KEY Commentary Side Textual Bibliographic Scriptural
¶Why fauoure and not grace

20/28 fauoure and not grace. Cf. CWM 6/1.290/18–19.

¶] ed., Why fauoure and not grace] running title 1531, ¶] Why fauour and not grace 1573

And wyth lyke reasons rageth he because I turne charis in to fauoure and not in to grace / sayenge that euery fauoure is not grace and that in some fauoure there is but litle grace. I can saye also in some grace there is lytle goodnesse. And when we saye / he stondeth well in my ladis grace / we vnderstonde no greate godly fauoure. And in vniuersities manye vngracious graces are goten.

21/2 my ladis grace. Cf. Thomas W. Ross, Chaucer's Bawdy (New York: Dutton, 1972) 96–98. Variations on the phrase, "to stand in his lady's grace," occur in Troilus and Criseyde (cf. 3.472, 5.171), as well as in The Canterbury Tales: the description of the Squire ("General Prologue," I [A] 88) and "Merchant's Tale" (IV [E] 2018).

21/3 vniuersities . . . graces. More studied only two years at Oxford c1492–94 (Marius 25–28), while Tyndale spent a dozen years there, earning his BA in 1512 and his MA in 1515 (Mozley 12,17). 21/4–5 knowlege and not confessyon / repentaunce and not penaunce . Cf. CWM 6/1.19–20. From the 2c to the mid-5c, public penance after private confession was performed for major sins: unchastity , murder, and apostasy. After Leo I (pope, 440–61) decreed in 459 that private confession was sufficent for secret sins, public penance began to decline. Cf. Ep. 168, To the Bishops of Campania , Samnium and Picenum, Ch. 2 (PL 54.1211; synopsis at 2NPNF 12.112). Lateran IV (1215), in the decree Omnis utriusque sexus, required all Christians, upon reaching the age of discretion, to confess their serious sins privately at least once a year to their parish priest. Aquinas taught that confession, contrition and satisfaction were the material of the sacrament of Penance (Summa III, Q. 84, Art. 2, Sed contra), and absolution by the priest was the form (Summa III, Q. 84, Art. 3). In 1439 the Council of Florence formally declared that God forgives mortal sin through the absolution of the priest. The Council of Trent, Session 14, 25 November 1551, On Penance, canon 6, declared that sacramental confession is prescribed by divine law; those who deny this are anathema. Cf. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, tr. H.J. Schroeder OP (St. Louis: Herder, 1941) 102–3. During the Middle Ages, the penitent knelt before or at the side of the priest under the safety of public observation (Duffy, Plates 19–20). For greater privacy, the confessional box began to be used c1565. The classic study of the sacrament of Penance is by Henry C. Lea, History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols. (1896; New York: Greenwood, 1968), supplemented by Watkins (1920), and updated by Thomas N. Tender, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton UP, 1977). Eramus noted the change from public to private confession in an annotation on Acts 19.18; 1516, 1519 NT (Reeve 2.315). His Ratio verae theologiae (1518) affirmed that one should certainly practice the developed form of individual confession as required by the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But a theologian should not make it an article of faith that Jesus himself instituted the practice, cf. Holborn 205f, 210. In the 1520s after Edward Lee and Jacobus Stunica attacked Erasmus on this point, he defended his view, with nuances, in lengthy apologetic works. Cf. Payne 181–91, 319–22; Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament (U of Toronto P, 1986) 152–56. (JW) See Erasmus on Jas. 5.16, the clearest NT reference to confessing one's sins, not only to God, but to another human. Peccata uestra.) . . . 1516 NT, Sentit enim de quotidianis offensis Christianorum inter ipsos , quos continuo uult reconciliari. Alioqui si de confessione sensisset, quam dicimus partem sacramenti poenitentiae, non addidisset "allelois," id est, uobis inuicem, sed sacerdotibus (Reeve 3.744)."Your sins.) . . . For he is thinking about the daily offenses of Christians among themselves , whom he wishes to be reconciled immediately. If he were thinking about confession, which we call a part of the sacrament of Penance, he would not have added allelois that is, 'to you reciprocally ,' but 'to the priests.'" See also Erasmus' long note on Matt. 3.2, Poenitentiam agite.). Two sidenotes crystallize his position (Reeve 1.18): 1519 NT, "metanoein " mutatam mentem sonat, non afflictionem corporis, "metanoein means 'changing the mind' not 'afflicting the body'"; 1516 NT, Resipiscere , pro poenitentiam agere, "'To look back' for 'to do penance.'" Referring to Tertullian, Erasmus asserts that this verse does not allude to the sacrament of Penance, 1527 NT, Nam & in Graeco, inquit, sono poenitentiae nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi de- mutatione compositum est (Reeve 1.18)."He also says that the name for penance in the Greek language is constructed [from meta and noeia], not with respect to the confession of a fault, but to the alteration of the soul." Thanks to Germain Marc'hadour for help with the translation. KJV uses "repentance" but never "penance." Tyndale discusses the same crux, metanoein for "repente" or "forthynke " instead of "do penance" (22/3) in Obedience M6v. Wyclif frequently translated metanoein as "forthink," as in Luke 17.4 (cf. PS 1.260n2). Tyndale shows little affinity with Luther's defense of himself on the issue of contrition as he responded to papal censure in Exsurge Domine, Art. 6 (DS 1456; Neuner-Dupuis 1614/6), e.g., in Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, December 1520 (WA 7.114–16; LW 32.34–38). On penitential satisfaction, Luther's responses were more developed (ibid., WA 7.112–13; LW 32.32–35), but he too said that God's visitation in grace leads spontaneously to love of righteousness and good works (ibid., WA 7.116–17; LW 32.38–42). However, Tyndale does not follow Luther's emphatic teaching on faith in the absolution that is given in virtue of Christ's mandate of binding and loosing (cf. Matt. 16.19). This we find in the response to Exsurge's censure of Arts. 10–12 (ibid., WA 7.119–20; LW 32.45–50). (JW) In 1528 Tyndale gives an extended discussion of penance, confession, contrition, satisfaction, and absolution in Obedience (M6v—O1). He deplores the burden to scrupulous consciences (L3), and asserts that the seal of confession is frequently broken for political advantage (V3v—V4). In Prelates (G2v) Tyndale condemns the Observant Franciscans of Greenwich, along with the Carthusians and Bridgittines, for passing political information learned from auricular confession through Cardinal Morton and Bishop Fox of Winchester to Henry VII. Tyndale might have known the case of the third Duke of Buckingham (1478–1521), a descendant of Edward III, who listened approvingly to prophecies that he would become king. His confessor John Delacourt testified against him at his treason trial despite being sworn to "keep it secret under the seal of confession" (LP 3/1, no. 1284). See Barbara J. Harris, Edward Stafford: Third Duke of Buckingham, 1478–1521 (Stanford UP, 1986). Tyndale approves the public penances enjoined in the early church as a means to tame the flesh (1 John H3v), but he decries the teachings on good works, purgatory, and indulgences as abuses of episcopal power (C2—C3v). He could accept auricular confession restored to right use (B3v).

20/29–21/3 And wyth . . . goten. Cf. CWM 8/1.203/22–27.

¶Why knowlege and not confessyon / repentaunce and not penaunce

And that I vse this word knowlege and not confession / and this repentaunce and not penaunce. In whych all he can not proue / that I geue not the ryghte englishe vnto the greke worde. But yt ys a ferre other thynge that payneth them and byteth them by the brestes. There be secret panges that pinch the very hertes of them / where of they dare not complayne.

21/6–8 And that . . . worde. Cf. CWM 8/1.204/26–28.

and this] and this word 1573

MATTHEW: 3.2: 21/4–5

MATTHEW: 16.19: 21/4–5, 161/18, 214/9–11

LUKE: 17.4: 21/4–5, 131/22

ACTS: 19.18: 21/4–5

JAMES: 5.16: 21/4–5

21/6–8 And that . . . worde. Cf. CWM 8/1.204/26–28.

70/10–11 their father the deuell. Cf. John 8.44.

The sekenesse that maketh them so impacyent ys / that they haue lost theyr iuglinge termes. For the doctours and preachers were wont to make many deuisyons / distinccyons and sortes of grace / gratis data / gratum faciens / preueniens and subsequens. And wyth confessyon they iugled / and made the people / as ofte as they spake of yt: vnderstonde shryft in the eare. Wherof the scripture maketh no mencyon: no it is cleane agenst the scrypture as they vse yt and preach yt / and vn to god an abhominacyon and a foule stinkynge sacrifice vnto the filthy ydole priapus. The losse of those iuglinge termes ys the mater where of all these bottes brede / that gnawe them by the belies and make them so vnquiet.

doctours and] 1573, doctours [1531]

21/8–15 But . . . subsequens. Cf. CWM 8/1.205/7–13.

and] & so 1573

70/17–21 because . . . Moses. Cf. CWM 8/1.194/17–19.

21/15–20 wyth . . . priapus. CWM 8/1.207/10–14. See More's earlier discussion, "Of confessyon" (CWM 8/1.89/7–8), where he quotes Tyndale's Obedience M8v. Probably through inadvertence, Tyndale does not give the Greek exhomologesis for "knowledge" instead of"confession" (21/6), but More supplies the missing word (CWM 8/1.208/4). In 1524, Erasmus published Exomologesis sive modus confitendi (LB 5.145A— 17oD). This was later translated as A lytle treatise of the maner and forme of confession (1535?), STC 10498. This work develops nine advantages, nine evils, and nine remedies for confession, an examination of conscience for many social roles, and types of penances. Under the first advantage, it describes public penance as required in the early church but now mitigated (LB 5.149D—F; C5r—v). Under the ninth evil, it explains that the sinner was admitted to public penance only once in the early church (LB 5.157A; G6v). Under the first evil, it complains that some priests repeat sins confessed to them, sometimes even mentioning the names of penitents (LB 5.153E; E7). In the Colloquies, young Gaspar doubts that auricular confession was instituted by Christ, but, nevertheless, he makes a brief confession of serious sins to a prudent priest in "The Whole Duty of Youth," March 1522 (ASD 1/3.177/1724 to 179/1760; CWE 39.96/1–97/39).