VOLUME 3

AN ANSWERE VNTO SIR THOMAS MORES DIALOGE

LOCATION
KEY Commentary Side Textual Bibliographic Scriptural

eth whether / because they abuse prayar / we shuld put all prayenge downe. Naye M. More / it is not like. Prayar is gods commaundement / and where faith is / there must prayar nedes be and can not be awaye. How be it / thinges that are but mennes tradicions and all indifferent thinges which we maye be as well with out as with / maye welbe put doune for their dishonouringe of god / thorow the abuse. We haue turned kissinge in the church in to the pax. We haue put done watchinge all night in the church on saintes evens / for the abuse. And Ezechias brake the brasen serpent .iiij. of kinges .xviij. for the abuse. And euen so / soch processions and the multitude of ceremonies and of holidayes to / might as wel be put downe. And the ceremonies that be left wold haue their significacions put to them & the people shuld be taught them. And on the sondayes gods word wolde be truly preached. Which if his holy church wold do / nether the Irish ner yet the welsh wold so praye. By which prayenge and other like blindnesse / Master More maye se / that buzssynge in latine on the holy dayes helpeth not the hertes of the people. And I wondre that M. More can laugh at it and not rather wepe for compassion / to se the soules for which christ shed his bloude / to perish. And yet I beleue that youre holy church wil not refuse at ester to receaue the tithes of all that soch blind people robbe / as wel as they dispence with all false gotten good that is brought them / And will laye the ensample of Abraham and Melchisedec for them.

MARK: 13.33: 125/9–10

LUKE: 18.1: 125/9–10

174/12 no good werke. Cf. CWM 6/1.352/30.

174/15–25 And then ... no lenger. Tyndale states Luther's doctrine of simul iustus et peccator, cf. 3o/19n. For Tyndale the non-imputation of sin rests on the believer's fundamental good will and readiness to improve, while for Luther it is based solely on the righteousness of Christ, with whom one is united by faith in the promises. Also, Tyndale introduces a reason for ongoing sinfulness that Luther did not feature, namely, that one is at fault to the extent that one's love is less than Christ's love. Luther defended the simul, e.g., in response to the censure of Art. 31 of Exsurge (In omne opere bono iustus peccat; DS 1481; Neuner Dupuis 1923/31) in Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, December 1520 (WA 7.136–38; LW 32.83–86). Here he writes that there is sin whenever one falls short of the command to love God with all one's heart and strength, and that the simul has backing in Isaiah, Paul, Augustine , and Gregory the Great. (JW)

evens] eues 1573

2 KINGS: 18.4: 66/29, 88/12, 123/9, 124/9, 125/16, 184/23

of] om. 1573

174/21–22 good . . . doynge well. Cf. CWM 6/1.352/31–32.

1 CORINTHIANS: 8.11:125/26, 201/10–11

174/26 no synne . . . vnbeleffe. Cf. CWM 6/1.352/33–34. Cf. Matt. 12.31–32, Luke 12.10. In The Supplication of Souls (1529), More discusses blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin (CWM 7.191/11–192/14). In his prologue to the Book of Numbers , Tyndale claims that malicious persecution of the clear truth is the sin against the Holy Spirit (Mombert 388/29–32; TOT 193).

tithes] 1573, rithes 1531

GENESIS: 14.16, 20: 125/30

HEBREWS: 7.2: 125/30

174/30–175/1 no frewyll . . . the werke man. Cf. CWM 6/1.352/ 36–353/5. Where More saw error in Luther's doctrine of the bondage of the will, Tyndale offers a key distinction. Humans have no power to overcome darkness and sin until God frees the will to do good voluntarily. But the will itself is the creator's gift, which sinful human beings misuse because of the blindness inflicted by the devil (176/9–16). Luther had developed his doctrine in 1520 and 1521 in response to censure in Exsurge, Art. 36 (DS 1486; Neuner-Dupuis 1923/36), e.g., in Defense and Explanation (WA 7.142–49; LW 32.92–94). The culmination then came in Luther's broadside against Erasmus, On the Bondage of the Will, 1525 (WA 18.600–787; LW 33). Cf. also 39/2n. Tyndale further discusses other difficulties concerning free will raised by More: God's initiative in justification (175/10–12, 211/3–4), the effect on morality of lack of belief in free will (188/28–29, 189/1–6), the dilemma of God's causality and responsibility for evil (191/4–9). (JW)

xij.

1 xij.] The xij. Chapter. 1573