_NOT SECOND TO A GLADIATOR; OR, STRONG FOR THE TRUTH._
“Thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee; ... we are selfish men.
Oh! raise us up, return to us again,
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.”
--MILTON.
“Reformers are not distinguished for their politeness--Luther and
Knox, to wit. They are men raised by God to arrest the current
of regenerate times, and to challenge sins which have become
conventional and respectable; and, therefore, to tear in tatters
sickly civilities which conceal beneath them a hell of sin and
vice.”--ECHOES FROM THE WELSH HILLS.
SIR THOMAS MORE THE ADVOCATE OF THE BISHOPS--TYNDALE’S CRUSHING
REPLY--MORE’S GROSS ABUSE AND FOUL LANGUAGE--PUBLIC OPINION WITH
TYNDALE.
Tyndale, of course, was not suffered to continue his labours
unassailed, for no less an antagonist than Sir Thomas More entered
the lists against him. Whatever may be More’s claims to admiration,
it must ever be considered to be a foul blot upon his character that
he assailed Tyndale with low, scurrilous abuse. As early as the year
1728, Tunstal, the polished Bishop of London (who had previously so
unceremoniously rejected Tyndale’s offer of service), wrote to More
inviting him to undertake the task of stemming the tide of heretical
books which, in spite of his utmost endeavours, continued to flow into
England. “Forasmuch,” said the Bishop, “as you can play the Demosthenes
both in our native tongue and in Latin, and are wont to be a most
zealous defender of Catholic truth in every assault, you will never be
able to make a better use of any spare hours that you can redeem from
your occupation, than by publishing in our native tongue something that
will expose even to rude and simple people the crafty malice of the
heretics, and make them better prepared against those impious enemies
of the Church.” Copies of the books to which he was to reply were
forwarded to More, and the Chancellor was reminded of the example of
his monarch, who had won the title of Defender of the Faith by his book
against Luther. More readily complied with this request, and after a
year of study he published a large volume which specified Luther and
Tyndale as his chief objects of attack. The book is in the form of a
dialogue, which is, of course, a most convenient form of eluding an
awkward attack.
“Look on Tyndale,” says Sir Thomas More, “how in his wicked book of
‘Mammon,’ and after in his malicious book of ‘Obedience,’ he showed
himself so puffed up with the poison of pride, malice, and envy,
that it is more than marvel that the skin can hold together.... He
knoweth that all the fathers teach that there is the fire of purgatory,
which I marvel why he feareth so little, as if he be at a plain point
with himself to go straight to hell.” Anderson, in his “Annals of
the Bible,” in speaking of this attack of More’s says: “The English
language has never been so prostituted before Sir Thomas More took up
the pen.... No solitary selected expressions can convey an adequate
idea of the virulence, not to say the verbosity and fallacious
reasoning, of this writer;” and the majority of unbiassed readers
will probably endorse this severe verdict. Sir Thomas More’s book was
published in June 1529, and during the spring of 1531 Tyndale published
his reply to it--an answer which must be admitted by all impartial men
to effectually dispose of More and his flimsy attempts at reasoning.
The following extract from the section in which Tyndale treats of
ceremonies will furnish an example of his rugged, earnest method of
argument. He says: “How cometh it that a poor layman, having wife
and twenty children, and not able to maintain them, though all his
neighbours know his necessity, shall not get with begging for Christ’s
sake in a long summer’s day enough to maintain them two days honestly;
when if a disguised monster come, he shall, with an hour’s lying in
the pulpit, get enough to maintain thirty or forty sturdy lubbers a
month long, of which the weakest shall be as strong in the belly when
he cometh unto the manger, as the mightiest porter in the custom-house,
or the best courser that is in the King’s stable?... Who thinketh it
as good a deed to feed the poor as to stick up a candle before a post,
or as to sprinkle it with holy water?... As though God were better
pleased when I sprinkled myself with water, or set up a candle before
a block, than if I fed or clothed, or helped at his need, him whom He
so tenderly loveth that He gave His own Son unto the death for him,
and commandeth me to love him as myself.... Christ’s death purchased
grace for man’s soul, to repent of evil, and to believe in Christ for
remission of sins, and to love the law of God, and his neighbour as
himself. Which is the true worshipping of God in the spirit; and He
died not to purchase such honour for unsensible things, that man to his
dishonour should do them honourable service, and receive his salvation
of them.”
This is vigorous writing, and is well calculated to answer its purpose;
that is, of destroying the subtleties by means of which More and other
Romish advocates endeavoured to deceive and to beguile the unwary. So
keenly did the Papal party feel the importance of Tyndale’s book, that
More was compelled, in spite of all his many employments, to attempt
a rejoinder at once. This volume, upon which he lavished great pains,
More had to confess to be a failure; men did not read it and one does
not wonder at their reluctance. A specimen only will suffice of this
vaunted defence of the Papacy upon the part of gentle Thomas More; in
justice to Tyndale, this and similar passages should be remembered by
all admirers of the Chancellor:--
“This devilish drunken soul (Tyndale!) doth abominably blaspheme, and
calleth them (_i.e._, the schoolmen) liars and falsifiers of Scripture,
and maketh them no better than draff. But this drowsy drudge hath
drunken so deep in the devil’s dregs, that, unless he wake and repent
himself, the sinner, he may hap ere long to fall into the mashing fat,
and turn himself into draff, as of which the hogs of hell shall feed
upon, and fill their bellies thereof.”
Nothing can justify the employment of such language, and the offence
appears to be the more heinous when we remember that Tyndale was at
that time enduring poverty and exile, while More was enjoying the
emoluments of office and the favour of the King and Bishops! To call
such a man as Tyndale “a hell-hound, one of those that the devil
hath in his kennel,” can never be defended by any impartial reader,
and our sympathies must therefore be wholly given to Tyndale in the
controversy, as our judgment must also award the palm of victory to
him. To Tyndale the controversy was one not merely of life and death,
for he viewed the question in its eternal issues. One would not wonder
if he used somewhat strong language when he realised what the Papacy
is in itself, and what its treatment of men, even of its adherents,
means in degradation and defilement; but such scurrilous language as
More employs at once stains his own character, and also shows his keen
consciousness of having a bad case.