81.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For the translations see 1532, sigs. x1^v, T3, and 1533, sig. e4^v .Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Answere, sig. C4.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ‘Historical faith’ for Tyndale was a mere knowledge of the propositions of Christianity. ‘Feeling faith’ was knowledge of salvation which came through direct experience with God. More says in one place (1533, sig. V4) that Tyndale took this distinction from Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon does speak of the distinction, though in 1521 in the Loci Communes he commented that ‘historical faith’ hardly deserved the name of faith at all. See Melanchthons Werke, herausgegeben von Hans Engelland (Gütersloh 1952) 2.1 p. 92. More delivers a lengthy attack on what he understands to be Tyndale's position, 1533, sigs. V3^v–Cc2^v .Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Answere, sig. D5^v .Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Something of this has been seen in Tyndale by Clebsch, William A. in his book, England's Earliest Protestants, 1520–1535 (Yale University Press 1964) 163–168. But Professor Clebsch has not seen lit to emphasize the relation of will and intellect in Tyndale's theology, and he has not considered Tyndale's humanism to be a source of his legalism. I have commented elsewhere on this book and these issues. See Moreana No. 6 (May, 1965) 69–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ More argued that it is the will of man which must take responsibility for its choices. See 1533, sigs. o3–p1^v. With relation to reason More taught that reward is greater for men who believe something by revelation which goes contrary to reason than it is to believe something evident to reason. See 1533, sig. p2. But if someone do some wrong unwillingly, More said it was not sin. See 1532, sig. x3. No man commits any deadly sin against his will. See 1533, sig. h2^v .Google Scholar

⁵¹ Romans 7.19.Google Scholar

⁵² Answere, sigs. C4^V–C5^V .Google Scholar

⁵³ 1533, sigs. n1–n4^v .Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘The Fyrste Epistle of Seynt Jhon,’ English Reformers, edited by Parker, T.H.L. (Philadelphia 1966) 111; The New Testament, translated by William Tyndale, 1534, edited by Hardy Wallis, N. (Cambridge 1938) 500. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Summa theologiae 2.2.a.14.q.1c.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ 1533, sig. e2v.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Here sheweth thys blessed apostle Poule that the dedely synne commytted after baptysme/putteth a man in that case, that it shall be very harde (for so is impossyble somtyme taken in scrypture) by penaunce to be renewed agayne/that is to wyt to come agayne to baptysme or to the state of baptysme, in whyche we be so fully renewed, and the olde synne so fully forgyuen, that we be forthwyth in suche wyse innocentes, that yf we dyed forthwyth, there were neyther eternall payne nor temporall payne appointed for us, that is to wyt neyther helle nor purgatory. But that dedely synne commytted after baptysme/is very harde by the sacrament of penaunce, confessyon, contrycyon, and greate payne taken to, to brynge vs agayne in the case, that the temporall payne dew therfore in purgatory, shall be worne all out by our penaunce done here. In all whyche thynges we neuer exclude the specyall pryuyledge of goddys absolute mercy. For by hys myghty mercy the thynge that is impossyble to man, is not impossyble to god/as our sauyour sayth in the gospell of Mathewe’: 1532, sigs. x1^v–x2.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Biblia Latino. (Basel, Johann Froben. and Petri, Johann, December 1498) vol. 6, sig. x3^v .Google Scholar

⁵⁹ PL 16.520.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ PL 16.522–528. See esp. note 3, cols. 522–524.Google Scholar

⁶¹ PL 38.465.Google Scholar

⁶² 1533, sig. e2^v .Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ 1532, sigs. T3–T3^v .Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘Heresies, ,’ EW, sig. l 4^v et passim.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Church and Church History’ in Pelikan, Jaroslav, Obedient Rebels (London 1964) 27–41. In essence this is a theological defence of the Reformation confessions of faith which attacked the Catholic Church for its faith in its own history. No real effort is made to give a sympathetic interpretation of the Catholic position as it was seen by Catholics of the time. Eck and Cochlaeus, perhaps not the best spokesmen for their faith, are called up only to be slapped down. The Catholic position emerges without any of its subtleties and complexities, almost a caricature of itself.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Headley, John M., Luther's View of Church History (Yale University Press 1963) 216–223.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Tyndale probably arrived at his eight hundred years by confusing the Boniface who was missionary to the Germans with Pope Boniface III who occupied the papal throne for a few months in the year 607. Boniface III was on good terms with the usurping Byzantine Emperor Phocas, Phocas recognized him as caput omnium ecclesiarum. Tyndale refers to this event in his vitriolic little booklet, The practyse of prelates, 1530, sig. B7^v. He thought it was one of the major steps in the corruption of the Church, which corruption he thought came from the Church's submission to the papacy. But Tyndale also says Boniface extended his power then over all the bishops of Germany. But in 607 there were no relations to speak of between the papacy and the Germans. In fact the Germans east of the Rhine Valley were still mostly pagan, and those Germans who were Christians were grouped in a Landeskirche arrangement, for all practical purposes completely independent from Rome. In 722 Pope Gregory II gave to the English missionary Winfred the name Boniface and made him something of a papal emissary for the conversion of the Germans. If Tyndale confused Pope Boniface III with Boniface the missionary and took the date 722 or thereabouts as crucial, we would have his eight hundred years almost to the year of his publication of the English New Testament in 1525. For a brief note on the confusion of the two Bonifaces, see Tyndale, William, ‘The Practice of Prelates,’ edited for the Parker Society by Walter, Henry, in Doctrinal Treatises (Parker Society 42; 1849) 258–259. Walter, Mr. did not relate the confusion of the two men to Tyndale's concept of the Church's fall. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Tavard, George H., Holy Writ and Holy Church (London 1959). Tavard maintains that the idea that Scripture and Tradition are separate and possibly contradictory entities is a late medieval development. He discusses the English scene, including the Assertio of Henry VIII. He does not discuss Thomas More. A shorter discussion of the issue, with a critique of Tavard's work, appears in Oberman, op. cit. (n.7 supra) 361–422.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ For instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary, 1532, sig. P2^v, the Assumption of Mary, 1532, sig. H3^v, putting water into the wine at the Mass, 1532, sig. M3, the Lenten fast, worship on Sunday rather than Saturday, veneration of images, 1532, sig. S1^v, as well as the abrogation of certain practices commanded by Scripture—such as circumcision, 1532, sig. T3^v, the washing of feet, 1532, sig. T2, etc.Google Scholar

⁷¹ This is the only place in all of More's works where I have found the Celestial Hierarchies of Pseudo-Dionysius quoted as authority.Google Scholar

⁷² 1532, sigs. S2–S4.Google Scholar

⁷³ For an expression of this esoteric view, see 1532, sig. I2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ We cannot here go into the complex problem of how the Reformers themselves conceived of their relationship to Christian tradition. More understood them to claim that they rejected everything but Scripture. In fact, as is well known, Protestants suffered many divisions over what to reject of tradition and what to keep.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ 1532, sig. S4.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ 1532, sig. T1, 1533, sig. Q1^v .Google Scholar

⁷⁷ 1532, sigs. 1 1–1 1^v .Google Scholar

⁷⁸ 1532, sig. h2^v .Google Scholar

⁷⁹ 1533, sig. k4^v .Google Scholar

⁸⁰ 1532, sigs. H3^v, R2 et passim.Google Scholar

⁸¹ 1532, sig. O3^v .Google Scholar

⁸² 1533, sig. b3^v et passim.Google Scholar

⁸³ 1533, sig. b3^v, c3^v, H4^v, I3, et passim.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For a characteristic patristic treatment of 1 Tim. 5 with relation to vows of chastity, see Augustine, , De bono viduitatis, PL 40.437–438.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ 1533, sig. Xx1^v .Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Luther's attitude on this subject was most vehemently expressed in his diatribe, De votis monasticis of 1521. For Luther, to vow celibacy for the sake of gaining merit before God was blasphemy. Salvation came only by faith, and to place confidence in monastic vows was to follow a delusion of the Devil. Such vows for the sake of merit were clear proof of a lack of faith and hence were damnable. It became a work of faith to break such a vow (WA 8.602–603). He did not believe that the vow in itself was necessarily wrong. If Christians chose to make vows, knowing that there was no merit of salvation in the practice, then they were free to do so. But such vows were not irrevocable. In describing the kind of vow he would accept, Luther wrote: ‘Votum castitatis et totius monasticae, si pium est, debet necessaric secum involvere libertatem rursus omittendi et in hanc ferme sententiam interpretari: Voveo tibi obedentiam, castitatem, paupertatem servandam cum tota regula S. Augustini usque ad mortem libere, hoc est, ut mutare possim, quando visum fuerit. Si aliter interpreteris aut intellexeris, cernis ex praedictis, peccari adversus libertatem divinam nobis mandatam, nec posse fieri ut deus aliter acceptet, nisi revocet libertatem, id est, nisi neget seipsum’ (WA 8.614). It will be seen that in spite of More's fierce anger, he rather accurately represents Luther's position.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ 1533, sig. Xx1^v .Google Scholar

⁸⁸ WA 8.614.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See, for example, his response to Henry VIII, WA 10.2.215.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Correspondence 329 et passim.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Heresies, ,' EW sig. 1 2.Google Scholar

⁹² 1532, sig. T2.Google Scholar

⁹³ Correspondence 172.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid. 52.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹⁶ 1533, sig. R3.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ 1532, sig. D1.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ 1532, sig. P2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ 1533, sigs. Tt3, Tt3^v, Tt4, Tt4^v, Vv3 et passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ 1533, sig. Tt2^v .Google Scholar

¹⁰² ‘Heresies,’ EW, sig. m6, 1533, sig. A1^v .Google Scholar

¹⁰³ 1533, sig. B3, Correspondence 499.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Correspondence 498.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ 1533, sig. A2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Correspondence 498–499.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ 1533, sig. Vv4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ 1533, sigs. Vv4–Vv4^v .Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ 1533, sigs. AA3, AA4^v .Google Scholar

¹¹¹ 1533, sig. AA4^v .Google Scholar

¹¹² All these descriptions happen to appear 1533, sig. Tt3, but they are also scattered throughout the polemical works.Google Scholar

¹¹³ 1533, sig. FF3^v .Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ In fact More continually exaggerated the extent to which the major Reformers felt the Church to be ‘invisible.’ Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ 1533, sig. N2^v .Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ 1533, sig. L1^v. The reference is to Luther in this particular passage, but the thought applies to any idea of a ‘fall’ of the Catholic Church.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ 1533, sig. M2v.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ 1533, sig. b1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ 1533, sig. Nn1.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ 1533, sig. F1. This thought had patristic authority. In 1533, sig. V3, More calls upon the witness of Augustine in his Contra epistolam Parmeniani to establish the necessity of the Church's being clearly known. There one finds the sentiment of the Father: ‘Nulla est igitur securitas unitatis, nisi ex promissis Dei Ecclesia declarata, quae super montem, ut dictum est, constituta abscondi non potest: et ideo necesse est, ut omnibus terrarum partibus nota sit.’ PL 43.104.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Correspondence 338–339.Google Scholar

¹²² Smits, Luchesius, Saint Augustin dans l'œuvre de Jean Calvin (Louvain 1958) vol. II.Google Scholar

¹²³ Fraenkel, Peter, Testimonia Patrum (Geneva 1961).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Op.cit (n. 66).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Ibid. 40.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Ibid. 40–41. Pelikan, Mr. is here quoting himself from an earlier essay.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ This idea of the personal rejection of the Reformers by the Fathers crops up again and again throughout the polemical works. It is most lengthily expressed in More's account of a great mythological general council of the whole Church from all history which appears in The second parte (1533) sigs. Xx1–BB1.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ More, Thomas, Utopia, ed. Hexter, J. H. and Surtz, Edward (Yale University Press 1965) 224–225.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ ‘Heresies, ,’ EW, sig. m2.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹³¹ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹³² 1533, sig. N2^v .Google Scholar

¹³³ One of which was done by More himself. See ‘A Treatyce (unfynyshed) upon these woordes of holye Scrypture, Memorare nouissima & in eternum non peccabis,’ EW, sigs. e5^v–f8. The best general study of this morbid sentiment of the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance remains that of Tenenti, Alberto, Il senso della morte e l'amore della vita net Rinascimento (Giulio Einaudi Editore 1957).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ EW, sig. b5^v .Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Fisher, John, A Sermon had at Paulis (London, T. Berthelet, 1525) sig. F1^v .Google Scholar