We may now return to the question from earlier: Did he (More) do the right thing by staying silent? When challenged about their beliefs, the first Christians proudly proclaimed their love for Jesus and went with joy to their deaths. Certainly Thomas More did not deny his Faith. He gave up his position as Chancellor when it became clear that he could no longer in conscience support the King. He refused to sign the Act of Succession or take the oath endorsing it. And when he was finally found “guilty”, he made a stirring speech in defense of God and His Church. Yet, he spent close to 3 ½ years keeping his opinions to himself, apparently seeking a way to stay alive. Wouldn't it have been better for him to take a firm stand from the beginning, no matter the …show more content…
As always, his answers show a brilliant logic. When Cromwell argues that his (Thomas's) “silence betokened”6 his opposition to the King, Thomas responds: “The maxim {of the law} is 'qui tacet consentire'…..'Silence gives consent'.”7 Cromwell angrily demands if “...that is what you wish the world to construe (interpret) from it?”8, and Thomas says calmly: “The world must construe according to its wits. This court must construe according to the law.”9 The law is clearly on Thomas's side – but it is also clear that Cromwell is determined to break him. Richard Rich is called to give his testimony against More, and it is via this testimony that the jury pronounces Thomas “guilty”. As Rich is leaving the court room, Thomas asks to look at the chain of office around the man's neck. It is a red dragon, the symbol for Wales. Rich has been made the Attorney-General there. Thomas looks up at Rich and says, sadly, “...Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world….But for