An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition into the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians 9781442670785

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians
An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians
Commentary
Emendations and Variants
Glossary
Appendix
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

William Roye's An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre

of the pistle to the Corinthians

This page intentionally left blank

William Roye's

An exhortation to the

diligent studye of scripture and

An exposition in to

the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians

Edited by Douglas H. Parker

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2000 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-4818-8

Printed on acid-free paper

Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536 William Roye's An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture ; and, An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians The first work is a translation of Erasmus' Exhortio ad studium evangelicae lectionis,- the second work by Martin Luther is translated from German. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-4818-8 1. Bible. N.T. Corinthians, 1st, VII - Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Parker, Douglas H. (Douglas Harold), date. II. Roy, William, fl. 15271531. III. Luther, Martin, 1483-1546. Exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians. IV. Title. V. Title: Exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture. BS2675.E7213 2000

227'.206

COO-932052-0

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

For the English Department, Laurentian University, but especially for Kelly Smith

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction Context, Content, and Structure 3 Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis 28 Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7 37 Editorial Method 49 Bibliographical Descriptions 51 Notes 55 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians 69

Commentary 163 Emendations and Variants 216 Glossary 220 Appendix 229 Bibliography 231 Index 237

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the librarians and trustees of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England; Cambridge University Library, Cambridge; the British Library, London; the Folger Library, Washington, DC; Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York; National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh; The Huntington Library, San Marino, California; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the Universiteit Van Amsterdam,- the State Library of New South Wales, Australia,- and Yale University Library, New Haven, Connecticut. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Hoyt Greeson for his assistance with the German text, to Kelly Smith for her careful secretarial and editorial labours, to the copy-editor, John St James, for his meticulous attention to the details of this work, and to Suzanne Rancourt and Barb Porter of University of Toronto Press. Finally, as always, my gratitude to Hilary Parker for her painstaking work on the lineation of these texts and the index.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This page intentionally left blank

Context, Content, and Structure

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians (STC 10493) are, respectively, William Roye's English renderings of Erasmus's Paraclesis and Martin Luther's commentary on St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians 7.1 Erasmus's Paraclesis, called by one critic 'one of the great classic statements of Erasmus' biblical humanism' (Olin, ed Christian Humanism and the Reformation 92), appeared from the press of John Froben in February 1516 as the preface to Erasmus's Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament. Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 first appeared in German in 1523, with a Latin translation following two years later. These two works by two of Europe's leading reformers - the one usually designated conservative, the other radical - appeared in print together in English for the first time on 2 June 1529 from the press of Hans Luft (ie, Johannes Hoochstraten), an Antwerp printer responsible for publishing at least ten reformist tracts in English between 1528 and 1530. The importance of these two works translated by Roye is indisputable. Roye's rendering of the Paraclesis is only the third, and by far the most important, of Erasmus's works to be translated and published in English during the second decade of the 1500s. The first of these English renderings of Erasmus is Gentian Hervet's translation of De misericordia Domini concio, printed by Thomas Berthelet in 1525-6; the second Margaret Roper's translation of Precatio dominica, printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1524 (Devereux). If one discounts Tyndale's Parable of the Wicked Mammon (1528), which,

4

Introduction

according to Daniell, is 'loosely based on a sermon by Luther about the puzzling "wicked mammon" parable in Luke 16' (156), and his 'Prologue' to Romans, which is also indebted in some degree to Luther (PS 1, 483ff.), Roye's translation of Luther is the first full-scale English rendering of a Luther work. But perhaps most important, the present work is crucial to the history of Reformation literature, history, and theology because for the first and last time it yokes together, between the covers of the same book, Erasmus and Luther, thereby suggesting to the unsuspecting reader a compatibility and harmony of thought and ideology that neither figure would have been prepared to credit.2 This yoking - a yoking by violence, each man must have thought - probably would have pleased neither of them; on the other hand, it would have delighted English reformers intent on seeking substantive authority - wherever they might find it - for their own reformist agenda.3 A considerably altered version of Roye's translations appeared from the press of the English printer Robert Wyer in or around 1534 (STC 10493.5).4 This text, and all subsequent editions in the sixteenth century, appear without Roye's translation of the lengthy Luther commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. It is replaced by another Erasmus work entitled 'An exhortacyon to the study of readynge the gospel.' Another edition minus Luther and also from Wyer's press appeared as well in 1534 (STC 10494), and a final edition from the workshop of T. Ranalde and W. Hyll saw the light of day in about 1548. It is interesting to speculate why the first edition - and only the first edition - contained the Luther text, which was then expunged without comment from all subsequent editions. From the point of view of content, one might see a greater compatibility between two works written by the same author that dealt with a similar topic, as Paraclesis and 'An exhortacyon to the study of readynge the gospel' clearly do, than between two works by different authors, one dealing with the gospel, the other an exegesis of a Pauline epistle dealing largely with marriage and chastity. But the real reason why Luther was dropped from all editions of the work published after 1529 must have been simply because he was the great European arch-heretic, a hated figure in orthodox England, against whom, as Richard Rex makes clear, a concerted English conservative campaign was launched in the 1520s, a campaign whose 'linchpin'

5

Context, Content, and Structure

was, ironically, Erasmus himself.5 If Rex is correct in this regard, Roye's inclusion of Luther and Erasmus together between the covers of one book must be regarded, in part at least, as Roye cocking a snook at the whole anti-Luther campaign, a gesture not atypical of one of the two authors of the scurrilous and irreverent verse satire Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe published in 1528, one year before the present work.6 Roye's work on Erasmus and Luther serves, then, possibly two purposes: it suggests that there is a reformist agenda that motivates and unites both men, a claim that the Paraclesis with its clarion call for change does not in fact belie; and it also serves a bold political end by yoking together two major antagonists so as to suggest unity among them. Probably for these two reasons, as well as for the fact that Luther was Europe's most renowned heretic, his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 was dropped from all editions after the first. 7 Whatever else it might be, Paraclesis is a cogently argued text in support of the Bible in the vernacular, and it is this particular thrust of the work that must have drawn the early English reformers to it, since they too, like Erasmus, spoke eloquently, and at length even drawing authority from history - in support of the Bible in English (see Commentary). Indeed, only three years before he translated this Erasmian exhortation to the diligent study of the Bible, Roye himself had been involved, to some degree at least, with William Tyndale in an English translation of the New Testament, published at Worms in the printing house of Peter Schaeffer.8 The conservative English reaction to that work was swift and uncompromising: under orders, probably from Thomas Wolsey, Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, condemned the work at Paul's Cross and ordered all copies of it burnt.9 Clearly, by using Erasmus's name and his Paraclesis to support their own claim for a vernacular Bible against the conservative English forces - a group with whom, in general, Erasmus was friendly - the radical reformers would embarrass that group by showing that one of their own, Erasmus himself, saw the wisdom of providing the English nation with a Bible that all Christian citizens, rank and status notwithstanding, could read and understand. 10 The Paraclesis begins with an extended commentary on the notion of eloquence or, more precisely, on various notions of eloquence. Faithfully rendering this opening section of Erasmus's text

6

Introduction

into English, Roye explains the nature of true Christian eloquence by comparing it with the rhetorical talents of Cicero in particular - the classical orator sui generis - and by alluding to a number of figures from Greek and Roman history and myth renowned for their eloquence. The author of Paraclesis requires eloquence sufficient only to 'exhorte and entyse all mortall men vnto the most holye and hoisome studye of Christian wisdom' (16-18). This special type of eloquence need not - indeed, must not - be 'so gloriouslie painted or coloured' as Cicero's (20-1), but rather must be 'of more power and efficacite' (21-2) than his, since Erasmus's message as translated by Roye is altogether more important, more crucial to know and understand than any of Cicero's profane subjects. What follows is a list of figures known for eloquence throughout history,- Erasmus concludes with the hope that in conveying the Christian message, 'Christ him silfe wold so tempre the stringes of cure instrument/ that this songe may prosperously entyse and move/ the mindes of all men' (58-60). This entire opening section of Paraclesis, where types of classical eloquence are articulated and then rejected ('we nede but lytle the painted argumentes and coloured conclusions of the Rhetoricyans' [61-2]), is reminiscent of Milton in his comments on subject and 'answerable style' in Paradise Lost. Milton is aware of his indebtedness to classical and pagan models for his epic, as Erasmus - the European humanist par excellence - is aware of the classical models of eloquence. Like Milton, however, who realizes that he will supersede these models and soar 'above the Aonian mount' because of the Christian theme of his epic, Erasmus too hopes to soar beyond these classical models of rhetoric and eloquence because the subject about which he must be especially eloquent - the philosophia Christi itself - is of far more importance than issues dealt with by classical authors. In addition, the Paraclesis here and later as well, hastens to express concern and disappointment over those who pay undue attention to 'all mennes invencyons' (69-70), and who ignore - or worse, despise and mock - 'this immortall fontayne of Christes pure philosophye' (71) as found in the New Testament either by ignoring the biblical texts or, perhaps more seriously, by defiling 'these springes of liffe' with their own obscure glosses and outrageous opinions. The reference to those who defile the scriptures with their glosses is a not-so-subtle allusion to renowned figures of scholastic

7 Context, Content, and Structure

logic and exegesis, a group whose baffling obscurantism turns scriptural exegesis into an activity reserved for an exclusive group of specialists.11 Several of these figures are mentioned and condemned later in the work. The sixteen or so pages that follow this introduction are, in the main, extensions of and refinements on the few crucial ideas articulated in the first three or four pages. Throughout the tract Erasmus makes frequent and skilful use of the rhetorical question, a device that Roye faithfully reproduces in his English rendering. As if thinking aloud, Roye and Erasmus wonder, for instance, why the followers of renowned philosophers are so intent on knowing in detail the views they subscribe to when Christians pay little attention to their leader's thoughts and words. In addition, such attention to the message of profane philosophers seems misplaced when the message of Christ - 'this fruetfull Philosophye' (138) - is so much more profound and important. More perplexing still is the labour that individuals expend working their way through the 'irxome and babelinge sciences' (147) when 'The meanes to [Christ's] philosophye are easy and at hand' (147-8) to those who 'bringe a godly and redy minde/ cheflye endewed with plain and pure faythe' (149-50).12 This comment on the ease with which Christ's message is accessible to all who 'bringe a godly and redy minde' to it introduces a hermeneutical paradox into the discussion, a paradox evident as well in the works of other biblical exegetes, including Luther and Tyndale. Despite any ideological differences that existed among them, Luther, Tyndale, and Erasmus all insisted at various times that the message of the Bible was accessible even to the simplest of Christians. For Luther and Tyndale at least, this claim was crucial, since it justified their position that the Roman church had no right to claim an exclusive hermeneutical hold on the Bible on grounds that it was too difficult, too arcane for untrained Christians to read, understand, and interpret.13 What makes this position on the openness and accessibility of the Bible hard to credit when held by Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, and doubtless countless other reformers is that each of these men devoted much of his life to biblical interpretation himself, thereby in a sense subverting his own view that such interpretation could be left in the hands of those 'with simple and playne hartes' (154). Erasmus, at least, seems sensitive to this paradox in Paraclesis: no sooner has he

8 Introduction

argued that the Christian message is readily available to those with a heart open enough to accept it than he qualifies what he says by suggesting that the Bible has various interpretive registers that somehow respond to the level of intelligence that confronts it. We read: '[I]t is not so lowe and depressed vnto the weake but it is as high and marvelous to the parfecte/ Yee the more thou wadest in the tresurs of this science/ the farther thou arte from attayninge her mageste. To the childer she is lowe and playne/ and to greatter/ she seameth above all capacite. She refuseth no age/ no kinde/ no fortune/ no state and condition' (163-9). In other words, the Bible is a miraculous document both ideologically and linguistically: not only does it contains Christ's words that serve as our means of salvation, but also it allows itself to be interpreted truly and correctly in several different registers, levels of intelligence and training notwithstanding. The only sine qua non for 'reading' the Bible correctly is a simple and plain heart. In short, the Bible seems to be 'a barber's chair to fit all buttocks.' This view of the Bible as a document that somehow defies strict analytical interpretation if the heart is not simple and plain and the mind not godly is extended in this tract to the philosophy of Christ itself, which, finally, as defined by Erasmus and translated by Roye, sounds anti-rational, or perhaps supra-rational. We learn, for example, that 'this kinde of philosophye [that is, the philosophy of Christ as found in the Bible] doth rather consist in the affectes of the minde/ then in sotle reasons. It is a liffe rather than a disputacyon. It is an inspiracion rather then a science. And rather a new transformacion/ then a reasoninge' (326-30). The binary oppositions are clear in these statements: on one side of the equation reside 'affectes,' 'liffe,' 'inspiracion,' and 'transformacion',- on the other, 'reasons,' 'disputacyon,' 'science,' and 'reasoninge.' The former, non-rational terms are privileged by Erasmus; the latter, rational terms rejected. Paradoxically, however, the polemical Erasmus - not to mention Luther and Tyndale - spent much of his life employing reason, disputation, and knowledge (scientia) in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a non-ratiocinative frame of mind in coming to 'know' and cherish the essence of the Christian life as summed up in Erasmus's own term the philosophia Christ, a term that, finally, has little to do with philosophy as a rigorous system of logical thought. If indeed the Bible in some finally inexplicable way is accessible

9 Context, Content, and Structure

to all, then, Paraclesis argues, it should be available to all in their own language such that 'the plowman wold singe a texte of the scripture at his plowbeme/ And that the wever at his lowme/ with this wold drive away the tediousnes of tyme' (192-4). The text continues, 'I wold the wayfaringe man with this pastyme/ wold expelle the werynes of his iorney. And to be shorte I wold that all the communication of the christen shulde be of the scripture/ for in a maner soch are we cure selves/ as oure day lye tales are' (194-8). Protestant reformers would have been delighted to receive this support from one of Europe's most renowned humanists and biblical scholars. They would have been equally happy to hear Erasmus state that biblical interpretation was not the exclusive business of a small group of 'devines/ or religious parsons' (211) who often, because of their way of life, 'are far vnworthy their name and title/ that is to saye/ which speake wordly thinges and not godly' (217-18), an accusation brought against the spiritual estates time and again by reformers of all stripes from Wycliffe's time to Rove's.14 In addition, the Paraclesis seems to support the reformers' notion of the priesthood of the laity when it claims that the person who despises riches (223-4), places his confidence in heaven (225-6), does not avenge injuries (226), bears wrongs patiently (227-30), and instructs his neighbour (235-6) 'ys a very and true devine/ though he be a wever/ yee though he dygge and delve' (238-9). The Paraclesis then discusses how society can transform itself into a true Christian community. The transformation involves three groups of people becoming aware of their responsibilities. The first group, addressed at much greater length in Institutio principis christiani, is made up of princes, the second of responsible preachers, the third of dedicated 'scholemasters' charged with instructing 'their chyldren rather with thys symple scyence then with the wittye tradicyons of aristotle and averroys' (267-9). If these three groups were to carry out their Christian duties effectively, Then shulde the Christente be more at quyetnes. And not be disturbed wyth soch perpetuall stormes of dissentyon and warre. Then shuld thys vnreasonable desyre of avarice/ which appeteth riches insatiablye whether it be right or wronge/ be some dealle aswaged and cease of his rage. Then shulde these

10

Introduction

contentious pleatinges/ which now in all thinges admixte themselves have an ende. For no man wold resiste evyll/ and to be shorte. Then shuld we not differ only in title and certen ceremonyes from the hethen and vnfaythfull. But rather in the pure conversation of our liffe. And no doute in these thre degrees of men/ that is to saye. In princes and officers which are in their stede. In bisshopes and other prestes which are their vicars. And in them that bringe vpe the tender youth/ which are formed and reformed even as their master entyseth them Doth chefly consiste the hole power other to encreasse the Christian religion. Or elles to restore it againe which hath longe bene in decaye. (269-86)15 If the Paraclesis had ended at this point, one could be forgiven for wondering how Erasmus could be considered a humanist thinker and writer. For to this stage in the tract he has eschewed and dismissed all domains of knowledge save Christ's message as contained in the Bible: he has turned his back on the eloquence of classical rhetoricians and Cicero's oratorical talents/ and he appears to have rejected the wisdom of 'Platos adherentes/ Pithagoras scholars: The Academikes/ Stoikes Epicures. The fautores of Aristotle and disciples of Diogenes' (88-90) in favour of the philosophia Christi. Now, however, he compensates for this apparent rejection of the classical tradition by pointing out that Christ's doctrine, designed to repair and restore 'oure nature whiche in hys fyrst creacyon was good' (3378), might very well be evident in part at least 'in the gentles bokes/ which are agreable vnto this doctrine' (339-40), although he is quick to add that 'no man hath shewed it so absolutely. Nether yet with soche efficacite as christ himsilf (340-2). Much that is compatible with Christian truth can be found in the Stoics, in Plato, in Aristotle, in Epicurus, and in Socrates, Diogenes, and Epictetus (367). The clear implication is that these pagan writers, in a sense precursors of Christian truth, seem closer to the message of Christ than the scholastic theologians, sources of 'knowledge' also unmercifully attacked by the Protestant reformers for their 'tedious perplexite of wordes/ of relatyons/ quiddityes/ and formalites' (383-4). In light of the criticism Erasmus levels at these obscurantists here and elsewhere, it is hard to credit his moderating claim that he does not 'discommende

11

Context, Content, and Structure

their studye and labour which have exercysed their wittes in these sotle invencyons' (386-8). Much of the rest of the Paraclesis is a subtle attack on scholastic disputation. Gentle criticism is levelled at 'saynt Thomas' (488) and 'Averrois' (496) as well as Alexander, Albert, Richard, Occam, Aegidius (453-6), and 'Other mennes traditions' (515-16). Slavish adherence to monastic rules and superstitions attached thereto are mentioned and mocked when such rules are considered more important than biblical truths, a sentiment that would have been heartily endorsed by the early English Protestant reformers, who never tired of attacking monastic abuses. Criticism of relics and pilgrimages, two traditions of the Roman church that were anathema to the reformers, especially those who subscribed to Luther's sola fide dictum and rejected works, bring the Paraclesis to a conclusion. The rhetorical question near the end of the tract asks with disingenuous wonder how relics that apparently belong to Christ's body can be regarded as more important than the Gospels, which 'represent and expresse the qwicke and levinge ymage of his most most holy minde/ yee and Christe him silf speakinge/ healinge/ deyenge/ rysinge agayne/ and to conclude all partes of him' (550-3). In sum, the Paraclesis must have appeared to the reformers as a tract that gave clear and unequivocal expression to many of their beliefs and criticisms of the Roman church: it is a work that comes close to denying the efficacy of anything except the Bible in inculcating Christian virtue - a clear reformist position,- it calls for a vernacular Bible and for universal accessibility, thereby perhaps unconsciously subverting the Roman church's view of its own singular teaching authority; it questions the validity of scholastic logic and disputation and by so doing undermines the Church's support of that method of seeking truth; it subtly attacks monasticism, is critical of worldly divines, seems to call for a priesthood of the laity, and puts relics and pilgrimages in their place, well behind the Gospels. Perhaps as important for the reformers as the issues the Paraclesis confronts is the question of the confronter of those issues, the tract's author, Erasmus himself. It is a commonplace of Erasmian criticism, born from his own comments on the matter, that the great Dutch humanist was frequently called on by both sides in the religious controversy to come to their support. If we can trust what Eras-

12 troduction

mus says in his letters, it is clear that he regularly felt himself in the uncomfortable position of simultaneously running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.16 Certainly the issues that he raises in his Paraclesis make it abundantly clear how he might have been seen by the reformers as a strong supporter of their cause and a defender of many of their major criticisms against the Roman church. And his forced fellowship with Luther in this work makes several of his reformist tendencies seem all the more compatible with Protestant belief. Richard Rex's careful and informative article The English Campaign against Luther in the 1520s' makes abundantly clear how alarmed conservative forces in England were over Luther's possible theological influence in their country in the second decade of the sixteenth century.17 Rex traces the conservative reaction, suggesting that it began in 1521 with Henry vm's decision 'to take up his pen personally against Luther' (85) and to produce, with a little help from his friends, what finally became known as Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. On 21 January 1521, Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, the same person who was to condemn William Tyndale's English New Testament at Paul's Cross in 1526, the very year of its publication, reported from the Diet of Worms and recommended that Luther's works, especially De Babylonica Captivitate, be banned from England. Rex thinks that Tunstall's report probably motivated Wolsey to issue a ban 'on the sale and possession of Luther's books' (86) early in 1521. In May the papal condemnation of Luther, Exsurge Domine, signalled 'the public commencement of the English campaign' (86) against the German reformer. Distinguished members of both universities rallied to the Crown's cause and their contribution is carefully documented by Rex.18 Two of Erasmus's closest English friends also took up their pens against Luther: John Fisher entered the fray with hisAssertionis Lutheranae Confutatio(1523), a work that Rex describes as 'the nearest thing to a complete refutation of Luther then available, and one of the most popular attacks on Luther of the decade' (95), and Thomas More weighed in with Responsio ad Lutherum, 1524. Even though Erasmus often complained in his letters to More that he was beleaguered by reformers to join their cause, both More and Fisher must have been shocked to find Eras-

13 Context, Content, and Structure

mus's Paraclesis in an English translation cheek by jowl with Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, especially since Erasmus was seen by English conservatives as a major player in their campaign against Luther. Although Roye's translation of Luther is the first full-scale English rendering of a complete Lutheran work, it was certainly not the last and may have set the stage for further translations and adaptations.19 In addition, English reformers in general often alluded to Luther in their works and regularly came to his defence when he was under attack. As mentioned earlier, Tyndale, in 1528, published his Parable of the Wicked Mammon, loosely based on a Luther sermon. Furthermore, Luther's preface to Romans forms part of Tyndale's 'A Prologue Upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,' published in 1526 as part of his English New Testament (PS 1, 484-510; Tyndale's New Testament 207-24). Perhaps Tyndale's closest English ideological ally and friend, John Frith, began his reformist writing career by translating and adapting Luther's De Antichristo, to which he added a series of pithy and quasi-epigrammatic statements entitled 'Antithesis between Christ and the Pope' (STC 11394; Works of John Frith 297318). This work was published on 2 July 1529, only one month after Roye's translation of Erasmus and Luther, and like Roye's work it too was printed by Hoochstraten and part of the 'Marburg series' (Hume, number 11). Throughout his career Frith was indebted - or others thought he was - to many of Luther's views. In his 'Answer to the Preface of M. More's Book' (1533) Frith tries to distance himself from Luther: 'Luther is not the prick I run at, but the Scripture of God. I do neither affirm nor deny any thing because Luther so saith, but because the Scripture of God doth so conclude and determine. I take not Luther for such an author that I think he cannot err, but I think verily that he both may err, and doth err, in certain points, although not in such as concern salvation and damnation; for in these, blessed be God! all those whom ye call heretics do agree right well' (Works of John Frith 342). Nonetheless, it is clear that Luther played a significant part in the development of his reformist ideas. He explains and defends the views of 'Martin' (as Frith and Tyndale both, on occasion, call Luther) on the Eucharist against More's accusations (413), is everywhere reliant on Luther's sola fide dictum, and is accused, along with Tyndale, in a letter written by George Joye, of agreeing with Luther on the

4 Introduction

notion of psychosomnolence (490). In addition, in his account of Frith's life, Foxe, recounting Frith's early, formative years, states that he was suspected of favouring the doctrines of Martin Luther (see Foxe Acts and Monuments v, 1-17 for Frith's life). Although Tyndale never claimed to be a slavish follower of any reformist predecessor or contemporary, there is evidence in much of his writings that he was indebted to Luther and, at least, prepared to defend him against conservative detractors.20 Dr Robert Ridley, one of the 'Cambridge representatives' who worked during the 1520 campaign against Luther and, along with John Wilson, took an enthusiastic part in the 'prosecution of heresy in the ensuing decade' (Rex 88), responded to Tyndale's 'Prologue' to Romans by accusing both Roye and Tyndale of being Lutherans (PS 1, 483). Moreover, Tyndale in his Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue comes to Luther's defence on a number of issues on which More attacks Luther. He defends Luther against More's charge that Luther 'hateth the feasts of the cross, and of corpus Christi' (PS 3, 185), against More's claim that Luther rejected vows, and against accusations of Luther's 'inconstancy' (ie, inconsistency). He explains to More why Luther 'will abide but by the scriptures only' (187), defends him against More's charge that he 'was the cause of the destruction of the uplandish people of Germany' (188), and comments briefly on Luther's view of free will. In The Practice of Prelates (PS 2, 239-344), he lauds Luther for condemning 'the abominations of the pope and his clergy' (338), explains the injustice of Luther's condemnation by Henry vm (339), and demonstrates Luther's generosity of spirit and willingness to compromise by referring to 'an pistle' in which he 'had submitted himself (340) to the king. Finally, in a humorous attack on John Fisher's vilification of Luther, Tyndale, in Obedience of a Christian Man, shows how ready he is to defend the great German reformer: ... as once a crefty thief, when he was espied and followed, cried unto the people, Stop the thief! Stop the thief! and as many, to begin withal, cast first in another man's teeth that which he feareth should be laid to his own charge; even so Rochester layeth to Martin Luther's charge the slaying and murdering of Christian men, because they will not believe in his doctrine: which thing Rochester and his brethren have not ceased to do

15 Context, Content, and Structure

now these certain hundred years, with such malice, that, when they be dead, they rage burning their bodies; of which some they themselves, of likelihood, killed before secretly. And because that all the world knoweth that Martin Luther slayeth no man, but killeth only with the spiritual sword, the word of God, such cankered consciences as Rochester hath; neither persecuteth, but suffereth persecution; yet Rochester, with a goodly argument, proveth that he would do it if he could! And mark, I pray you, what an orator he is, and how vehemently he persuadeth it! Martin Luther hath burned the pope's decretals,- a manifest sign, saith he, that he would have burned the pope's holiness also, if he had had him! A like argument, which I suppose to be rather true, I make: Rochester and his holy brethren have burnt Christ's testament; an evident sign, verily, that they would have burnt Christ himself also, if they had had him! (PS 1, 220-1 )21 It is interesting to speculate on why Roye chose Luther's commentary on one of St Paul's epistles to translate into English. Certainly much of Paul's theology was central to reformist thought, and one can safely say that it is hard to imagine a Protestant Reformation without Paul's writings. Luther, for instance, commented on no one more than on Paul.22 The English reformers were enormously impressed and influenced by him too. Tyndale's opening comment in 'A Prologue Upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans' is, like Luther's on which it is based, unashamedly enthusiastic about this epistle. Other of his statements also clearly indicate his respect for Paul in general. Commenting on Romans he states, 'Forasmuch as this epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the new Testament and most pure evangelion/ that is to say, glad tidings, and that we call gospel, and also is a light and a way unto the whole scripture,-1 think it meet 'that every Christian man not only know it, by rote and without the book, but also exercise himself therein evermore continually, as with the daily bread of the soul. No man verily can read it too oft, or study it too well; for the more it is studied, the easier it is; the more it is chewed, the pleasanter it is; and the more groundly

16

Introduction

it is searched the preciouser things are found in it/ so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein. (PS 1, 484) On two occasions in Obedience of a Christian Man, Tyndale claims that Paul is greater than Peter: 'If Paul preached Christ more than Peter, and suffered more for his congregation, than is he greater that Peter, by the testimony of Christ' (PS 1,210). Later he adds, '[Cjompare the chief apostle [Peter] unto Paul, and he is found a great way inferior. This I say not that I would that any man should make a god of Paul, contrary unto his own learning. Notwithstanding yet this manner of speaking is left unto us of our elders,- that when we say the apostle saith so, we understand Paul for his excellency above other apostles' (217). And in his preface to the New Testament he states, 'Paul's epistles with the gospel of John and his first epistle and the first epistle of saint Peter, are most pure gospel and most plainly and richly described the glory of the grace of Christ' (Tyndale's New Testament9). Significantly, of all the biblical books Roye cites in his translation of 1 Corinthians 7, he refers or alludes to none more often than Paul's epistles themselves, as if to suggest that there is a unity of vision within Paul's writings that is analogous to Christ's seamless garment. There is perhaps no one simple or clear reason why Roye chose Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 to translate into English. Probably if Roye were keen merely to arouse the furor of the conservative forces dedicated to their anti-Lutheran campaign in the 1520s, almost any Lutheran work might have done as well as 1 Corinthians 7, since the conservative campaign of condemnation, suppression, and burning would have been frustrated by the appearance of any of Luther's works in English. On the other hand, there may have been good reasons for Roye's choice: perhaps he was encouraged in his selection by the appearance of Tyndale's 'Prologue' to Romans,- or perhaps, like others, he recognized the general, overall value of all of Paul for the Reformation cause. However, the most likely reason Roye chose this particular tract to translate is because it addresses and - as mediated through Luther's reformist mind - repudiates the issue of clerical celibacy, one of the great bugbears of all the reformers.23 In addition, it calls into question and subverts the authority of the Roman church, a church that promulgates laws of man's - rather than Christ's - invention on matters such as marriage and chastity.

17 Context, Content, and Structure

Luther provides two prefaces to his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, one a dedication to 'Hans Loser of Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony/ and the other a general comment on his sense of purpose for this commentary.24 Although Roye translates neither, both are interesting for the light they throw on Luther's reasons for writing this text. In addition, since both contain comments that we know are compatible with Roye's own beliefs, they may have provided Roye with further reasons for working on his translation of this text. In both prefaces Luther expresses his desire to show how 1 Corinthians 7 redeems marriage from attacks made on it by those who privilege chastity, especially the spiritual estates or those who presume to speak for them.25 In the first preface we learn that Loser has chosen to marry, and Luther compliments him on that decision. Luther states that he has decided to comment on this particular epistle because 'more than all the other writings of the entire bible, [it] has been twisted back and forth to condemn the married state and at the same time to give a strong appearance of sanctity to the dangerous and peculiar state of celibacy' (3). Luther then makes clear who the proponents of chastity are: they are often the ones 'who have been least chaste/ namely, those who reside in 'convents and monasteries' (3). He believes that God has chosen him 'to tear the veil from the chastity which is of the devil, so that there may be less fornication and our poor youth may not be so pitiably and dangerously misled by falsely glorified chastity' (3).26 In the second preface Luther warms to the attack on a 'chaste' clergy. Reiterating the many bromides about the hardships of marriage summed up in the adage 'What a fool is he who takes a wife/ Luther comes to the defence of marriage - here and throughout the commentary - as an appropriate defence against fornication. According to Luther, the clergy, which does its best to 'eschew hardships of all kind/ 'have grasped this point' about marriage 'and have neatly committed themselves to chastity, that is free fornication' (5). His disgust with this group gets the better of him and he fulminates against these 'smart alecks and sophisticates/ 'these principal fools and blind men in the sight of God.' These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispence with and do

18 troduction

without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. They fill the world with their foolish and blasphemous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel - and abundantly demonstrate by their actions - that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night... If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage ... and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state. (5) This vilification - an approach to enemies with which Roye was quite familiar, skilled, and comfortable, as his Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe makes abundantly clear - goes on unabated. Those who condemn marriage and privilege chastity, a chastity that they themselves find impossible to keep, are 'rascals/ 'heathenish pretenders' with 'famed sagacity' but 'blasphemous mouths' (6). Nowhere in Rove's works is the issue of clerical celibacy and the abuses to which it gives rise - a leitmotif in Luther's commentary - more evident than in his and Barlowe's Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe, published in 1528, only one year before Roye turned his attention to his English translation of Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. Roye probably would have felt quite comfortable translating Luther's condemnation of the same clerical sins, and pleased to find corroboration from one of Europe's most illustrious reformers for his sometimes scurrilous attacks on clerical immorality as manifested in sins of the flesh. In a preliminary section of Rede Me, a priest who laments the imminent destruction of the mass, thanks to attacks made on it by God-fearing reformers, regrets that with the loss of 'The chefe vpholder of [their] liberte' they will also lose access to their 'whores and harlotes everychone' who through the mass were 'mayntayned in ryche felicite.' In addition, with the mass's condemnation, 'Our baudes and brothels have lost ther find-

19 Context, Content, and Structure

ing/ Our bastardes compelled to go astraye' (61, 153-4). The nowdisgraced mass will render clerics impoverished. In its heyday the mass was a cash cow: 'Wherwith we norysshed many a whore;/ To satisfye our pleasure beastiall' (63, 211-12). In the text of this dialogue itself, Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, one of the work's chief whipping posts, is depicted as a notorious whoremaster who, among other things, feeds on 'rawe motten,' an euphemism for bawdry (69, 429). In addition, he is accused of 'Whoardom and baudy leachery' (80, 861), allows 'open whordom and advoutry' to be called matrimony (82, 926), interferes in the king's marriage, and 'Of preuy houses of baudry,/ He hath made a stues openly,/ Endued with large exibicion' (83-4, 986-8). When one of the two speakers, Watkyn, disingenuously asks the other, leffraye, if Wolsey leads 'a Lutheran lyfe' (88, 1166), leffraye's response indicates the nature of the dispute over marriage and celibacy raging between reformers and conservatives. He states, 'O naye, for he hath no wyfe,/ But whoares that be his lovers' (88, 1167-8). Although these words are directed against Wolsey in particular, they nevertheless suggest the reformers' sense of the Church's negative attitude towards marriage and its apparent support of clerical fornication disguised as celibacy. In passing, Wolsey is also accused of having 'the frenche pockes' (88, 1171) and fathering bastards on his whores (89, 1181ff). In the song that closes the first part of Rede Me, Watkyn accuses the clergy in general of demeaning marriage, thereby encouraging unchastity and fornication. Watkyn sings, 'Letcherous luste leawdly they enbrace,/ Forbiddynge wedloke agaynst goddes will' (99, 1579-80), a leitmotif in Luther's commentary. The second part of Rede Me continues its attack on immoral clergy, this time turning its attention principally to the questionable practices of monks and friars, easy and frequent targets throughout this period and earlier, as Chaucer's 'General Prologue' - one of only many examples - makes clear. Part 2 opens with an attack on monks. Only nine lines into this section the authors focus on monastic disregard of the vow of chastity. leffraye states, '[T]o all goodnes they are dull,/ Makynge merry with gill and loan' (101, 1628-9). According to leffraye, friars are worse than monks,- they cheat rich matrons and defile 'Honorable virgins' (103, 1706). 'Of whordom they

20

Introduction

are the very baudes' (103, 1711). Moreover, 'they feare lytell whom they offende,/ Accustumed to rappe and rende,/ All that commeth in their fingrynge' (105, 1786-8). The Franciscan Observants come in for severe attack on the question of chastity; they are accused of masturbation, a practice that is also mentioned in Luther's commentary. Here and there the authors argue that it is a sin that could be avoided if these clerics were not wedded to the clerical vow of chastity and used 'the right remedy,/ Of oure lordes institucion' (1868-9). leffraye states: 'Open advoutrers they are none,/ Yet are they not virgens every chone,/ All though they professe chastite./ They have pollucions detestable,/ And in warde brennynges intollerable,/ Of the flesshly concupiscence./ Ye and wother whyles advoutry,/ With wother meanes of letchery,/ Cloaked vnder a fayned pretence./ Wich to overcome certaynly,/ They vse not the right remedy,/ Of oure lordes institucion' (107, 1858-69). In perhaps the longest and most important passage that resonates with Luther's own argument, Barlowe and Roye, through their two spokesmen, once again attack the Church's condemnation of marriage for clerics and their impossible vow of chastity. The apparently ingenuous Watkyn says to leffraye: 'Men saye they live blissedly,/ With out acte of matrimony,/ Ensuynge verteous exercyse.' leffraye responds, 'Their cloyster are the devils mewes,/ Farre worse then eny stewes,/ Or commen places of whordom./ They are the dens of baudines,/ And fornaces of all letcherousnes,/ Lyke vnto Gomer and Sodom./ Yonge laddes and babes innocent,/ They brynge in by their intysement,/ To their leawde congregacion./ Whom they receave to profession,/ Before that they have discrecion,/ To their eternall damnacion./ For when they fele by experience,/ The brynnynge of the concupiscence,/ Pryckynge their hertes with love./ Consyderynge also their bondage,/ Howe they can vse no manage,/ As a christen man doth behove./ Then to quenche their apetytes,/ They are fayne to be sodomytes,/ Abusynge theym selves vnnaturally' (127-8, 2614-37). As if to verify that clerical chastity is an impossible dream not worth contemplating, Barlowe and Roye close their satire with a reference to 'Pope Clemente,' calling him 'the sonne of an whoore' (157) in order to suggest that the effects of fornication ascend to the very summit of the clerical hierarchy, affecting and literally giving birth to the pope himself.

21

Context, Content, and Structure

This running commentary in Rede Me on clerical immorality brought on by misguided and unscriptural vows of chastity, and the demeaning of marriage by the Roman church - all clear echoes of what one hears in Luther's commentary - indicates that Roye, like other reformers, was preoccupied to the point of obsession with these themes. What could be better than to recycle these ideas through reiteration by translating the great arch-heretic, Luther himself, on these same reformist concerns, thereby showing a uniformity of vision between the English and German reform movements? Luther's commentary and Roye's translation are painstakingly full texts, prolix, highly repetitive, and often detailed beyond what the biblical verses seem to call for, not uncommon characteristics in exegetical writings of this period and earlier. Structurally, the work is held together by the individual verses from Paul that head each new section of the commentary.27 Paul's forty brief verses of 1 Corinthians 7, which make up one-and-a-half single-spaced pages in Daniell's edition of Tyndale's New Testament, are fleshed out into well over two thousand lines of commentary in Roye's rendering of Luther's text. Throughout the commentary Luther discusses several topics that sometimes double back on themselves later in the work, presumably for emphasis. In the text we hear about the importance of marriage as a state of life; the difficulties of remaining chaste and unmarried; the 'un-privileging' of chastity with a view to undermining the Roman church's view of chastity's importance and special status; the responsibilities that married people have towards each other,- marriage as a safeguard against fornication and solitary sin; the fraudulence of canon law's regulations on marriage; and the appropriate conditions for divorce. Apart from verse citations that tend to divide portions of the text from each other, the work is separated into three larger categories, perhaps to impose some further order on it. These categories, as summarized by Roye, are 'The state of widowes/ the state of wedded persones/ and the state of maydes and virgines' (1003-4); even these categories, however, do not bring a tight control over this often repetitive text. There are many threads in Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 that break off, only to be picked up again and briefly pursued before being abandoned once more. Thus, it is perhaps best to focus

22 troduction

on the thread that seems strongest and most pervasive; namely, the one that insists on the importance of marriage as a defence against unchastity and attacks those of the spiritual estates who privilege chastity but who lead themselves and others into sin by holding out a false ideal that few in this vale of tears can attain.28 Initially, marriage is openly acknowledged here as a safeguard against fornication rather than as a special vocational calling in its own right, although later in the tract Luther will compare it favourably with its alternative, celibacy. This frank admission of marriage's safety-valve function is made only twenty lines or so into the text, where Paul's opening verse of 1 Corinthians 7 is glossed as meaning 'that for love of avoydinge fornicacyon every man ought to have his wife' (59S-9).29 Chastity is a state reserved for those with a special calling, such as Paul himself, although even Paul, Luther argues later, 'was ones maryed and had a wife' (1349-50). Those who have trouble remaining chaste, including the illustrious St Jerome, who was tempted by sins of the flesh throughout his life, do not 'fele this godly and good thinge' (600-1). After this bold general claim in support of marriage for the majority, the text fires its first salvo at those who frustrate both humankind's natural inclinations and Paul's injunctions as mediated through the minds of the reformist author and his sympathetic translator. The clear implication in what follows is that the Roman church's insistence upon privileging chastity and forcing it upon its clerics is wrong. If one accepts Paul's argument, '[t]hen here of doth folowe that no parsone may make a vow or promyse to lyve chaste and single. And that no parson is bounde to kepe and performe eny suche vowe once made/ but rather to fordo vnkepe and breake them. When in him silfe he doth not fynde nor fele this precyous and goodly gyfte of chastite/ but knoweth him silfe prone to luste and incontinencye ... But againste the commaundemente of God may no vowe be made therfore yf eny suche vowe be made/ he that shall observe and kepe it ys damnabyll/ yee and by the lawe of god all redye condemned' (605-16).30 The attack on clerical celibacy continues unabated. Although 'monasteryes and abbyes' were built 'that yonge men myght be kepte pure and chaste/ yf they ware absente from yonge women/ and lykewyse yonge women from men' (625-7), such plans proved unsuccessful because 'chastyte maye [not] be dryven in to a man by out-

23

Context, Content, and Structure

warde meanes' (632-3); since it resides in the heart and mind it 'muste springe out from the inner partes of the harte' (634-5) and cannot be imposed through simple physical separation of males from females: 'Yet have they therfore not made all gates so royall a provision agaynste luste/ as they pretende ... for what avayleth [one] to see no woman/ ne heare/ nother yet touche hyr? yf my herte swymme fulle of them? yf in thought it cleveth vnto them both daye and nyght? yf it ymagine and purpose more fylthines/ then any man is bolde to do?' (637-43). True chastity is 'frely spretuall' (660) and cannot be enforced or compelled by physical means. Nor can its appearance—perhaps merely 'strayned and vnwillfull continency' (677) - be taken as a sure sign of inner commitment to it.31 The text turns away for a time from Church-privileged chastity to discuss conjugal rights and obligations in marriage that man-made laws such as prayer and fasting imposed by the Church and 'oure holy father' (897) cannot overrule, but quickly returns to attack the Church and papacy for ignoring Paul's words in verses 6-7. Claiming that 'ther holy religyon is more precious before god than matrimony' (1069-70), the Church encourages 'nonnes' to 'swelle in pryde' (1068) and awards them 'a croune/ or a garlende of golde and precious stones' (1071) as a prize for their chaste lives. These lies, promulgated by the Church, about the inestimable value of chastity make 'suche folke proude/ arrogante/ wicked and vnfaythfulle' and encourage them to 'put more truste in their dedes and ceremonies/ then they put faith in Christe and in goddes grace/ so dispisyng matrimony as a thinge many miles before the sight of god more base/ and lesse in valewe then chastite' (1074-9). The text's next aim, even as it candidly, if somewhat paradoxically, articulates the hardships of marriage - regarding it as an expedient safeguard against an unchaste life - is to show that 'matrimony ys of all other the moste hyghest religion and moste spretuall estate' (1109-10) and that 'the sectes ... of all manner shavelynges' (1111-12) are mere 'wordly [sic] and seculare estates' (1118). Indeed, Luther and Roye's glossing of 1 Corinthians 7 demonstrates to their satisfaction at least that the Roman church has turned the world upside down 'in suche wyse that yt/ whyche ys secular shall be called spretuall/ and a spretuall thinge muste be called secular' (1121-3).32 To demonstrate the worldliness and absence of an inner spiritual core in the Roman

24 Introduction

church, the text focuses once more on the speciousness of the 'exterior dedes and ceremonies' (1152-3) of the Church, its 'outwarde and corporalle dedes' (1149), its 'exteryor/ temporalle/ transitory and corporalle' emphases (1141-2). Those who endorse chastity through their unscriptural vows are interested only in 'their rentes/ and revenues of meate/ drinke/ clothes/ beddinge/ houses/ and of all other thinges ... goten vnto their handes by other mennes swete and labore/ ye broughte home vnto them/ and put afore their nose' (1160-4). On the other hand, those who marry require an intense faith in God's grace in order to maintain their wives and bring up their children. The crucial distinction between the married state properly understood and chastity as promulgated by the spiritual estates is based on the cornerstone of Lutheran theology: faith, a notion that, finally, informs all of Luther's attitudes towards the true Christian life. Quite early in the text mention is made of faith, and the suggestion - left undeveloped at this stage - is that the central component in any state of life, married or unmarried, is a strong and abiding faith in Christ (150-2). Later, however, when distinguishing between the married and celibate states and privileging the former at the expense of the latter - exactly the opposite tack to that taken by the Roman church - the text clearly explains the importance of faith in married life and its critical absence in the life chosen by the spiritual estates, a life that feels no need to 'put faith in Christe and in goddes grace' (1076-7). Because of its inherent hardships, marriage enforces those who enter it to place their faith in God and acknowledge their helplessness and inability to succeed on their own without God's grace. Because of the ease of their choice of life, the spiritual estates that subscribe to chastity on their lips if not in their hearts have no need to acknowledge or ask for God's grace,- they rely on their own craftiness and the labour of others to fulfil their desires. Roye puts it this way: '[H]ow moche the lesse faith [they] ... hath/ the more ioyfulle and blessed dayes do they leade or live. For they hade royally provided for their belly/ and have no nede to loke vnto the hande of god nor abyde his goodnesse' (1195-9). The hardships of marriage are signs of its spiritual superiority over the vocation of the so-called spiritual estates; put another way, the trials of marriage are blessings, since they encourage married folk to place their faith in God's grace and, as a result, ensure their own salvation through their absolute

25 Context, Content, and Structure

reliance on faith. As the text claims, the hardships of marriage do 'both teache and also dryve the to have respecte/ and loke vnto the grace of god/ and in manner enforseth the vnto faith' (1190-2). Those who pride themselves on following a life of chastity should realize that their accomplishments, should they possess any, are 'not by [their] power' (1095), a fact which proves that human vows to remain chaste are doomed to fail, since such vows suggest a strength of will that fallen humanity does not possess. Hence, the term 'spiritual estates' is a misnomer because 'nothynge were called after the name of the sprete/ excepte only the inner lyfe of fayth/ whiche ys in the harte/ where as the sprete hath rule and dominyon' (1125-7). Only those 'whyche walke in the ryght waye by fayth ... ar truly spretuall' (1137-8). In short, marriage 'is as golde' 'by cause [it] promoteth/ and bringeth one to faith' (1277-8); 'the spretualle estates [are] as dounge (1277) because they bring one 'vnto vnbelefe or wickednesse' (1279). Luther's prolix commentary continues in the same vein: the constant tension between his treatise on marriage and his criticism of the Roman church is almost palpable. The pope is 'Antichriste' (1525) - every reformer's favourite word for the head of the Church for promulgating fallacious rules in canon law about marriage. Papal dicta requiring a celibate clergy are shown to be unscriptural and, specifically, anti-Pauline. Once again, the focus on marriage as an antidote to 'burning' (1594ff) is discussed at length, largely repeating the same notion mentioned earlier where marriage was seen as an appropriate and legitimate corrective to fornication. A long section on legitimate and illegitimate reasons for divorce begins around line 1883. The Church is attacked for its irrational restrictions on divorce, restrictions that force unloving couples to remain with each other, thereby causing pain to each party.33 About two-thirds of the way through this long commentary, Luther explains how no choice of life or occupation is inherently superior to any other, be that state single, married, 'bonde men or slaves' (2521-2). This extended gloss on Paul's verses 20-1 allows Luther to attack yet again the privileging tendencies of the Roman church that arrogantly place a premium on the celibate life. The work closes on a familiar and strident note, reminding us of the content and tone of its opening and many of its central sections: Luther criticizes the Church for its hypocritical stand on chastity and extends the philippic to include a comment on

26

Introduction

the enslavement to pleasures associated with the cleric's life, a not uncommon theme among reformers in general: ... they playe the cruelle tyrannes and soule murderers/ that do barre in and shutte youth vp in cloysters/ there keping them in by vyolence/ As though chastite did consiste in oure power/ when not withstandinge they both thinke and also in themselves fele the contrary. And so they bringe other to that/ whiche they did never touche so moche as with one of their fingers/ nor yet can though they wolde never so fame/ It is shortely sayde/ Be chaste. But why then art thou o fornicator? It is a gaye mater you may be suer. Thou shake farse/ and stuffe thy body with delicate meates and drinkes/ in soche a manner that yt shalbe a mayne draffe sacke or swylle belly/ and then put or enioyne me to faste all the dayes of my life/ and to kepe abstinencye. Finally vnto them that be attentyfe and wylling to heare/ have I in thys treatyse sayde/ and written sufficient: But as concerninge them that haue no luste but disdayne to heare/ what can or elles maye men saye? I beseche god to illumine them/ and lende vnto them his lyght/ or elles to lette and forbydde them that (as a fore thys they have done) here after they maye no lenger slee and murdre mennys soules. (3291-310) As is the case with so much literature written by European and English reformers during this period, Luther's tract is a highly charged text made up of a not always judicious combination of interpretation and attack. However, it is hard to imagine how any reformist work could be anything but such a combination, since reformist literature, almost by definition, is 'reactive' and polemical, needing to clarify what it sees as wrong before it can propose what is right, correct, and proper. What is fascinating about the polemics of this period is the wildly different versions of interpretation or hermeneutics held by forces on each side of the ideological divide. It is one thing to say, as many reformers did, that the truths of the Bible lay open to anyone with a feeling faith and a genuine desire for the truth. It is quite another thing, however, to argue, as Luther seems to here, that Paul's truths as found in 1 Corinthians 7 are those that clearly and unequivocally underscore the validity of Protestant belief and

27 Context, Content, and Structure

demonstrate as well the pernicious errors inherent in the Roman church, an institution that itself claimed to hold a monopoly on truth. In his second preface to this work, Luther claims that this particular epistle 'has been twisted back and forth to condemn the married state and at the same time to give a strong appearance of sanctity to the dangerous and peculiar state of chastity/ In fact the literature of reformation polemics might very well be seen as a series of accusations from both sides about the way in which each side twists the truth back and forth to fit its own ideology. Simply put, the question is, 'How can each side claim biblical authority for its views when those views are so diametrically opposed? Or to cite the Bible itself, the putative source for those conflicting hermeneutics, 'What is truth?' Pontius Pilate's question to Christ-a question that never received a direct answer - is the question that all students of the Reformation movement are constantly forced to ask themselves. Luther's tract and Roye's appropriation and translation of it bring that question to the forefront once again.

Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis

Roye's version of Erasmus's text is, by and large, true to the content and spirit of the original, but it is not, for all that, a simple copy of the original. There are, of course, major stylistic alterations, as one would expect of a translation. In addition, there are several expansions of notions in the original that, nevertheless, seem faithful to the source, and a few that change the original by placing a Protestant, reformist emphasis on Erasmus's candidly critical, forthright, but theologically conservative text. The most obvious stylistic changes in Roye's text are his frequent doublings and his love of the rhetorical device of synonymy, techniques that sometimes render parts of sentences both redundant and longer than they need be.34 The doublings begin almost immediately and continue throughout the text. Erasmus's opening sentence, 'The illustrious Lactantius Firmianus, good reader, whose eloquence Jerome especially admires, as he begins to defend the Christian religion against the pagans desires especially an eloquence second only to Cicero's be given him, thinking it wrong, I believe to want an equal eloquence' (Lactantius ille Firmianus, optime lector, cujus linguam unice miratur Hieronymus Christianae Religioni patrocinaturus adversus Ethnicos, cum primis optat sibi dari eloquentiam Tullianae proximam improbum ratus, opinor, optasse parem, 13 7 ),35 becomes in Roye a sentence filled with doublings: 'Lactantius Firmianus (whose eloquence sanct Hierome doth greatlie avaunce) endeveringe hym silfe to defende and mayntayne the christen faythe and religion/ against the craftye and vnfaithfull gentles/ did wishe and desyre with fervent affection to attayne the eloquence next vnto

29 Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis

Tullyes/ countinge it an hygh presumption (as I thinke) yf he shuld have desyred equall' (9-15; emphasis mine). In addition to the essentially redundant doublings in this sentence, which, nevertheless, accurately reflect Erasmus's meaning, Roye adds one doubling modifier to Erasmus's word 'pagan,' rendering it 'the craftye and vnfaithfull gentles' so as to make clear for the reader his own value judgment on this group. Not content to allow Erasmus's word 'pagan' or his own 'gentles' to speak for themselves, Roye here and elsewhere in this text feels obliged 'to carry coals to Newcastle.' The use of synonymy continues throughout this tract as if it were Roye's own peculiar linguistic tic. Roye will rarely use one word where two or more might be employed. Hence, Erasmus's 'exhort' (adhortor 137) becomes in Roye 'exhorte and entyse' (16-17); 'ornate' (picturatum 137) becomes the more vivid 'painted and coloured' (20-1); 'more efficacious' (93) (multo magis efficacem 137) becomes 'more power and efficacite' (21-2); 'sleep' (somnum 138) is 'a soden and oblivious slepe' (26); 'renew' (refricare 139) is 'revocate and call to memorye' (66). Erasmus's description of the delights of Periclean comedy - 'an eloquence which not only captivates the ear with its fleeting delight but which leaves a lasting sting in the minds of its hearers ...' (quae non aures tantum mox peritura voluptata deliniat, sed quae tenaces aculeos relinquat in animis auditorum 138) - becomes in Roye 'the old comedye vnto pericles/ whiche maye not onlye entyse and delite the eeres with a shorte and corruptible delectacion or pleasure. But also maye leve perpetuall prickes and instigacyons in the mindes of the hearers' (39-43). Even when Erasmus strings two terms together as in 'syllogisms and exclamations of the orators' (Rhetorum epicherematis, aut epiphonematis 139), Roye extends the phrase by adding a modifier to each noun: 'the painted argumentes and coloured conclusions of the Rhetoricyans' (61-2). It is often the case that Roye's doublings add a charming linguistic flavour not evident in the original. The consonance in 'coloured conclusions' mentioned above is an example, as is the expression 'many irxome and babelinge sciences' (147), a more colourful, possibly more satiric rendering than Erasmus's 'more troublesome sciences' (tot anxiis disciplinis 140). Erasmus's 'strength of the Christian religion' (Religionis Christianae praesidium 140) becomes Roye's 'pithe and substance' (179). Erasmus's 'common laborer' (fossor 140), for

30 Introduction

whom the Gospels should be available, becomes in Roye those who 'dygge and delve' (239). And as a final example of colourful expansion through doubling, or in this case quadrupling, Erasmus's reference to Christ's 'entire wardrobe' (totam illius supellectilem 144) becomes for Roye 'his coote/ sherte/ shoes/ and all his housholde stuffe' (540). In addition to his frequent doublings and use of synonymy, Roye adds further colour to the tract by employing prose that might appeal to the popular imagination.36 Furthermore, he sometimes keeps, sometimes excises references that might be beyond the grasp of the unlettered: the weavers and labourers mentioned in one of this work's most famous passages. A couple of Roye's excisions are worthy of note. Early in the text, Erasmus displays his impressive knowledge of classical literature by referring in rapid succession to Firmianus, Jerome, Mercury, Ogmius, Amphion, Orpheus, Marsyas, Alcibiades, Socrates, Pericles, Alexander the Great, and Timotheus. Roye faithfully reproduces all of these figures but seems to draw the line at a reference to the perhaps too obscure Pytho by excising his name from the text. Commenting on inspirational language, Erasmus states, 'But if there were any such kind of incantation anywhere, if there were any power of song which could truly inspire, if any Pytho truly swayed the heart, I would desire that it be at hand for me so that I might convince all of the most wholesome truth of all' (Quod si quod usquam esset hujusmodi genus incantamenti, si qua vis harmoniae, quae verum habeat Ev6xxriaan-6v, si qua Pytho vere flexanima, earn mihi cupiam in praesentia suppetere, quo rem omnium saluberrima omnibus persuadeam 139). Roye's version, without the Pytho allusion, is as follows: 'Yf there be eny strenght in musike and armonye. Yf there be eny pleasant persuasion/ which hath power to allecte mannes mind in to her sentence/ the same as this season/ wold I gladly obtaine to thentent that I might persuade vnto all men that thinge which is most holsome and most profitable vnto them' (52-7). Roye also tries to clarify through omission a possibly arcane reference in another part of Erasmus's text. In an attempt to show how humankind foolishly drags 'heavenly doctrines' down to the level of [its] own life,' Erasmus refers, without explanation, to 'a Lydian rule' (Lydiam regulam 141). Roye explains the point that Erasmus wants to make in terms more comprehensible to ordinary, simple humankind, who might be perplexed by Erasmus's reference.

31

Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis

He states, 'We apply and drawe/ this hevenly and vspotted doctrine vnto oure liffe. And measure it after our vayne conversation accordinge vnto the maner of the lesbes which bende their rule to the facyon of their stone or tymbre/ And cut not their stone and timbre to the rule' (317-22; see note in Commentary). In general, Roye's English is more poetic, more figurative, and more colourful than Erasmus's Latin. Early in the text Erasmus's 'hell' (infernis 138) is Roye's periphrastic 'plutos impery' (28). Erasmus's references to the 'noisy disputation' (litibus 141) that now pollutes the simplicity of Christ's message becomes in Roye 'contentious pleatinges' (275). Erasmus poses a rhetorical question, asking his reader whether it is sensible 'to know nothing of [Christ's] doctrines, which offer most certain happiness of all' (nescire dogmata, quae certissimam omnibus praestent felicitatem? 139). Roye poses the same question, but can't resist adding a sentence not found in Erasmus, one that introduces an interesting and colourful biblical metaphor from Hebrews 6:19 as well as three alliterative patterns, one after the other: 'And which are the anker of the soule both sure and stable/ preservinge vs from perisshinge in all tempestes of temptation?' (105-7). Erasmus feels that the knowledge of the Gospels conies from God himself and that this fact should 'excite Christian minds' (Christianos titillet animos 141); Roye thinks it should 'ticle and entyse the Christen hartes' (126-7). Aristotle's 'obscure volumes' (voluminibus spinosis 139) in Erasmus are Roye's 'brawlinge and contentious bokes' (143). Erasmus argues that one need not 'approach' the Gospels 'equipped with so many troublesome sciences' (tot anxiis disciplinis instructus accedus 140). Roye agrees, but does so more graphically when he claims that one need not 'be clogged with so many irxome and babelinge sciences' (146-7). In Erasmus one progresses in the riches of the Gospel; in Roye one 'wadest in the tresurs' (165). For Erasmus, 'in the conquest of every citadel nothing is more powerful than the truth itself (Ut omnia jungamus praesidia, nihil ipsa veritate potentius 141); Roye exhorts us to 'ioyne to gedder all armyes/ powers/ and might of swerde/ yet is there nothinge stronger than the trueth' (296-7). Erasmus posits another rhetorical question, wondering aloud why interpreters of the scriptures distort and render it obscure. He states: 'Why in the case of this literature that should be revered do we allow ourselves, and I

32 Introduction

shall say almost to a greater extent than do the secular interpreters in the case of the imperial laws or the books of the physicians, to speak what ever comes to mind, to distort, to obscure?' (Cur in his adorandis litteris idem, ac pene dixerim, plus nobis permittimus, quam in Caesareis legibus, aut Medicorum libris sibi permittunt Interpretes profani? Ut perinde quasi in re ludicra versemur; ita quidquid in buccam venerit, commentemur, detorqueamus, involvamus? 141). In rendering this passage into English, Roye outdoes himself in the use of figuration: 'Why in this hevenly and misticalle learninge do we countte/ and discant runninge more at ryote/ Then the comen and prophane interpreters/ in the cyville lawe/ or bokes of Phisike? Wyndinge oure selves in it as in a tryfelinge game/ or matter of smalle substance/ commentynge/ tossinge and wrestinge it even as it cometh to oure tonges ende' (311-17). And as a final example, Erasmus is incredulous that some people 'ridicule' (rideri 142) the Gospels. For Roye these same types make the gospels a 'laughinge stocke' (372), the first recorded use of this term in English, and, apparently, an expression created by Roye himself. Another change to Erasmus's text that Roye makes involves building into his translation imagery and metaphors drawn from the Bible itself, an appropriate gesture given the Protestant emphasis on the sufficiency of the Bible alone in the scheme of salvation, and Roye's own involvement with Tyndale in the translation of the New Testament.37 Concerned that certain individuals appropriate scripture for themselves and serve as its sole interpreters, Erasmus states, 'I shall not say we corrupt, but - and no one can deny it - we restrict to a few, although Christ wished nothing to be more public' (non dicam, corrumpimus: sed quod negari non potest, ad paucos homines contrahimus rem, qua Christus nihil voluit esse communius 141). As he had earlier when introducing a reference to Hebrews 6 into Erasmus's text, so Roye here adds the expression 'these frutefull springes' to Erasmus's 'corrupt/ thereby introducing another biblical allusion into the text, this time possibly to Proverbs 25:26. The same image is included again later in Roye, but is absent in Erasmus. On 524-5 Roye hopes that ' all with fervent desyre [will] thriste after these sprituall springes.' These two references to 'springs' with their probable biblical origins help to create a recurring image in Roye's version of Erasmus's text. The image is first introduced in Roye only one

33

Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis

page into the translation and is a significant addition to Erasmus's text. Discussing how Christians ignore the word of God while paying undue attention to 'mennes invencyons' (70), Roye spins out the implications of this neglect metaphorically: ... yet only this immortall fontayne of Christes pure philosophye/ is despysed and mocked of so many/ yee and cheflye of them which professe to be the heddes and examples of the Christen/ few there are that seke these holsome springes of helthe/ And yet they that seke them/ do so vnfruetfully loke vpon them. Adding their awne glosses and opinions that they seame rather to treble and defile these springes of liffe/ then to drinke of them swetely/ that they might have in them silf floddes of livinge water/ runninge in to everlastinge liffe/ which both shuld be to the glorye of god/ and profitte of the Christen. (70-81) Another two biblical references in Roye but not in Erasmus are found near the very end of the tract. Arguing that those who during life have defended men's 'doctrines and decrees' (520) sometimes 'in the poynte of dethe' (520) abandon that defence, Roye suggests metaphorically that this change of heart is a casting 'awaye their shilde' (521). The image of the shield being cast away is reminiscent of 'the shield of the mighty [being] vilely cast away' in 2 Samuel 1:21. Similarly, a few lines later Roye, adding to Erasmus, suggests that humankind see the words of the Bible 'as the storehouse/ or tresurye/ of goddes awne minde' (532-3) words reminiscent of Joshua 6:19 and 24. Finally, certain changes made in Roye's text seem to reflect either a different emphasis from Erasmus's original, or, more important, a theological qualification or alteration of the original's orthodoxy.38 Subtle changes in emphasis are evident at two points in Roye's translation. About three pages into the Paraclesis, after describing at some length a number of philosophical schools that preceded the arrival of the Christian message, Erasmus refers to Christ's message as 'a great matter, and in no sense a commonplace one,' since Christ himself proclaimed it 'after so many families of distinguished philosophers, after so many remarkable prophets'

34 Introduction

(Magnum quiddam et haud quaquam triviale sit oportet, quidquid illud est, quod ille tarn admirandus auctor, post tot excellentium Philosophorum familias post tot insignes Prophetas, docturus advenerit 139). Roye, faithful to the original in so far as he renders into English all of those earlier schools that Erasmus mentions, neglects, nevertheless, to translate the phrase 'after so many families of distinguished philosophers, after so many remarkable prophets.' One can only speculate on the reason for this omission: perhaps it's the privileging adjectives 'distinguished' and 'remarkable' that bother Roye, since he and his reformist colleagues preferred to restrict such terms to Christ's own message and to regard earlier philosophical schools in a typically anti-humanist way - as in no way compatible with or comparable to the Christian message. Or perhaps, more likely, Roye reads the second expression 'after so many remarkable prophets' in apposition to the phrase 'distinguished philosophers' and objects to gracing pagan philosophers with that term. A second shift in emphasis, this time involving an addition rather than a deletion, occurs about half-way through the text. Erasmus wishes that priests would preach the truths of Christ's message in their sermons. Roye, highly critical throughout his reformist career of the superstitions and unscrupulous practices of the Roman church, takes this opportunity to mention them by adding to Erasmus's text a critical comment on priests who promulgate such pernicious beliefs through their preaching. Like Erasmus, he wishes that 'prechers in their sermons wold avaunce this doctrine [of Christ]/ but adds 'exhortinge all men vnto it/ and not to their awne phantasyes and imaginacions' (264-7). Certain, apparently small, linguistic changes and additions, easily overlooked in Roye, are nevertheless crucial since they reflect major differences in theology between Erasmus and his reformist translator. Twice in this work, Roye emphasizes, as Erasmus does not, the importance of acting on behalf of one's neighbour's spiritual welfare, the only work deemed 'good' by Protestant reformers. In these two additions Roye is defending good works in strictly Protestant terms, and by so doing implicitly reacting against the conservative position, which claimed that Christians could work to effect their own salvation through a broad definition of good works, a term that included such questionable activities - in Protestant terms at

35

Roye's English Version of the Paraclesis

least - as pilgrimages, assisting at masses, alms-giving, indulgences, and the like. In the first passage Erasmus hopes that the devoted Christian will read the scriptures, 'comprehend what he can,' and 'express what he can' (Adsequatur quisque quod potest, exprimat quisque quod potest 140). Roye is much more specific in defining what Erasmus means by 'express what he can.' He states, 'Let every man prospere/ and attayne that he may/ And declare effectuously his mind vnto his neghburre' (199-200). Later in the work Erasmus speculates on what might happen if humans turned their full attention to the Christian message as contained in the Gospels. He states in part, 'If it happen that they, having laid aside their own affairs, should sincerely cooperate in Christ, we would certainly see in not so many years a true and ... a genuine race of Christians everywhere emerge' (Quos si omisso suo negotio contingat ex animo conspirare in Christo, nimirum, videremus haud ita multis annis verum quodam, et ... -YVTJOIOV Christianorum genus passim emergere 141). Roye renders this as follows, inserting an important, specific allusion to the reformist definition of a good work into the sentence: 'Now yf these wold a whyle seclude theyr awne private busynesse and lyfte vppe their hartes with a pure entent vnto christe seakynge only hys glory/ and the profyte of theyr neghbore/ we shulde se verely wyth in few yeares/ a true and godly kinde of christen springe vp in everye place' (286-91, emphasis mine). Two other apparently small changes in Roye have a major effect on the theological orientation of the English translation. They occur within two pages of each other and both reflect the Protestant belief in sola fide and humankind's inadequacy to effect its own salvation and its consequent utter reliance on God's saving grace. Erasmus argues that the first step in leading a truly Christian life 'is to know what [Christ] taught; the next is to carry it into effect' (Primum autem est sciere quid docuerit, proximum est praestare 142). This statement, by the author of De Libero Arbitrio suggests that humankind is capable of putting into effect what Christ teaches through the scriptures. Roye will have none of this and has no illusions about man's ability to act for his own good. Consequently, he renders this passage as follows: 'The first poynte of Christianite is to knowe what Christ hath taught. The next is to do there after and to fulfyll it as nygh as god giveth vs grace' (377-80).

36 Introduction

In another passage, Erasmus argues that Christians have a distinct advantage over Jews in coming to recognize spiritual truths, since Jews had only the Old Testament as a witness to the truth. He states, 'The Jews saw and heard less than you see and hear in the books of the Gospel, to the extent that you make use of your eyes and ears' (Minus videbant, minus audiebant Judaei, quam tu vides et audes in Euangelicis litteris, tan turn ut oculos et aures adferas 142). Roye reiterates the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone by adding the crucial qualifying phrase 'of fayth' (420) to Erasmus's phrase 'eyes and ears.' He states, 'As thou mayst dayly both here and se in the scripture of Christe/ there wanteth nothynge/ but that thou bringe the heares and eyes of fayth where with he maye be harde and perceaved' (418-21). Taken together, these two significant theological doctrines, sola fide and human inadequacy, which Roye insinuates into Erasmus's text, suggest the importance of Lutheran theology for the reformist Roye.

Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

Roye's predilection for doublings and the rhetorical device of synonymy is no less evident in his translation of Luther than it is in his version of Erasmus's Paraclesis. For example, Moses' view, according to Luther, 'that every man was to have a woman' (Was ein man war, muste ein weib haben 97) becomes in Roye 'So that a man by the lawe of matrimony shulde be associate and kepe company with a woman' (561-3).39 Luther's 'to remain unmarried' (und nicht macht hetten on ehe zu bleiben 97) is Roye's 'abyde and lyve vnmaryed' (574). Luther's 'the first conclusion' (der erste schluss 98) is Roye's 'his firste sentence or conclusion' (599-600). Luther's reference to chastity as 'a special gift of God' (gottis sondere gabe 115) is for Roye a 'surmountinge/ principalle/ rare/ and singular gifte of god' (1740-1). As was the case in Paraclesis, so here: where Luther employs doublings, or two or more descriptive adjectives or nouns, Roye regularly outdoes him: Luther's 'A guaranteed income, food, clothing, shelter, and all sorts of other things' (gewisse zinss, essen, kleider, haus und allerlei auffs aller 106) becomes for Roye 'rentes/ and revenues of meate/ drinke/ clothes/ beddinge/ houses/ and of all other thinges' (1160-2). Luther's 'in the matrimonial order the body has its share of work, cares, and troubles' (das freilich auch der leib im ehlichen stand fein teil also wol hatt mit erbeit, sorge und mime zu schaffen 108) is for Roye 'the body in wedlocke is occupied and exercised with labore/ care/ study/ paynes/ travayle/ and misery' (1295-7). Glossing Paul, Luther states that 'mankind is not deprived of its male or female form, members, seed, and fruit' (nimpt er auch nicht von dem menschen weibisch odder menlich gestalt, gelid, samen und fruchte

38

Introduction

113). Roye's version is as follows: 'In lyke wise doth not the sprete take awaye from man ne frome woman their shappes/ their lymmes/ or membres/ their seade/ ne their frute and operacyon' (1616-18). Only a few lines later, Luther's positive expression, 'God suffers this raging passion' (Und solch wueten duldet Godd 114), is expanded by Roye and put into the negative: 'he doth not ease/ helpe/ quenche/ and represse' (1645-6). To offer a final example of how Luther's multiples become even more protracted in Roye: Luther makes clear how an enforced chastity, one held 'with great dislike, unwillingness, and pressure' (mit grosser unluft, unwillen und gezwang 115), is no true chastity at all. Roye describes this type of chastity as one adhered to 'with great yrkesomnes/ werynesse/ grudginly/ by enforsement/ and vnwillingly'(1746-7). Roye makes several other types of additions and expansions to Luther's text. The majority of these are attempts to develop or clarify a point in Luther without necessarily changing the meaning of the tract. Two, however, are of major importance. The first occurs at the very end of the text and represents an addition that shows Roye's heavy reliance on biblical citations and allusions - over and above those that Luther himself employs - a practice that, as we have seen, was prevalent as well in his translation of Paraclesis. As the tract draws to a close, Roye omits Luther's final paragraph, an apologia designed to convince the reader that Luther's text has received official approval, and adds five further references to the New Testament, all concerned with marriage and included to demonstrate the integrity and unity of biblical commentary on marriage in general (331134). The second major addition occurs quite early in the text and is a lengthy commentary by Roye justifying in no uncertain terms the Tyndalian rendering of a portion of Paul's text, namely the opening of 1 Corinthians 7:5, translated by Tyndale as 'With drawe not your selves one from another' (901-2). Roye begins this section by implying that translating the phrase 'worde for worde' 'after the Greke and laten examples' (936-7) would render the meaning of the phrase less clear than the translation provided here. He goes on to show how the Tyndale translation is both clearer than and truer to the sense of the original than a word-for-word translation. He hopes that his explanation will help those for whom the biblical translation is intended, stating, 'This have I shewed you/ that you shulde not lacke eny

39 Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

knowledge other of this place or yet of eny other/ that I by the grace of god can helpe you vnto' (956-8). But what follows in this addition is even more significant, since it represents Roye on the defensive - a common posture for the early English reformers - attempting to justify the translation of the Bible into English against its detractors, here referred to as 'oure pharisees and enimies of the trueth' (959-60). Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament (1526), completed with the help of William Roye, was burned at Paul's Cross in 1526 under orders from the Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall.40 Both Roye and Tyndale, here referred to as 'the good man which did it translate' (965-6), allude to the burning in some of their other writings, Roye particularly in Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe and Tyndale in several places (see Commentary). This insertion by Roye into Luther's text shows his awareness of the conservative opposition to Tyndale's translation and his attempt to justify the integrity and validity of the Tyndale rendering. Several other additions by Roye to Luther's text are important and worthy of note. Quite early in the text, where Luther discusses marriage as an aid 'against unchastity' (widder die unkeuscheit 102), he refers to the practice carried out 'in some places' (an ettlichen ortten 102), where the bride and bridegroom are separated 'until the third night' (inn die dritte nacht 102), a custom based on Tobias 8:4. Despite its biblical authority, Luther points out that this practice 'is not proper' (nicht recht sein 102). Roye is not prepared to let the matter rest there. He develops it, countering the book of Tobias by citing Paul to Timothy, and by so doing builds an additional colourful biblical metaphor into his translation, a practice that, as we have seen, he used as well in his rendering of Paraclesis. Roye's addition reads as follows: I do admitte that every man may vse the same maner/ if so he please with the assent of his wife: but to thinke that he is bounde therto. So that yf he do folowe it/ he doth a meritorious dede: or elles if he leave it vndone/ or do contrary wyse/ that ys to saye/ if he do vse his wyfe before that thyrde night/ he shulde therfore synne/ and do amisse. Then I saye this man in very dede thinketh evyll and doth amisse. Not bycause he dyd vse his wyfe contrary to suche a folishe gyse as ys before shewed:

40 Introduction

but for that he hath a wronge enformed conscience. And finally soche thoughtes/ and opinions or ymaginacyons ar scrupulous and voyde of ryght beleve/ and coming of a conscience evyll encombred/ or as Paule sayeth in the first pistle to Timothe.iiij. Marked with an hote yeron. (850-63) Roye's hatred of the papacy - perhaps an inheritance from the Wycliffe/Lollard tradition - and his particular and pointed references to it, as opposed to Luther's more general and unspecified ones, are evident on at least five occasions in the translation. Twice in Roye Luther's pejorative references to 'canon law' (geistlichen recht, lit. spiritual law 111) become references to the 'popes lawe' (1470-1, 2218), and once where Roye is faithful to Luther's term 'canon law' he quickly adds 'whiche is made by the pope/ and his clyentes' (1477-8) so as to specify the exact origin of this pernicious set of church regulations. On another occasion Luther's use of the word 'church' becomes in Roye once again a reference to 'the Popes lawes' (2643). There are, in addition, more lengthy and pejorative references to the papacy in Roye's translation. Early in the text Luther states that 'God's permission is greater than mankind's prohibition; what he grants to me, St Peter shall not deny me' (Gottis urlaub ist grosser, denn aller menschen gepott, was mir der gonnet, soil mir S. Peter nicht weren 102). Roye's more sardonic version spins out the implications of Luther's last phrase and pulls the pope into its orbit: 'The graunte of god is more than the commaundementes or lawes of all men. That whiche he hath geven and graunted me/ ought not sainte Peter pulle fro me/ and muche lesse oure holy father/ which (I put it to youre iudgement) how rightewesly he reioyseth and clepeth him selfe Peters successor/ and vicar/ and how directly he foloweth his steppes or learninge' (894900). On another occasion where Luther argues that a Christian need not wait for the return of his 'non-Christian spouse' (unChristlich gemall 124), Roye expands the reference as follows: 'And that vnder the payne (o presumpcion/ o shameless boldenes) of everlastinge damnacion/ whiche (yf that after he do mary) he shall runne in to. And thus by meanes of these vngracious lawes hath the pope kepte thraulde and put in subiection chrysten bretherne and systers for the presumpcion and trespasse of other/ that were/ their

41 Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

marled companions/ and with out all maner of causes hath caste them in to ieoparde of fornicacyon' (2233-40). Other additions in Roye's version reflect his negative views on the spiritual estates in general. For instance, where Luther is content to state that '[tjhere is no more unchaste state than the religious orders, as we find confirmed daily' (Es ist kein unkeuscher stand, denn der geistliche, wie man teglich erferet 109), Roye goes Luther one better in order to express not only his displeasure with these estates but also his hatred of them: '[F]or no estate (I reporte me vnto yow) ys more vnchaste ne more prone vnto wan tonnes lecherye/ or fornycacyon/ then is this whiche we calle ecclesiastike or spretualle/ as experience doth now a dayes over moche shewe' (1331-5). On another occasion, fulminating against the evils of an unmarried clergy, Roye adds to Luther's already strident commentary the following words: O gracyous lorde onles thy mercy were so greate/ as scripture therof doth make reporte/ that is to saye/ infinite/ and vnmesurable/ how couldeste thou that art so mighty rightwys/ and pure of iudgement abyde or suffer this/ and suche other like wicked presumpsyon and boldenes/ soche stinking whoredome/ and vnclennes? What other thinge is here sought/ then that the creature/ ordinance/ and worke of god shulde be discommended and reproved. And that vnto whordome shulde be made an open campe/ free passage/ and space to over runne all the worlde? (1513-23) In an attempt to discredit the felt superiority of an unmarried clergy, Roye adds the following to Luther's condemnation of their perceived privileged state. The clergy have in maner put all worshuppinge of god/ and good dedes/ out of this state/ callynge maryed people/ secular laye/ worldely/ yee and the very worlde yt silfe/ and other that lyve vnmaryed/ but yet not all chaste spretuall ecclesiasticalle/ and the churche. As though they only were spretualle and the churche. And the maryed were not so/ but the contrary/ yee they calle the vnmaried the knights of god/ goddys servantes/ the spouse of

42 Introduction

god and soche other names which it is pitye to se howe farre they be disagreyng from their dedes and condicions. What elles is this then in so avauncinge themselves in that they be vnmaried to teache that in mariage men can not be lyke? Ne do the same that they do beyng vnmaried. (3029-41) And finally, another addition by Roye to Luther's text indicates his sustained contempt for an unmarried clergy, a concern that preoccupied the early English reformers in general and is everywhere evident in their writings: 'And whiles [the clergy] do now mumbylle/ houle and singe in chirches/ they did diligently enforme/ nurtre/ ordre/ and rule their wife and their childre that they shulde live according to the institucion of god declared in the scriptures/ and so provide that they might have meate/ drinke/ and clotinge acordinge for the necessite of their body'(3155-61). On three occasions Roye singles out, through additions to Luther, a particular segment of the spiritual hierarchy that he himself knew well, namely, the friars.41 They come under sustained attack in his and Barlowe's Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe, but he does not overlook them here either. Commenting on the fact that St Paul privileges no one estate over any other, Luther poses the following rhetorical question: 'What is to become of all the monks and nuns and other religious orders that they have elevated to orders of blessedness equal to or even greater than this one true order of salvation?' (Wo wollen nu die munch und nonnen und ander geistliche stende bleiben, die sie zu hohern stenden der seligkeit neben und uber dissen einigen stand der seligkeit heben? 127). Roye's version is 'What can now oure monkes/ nonnes/ freres/ and suche other cloysterers here saye? whiche do magnifye/ boste/ and counte their estates as the gretteste estates of salvacion above this moste singulare estate of faith and Christianite?' (2395-402). Similarly, only a few lines later, in an effort to subvert the privilege traditionally assigned the spiritual orders, Luther states, 'To be a monk is nothing' (Munch sein ist nichts 128). Roye's hatred of the friars, a hatred that was shared not only by the reformers, but also even by other spiritual estates within the Roman church, encourages him to add, 'Moreover to be a monke or a frere ys no thinge' (2476-7). And finally, in an easily overlooked addition, Roye includes a possible reference to the friars once

43

Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

more in a list that Luther creates to suggest the equality of all people and estates in Christ. Luther states, 'It makes no difference to faith whether you are poor or rich, young or old, beautiful or ugly, learned or ignorant, layman or priest' (Es gillt im glauben gleich viel, du seist arm odder reich, iung odder allt, hubich odder hestich, gelert odder ungelert, lehe odder pfaffe 130). Roye puts it this way: 'In fayth yt ys all one mater whether thou be poore/ or elles ryche/ a yonge man or an olde/ fayer or foule/ lettred or vnlettred/ a laye man or elles a spretuall (as ys wonte to be sayde) whyte or elles blacke' (2591-4). The white and black reference is nicely ambiguous; it may refer to the colour of one's skin, but, in fact, it probably is also meant to call to mind two orders of friars, the Dominicans and the Carmelites, known as Black and White Friars respectively for the colour of their ecclesiastical attire. As was the case with Roye's version of Erasmus's Paraclesis, his rendering of Luther's explication of 1 Corinthians 7 is more colourful, idiomatic, and aphoristic than the original. In addition, two of Roye's alterations show his awareness of his English audience and readership. There are five instances of sayings or proverbs in Roye's version not found in Luther. Criticizing those who think that an enforced chastity such as one finds in monasteries and abbeys can endure or be regarded as virtue, Luther states, 'Such poor blinded people thought chastity could be put into people from without' (Solche blinde elende leutt haben gemeinet, die keuscheit von auswendig inn die menschen zu brengen 98). Roye's more colourful rendering reads, 'Suche parsones be as men are wonte to say comonly more blinde then a betle' (631-2). The expression 'more blind than a beetle,' according to the Oxford English Dictionary, first came into use in written English in 1548. But here we have Roye employing it in 1526. An interesting example of an antedating, Roye's use of the adage is also significant because in his sentence he prefaces its use by stating that it is a well-known expression; he calls it an expression 'men are wonte to saye comonly' (631). This comment suggests that the phrase is possibly drawn from the oral tradition, that of everyday speech, and is here perhaps captured for the first time in writing. If this is indeed true, it is an indication of Roye's attempts, found here and elsewhere, to appeal to the common run of humanity by employing their spoken idiom in his written text. Another example of the

44 Introduction

same phenomenon in Roye occurs where Luther argues that the value of marriage does not change simply because one enters the priesthood. Luther states, Truly all reason must admit and anyone can understand that whatever remains divine during and after the entry into the priesthood, this can also certainly be accepted during the priesthood itself or entered into before the priesthood' (Warlich alle vernunfft mus bekennen und iderman greiffen, das alles was bei dem priesterthum und nach dem priestertum kan gottlich bleiben 112). Roye emphasizes the self-evident nature of this fact by employing a proverb - 'at hys fyngers endes' - that, again, antedates the OED, which gives its first use as 1546. As was the case with the adage 'more blind than a beetle,' this adage too is described by Roye as a saying common in his own time. In context the adage appears as follows: 'Verely all reason muste knowledge/ and every man (as is sayde comonly) muste nedes fele at hys fyngers endes/ that what so ever thinge may be godly with pryste hode and after it/ the very same maye be well begunne in pristehode/ and before it' (1535-9). Once again, Roye's use of this adage shows him incorporating aspects of spoken English into his written text so as to give it a familiar, idiomatic feel for simple people. Another proverbial expression not found in written English until 1534 according to the OED, but here present in Roye's text and apparently once more a part of the oral culture, is the phrase 'betwixte the hammer and the stethy.' Attempting to convey the dangers that surround the Christian who believes in the Gospels, Roye states, '[Ajlwaye over the shulders of a Christian body hangeth redy for love of the Evangely persecucyon/ and he is every houre as men are wonte to saye sette as it were betwixte the hammer and the stethy so that he must put in ieoparde hys goodes/ his fryndes/ and his lyfe other to be dryven and taken awaye/ or elles to be slayne' (2885-90). It is also interesting to note that the expression hanging 'over the shulders' in the sense of an imminent threat or present danger seems original to Roye, since no instance of it is recorded in the OED. Other adages found in Roye but not in Luther add colour and a particular flavour to the English translation. The first is designed to capture the laziness of the spiritual estates in a striking way. For Luther the religious orders are 'like a lazy rogue' (Es ist ein fauler schelm 108). For Roye 'our spretualty ... is more sleuthfulle/ then

45

Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

Asses of Archadye' (1300-1). A final expression used in Roye - 'as strayte as a lyne' (2089-90) - appears to be yet another antedating whose first recorded use in the OED is 1530. Luther's phrase is as follows: 'For these are directly contrary to faith' (Denn die selben sind stracks widder den glawben 121). Roye's simile enlivens the expression: 'for they as strayte as a lyne be contrary vnto faith' (2089-90). Apart from popular adages and proverbs, Roye also uses colourful diction in general. Luther's phrase, 'For how does it help me if I do not see, hear, or touch a woman and still my heart is full of women' (Denn was hilfft michs, ob ich kein weib sehe hore odder greiffe, und doch mein hertz voll weiber stickt 98), becomes in Roye the more imagistic 'for what avayleth me to see no woman/ ne heare/ nother yet touche hyr? yf my herte swymme fulle of them' (639-41). Luther's 'a pretense before others' (fur der wellt scheinet 98) is Roye's 'glistereth before the worlde' (658). Luther's 'murderers of souls' (seel morder 99) becomes the kenning-like 'soulesleers' (666) in Roye. Luther's neutral phrase 'they preach' (predigen 101) is Roye's more emotional 'they raile and Bable in pulpites' (787-8). Luther's 'the devil and his tricks' (den tueffel und seine tuck 103) is Roye's 'the devill/ his snaris/ and sculkewatche' (909), the latter a word, it would seem, original to Roye, since it does not appear in the OED. Luther's term 'religious orders' (geistliche orden 105) becomes in Roye 'relygyous/ and of all manner shavelynges' (1112). Luther's 'prepared with everything' (sitzen inn sicher voller bereitschafft 106) is Roye's 'drouned in plente' (1181). Luther's contempt for the spiritual orders because of their laziness and concern for their own welfare is everywhere evident in this gloss on Corinthians. But it is nowhere more stridently and colourfully expressed than in Roye's translation. For example, where Luther states that 'the majority in the monastic and clerical orders are on the lookout that their stomach and bodies get their due' (das mehrer teil auch solchs inn klostern und pfaffen stand suche, das der bauch und die hautt gnug habe 106), Roye expands this comment and attaches a stronger emotional charge to it through his diction. He states: 'O lord god what an vnnumerable multitude/ and thronge is ther in cloysters/ and also amonges prystes that seke and appete this/ that is to saye to lyve welthyly easely/ without labor in ydelnes (and as they calle it) to live like a gentilman/ ye to love fylbelyes and bely bestes/ farcinge their hyde and

46 Introduction

stuffinge their paunches' (1168-74). Two expressions in this statement are original to Roye: the first is 'bely bestes/ a term found throughout Roye's works and one of his own creation; the second is 'fylbelyes/ a clear OED antedating. Examples of original, emotionally charged, and colourful diction abound in Roye's translation. Luther's expression 'so that they can neither pray nor do any other good work' (damit sie widder betten noch irgent ein gutt werck thun mugen 119) becomes in Roye 'but are letted and/ puffed awaye both from prayer and all other good dedes' (1941-3). Luther's '[t]he apostle certainly permits such separations by being lenient over against the weaknesses of Christians' (Solch scheiden aber lesst gewisslich der Apostel zu, das er der Christen schwacheit durch die finger fihet 119) is in Roye's charming version the following: 'But soche dyvorsement truly doth the Apostle dissemblinge or twinkclinge/ at mennes infirmite permitte' (194850). And as a final example, Luther's pejorative description of those in monastic orders as 'fattened swine, the whole lot of them' (Messt sew sind sie allesampt 135) becomes in Roye the even more negatively graphic 'They be all in a grosse sume swyne and sowes that are masted/ pampered/ and fedde delicately' (2913-15). Roye's use of colourful language helps vivify Luther's text, gives it a down-to-earth, colloquial flavour, and, in addition, demonstrates Roye's dexterity with the English language. These characteristics of the text are not lessened when one realizes that approximately twenty-two words in Roye's translation are OED antedatings. All of these antedatings and words original to Roye are noted in the Glossary. On two occasions in his translation, Roye seems sensitive both to the intellectual capacity of his readership and to its Englishness.42 Attempting to make clear how the religious orders are devoid of faith because of their concern about their present welfare, Luther builds two Latin expressions into his explanation. He states, '[H]ere is no substantia rerum sperandarum, no "conviction of things not seen," as is characteristic of faith, but rather certitudo rerum possessorum, "the certainty of things at hand."' Probably recognizing that a large portion of his readership might not understand Latin, Roye omits it and translates Luther here as 'Nother ys there eny confidence of thinges whiche ar hoped for/ but a certen holding faste and assurance

47 Roye's English Version of 1 Corinthians 7

of thinges presente' (1182-4). Roye's awareness of his English readership encourages him to excise from his text Luther's reference to the passion that arises in the hearts of the unmarried as an ailment 'known in German as "the secret disease"' (auff deutsch heist 'das heimlich leiden' 115). Roye refers to the burning associated with this ailment as simply 'prevy treble and affliction' (1701), thereby dissociating it from Germany. But he nods in the direction of its adage-like nature by referring to the expression 'prevy troble and affliction' as a 'proverbe'(1702). The final point to be discussed in this section on Roye's translation of Luther's text concerns theological alterations made to Luther by Roye. There are two such alterations, the first of which is crucial but easily overlooked. Near the very opening of the tract, Luther argues that chastity, as opposed to marriage, is not for everyone, and that those for whom it is irksome suffer needlessly if they believe that in their chaste state they are holier or more virtuous than those who marry. He states, 'One has to have the heart for chastity, otherwise all such things are worse than hell and purgatory' (Man miis das hertz zur keuscheit haben, sonst ist solch wessen erger denn hell und fegefewer 98). Roye shares Luther's sentiments about chastity, but refuses to translate his reference to purgatory, thereby indicating his absolute denial of its very existence, a denial found throughout his and other reformers' writings. It is possible, of course, that Luther is being ironic in this reference to purgatory, since he too repudiated this central component of Roman Catholic theology; but if this is the case, Roye refuses to acknowledge the irony in his translation and simply omits the offensive word altogether. The second alteration is less a change than an important clarification of a position close to the hearts of the English reformers. Late in the work Luther states, '[Y]ou owe God nothing but to believe and confess' (du bist Gott nichts schuldig zuthun denn gleuben und bekennen 131). Roye feels compelled to comment on the word 'confess,' making clear that the confession referred to here is not the pernicious 'auricular confession' so despised by the reformers (see Commentary) and so central a part of Roman Catholic theology, but rather an outward acknowledgment - a dclaration, as it were - of one's belief in God's expiatory and redemptive death for humankind. In order to make this point clear, Roye adds considerable explanatory

48 Introduction

detail to Luther's succinct phrase; his explanation allows him once more to draw upon the words of his beloved Paul. He states, Thou oweste nothinge vnto god/ but fayth and confession/ when I here/ saye confession. I meane not that whysperinge of synnes into the prystes eare/ whiche is called auricular confession/ ne yet the confession of thy sinnes vnto god/ but I meane as sainte Paule doth Roma.x. sayenge: Yf thou shalt knowledge or confesse with tljy mouth/ that lesus is Christ and beleve in thy harte that god hath reysed him from deth thou shalt be saved. Where by confession is meante witnessinge in wordes and dedes outwardely/ lyke as in harte we do truly byleve of god/ and his wordes inwardly. (2698-708)

Editorial Method

This text is an old-spelling, critical edition of William Roye's An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians (STC 10493), first published in Antwerp on 2 June 1529 by Hans Luft (ie, Johannes Hoochstraten). I have collated six copies of this edition for both substantive and accidental variants (British Library, John Rylands Library, Cambridge University Library, Eton College Library, Folger Shakespeare Library, and Cornell University Library). My choice of copy text is the British Library copy. The Eton Library and Cornell University Library copies of this work are imperfect: Eton lacks all of Roye's translation of Erasmus's Paraclesis and Cornell lacks signatures H? and H8 and all of signature i. Folger and Rylands are identical to the British Library copy and each misorders signatures G and H. The Cambridge copy corrects the misordered G and H signatures; however, certain leaves in signature i in Cambridge are out of order: after signature i6v Cambridge mistakenly has i3r-i3v followed by i5r-i5v. I have collated my control text with one copy of every other edition published in the sixteenth-century. These are the two Wyer editions published around 1534 and designated as B and c in Emendations and Variants (STC 10493.5 and 10494), and an edition published probably in 1548 by T. Ranalde and W. Hyll (STC 10494.5), designated D. As mentioned earlier in this book, all editions after the first were published without the Luther text. A facsimile reprint of the first edition is available in the English Experience series of early printed books, number 510. As the Emendation and Variants section indicates, the majority of the errors in the first edition are spelling

50 Introduction

mistakes, dropped or backwards parentheses, or obvious punctuation errors. As for spelling, I have emended very conservatively and have not tried to bring the text in line with modern punctuation practice. Any unclear meanings arising from what might be regarded as perverse punctuation are glossed in the Commentary. Although I have retained the text's original spelling, I have made some changes in orthography. I have silently normalized the long V throughout and expanded all ampersands. I have also expanded some common sixteenth-century abbreviations, adding an 'm' or 'n' following a letter with a diacritical mark similar to a macron over it, and expanding 'y' to 'the' and 'y' to 'that.'

Bibliographical Descriptions

Black-letter type in the original appears here in bold face. 1529 STC 10493 Title vase [within a title-page border. McKerrow 25] An exhor tation to the diligent tu= dye of cnpture made by Era mus Roterodamus. And tra- lated in to ingli h. An expo ition in to the eventh chaptre of the fir tpi t= le to the Corinthians. Collation 8°,* -i ($4; unsigned; e$3; c$3) 82 unnumbered leaves Contents Ir title page; A6r Amen. i6r Amen. i7v At Malborow in the londe of He e. M.D.xxix.xx daye Iu= nij. By my Hans Luft. This edition has no running titles or catchwords. Copies Collated British Library, John Rylands Library, Cambridge University Library, Eton College Library, Folger Shakespeare Library, Cornell University Library 1534(?) STC 10493.5 Title Page An exhorta= cyon to the dy lygent tudy of cripture: made by Era mus of Roterodamus. And lately tran lated into Engly he.

52

Introduction

Collation 8° a-c d2; a-f (-f8) ($6 -al; -c-f $5) 72 unnumbered leaves ContentsAir title page; D2v Amen. Here endeth a ryght frutefull exhor tacyon to the dylygent tudy of crypture made by the famous doctor Era mus of Roter= dame whiche he fyxed before the newe Te tament. Air An exhorta= cyon to the tudy of readynge the Go pell Made by Era mus of Roterdame, & lately tran A2r Era mus to the good & god= ly lated in to Engly he. reader, wy heth helthe in our lorde le u chry te. F?r Farewell good reder, The e thynges I haue put vnto my boke, becau e the prynter com= playned that oneles I o dyd, certayne pagyes & leues wolde be voyde which I thought not to fyll w tarke tryfles, hauyng no maner of, pfet at all in them. AtBa yle the nexte day after the Idus of Janu= ary. in the yere of our lorde. a thou ande. fyue hundreth, & two & twenty. F/V Here endeth the mo te frute= full exhortacyon, made by the mo te famou e ler= ned man, Doctoure Era mus whiche exhortacyon, he fyxed before his Pa= raphra is in to Ma= thewe. Imprynted by me Robert Wyer, dwellynge in aynt Martyns pary he, in the by hop of Norwyt che rentes. This edition has catchwords but no running titles. Copy Collated

Huntington. Unique copy

1534(1] STC 10494

An exhorta= cyon to the dy lygent tudy of cripTitle Page ture: made by Era mus of Roterodamus, And lately tran lated into Engly he. Collation

8° a-i ($5) 72 unnumbered leaves

Contents Air title page.- o2r Amen. Here endeth a ryght frutefull exhor tacyon to the dylygent tudy of crypture made by the famous doctor Era mus of Roter= dame whiche he fyxed before the newe Te tament. o2v [Wyer woodcut of a writer, possibly an

53

Bibliographical Descriptions

Evangelist, writing, with a town in the centre-right background]; D3r An exhorta= cyon to the tudy of the Go pell Made by Era mus of Roterodame, & lately tran lated in to Engly he. o3v Era mus to the good & god= ly reader, wy heth helthe in our lorde le u chry te. i6v Farewell good reder, The e thynges haue put vnto my boke, becau e the prynter co playned, that oneles I o dyd, certayne pagynes and leaues wolde be voyde whiche I thought not to fyll with tar ke tryfles, hauyng no maner of profet at all in them. i7r AtBa yle the nexte day after the Idus of January, in the yere of our lorde a thou ande, fyue hundreth, and two and twenty, Here endeth the mo te frute= full exhortacyon, made by the mo te famous lerned man, doctour Era mus which exhortacyon, he fyxed before his Paraphra is in to Mathewe. i7v Imprynted by me Robert Wyer, dwel= lyng in aynt Martyns pary he, in the by = hoppe of Nor= wytche ren= tes. Cum priui= legio Regali. i8r [a woodcut whose top reads in black letter 'dieu et mon droit'; two animals support a portcullis surmounted by a crown; at the base are three stylized flowers, possibly roses] i8v [a woodcut identical to that found on o2v]. This edition has catchwords but no running titles. Copy CollatedBritish Library 1548(?) STC 10494.5 Title Page An exor= tacion to the diliget tudy of criptur: made by Era mus Ro terodam9. And lately tran la lated into Engli = he. ;A$3;A!unsigned;o$4;o3unsigned;F$4) Collation 16 in 8's A-H ($2

64 unnumbered leaves Contents Air title page; c7r Amen, Here endeth a ryght frute= full exhortacyon to the dylyget- tudy of crypture, made by the famous doctor Era mus of Roterdam. whiche he fyxed before the newe Te tament. c7v An exor= tacio to the tudy of the Go pel:

54 Introduction

made by Era mus of Roter dam and lately tran lated into c8r Engli he. Era mus to the good and godly reader, wy heth helthe in our lorde le u chry t. H6r Farewel good reder. The e thynges I haue put vnto my boke, bycau e the prynter complayned, that oneles I o dyd, certayne pa gynes and leaues wold be voyde whyche I thought not to fyll with TARKE TRYF= les, hauyng no ma ner of profet at all in them. At Basile: the nexte day after the Idus of lanuary, in the yere of our lord a Here endethe thou and fyue hudreth, and two and twety. H6v the mo te frutfull exhortatyon. made by the mo t famous lerned man, doctour Era mus, whiche exhortacion, he fyxed before hys Imprynted at London in Paraphra is in to Mathew. aynte yde Baynards ca tell by me Thomas Andrewes pary he be= Ranalde and Wyllya Hyll This edition has catchwords but no running titles. Copy Collated Scottish National Library. Unique copy

Notes

1 These works published by Hoochstraten have been designated as part of the 'Marburg Series' by Anthea Hume. The term 'Marburg' is taken from the colophon that normally appeared at the end of Hoochstraten's work. For example, the colophon of the present text reads: 'At Malborow in the londe of Hesse.M.D.xxix. xx daye lunij. [sic] By my [sic] Hans Luft.' About this imprint Devereux claims that it was 'no doubt intended to anger the English bishops' because it combined the names of Luther's publisher and the Protestant university (143). Hoochstraten's popularity as a printer is evident in the fact that other printers may have used his imprint in an attempt to pass off their printing efforts as his; see, for instance, item 41 in Hume's bibliography. There is also evidence to suggest that Hoochstraten may have printed other works, not part of the 'Marburg Series.' See Hume 'English Protestant Books' numbers 38, 40, and 41. 2 Schuster states, 'Not only did the volume suggestively link the Erasmian advocacy of vernacular scriptures with Luther's down-grading of vowed celibacy, but it marked the first serious attempt by English reformers to exploit the powerful pen of Erasmus in the Protestant cause. Reading the Paraclesis anew in the climate created by the distribution of Tyndale's New Testament invites an access of striking ironies and reverberations unforeseen by its author in 1516. For the first time the unlettered Englishman would find familiar Protestant positions endorsed by Erasmus' (More vm 3, 1192). A full discussion of the context of the disagreements between Luther and Erasmus - disagreements that make their forced yoking by Roye highly ironic - can be found in Charles Trinkaus's introduction to Collected Works of Erasmus (CWE} vol 76, xi-civ. 3 Reformers were regularly accused of novelty or 'newfangledness' in their views and thereby often discounted by conservatives. In order to counteract this kind of attack, they called upon historical precedent to demon-

56 Notes to pages 4-5 strate that their reformist views had a legitimate pedigree. This attempt to add historical authenticity to their complaints may explain why Lollard texts were reborn in the sixteenth century,- two of these texts that add historical weight to reformist complaints are Thepraier and complaynte of the ploweman vnto Christe and A proper dyaloge betwene a Gentillman and an Husbandman. But English reformers would have also been interested in drawing upon the work of notable contemporaries and near-contemporaries to add weight and legitimacy to their complaints,this probably explains why Roye brings together in the same work the significant voices of Erasmus and Luther. Aston has made clear how sixteenth-century English reformers employed and sometimes manipulated earlier Lollard texts to suit new historical circumstances. She states that with certain texts from the past eras, 'the work of recovery was openly acknowledged. Antiquity, since it was valuable, was avowed. But other Reformation editors proceeded on different principles. It was one thing to publish a text, more or less as it stood, archaisms and all, to prove that new reformers were but old reformers writ large, with the right of precedent on their side. It was another to take over an old text, and rewrite it (without acknowledgment) to serve a new purpose, or alter it sufficiently to obscure its origin' (Lollards and Reformers227). In Roye's rendering of Erasmus and Luther, acknowledgment of sources only works to heighten the importance of the work. However, Roye is not reluctant to change or alter the source without acknowledgment when such changes suit his ideological purposes. See my comments on Roye as translator of Erasmus and Luther. 4 Clebsch misdates both these Wyer editions as around 1540 England's Earliest Protestants(235). 5 Erasmus weighed into the fray over Luther's Contra Henricum Regem Angliae (1522), his response to Henry's attack on him in Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Rex states: 'The linchpin of the English response to Luther's attack on Henry was Erasmus. In 1523, Erasmus's English correspondents all sang the same tune, presumably one called by the court. Tunstall's letter of 5 June 1523 told him of the king's relief that he had wholly disowned Luther's vitriolic reply; and urged upon him Henry's anxiety that he should make public his opposition to Luther. This letter touched on Luther's denial of free will, and may have given Erasmus the idea of treating this subject. By early 1524 Erasmus had completed a draft of his De Libero Arbitrio Diatriba against Luther. Perhaps aware of the co-operative nature of the English campaign, he sent a copy to Henry "for you and other scholars to consider" before publication. When the Diatriba was published at Basel in September, he sent out two special

57

Notes to page 5

batches, one to Rome, the other to England. In a letter to Gianmatteo Giberti, he mentioned that he had contemplated dedicating the book to Wolsey (in fact, there was no dedication). Erasmus clearly regarded Rome and England as the places it was most important to satisfy about his orthodoxy' ('The English Campaign' 100). 6 In Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe, Roye and Jerome Barlowe (the work's other probable author) refer to Erasmus in not altogether glowing terms. In addition, the two fictional voices of this work, Watkyn and leffraye, refer specifically to Erasmus's De Libero Arbitrio, the work Rex feels may have been written to demonstrate his dedication to the English antiLuther campaign. In discussing one of the conferences held between conservatives and reformers on the validity of the mass, leffraye asks, 'Medled nott Erasmus in this matter,/ Which so craftely can flatter,/ With cloked dissimulacion?' Watkyn responds, 'He was busy to make will fre,/ A thynge nott possible to be,/ After wyse clarckes estimacion' (72, 56671). In addition, Rex's claim that Erasmus may have felt under some pressure to justify his orthodoxy in both Rome and England finds some support in Rede Me. Watkyn claims that Erasmus defends the doctrine of transubstantiation because 'yf he shulde wother wyse reclaime,/ men wolde impute vnto his blame,/ Of vnstable inconstancy the cryme' (73, 587-9). 7 The fact that the first edition of Roye's translation was printed in Antwerp without indication of author and probably smuggled into England indicates its subversive nature. All subsequent editions published in England without the Luther addition indicate that the Erasmus tract had received official approval from one authority or another. McConica, for instance, claims that 'despite the ban on most works from [Luft's press], the Paraclesis soon made its way in England, clearly with tacit official approval' (English Humanists and Reformation Politics 114). In addition, by the time the second edition appeared in 1534, England was closer to accepting a vernacular Bible - a clear message in Paraclesis - than it had been in the 1520s. Finally, Erasmus's work never seems to have been outlawed in England, since Hervet's translation of De misericordia Domini concio in 1525-6 and Roper's translation of Precatio dominica in 1524 went forward apparently without opposition. 8 For a discussion of the Cologne fragment of Tyndale's New Testament, see Daniell (William Tyndale 108-330). From Tyndale's point of view, the nature of the relationship between him and Roye was not altogether positive. In the 'Preface' to the Parable of the Wicked Mammon he states: 'While I abode a faithful companion, which now hath taken another voyage upon him, to preach Christ where I suppose, he was never preached ...

58 Notes to page 5 one William Roye, a man somewhat crafty, when he cometh unto new acquaintance, and before he be thorough known, and namely when all is spent, came unto me and offered his help. As long as he had no money, somewhat I could rule him; but as soon as he had gotten him money, he became like himself again. Nevertheless, I suffered all things till that was ended, which I could not do alone without one, both to write, and to help me to compare the texts together. When that was ended, I took my leave, and bade him farewell for our two lives, and (as men say) a day longer. After we were departed, he went and gat him new friends; which thing to do he passeth all that ever I yet knew' (PS 1, 37-8). The exact extent of Roye's work with Tyndale on the New Testament is unknown. In the introduction to his translation of Wolfgang Capito's catechism, which Roye entitled A Brefe Dialoge bitwene a Christen Father and his stobborne Sonne, Roye gives most of the credit for the translation to Tyndale and refers to himself as 'healpe felowe/ and parte taker of his laboures.' But later in the preface Roye also adds that he has 'allredy partly translated/ certayne bokes of the olde testament/ the whiche/ with the healpe of God/ yerr longe shalbe brought to lyght/ a statement that suggests strong linguistic talents that may have been of great use to Tyndale in his work. A summary of Roye's life and the prejudices it has given rise to largely because of Tyndale's negative views of his erstwhile companion (see note 40 below) can be found in Parker and Krajewski's edition of A Brefe Dialoge (1999). 9 Roye probably would have known that Erasmus's New Testament, like Tyndale's, was not universally acclaimed, and that Erasmus, like Tyndale as well, had to defend himself against criticisms brought against his work. One such creative defence is found in his colloquy 'The Sermon' (CWE 40, 938-62). In introducing this work Thompson states that 'the asperity of Erasmus' ridicule in this reply to an ignorant detractor of his edition and Latin translation of the Greek New Testament is more readily understood if we recall that his labours on the New Testament met with immediate hostility as well as praise' (CWE 40, 938). Erasmus also felt compelled to defend at least a portion of the Paraclesis in a letter to Nicolaas Everaets dated Basel, 26 July 1524 (CWE 10, 311). Recognizing that even the renowned Erasmus came under attack for his biblical work possibly may have made reformers feel that they were in the presence of a kindred spirit, and further motivated them to continue with their work of reform. 10 Other reformers, while critical of Erasmus's steadfast allegiance to the Roman church, were not reluctant to use his name and authority to support their own views. Tyndale, as mentioned in the Commentary, alludes

59 Notes to pages 7-9 to Erasmus's Paraclesis by name as support for his own view of a vernacular Bible. In another instance where Tyndale objects to the Church's glorification of Christ's mother, Tyndale cites Erasmus as support for his own position (PS 1, 316); and in his Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, Tyndale taunts More by reminding him that More's 'darling Erasmus' translated the word ecclesia into congregation in his own New Testament, the very word that Tyndale uses in his version of scripture and for which he is attacked by More and others (PS 3, 16). 11 Helpful, full commentaries on Erasmus's biblical hermeneutics can be found in Augustijn, Hoffmann, Rummel, and Boyle. 12 In Antibarbari Erasmus has one of his speakers say that 'the Christian faith did not arise from the natural scientists, the dialecticians, the poets, or from writers on rhetoric, but from rustic men, untaught, unpolished, in short fishermen; not from the Academy of Plato nor from the Porch of the Stoics, nor from the Peripatetic schools, were the apostles called, as well we know, but from ship and net; and it was not classes in rhetoric or dialectic that Christ threw open - the only precepts he taught were on how to live' (CWE 23, 1, 102). 13 Here is Tyndale in Obedience of a Christian Man (PS 1, 156): '[Ijf any man thirst for the truth, and read the scripture by himself, desiring God to open the door of knowledge unto him, God for his truth's sake will and must teach him.' 14 The Paraclesis was not without its detractors. This passage in which both the call for universal accessibility to the Bible is made and Erasmus's critical comments about worldly clergy are expressed seemed to arouse the ire of at least one critic to the point where Erasmus felt the need to defend himself. In a letter to Nicolas Everaerts (1524) he states, 'The passage which seems to have offended him is very modest in the way in which it treats monks and theologians. It is, I think, in the Paraclesis, and runs like this: "Since baptism, in which we make the first profession of our Christian faith, is the common possession of all Christians alike, and since the other sacraments and the reward of eternal life belong to all alike, it is illogical to believe that dogma alone should be reserved for those few whom the people today call monks and theologians. These men are a tiny fraction of the people of Christ, but I wish they were more worthy of the title which they bear. For I am afraid that you will find among theologians those who are far from deserving the title of their office, that is, men whose talk is of earthly, not heavenly things; and among monks who profess to follow the poverty of Christ and to despise the world you find an excess of worldliness." It is clear that in this passage I am neither condemning the order nor hurting anyone's reputation. If no monk ever

60 Notes to pages 10-12 fails to live up to his title and no theologian is ever unworthy of his name, then this brilliant doctor and his Carmelite friend are right to be angry with me.' The corresponding passage in Roye that Erasmus quotes from is 204-21. In this same letter Erasmus defends himself against his critic's comments on another section of the Paraclesis, lines 147-69 in the Roye translation. Erasmus continues, 'So much for one section of his pamphlet. He is very proud of it, not just for its style but for its wit, for beneath a mask of modesty he regards himself as a great humorist. Then he turns to the remark which I make in the same work, that no one should be prevented from reading Holy Scripture or drawing from it whatever benefit he can; he argues that I have failed to notice what is written in John's Gospel, "The well is deep and you have no vessel to draw from it." In fact I remembered the passage well; but since the words of the woman of Samaria apply to Christ, I could see no reference there to Holy Scripture - unless you want to interpret it this way: "The well of sacred Scripture is deep and Christ has no vessel with which to draw from it"! By the same token we can prove that Christ was a criminal because we read in the gospel, "If he were not a criminal, we should not have brought him before you"' (CWE 10, 311). For a full discussion of the controversy over Erasmus's translation of the New Testament see Rummel, Erasmus and His Catholic Critics, esp. vol 1. 15 Doubtless Roye would have been delighted to hear Erasmus remind magistrates of their duty to ensure the development and growth of a Christian society, since such a sentiment appeared in Wolfgang Capito's catechism, a work Roye translated into English in 1527. There he states that authority to police the spiritual estates is given '[t]o oure temporall lordes/ ruelers/ and superiours/ with their debities and assigneis. For they by goodis worde and ordenaunce have receved the swearde temporall/ therwith to chasten/ put downe/ and disannull/ all that agaynst god and his wholy worde is. And to have no regarde vnto the iniquite and vngodlines/ of the mayntayners of soche abhominable seduccions ... with their sacrifices/ masses/ dedde mennes songes etc' (A Brefe Dialoge 114, 536-43). 16 One gets a sense of Erasmus's frustration at being pulled by all sides in the religious debates in some of his comments. At one point he states that he has been 'thrown to the Furies and torn to pieces by both sides' (CWE 10, 213); at another he claims that he feels like a conciliator between 'a pair of armed and angry drunks' (11, 392); or he is like Ulysses trying 'to steer midway between Scylla and Charybdis' (11, 117); or, finally, he is like someone 'stuck ... between the altar and the sacrificial knife'(11, 185). 17 Although Rex believes that the group of reform-minded individuals who

61 Notes to pages 12-14 met at the White Horse, a Cambridge tavern, 'has been flogged to death' (91), there is little doubt that this group bears witness to the prevalence of Lutheran and other radical views in England. Although it was a heterogeneous collection, made up of reformers and conservatives alike, eight of its members eventually became martyrs for the Protestant cause. During the early 1520s the White Horse became 'a kind of seminary of the English Reformation.' 'The reforming, if not always patently Lutheran, temper of the young men who aired their views at the tavern earned it the name of Germany among some of the less sympathetic fellows' [The Complete Works of St. Thomas More ra 8, 1370). 18 According to Rex, three of the Cambridge supporters of the conservative cause, Henry Bullock, Humphrey Walkden, and John Watson, 'were friends and correspondents of Erasmus, and had studied Greek under him in the early 1510s' (87). One can only imagine their surprise when they discovered - as they surely must have - that Erasmus's Paraclesis was translated and published alongside Luther's commentary. 19 According to STC four of Luther's works were translated and published in the sixteenth century. In 1534 Robert Wyer, the same printer of the two 1534 editions of Roye's translation of Erasmus and Luther, printed a Luther work translated into English as A boke made by a certayne great clerk, agaynst the newe idole, and olde deuyll(16962). One has to wonder how this work, plus another, published in 1536 and entitled The boke of the discrypcyon of the images of a verye chrysten bysshop (16963), managed to see the light of day in religiously conservative England. There are at least two possible political explanations. First, both of these works published by Wyer are strongly anti-papal and may have helped to serve Henry's cause against the papacy. Second, Rex's view that '[d]octrinal confusion came to be the mark of the Henrician Church, from top to bottom' (106), once the divorce issue became the major preoccupation of the Henrician government, may also explain how these two works by Luther were published by Wyer. During Edward's reign Steven Mierdman published a Luther work entitled The chiefe and pryncypall articles of the christen faythe, with thre bokes (1548), and finally in 1575 Luther's A commentarie ... vpon the epistle of Galathians appeared (STC 16965) Three further editions of this last work appeared in the sixteenth century: in 1577, 1580, and 1588. 20 The whole question of indebtedness and sources for ideas for English reformers is a vexed and contentious one. For example, the word 'Lutheran' when used by conservatives against reformers was perhaps merely a synonym for heretic, with no particular ideological charge attached to it. The difficult question of sources is nicely emblematized in

62 tes to pages 15-16 two books that try to unearth sources for Tyndale's views. The first is Donald Dean Smeeton, Lollard Themes in the Reformation Theology of William Tyndale. Smeeton's study sees the predominance of Lollardy in Tyndale's thought. The second book is Carl R. Trueman, Luther's Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers 1525-1556. For Trueman, Tyndale was largely indebted to Luther for his ideas. 21 No survey of Luther's popularity in England during the 1520s would be complete without some reference to Robert Barnes (1495-1540), described in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation as a 'pioneer English Lutheran reformer' (122). Barnes abjured his Lutheran views in 1526, but 'escaped overseas in 1528 and realized his Lutheran proclivities by going directly to Wittenberg, becoming familiar with the circle of German theologians, and composing his case against the English hierarchy in the form of A Supplication unto Henry VIII(More m 3, 1367), a work that exists in two radically different forms. Barnes's thoroughgoing Lutheranism is evident in his adherence to the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, the so-called consubstantiation position. This view, which did not square with the sacramentarian or Calvinist view held by other reformers, Frith among them, threatened to divide the reformers irreparably, or so Tyndale thought. In his first letter to Frith, imprisoned in the Tower for heresy, Tyndale warns about possible division over the question of the Eucharist: 'Of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, meddle as little as you can, that there appear no division among us. Barnes will be hot against you' (PS 1, liii). This potential rift among reformers suggests that there was no simple knee-jerk adherence to everything Lutheran on their part. 22 Luther's writings on Paul include lectures on Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. 23 More's ironic comment on Roye's translation of this Lutheran commentary indicates that he believes the work's focus is an attack on celibacy. He states that in this work 'prestes, freres, monkes, and nonnes be taught that euangelycall lyberty, that they may runne out a catawawynge, and so wow and wedde and lawfully lyue in lechery' (The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, Preface; More vin 1, 8). Interestingly, as the editor of vol vm, 3 of More's works states, 'More's notice of Roye's work gives no indication that the translation of the Paraclesis and Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 were printed and bound together in the same book' (118). The reason for this silence must be based on More's friendship with Erasmus; clearly he would not want his friend to be associated with the heretic Luther against whom More regularly fulminated. More further mocks what he deems to be the reformers' self-serving views on a married clergy

63 Notes to pages 17-22 in A Dialogue Concerning Heresies iv, 18 (More vi, part 1, 434). Commenting on the fact that clerical celibacy was never an issue for the Church until reformers made it one, More mentions several prominent reformers who spoke out against clerical celibacy: 'frere Luther and his wyfe/ prest Pomerane and his wyfe/ frere Huiskyn and his wyfe/ frere Lambert and his wyfe/ frantyke Colyns/ and more frantyke Tyndall that sayth all prestes monkes and freres must nedes haue wyues.' 24 These prefaces are in Luther's Works {LW} 28, 3-7. 25 In a devastating, and devastatingly funny, review of a recent book on the spurious Pope Joan, Eamon Duffy claims that the thirteenth century 'was the age of the most exalted claims of the popes to speak for God, and to exercise dominion over the secular as well as the religious world. It was also a period in which Christian perfection was identified with monastic celibacy, and in which the popes were imposing that celibacy on the reluctant clergy of the West' ('A Cock and Balls Story' Times Literary Supplement24 July 1998, 27). Undoubtedly in these areas that Duffy mentions, not much would have changed between the thirteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 26 Other continental reformers would seem to support Luther on the issues of marriage and celibacy raised in this commentary. The editor of vol 28 of Luther's Works claims that 'Melancthon had already given a commentary on this chapter [of Paul] in 1522, has criticized Jerome as "superstituously extolling celibacy," and had emphasized that "neither celibacy nor marriage is prescribed" but "that rather one is to be chosen without sin"' (x). In the Institutes Calvin attacks enforced celibacy: 'In one thing they are more than rigid and inexorable - in not permitting priests to marry. It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity ... Certainly, when marriage was interdicted to priests, it was done with impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but contrary to all justice' (vol 2, 468). And again, 'Virginity, I admit, is a virtue not to be despised; but since it is denied to some, and to others granted only for a season, those who are assailed by incontinence, and unable successfully to war against it, should betake themselves to the remedy of marriage' (vol 1, 348). 27 Certainly one of the most interesting aspects of Roye's translation of this commentary is that, as far as I know, it is the first text to make practical use of Tyndale's translation of the New Testament: all of Paul's verses as cited by Roye are in Tyndale's English prose. 28 The notion of chastity as unscriptural and as leading to sins of the flesh is not original to either Roye or Luther. Here, for instance, is a similar senti-

64

Notes to page 22

ment drawn from Lollard times: 'The thridde conclusiun sorowful to here is that the lawe of continence annexyd to presthod, that in preiudys of wimmen was first ordeynid, inducith sodomie in al holy chirche,- but we excusin us be the Bible for the suspecte decre that seyth we schulde not nemen it. Resun and experience prouit this concusiun. For delicious metis and drinkis of men of holi chirche welen han nedful purgaciun or werse. Experience for the priue asay of syche men is, that the[i] like non wymmen; and whan thou prouist sich a man mark him wel for he is on of tho' (Selections from English Wy cliffite Writings 25). 29 In 'A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage' (LW 44, 9), Luther candidly states: '[T]he temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmates from falling into graver sin.' 30 Thomas More, no friend of either Luther or Roye, ironically observes that Roye defected from the Franciscan Observants when he realized that 'yt [was] vnlawfull to lyue in chastyte' (More vm 1, 8). Although More is implying that Roye's natural inclinations forced him to leave the Observants, the argument that Luther makes in this tract would, ironically, corroborate More's claim: chastity may not be unlawful, but it certainly is difficult to adhere to at least for the majority of humankind, as the reputed immorality in monasteries and convents would seem to prove. Doubtless Roye was gratified to know that Capito's catechism, a work that he translated in 1527, contained the following comments, divided between two voices, on the notion of chastity and vows. The Son asks his Father whether he lauds vows of chastity. The Father responds: 'God forbidde that ever I shulde prayse that thynge whiche is founde and brought vp by the devyll.' The Son states, '[W]hy virginite no doute is an excellente thinge/ ye insomoche that Christ and also his glorious mother saynct Mary kepte it vndefiled.' Corroborating Luther's view in this document, the Father responds, 'It is with oute fayle a thinge angelicall to live chaste/ and after soche a maner to leade a mannis lyfe/ whearby he may more commodiusly withouten lett geve attendaunce vnto the honour of God. As Paule for a season did/ no dout. But yf thou refrayne thy silfe from wedlocke/ as though thus doynge/ thou shuldst suppose to deserve somwhat therfore/ as of duety/ truely thou arte farre out of the waye. Ye thou temptest God/ as though he had not taught us goode workes ynowe. For through oute the whole bibill we fynde no commaundment of virginite that ever God gave. Contrary wyse as sone as he hadd made the worlde/ he ordened matrimony sayine/ It is nott goode that man schulde be alone. Agayne/ let nott the woman be separated from her husband etc.' (A Brefe Dialoge ra, 425-43).

65 Notes to pages 23-8 31 In making a distinction between the appearance of chastity and its true inner reality, Luther is levelling a particular criticism at the Church, a criticism that reformers applied to all aspects of that institution. The Church's focus on outward observances in general as manifested in such things as clerical garb, relics, pilgrimages, statuary, and fasting is, in the reformers' minds at least, no guarantee of inner commitment to Christian ideals. Indeed such man-made practices and observances might very well lead people away from a true Christian life if the practitioners of such outward observances thought that they were beneficial to their spiritual lives. Luther here refers to outward manifestations of chastity as 'a dedde letter/ and a grevous lawe' (663), terms that might apply equally to all enforced outward observances instituted by man but, in fact, "againste the commaundemente of God' (613). 32 This notion of an inverted moral order brought about by the laws of the Roman church is, in the English tradition at least, as old as the Lollards. The expression 'the world turned upside down' captures the reformers' sense of what the Church has done to truth. The expression appears in four Lollard tracts published in Matthew's The English Works of Wyclif. See, for instance, 'Of Prelates' (98), 'Of Clerks Possessioners' (119), 'Satan and His Children' (210), and 'How Satan and His Priests' (268). The expression also appears in two Lollard works reborn in the sixteenth century: The Lanterne of Light (STC 15225) and Thepraier and complaynte of the ploweman vnto Christe (lines 678, 862, 1341). 33 Luther's generous attitude towards divorce in this tract might have served Henry vm well in his struggle with the papacy over his own divorce. However, since Luther was the arch-heretic and, in addition, Henry had had some part in writing Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, it would have been impolitic for Henry to employ the work of a person he had already condemned to justify his own actions. In addition, of course, this work was suppressed in editions of Roye's translation after 1529. And finally, even after Henry's formal break with Rome, the king was still doctrinally orthodox and not reluctant to punish those promulgating heresy. 34 Andrea Hume states that 'Roye shared ... the early Tudor propensity for synonyms in pairs' (320). With Roye, however, especially in his works of translation, the propensity takes on the force of an obsession. See, for instance, A Brefe Dialoge (note 8, above). 35 My English translation of the Paraclesis is from Christian Humanism and the Reformation, ed. John C. Olin. The Latin text in parentheses is from Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia vol 4 (Lugduni Batavorum 1704; repub. London: Gregg Press 1962, columns 137-44).

66

Notes to pages 30-7

36 While not suggesting that Roye's rendering of Erasmus's text transforms it into a populist tract, I am trying to indicate that Roye seems aware in his translation of the simple, unlettered Christian and writes in large measure with this figure in mind. His most outstanding example of populist literature is the satiric and scurrilous verse satire Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe. 37 If one can judge from his other works, Roye has a habit of making heavy use of biblical imagery and references. For instance, in Rede Me and Be Nott Wrothe a four-page preface has forty-two allusions to the Bible. And in his translation of Capito's catechism, a work that in its original form alludes to the Bible about one hundred times, Roye doubles the number of biblical references. 38 The only other commentary on Roye's translation of Erasmus's text that I have been able to locate is in More vm 3, 1193-4. The editor makes a very few references to theological differences and differences of emphases between the original and the English rendering, differences that I have added to considerably here. The editor of More states: 'Not content with letting the verbatim report of Erasmus speak for the new religion, Roye resorted to extrapolations and innovations in an effort to achieve maximum propaganda value for his cause. Thus where Erasmus mentioned the liability of doctrinal ignorance [nescire dogmata], Roye expanded "dogmata" to include "scripture and doctrine ... which are the anker of the soule bothe sure and stable/ preservinge vs from perishinge in all tempestes of temptation" (104-7). Erasmus' disagreement with those unwilling to have scriptures available to the uneducated becomes, in Roye's words, a plea "that the scripture of Christ shuld be translated in to all tongues [sic]/ that it might/ [sic] be reade diligently of the private and seculare men and women" (174-6). Where Erasmus uses "litterae" and "decreta" to refer to literature and literary principles, Roye scores easy victories against the institutional church and canon law by rendering than as "mennes traditions" and "mennes doctrines and decrees" (515-16; 520). Occasionally the metamorphosis is obvious. Thus where Erasmus states that the first step toward acquiring Christian philosophy is to attain some kind of understanding [of Christ], Roye translates freely, "Truly it is one degre to good living [sic]/ yee the first (I had almoste sayde the cheffe) to have a litle sight in the scripture/ though it be but a gross knowledge" (187-90).' (Line references throughout this quotation are to my text.) 39 The English translation of 1 Corinthians 7 is from Luther's Works vol 28, 5-56 and is translated by Edward Sittler. The German original is from the Weimar edition of Luther's works, D. Martin Luthers Werke vol 12, 88-142.

67 Notes to pages 39-46 40 In The Parable of the Wicked Mammon, Tyndale indicates Roye's participation in the translation of the New Testament. It is also clear from this account that Tyndale held no high opinion of Roye: 'While I abode a faithful companion, which now hath taken another voyage upon him, to preach Christ, where, I suppose, he was never yet preached ... one William Roye, a man somewhat crafty, when he cometh unto new acquaintance, and before he be thorough known, and namely when all is spent, came unto me and offered his help. As long as he had no money, somewhat I could rule him,- but as soon as he had gotten him money, he became like himself again. Nevertheless, I suffered all things till that was ended, which I could not do alone without one, both to write, and to help me to compare the texts together' (PS 1, 37-8). Under Wolsey's chancellorship, Tyndale's New Testament was ordered burnt by Tunstall in October 1526. Tunstall's monition to his archbishops reads: 'Monicio ad tradendum libros novi testamenti in idiomate vulgare, translates per fratrem Martinum Lutherum et eius ministrum Willmum Tyndall alias Hochyn et fratrem Willmum Roy' (Sturge Cuthbert Tunstal 132). 41 Apparently, Roye entered the Franciscan Observant Convent at Greenwich ca. 1516-18 (More vi 2, 738), but left in about 1524 to join William Tyndale in Hamburg and help him in his translation of the New Testament. 42 Roye's acute awareness that his work is clearly meant for an English audience is very much in evidence in his 1527 translation of Capito's catechism, A Brefe Dialoge. See the introduction to this work.

This page intentionally left blank

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture and

An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pistle to the Corinthians

This page intentionally left blank

An exhor tation to the diligent stu= dye of scripture/ made by Eras= mus Roterodamus. And translated in to inglissh. An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the pist= le to the Corinthians

[*1r]

5

This page intentionally left blank

[*2r] Lactantius Firmianus/ Christen Reader (whose eloquence sanct Hierome doth greatlie avaunce) endeveringe hym silf to defende and mayntayne the christen fayth and religion/ against the craftye and vnfaithfull gentles/ did wishe and desyre with fervent affection to attayne the eloquence next vnto Tullyes/ countinge it an hygh presumption* (as I thinke) yf he shuld have desyred equall. How be yt I truely/ yf that wisshes could eny thinge avaylle/ at the leste while/ I exhorte and entyse all mortall men vnto the most holye and holsome studye of Christian wisdome/ and pure Philosophye/ wold hartelye desyre an other manner of eloquence to be geven vnto me/ then ever cicero had/ all though not so gloriouslie painted and coloured as his was yet truely of more power and efficacite/ yee soch a vehement persuasion and strength of eloquence wold I desyre/ as the fables of old poetes have noted in mercurius/ whom they fained (as it had bene with a rodde of inchauntement/ and a melodious harpe) to cast men in* to a soden and oblivious slepe/ and againe to reyse them at his awne pleasure/ depressinge some/ that are affected with his hevenly armonye) in to the depthe of plutos impery. And bringinge them againe out of all vexacyons. [*2v] Other soch as they ascribed to Amphion and Orpheus/ for they imagine that the one with his armonious harpe dyd move the stiffe stones. And that the other made to folow him the insensible trees. Other soch as the frenshmen applye to Hercules Ogmius faininge that he leadeth aboute all men with hys godly eloquence as it were with certen smale chaynes which are tied vnto his tonge and runne thorow every mannes eeres. Other soch as the dootinge old age did attribute vnto marsyas. Or els truly (because we wyll not be longe in repetynge fables) soch as Alcibiades hath graunted vnto Socrates. And the old comedye vnto pericles/ whiche maye not onlye entyse and delite the eeres with a shorte and corruptible delectacion or pleasure. But also maye leve perpetuall prickes and instigacyons in the mindes of the hearers/ which may ravysshe and transforme them/ and leve them in an other mynde then they were before. The noble musicyon Timotheus (as we reade) with his proporcioned armonye was wont to

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

74

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

enflame Alexander the great conqueror with a fervent desyre to warre. And there have bene in tymes paste/ that have counted nothinge of more power and efficacite then thenchauntementes/ which the Grekes calle epodas. Now yf there be eny soch kind of enchauntement or charme. Yf there be eny strenght [*3r] in musike and armonye. Yf there be eny pleasant persuasion/ which hath power to allecte mannes mind in to here sentence/ the same as this season/ wold I gladly obtaine to thentent that I might persuade vnto all men that thinge which is most holsome and most profitable vnto them. All though it were better/ yee and more convenient to desyre that Christ him silfe (whos cause I entreate) wold so tempre the stringes of oure instrument/ that this songe may prosperously entyse and move/ the mindes of all men. For this porposse we nede but lytle the painted argumentes and coloured conclusions of the Rhetoricyans/ for nothinge so surely can garnisshe and performe that/ that we desyre as the truthe it silf/ which when it is most plaine and simple/ is of most vehement efficacite in persuading. Neither do I counte it best at this tyme to revocate and call to memorye the sorowfull complainte (all though it be not new yet alas it is to true/ and I thinke it could never be more iustlye verefied then at this present tyme) that syth with soch great diligence all mennes invencyons are studyed and commended/ yet only this immortall fontayne of Christes pure philosophye/ is despysed and mocked of so many/ yee and cheflye of them which professe to be the heddes and examples of the Christen/ few there are that seke these hol= [*3v] some springes of helthe/ And yet they that seke them/ do so vnfruetfully loke vpon them. Adding their awne glosses and opinions that they seame rather to treble and defile these springes of liffe/ then to drinke of them swetely/ that they might have in them silf floddes of livinge water/ runninge in to everlastinge liffe/ which both shuld be to the glorye of god/ and profitte of the Christen. . We se that in all other sciences which by mannes polycy have bene invented/ there is no misterye so darke and secrete/ but that the quyckenes of oure witte hath attayned it/ there is

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

75

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

nothinge so harde/ but that diligent labour hath subdued it vnto him. how chaunceth it then that we embrace not/ with faythfull hartes (as it is convenient) this pure philosophy/ syth we professe the holy name of Christ? Platos adherentes/ Pithagoras scholars: The Academikes/ Stoikes Epicures. The fautores of Aristotle and disciples of Diogenes/ know growndly yee and by harte/ the traditions of their awne secte/ And fight most fersly for them Redye rather to dye/ then to forsake their patrone and author. And why do not we moch more geve oure mindes and studyes/ vnto oure master and prince Christ/ who wold not count it a foule thinge/ yee and a great rebuke to him that professeth Aristotles philosophye/ if he be ignorant what his ma= [*4r] ster iudgeth/ concerninge the cawses of the thunder/ of the raynbow/ of the erthquakes/ And of soch other naturall causes? which though they were knowne or vnknowne/ Make not them that laboure to knowe them happye nor vnhappye. And shulde we which are so many wayes consecrated/ and with so manye sacramentes bownde vnto christ: thinke it no shame awhitte/ to be ignorant in his scripture and doctrine/ which geve vs moste sure comforte and felicite? And which are the anker of the soule both sure and stable/ preservinge vs from perisshinge in all tempestes of temptation? How be it/ for what entent vse we this comparison/ sith it is extreme madnes to compare Christ with Zeno and Aristotle/ and his hevenlye doctrine/ with their trifelinge traditions. Let them fayne and imagyne vnto the captaynes of their secte as moch as they may/ yee as moch as they will. Yet trulye. Only this master and teacher/ came from heven/ which alone could teach sure thinges/ beinge the everlastinge wisdom of the father which alone hath taught holsom thinges/ beinge the fundation of all mannes helthe: which alone hath fulfilled to the vttermost poynte/ al that he hath taught: and which alone may parforme/ what so ever he hath promised. Yf any thinge had bene brought [*4v] from the chaldes or the Aegiptions/ we wold the more gredelye desyre to know it/ because it came farre/ and from a strange contrye (yee it is the more deare and precious that comethe from a farre). And we

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

76 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture are often times so grevouslye vexed aboute the dreame and phantasye of a folyssh felow (not only with small profitte/ but also with great losse of time) that it is shame to reherse it. I wonder that this desire doth not likwisse tide and entyse the Christen hartes/ which know wel ynough (as the thinge is in dede) that this holsome doctrine came not from Aegipte or Syria. But from the very heven and sete of god. Why do we not thinke with oure selves on this maner/ It must nedes be a new and mervelous kind of learninge/ syth that god him silf which was immortall/ became a naturall man and mortall/ descendinge from the right hand of his father/ in to this wretched worlde/ to teach it vnto vs/ It must nedes be a highe and excellent thinge/ and no trifle/ which that hevenlye and mervelous master came to teach openlye. Why do we not go aboute to know/ serch and trye out with a godly curiosyte/ this fruetfull Philosophye? Sith that this kind of wisdome beinge so profounde and inscrutable that vtterlye it damneth and confoundeth as folyssh all the wisdome of this world May be gadered out of so small bokes as [*5r] out of moste pure springes/ And that with moch lesse laboure/ then the doctrine of Aristotle out of so many brawlinge and contentious bokes/ Or of soch infinite commentaryes which do so moche dissent/ Besides the incomperable frute which nedeth not here to be spoken of. Nether is it nedefull that thou be clogged with so many irxome and babelinge sciences/ The meanes to this philosophye are easy and at hand/ do only thy diligence to bringe a godly and redy minde/ cheflye endewed with plain and pure fay the. Be only desyrous to be mistruste/ and confirmable to this meake doctrine/ And thou hast moch profited. Thy master and instructor (that is the sprete of god) will not from the be absent/ which is never more gladly present with eny/ then with simple and playne hartes. Mennes doctrines and traditions (be sydes the promessinge of false felicite) do confounde many mennes wittes/ and make them clene to despayre be cause they are so darke/ craftye/ and contentious/ But this delectable doctrine doth applye her silf equallye to all men submittinge her silf vnto vs/ while we are childer/ temperinge her tune after oure capacyte/ feadinge vs

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

77

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

with milke/ forberinge/ norisshinge/ sufferinge/ and doinge all thinges/ vntill we may encreasse/ and wex greatter in Christ/ And contrarywisse it is not so lowe and depressed vnto the weake [*5v] but it is as high and mervelous to the parfecte/ Yee the more thou wadest in the tresurs of this science/ the farther thou arte from attayninge her mageste. To the childer she is lowe and playne/ and to greatter/ she seameth above all capacite. She refuseth no age/ no kinde/ no fortune/ no state and condition. In so moch that the sonne is not more comen and indifferent to all men/ then this doctrine of Christe. She forbeddeth no man at all: Except he abstayne willinglye/ envyinge his awne profitte. And trulye I do greatly dissent from those men/ which wold not that the scripture of Christ shuld be translated in to all tonges/ that it might be reade diligently of the private and seculare men and women/ Other as though Christ had taught soch darke and insensible thinges/ that they could scante be vnderstonde of a few divines. Or els as though the pithe and substance of the christen religion consisted chefly in this/ that it be not knowne. Paraventure it were moste expedient that the councels of kinges shuld be kept secret/ but Christ wold that his councelles and misteries shuld be sprede abrode as moch as is possible. I wold desire that all women shuld reade the gospell and Paules epistles/ and I wold to god they were translated in to the [*6r] tonges of all men/ So that they might not only be read/ and knowne of the scotes and yryshmen/ But also of the Turkes and sarracenes/ Truly it is one degre to good livinge/ yee the first (I had almoste sayde the cheffe) to have a litle sight in the scripture/ though it be but a grosse knowledge/ and not yet consummate (be it in case that some wold laugh at it/ yee and that some shuld erre and be deceaved). I wold to god/ the plowman wold singe a texte of the scripture at his plowbeme/ And that the wever at his lowme/ with this wold drive away the tediousnes of tyme. I wold the wayfaringe man with this pastyme/ wold expelle the werynes of his iorney. And to be shorte I wold that all the communication of the christen shulde be of the scripture/ for in a maner soch are we oure selves/ as oure daylye tales are.

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

78

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

Let every man prospere/ and attayne that he may/ And declare effectuously his mind vnto his neghburre/ Let not him that cometh behinde envye the foremoste/ Let also the formoste allecte him that foloweth/ ever exhortinge* him not to despayre. Why do we applye only to certayne the profession/ which is indifferent and comen to all men? Neather truly* is it mete (syth that baptime is equally comen vnto all Christen men/ where [*6v] in consisteth the first profession of the christen religion). Sith other sacramentes are not private/ and to conclude. Sith the rewarde of immortalite partaineth indyfferently vnto all men/ that only the doctrine shuld be banisshed from the seculare/ and possessed only of a few whom the comunalte call devines/ or religious parsons. And yet I wold that these (all though they be but a small company in comparison to the hole numbre which bere the name of Christ and are called Christen) I wold (I saye) desyre with all myn harte/ that they were in dede soch as they are called/ for I am a frayde that a man may fynde some amonge the divines whiche are far vnworthy their name and title/ that is to saye/ which speake wordly thinges and not godly: yee and amonge the religious whiche professe the poverte of Christ. And to despise the worlde/ thou shalt finde more wordlye pleasure and vanyte/ then in all the world be sydes. Hym do I counte a true divine which not with craftye and sotle reasons. But that in harte/ countenance/ eyes/ and lyffe doth teach/ to despyse riches. And that a Christen ought not to put confidence in the sucker/ and helpe of this world: But only hole to hange on heven. Not to avenge iniurye. To pray for them that saye evyll by vs. To do good agaynst evyll. That all good men [*7r] shuld be loved and norisshed indifferently/ as the membres of one bodye. That evyll men yf they can not be reformed and brought in to a good ordre ought to be suffered. That they whiche are despoyled of theyr goodes/ and put from their possessions/ And morne in this world/ are verye blyssed and not to be lamented. That death is to be desyred of the Christen/ syth it is nothinge elles/ But a goynge to immortalyte. Yf eny man beynge enspired with the holy goste do prech and teach these and soch other thinges/ If eny man

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

79 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture exhorte/ entyse/ and bolden his neghbore vnto these thinges/ he ys a very and true devine/ though he be a wever/ yee though he dygge and delve. But he that accomplissheth and fulfylleth these thinges in his liffe and maners/ he verely is a great doctor. Paraventure another whiche is not Christen shall more subtyllye dispute/ by what maner the Angelles vnderstond: How be it to persuade and exhorte/ that we may here lyve pure and immaculate from all vices and iniquites. And to lede an angelles liffe/ that is the office and deutye of a Christen and devine. If eny man wold obiecte/ and say that these are grosse/ and vnsavery thinges. To hym wold I none other wysse answere. But that Christ chefly hath taught thesejhinges. And that the Apostles to these have vs exhorted. [*7v] This learninge and doctrine be it never so vnsaverye hath brought vs forthe so many good christen/ and so thike swarmes of faithfull martyrs. This vnlearned (as they calle it) philosophy hath subdued vnder her lawes the most noble princes so many kingdoms/ so many nations: whiche thinge no kinges power. Mother learninge of the philosophers was ever able to bringe to passe: Nother will I resist them but that they maye dispute their profounde and sotle questions (yf it please them) amonge the more perfecte/ how be it the rude multitude of the christen may be comforted/ because truly thapostles did never teach soch thinges. Whether they knewe them or no I wold other men shuld iudge. But truly yf that the princes for their parte wold remembre them selves/ and go aboute to fulfyll with purenes of lyvinge/ this humble and rude learninge (as they call it) If the prechers in their sermones wold avaunce this doctrine/ exhortinge all men vnto it/ and not to their awne phantasyes and imaginacions. If scolemasters wold instructe their chyldren rather with thys symple scyence then with the wittye tradicyons of aristotle and averroys. Then shuld the Christente be more at quyetnes. And not be disturbed wyth soch perpetuall stormes of dissentyon and warre. Then shuld thys [*8r] vnreasonable desyre of avarice/ which appeteth riches insatiablye whether it be right or wronge/ be some dealle aswaged/ and cease of his rage. Then shulde these

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

80 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

contentious pleatinges/ which now in all thinges admixte themselves have an ende. For no man wold resiste evyll/ and to be shorte. Then shuld we not differ only in title and certen ceremonyes from the hethen and vnfaythfull. But rather in the pure conversation of our liffe. And no doute in these thre degrees of men/ that is to saye. In princes and officers which are in their stede. In bisshopes and other prestes which are their vicars. And in them that bringe vpe the tender youth/ which are formed and reformed even as their master entyseth them Doth chefly consiste the hole power other to encreasse the Christian religion. Or elles to restore it againe which hath longe bene in decaye. Now yf these wold a whyle seclude theyr awne private busynesse and lyfte vppe their hartes with a pure entent vnto christe seakynge only hys glorye/ and the profyte of theyr neghbore/ we shulde se verely wyth in few yeares/ a true and godly kinde of Christen springe vp in everye place/ which wold not only in ceremonies/ dispitions/ and titles professe the name of Christ. But in their very harte and true conversation of levinge. By this armure shuld [*8v] we moch soner prevalle agaynst the vnfaythfull/ and ennymyes of Christ/ then with strenghte/ violence/ and threatteninges. Let vs ioyne to gedder all armyes/ powers/ and might of swerde/ yet is there nothinge stronger then the trueth. We can not calle eny man a platoniste/ vnles he have reade the workes of plato. Yet call we them Christen/ yee and devines/ which never have reade the scripture of Christ. Christ sayeth/ he that loveth me doth kepe my sainges/ this is the knowlege and marke whiche he hath prescribed. Therfore yf we be true Christen men in cure hartes/ yf we beleve vnfanedly that he was sent downe from heven to teach vs soch thinges as the wisdome of the philosophers could never attayne If faythfuly we truste or loke for soch thinges of him/ as no wordly prince (be he never so rich) can geve vnto vs: why have we eny thinge in more reverence and authorite/ then his scripture/ worde and promisse/ which he lefte here among vs to be oure consolacyon? Why recovnte we eny thinge of gravite or wisdom/ which dissenteth from his doctrine? Why in this hevenly and misticalle learninge do we countte/ and discant

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

81 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

runninge more at ryote/ Then the comen and prophane interpreters/ in the cyville lawe/ or bokes of Phisike? Wyndinge oure selves in it as in a tryfelinge game/ or matter of smalle substance/ commentynge/ [Air] tossinge and wrestinge it even as it cometh to oure tonges ende. We apply and drawe/ this hevenly and vnspotted doctrine vnto oure liffe. And measure it after our vayne conversation accordinge vnto the maner of the lesbes which bende their rule to the facyon of their stone or tymbre/ And cut not their stone and timbre to the rule. And because we will not be sene ignorante in any thinge/ but rather that we have reade and know moch/ we do (I dare not saye) corrupte these frutefull springes/ but that no man can denye we appropriate vnto a few men that thinge which Christ wold have most comen. And this kinde of philosophye doth rather consist in the affectes of the minde/ then in sotle reasons. It is a liffe rather than a disputacyon. It is an inspiracion rather then a science. And rather a new transformacion/ then a reasoninge. It is a seldome thinge to be a well learned man/ but it is lefull for every man to be a true christen. It is lefull for every man to lyve a godly lyffe/ yee and I dare be bold to say it is lefull for everye man to be a pure divine. Now doth every mannes mynd incline vnto that whiche is holesome and expedient for his nature. And what other thinge ys thys doctrine of Christ whiche he calleth the new regeneracyon/ But a restorynge or reparynge of oure nature whiche in hys fyrst creacyon was good? A man [A!V] may finde verye many thinges in the gentles bokes/ which are agreable vnto this doctrine. All though no man hath shewed it so absolutely. Nether yet with soche efficacite as christ himsilf/ for there was never soch a rude and grosse secte of philosopye/ whiche did teach that mannes felicite rested on monye/ there was none so shamles to affirme that the cheffe pointe and ground of goodnes consisted in this wordly honoure and pleasurs. The stoikes did knowledge that no man might worthely be called wisse excepte he were a good and vertuous lyver/ nether that eny thinge was verelye good and honest/ but only vertue. And that nothinge was evill and to be abhorred. But only vice and sinne/ Socrates (as plato maketh mention) 'tor

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

82

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

did teach by many reasons/ that iniurye ought not to be avenged with iniurye. He taught also that sith the soule is immortall/ they are not to be morned for which departe hence/ yf they have leved well/ be cause they are gone in to a more prosperous liffe. Finally he taught and exhorted all men to subdue the affections of their bodyes. And to applye their soules to the contemplacyon of those thinges/ whiche truly are immortall/ all though they be not sene with these bodelye eyes. Aristotle writeth in hys politikes that there can nothinge be so swete and delycyous to man But that at somtyme yt doth displease hym on= [A2r] ly vertue excepte. The Epicure graunteth that there can be nothinge delectable and pleasante in this liffe except the mynde and conscience from whence all pleasure springe be clere/ and with out grutche of sinne/ besydes that there have bene some/ that have fulfylled a great parte of thys doctrine. And chefly of all Socrates/ Diogenes/ and Epictetus/ how be it sith Christ him silfe hath both taught and also done these thinges more consummatly then eny other/ ys yt not a mervelous thinge that these thinges are not onlye vnknowen of them which professe the name of Christ. But also to be despised of them/ yee and to be made a laughinge stocke? Yf there be eny thinge that goethe more nere to Christianite/ let vs then disanulle these thinges/ and folow them. But sith there is no nother thinge that can make a true Christen men/ Why then do we recounte this immortall doctrine more abrogate and out of vse then the bokes of Moyses? The first poynte of Christianite is to knowe what Christ hath taught. The next is to do there after and to fulfyll it as nygh as god giveth vs grace/ Nether thynke I that eny man wyll counte hym silfe a faythfull Chrysten/ because he can despute wyth a craftye/ [A2v] and tedious perplexite of wordes/ of relatyons/ quiddityes/ and formalites/ But in that he knowledgeth and expresseth in dedes those thinges which Christ both taught and accomplisshed. Nether speake I thys to discommende their studye and labour/ whiche have exercysed their wittes in these sotle invencyons (for I wold offend no man). But rather

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

83

An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

be cause I beleve (as the matter is in deade) that the very pure and naturall phylosophye of Christ/ can be gathered out so frutefully of no place/ as out of the Gospels and epistles of the apostles/ in whiche yf a man will studye devoutelye attendinge more to prayer/ then arguynge/ desyringe rather to be made a new man then to be armed with scriptures vnto contention/ he with out doute shall finde/ that there is nothinge pertayninge vnto mannes felicyte/ other elles vnto eny operacion expedient vnto this presente liffe. But it is declared/ discussed/ and absolutely touched. Yf we go aboute to lerne eny thinge/ werfore shall an other master and instructor more please vs then christ him silf ? Yf we requyre a rule and forme to lyve after/ why do we rather embrace an other example then the very first copy and patrone whyche is christe hymsilfe? If we desyre an holesome medycyne agaynst the grevous and noysome/ lustes or appetytes/ of oure myndes. Why seake we not here the [A3r] most frutefull remedye? If we appete to quycken and refresshe with readinge/ oure dull and fayntinge mynde. I pray the where shall we fynde soch quycke and firye sparkyls? If we covete to withdrawe oure mindes from the tedious cares of this liffe/ why seake we eny other delectable pastymes? why had we lever lerne the wisdom of Christes doctryne out of mennes bokes/ then of christ him

390

395

400

405

410

silfe? Whyche in thys scripture doth chefly performe that

thinge whiche he promysed vnto vs when he sayd/ that he wold contynew with vs vnto the ende of the worlde. For in thys hys testament he speaketh/ bretheth/ and lyveth amonge vs/ in a maner more effectuallye/ then when hys bodye was presently conversante in this worlde. The lewes nether sawe ne hearde so moch. As thou mayst dayly both here and se in the scripture of Christe/ there wanteth nothynge/ but that thou bringe the heares and eyes of fayth where with he maye be harde and perceaved. What a mervelous worlde ys thys? We kepe the letters which are written from oure frynde. We kysse them/ and here them aboute with vs. We reade them over twyse or thryse: And how many thousandes are there amonge the Christen whyche are extemed of greate litterature/ And yet have not once in their lyves Read over the Gospels and

415

420

425

84 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

Epistles of the Apostles. [A3v] Mahumetes adherentes are all well instructe in their awne secte/ And the lewes vnto this daye even from their tender age studye diligently their Moses/ Why do not we soch honour vnto Christe embrasinge his preceptes which bringe eternall liffe? They that professe saynt Benedictes institution (which is a rule both made of a man that was but of small learninge and also wryten vnto the seculare/ rude/ and vnlearned) observe their example/ lerne it by harte/ and drinke it in to their hartes. Saynt Austyns adherentes are not ignorant in their rule/ Saynt Francises fryers do know observe/ and avaunce their patrones preceptes/ yee and carye them aboute with them whether so ever they go. Insomoche that they thinke not them selves in savete excepte their boke be with them. Why set they more by their rule which was written of a man then the hole Christente by the holy scripture/ which Christ did equallye preach vnto all men/ which we have all professed in baptime? And to conclude which is most holy amonge all other doctrines/ and none to be compared with it/ all though thou hepe sex hundreth to gedder/ and I wold to god that as Paule did write that the lawe of Moses had no glorye in comparison to the glorye of [A4r] the gospell that succeded after it/ that even so the evangelyes and epistles were extemed of the Christen so holy or hadde in soch reverence/ that the doctrynes of men in respecte of them might seame nothinge holye/ I am contente that everye man avaunce his doctor at his awne pleasure/ let them extolle Albarte/ Alexander/ Saynt Thomas/ Aegidius/ Richarde/ and Occam/1 will diminysshe no manes fame nor glorye/ Nother yet resiste and reprove the olde maner of studye/ Let them be wittye/ sotle/ And in a maner above capacyte or angelicall/ yet trulye must they nedes knowledge that these are most true/ vndouted/ and frutefull. Paule and saynte lohan will that we iudge the spretes of prophetes whether they are of god or not/ and Saynt Augustyne readinge all other mennes bokes with iudgement/ requirethe none nother authoryte to his bokys. Only in the scripture when he can not attayne a thinge/ he submitteth him sylf vnto it/ And oure doctor (which is Christ) was not

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

85 An exhortation to the diligent studye of scripture alowed by the scoles of devines/ but of the hevenly father his awne and goodly voyce beringe wytnes/ and that twyse/ first at lordane as he was baptised/ and after in his trans [A4v] figuration on the mounte thabor/ sayeinge/ This is my wel beloved sonne in whom I am pleased/ heare you hym. O this sure authoryte: which (as they saye) hath no contradiction/ what signifieth this/ heare you him: Trulye that he is only the true teacher and instructore/ and that we ought only to be his disciples. Now let every man with their hole affection prayse their authores as moch as they will/ yet was this voyce with outen naye only spoken of Christ oure savyoure/ vpon whom descended the holy gost in lykenesse of a dove which did confirme the testimonye of the hevenly father. Wyth this sprete was Peter endued vnto whom the high shepard Christ/ committed his shepe once/ twyse yee thryse to be fed and norysshed/ meaninge trulye no nother thinge but that he shuld instructe them/ with the hevenly fode of Christian doctrine. In Paule/ Christ semed in a maner new borne agayne/ whom he him silf called a chosen wessel/ and a pure preacher of his name and glorye. Saynt lohan expressed in his learninge that thynge whiche he had souked or dronke out of the holye fontayne of Christes boosome. What like thynge is there in duns ( I wold not you shuld thinke that I speake it of envye) what like thinge is there in saynt Thomas? how be it I commende this mannes holinesse/ And mervell at the folle wit and [A5r] iudgement of the other. Why do we not all applye oure diligente studye in these greate authors/ I meane Christ/ Peter/ Paule/ and lohan? Why here we not aboute these in oure bosomes? Why have we them not ever in oure handes? Why do we not hunte/ seke/ and serch oute these thinges with a curious diligence? Why geve we a greater portion of oure liffe to the studye of Averrois/ then to the Evangely of Christ? why do we (in a maner) consvme al oure age in the decrees of men/ and vayne opinions which are so contrarye and dissentinge amonge them selves? Be it in case they be greate devines that made soche constitutions yet notwithstandinge only in Christes worde consisteth the exercyse/ and invrance/ of him which before god is reputed for a greate devine. It is mete that

465

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

86

Anexhortation to the diligent studye of scripture

we all which have professed the name of Christ (at the leste if we have promised with mind and harte) that we be instructe with the doctryne of Christ/ beinge yet tender infantes in oure parentes armes/ and wanton children at oure nurses tete/ for it is emprented most depe/ And cleveth most surely/ which the rude and vnformed shelle of oure soule dothe first receave and learne. I wold oure first and vnformed speache shuld sounde of Christ/ I wolde oure ignorante childhed shuld be enformed with Christes evangelye/ and to them I wold Christ shuld be so [A5v] swetely taught/ that they might be enflamed to love him/ And that after they shuld precede by a litle and a litle crepinge by the grovnde vntyll that by insensible incrementes they springe vp to be stronge in Christ. Other mennes traditions are soche/ that many repente them selves because they have spente so moch studye and labour vpon them. And often it chaunceth that they which have moste manfully fought thorow all their liffe even vnto the death/ to defende mennes doctrines and decrees/ Yet in the poynte of dethe have caste awaye their shilde/ and have clene dissented from their authors secte. But blissed is he whom death assayleth/ if his harte be hole occupied in this holesome doctrine. Let vs therfore all with fervent desyre thriste after these sprituall springes/ Let vs embrace them. Let vs be studiously conversante with them. Let vs kysse these swete wordes of Christ with a pure affection. Let vs be new tranformed into them for soche are oure maners as oure studyes be yee (and to be shorte) let vs dye in them he that cannot attayne them (but who is he that can not if he will him silf) yet at the leste let him submitte him silfe vnto them recountinge them very holy/ and as the storehouse/ or tresurye/ of goddes awne minde from whence cometh furthe all goodnes. If a man wold shew vs a steppe of Christes foote/ Good lorde/ how wold we [A6r] knele and worshuppe it? And why do we not rather honoure his qwycke and lyvelye image which is most expresslye contayned in these bokes? If a man wold bringe vnto vs Christes coote whether wold we not runne hedlynge that we might once kisse it? How be it if thou bringe oute his coote/ sherte/ shoes/ and all his housolde stuffe/ yet is

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

87 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians there nothinge that doth more truly and expressly represente Christe/ then the gospels and epistles. We garnisshe or adorne an image of wod or stone with gold and precious stones for the love of Christe. But why are not these thinges rather garnisshed with gold and gemmes/ yee and more preciously/ yf so eny thinge can be more precious then they/ syth they represent moch more presentlye Christ vnto vs/ then eny ymage can do? As for ymages/ what thinge can they expresse but the figure of his bodye? yf they expresse that. But the evangely doth represent and expresse the qwicke and levinge ymage of his most holy minde/ yee and Christe him silf speakinge/ healinge/ deyenge/ rysinge agayne/ and to conclude all partes of him. In so moch that thou couldeste not so playne and frutefullye see him/ All though he were presente before thy bodlye eyes. Amen. [sir] The cause why the apostle did write this presente chapter was this. The Corinthians whiche dyd receave the doctrine of Christe and so did become his servantes/ and specyally they whiche before had folowed the lewes wayes/ did observe both the Euanely/ and also the lawe of Moses. Now hadde Moses commaunded that every man shulde be maried. So that a man by the lawe of matrimony shulde be associate and kepe company with a woman/ and the woman with a man. To lyve severall or single was then comdempned/ as a state baren and vnfrutefull. The cause was this. Godde hadde promysed in the olde testamente that Christe shulde descende of the seede of Abraham. Now did no body yet knowe what parsones were the seede that shulde begette him. It was therfore necessaryly required that the Hebrues all/ which were lewes shulde be coniugate in mariage for honore and love of this seede/ and to engendre children vntill the advente and cominge of Christe. For this cause didde the Corinthyans demaunde/ whether they were bounde to kepe the aforesayde lawe? And whethere yt was lefulle for them to abyde and lyve vnmaryed/ [B!V] when they had love and desyer vnto chastite? And moste specially for so moche as by reasone of the euangely many other lawes were cassate/ and anulled/ and put vnto mannes

545

550

555

560

565

570

575

88 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians libertie to kepe them/ or elles not to kepe them. Their feble and weyke consciences cowde vnnethes leave the lawe of Moses/ where vnto they hadde so longe time and many ages bene accustomed. Vnto this doth sainte Paule here make them answeare saing that this is not only lefulle/ but also good and profitable/ yf so a man mindeth to lyve chaste/ and hath love and delyte to the same. Not with standinge he doth here intreate of this mater both diligently and also warely/ mixtynge and intermedlinge all wayes matrimony. IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TOO TOUCHE A WOMAN. NEVERTHELESSE TO AVOYDE FORNICACYON. LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS WIFE. AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER HUSBANDE. Consider well the wordes/ and beholde howe shortly he breaketh of/ making digression from his firste sentence. Yt is sayth he good/ yf a man do not touche a woman. But in this he doth nother bydde/ ne forbidde eny man so for to do/ but incontinent [fi2r] he hyeth hym vnto matrimony. As yf he dyd feare soche a good thinge to be rare and vnwonte/ and that in tyme cominge wolde turne and be chaunged into fornicacyon. Afferminge that for love of avoydinge fornicacyon every man ought to have his wife. Therfore this is his firste sentence or conclusion. That whosoever in him silfe doth not fele this godly and good thinge I meane chastite: but doth fele and perceave incontinency/ Vnto him (I saye) is here commaundemente gyven/ that he be maryed. And this commaundemente oughteste thou to receave as the commaundement of God and not of man. Then here of doth folowe that no parsone may make a vowe or promyse to lyve chaste and single. And that no parson is bounde to kepe and performe eny suche vowe once made/ but rather to fordo vnkepe and breake them. When in him silfe he doth not fynde nor fele this precyous and goodly gyfte of chastite/ but knoweth him silfe prone to luste and incontinencye. For suche a vowe is playnly made againste this commaundemente. But againste the commaundemente of God may no vowe be made therfore yf eny suche vowe be made/ he that shall observe and

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

89 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians kepe it ys damnabyll/ yee and by the lawe of god all redye condemned. [fi2v] This thouchynge of women have some parsones diffined and compared moche straytly. So that they dare not touche a womans hande nor skynne. Moreover they have founde and imagined many both statutes and ceremonyes/ by whiche they might kepe themselves from the company of women. So that they shuld nother see nor heare them/ supposinge that by suche meanys they have made royall provision to lyve chaste/ and vnmaryed. And thus they that fyrste dydde bylde monasteryes and abbyes thought that yonge men myght be kepte pure and chaste/ yf they ware absente from yonge women/ and lykewyse yonge women from men. But vnto what prefe and how fortunatly that thynge hath come to passe/ and what place therby hath bene geven to Sathan/ it were horrible both to be spoken/ and also to be hearde of. Suche parsones be as men are wonte to saye comonly more blinde then a betle. They wene that chastyte maye be dryven in to a man by outwarde meanes. When not whithstanding/ this hygh and hevenly gifte muste springe out from the inner partes of the harte. For all yf yt be manifestly knowne that luste is inflammed when man and woman do come to gether/ Yet have they therfore not made all gates so royall a provision agaynste luste/ as they pretende/ in that they are kepte separate from women/ and the wo= [e3r] men from men/ for what avayleth me to see no woman/ ne heare/ nother yet touche hyr? yf my herte swymme fulle of them? yf in thought it cleveth vnto them both daye and nyght? Yf it ymagine and purpose more fylthines/ then eny man is bolde to do? And what doth it profite to sperre and close in a yonge woman/ that she can have no liberte nother to see ne heare a yonge man/ when hyr harte with out ceasinge doth morne and sygh after suche one both dayes and nyghtes? The harte muste be geven vnto chastite. Elles all our enforsemente labour and diligence shall bee vnto vs grevous and paynfull as helle and other like tormentes. Wherfore this saying of Paule muste nedes be vnderstande in sprete and in harte/ on this wise. That he shall be sayed not to touche a

615

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

90 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians woman/ which with desyre of his harte/ and with his awne proper wille doth outwardly kepe his body from women. And not he that is compelled outwardly to abstaine or kepe from women/ inwardly in harte being fulle of luste and love towardes them. But suche are dissemblers and hypocrites/ whose clennes and chastite glistereth before the worlde/ but afore god it is loste and damnable/ yee it is doble lecherye/ for saynte paules saynge is frely spretuall. Wherfore it requireth a fre sprete/ and in a fre sprete it mu= [B3v] ste be taken and receaved. But hypocrytes receave yt grudginly/ making therof a dedde letter/ and a grevous lawe/ that dryveth and compelieth them. And so they make damnable and fayned chastite by outwarde shunninge and avoidinge from women dolorous and paynfulle. Marke now what kyn soulesleers they be which so entise and provoke folisshe youth to vowe outwarde chastite causinge and compellinge them to norisshe within them inwardly hydden malyce and evyll/ takinge no consyderacion with them selves/ whether the parsones whom they thus do entyse and move be lyke wise with harte and desyer sturred vnto the same/ that ys to wytt vnto chastite or single livinge. But the more harde and paynfull yt ys to man/ the more noble and precious do they wene that yt ys before god lyke wyse as yt ys wonte to be in other exterior hurtes/ dammages/ and vexacions of the body. And they do not see that this evill of strayned and vnwillfull continency/ and exterior payne or grefe of the body be no lesse differente then heven and erthe. For as touchinge other evilles/ and grefis they may be endured and suffered wyth a meri conscience wyth out synne/ and they do payne the body only. But this evill and treble ys subiecte and in dawnger of sinne. Be cause yt can in no wyse be endured with a mery conscience. For yt ys synne and vnright wisnes in yt selfe. [s4r] Wherfore this evill of vnwilfull chastite can by no medicine be holpen and healed/ onles when a man ys ridde from dawnger of sinne. Whiche can be by no nothwer waies then by the healpe and remedy of mariage. But other exterior grefes or trobles concerninge mannes body maye be holpen by pacience/ all though a man be never ridde from them.

655

660

665

670

675

680

685

690

91

An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians

And in this maner willeth sainte Paule that saienge to be vnderstande. Yt ys good for a man not to touche a woman etc. So that this worde/ good/ be not vnderstande ne spoken of merite and deservinge before god. As though an vnmaried bodye were better a fore hym than one that ys maried lyke as before time sainte Hierome hath this texte expowned. For yt concerneth only faith/ and no dede or worke. And yt ys spoken of temporalle tranquillite/ and quitenesse of this life. Whiche a single or vnmaried parsone hath before one that ys wedded and maried. For one that ys single shal be quite and free from all miseries/ vexacion/ and drudgery/ that befalle in wedlocke or mariage. And for to telle yow shortly yt ys a ioyfulle lovely precious and goodly gifte (yf so a man hath yt verily given him) to lyve wyth a gladde harte and mynde [B4v] syngle and chaste. But Paule hym sylfe shall here after excellently descrybe vnto yow what he entendeth by suche goodnesse. For yt was not fyttyng for him that so dyd commende virginite and syngle livynge/ to leave them with out consolacyon/ whych there vnto were geven with their very mynde and wyll. Neverthelesse thys muste yow gravnte me/ that a wyfe and maryed woman maye be better afore god thean a vyrgyn. All be yt she in hyr state do suffer many paynes trobles* and adversytes/ and the virgyn or mayde hath moche ioye and tranquillyte/ passynge hyr age in reste and quyetnes. Therfore thys ys the sentence or meaninge of Paule/ Yt ys good for a man not to touche a woman. Nother ys yt eny offense now in the tyme of the newe testamente to lyve with out a wyfe and chyldre/ as yt was in the tyme of the olde testamente/ but yt is good as here wytnesseth Paule for a man not to touche a woman. That ys to saye. A man vnto whom ys geven of god/ that he can gladly with hys very harte and wylle abyde syngle/ the same man may leade a quyet lyfe. Thys doth reporte the comon proverbes/ that men vse to speake. Suche as be thes/ Be thou maryed o fole (doth on saye vnto an other) and thy ioye shall shortly have an ende. Also/ maryage ys a shorte ioye and a longe sorowe/ and suche other lyke. Whyche all do [sSrj well agree with this place of Paule/ Yt is good for a man not to touche a woman. Therfore dyd Moses also commawnde

695

700

705

710

715

720

725

92 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians

in the lawe that a man newly maryed shulde be quyte and fre from all publike charges by the space of an whole yeare/ that he myght have ioye and make mery with hys wyfe/ nother shulde he be called to goo in warfare/ nother to beare eny charge or office. As though Moses shulde saye/ he shall lyve a yeare in gladnesse/ and after he shall suffer treble sorowe and angwysshe. But yf yt be not geven a man to lyve with his very harte and mynde chaste or vnmaryed. Yt is better for hym to take a wyfe to be hys companyon. Ye there is no thynge elles at all lefte or remayninge/ that maye ease and healpe the/ excepte honest and chaste matrimony. Wherfore where it ys not geven a man to enioye and vse the commodytes of syngle livinge and chastite. It is necessarye to geve him silf vnto the treble/ paynes/ and vexations of mariage. For it ys alwaye better to leade a miserable or sory lyfe with out sinne in mariage/ then to lyve ioyfully in the foule sinne of lecherye vnmaryed. But there is no body that wille gladly put them selves into suche paynes and sorinesse. And therfore doth well nygh every man for his parte abhorre wedlocke. Wherfore it is a comon vsed by worde. He muste be hardye [sSv] that shall mary a wyfe. And with out fayle he had nede to be very hardye ye. Nother ys there/ eny parsone that leveth more blessydly or quietly then a pure Christian/ whiche beyng ledde and gyded by faith can so fassion him sylfe agayne trobles and stormy seasons of aduersyte/ that he doth no whit complayne/ nother crye/ ne blaspheme god and his worde: Lyke as do the mad and blinde wise men of this worlde. Thus doth saynte Paule here meane in this place/ when he so sodenly after the commendacion and prayse of chastite returneth vnto mariage sayeng/ but to avoyde fornication/ lett every man have hys wife/ and lett every woman haue hyr husbande. What doth he entendeth that he sayeth/ but to avoyde fornicacion? No thinge verily elles/ but where as suche maner quietnes ys not/ that a man can willingly lyve chaste/ that then he shulde wayte after no thinge more surely to folowe or to come/ then fornicacion and lecherye. Wherfore yf the gyfte of chastite do lacke/ yt ys better to be with out the

730

735

740

745

750

755

760

765

93 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians

pleasure and profytes of chastyte/ and to gyve hym selfe vnto the miseryes/ trebles/ and paynes of matrimony/ for avoydinge of synne. For yt ys all wayes more profitable to have payne grefe/ and yrkesumnes/ with out synne/ then to have synne with out payne/ greve and yrke= [e6r] sumnes. Yee then to have synne ioyntly to gether with thes thre. Take heade here vnto the wordes of Paule/ whiche doth not hope that moche chastite shulde be in the Corinthians. Chastite truly ys a right good thinge/ yf so luste and incontinencye* did* not* withstonde* and* let* it* for* cause* were* of* let* every* man* have* his* wife* Paule* maketh not chastite so vulgare and commone a thinge for all parsonis as we have hetherto vsed to do/ and as yet we do/ but all amisse. But he will that vniuersally all men be coniugate in matrimony. And yet not with standinge he being indued and inspired with the sprete of good did wythout dowte knowe more parfitely the nature/ disposition/ powre and inclinacion of man then all the Bishopes that hath bene sith his time whiche hath stroyed fordone and lett this godly institucion and ordinance. So that this saieng of sainte Paule with them doth here no place. But in this do they now raile and Bable in pulpites. Yt ys lawfulle for some men to have wifes/ and for some yt ys not lawfulle. Thus do they chawnge the latin worde. Quisque in to quidam/ that ys to saye every man in to some man. But as concerninge this thinge you shall see more plenteously here vnder. Saynt Paule now procedeth forthe. [B6v] LET THE MAN GEVE VNTO THE WIFE DUE BENEVOLENCE/ LYKEWISE ALSO THE WYFE VNTO THE MAN. THE WYFE HATH NOT POWER OVER HER AWNE BODY; BUT THE HUSBANDE. AND LYKE WISE THE MAN HATH NOT POWER OVER HIS AWNE BODY/ BUT THE WYFE. Paule in this place doth instructe them that are coupled in matrimony how and in what maner they on both partyes shulde be ordred/ and demeane themselves in their state of wedlocke/ which he doth here calle due beneuolence. It is truly a thinge due/ but not with standinge it ought to be

770

775

780

785

790

795

800

94 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians willingly done and performed. In that he sayeth it is due/ he telleth the cause why God doth permitte vnto matrimony/ and pardone that/ which elles from with out it/ he doth punisshe and condemne. For in this pointe is matrimony closed in the lawes of love/ that nother the man ne the wife hath power of their awne body/ but the one ys bownde to serve the other by the lawe of love. Which thinge in fornication and advoutry hath no place/ where as nother partye hath power apon the other/ nother ys the one bownde ne oweth ony thinge vnto the other but bothe of them do seke their awne pleasures. Wherfore also soch vnclene and dishoneste love ys contrary vnto god. Yt is verily [s7r] a greate sayeng/ that nother partye hath power ouer their awne body. So that yf at any tyme luste and concupiscence doth tempte them the one ys then bownde to assente and folowe the desyer of the other/ and not to geve them sylves vnto eny other. In thys dothe manifestly appeare howe that advoutrye ys the greateste thefte and robberye of all that ys in the worlde. For who so ever doth committe yt/ geveth hys lively body/ where apon he hath no power vnto an other: and taketh also a waye a lively bodye wher apon he lyke wyse hath no power. More over Paules wordes be here manyfeste/ and do not nede moche exposicion. Nother dare I now here serche the pryvetyes of maryage/ to wryte of them eny vnhonest or vnclene thynge. A ryght Christian shall here knowe by him sylfe/ how yt shall become hym to ordre and* behave hym silf measurably. Nother maketh it eny matter how so ever a wicked and vngodly body be enflamed and rage. Some olde men have vsed this Paganes byworde. He that burneth overmoche in love/ is made an advoutrer in his awne wyfe. But by cawse it is a paganes sayenge/ carnall and lecherous parsones careth not moche therfore. And I saye verely that it is contrary vnto the truthe/ for no man doth committe advoutry in his awne wyfe/ excepte he other refuse to have hyr/ or elles to [B?V] vse hir as his wife. And I thinke that this matter can not be better discussed and entrated of/ then it is here of Paule/ whiche affirmeth that

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

95 An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of Corinthians mariage is the* only savegarde and remedy againe lecherye. Wherfore that parsone which vseth it/ to avoyde and do awaye fornication I dare suerly saye that he hath Paule for his advocate and defender. Hereof may I iustly gather that it standeth not well to gether nother is it Christes learninge that the man and the wife (lyke as we see vsed in some places) shulde abide separate ne come to gether after the example of Toby vntill the thirde night. I do admitte that every man maye vse the same maner/ if so he please with the assent of his wife: but to thinke that he is bounde therto. So that yf he do folowe it/ he doth a meritorious dede: or elles if he leave it vndone/ or do contrary wyse/ that ys to saye/ if he do vse his wyfe before that thyrde night/ he shulde therfore synne/ and do amisse. Then I saye this man in very dede thinketh evyll and doth amisse. Not bycause he dyd vse hys wyfe contrary to suche a folishe gyse as ys before shewed: but for that he hath a wronge enformed conscience. And finally soche thoughtes/ and opinions or ymaginacyons ar scrupulous and voyde of [e8r] ryght beleve/ and coming of a conscience evyll encombred/ or as Paule sayeth in the first pistle to Timothe.iiij. Marked with an hote yeron. For yf the example of Thoby be of suche greate authorite and power/ why shall not the example of lacob the Patriarke be of more/ whyche did touche/ and knowe Lya his wife in the firste nyght? This ought therfore to be fre/ and in mannys lyberty. They dote and playe the foles/ that in these matters do laye snarys and make lawes or bondes. The wyfe hath power over the husbande/ but over hyr awne body she hath none. And lyke wyse ys yt of the husbande. Here ought men therfore to stinte of their statutes and ordinances makinge: for a better ordinance then this can none be brought/ that men with out eny respecte of soche time shall vse ther wifes (lyke as god permitteth) accordinge as they like and have necessite/ forthermore they have exempte certen dayes as those whiche we do calle vygilles and holy evyns/ also women conceaved with childe. I grawnte well that yt were moche profitable and necessary

845

850

855

860

865

870

875

96