The meetings which began about 1520, at the White Horse Inn
Visit the radio program that carries on the tradition of the early Reformers:
Posted on 12/11/2005 12:34:10 AM PST by HarleyD
INTRODUCTION
“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:33-34).
These words from Jeremiah seem most appropriate to recall in any discussion of William Tyndale. His life is a testimony of faithfulness to the gospel truth, even unto death at the hands of those who would gag, muffle, or otherwise silence that saving message. William Tyndale was possessed of one overwhelming passion: to see that God’s words in Scripture be conveyed to the hands and into the ears of the common people, that they might know the freedom of life in Christ and the joy of obeying God’s gospel law of love. The new tools of humanism were showing the way to hear the words of Scripture as they were meant to be heard, in all their freshness and power, stripped of the accumulated dross of centuries of scholastic complication, and the printing press represented the emergence of a new technology which had the power to spread this revitalized message. Following Erasmus’ lead, Tyndale saw the importance of translating God’s Word into the language of common people, in order that both learned and unlearned might enjoy the benefits of this blessed revelation. And he was convinced not just that the people would derive all benefit from such access, but that the Church was perpetrating great evil in keeping them from it.
A.G. Dickens wrote that:
And, in England, it was Tyndale upon whom fell the burden of drawing the academic enterprise of humanism out of its university setting and bringing it to the people in the form of the English Bible. “In giving them the Scripture in the common tongue,” Hughes tells us, “he was giving them power to study and come to know God’s word themselves, that they would no longer need rely on the mediatorial role of a priestly clergy, but would know God’s word as it was written on their hearts.”2 And in his pursuit of this vision, Tyndale would defy the combined powers of emperor, king, pope, and bishops to achieve a tour de force, for though he would be hounded for the last twelve years of his life, finally to be betrayed, imprisoned, and executed for it, he would persevere and publish in the English language a version of the Bible which would have an incalculable effect on English society over the next several centuries, and through the English, upon the entire world.
There is a famous incident, described by the historian John Foxe, in which
HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ISSUES
Various theories have been put forward regarding the nature, extent, and progress of the English Reformation which bear directly on our discussion of William Tyndale. The basic question which they seek to answer is whether the English Reformation – that period and process during which England was transformed from a mostly Catholic to a mostly Protestant nation – must be understood as, in essence, an upward-driving popular phenomenon or a downward-pressing imposition by certain segments of the elite. A.G. Dickens advocates a variant of the former view. His “rapid-from-below” model of the Reformation proposes that widespread popular dissatisfaction with the religious establishment powered conversions and represented a groundswell of reforming energy which forced its way to the top. Crucial to his thesis is the persistence of Lollard presence, doctrines, and sympathies among a broad base of the English population throughout the fifteenth and into the sixteenth centuries.5 Opposed to this view is what might be called the “slow-from-the-top” model advocated by Christopher Haigh, who sees the English Reformation as an imposition of state which was only gradually, and even then only reluctantly, accepted by the populous.6
Now, with regard to William Tyndale, the first thing to keep in mind is just how early in the course of the English Reformation his life and work was. His translation of the New Testament was published in 1525, and his martyrdom in Belgium took place eleven years later, in 1536. Tyndale thus stands near the very beginning of the Reformation in England. In terms of attempting to answer the question of his influence in the Reformation, then, we must point to the obvious, which is that in giving the Bible in the common tongue to the people of England, he set in motion a change which would resound across the entire culture, in which the English would become more and more a people of the Book, whose thoughts and expression would come to be shaped to a great extent by the Bible. In this sense, certainly, in translating the Bible into the common tongue, Tyndale gave the people of England that crucial tool and resource without which Reformation – whether from above or below – would have been quite impossible.
But what of Tyndale himself? There is, or has been, something of a consensus among scholars that he was a theological nonentity, that he was on the one hand merely a translator, and on the other hand an unoriginal conveyor of Lutheran doctrine to the English public. Gordon Rupp summarized his influence as follows: “Tyndale was concerned to make known the teachings of Luther in English dress.”7 And from Philip Hughes, these devastating words: “Tyndale can hardly be reckoned a religious thinker of any real importance. The ideas he puts forth are none of them his own; nor does his development add anything of importance to their content.”8 Note how both these statements fit nicely with Haigh’s “Reformation-from-above” model. Tyndale, surely a member of England’s academic elite, is seen as conveying the teachings of that non-native-to-England system, Lutheranism.
Opposed to these views are those of Smeeton, who argues that Tyndale must be understood less as an elitist Lutheran and more as a populist and sympathizer with England’s native heresy Lollardy. His theology, Smeeton writes,
LOLLARD BACKGROUND
“Lollard” is a pejorative word coined by an Irish Cistercian monk for the followers of John Wyclif, a scholar at Oxford during the late fourteenth century who believed that the Bible was the sole sure basis of belief and practice, and that it ought to be placed in the hands of the people. Accordingly, Wyclif, and his followers after him, translated the Scriptures into the common tongue. Copies of these were disseminated throughout England. Grounded thus in a Bible-based theology, Wyclif developed several other views which were revolutionary in the context of late Medieval Catholicism. Among them, he held that the true Church was restricted to those persons whom God had predetermined; he rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation; he cast doubts on papal supremacy; he denounced monasticism and advocated clerical marriage; he was a strong advocate of moral and fiscal reform of the clergy; and he developed an erastian view of authority, according to which the secular ruler was to be obeyed as the servant of God. Indeed, the only major Protestant doctrine which Wyclif did not elaborate clearly was justification by faith alone.11
These themes, highlighting the need of moral and ecclesiastical reform, favoring Scripture, preached to, read by, and empowering the common man, over the excessive ritualism of the late Medieval Church and the role of the priests as intermediaries, spoke to a widespread hunger for such reforms and to an exhaustion with clerical abuses. They found widespread support among townsmen, merchants, gentry, and some of the lower clergy. According to Christopher Hill, “Bible reading was associated with the rise of an educated urban and rural middling sort: we meet with Lollard merchants and Lollard knights.”12 In short, Lollardy thrived among populations of incipient widespread literacy. But the increasingly revolutionary character of the movement tended to alienate the ruling classes, and it failed to attract the doctrinally conservative mass of peasantry.13
The movement met with catastrophe in 1414 when Sir John Oldcastle led a march of Lollards from all over the realm on London. The rebels were crushed by Henry V at St. Giles’ Fields, and after that the movement lost what influential support it had once had. It was driven underground where, leaderless and armed only with circulating manuscript copies of the Wycliffite Bible, its adherents concentrated among groups of tradesmen and artisans, but also attracting a few priests, merchants, and professional men.14
The official Church was of course opposed to these Lollard ideas, as they attacked the very basis of episcopal and priestly power and function. They came to regard that the possession of the Bible in the common tongue in the hands of the commonality was a very dangerous thing, arguing that God’s Word would of necessity be disastrously mishandled in the hands of the unwashed and unlearned. For example, they pointed out that those who were untrained in the fullness of Church doctrine might read the Pentateuch and emerge as advocates of polygamy. In response to this burgeoning threat to their power, the English bishops resolved to halt the spread of this “contagion” at its source.15
In 1408 the bishops’ Convocation at Oxford formally forbade possession of any English version of the Bible without a license from a bishop:
Note that this banning of vernacular Bibles was not reflective of the Church’s practice elsewhere. There were translations of the Scripture in everyday language in several European countries. But the circumstances were such in England, where the Church authorities were seeking to eradicate traces of the Bible-based Lollard heresy, that such a rule was enforced. In fact, the Church was more opposed to vernacular Bibles in England than anywhere else in Europe, except possibly Bohemia, home of the Wyclif-influenced “outbreak” of Hussitism.18
Dickens notes that although the historical evidence for Lollardy gets very thin through the mid-years of the fifteenth century, almost certainly indicating deep decline as a consequence of the combined effects of persecution, the absence of viable leaders, and the passage of time, the movement nevertheless seems to have experienced a revival in the 1490’s, as suddenly we see evidence of Lollards being prosecuted across England. It might well be argued that this revival was sparked, at least in part, by the advent of printing. Copies of the Lollard Scriptures were in manuscript form, and were therefore expensive and increasingly linguistically obsolete. As for expense, printing had resulted in, or at least promised, a dramatic increase in availability and affordability.19 As for the issue of obsolescence, William Tyndale would shortly address this issue by retranslating the Scripture in the ordinary language of sixteenth century Englishmen. In the meantime, printing gave great stimulus to anticlericalism.20 Rather similar to the effects of the Internet today, printing enabled the widespread dissemination of ideas whose prior expression had had more isolated effects. The power structure which had banned God’s Word was fully aware of the dangers proposed by this new medium. In a quote which is remarkable both for its paranoia and it prescience, Rowland Phillips, a Catholic loyalist during the reign of Henry VIII, is said to have spoken these words: “Either we must root out printing, or printing will root out us.”21
It was into this explosive atmosphere of official paranoia and heresy-hunting that Tyndale arrived proclaiming his intention to translate the Bible for use by the common Englishman. Before moving on to the life of Tyndale himself, however, and to the widespread discontent in academic circles found expression in the “New Learning,” or humanism, we ought briefly to mention two events in the year 1511 which provide evidence also for a significant popular discontent with the ecclesiastical establishment on the eve of the Reformation. First, we see in that year the Archbishop of Canterbury convening a council on heresy; clearly the establishment saw itself as facing at least a serious problem, if not a crisis, in its battle against the persistence of Lollard and other heretical elements. Second, and more importantly, was the Richard Hunne affair. Hunne, a Lollard sympathizer, found himself in trouble for refusing to pay burial fees, was dressed down publicly by the priest, and when he turned to the ecclesiastical authorities to complain, he found himself in prison. When they checked his home, they found a Lollard Bible in his possession. Soon after this imprisonment, he was found hanging in his cell. But it was suspected that he had been murdered by clergymen. These suspicions were supported by the findings of a jury investigating the matter, but the evidence was suppressed (until 1550!), and, under the “benefit of the clergy” statute, the guilty parties got off free. After his murder, the Church authorities, relentless in their drive to prosecute heresy, burned his dead body. These events triggered protests across London.
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE
William Tyndale was born in or about the year 1495, of a middling, successful family in Gloucestershire. The area was a center of England’s emerging wool and cloth trade, and it was along the economic routes of the cloth traders that Tyndale’s books would later be smuggled from the Low Countries to the rest of England.
Tyndale studied at Oxford from about 1510, earning a B.A. in 1512 and an M.A. in 1515. At some time during this period he was ordained. We do not know much about Tyndale during this crucial period, but we do have the assessment of Sir Thomas More, who would later be his fiercest critic. Tyndale was “well known, before he went over the seas, for a man of right good living, studious and well learned in Scripture, and in divers places in England was very well liked, and did great good with preaching.”22
Tyndale’s story is part of the great revival of learning which was sweeping across Europe during this period. Two developments were fueling these changes. The first, printing, we have already mentioned. The second was the final fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1485, and the resultant flight of Greek scholars to western Europe, especially to Italy. The arrival of the Greeks and the beginning of Greek studies in the West was an epochal event. It marked the advent of humanism, or “New Learning,” in northern Europe, and represented a turn from scholastic philosophy and theology in favor of literary, historical, and philological studies. By the 1490’s the new approach was being applied to the Bible, which entailed the method of biblical interpretation which we call grammatico-historical. Dickens refers to this new emphasis on the authority of the source texts as “the essential basis of an evangelical Christianity.”23
During the 1480’s several English scholars from Oxford learned Greek, some having traveled to Italy to do so, and brought the knowledge back home to England. Between 1496-1504, one of them, John Colet, lectured at Oxford on Paul’s epistles. He examined the theology of Paul as it presented itself from the Greek texts, stripping off the accumulated mass of scholastic interpretation. His hermeneutical methodology was the grammatico-historical approach. Of the New Testament he said, “Except of the parables, all the rest has the sense that appears on the surface, nor is one thing said and another meant, but the very thing is meant which is said, and the sense is wholly literal.”24 This emphasis stood opposed to the fourfold meaning-structure of Medieval interpretation, consisting of literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical – of which the classic example was Jerusalem: literally, the city of the Jews; allegorically, the church of Christ; tropologically, the human soul; and angogically, the heavenly city.
Tyndale was a humanist as well. Consider his later attack on the allegorical methodology:
Now, with regard to the Bible, Erasmus had gone to Oxford in 1499 and heard Colet lecture. According to one account, he “saw [from this crucial encounter] that the recovery of the Bible and of its authentic interpretation meant first of all the editing, printing, and circulation of as good a text as possible of the Greek New Testament.”27 While it may be arguable whether it was Colet’s influence which was so decisive or whether he had already decided on such a course, it remains true that Erasmus worked on the Greek text of his New Testament while at Cambridge between 1511 and 1514. His Greek New Testament appeared in March 1516, which included his own parallel Latin version alongside. This publication, on the immediate eve of the Protestant Reformation, must be reckoned one of the decisive events in the history of the Christian Church. Both Luther and Tyndale would shortly be the first to translate Erasmus’ text into the vernacular, Luther in 1522 and Tyndale in 1525.
Back to our narrative, Tyndale apparently spent some time at Cambridge after receiving his Master’s Degree from Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1515. Erasmus’ influence would still have been felt there, and it was at Cambridge that the first known society of Lutherans in England gathered. The meetings which began about 1520, at the White Horse Inn (which was also referred to as “Little Germany” on account of the continuous discussion of German doctrines there) were led by an Augustinian regular canon, Robert Barnes, and involved many future leaders of the English Protestant movement.28 We see that at this early phase Lutheranism is an international movement, with its roots in academics and humanism, which had certainly not yet connected up with the homegrown radicalism of the persisting bands of crypto-Lollards. According to Malcolm Lambert, “the coming of continental Protestantism to England initially affected clergy and graduates primarily, and did so on a small scale, touching the universities, London, and the east coast.”29
As for Tyndale, we do not know much about his comings and goings at Cambridge during this time, but we can be certain that it was during these years at Oxford and Cambridge that he became proficient in Greek. And it is certainly to this period at least – no later – that we can attribute Tyndale’s glorious, high view of Scripture. Consider this wonderful quote:
GLOUCESTER
In about 1521, for reasons unknown, Tyndale removed himself from the academic environment of Cambridge and took up an appointment as tutor in the household of Sir John Walsh of Little Sodbury. This was back in the district where he was raised. But on his return “he was appalled at the ignorance and crudeness of the local clergy and was distressed at their neglect of the flocks over which they had been set as pastors.”32 There was no resident bishop in the diocese from 1512 until 1535, when Hugh Latimer would consecrate the first reforming bishop there. The current bishop resided in Rome, which meant that the diocesan duties of Gloucester and Worcester were divided between Cardinal Wolsey (also, obviously, absent) and one Dr. Parker.
The Walshes received a continuous stream of esteemed guests, among whom were assorted officials from high in the Church establishment. Tyndale was often invited to sit with them at the dinner table, and, in the frequent theological debates which ensued, Tyndale would always defeat the visitors by appealing to Scripture, chapter and verse, “until in the continuance thereof those great beneficed doctors waxed weary and bore a secret grudge in their hearts against Master Tyndale.”33
These events caused much grumbling at the alehouse, reports Foxe, “for that was their preaching place.” Soon enough, they accused Tyndale to the new chancellor of the diocese, Dr. Parker. A trap was then set, with all the ministers of the district being invited to a meeting, Tyndale included, but for which he was unaware of the accusations against him. Tyndale later wrote that when he came before the chancellor, “he threatened me grievously, and reviled me, and rated me as though I had been a dog.” At the end of the day, he prevailed, at least for the moment, and emerged with his reputation at least officially intact, free of the stain of heresy. But Tyndale realized that it was probably best for him that he leave the region before the local heresy hunters had another go at him.34
Tyndale was then firmly resolved to translate the Scriptures into the common tongue in order that people might gain access to the riches of God’s Word directly, and no longer be kept in the dark by corrupt and ignorant men. He was convinced that,
At this point in our examination of his life, we might note two things: first, Tyndale’s passionate opposition to academic obfuscation, and his commitment to the plain-sense approach to biblical interpretation; and second, his wonderful pastoral concern. He was not merely concerned with academic clarity, but that his flock enjoy that clarity as well. We might plausibly understand him, then, to be at this stage of his life a pastorally-concerned academic. Put another way, he was a humanist scholar with strong populist inclinations. He was probably already colored by Lutheranism at this point, from his days at Cambridge, but not so much as to come under taint of heresy at his hearing. But this is speculation. And as for Lollard influence? That is even more speculative, but the fact that he opted to become ordained and be schooled in the establishment universities would seem at least to suggest that Lollardy was not his primary influence.
LONDON
Tyndale went to London to meet with the archbishop Cuthbert Tunstall in hopes of getting the required permission to translate the New Testament into English. But the meeting was a disaster. Tyndale was essentially rebuffed in his request, told that there was no room for him in the episcopal household, and advised to seek assistance elsewhere. So he did, remaining in London for almost a year, “in so muche,” wrote Foxe, “that he understoode, not onely there to be no rowme in the Bishops house for hym to translate the new Testament: but also that there was no place to do it in al England.”37 No permission would be forthcoming in England.
During this difficult period he stayed with Humphrey Monmouth, a London merchant through whom he became connected with a shadowy group of Protestant-sympathizers with connections in Germany known as the Christian Brethren. Of Tyndale, Monmouth would later write from prison that he “lived (as he said) like a good priest, studying both night and day. He would eat but sodden meat, by his good will, nor drink but small single beer. He was never seen in that house to wear linen about him, all the space of his being there.” He promised to support Tyndale, with a subsidy of 10 pounds, and arranged to have Tyndale leave London for greater safety as he worked to translate God’s Word.38
___________________________________________________________
Tyndale is another great Reformer in his own way. Tyndale was a student of Wycliffe. (Remember article 3 of the History of the Reformation?)
Hopefully this article will help put into perspective how God was working in England while God was moving Luther in Germany.
History ping for William Tyndale.
Thank you, Harley. Looking forward to a Sunday morning read.
The meetings which began about 1520, at the White Horse Inn
Visit the radio program that carries on the tradition of the early Reformers:
Please keep this in mind...
To make the distinction for our readers about the Church of England here is some excerpts.
The Church of England was not directly related to Rome.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Reformation in England was unique, unlike reform that took place on the Continent. The change came by a king, not a Reformer. The movement had no great leader like Luther or Calvin. The initial break with Rome was more political than religious, but the end result was great religious power. The English Reformation stressed organization more than doctrine.
B. The Reformation in England is essential to understanding the history of Christianity in America, for the early religious beliefs of the U.S.A. came from England.
II. REFORMATION UNDER KING HENRY THE VIII (1509-1547)
It was under this condition William Tyndale lived and died.
A. There was a general dissatisfaction with the Roman Church throughout England, although most of the English people were thorough going Catholics. Latent within the English was a desire for reform because: (1) they resented the pope’s interference in English affairs; (2) the influence of Wycliffe in the hearts of the people was still strong; and (3) they objected to paying money to the pope.
B. The Reformation probably would have been long in coming to England had it not been that King Henry VIII applied to the pope for a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, because he was enamored with Anne Boleyn, and because Catherine had not given him an heir to the throne. But Pope Clement VII, under the influence of the powerful Charles V of Spain, would not agree to the divorce.
The patience of Henry grew short, and under his influence he was able to get Parliament to pass a law which decreed that the king had the right to be the supreme head of the Church of England. This Act of Supremacy brought the official break with the Roman Church in 1534. Thus, the Reformation began with a carnal motive on the part of Henry. He immediately appointed Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury.
C. Not all Englishmen were willing to submit to the Act of Supremacy, so Henry passed the Law of Treason and Heresy which said that to refuse to acknowledge the king as head of the Church of England and to refuse to practice Catholic doctrine was heresy. Many Roman Catholics were executed, including two prominent men: John Fisher, bishop of Rochester; and Sir Thomas More. Sir Thomas More had been a zealous Roman Catholic and had caused many English Lutherans (Protestants) to be sent to the stake. Both Protestants and Romanists that opposed Henry were put to death.
D. Very little reform took place in Henry’s reign, although there was a closing of the monasteries for political reasons — he feared a revolt from organized Catholicism. Also, relics were no longer thought of as sacred.
E. When Henry died (1547) England was in a ferment, some wanting new ideas, others wishing to adhere to the medieval system.
III. REFORMATION UNDER EDWARD VI (1547-1553)
A. Edward took the throne at age ten and was trained by Archbishop Cranmer, a Protestant. King Edward was a Protestant, and the Protestant cause flourished. Transubstantiation was done away with and the clergy were permitted to marry. The mass and images were also scrapped.
B. It was during Edward’s reign that the First Prayer Book (1549) was written, which put the church service into English. This Prayer Book was mandatory for all the churches in England. Also, a doctrinal statement of Forty-Two Articles was set forth, which was definitely more Protestant than the Prayer Book. These articles were subscribed to by the King, but not by the Parliament.
C. Protestants who fled under Henry VIII began to returned to England, including Ridley, Coverdale, Hooper, Ponet, and Scory. These men proved to be much help to Archbishop Cranmer, and he made them bishops of the Church of England.
D. During this time, great persecutions of Protestants began on the Continent, and many fled to England for refuge. Men such as Martin Baucer, who became professor of Theology at Cambridge; Paul Buchlin, a brilliant Hebrew scholar; Peter Martyr and Bernard Ochino, both Italians; and John a Lasco, a Polish nobleman who was an excellent theologian, supported the reform movement as it was taught by John Calvin in Geneva. These men became known as “Puritans” because they wanted reform within the Church of England, consisting of more discipline and less ritual.
Because these men were aliens, they had the political freedom to set up independent congregations, especially in London. These churches became a rallying ground for Puritans in the time of opposition. The Puritans at this time were too small in number to be a threat to anyone.
E. In 1552 a Second Prayer Book was composed, revising the old Prayer Book and making the services of the Church of England more like those of the continental Reformers. This is essentially the same prayer book that the Anglican Church uses today.
F. Just when it looked like the Protestant cause would completely triumph in England, King Edward died of tuberculosis in 1553 at the age of sixteen. His sister Mary succeeded him to the throne of England.
IV. RETARDATION UNDER MARY TUDOR (1553-1558)
A. Mary, like her mother Catherine of Aragon, was a fanatical Roman Catholic. Her great aim was to bring England back under the yoke of the Roman Church. She married Philip II of Spain in order to bring political pressure on England to turn Roman Catholic. Her marriage proved to be unpopular with the English people and brought her much personal unhappiness. Fortunately, she was out of the country during much of her reign.
B. When she came to power, Mary had Cranmer, Ridley, Coverdale, Hooper and Latimer jailed. She replaced these men with bishops who favored Rome. At this time many Protestants fled to the Continent and were welcomed by Calvin in Geneva. This was a blessing in disguise, for these refugees would later return to be the backbone of Christianity in England.
C. In 1554, England was brought back under Papal authority. The former laws against heresy were invoked, and Roman Church liturgy and ceremony were brought back to England. Terrible persecutions broke out against Protestants.
During Mary’s reign 286 Protestants were burned at the stake and 1,200 were kept from ministering. Bishops Ridley and Latimer were burned for denying transubstantiation. As the flames curled around their bodies, Latimer spoke courage and comfort to his fellow martyr: “This day we shall light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”
D. Archbishop Cranmer also became a victim of “Bloody Mary,” for she had put great pressure on him and had him officially excommunicated from the Church. Cranmer weakened for a moment and declared that he recognized the authority of the pope over the Church in England. But Mary was fanatically bent on Cranmer’s death. Cranmer even signed a statement in which he denied Protestantism, but he was still put to death. On March 21, 1556, he was burnt at the stake. Just before he was to die, he renounced his denial, and once more in the strongest terms declared his Protestant faith. In dramatic fashion he showed how he felt about his denial of the Protestant cause. The hand which had signed the denial he held in the flames until it was burned to a crisp. Then the flames scorched his body, and he died the death of a martyr and a hero.
E. Mary died a bitter woman, hated by England, hated by the pope, and hated by her husband.
V. REFORMATION UNDER ELIZABETH I (1558-1603)
A. Elizabeth was the sister of Mary and had been educated under Archbishop Cranmer. She was a Protestant at heart, although she loved the pomp and ritual of Rome.
B. Under Elizabeth, persecution of Protestants was stopped and refugees from the Continent flooded back to England. Even Puritans, at first, were welcomed back to the Church of England. However, Elizabeth disliked the theology that came from Geneva and treated the Puritans very badly. The Puritans were the Calvinists within the Anglican Church.
Elizabeth loved the pomp and ceremony of Rome, and she is primarily responsible for the liturgy in the High Church of England today.
C. Elizabeth was somewhat tolerant of the Puritans (Calvinists) because she needed them politically. She had to fall back on all Protestants for survival, for Italy, France and Spain all felt she was not the legal heir to the throne. She disliked John Knox, the Calvinistic Reformer of Scotland, with a passion, but history shows it was the Scottish Covenanters under Knox that saved Elizabeth’s throne.
There are several misconceptions that are routinely put out to the public about Tyndale. Here is the truth:
1) Tyndale was not a martyr. Heretics cannot be martyrs except in their own minds and in the minds of their heretical fellow travelers.
2) Tyndale was not executed (nor even tried) for translating the bible. Translating scripture was not a crime in the Church. Proof of this is easily found in the fact that Tyndale was being accused of heresy YEARS before he became known for his translation. He was accused of heresy before even leaving England, for instance.
3) Tyndale was betrayed by his own fellow English citizens and government to the inquisitional tribunal on the continent that tried him.
4) As odd as this may sound to us today, Tyndale was greatly respected and even admired by those who tried him. They respected his fine education and admired his manners and Christian piety. He was convicted anyway because he was a heretic. They tried to convince him to renounce his errors, but he refused to do so. Even according to Protestant wannabe hagiographers, like Foxe, Tyndale's judges did not enjoy fulfilling their duties in this regard in the least. They simply didn't want heretics like Tyndale running around destroying more souls.
5) He was condemned to death under the anti-heresy laws of the empire, which had been around since at least the 13th century.
6) Tyndale was not really a student of Wycliffe in any important way. All heretics from England glommed onto Wycliffe's memory as a way to twit the Church. If Tyndale had really been a student of Wycliffe he would have been a supporter of Wycliffe's bizarre and stupid Donatist-like doctrine of dominion.
Good queen Bess was hardly a wonderful person. In addition to executing her own cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, she also had her own persecutions...
In the last years of Elizabeth's reign, Catholics were cruelly persecuted and many were put to death.
QUEEN MARY I of England is called Bloody Mary because she persecuted Protestants during her short reign (1554-58). Her sister, Elizabeth Tudor, persecuted Catholics during her long reign (1558-1603) and she is called Good Queen Bess. Mary is criticized because she burned Protestants whom she considered heretics, but Elizabeth is praised as shrewd for persecuting Catholics, who did not accept laws passed during her reign making her both secular and spiritual ruler. Violations of these laws were considered an act of treason punishable by hanging, drawing, and quartering. 1 Mary's love of England has been questioned because she believed in a universal Christian church united under the Bishop of Rome, and because she married a Spaniard. Elizabeth has been called a nationalist because of her assumption of spiritual authority over Christians in England, because of her protection of English pirates who raided towns and cities in the Americas under the sovereignty of the Spanish [End Page 117] Crown, and because of her support of those who revolted against the Spanish Crown in Europe. The year 2003 marked the 400th anniversary of the death of Elizabeth Tudor, and most likely there will be many books, documentaries, and academic conferences singing her praises. But, as Richard Harrison has written in the 3 January 2003 issue of theLondon Times, the fact is that she persecuted minorities, encouraged the systematic pillaging of foreigners' property, and suppressed dissent. 2
In this article I revisit religious persecution in sixteenth-century England under Elizabeth Tudor. In addition to those Catholics condemned to death, I discuss the persecution of Catholics by fining and imprisonment in Elizabethan England. Furthermore, I analyze the identification of Protestantism and patriotism in a supposed struggle for survival of a peace-loving England against an aggressive Spanish...
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/logos/v007/7.1tarrago.html
FWIW Jesus was considered a heretic and that is why the Jewish Authorities requested that the Romans put him to death.
Carry on.
P-Marlowe,
Nice try, but you're wrong. Christ was condemned as a blasphemer by Jewish leaders, not as a heretic.
Maybe if you had ever read the Bible you would know this.
Matthew 26:64-66 (New King James Version) 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken BLASPHEMY! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”
Or how about Mark? Mark 14:63-65 (New King James Version)
63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the BLASPHEMY! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
Even before He was tried He was accused of BLASPHEMY: John 10:32-34; 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?
The same was said of Stephen when he was stoned to death:
Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak BLASPHEMOUS words against Moses and God.” ... 13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak BLASPHEMOUS words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
n 1: a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church [syn: misbeliever, religious outcast] 2: a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)
I'd have to say that on both counts Jesus could be considered a heretic.
P-Marlowe,
In case you have not realized it yet, what you think is essentially irrelevant in regard to what scripture actually tells us in this matter.
Jesus was considered a blasphemer.
Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer.
The penalty for blasphemy was death.
You were wrong. Accept that reality or continue to embarrass yourself as you please, but the scriptures show you were wrong.
Also, I should point out that your "definition" -- and wherever you got it from -- is inaccurate. That is not the proper definition of heretic. I bet you didn't even know that now did you? Please continue to post.
More Protestant mythmaking? These hagiographies are entertaining.
Sorry vlad, but the scriptures prove I am right.
Jesus was a heretic to those who wanted him crucified. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.
Heresy
1Co_11:18-19. Schisms (Greek: "schisma") meant "divisions" through differences of opinion of recent standing. "Heresies" meant "schisms inveterate". "Sect" (Greek "heresy") Act_5:17; Act_15:5. Paul means by "there must be heresies among you," that sin must bear its natural fruit, as Christ foretold (Luk_17:1), and schisms (compare 1Co_12:25) must eventuate in mattered secessions or confirmed schisms. "Heresy" did not yet bear its present meaning, "doctrinal error". However see its use in Act_24:14.
Faucett's Bible Dictionary
Paul actually noted in Act 24:14 that the Church itself was considered a Heresy.
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.
So the fact is that Paul was being accused of heresy when in fact he was preaching the truth. Simply because someone calls another a heretic does not mean that it is the alleged heretic who does not believe the Truth.
I suspect that Tyndale was much closer to the truth than those who unscriptually ordered him executed for his beliefs.
So, in your opinion was Jesus a heretic or was he a blasphemer?
P-Marlowe
You wrote: "So, in your opinion was Jesus a heretic or was he a blasphemer?"
In my opinion Jesus was, and is, Lord. He is the Christ. He is the Savior. He is the Son of the Living God. He cannot be a blasphemer since He is all holy. He cannot be a heretic since He is perfect.
But you stated that he was not being crucified because he was a heretic, but because he was a blasphemer.
The fact is that the Romans crucified him because they had evidence that he was claiming to be the King of the Jews. That would be treason. The stated reason that the Jewish Authorities had sought to kill him was because he allegedly blasphemed. But the Jews had no authority in Roman Palestine to have anyone executed for blasphemy. So they trumped up a charge of treason. In actuality the Jewish Authorities probably could have cared less that Jesus claimed to be God, but their concern was that he, like Luther and Tyndale who followed, was a threat to their Religious authority. He directly challenged the authority of the religious leaders of his day and claimed that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect. For that reason the Jewish Authorities wanted him dead. They needed him dead. He was upsetting the apple cart.
In the eyes of those who crucified him Jesus was a heretic. Paul stated categorically that what he considered "the way" to worship God was what was referenced by his accusers as "heresy". In that sense Paul was a heretic. In that sense I too am a heretic.
You wrote: "Sorry vlad, but the scriptures prove I am right."
No, look again. I proved with more than one verse that Christ was condemned for blasphemy. We were not talking about Paul.
"Jesus was a heretic to those who wanted him crucified. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy."
Incorrect. We KNOW that Christ was condemned for blasphemy. We KNOW that Tyndale was condemned for heresy.
Your verses merely prove my point. The very word is a Greek word used by Christians. It was rarely used and it was never used against Christ except indirectly in Acts 24:5 and 24:14 and not as "heresy" but as "sect". In other words, the word was used as a description of a group, not as a description of an idea, or doctrine. Nice try.
You ignore that "hairesis" was used inthe same way to describe the "sects" of Judaism: Acts 5:17, 15:5. And Christians, 28:22. And almost typically you ignore Matthew 26:65.
"So the fact is that Paul was being accused of heresy when in fact he was preaching the truth."
Paul was accused of being a member of a sect -- and that is how he described it to Luke in Greek. Note that the word BLASPHEMER was used against Jesus, not HERESY.
"Simply because someone calls another a heretic does not mean that it is the alleged heretic who does not believe the Truth."
A mere person did not call Tyndale a heretic when he was condemned. A tribunal empowered with such decisions convicted him of heresy.
"I suspect that Tyndale was much closer to the truth than those who unscriptually ordered him executed for his beliefs."
That was the punishment for the crime. The punishment was carried out. Their action may have been wrong or excessive, but they were certainly right to convict him of heresy in the first place.
P-Marlowe,
You wrote:
"But you stated that he was not being crucified because he was a heretic, but because he was a blasphemer."
No, I stated why He was condemned by Jewish leaders. I never mentioned His crucifixion or the Romans. Disagree with what I say, not what your mind imagines I said.
"The fact is that the Romans crucified him because they had evidence that he was claiming to be the King of the Jews."
And that is entirely irrelevant to what we are talking about since that is neither about His condemnation by Jews or about heresy or blasphemy. Care to stay on topic?
"That would be treason. The stated reason that the Jewish Authorities had sought to kill him was because he allegedly blasphemed. But the Jews had no authority in Roman Palestine to have anyone executed for blasphemy. So they trumped up a charge of treason. In actuality the Jewish Authorities probably could have cared less that Jesus claimed to be God, but their concern was that he, like Luther and Tyndale who followed, was a threat to their Religious authority."
Tyndale was not a threat to anyone's "Religious authority". His ideas were a threat to souls.
"He directly challenged the authority of the religious leaders of his day and claimed that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect. For that reason the Jewish Authorities wanted him dead. They needed him dead. He was upsetting the apple cart."
And they condemned Him for blasphemy, and not heresy.
"In the eyes of those who crucified him Jesus was a heretic. Paul stated categorically that what he considered "the way" to worship God was what was referenced by his accusers as "heresy". In that sense Paul was a heretic. In that sense I too am a heretic."
No. The word was used to describe a group and not an idea. You are comparable to Paul in beliefs -- except in the lacking way. Your ego is as immense as your lack of knowledge is obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.