Reformation disputations and polemical exchanges are an invaluable source for early modern historians and for Christian theologians, both Protestant and Catholic. For historians, disputations such as the Marburg Colloquy and the Leipzig Disputation and polemical exchanges such as those between Sadoleto and Calvin and between Tyndale and More clearly present the divergence of opinion and the evolution of doctrines in question which establish the context in which sixteenth-century Europeans lived and understood themselves. For Protestant and Catholic theologians, Reformation disputations and polemical exchanges are excellent sources for the ongoing dispute over true Christian doctrine, for they present the most learned and committed adherents to respective theological positions marshaling their best arguments in support of their positions. The Thomas More-William Tyndale polemical exchange remains an important historical source and an under-utilized theological source. We will here consider the historical context of the debate, then consider the relative strength of the two positions.

In the early years of the Protestant Reformation, William Tyndale (1494-1536), a Lutheran convert, left England to work on his English translation of the New Testament, which was first published in 1526 (Pineas). The translation was banned in England, primarily because it replaced Vulgate wordings with wordings more favorable Protestant doctrine. For example, Tyndale replaced church with congregation, priest with elder, charity with love, grace with favor, confession with knowledge, and penance with repentance (Tyndale 13-22). Tyndales New Testament was one of numerous Protestant writings which were pouring into England from the continent. In an attempt to eliminate the heretical books, Archbishop Warham instituted house-to-house searches for any heretical literature. At Oxford, the rooms of students as well as faculty were searched for Protestant books (Pineas). Despite this measure, the steady flow of heretical writings into England continued to alarm the English hierarchy. In 1528, the Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstal, wrote a letter to Sir Thomas More (1477-1534), Lord Chancellor of England, urging him to combat the heretics. Tunstal wrote to More,

the Church of God throughout Germany has become ridden with heretics. During this period certain sons of iniquity have been discovered who are trying to infiltrate this country of ours with the old damnable heresy of Wyclif as well as its foster child, the Lutheran heresy. . . . [Y]ou cannot spend your leisure hours . . . better than in composing in our own language such books as may show to simple and unlearned men the cunning malice of the heretics, and fortify them against those impious subverters of the church" (More 8:1137 and Greene 21).

 

More accepted Tunstals invitation, was granted permission to read the heretics works (such as Tyndales The Obedience of a Christian Man and his New Testament), and proceeded to write his Dialogue Concerning Heresies, which was published in June 1529. More had written anti-Protestant polemics before, for example his Latin treatise against Luther under the pseudonym of Rosseus in 1523, but his Dialogue was his first polemic written in the vernacular for a popular audience. That the Catholic hierarchy was willing to commission a vernacular polemic is indicative of the extremely widespread distribution of heretical books, especially Tyndales New Testament (More 8:1163). The Catholic hierarchy usually preferred not to respond to heretics on a popular level, as this would only confuse and endanger uneducated laypeople who lacked the tools necessary to adequately consider complex theological debates. Since the Catholic Church did respond by commissioning More for the task, it can only be because Tunstal deemed it less dangerous for laypeople to consider the Lutheran-Catholic debate than for them not to hear only suspicious rumors and arguments from the Lutheran side.

In 1531, Tyndales published a response to More, An Answer to Sir Thomas Mores Dialogue. In his Answer, Tyndale presented his doctrine and a point-by-point reply to the four books of Mores Dialogue. More replied back to Tyndale with a series of eight books together comprising The Confutation of Tyndales Answer, the first of which was published in 1532. Mores Confutation, 1034 pages in length, is a more-than-adequate response to Tyndales comparatively meager 212 pages. More responds to each of Tyndales arguments, typically using each as an occasion for making several tangentially-related points, so that the Confutation is needlessly long and repetitive. However, More never intended for most readers to read his entire work, but rather, as Louis Martz argues, "More has composed here a compendium of essays in confutation, giving each essay a certain completeness of its own" (Martz 31-32). More himself makes this point, explaining, "I have taken the more pain upon every chapter, to the intent that [readers] shall not need to read over any chapter but one, and that it shall not force greatly which one throughout all the book" (More 8:9-10). At any rate, both Tyndale and More were scholarly apologists for their respective beliefs and finally martyrs for these beliefs, so it is hard to imagine two better candidates for a Protestant-Catholic theological disputation.

The Reformation raised numerous questions about Christian practice and belief, but perhaps none more important than epistemology. In a Christendom suddenly divided into divers competing groups claiming to represent true Christianity, the question many people asked was, How can we know which of these claims is really true? An enduring legacy of the Reformation and the subsequent religious wars in the Western world has been religious pluralism, giving way to epistemological relativism. The assumption is now widespread that disputation and epistemology are useless attempts to ground knowledge on foundations which do not exist. Within the scope of Reformation thought and Christian theology, the existence of a revelatory personal God is universally assumed, and it will be assumed for the purposes of this paper. With this metaphysical starting point, we will consider Tyndales and Mores arguments from the Answer and the Confutation in order to re-evaluate the claim that there can be no adjudication of Christian truth.

Many, if not all, Reformation historians agree that sola scriptura and sola fide were the two crucial theological controversies of the Reformation. Sola fide disputations in most cases reduced to the questions of authority and epistemology (appeals to the authority of Church tradition for the interpretation of passages in question, appeals to the self-interpretive authority of scripture, and appeals to to interpretive abilities God grants to the elect alone), which are therefore probably the very most fundamental Reformation disputes of all. Indeed, the primary point in debate between More and Tyndale is whether the scripture alone (Tyndale) or the Catholic Church (More) is the final arbiter and authority of Christian faith and practice, and how we are to know which of the two is the true authority. We will consider the More-Tyndale dispute in four parts. First, we will examine and assess Tyndales position of scriptural authority and Mores critiques of this authority. Second, we will consider and evaluate Tyndales two epistemologies, historical miraculous confirmation and feeling faith, and Mores critiques of these epistemologies. Third, we will study and assess Mores position of Church authority and Tyndales critiques of that authority. Finally, we will consider and compare Mores epistemology of continuous miraculous confirmation and Tyndales critique of that epistemology. Because both More and Tyndale accepted scripture, they quoted it freely in their positive epistemological arguments, resulting in the appearance of many circular arguments. I have rearranged the arguments to avoid this, so that scripture is used only in the negative arguments or critiques, i.e. in trying to show that the opponents epistemology involves contradictions with scripture, which the authority and epistemology were supposed to include in a self-consistent fashion.

Part I: Tyndales Authority: Scripture Alone

Tyndale, like most Protestants, advocated Sola scriptura, i.e. the authority of the written biblical texts alone, as the sole sufficient criterion for matters of Christian belief and practice. According to Tyndale, Christs apostles left nothing "unwritten that is of necessity to be believed" (Tyndale 8). Thus, God delivered an authoritative source of doctrine unto humankind in a final revelatory gesture through the New Testament.

Mores critique begins with an attempt to show that scripture itself undermines sola scriptura by testifying to Church authority, to the unwritten word, and to progressive revelation. As More and Tyndale both realize, it is crucial to decide whether or not the apostles left anything necessary to believe unwritten. More argues that Tyndale must prove this point from scripture, since his case depends on it and he is advancing scripture as the single authority. In his Answer, Tyndale failed to prove this by scripture. More strengthens his argument by claiming that not only does scripture not promise that there is nothing outside it necessary to believe, but scripture even indicates that there are matters outside scripture necessary to believe. Mores strongest verse is 2 Thes. 2:14: "Observe ye my precepts which I have given you, either by word or writing." Here, Paul teaches Christians in Thessolonica to observe his unwritten teachings just as much as his written traditions. According to Tyndale, Paul taught by mouth what is contained in his epistles, but this is an arbitrary assertion, as Pineas observes. More also cites 1 Cor. 11:34: "I will order the remnant when I come myself." Paul gives instructions concerning the Eucharist, then indicates that there is more necessary to practice than he has written, which he will explain to them later. Tyndale in response asserts that these unwritten matters were not necessary to salvation (Tyndale 258). However, the unwritten matters might well have been prescriptions about the meaning and consecration of the Eucharist, which was a matter of salvation hotly contested between Protestants and Catholics. In any case, the first verse is the more convincing. Additionally, More quotes John 16:12-13: "I have more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all things and lead you into every truth." More argues from this verse that scripture points to an ongoing revelation of matters necessary to believe which there is no scriptural reason to believe ended with the apostles. Tyndale does not respond. It seems possible that Christ was referring to individual spiritual growth, but this seems unlikely. More also quotes a related passage, John 14:26: "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." In the lack of any scriptural directives limiting this teaching to the apostles, this verse seems to indicate that Christs revelation was not delivered in an absolutely final form, and that nothing new will happen till doomsday, as Tyndale claims. Tyndale replies, "Nay, that text [John 14] will not prove it" (Tyndale 135), then merely restates his position that everything necessary to believe was authentically received in written form. It seems Tyndale cannot provide any good reply. So, Mores first, third, and fourth verses successfully undermine sola scriptura.

Next, More cites scripture to show that scripture presents the Church rather than itself as the source of truth. More quotes 1 Tim. 3:15: "The church is the pillar and strength of the truth." Tyndale does not respond to this verse, which indeed goes very directly against his position. Next, More quotes Matt. 28:18-20: "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them . . . and teaching them. . . . I shall be with you all days unto the end of the world." More points out that Jesus instructed his disciples to teach, not to write. Further, More refers to Luke 10:16: "He that heareth you heareth me" and Matt. 18:17: "If any man heareth not the church, take him for heathen" to argue that therefore Christ set up his Church as the authority of Christian teaching. Tyndale responds to these passages, stating, "I would fain know in what figure that syllogism is made. Christs disciples taught Christs doctrine confirming it with miracles. . . even so must the church, that I will believe, shew a miracle, or bring authentic scripture that is come from the apostles, which confirmed it with miracles" (Tyndale 100). Tyndale misses the point, for the miracles which the apostles performed might have certified unwritten teachings, too. The issue is whether or not those verses indicate that Christ instituted the church as authority rather than scripture, and this point Mores argument succeeds in making. Next, More quotes a pronouncement of the Jerusalem Counsel in Acts 15:28: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ." Here, More argues, is scriptural evidence that the church in apostolic times understood the Holy Spirit as guiding it in an unwritten way. Again, Tyndale does not respond. Finally, More refers to Matt. 16:18: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." More cites this verse as scriptural evidence that Christs church was founded upon a person rather than a text, and that that person was the first of the papal succession. Tyndale interprets the rock to mean Peters faith (Tyndale 31), but this interpretation is strained since the Greek word for Peter and rock are the same. Tyndale also contests that several early fathers did not interpret Matt. 16 in terms of the papacy (Tyndale 132), but More replies reasonably that the Greek church did not officially and collectively recognize the primacy of the Roman see for several centuries (More 8:132). When More claimed in his Dialogue that Protestants ought to accept the unwritten word as well as the written word from the Church, Tyndale replies that "when I have read the scripture, and find not their doctrine there, nor depend thereof, I do not give so great credence unto their other doctrine, as unto scripture" (Tyndale 137). However, More demonstrates that scripture does contain the Catholic doctrine of church authority, and does indicate that there are unwritten matters outside scripture which are necessary to believe.

Next, More leaves scripture to argue that sola scriptura is an inadequate authority because of interpretational difficulties. More writes,

For though the scripture be true in itself: yet since it is not so plain but that many great difficulties arise thereupon, in which [Tyndale], which upon the study thereof hath bestowed many years, may perceive the true part from the false: yet unto the unlearned it shall be likely full often, that in such disputations the false part may seem truest (More 8:270).

 

More urges his readers to imagine uneducated Christians listening to a disputation between an educated heretic and an orthodox teacher and then trying to decide which spoke truly. If they had believed in the church authority, with its clear teachings, they would not be swayed by the heretic, but if they were taught sola scriptura, with all the ambiguities and difficulties of the scripture as their authority, they would probably be confused and their faith undermined. Conversely, Tyndale holds that the scripture is clearly intelligible. More points out that Tyndales view suggests (implausibly) that Tyndale and immediate associates alone have the ability to interpret soundly. More writes,

the question lyeth between us, not upon Gods word but upon right understanding thereof, wherein while all the old holy doctors be quite against them, we say now to Tyndale of that reason we may not believe him. For in these points wherein we vary . . . either the scripture is plain and easy to perceive, or difficult and hard to understand. If it be plain and easy: we cannot think but that among so many of the old, holy, wise, and well-learned doctors, some one at the least in all this long while should have been as able to perceive it as Luther and [Tyndale] now do suddenly. And on the other side if he say that in that point the scripture is dark and hard: then may we with reason think that Luther and [Tyndale] and friar Huskyn too, may as well misunderstand it now, as all those holy, wise, well-learned saints all these fifteen hundred years. So that yet again we be come to the point, that Tyndale if in his doctrine depending upon the exposition of scripture he looks to be believed . . . against the doctrine of all those olde holy doctors . . . he must needs do miracles as they did, or else must Luther or friar Huskyn or some one of their fellow at least" (More 8:250).

 

In this passage, More argues well that the Protestants interpretive claims, viewed against centuries of learned, pious fathers, are dubious. When Tyndale responds that Mores centuries of holy men amount to nothing more than prelates without obedience to God or man (Tyndale 115), his claim is either clearly false if by obedience he means piety, or else trivial if by obedience he means agreement with Tyndales doctrine, for that is precisely the point in question. Additionally, More argues that scripture itself testifies to its unclarity in 2 Peter 3:16: "[St. Pauls] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Tyndale replies, "I say, it is impossible to understand either Peter or Paul, or aught in all the scripture, for . . . whosoever hath not the law of God written on his heart" (Tyndale 169). This subjectivist argument does get around the difficulties above, but it seems quite dubious, given the already proliferating Protestant sects with their divergent, Spirit-led interpretations of scripture (Tyndale and Luther even disagreed over infant baptism). So, Mores argument that sola scriptura is an inadequate authority is quite decisive, and Tyndales defenses very weak.

Mores third major argument against sola scriptura is that given the miracles in the Catholic church, it is implausible that God would provide no miracles for Tyndale and his associates as a sign of their distinctive truth. More writes, "the miracles wrought in Christs church clearly reprove all the false faith that [Tyndale] and his master, and all their whole hundred sects that are their offspring, teach" (More 8:243). In other words, it seems that sola scriptura, alleged by Protestants with no miracles, is an unlikely authority when compared with the Catholic church, attested by miracles. Tyndale responds to this argument by crediting the Catholic miracles to the devil and by asserting that the Reformers are bringing no new learning, so they need not present miracles: "[We] show no miracles . . . neither ought [we], inasmuch as [we] bring no new learning, nor aught save the scripture, which is already received and confirmed with miracles"; and "And when [More] saith, лGod sheweth no miracles for the doctors of the heretics: No more he needeth not; for all they preach is in the scripture, confirmed with miracles and received many hundred years ago" (Tyndale 104; 129). However, this response does not explain why God seems to be leading the world astray by allowing miracles in the Catholic Church to go completely unchallenged (so unlike his action in Exodus, where he gives Moses superior miracles that surpass the false miracles of the sorcerers). The strength of this argument depends, of course, on ones beliefs about the credibility of the miracles More alleges. We will consider this question in greater detail later, but for the present, Mores earlier arguments from scripture and from the unclarity of scripture suffice to decisively defeat sola scriptura.

Given this, it is not necessary that we consider Tyndales epistemology in order to conclude that his theology is fundamentally flawed. Nevertheless, we will consider his epistemology and Mores critiques anyway, in order to determine to what extent Tyndales theology might be salvaged.

Part II: Tyndales Epistemologies: Historical Miraculous Confirmation and Feeling Faith

Tyndale is not entirely clear about his epistemology. At times, he argues that we can know the authority of the teachings of scripture by the miraculous confirmation of Christs and the apostles preaching long ago. At other times, he states very clearly, that we know the authority of scripture only by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, what he calls "feeling faith." We will consider each of the two epistemologies in turn.

First, Tyndale presents an epistemology of historical miraculous confirmation. He writes, for example,

true miracles, that confounded the false, gave authority unto the true scripture. And thereby have we ever since judged all other books and doctrine. . . . For the first church taught nought but that they confirmed it with miracles, which could not be done but of God, till the scripture was authentically received (Tyndale 135-36).

 

Tyndale adds, "We bring Gods testament, confirmed with miracles, for all that we do; and ye ought to require no more of us" (Tyndale 128).

Mores first move is to marshal scriptural evidence against Tyndales historical miraculous confirmation epistemology. More writes, "For as our own savior saith himself: If I had nor come and wrought works such as no man else had done, they had been without sin [John 15:24]" (More 8:247). As More explains, Jesus claims that his audience would not be guilty for their unbelief had they not directly seen his unique miracles; therefore, by inference, subsequent people would not be guilty of unbelief if they did not see miracles (8:242-43). Tyndale does not reply to this point, and it seems to be a fairly valid inference. It might be contested that the criterion for guilt in other cases ought to be seeing something spiritual which is unique (such as historical claims about a miraculous resurrection), but not necessarily miraculous itself, but this interpretation is a strain.

Mores second argument against Tyndales epistemology of historical miraculous confirmation is that the historical testimony of the Bible to miracles is not true a priori. The Church presents the Bible as an accurate historical record of miracles confirming apostolic teaching, but that does not prove to people hundreds of years later that these events actually occurred. More writes,

they which from time to time come into this world, newborn first of their fleshly father and mother, and after of god and their mother holy church by the water and the spirit, should be sure that their said mother the church is Christs apostle and teacheth them the true doctrine, and neither deceiveth them with false scripture, as doth the congregation of Turks, nor with false traditions, as do the synagogues of Jews, nor with false expositions as do the false churches of heretics (More 8:245).

 

More argues here that anyone born after the apostles could not be sure that the scripture which records the miracles confirming Christian doctrine were true, much less have certainty about the alleged traditions and interpretations of that text. More makes the same point elsewhere, stating that it will not do to allege the apostles miracles since Turks and pagans would not accept the Bible as authentic scripture (More 8:266). Tyndale never replies to this objection, and most of what he writes suggests he is not aware of the circularity in his thinking. For example, Tyndale uses the objection of the Turks and Jews against More to suggest that Catholic tradition has no epistemic superiority over Jewish and Islamic traditions; yet he never exhibits any awareness that the same objection can be made against the Christian scripture vis--vis the Talmud and the Quran. Another instance in which Tyndales circular reasoning is particularly blatant is: "we must refer our causes to authentic scripture, received in old time, and confirmed with miracles . . . [for example, by] the patriarchs [who] were full of miracles, as ye may see in the bible" (Tyndale 133). Tyndale assumes the reliability of the Bible, in order to prove the miracles which are to certify the reliability of the Bible. It seems that an epistemology based on historical testimony can only throw Tyndale back into the lap of the Catholic church.

Mores third argument develops this last point. He argues that the church which presents its witness to the scriptures origin and content must be a known church. More writes,

[T]aking away the credence from the catholic known church (for no other church unknown can be heard, and all other known churches be false, or else let Tyndale, as I have often said, tell me which of them all is the true and why we should believe him) . . . [means that] there can be no thing sure but all things uncertain, both traditions of the apostles, expositions of scripture, and the very scripture itself, too (More 8:379).

 

If Tyndales scriptural authority is to be known to anyone in the post-apostolic era, that knowledge must rely upon the testimony of a knowable (i.e. empirical), historical community or organization enduring in time. Since Tyndales historical miracle epistemology cannot distinguish any one church from another, he undermines the certainty of scripture itself. It is to this end that More so often quotes Augustine: "I would not have believed the gospel unless I had been moved to by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Contra Epistolam Manichaei). It seems that More is correct in pointing out the necessity of a known church. Tyndales vague and never-defined term "authentically received" presumably refers to the canonization process, but this presupposes a known church which receives the scripture and recognizes its authority. Moreover, given Tyndales super-negative view of the Church which preserved the Biblical texts, it seems surprising that he would accept them as accurate (notwithstanding that he studied texts which were quite old). He asserts at one point that "I see again (which is no small miracle), that the merciful care of God to keep the scripture to be a testimony to his elect is so great" (Tyndale 138), which is a bare assertion, with no evidence that God preserved the scripture in the time between the autographs and the earliest manuscripts he studied. Tyndale does not meet this challenge to his historical miraculous confirmation epistemology squarely, but introduces his second epistemology in response to Mores third argument (Tyndale 50f).

Since Mores arguments against Tyndales sola scriptura autority and historical miraculous confirmation epistemology are decisive, feeling faith is Tyndales last attempt to salvage any part his theology. According to Tyndale, there are two types of faith, historical faith (or story faith) and feeling faith. Historical faith is concerned with belief in bare historical facts, the kind of faith which the devil, the Pope, and More have in common. Feeling faith, on the other hand, "is none opinion; but a sure feeling, and therefore ever fruitful. Neither hangeth it on the honesty of the preacher, but of the power of God, and of the Spirit" (Tyndale 51). Tyndale writes, "Now, what is faith, save a spiritual light of understanding, and an inward knowledge or feeling of mercy" (Tyndale 198). Tyndale draws an analogy: by historical faith I believe when I am told the fire is hot, but by feeling faith, I know incontrovertibly that the fire is hot when I experience it directly. Even so, when I feel the forgiveness of God, and his spiritual regeneration of me, I know it directly and incontrovertibly (Tyndale 51). Tyndale summarizes feeling faith:

[W]hen thou art asked why thou believest that thou shall be saved through Christ, and of such like principles of our faith; answer, Thou [knowest] and feelest that it is true. And when he asketh, How thou knowest that it is true; answer, Because it is written in thine heart. And if he ask who wrote it; answer, The Spirit of God. And if he ask how thou camest first by it; tell him whether by reading in books or by hearing it preached, as by an outward instrument, but that inwardly thou wast taught by the Spirit of God. . . . [T]hou believest . . . only because thou hast heard it of the Spirit of God, and read it in thine heart" (55).

 

Because of his sola fide beliefs, epistemology is something of a misconceived enterprise altogether. According to Tyndale, "the Spirit of God teacheth his children to believe; and the devil bindeth his children, and keepeth them in unbelief, and maketh them consent unto lies, and think good evil, and evil good" (Tyndale 139). In this worldview, human free will, at least with respect to salvation, is non-existent, and so the discussion of how one knows religious truth, a discussion which presupposes human choice in matters of belief, simply misunderstands the reality of double-predestination.

Critiquing such a highly subjectivist epistemology is difficult. At first, More merely mocks Tyndales view. He imagines Tyndale as a missionary, saying,

O all you Jews and all you Turks too, and all ye Saracens, hearken unto me, and give credence unto me and believe me, that these books be the very scripture of God, but believe it never the rather though all the known catholic church says so . . . But I tell you whom ye shall believe. I say ye shall believe me, and I shall tell you a good cause why. For I have a feeling faith. For whatsoever I tell you, God hath himself so written it in mine heart, that I feel it to be true. And therefore this is a plain evident cause why you should believe me. Lo when Tyndale would tell them this tale they could not you know well laugh thereat, for it could not be but the feeling faith of his false heart they must need feel at their own fingertips (More 8:770-71).

 

While this rejoinder is amusing and probably was an effective polemic, Mores story does not really address Tyndales argument. Tyndale could well respond, Among those Turks and Jews might be some whom God had predestined and whom God would grant feeling faith; and the only reason you find this amusing is that God has not elected you for feeling faith. More does make several other critiques which are more to the point. First, if only the elect can be saved and receive feeling faith, why is Tyndale bothering writing books? (More 8:775). This seems a good point, but Tyndale could counter that he does so because scripture commands it (e.g. 1 Peter 3:15). Second, More asks,

How knoweth Tyndale that none of all these that hath been adversaries to his doctrine [Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Cyprian, Gregory, etc.], that is to say, of all good men that ever were in Christendom since Christ was born unto Tyndales time, was born again or newly created with the spirit of God? (More 8:47).

 

Here, More attempts to reduce Tyndales feeling faith to absurdity. It seems implausible that God did not elect any among all the great fathers and doctors of the church. However, if Tyndale were to insist on his own experience as normative, it would not matter that no one in the universe had feeling faith but himself, and he could still hold that position. Since he already grants that "why God giveth [feeling faith] not to every man, I can give no reckoning of his judgment" (Tyndale 192), the election of but one person would not substantially impugn Gods justice more than double-predestination already does. Tyndale explains, "The Spirit of God teacheth his children to believe; and the devil blindeth his children, and keepeth them in unbelief, and maketh them to consent unto lies, and think good evil and evil good. . . . Christs sheep could not consent to their lies, as the rest cannot but believe lies" (Tyndale 139). Therefore, those who agree with Tyndale do so because God opens their eyes, and those who disagree do so because God allows to devil to blind them. It is exceedingly difficult to bring an argument against such subjectivism.

Thus, all Mores critiques of Tyndales feeling faith epistemology are not decisive in the final analysis. However, since Tyndale view of scriptural authority is incredible, the doctrine which results from his feeling faith epistemology, makes that epistemology highly dubious. Also, the problems associated with sola scriptura as well as the apparent confusion Tyndale exhibits in moving back and forth between two radically inconsistent epistemologies are further indications that Tyndales feeling faith is not very credible.

Part III: Mores Authority: The Known Catholic Church

Now, we will turn to More to review his positions and Tyndales critiques of them. According to More, God has always had a line of prophets and leaders who have spoken authoritatively his doctrines to the extent that they are then revealed. The Old Testament prophets foretold that the Holy Spirit would come upon Gods people one day. This prophecy was fulfilled in the Church, to which Christ gave the Holy Spirit to write on the hearts of his church his teachings, guiding them into all truth [John 16]. When the Church speaks (e.g. in counsels and popes), it does so authoritatively. More explains,

This catholic known church is that mystical body be it never so sick, whereof the principal head is Christ. Of which body whither the successor of saint Peter be his vicar general and head under him, as all Christian nations have long taken him. . . . [It] is animated, hath life spiritual, and is inspired with the holy spirit of God that maketh them of one faith in the house of God, by leading them into the consent of every necessary truth of revealed faith, be they in conditions and manners never so sick, as long as they be comfortable and content in unity of faith, to cleave unto the body. Of this church we cannot be deceived while we cleave to this church since this church is it into which god hath given his spirit of faith, and in this church both good and bad confess one faith (More 8:399).

 

So, the church consists of both good and bad, both sincere Christians as well as hypocrites and non-believers who remain within the church. The church can be morally quite corrupt, yet God will not abandon her nor permit her to err when she makes declarations about faith and morals. Also, the process by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth is gradual. More explains this process:

God doth reveal his truths not always in one manner, but sometimes he showeth it out at once, as he will have it known and men bound forthwith to believe it, as he shewed Moses what he would have Pharaoh do. Sometimes he showeth it [gradually, by degrees], suffering his flock to come and dispute thereupon, and in their treating of the matter, suffereth them with good mind and natural wisdom, with invocation of his spiritual help, to search and seek for the truth, and to vary for the while in their opinions, till he reward their virtuous diligence with leading them secretly in the consent and concord of the truth by his holy spirit . . . which makes his flock of one mind in his house (More 8:248).

 

More presents four categories of revelation: a) the written word in scripture (includes Christs teachings and the progressive revelation to apostles)-which Tyndale also accepts as revelation; b) the unwritten word of Christ preserved in tradition; c) the unwritten word of God revealed to the apostles and preserved in tradition; and d) the unwritten word of God revealed progressively through counsels and popes in post-apostolic times. In the second category belong such matters as the mixture of water with wine; in the third category, such matters as the mass, the assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary; and in the fourth category, such matters as the canon of scripture. Because we learn of the word of God unwritten in the same manner as we do of the Word of God written-namely through the Catholic church which the Holy Spirit preserves from error-therefore the unwritten portions of the Word of God are of equal authority and certainty as the written portiond of the Word of God (More 8:226).

Tyndales critique comes from three main angles. He argues that the notion of church authority is impious (religiously unworthy), illogical, and against scripture. First Tyndale argues that the notion of church authority is impious because Gods truth is dependent upon God alone and is not true because man says so: "It [the gospel] is not true because man so saith, or admitteth it for true; but man is true, because he believeth it, testifieth and giveth witness in his heart that it is true" (25). More responds by stating that actually, it is not true even because God says so, but God says so because it is true. More is correct here; Tyndales objection is based of a confusion of ontology and epistemology. Certainly, Christ was not crucified because people says so (ontology), but still people must acquire and confirm knowledge of that objective fact, and acquiring knowledge by human testimony is always the way historical knowledge is gained (epistemology). Tyndales second objection is that feeling faith is superior to belief in authority because faith that depends on mans teaching is weak (Tyndale 51-52). However, if God has ordained that he will use the Church as the means by which he transmits and unfolds his revelation, Tyndale is in no position to object. So, this issue can only be settled with reference to Mores epistemology. Third, Tyndale argues that feeling faith is superior to belief in authority because it is not subject to change: "they that have the law of God written on their hearts, and are taught of the Spirit to know sin and to abhor it, and to feel the power of the resurrection of Christ, believe much surer than they that have none other certainty of their faith than the popes preaching" (Tyndale 99). More replies that there is no assurance of salvation, that this concept is part of Tyndales distortion of scripture, and therefore counts not against the notion of Church authority. Fourth, Tyndale objects that historical faith is a "faithless faith" (Tyndale 54-55). Tyndale refers condescendingly to "them that believe with their mouths, moved with the authority of their elders only, that is . . . them with master Mores faith" and says that "even so shall the children of master Mores faithless faith, made by the persuasion of man, leap short of the rest which our Saviour Jesus Christ is risen unto" (Tyndale 54). More counters that Tyndale is playing with words. According to More, faith is "belief and firm credence given not only to such things as God promiseth, but also to every truth he telleth his church, by writing or without, which things he will have us bound to believe" (More 6:388). So, certainly there are those who have faith, but lack charity and/or hope, while there are others that have all three. Tyndale, writes More, "abuse[s] the word faith altogether, turning it from belief into trust, confidence, and hope, and would have it seem that our faith were nothing else but a sure trust and a faithful hope that we have in Gods promises" (More 6:388). Faithless faith, then, is nonsense. So, it seems that More and Tyndales disagrement on the nature of faith will have to be decided by considering Mores epistemology.

Fifth, More argues that everything useful and beneficial to believe is contained in scripture, and that other doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary and Purgatory are useless doctrines (Tyndale 28). More replies that Christ can teach us or command us whatever he wants whenever he wants; it is good-or at least not bad-if the Holy Spirit teaches us something through the Church (More 8:286). So, Tyndales argument proves nothing. Sixth, Tyndale asserts that papal moral practice contradicts scriptural teachings. More responds that this objection is based on a misunderstanding of the Church, which Christ has promised to preserve from error, "be it never so sick." On all these points, Tyndales critiques are either based on misunderstandings or else divergent scripture interpretations.

Tyndales second cluster of criticisms come primarily from logic. Tyndale argues that the notion of Church authority is illogical. First, Tyndale says the gospel came before the church, so Mores claim that that church preceded the gospel and gives it authority is patently fallacious. More responds by accusing Tyndale of pretending to:

forget that I said the church was before the gospel written, which thing he himself cannot deny, and is feign to frame the doubt and make the objection as though I said that the church had been before the gospel and the word of God unwritten, whereof he himself knoweth well that I said clean the contrary" (More 8:227).

 

More is correct that Tyndale has misunderstood him, though Mores deliberate deceptiveness is debatable. Second, Tyndale argues that if something were left unwritten which was necessary to be believed, there would have been no point in writing anything: "For if I were bound to do or believe, under pain of the loss of my soul, anything that were not written, what help me the scripture that it is written?" (Tyndale 26). In reply More states that by this reason, the Corinthians should say to Paul, "If we be bound to do anything unwritten, what use was all you wrote us?" (More 8:263). Within Mores view, it seems not unreasonable that the apostles would have written of many matters and not necessarily every matter. Third, Tyndale objects that unless More can supply him with a reason why the apostles left anything necessary to believe unwritten, that position is unreasonable (Tyndale 28). More suggests one reason, but points out that since he never talked with the apostles, he does not know their exact reasons, nor is it imperative that he do, since scripture testifies that they did leave necessary matters unwritten (2 Thes. 2). Given his scriptural evidence, Tyndales objection is not significant. Fourth, Tyndale argues that since the church has believed different matters at different times, it cannot be a reliable authority. More counters that this is a misunderstanding of how God reveals truth in the Church. More is correct here. None of the critiques in Tyndales logical cluster create any real problems for Mores position.

Tyndales third cluster of critiques deal with scripture. Here, Tyndale argues that the notion of Church authority contradicts scripture, which Church authority teaches, thereby creating contradictions. First, Tyndale argues, scripture presents a pattern of minority elects calling back the majority with scripture: "we see how God, in the old Testament, did let the great multitude err; reserving away a little flock, to call the other back again, and to testify unto them the right way" (Tyndale 54). This is a significant objection, and More has several responses. More points to Matt 23:2 ("The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach") to show that Christ recognized a religious authority among the Jewish majority. More also notes that Christ taught his disciples to believe the Jewish churchs teachings, without restricting their belief to scriptural teachings only (More 8:352). Further, More objects to the assumption that God dealt with the Jewish church, which lacked the Holy Spirit, in the same way as the Christian church, to whom he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it (More 8:720). More replies further that good and bad people were probably mixed up together in the Jewish church, so that not all the Pharisees and scribes were evil (More 8:719). Finally More explains that it is reasonable to believe that Christ came to earth when false Jews began to outnumber true Jews and false expositions became rampant (More 8:613). Mores replies are strong, Matt. 23 particularly so.

On a related point, Tyndale argues that Christ himself rejected church authority by rejecting the Jewish hierarchy:

Now make this reason [consent to religious authority] unto John, and unto many prophets that went before him and did as he did; yea, and unto Christ himself and his apostles; and thou shalt find them all heretics, and the scribes and Pharisees good men, if that reason be good. . . . Did John believe that the scribes, Pharisees, and high priests, were the true church of God, and had his spirit, and could not err?" (Tyndale 48, 49).

 

Tyndale adds that More is saying what the Pharisees said: "We have Abraham as our father" (John 8), an appeal to tradition; therefore, More is on the Pharisees side against Christ. More responds that God can intervene as he pleases to establish new authorities. The singularity of Christ, added with the fact that the Pharisees disbelieved the miracles which Christ said were the basis of their guilt (John 15), makes Mores defense strong.

Third, Tyndale claims that Scripture was written for the purpose of refuting all subsequent heresies, so it must contain within it everything necessary tobe believed: "Neither was there any other cause of the writing of the new and the last and everlasting testament, than that when miracles ceased, we might have wherewith to defend ourselves against false doctrine and heresies" (Tyndale 144). To prove that heresy-control was the reason the New Testament was written, Tyndale cites 1 John 2:26 and John 20:31: "These I write because of them that deceive you" and "These are written, that ye believe and through belief have life" (Tyndale 100-01). More replies that: a) Tyndale without reason assumes miracles have ceased; b) Tyndale unreasonably thinks that scripture alone will defeat heresy, when scripture alone is not enough for Turks and pagans now; c) Tyndales use of Johns second verse implies counter-factually that everything necessary to be believed is contained in Johns gospel; and d) To hold this position, Tyndale must prove by scripture that the apostles foreknew every heresy coming, which is impossible for him to do. These are all string defenses, and to them we might add that Tyndales primary prooftext (1 John 2) comes from an isolated anti-Gnostic text which Tyndale unreasonably alleges to explain the purpose the entire New Testament was written.

Mores authority, the known Catholic Church is self-consistent and agrees with scripture. Tyndales attempts to prove the contrary were weak and unsuccessful. It remains to be seem whether Mores self-consistent position can be epistemically grounded.

Part IV: Mores Epistemology: Present Miraculous Confirmation

Mores epistemology has already been suggested by his critique of a historical tradition of miraculous confirmation and his challenge to Tyndales authority: a church performing miracles in the present. In short, More believes we can known that the Catholic church is "Christs perpetual apostle" and that all other churches and religions false because of the miracles which are performed within the Catholic Church (More 8:252). More explains,

I say that the catholic church bringeth miracles for their doctrine, as the apostles did for theirs, in that God ceaseth no year to work miracles in his catholic church, many and wonderful, both for his holy men quick and dead, and for the doctrine that these heretics impugn, as images, relics, and pilgrimages, and the blessed sacrament of the altar: and these so many, and in so many places, that these heretics themselves can no deny it; but are shamefully driven to say, like the Jews, that it is the devil that doth them (quoted in Tyndale 100).

 

According to More, continuous miraculous confirmation is a necessary deduction from the fact of Gods provision for people and the fact that God presents certain teachings as necessary to believe. He writes, "holy preachers and miracles were so necessary, that for the necessity thereof [we] presumeth that it was so [i.e. that there were miracle-working preachers even where we have no evidence of them]" (More 8:275).

What kinds of miracles does More have in mind? He mentions "miracles shown for them [the holy doctors] of God after their deaths," as well as images speaking, and sacraments bleeding (More 8:47-48; 8:276). He also gives a specific example:

[W]hoso would inquire should soon find that at pilgrimages have been daily many great and undoubted miracles wrought and well known . . . [such as] the great and open miracle showed at our Lady of Ipswich of late upon the daughter of Sir Roger Wentworth, Knight [who was] . . . vexed and tormented by our ghostly enemy, the devil, her mind alienated and raving, with despising and blaspheming of God. . . . [She made prophecies which came true, and displayed great learning; then was healed at the image of our lady]" (More 6:92-93).

 

More believes this miracle because there was "no pretext of begging, no suspicion of feigning, no possibility of counterfeiting, no simpleness in the seers . . . [and] the witnesses [were] great in number, and many of great worship, wisdom, and good experience" (More 6:93).

Tyndales critique on miracles as an epistemic move is highly inconsistent with his own attempt to use miracles for an epistemology. As More noted, Tyndale acknowledges the Catholic miracles, interpreting them as devilish rather than denying them. Tyndale writes,

[More] proveth almost nought, save that which never man denied him, that miracles have been done. But how to know the true miracles from the false, were good to be known; which we shall this wise do, if we take those for true sacraments and ceremonies which preach us Gods word, even so we count them true miracles only (Tyndale 89).

 

Tyndales objection is that miracles cannot automatically be accepted as confirmation of doctrine, because they might be fraudulent miracles of the devil. Scripture (2 Thes. 2) indicates that the devil will indeed performing deceptive miracles, and that Christians should be watchfull so as not to be deceived (Tyndale 129). Tyndale proposes the scripture test to distinguish true miracles from false: "other rule than this there is not: that the true are done to provoke men to come and hearken unto Gods word; and the false, to confirm doctrine that is not Gods word" (Tyndale 91). On this grounds, he deems the all miracles related to the veneration of Mary to be from the devil.

Mores first response to this is to say that the Catholic church, led by the Holy Spirit, can distinguish the true miracles from false, such as the "miracles that appear in crystal stones, and such other superstitious conjurations" (More 8:247). This reply seems to misunderstand Tyndales objection. Tyndale does not just want More to come up with a test, but to come up with a test which can salvage his epistemology, for if no miracle can be taken as confirmation of doctrine, then Mores epistemology is destroyed. Given this, Mores reply is a circular argument: the Catholic Church authority can reliably discern the true miracles which certify its teachings as reliable.

More makes a better reply elsewhere in the Confutation. He writes that "know we which is that true doctrine, by the reason that the true doctrine hath been better proved as daily is better proved, by more and greater than ever was the false doctrine or ever shall be to the worlds end" (More 8:247). It would seem that this is just a quantitative argument, which does not prove anything on its own. More also writes, "[the heretics] shall never find in scripture that ever God suffered false miracles either by man or by devil to be done to the confusion of his true prophet" (More 8:276). More cites the example of Moses and Pharaoh to support his claim. However, it begs the question to cite scripture yet uncertified as evidence about how miracles should be interpreted. Yet, it seems that More could construct a reasonable claim for the reliability of miracles by combining these two ideas without either using a purely quantitative argument or begging the question. Given the existence of a personal, revelatory God, it is reasonable to trust that he will not mislead people by numerous false miracles: so to confirm doctrine, one should seek and expect a number of miracles.

Tyndales second objection is that miracles have ceased as a revelation-certifying factor, so miracles must be replaced by scripture alone. He writes,

Now, sir, God hath made his last and everlasting testament, and no more [afterwards] than the appearing of Christ again. Because all is done save the doom; and because God will not stir up every day a new prophet with a new miracle, to confirm new doctrine, or to call again the old that was forgotten; therefore were all things necessary to salvation comprehended in scripture ever to endure (Tyndale 99).

 

As is obvious, this objection begs the question, assuming that miracles have ceased to prove that they are not valid as an epistemology for the present

Tyndales third objection to Mores epistemology is that since there are not specific miracles establishing specific controversial doctrines, therefore those specific doctrines should not be accepted. Tyndale writes, "For there was never man yet that came forth and said, лLo, the souls of the saints, that be dead, be in heaven in joy with Christ; and God will that ye pray unto them: in token of whereof I do this or that miracle" (Tyndale 127). In reply, More states,

Now if Tyndale will say that the doctors of the catholic church have not done miracles for every point of their doctrine; I say no more did the apostles themselves, though Tyndale say yes, which he shall never prove. But by their miracles they proved themselves true preachers and Gods true messengers and that thing sufficed for the proof of their whole doctrine. And so God hath done miracles since for all his saints in every age and that sufficeth to prove their faith was true and the contrary false (Tyndale 247).

 

In other words, More places the burden of proof of Tyndale to prove his assertion that "the apostles . . . confirmed every sermon with a sundry miracle; therefore Christ and his apostles preached a hundred thousand sermons and did as many miracles" (Tyndale 26). Tyndale must prove this to sustain his objection; but since scripture gives no such information about specific miracles for each point in a given sermon, we should believe rather that such miracles as we find recorded in scripture suffice to prove that the apostles were Gods true preachers, and their teachings reliable-their unwritten teachings no less so than their written teachings (More 8:257-58). This is a strong reply.

In his final critique, Tyndale alleges that scripture undermines the present miraculous testimony by disproving the continuous miraculous testimony which is implied by Mores epistemology. Tyndale writes, "the gift of miracles was not always among the preachers in the old testament; for John the Baptist did no miracle at all: the miracles were ceased long ere Christ" (Tyndale 131). More replies that John the Baptist was certified by miracles, both by those concerning his father at his conception and birth, and by those performed by Christ, who spoke of John as a prophet from God (More 8:722). As for other prophets, Tyndale would need to make a specific claim. Mores epistemology, then is sound, provided that it is supportable evidentially, which is, of course, a significant qualification.

Now, we reach the end of our study of the More-Tyndale controversy. Our results are rather surprising. Given widespread theological pluralism, it is surprising that we find the arguments so highly favorable to one side over the other. More presented decisive arguments against the Protestant appeal to sola scriptura and against Protestant epistemologies based on historical miraculous confirmation known through Church attestation. Further, Tyndales epistemology of feeling faith is not assailable, but is so radically subjectivist as to hardly credible. In addition, we concluded that Church authority is a self-consistent position which Tyndales critiques could not destroy, and that Mores epistemology of present miracles is a credible epistemic foundation for Church authority provided there is evidential support, i.e. provided there are indeed miracles in the present confirming the Church. But the widespread existence of present miracles-to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of a generally accessibly basis for belief throughout Christendom-is not an accepted view, especially in the modern world. A possible alternative might be a historical miraculous confirmation epistemology based on open-ended historical research into early Christianity. While this epistemology seems plausible and has been utilized fruitfully, it still leaves the problem which occupied Thomas More, namely that certification of doctrine accessible to everyone must be continuously provided by God "as the reason of his goodness requires that he should" (More 8:276). If there is historical doctrine necessary for humans to believe (which point is crucial for Christians), and the only epistemic access which even uneducated people have to Christian teaching (as distinct from other teachings) is through direct miracles, then God must indeed-by reason of his goodness-provide these miracles. Otherwise, we are left with this situation:

The Turks, being in number five times more than we are, knowledge one God, moved only by the authority of their elders; and presume that God will not have let so great a multitude err so long time: and yet they have been faithless these eight hundred years. And the Jews believe this day as much as the carnal sort of them ever believed, moved also by the authority of their elders only; and think it impossible for them to err, being Abrahams seed, and the children of them to whom the promises, of all that we believe, were made: and yet they have erred, and been faithless, these fifteen hundred years. And we, with like blindness, believe only by the authority of our elders; and of like pride, think that we cannot err, being such a multitude (Tyndale 53-54).

 

The second surprise, and the biggest one, is the conclusion that present ecclesiastical miracles such as those alleged by More, should be seriously investigated and considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authority and Epistemology in the

Tyndale-More Controversy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Beutel

History 110

March 20, 1998

Prof. Brad Gregory

Storming Heaven: Christianity in Conflict in Early Modern Europe

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

Greene, James and John Dolan. The Essential Thomas More. New York: New American Library, 1967.

 

Martz, Louis L. Thomas More: The Search for the Inner Man. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989.

 

More, Thomas. Complete Works of St. Thomas More. 9 Vols. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.

 

Pineas, Rainer. Thomas More and Tudor Polemics. Bloomington, Ind.: University Press, 1968.

 

Tyndale, William. Answer to Sir Thomas Mores Dialogue. Cambridge: The University Press, 1850.

 

Note: Many words cited from Thomas More have been slightly edited to conform to the spellings of modern English. Page numbers in Pineas not cited because the book is presently unavailable in the library.

Hosted by uCoz