T HE F ALL OF THE R OMISH C HURCH

(1)

T

HE

F

ALL

OF

THE

R

OMISH

C

HURCH

A

N

E

DITION

MASTERSCRIPTIE ENGELSE TAAL EN CULTUUR, RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN

(2)

Rationale

(4)

List of Abbreviations

abbr. abbreviation

cor. corrected

DE Dutch edition

EE English edition

EEBO Early English Books Online

ESTC English Short Title Catalogue

l. line number

mod. modern

CODCC The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Online

ODNB The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

OED The Oxford English Dictionary

om. omitted

STCN Short Title Catalogue Netherlands

trans. translation

(5)

Introduction

This edition consists of two collations of the available versions of The Fall of the Romish

Church: one collation in English of two versions and one collation in Dutch of three versions.

This text was first published during the Protestant Reformation under Edward VI (1547-1553) in England. Many texts have already been written on the Reformation in general and on Dutch and English printing during the Reformation in particular, for example, Andrew Pettegree‟s

Netherlandish Books: Books Published in the Low Countries and Dutch Books Published abroad Before 1601 or Cathy Shrank‟s Writing the Nation in Reformation England, 1530-1580. There are also texts that explain the relation between the two countries concerning the

printing of controversial books, such as M. E. Kronenberg‟s Verboden boeken en opstandige

drukkers in de hervormingstijd and L. Hellinga‟s The Bookshop of the World: the Role of the Low Countries in the Book-trade 1473-1941. However, these books generally do not focus on

the practical implementation and the translation of a specific text that functions within this context.

The Fall of the Romish Church, and its Dutch translation De Val der Roomscher Kercken is ideal for research that focuses both on context and on practical implementation.

(6)

Print history

Of the five versions in this edition, two versions were written in English. These will be referred to as version A and B. Version A is the oldest, as it was printed in 1547. Version B, printed in 1550, is a reprint of version A but with some minor modifications and emendations. As it is the oldest, version A has been used as the basis for the English edition. The other three versions were written in Dutch and they are represented in the Dutch edition; they will be referred to as version C, D, and E. Versions C, D, and E were printed in 1553, 1560, and 1570 respectively, which means that they were very early Dutch Reformation texts. Version C is a direct translation of version A, whereas versions D and E are reworkings of C; they are not translations in themselves. The majority of the differences between A and C are also present in D and E and there are more differences among the Dutch versions than among the English versions, as the two English versions are almost identical. The differences between A and B as well as between C, D and E are mainly minor differences concerning sentence order, word use and corrections of errors and there are hardly any differences within the editions that suggest conflicting opinions.

It remains unclear who has printed these versions and where they have been printed because different sources give different bibliographical information. For example, according to a note in the text itself, version D can be attributed to either J. Utenhoven or M. Mieram, whereas the Library catalogue of the University of Amsterdam (UvA) as well as Pettegree

attributes this version to Steven Joessen.1 This is a common phenomenon for books printed by

Dutch printers during the Reformation. From 1521 on, the papal bull Exsurge Domine, directed at Luther, forbade all printers to print any book about the Holy Scripture without the

approval of an official.2 Effectively, this bull was in force until William of Orange managed

1

See Pettegree 2011, volume 2, 1312.

(7)

to achieve “a modus vivendi between Catholics and Protestants in 1566.”3

This censorship in the Low Countries caused many Dutch printers to use pseudonyms and to make it look as if

texts had been published in another country.4 Because of this censorship, it was also difficult

for printers to spread controversial religious texts in the Low Countries, and therefore, some printers printed texts in foreign languages instead, in order to keep their printing business

going. These texts would then be shipped abroad, where foreign agents would sell them.5

There were also Dutch printers who settled in London and who exported their texts to the Low Countries. Two examples of this are Steven Mierdman and Nicholas van den Berghe, who both printed their controversial Dutch texts in London and then shipped them to the Low Countries. The reason for this is that Charles V could not control printers who printed in London, as he had no authority in England. Additionally, Mary I could not censure printers who printed in Antwerp or Emden, as she had no authority in the Low Countries and Germany. In this way, the spread of controversial books and pamphlets in order to avoid

censorship became a part of existing economic ties between England and the Low Countries.6

Three main places of unrest for Charles V and Mary I were London, Antwerp (which was then a part of the Low Countries), and Emden as many Dutch printers of controversial books and pamphlets carried out their business from these cities. Antwerp, from where the Dutch Reformation spread, was a printing centre for controversial texts that were exported to England, and was therefore a concern for Mary I. While both London and Emden were cities with large communities of Dutch expats who had fled the religious oppression in the Low

Countries and were therefore a concern for Charles V.7 This included Steven Mierdman, who

3 _{Duke 203.} 4

Kronenberg 111.

5 _{Kronenberg 93.}

6 _{Hellinga 24-25. She explicitly mentions the role of Nicolaes van Oldenburch, which was one of S. Mierdman‟s}

pseudonyms.

(8)

has printed version C of The Fall of the Romish Church.8 However, even with this information it remains difficult to ascribe all five versions to specific printers as none of the versions had any statements about the printers and the place of printing on the title page. Version C is the only version that has a date on the title page and the only version with a statement on the printer, as the last page is signed “Gedruct tot Londen, by Steven Mierdma. Anno 1553.” Therefore, the only available bibliographical information about the five versions (within the timeframe and reach of this thesis) is to be found in database entries in databases such as the ESTC, STCN, EEBO, ODNB, and UvA.

According to the ESTC, Nicholas Hill (d. 1555) may have printed version A and according to the ODNB, this was a pseudonym for Nicolaas van den Berghe, a Dutch immigrant and printer in London.9 At the same time, Pettegree states that Steven Mierdman (c. 1510-1559) used Nicolaas van den Berghe as his pseudonym.10 “Hill is first recorded in London in 1542,” where he started his printing business and where he was a member of the

Dutch church.11 When Edward VI died in 1553, “Hill […] chose to join the rest of the leaders

of the Dutch church in seeking a new home abroad” and moved to Emden.12

Hill printed works in a wide range of genres, including medical works (An Essay

Concerning the Outward and Salutary Application of Oils on the Human Body), historic

works (England’s Chronicle: or, The Lives and Reigns of the Kings and Queens from the

Time of Julius Cæsar), dictionaries (A Dictionary in Englyshe and Welshe), fictional works

(Aretina; or the Serious Romance), and religious works, both with Catholic and Protestant influences. An example of a Catholic text would be Een claer bewys, van het recht ghebrunck

des nachtmaels Christi, ende [d]at men van de Misse houden sal (A clear proof of the right

8

Heijting, Willem 148.

9_{Pettegree 2004, „Hill, Nicolas.‟ ODNB.} 10_{Pettegree 2011, volume 2,1312} 11

Pettegree 2004, „Hill, Nicolas.‟ ODNB.

(9)

practise of the Last Supper of Christ and that one should love the Mass), and an example of a Protestant text by Nicolas Hill is A Caueat for the Christians Agaynst the Arch-Papist.

Steven Mierdman lived in Antwerp until 1546, where he had a printing shop with

Mattheus Crom.13 He moved to London as “in 1546 the emperor Charles V strengthened the

government's supervision of the printing press.”14

“This prolific period came to an end on the

accession of Mary,”15 in 1553, which caused Mierdman, like Hill, to flee to Emden, where he

continued his printing business.

He also printed a wide range of works, including historical texts (The Epistle of the

Famous and Great Clerke Philip Melancton Made vnto Oure Late Souereygne Lorde),

medical works (The Names of Herbes), proclamations (A Proclmacion Set Forth by the State

and Bodie of the Kynges Majesties now Assembled at London), almanacs (An Almanack and Pronosticacion for the Yeare of Oure Lorde M.D. and XLVIII), and religious works, with no

clear Catholic influences. Mierdman‟s religious works have an inclination towards Protestantism; some examples of this are An Answere to a Papystycall Exhortacyon and The

Huntyng and Fyndyng out of the Romyshe Foxe. Willem Heijting confirmed this by stating,

“what is particularly striking is the explicitly Protestant nature of the English books.”

Nicholas Hill and Steven Mierdman worked in the same geographical areas,16 both printed a wide range of genres, including Protestant texts, and both sometimes used the name Nicholas van den Berghe. These three factors make it seem impossible to determine whether it was Nicholas Hill or Steven Mierdman who published version A. However, the ESTC as

13 _{Heijting 148.}

(10)

well as Pettegree17 ascribe version C to Mierdman, and version E is also ascribed to

Mierdman,18 therefore it is more logical to ascribe version A to Mierdman as well.

The ESTC ascribes version B to William Copland, the son of the printer Robert Copland. However, when looking at Copland‟s other publications there appear to be no controversial books or pamphlets, instead “[h]is work includes a remarkable number of

popular items, romances in particular,”19 for example, The History of Graund Amoure and la

Bel Pucell, Called the Pastime of Pleasure, and A Little Gest of Robin Hood. In Verse.

Therefore, it seems unlikely, but not impossible, that Copland printed version B.

The last version that has to be identified is version D. This version cannot be found in the ESTC; it can, however, be found in the STCN and in the UvA. The STCN, the UvA, and Pettegree20 all ascribe version D to Steven Joessen, or Joestzn. However, G. H. A. Krans

claims that “one should not look at Steven Joessen for clear heretical texts”21

as Joessen was a devout Catholic. The majority of Joessen‟s other publications support this claim, as they are

mostly medical works and recipe books, as well as an alchemy book and a history book.22 The

few texts by Joessen that are about religion do have a Protestant character. For example, Joessen printed Symbolum apostolorū. Een clare wtlegginghe des Apostelschen gholoofs (A clear explanation of the faith of the Apostles) by Erasmus.23 He also printed Summa der

godtlijcker scriftueren oft een duytsche theologie, lerende [...] alle menschen, wat dat christen ghelooue is [...] nae die leeringe des heyligen euangelijs, en sinte Pauwels Epistelen

(Summary of the godly scriptures by a German theology, learning all people what the Christian faith is, after the teaching of the holy evangel, and saint Paul‟s epistles) by H.

17_{Pettegree 2011, volume 2, 1312}

18_{The ESTC ascribes version E to A de Solempne, but D. Stoker argues in his article „Anthony de Solempne:}

Attributions to His Press‟ that S. Mierdman is more likely to be the printer of this version.

19 _{Tedde, H. R. and M.C. Erler. „Copland, William.‟ ODNB} 20 _{Pettegree 2011, volume 2, 1312}

21 _{Krans, G. H. A. „Steven Joessen, drukker en uitgever te Kampen van c. 1550-1581.‟} 22

UvA library catalogue.

(11)

Bomelius.24 In conclusion, even though Krans argued that it seems unlikely that such a heretical text was printed by Joessen, some of the other titles that he printed indicate that, although he was a devout Catholic, Joessen may have printed heretical texts, including De val

der Roomscher Kercken,

The same difficulty in determining the printer of each version is also present when determining who made the translation. There are no clues in any of the Dutch versions about who might have translated the text to Dutch. Heijting confirms this when he states, “we know virtually nothing about the Dutch authors or translators of these early evangelical texts.”25

However, since Mierdman has printed version C, the first version in Dutch, it is possible that he has also translated the text to Dutch.

Reformation arguments in The Fall of the Romish Church

According to Shrank, in England, national identity in Reformation printing was mainly emphasised by (a) writing in the vernacular, not in Latin, and (b) by addressing the break of England with the Catholic Church.26 This break took place under the reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547) because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, which the Pope would not grant him, and from 1547 on, Edward VI (1537-1553) continued his father‟s policies concerning the institution of the Anglican Church.27 The effect of this break with the Catholic Church became even more visible under the reign of Mary I (1516-1558) as she actively tried to

counter the Reformation because she was a devout Catholic.28 Moreover, the break with the

Catholic Church was emphasised because of Mary‟s marriage with the Catholic Philip II of Spain,29 which caused Mary to be seen as a pawn of Spain,30 and Catholicism, therefore,

24_{STCN. H. Bomelius (Dutch: Hendrik van Bommel) was an early Dutch church reformer (Knipscheer 7.)} 25

Heijting 153.

26 _{For an in-dept analysis of English national identity in printing during the Reformation see Shrank 1 - 26.} 27_{MacCulloch 6-8.}

28

Loades 1.

(12)

became associated with the foreign influence of Spain. Under Elizabeth I (1558-1603) the break with the Catholic Church was emphasized once more because Pope “Pius V effectively declared war on Elizabeth in 1570 [and] the Roman church began to be associated, […] with

foreign invasion.”31 “Although on one level the Church in England manifestly depended from

the king” even before Henry VIII broke with Rome, “on another [level] it manifestly lived a life separate from the secular order […] in which Rome‟s place at the centre of Christendom […] [was] as much part of the universe as the sun and the moon.” Therefore, Henry‟s break

with the Catholic Church had an enormous impact on English society.32 Nevertheless, “[b]y

1600 Protestantism had become an entrenched aspect of England‟s national identity.”33

In the Low Countries, the focus on the use of the vernacular and the break with the

Catholic Church in Reformation texts existed as well.34 However, the governmental situation

in the Low Countries was different because here the government had not broken its bonds with the Catholic Church, instead, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Low Countries, was a devout Catholic. For that reason, he was an active participant in the Counter Reformation, and he had forbidden Reformist texts in the Low Countries. Hence, even though Luther‟s and Calvin‟s ideas on religion were very popular in the Low Countries, there had not been a monarch who supported these ideas. Consequently, the Dutch Reformation was a more secretive and more censored process. An example of this is that even, Christopher Plantin, the King‟s printer, secretly printed Protestant works.35

This also means that The Fall of the

Romish Church was more controversial in the Low Countries than it was in England. In

addition, Reformation texts from the Low Countries do not necessarily emphasize a sense of Dutch national identity, since it was not a national movement led by a monarch, and because

(13)

the Reformation started in the south and did not at first spread to the north. However, the use of the vernacular may indicate that the text was meant to create a feeling of national unity amongst its readers.

The Fall of the Romish Church and its Dutch translation De Val der Roomscher Kercken relates to this emphasis on national identity, both by using the vernacular and by

addressing a subject that distinguished England and the Low Countries from Catholic minded countries such as France, Spain and Italy. Even though there was already a tendency towards the use of the vernacular since “a number of vernacular versions of Scripture were

produced [during the Middle Ages],”36

and Chaucer, for example, already wrote in the vernacular, the use of the vernacular was emphasised during the Reformation in two different

ways.37 The first, which was a popular argument throughout the Reformation,38 is, “if you do

not know what is being said, how can you know what you believe in? This is voiced in this edition in the following phrase “tellyng a straunge tale to the deed walles in a foren

language[e], which few men understande, not you your selves woteth not what it meaneth.”39

The second way in which the desire for the vernacular could be voiced is by promoting the reading of the Bible in its original languages, Hebrew and Greek.40 This type of argument, however, is not present in The Fall of the Romish Church.

This presence of one argument and the absence of the other is an indication of the intended audience of the text. Only people of the higher classes would learn Greek, Latin or Hebrew and therefore, reading the bible in its original languages was not something that the lower classes would do. Instead, the lower classes would benefit from a bible in English since that is the language they spoke and that some of them would be able to read. Hence, the

(14)

presence of the argument to make the bible available in English shows that this text was aimed at a general audience, including people from the lower classes.

In addition to the use of the vernacular in Protestant texts there were several other popular arguments that supported this break with the Catholic Church. The first and foremost argument that can be found in The Fall of the Romish Church is that of the rejection of transubstantiation, which means that “the bread and wine in the Mass, when consecrated, retain their outward appearances but are in fact transformed into the body and blood of Jesus

Christ.”41 Instead, as a Protestant text, it endorses consubstantiation “in which the elements of

the bread and wine are held to coexist with the body and blood of Christ.”42

This dispute originates from different interpretations of John 6.35 in which Jesus said, “I am the breed of lyfe. He that commeth to me shall not honger: and he that beleueth on me shall neuer thurst.”43

Catholics interpreted the eating of the flesh of Jesus literally whereas Protestants interpreted this symbolically, which caused them to reject the idea of eating the literal flesh and blood of Christ.44

An extension of this argument concerns the authority of the pope and bishops. Smiths and bakers make both the chalice and the Eucharist, therefore, these are not holy items in

themselves; they only become holy as soon as a Catholic priest says so.45 In The Fall of the

Romish Church, this argument also includes indulgences and confession in the Catholic

practice, which are both supposed to give absolution to people.46 However, according to the

text, Catholics do not have the authority to give absolution; this can only be given by God.47

Protestant reformers questioned Catholic authority in these matters, as in their eyes it is God

41 _{McGrath 170.} 42 _OED.

43 _{All bible references refer to the Coverdale Bible, which was edited by Miles Coverdale and was published in}

1535, because the author of version A appears to have used a Coverdale Bible.

44 _{George in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Reformation.} 45 _{See EE l. 262-267; EE l. 388-393; DE l. 313-316; DE l. 454-460.} 46

See EE l. 211-214; EE l. 262-267; DE l. 259-267; DE l. 317-325.

(15)

who determines who has been sinful and who should be forgiven, not the pope.48 Because of the Catholic practice of confession, indulgences and of the Eucharist, Catholics are portrayed as liars and tricksters in this text.49

Another argument is that Catholics are found guilty of idolatry both in their eating of the Eucharist, because they create a God of bread, and in the images that Catholics have created in their church. In The Fall of the Romish Church this becomes clear from sentences such as “I wyll reherse, after they have gotten them into their whoryshe churche, makyng the

people to commyt idolatrie by bowinge and knelynge to suche trumperye and trashe.”50

Protestant reformers saw this as a direct violation of the second and third commandment as

written in Exodus 20.3-4:51 “Do not have any other gods before me” and “You shall not make

for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” This argument was a popular reason for the destruction of religious images and statues in Catholic Churches in the sixteenth century as part of the Reformation.52

Support for the arguments portrayed in The Fall of the Romish Church can be found in many other pamphlets, books, proclamations, and satiric texts of the time. A clear example of a Protestant text that addresses the arguments of transubstantiation, idolatry, and authority of

the Catholic Church is The Vocation of John Bale, which was printed in 1553.53 In this text,

John Bale wrote that he arrived in a town named Waterford; there he says on transubstantiation that “the communion or supper of the Lord was altogether used like a popish Mass, with the old apish toys of Antichrist.” He also accuses Catholics of idolatry

(16)

when he states, “the white gods54 of their making such as they offered to the people to be worshipped were no gods but idols.” On the authority of the Catholic Church John Bale states, “there took I the thirteenth chapter of Saint Paul to the Romans declaring to them briefly what the authority was of the worldly powers and magistrates.”

A further example of a Protestant text that addresses the argument of transubstantiation is Luke Shepherd‟s satiric dialogue John Bon and Master Parson, which

was printed in 1547 or 1548.55 In this dialogue, the parson explains that the host is “both the

sacrament and very Christ himself,” to which John replies “then ye make Christ an elf and the maddest made man that ever [a] body saw.” The parson goes on to explain how he can turn the host into the body of Christ as he says “and turn the bread to flesh with five words we can.” For John this does not make sense and he therefore replies that “if I desired you to make my black ox white and you say it is dun, and still is black in sight ye might me deem a fool for to believe so light.”

Depiction of the Catholic Church in The Fall of the Romish Church

In The Fall of the Romish Church, several words call on popular images and arguments of the Reformation in order to portray the Catholic Church in a negative light. An example of this is the use of the word “Antichrist,” which is used to portray the pope as someone who stands opposite of Christ and Christianity. For instance, in the sentence “How can it then be true, that these Antichristes affyrme, sayinge, that they make God, and turne agayne and create hym that created them.”56

This idea of the pope and the Catholic Church as the Antichrist is derived from the Epistles of John. The following example comes from 1 John 2.18: “Lytell chyldren, it is the last tyme, and as ye haue herde how that Antichrist shall come, euen now are there many begonne to be Antichristes allredy, wherby we knowe, [tha]t it is the last tyme.

54 _{The host.} 55

King 181-186.

(17)

From this example, it can be derived that there is not just one Antichrist. S. Flanagan supported this when she wrote that “this work also introduces the idea of multiple Antichrists, as forerunners of the real Antichrist.”57 This indicates that, the use of the word “Antichrist” in

The Fall of the Romish church as a reference to the pope does not necessarily mean that the

pope was the devil, but that he might be one of the devil‟s forerunners.

Another popular image that is used in The Fall of the Romish Church is the Whore of Babylon from chapter 18 and 19 of Revelations. The Whore of Babylon is said to be an associate of the devil, the Antichrist, who sells her wares, her body, to the princes of the earth. Before the Reformation, the Whore of Babylon was associated with “the universalist sins of

pride and cupidity.”58

During the Reformation, however, the Whore of Babylon had become “the presentation of simple binary oppositions which […] reflect the contradistinction

required in the separation of [the Protestant] church from that of Rome.”59 The meaning of the

image of the Whore of Babylon has thus shifted from a universal symbol of sin to a symbol of Catholic sin. In The Fall of the Romish Church this symbol of Catholic sin can be found in sentences such as “the beast that beareth [the Whore of Babylon], is the byshop of Rome, and

they that were the beastes marke, ar the prestes with theyr shaven crounes.”60

Some words that are attached to these images of the pope and Catholics as Antichrists or adherents of the devil in The Fall of the Romish Church are juggler, robber, liars, and many more. “Juggler” is particularly interesting here as it means “One who deceives by trickery; a trickster; one who plays fast and loose.”61 According to A. Piesse the word “juggler” was

used by Wycliff, Cranmer, and Tyndale.62 Moreover, Piesse quotes that “Cranmer‟s favourite

(18)

word for transubstantiation was „juggling‟”63 This makes the word “juggler” in The Fall of the

Romish Church a reference to the “trick” with which Catholics make the body of Christ out of

a common piece of bread. An example of the use of the word “juggler” in The Fall of the

Romish Church is “Alas good juglers learne to playe clever, and get you some craftyer boxes

and jugglyng styckes.”

A last topic that is addressed in this text is Athanasius and his Athanasian Creed. Athanasius (c. 296-373) was a priest, and later a bishop, who wrote theological works that were still discussed in the Reformation.64 One of the works that has been attributed to Athanasius for a long time is the Athanasian Creed, which claims that each person of the holy

Trinity is divine, but they are a unity in one God.65 In The Fall of the Romish Church, there is

the following reference to the Athanasian Creed: “the father is uncreated, the sone is uncreated, the holy ghost is uncreated. Then the father is made of none.”66 In the text this argument is given as one of the reasons why the concept of eating the literal flesh of Christ is impossible. Line 10 of the English edition states, “How can it then be true, that these Antichristes affyrme, sayinge, that they make God, and turne agayne and create hym that created them.” Since the father, the son and the Holy Ghost are not made, but begotten, they are not material, and therefore, Christ cannot be eaten. Moreover, in the sentence “When the potter hathe made the potte, can the potte turne agayne and make the potter?” the text argues that the created cannot make the creator, which makes it impossible for the created to eat the creator.67

63_{Piesse 91.} 64

Bouter 13-19.

65_{It is now believed that the Athanasian Creed was composed after 428 and was not composed by Athanasius.}

(CODCC); Schaff 37-38

66

EE l. 8-9.

(19)

On the Translation

According to W. Schwartz “the „theory of translation‟ is the principle that the translator follows when rendering a word, sentence or literary work of any description into another

language.1 In the sixteenth century, translations were usually ordered by the ruling elite or lay

intellectuals.2 For them, language was a means of controlling the masses, and therefore by translating a text into the vernacular patrons could influence public opinion. This wish to influence the masses implies that Reformation propaganda was printed cheaply and was spread widely. In The Fall of the Romish Church, becomes evident from the fact that there are no woodcuts or images, and it can be seen in the lack of white lines in between paragraphs in order to minimalize the amount of paper.

The lack of images in the text is not part of the iconoclastic movement in the

Reformation, in which there was a “fear of anthropomorphism or „humanizing the holy.‟”3

Luther actually used pictures in his texts as a means of Protestant propaganda.4 An example of

this is a picture of the Whore of Babylon in Luther‟s 1522 September Bible. In this picture, the Whore of Babylon wears a papal crown, which serves to “attack the contemporary abuses of Rome and promote anti-Catholic propaganda.”5 The lack of pictures in The Fall of the

Romish Church must then be for an economic reason, not because of an ideological rejection

of the use of pictures in a religious context.

This economic reason can be explained by looking at the probable audience of the text. The text was meant to convince a wide audience of the protestant faith and was mainly aimed to reach the poorer population of England and The Low Countries. This can be seen in

(20)

a sentence such as “[t]hys is a monyshyng, every plowman maye understande it,”6 which shows that the author wanted to reach every person, including the poor poluation. Another sentence in which this can be seen is “tellyng a straunge tale to the deed walles in a foren languag[e], which few men understande,”7 which shows that the author wished to reach all people, not just the rich people who could read Latin. In order to reach this poor audience the audience had to be able to buy the text, or the text must have been spread free of charge, and therefore, it had to be printed cheaply.

Translators themselves often had patriotic motives for translating a text in the vernacular, but there was also a motive of personal gain. G. Brennan writes that “by the 1550‟s the patriotic preface was a commonplace in all kinds of translated material” and that “in many cases prefaces to translations were designed to further the author‟s career by attracting […] attention.”8

This motive of personal gain can be seen in version C, where the

translator or editor has added an introduction of “den drucker tot den leser”9

(From the printer to the reader). In this introduction, there is the following compliment to the government: “met mij hertelick te bidden dattet God wil believen te wercken in de herten der machtighen ende overheijts dat sijt voert moghen setten na de insettinghe Christi tot vorderinghe der glorien

Gods ende versterckinghe onser consciencien.”10 (to pray with me that God will work in the

hearts of the powerfull and the government that they will continue the advance of the glory of God following the institution of Christ and strengthen our conscience.) In this compliment, the translator expresses the hope that the government will continue the good work of bringing across the Protestant message.

6_{EE l. 371-372. Reference to the sentence “Master Tyndale […] replied “I defy the pope, and all his laws;" and}

added "If God spared him life, ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than he did." From „The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God William Tyndale,‟ published in Foxe‟s Book of Martyrs (Foxe 227.)

7_{EE l. 249-250.} 8 _{Brennan 22.} 9

DE l. 8.

(21)

Even though translating texts into the vernacular was popular, translators were aware of the shortcomings of their native tongue, and of the shortcomings of translations. An account of the translator Richard Taverner from 1539 states, “my translation I fear, is rude,

base, unpleasant, gross and barbarous.”11

This can be seen in some grammatical differences between the English and the Dutch text. For example, there is a significant difference between the English “begotten” and the Dutch “geboren,” but they are used in the same way in the English and Dutch edition. The English edition states, “The sonne is from the father alone,

neither made nor created, but begotten,”12 whereas the Dutch edition states “Die sone is van

den vader alleen, niet ghemaeckt oft gheschapen, mer gheboren”13 (The son is of the father alone, not made or created, but born.) According to the OED “begotten” means “procreated,” created in advance, whereas the OED describes, “being born” as “To come to birth, to be born,” which indicates a substantial semantic difference. In modern Dutch versions of the Athanasian Creed there are several words that are used instead of “being born,” some versions use “voortgebracht” (produced or created) while other versions use “gegenereerd”

(generated).14 “Being born” is then not part of the Dutch version of the Athanasian Creed, and

the use of “being born” in The Fall of the Romish Church can consequently be marked as a mistranslation that caused a semantic difference.

These findings relate to Shrank‟s analysis of increasing national identity in Reformation printing in England that was explained in the introduction. In the introduction, it already became clear that in English Reformation printing a feeling of national identity was expressed in the use of the vernacular and in the presented break with the Catholic Church. The question remained, however, whether or not this would also be the case for Dutch Reformation printing. In the Dutch edition, there is evidence of the creation of a national

11_{Brennan 22.} 12_{EE l. 10.} 13

DE l. 29-30.

(22)

identity in the use of the vernacular and in the represented break with the Catholic Church. Moreover, this creation of national identity is emphasized by the added introduction and by some of the changes that were made concerning extra information for a Dutch target audience.

Modern theories of translation analysis can help to explain the way in which the text was translated and can help to place the translation of The Fall of the Romish Church in the

context of these sixteenth century ideas. According to Kitty van Leuven-Zwart,15 a translation

is always made depending on the original text, on the goals of the translator concerning the future function of a translation and there is always a translation process that influences the

final product.16 In the case of The Fall of the Romish Church, this means that the goals of the

translator are determined by the English versions and by personal ideas of the function that the text will have in Dutch. The translator determines whether the facilitation of the text or the reader takes priority. When the facilitation of the text takes priority this means that The Fall of

the Romish Church would be translated as literally as possible in order to stay as close to the

original as possible. Alternatively, when chosen to give priority to the reader, The Fall of the

Romish Church would be translated more loosely, not staying as close to the text and possibly

expanding it by adding notes or extra information that a Dutch reader would need to understand the text.

Since the process and the translator‟s goals and interactions cannot be assessed directly, the analysis of The Fall of the Romish Church will focus on the final product. By analyzing differences and similarities in content and in form between the two editions it will be possible to partially reconstruct the translation process and the choices that were made by the translator concerning form and content. This will lead to the conclusion whether or not the translator gave priority to the text or to the reader, according to the adequacy principle or the acceptability principle, and on a serial level or on a structural level.

15

Vertaalwetenschap: ontwikkelingen en perspectieven. 1992.

(23)

G. Toury argues that translations can be made according to the adequacy principle or according to the acceptability principle.17 When choosing to translate according to the adequacy principle the translator will try to preserve as many specific characteristics of the source text, which may include elements from the source culture and elements that are specific to the source language.18 When choosing to translate according to the acceptability principle the translator will try to meet the demands of the target language and culture as much as possible.

On the one hand, there are many characteristics in the text that point to the use of the adequacy principle. Content wise the difference between the English edition and the Dutch edition is minimal. The Dutch edition has an added introduction and notes have been added in the margin. All these notes, except for two, refer to Bible texts and are therefore not additions meant to aid a target audience. Instead, they look more like references for personal use. The clearest instance where the text has not been adapted to the Low Countries is the reference to “our souvereigne lord the King” in line 442 of the English edition and “ons doerluchtigen Heeren den Coninck” in line 520 in the Dutch edition. Even though it is possible that “our king” on the title page refers to Jesus as king, because Jesus is sometimes named king, meaning that he is the leader of the church, this can also be a reference to King Edward VI as he was then the leader of the Church of England.

Nonetheless, “our souvereigne lord the King” in line 442 is a reference to Edward VI and clearly not to Jesus because here the author hopes that the king will proceed the changes that he started and will overcome the antichrist, this must then be a reference to a king who is alive and has the power to make changes. Moreover, this can only be a reference to the king of England, Edward VI, not to the Charles V, as Edward VI was a Protestant when Charles V was a Catholic. Since all Dutch versions still refer to “our souvereigne lord the King” when

17

Leuven-Zwart 74.

(24)

there was no Dutch monarch to assume this position it is clear that the content of the text has not been fully adapted to the Low Countries in this respect and that the translator here chose to apply the adequacy principle.

On the other hand, when comparing the editions it becomes clear that the translator has also adapted the text to the target language in many ways, and has thus worked according to the acceptability principle. For example, John Podyngmaker (Puddingmaker) has become Jan Oublybacker (Waferbaker) in the Dutch edition. A pudding can be many sorts of dishes in English whereas in Dutch, it can only be one thing, and that does not resemble a host at all. An “oublie,” however, is a sort of cookie in Dutch and will thus have been more clearly associated with the host than a pudding. This indicates that, within the theories of Toury, the translator has in this respect worked according to the acceptability principle.

Another difference that points to the acceptability principle is the way in which John Duns Scotus is addressed in both editions. In the English edition, he is named Doctor Duns, whereas in the Dutch edition he is named Doctor Scotus. The reason for this change probably lies in the fact that “„Scotus‟ is a nickname: it identifies Scotus as a Scot. His family name was Duns, which was also the name of the Scottish village in which he was born.”19 For a Dutch audience it would then be easier to identify Scotus as a Scot. It is an example of an element that has been adapted to meet the needs of a Dutch audience.

All these things considered, it could be concluded that the translator of The Fall of the

Romish Church has worked according to the acceptability principle for some elements and

that the work has been made according to the adequacy principle for others.

In addition to the original product and the future function of a translation, the process of translating itself determines the final product. One theory on the translation process has

(25)

been written in 1976 by Holmes,20 who argues that it can take place on two levels: the serial level and the structural level. When translating on a serial level, the translator works sentence by sentence or word by word, thus creating a text that remains close to the original form but that does not always transfer the message. When translating on a structural level, the translator forms a map of the whole text before starting the work, thus creating a text that does not necessarily remain close to the original form but will bring the message across.

The format of the Dutch edition suggests that the translator has translated mostly on a serial level; however, there are passages that indicate a structural approach. The Dutch edition is almost word for word, sentence for sentence the same text as the English edition. Still, the translator has added several clarifications, such as the Dutch introduction. This suggests that he did have a grasp of the text as a whole and was able to mediate this to a Dutch audience by translation and by addition of information that the Dutch people would need to understand the text, thus showing that the translator has worked on a structural level.

The serial approach can be seen in the use of the word “cup” in the English edition and the use of the word “kelk” in the Dutch edition. One of the arguments that has been put forward in the text is that the chalice was not a holy object since it only becomes a holy item when Catholics call it so. In the English edition, the choice for the word cup instead of chalice is a deliberate one, but in the Dutch edition, no difference is made between a “kelk” and a

“beker.” The Van Dale21

is clear about the fact that there is a difference between the two. In the article “kelk,” (chalice) sense I, A, III, 1 is “Bij den eerdienst der Roomsch-Katholieken” (At the Mass of the Roman Catholics) whereas sense I, A, III, 2 states “De beker bij het Avondmaal der Protestanten; avondmaalsbeker,” (The cup at the Supper of the Protestants; Supper cup.) This can mean either that the translator did not know the nuance between the two words or that it was not considered a significant difference. This implies that the

20

Leuven-Zwart 72.

(26)

(27)

General information

Bibliographic details for the English versions

Version A-1547

⁌ Here [flourished “H”] begyn | neth a boke, called the faull of the | Romyſhe churche, with all

the ab= | homynation, where by euery | manne may know and per= | ceyue the diuerſytte of it, |

Layout: Ff. 24, 48 pages. Signed A, B-8; C-7. Paper in good condition. Size unknown.

Pages contain differing numbers of lines as follows: A1r: 17; A1v: blank; A2r-A8v: 25; B1r: 26; B1v-B4r: 25; B4v: 24; B5r-B6v: 25; B7r: 24; B7v-B8v: 25; C1r: 24; C1v: 25; C2r-C2v: 24; C3r-C5r: 25; C5v:26; C6r-C7r: 25; C7v: 22. Binding unknown.

Collation: 3 gatherings of 8 leaves. Catchwords on pages A2r-C7r.

Contents: A1r: title page.Two text blocks of which each new line is shorter than the one

above; becoming shorter each line, which makes the text blocks look triangular. When a line is at its shortest a new text block begins. A2r: start of the main text. A7v: three text blocks of which two look triangular.

(28)

Printer: The STC attributes the text to Nicholas Hill, however it may have been printed by Steven Mierdman. Printed in London.

Provenance: STC 21305.3. Currently available in the British Library: 3932.a.18; Bodleian Library; Folger Shakespeare Library: 21307; Henry E. Huntington Library: 482502, bought by CSmH from E.M. Lawson, 25 March 1985. Available online via EEBO.

Version B-1550

[flower] Here [flourished “H”] begyn= | neth a booke, called the fal of the | Romyſh Church ,

wyth all | the abhomynation, wherby | euery man may know and | perceiue the diuerſity of | it,

ſupreme | head, and the ma= | lignant Church | aſunder. | (:)

Layout: Ff. 23, 46 pages. Signed A,B-8; C-7. Paper in good condition. Size unknown.

Pages contain differing numbers of lines as follows:: A1r, 17; A1v, blank; A2r-B6v, 25; B7r, 24; 7v-B8v, 25; C1r, 24; C1v, 25; C2r-C2v, 24; C3r-C7r, 25; C7v, 22.Binding unknown.

Collation: 3 gatherings of 8 leaves. Catchwords on pages A2v- C7r.

Contents: A1r: title page. A2r: start of the main text.

(29)

shortest a new text block begins. A2r: illustrated initial “s.” C7v: three text blocks of which two look triangular, page ends with “:”.

Printer: Probably printed by W. Copland in London, 1550.

(30)

Bibliographic details for the Dutch versions

Version C-1553

⁌ Den [flourished “D”] Val [flourished “V”] | der Roomſcher Kercken / met alle | haer

afgoderie, waerby een yegelick | mach kennen ende mercken het | onderſcheyt tuſſchen de ier |

te hooft is) ende de

| vermaledyde kercke ver= | ſcheyden. [blank line] Apocal. 18. | Comt wech van haer myn volck,

dat ghy niet mede en deylt van haren ſon- | den, ende dat ghy, niet en | ontvangt van ha- | ren plagen.

[blank line] Anno, 1553.

Layout: Ff. 24, 48 pages. Signed A,B-8; C-6. Paper in good condition. 146 x 100 mm.

Frame 109 x 54 mm. Pages contain differing numbers of lines as follows: A1r: 18; A1v: blank; A2r: 25; A2v: 23; A3r: 31; A3v-C6r: 32. 19th century binding.

Collation: 4 booklets: ff. 1-7 glued, ff. 8-17 bound, ff. 18-23 bound f.24 glued.

Catchwords on ff. 2-22. Signature on f.23

Contents: A1r: title page: three text blocks of which each new line is shorter than the one

above; becoming shorter each line, which makes the text block look triangular. When a line is at its shortest, a new text block begins. A2r: introduction “De Drucker tot den Leser.” A3r: start of the main text.

(31)

headed bird above a castle, weapon surrounded by a garland of roses. Citation printed around roses: “Waer God die Stadt niet selver en wacht, daer is te vergeefs des wachters macht. Psal: 127.”

Printer: Steven Mierdma, printed in London in 1553.

Provenance: STC 21307.3. Currently available in the Library of the University of Amsterdam OK 62-9897(6); Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: Co 3650 R.

Version D-1560

⁌ Dē [flourished “D”] Val [flourished “V”] der | Roomſcher Kercken / met alle | haer

wech van haer mijn Volck, / dat | ghy niet mede en deylt van haeren | Sonden, ende dat ghy,

niet en | ontvangt van haren | (..’.) Plaghen. (.’.) | (.’.)

Layout: Ff. 21, 42 pages. Signed A,B-8, and C4. Paper in good condition. 122 x 94

mm. Frame 109 x 54 mm. Pages contain differing numbers of lines as follows: A1r: 19; A1v: blank; A2r: 30; A2v-A8v: 29; B1r: 30; B1v: 29; B2r: 30; B2v- B8v: 29; C1r: 30; C1v-C3v: 29; C4r: 6. Paper binding.

(32)

signatures.

above; becoming shorter each line, which makes the text blocks look triangular. When a line is at its shortest a new text block begins. A2r: start of the main text.

Decoration: A1r: the symbol “ ”is printed 6 times on the title page. A1v: stamp of the University of Amsterdam

Printer: On the inside of the binding it is written that this pamphlet is probably printed

in Norwich by M Mieram or by J. Utenhoven, however, according to the catalogue of the University of Amsterdam it has probably been printed by Steven Joessen in Kampen in the Low Countries.

Provenance: Doedes Rariora 877; Auction Six I - 168 - ƒ 200,- bought by Fr. Muller, 1925; Auction Mensing (Sotheby) bought by Jr. v. Braak, 1937; Bibliotheek Reformatorisch Neerland, Ip 391-397. Currently only available in the Library of the University of Amsterdam: OK 62-9934.

Version E-1570

⁌ Dē [flourished “D”] Val [flourished “V”] der | Roomſcher Kercken / met alle | haer

yerſte Kercke / | (van welcke Kercke / onſe | Oeue

(33)

ghy niet en | ontfangt van haeren | (..’.) Plaeghen. (..’.) | (..’.)

Layout: Ff. 21. 42 pages. Signed A, B-8; C-4. Paper, in good condition. Pages contain

differing numbers of lines as follows: A1r: 19; A1v: blank; A2r: 30; A2v-A8v: 29; B1r: 30; B1v: 29; B2r: 30; B2v-B8v: 29; C1r: 30; C1v-C3v: 29; C4r: 6; C4v: blank. Binding unknown.

Collation: 3 gatherings of 8 leaves.

above; becoming shorter each line, which makes the text blocks look triangular. When a line is at its shortest a new text block begins. A2r: start of the main text.

Decoration: f1: two bookplates. The fist is signed “J.I.M.” The second is signed “C.I.R.” A1v: stamp of the British Museum. C4v: stamp of the British museum with the date “30 JY 75.”

Printer: Probably printed by A. de Solempne in Norwich. The ESTC notes “By Steven

Mierdman. Sometimes wrongly attributed to Jan Utenhoven or Marten Micron.”

(34)

Editorial principles

In both editions, the orthography has been silently regularised. Abbreviations and contractions have been expanded in italics. Latin phrases, which were sometimes set apart in the original in a different typeface, are not given in a different typeface here; instead, they have been translated in the notes. Roman numerals have been replaced by Arabic numerals.

There are very few emendations and additions, but the few that have been made are presented in square brackets. The page signatures are presented in square brackets as well. There is only one dittographic error (in the Dutch edition), this error has been struck through. All biblical references that were placed in the margins of the Dutch versions have been modernised, translated into English, placed between pointed brackets and have been positioned at the start of the passage that the reference refers to. The biblical references are presented according to MLA conventions.

Extra information or explanations of the text, have been presented in notes when necessary. Above the notes there is a separate textbox with annotations. This is a comparison between the base version and the more recent versions. In the English edition, version A is the base text, which has been compared to version B. In the Dutch edition version C is the base text, which has been compared to version D and E.

Each entry of the annotations starts on a new line and is presented in the following format: line - lemma in base text] lemma in compared text, version. For example, 200 – maste] were

B. This indicates that “maste” in line 200 of version A has been replaced by “were” in version

(35)

English Edition

[A1r] Here begyneth a boke, called the faull of the Romysche churche, with all the abhominations, where by every manne may know and perceyve the diversytte of it, betwene,

the prymatyve churche,1 of the whiche our sovereigne lorde and Kynge is the supreme head,

and the malingaunt church asunder.2

[A1v]

5

[A2r] SEYNGE GOD CREAted all thyng, and was created of none, and all thynges was made

by him, and of it selfe commeth nothing.3 Then seing he is a thing, and not only a thing, but

the cause of al thinges. Athanasius4 dothe write, “the father is uncreated, the sone is uncreated, the holy ghost is uncreated. Then the father is made of none, neyther created nor begotten. The sonne is from the father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten. The holy

10

ghost is from the father and the sonne, neither made, created nor yet begotten, but procedynge. Whych holy spirite is the comfortor, norysher, and inflamer of all faythfull hartes.” How can it then be true, that these Antichristes affyrme, sayinge, that they make God, and turne agayne and create hym that created them. When the potter hathe made the potte, can the potte turne agayne and make the potter?

15

1_{Church of the Apostles. Founded in the New Testament.}

2_{Edward VI, son of Henry VIII, who continued his father's work as head of the Anglican Church. (MacCulloch}

1).

3

Gen.1.

4 _{Reference to the Athanasian Creed, previously thought to have been written by Athanasius of Alexandria}

(296-373) who opposed any compromise with Arianism: the belief that the son of God was a creature and not truly God (ODC). See Schaff 34.

(36)

I speake it by these Antichrystes, why [A2v] the say, they can make God every day as ofte as they lyst, havinge none auctoryte of the mooste holy scryptures, but as they wrest it and wrynge it for their awn purposes. For Christ Jesus at hys Last Supper, toke breade and gave thankes, and brake it, and gave to hys disciples and sayde, “take, eate, thys is my bo[d]y,” and he lykewise toke the cup and gave thankes, and gave it them saiynge, drynke ye

20

all hereof, thys is my bloude in the Newe Testament, whyche shalbe shed for many for the remyssyon of synnes.

Now to come to our purpose, wher as these heretikes doo take auctoryte upon these

wordes: “Hoc est corpus meum,”5

that is to saye, thys is my bodye. Doth it folow by the holy scripture, that they when they have sayd these wordes over the bread, should creat a material

25

flesh, bloude, and raynes? Yea, the selfe same bodye that the blessed virgyne Mary dyd beare, as these Antychrystes saye, [A3r] they do? I doth answer no, for when christ brake the bread

and blessed it, doth it folow that is was his body in dede, and that ther remayned nomore

bread? Yf ye say no, I answere, nomore do we. Yf ye say yea, then yf the breade was not crucified, his body was not crucified.

30

“He gave it to his disciples, and they dyd eate.”6

Dit they eate Christes body or no? I meane the very selfe same bodye that was borne of the virgyn Mary. Yf ye say no, I answere: nomore do we. Yf ye say yea, then dyed he not for us, for how could he dye for us when thei had eaten hym up afore? But this worde, “Hoc est corpus meum,” was the sweteste worde they coulde fynde over in al the holy Testament to bleare7 mennes eyes wyth a false God,

35

compellyng the people to knele on theyr knees and holde up theyr handes, whyche is abominable and detestable ydolatry. But here is a question to be d[e]maunded of thes holy

5

Trans. “This is my body” from the Mass (Halsall).

6_{Reference to descriptions of the Last Supper in Matt. 26.26-28, Luke 22. 19-20, Mark 14.22-24 and 1Cor.}

11.23-26.

7 _{Mod. English: “to deceive, blind, „hoodwink,‟ „throw dust in the eyes.‟ Very common in 16th c.” (OED sense}

3a).

(37)

gentylmenne the God makers. [A3v] When ye doo make God, whether do ye make him at once or twyse? For ye say that there remayneth no materiall breade after the consecration, but the very naturall bodye that Mary bare, fleshe, bloud, and bone. Then dothe it folowe that we

40

worshippe a false God in the chalys. Then wyl ye saye as shameles juglers,8 that ye consecrate

the very selfe same substaunc in the wyne that ye do in the breade, whereby it doth appere manyfestly that ye are false sacrilegers, and robbers, and theves of the laye people. For at Easter ye gyve them a drye body without bloud, for ye give them wyne unconsecrated, this is ones tru and manifeste. But what wyl these juglers say? Forsoth even as they have sayd,

45

heretike, heretike, blerynge mens eyes wyth such blynde examples, saiyng, even as ther is a glasse and many faces sene in the glas, so lykewyse many a multitude of people receyvethe substance at one worde. Ah [A4r] false fayning juglers, “as there be many faces (sayeth he[ )] in the glasse and but one glasse.” I answere, yf I se my selfe in the glas doth it folow that I have a face stylle in the glasse and another in my heed? Or when a greate number of faces is

50

sene in one glasse, it is not to note that their are faces in ded, but the symilitude of faces. Nomore it is to be believed that thys bread is Christes bodye that Mary bare, for it doth represent the body. I would demaund thys questyon, that I speakeynge the worde wyth reverence, might not make Christes body aswell as they? They wyl saye no, wherefore? Because youe are not electe and chosen. Make me answer to thys questione: doth the worde

55

gyve vertue to election, or election to the worde? Yf that ye saye that election gyveth vertu to

the worde, then I prove the worde of noo vertue and then how can you make God with it?

Yf you saye that the worde geveth [A4v] vertue to election, then I prove that all men speakyng the worde, may doo as much in it as you, for the word taketh effecte in the spirite, and not in the flesh.

60

8_{Mod. English “One who deceives by trickery; a trickster” (OED sense 3).}

48 – [ )] ] cor. B

(38)

This argument cannot be denyed, excepte you make God percyall.9

Yf a man should demaund by what auctoryte you make God, you wyl say by the word.

Oh craftic10 juglars.11 God made the worlde in 6 dayes and rested the 7 day. He made sunne,

mone and sterres. He made byrdes, beastes, foules and fysshes, wormes, serpentes, stones, grasse, ear[t]hes, and every thynge of the same worlde, and the same wordes that he made all

65

these thynges, do remayne styll in the Bible, and yet can not ye make none of these thynges, neyther bread nor beast nor no thing elles. Ah connyng arteficers, they can neither make beastes nor foules, yet wyll theye make the maker of all these thynges and say they do it by the word, and the word that made al thes thi[n]ges remaineth [A5r] stil in the Byble, and yet can they not do it.

70

Now to come to the word that they make God of, that is, “Hoc est corpus meum,” which is to say, this is my body. In the, 10 of J[oh]n, Chryste sayth, “I am the dore:” doth it folow that he is a dore in dede? No forsoth, I thinke, but that a dore is to harde for anye manne to eate they would have taken the place of scripture to make God. Though Christ sayd “I am the dore,” it foloweth not that he was a materiall dore, nomore it dothe folowe that this worde,

75

“Hoc est corpus meum,” to be the same body that Mary the virgine bare. It is playne erroure and ye are foul deceyved, for when Christe said, “this is my body, that shall be don for youe,” the worde that he spake was hym selfe, and hym selfe was the word or els must the bread have ben crucified, as is aforesaid, which I wyll prove by the manifest scripturs. Christ saith in the 6 of John: “I am the lyvig bread that cam from heaven, youre fathers dyd [A5v] eate

80

manna in the deserte and ar deed but I am the breade of lyfe.” So it demonstrateth, that Christ

was the bread whyche was done for us. But these gentylmen saye that the breade is he.12

9 _{Mod. English: partial.} 10 _{Mod. English: powerful.} 11

Gen. 1.

12_{This paragraph shows the debate on the literal interpretation of the scripture.}

(39)

Nowe is here all the controversie betwene the Chrystians and the Papystes13. Christ sayth that he is the breade that was done for us, or broken for us; the Papistes saye that the breade is Chryste. Nowe, howe can we agre? For we saye as Chryste sayth, that he is the

85

breade, and these gentylmen saye that the breade is he. Marke well the scriptures. Paule sayth “that whyche I receyved of God, I gave unto you.” Answere me unto this. Dyd Paule receive anything of the lord but hys worde? For Paule was not wyth the lorde at the Supper to receyve any other thyng. You blind creaturs wot you not what ye do? Wyll you have the bloode of the

wytnes14 of Jesus requyred at your handes styl?

90

[A6r] In the 6 of John Chryste saythe “the breade whyche I wyll gyve you is my fleshe, whyche I wyll gyve for the lyfe of the worlde.” Here you maye perceyve, that the breade that Chryst gave us, was his fleshe. Ergo hys fleshe was hym selfe and hym selfe was the word, and hys worde was hys body whyche was gyven for the lyfe of the worlde.

Then strove the Jewes emonge themselfes and sayde: “How can this felow geve us hys

95

fleshe to eate?” For they toke it carnally as oure cleane fyngered gentylmen dothe nowe a dayes, thynkinge that they should have eaten him up fleshe bloud and bones. Jesus said unto them: “excepte ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye have no lyfe in you for whosoever eteth my flesh and drynketh my bloud, hath everlasting lyfe. And I shall raise hym up at the laste daye, for my fleshe is very meate and my bloude is very drinke, and whoso eateth [A6v]

100

my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me and I in hym.” Now I tolde you afore, that Christe was the bread that was done for us, and even as the materiall bread fedeth the body, so thys lyvely bread fedeth the soule. And christ spekethe here of his fleshe and bloude which was offered in sacrifise for oure salvacion and our redempcion, as J[oh]n saith, the worde became fleshe, and we se the glory of it, as the onely begotten son of the father, and whoso

105

beleveth this, doth eate Christes flesh and drynketh hys bloud, but not as these Papistes doo,

(40)

for theye saye, that they crasse15 hym with theyr teth carnally, the same body that Mary bare. But they which receive hym in a Christian communyon, receyveth hym by fayth, for Christe

sayd: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem16_{:” do this in the remembraunce of me.}

And whosoever beleveth that hys body was done upon the crosse for his salvation, and

110

that the sheding of his [A7r] bloude, is for the remission of synnes, taken in the remembraunce of Chrystes death, eateth Christes body, and drynketh hys bloude spiritually.

This doctrine taught the at Capernaum17, his disciples hearynge these wordes and sayd, “thys is a herde saiyng, who may abyde the hearing, of it?” Jesus perceyving the[y] murmured therat, he said unto them, “doth this offende you? What and yf you shall se the

115

sonne of man ascende thither where he was before? It is the spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth nothyng.” But our Papistes say no to that, they say, that it is the flesh that doth all thinges in theyr ministracion, and they say trewer them they be aware of, for thei thake al thiges carnally and fleshely, as their Romish father dyd before. But because thei wyl wrest the scriptures carnally to the upholding of the false sacrifyce and blacke god, to whom thy

120

commyt so muche ydolatrye, I wyll speake more of my sacryfice in another [A7v] place. Christe sayde, “I am they vyne,” is it to be taken that he was a materyall vyne? No forsothe. Lykewyse by thys worde might they have taken the grapes of the vyne tree, and caryed theim up to the altare, and soo when he were in hys maskyng garmentes, and breathed over them, as he dothe over the breade, and saye, “I am the vyne, and so mynyster it to the people, and

125

make them beleve it were God, and that he hadde made God.” But they take the scryptures, as

the Romyshe father toke the auctoryte of Peter.18 And that the kay, whiche Christe gave unto

Peter was a materyall kaye, suche as menne doo open theyr doores withall, whych was playne

15_{From “crasen” meaning “to crack (sth.), fill with cracks; also, become cracked” (Middle English Dictionary).} 16 _{Trans. “Do this in remembrance of me” (King‟s Chapel 89).}

17

Fishing village on the edge of the Galilee Lake. Jesus taught in the synagogue of Capernaum in John 6.59.

18_{Reference to Matt. 16.18-19.}