Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. Baker Academic, 2005

This is the second of a two part-review of the book written by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom and published by Baker Academic. Although the book was published nearly six years ago, the issues involved are extremely pertinent to today.

In this second article, we will seek to point out what are believed to be the two main weaknesses of the book. As stated before, it is a well-written and extremely informative review of the relationship between Catholic and Protestants.

Our two main contentions or criticisms of the book deal with the subjects of history and theology.

In the area of history, the writers fail to state clearly two important and pertinent facts. The first omission deals with the development of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution while the second omission is the failure to answer the question as to why there was a reformation in the first place.

Throughout the book the writers encourage the reader who desires more information regarding the Roman Catholic Church and where it stands on doctrinal issues to purchase a copy of the Catholic Catechism and read it carefully. Frequently the authors state that an Evangelical will find much in the Catechism with which he can agree. In one paragraph, Mark Noll stated that while reading the Catechism, he was led to put it down and worship in prayer and thanksgiving because there was so much with which he agreed. Note page 116 where Mr. Noll states this. No one who has an understanding of Church History would necessarily dispute that statement.

However, a study of Church History reveals a pattern of the Roman Church in deviating from the faith over a period of time. Much of what the Church Fathers wrote would be accepted as orthodox today. For example, one would be in agreement with the Nicene Creed and its statements about the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Many Protestants Churches recite the Nicene Creed as part of their liturgy. One also would agree with Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius regarding the sinful nature of man.

However, the further one proceeds on the path of Church history the more he encounters certain doctrines that transformed the Roman Church into a sacramental church. For example, following nearly two hundred years of controversy regarding the nature of the Eucharist, the IV Lateran Council of 1215, under the direction of Pope Innocent III, formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the reviewer’s opinion, this was the time when the Roman Church officially became the Roman Catholic Church. No Biblical evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation was produced by the Council. However, transubstantiation was now an official doctrine of the Church and one was required to believe it or be condemned as a heretic.

The authors of the book are silent when it comes to this divergence of the Roman Catholic Church from the Biblical norm. They appear to be of the opinion that if we can agree with some of the doctrines of the church we should be able to agree with all of its teachings.

A second major historical flaw is the failure to address the question as to why there was a Reformation in the first place. Before one asks the question is the Reformation over, they should query why there was a Reformation in the first place. Throughout the course of the Medieval Period, there were repeated calls for a reform of the church. There were differences of opinion as to who was to undertake the work of reformation and whether it was to be a reform of morals or a reform of both doctrine and morals, but a broad consensus existed on the necessity of reform. Even before Martin Luther there were those who called for a thorough doctrinal reform of the church.

No one truly believes that Martin Luther deliberately set out to reform the Church. However, he was convinced by personal experience that the Church was not teaching the Biblical doctrine of salvation. Martin Luther was not interested as much in the reformation of the Church as he was in the salvation of his own soul. He did everything that the church commanded him to do and yet he never experienced the true forgiveness of sins. He is reportedly to have said if ever there were a monk who through his own efforts could merit heaven, he was that monk. But all of his efforts to gain salvation through what the Church taught did not bring him a clear conscience before God.

However, Luther came to understand that salvation is by faith alone and not by the partaking of the sacraments as the church taught. When reading his life one concludes that he was borne along more by events than a concerted plan of reform.

We have now come to a time when many are asking whether the Reformation was a “tragic mistake.” No one would agree that everything that was said or done in the name of reform was perfect. There were tragic mistakes and blunders. However, such an attitude fails to answer the question as to why so many persons were willing to risk their lives and fortunes to accomplish something that was not needed. Why were people willing to go the stake and suffer so greatly? It certainly must have been for strong convictions. Although there have been and always will be those who have a martyr/s complex, it beggars the imagination to think that all those who suffered did so for so slight a motive. These are the types of questions or reflections that seem to be strangely lacking in a book that purports to provide an answer to a question of such magnitude.

However, there is another failure of the book and that is to deal with the theological issues involved. The Reformation was the time of recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a doctrine of justification, there are two crucial areas in which it differs from the Protestant. The places of disagreement are in what are called the formal and instrumental causes of justification. The formal cause is that which gives to something its quality while the instrumental cause is the means whereby the result is accomplished. The instrumental means of justification according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is baptism and the formal cause is the infusion of God’s righteousness. The result of baptism is that the person is forgiven of original sin and is regenerated or born again. Then he is required to cooperate with this infused righteousness to live a godly life. When he reaches a certain level of sanctity, he is then accepted by God as righteous because he is indeed righteous.

In contrast, the Protestant position regarding justification is that the instrumental cause is faith alone and the formal cause is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the person. God then pronounces the person to be justified solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed.

It is for the above reason that many believe the Roman Catholic Church confuses the doctrine of justification with the doctrine of sanctification. Protestants believe in an infused righteousness for sanctification or growth in holiness but hold exclusively to an imputed righteousness for justification.

It is the repeated failure of the book to deal with these issues that vitiate its effectiveness. While it is true there is much that a Protestant could agree with Catholics about, there can be no agreement regarding the crucial issue of justification. It is simply impossible to reconcile an imputed righteousness with an infused righteousness for justification. Despite the claim of the ECT statement The Gift of Salvation that agreement has been reached regarding the doctrine of justification, this reviewer must register his dissent.

What can be done to resolve this impasse? The critical question is not so much as to whether the Reformation is over but have the doctrinal truths especially regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone entered my heart and soul? Am I truly a Christian according to the teaching of God’s Word? At the end of the day it matters little whether I agree or disagree with the authors of the book on their question but it does matter for eternity whether or not my sins are forgiven and I have experienced Biblical salvation.

Thus the conclusion of this review is not to express an opinion but to encourage people to search the Word of God to be absolutely certain that they are truly saved. The five solas of Christ alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, faith alone, and God’s glory alone are not merely a party slogan but the express teachings of the Word of God on the subject of salvation.

Read Is the Reformation Over? – Part 1

Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. Baker Academic, 2005

Why take the time and effort to review a book that was published nearly six years ago? Events have moved on and there are certainly more current issues that demand our attention. The reason for the review is that Is the Reformation Over? is an extremely important book and the questions that it raises are pertinent today.

The title of the book is worthy of our attention. What do the authors mean when they ask the question concerning the Reformation? Do they mean that the Reformation is over because it has accomplished its objective? Could they possibly mean that the Reformation is over because it has failed? The tone of the book remains rather coy regarding the answer to the question. Perhaps the sub-title of the book can aid us in formulating an answer to the authors’ question. The book is an evaluation of the contemporary Roman Catholicism by two pronounced Evangelicals. We can note that even the subtitle carries an implied question. It has been the glory of Roman Catholicism that the Church is always the same: semper idem. If the Roman Catholic Church is, and always has been, the same, there would be little reason for the qualifying adjective. Although one does not wish to give a final judgment, it appears that the authors believe that both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicals have changed. We will give reasons for this opinion later in the review.

The authors have written the book to chronicle some of the changes that have occurred in Catholic/ Protestant relations over the past years. According to their analysis, the differences in the current situation have been the result of three significant events.

The first is Vatican II that was convened in 1960 by Pope John XXIII. This was the first general council since Vatican I that took place in 1870. There was a new openness about the church and things were questioned that would have seemed improbable just a few years before. This new attitude of openness caught the attention of Protestant observers who attended the sessions. Perhaps the most intriguing thing was that no longer were Protestants considered to be non-Christians. Indeed, they were called “separated brethren.” To be sure, Roman Catholics are of the conviction that Protestant Churches lack the Petrine office that the Lord had instituted while on earth and considered necessary by Roman Catholics to constitute the true Church. To be considered true brethren they would have to be churches united under the Papal office. However, the admission they could be brethren was revolutionary, especially in light of the decree of Unam Sanctum promulgated by Boniface VIII in which he declared that there was no salvation outside of the Roman Church.

Another reason for the difference in the relationship between the churches was the Pontificate of John Paul II. He assumed office in 1985 and proved to be one of the most charismatic individuals who occupied the seat of Saint Peter. Many Evangelicals were captivated by his openness and friendliness toward them.

The third reason for the difference in the climate between Catholics and Protestants was the disintegration of Western Culture. Concerning the disintegration of Western Culture, there was little doubt, especially in Europe. It is not necessary to chronicle all the changes that had occurred but there were signs that Western Civilization was on the verge of collapse. In light of this dire situation, it made no sense for those who held shared values concerning morality and the sacredness of life to fight with one another. The danger was so great that ecclesiastical differences need to be put to one side in order to deal with the more pressing problems.

It is one of the strengths of the book that these changes in attitude are well documented and very few persons would disagree with the authors’ assessment there has been a sea change in how Protestants and Catholics view one another.

The authors then go on to document the changes between Evangelicals and Catholics that have taken place over the nearly fifty years since the convening of Vatican II.

One of the real changes noted by the authors has been a calming of the rhetoric between the two sides. Rather than shrill accusations that speak past one another, there has been open dialogue between the parties to note the differences that still remain. Noll and Nystrom provide as evidence of this new spirit of dialogue the various discussions that have been held between the Catholics and the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Charismatics. Although it appears that only one definitive document between the groups has been reached, that between the Catholics and the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification by faith, the very fact that such discussions were even conducted is a very positive sign.

There has also been a new spirit of co-operation between the parties. The authors tell of groups, including Campus Crusade for Christ and Inter-Varsity, working side by side with Catholic organizations to reach students with the message of the Gospel. They relate the experience of a missionary who went to France to establish an Evangelical Church who, after analyzing the situation, came to the realization that an Evangelical Church was not the pressing need of the people. He concluded that it was better to work with Catholics to strengthen the established Catholic Church than to begin a new church. While much of this evidence of co-operation is given in anecdotal stories of individuals who acted on their own initiative rather than on a formal alliance of Evangelicals and Catholics, such evidence does exist and bolsters the claim of the authors that a new climate of co-operation rather than competition is factual.

The third proof of a change in Protestant /Catholic relations was the establishment of the group known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). This initiative has been the work of Charles Colsen and Richard John Neuhaus. As of the writing of this review, this initiative is still in force and some seven joint statements on issues including justification by faith, the Word of God, the need for holiness, the sanctity of human life and others have been issued.

The Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative has garnered both praise and criticism. Much has been written on this attempt to resolve the differences between the groups and it is impossible to reproduce all the various views. However, it appears that two main criticisms have been leveled against this attempt by critics. The first is, despite the claim to the contrary, doctrinal issues have been blurred in order to reach agreement where none truly exists. The second criticism deals with Ecclesiology or the doctrine of the Church. The discussions have revealed that Evangelicals are very weak when dealing with the doctrine of Ecclesiology. Evangelicalism is, by default and its very nature, reduced to what has been called “mere Christianity” and cannot speak to the germane issues of the doctrine of the Church. This is because Evangelicalism is not a formal association of churches with agreed confessional statements but individuals who are united on the basic issues of how one becomes a Christian. For further elucidation on this point, see the critique by Professor Carl Truman of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, who has written a trenchant review of the book and elucidated the point made above in more detail.

The final evidence put forth by the authors for the changed conditions between Protestants and Catholics emphasizes the number of Evangelicals who have converted to Rome. As a side note, it is interesting that the authors highlight the pilgrimage of Evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church while they say very little about individuals who come the other way.

There have been a number of prominent Evangelicals who have “crossed the Tiber” to Rome. They include Thomas Howard, former teacher at Gordon College and a member of a prominent Evangelical family, Peter Kreeft, and Scott and Kimberly Hawn. The book was published before Francis Beckwith, past President of the Evangelical Theological Society, announced his return to the church of his fathers.

Although the outward circumstances were different for each individual, there are some common factors that drew the person toward the Roman Catholic Church. These factors include the impression that Rome offers more security than Protestantism, the worship and tradition of the Roman Church are more meaningful, and the individuals experience a sense of fulfillment they found sadly lacking in the Evangelical churches. To the reviewer’s knowledge, he has not read of anyone who converted to Rome solely on doctrinal grounds. It seems that those who have returned to Rome are convinced that whatever doctrinal differences may exist between the two communions, they do not present an insuperable obstacle to conversion.

We will continue our analysis of this book in a further article. The reviewer believes that this is a very important book and suggests that it be purchased and read carefully. He would welcome any criticism or correction of errors in the above article. As a disclaimer, he has no interest in “proving” a case or triumphing over any person. However, he remains convinced that the issues between the Churches ultimately deal with one’s relationship with God and can only be settled by appeal to the Word of God and its testimony.

Read Is the Reformation Over? – Part 2

We are going to take a break from reviews of books that deal with the history of the Reformation and the Bible. Rather we will review a book edited by Timothy George entitled J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: the Impact of His Life and Thought and published by Baker Academic in 2009.

The book consists of a series of essays analyzing the life and impact of J. I. Packer on the Evangelical resurgence of the last sixty years. The occasion was the celebration of his eightieth birthday in 2006. In some ways it must be considered a different, if not a strange, book because books of this type are usually not written during the individual’s lifetime in order that a more balanced perspective of the person and his work can be given.

The book itself is a series of essays by contributors who have been associated closely with Dr. Packer and his career. They include Charles Colson, Richard Neuhaus, Alister McGrath, Mark Dever, and others.

When the name of J. I. Packer is mentioned, most people would recognize him as the author of one of the best selling book in recent years. That book is Knowing God and it is nearly impossible to gauge fully its impact since it was published in 1973. It has been used to introduce many to a rare combination of theology and practical application to their understanding. Packer has always striven in his books to write theology for lay people. Although he is certainly capable of writing academic theology, he has been led to write primarily for the non-specialist.

However, to understand the purpose of the book, it is necessary to know somewhat of the life of J. I. Packer. Born in 1926 and educated at Oxford University (DPhil for his work on Richard Baxter) Packer has taught at a number of schools and universities both in England and Canada.

There were three formative influences on his life. The first was his education at Oxford where he studied the classical curriculum majoring in Latin and Greek studies. During that time, although nominally a member of the Anglican Church, Packer came to faith in Christ. In addition, it was at Oxford that Packer came to discover the Puritans through the writings of John Owen, the second major influence on his life. A third influence was the Anglican Church in which Packer sought and obtained ordination.

These influences resulted in two major contributions that Packer has made to the Evangelical cause. The first dealt with the doctrine of Scripture. Packer made his debut as a major author in 1958 with Fundamentalism and the Word of God. This was a robust defense of the doctrine of Scripture and its inerrancy. Over the next decade Packer lent his considerable intellect to the cause of defending Scripture. It has been said that there were four books that were required reading by undergraduate students in British universities during that time. They included Dr. Packer’s books on Scripture and the sovereignty of God and two others by John W. Stott and T. C. Hammond.

Packer also contributed greatly to the revival of Puritan studies during the same period. He was a major impetus behind the Puritan Conference that began at Westminster Chapel in the early 1950’s during the pastorate of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. This revival continues today with the reprinting of many Puritan works and numerous conferences dedicated to their study.

However, despite his contributions to Evangelicalism, Dr. Packer has been involved in controversy. The first occasion came in 1955 when he published a critical article on the Keswick Convention and the Higher Christian life in the Evangelical Quarterly. This produced a minor crisis and nearly sank the periodical because the Keswick Convention included a number of prominent Christian leaders some of whom were Anglicans. The second, which continues to broil, resulted from his split with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones over the question of whether Anglican evangelicals should leave the Anglican Church and unite with Independents to form a new church organization. The third controversy arose over Dr. Packer’s involvement with what came to be known as ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). This controversy continues to the present because the work of Evangelicals and Catholics Together is ongoing. Many are convinced that Dr. Packer has betrayed the Evangelical cause by his participation.

This is not the place to discuss the merits of these controversies as they are still ongoing. Only as one looks back on them will any kind of objective analysis be possible. As a result, it leads back to an observation made previously, why was this particular tribute planned and carried out? Here again, we are on somewhat uncertain ground because only the organizers are capable of answering that question. It is significant that while they mention they wish to honor Dr. Packer for his part in the Evangelical resurgence, they remain silent on the exact reason for the time and occasion.

Some have suggested that the reason for the book was to show support for Packer’s involvement in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement. According to these individuals, this involvement is the result of Packer’s interest in what is called the Great Tradition of Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ as it exists today is divided into three communions: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant. However, this division is not the will of the Lord Who prayed in His Great High Priestly prayer, recorded in John 17, that they all might be one. The Great Tradition seeks to find common ground among the communions and to work toward an agreed outlook if not for organic reunion.

Whatever may have been the reason for the conference, we are faced with the reality that we have the book before us. What are we to make of it? As stated above, it consists of twelve essays on Packer and his work from various viewpoints, followed by a response from Packer himself.

As one may well imagine, it certainly must have been difficult to deliver a critical paper on the work of J. I. Packer with him seated in the audience! So we are not surprised to find that a number of them, e. g. the contributions by Edith Humphrey, Charles Colson, David Neff, and others are quite laudatory. Whether this is because they have truly analyzed his work or because of their friendship with Packer is a question that remains unanswered. The essays by Donald Payne and Paul House go into some depth on Packer’s view of Scripture and his method of theology. In these articles, there is some muted criticism of his method for the proper interpretation of Scripture especially where his method almost assumes the capability of the rational mind to understand Scripture apart from the enlightening ministry of the Holy Spirit.

There are two essays that deal with theological subjects. Mark Dever explores Dr. Packer’s view of the atonement. A number of years ago Packer wrote an article that appeared in the Tyndale Journal on the penal aspect of the atonement that is now considered a minor classic. However, even more known is the essay that he wrote on John Owen’s The Death of Death in Christ. Many people are convinced that this is one of the best defenses of limited or effacacious atonement ever written. There are some who prefer it to Owen’s work itself!

However that may be, the most provocative essay in the book comes from the pen of Dr. Carl Trueman, Academic Dean and Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. His basic thesis is that Dr. Packer should have left the Anglican Church at the call of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in October 1966. He states this, not only for the sake of Dr. Packer personally, but for the well-being of the Evangelical movement itself. If Dr. Packer had done this, in the view of Dr. Trueman, he would have provided a balanced perspective on ecclesiology to counteract the imbalance or indifference of Dr. Lloyd-Jones on the same subject. Also he could have provided more effective theological leadership to the Evangelical movement than it received. Finally, it would have permitted Dr. Packer the opportunity to write an updated comprehensive Systematic Theology textbook that Evangelicalism both lacked and needed. In addition to Dr. Trueman, there are many who believe that Dr. Packer’s failure to write such a book has contributed to the doctrinal weaknesses of Evangelicalism.

The reader must be aware that what is written above is a condensed version of a very complicated situation that needs to be studied with a great amount of discernment. But to summarize the view, and I trust fairly, of Dr. Trueman is that he is convinced that Dr. Packer could, and perhaps should, have provided the Evangelical cause with the leadership that it so desperately needed and failed to receive from Dr. Lloyd-Jones. While Dr. Trueman has great respect for Dr. Lloyd-Jones, he has found him the weakest where Dr. Packer is the strongest: in a comprehensive view of theology including the doctrine of the Church and in a first rate theological mind to counteract the revivalist tendencies of Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

But there is yet more to the story. Dr. Trueman’s essay, while ignored totally in the response given by Dr. Packer to the various essays, has sparked a controversy in itself. Taking issue with Dr. Trueman’s view have been Paul Helm and Iain Murray. Helm’s strictures were written in an irenic manner while he sought to expose what he considered to be the weakness of what Dr. Trueman wrote. However, the response of Iain Murray in the March 2010 issue of the Banner of Truth Magazine has been to accuse Trueman of not having his facts correct, slander, and just being wrong in his interpretation of the situation.

Trueman has answered Murray on the pages of Reformation 21, the ezine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE). So as of this date, this is where the situation remains. It is not often that the responses to essays have provoked more interest than the essays themselves!

What is the value of all this? Hopefully it is more than just one person (Iain Murray) seeking to defend his mentor and hero (Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones) from what he thinks is misguided criticism. There are far deeper issues and those issues deal with the Evangelical cause itself.

Dr. Packer has done wonderful service to the Evangelicalism by his writings on Scripture and the popularization of Puritan doctrine and practice. However, he has caused great puzzlement to many by his involvement in the ECT. It is difficult to reconcile how a theologian of Dr. Packer’s stature can write so cogently on the doctrine of justification by faith by stressing that the formal cause of justification is the imputation of both the active and passive obedience of Christ and yet make common cause with individuals from a church that denies that doctrine by teaching that the formal cause of justification is the infusion of Christ’s righteousness. It is also difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the Evangelical movement when its leaders have not taught a clear doctrine of the church by their failure to maintain consistently that one of the marks of the true Church of Christ is correct doctrine.

It must be remembered that for all the benefits brought by the Reformation, one of its weaknesses was a failure to deal with the doctrine of the church in a definitive manner. Perhaps we would not be facing some of the issues today such as the Seeker-friendly church, the Emergent church, the Federal vision and other problems associated with the doctrine of the church if leaders of the stature of Dr. Packer and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had joined forces to provide adequate teaching and leadership to resolve these issues rather than separating.

J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future does not address these issues directly but they are there beneath the surface. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the book will be to encourage Evangelical leadership to face these issues squarely because they are not going to go away in the near future.

This is the third book written by J. F. Mozley that we are reviewing. However, it was the second that he wrote. It is entitled John Foxe and His Book. The name of the book itself is a clue to the manner in which Mozley writes. The book of course is Acts and Monuments or more popularly known as The Book of Martyrs. Undoubtedly there are few persons who have never heard of the book. However, the opposite would be true regarding the life of the person who compiled it. Perhaps some would know that it was compiled by John Foxe. But who is John Foxe? What do we know about his life? It is probably true to say that very little is known about Foxe himself.

To rescue Foxe from this undeserved anonymity is the purpose of Mozley’s book. Certainly he does not neglect the book itself. Rather he gives us a very clear account of its origin, its publication and subsequent editions. There is probably no other book that accomplished the repudiation of the Roman Church in England as did the Acts and Monuments. However, I believe that a strong case can be made that this was not the original intent of the work. Certainly it possesses an anti-Roman bias but this was because of the intolerance and cruelty imposed on those who disagreed with its teachings. However, Foxe did not limit his disagreement against temporal forms of punishing heresy to the Roman Church. He was totally opposed to any form of temporal punishment against false teaching whether it was practiced by the Roman Church or the Protestant Church.

However, if we are to understand this we must know something of the man himself. Foxe matriculated in 1534 and graduated from Oxford University around four years later because he became master in 1539. There was always one consistent thing about John Foxe and it was his pronounced Protestantism. Indeed, his faithfulness to its teaching cost him his fellowship because it required ordination to hold it. However, to be ordained meant to take the vow of celibacy and Foxe remained unconvinced that this was what the Word of God taught even though the Church had made it a sacrament.

Not only was Foxe a person of integrity he was also known for his unwillingness to seek preferment in the church for the sake of material gain. The case of those who used the religious changes in England under Henry VIII and Edward VI to enrich themselves is not pleasant to read.

There is an account recorded in Acts and Monuments that is revealing of Foxe’s opposition to cruelty. We give it from the book itself:

In mentioning Joan of Kent there occurs to our mind an incident “not unworthy perhaps of the reader’s attention. When the evangelical bishops had decided on her death, there came to John Rogers, who was then divinity lecturer in the great church of Paul’s, a certain friend of his, urging and begging him to use his influence with the archbishop of Canterbury, that at least the life of the wretched woman should be spared, while her error should be punished and repressed as much as possible… When Rogers replied that death must be inflicted, the other said: If the verdict runs that her error and her life shall be taken away together, at least let another kind of death be chosen, answering better to the mildness of the gospel…When Rogers again said that to burn men alive was the least agonizing of all punishments and sufficiently mild, the other hearing these words, which breathed so little care and respect for the agonies of wretched men, in a great fervour of spirit held his friend’s right hand in a firm grasp, and beating it with his own right hand said: – Well, maybe the day will come when you yourself will have your hands full of this same gentle burning. And after that Rogers himself was the next to burn, being the first of the Marian martyrs.

There is another incident recorded of Foxe’s aversion to cruelty. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a group of Dutch Anabaptists were discovered while in an illegal worship service. Foxe wrote a letter to Queen Elizabeth requesting that their lives be spared when five men were condemned to be burned at the stake. After rehearsing his arguments against such a form of punishment he closed with the following words:

This one thing I earnestly beg, that you suffer not the pyres and flames of Smithfield, so long laid to sleep under your blessed auspices, to rekindle now. But if even this may not be granted I vehemently implore you to give us one or two months in which we may try to recover them from their errors, lest their souls also be in peril of eternal ruin.

As it turned out, Foxe was unable to persuade either the Queen or the Council to whom he also address a letter requesting clemency.

However, Foxe’s aversion to cruelty should not be interpreted to mean indifference to the truth of God’s Word. Foxe stood firmly upon the Scriptures as the rule of faith and conduct. He underwent exile for a number of years because of his convictions. After the death of Mary and his return to England, he sided with the Puritans who refused to wear the vestments demanded by Queen Elizabeth. Because of his convictions he never received preferment in the church and was poor for most of his life.

All of these things Mozley reports in great detail. Obviously the account of the composition and publication of the Acts and Monuments is given in great detail. However, it is always taken in the context of the person and character of John Foxe himself.

If we could assign a reason for Foxe’s views of these things, what would it be? Perhaps the key to understanding John Foxe is best illustrated in a commentary that he dedicated to Christopher Foxe. We must remember that Foxe had lived the life of an exile with all its hardships and had been a witness to what had taken place.

There was one thing that Foxe could not reconcile himself to after hearing and observing some of the contentions between the exiles. He simply could not believe that persons who were sharing deprivation and exile could show such bitterness in theological disputations. He had heard of the disputes that had taken place in Frankfurt between two parties of the English church with great heat on both sides. He wrote frankly to Thomas Lever, another exile who had gone from Frankfurt to Geneva. Note what he wrote to him:

I hear (he says) and I have reason to believe the rumour, that you are given to discord and quarrelling, and that you hate your fellow Englishmen who have never harmed you. Have we so few contentions in the world that you must needs add to them? Put off your old bitterness and return to peace.

There is no doubt that John Foxe will always be remembered as the compiler of accounts of martyrdom and violence done in the name of the Lord. It is tragic that many people thus believe that his main interest was in giving accounts of suffering. However, would it not be truer to view Foxe as one who sought to reconcile brethren? Such reconciliation must always be in the truth and never at its expense. Perhaps the best accolade that can be given to John Foxe comes from the lips of our Lord when He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

We owe a great debt to J. F. Mozley for giving this portrait of John Foxe.

This is the second of the three books written by J. F. Mozley. The first, the Life of William Tyndale, was reviewed previously. The title of the second book is Coverdale and His Bibles. While it is quite different from the life of Tyndale it is very valuable.

Before we begin our review of this book, it would be good to state that taken together, these two books give us the history of the translation and printing of the English Bible until the year 1560. It was in that year that the Geneva Bible was first printed. Coverdale and His Bibles takes up the account in 1535, the year that Tyndale was imprisoned.

Even the title of the book Coverdale and His Bibles is somewhat of a misnomer because the work of Coverdale was built on the foundation that Tyndale laid. So the person and work of William Tyndale is never far from the situation.

But what about the work itself? Let us first look at the basic outline of the book. Mozley begins with a biographical sketch of Coverdale’s life and work. In contrast with Tyndale, we could say that the life of Coverdale was rather prosaic. However, that would be unfair to the man because he was willing to endure exile and hardship for the sake of the Gospel. Although he did not die as a martyr as did Tyndale, had it not been for the intervention of the King of Denmark, Coverdale’s life would have ended in the fires of Smithfield during the reign of Mary Tudor.

There were certainly highlights to his life. He has the honor of the first one to print a complete edition of the Bible in English. The fact that it is known as the Coverdale Bible is testimony to his work. There is also good reason to believe that he made some contribution to the Geneva Bible although how important we are unable to say. Certainly he had a high reputation among his peers and was unwilling to capitalize on his record of having printed the complete Bible. He sided with the Puritan faction and refused positions of honor in the English Church under Elizabeth because of his conviction. Perhaps the fact that in later life he was referred to as “Father Coverdale” bears testimony to the respect that he had earned from his generation.

If we are permitted to apply the word “heroic” to summarize the life of William Tyndale and we justly can do so, we have with good reason the right to apply the word “faithful” to the life of Miles Coverdale. In linguistic talent and knowledge of Biblical languages, Tyndale bore the palm. However, in the use of the English language, it is not disrespect to Tyndale to state that Coverdale often proved to be more conversant. Thus we can see in the providence of God that it was Tyndale who showed the way and Coverdale followed and solidified the work.

After giving a brief overview of Coverdale’s life, Mozley sets the scene in a chapter that he calls between Tyndale and Coverdale. Even before Tyndale’s imprisonment, Coverdale had proved to be a valuable assistant. Many are convinced that Coverdale had worked closely with William Tyndale in Hamburg at the home of Mrs. Emerson while the translation work on the books of Moses was completed.

Be that as it may, during the period between Tyndale’s arrest and martyrdom, Coverdale published the first complete English Bible. For the New Testament he used Tyndale’s G.H. edition that is considered to be the most accurate and the last one revised by Tyndale himself. For the books of Moses he made use of Tyndale’s Pentateuch first printed in 1530 and reprinted in 1534 although the only changes were in the book of Genesis. For the remaining parts of the Bible, the historical books from Joshua to Ezra, the poetical books and the Prophets, Coverdale translated them from the German and Latin. In all Coverdale had five sources: William Tyndale (English), Martin Luther (German) and three Latin versions (Vulgate, the Zurich version of 1531 and Paginus of 1528).

For many years there was a controversy as to where the book was printed. For a period of time scholars thought it had been printed in Zurich by Christopher Froschover. Later the cities of Marburg and Cologne in Germany were suggested. Mozley himself favored Cologne and that it had been printed by John Heil (Soter) and Eucharius Hertzhorn (Cervicorn) printers in that city. However, in recent years Antwerp has been favored because the Coverdale Bible contained woodcuts that have been traced to the city.

At times the question has been raised as why Coverdale failed to acknowledge any contribution that Tyndale made. After all, Coverdale used Tyndale’s Pentateuch and New Testament wholesale. However, we must remember that Tyndale was in prison at the time of printing and any mention of his name or his part in the Bible would be injurious to his cause.

After the description of the Coverdale Bible, Mozley deals with the year 1537. That was a significant year because two complete English Bibles were printed. The first was a revision of Coverdale’s own version of 1535 but the second was the so-called Matthew’s Bible edited by John Rogers. Mozley states some interesting things concerning these two Bibles that are not found elsewhere. There is an intriguing question that still awaits a definitive answer. That question concerns which was the first Bible that was permitted by King Henry VIII to circulate freely to the English people. In reality three Bibles vie for that honor: the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Coverdale Bible of 1537, and the Matthew’s Bible. Perhaps that question will never receive a final answer but certainly the first three translators: Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers made contributions to that end.

After the completion of his second Bible and the account of the Matthew’s Bible, Mozley makes reference to Coverdale’s diglot editions of the New Testament in English and Latin of 1538. In reality, there were three. One edition Coverdale disowned because it was so badly printed, another edition was hastily corrected and printed but with another person’s name, and finally an edition printed by a French printer in the latter part of 1538.

What was the purpose of these New Testament diglots? It was to vindicate the accuracy of the translation. Although the New Testament was available in the Greek language, most people were more familiar with the Latin Vulgate. The early translators of the Bible into English were often charged with false translations of critical words. With the New Testament before him in two languages, the discerning reader could see that the translation was faithfully done.

Mozley does an excellent job in describing the authorization and printing of the Great Bible of 1539. Tyndale’s prayer, uttered at his death, that God would open the King of England’s eyes was fulfilled. Not only had Henry VIII permitted the Bible to circulate freely to the people, he required that every church have a Bible of the largest size placed in it both for the reading of the Scripture and other copies to be set up where people could come and read it for themselves or to have it read to them.

The Great Bible was originally scheduled to be printed in France because of the superiority of the French printers. However, the professors of the Sorbonne protested and the work was halted. Coverdale and others managed to recover many of the printed sheets and transferred the printers and the presses to England where the work was completed in 1539. Mozley does an excellent job in describing the events of that time. He also gives a succinct summary of the seven editions of the Great Bible that were printed between the years 1539 and 1541.

For each of the major Bibles that Mozley mentions (Coverdale, Matthew’s, and Great Bible), he gives excellent descriptions by comparing selected verses and sections to note both how it was translated and how it reads. While this may not appear to be very interesting, the opposite is true. It demonstrates how the translators sought for the exact word in English to translate faithfully the source language. It is also a brief overview how many of the words that are familiar to us first came into use.

Mozley also devotes two chapters to the history of the Great Bible during the reign of Henry VIII and the reigns of Edward VI and Mary Tudor. It is an interesting fact of history that while Mary did not permit the Great Bible to be reprinted in her reign, neither did she proscribe people from reading it.

In summary Coverdale and His Bibles is a great book. While it is not possible to claim for it the same sense of history that we encounter in the life of Tyndale, it manifests the same character as does Coverdale himself, faithfulness to history and gratitude to God for the Bible in a language we can read and understand.

This is the review of the first of the three books authored by J. F. Mozley and deals with the life of William Tyndale. When the Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK) published the book in 1937 it was the first major biography of Tyndale that appeared since the work of Robert Demaus in the late 19th century. It was not until 1994 that another major biography of Tyndale was issued. This was the biography written by David Daniell in commemoration of the five hundredth year of his birth. Thus in the span of about a hundred years three major lives of Tyndale were written.

Therefore it has been more than seventy years since Mozley’s life of William Tyndale first saw the light of day. What value is there in reviewing a book of that age? I would submit there are a number of reasons for so doing. The first is found in the statement of Mozley himself. In the preface to the book, we note the following words:

It is full time that a new life of Tyndale were written. Demaus laid a good and true foundation sixty-six years ago, but much knowledge has been gained since then… When I began to study Tyndale for myself two and a half years ago, I speedily discovered the state of the matter. Here is a man who has never yet received his due, whose reputation has been at the mercy of ignorance and partisanship: and so I determined to enter the field.

It is not our intention to review the book chapter by chapter as to duplicate his life. That aim can be better achieved by reading the book itself. Suffice to say that Mozley does a superb job in laying before us the life and labors of Tyndale. The book reads more like a mystery novel except that the individuals are real persons, who make real decisions, and are influenced by real circumstances.

It is the reviewer’s opinion that the value of this biography lies in the words that are quoted above. Mozley, after beginning his study of Tyndale, came to the conclusion that he had never received his due. Just exactly what that does that mean?

Certainly Tyndale had been recognized as the primary translator of the English Bible for a period of time. Of that there was no doubt but such honor had been accorded in a grudging manner with the caveat that this work was done in spite of Tyndale’s flawed character. While no trace of immorality could ever be laid at his feet, authors pictured him with a misanthropic view of life, easily offended, and in a word “touchy.”

The greatest value of Mozley’s life is that it portrays Tyndale as a real person. Here was a man whose great aim in life was to give the English people the Word of God in their own language. He was superbly equipped to do so. He was a graduate of Oxford University where it appears that he was first introduced to the Greek language in his undergraduate days. Evidence points in the direction that he later attended Cambridge University to hone his skill in the language. How he learned the Hebrew language in order to translate the books of the Old Testament remains a mystery to this day. But of his qualifications to translate the Scriptures accurately there is no doubt.

However, not only was Tyndale qualified to translate the Scriptures into English, the necessary Greek texts were available. During his final year at Oxford or first year at Cambridge the first printed Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus was issued from the press of Johannes Froben of Basle in 1516.

If a competent translator and the prerequisite texts were available, what prevented the Bible from being translated into the language of the people? Who could say that the people were in no need of the Scriptures because spiritual ignorance was not rampant? The fault was with the leaders of the English Church. It appears that Tyndale was never able to reconcile in his own mind the fact that Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London, refused his request to translate the Scriptures when he had both the opportunity and responsibility to do so.

In Tyndale’s view, he was the logical person to sponsor and oversee such a project. As Bishop of London, he held the most important position in the English Church after the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was knowledgeable in the Greek language and would later aid Erasmus in editing of Greek texts.

What did Tunstall’s refusal to allow the Bible to be translated mean to William Tyndale? Ultimately it cost Tyndale his life. However, I am not convinced that this was the most important thing to Tyndale. The most important thing to him was Tunstall’s decision to withhold from the English people the Word of Life. In his introduction to the Books of Moses first published in 1530, Tyndale expressed his conviction that it was impossible to establish the people in the Word of God until they were able to read it in their own tongue.

In his book Mozley was able to capture this spirit of Tyndale. Certainly there were elements of anger, disappointment, and perhaps resentment. However, Tyndale refused to give into self-pity. He made the decision that if he could not translate the Bible into English in his homeland, he was willing to go abroad and do it. However, we must also keep in consideration that Tyndale was not only an exile, under British law, he was an outlaw because Bible translation was forbidden under the Constitutions of Oxford enacted in 1408 and still on the statute books of England. The result was that even abroad, Tyndale was not safe. He was a hunted man.

All of these things, Mozley is able to capture and express in a flowing narrative that draws the reader into the situation. Thus we are enabled to see that many of the caricatures of Tyndale as petty and jealous must give way to a man who was willing to hazard his life to accomplish his work.

Mozley also demonstrates this aspect of Tyndale by bringing forth a parade of individuals who formed lasting friendships with Tyndale and always spoke in the highest manner of his character. We think of Henry Monmouth, the London businessman and Merchant Adventurer, in whose house Tyndale lived during his time in London. Thomas Pontyz was willing to risk his life and business interests in a vain attempt to save Tyndale from the fire. In the end Pontyz lost not only his business but also his family because his wife refused to join him in England where he fled after his escape from the Low Country authorities who were seeking to charge him with heresy.

Perhaps the closest friendship that Tyndale enjoyed was with John Frith who died in the flames at Smithfield on July 4, 1533. It is impossible to read the letters that Tyndale wrote to Frith while in the Tower of London and fail to note his concern and interest in his imprisoned brother’s welfare.

Even Tyndale’s controversy with George Joye takes on another dimension when we understand that Tyndale did not believe that he was the only person competent to translate the Word of God. What Tyndale objected to, and who can disagree with him on this, is that Joye had no right to change his translation and print it. Under Tyndale’s name. Joye had every right to translate the Word of God into English but common honestly required him to print it under his own name.

If Mozley is able to give us a portrait of Tyndale as a true human being, he has also succeeded in showing that he was a man of true courage. The story of Tyndale’s betrayal by Henry Philips, his subsequent arrest and imprisonment, and execution are well known and there is no need to rehearse them again.

However, it is the steadfastness and courage of Tyndale during his imprisonment that evokes our respect. Tyndale’s imprisonment, interrogations, trial, and degradation from the priesthood stretched over a period of at least sixteen months. What must it have been like to be in the Vilvorde prison for the period of time as his case dragged on and on?

Yet what do we hear of Tyndale. The snapshots are fleeting but they are signification. We read his letter addressed to the Commissary requesting clothing, lamp, and books but written in such dignity that his desire is for the salvation of the person’s soul. We also hear that the warden of the prison with his family are converted to true faith and declaring that if Tyndale were not a true Christian, they had no means of knowing who might be one. Even the inquisitor-general, Pierre Dufief, confessed that Tyndale was a good, learned, and honorable man. Surely if his enemies can accord him such a testimony, we can join with them.

Finally, his final words on the day of his execution show the main interest of his life. Lord, open the King of England’s eyes. It was the need of the English people to have the Word of God in their own language that was foremost on his mind. Those words were foremost on his mind because they were foremost in his life.

Obtain the life of William Tyndale by Mozley and read it carefully. It has the power to impact one’s life as few books can do.

J. F. Mozley was the author of three books that are foundational to the history and translation of the English Bible. The first was entitled William Tyndale and was written and published in 1937. This was followed in 1940 by his vindication of John Foxe and his book Acts and Monuments. The third and final book dealt with the work of Miles Coverdale, called Coverdale and His Bibles, and was originally published in 1953. As a result Mozley’s writings basically cover the period from the birth of Tyndale until well into the reign of Elizabeth with the death of John Foxe in April 1587. Students of the English Reformation will notice that the publication of his books were not in chronological order as Foxe published his great book in its first edition in 1563 well after the translation work of Miles Coverdale was completed although Coverdale himself did not die until 1569 at the advanced age of eighty-one.

It is the purpose of this article to comment on these books. However there are several things that we can note about each of them. The first deals with the author himself: James F. Mozley. Despite the efforts of the writer of this article, he has been unable to find any additional information regarding Mozley, except what is contained in the books themselves. An internet search has proven to be fruitless in adding to knowledge of his life. The first two books add the degree of Master of Arts to his name on the title pages and his volume on Coverdale adds that he had received the degree of Doctor of Divinity. This would lead to the assumption that he was a clergyman and probably from the Church of England. If any person who reads this article would have additional information about Mozley and his life, the writer would be appreciative if that information would be forwarded to him.

Although the outward details of Mozley’s life and career are hidden from us, there is more than one hint regarding his personality. Although Mozley was an historian, and a very accurate one at that, from time to time he revealed something about himself. For example in the introduction to his work on Tyndale, he remarked that he started his study of his life around two years ago, i.e. 1935. In his book on Foxe he confessed that six years before he had not read one page in Foxe but was led to study his life through his studies on William Tyndale. Finally in Coverdale and His Bible, the final paragraph of the chapter entitled Conclusion he wrote the following words:

I have written this book not only to advance, if I can, the knowledge of history, but as a tribute to men whom, starting from a different standpoint from theirs, I have learnt to revere and admire.

Now it is important to keep in mind that Mozley was an historian as we noted above, but he declared that he was willing to learn from history. He confessed that his starting point was very different from that of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Foxe. But his mind had been altered by his researches on their lives and writings. This brings us to a point of great importance regarding the value of history and especially of ecclesiastical history. History is not just a rehearsing of past events, although true reporting of previous facts is critical. It has the purpose of changing our thinking. We gain a great respect for those who have lived before and the sacrifices they made for our benefit. We should be exceedingly grateful for what they have bequeathed to us. Living today as we do in an age that many have termed ahistorical reading from the works of such authors as Mozley will enable us to gain a true appreciation for what we have received.

Mozley certainly departed from the modern method of writing history. The modern historian writes from the perspective of being above the events recorded. He is required to remain impassive and neutral even when relating issues of life and death. In his defense of John Foxe, Mozley rebuffed such an objective attitude. He asked how it is possible to remain neutral and indifferent when relating the accounts of martyrs who were willing to go to the stake and suffer the most painful of deaths rather than renounce their beliefs. Thus in today’s definition of historian, Mozley would be disqualified because of his partiality and sympathy with Tyndale, Coverdale, and Foxe. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to read the lives of these individuals and their comrades and remain indifferent. In his book on Foxe, Mozley heaped scorn on those “historians” who can remain above the situation and write in their detached and impartial manner.

While it is true that history should produce in us certain responses such as sympathy and gratitude, it can only do that if what is reported is true. The historian must be truthful even when his heroes act in ways that are not truthful. In other words, the historian must present the facts and the persons “warts and all.” This Mozley does thus he cannot be accused of hiding the facts that would be injurious to his case.

This leads us to state that this demonstrates the main reason to read Mozley’s books. He tells a story that we need to hear. He tells his story from research that goes to the very foundation of the facts. When that story is told, and told truthfully, it does produce a great impact on those who read it. It is a story of courage and self denial of those who labored to give the English speaking people the Word of God in their own language. This is the theme of the books on Tyndale and Coverdale. But the story of Foxe is a reminder that while it is a great privilege to have the Word of God, it also will require eternal vigilance. Also Foxe’s book tells of those who were not necessarily the major players on the stage of history but they each contributed their mite in having the truth of God’s Word preserved to coming generations even at the cost of their physical lives.

These three books are well worth reading and reading. It is our desire to review each of these books in turn but in so doing we will follow a chronological order. Thus we will review the life of Tyndale, then Coverdale and finally John Foxe.

I recently had the opportunity to see a film on the life of Sir Thomas More. It was subtitled “A Man for all Seasons.” The film swept the Academy Awards when it was first released over forty years ago. It would be interesting to consider exactly why that subtitle was chosen. It may have been because of More’s varied career as a humanist and social critic, after all he was the author of Utopia, an idealized place that unfortunately does not exist as the word itself implies. Perhaps he was because of his role as a lawyer or a member of the English Parliament. Or even because he served as Lord Chancellor after the fall of Thomas Wolsey from King Henry’s favor because Wolsey failed to secure the Papal annulment of the King’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

Certainly there is much to admire in the character of Sir Thomas More. From what we can learn from history, only Cardinal John Fisher and he were the only prominent persons who refused to consent that Henry’s divorce from Catherine was permissible. Both men paid with their lives for their convictions. When an individual is prepared to pay the ultimate price for his convictions, he certainly merits our respect. This is especially true in the case of More because other prominent individuals including Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer and others demonstrated a less pleasing moral flexibility on the issue.

However, there is another aspect to the character of Sir Thomas More that we wish to discuss in this short essay on his life. It is not for the purpose of denigrating his character but to show another, and unfortunately less attractive, side to his personality.

To do this, we must begin with the religious convictions that More held. At the time of his rise to influence, Henry VIII was King of England and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey combined the offices of Papal Legate and Lord Chancellor. The Church of England was in full communion with the Church of Roman and Popes Leo X, Adrian, and Clement VII were firmly in control.

Thomas More was raised in the church and remained a faithful member of it all throughout his life. He was faithful in attending Mass at his parish church and sang in the choir according to some reports. He was even reported to wear a hair shirt under his clothing to aid in the mortification of his sins. There was no doubt that he considered himself to be a sinner and earnestly sought forgiveness. In his public person, nothing seemed to impede his rise in influence and power and his place in English society appeared secure.

All of this changed, of course, when King Henry VIII sought to divorce his wife and marry Anne Bolyn. Before this time, Henry had proven to be a loyal son of the church and had even authored an attack on Luther’s view of the sacraments for which he received from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith. It was reported that the true author of the King’s tract against Luther was Thomas More himself. In his zeal to defend the Church, More came to have almost a pathological enmity against anyone or anything that could be considered as attacking the church. He was more than a loyal son of the church, he considered himself a defender of the faith. Even the Bishop of London gave More permission to read works against the Church so that he could refute them.

It is not our purpose in this short article to give a complete account of the life of Thomas More but to follow him in his self-designated role to defend the Church and its teachings at any cost. Thus true to his convictions regarding the church, he resigned his position as the Lord Chancellor when he could not agree with Henry’s determination to divorce Catherine of Aragon and break communion with the Church of Rome when the Pope refused to give him a bill of divorce. We will confine our remarks to the controversy that erupted between More and William Tyndale.

It is apparent that early on More had heard of Tyndale and his efforts to translate the Bible. Although More himself was a humanist and capable of translating the Bible into English from the Greek original, he was convinced that it was a mistake to translate the Bible and make it accessible to the lay person. More would only go so far as to permit the New Testament to be printed as individual books and then parceled out to orthodox persons to read. No person would be permitted to own a complete copy of the New Testament in English; rather they would have to be content with individual portions. Exactly what More believed this would accomplish and what the result would be, no one is absolutely sure. However, there remains no doubt that More took a decided dislike to William Tyndale and his work of translation. However, Tyndale was outside of More’s direct control and the only way that More could reach Tyndale would be through the printed page.

Thus More sought to silence Tyndale by attacking him in writing. More penned a confutation against William Tyndale. It is a tedious task to read his diatribe against Tyndale because it was written on the lowest level imaginable. More’s use of invective and coarseness brings little honor to the writer of the Utopia.

Unfortunately Tyndale’s reply to More mirrors More’s book. There was charge and counter-charge and unfortunately the book does not rise above the level of More’s initial charge. More then answered Tyndale in a book that was nearly four times the length of Tyndale’s rebuttal to him. This book does even less honor to More than his initial blast against Tyndale. It is reported to contain nearly one million works, the majority of which were blast and counter-blast. Tyndale did not attempt to reply to this book.

Perhaps there was some justification for Tyndale to reply to More in the manner that he did. Tyndale had forsaken his country, lived as a fugitive and his life was in danger. All of this he did so that the English people could have the Word of God in a language they could understand. More wrote from the security of his home, had a very comfortable lifestyle, demonstrated little or no understanding of Tyndale, and no concern for the plight of the people who were destitute of having God’s Word. It is no wonder that Tyndale would be aggrieved at one who showed contempt regarding his desire to translate the Word of God.

The attitude toward the translation of the Word of God into the English languages brings into sharp relief the differences between the two men. In many ways they are alike. Both were true humanists, both were men of immense moral and physical courage based on firm convictions, and both paid with theirs lives for their convictions.

Yet there was a great difference between the two men. More, from his privileged position in society, was unwilling to trust the “ploughboy” with the Word of God. Perhaps he feared that if the ploughboy read and understood the Scriptures, his beloved Church would be exposed for its failures to teach truly the Word of God. We probably will never know the exact reasons for his behavior.

In contrast, Tyndale hazarded his life so that the ploughboy could have the Word of God in a language he could understand. Because of his confidence in the Scripture, he was convinced that the Church could be reformed of its errors and abuses. At the heart of the differences between the two men were two views of the Word of God. For More, the Word of God was the exclusive property of the Church and the Church could decide who would have access to it. As a result, More was convinced that the Church stood over the Word of God, the institution was the supreme authority in the Christian faith. For Tyndale, the Word of God was the gift of God to the people. It was God’s revelation in human language so that people, even the ploughboys of England, could have a more exact knowledge of God and His salvation than even the priests of the Church. In Tyndale’s estimation, the Word stood over the Church and the Scriptures were the supreme authority in the Christian faith. How thankful we should be for Tyndale and his view of the Word of God!

A book review by Dr. Herbert Samworth of Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, third edition, revised and expanded, Baker Books, 2003

When one reads a review of a book, he frequently meets such words as multum in parvo, a book that belongs in every library, or a book that provides a good starting place. Seldom do books live up to such enthusiastic commendations, but such is not the case for the book under review. How We Got the Bible does indeed justify the use of such words.

The book is the third edition of what can be considered a minor classic. Minor in this case is used because of the relatively few people who are acquainted with it. Originally written to provide a brief and lucid introduction to the process of how the Bible came to us, the third edition improves on that basic purpose. Its two hundred and twenty pages contain a myriad of facts about the formation and transmission of the Scriptures.

Included in the book are chapters that deal with the history of ancient books, the manuscripts of both the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament, canonicity, and other topics of interest. Dr. Lightfoot has brought his book up to date with inclusion of information about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the significance of textual variants of the New Testament, a lucid account of textual criticism, and additional information.

It is important to note that this is a book about the Bible. It does not deal with the message or interpretation of the Biblical message, but how the Word of God has been transmitted to us over the course of centuries. Dr. Lightfoot wears his learning lightly because he possesses the ability to write about such controversial topics as the importance of the Alexandrian manuscripts, the science of textual criticism, and recent English translations in a lucid and straightforward manner.

There are several reasons why this book, in the opinion of the reviewer, is valuable.

The first is that it contains a comprehensive, yet concise, overview of how the Bible was transmitted to us. He begins with the obvious, but often forgotten, fact that the Scriptures originally were given in the Hebrew and Greek languages and they were given in manuscript form. For those who live in the 21st century and are only familiar with the printed texts of Scripture in their vernacular language, this produces a salutary effect. It forces one to begin in the past and work toward the present rather than starting with a popular vernacular version of the Bible and work one’s way into the past.

A second benefit is the ability of Dr. Lightfoot to communicate in understandable English. The study of the origins of the Scripture can be quite technical and it is easy to get bogged down in the complexity of its transmission. Dr. Lightfoot’s arrangement of material provides a good framework to carry us along the process.

A third value to the book is that it does not shirk facing some of the difficult issues. Because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Biblical books and because no one manuscript agrees exactly with another, we must face the difficult question of textual variants to determine the Biblical text. The author marshals his evidence from a variety of sources. He talks about the discoveries of New Testament manuscripts such as the Alexandrian, represented by the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, which were unknown to the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament. He demonstrates convincingly that they aid in the attempt to ascertain the original text and not to distort it. He also shows how the discovery of the Papyri (New Testament texts preserved on papyrus) has made a substantial contribution to the study of the text of the New Testament.

All too often newer translations of the Scriptures into English have engendered more controversy than edification. There are those who claim these new translations compromise the Scriptures by the use of a different text type of the Greek New Testament. A reading of the chapters in Dr. Lightfoot’s book dealing with this subject will go a long way in putting such fears to rest. Textual criticism, when done properly, can only bolster our confidence in God’s sovereign providence over the textual accuracy of His Word. He has promised to preserve it and the historical evidence amply demonstrates this.

We began our review of the book by quoting a number of cant phrases dealing with the value of the book. Hopefully the reader will be satisfied that the book is indeed worthy of such commendations.

As a final note, Dr. Lightfoot joins others with a similar surname in his contribution to the Word of God. In the 17th century, Dr. John Lightfoot was the foremost Hebraist of his day and a member of the Westminster Assembly. Portions of his work on Biblical studies remain in print three hundred and fifty years later. In the 19th century, another Lightfoot, Joseph Barber Lightfoot, authored commentaries on the Pauline epistles that have set a standard for sober interpretation seldom equaled today. It is a joy to add the name of Dr. Neil Lightfoot to the illustrious company of Lightfoots who have made significant contributions to the understanding of God’s Word.

One of the more interesting phenomena of the present day is to note the number of books issued from secular book houses that deal with Biblical themes. The present volume, under review, is no exception. It is entitled God’s Bestseller, authored by Brian Moynahan and published by Saint Martin’s Press. At first blush, the title conveys the idea that it is a book about the Bible but we get the true gist of the book by its subtitle: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Writing of the English Bible. A story of martyrdom and betrayal.

Thus, it is a book that deals with the translation and printing of the English Bible carried out by William Tyndale. However, the real story of the book is the account of the betrayal of Tyndale and his death by strangulation and burning in October 1536. It is a fascinating read and one can learn much from its content.

Moynahan sets the book in its proper context by recounting the history of the first translation of the Bible into the English language through the work of John Wyclif. He relates that after the death of Wyclif in 1384 as an orthodox member of the Church of England, the English clergy banned vernacular translations under the Constitutions of Oxford of 1408. Wyclif himself was declared a heretic by the Council of Constance that met in the years 1414-18 in the German city of the same name. Finally, in 1428, on the express orders of Pope Martin V, Wyclif’s bones were disinterred, his skeleton chained to a post and burned. This penalty could be executed on the body of a dead person because the penalty for heresy could be inflicted even after the death of the individual.

However, how could this penalty for heresy be executed at all? Moynahan tells in vivid detail that even before the decision to ban vernacular translations of the Bible, a statute for the burning of heretics had been enacted in 1401. The first person to suffer death by burning in England was a Lollard, or follower of Wyclif, named William Sawtry. The enactment in England of the civil punishment of heresy had its roots in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 convened under Pope Innocent III. That council decreed that heresy could be punished by the civil authorities and the highest punishment was death by fire. Heresy was considered so terrible that the penalty could be inflicted beyond the grave as we noticed above.

This is the context for the telling again of the history of the English Bible. However, Moynahan is not only interested in the recounting of Tyndale’s activities in translating and printing the Bible which he does in a straightfordward and compelling manner, he looks behind the scenes to discover those who were plotting the death of Tyndale.

It is important to remember that heresy was being prosecuted with a vengeance during the time that Tyndale was abroad and involved in translation work. A number of notable persons including Thomas Bilney, Thomas Hitton, Richard Byfield, and Richard Bainham had been convicted of heresy and sent to the stake. Perhaps the most notable person sentenced to death was John Frith, a friend and co-worker of Tyndale who was burnt on July 4, 1533. His death was a cause celebre because he had been one of the Cambridge students chosen by Thomas Wolsey, Lord Chancellor and Papal Legate, as one of the first scholars of Cardinal College established by Wolsey at Oxford in 1525. Many attempts were made to save Frith but when he put into writing his rejection that the Eucharist was the true body and blood of the Lord, his fate was sealed.

Behind the deaths of Frith, Bainham, and Bayfield was the person who replaced Wolsey as Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More. Moynahan rehearses the life and career of More, but perhaps he does his best work in showing aspects of More’s character that belied the urbane author of the Utopia. More was nothing if he was not a fanatic for the preservation of the old religion. He detested heresy and heretics with a malice that is difficult to reconcile with the familiar irenic descriptions of his character.

While More was persecuting heretics in England, he was also engaged in a malicious dialogue with William Tyndale on the continent. More attacked Tyndale with a savagery that nearly defies description. There was almost a pathological enmity that More bore toward anyone who could even be remotely suspected of holding heretical ideas. However, Tyndale was not merely suspected of harboring heretical ideas, he had expounded them in his book The Wicked Mammon, an exposition of the doctrine of justification by faith.

However, the supreme error of Tyndale, according to More, was to translate the Bible into the English language. We must keep in mind that the Constitutions of Oxford that forbid such vernacular translations were still on the statute books and thus his translation was illegal.

Even as More was engaged in his war of words with Tyndale, attempts were in process to bring Tyndale back to England under a safe conduct. Thomas Cromwell engaged Stephen Vaughn to contact Tyndale and persuade him to return. In the event, Tyndale said that he was willing to come back if King Henry VIII would permit the Scriptures to circulate freely. This the King was not willing to promise and as a result the negotiations failed.

At this point someone made a decision to employ an individual by the name of Henry Philips to go to Antwerp, befriend William Tyndale, and betray him. Philips, who is one of the most unsavory characters in human history, agreed to do this. He was in deep financial straits because he had gambled away monies entrusted to him by his father to settle a debt.

The question that has engaged historians over the years has been to identify the person who employed Henry Philips to betray Tyndale. Several persons have been suggested in addition to Sir Thomas More. They include King Henry VIII himself due to his frustration of persuading Tyndale to return to England. Another individual whose name figures prominently in the drama was John Stokesley, the Bishop of London who replaced Cuthbert Tunstall when he was translated to the See of Durham. Stokesley, who now held one of the most powerful posts in the Church of England, was inexorable in his persecution of those whom he suspected of heresy. Still another person who has been included among the possible employers of Philips was Steven Gardiner, the Bishop of Winchester who also was noted for his cruel treatment of those suspected of heretical tendencies.

However, Moynihan dismisses Henry VIII, Stokesley, and Gardiner as being responsible for the hiring of Henry Philips. He seeks to prove beyond any doubt that only Thomas More had both the animosity and means to employ Philips. Moynahan lays out a strong case to substantiate his claim.

We will not rehearse all the details of Philips’ actions. It is a sordid tale of one who was willing to do anything for the sake of gain. However, coupled with this avarice was a deep detestation of Tyndale. There would not seem to be any reason why Philips should bear such malice to a fellow human being but it appears that such was the case with him. It was not only that Philips betrayed Tyndale after Tyndale graciously accepted his offer of friendship, but his subsequent actions as listening in, although out of sight, at the examinations of Tyndale, his accusation of Thomas Ponytz who labored unceasingly and, unfortunately unavailing, to free Tyndale, and other actions reveal him to have been a person of deep seated malice toward William Tyndale.

Although this lies outside of the scope of the story and Monahan does not deal with it in detail, perhaps the reason why Philips bore such a deep seated malice to Tyndale was because Tyndale was everything that Philips was not. Whatever one may think of William Tyndale, the Inquisitor-General of the Low Countries called Tyndale a good, learned and pious man. Such could never have been spoken of Philips; the epithet of Judas is probably the most accurate description of him.

Moynihan follows the story to the end dealing with Tyndale’s betrayal, imprisonment, and martyrdom in October 1536. If indeed Sir Thomas More was the individual responsible for the betrayal of Tyndale, his triumph was short-lived. More himself died in the same year as a traitor to England because of his refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Anne Bolyn as Henry’s wife and the refusal to acknowledge Henry as the Supreme Head of the English Church. Certainly he died for bravely for his beliefs. However, if he were indeed the ultimate betrayer of Tyndale, it leaves a stain on his character that cannot be effaced. More did much for English literature when he penned Utopia but Tyndale gave the English people the Word of God in their own language. Perhaps, this as much as anything highlights the differences between the two men.