Religious And Moral Teaching 25
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
when he came to the Scripture, he fitted that into his pre- 'conceived ideas.1
When, as we may safely presume, having taken his M.A., Tindale desired to read theology, he had still to attend lectures on the Sentences before he began a serious study of the Bible.
The Sentences of Peter Lombard, with later commentaries thereon, would build up in the student's mind a dogmatic system with which the teaching of the Bible had to conform.
If the Bible did not readily suit the system, allegory forced the text into the Procrustean bed of dogma.
Against such training Tindale later protested, and violently.
Dissatisfaction was not a new thing. In Oxford, Colet's lectures opened up a new method of biblical study—or rather, one long forgotten.
Though he did not entirely discard allegory, he made a real attempt to discover the historical situation and original meaning of the Pauline Epistles.
Further, the whole tendency of the New Learning was away from Aristotelian scholasticism, just as new knowledge and scientific methods of investigation in the nineteenth century produced, in Roman
Catholic Modernism, a revolt from the same conservative, scholastic outlook. The more philosophically minded humanists left Aristotle for Plato; the theologians among them turned back from the teachers of the twelfth and succeeding centuries to the Bible itself and to the Fathers.
That Tindale was a well-read man is clear, but we cannot say how much of his reading was done at Oxford.
Though he names many of the Schoolmen, he may not have read them.
He quotes several Fathers—Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great, but only Augustine is used at all frequently.
Among other well-known books, he knew Durandus' Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, Nicholas de Lyra's
Postilla, and Platina's Lives of the Popes.
Naturally, he was familiar with the Breviary, and very often he quotes from the Corpus of Canon Law.
English history interested him, as may be seen from the fairly frequent, if vague, references to the chroniclers. Some of Erasmus' writings must have been known to him before he left the University.
1 Cf. Section II, No. 1, p. 91.
WILLIAM TINDALE
As has been stated already, Wycliffe's influence was not strongly felt in Tindale's Oxford.
The very vagueness of his few references to Wycliffe would lead one to doubt whether
Tindale had ever read him.
It is true that coincidences abound between the thought of the two men, but the great differences must not be overlooked.
If Wycliffe loved the Bible as the source of truth, yet in method he was a scholastic of scholastics; and if he protested against the abuses which Tindale also attacked, yet in two most important matters, justification by faith and the eucharist, the later reformer went far beyond the earlier in his departure from current orthodoxy.
Consequently, although the possibility of the direct influence of Wycliffe and the Lollards cannot be ruled out, it must not be too lightly assumed.
Indirect influence there was indeed, for the spiritual pedigree, Wycliffe—Hus—Luther—Tindale, is one of the most romantic truths in Christian history.
When did Tindale become acquainted with Luther's theology? Some of his works were sold in Oxford by the bookseller John Dorne in 1520.1
In 1521 some were burned in Cambridge and in London.
Hence it is possible that Tindale knew something of his thought before he left Cambridge.
At 'Little Sodbury, we know, there was talk of Luther and Erasmus.
Tindale, it is said, preached at and around Bristol.
Certainly his orthodoxy was impugned.
But we still do not know that he had read Luther, and the Chancellor of Worcester did not pronounce him guilty of heresy.
We can see, however, that already he insisted upon the supreme authority of Scripture and was antagonistic to papal power. We know, too, that he read Erasmus and, in particular, translated the Enchiridion2
Now this work, though by no means Lutheran, is frank in its attack upon much that Tindale was to attack, the corruption of monks and friars, the unspiritual, often superstitious, con- * Dorne, in Oxf. Hist. Soc., Collectanea, I and II.
* An English version of the Enchiridion was printed by Wynk for John Byddell, otherwise Salisbury, London, 15th See I Hs 1 ee printed by Methuen in 1905.
It is uncertain whether the translation is Tindale's.
It is more Latin in diction than his other works.
For th i :
NG: bee Monee on ae ot r the adventures of Tindale's
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL 'TEACHING
fidence in relics, pilgrimages and pardons, in all manner of ceremonies.
It pleads that true Christianity manifests itself in lofty morality.
It calls us to make Christ always our example, to test all else by Christ. And, as the basis of this teaching, it appeals—and calls on others to appeal—directly to the Bible.
True, Erasmus insists on the allegorical exegesis which Tindale repudiated.
Nevertheless, he maintains strongly that the Bible, and not any second-hand instruction, must be for every
Christian the source of spiritual life.
So far, then, we may conclude that from his Oxford days Tindale had been convinced that theology—still more, religion
—must be reshaped upon a biblical foundation, and that, before he left England, his eyes were open not only to particular abuses, but also to the opposition, deep and challenging, between the Way of the New Testament and practices based upon the ecclesiastical teaching and, ultimately, the papal authority of his own day.
We cannot be sure that he had developed any constructive theology to replace the old until he went to Germany and came fully under the influence of Luther, whom he probably knew in person.
From that time onwards, though he sometimes showed independence, Tindale began to teach in English Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone, often, as in the Prologue to Romans, using Luther's own words.
This war-cry of the Reformation sounds throughout his pages.
It is in the light of this doctrine that his controversial teaching must be viewed.
Before we examine Tindale's positive opinions, it will be well to consider briefly what he objected to in the contemporary system. Many writers, both ancient and modern, have described the faults of the Church in the fifteenth century.
No doubt there has been exaggeration. There were good priests and faithful laymen; learning and charity had not been extinguished.
Yet it is clear that evil abounded, and every attempt at reform, by Wycliffe, by Hus, by the orthodox leaders of the conciliar movement, had been crushed. The religious orders no longer
WILLIAM TINDALE
called men by their example to self-sacrifice, simplicity of life, and devotion.
'The lower clergy were ignorant, the higher ranks rapacious and either lazy or occupied with secular business.
Ecclesiastical lawyers were hated, for to many the Church seemed, through its disciplinary system, to have become a business concern.
'The common man was often pious, in his way, but his piety was exceedingly superstitious.
Like many reformers, Tindale blazed out at confidence in pilgrimages and relics, at trust in masses for the dead, and bought pardons.
To attack such practices was not necessarily to prove oneself a heretic, for the best teaching of the day rose above the level of popular religious thought.
But the Church should try to uplift popular thought, and so far was it from making any such attempt that men might not unjustly accuse it of falling before the temptation of financial gain, of exploiting the credulity of the masses.
Most men judge conduct, not theory. These abuses were so flagrant that it was possible to be angered by each in itself, seeing its moral defects without reflecting upon its theological basis or upon the connexion of one with another.
Hence many attacks were made upon particular points by quite orthodox reformers. We might have seen changes of this kind only, had not some thoughtful men come to understand that most of the manifestations of spiritual decadence might be traced to a few underlying causes, namely, the pretensions of the clergy, whether Pope or simple priest, the pastoral inefficiency of the clergy, especially of the parish priest, the doctrine of salvation by meritorious works, and ignorance of the Scriptures.
Objection to the Papacy was not at first to the institution as such, but to the worldliness of particular Popes, to the neglect of national sentiment and to papal taxation.
All this could have been remedied without a blow to the spiritual jurisdiction of the See of Rome.
Indeed, like many reformers before and after him, Luther began with an almost pathetic belief that the Pope both could and would set everything right, were he but informed of the true gravity of existing abuses.
But. when it was found that the Pope would not suppress the
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
spiritual abomination of the sale of indulgences, Luther was gradually compelled to contest his authority; and when, more generally, it was seen that the existing Canon Law, which depended ultimately on papal sanction, would be invoked to oppose reform, men were driven to say that if the Pope supported a way of life which was not the way of Christ, he must be the Antichrist.1
The claims of the lower clergy rested less on their authority to teach than on their sacerdotal character as ministers of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrament of Penance.
Given the prevalent ideas about purgatory and hell, it is clear that one who wished to escape punishment was, spiritually, in the power of the priest who absolved from sin on terms decided by ecclesiastical authority and who, by performing masses, could lessen even for the departed the penalties which they had incurred by their life on earth. As to teaching, where the priest was not ignorant, he was at any rate limited.
It is a constant complaint that Bishops will not preach, and that the clergy, whatever else they say in their sermons, do not preach the Gospel.2
Too often they appealed for more and more "works".
Now it is not wrong to appeal for deeds which testify to inward piety and charity, but it is decidedly wrong to teach that by such deeds man can place God in his debt and earn salvation.
Whatever attempt the official theology may have made to preserve the balance between God's grace and human responsibility, it can scarcely be doubted that the general effect of the teaching given by the ordinary clergy was to promote confidence in meritorious works.
Such a state of mind is quite alien from the Christian Gospel.
Therefore, said the Reformers, it must be cured by preaching the Gospel.
If the clergy conceal the light, the layman must have his own Bible.
If the Pope and the Bishops teach what the Bible contradicts, if their minds are so darkened that they cannot understand the Bible, the Christian must go straight to the Bible, trusting the Holy Spirit to interpret it to him.
1 Cf, Section III, No. 1, p. 123.
2 Cf. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England, pp. 25-47.
WILLIAM TINDALE
It follows from what has just been said that the question at issue would soon be, not "Is this or that practice good, or Christian?" but, '"' What is Christianity?"
This provokes a further question : '' Whence are we to know what Christianity is?"
It was generally agreed that Scripture is the primary authority for the nature of Christianity; it was agreed also that the Bible needs interpretation.
Another question, then, must be faced.
Who has the right to interpret Scripture?
Again, are there any authoritative laws of interpretation?
And if there are, what is their authority? The official teaching, as seen, for example, in Sir Thomas More, argued:
(1) that the Church, that is, the clergy, alone had the right to interpret, and to decide the methods of interpretation; (ii) that the Church possessed traditions, derived from Christ and the Apostles, which justified much doctrine not to be found in Scripture;
(ili) that since the Church had determined the canon of Scripture, then, although Scripture must not be contradicted by the Church, there must be a sense in which the authority of the Church is above that of Scripture.
Faced with these problems, Tindale came to conclusions which practically coincide with, and are largely derived from, those of Luther.
The most important passages dealing with the authority of the Bible are to be found in the Answer to More, while the principles of exegesis are laid down most definitely in the Obedience.1 Quite early in the Answer, Tindale replies to the suggestion that the Church was before the Gospel.
Since, of course, it has to be admitted that the Church existed before the whole Bible, he follows Luther in distinguishing
(here, only implicitly) between the Bible and the Gospel. 'For the whole scripture, and all believing hearts, testify that we are begotten through the word. Wherefore, if the word beget
— the congregation, and he that begetteth is before him that is begotten, then is the gospel before the church. Paul also saith:
How shall they call on him whom they believe not?
And * Cf. Section IV, pp. 151-161.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
how shall they believe without a preacher?' That is, Christ must first be preached ere men can believe in him. And then it followeth, that the word of the preacher must be before the faith of the believer. And therefore, inasmuch as the word is before the faith, and faith maketh the congregation, therefore is the word or gospel before the congregation."
" God's truth dependeth not of man."! Authority, that is, is vested primarily in the Word, which God has given us first in Christ, through whom the Church came into being, and secondly in the Bible, which testifies to Christ and records his teaching.
Nothing ordained by the Church—which is man—can supersede the Word of God.
A similar challenge was put out with reference to the formation of the canon.
' 'The truth of the scripture (say they) dependeth of us'; that is, the scripture is true because that we admit it and tell thee that it is true. For how couldst thou know that it were the scripture except we told thee so?" To this Tindale replies that "' the children of God spy out their
Father " and " Christ's sheep hear the voice of Christ".
He goes on to explain the difference between " an historical faith " and "a feeling faith". By the former a man believes that the Scripture is God's on the authority of the Church, but this
"' opinion " remains fruitless until the Spirit makes him " feel " it.2 Tindale is here arguing that there is no need of a church to determine the extent of the canon.
Books which contain God's word will prove themselves divine by their effect upon men.
It is consistent with this argument that, while he accepts the existing canon, he follows Luther in valuing parts of it more highly than others. A book is not the word of God simply because it is canonical, but because, and in proportion as,
God speaks through it.
Scripture and the Word of God are by no means identical. How a man can know that God speaks here and not there is a problem which must be discussed later.
For the moment it is enough to show Tindale's belief that the authority of Scripture is not derived from that of the Church.
1 Parker Society III, pp. 24-5.
2P.S. III, pp. 49-51.
WILLIAM TINDALE
What then of the Church's claim to possess, beside the Scriptures, other '' unwritten verities" which enshrined the Word of God?
'" Did not the apostles teach aught by mouth that they wrote not? I answer, says Tindale, because that many taught one thing, and every man the same in divers places and unto divers people, and confirmed every sermon with a sundry miracle; therefore Christ and his apostles preached an hundred thousand sermons and did as many miracles, which had been superfluous to have been all written.
But the pith and substance in general of every thing necessary unto our souls' health, both of what we ought to believe and what we ought to do, was written; and of the miracles done to confirm it, as many as were needful: so that whatsoever we ought to believe or do, that same is written expressly, or drawn out of that which is written." It is one thing to believe that something is a reasonable inference from Scripture, another altogether to assert that, independently of Scripture, traditions have been preserved of such binding force that men must believe them and act on them.
So Tindale proclaims the sufficiency of Scripture much as it is stated in Article VI of the Church of England.
To a similar challenge, "' Why should ye not believe them in all their other doctrine besides the scripture, as well as ye believe them when they tell you that such and such books are the scripture?"', he retorts that Scripture condemns their doctrines.
This may not always be so, and Tindale should have been prepared to consider the value of teaching not condemned by Scripture. He does not commit himself to the view that what is not in Scripture is not to be believed, but wishes to establish the principle that no man is compelled to believe, as necessary to salvation, anything which is not in Scripture or not certainly to be proved thereby.
Let us suppose that Tindale has so far gained his point, | let us suppose the Church to be willing not to impose anything which conflicts with this principle; still there remains the thorny problem of interpretation:
Great stress had been +P.S. IIL, p. 26.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
laid on the difficulty of the Bible.
As Chaucer makes his Summoner tell of a Friar:
I have to day been at youre chirche at messe, And seyd a sermoun after my symple wit, Nat al after the text of hooly writ; For it is hard to yow, as I suppose, And therfore wol I teche yow al the glose.
Glosynge is a glorious thyng certeyn, For lettre sleeth, so as we clerkes seyn.
There are, indeed, many difficulties in the Bible, difficulties of so many kinds that a complete understanding (if such were possible) would demand, besides religious insight, much philological, philosophical and historical learning.
Hence it seemed reasonable to entrust interpretation to the clergy, who were—or were supposed to be—specially trained in it. Now, before it had become common to see in the Bible a gradual revelation of God, comparable to a process of education, the contrast between the representation of God and his ways in different parts of the Bible was acutely felt. Among the Jews,
Philo had elaborated a method of allegorical exegesis which, despite some protests, was generally accepted by Christians and brilliantly used by Origen, who thought that Scripture has three senses, literal, moral and spiritual.
The spiritual sense, to him immeasurably the most important, was discovered and expounded by the use of allegory.
But uncontrolled allegory is purely subjective.
It was indeed taught that the Holy Spirit guided the interpreter into the spiritual sense, but, in practice, subjectivity was controlled by the rule that interpretation must conform to the traditional teaching of the Church.
Consequently, the clergy were trained in a method of "glosynge" and in certain well-established glosses and commentaries which made Scripture support the existing system.
If then, as Tindale claimed, a system had come into being which was unlike the Christianity of the Bible, the whole accumulation of accommodating glosses must be swept away.
The common man has a right to know what Christ, what Paul, Peter, John, taught.
If the clergy obscure this,
WILLIAM TINDALE
let the layman see for himself, and let him judge by the literal, historical sense of the text.
Granted that the biblical teachers use allegory and similitude, yet we must not pretend that the literal sense is allegorical and thereby more deeply spiritual.
God's literal sense is spiritual.4
Such was Tindale's claim.
That it has its dangers is obvious, for honest men have continually differed about the meaning of crucial passages.
Nevertheless, if sincerity and freedom are of value, if a man's religion is the better when he is convinced of its truth in his mind and conscience, when his actions are not merely prescribed by external authority, then risks have to be taken.
Moreover, they are the risks of faith.
Tindale adopts, and holds more tenaciously, the belief that the Holy Spirit guides us into the truth.
For him, the written word is not authoritative as verbally inspired, that is, as dictated by the Spirit.
'It is not the use to say the Holy Ghost writeth, but inspireth the writer."
The Bible is an. instrument of the Spirit, who alone is wholly divine.
Thus, as He inspired the writer, so He will inspire the reader.
'' For though the scripture be an outward instrument, and the preacher also, to move men to believe, yet the chief and principal cause why a man believeth, or believeth not, is within: that is, the Spirit of God teacheth his children to believe.''2
Not that difficulties cease or that human aid is to be scorned.
Tindale recognizes that there will be unsolved puzzles (which need not lead to schism), and advises men to consult the learned.
He even attempts to set up certain safeguards against subjectivism which would often be difficult to use justly and might have been turned against him.
'" No place of scripture may have a private exposition; that is, it may not be expounded after the will of man, or after the will of the flesh, or drawn unto a worldly purpose contrary unto the open texts and the general articles of the faith and the whole course of the scripture, and contrary to the living and practising of Christ
_ and the apostles and holy prophets."? In the end, his outlook Cf. Section IV, Nos. 8-10, pp. 157-9.
*P.S. III, p. 139; cf. II, pp. 180-1.
5 More fully in Section IV, No. 11, p. 160.
RELIGIOUS.
AND MORAL TEACHING
must be judged according to the truth or falsehood of his confidence that there are sufficient '' open texts" to teach a man what is required for salvation; as Chrysostom said, " All the necessary things are clear'.
But opinions might differ as to what is necessary. Tindale argued that the Spirit uses Scripture to make a man believe.
It is this faith which above all else he believes to be necessary.
Given faith, the rest will come.
He "felt" that the Word had spoken to him through Scripture, revealing to him, as to all open-minded men, that the Gospel is essentially the promise of reconciliation to God through faith in Christ; that through the preaching of the Word, that is, of Christ and His promises, God creates faith.
Therefore he follows Luther in offering, out of Scripture, a key to Scripture, the doctrine of justification by faith.
Is this feeling, this choice of a single key to the many-treasured chambers of the Bible, arbitrary, subjective? Or is it indeed the fruit of listening to the voice of God?
The doctrine of Justification by Faith must not be treated in isolation, for it rests upon the doctrine of the Atonement, which in turn is linked closely with the ideas of the Fall and Original Sin and with Christology. Much, perhaps the greater part, of Christian thought was common ground to the reformers and their opponents.
So far as concerns the Trinity and the Person of Christ, on which Tindale had no cause to write save incidentally, there can be no doubt of his orthodoxy.
Nor was there much controversy about the Fall and the Atonement, though the implications of these doctrines and the emphasis placed upon them varied considerably, a fact of great practical importance. Tindale's extreme view of the consequences of the Fall, which he would doubtless have claimed to be Pauline, was derived through Luther from St. Augustine.
Accepting the story of Genesis iii. as historical, he does not portray Adam's unfallen state nor explain the precise means by which
WILLIAM TINDALE
the effects of Adam's sin were propagated, but more than once he shows what he believes those effects to be.
From Adam man has received a nature wholly corrupt.
"' Of Adam have we but pure sin."
" Our nature is to do sin." The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam, and "'all that is done in the world before the Spirit of God come and giveth us light is damnable sin".
Man lives in " natural blindness ", judging evil to be good. Led by his lusts and appetites, which in fallen man are directed towards evil, he has no freedom of will.
"Our will is locked.
. Unto the devil's will consent we with all our hearts.""
Not only is such a condition the consequence of God's wrath and vengeance for Adam's sin, but God's wrath is still upon those who are in Adam.
In his eyes we are not merely sinful in tendency, but guilty, "heirs of hell". Our state is not simply one which needs help, but one to be "remitted".
" The wrath and vengeance of God possesseth every man until faith come."
But faith can come.
God is our Father, whose just wrath against sin is matched by his loving will to save the sinner.
In Christ He has provided a way of redemption.
God " sent him into the world to bless us, and to offer himself for us a sacrifice of a sweet savour, to kill the stench of our sins, that God henceforth should smell them no more nor think on them any more; and to make full and sufficient satisfaction or amends for all them that repent".
Tindale had no need to prove the fact of the Atonement or to advance any new doctrine in explanation of the fact.
At that time, most thought about the Atonement showed the influence of Anselm's teaching that Christ had made full satisfaction to God for man's sins and had merited, by an offering which surpassed in value all that God could justly demand of man, a reward which He transferred to man.
From his translation of " hilasterion" in Romans iii. 25 as '' a seate of mercy" and of " hilasmon " in I John ii. 2 as "' obtaineth grace ", it would appear that Tindale disliked the term " propitiation"".
But how Christ's sacrifice influenced God was not the point at issue.
Content with the * Cf. Section V, No. 1, p. 162.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
idea of satisfaction, Tindale is eager to preach that man cannot satisfy God. Nor need he, for '' to Godward Christ is an everlasting satisfaction and ever sufficient".
Further, he has occasion to insist that Christ made satisfaction for all sins, both original and actual. Too often it was taught that, if man would profit by the merits of Christ, he must himself make satisfaction to God by good works.
'Thus, to the ordinary mind, it soon appeared to be the good works which merited salvation.
Against this Tindale, like Luther, proclaimed the doctrine of justification by faith alone.t
Many volumes have been written about the doctrine of Justification by Faith; and yet, in the eyes of those who accept it, itis very simple. As Tindale's teaching, so close to Luther's that he is often content to translate him, is somewhat fully illustrated in the selections printed in this book, it will be convenient to consider the beliefs of the reformers in general terms.
The doctrine is not the product of theological hair-splitting, but of deep religious experience—the experience of Paul and Augustine and Luther.
All that is good is the work of God.
All the good that man can do is wrought in and through him by God. Man was made to enjoy God. Had he never fallen, he would have lived in a fellowship with God such that, as with human love, it would be absurd to speak of it in terms of merit. And such a fellowship is still his destiny.
Since, however, man has wilfully fallen and become, in Tindale's view, a being whose nature it is to do evil, he cannot raise himself up.
God saves him through Christ.
He is evil, but God is willing to "' justify " him, that is, to acquit him or to treat him as not guilty. This acquittal is a free gift of God. It cannot be earned, but has simply to be accepted.
The means by which it is accepted is faith in Christ, the appointed way of reconciliation.
(Here, of course, the idea rests upon the doctrine of 1 Cf. Section V, Nos. 3-5, pp. 164-6, and P.S. II, pp. 152-6.
WILLIAM TINDALE
the Atonement.) Faith in Christ includes both the intellectual belief that God's promises of forgiveness as recorded in Scripture are true, and also personal trust in the living Christ, by whose grace man can be restored to moral goodness.
Man must annihilate confidence in himself.
Then, where there is such faith, God treats man as "' not guilty ", gives him a fresh start and, gradually, endows him with the grace which sanctifies him.
All is unearned, for the faith which receives a great gift cannot be said to deserve it. And, indeed, faith itself is a gift of God, elicited by the preaching of the Word. Man is therefore not saved by any works that he does, though such works will follow all true faith, being the product of the grace which God freely gives to faith.
The problem of the relation of grace to free will in Christian conduct has never been solved. It may be impossible to follow
Tindale in his belief that the Fall (which does not depend upon the historicity of the story of Adam) has wholly destroyed man's freedom.
If man is to be man, and not a puppet, it is essential that grace should be resistible and that man's response, though truly a response to the Divine initiative, should be freely made.
Nevertheless, the assertion that man has a part to play in his salvation does not admit the conclusion that he thereby earns it. It is the constant, even passionate, affirmation of all the reformers that there can be no meritorious works, much less works of supererogation—works, that is, performed beyond the quota required for salvation, so that the superfluous merit may be transferred to more needy souls. A Christian will do good works, but he is saved, not by the works, but by faith alone.
Roman teaching, as defined for example at Trent in 1547, equally admits that man can neither be justified nor do any good thing without the prevenient grace of God.
But more stress is laid on the co-operation of the will and the concept of human merit is allowed. The free use of the word " reward"
_ by Christ appeared to support this, and Tindale is not altogether happy in his distinction between " hire or wages "', which are deserved, and " reward ", which is "a gift given freely of the
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
goodness of the giver, and not of the deservings of the receiver "".
Some confusion was caused by different uses of the word "justify "'. Those who read the Bible in Latin believed "' justificare"' to mean
"' make righteous'', "' cause to be good".
Tindale rightly understood the Greek word used by St. Paul to mean " count righteous', or " not guilty".
Justification is the first stage, which is followed by sanctification, in which a man becomes morally good. Consequently—and their fear was excusable in the light of some distortions of the doctrine—the officials of the Church were afraid that the reformers were
_ dispensing Christians from the laws of conduct. What Luther and Tindale meant was that justification, and with it confidence in one's salvation, precedes good works; that, for instance, should a man die in faith soon after conversion, having had little time to do good works, he is certainly saved; but that faith will, in time and by God's grace, reveal itself in good works.
No one who has read Tindale can think him blind to the demands of Christian morality.
Rome, on the other hand, taught that justification, in the Latin sense, was achieved not by simple faith, faith alone, but by faith informed by love.
This implied that until faith had grown into love (and here the part of the will was stressed), and love had produced outward works, a man is not yet saved.
Yet, surely, the growth from dependence on a person into gratitude, and thence to love, can be gradual; and Tindale believed that, as soon as there is repentance and a turning away from oneself to Christ, there is justification and salvation.
Whatever avoidable misunderstanding there may have been about terms, whatever unnecessary fears of antinomianism, it is clear that there was a great gulf fixed between those who affirmed and those who denied the possibility of meritorious works.
Again, however true it may be that the best Roman teaching tried to preserve delicacies of balance which are upset by the sledge-hammer blows of Luther, it is clear that the practical effect of the average teaching of the day was to induce a search after the merit which might be acquired by external
1P.S. I, p. 116; cf. 434. The distinction is perhaps based on Romans vi. 23.
(F 435)
WILLIAM TINDALE
works—and even by money. Some of the external works may have been useful in themselves. Perhaps Tindale should have spoken less hardly of them.
But few effective reformers have had much patience with the principle of " abusus non tollit usum'"'.
It was better for the world that an attack was made, not so much upon particular practices commonly abused, as upon the very pursuit of merit which led to the abuse.
A word must be said of Tindale's teaching about election.
When emphasis is laid on the human side of the antinomy of grace and free will, it is easy to say of those who do not appear to have been saved that they refused the grace offered to them.
But when a man is convinced that God has done something in him, even, as it seems, against his will, he cannot but ask, "' Why is it I, and not this man or that???"
So he comes to think of election or predestination—and if he is wise, confesses himself baffled. Of predestination, under that name, Tindale says very
© little, but he often speaks of election. God initiates salvation.
"" God chooseth them first." Even so, many are called, but few chosen. The many may be members of the visible church, but the law of God is not written in their hearts, "' And therefore when they believe many things of Christ, yet when they come unto the salvation that is in his blood, they be but Jews and Turks; and forsake Christ, and run unto the justifying of ceremonies with the Jews and Turks. And therefore they remain ever in sin within their hearts." The elect can sin, but " after they be once actually of his church, and the law of God and faith of Christ written in their hearts, their hearts never sin any more, though (as Paul saith, Rom. vii) the flesh doth in them that the spirit would not." There is something in them which cannot fall utterly away from God.
'' God's elect cannot so fall that they rise not."
Is this unfair?
'' Why doth God open one man's eye and not another?
Paul (Rom. ix) forbiddeth to ask why: for it is too deep for man's capacity."
Again, '' Now may not we ask why God chooseth one and not | another; either think God is unjust to damn us afore we do any actual deed; seeing that God hath power over all his creatures of right, to do with them what he list, or to make of
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL 'TEACHING
every one of them as he listeth. Our darkness cannot perceive his light.
. Let us therefore give diligence rather to do the will of God than to search his secrets, which are not profitable for us to know "'.1
We have already seen Tindale in arms against ecclesiastical authority.
What he then attacked was the existing church of his own experience; but the problem of election leads us to consider certain distinctions which he drew, in common with other reformers. What is the Church?
In the first place, it is not the body of clergy. That idea was an error so common that Tindale preferred to translate "' ecclesia" by "' congregation "', lest it should seem that words addressed in Scripture to all
Christians were spoken only to the clergy.2,- The Church, then, is the whole body of Christians.
Here, however, a distinction must be made. The word, says Tindale, "' is sometimes taken generally for all them that embrace the name of Christ, though their faiths be naught, or though they have no faith at all.
And sometimes it is taken specially for the elect only". The true Church, of course, is that of the elect, Tindale's " spiritual "
Church, the '' invisible Church " of many reformers. To this alone applies much that is said in Scripture.
This Church, this "' little flock "', is Christ's body, '' and every person of the church is a member of Christ (Eph. v). Now it is no member of Christ that hath not Christ's spirit (Rom. viii)'. He becomes a member because he has the Spirit, rather than receives the Spirit by becoming a member.
Election is no guarantee of infallibility or impeccability, but " this is the church that cannot err damnably; nor any long time; nor all of them; but as soon as any question ariseth, the truth of God's promise stirreth up one or other to teach them the truth of everything needful to salvation out of God's word; and lighteneth the hearts of the other true members, to see the same, and to consent there1 Section VI, No. 1, p. 173, and Section V, No. 2, p. 163.
2 Section II, No. 7, p. 101, and Section VII, Nos. 1 and 3, pp. 181 and 184.
WILLIAM TINDALE
to". Here Tindale has transferred to the inner Church of the faithful that guidance of the Holy Spirit which mediaeval theologians claimed for the empirical Church, though he does not assert that the Spirit extinguishes all human error. And so, if even the elect can err, it would be absurd to admit the infallibility of the empirical Church.
However, Tindale does not go on to deny the value of the organized Church, with ~ its ministry and sacraments.
This Church was truly founded by Christ through the apostles, who endowed it with an ordered ministry. Although, he declared, there is no scriptural support for the papal claims, "the office of an apostle, bishop, priest, deacon, and widow, are of God".
Elsewhere, and often, he is careful to point out the equivalence in Scripture of Bishop and Priest or Presbyter.1
How, then, does this Church, in which Christians of true and of imperfect faith live together, assist its members? Most medizval clergy would have said, first by the sacraments, which impart grace, and secondly by instruction.
If Tindale set first the preaching of the word, by which faith is quickened and conduct ordered, even if he thought that in the last resort the faithful could dispense with sacraments, yet he did not wish to underestimate their spiritual importance.?
In its Catechism the Anglican Church defines a Sacrament as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof ", while in Article XXV they are " sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us". Here the sacraments are plainly declared to be means of grace, but how precisely they operate is not discussed.
At Trent, Rome anathematized all who declared the sacraments to be unnecessary; who taught that the grace of justification can be received by faith alone; who treated the sacraments as external signs, not themselves conOB eer ania see Section VII, Nos, 1-5, pp. 181-6; P.S. III, pp. 107-9,
PPS ly prs60:
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
px taining the grace which they signify; or who denied that by the sacraments grace is conferred '' ex opere operato''.?
Tindale's sacramental theology, which satisfies the Anglican formulz, would meet with condemnation under the Tridentine
Canons.
While his thought needs to be seen in his treatment of particular sacraments and in the sustained argument of the Brief Declaration, a short passage from the Obedience will at once indicate his principal ideas.
"' Sacrament is then as much to say as an holy sign.
And the sacraments which Christ ordained preach God's word unto us, and therefore justify, and minister the Spirit to them that believe; as Paul through preaching the gospel was a minister of righteousness, and of the Spirit, unto all that believed his preaching.
Dumb ceremonies are no sacraments, but superstitiousness."
If we add another sentence from the same work, '' This word, sacrament, is as much to say as an holy sign, and representeth alway some promise of God", we shall see by what criteria he determines the truth of a sacrament.?
It must have been ordained by Christ, and must arise out of and continue to signify, some promise of God. It must preach the word, for by such preaching it can elicit the faith which receives grace.
" By grace I understand the favour of God, and also the gifts and working of his
Spirit in us; as love, kindness, patience, obedience, mercifulness, despising of worldly things, peace, concord, and such like." '''To have a faith or a trust in anything where God hath not promised is plain idolatry", and without faith in the recipient the sacraments do not automatically " increase grace "
Yet they are not simply badges of grace formerly received.
They minister the Spirit.'
Judged by such standards, only two of the Seven Sacraments approved themselves to Tindale. peony is truly a state ordained by God, but was not ordained " to signify any promise, that I ever heard or read of in the scripture". The orders are offices, not sacraments. There is no promise coupled there1 Council of Trent, Canones de Sacramentis in genere, 4, 6 and 8.
2P.S. I, p. 283 and p. 252.
3 See Section VII, No. 8, pp. 188-191, and Section III, No. 15, p. 142.
WILLIAM TINDALE
with. Confession, in itself, is good; it accompanies repentance and receives forgiveness. But "' penance is a word of their own forging, to deceive withal ", and " shrift in the ear is verily a work of Satan".
Of Confirmation he speaks more warily.
"If Confirmation have a promise, then it justifieth as far as the promise extendeth."
Anoiling, or extreme unction, is "' without promise, and therefore without the Spirit, and without profit; but altogether unfruitful and superstitious '.1 No doubt it would not be difficult to take a kinder view of these
"lesser sacraments"', and even to find promises for them.
The Church of England, however, from the Articles to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, has persisted in marking off the two sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and Holy Communion.
To one who insists on faith in the recipient, infant Baptism may be a stumbling-block.
Tindale's ideas are sound enough.
"The washing without the word helpeth not: but through the word it purifieth and cleanseth us: as thou readest, Eph. v, how Christ cleanseth the congregation in the fountain of water through the word.
The word is the promise that God hath made.
. The washing preacheth unto us, that we are cleansed with Christ's blood-shedding; which was an offering and a satisfaction for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and work the will of God in us, as thou seest (Rom. vi)." 2? Now what Baptism signifies and promises, it can signify of and promise to, or for, children.
" God promiseth to justify whosoever is baptized to believe in Christ."
Twice, at least, he says that we are baptized "to believe".
The service looks forward.
Where the preaching inherent in the sacrament is met by immediate faith, the gifts are made at once; otherwise the gifts of justification and the Spirit are received when faith comes. 'Those to whom faith never comes are baptized to their
* Cf. Section III, No. 18, p. 146, and P.S. I, pp. 254-286.
2P.S. I, p. 253.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
— greater damnation, because, by their baptism, they are the more bound to keep His law, a thing which they cannot do owing to their lack of grace.
Justification and grace are not given automatically by the performance of the sacrament.
In his eucharistic doctrine Tindale forsakes Luther, his usual master. At one in their repudiation of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, they agreed also in demanding promise and significance in a sacrament and faith in the recipient.
But whereas Luther, retaining a scholastic mode of thought, believed the substances of the Body and Blood of Christ to be present together with the substances of bread and wine, 'Tindale rejected the difficult speculations as to the ubiquity of the Body of Christ, by which this doctrine of "' Consubstantiation " was defended.
He aligned himself with a " third party "'—not, observe, with Zwingli or any other by name—which believed that when Christ said, "' This is my body", He spoke figuratively.
The sacrament was "ordained to keep the death of Christ in mind, and to testify that his body was given and his blood shed for us ''. It is the seal or pledge of the New Covenant.
So far, the rite might seem purely commemorative, and it is doubtful whether the work called The Supper of the Lord teaches anything more.
"That thing that is there done in that supper, as the breaking and dealing and eating of the bread, and the whole like action of the wine, signifieth, representeth, and putteth into our hearts, by the spirit of faith, this commemoration, joyful remembrance, and so to give thanks for that inestimable benefit of our redemption, wherein we see with the eye of our faith, presently, his body broken and his blood shed for our sins.
This is no small sacrament."'?
But this book is not certainly Tindale's, and the Brief Declaration and Answer to More go a little farther. Here he recognizes that the sacrament is an efficacious sign.
'"' To eat and drink in the spirit .
. bringeth us all that Christ can do for us."
" For the sacrament doth much more vehemently print lively the faith, and make it sink down into the heart, than do bare words only."
" When they which think not the body to be present 1P.S. III, p. 250.
WILLIAM TINDALE
in the sacrament have by the preaching and confirmation of the sacrament obtained this life or stedfast faith in Christ's blood, and by the daily use of the sacrament are more and more hardened therein, and in the love that springeth thereof; what reasonable cause have the contrary part .
. to rail on us as heretics?" The sacrament is effective through its significance.
The preaching inherent in it deepens faith, and deeper faith can more fully receive God's grace. 'Tindale does not customarily speak of the sacramental gift as Christ Himself, but once, at least, he uses such language.
'' He that repenteth toward the law of God, and at the sight of the sacrament, or of the breaking, feeling, eating, chamming or drinking, calleth to remembrance the death of Christ, his body-breaking and bloodshedding for our sins, and all his passion; the same eateth our
Saviour's body and drinketh his blood through faith only, and receiveth forgiveness of all his sins thereby.'
To most men of that day, communion with Christ was not the chief purpose of this sacrament. The Mass was, primarily, a propitiatory sacrifice, the due performance of which helped to diminish the pains of purgatory. Tindale, who had no belief in purgatory, allowed nothing more than a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.
'I pass over with silence the wicked and damnable doctrine of these servants of mammon, which for lucre pervert the true use of the sacrament, and hide it from the people for their gain, teaching it to be a sacrifice instituted of God to help the souls of the dead in purgatory."
The reformers restored the Communion, but their revolt from the sacrifices of Masses was too strong to allow of any immediate representation of the ancient doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.?
+ Cf. Section VII, Nos. 8-9, pp. 188-192, and P.S. III, p. 163.
* Cf. Section VII, No. 10, Pp. 192, and Article XXXI of the Church of England.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING
" Worke out youre awne saluacion with feare and tremblynge.
For it is god which worketh in you both the will and also the dede.?"'
In these words St. Paul boldly states the paradox of Christian conduct—a paradox which Tindale as boldly accepts.
St.
Paul brushed aside with a " God forbid" the charge of antinomianism which was to be brought also against the reformers who taught his doctrine of justification.
Sure that faith must give birth to goodness, they set themselves above all to arouse faith.
Logically, perhaps, they need have done no more.
However, like St. Paul, Tindale and his fellows continued to preach to the consciences of the converted, assuming the necessity of moral instruction and the existence of some freedom to choose right or wrong.
The details of Tindale's ethical thought must be sought in his works, but it may be convenient to collect some of its principles.
By reason of the Fall, man's natural will is enslaved to evil.
Will follows wit (reason or moral judgement), and wit is perverted by lust.
'' For the will cannot teach the wit, nor lead her, but followeth naturally; so that whatsoever the wit judgeth good or evil, that the will loveth or hateth." "To follow lusts is not freedom, but captivity and bondage."
But God can redeem both wit and will.
"If God open any man's wits, to make him feel in his heart that lusts and appetites are damnable, and give him power to hate and resist them; then is he free, even with the freedom wherewith Christ maketh free, and hath the power to do the will of God.'
So too taught Augustine.
After conversion a man's life is fundamentally directed towards God, but—and here Paul and Augustine and many after them were puzzled—he still can sin.
At any rate, the true self is henceforth the self which seeks to do God's will, and, a thing most important in practice, man knows that such is the true self, recreated by God.
' And the sin we do against our wills, (I mean the will of the Spirit; for after our conversion we have two wills, fighting one against the other), that sin is also for1 Philippians ii. 12-3 in Tindale's translation; cf. Section V, No. 2, p. 164.
WILLIAM TINDALE
given us through faith, if we repent and submit ourselves to amend."
'The struggler needs both grace to strengthen his will and also instruction to enlighten his wit.
Consequently, although Christianity is Gospel rather than Law, the Law is still preached, as fulfilled and interpreted by Christ.
" The assurance that we are sons, beloved, and heirs with Christ, and have God's Spirit in us, is the consent of our hearts unto the law of God.
Which law is all perfection, and the mark whereat all we ought to shoot."'# Yet, as Tindale well knew, Christianity must not regress into legalism. Men are not to be judged by their outward acts, nor can there be a detailed code covering all the circumstances of life, a code which is to be learned and obeyed. Love is the true motive of all good works, and love must determine how law, even God's law, is to be applied—at times, indeed, disregarded.
'' And thus all laws are under love, and give room to love: and love interpreteth them, yea and breaketh them at a time, though God himself command them."
And how shall a weak man have such love in himself?
Here we are at the heart of Christianity; here shines the purest light of Tindale.
'' The office of love is to pour out again the same goodness that she hath received of God upon her neighbour, and to be to him as she feeleth Christ to herself."
'' Faith is the first, and also the root, of all commandments; and out of faith springeth love; and out of love, works. And when I break any commandment, I sin against love; for had I loved, I had not done it; and when I sin against love, I sin against faith; for had I earnestly, and with a full trust, remembered the mercy that Christ hath shewed me, I must have loved.
Wherefore when we have broken any commandment, there is no other way to be restored again than to go through repentance unto our faith again, and ask mercy for Christ's sake. And as soon as we have received faith that our sin is forgiven, we shall immediately love the commandment again, and through love receive power to work."
'' We deserve not the love of God * Cf. Section V, Nos. d : x Rook ices. os.
1 and 2, pp. 162-4, and P.S. I, p. 300, II, p. 76, III,
RELIGIOUS AND .MORAL TEACHING
se first; but he deserveth our love, and loveth us first, to win us, and to make us his friends of his enemies; and as soon as we believe his love we love again. And so faith is the mother of all love, though faith cannot be perfectly seen, but through the works of love and in the fire of temptation."
'' Moreover, faith, hope and love be three sisters: they can never depart in this world; though in the world to come love shall swallow up the other two. Neither can the one be stronger, or weaker than the other; but as much as I believe, so much I love, and so much I hope, yea, and so much I work.''
1Cf. Section VIII, Nos. 12-3, pp. 211-2, and P.S. II, p. 14, II, p. 194, I, p. 204, and III, p. 95.
TINDALE AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
VEN to-day, when Tindale's work is recognized to be the -basis of the familiar Authorized Version, two conflicting ideas still linger about his English prose-writing—the one, that so scrupulous a prose must have been little short of miraculous in the archaic English of Tindale's day; the other, that Tindale was nothing out of the common, but that every one then was gifted with a facility in writing beautiful and measured prose.
There were certainly dangers for the prose-writer in those days—dangers which Tindale most happily avoided.
These were not due to the fact that prose was little practised. There were, indeed, three separate traditions in which it was carried on. There was the prose of narrative—the Romances of Caxton,
Malory and Berners.
'There was the prose of religious musing and mystical exaltation—the Book of the Craft to Learn How to Die and How to Weep, the Cloud of Unknowing and its school.
This was the tradition of prose which More advanced in his Four Last Things. Finally, there was the prose of information, of exposition—the treatises of Capgrave, Fortescue and Pecock.
Yet none of these, perhaps, was greatly helpful to Tindale.
The first school has many a rambling and picturesque narrative of giants and giant-killers, with lovers like Blanchardyn and Eglantine " the right desolate the proud pucelle in amours "'.
Even Virgil's Aneid was transformed into an affected Romance.
There is a heroine who " byganne in flegible lamentacyon to calle longe the swete name of Acerbe her preterit husbond ".
Tindale speaks with contempt of '' Robin Hood, Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Hector and Troilus, with a thousand histories and fables of love and wantonness"'.1
Such stories were the favourites of lords and ladies in the fifteenth century, of townsfolk in the sixteenth, but were at last handed over to the 1 See p. 92.