Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (1530s) Anglo-Italian Oppositon Continued

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

Prof. Daniell has offered up a review of: (1) the significant influence of Erasmus’ Greek NT in the Continent-wide flood of vernacular Bibles translated from the Greek and brought into visibility, (2) the weighty impact of the English Bible for the English Reformation, and (3) the life of Tyndale and his impact. In chapter 10, he turns the attention to Chapter 10, “After Tyndale.”

One sees a shift from the strict Anglo-Italian view—no vernaculars for the churches towards a more reforming direction. Nevertheless, opposition remains—unsurprisingly given that idols were falling.

Prof Daniell reviews: (1) the changing landscape in the Church of England, (2) the continuing opposition, (3) Thomas Cranmer’s projected but frustrated “Bishop’s Bible, and (4) more continued opposition. 

The theme of the chapter: THE BATTLE CONTINUES IN ENGLAND.

Prof. Daniell, probably to the annoyance of some historians, claims that the “revolution and its permanence” [in England] would not have happened “without Tyndale” (160). For our side, we are inclined to advocate for an adjusted narrative on the English Reformation: Tyndale has been under-rated, under-appreciated and, along with Erasmus, less visible than should be the case; Tyndale may overshadow Cranmer himself…although he played his part when allowed.

Thomas More, the strenuous voice of Anglo-Italianism, saw that by 1529 there was a “demand for the Bible in English” (160). More already evinces a slight shift, perhaps unwillingly, in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies. At this point, Cranmer is ensconced at Cambridge sorting through affairs as a scholar and assessing Mr. (senior Anglo-Italian clerk) John Fisher’s works. Meanwhile, Erasmus’ NT is in several editions and Continental vernaculars are afoot.

Tyndale’s editions have entered the nation. More argues that certain books or parts of certain books be screened and translated; it still is an argument against the entire Bible in the vernacular; it still shows More’s fear of the whole Bible.

Anglo-Italian Fears of the Bible in England:

1. The evil heretics, as they were called, by-passed the Latin Vulgate, used Erasmus’ Greek NT, used the Hebrew, and “disobeyed” the Church (161).

2. The evil heretics put forward 66 books (and apocrypha); horrors! They might read Romans and the Pauline epistles!

3. Furthermore, these evil heretics put the Bible into the “vernacular.” This meant that anyone, any man, any woman or even any child or youth might read the Bible themselves, if literate. Or, it might mean that anyone—irrespective of age or gender—might have the Bible read to them, if not literate. Or, it might mean anyone “within earshot” could hear the Bible (161). And, to the Anglo-Italians, God forbid that Bible-reading in the vernacular would be had in the 9000 parishes of England! Horrors no! The Bible was too sacred, defended, dangerous, complex and difficult—it was beyond understanding. No one could interpret it without the mediation of the controlling hierarchy; they feared a “free-for-all,” a very “present hell of heretics destroying the Christian heritage…full of heresy and seething sedition” (161). That fear was certainly not Chrysostom’s view of advocacy for Biblical literacy...nor a host of other Churchmen.

4. The evil heretics allowed for the “principle of self-interpretation to operate” (161). But quite notably, Catholic (= not Roman, but Reformed and Reformational) Churchmen never denied Biblical “dark places,” e.g. Geneva notes. Who would deny that Revelation has its manifold challenges? Or, that certain biblical texts had numerous challenges? Or, that certain poetical sections presented more challenges?

But, the Bible was, on the whole and in the main, perspicuous.

One is well-reminded by the sage statements of The Westminster Confession of Faith, albeit later, Chap. 1, para 7, 8.

“1.7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

“1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

This was flatly denied by Rome and Anglo-Italians in England before Tyndale.

Of course, this would and did unleash varieties of understandings. Prof. Daniell notes: “Worse, as with Shakespeare, readers can find in the volume whatever they want” (161). But, when read, the Bible is both challenging yet simple too.

Prof. Daniell does a service by repeatedly returning to attempts to get the arms around the issue of print-runs and editions published. In the 16th century alone, the figures “are grand enough” he tells us (162). In the 18th-19th centuries, there were 1200 editions of the Bible, largely KJV; put differently, assuming even-ness over 200 years, we would do the math. That means over the 18th and 19th centuries, that 60 editions published per year.

By the 19th century, Pope Pee-on-us, or Pope Pee-on-everybody, Pee-on-the-people, or officially named Pope Pius IX, was declaiming and railing against vernacular Bibles in the 1864 Syllabus of Errors; the difference between Protestant England (minus the neo-Anglo-Italian Tractarians) and Romanism could not be starker. It would not be until Vatican II (1962-65) that Romanism would begin putting English services and English lections before English-speaking Romanists still under the Italian thumb.

As an aside, this explains a Roman priest assaulting this scribe and confiscating his English Bible in the narthex of a synagogue of darkness in/about 1960. We’ve covered that story elsewhere.

Continuing Prof. Daniell’s astute item of print-runs, he states it is “impossible to calculate the numbers running into the millions” of English Bibles.

In America, between 1777 and 1850, there were 1400 editions of the English Bible (162). Let us do the math. Again, assuming evenness per annum, that is 19.1 editions published each year. Prof. Daniell notes that 34 editions were printed in 1850 alone. Yes, millions of Bibles came from the Protestant presses.

By 1880, English Bibles were an “essential item in the furnishing of the American home.” It has been a “phenomenon beyond calculation.”

CONTINUED OPPOSITION IN THE 16TH CENTURY, 163—165

Tyndale continued to be a bogey-man in England--the pestiferous and poisonous heretic to use Ango-Italian terms of art. Henry VIII’s 1526 Preface in his famous letter denounced Luther as a man “who fell in device with one or two lewd person born in this our realm [= Tyndale and Roy]…for translating of the New Testament into English.” Henry promised, based on Prelatical counsel, to “burn Tyndale’s book and sharply punish its readers” (163). These were “false and erroneous translations and corruptions.” Never mind that 83% of Tyndale would be taken up into the KJV by 1611. This 1526 letter by Henry VIII would earn Henry the approval of the senior priest in Rome. Henry, defending his Anglo-Italian policy of supporting Italianism, would be called by the Pope Fidei Defensor, or “F.D.,” still on all British coins to this day. History has entirely turned over the Anglo-Italian and Italian policy, entirely.

Henry VIII’s moves tally with Thomas More's sustained vituperations. Henry convened an Assembly of divines on 24 MAY 1530. Tunstall, Gardiner, More and Canterbury Warham, all staunch Anglo-Italians were on hand; Latimer was there too and we are not sure of his reformist development at this point although some reports put him inside the circle of the White Horse Inn. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the Assembly was that “the people had no right to demand vernacular Scripture; it was not necessary for Christian men to have it; it could only work harm and the prelates do well in refusing it.”

Oh how obtuse and stupid were these Anglo-Italians.

In JUN 1530, old Harry issued a “Proclamation,” to wit:

1. “Damning erroneous books and heresies”

2. “Prohibiting the having of holy scripture [sic] translated into the vernacular tongues of English, French or Duche" [= German]

3. Five books are forbidden—by John Frith (later burned in 1533), Simon Fish, and Tyndale (including Wicked Mammon and Obedience)

CRANMER’S PROJECTED BISHOPS’ BIBLE, 1534, 165-167

Cranmer becomes Canterbury on 30 MAR 1533. ABC  Warham had departed to the next world. On Cranmer's part, a “fresh attempt” for a vernacular is made. A Convocation of Canterbury occurs in autumn, 1533. Significant attention is focused on “heresy” and “English books flooding in from overseas” (165).

On 19 DEC 1534, the Upper House directed Cranmer in these directions:

1. Approach the King seeking him to “order people” to turn in the Bibles and books within 3 months.

2. Ask the King to authorized learned men to translate the Holy Scriptures into English and deliver the Bibles for instruction from it. This sounds like an advance or shift; it also reflects a response to growing demand notable in England but also the Continent.

3. Ask the King to issue “an order” curbing the “presumption of laymen to dispute on faith or Scripture” (165). There was no freedom of religion and freedom of speech as we know it. On the other hand, this reflects realities on the ground and fears within the Anglo-Italian circles of leadership.

Cranmer proposed a “Bishops’ Bible” be brought forward by the Bishops. He partitions the Bible into 10 parts “to revise and correct” Tyndale. This clearly indicates that Cranmer was aware of Tyndale’s operations, achievements and views. Bp. Gardiner, ever hostile to the idea of an English Bible, did his part, finishing Luke and John. But, here is Bp. Stokesley’s response (as captured by Ralph Morice, the secretary to Cranmer):

“It chanced that the Acts of the Apostles were [sic] sent to bishop Stokesley to oversee and correct, then Bishop of London. When the day came, every man had sent to Lambeth [London] their parts correct: only Stokesley’s portion wanted. My lord Canterbury [= Cranmer] wrote to the Bishop letters for his part, requiring to deliver them the bringer thereof, his secretary [=Morice]. Bishop Stokesley being at Fullham received the letters, unto which he made this answer; I marvel what my lord of Canterbury meaneth that thus abuseth the people in giving them liberty to read the scriptures, which doth nothing but infect them with heresies. I have bestowed never an hour upon my portion, nor never will. And therefore my lord shall have his book again, for I will never be guilty to bring the simple people into error.
"My lord of Canterbury’s servant [= Morice] took the book [=Acts], and brought the same to Lambeth unto my lord, declaring my lord of London’s [Stokesley's] answer. When my lord [= Cranmer] had perceived that the Bishop had done nothing therein, I [= Cranmer] marvel, quod my lord of Canterbury, that my lord of London is so forward, that he will not do as other men do. Mr. Lowney stood by, hearing my lord speak so much of the Bishop’s untowardness, said:

"I [= Lowney] can tell your grace why my lord of London will not bestow any labour or pain this way. Your Grace knoweth well (quod Lowney) that his portion is a piece of the New Testament. And then he being persuaded that Christ had bequeathed him nothing in his testament thought it mere madness to bestow any labour or pain where no gain was to be gotten. And besides this, it is the Acts of the Apostles, which were simple poor fellows, and therefore my lord of London disdained to have to do with any of their acts" [emphasis added, 170]

A few evident observations on Stokesley’s worldview: (1) a vernacular Bible abuses the people, (2) the vernacular Bible infects the people with heresy, (3) based on these two things, he will not, he believes, lead the people into error, and (4) Lowney, being more practical, sees Stokesley as interested in gain and disinterested in apostles, those “simple poor fellows.” This--Stokesley--from the senior priest in the Anglo-Italian diocese of London in 1535; this view prevailed well in the 1970s for Romanists.

Upshot: Cranmer’s “Bishops’ Bible,” with excellent intentions, was frustrated (167). Cramner is always credited as being a man of patience; he had no other choice; either that or to the flames you go.

Two years later, 1537, Cranmer wrote Thomas Cromwell praising Matthew’s Bible [= Tyndale’s with a different title page] and begging that the King might license it until such time that “we bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be til a day after doomsday” (167).

A few self-evident observations on Cranmer in this letter to Cromwell: (1) Cranmer is aware of obstructionism, (2) Anglo-Italianism prevails amongst many bishops, (3) Cranmer endorsed a vernacular Bible, (4) if Tyndale was unacceptable, a revised Bible was needed, and (5) Cranmer is willing to employ sarcasm for bishops. Hah, bishops still deserve correction although they don't often respond to much of it...even when legitimate.

On 16 NOV 1538, the Anglo-Italian policy continued. Henry tried to stop the “import of naughty books from abroad” (169). Books from abroad were to be examined. No imports to England from abroad could be vernacular Bibles and no annotations.

In 1543, Parliament forbad “all translations bearing the name of Tyndale.”

Parliament further directed that all existing translations have the marginal notes and prologues be obliterated. The Bible Society holds 1 copy of the 1537 Matthew’s Bible with its prologues and notes—they were manually “inked over” in an act response to Parliament. The same Parliament decreed:

“At the same time it was enacted that no women (except noble or gentle women) no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men, husbandmen, or labourers should read to themselves or to others, publicly or privately, any part of the Bible under pain of imprisonment."

There years later (1546) the king repeated the prohibition against Tyndale’s books with many others…Thus the Great Bible alone remained unforbidden” (170).

The Great Bible had been ordered up for all 9000 parishes. However, no one could read it, privately or publicly. Hands off! It appears that the ground has shifted and this, a stop-gap, was a response to a growing readership. Fear was gripping the Anglo-Italian leaders amongst some Royals, Parliamentarians, and clerks.

But, God had other plans and no King of England could stay the Divine Hand.

Also, more proof that a nation and churches can be staffed by fools. Like then, like now.

English Reformation: A Damning Parliament of November 29, 1529

d’Aubigne, J.H. Merle. The Reformation in England, Vol.2. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994. D’Aubigne, Merle.

There are two volumes. Volume 1 goes to the death of Wolsey in 1530. Volume 2 follows this story to the death of Henry VIII in 1547. Volume 3 was planned, but never completed due to Mr. d’Aubigne’s unexpected death in 1872.

Volume 2 is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Reformation-England-Volume-2/dp/0851514871/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375919662&sr=8-1&keywords=Merle+d%27Aubigne .

Chapter One, Vol. 2 : England Begins to Cast Off the Papacy:  The end of this post on Mr. d'Aubigne's argument is powerful

1. The Nation and Its Parties (Autumn 1529), 3-9. The fall of Wolsey in 1529 “divides the old times from the new” (3). Mr. d’Aubigne notes that the Holy Scriptures had been translated, were circulating and being read since the 14th century. We are not sure how influential Lollardy was throughout the 14th-15th century. But there were developments with Tyndale, Fryth (Frith), Latimer and others at Cambridge in the 1520s. Indubitably. Cambridge had the roilings. The Continent was under fire. John Calvin had no part in this as a youngster (b. 1509, 20 years Cranmer’s junior and 26 years Luther’s junior) while the 1520s were underway. (Although Calvin would be influential by way of letters to Edward VI, Regent, Archbishop of Canterbury and Sir William Cecil (Burghley).

“External and “internal” influences. We would add that it’s often claimed that the English Reformation was a “mere act of State.” Or, that the Reformation came "in by the back door." We’ve heard Tractarians sniffily claim this in order to dismiss Edwardean and Elizabethan England (3.0 and 5.0 versions) and to re-introduce, advance and establish their Tractarian, 2.0 version, of Anglicanism. That is, Non-Papal Romanism or the period of the undivided church without an English Reformation. There were “internal” forces at work—theology, Bible, justifying faith, the Triune God, the work of the Holy Spirit. To deny that is sheer blindness. On the other hand, the “external factors” do exist—legal deeds and acts of King and Parliament.

Notably, on November 3, 1529 a Parliament is convened. We would insert that this is three months after Mr. Cranmer’s fateful meeting at Waltham Abbey with Fox and Gardiner, but we digress. Henry had issued a writ on September 25, 1529 for the Assembly. Wolsey’s wide unpopularity led Henry to seek support from the “elected representative of the Commons,” a body that had increased prestige in this period.

The Papal party, notably Mr. (Bishop) Fisher, was “alarmed”, “uneasy,” and “disturbed at seeing laymen called to give their advice on religious matters” (5).

Beneath all this was a simmering anti-clericalism that Henry was willing to indulge; the rest of this post underscores this; it was not new to England (or other countries either).

Mr. (Bishop) Du Bellay, a French bishop of Bayonne and later Paris, wrote from London to the Grand-master of France, Mr. Monmorency, “I fancy that in this parliament the priests will have a terrible fight” (emphasis added, 6). We would add that this is a compelling quote for the current dilemma facing the Roman Anglican apparatchiks, more practical, financial and political than theological…although theology was also simmering too in some precincts. Clearly, this particular French Roman bishop foresaw Parliamentary challenges to the Papal Roman Anglican Church.

Mr. d’Aubigne says that Mr. (bp.) Fisher was “learned, intelligent, bold and slightly fanatical” (6). Mr. Bromiley outrightly stated, contrastingly, that Fisher was not “brilliant” and was not “an outstanding scholar.” But, we'll leave that to the side. Mr. Fisher was pleased that Mr. Thomas More was the new Chancellor and replacement of Wolsey, although he would have preferred an Ecclesastic rather than a Layman; Fisher may have desired that for himself, but that is theory at this point; after all, he [Fisher] had done the yeoman's heavy-lifting of writing against Luther and was party to book burnings at Cambridge; after all, he [Fisher] was a senior statesman linked to the days of Henry VII and Cambridge. But, this much, be that as it may, Fisher saw an ally in Thomas More, a loyal 1.0 Anglican, a Papalist. Mr. d’Aubigne calls this the “hierarchal party.” We would add that Mr. Harpsfield, a Roman Papal Anglican, jailed under Elizabeth, noted this specific More-Fisher axis of power; they were both close and collusive. Shortly, Mr. d'Aubigne will add Canterbury, London, Lincoln, St. Asaph and Rochester to the anti-Reformers in the "hierarchal party" of prelates.

Mr. d’Aubigne postulates a “political party” in opposition to the “hierarchal party” consisting of the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sir William Fitz-Williams, the Royal Comptroller, opposing “ecclesiastical domination.” Little evidence is offered here.

A third party was found in the villages, towns, and smaller units of governance, the “lowly men, artisans, weavers, cobblers, and shop-keepers” who read the Scriptures (7). Mr. d’Aubigne offers little evidence here.

However, Mr. d’Aubigne scores large points--big points--in pp.8-14, to wit, that there was widespread hostility to the Papal Roman Anglican Church, a hostility that Henry helped to foster.  A hostility he would harness in his quest for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

Mr. d’Aubigne notes that the nobility were “openly critical of clerics” (8). The French bishop noted above, Mr. Du Bellay, first of Bayonne and later of Paris, will report [from London] hearing these things at varied sumptuous courtly banquets.

• “There are, even in London, houses of ill-fame for the use of priests, monks, and canons” (8). In essence, whore-houses. A subculture. This may be the idea behind the accusation of Cranmer being an "ostler," a frequenter of hotels where female services were offered. No one seems to clearly identify this, but we digress.

• “They would force us to take such men as these our guides to heaven”

• “Witty and biting remarks” by noblemen openly

• “Since Wolsey has fallen, we must forthwith regulate the condition of the Church and of its ministers”

• Mr. Du Bellay in a letter about this Parliament states: “I have no need to write this language in cipher; for the noble lords utter it at open table. I think they will do something that they have talked about” (8)

This evidence offered by Mr. d’Aubigne is forceful.

“Parliament and its Grievances” (November 1529), 10-14

Mr. d’Aubigne hits a homerun with the following evidence. Watch as it develops in this important Parliament. [We’ll use bullets to summarize it:

• The Parliament and its Grievances (November 1529)

• Setting. On November 3, 1529, Henry VIII mounted his barge and went to his Palace at Bridewell. He robed up. He formally proceeded to the Blackfriars Church [central London] where the Parliament met. Mass was heard. Thomas More explained the reasons for the convocation. Thomas Audley was appointed the Speaker of the House.

• There was a “firm resolve to introduce the necessary reforms of both Church and State.” The first day dealt with “abuses of clerical domination” (11).

We'll bring the grievances followed by the telling response to Henry from the Canterbury-Roman Anglican bishops-axis-of-power. Here’s a list of the grievances from the Commons to Henry:

• “First, the prelates of your most excellent realm, and the clergy of the same, have in their convocations made many and divers laws without your royal assent, and without the assent of your lay subjects” [code = state within a state with their own laws]

• "And also many of your said subjects, and especially those that be of the poorest sort, be daily called before the said spiritual ordinaries or their commissaries, on the acccusement of light and indiscreet persons and be excommunicated and put to excessive and impostable charges”

• “The prelates suffer the priests to exact divers sums of money for the sacraments, and sometimes deny the same without the money paid first”

• Also the said spiritual ordinaries do daily confer and give sundry benefices unto certain young folks, calling them their nephews or kinfolk, being in their minority and within age, not apt nor able to serve the cure of any such benefice…whereby the said ordinaries accumulate to themselves large sums of money, and the poor silly souls of your people perish without doctrine or any good teaching”

• “Also a great number of holydays be kept throughout your realm, upon the which many great, abominable, and execrable vices, ideal and wanton sports be used, which holydays might by your Majesty be made fewer in number”

• “And also the said spiritual ordinaries commit divers of your subject to ward, before they know either the cause of their imprisonment, or the name of their accuser”

• “If heresy be ordinarily laid unto the charge of the person accused, the said ordinaries put to them such subtle interrogatories concerning the high mysteries of our faith, as are able quickly to trap a simple unlearned layman. And if any heresy be so confessed in word, yet never committed in thought or deed, they put the said person to make his purgation. And if the party so accused deny the accusation, witnesses of little truth or credence are brought forth for the same and deliver the party to secular hands”

The King listened to the presentation. But the response from the clerics defending the clerics...if unchecked, on our view, this is the beginning of the end; the Papal Roman Anglican responses end up condemning themselves while thinking they are defending themselves, but we get ahead of ourselves briefly. “The King listened to the petitions with his characteristic dignity and also a certain kindliness” (12). The “Royal communication [wanting answers from Canterbury] was a "thunderbolt to the prelates” as apostolic successors of Petrine supremacy (12). Archbishop Warham and fellow prelates were put on the spot—Warham and the bishops of London, Rochester, Lincoln, and St. Asaph. Some were more fanatical about it. The response is worth reproducing; it actually works against them; Mr. (Canterbury) represented an “inflexible hierarchy” and issued the famous statement non possumus or "we are not able" [to comply].

Here’s Papal Roman Anglicans (1.0-ers) defending themselves while condemning themselves:

• “Sire, your Majesty’s Commons reproach us with uncharitable behavior…On the contrary, we love them with hearty affection, and have only exercised the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church upon persons infected with the pestilent poison of heresy. To have peace with such had been against the Gospel of our Saviour Christ, wherein he saith, I came not to send peace, but a sword. [insert the 1520s; insert Lutheran books and ideas with book burnings in London and Cambridge; insert that Lutheran sympathizers are in the Commons]

• “Your Grace’s Commons complain that the clergy daily do make laws repugnant to the statutes of your realm. We take our authority from the Scriptures of God, and shall always apply diligently to conform our statutes thereto; and we pray that your Highness will, with the assent of your people, temper your Grace’s laws accordingly; whereby shall ensure a most sure and hearty conjunction and agreement” [code = leave us alone please; insert non possumus]

• [code = damned Lutherans to follow; note the abusive terms and "Germany"] “They accuse us of committing to prison before conviction such as be suspected of heresy…Truth it is that certain apostates, friars, monks, lewd priests, bankrupt merchants, vagabonds, and idle fellows of corrupt intent have embraced the abominable opinions lately sprung up in Germany; and by them some have been seduced in simplicity and ignorance. Against these, if judgment has been exercised according to the laws of the Church, we be without blame”

• “They complain that two witnesses be admitted, be they never so defamed, to vex and trouble your subjects to the peril of their lives, shames, costs and expenses…To this we reply, the judge must esteem the quality of the witness, but in heresy no exception is necessary to be considered, if their tale be likely. This is the universal law of Christendom, and hath universally done good”

• “They say that we give benefices to our nephews, and kinsfolk, being in young age or infants, and that we take the profit of such benefices for the time of the minority of our said kinsfolk. If it be done to our own use and profit, it is not well; but if it be bestowed to the bringing up and use of the same parties, or applied to the maintenance of God’s service, we do not see but that it may be allowed” [in other words, non possumus and we'll do as we please, thank you]

• “We entreat your Grace to repress heresy. This we beg of you, lowly upon our knees, so entirely as we can see” (13-14)

We would add this. The reason many modern Anglican leaders avoid the Reformation? They would have to engage with “Lutheran theology” and then “Reformed theology.”

That’s is verboten with many, said to include, but not limited to: Misters Iker, Ackerman, Paul Hewitt, and associates.

There really was a Protestant and Evangelical Reformation in England. 

Really, there was one.

Really.

William Tyndale: Break with Rome (1526-1534)

 

Bray, Gerald, ed.  Documents of the English Reformation.  Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.

There are 654 pages with appendices. Mr. (Rev.Dr.) Bray will invite one to histories, documents and “more friends.” A 2005 edition is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Documents-English-Reformation-Revd Gerald/dp/0227172396/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374785087&sr=1-1&keywords=gerald+bray+english+reformation

 Mr. Bray builds the structure on six foundations:  

 1. The Break with Rome (1526-1534)
2. Henrician Reformation (1534-1547)
3. Cranmer’s Reformation: Edward VI (1547-1553)
4. Reaction and Recovery (1553-1559)
5. Progress of Protestantism (1560-1625)
6. Protestant Schism and Final Settlement (1625-1700)

In the first section, Mr. Bray includes Mr. Tyndale's "Preface to the New Testament."  It's not terribly remarkable, but it was what it was. We mention three biblical texts below as cited by Mr. Tyndale, but he has already used several others earlier. 

Of note, thus far, we have heard little about Mr. Luther.  We know Mr. Tyndale had visited the Teutons in Wittenberg.

In time, we will get to Mr. Tyndale's "Preface to the Pentateuch."

More from Mr. Tyndale’s “Preface to the New Testament:”

1. Mt. 7.26. One needs the foundation of Christ’s Word. Without Christ’s Word, the storms will remove the dwelling built on sand. 2. Mt.21.33-41. The Parable of Vineyard. The Church has “locked up” God’s Word. At least since Wycliffe’s days, the Word of God was “locked down,” but "lock down" must have preceded Wycliffe too. At some point, the Romano-English bishops tossed out the “Sower of the Seed.”  The question remains:  when did the Romano-Latin dominion overtake the publication and use of Anglo-Saxon Bibles? 

3. Lk.11.24-26. The Parable of the Unclean Spirit. That dirty and evil spirit (singular) "departs" and "returns" with his buddies (plural). Mr. Tyndale’s point regarding the Romano-English Church is none too delicate, to wit, that evil spirits have come to the nation. He doesn't mention names, but one can read between the lines as Mr. Tyndale has gone underground and is in "fugitive status" in 1525.  Mr. Tyndale’s point: England endures “…the scourge every day sharper and sharper with tribuations.” Earlier in the prologue and preface to the New Testament, reprobates being previously exposed to God’s Word “every day wax worse and worse and blinder and blinder till he be an utter enemy of the Word of God and his heart so hardened that it shall be impossible to convert him.” Pharoah is one such example. Inferably, Mr. Tyndale had the Bishop of London in mind.  

 4. “The Gospel is glad tidings of mercy and grace and that our corrupt nature should be healed again for Christ’s sake and for the merits of his deservings only.” The category of systematic theology is on offer here: the “active obedience and merits” of Christ in behalf of the believer. I well recall--or offensively recall-- Mr. (rev.dr.) Daniel Dunlap, formerly of the Reformed Episcopal Church, an Oxford don, now ensconced in a TEC work after being re-ordained by them, a theonomist like Mr. Sutton, and a vigorous Anglican extremist…right after he himself was double-crossed by Mr. (bp.) Sutton, asserting that “active obedience” of “Christ’s merits” had no place in Anglican theology. Mr. Dunlap had hubris of the first order. He's been off the radar screen for a decade perhaps. A real "mouth."

 5. Tyndale: “But if I believe in Christ, Christ’s deeds have purchased for me the eternal promise of the everlasting life.”

6. Mr. Tyndale gives a brief introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mr. Bray's first chapter is "The Break with Rome (1526-1534)." He leads with Mr. Tyndale. We do well to draw the connection between London, Archbishop Warham, Mr. Cranmer, White Horse Inn, Stephen Gardiner, John Fisher and others.


Apparently, Mr. Tyndale's "Preface" didn't make the cut when Mr. Cranmer wrote his "Preface" to the Great Bible in 1540.
 

A few quotes from Mr. William Tyndale, 1494-1535. He is five years younger than Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer.

Apart from Mr. Bray, a few quotes by Mr. Tyndale as found on the web variously:

“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.”...

“My overcoat is worn out; my shirts also are worn out. And I ask to be allowed to have a lamp in the evening; it is indeed wearisome sitting alone in the dark." Tyndale did a fair amount of brig time in Belgium.

“Here is also to be noted, that the cause of the institution was to be a memorial, to testify that Christ's body was given, and his blood shed for us.” Oh, oh!

“No more doth it hurt to say that the body and blood are not in the sacrament.” This is a hanging offense in the 1520s.

“Neither was there any heresy, or diversity of opinion, or disputing about the matter, till the pope had gathered a council to confirm this transubstantiation: wherefore it is most likely that this opinion came up by them of latter days.” The antecedent is the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

“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.”

 “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than you do.” Tyndale to his London Bishop, who was unamused with him.

“Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” Allegedly said before strangulation and burning at the stake. And where was Mr. Cranmer in 1536?

Rev. 6.9ff. Heaven awaits that final judgment and Hell fears it---DPV, not Tyndale.