94/22–23 all . . . god. Unlike Tyndale, More separates faith from hope (cf. CWM 8/1.54/28) and from charity (cf. CWM 8/1.54/33).

94/25–26 promyses . . . Iesu. For intercession to God by the Suffering Servant, cf. Isa. 53.12; by prophets, cf. Jer. 28.18; by the Holy Spirit, cf. Rom. 8.27; by the risen Christ, Rom. 8.34, Heb. 7.25.

LUKE: 11.52: 41/16–17, 45/26–27

MATTHEW: 23.13: 41/17–19, 45/27–28

94/27 xxv. Tyndale makes no comment here on five chapters of Dialogue Bk. 1, Ch. 20–24. In the section on "Whether the church can erre" (28/10–29/30), Tyndale answers in a general way the church's claim of inerrancy as set forth in Bk. 1, Ch. 18, 20–21, 24–26 (CWM 6/1.101–62 passim), cf. 32/1on. Dialogue Bk. 1, Ch. 22 upholds the value of the liberal arts, philosophy, and patristics as aids to the study of Scripture. For Tyndale's negative evaluation of Aristotle and Plato, cf. 10/20n; for his minimal use of Latin poets such as Terence and Virgil, cf. 75/15n; for his qualified approval of the Fathers, cf. Cyprian (46/27n), Jerome (46/26n), Augustine (46/26–27n), and Gregory (184/2n). Dialogue Bk. 1, Ch. 23 gives a positive role to reason in explaining Scripture. Tyndale holds that the will follows reason (34/8–9), but he emphasizes that carnal reason is blind; e.g., 40/17, 65/27–28, 66/12–13, 76/27 and esp. 140/29, "O how betleblinde is fleshlye reason!"

94/28 how iugleth he. Cf. CWM 8/1.311/11.

94/28–95/1 al . . . written. Cf. CWM 6/1.144/8–12 and John 21.25.

94/29 not written. In response to More's position "that many thynges haue bene taught by god without wrytynge" (CWM 6/1.137/27), Answer passes over More's account of the Holy Spirit's inscription of the faith upon believing hearts (e.g. CWM 6/1.143/4–144/7) to concentrate instead on More's argument that Christ's apostles gave oral instructions on some essential doctrines that were not set down in the NT (CWM 6/1.144/ 8–146/13,147/31–148/32). Yves Congar treats the background of More's position in medieval theology in Traditions and Tradition (London: Burns & Oates, 1966) 87–101, citing William of Occam's influential classification of the different types of "Catholic truths" on p. 95. Occam's scheme recurred in numerous late medieval works, such as John Brevicoxa's treatise (c1375), where we read, "The second category consists of those [truths of faith] which have come down to us from the Apostles by a handing down of revelation or by writings of the faithful but which are not found in Scripture nor are deducible from it." From A Treatise on Faith, the Church, the Roman Pontiff, and the General Council, in Oberman, Forerunners 72. Wyclif and Hus mounted a protest against this view, while asserting, in effect if not in exact terms, the complete sufficiency of Scripture for faith. Their 15c opponents, like the English Carmelite Thomas Netter of Walden, made "unwritten traditions" fundamental to their theological accounts of beliefs about the saints and the origins of the sacraments that lack a NT institution-narrative. Henry VIII's Assertio appealed to divinely grounded unwritten traditions of faith as vehicles of transmission of the church's faith regarding certain sacraments, cf. 99/16–18n. Tyndale has already affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture at 24/17–28/9 and will re-state it at 98/5–19 and 99/7–15. (JW)

95/2–3 Ihon ... faith. Cf. CWM 8/1.311/11–12, repeated at 311/38–39.

95/4–5 perpetuall . . . faith. Cf. CWM 6/1.150/1–151/23, CWM 8/1.287/5–15 and CWM 8/1.406/3–5. The perpetual virginity of Mary was defined by Constantinople II (AD 553), the fifth ecumenical council, as a corollary to the definition of two natures in Christ (DS 214; 2NPNF 14.312); cf. also 31/14, 166/2onn. It was restated by a synod at the Lateran (AD 649), called by Martin I (pope, 649–53) (DS 256). While they accept this belief, Luther and Tyndale do not consider it an essential article of faith. For Luther, cf. Vom Schem Hamphoras, 1543 (WA 53.640; not in LW). More argues that, following their principle of sola scriptura, the reformers ought to reject whatever is not stated explicitly in the Bible, cf. CWM 8/2.809/1–4. (JW)

95/8–9 many . . . antichriste. Cf. CWM 6/1.146/14–15. In 95/S1 1531's "Pope" becomes 1573's "Antichrist is knowen." Below, Tyndale will set forth, on the basis of NT passages, his case for identifying the papacy as the foretold Antichrist, cf. 100/6n and 145/8–27. (JW)

1 PETER: 5.2: 41/25, 46/11

95/12 Paules tradicions. Cf. CWM 6/1.148/3–6. In 2 Thess. 2.15 More finds two distinct sources of revelation, oral tradition and scripture: siue per sermonem siue per epistolam nostram. Tyndale affirms that Paul preached the same doctrine, whether in oral or written form (Obedience H7). See Ch. 11, "Holy Writ and Holy Church," in Oberman, Harvest 361–422.

had] if 1573

95/13–14 I haue . . . preached. Cf. CWM 8/1.324/20–21.

95/13 I haue answered rochester in the obedience. John Fisher (1469–1535) was Bishop of Rochester and Chancellor of Cambridge University from 1504 until his death. In Obedience (E8v, G8v, H4v, H5v, H6, H7-I2v, V7r-v), Tyndale attacks the sermon preached at the burning of Lutheran books on 12 May 1521 (Fisher 311–48). For Fisher's exegesis of Gal. 5.6 in this sermon, cf. 196/25n. Tyndale does not mention the sermon preached at the abjuration of Robert Barnes on 11 February 1526 (Fisher 429–76). Fisher was considered the best preacher of his generation in England. Cf. Marc'hadour, "Fisher and More: a note," in Bradshaw and Duffy 103. For his life and works, see the entry by O'Donnell in Tudor England.