Lutheran movement in england during the reigns of henry VIII. And edward VI

CHAPTER II. TYNDALE’S DEPENDENCE ON LUTHER.

Tyndale’s Birth and Education. Relation to Colet and Erasmus. Early Work. A significant Prophecy. Life in London. Repulsed by the Lord Bishop. Humphrey Monmouth and his Troubles. Tyndale at Hamburg. Was Tyndale at Wittenberg? Insufficient arguments of Anderson and Walter. The English Genesis of 1530 published by Luther’s publisher, Hans Luft. Where was Marlboro? The flight from Cologne. Two editions of New Testament, instead of one. Proclamations of Tunstal and Warham. Fifteen thousand English testaments sent from Germany to England. Arrest and execution. Tyndale’s translation and that of Luther. Testimony of Hallam, Westcott and Mombert. Tyndale and Luther in parallel columns. His prefaces from Luther. His glosses from Luther. His treatise “The Wicked Mammon,” from Luther. “The Obedience of a Christian Man,” Anne Boleyn’s devotional manual. His “Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount,” from Luther. Was Tyndale a Lutheran? Arguments of Dr. Eadie in the negative; of V. E. Löscher, in the affirmative.

Among the scholars of Oxford and Cambridge, there is one who had left the Universities years before the events just narrated, but whose influence from abroad was a very important factor in advancing the movement. His work is so prominent and far-reaching, and, except in his preparation as a student, so isolated from the rest, until through his translation of the New Testament and his various evangelical treatises, he acted upon his countrymen, that it justly requires separate treatment. William Tyndale was a quiet and retired scholar, who wrought diligently in his study with a fixed end in view from which he never swerved, and which required his withdrawal from the intimate associations, and the wider spheres of discussion in which others felt called upon to promote the same cause. He, therefore, was [[@Page:15]]content to stand during his life-time almost alone, in order to effect the Reformation of his country, and to reach future generations through the English Bible, which, even in its present form, is properly speaking his Bible, revised.

Born probably about 1484, on the boundary of Wales, he was “brought up,” says Foxe, “from a child at the University of Oxford, where he, by long continuance, grew and increased as well in the knowledge of tongues and other liberal arts, as specially in the knowledge of the Scriptures, to which his mind was singularly addicted; insomuch that he, lying there in Magdalen Hall, read privily to certain students and fellows of Magdalen College some parcel of divinity, instructing them in the knowledge and truth of the scriptures, whose manners also and conversation, being correspondent to the same, were such that all they that knew him, reputed and esteemed him, to be a man of most virtuous disposition, and of life unspotted. Thus he, in the University of Oxford, increasing more and more in learning, and proceeding in degrees of the schools, spying his time, removed from thence to the University of Cambridge, where after he had likewise made his abode a certain space, being now further ripened in the knowledge of God’s Word, leaving that university also, he resorted to one master Welsh, a Knight of Gloucestershire; and was there school-master to his children, and in very good favor with his master.” At Oxford, he undoubtedly came under the influence of Dean Colet. His removal to Cambridge “was probably for the purpose of profiting by Erasmus lectures, who taught Greek there from 1509 till the beginning of 1519; whereas there was no regular Greek lectureship founded in Oxford till about 1517.”²³ At the house of Sir John Welsh or Walsh, whither he went about 1519, he soon became involved in controversies with the priests, translated against them Erasmus “Enchiridion Militis” and destroyed their influence with the family, from which they previously had derived large [[@Page:16]]contributions. He was a zealous preacher at Bristol, and was summoned to answer before the chancellor, but while treated “as though I had been a dog,” escaped punishment. Shortly after this it was, that in a discussion with a learned, but bitter advocate of the Papacy he made the often quoted remark that he defied the Pope and all his laws, and, further added, that if God spared him life, “ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scriptures than he did.” His position becoming more and more uncomfortable, and being involved in constant disputes, he saw that the evangelical cause was relatively helpless until the Bible could be read by the laity in their own language. In his “Preface to the Pentateuch,” he says: “I perceived how that it was impossible to establish the lay-people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother-tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text. For else whatever truth is taught them, these enemies of all truth quench it again, partly with apparent reasons of sophistry, founded without ground of scripture; and partly, in juggling with the text, expounding it in such sense as is impossible to gather of the text, if thou see the process, order and meaning thereof.” With this end in view, he resigned his place, and, about 1523, went to London, where, relying upon an extravagant idea of the interest of the Bishop of London, Tonstall, in such work, he hoped to receive a home in his house and encouragement. He carried with him, as an evidence of his scholarship, a translation, which he had made, of one of the orations of Isocrates. But the English Bible was not to be translated in an episcopal palace. He found no home or. encouragement where he had expected it. The Lord, however, raised up for him a faithful friend in a wealthy merchant, Humphrey Monmouth, who had heard him preach in St. Dunstan’s church, and provided for him at his own house. Years afterwards Monmouth was imprisoned for this act of kindness. In his testimony in his defence, he throws some light upon Tyndale’s habits: “He studied most part of the day and of the night at his book; and [[@Page:17]]he would eat but sodden meat, by his good will, nor drink but small single beer. I never saw him wear linen about him. … When I heard my Lord of London preach at Paul’s Cross, that Sir William Tyndale had translated the New Testament in English, and was naughtily translated, that was the first time that ever I suspected or knew any evil by him.”

Tyndale soon found it necessary, in order to prosecute his work successfully, to repair to Germany. Accordingly about May 1524 he left London for Hamburg. In April 1525, he is known to have been in Hamburg. Had he been there the entire time, or had he been elsewhere in the meantime? Concerning this, there has been a diversity of opinion. There has been a widely diffused tradition that he repaired at once from Hamburg to Wittenberg. All of Tyndale’s contemporaries who have written concerning his movements, so affirm. In the articles against Monmouth in 1528, he is charged with aiding “Sir William Hutchin, otherwise called Tyndale,” who “went into Almayne [Germany] to Luther, there to study and learn his sect.” Sir Thomas More in his “Dialogue” declares that “at the time of his translation of the New Testament, Tyndale was with Luther at Wittenberg, and the confederacy between him and Luther was well known.” Cocnlaeus speaks of Tyndale and Roy as “two English apostates who had been sometime at Wittenberg.” Foxe in his “Acts and Monuments” says: “On his first departing out of the realm, Tyndale took his journey into the further parts of Germany, as into Saxony, where he had conference with Luther and other learned men in those quarters.”

Some writers of the present century, especially Anderson in his “Annals of the English Bible,” and Walter in his “Life of Tyndale,” prefixed to the Parker Society edition of his works, question his visit to Wittenberg, but as Demaus²⁴ shows upon the basis of too wide an application of a denial by Tyndale to the charge of More. Tyndale denies that he was confederate with Luther. He does not deny that he was at Wittenberg. “The [[@Page:18]]truth is,” says Demaus,²⁵ “that the whole of this theory of Tyndale’s movements, constructed, as we have seen, in direct opposition to all contemporary authority, has sprung from a narrow and ill-grounded fear, that Tyndale’s reputation would be injured by the admission of his having been at Wittenberg with Luther. The admirers of our great English translator have been justly indignant at the ignorant misrepresentations which have sometimes treated him as a mere echo and parasite of his German contemporary, and in their zeal to maintain their hero’s originality, they have discarded ancient authority, and have denied that the two Reformers ever met. The motive for such a defence may be praiseworthy, but its wisdom is questionable. To maintain, in defiance of all contemporary evidence, that Tyndale remained for a year in a bustling commercial town where there were no printers, where he would be disturbed by bitter quarrels, and deprived of all opportunities of consulting books, or conferring with friends that might have aided him in the work, this is surely a strange method of vindicating Tyndale; this is an attempt to defend his originality, at the cost of his good sense.” Mr. Anderson’s theories about Tyndale’s residence in Hamburg, his ignorance of German, his never having met Luther, are theories adopted in the face of all ancient testimony.²⁶

Prof. Walter’s argument that Tyndale’s stay at Hamburg was for the purpose of learning Hebrew from the numerous Jews there, and that proof of this can be shown from the fact that whereas Hebrew at that time was not taught in any English University, Tyndale’s progress becomes soon manifest from the insight into the peculiarities of that language shown by some remarks in his “Mammon,” is not con elusive. The passage would effectually prove this, if that book were original with Tyndale; but since it is only a translation from Luther, as will hereafter appear, the progress in Hebrew asserted, cannot be shown.

Dr. Eadie,²⁷ while trying to show that Tyndale was no Lutheran, [[@Page:19]]after weighing the evidence, concludes: “Arguments against the visit to Wittemberg are of no great moment.”

Mr. George Offer, in the “Memoir of Tyndale,” prefixed to a reprint of his New Testament of 1526, published by the Bagsters says: “It was at Wyttemburg, that with intense application and labor, Tyndale completed his translation of thew New Testament.”

Dr. Mombert²⁸ says: “In the absence of positive historical data it is impossible to make a reliable positive statement. It is probable that Tyndale did meet Luther; it is clear that he used Luther’s version, as I expect to prove. … The preponderance of evidence points immediately to Tyndale’s visit to Wittemberg.” The same writer has also conclusively proved that the statement hitherto current that Tyndale’s translation of Genesis of 1530 was printed by Hans Luft at Marburg is incorrect, the librarian of the University of Marburg having made a special examination into the matter in 1881, with the result that he found that Hans Luft never had a printing-office at Marburg, and that the album of the University has no entry of the names of Tyndale and Frith. Hans Luft, being the famous Bible printer at Wittenberg, the name “Marlborow in the lande of Hesse,” given as his place of printing, is in all probability a pseudonym to conceal the actual place, just as he himself assumed the pseudonym of Hutchyns, to thwart the designs of his vigilant enemies. Wittenberg, therefore, a second time becomes connected with Tyndale’s work, and our English Bible.²⁹

But we have anticipated somewhat the chronological order. After returning from Wittenberg to Hamburg in 1525, and having his translation of the New Testiment finished, Tyndale went to Cologne for the purpose of having it printed. Here he was discovered by Cochlaeus an enemy of the Reformation, who promptly reported what he had learned. The story is interesting:[[@Page:20]] “Cochlaeus, intending to print a work of his own, had gone to Cologne, where some of the compositors he was about to employ, in an unguarded moment, intimated that they were engaged in preparing a work for two Englishmen³⁰ lately arrived from Wyttemberg, which would soon make England Lutheran. By plying them with drink, he discovered that there were in the press three thousand copies of the Lutheran New Testament translated into English. By his efforts, the Senate prohibited the work from proceeding any further. It had reached the signature K in 4to. Upon which the two Englishmen, carrying away with them the sheets already finished, fled up the Rhine to Worms, in hope that, as the inhabitants were generally Lutheran, they might find some printer to bring their undertaking to completion..”³¹

This attempt to suppress the publication resulted in two simultaneous editions, instead of one. Peter Schoeffer of Worms printed an octavo edition, while, at the same time, the quarto edition was completed and bound. The opponents of the Reformation, being on the watch for the quarto editions, it was generally intercepted on its way to England; but the octavo edition, not being suspected, made its way for a time without interference. There was no little strategy in such procedure. No less than six thousand copies were printed in these two editions which appeared early in 1526. Even before this, December 2d, 1525, Dr. Edward Lee writing from Bordeaux,³² warned Henry VIII. of what was coming:

“Please it your Hyghnesse, moreover, to understand that I am certainlie enformed, as I passed in this contree that an English man, your subject, at the sollicitation and instance of Luther, with whome he is, hathe translated the Newe Testament into English, and within fewe dayes entendeth to arrive with the same emprinted in England, I neede not to advertise your Grace [[@Page:21]]what infection and daunger maye ensue heerbie, if it be not withstonded. This is the next way to fulfill your Realme with Lutherians. For all Luther’s perverse opinions bee grownded opon bar words of Scriptur, not well taken ne ondrestonded. All our forfadres, governors of the churche of England, hathe with all diligence forbed and eschued publication of Englishe bibles, as apperethe in constitutitions provinciall of the Churche of England, . . . Hidretoo, blessed be God, your Realme is save from infection of Luther’s sect, as for so mutche that althoug anye peradvertur bee secretlie blotted within, yet for fear of your royall Majestic, wiche hathe drawen his swerd in God’s cause, they dar not openlie avow.”

It is interesting to note that only two months before this (Sept. 1st, 1525), Luther apologizing to Henry VIII for his attack upon his book, does so by excusing the King en the ground that it was not really written by Henry, but by Sophists who abused his title, especially as De Wette thinks, by the writer of the above letter, Edward Lee, whom he ironically calls “Cardinal of York,” and terms “that monster and public odium of God and men.”³³ May there not be in this at least some indication of indignation aroused by information given him, through Tyndale? This becomes the more probable when we read in the same letter that Luther has been moved to write, because he was informed that Henry “was beginning to favor the gospel and to be not a little weary of such a set of worthless fellows.” He prays that the Lord may continue the work which he has begun, so that with a full spirit, he may favor and obey the Gospel.”

In spite of all efforts to suppress them, the copies of the New Testament made their way through England. Who the translator was, no one then knew. Some Lutherans or other, of course; but that was all. Henry, in his reply to Luther’s letter, said that Luther “fell into device with one or two lewd fellows, born in this our realm, for the translating of the New Testament into English.” Tonstal, Bishop of London, issued his prohibition, [[@Page:22]]October 24th, 1526, in which he said: “We, having understanding by the reports of divers credible persons, and also by the evident appearance of the matter, that many children of iniquity, maintainers of Luther’s sect, blinded through extreme wickedness, wandering from the way of truth and the catholic faith, craftily have translated the New Testament into our English tongue.³⁴ This was followed by a similar proclamation by Archbishop Warham on November 3d. Efforts were made to arrest their importation by destroying them as they passed through Antwerp in the Netherlands. But the very proposal, on the request of the English government, to have them made illegal there, brought to light the fact that in January 1527, an enterprising Antwerp printer was at work on a reprint for the English market; and the burgesses of that city declined to interfere with what would cripple any industry of their citizens. Then Tonstal devised another expedient. At great cost, he employed agents to buy up all copies as they appeared. This did not diminish the number of copies, as the press continued to send them forth; but proved of great advantage to Tyndale by giving him the means of life, while translating the Old and revising the New Testament. The older and less correct copies were also thus speedily withdrawn from the market, to give place to revised editions. By 1530, no less than six editions of the New Testament appeared, numbering 15,000 copies. Nevertheless “so fierce and systematic was the persecution, that there remains of the first, one fragment only, which was found about thirty years ago attached to the fragment of another tract; of the second, one copy, wanting the title-page, and another very imperfect; and of the others, two or three copies, which are not, however, satisfactorily identified.”³⁵ In 1530, his translation of the Pentateuch appeared, and, in the following year, that of the prophet Jonah. Other books of the Old Testament were translated but not published. He was steadily [[@Page:23]]at work upon the unfinished portions during his imprisonment. He was also the author of a number of Doctrinal and Expository treatises, “A Pathway into Holy Scripture,” “The Wicked Mammon,” “The Obedience of a Christian Man,” “Exposition of First John,” “Exposition of the V, VI and VII chapters of Matthew.”

His end is well-known. For years living in various places, and under an assumed name, he was diligently sought for by the agents of Henry VIII. When the Reformation had progressed in England, and the rupture with the Papacy seemed complete, he supposed it safe to abandon secrecy, and publicly lived and labored at Antwerp. Here he was soon apprehended (May 23d or 24th, 1535,) by the emissaries of the English prelates and after an imprisonment of over a year at the castle of Vilvorden, was strangled and burned, October 6th, 1536. Henry VIII has enough sins for which to answer. We cannot hold him responsible for this murder, upon the amount of evidence now to be furnished.³⁶ Persevering as had been Henry’s endeavor in former years to apprehend him, time had brought its changes. The guilt must ultimately fall upon the Emperor, Charles V, and those from England, who instigated him to the act.

We come now to the relation between the literary work of Tyndale, and that of Luther. On the one hand, Tyndale’s ability as an independent translator has been denied, as by Hallam, who traces his translation entirely to the Vulgate and Luther; on the other hand, his indebtedness to Luther has been ignored. Canon Westcott, the eminent New Testament critic, while endeavoring to prove the utmost independence of Luther, says that it is impossible to read a single chapter without noting that the Greek text was directly used, and at the same time tracing the influence of Luther, together with that of the Vulgate and of Erasmus Latin version.³⁷ Dr. Mombert [[@Page:24]]makes a comparison of Luther’s German and Tyndale on Deuteronomy 6: 6-9, as follows:³⁸

6. Und diese Worte, die ich dir heute gebiete, solist du zu Herzen nehmen.	6. Let these words which I command thee this day stick fast in thine heart.
7. Und sollst sie deinen Kindern schärfen, und davon reden, wenn du in deinem Hause sitzest, oder auf dem Wege gehest, wenn du dich niederlegest, oder aufstehest.	7. And whet them on thy children, and talk of them as thou sittest in thine house, and as thy walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8. Und sollst sie binden zum Zeichen auf deine Hand, und sollen dir ein Denkmal vor deinen Augen seyn.	8. And bind them for a token to thine hand, and let them be a remembrance between thine eyes.
9. Und sollst sie über deines Hauses Pforten schreiben und an die Thore.	9. And write them on the posts and gates of thine house.

“There was nothing,” says this writer, “in the English language he could have used e g., for the rendering of the Hebrew Shinnaen by the English ‘Whet,’ which conveys an idea contained neither in the Greek of the Septuagint, nor the Latin of the Vulgate, but it had been employed by Luther. Had he been a servile imitator of Luther, he would have rendered, after the example of the dreadful translators of the period: ‘And whet them in or into thy children;’ but he knew that that would have violated the English idiom, and, therefore, he rendered ‘whet on,’ and he understood the Piel force of the root Shanan. . . . Again in verse 8, Luther translates the Hebrew Letotaphoth beyn eynecha: ‘Denkmaal vor deinen Augen.’ It is evident that he deliberately gave preference to Luther’s admirable free rendering, as much superior to the vague Greek, and still vaguer Latin of the literal Hebrew ‘bands or fillets’; but knew Hebrew enough to perceive that ‘remembrance between thine eyes’ conformed at once to the Hebrew and English idioms. These two examples, I think, will suffice to convince and prove to scholars, that Tyndale used Luther and understood Hebrew.”

“To any scholar,” says the biographer of Tyndale, Rev. R. Demaus, “who sits down to collate with care the versions of the English and German translators, two facts speedily become [[@Page:25]]plain and indisputable, viz., that Tyndale had Luther’s work before him, and constantly consulted and occasionally adopted it; and that he never implicitly follows Luther, but translates from the original with the freedom of a man who had a perfect confidence in his own scholarship.”³⁹

Instances, however, may be cited, where his independence is not as great as is sometimes claimed for him. For instance, Luke 22: 20, where Tyndale’s “blood which shall for you be shed,” is not English in its order of words, but is that of Luther’s German; while he obtains the future by misunderstanding vergossen wird, especially when compared with the Vulgate fundetur. Here he clearly has abandoned the Greek in order to follow Luther.⁴⁰

The indebtedness of Tyndale to Luther in other respects than as a translator of the Bible, is very great. “The extent,” says Canon Westcott, “to which Tyndale silently incorporated free or verbal translations of passages from Luther’s works into his own, has escaped the notice of his editors. To define it accurately would be a work of very great labor, but the result, as showing the points of contact and divergence in the opinions of the two great reformers, would be a most instructive passage in the doctrinal history of the time.”⁴¹

We give the following examples:

I. PROLOGUES PREPARED INTRODUCING TRANSLATIONS.

1. To the New Testament

Luther (1522.)

Tyndale (1526.)

Gleichwie das Alte Testament ist ein Buch, darinnen Gottes Gesetz und Gebot, daneben die Geschichte beide dere, die dieselbigen gehalten und nicht gehalten haben, geschrieben sind; also ist das Neue Testament ein Buch, darinnen das Evangelium und Gottes Verheissung, daneben auch Geschichte beide dere, die daran glauben und nicht gläuben, geschrieben sind. Uenn Evangelium ist ein griechisch Wort und heisst auf Deutsch gute Botschaft, gute Mähre, gute neue Zeitung, gut Geschrei, davon man singet, saget und fröhlich ist: als da David den grossen Goliath uberwand, kam ein gut Geschrei und tröstliche neue Zeitung unter das jüdische Volk, dass ihr gräulicher Feind erschlagen, und sie erlöset, zu Freude und Friede gestellet wären, davon sie sungen, und sprungen und fröhlich waren.

The Old Testament is a book, wherein is written the law of God, and the deeds of them which fulfil them, and of them also which fulfil them not. The New Testament is a book, wherein are contained the promises of God; and the deeds of them which [[@Page:26]]believe them, or believe them not. Evangelion (that we call Gospel) is a Greek word, and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a mans heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy; as when David had killed Goliath, the giant, came glad tidings unto the Jews, that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger; for gladness whereof, they sung, danced and were joyful.

2. To Epistle to the Romans.

Luther (1522.)

Tyndale (1526.)

Diese Epistel ist das rechte Hauptstücke des Neuen Testaments, und das allerlauterste Evangelium, welche wohl würdig und werth ist, dass sie ein Christenmensch nicht allein von Wort zu Wort auswendig wisse, sondern täglich damit umbgehe, als mit täglichem Brod der Seelen. Denn sie nimmer kann zu viel und zu wohl gelesen, oder betrachten werden, und je mehr sie gehandelt wird, je köstlicher sie wird und bass schmecket. Darumb ich auch meinem Dienst dazu thun will, und durch diese Vorrede einen Eingang dazu bereiten, so viel mir Gott verleihen hat, damit sie deste bass von Jedermann verstanden werde. Denn sie bisher mit Glossen und mancherlei Geschwatz ubel vernnstert ist, die doch an ihr selbs ein belles Licht ist, fast genugsam, die ganze Schrift zu erleuchten.

Forasmuch as this Epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most pure Evangelion, that is to say, glad tidings and that we call gospel, and also is a light and a way unto the whole scripture; I think it meet that every Christian man not only know it, by note and without the book, but also exercise himself therein evermore continually, as with the daily bread of the soul. No man verily can read it too oft, or study it too well; for the more it is studied, the easier it is; the more it is chewed, the pleasanter it is; and the more grandly it is searched, the preciouser things are found in it, so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein. I will therefore be stow my labour and diligence, through this little preface or prologue, to prepare a way in thereunto, so far forth as God shall give me grace, that it may be the better understood of every man; for it hath been hitherto evil darkened with glosses and wonderful dreams of sophisters, that no man could spy out the intent and meaning of it; which, nevertheless, of itself is a bright light, and sufficient to give light unto all Scripture. [[@Page:27]]

3 To Second Corinthians.

Luther (1522.)	Tyndale (1526.)
In der ersten Epistel hat S. Paulus die Korinther hart gestrafet in vielen Stücken, und scharfen Wein in die Wunden gegossen, und sie erschreket; nu aber ein Apostel soll ein tröstlicher Prediger sein, die erschrocken und blöden Gewissen aufzurichten, mehr denn zu schrecken: darumb lobet er sie nun wiederumb in dieser Epistel, und geusset auch Ole in die Wunden, und thut sich wunderfreundlich zu ihnen, und heisset den Sünder mit Liebe wieder aufzunehmen.	As in the first epistle he rebuketh the Corinthians sharply, so in this he comforteth them, and praiseth them, and commandeth him that was excommunicated to be received lovingly into the congregation again.
Im 1. und 2. Cap. zeiget er seine Liebe gegen sie, wie er alles geredt, gethan und gelitten habe zu ihrem Nutz und Heil, dass sie ja sich alles Besten zu ihm versehen sollen.	And in the first and second chapters, he showeth his love to themward, how that all that he spake, did, or suffered was for their sakes, and for their salvation.
Darnach preiset er das evangelische Ampt, welchs das höheste und tröstlichste Werk ist, zu Nutz und Heil der Gewissen, und zeiget wie dasselbige edler sei, denn das Gesetzes Ampt, und wie dasselbige verfolget wird, und doch zunimpt an den Glöubigen, und eine Hofthung machet durchs Kreuz der ewigen Herrlichkeit. Aber mit dem alien rühret er die falschen Apostel, welche das Gesetz wider das Evangelium treibet, und eitel ausserliche Heiligkeit (das ist, Heuchelei) lehreten, und liessen die inwendige Schande des Unglaubens stehen.	Then in the third, fourth and fifth, he praiseth the office of preaching the Gospel, above the preaching of the Law; and showeth that the Gospel groweth through persecution, and through the cross, which maketh a man sure of eternal life. And here and there, he toucheth the false prophets, which studied to turn the faith of the people from Christ, unto the works of the Law.

4 To Galatians.

Luther (1522.)	Tyndale (1526.)
Die Galater waren durch S. Paulum, zu dem rechten Christenglauben, und ins Evangelium von dem Gesetzt gebracht. Aber nach seiner Abschied kamen die falschen Apostel, die der rechten Apostel Jünger warden, und wandten die Galater wieder umb, dass sie glaubten, sie müssten durch des Gesetzes Werk selig werden, und thäten Sünde, wo sie nicht des Gesetzes Werk hielten.	After Paul had converted the Galatians, and coupled them to Christ, to trust in him only for the remission of sins, and hope of grace and salvation, and was departed, there came false Apostles unto them, and that, in the name of Peter, James and John, whom they called the high Apostles, and preached circumcision and the keeping of the Law, to be saved by. [[@Page:28]]

5 To Ephesians.

Luther (1522.)

Tyndale (1526.)

In dieser Epistel, lehret S. Paulus aufs erst, was das Evangelium sei, wie es allein von Gott in Ewigkeit versehen, und durch Christum verdienet und ausgegangen ist, dass alle, die daran gläuben, gerecht, frumm, lebendig, selig und vom Gesetz, Sünde und Tod frei warden. Das thut er durch die drei ersten Kapitel.

In this Epistle, namely in the first three chapters, Paul showeth that the Gospel and grace thereof, was fore seen and predestinate of God from before the beginning and deserved through Christ, and now at the last sent forth, that all men should believe therein; thereby to be justified, made righteous, living and happy; and to be delivered from under the damnation of the law, and captivity of ceremonies.

6. To Philippians

Luther (1522.)

Tyndale (1526.)

In dieser Epistel, lobet und ermahnet S. Paulus die Philipper, dass sie bleiben und fortfahren sollen im rechten Glauben, und zunehmen in der Liebe. Dieweil aber den Glauben allezeit Schaden thun die falschen Apostel und Werklehrer, warnet er sie für denselbigen, und zeiget ihnen an mancherlei Prediger, etliche gute, etliche böse, auch sich selbs und seine Jünger, Timotheum und Epaphroditus; das that er im 1, 2 Kap.

Paul praiseth the Philippians, and exhorteth them to stand fast in the true faith and to increase in love. And because that false prophets study always to impugn and destroy the true faith, he warneth them of such work-learners, or teachers of works, and praiseth Epaphroditus; and all this doth he in the first and second chapters.

Similar examples might be given from the prologues to Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, the Three Epistles of St. John, and to a less degree, 1 Corinthians. The long prologue to Hebrews keeps in view what Luther’s brief prologue suggests, and argues against a statement of Luther. Even where his prologues do not reproduce similar prologues of Luther, no one who knows the latter will fail to see that Tyndale presents in another form what Luther has elsewhere taught. We cite, as an example, Tyndale’s treated of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture in the prologue to Leviticus, for every statement of which a corresponding passage of Luther could be given. Peculiar expressions, too, incline one greatly to most thoroughly search Luther’s works for them, as e. g. “The Holy Ghost is no dumb God, [[@Page:29]]nor a God that goeth a mumming.” So, as Canon Westcott⁴² has remarked, “Tyndale at the close of his prologue to St. Matthew, which is an extensive essay, reproduces, in a modified form, Luther’s famous judgment on the relative worth of the apostolic books in his Preface to the New Testament.”

Luther (1522.)	Tyndale (1526.)
Summa, S. Johannis Evangel, und seine erste Epistel, S. Paulus Epistel, sonderlich die zu den Römern, Galatern, Ephesern, und S. Peters erste Epistle, das sind die Bücher, die dir Christum zeigen, und alles lehren, das dir zu wissen noth und selig ist.	And thereto Paul’s Epistles, with the Gospel of John, and his first epistle, and the first epistle of St. Peter, are most pure Gospel and most plainly and richly describe the glory of the grace of Christ.

The Appendix on “Repentance is only a reproduction of Luther’s well-known discussion of metanoia, with special reference to the defects of the Latin translation ‘ago poenitentiam.’”

II. THE GLOSSES.

“The marginal notes, those pestilent glosses, against which the indignation of the clergy was especially excited, have been to a large extent translated by Tyndale from those of Luther. Not that Tyndale translated like a servile imitator, whose intellect was too barren to be capable of originality; everywhere he uses his own judgment; sometimes he curtails Luther’s notes; sometimes he omits them; often he inserts notes of his own, and these of various kinds, explanatory and doctrinal. Some of the longest of these marginal glosses, as well as some of those which most emphatically propound the doctrine of justification by faith, are original to Tyndale; in other cases the words of Luther have been expanded, and have formed not so much the source of Tyndale’s notes as the nucleus out of which it has grown. Of the whole number of ninety marginal glosses which occur in the fragment of Tyndale’s quarto that has come down to us, fifty-two have been more or less literally taken from Luther, and thirty-eight are original.”⁴³ [[@Page:30]]

We give two illustrations:

Luther	Tyndale
Matth. 5: 13. (Das Salz). Wenn die Lehrer aufhören Gottes Wort zu lehren, müssen sie von Menschengesetzen überfallen und zutreten werden.	(Salt). When the preachers cease to preach God’s Word, then must they need be oppressed and trod under foot with man’s traditions.

Luther	Tyndale
Rom. 5: 14: Wie Adam uns mit frembder Sünde, ohn unser Schuld, verderbet hat; also hat uns Christus mit frember Gnade ohn unser Verdienst selig gemacht.	Adam’s disobedience damned us all ere we ourselves wrought evil; and Christ’s obedience saveth us all ere we ourselves work any good.

III. THE WICKED MAMMON.

This is a treatise written by Tyndale at Worms, and published under his own name, May 8th, 1527. Its real theme is “Justification by Faith.” A number of scriptural texts, urged by the Papists against this doctrine, are examined and explained in an evangelical manner. The first, and the one accorded most prominent treatment is “The Parable of the Unjust Steward.” From beginning to end it has Luther’s spirit and style.

A large portion of it is from Luther’s Sermon on the Ninth Sunday after Trinity. We select from pages that might be here inserted, only the passage on the meaning of unrighteous Mammon, which Prof. Walter triumphantly adduces as an indication of Tyndale’s profound Hebrew attainments.⁴⁴

Luther (1522.)	Tyndale (1527.)
Auf erste: Mammon ist Hebraisch, und heisst so viel als Reichthumb oder zeitlich Gut, nämlich das, dess jemand ubrig hat zu seinem stande, und damit er dem andern wohl kann nütz sein ohne Schaden. Denn Hamon auf Hebraisch heisst Menge, oder grosser Hauf und viel; daraus wird denn Mahamon oder Mammon, das ist, die Menge des Gutes oder Reichthumbs.	First, mammon is an Hebrew word, and signifieth riches or temporal goods; and, namely, all superfluity, and all that is above necessity, and that which is required to our necessary uses; wherewith a man may help another, without undoing or hurting himself; for hamon in the Hebrew speech, signifies a multitude or abundance, or many; and there hence cometh mahamon or mammon, abundance or plenteousness of goods or riches. [[@Page:31]]
Aufs ander heisst es unrecht Mammon, nicht dass es mit unrecht oder Wucher erworben sei; denn von unrechtem Gut, kann man kein gut Werk thunn, sondern soil es wiedergeben, wie Jesaias (61, 8) hat gesagt.	Secondarily, it is called “unrighteous mammon,” not because it is got unrighteously, or with usury; for of unrighteous gotten goods, can no man do good works, but ought to restore them home again: as it is said, Esay. LXI.

The entire book is one of the most devout, earnest, and evangelical in the English language; and should be reprinted as a most solid Lutheran devotional work for the people. On every page passages of great force and beauty abound, where we feel Luther back of them, even when unable to trace them to his works, e. g.:

“Prayer is a mourning, a longing, and a desire of the spirit to God-ward, for that which she lacketh; as a sick man mourneth and sorroweth in his heart, longing for health. Faith ever prayeth. For after that by faith we are reconciled to God, and have received mercy and forgiveness of God, the spirit longeth and thirsteth for strength to do the will of God, and that God may be honored, his name be hallowed, and his pleasure and will fulfilled. The spirit waiteth and watcheth on the will of God, and ever hath her own fragility and weakness before her eyes; and when she seeth temptation and peril draw nigh, she turneth to God, and to the testament that God hath made to all that believe and trust in Christ’s blood.”

“God looketh with what heart thou workest, and not what thou workest.” “If thou compare deed to deed, there is difference betwixt washing of dishes, and preaching of the word of God; but as touching to please God, none at all; for neither that, nor this pleaseth, but as far forth as God hath chosen a man, hath put his Spirit in him, and purified his heart by faith and trust in Christ.”

“Faith, the mother of all good works, justifieth us before we can bring forth any good work: as the husband marrieth his wife before he can have any lawful children by her.”

“Deeds are the fruits of love; and love is the fruit of faith. Love and also the deeds are great or small, according to the [[@Page:32]]proportion of faith. “Where faith is mighty and strong, there is love fervent, and faith plenteous: where faith is weak, there love is cold, and the deeds few and seldom, as flowers and blossoms in winter.”

The following is an echo of the famous passage in Luther’s Preface to Romans (O es ist ein lebendig, schäftig, thätig, mächtig Ding!):

“Faith is mighty in operation, full of virtue, and ever working; which also reneweth a man, and begetteth him afresh, changeth him and turneth him altogether into a new nature and conversation; so that a man feeleth his heart altogether altered and changed, and far otherwise disposed than before, and hath power to love that which before he could not but hate, arid delighteth in that which before he abhorred; and hateth that which before he could not but love.

IV. The Obedience of a Christian Man.

In this treatise, published in 1528, we have been unable to find any translations from Luther, although it is probable that they are to be found. The topics treated are those on which Luther was constantly writing and speaking. It treats, first, of the obedience which all subjects (children, wives, civil subjects) should yield, with an Appendix on “The Pope’s False Power;” secondly, of the duties of rulers (fathers, husbands, masters, landlords, kings and judges), with an appendix on Antichrist; thirdly, the subjects of Penance, Confession, Contrition, Satisfaction, Absolution, Confirmation, Anointing, Miracles and Worshippings of Saints, Prayer, The Four Senses of the Scripture.

In 1529 Anne Boleyn had a copy of this book which she loaned to one of her attendants. It passed from the attendant into the hands of her suitor, and he was detected with it. The book was seized and came into the possession of Cardinal Wolsey, from whom the king, on the intercession of the owner, obtained it. When he had read it, he expressed his great satisfaction. Henry was especially delighted with the manner, in which it enjoined the duty of obedience to rulers. “This book,” [[@Page:33]]said he,” is for me and all “kings to read.” “And in a little time,” adds Strype, “the King, by the help of this virtuous lady, by the means aforesaid, had his eyes opened to the truth, to search the truth, to advance God’s religion and glory, to abhor the pope’s doctrine.” Alas! that it was only the interest of the stony-ground hearer.⁴⁵

We cannot forbear giving a few paragraphs of the Preface as indicative of the spirit which animates the book:

“Mark this: If God send thee to the sea, and promise to go with thee, and to bring thee safe to land, he will raise up a tempest against thee, to prove whether thou wilt abide by his word; and that thou mayest feel thy faith, and perceive his goodness. For if it were always fair weather, and thou never brought into such jeopardy, whence his mercy only delivered thee, thy faith would be a presumption, and thou wouldest be ever unthankful to God and merciless unto thy neighbor.

If God promises riches, the way thereto is poverty. Whom he loves, him he chastens; whom he exalts, he casts down; he brings no man to heaven, except he send him to hell first; when he builds, he casts all down first; he is no patcher, he cannot build on another’s foundation; he will not work until all be past remedy, that men may see how his hand, his power, his mercy, his goodness and truth, have wrought altogether.

Joseph saw the sun and moon and the eleven stars worshipping him. Nevertheless ere that came to pass, God laid him where he could see neither sun nor moon, neither any star of the sky, and that for years; and also undeservedly: to nurture him, to humble, to make him meek, and to teach him God’s ways, and to make him apt and meet for the place and honor, against he came to it, that he might perceive and feel that it came of God, and that he might be strong in the Spirit, to minister it in a godly manner.

He promised the children of Israel a land with rivers of milk and honey, but brought them for the space of forty years into a [[@Page:34]]land, where not only rivers of milk and honey were not, but where so much as a drop of water was not.

He promised Daniel a kingdom, and immediately stirred up King Saul against him to persecute him; to hunt him as men do hares with greyhounds, and to ferret him out of every hole, and that for the space of many years. This was to tame him, to make him meek; to kill his lusts; to make him feel other men’s diseases; to make him merciful; to make him understand that he was made a king to minister and serve his brethren, and that he should not think that his subjects were made to minister unto his lusts.

Tribulation is our right baptism. We that are baptised in the name of Christ, saith Paul, are baptised to die with him.”

V. Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount.

In November 1530, during Bugenhagen’s absence from Wittenberg, Luther occupied his pulpit, in which he preached a series of sermons on “The Sermon on the Mount.” These were published in German in 1532, and in Latin in 1533. In 1532, Tyndale’s Exposition appeared. George Joye, whose attempt to pirate Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament occasioned an exciting controversy, in Tyndale’s life-time asserted that “Luther made it, Tyndale only but translating and powdering it here and there with his own fantasies.” This charge, however, is at once seen to be unjust, if we compare the two. The “Exposition” is Tyndale’s. The use made of Luther is perfectly legitimate. But it is equally clear that either notes of Luther’s discourses, or the printed volume were before Tyndale, and freely used. There are not many passages, where the correspondence is as close as the following:⁴⁶

Luther (1532.)

Tyndale (1532.)

Gerechtigkeit muss an diesem Ort nicht heissen die christliche Häuptgerechtigkeit, dadurch die Person frumm und angenehm wird fur Gott. Denn . . diese acht Stuck nicht Anders sind, denn eine Lehre von den Früchten und guten Werken eines Christen, vor welchen der Glaube zuvor muss da sein, als der Baum und Häuptstuck, oder Summa seiner Gerechtigkeit und seligkeit, ohn alle Werk und Verdienst, daraus solche Stuck alle wachsen und folgen mussen.

Righteousness in this place is not taken for the principal righteousness of a Christian man, through which the person is good and accepted [[@Page:35]]before God. For these eight points are but doctrines of the fruits and works of a Christian man, before which the faith must be there, to make righteous without all deserving of works, and as a tree out of which all such fruits and works must spring.

WAS TYNDALE A LUTHERAN?

Dr. Eadie, the eminent commentator of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, urges that it is a great wrong to term him such.⁴⁷ “It was a mistake of no common magnitude,” he says, “to associate the name and work of Tyndale with the name and work of Luther. The mistake, however, can be easily explained, as it was common at the time to call all men Lutherans who showed any leaning towards reformation. The great Reformer had so stamped an image of himself upon the Teutonic movement, that similar tendencies in other lands, were vaguely named after him. Sir Thomas More, King Henry, Lee and Cochlaeus regarded Tyndale as a promoter of Lutheranism, and his testament was loosely spoken of as a translation of Luther’s German version. The title page of Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue reads: ‘Touching the pestilent sect of Luther and Tyndale.’ But it is against all evidence to call Tyndale Lutheran, or to aver that his purpose was to promote Lutheranism in his own country. He was no sectarian, was never allied to Luther as colleague or instrument, and nothing was farther from his thoughts than to found a sect and identify his own name with it.”

The conception of “Lutheran,” here presented by Dr. Eadie, is that of one who went forth from the Church of Rome “to found a sect.” Then, Luther himself was not a Lutheran; nor were any of his co-laborers Lutheran. A Protestant theologian who traces its beginnings to a movement in Germany to found a new sect, certainly has a strange view of the Reformation. The name ‘Lutheran,’ a term of reproach, against which Luther [[@Page:36]]protested loud and long, became the current name for that pure Scriptural doctrine which Luther asserted and maintained in opposition to the corruptions of the Papacy. Even up to the diet of Augsburg, the hope had not altogether become extinct that the Roman Church would yet return to this doctrine. The Lutheran movement had nothing to do with a separate organization, until the act of its enemies, in casting out those who professed this doctrine as heretics, separated the enemies themselves, from the confessors of the faith of the Gospel.

An appeal is made by Dr. Eadie to a “Protestation,” by Tyndale in his revised New Testament of 1534. All, however, that it shows, is, that it is worthy to be placed alongside of similar numerous protestations of Luther. Tyndale says: “I take God which alone seeth the heart to record to my conscience, beseeching Him that my part be not in the blood of Christ, if I wrote, of all that I have written, throughout all my books, aught of an evil purpose of envy, or malice to any man, or to stir up any false doctrine or opinion, in the Church of Christ; or to be author of any sect; or to draw disciples after me; or that I be esteemed or had in price above the least child that is born; save only of pity and compassion I had, on the blindness of my brethren, and to bring them into the knowledge of Christ; and to make every one of them, if it were possible, as perfect as an angel of heaven; and to weed out all that is not planted of our Heavenly Father, and to- bring down all that lifted itself against the knowledge of the salvation that is in the blood of Christ.”

But this is only an echo of what Luther wrote in 1522: “I beg of you, keep silent about my name; and call yourselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul (1 Cor. 4: 5) will not allow Christians to be called Pauline or Petrine, but only Christians. How have I come to it, that the children of Christ should be called by my miserable name? Not so, dear friend, blot out party names, and be called Christians from him whose doctrine we have.”⁴⁸ But this was explained the very [[@Page:37]]same year. “True it is that you should not say: I am Lutheran, or Popish; for he has not died for any of you, neither is he your Master, but Christ only, and you should confess Christ. But if you hold that Luther’s doctrine is evangelical and the Pope’s unevangelical, you must not entirely reject Luther; otherwise, with him, you reject his doctrine which you have learned to know as Christ’s doctrine. You must say: Whether Luther be rascal or saint, matters not; but his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s himself. You see that the tyrants are trying not merely to destroy Luther, but to exterminate his doctrine; and because of the doctrine, they feel for you and ask you whether you be Lutheran. Here truly you must not waver, but must freely confess Christ, whether he have been preached by Luther, Claus or George. The person, you may let go; but the doctrine, you must confess.”⁴⁹

The question, then, is simply as to whether the doctrine of Tyndale was the same as that of Luther. Concerning this, Valentine Ernst Löscher says: “He who has received his knowledge from Luther’s writings, and of whom one has no report that he has taught in any article otherwise than Luther, may justly be accounted Evangelical Lutheran, even though he have not lived in full connection with a Lutheran congregation, or we do not have from him a confession concerning every article in controversy.”⁵⁰ Löscher’s information concerning Tyndale, however, is defective. In all the treatises we have noted, his apprehension of the doctrine of justification by faith in all its relations, and of the distinction between Law and Gospel, drawn from Luther, is so clear and full, as to leave little to be desired further. In the “Obedience of a Christian Man,” the doctrine of the Sacraments is not treated with the same clearness, and a weakening is already manifest. Luther’s statements concerning baptism appear, however, in the foreground: “The washing without the word helpeth not; but through the word it purifieth and cleanseth.” [[@Page:38]]The influence of his friend John Frith, who had embraced the Zwinglian doctrine made Tyndale hesitate between the two sides. But he plead with Frith to desist from controversy: “Of the presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament, meddle as little as you can, that there appear no division among us. Barnes will be hot against you. The Saxons are sore on the affirmative; whether constant or obstinate, I commit it to God. … I would have the right use preached, and the presence to be an indifferent thing. … To believe that the body of Christ is everywhere, though it cannot be proved, hurts no man, that worships him nowhere save in the faith of his Gospel.” This was written in 1532, two years before his death. The next year, Frith’s imprisonment in England induced him to write a defence of his friend’s views. Still later he wrote the very mild and moderate treatise called “A Brief Declaration of the Sacraments.” It directly argues against the Lutheran doctrine. Frith’s influence had gradually overcome that which Luther had so completely held over this retired scholar, while the very extent of his former indebtedness to Luther, and the exaggeration of this debt by enemies, rendered him more apt to find some point on which to assert his independence. But one need only compare Tyndale’s writings with Zwingli’s, to find how relatively thorough a Lutheran, the former always remained. It was impossible for him to carry out to their consequences what was involved in his later doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. [[@Page:39]]