Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
The Short-Title Catalogue includes in its list of Tyndale's works a pamphlet called ‘The Supper of the Lord,’ which was originally published anonymously on the continent in 1533, under the fictitious imprint of Nicholas Twonson of Nuremberg. But there are serious objections against accepting Tyndale's authorship. Although the pamphlet was reprinted several times during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, it did not finally appear under Tyndale's name until 1573, when John Foxe included it in his edition of the works of Tyndale, Frith and Barnes. During the sixteenth century it was widely believed that ‘The Supper of the Lord’ was the work of George Joye, one of the lesser figures of the English reformation who is now largely forgotten. But although the weight of the evidence seems to support this belief, the glamor of Tyndale's name has prevented the question from being investigated properly.
1 The full title of the original edition is “The Souper/of the Lorde./ wher unto, that thou mayst be the better pre-/pared and suerlyer instructed: have here/firste the declaracion of the later par-/te of the 6 ca. of S. Johā, beginnin-/ge at the letter C the fowerth ly-/ne before the crosse, at these wor-/dis: Verely, vere. ” The colophon reads “Imprinted at Nornburg, by Niclas twonson, 5 April. An.1533.” However, no printer of this name is known and it clearly belongs to the category of English protestant books which were printed in the Low Countries with fictitious imprints. Miss Kronenberg suggests that the real printer was Symon Cock of Antwerp, who published several other works for English reformers, also without giving his name. Kronenberg, M. E., “Forged Addresses in Low Country Books in the Period of the Reformation,” The Library, Fifth Series, II (Oxford, 1948), p. 89.Google Scholar
2 Anderson, C., The Annals of the English Bible (London, 1845), I, pp. 349–350, 354–356.Google Scholar
3 The Works of the English Reformers — William Tyndale and John Frith, edited by Russell, Thomas (London, 1831), III, pp. 17–69.Google Scholar
4 The Works of William Tyndale, edited by Walter, Henry (3 Volumes, Parker Society, Cambridge, 1848–1850), III, pp. 217–268.Google Scholar
5 Tyndale, , Doctrinal Treatises (Parker Society, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1848).Google Scholar “Biographical Notice of William Tyndale,” p. lvii.
6 Tyndale, , An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, &c. (Parker Society, Vol. III, Cambridge, 1850), pp. 218–221.Google Scholar
7 “I do not wish, however, to be considered as positively affirming the treatise to be Tyndale's. … But still there are objections of such force, that I must confess myself rather inclined to attribute the treatise to Joye's pen, if I could but be satisfied that he was capable of writing so correctly, and of keeping so clear of vulgarity in a controversy with a popish persecutor.” Notes and Queries, First Series, No. 23, April 6, 1850, p. 363.
8 Demaus, R., William Tyndale (London, 1872), p. 367Google Scholar, and footnote.
9 “Thomas More also leaves the matter open. But he evidently suspects that he is dealing with Tyndale, and he was almost certainly right,” Mozley, J. F., Tyndale, William (London, 1937), p. 253.Google Scholar Mozley also discussed the matter in an article, entitled “Tyndale's Supper of the Lord” in Notes and Queries, CLXXXIII, 21 November 1942, pp. 205–206. Here he argues very strongly that ‘The Supper of the Lord’ was the work of Tyndale, but he offers no new external evidence.
10 “Tyndale now joined in the fray, for on 5th. April, there was published an anonymous work The Supper of the Lord, which may with great probability be ascribed to him.” The Work of William Tyndale, edited by Greenslade, S. L. (London, 1938),Google Scholar Introduction, p. 15. However, when discussing the work later on, he is careful to state that Tyndale's authorship is not absolutely certain, see p. 45.
11 Tyndale, Answer to More, “M. Mocke” was changed to “M. More.” In the Parker Society text of Tyndale's works the spelling has been modernized, and for the sake of uniformity I have followed this practice in all passages quoted in this article, even when sixteenth century editions have been used.
12 Sir Thomas More, “The Answer to the First Part of a Poisoned Book which a Nameless Heretic hath Named The Supper of the Lord,” printed in The Works of Sir Thomas More (London, 1557), pp. 1036–1037.
13 John Bale, Illustrium Maioris Britanniae Scriptorum Summarium (Ipswich, 1548), p. 240: John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Britanniae Catalogus (Basle, 1557), p. 721
14 Burnet, Gilbert, History of the Reformation, edited by Pocock, Nicholas (7 volumes, Oxford, 1865), IV, p. 518.Google Scholar
15 The Whole Works of Tyndale, Frith and Barnes (London, 1573), “Tyndale's Works,” p. 457.
16 Ibid., p. 456.
17 Ibid., p. 456.
18 “Amongst his other books which he compiled, one work he made also for the declaration of the sacrament (as it was then called) of the altar; which he kept by him, considering how the people were not as yet fully persuaded in other matters tending to superstitious ceremonies and gross idolatry. … Wherefore Master Tyndale, being a man both prudent in his doings, and no less zealous in the setting forth of God's holy truth after such sort as it might take most effect with the people, did forbear the putting forth of that work, not doubting but, by God's merciful grace, a time should come to have that abomination openly declared as it is at this present day: the Lord Almighty be always praised therefore, Amen!” Foxe, John, Acts and Monuments, edited by S. R. Catley (8 volumes, London, 1837–1841), V, p. 119.Google Scholar
19 In Foxe's edition of The Whole Works of Tyndale, Frith and Barnes, the title is given as ‘A Fruitful and Godly Treatise expressing the right institution and usage of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ.’ But the earliest edition to survive (Printed by R. Stoughton, c. 1548) was published under the title of ‘A Brief Declaration of the Sacraments; expressing the first original, how they came up and were institute, with the true and most sincere meaning and understanding of the same, very necessary for all men that will not err in the true use and meaning thereof, compiled by the godly learned man, William Tyndale.’ This edition is undated, but cannot have appeared before 1548, when Stoughton started printing. In consequence, it has usually been conjectured that an earlier edition, of which no copies have survived, was published during Tyndale's life-time: for Foxe prints the tract along with the rest of Tyndale's works “newly imprinted according to his first copies, which he himself set forth.” (Vide, Henry Walter's ‘Introductory Notice’ to “A Fruitful and Godly Treatise,” in Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, p. 346: the S.T.C. even lists a hypothetical edition with the title of a Fruitful and Godly Treatise expressing the right institution and usage of the Sacraments, for which it suggests the date 1533) However, in view of Foxe's report that Tyndale deliberately refrained from publishing a work on the sacraments which he had written, it is possible that A Fruitful and Godly Treatise was not published during his life-time, and that Stoughton's edition was, in fact, the first to appear.
20 More, Works, pp. 1036–1037.
21 Ibid., p. 1037.
22 Tyndale, Answer to More, &c., p. 218.
23 More, Works, p. 1039.
24 Mozley suggests that Bale's attribution may have been based on the same protestant conjectures which More reported in his Answer to the First Part of a Poisoned Book (Notes and Queries. CLXXXIII, p. 305). But this is merely an hypothesis for which Mozley advances no evidence, while he completely ignores the testimony of the proclamation of 1542. The only other direct contemporary evidence also seems to support the view that The Supper of the Lord should not be ascribed to Tyndale, though it is too vague to be of much value. About 1548 The Supper of the Lord was reissued by Robert Crowley, who added a Preface to the Christian Reader. Unfortunately Crowley does not give any information about the origin of the work or the identity of its author. In his only reference to him he says “the author of this little book … is detested as a heretic, wherefore we may well say with Christ, ‘The Light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness more than light.’” (The Supper of the Lord, London, 1548?, ‘Preface to the Christian Reader.’) But as Walter pointed out (Tyndale, Answer to More, –221), Crowley does not suggest that the author of The Supper of the Lord had been martyred for the faith, as he might have been expected to do had he supposed it to be the work of Tyndale. Instead the passage may imply that the author was still alive at that time, and Joye, it may be noted, did not die until 1533. But tantalizing as it is, the passage is too obscure to allow any deductions to be drawn from it.
25 Works of Tyndale, Frith and Barnes, pp. 455–456. The letter is reprinted by Walter in his Biographical Notice, Tyndale, Doctrinal Works, pp. liii-lvi; Demaus, PP. 359–363; Mozley, pp. 248–251.
26 Works of Tyndale, Frith and Barnes, “Tyndale's Works,” p. 455.
27 More, Works, p. 1037.
28 Tyndale, Answer to More, &c., p. 220.
29 “Whilst by writing anonymously he might intend to avoid giving Frith's judges any legal ground for convicting him of being engaged in the same conspiracy against their church with one whose works had been authoritatively described as heretical,” wrote Walter in his introduction to ‘The Supper of the Lord,’ in Tyndale, Answer to More, &c, p. 220. Mozley takes the same view (William Tyndale), p. 253.
30 “But of this I challenge George Joye that he did not put his own name thereto and call it rather his own translation: and that he playeth boo peep and in some of his books putteth in his name and title and in some keepeth it out,” William Tyndale, yet once more to the Christian Reader, reprinted in An Apology made by George Joye to satisfy, if it may be, Tyndale, W., edited by Edward Arber (English Scholar's Library, London, 1895), p. x.Google Scholar
31 Joye, An Apology to W. Tyndale, p. 28.
32 See above, § II.
33 Letters and Papers — Foreign and Domestic — of the Reign of Henry VIII, edited by Brewer, J. S. and Gairdner, James (London, 1862–1910), VIII, 1535.Google Scholar No. 823. Edward Foxe to Cromwell, 4 June 1535.
34 Mozley argues from this letter that Joye could not have been a Zwinglian, or at least not a very convinced one, since he was ready to conform in 1535, and that he could not, therefore, have written The Supper of the Lord (Notes and Queries, CLXXXIII, p. 305). But this argument misses the point of Foxe's letter: for if Bishop Foxe considered it worthwhile to report to the government that Joye had undertaken never to attack transubstantiation again, Joye must previously have been known for his heretical views on the sacrament.
35 “It should, however, be pointed out that Bale mentions two other treatises on the eucharist in his list of Joye's works — De Baptismo et Eucharistia (Incipit, ‘Quia constat homo ex duabus’), which is listed in both editions of his Catalogue (1548 edition, p. 240; 1557 edition, p. 721); and De Eucharistia (Incipit, ‘Haud mirandum, chari fratres) which is only mentioned in the 1557 edition (p. 721). These works are not recorded in the Short-Title Catalogue and appear to be otherwise unknown. However, Mozley suggests that the treatise mentioned in Tyndale's letter to Frith should be identified with one of these, rather than with The Supper of the Lord (Notes and Queries, CLXXXIII, p. 305).
36 To appreciate the similarity of their eucharistic doctrine both treatises should be read in their entirety. Nevertheless one may compare the following passages especially:—‘The Supper of the Lord’ in Tyndale, Answer to More, –243, p. 251: ‘A Fruitful and Godly Treatise,’ in Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, pp. 357–359. P- 365 et seq.
37 Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, pp. 357–358.
38 “Neither our salvation so greatly standeth in that or in any other sacrament, that we would not be saved without them, by preaching the word only.” Ibid., P. 359.
39 Tyndale, Answer to More, &c., pp. 250–251.
40 Ibid., p. 246.
41 Ibid., p. 246.
42 Ibid., p. 265.
43 The most complete statement of Luther's position is to be found in Von Weltlicher Obrigkeit (1523).
44 Preface to Melanchthon's Instructions for the Visitors of the Saxon Church (1527), Luther, Martin, Werke (Weimar, 1883.), XXVI, p. 197.Google Scholar
45 It is always possible that Tyndale had changed his mind on this point by 1533, as The Obedience of a Christian Man was written in 1528. Nevertheless even in the political sections of the Exposition of Matthew V, VI and VII, which appeared in 1532 (Tyndale, Expositions of Scripture — Parker Society, Cambridge 1849 — especially pp. 58–70), there is no suggestion that the Christian magistrate is ex officio head of the church.
46 Tyndale, Answer to More, &c., p. 220. Mozley, however, questions the force of this argument, Notes and Queries, CLXXXIII, p. 306.
47 Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, p. 347.
48 Ibid., especially pp. 347–354. 375–378.
49 Tyndale, Answer to More, &c, p. 177.
50 Cf. especially Doctrinal Treatises, p. 371; Answer to More, &c, p. 177.
