Thomas Murner, Thomas More, and the First Expression of More's Ecclesiology

Author(s): John M. Headley

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 14 (1967), pp. 73-92
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2857161 .
Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Studies in the Renaissance.

http://www.jstor.org

XGM
g N brought
a letter toofEngland
26
August
under
I523false
Thomas
pretenses.
Morewrites
Moreexto

Thomas
Murner,
Thomas
More,andthe
FirstExpressionof More'sEcclesiology

wg

E
WS

about
a Franciscan
Thomas
Murner,
, Wolsey
who while
in Germany
hasfriar,
written
a book
against
Lutherin defenseof thekingandrecentlyhasbeen

plainsthatthekinghaspitiedthisfriarin hisplight
andwouldnowhaveWolseyreward
Murner
withtIOO to enablehim
to returnhomewherehispresence
is verynecessary.
Morecontillues:
heis oneofthechiefestaysagaynst
thefactionofLuther
inthatparties,
agaynst
whom
hehathwryttenmanybokisin theAlmayng
tongandnowsithhiscummyng
hither
hehathtranslated
into LatynthebokethathebyforemadeinAlmaigne
in defenceof
theKingisboke.Heis Doctorof Diviniteandof botheLawisanda manforwryting
andpreching
of greatestimation
inhiscuntre.l

At a timewhenMorewasengagedin composing
hisfirstpolemical
workagainsttheLutheran
menace,thepresence
in Englandof oneof
Germany's
mostconspicuous
literaryfigures a humanist,
pedagogue,
andearlyapologist
of thechurch raisesthequestion
asto therelationshipof thetwo menin theircommon,simultaneous
opposition
to the
burgeoning
Reformation.
Anexamination
of theactivities
andpolemicalwritingsof thetwomenatthisjuncture
mightleadbothto instructiveparallels
andpossible
pointsof contactbetweenthetwohumanistapologists.
Suchastudymightprovidethebackground
to theincreasing
roleof Englishapologists
in thetheological
combatagainst
Lutherand
servetoclarifysomeof thesalientfeatures
ofMore'spartinthisstruggle.
TheFranciscan
whomMorefoundat the courtof HenryVIII was
well knownin hisnativeland.A studetLt
at manyof the continental
universities,
Murnerdevelopeda pedagogical
passionwhichprovides
Thefol]owing
article
wasreadattheannual
meetingof theSt.Thomas
MoreProject,
YaleUniversity,
NewHaven,Conn.,on4 lDecember
I965.
1 TheCorrespondence
of Sir Thomas
More,ed.Elizabeth
F. Rogers(Princeton,
I947),
p. 277,11.
62-69.
Hereafter
citedasRogers.
]

[73

74

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

legends,
of theTillEulenspiegel
An admirer
thekey to hischaracter.
At
in upperGermany.
promotedtheirreception
Murnersignificantly
thepoetwascrownedwithlaurelbytheEmtheageof thirty,Murner
of theAeneid
translation
animportant
andcompleted
perorMaximilian
a doctoraldegreein theologywhich
In I506 heacquired
intoGerman.
Butit waschieflyto Romanlaw
himforthelaterpolemics.
equipped
theInstiit at Trierandtranslating
thathe turnedafterI5I5, teaching
Hisjuridicaltrainingandoutput
tutesfor thefirsttimeinto German.
reacha climaxin theyearsI 5 I 8 andI 5 I9 andhelpto explainthenature
becametherectorof hisorder
InI52I Murner
toLuther.
of hisreaction
to theopeningmovesof reformin
andtherebysensitive
in Strasbourg
order,the
city. As a defenderof the traditional
thatdistingiished
wrotesevenpolemicalworks
humanistandpopularizer
Strasbourg
Day I520 andSt.
againstLutherin the periodbetweenSt. Martin's
DayI522.2
Martin's
bothforitsinitialtone
activitywasremarkable
polemical
Murner's
lasted.For
andthelengthof timethatthismoderation
of moderation
himselfhad
andMurner
unclear
stillremained
ofLuther
thesignificance
abusesandfor
long beenan ardentcriticandsatiristof ecclesiastical
to muchthatLuthersaid.Murnerhadbegun
sometimesympathetic
notedthe poison
but hadincreasingly
with a brotherlyadmonition
workhewas
mixedwiththehoney.By theendof hisfourthapologetic
the
of Luther:
popular
representation
a changein thecurrent
suggesting
headwouldbe
reformer's
descentof theHolySpiritovertheGerman
placednowon onesideandthedevilon theother;in thebackground
thecityof Prague.3
wouldappear
WhenMurnerarrivedin Englandabouttheendof JulyI523,4 he
am Main, I956), pp. 8-I3, 24, 58.
2 AdalbertErler, ThomasMurneralsJurist(Frankfurt
For the most completestudy of Murner'swork see Theodor von Liebenau,Der FranziskanerDr ThomasMurner(Frieburgim Br., I9I3).
gegen die
Band 7, KleineSchrften:Prosaschriften
3 ThomasMurnersDeutscheSchriften,
ed. Wolfgang Pfeiffer-Bell(Berlinu. Leipzig, I928), p. II3. Murner'santiReformation,
Lutheranwritings areincludedin vols. 6-8 of this edition. Hereaftercited as DS.
'hath now
4 Although More'sletteris dated26 August, he remarksthat the Franciscan
lsenehere a good while'. Cf. Rogers,p. 277, . 56-57. Accordingto Liebenau,Murner's
absence in England can be documented from 26 August to II September. For the
chronology of Murner'spolemics and his English trip see Paul Scherrer,'Zwei neue
XXIX
Schriften Thomas Murners', BaslerZeitschrfft Geschichteund Altertumskunde
It is in this articlethat Scherrerbrought to light the hitherto undiscov(I930),
I45-I67.
anglorumet
cred final anti-Lutheranpolemic of Murner,MendatiaLutheriin serenissimum
Jrantiaeregemetc. The only copy of this fragmentarywork is in the Munich Universitatsloibliothekto which I am indebted for a Xerox reproduction.While Scherrerwas not

hir

JOHN M. HEADLEY

75

degreeinthecontroversy
couldclaimtohavebeeninvolvedto agreater
betweenLutherandHenryVIII thananyotherpersonbesidestheparhadpresentThomasMore.Murner
themselvesandperhaps
ticipants
De captivitate
of Luther's
publica translation
reading
edto theGerman
wisdomthatheshouldwarn
obscure
to therather
according
Babylonica,
reformandthedangerof hisideas.
aboutLuther's
hisfellow-Germans
additions,and textualdistortions
Murner'sall too free translation,
shiftin
andbeganthatgradual
broughthimunderattackandderision
Ong AugustI522
defense.
anda morepersonal
hispolemicto invective
septem
sacramenan editionof Henry'sAssertio
Murnerhadpublished
of the
His translation
lettersby Erasmus.
with supplementary
torum
Theappearking'streatiseintoGermanfollowedshortlyafterwards.
feverish
Murner's
occasioned
to theAssertio
response
anceof Luther's
by hisgreat
activityattheendof I522, whichwasclimaxed
polemical
Narren.
Whenon II NovemberI522
Lutherischen
satireVondemgrossen
seyoderder
einlugner
uss
engelland
der
Kunig
hisOb
Murnercompleted
strugglewith
twoyearshadseenhimmovefroma substantive
Luther,
tone
feud,froman admonitory
to a sharppersonal
the Reformation
opposition
to a totaleffortinmobilizing
hisownuncertainty
disguising
beginsbyexpressInthislastworkMurner
thethreatofLuther.
against
owe
nationandtheemperor
thattheGerman
ingthedebtof gratitude
to KingHenry.Hisbattleis theirs.Intheking'seffortto savethesacrashould
Luther,
allChristians
Martin
mentsfromtheragingbloodhound
would
Inthestatedbeliefthat,if onlythereader
springto hisdefense.5
comparethewordsof Lutherwiththoseof the king,the reformer's
to presentpassages
wouldbecomeclear,Murnerproceeds
falsehoods
fromthekingandLuthertogetherwithhisowninterjections.6
anda Latinversionof his
JustasLutherhadwrittenbotha German
of hisGera Latinrendering
answerto theking,so Murnerproposed
Lutheri,
work,Mendatia
mandefenseof the king.Thisfragmentary
whoseprefaceis datedII NovemberI522 but whoseprintingwas
in I524,
in Strasbourg
by theadventof theReformation
interrupted
Despitethedateof
mayhavebegunwhilestillonthecontinent.
Murner
theprefacehe addedto theworkin thecourseof theyearI523. The
of theactiviknowledge
of hisincreasing
itselfrevealsevidence
preface
concernedwith any possiblerelationbetween Murnerand More, his numerousarticles
on the Germanapologisthave been most valuableto the presentwriter.
5 DS VIII, 4>50.
6 DS VIII,58.

76

MURNER, MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

tiesof theEnglishapologists
andgivessomesupportto More'sstatementthatMurnerhadtranslated
theGerman
versionintoLatinsince
hiscomingto England.
Begunasa translation,
theMendatiabecamea
different
workin thenew contextandwiththeintensification
of the
Lutheran
controversy
in I523.Murnermentions
theroyalletterto the
Saxondukeswrittenon20January
I 523andpublished
atLeipzigon23
May.Heevenincorporates
intohisownpreface
a paraphrase
of oneof
thepassages
in theking'sletter.7Secondly,
andof greatersignificance
for suggesting
a laterreworking
of theMendatiain England,Murner
indicatesknowledgeof JohnFisher'sDefensioRegie assertioniscontra
Captivitatem
Babylonicam
by sayingthatthebishopwillreply(respondebit) to Luther.8
Indicative
of Murner's
passionate
involvement
in the
controversy
betweenLutherandHenrystands
hisstatement
thathewas
preparing
a thirdbookwhich,thoughit neverappeared,
wasto reveal
stillmoreof Luther's
lies.9By 20 OctoberMurnerwasbackin Strasbourg,wheretheReformation
wasjustbeginning.
TheFranciscan
fled
andsoonfoundin Switzerland
a new areafor his activities.
But his
careerasa polemicist
against
Lutherhadended.
In thesesamemonthsof I523 beganthecareerof ThomasMoreas
polemicist
andapologist.
Luther's
scurrilous
attackuponthekingdid
not requirethe accompanying
exhortations
of Murnerto evokean
7 Scherrer,
p. I57. The king'sletteris entitledEpistolaregiaad illustrissinlos
Saxoniae
ducespie adsstonitoria
andis boundin with Henry'sAssertioandotherrelevantmaterial
whichPynsonpublishedunderthe titleLibellohuicregiohaecinsunt.Cf. Epistolaregia,
sig. a4VandtheMendatia,sig.aiiV.
8 Mendatia,
sig. ciii:'Adtertiamverotueorationispartem,quaregium& omniseculo

dignissimum
atqueverissimum
librummendatijs
insimulas:
respondebit
tibidoctissimus,
& etate&doctrina
atqueviteintegritate
venerabilis
praesulIohannes
episcopus
Roffensis'.
Scherrer(pp. I58-I59) interpretedMurner'sstatementas referringto the Assertionis
Irltheranae
confutatio
andwascuriouslyuncertain
aboutthefirstappearance
of thiswork.
Becausethisbook was publishedby MichaelHillen at Antwerpon 2 JanuaryI523,
Murner's
useof thefuturetensebecomesinexplicable
andconfutesScherrer's
own argumentunlessit is understood
thatMurneris herereferring
to thelaterDefensiowhichdid
notappearuntilI525. Suchapossibility
wouldseemreasonable,
first,if we recognizethat
the controversyis specificallya controversybetweenLutherand the king with De
captivitate
Babylonica
andnottheAssertioomniumarticulorum
M. Lutheriacthebasictextin
question.ThusFisherwouldreplyto Lutherthroughhislaterdefenseof theking'sbook
andnotthroughtheconfutingof Luther's
Assertio.Secondly,in hisletterto theBishopof
Ely whichservesastheprefaceto hisDefensio,Fisherstatesthathe hadbegunthework
two yearsbeforeits publicationin June I525 but hadset it asideon accountof other
businessaswell as the rumorthatLutherwouldrecant(cf.Defensio[6]). ThusMurner
wouldhaveeasilybeenableto be in Englandat the timethatFisherwrotethebulkof
thiswork.
9 Scherrer,
p. I55.

JOHN M. HEADLEY
77

seemsto haveincludeda twofold

Englishreply.The royalresponse
Inorderthatthekingmightnotbecomefurtherinvolvedin
program.
business,
asan uglyandundignified
appearing
whatwasincreasingly
the taskof a directreplyfell to the humanistand royalcouncilor
letterin theking's
andadlaonitory
ThomasMore,whilea moregeneral
namewassentto thoseGermanprincesmostdirectlyinvolvedwith
Luther.Forthe Epistotaregia of JanuaryI523 andthe Responsioad
I523
formpartof a singleprogram;their
Lutherlsmlof September
languageand sourcematerialeven suggesta commonauthorship.
a fortnightafterthe datingof the royalletterto the
Approximately
Saxondukes,Morewasat workon thefirstversionof hisResponsao,
forMore'sresort
reasons
11Allthepossible
whichcameoutinthespring.
to a secondversionwith diSerentdevicesneednot concernus here.
of theearlier
is thefactthatbetweenthecompletion
however,
Evident,
version,Morehad
intothelaterRosseus
anditsreordering
Baravellus
reply13
inwhich
andLuther's
Catharinus12
readtheworkof Ambrosius
of hisownunderpresentations
gaveoneof theclearest
thereformer
it fromthe currently
standingof the churchandwhatdistinguished
factmayhelpto explainsomeof
view.Onefurtherexternal
accepted
More's
H gathering:
thedetailsin thenewversionwithits expanded
stayin
coincidedwith Murner's
hastyreworkingof the Baravellus
England.
writingsand
polemical
betweenMurner's
thesirriilarities
Instudying
the firstpolemicalworkof More,we canproceedfrommattersof
of the
themesandbroaderperspectives
detailto themoreimportant
workof IS23
is a convenienttitlefor More'spseudonymous
a(lLutherum
10 Responsio
viri FerdinadiBarauettiopus etegas,
againstLuther.Therewere two issues:Eruditissifuli
of Durham),with a prefaI523 (theonlyknowncopybeingat theUniversity
London?
Eruditissis1li
viriGuitietmiRosseiopuselegasls,alsoI 523, with
toryletterdatedI I February:
Inthelatter,sig.H hasbtenexpanded
lettersdated3 AugustandI7 September.
prefatory
asRosselts.
fromfourto thirtyleaves.Thisis referredto hereafter
Des. Erasmi,
wroteinJulyI523 (cf.Opusepistotarunl
11Il1the SpongiawhichErasmus
versionof theResponsio;
ed. P. S. Allen,v, 309) thehumanistalludesto the Baravellus
X, I652C.
cf. Operaomnia,ed.J.Clericus(Leyden,I703-I706),
fiidei
et apostoticae
Politus,o.P.,Apologiapro verifafecat11oticae
Catharillus
12 Ambrosius
atFlorencein DecemberI 520. Theeditionusedhereis tnateditedbyJosef
. . . appeared
vol. 27 (MUllSter i. W., I956), hereaftercited as
Schweizerill the CorpllsCathoticorum,
titerarischen
Die itatieniscSlen
Lauchert,
seeFriedrich
CC. Fora biographyof Catharinus
(Freiburgim Br., I9I2), pp. 30-I33 .
GegnerLut11ers
illJuneI52I, iS in the
whichappeared
nostri. . . responrio,
13 Ad librxmexilpliinlagistri
to luther'sworks be
Werke,VII, 705-778. All references
Weimareditionof Ltlt11crs
to the Weimaredition(WA).
AA/7ill

78

MURNER,

MORE,

AND

MORE'S

ECCLESIOLOGY

twomen.Whenin theprefatory
epistleto Carcellius
MorehasRosseus
claimthatthechurchcanaiordto haveLuther's
BabylonianCaptivity
trumpeted
fromthehousetops,for its heresiesandscurrilities
areso
blatantthatanyreadercanperceivetheknaveryof its author,we are
confronted
withanattitude
thatiscuriously
similar
to thatof Murner
in
translating
theworkintohisnativeGerman.14
Indeed,Morehimself
1nanifests
greatercautionandwishesto opposethetextof theking's
Assertioto thatof Luther's
workandprovidea guideandcommentary.
Nevertheless
thebasicassumption
is thesame thattruthis essentially
self-evident
anderrordissolves
on beingrevealed.
Howdifferent
from
thefrightened
reactionof Tunstal,who at theDietof Wormswrote
backto Wolsey29 JanuaryI52I alertinghimto the existenceof the
BabylonianCaptivityandadvising
thatit mustbe keptoutof England
atallcosts.15
Someof thereferences
andimageryusedbybothpolemicists
suggest
connections
betweenthem.In hislastworkagainstLuther,thefragmentary
Mendatia,Murner
beginswithanextended
Virgilian
imageof
Troyaflamearldherwallsunderattack.l6The militaryimageryin
Murner's
writingwhereinthechurchis on thedefensive
withwalland
shieldandLuthertheattacker
withspearandarmorattainsitshighest
expression
of combativeness
in theMendatia.Likewise
in theResponsio
militaryimageryappears.l7
Havewe herea caseof influence
or rather
is it thatbothapologists
arereactingto the commonsituationthe
embattled
church
confronted
byheresy?
Inhissustained
Virgilian
image
Murner
identifies
LutherwithSinonin theartof deception
andspeaks
of his distributing
poisonfor honey.l8Similarly
Morewill seefit to
appealto Virgil'sSinonin orderto explainLuther's
deceptiveartof
mixinga littlegoodwithso muchevil.19
Together
withtheimageof Sinonthedeceiver
goesthatof Catiline
thesubverter.
To two menwho reveredso deeplythecommunity
of
Christendom
andallthatwasbestin thetraditional
orderasdidMore
Rossetes,sig. [A3V].
Adolph Wrede, ed., DeutscheReichstagakten,Jungere
ReiheII (Gotha,I896), p. 784.
Hereaftercited as DRA.
15 2,ffendatia,
sig. aiiV.
7 Rossells,sigs. CGIV-GG2. Cf. y4v.
Mendatia,sigs. aiiV-aiii.
19 Rosseus,sigs. H6V-H7. The correct collation for the expandedH gatheringcan be
found in R. W. Gibson, St. ThomasMore:a Preliminary
Bibliography(New Haven and
LOlldOIl, I96I),
p. 85. Neverthelessfor purposesof convenientreferencethe signaturesof
the H gatheringwill here be treatedas though they ran consecutively.
14

15

JOHN M. HEADLEY
79

wouldhavean
Catiline
theimageof Lutherasa veritable
andMurner,
and
forLuther,
Catiline
isafavoriteepithetof Murner's
obviousappeal.
refersat the
Nobilitythe Franciscan
to theGerman
in his own Address
outsetto the reformeras Catilineawakenedfrom the dead.20On
in
occursto theEnglishman
ThomasMore'spart,thefigureof Catiline
untilit comes
anderosionof authority
declension
notingthecontinuous
to tlle
instances
in several
Doestheirrecourse
to settlewiththerabble.2l
a caseof influence?
sameimagesestablish
itselfon morefundaexpresses
of thetwoapologists
Theagreement
in NovemberI 520
withLuther
Inopeningthestruggle
mentalmatters.
a massanda churchasPlato
of describing
thereformer
accused
Murner
in otherwords,anidealwhichone
hiscommunity:
himselfdescribes
hasneverseen.Murnerpresseshis pointby chidingLutherfor this
wallsanddoorsaswellasitsspiritual
thathasspiritual
republic
spiritual
seemsto havestruck
The accusation
andmagistrates.22
burgomaster
home,for Luther,who neverwrotea tractagainstMurner,on this
to answerhimin a briefpostludeaddedto
foundit necessary
occasion
The
onlypointthatLuthersawfit to discuss
Emser.
reply
to
hislast
the natureand
concerning
accusation
seriouslywas the Franciscan's
of hisdoctrineof the
Fora fullerexposition
visibilityof thechurch.23
of
a replyto therecentApologia
churchLutherturnedto composing
Catharinus.24
Ambrosius
which
It is preciselythisproblemof the churchandits definition
WhiletheEnglishreading
Moreto reworkhisResponsio.
compelled
replywhich
inthemainpartofLuther's
publicwaslatertobeinterested
drawnfrom the Book of
of the Antichrist
a portrayal
constitutes
Moreturnedto the prologuein whichLutherdefinesthe
Daniel,25
invisiblenature.He speaksof this
to its essentially
churchaccording
of Murner:
reminiscent
noveltywitha sarcasm
the Churchmilitanton earthhasnot beenrecognizedin thispalpableand perceptible
and mathesomehowimperceptible
churchbutin someothermultitudeof Christians
matical ]iketheideasof Plato -whichis bothin someplaceandin no place,is in the
fleshandis outof theflesh,whichis whollyinvolvedin sinsandyet doesnot sinat all.26
20
22
25

DS vrl,6I, 63.
DS vr,74.

RosseusX
SigS. PP2V-PP324 WA VII, 699
WA VII, 683
WilliamA. Clebsch,England'sEarliestProtestants(NewHavenandLondon,I964),

pp. 85-87

21

23

is not my own but that of SisterScholastica

26 Rosseus,sig. HI7. The translation
Mandeville,Ad.I'.P.S.It will be publishedalongwith the forthcomingeditionof the
by theSt. ThomasMoreProjectat YaleUniversity.
Respo1esio

80

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

Andalittlefurther
onMoreaddsthatsucha church
wouldincludeonly
persons
whomLutherconceives
in hismindlikePlatonicideas.27
It is
timethatwe turnto the definitionof the churchandthe locusof
authority
astheyemergein theresponses
of thesetwo humanist
apologiststo thegrowingmenaceof Luther.
Whenwe readthepolemical
worksof Murnerwithan eye to the
ultimate
natureof thechurchandtheearnestness
of thewriter'sintention,we findourselves
transported
intotheintellectual
worldof ThomasMore.At alltimesMurner's
ultimateloyaltyandconcernarewith
theChristian
communitygemeine
Christe1>heit.
Heenvisages
it asconstituting
nottwohierarchies
butoneinwhichthelaityissubordinate
to
thepriesthood;
eachorderhasitsproperplaceandfunctionin society,
lawsare respected,
and the unlearned
gemeinarenot confusedand
excitedby controversial
questions.
Inthislifethechurchembraces
all,
the goodandthewicked,the electandthe reprobate.
MurnercomplainsthatLutherwouldexcludepoorsinnersfromhischurch.28
Becausehe conceivesthewholeorderof Christendom
in the functional
andorganictermsof thehumanbody,herecoilsfromLuther's
ideasof
thepriesthood
of allbelievers,
a singleestateamongChristians
andthe
churchas an indistinguishable
assemblyand congregation.
Murner
opposestheideaof corpus
or leibsuggestive
of manycooperating
membersto Luthers ideaof a versammlung
whichMurnerunderstands
asa
uniformconglomerate
dissolving
thetraditional
ecclesiastical
andsocial
order.29
DespitetheFranciscan's
misunderstandings
of Lutherwe areat
onceconfronted
withthetrulyrevolutionary
importof Luther's
doctrineforhisday.Andto Murner
thequestioning
of oneauthority
leads
to thequestioning
of all untilhierarchy
andorderhavebeensubverted
by thegemein.30
ForMurner
thepopeis thehighestoberkeit
desglaubens
andimplicitly
thebasisof allmagistracy
andauthority.31
Thecommonconsentof all
Christian
believers
overtheagesin thispapalmagistracy
iscauseforthe
generalobedience
to thepope.Murnerseesthepopebothaschiefadministrator
andjudgein spiritual
government.
Thepapacyhasbeen
givento menasa shepherd.
Papalprimacy
hasbeenestablished
by God,
forthechurchmilitantrequires
a physical
head.32
WhileLutherwould
havethechurchruledby thegemein,
in thechurchasill alltheheavenly
27 Rosseils,Sig.
29 DS VII, 7I.
31 DS

H2I.

VI,42; VII,23; VIII,

28DS
30 DS
7-9,

I5-I6.

32DS

VI, IIO.

VII,44-46VII,5-6, I3-15

JOHN M. HEADLEY

81

of
Whenin doubtonmatters
to rule.33
oneheadissupposed
hierarchies
in
papacy
the
placed
has
Luther
because
Yet
pope.
the
faithollegoesto
hasbeen
whichshoulddecidethecontroversy
doubt,theveryauthority
not to a
AlthoughMurnerclaimsthatthe fathersappealed
crippled.
appealto a councilcomLuther's
councilbutto thepope,he considers
for
experience,
an
illuminating
a
council
find
would
Luther
mendable.
InfactMurner
theremanya doctorof thegospel.34
he woulddiscover
grantsan enormousrole to the council.He wouldnot only have
to one35butalso
submitted
controversy
booksandthepresent
Luther's
the problemwhetherthe popehaspoweroverthe
morespecifically
and the wholequestionof Petrineprimacy.37
soulsill Purgatory36
the
concerning
famousstatement
Augustine's
IndeedMurnercorrupts
of thechurchto readthathe wouldnothave
gospelandtheauthority
of thecouncil.38
believedthegospelif it hadnotbeenfortheauthority
reflectsthe
council
and
pope
on
in Mumer'sposition
Theanlbiguity
at the beginningof the
constitution
ambiguityin the ecclesiastical
century.
sixteenth
of thechurch
asto themachinery
Butrisingbehindanyuncertainty
timeand
over
stretching
church
universal
of
a
affirmation
istheringing
whoseauthorandguidedby theHolySpirit39
space,a churchinspired
includingthe
butin a tradition
not simplyin Scripture
ity is revealed
thepopesand
of allChristendom,
thecouncilsandassemblies
apostles,
appealis to thefaithof
andultimate
constant
Murner's
holydoctors.40
of the
thebasisforthedoctrines
whichprovides
Christenheit
thegemeine
andtheVirginMary.4lMumersaysthathe also
Trinity,homoousion
Whydoyou
andnotin thepope.42
Christenheit
believesin thegemeine
attackthepopewithhistriplecrown?Thehonorof thiscrownandthe
majestyof our faitharenot of the popealonebut of the common
ChristeIldom.43

thatThomas
hassuggested
Themostrecenteditorof theResponsio
replyto
MorenlayhavereceivedfromMurnerhiscopyof Luther's
33
34
35
36
37

DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS

VII, 44VI, 99-I00.

VI, 33,

I2I.

VI, I04.
VII, 29.

seriesLatina(Paris, I84I),
Cf. J. P. Migne, Patrologiaecursuscompletus:
Ego vero Evangelio non crederem,nisi me CatholicaeEcclesiae commoveret
auctoritas.
39 DS VIII, 79.
43 DS VI, 73.
42 DS vrt, 86.
41 DS VIlIs II540 DS VI, 4538

XLII, I76:

VI, I20.

82

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

Catharinus,
whichcompelled
hisinspired,
if hasty,additionto thediatribeagainsttheGerman
reformer.44
Hehadbeenawareearlierof the
existence
of Catharinus'
Apologia,45butonlynowinAugustI 523 didhe
turnto thearguments
inboththeseworks.Intheexpanded
H gathering
of theResponsiowefindMoremomentarily
freedfromtheself-imposed
restrictions
of hisownpolemical
methodandconfronting
theproblem
of thenatureof thechurchandthepapalprimacy.
Morecameto the problemof theidentityof the churchon earth
havingalreadysuggestedhis understanding
of the churchthrough
scattered
statements
in liisfirstversionof thediatribe.
IntheBaravellus
Moresoughtto reassert
the traditional
sevensacraments;
he pursued
fairlydoggedlythecontroversy
asoutlinedby therespective
worksof
Lutherandtheking.Beyondtheimmediate
taskof defending
allthe
sacraments,
Morepaidparticular
attentionto theruleof faithandto
transubstantiation.
If we seekfor More'snotionof the churchin the
Baravellus
we finda viewthatis stillunformed
andimplicit.Already
present
howeverarethetwomajorcoordinates
of hislaterunderstanding of thechurch;namely,thepresence
andactionof theHolySpirit
andtheexistence
of a peopleconfessing
Christ.Thecentralfactin the
lifeof thischurchisitsguidance
by theHolySpirit.TheSpiritrulesthe
churchin thesacraments
andarticlesof faith.46
TheHoly Spiritpreservesthechurchfromerror;it accounts
fortheunityof thechurch;47
it produces
changeanddevelopment
in the churchsuchas thewithdrawalof thecupfromthelaity48
orshiftingthetimeof fastingbefore
communion.49
Moreemphasizes
thattheSpiritdoesnot simplyteach
butleadsandguidesthechurch.By frequently
linkingthetwo scripturaltexts-Matthew
xxviii.20 andJohn
xvi.I 3 Morefurther
establishes
thissenseoftheSpirit's
continuing
presence
andinerrancy
inthechurch.50
Thehighestauthority
in the churchis thusthe Holy Spiritwhich
begetsa consensusunanimis.Onaccountof thisverypublicagreement
in
44 Cf. SisterGertrudeJosephDonnelly, A Translation
of St. ThomasMore'sResponsio
ad Lutllerum(Washington, D.C., Ig62), pp. I3-I5. Murner was certainly aware of
Luther'sreply to Catharinus.See Mendatia,sig. fiv.
45 See the Baravellusversion of the Responsio,
sigs. DIV-D2.
46 Rosseus,sigs. VIV,Y2_Y2V.
This referenceand the following three are given to the
more accessibleRosseusversion which in these places does not differ from the earlier
Baravellus.
47 Rosseus,sig. QQ3v.
48 Rosseus,sig. T349 Rosseus,sigs. AA2V-AA3;cf. sig. X3.
50 Rosseus,sig. F4V.Cf. also sigs. H30V,V3, X3-X3V,X4V.

JOHN M. HEADLEY

83

the faith,Morerecoilsbeforethe privatejudgmentof a Luther.51

If
takenseparately,
witnesses
arehuman,butin theirunanimous
convergencethey affirmthe presenceof a superiorprincipleof unity,the
Spiritwhichanimates
thechurchandmakesit infallible.52
Evenapart
fromScripture
itself,thispublicfaithof thecatholicchurchis certain.53
On thequestion
of papalprimacyMorein theBaravellus
doesnot go
farbeyondquotingthekingandseemsunwillingto becomeinvolved
in thematter.54
Headmitsthepreeminence
of theRomanseeasevinced
by the acknowledgment
of all nationsat one timeor another.55
A1thoughhehesitates
overthequestions,
Moreneitherlocatesthesource
of doctrinenor of lawsfor the churchin the pope.56tRhechurch
simplyhasthesepowers.57
IntheRosseus
versionwrittenunderconsiderable
pressure
duringthe
latesummerof IS23Morereturned
to thefraywitha bettergraspof
theissues.A numberof additional
sources
caused
himto opena seamin
hisResponsioandto introduce
a presentation
of thechurchwhichwas
perceptive
of the issuesandin manywaysconstituted
a remarkably
preciseandmaturestatement.
Hecouldbenefitfromtherecently
publishedConfutatioof hisfriendJohnFisher.He couldtakeadvantage
of
theexperience
andinformation
possessed
by a visitingGermanFranciscan.But of greatersignificance
was a copy of Luther'sReply to
AmbrosiusCatharinus,possiblybroughtby the visitingfriar,which
compelled
Moreto clarifyandexpress
hisunderstanding
of thechurch.
Thefruitof hisenforced
rethinking
of thechurch's
naturewastheexpandedH gathering,
comprising
themajorpartof bookI, chapterIO
of theRosseus.
Morebeginsbystatingtheunresolved
problem
carried
overfromthe
Baravellus:
if thechurchwhichLuthercallspapistis notthechurchof
Christ,thenthechurchof Christis nowhere 'fortasse
in Utopia' or
withtwoorthreeheretics
in a corner.58
Heaccepts
Catharinus'
distinctionbetweenthechurchmilitant
onearthandthechurchtriumphant
in
heaven.59
He thenpassesrapidlyon to affirmsomeof thepointsmade
51Rosseus,sigs. OIV-02.
52Andre Prevost, Saint ThonlasMore, contribution
a l'histoirede la pensetereligieuse
(Lille,I945), P. 76. This is a dissertation,one mimeographedcopy of which was given to
the St. Thomas More Projectat Yale University by Miss ElizabethF. Rogers.
53Rosseus,sig. CCI.
54Rosseus,sigs. SIV-S3.
55Rosseus,sig. S3.
56Rosseus,sigs. N4, PP2-PP2V,pp4v_QQI.
57Rosseus,sigs. P2, PP2-PP2V.
58Rosseus,sig. H2V.
59Rosseus,sig. H3.

84

MURNER,

MORE,

AND

MORE'S

ECCLESIOLOGY

bytheItalian
apologist,
inthesecondbookof hisApologia.Skirmishing
forward,
heengages
hisopponent
onthematterof therockinMatthew
XVi.I8
at whichpointhe agreesthatChristis the rock,head,and
cornerstone
of the churchbut thathe hasappointed
a vicarandthe
authority
of thisvicariate
inheresin theoS1ce,notin itsholder.60
The
questionof the rockleadson to Mlore's
famousconsideration
of the
papacy.He denieshavingwantedto treatthe matter,but because
Lutherhasso entangled
the questionof the churchwith thatof the
pope,he findsit unavoidable.61
Moreunderstands
theveryidentityof
thechurchto be at issue.He is movedto obedience
to thisseeby the
consensus
of the churchandby the recognition
thatwithoutsucha
divinelyestablished
officethewelfareandunityof thechurchaswellas
thatof allsocialordermaybe endangered.62
Followinghis confession
of obedienceto the Romansee andhis
prophecyof the direills thatwill soonbesetGermany,
Moresettles
downto a longstruggle
withLutheronthemeaning
of thegatesof hell
not prevailing
againstthe church.Morehasintroduced
the question
withtheobservation,
important
for11is
wholeviewof thechurch,that
Lutherby pursuing
a hiddenwisdom,reducesthepalpable
andcommonlyknownchurchto aninvisibleone,froman externalto aninternaloneandfromaninternal
oneto no churchatall.63WhatMore
findssoupsetting
aboutLuther's
interpretation
of thepassage
isthatthe
reformer,
in his insistence
upona pureandspiritual
church,would
apparently
rejectall sinnersfrommembership.
Thepointraisedconcernsthediffierent
anthropologies
andideasofjustification.
Moreclaims
that,sinceno manis withoutsin,thereis thusno churchforLuther.64
It hasbecomesomethingpurelymathematical
andPlatonic.65
More
reactsto sucha view by considering
the churchas thatcommunity
whichpraysdailyfortheexpiation
of sins.66
Alongwiththepalpable
andperceptible
qualities
of thischurchemergesitsuniversal
character,
locatedandrepresented
amongallpeoplesandextendingthroughout
alltime.67
sigs.6v, H7-H7V.
sig.H8V.
sigs.H8V-HIo.
sig.HIIVsig.HI4-HI4v.
sig.HI7-HI7v.
sig.HIS.
67 Rosseus, sigs.
HI7, H22v-H23, H24.

60 Rosseus,
61 Rosseus,
62 Rosseus,
63 Rosseus,
64 Rosseus,
65 Rosseus,
66 Rosseus,

JOHN M. HEADLEY

85

of the churchheginsto freeitselffromthe

More'sunderstanding
andabuse:thechurchis thecommonmultitude
meleeof recrimination
is
of thosewhoprofessthenameandfaithof Christ,whichmultitude
people,almostall of whom
knownby the nameof the Christian
internal,
Luther's
theprimacyof thepope.68He attacks
acknowledge
wouldincludeo1llythesuphiddenchurchwhichapparently
spiritual,
posedlygoodmen,andagainstthisnumberof goodmenMoreplaces
amongallnationsand
represented
of Christians
thecommonmultitude
withthetrue,thegreatchurchof so
Incontrast
throughalltheages.69
of theentire
theagreement
manylandsandso manyagesrepresenting
Ifthis
rivulet.70
little
a
as
appears
Luther
of
church
the
world,
Christian
church,
the
is
not
Christ
of
thefaith
greatnumberof peopleprofessing
In
thenwherehasit bee1lfrom Christ'sdeathto Luther'sbirth?71
of alltimesandplaces,Moreseesthepapacy
to theconsensus
appealing
thebestmenhavebeenobedient
forthetruechurch:
asthetouchstone
to thepontiS,whiletheworsthavebeenrebellious.72
of the catholicchurchand of thatwhich
More'sunderstanding
clearashemovestoward
increasingly
becomes
dividesit fromLuther's
thatif
accusation
Luther's
Heboldlyconfronts
theendof hisinsertion.
of
evidence
is
the
faith
and
offaith
matter
a
thechurchisbelievedandis
multithingsnotseen,thenthechurchis byno meansthatperceptible
to everyone.73Moreclaimsthat
tudeof goodandbadmenapparent
the Apostles'Creed,hasfailedto distinguish
Luther,whileaccepting
in
betweenthe churchmilitanton earthandthe churchtriumphant
latter.
to the
heavenandhe hasappliedto the formerwhatpertains
rewardof thosewhobelieve.74
thehoped-for
Ratherthecreedpresents
Hecontinues:
thatthey should
Thusmortalswho wouldwishto professthe faitharereminded
holyfellowship,
in
wllich,
Church
catholic
be
a
will
there
that
believe
unhesitatingly
with sinsforgiven,with fleshrevivifiedandwith bodiesrestoredwill enjoylife
everlasting.75

It is by faiththathermembersrecognizeChristas the headof the

Rosseus,Sig. HI9
Rosseus,SigS. HI9V, H2IV_H26.
70 Rosseus,SigS. H24V-H25.
71 Rosseus,Sig. H25V.
72 Rosseus,Sig. H26.
73 Rosseus,Sig. H2774 Rosseus,Sig. H27Mandeville's.
is SisterScholastica
75 Rosseus,Sig. H27V. Thetranslation

68

69

86

MURNER, MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

churchandit is by faiththattheyrecognize
thatwhoeveris holy on
earthis partof thischurchnotwithstanding
its manysinners.76
ThusdoesMoreattemptto stemthetideof whatAndrePrevosthas
calleddesincarnation.77
Withpassion,
insight,andeloquence
he moves
towardsanunderstanding
of thechurchwhichincludes
sinners
aswell
assaints,whichis awareof hercorruption
andpraysdailyforforgiveness,andwhichlooksforherultimate
cleansing
atChrist's
coming.It is
thewell-known,
thecommon,thepublicvisiblechurch,not the scattered,unknownsecretassemblies
of Luther.78
At thispointMorereentershisoriginal
argument
in theBaravellus
buthisreaders
seemto be
already
in theworldof More'slaterpolemical
works.
Several
factorsmaketheH gathering
of considerable
importance
for
theunderstanding
of More'secclesiology.
Thepeculiar
conjunction
of
Luther's
incisiveattackin thereplyto Catharinus
withthepresence
of
newsources
of material
compelled
Moreto freehimselffromthetiresomeandconfining
defenseof hisking'sAssertio
andclarifyin hisown
tnindthe identityof the churchon earth.In oppositionto Luther's
understanding
of thechurch,definedessentially
by theinvisiblecharacterof faith,Moredisclosed
a churchdefinedessentially
by consensus,
theChristian
peopleeverywhere
andof alltheages.Thatopposition,
recognized
atthispoint,wasto persist
inhislaterpolemics.
Remarkable
hereis theprecision
withwhichhe confesses
andadvocates
thepapal
primacy.
Whathadbeenvagueandalmostdeliberately
uncertain
in the
Baravellus
becomes
clearin theRosseus.
Nothingnowcouldbeclearer
thanMore'sassertion
of the pope'sprimacy:Godhasplacedhimin
chargeof hischurch,
knowingwhatevilmightoccurwithouta pope.79
Thepopeactsasgovernor,
judge,andadministrator,
forcharityis not
enoughin thechurch;
shemusthavejurisdiction.80
Theoff1ce
of pope
servesastheverycapstone
to theunityof thechurchandtheorderof
so ciety.8l

Andwhatof councils?
Thequestion
isanimportant
onewhenwe recallthesuggestive
remarks
madeaboutcouncils
andtheirrelation
to the
church's
constitution
in More'slaterwritings.82
It is therefore
note76
79

Rosseus,sig.H27V.
77 prevost,
p. 7778 Rosseus,sig. H28.
Rosseus,sig.Hgv:'Certequodadpapampertinetquidmalifueritcaruisse
nouitdeus:

quieumsusepraefecitecclesise:
necoptandumputout reschristiana
periculoperdiscat.'
80 Rosseus,sig. H26.
81 Cf. Rosseus,sig. Hg.
82 Cf. TheDialogueconcerning
Tyndale,I, chap.27,in T}leEnglishWorksof Sir Thomas
More,ed. W. E. Campbell
andA. W. Reed(London,I93I), II, III; cf. alsoRogers,pp.
49F500.

JOHN M. HEADLEY

87

worthyto discover
thatMorehasvirtually
nothingto sayaboutcouncilsin theResponsio.Onlya fewscattered
statements
in passing
suggest
theroleof councilsasunderstood
by Moreat thistime.Whenhe examinesthe reasonfor the withdrawal
of the cupfromthe laity,he
deniesthatit hasbeenprovided
forin churchcouncils.
TheHolySpirit
doesnotconfinehimselfto a councilbutpourshimselfoutthroughthe
wholechurch whichfactexplainsthe acceptance
of thispracticeby
allChristian
people.83
Elsewhere
Moreremarks
thattheapostles
bothin
councilsandasindividuals
established
laws.84
Andlaterhe will appeal
to thedecrees
of councils
aswellastheagreement
of theholyfathers
to
provethatthe sacraments
have beenhandeddown to the church
throughthewordof God.85
Thesefew statements
exhaust
More'sunderstanding
of councils
in respectto thelifeof thechurch.Thecouncil
isnotthelocusfortheHolySpirit.
Norforthatmatteristhepontifical
oS1ce.
We needto examine
with
greater
carewhatMoreunderstands
whenheadmitstheprimacy
of the
pope.At thebeginning
of theRosseus
insertion,
Moregivesusa clue
to hisintention.
Ininterpreting
Matthew
xvi.I 8herehesaysthatChrist
wasnot referring
to hisownsovereignty
norto hisexaltedness
butto
appointing
a substitute
asprimateln his church.86
It is revealing
that
83Rosseus,
sig. T4.
84Rosseuss
sig. QQ4*
85Rosseus,
sigs. TT4V-VVI.
86Rosseus,
sig. H6. 'sed Christumtamenillo apudMattheumloco, non de sua prsecellentia loquutum: sed le preficiendosuo gregi uicario . . . tamen in illo loco non de sua
praesidentialoquutum Christum:sed de substituendoin ecclesia sua primatu.'While
praesesand praesidens
are common enough terms, praesidentia
appearsin the standard
dictionariesrarelyand then without any substantialinformation.Despite its root in the
verb praesideo,
praesidentia
does not seem to be germane to Roman or to canon law.
Latham'sRevised
Medieval
LatinWord-List
suggeststhat it is a late medieval term for
rule, eitherecclesiasticalor secular.The ecclesiasticaluse of the term is confirmedby Du
Cange: among monks praesidens,
the president,has extraordinarypower. The term,
however, and its root do appearin the literatureof churchcouncils. One hearsof the
papallegatesaspraesidentes,
andJohnof Torquemadawill referto theirpraesidenciam.
Cf.
Johannes de Torquemada, OratioSynodalis
de Primatu,ed. Emmanuel Candal, S.I.
(Roma, I954), P. 8I, 11. S-8. More'sown use ofthe word canperhapsbe suggestedby the
following examples.On the one hand Torquemada,high papalist,refersto the pope as
'eum, qui universaliecclesiepraesidet'(ibid.,
p. 85,1.-I I). On the otherhand St. Augustine
appliesthe verb praesideo
to God: 'Domine, tu qui praesidesgubernaculisomnium quae
creasti'(Coslf.,
VI, 7, I2). LikewiseSt. ThomasAquinas:'videlicetdicamusChristumesse
simplicitermaximum et dominum et praesidentem'(S. T. III, Q. 20, a. 2C). In article 25
of his Assertio
omnium
articulorum
Lutherhimselfhad specificallyobjectedto the idea that
John xxi. I5fE., 'pasce oves meas', supportedthe papal claim to jurisdiction.Here he
maintainedthat pascere
meant servire
and not praesidere
or superiorem
esse(WA 7:I30,

88

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

Moreshouldusethetermpraefecitto denotethefunctionof thepope

andshouldhavereserved
praesidentiato Christalone.He mayhave
learnedmuchfromAmbrosius
Catharinus
andwas evenapparently
followinghim in thisargument.
But thissamepapalist,who in his
Apologiacitesapprovingly
thepositionof Prierias,
masterof theSacred
Palace,'quodPapaestvirtualis
ecclesia',87
callsPeterandhissuccessors
notonlypraefectum
butalsoprincipemecclesiaeandpraesidentem
Christi;88
thepopepraesidetthechurch.89
Praefectuswithits clearsenseof delegatedpowerhasa weakerconnotation
withrespectto authority
than
doespraesidens,whichMoreseeksto reserve
forChrist.90
Thissupreme
authority
seemsto be refusedanymortalor anyagencyon thisearth
andalongwithpraecellentia
is reserved
to Christ.Inotherwords,papal
primacydoesnot meanpapalsovereignty.
The corporate
andcommunalnatureof thechurch
neverdisappears
fromMore'sview.Behind
the administering,
governing,
judgingpopeis the teachingSpiritof
Christevidentin thepublicagreement
of thechurch.
In somerespectsthe Responsioad Lutherumis the mostimportant
statement
of More'secclesiology.
Thenotionof thechurch's
identity
andthepositionof thepopein thechurchwerebeliefsto whichMore
attained
intheshortperiodfromthereading
oftheking'sAssertioto the
finalversionof hisResponsio.Thesebeliefswerenotto berelinquished.
Moredidnotneedtenyearsof studyto proveto himse]fthedivinely
established
praefectum
andprimatumof thepope.91By the autumnof
I523 he hadassumed
a stancewhichwas to be revealedat his trial
twelveyearslater.
An apparent
discrepancy
emergesbetweenthe firstexpression
of
More'secclesiology
in theResponsioandallof hislateractivitydownto
histrial.In theimportant
letterof 5 MarchI534 to Cromwell,More
II-I4).
In his ConfutatioFisherreassertedboth regereandpraesidere(f. I47V).Although
awareof Fisher'sinterpretation,More follows Erasmusand claimsthatpascerecolmotes
simply regere(Rosseus,sig. H26V).
87 CC

XXVII

88 CCXXVII,

97I3I-

Cf. CC XXVII,I49.
90 But cf. sig. H26V.When at the end of the H gatheringMore has to argue for the
necessityofjurisdistioin the church,he obliquely refersto the authorityof presidingin
connectionwith the pope: 'Sed tamen multa potest et debet praesidentisauthoritas:que
sibi,nec potestnec debit arrogare,cuiusquepriuatihominischaritas.'
91On the misinterpretationof More's words to Cromwell, 'these x yere synnys and
more' (Rogers,p. 498, 1. 2I6), see E. E. Reynolds, SaffltThomasMore(London, I953),
89

pp . I 6 I-63 .

JOHN M. HEADLEY

89

of thechurchwhichwasin essento anunderstanding

gaveexpression
withthatof theResponsio.Except,however,hesuggesttialagreement
confirmaanexa]tedrolewhichfoundscattered
edforchurchcouncils
If there
tionin his polemicalwritingsof the previoussevenyears.92
of theHolySpiritin thechurch,it
existedanylocusfortheoperation
over
wasthegeneralcouncilwhichnow seemedto havepreeminence
points
two
observed,
AsPrevosthasalready
pope.93
theadministering
oughtto be notedwith respectto More'sstatementto Cromwell.
ofthepopethrough
theprimacy
First,heclaimsnevertohaveadvanced
thel1isanyof hisworksin thevulgartongue,whichis true.Secondly,
of
Atthebeginning
needto betakenintoaccount.
toricalcircumstances
of theperiodin recognizing
allthehesitancy
hiscareerMoreinherited
a view of the
of thepope.Hislegaltrainingreinforced
theauthority
needs.He couldeven
papacythatsawit asa productof administrative
warnhiskingthatthepopewaslikeotherprincesandthattheroyal
exaltedthisoS1ce.Yetwhenhe cameto writehis
Assertiodangerously
of thepapal
two yearslater,he arrivedat a recognition
own diatribe
Writtenin Latinat a timewhenno
primacyasdivinelyestablished.94
still
theworkwithitsconfession
withRomeseemedimminent,
rupture
he c]aimedthathe hadnotincausedMoresomequalms.Repeatedly
Quiteunwilltendedto concernhimselfwiththepowerof thepope.95
by his
ingly,he foundhimselfentangledin the problempresented
the questionof thepapacythrustupon
opponent.As Morediscovers
himandcomesto seehimselfasa papistandhischurchas thepapist
onecannotbutsensetherendingof themedievalfederative
church,96
of thechurch.InthesefewweeksMorebeganthatlineof
constitution
by the
whichwasto becompleted
problem
logicposedbytheLutheran
of theoldchurchthroughcenthepreservation
Reformation:
Counter
aroundthe papaloS1ce.He was draw1linevitablyto the
tralization
problemof theprimacy,andthepositionwhichhe attainedpersisted,
downto theend.OvertheyearsMorecultivatedthis
if undisclosed,
of thepapacybutkeptit to himselfasa matterof simple
recognition
andthornymattercouldonlybe disturbforsucha delicate
prudence,
IntheEnglishpolemical
ingto hiskingandto More'sownposition.97
he couldhardlybe expectedto
beforeCromwell,
worksandcertainly
92 Rogers, pp. 499-593 Rogers, p. 499,11. 255-264.
94 Prevost, pp. IS7-I60.
95 Cf. Rosseus, sigs. H8V, HIO.
96 Rosseus, sigs. H22, H23.

97 Prevost, p. I6I.

90

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

givefullventto hisobedience
to Rome.Theconfession
buriedin theH
gathering
of theResponsiohadto waituntiltheambiguities
of existence
in Henrician
Eng]andwereat lastresolvedfor Moreby the death
sentence;
thenbeforetheworld,in hisgreatwitness,he couldreassert
hisloyaltybothto thepapacyandto theconsensus
of alltheages.
Instructive
forintellectual
historyisthequestion
of Thomas
Murner's
involvement
andcontribution
at thiscrucialmomentin thedevelopmentof More'sthought.Theimportant
decisionhadbeenmadein
Augustor earlySeptember
I523 whenMurner
waspresent.
Whatinfluence,if any,canbe attributed
to the Franciscan
friarin the later
versionof the Responsio?A finalcomparison
of the two apologists'
viewsmayshedfurtherlighton thepositionof Moreat thismoment
andthecontextin whichhe worked.
Theparallels
andcorrespondences
go beyondthe useof common
imagesandterms.Murner's
understanding
of thechurchis in essential
agreement
withMore'salthough
insomerespects
it isfurther
developed
thanthatof theEnglishman
atthistime.Bothrecognize
anoverriding
consensus
withinthe church;bothadhereto the commoncorpsof
Christendom,
butMurner
willpresent
thisnotionwithgreater
explicitness;bothareobedient
to apapacy
which,whilethehighestmagistracy,
doesnotexercise
unlimited
authority
withinthechurch.Withrespect
to thepapalprimacy
Murner's
treatment
ismoreconcrete
andpractical
thanthatof theEnglishapologist
andhisconfidence
in thedivinefoundationof thepapacyis lesscertain.LikeMorehe will appealto the
commonconsentof all Christian
believers
on thepapalobrigteitas a
causeforobedience
to thepope.98
Theroleof generalcouncilslooms
largerin theGerman's
thoughtthanin thatof Moreasrevealed
in the
Responsio.IntheperiodI52SI522 Murner
hadentertained
highhopes
forthesalutary
actionof a council.
Freshfromthesceneof struggleandnotconfinedto a laborious
defenseof theroyalAssertio,Murner
isableto treatwithgreater
detailand
precision
theinstitutional
lifeof thechurch.WhileMore'sapproach
to
thecontroversy
is necessarily
dogmatic
andformal,Murner
bothfrom
experience
andby natureis eminently
socialin hisconcern.Thelatter
encounters
theReformation
aftera distinguished
careerasa socialsatiristandbecause
of thisorientation
andabilityheis farreadier
to recognizeecclesiastical
abusesandis muchlessunbending
thanMore.Yet
attached
to thepastandrespectful
of hierarchy
andtradition,
theGerDS

VII, I4-I5.

JOHN M. HEADLEY

91

seesLutherasonewho worksto subvert

consistently
manFranciscan
of Luther's
andrevealing
thesocialorder.Indeed,theearlyrecognition
Theappeal
of Murner.
ideaswasthegreatcontribution
revolutionary
supplanting
gemein, the threatof the commonalty
to the unlearned
themesin
theominousrumblefromBohemiaarerecurring
hierarchy,
polemicalworks.
Murner's
uponMorein thelate
influence
Whatthencanbe saidof Murner's
More'sletterto
from
is
apparent
summerof I523?Thatthey met
theirtendenandinterests,
andlegaltraining
Wolsey.Theirhumanistic
wouldhave
consciousness
cy to satireandhumor,theirstrongpopular
to
undueskepticism
broughtthetwo together.It wouldbe exercising
which
problems
on
length
at
denythatthetwo couldhaveconversed
work,More
hisfirstpolemical
Inthemidstof revising
theybothshared.
of Germany's
andexperience
wouldseektobenefitfromtheknowledge
of
At a crucialmomentin thedevelopment
mostgiftedpolemicist.99
Mores conceptof thechurch,Murnercouldhaveservedasa catalyst
thatthe
andcouldhavehelpedhimto arriveat hisown recognition
denialof thepapacysignifiedsocialrevolution.
of thoughts
interchange
andpossible
juxtaposition
Yetwithphysical
we stillcannotspeakof anyactualinfluenceat all of Murnerupon
of theirwork
correspondence
ThomasMore.Despitetheremarkable
inplaces,thereisnotonefact,term,orideawhichcouldnothavebeen
to bewhen
asMoremayappear
source.Prophetic
byanother
provided
of theillsthatshecanexpect,thecourtandWolsey
he tellsGermany
informasinceI52I withreportsthatprovided
hadbeenwellsupplied
produced
on thesocialdisorders
tion,aswellasmuchmisinformation,
for
Moredidnotevenhaveto dependuponMurner
byLutheranism.100
inGermany.
Lutheranism
intheResponsioconcerning
thefewstatements
in theideasandtheimageryof the
andcorrespondences
Theparallels
something
Theyindicate
a caseof influence.
twomendonotrepresent
and
of greaterprofunditythe existenceof commoncircumstances
history,thefactof similarcirOftenin intellectual
commontradition.
of similarideas
thegeneration
moreconvincingly
explains
cumstances
Thisfactis
influence.
to aprecise
andpointsof viewtha1ldoestheclai1n
whereonediscovers
of theReformation
trueatthebeginning
especially
in Deutschland(vierte Auflage) (Freiburg,Basel,
99Cf. Joseph Lortz, Die Reformation
Wien, I962), II, I62.
[London, IS2I], sig. S4V et
100Cf. King Henry VIII, Assertioseptemsacramentorum
passim;LettersandPapersForeignandDomesticoftheReignofHenryVIII, ed. J. S. Brewer
(London, I867), III, 2, nos. I9I4, 3390; DRA II, 783-785.

'32

MURNER,

MORE, AND MORE'S ECCLESIOLOGY

theconjunction
of a numberof forcesthatwouldproducethesimilariin thisstudy.Thepresence
tiesandcorrespondences
thathaveappeared
witha socialorderthatis stillformally
of a singlebodyof k1lowledge
wouldgo farto
unitedby canonlawandthenotionof Christendom
of thetwomen.
explainthecommunity
of ideasandthecommonplaces
receivesperhapsits
But the argument
fromcommoncircumstances
greatestforcefromthe fact thatbothmen confronta new factor:
menacing.
Workingwitllina comMartin
Luther massive,
relentless,
the two apologists
for a
mon tradition
anddefending
thattradition,
momentin I523 ranparallel
to eachotherin muchoftheirwork.More
withthe
couldandprobablydidbenefitfromhis briefacquaintance
wasindeterminate
andnotessential.
German,
butthelatter's
influence
thebriefassociation
of Murner
According
to thesourcesavailable,
against
Luther.
By mid-OctoandMorehadseena silentcollaboration
A monthbefore,in Basel,
ber Murnerwas backin Strasbourg.10l
Erasmus
hadbegunto bestirhimselfinthesamecause.102
University
of NorthCarolina
at ChapelHill

P I S9
101 Scherrersv, 330102

Allen,

JOHN

M. HEADLEY