into draff, as the hogs shall feed upon and fill their bellies thereof." 1

On the other hand, Tyndale falls as low as, with poor wit, to call Wolsey "Wolfslee "—" a wily wolf and a raging sea," and More "Master Mock"; and he sometimes approaches the Chancellor's rhetoric, as when he says of him, "Yet for all that, covetousness blinded the eyes of that gleering fox more and more, and hardened his heart against the truth with the confidence of his painted poetry, babbling eloquence, and juggling arguments of subtile sophistry, grounded on his 'unwritten verities,' as true and authentic as his story of Utopia." And he speaks of Popish ceremonies in a style so stark and naked that it must have shocked Catholics into antipathy and horror. Lord Herbert calls him a witty but violent, and sometimes railing disputant.2 But to Tyndale's honour be it recorded, that when he comes to the tenth chapter of the second book of More's Dialogue-a tale of very gross indecency-his single reply is, that "the chapter is meet for the author and his worshipful doctrine."

On the abstract question of translations of Scripture, Sir Thomas More writes calmly, like one who had looked up to Colet "with filial reverence," and admits that he would not deny it to the people, even though it might be abused. But the translation which he would allow must be a new one, made through a division of labour, by "sure, good, catholic, and well-learned men, and allowed by the ordinaries. It is not to be given to such as do not profit." Nor should the people have the entire Scripture; each, however, may secure a part at the selection of the bishop. But these notions, put forth in the Dialogue, are much narrowed in the Confutation and Apology; and he at length affirms that men may have all necessary knowledge, though the "corpse and body of the Scripture" be not translated into their mother tongue. He would not, however, object to a translation "if the men were amended, and the time meet therefor." When he declares that he knows of a version made before Wycliffe's 1 Confutation, Works, p. 679.

2 England under Henry VIII, p. 591, London, 1870.

XII.]

HIS CRITICISM ON NAY AND NO.

197

time,1 Tyndale tartly replies, "What may not M. More say, by authority of his poetry? There is a lawful translation that no man knoweth, which is as much as no lawful translation. Why might not the bishops show which were that lawful translation, and let it be printed? Nay, if that had been obtained of them with large money, it had been printed, ye may be sure, long ere this. But, sir, answer me hereunto; how happeneth it that ye defenders translate not one yourselves, to cease the murmur of the people, and put to your own glosses, to prevent heretics? Ye would, no doubt, have done it long since, if ye could have made your glosses agree with the text in every place."

When More explained the relation of the bishops to versions of Scripture to be, not that the Scripture shall not be in English, but that no man may translate it by his own authority, or read it, until they had approved it, Tyndale answered, with suggestive brevity, "If no translation shall be had until they give license, or till they approve it, it shall never be had. And so it is all one, in effect, to say there shall be none at all in English." Tyndale was specially roused if any statement bore on his veracity-his character being still more precious to him than his literary and Biblical work. More had averred that Tyndale, on being "opposed of his doctrine ere he went over sea, said and sware that he meant no harm." Tyndale responds with deep solemnity and earnest abruptness, "He sware not; nor was there any man that required an oath of him."

More has a criticism of ferocious playfulness2 on Tyndale's English. He objects to the translation of John i, 21, "Art thou a prophet? And he answered, No." "Tyndale," says he, "by the Greek tongue, perceiving the article, saw well enough that he should not have translated it into the English,-Art

1 See p. 61.

2 More had another friend of the same name to whom he had lent money, and whom the loan had alienated. He composed a few Latin lines on this debtor, the first

of which have been thus translated,

"O Tyndale, there was once a time,

a pleasant time of old, Before thou cam'st a borrowing, before I lent thee gold," &c.

thou a prophet? but, Art thou that prophet? to wit, the great prophet of whom Moses prophesied." And he adds, "I would here note by the way, that Tyndale here translateth no for nay, for it is a trifle and mistaking of the English word; saving that ye should see that he which in two so plain English words, and so common as is nay and no, cannot tell when he should take the tone, and when the tother, is not for translating into English a man very meet. For the use of these two words in answering to a question is this: Nay answereth the question framed in the affirmative, as, for example, if a man should ask Tyndale himself, Is an heretic meet to translate holy Scripture into English? So, to this question, if he will answer true English, he must answer nay, and not no, But if the question be asked him thus: Lo, is not an heretic meet to translate holy Scripture into English? To this question, lo, if he will answer true English, he must answer no. and not nay. And a like difference is there between these two adverbs, yea and yes. For if the question be framed unto Tyndale by the affirmative in this fashion: If an heretic falsely translate the New Testament into English, to make his false heresies seem the Word of God, be his book worthy to be burned? To this question, asked in this wise, if he will answer true English, he must answer yea, and not yes. But now, if the question be asked him thus by the negative: If an heretic falsely translate the New Testament into English, to make his false heresies seem the word of God, be not his books well worthy to be burned? To this question, in this fashion framed, if he will answer true English, he may not answer yea, but he must answer yes; and say, Yes, marry, be they, both the translation and the translator, and all that will hold with them."1

Tyndale's reply to the "Dialogue" brought out, in 1532 More's "Confutation," which grew at length into five hundred folio pages. His "Apology" was written afterwards, in 1533, in which he attacked a book called the "Pacifier,"

1 Works, p. 448, 1557. It is odd that in the editions of More's Works 1532, and 1557, nay is printed no in

the first clause, explaining the difference.

XII.]

HIS CONFESSION OF DEFEAT.

199

published by a lawyer, Christopher Saintgerman.1 In it he reverts to the old subject of quarrel; and is obliged to admit that "men thought his 'Confutation' overlong, and therefore tedious to read," while they did not appreciate the point of his arguments, and did not like the sharp, bitter abuse which he had poured upon the translator. This was a sad confession on the part of a champion who had vowed, “I shall leave Tyndale never a dark corner to creep into, able to hide his head in." In fact, More's continuation of the controversy proves that he regarded his first efforts as unsuccessful. What man could do to write down the first English New Testament, he had done with a will; but the translation was not "wounded unto death." Joye's account of the various editions which had in the mean-time been poured into the country will be found on a subsequent page.

1 More also published the "Debellation of Salem and Byzance," in reply to "Salem and Byzance," was named Anne Tyndale.

another work of Christopher Saintgerman. This gentleman's mother

CHAPTER XIII.

TYNDALE'S whole nature was filled with his work, and overmastered by it. It was his meat, for he lived by it, and it was to him "the wine that maketh glad the heart of man." His mind was ever ruminating on it-dwelling on the benefits of it, or refuting the arguments usually paraded against it. The necessity of an English Bible was his dominant idea, which, like Aaron's rod, swallowed up every rival. After doing and daring so much for it himself, his counsel to Fryth, in 1532, was, "ever thrust in, that the Scriptures may be in the mother tongue, and learning set up in the universities."

This expression of an intense desire for the furtherance of sound learning was not peculiar to Tyndale-it had been always associated with intelligent plans of ecclesiastical reformation. Wycliffe's times bore witness to the truth of the statement in a very remarkable form. Even when his followers fell away, and were rewarded by high preferment for their recantation, their love of learning did not always die in their apostasy. Richard Flemmyng, Bishop of Lincoln, under whose episcopal mandate the Reformer's bones were dug up and burned, founded Lincoln College, at Oxford, in 1428. William of Wykeham knew the strength of Wycliffism, and he founded New College in 1379; Waynflete, who had similar experience, founded Magdalene Hall and Magdalene College. Chichele, who had felt that the biblical power of the Lollards could be matched only by similar skill and training, founded All Souls in 1436; Wolsey, who coveted some amount of reform, founded Christ Church; Bishop Foxe, in a similar spirit, founded Corpus