The Four Last Things

by Karen Anthony

Thomas More lived at the end of the Middle Ages when images of death and dying proliferated following the Black Death, the traumas of the 1400's and the early 1500's, and "when [ ... ] death, which had been seen as a gateway to an afterlife, became a horrible end in itself" (292). Images of the horrors of death were everywhere: in stained glass windows, in paintings, in sculpture. But as people became inured to these images, More, like Petrarch in his dialogues with Augustine, ruminated on the horrible aspects of physical death through the written word to make it more personally engraved upon the heart. The Last Four Things, written in 1520, is a gloomy meditation by Thomas More on death,judgement, heaven, and hell, common preoccupations of the time. We are reminded again of the influence Death has had on European thought at this point in history as we saw in Petrarch and to a lesser degree in Machiavelli.But More added the lingering terror of being faced "at each instant with the choice of God or Satan" (292), leaving the eternal disposition of the soul perpetually in question. Beginning with the four last things immediately provides a close-up view of More-- it is against this morbid climate that we see the character and theology of More emerge--and the preoccupations that would dictate the course of his life. With More, we are also brought to England where heresy is a late arrival, it usually finding an opening with ecclesiastical abuse which is not prevalent in England until the later 1400's. The English crown established a tradition of judicious and frequently distinguished high Church appointments, unlike the aristocracy who ruled on the continent. And because the Inquisition came only in the case of the Templars, when unwieldy episcopate procedures were adopted, England was unprepared for widespread heresy when the Lollards appeared in the late 14th Century (Lambert 225-27).

In 1401 the burning begins, quickly repressing the Lollards for a time and establishing a tradition that will be carried out enthusiastically by Thomas More during his reign as Lord Chancellor to Henry VIII, a time of the Lollards resurgence and heresy in many forms. ("Lollard")Here, too, the concerns of Henry's "great matter" set the stage for conflict between More's pursuit of heresy and Henry's pursuit of an heir. Anxiety over the four last things no doubt spurred the esteemed Thomas More to become a vehement enemy of heretics, seeking them out, convicting them, and burning them for the greater good of their souls and the kingdom. He was ultimately willing to risk his life for this venture, irritating the frustrated Henry VIII who was seeking support for his divorce from authorities, religious reformers More would accuse of beliefs contrary to the Church. Perspectives on the four last things gave rise to many of the differences that ultimately sundered the Church. We will consider how they color the life of More; the life of Erasmus; the relationship of More and Erasmus; and the theological differences found among More, Erasmus, and Luther. We will look at More and Erasmus in a highly selective way, a way biased by focus on what is controversial. Richard Marius presents a perspective on the lives of More and Erasmus that is far from hagiography, but my selections and emphasis, taken out of the context of the larger work to spur discussion, may distort his conclusions. Many of the ideas presented here come from Marius, usurped and contravened by me from his biography Thomas More.

Knighted, Beatified, Canonized. A Man for All Seasons. A man recognized and beloved for his noble defense of the Church to the point of martyrdom. But perhaps, Thomas More is really closer to a Machiavellian man of virtú overcome by Fortuna. More was a good man who did bad things for what he believed were good ends. His virtú can be seen when he monitors those he suspects of heresy, even those visiting England at the request of Henry VIII. Henry, seeking support for his divorce from any authority called on many of the reformers of the day, but became irritated with More who was "drawing attention to the royal flirtation with heresy" (394). More persisted, following Machivelli's tenet to state opinions and dissent openly. His ulterior motive, of course, was to stir up public opinion against what Henry was doing and to shame Henry into complying with More's standards of Catholic Orthodoxy, pure Machiavellian use of religion to manipulate for the higher good of all. We can see More's Machivellian tendencies most clearly in two controversial court cases: The Richard Hunne Affaire and the case of Bilney.

Richard Hunne, in a bold move of anti-clericalism, sued a cleric on a matter of principle, refusing to pay the mortuary for his dead infant. Spurred on by local support, the popular Hunne pressed his suit, contending that the issue was a matter for the secular courts rather than the Church. He lost his case and counter charges of heresy were filed against him; he was imprisoned, eventually questioned, and was found hung in his cell a few days after the inquiry. The Church's formal position was that Hunne, distressed at losing his case over the mortuary payment and tormented with guilt over his damning beliefs, committed suicide. We must remember though, that a first charge of heresy only required recantation and a brief period of penance, not death at the stake. The coroner's inquest indicated murder and suggested that suicide consistent with the evidence, if not impossible, was highly unlikely.

The case scandalized London. Throughout the controversy, the Church maintained its suicide claim and pursued the heresy trial with obviously trumped up charges, convicting Hunne posthumously. More's role comes in at the trial, where he only superficially examines the evidence: a Bible with heretical notes in the margin "in Hunne's own hand." More accepts at face value the evidence and the claims against Hunne. Fifteen years later he writes an account of the incident fully in support of the Catholic Church, contending that a real heretic committed suicide, carefully circumventing evidence to the contrary and ignoring the inquest notes. Inescapably, More's integrity is called into question. Marius says, "The danger of heresy to the Catholic Church made the Thomas More of 1529 a much less reliable witness than the More of 1515 might have been been." Obviously, to More, the credibility of the Church was the good end to which any means were justified, including covering up the murder of an innocent man.

More was not involved in prosecuting the Bilney case, but as soon as he heard of the public outcry at the burning of the popular and pious Bilney, he initiated an inquiry without waiting for the usual procedures. Wanting to justify the Church's conviction of a heretic and establish the popular Bilney as one who repented at the penultimate moment of unspeakable heresies, "He trumpeted Bilney's recantation because it was a triumph for the Catholic Church and for his own view of how to deal with heretics. [ ... ] Bilney was the shining example of the efficacy of fire, not only in purging away the poison that might corrupt the innocent who heard heretical preaching but in saving the soul of the heretic himself" (401). In light of the testimonial evidence that Bilney did not recant and in light of the lack of evidence of heresy to begin with, More's claims of victory for the Church and its traditional handling of heretics is Machiavellian indeed. More uses this opportunity to enforce his perspective of the four last things on the rest of the world, that suffering and dying in this world is horrible, but worthwhile if at the final moment the penitent chooses God and the true Catholic Church. Here, too, More's political agenda could be strengthened. Traditionally the Church examined and tried heretics and then turned them over to the temporal power for execution. The Church could take considerable liberties in its prosecution, not allowed in the temporal courts. His political motivations, to keep the Church out from under the thumb of temporal powers, compromised his integrity, but Machiavelli would have said he was a good man using bad means to what More perceived as a good end. The end justifies the means.

More was an examiner of heretics even before becoming the Lord Chancellor. "Since he was the only lay person on the council to have performed such tasks, we may see both his interest in the matter and the regard shown him by high clergymen who included him in these examinations" (395). More examined heretics routinely in his home in Chelsea, always in the company of two clerics. The examinations did not have to meet the standards of the English courts. Disreputable, unreliable witnesses were deemed necessary by the sense that a respectable man would not be in the right place to observe a heretic in the act. These witnesses, too, could remain anonymous and did not have to face the accused. The accused was forced into an answer, not answering was perceived as guilt, while in the temporal courts it implied assent with the court. More conducted these inquiries to avoid some of thedisent they might cause in London. Marius goes so far as to say of More that:

He was a complex, haunted, and not altogether admirable man. [ ... ] His fury at the Protestant heretics-particularly at their teaching, followed quickly by the practice, that priests and nuns could marry-has a touch of hysteria about it, and although we may exonerate him from old charges that he tied heretics to a tree in his yard and beat them, he was if anything inclined to an even greater savagery against them, for he cried for them to be burned alive, and he rejoiced when some of them went to the fire. This fury was not a bizarre lapse in an otherwise noble character; it was almost the essence of the man [emphasis mine]. (xxiv)

This essence is his undoing; the Lord Chancellor continually rubs Henry the wrong way. Fate puts Henry and More in situations exacerbating their opposition over matters of the Church. In his History of King Richard the III, More, examines the role of God and fate in the lives of men, wondering if man truly has any input into his own destiny. We can assume from this work that More must have considered this question in his own life. Wondering just how much control he has over his own fate as a good man doing everything for the right end, he is ultimately overcome by Fortuna, Henry's "great matter," and the drastic political changes in England.

Imprisoned in the last days for treason, More finds a greater sense of peace, sure in his own belief that the Church should not bow to temporal power: he does not say the magic words that he recognizes Henry as the head of the Church. Fighting for his life with silence and lack of confrontation in the end, we see More swing from Machiavellian principles. Yet he does not veer from the four last things: "I have had convenient time and space to have remembrance of my end." He died with his neck across the block for his faith in the Holy Catholic Church.

Erasmus, on the other hand, does not have the same preoccupation with the four last things. He is concerned about scholarship, not salvation, and views the good Christian as the good citizen, "self-disciplined, learned,meek, loving, and simple" (83). What Erasmus supports is a Christianity reformed by returning to its foundation. He goes back to the source, the Greek New Testament and provokes the world.In the 20th Century, archeology, discoveries of ancient scripture at Nag Hammadi and Qumran, and the popularization of scholarly research on the historical Jesus (by the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, and Borg, along with many others) have proven threatening not only to the faith of the Catholic world, but also of the Protestant. Many are threatened by the encroachment of historical fact upon matters of faith. There is also the fear that the tradition established by the Church and even within Protestant denominations will not fit with the new evidence about the early Church and its namesake. Decisions made by the early fathers about the complete and inspired word of God also is called into question with discoveries of controversial scripture. The religious implication of all this new information is a public concern; even Peter Jennings is talking about it on World News Tonight. It is probably true that our secular age feels less threatened by possible oversights, omissions, or misinterpretations than did the time of Erasmus; still, I have seen students afraid to read The Five Gospels for fear of how they would react to the "blasphemy" of someone discrediting words previously attributed to Jesus, and my own mother is suspicious of any but the King James version of the Bible.

In light of current responses to a closer look at the origins of Christianity, it is easy to see why Erasmus' Greek New Testament was perceived as a threat and why More heralded it at first, but was later appalled with some of its implications. Erasmus has the gall to revise the Latin from the Vulgate and to couch many of his reform ideas in the commentaries. Many of the ideas Erasmus hints at are espoused by Luther later on, but Erasmus always takes the middle road with his theology, seeking to unite Christendom by focusing on the articles of faith agreed upon by all rather than arguing doctrines of opinion. Erasmus is far more interested in scholarship and education in "the right things" than in taking sides. In contrast to More and Luther, Erasmus may appear a fence straddler, or to put a more positive spin on it, a diplomat. In fact, he was a strong reformer, a stronger reformer of the church than More, but unlike Luther and many other reformers of the time, he sought to reform without irrevocable rending of the body of Christ. Perhaps it was this stand in the middle that caused Erasmus to be loved as a scholar, but attacked from all sides as a reformer, in a time when extremes of passion were in vogue. However, Erasmus endeavored to make scripture and the early Church fathers accessible so that sound scriptural decisions could be made in pursuit of reform. Erasmus, like More, had the greater good of the Church in mind, but unlike More, he was not willing to support the unexamined institution or tradition. What Erasmus supported was a Church reformed by a return to its historical roots.

This objectivity and balance brings Erasmus into focus against the backdrop of the Reformation. He is attacked by both the orthodox Catholics and the Protestants. He challenges tradition and blind faith on the one hand, but dances around doctrine on the other, rejecting key issues on both fronts. Perhaps the reason why Erasmus does not take a clear stand, is that he does not seem to be concerned about the four last things. There is little evidence of the tortured soul, of guilt, or the seeking of salvation. Instead we find the humanist concerns of tolerance for religious dissenters and intolerance of violent conflict.

Erasmus does not become a martyr; at times his studied ambiguities seem designed to protect him from criticism. Despite increasing pressure to take a stand, he abjures, stressing the importance of the work he sees fit to do (namely his Jerome and New Testament). He adamantly defends himself from his many attackers, but when asked to strike out at Luther, and when he does so because he can no longer avoid it, he dodges many of the critical issues.

Erasmus moves around frequently, from household to household, from country to country. He knows several kings and popes, but he is constantly at the mercy of his patrons. How much of Erasmus' middle ground is merely for self-preservation, rather than from conviction? In a letter to More in 1522, he refuses to take a strong stand against the Protestants because heresy is tolerated in Basel and he does not want to offend the magistrates who want peace and silence (334). After all, Erasmus writes dedicatory prefaces to his works and editions, always with an eye to some future usefulness.

And it maybe in the role of patron as much as that of friend that we see More in relation to Erasmus. Even though More is ten years younger, it is More who is the man of the world with a large household, a household which represented not only his residence, but his station in the world. Erasmus is one who found a hospitable room there, but that doesn't necessarily imply intimacy. It is quite clear that the two men did have a friendship boosted by their mutual love of letters and interest in reform of the Church, but Marius suggests that the relationship was at times rather one-sided and a bit self-serving on the part of Erasmus. Both were tolerant of each other and served to mediate in the quarrels of the other, but were relentless in their own personal disputes, unmovable when their own ideology or reputation was brought into question. These two friends, their relationship at times affable and at times embarrassed, would share a world of letters and religious concern that would span decades.

The intimacy of the relationship is called into question by each over the publication of a major work by the other. The first is when Erasmus publishes Praise of Folly, forever linking himself with More by dedicating the book to him. In addition, the title is a play on More's name, reinforcing a supposed intimacy. The book is generally diverting, and in many respects might have pleased More, but the unforgiving assault on the clergy and the frivolity would have disturbed him, as would the indiscriminate use of his name. This latter issue seems ironic in light of Erasmus withholding his own name from More's Utopia several years later. He agreed to help see the work published on the continent and to find support for it, but did not provide his own endorsement. He said in a letter to one of the people he asked for support on the behalf of More, "I am getting the Nowhere [Utopia] ready; mind you send the preface, but addressed to someone other than me, Busleyden for choice. In everything else I will act as a friend should" (240). And Erasmus was not amused when the rumor spread that he was the real author of the first part of the book. It very well may be that Erasmus was embarrassed by More's Latin which was not as elegant as his own. These instances reveal the intellectual nature of the friendship between More and Erasmus, no doubt full of lively discussions and shared interests, but not necessarily unqualified regard and complementary views.

In matters of theology and Church reform, we can clearly see the issues that bind and separate More and Erasmus. Both were serious about the reform of the Church and abhorred the abuses and corruption they found. Agreed on a humanist approach, as opposed to Scholasticism, both believed a return to ancient learning would help their cause. However, when specifics are addressed, the differences between the two men become obvious.

More clings to the Catholic Church and its traditions, vehement and rigid, while denouncing corruption within the clergy and Papacy, attacking heretics, and writing against Luther. Erasmus, on the other hand, feels that much too much is made over chasing heresy and prefers not to attack Luther in writing, though he is eventually caught in the fray. Like More, his focus is on reform from within the Church, though many of his ideas have Protestant leanings. Erasmus takes the middle route between the much more orthodox More and the more radically reformist Luther. More supports Church tradition and institutions, including all the Catholic sacraments, while acknowledging the failing of individuals holding those church offices. His reform issues are guardedly limited, and even mildly protestant concessions by Erasmus, such as acknowledging the predestination ideas to be found in Paul and Augustine, are not appreciated. Erasmus is open to the truth from sacred writing, even when it infringes on tradition, and it is Erasmus who brings some controversial ideas to the attention of radical reformers.

While there are several Protestant theses hinted at by Erasmus that were eventually shouted clearly by Luther, there are many points of contention between them. Erasmus is first and foremost a champion of keeping the Church intact. He does not approve of Luther's violence and extremes. He believes that bringing doctrinal issues into the public debate is counterproductive to the goals of healing the Church. And Erasmus fears that controversy around Luther will pull down by association his own purpose of fostering languages, the ancients, and accurate sacred texts.

While there is some theology in common between Erasmus and Luther, there is temperament in common between Luther and More. Both are compelled to the life of monks and revered that station, feeling that sex, if not tainted, is at least a distraction from piety. Yet both marry as concessions to strong sexual desires. Both struggle with the dark issues of death and the question of salvation. And while their theology is miles apart, similar only in their recognition of abuses within the Church, both are vitally concerned with the salvation of their own souls and the souls of those around them. Both are preoccupied with the four last things, though Luther's revelation about predestination and salvation by grace alone surely offers him great comfort as it did his proponents. The concern over eternal salvation, this preoccupation with the last things, is in sharp contrast to the practical man of letters, Erasmus.

It is a superficial, but interesting observation, that of the three, More, Erasmus, and Luther, that the most traditional of the three should be the most Machiavellian. More, a man of virtú takes clear sides (although occasionally hiding his motives in good Machiavillian fashion), kills off his enemies, uses religion to manipulate politics, and uses questionable means for the good of the whole, but is overcome by Fortuna. It is interesting, too, to note that the one who seeks stability and change without jeopardizing the whole, a Machiavellian goal, does not use Machiavellian techniques, and instead tries to be everyone's friend and does not take clear stands on the issues--Erasmus survives. Luther, another man of virtu, is, like More, clear and forceful in his stands, but he triggers a schism that will affect the Church forever, dispersing the four last things in dramatic rebirth of secularism. And so we begin with the last things and end with a beginning. . . .

More, Erasmus, and Luther: Comparisons and Contrasts
	More	Erasmus	Luther
Salvation:	Grace helps man's sinful nature choose the path to salvation at each moment. Works, an ongoing responsibility, in conjunction with faith, lead a man toward salvation. The sacraments are important to salvation.	Salvation comes through living the Christian life and study of the right things; he is not concerned so much for the immortal soul.	Saved by grace, by grace alone.
Sex :	Sex is tainted and the need for sex is an obstacle to piety. Marries because of need for sex, though longs to be a pure monk.	Abstinence does not hold any special virtue. However, he generally takes a conservative view of bodily pleasure for it's own sake.	Believes the need for sex is an obstacle to piety, though he eventually espouses the doctrine of life in the world and marries.
Priesthood:	Esteems priests and the priesthood as institution, while acknowledging the failings of individuals.	Does not think much of priests or the institution. A monk who seeks dispensation from the Pope to be released from his vows.	Believes in the priesthood of the elect, preordained by God, and introduces concept of the Christian life in the world. Priesthood as an institution is unnecessary.
Papacy:	Ambiguous about place of papacy.	Ambiguous about place of papacy.	No place for the papacy-the core of evil.
Education:	Believes education is the route to a purer church.	Believes education in the right things is the one hope of the church.	Believes education in scripture was key.
Piety:	Defends pious traditions of the church, but does not esteem saints, seek out relics, or go on pilgrimages.	Attacks superstition in the church and focus on ceremony.	Writes against abuses of the indulgences. Believes that piety is an internal state of communion with God rather than something of outward show.
Heresy:	Adamantly intolerant, vigorously seeking heretics out, convicting them, burning them at the stake, assuring their deaths reinforce the position of the Church.	Believes that too much energy is wasted on chasing heresy when there are more pressing problems in the Church.	Believes that the Catholic Church itself is guilty of heretical belief, straying from the original true Church.
Predestination:	More believes that predestination, as presented by Luther, portrays God as the source of evil and takes away human responsibility for action.

First published June 10, 2002; Last updated June 10, 2002

Copyright GJL