The Exposition of the First Epistle of John

CrossReach

Introduction

[An ancient edition of the following exposition is preserved in the library of St Paul’s Cathedral, and has been collated for the present editor by George Offor, Esq. Its peculiar readings will be distinguished by the letters P. C. L.; whilst those found in Day’s less ancient edition of Tyndale’s works will be denoted by the letter D. In the former, Tyndale is found to have systematically avoided giving the Roman pontiff the title of pope; but in Day’s reprint his editor John Foxe has with like regularity substituted pope for the words ‘bishop of Rome,’ or for any other periphrasis to the same purport. Another difference is, that in the older copy the relative pronoun which is frequently found with the prefixed; whilst Day has modernised this idiom by omitting the. In the present edition Tyndale’s manner of designating the pope will be restored; but the obsolete idiom connected with which will be relinquished, after Day’s example; and these two repeatedly recurring variations will not be farther noticed at the foot of the page.

But, besides these unimportant differences, the volume in the cathedral library contains an exposition of the second and third epistles of St John, printed on the same paper and in the same type, and followed by a table, or index, with references to the expositions of all the three, as to one work; whilst the want of a title-page prevents us from knowing whether its editor announced the whole as Tyndale’s, or informed the public that the exposition of the two less epistles had been ‘added by another hand.’ Tyndale himself has said in his prologue, ‘I have taken in hand to interpret this epistle,’ as though he was not intending to expound the other two; and Sir Thomas More, in the preface to his ‘Confutacyon’ (date 1532), has said, ‘Then have we from Tyndale the first epistle of St John, in such wise expounded that I dare say that blessed apostle, rather than his holy words were in such a sense believed of all Christian people, had lever his epistle had never been put in writing.’ Day’s edition of Tyndale was compiled rather more than 40 years after he and More had spoken thus; and in it the reprint of the exposition of the first epistle is unaccompanied by any notice of the existence of an exposition of the other two by Tyndale: so that Foxe either did not know of its existence, or did not believe it to be Tyndale’s. Indeed every known averment of his having composed an exposition of all St John’s epistles is traceable to bishop Bale’s introducing the words In epistolas Joannis into his enumeration of Tyndale’s works, in the Scriptorum illustr. Maj. Britanniæ Catalogus.

As however Tyndale might have composed a continuation of his exposition of the first epistle, between 1531 and his death, though he had not contemplated so doing; and as Bale’s frequent inaccuracy ought not to prevent his testimony from having considerable weight, inasmuch as he was nearly 30 years of age when Tyndale suffered martyrdom; it has been the present editor’s duty to give the exposition of the two less epistles a careful examination. But having done so, he would not think himself justified in reproducing it, either as Tyndale’s work, or as too valuable to be left in obscurity. The text of those two epistles, incorporated into their exposition, is indeed nearly identical with Tyndale’s, having only such occasional verbal changes as he has introduced into the text in his other expositions; and one of those changes, viz. that of senior into elder, is such as he had, in 1530, announced his intention of making. But when sir T. More’s cavils drew from him that announcement, Tyndale added, ‘He rebuketh me also that I render this Greek word Agape into love, and not rather into charity. Verily charity is no known English in that sense which Agape requireth.’ These words are followed by a whole section of remarks on the impropriety of using the word charity, where there is occasion to speak of that love which the scriptures commend. (Answ. to sir T. More’s Dial.). But the author of the exposition of the two less epistles does not get through his second paragraph before he uses charity twice for love, in the very manner to which Tyndale thus objected: and short as the whole exposition is, he does not conclude it without employing the same word three times more, where Tyndale would have considered the word love as more plain English, and sufficient for expressing what was meant to be said.

There are also such ungrammatical and ill-constructed sentences in the exposition of the two less epistles, as Tyndale was too skilful a writer to have penned. For example, in explaining verse 12 of epistle III, the expositor has expressed himself as follows: ‘It must undoubtedly have been a man of marvellous integrity and unblameable, this Demetrius, unto whom all the congregation of good men, yea, and the truth also, beside that the apostle John, a man without guile, and that had not learned to flatter, gave such verdict.’ But besides these discrepancies between his words and style, and those of Tyndale, this expositor has indulged in such fancies as are not at all in harmony with Tyndale’s manner of commenting upon the scriptures. Thus on verse 1 of epistle II, he says, ‘John calleth the church or congregation a lady, because she is the bride of the Lord Jesus; and the members of the church he calleth children, remaining so still, in comparing and alluding.’ And in concluding his exposition, he says, of both epistles, ‘The shortness hath a wondrous favour; and the briefness hath also mysteries.’ If Tyndale had written upon these epistles, and so thought, he would have told his readers why he imagined there was a mystery in the brevity, and what he supposed that mystery to mean. In another place, on ver. 10 of Epist. III, the expositor has said that ‘it is the duty of true herdsmen, to forgive nought.’ It is incredible that Tyndale would have expressed himself so rashly, or inculcated a rule of proceeding so contrary to plain scripture.]

The Prologue

¶ Except a man have the profession of his baptism in his heart, he cannot understand the scripture.

As a man can by no means read, except he be first taught the letters of the cross row, even so it is unpossible for a man, of whatsoever degree or name he be of, to understand aught in the scripture unto the honour of God and health of his soul, except he be first taught the profession of his baptism, and have it also written in his heart.

Which profession standeth in two things: the one is the knowledge of the law of God, understanding it spiritually, as Christ expoundeth it Matt. 5, 6 and 7 chapters, so that the root and life of all laws is this: Love thy Lord God with all thine heart, all thy soul, and all thy might; and thy neighbour as thyself, for his sake: and that love only is the fulfilling of the law (as Paul teacheth); and that whatsoever deed we do, and not of that love, that same fulfilleth no law in the sight of God.

And the other is, to know the promises of mercy which are in our Saviour Christ; understanding them also purely without all leaven, after the mercifullest fashion as scripture expresseth them, and after all fatherly love and kindness of God, unto all that repent toward the law, and believe in Christ.

And to have this profession written in thine heart is to consent unto the law that it is righteous and good, and to love it in thine heart, and to submit thyself thereunto for to learn it, and to rule and square all thy deeds thereby; and then to believe in Christ, that for his sake all thy sins, which thou diddest before the knowledge of this profession, are forgiven thee clearly, both a pœna et culpa, to use the Romish terms; and that for none other satisfaction to God-ward than Christ’s blood; and even so, that all the sin which we do after this knowledge, either of chance, ignorance, infirmity, negligence, or provoked and overcome of the flesh, is forgiven us likewise, both pœna et culpa, through repentance and faith in Christ, without our satisfaction of works to God-ward.

Notwithstanding we, being all sons of one God, and servants of one Christ, must agree among ourselves; and he that hath offended must meekly knowledge his fault, and offer himself to make amends unto the utmost of his power; and if he have not wherewith, ask forgiveness for Christ’s sake, and the other is bound to forgive him. Neither, without reconciling himself unto his brother, may any man be at the first received unto the profession of Christ’s faith, nor continue therein, nor be received in again, if he be for his open offences put thereout. For how can a man love his neighbour as well as himself, and be sorry that he hath hurt him, except he should offer himself to make amends?

And we must from henceforth walk in the life of penance, (if ye will have it so called,) and after the doctrine of Christ every man tame his flesh with prayer, fasting, and the continual meditations of Christ’s penance and passions for us, and of the holy saints, and with such abstinence, and kind of living, as every man thinketh most meet for his complexion; the younger confessing their infirmities to the elder, discreeter, and better learned, and asking their advice and wholesome counsel for the repressing of their diseases; but all to tame the flesh, and to serve thy neighbour, without any superstitious mind.

But to God-ward is there no satisfaction, save faith in Christ’s blood out of a repenting heart. For our outward deeds cannot be referred unto God, to do him service in his own person, and to help him, or make him better therewith. We can do no more with them, were they never so perfect, and done with all love, than satisfy the law for the present time, and do our duty unto our neighbours, and tame our own flesh; but not to make satisfaction to God for sin that is once past. The sin that is once committed must God forgive freely, of a fatherly love, for Christ’s sake.

When God visiteth us with sickness, poverty, or whatsoever adversity it be, he doth it not of a tyrannous mind, to satisfy his lust in our suffering of evil, to make satisfaction for the sin that is past, of which we repent and be sorry; but of a fatherly love, to make us know ourselves and feel his mercy, and to tame our flesh, and to keep us from sinning again: as no natural father punisheth his child because he delighteth in tormenting of him, to take satisfaction for the sin that is past; but first teacheth kindly, and suffereth, and forgiveth once or twice; and then at the last, when he seeth the body so wanton, that the child cannot continue in the right way for the rage of wild lusts, he beateth him, to subdue the flesh only, and to tame it, that the doctrine of the father may have her due course in the heart of the child, and should not be choked with lusts and concupiscences of our wicked nature.

Even so is it of God: if any of his children, that have professed his law and the faith of our Saviour, be negligent to tame his flesh with prayer, fasting, and good deeds after the doctrine of Christ, he will surely scourge him, to bring him into the right way again, and to keep him, that the doctrine of his soul’s health perish not in him. But he taketh not his mercy from us, nor thinketh on the sin that is past, after that we repent and be full converted; but absolveth us both a pœna et culpa for Christ’s sake; and