On this day in 1535, Thomas Boleyn, Thomas Audley, Thomas Cromwell and the Duke of Suffolk visited Sir Thomas More in the Tower of London to interrogate him regarding his views on the royal supremacy.
More wrote the following letter to his daughter, Margaret Roper, about the visit:
“Writes, as it is likely she has heard that he was before the Council this day. Perceives little difference between this time and the last. As far as he can see, the whole purpose is to drive him to say precisely one way or the other. My lord of Canterbury, my Lord Chancellor, lords Suffolk and Wiltshire, and Mr. Secretary, were here. Mr. Secretary said he had told the King about More’s answer, and he was not content, but thought More had been the occasion of much grudge in the realm, and had an obstinate mind and an evil towards him, and he had sent them to command him to make a determinate answer whether he thought the statute lawful or no, and that he should either confess it lawful that the King should be Supreme Head of the Church of England, or else utter plainly his malignity. Answered that he had no malignity, and therefore could none utter, and could make no answer but what he had made before. Is sorry that the King had such an opinion of him, but comforts himself, knowing that the time shall come when God shall declare his truth towards the King. His case is such that he can have no harm, though he may have pain, “for a man may in such a case lose his head, and have no harm.”
Has always truly used himself, looking first upon God and next upon the King, according to the lesson his Highness taught him at first coming to his service. Can go no further and make no other answer. To this the Lord Chancellor and Secretary said that the King might by his laws compel him to give an answer. Said this seemed hard, if his conscience were against it, to compel him to speak either to the loss of his soul or the destruction of his body. Mr. Secretary referred to More’s having compelled heretics to answer whether they believed the Pope to be Head of the Church or not, and asked why the King should not similarly compel him? Replied that there was a difference between what was taken for an undoubted thing throughout Christendom, and a thing that was merely agreed in this realm, and the contrary taken for truth elsewhere. Mr. Secretary answered that they were as well burned for denying that, as they were beheaded for denying this, and therefore as good reason to compel men to answer one as the other. Answered that a man is not so bound in conscience by a law of one realm as by a law of Christendom; the reasonableness or unreasonableness of binding a man to answer stands not in the difference between heading and burning, but in the difference between heading and hell.
In conclusion they offered him an oath to answer truly what was asked him on the King’s behalf concerning his person. Said he never purposed to swear any book oath while he lived. They said he was very obstinate to refuse that, for every man does it in the Star Chamber and elsewhere. Replied that he could well conjecture what would be part of his interrogatories, and it was as well to refuse them at first as afterward. The interrogatories were then shown him, and they were two;—whether he had seen the statute, and whether he thought it a lawful made statute or not. Refused the oath, and said he had already confessed the first and would not answer the second. Was thereupon sent away. In the communication before, it was said that it was marvel that the stuck so much in his conscience while he was not sure therein. Said he was sure that his own conscience might very well stand with his own salvation. It was also said to him that if he had as soon be out of the world as in it, why did he not speak plain out against the statute; it was clear that he was not content to die, though he said so. Answered that he has not been a man of such holy living that he might be bold to offer himself for death, lest God, for his presumption, might suffer him to fall. In conclusion, Mr. Secretary said he liked him worse than the last time, for them he pitied him, but now he thought he meant not well. God knows he means well. Wishes his friends to be of good cheer and pray for him.”1
More refused to give the men “an answer” but stated that he looked first to God and then to the King, just as the King taught him to do when he started working for him. He refused to swear an oath, saying “he never purposed to swear any book oath while he lived” and when pushed to give an answer on “whether he had seen the statute, and whether he thought it a lawful made statute or not” More “said he had already confessed the first and would not answer the second.”
When More was charged with treason and tried on 1st July 1535, it was said that on the 3rd June 1535, More had described the Act of Supremacy as a “sword with two edges” because “if a man say that the same laws be good then it is dangerous to the soul, and if he say contrary to the said statute then it is death to the body”,2 but he does not mention saying that to the men in his letter to his daughter.
You can read more about Sir Thomas More in my Sir Thomas More Bio and there are also several other articles about him, simply search for “Thomas More” in the Google search box in the right hand side bar.
Notes and Sources
- LP viii. 815
- Ibid., 974
As happened to anyone Henry VIII became close to, More suffered the consequences – which always left the person’s neck and head divided.
And when Henry had made him a personal promise to allow him his conscience on all matters to do with the divorce. Of course Henry becoming head of the church in England and not the Holy Father, the Pope; raised the stakes and as a royal title; may-be Henry could not accept any opposition. Even a silent one would undermine his authority; so I can see why he wanted to know where More stood. If More agreed, as a much respected lawyer and man of learning he could influence others to follow suit. Unfortunately, Thomas More could not agree to a title that denied the Pope’s rights as he saw them and he could not sign. He also pointed out that Henry had himself persuaded him about this matter back in 1521 in his Defence of the Seven Sacraments. More would not say at this point why he could not sign the oath, would agree to the succession as the business of the King; but in his pre trial speech when he was condemned he made his views clear that Parliament and Henry had no right to the title as it cut them off from the Universal Church. More’s death also made others think differently about the Supremacy. If More did not support the idea; I guess others must have thought the law had something wrong with it. If Henry had More’s support on the other hand that would give others reasons to support him. Either way; he simply had to know where these great men: More and Fisher stood.
I don’t know why this man is seen as a hero. He burned so many people at the stake because they believed differently from him. They are the heros.