BAPTISTS, PURITANS AND THE FATHER OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE

BY PETER DUANE BAUGH

he Puritans gave us our Authorized Version. While it is neither their only legacy, nor the only gift that they purchased for us, it is unquestionably the most precious in both categories and will prove itself the most enduring. The King James Bible, with its blood-soaked heritage, stands today as a monument to a suffering yet triumphant

people whose inspiring testimony is etched, not in marble or granite, but in a translational masterpiece, quaint in the eyes of some, but embraced, nonetheless, around the globe by multitudes who still cherish, honor, reverence, read, study, meditate upon, quote and preach from this majestic English version of Scripture. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the King James Bible is the Puritan Bible. It was the Puritan whose prophetic eye first saw the need for a new English translation and caught the grand vision for the Bible that would shortly transform the globe through mighty revivals and glorious, unprecedented missionary enterprises. It was the Puritan who stood unflinchingly before a hostile King, James I, presenting the Millenary Petition that requested such a translation.i And it was the Puritan who threw himself tirelessly into the work of producing this Bible, laboring alongside his fiercest ecclesiastical adversaries for the greater good of English-speaking people everywhere.ii And yet the Puritan has been given very poor thanks indeed. Still the object of scorn, contempt and ridicule, the Puritan, long since reposed in his forgotten cemetery or desolate churchyard, continues to bear the sneers, insults and derisions of an ungrateful people over four hundred years later. From radical liberals to Baptist Fundamentalists and “Bible-believers”, English-speaking people around the world today can agree on one thing: hating the Puritans. But nowhere is this bizarre prejudice more tragic and out of place than among the Baptist historians who are endlessly depicting the Puritan as the great Boogeyman of Baptist history. Old stories are dredged up and repeated ad nauseam lest we should happen to forget in an unguarded moment of Christian charity just what horrific monsters the Puritans really were. “The Puritans persecuted Baptists! The Puritans persecuted Baptists!” is chanted over and over with all of the zealous enthusiasm of some twisted cathartic ritual. The result of all of this is that Baptist history has been reduced to an exercise in negativity. “What new horror story can we resurrect?” is the constant obsession of a certain category of Baptist historians. “How can we remind the world yet again that the Puritans were evil tyrants and that Baptists were the only real good guys?” Sooner or later, this has to stop. Baptist history cannot be reduced to a morbid litany of endless resentment, forever obsessing over half-truth tales of injustice and persecution by the very people who gave us our cherished and treasured Authorized Version. Baptist history is a positive thing, a joyful thing. It is a story of victory, filled with adventure, drama, excitement, suspense, twists and surprises. The time has come to reclaim that broader, more glorious legacy from the clutches of those who can see no further than their own denominational egotism. Part of the problem lies with the fact that Baptist history itself is in the midst of an identity crisis. It is divided along two conflicting lines. Mainstream historians in general and the

T

Reformed Baptists in particular view Baptists as an offshoot of the Protestant Reformation that emerged when John Spilsbury and a group of followers left a Separatist congregation and founded a Calvinistic Baptist church. This took place in 1638.iii This model views Baptists as one of many long term byproducts of the Protestant Reformation and the Puritan movement, the bullied little brother of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. Accordingly, the Baptist faith and heritage is reduced from “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”iv to a mere debate over pedobaptism and church polity grounded on an interpretational difference relating to the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. The other popular view of Baptist history is often referred to as “the Trail of Blood”. According to this view, Baptists trace their heritage through the Mennonites and Swiss Anabaptists, who in turn trace their heritage through the Waldensians, Bogomils, Paulicians, Donatists, Novatians and Montanists to the first century church at Jerusalem. This model of Baptist history – at least in its current form - implies that Baptists are merely a more moderate version of the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish. Adherents of this view are aggressively hostile to Puritanism and the Protestant Reformation, endlessly repeating their worn-out old mantra of “Protestants killed Baptists; Puritans persecuted Baptists”. The fact is that both of these models are inaccurate. Of the two, “The Trail of Blood” is closer to the truth, but, as noted already, it has become twisted with prejudice and swollen by denominational pride into a bloated, ugly, unlikable caricature of its true self. As such, it requires something of a tune-up – a factual recalibration before it can be accepted as a historically accurate perspective. At the heart of this issue is the question of our relationship as Baptists to the Protestant Reformation and the Puritan movement that followed. Were Baptists a part of these movements or were we entirely separate and disconnected? Which side of the debate is correct? Could both be wrong? Is a third, more comprehensive model needed? Is it possible that both views reflect a partial truth while failing to unite all of the data into a single, accurate whole? My answer to these last three questions is an unhesitating “Yes”.

I. ACCURATE ACCOUNTS OR WRONG THEORIES? The problem with both current models is an overly-narrow and overly-simplistic view of the Protestant Reformation and of Puritanism. Typically, the Protestant Reformation is understood largely in terms of the leadership and influence of central figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Hulrych Zwingli, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cranmer and John Knox. In keeping with this perspective, Puritanism is defined merely as an attempt to reform the Anglican denomination. But this view fails to understand and place due emphases on the roles played by Radical Reformers such as Menno Simons, Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel and Thomas Münzer throughout the Reformation Era. More importantly, the identity and importance of William Tyndale, the “Father of the English Bible”, and his relationship to Baptists, Puritanism and the Reformation have been overlooked. The truth is that the Reformation and Puritan Eras were complex time periods during which a wide variety of religious, spiritual and theological ideas were competing for supremacy. To reduce it to a nearly monolithic event in which every voice united in harmonious uniformity is to misunderstand it entirely.

In keeping with this broader perspective, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, one of the twentieth century’s foremost experts on Puritanism, rejected the popular model of Puritanism that depicted it as a mere effort to reform Anglicanism along the lines of John Calvin’s ministry in Geneva. Instead, he traced Puritanism’s roots to William Tyndale:

“Puritanism, I am prepared to assert with Knappen in his Tudor Puritanism, really first began to manifest itself in William Tyndale, and as far back as 1524. Why does one say that? For the reason that Puritanism is a state of mind. It is an attitude, it is a spirit, and it is clear that two of the great

characteristics of Puritanism began to show themselves in Tyndale. He had a burning desire that the common people should be able to read the

Scriptures. But there were obstacles in his way; and it is the way in which he met and overcame the obstacles that show that William Tyndale was a

Puritan. He issued a translation of the Bible without the endorsement and sanction of the bishops. That was the first shot fired by Puritanism. It was

unthinkable that such a thing should be done without the consent and endorsement of the bishops. But Tyndale did so. Another action on his

part which was again most characteristic of the Puritans was that he left this country [England] without the royal assent. That again was a most

unusual act and highly reprehensible in the eyes of the authorities… Those two actions were typical of what continued to be the Puritan attitude towards authority. It means the putting of truth before questions of

tradition and authority, and an insistence upon liberty to serve God in the way which you believe is the true way.”v

Another leading expert on Puritanism, J. I. Packer, concurs with Lloyd-Jones’ broad definition of Puritanism:

“It is not a fact well known. Much better known is the fact that from 1564, the label ‘Puritan’ was being fastened on to advocates of more external

reform for the Church of England. A host of historians over two centuries have defined Puritanism in terms of this. G. M. Trevelyan, for instance, is typical when he explains Puritanism as ‘the religion of those who wished either to ‘purify’ the usage of the established church from the taint of

popery or to worship separately in terms so ‘purified’. Rarely, however, has it been recognized that Puritan ecclesiastical agitation was one aspect only of a many sided religious movement that had evangelism and nurture

at its heart. This pastoral movement, in which conformists and non-conformists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists and Erastians

were all essentially at one, was unspectacular, as pastoral movements often are.”vi

Baptist historian Pascal Denault confirms this fact:

“The seventeenth-century Puritans can be divided into three groups: Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists. The first two were groups

were pedobaptistss while the third group was credobaptist.”vii This definition will come as a shock to many, particularly to those prone to lament that “the Puritans persecuted Baptists”. But the fact remains that Puritanism was emphatically not restricted to those who wished to purify the Church of England. Like modern Christian Fundamentalism, it included Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and, yes, Baptists. In reality, the Anglicans disliked the term “Puritan”. So did the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists. The startling truth is that the only Reformation Era group to embrace the term was the Anabaptists.viii British historian John Stowe describes numerous Anabaptist churches in London in 1567 that were apparently in fellowship with the Calvinist Congregationalists and who identified themselves as Puritans:

“About that tyme were many congregations of the Anabaptysts in London, who cawlyd themselvs Puritans or Unspottyd Lambs of the Lord.”ix

NB, this was seven decades before John Spilsbury formed his Baptist church. If non-Armenian Baptists began with John Spilsbury, then how does one explain the existence of the “many congregations of Anabaptysts in London” seven decades beforehand, especially in light of their fellowship with the Calvinist Congregationalists? Were the Armenian Mennonites, led by Menno Simons, Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel and Thomas Münzer, in fellowship with Calvinists and Congregationalists? The obvious answer to that is an emphatic “No”. This suggests a different origin for the Baptists. In other words, Baptists did not originate with either John Spilsbury or the Armenian Anabaptists that emerged from Zwingli’s reformation in Switzerland. Instead, they represent an entirely different branch of church history altogether, one that participated in the Protestant Reformation and Puritan movement while antedating it significantly. Before passing on, we would do well to answer the challenge of the tired old claim that Puritans persecuted Baptists. Is this true? If not, then what about instances such as the whipping of Obadiah Holmes on the Lynn Commons? Once again, the question at stake is one of accurate terminology. It is inaccurate to say that Puritans persecuted Baptists. The claim that Puritans persecuted Baptists is misleading because it fails to rightly identify both the persecutors and their victims and proposes an extremely exaggerated alienation between Puritanism and Baptists which did not actually exist outside of a few isolated instances. To illustrate, let’s suppose that four hundred years from now someone were to write a history of twentieth century Baptists and that in that history they were to claim that twentieth century Baptists denied the necessity of believing in the Virgin Birth of Christ and rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming. Imagine that to prove their case, they presented Harry Emerson Fosdick, a Baptist, as proof. If we could somehow

foresee that depiction, we would resent it as a misrepresentation, because, while radical liberals within the Baptist denomination, such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, were indeed guilty of advocating such views, Baptists on a much larger scale vigorously opposed, denounced and separated from them as heretical.x In just the same way, it is inaccurate to say that Puritans persecuted Baptists. It might be accurate to say that some Congregationalists or some Presbyterians persecuted Baptists, but that would not reflect upon Puritanism as a collective whole or even upon Congregationalism or Presbyterianism as collective wholes, any more than Harry Emerson Fosdick can be said to represent Baptists as a collective whole. The fact of the matter is that while in New England instances of persecution such as the Obadiah Holmes whipping did occur, such persecution was opposed, criticized and rebuked by influential Puritan leaders in England.xi In reality, Baptists such as John Bunyan were even admired by Puritan leaders such as John Owen.xii Owen, sometimes referred to as “The Prince of the Puritans”, held Bunyan in such high esteem that he made the arrangements for the first edition of The Pilgrim’s Progress to be published by his own publisher.xiii This is obviously quite different than persecuting and suppressing Baptists and their message. By the same token, the Baptists held Puritan leaders such as Owen in high esteem as well. For instance, when Baptist apologist Nehemiah Coxe wanted to defend historic Baptist Covenant Theology against pedobaptist Covenant Theology, he warmly praised Owen for his exposition of Hebrews, which, he recognized, proved his point quite clearly:

“But when I had finished this and provided some materials also for what was to follow, I found my labor for the clearing and asserting of that point

happily prevented by the coming out of Dr. Owen’s third volume on Hebrews. There it is discussed at length and the objections that seem to lie

against it are fully answered, especially in the exposition of the eighth chapter. I now refer my reader there for satisfaction about it which he will find commensurate to what might be expected from so great and learned a

person.”xiv So here we have a Baptist apologist warmly praising a major Puritan leader as “great and learned” and recommending that his audience read said Puritan leader’s book because it supports his own position. Somehow this doesn’t quite fit the model of bitter hostility between Baptists and Puritans that is so often trumpeted by popular Baptists historians. That’s because that model is inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that Baptists were indeed a part of the Puritan movement, not persecuted outsiders who had nothing to do with it.

II. AN ANALYSIS OF WILLIAM TYNDALE

In order to understand this more clearly, we must return to William Tyndale and the “first shot fired by Puritanism”. Who was William Tyndale? What did he believe? What did he strive to achieve? Was he interested in merely reforming the established churches? Or did he follow an entirely different pattern than the other major Reformers? In answer to this question, let us turn to Tyndale’s own writings.

A. WILLIAM TYNDALE AND THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE FOR FAITH AND PRACTICE

We have already noted Tyndale’s view of authority. As observed by Lloyd-Jones, Tyndale felt that the authority of God’s Word superseded the authority of both the secular government and ecclesiastical tradition.xv Undoubtedly, Tyndale shared the same conviction of Sola Scriptura as the other Reformers, but to a much greater degree. While Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Latimer, Cranmer and Knox still retained the Roman Catholic concept of a union of church and state, Tyndale went further, establishing autonomous “Bible study groups”xvi and translating and publishing the Bible without the approval of either secular or ecclesiastical authorities.xvii In other words, Tyndale shared the Baptist distinctives of Sole Authority of Scripture for Faith and Practice, Autonomy of the Local Church, Individual Soul Liberty and Separation of Church and State.

Of special significance is Tyndale’s rejection of ecclesiastical traditionalism in his response to Sir Thomas More. In 1529, More published an attack on Martin Luther and William Tyndale in defense of Roman Catholicism with its vast body of extra-biblical traditions. Tyndale responded the following year with his Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue.xviii In bold defiance of More’s traditionalism, he made the following statements:

“But did not the apostles teach aught by mouth, that they wrote not? I answer, because that many taught one thing, and every man the same in divers places, and unto divers people, and confirmed every sermon with a

sundry miracle; therefore Christ and his apostles preached an hundred thousand sermons, and did as many miracles, which had been superfluous to have been all written. But the pith and substance in general of every thing

necessary unto our souls’ health, both of what we ought to believe, and what we ought to do, was written; and of the miracles done to confirm it, as many as were needful: so that whatsoever we ought to believe or do, that same is written expressly, or drawn out of that which is written.”xix

Shortly afterwards, he makes the following statements:

“Wherefore, inasmuch as Christ’s congregation is spread abroad into all the world, much broader than Moses’; and inasmuch as we have not the old

Testament only, but also the new, wherein all things are opened so richly, and all fulfilled that before was promised; and inasmuch as there is no

promise behind of aught to be shewed more, save the resurrection; yea, and seeing that Christ and all the apostles, with all the angels of heaven, if they were here, could preach no more than is preached; of necessity unto our souls: how then should we receive a new article of the faith, without scripture, as profitable unto my soul, when I had believed it, as smoke for

sore eyes.”xx In other words, according to Tyndale, the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

B. WILLIAM TYNDALE AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER Closely connected with the Baptist distinctive of The Sole Authority of Scripture for Faith and Practice is that of The Priesthood of the Believer. What did Tyndale believe about this? Did he follow the Papal ideology of a sharp distinction between the clergy and the laity? In his work, The Obedience of a Christian Man, Tyndale makes the following assertion:

“Of that manner is Christ a priest for ever; and all we priests through him, and need no more of any such priest on earth, to be a mean for us unto

God.”xxi In other words, Tyndale held and advocated the Baptist Distinctive of the Priesthood of the Believer.

C. WILLIAM TYNDALE AND THE TWO ORDINANCES

1. BELIEVER’S BAPTISM BY IMMERSION On the question of the ordinances (still referred to at that time as sacraments), Tyndale is as prolific as he is unambiguous. In The Obedience of a Christian Man, the theological perspective of the seventeenth century Particular Baptists is unmistakable:

“The washing without the word helpeth not: but through the word it purifieth and cleanseth us: as thou readest, Eph. v. how Christ cleanseth the congregation in the fountain of water through the word. The word is

the promise that God hath made. Now as a preacher, in preaching the word of God, saveth the hearers that believe; so doth the washing, in that it

preacheth and representeth unto us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christ. The washing preacheth unto us, that we are cleansed with

Christ’s blood shedding; which was an offering, and a satisfaction, for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die,

and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and work the

will of God in us, as thou seest, Rom. vi.”xxii In other words, the baptismal waters have no saving efficacy of themselves, any more than a preacher of the Gospel possesses saving efficacy in himself. It is the promise of God that actually saves the believer, while the water itself is symbolic or representative of that salvation.

This theological ideology is also found in Tyndales’ work entitled “The Supper of the Lord”:

“By baptism as we testified unto the congregation our entering into the body of Christ, (take here Christ’s body, as doth Paul, for his congregation,)

to die, to be buried, and to rise with him, to mortify our flesh, and to be revived in spirit, to cast off the old man, and to do upon us the new; even so by the thanksgiving (for so did the old Greek doctors call this supper) at God’s board, or at the Lord’s supper, (for so doth Paul call it,) we testify

the unity and communion of our hearts, glued unto the whole body of Christ in love: yea, and that in such love as Christ at this his last supper

expressed; what time he said, his body should be broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. And to be short, as baptism is the badge of

our faith, so is the Lord’s supper the token of our love to God and our neighbors: whereupon standeth the law and the prophets.”xxiii

Shortly thereafter, Tyndale makes the following statement:

“So in baptism; the thing is the promise to be of the church of Christ: the sign is the dipping into the water, with the holy words.”xxiv

Notice especially the clear terminology that Tyndale employs. Statements like “the sign is the dipping into the water” and phrases like “the plunging into the water” and “the pulling out again” leave no room for doubt or confusion. Tyndale defined baptism as immersion and emersion in the most vivid and explicit language possible. Tyndale’s understanding of the Covenantal character of baptism is also in keeping with the seventeenth century Particular Baptists. The Obedience of a Christian Man anticipates future Credobaptist Covenantalism as Tyndale discusses the parallels between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant:

“For it is the covenant only, and not the sign, that saveth us; though the sign be commanded to be put on in due time, to stir up faith of the

covenant that saveth us. And instead of circumcision came our baptism; whereby we be received into the religion of Christ, and made partakers of

his passion, and members of his church; and whereby we are bound to believe in Christ, and in the Father through him, for the remission of sins; and to keep the law of Christ, and to love each other, as he loved us; and

whereby (if we thus believe and love) we calling God our Father, and to do his will, shall receive remission of our sins through the merits of Jesus Christ his Son, as he hath promised. So now by baptism we be bound to

God, and God to us, and the bond and seal of the covenant is written in our flesh; by which seal or writing God challengeth faith and love, under pain

of just damnation: and we (if we believe and love) challenge (as it is above rehearsed) all mercy, and whatsoever we need; or else God must be an

untrue God. And God hath bound us Christian men to receive this sign for our infirmities’ sake, to be a witness between him and us, and also to put this sign upon our children; not binding us to any appointed time, but as it shall seem to us most convenient, to bring them to the knowledge of God

the Father, and of Christ, and of their duty to God and his law. And as the uncircumcised in the flesh and not in the heart, have no part in God’s good promises; even so they that be baptized in the flesh, and not in the heart,

have no part in Christ’s blood. And as the circumcised in the heart, and not in the flesh, had part in God’s good promises; even so a Turk unbaptized (because he either knoweth not, that he ought to have it, or cannot for tyranny,) if he believe in Christ, and love as Christ did and taught, then

hath he his part in Christ’s blood.”xxv Notice that Tyndale identifies baptism as the admittance rite whereby the recipients are “made… members of his church”. Church membership then, according to Tyndale was exclusively for those who had been baptized by immersion. But who were the proper candidates for baptism? Did Tyndale share the perspective of the other Protestant Reformers that infants were to be baptized and received into the church? If Tyndale identified the mode of baptism as “dipping” or “plunging into water” and “pulling out again”, who did he identify as the proper candidates for baptism? The last three sentences of the above passage are crucial for interpreting all that Tyndale has said up to this point. He has been making the point that baptism is symbolic or representative in character, rather than directly efficacious in and of itself. He draws this to a close by emphasizing that it is the heart condition rather than the external sign of baptism that is essential for salvation. Consequently, there is no obligation to baptize infants to ensure their salvation as the pedobaptists believed. Instead, baptism is to be administered when the child has reached an age of such maturity that the parent can “bring them to the knowledge of God”. Tyndale’s insistence on understanding is reinforced in his work entitled A Brief Declaration of the Sacraments:

“And hereof ye see, that our sacraments are bodies of stories only; and that there is none other virtue in them, than to testify, and exhibit to the

senses and understanding, the covenants and promises made in Christ’s blood. And here ye see that where the sacraments, or ceremonies, are not

rightly understood, there they be clean unprofitable.”xxvi This, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a complete rejection of pedobaptism, since infants can neither understand nor come “to the knowledge of God”. Tyndale embraced the Baptist Distinctives of Believer’s Baptism by Immersion and Saved, Baptized Church Membership.

2. THE LORD’S SUPPER A MEMORIAL Tyndale’s view of the Lord’s Supper is parallel to his view of baptism. He identifies it as a sign, symbolic or representative in character, but not directly efficacious in and of itself. In fact, he labors even more extensively to prove this from Scripture than to prove believer’s baptism by immersion. His work, The Supper of the Lord, denounces transubstantiation within the first few pages: “He saith not here that bread shall be transubstantiated, or converted; nor yet the wine into blood.”xxvii This line of reasoning continues:

“By baptism as we testified unto the congregation our entering into the body of Christ, (take here Christ’s body, as doth Paul, for his congregation,)

to die, to be buried, and to rise with him, to mortify our flesh, and to be revived in spirit, to cast off the old man, and to do upon us the new; even so by the thanksgiving (for so did the old Greek doctors call this supper) at God’s board, or at the Lord’s supper, (for so doth Paul call it,) we testify

the unity and communion of our hearts, glued unto the whole body of Christ in love: yea, and that in such love as Christ at this his last supper

expressed; what time he said, his body should be broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. And to be short, as baptism is the badge of

our faith, so is the Lord’s supper the token of our love to God and our neighbors: whereupon standeth the law and the prophets ‘For the end of the precept is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience and faith unfeigned.’ So that by baptism we be initiated and consigned unto the worship of one God in one faith; and by the same faith and love at the Lord’s supper we shew ourselves to continue in our possession, to be

incorporated and to be the very members of Christ’s body.”xxviii Again we read:

“So in baptism; the thing is the promise to be of the church of Christ: the sign is the dipping into the water, with the holy words. In our Lord’s

supper, the very thing is Christ promised and crucified, and of faith with thanksgiving unto the Father for his Son given to suffer for us: but the sign is the dealing and distributing, or reaching forth, of the bread and wine, with the holy words of our Lord spoken at his supper, after he had thus

dealt the bread and wine unto his disciples”.xxix Again:

“And yet for because the scriptures, conferred together, expound themselves, as saith St. Austin; and Peter, ‘That we have before a firm and sure prophetical speech, unto which if ye attend, ye do well; I shall shew you a like phrase in Ezekiel, where the destruction of Jerusalem was thus figured: God commanding Ezekiel to take a sword as sharp as a razor, and

shave of his head and beard, and then take a certain weight of the hairs divided into three parts; the one he should burn in the middle of the city, another he should cut round about, and cast the third up into the wind, &c.; which done, he said, ‘This saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem:’

which act and deed so done was not Jerusalem; but it signified and preached unto the beholders of it Jerusalem to be destroyed; none

otherwise than the breaking and distributing of the bread and wine, called Christ’s body and blood, signifieth and preacheth unto us the death of

Christ, the figure and sign bearing the name of the thing signified, as in the prophet’s speech, saying, ‘This is Jerusalem,’ which did but signify

Jerusalem.”xxx Again in, The Obedience of a Christian Man:

“Sacrament is then as much to say as an holy sign. And the sacraments which Christ ordained preach God’s word unto us, and therefore justify,

and minister the Spirit to them that believe; as Paul through preaching the gospel was a minister of righteousness, and of the Spirit, unto all that

believed his preaching. Dumb ceremonies are no sacraments, but superstitiousness. Christ’s sacraments preach the faith of Christ, as his

apostles did, and thereby justify. Antichrist’s dumb ceremonies preach not the faith that is in Christ; as his apostles, our bishops and cardinals, do not.

But as antichrist’s bishops are ordained to kill whosoever preach the true faith of Christ; so are his ceremonies ordained to quench the faith, which Christ’s sacraments preach. And hereby mayest thou know the difference between Christ’s signs or sacraments, and antichrist’s signs or ceremonies;

that Christ signs speak, and antichrist’s be dumb.”xxxi And again in, A Brief Declaration of the Sacraments:

“Neither our salvation so greatly standeth in that or any other sacrament, that we could not be saved without them, by preaching the word only.

Nevertheless God hath written his will, to have his benefits kept in memory, to his glory and our benefit, and namely this benefit of all

benefits, wherein only the pith of our salvation resteth. Therefore though the effect of it be signified by baptism, and though we be baptized to

believe in the death of Christ, and to die with him by the mortifying of the flesh; yet doth this sacrament, through the rehearsing of the covenant, and breaking of the bread, and pouring out of wine, much more lively express

the whole story, and keep it in better memory, by daily repeating thereof, and hath more might and vehemency to heal the conscience stung with

fresh sin.”xxxii And again:

“Seeing then that man is so sick, so prone and ready to fall, and so cruelly invaded when he hath sinned of the fiend, the flesh, and the law, that he is

oft put to flight, and feared and made to run away from his Father;

therefore hath the God of all mercy, and of infinite pity and bottomless compassion, set up this sacrament as a sign on a high hill, whence it may be seen on every side, afar and near, to call again them that be fled and run

away. And with this sacrament he (as it were) clucketh to them, as an hen doth to her chickens, to gather them under the wings of his mercy; and

hath commanded his sacrament to be had in continual use, to put them in mind of mercy laid up for them in Christ’s blood, and to witness and testify

it unto them, and to be the seal thereof. For the sacrament doth much more vehemently print lively the faith, and make it sink down into the

heart, than do bare words only: as a man is more sure of that he heareth, seeth, feeleth, smelleth and tasteth, than that he heareth only.”xxxiii

And again:

“So, ‘Do this in remembrance of me:’ that is to say, ‘Take bread and wine, and rehearse the covenant and testament over them, how that my body was

broken, and my blood shed for many: and give them to the people to eat and drink, to be a sign and earnest, and the seal of the testament; and cry upon them, without ceasing, to believe in me only for the remission of sins, and not to despair, how weak soever they be, only if they hang on me, and

desire power to keep the law after my doctrine and example of my life, and do mourn and be sorry because they cannot do that good thing which they

would.”xxxiv And again:

“If they say, We grant that life cometh by faith; but we all that believe must be baptized to keep the law and to keep the covenant in mind; even

so all that liveth by faith must receive the sacrament: I answer, The sacrament is a confirmation to weak consciences, and in no wise to be despised; howbeit many have lived by faith in the wilderness, which in

thirty, or forty years have not received the sacrament.”xxxv And again:

“The sacrament was that night, no doubt, but a description of his passion to come; as it is now a memorial of his passion past.”xxxvi

And again:

“Why should they then of right be offended, if we understand the doctors after the same manner, when they call it his body and blood; and that they so call it after the use of scripture, because that it is only a memorial of his

body and blood?”xxxvii

And again:

“Now the testament is, that his blood was shed forour sins; but it is impossible that the cup or his blood should be that promise. Wherefore the

sense must needs be, that it is the memorial and seal of the testament only. And therefore where Matthew and Mark say, ‘This cup is my blood of the new testament,’ the sense must needs be also, that it is the memorial and seal thereof; only calling, after the use of the Hebrews, the sign with the name of that which is signified; that is to say, calling the wine, which

only signifieth the blood, with the name of the blood. And then it followeth that the bread is called his body after the same manner, because

it is the sign of his body.”xxxviii As with baptism, Tyndale drew the connection between the Old Testament ceremonies and the New Testament ordinances. In The Supper of the Lord, he draws the obvious parallels:

“Unto this action, or supper, or deliverance of the bread, he added a reason and signification of this sign or sacrament, and what is also the use

thereof; as though any should ask them thereafter, What sacrament, religion, or rite is this? They should answer, even in a like manner of speech as it was commanded their fathers to make answer to their children at the eating of the old Passover, whereof this new Passover was the verity, and the figure, saying, ‘When your children ask you what religion is this? ye

shall answer them, It is the sacrifice of the passing by of the Lord,’ &c. Lo! Here the lamb that signified and did put them in remembrance of that

passing by in Egypt (the Israelites spared, and the Egyptians smitten,) was so called in like phrase the self thing that it represented, signified, and did put them in remembrance of: none otherwise than if Christ’s disciples, or

any man else, seeing in that supper the bread taken, thanks given, the bread broken, distributed, and eaten, should have asked him, What

sacrament or religion is this? He had to answer them, that Christ said, ‘This is my body, which is for you broken: this thing do ye in remembrance of

me;’ that is to say, So oft as ye celebrate this supper, give thanks to me for your redemption: in which answer he calleth the outward sensible sign or

sacrament, that is, the bread with all the other action, even the same thing that it signifieth, representeth, and putteth such eaters of the Lord’s

supper in remembrance of. For when he said, ‘Which is broken for you,’ every one of them saw that then it was not his body which was there

broken, but the bread; for as yet he had not suffered, but the bread broken was divided into pieces, every one of the twelve taking and eating a piece,

before he said, ‘This is my body,’ &c.”xxxix Again:

“If the scriptures called the sign the thing, in circumcision and the Passover, why should we be offended with the same speech in our baptism and in the Lord’s supper? Since such manner of speech has no less grace

and fullness here than there, to bring the thing signified into our hearts by

such outward visible signs. For when that sign of circumcision was given the child, then were they certified (as an outward token may certify,) that the child was of the people of Israel. And therefore did the signs then, as

they do now, bear the names of the things which they signified; as the lamb, eaten in the Passover was called the sacrifice and the self passover, none otherwise than in our new Passover, that is, the Lord’s supper, the bread broken &c. is called the body of Christ; and the wine, poured forth and distributed to each man, the blood of Christ; because the bread, so

broken and dealt, signifieth unto the receivers, and putteth them in remembrance of the sacrifice of his body upon the altar of the cross, and of his blood poured forth for our redemption: so that this manner of speech, in the administration and use of the supper of our Lord, to say, ‘This is my body, and this is my blood,’ is as much as to say as ‘this signifieth my body,

this signifieth my blood;’ which supper is here celebrated to put us in remembrance of Christ’s death to excite us to thanksgiving.”xl

And again:

“In the old passover the lamb or feast is called the Lord’s passover, and yet was neither the lamb nor the feast his passing over, but the sign and

commemoration of his passing by. And even so is it now, in the new supper of the Lord: it is there called the body of our Lord; not that there is any thing wherein his very natural body is contained, so long and broad as it hanged on the cross, (for so is it ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the

right hand of the Father;) but that thing that is there done in that supper, as the breaking and dealing and eating of the bread, and the whole like

action of the wine, signifieth, representeth, and putteth into our hearts, by the spirit of faith, this commemoration, joyful remembrance, and so to

give thanks for that inestimable benefit of our redemption, wherein we see with the eye of our faith, presently, his body broken and his blood shed for

us.”xli I think that we have sufficiently demonstrated that Tyndale shared the Baptist Distinctive of the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic or representative memorial.

D. WILLIAM TYNDALE AND THE TWO OFFICES Tyndale’s view of church officers seems to be his least clearly-stated doctrine. He seems to have little to say about the office of deacon, and his understanding of the pastorate seems mostly to be derived from his concept of the priesthood of the believer. The extreme weight of emphases which he placed upon the priesthood of the believer leveled the ecclesiastical playing field to such an extent that the member in the pew stood on almost equal footing with the pastor himself, although he does speak of the bishops as overseers who governed specific local congregations.xlii It was the radical opposite of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterian perspective, and was unquestionably most in harmony with the Anabaptists and the Congregationalists, bordering almost upon Quakerism at times. Tyndale understood “Presbyter”, “Elder” and “Bishop” as synonymous terms, and managed to narrowly steer clear of Quakerism by asserting that “Women be no meet vessels to rule or to preach, for both are forbidden them; yet hath God endowed them with his

Spirit at sundry times, and shewed his power and goodness upon them, and wrought wonderful things by them, because he would not have them despised.”xliii

III. AN ANCESTRY OF WILLIAM TYNDALE We have already cited David Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ definition of Puritanism and of Tyndale’s relationship to it. Now we must address the historical background of Tyndale himself. We will begin with the claims of Jules Grisham:

“In reading through the later thought of Tyndale, one sees little that conflicts with the theology of the seventeenth century and the Westminster

Confession, except perhaps Tyndale’s weakness on the matter of persistence of the saints. Tyndale did not elaborate the full-blown,

predestinarianism grounded in God’s Trinity which the Westminster divines restored as the key to the whole system God’s sovereign, fore-ordained,

unconditional, effectual, and irresistible grace. Even so, a good argument can be made that Tyndale was, in a very real way, a precursor to the later

Puritan movement.

In light of all this we are led to see that Tyndale played an important role in the English Reformation, above and beyond the sheer (and frankly

monumental) fact of his having translated Scripture. We come to see that his was also a role of linkage. As we have seen, connections emerged

between the native, lower class Lollards and the internationally, academically oriented class of Lutherans, and it was their shared devotion

to God’s Word in the common tongue – in short, Tyndale’s translation – which served as their linkage point. Such class-breaching linkages are surely

significant, the stuff of societal transformation. But in addition to the vertical dimension of class linkage, there was also a horizontal linkage by

which Tyndale’s emerging covenant theology linked the older, proto-Protestant Lollard emphasis on Law with the later, Puritan emphasis on Law

grounded in justifying faith. It may be argued that by incorporating Luther’s central insight on the priority of the gospel, and by moving beyond

Luther’s rejection of the Law, Tyndale’s theology linked with older emphases and laid a new groundwork in England for what would gradually

emerge as Puritanism.”xliv In his 1985 address to the Ecclesiastical History Society at Oxford, David Keep, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at Rolle College, Exmouth, draws a similar, but more specific conclusion that connects Baptists and Puritanism with a more ancient form of Christianity – Lollardism.

“Duffield quoted The Times Literary Supplement of 4th June 1925: ‘He was the father, not indeed of the Puritans who leaned on Calvin, but on those

other Puritans who produced the Family of Love, Brownists, and Anabaptists’ and commented ‘Tyndale would have been horrified to be

linked with these folk, who are now generally all classed as Anabaptists’… I am far from convinced by this [the comment that Tyndale would reject

association with the Anabaptists]. Uneasy lay the head that wore the mitre in the church of Henry and his son. It is hard to imagine Tyndale as a

Cranmer or a Ridley, or indeed as a Hooper or a Coverdale. I shall attempt to demonstrate that his churchmanship was in the radical tradition of the lollards, that he refused to join the reformers at the English court, and

that what we may discern of his doctrine was at least veering toward the radical alternatives.”xlv

Georgi Vassilev, of the State University of Library Studies and Information Technologies draws the same connection between Tyndale and the Lollards:

“The conviction that Tyndale communicated with Wycliffe’s work – and that means with Lollard writings – is most powerful (and I thing quite rightly so) in D. Smeeton. In addition to the quantitative indicator, Smeeton also discerned a visible conceptual continuity: ‘In view of the recent availability of critical editions of certain Wycliffite writings, it is possible to examine Tyndale’s writings in light of parallel passages from Wycliffite literature.’”xlvi In other words, these scholars identify Tyndale as the link between Puritanism (which included Baptists) and the Lollards. But who were the Lollards? Where did they come from? The popular historical model identifies Lollardism as the offspring of John Wycliffe’s efforts at reformation. This perspective, however, falls short in light of the actual facts. In reality, the true origin of the Lollards must be sought across the English Channel – on the European continent. Early 20th century scholar, Leo Seifert, described the conviction of the Hussites and Bohemian Brethren that Wycliffe was actually the offspring of the Waldensians.xlvii Vasilev explains more fully:

“As a historical reality the heretical communities of the Lollards of the 14th and 15th centuries have been well documented. They took part in

John Ball's rebellion and were connected with the reformist efforts of John Wycliffe. However, the Lollards have been regarded as a local

phenomenon, though their very name suggests a continental origin.

Before they appeared in England to become the source of new ideas which provoked their consistent persecution by the church authorities, the

Lollards were well known in Germany and Flanders. One of the explanations of the origin of their name is that it is connected with the German verb "lollen" which means "mumble", "mutter" because of their

habit to hum permanently their prayers.

A number of documents about the Lollards in Germany have been collected by I. von Doellinger and Charles Lea and they need not be quoted in detail.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1970) also points to their European roots: "The term comes from Middle Dutch 'lollard', a 'mumbler' or 'mutterer'; it had been applied to the Flemish Beghard and other continental groups

suspecting of combining pious pretentions with heretical belief."7

To enlarge upon this information we have consulted older dictionaries which suggest a typology of the ideas connected with the Lollards. The

respectable Du Cange, who used 14th c. chronicles, describes the Lollards as heretics from Germany and Belgium and adds that ‘in pluribus partibus

regni Angliae latitabant’ (‘they hide in many parts of the English kingdom’). John Oldcastle is referred to as "Lollardus". Du Cange provides us with the important reference to a chronicle from 1318 according to which ‘Lollardus

quoque dicitur haereticus Valdensis’ ("they called the Lollard also a Valdensian’). Thus, the outlined spiritual kinship between the Lollards and Waldensians directs our attention to the roots of the Waldensian doctrine

which lie in Catharism.”xlviii There are other explanations for the Lollard presence in England as well. One of those explanations traces Lollardism to the missionary labors of Walter Lollard, a learned and eloquentxlix Franciscan monk who converted to the Waldensian faith and afterwards labored as one of their missionaries.l In 1315, Lollard left Germany for England,li where he enjoyed remarkable success in evangelizing the English.lii His labors were cut short however, when, during a return trip to Germany, he was apprehended by the inquisitorial monksliii and burnt aliveliv in either 1320,lv 1322lvi or 1323.lvii The problem with tracing the Lollards to a single individual named Walter Lollard is that Lollardism antedated the birth of Walter Lollard significantly. While the life of Walter Lollard bridged the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Lollardism was already in existence in the twelfth century. Vasilev explains:

“The question arises whether there is evidence of John Wyclife and the Lollards’ connections with Bogomil-Cathar culture. Yes, there is such

evidence and it is very likely that more proof will be discovered by subsequent research. Different sources indicate that Lollardy was not limited to the British Isles but was rather related to the Continent and

rooted in the Cathar tradition. Here we will have to go through a labyrinth of facts and links which prove this relation. One of the greatest authorities in the study of dualist movements, Ignat von Döllinger, refers to a number of docu- ments regarding the presence of Lollards in Europe, quoting a Bull of Pope Boniface IX, which explains that the ‘popularly called Beghardi or

Lolhardi and Swestriones’, spread in various parts of Germany, were ‘actually poor — Fratricelli.’ This occurred in the very beginning of the

15th century as Boniface IX was Pope in the period between 1389 and 1404. This text provides several pieces of important information. The first is that the Lollards were a variety of Beghardi and Fratricelli, and the second that the Lollards were in the sights of his predecessor, John XX (1316—1334). In other words, the Lollards were definitely a phenomenon in the system of medieval heresies in Europe. The third is that, since the German Lollards

were Beghards, then their origin lies in the 12th century, as Malcolm Lambert has had good reason to point out in his book Medieval Heresy.

Following similar research the renowned historian Mosheim concludes that the English Lollards, the followers of Wyclife, were called with an imported

Belgian term — ‘be a vulgar term of reproach brought from Belgium to England, Lollards.’ It turns out that Lollards, Beghardi and Fratricelli are

either different names for one and the same movement or different varieties of the same movement.”lviii

Vasilev then proceeds to elaborate on the Puritan or Cathari movement which came to be known as Lollardism:

“It is known that Beghardi are a sect of the Cathars. Another source discovered by Ignat von Döllinger, namely a document from the State

Library in Frankfurt, contains important characteristics concerning the creed of the Beghardi: some of the heretics were literate and won the

sympathy of masters of theology and learned men. The heretics say they follow the life of Christ and the apostles and, what is specific, that they do not ‘accept any saints.’ Moreover, they deny the right to consecrate of any

priest who commits a grave sin.”lix Whichever origin one accepts for the Lollards, their direct relationship with the Medieval European Cathari, or Puritans groups, including the Waldensians,lx is indisputable. Even without the account of Walter Lollard, the connection can be established based upon the internal evidence of the Wycliffe Bible, translated by the Lollards.lxi While the Wycliffe Bible is generally viewed as a translation from the Latin Vulgate, it departs significantly from the Vulgate text. The variant readings have their origins in a Cyrillo-Methodian version that circulated in Bosnia and in the French Languedoc – among the Cathari.lxii The most well-known variant reading in the Wycliffe Bible is found in the Lord’s Prayer recorded in Matthew 6. There the text departs from the familiar Vulgate and Received Text reading (“give us this day our daily bread”) and adopts a Cyrillo-Methodian reading, “oure breed ouer othir substaunce” or “our bread over other substance”.lxiii This was the reading found in the Bibles of both the Bosnian Bogomils and the Languedocian Cathari. The lyonnaise rendition of the Albigensian Scriptures read “E dona a noi lo nostre pa qui es sabre tota cause” or “the bread that is above all else”. One Old Italian version reads: “Il pane nostre sopra tucte le substantie da a nnoi oggi” or “our bread over any substance”. And Inquisition records from Carcassonne inform us that Bernard Oliva, a bishop from Toulouse, pronounced the Lord’s Prayer with “panem nostrum supersubstantialem” rather than the sanctioned reading of the Vulgate.lxiv In addition, the Waldensian manuscript MS 269 in the Dublin collection at Trinity College makes direct reference to “suprasubstantial bread”.lxv It should be noted at this point, that the question at hand is not one of textual purity or superiority, but rather of ecclesiastical continuity. Since the Textus Receptus was not available to the Lollards, their deliberate espousal of the Cyrillo-Methodian text only confirms that they rejected the Vulgate as corrupt and inferior and that they identified with the European Cathari groups rather than with Roman Catholicism. In short, Lollardism was no mere effort to reform the Church of Rome. It was an independent movement that traced its roots to the European Cathari of Languedoc, Bosnia, Bulgaria and the Cottian Alps, to the Petrobrusians, Henricians, Waldensians, Bogomils and Paulicians, the Medieval Baptists which had always maintained their independence from the Papal system. Yet further evidence connecting Lollardism with Catharism may be found in the bestowal of doctoral degrees upon new doctors by Oxford University in England, the one-time center of John Wycliffe’s ministry and of Lollard influence during the fourteenth century. While optional today, it was once customary during the bestowal ceremony for the new doctor to be tapped on the head with a New Testament – a practice that may be traced to the

Consolamentum ritual of the Languedocian Cathari.lxvi The thirteenth-century Codex of Lyon informs us that during the Consolamentum, “the elder shall take the book and place it on his head”.lxvii And while the Albigenses had, by this period, undergone a reactionary and radicalizing shiftlxviii away from Biblical simplicity towards Gnostic Manichaeism through the influence of Bishop Nazariuslxix and Bishop Nicetaslxx, the Consolamentum nevertheless has a recognizable counterpart in the far more orthodox ninth-century Paulician document, The Key of Truth. The remarkable similarity between the Paulician rite of election in The Key of Truth and the Albigensian Consolamentum in The Codex of Lyon led Fred Conybeare to conclude that “it is probable that the Paulician ordinal and the Cathar form of Consolamentum are both descended from a common source”.lxxi In other words, the custom of Oxford University represents a tradition dating back to the ninth century or earlier.

CONCLUSION The current models of Baptist history are inaccurate. While the “Trail of Blood” version is closer to the facts than the Spilsbury view, it goes too far, overlooking William Tyndale’s Baptist identity and the vital role played by Baptists in Puritanism, the Protestant Reformation and the translation of our English Bible. It also makes the mistake of incorporating the Armenian Mennonites and Swiss Anabaptists into our Baptist heritage as descendants of the Waldensians, when the grounds for doing so are extremely dubious indeed. Rather than tracing our lineage through them, we stay on safer ground historically and factually by identifying with the Lollards through whom we connect with both William Tyndale and the Medieval European Cathari groups, such as the Waldensians, Henricians, Petrobrusians, Bogomils and Paulicians. This central position avoids the extremes on either sides of the current debate and perpetuates a view of Baptist history that retains both our distinct identity and heritage and also our own unique and valuable contributions to Puritanism, Protestantism and the King James Bible.

i Daniel Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. 2 (Staffordshire: Tentmaker Publications, 2009), 453. ii David Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation (Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), 205 – 210. iii Daniel Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. 2 (Staffordshire: Tentmaker Publications, 2009), 278. iv Jude 1: 2 KJV. v David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 240 – 241. vi James Innell Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 51. vii Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 13. viii Ibid, 50. ix British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/camden-record-soc/vol28/pp128-147 (accessed 11 April, 2015). x Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/pastorsandpreachers/fosdick.html (accessed 11 April, 2015). xi Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemna (New York: Longman, 1999), 164. xii James Innell Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 142. xiii Ibid, 351.

xivRonald D. Miller and James Renihan, eds., Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 30. xv David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 240 – 241. xvi Biography Online http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/william-tyndale.html (accessed 11 April, 2015). xvii David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 240 – 241. xviii William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 349 - 350. xix Ibid, 265. xx Ibid, 266 – 267. xxi William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 255. xxii Ibid, 253. xxiii William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 593 - 594. xxiv Ibid, 595. xxv William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 350 – 351. xxvi Ibid, 358. xxvii William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 576. xxviii Ibid, 593 - 594. xxix Ibid, 595. xxx Ibid, 598. xxxi William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 283. xxxii Ibid, 358. xxxiii Ibid, 360. xxxiv Ibid, 366. xxxv Ibid, 369. xxxvi Ibid, 371. xxxvii Ibid, 372. xxxviii Ibid, 379. xxxix William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 590 - 591. xl Ibid, 596. xli Ibid, 598. xlii Ibid, 364 – 365. xliii Ibid, 365. xliv IIIM Magazine Online http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.h.Grisham.Tyndale.2.html (accessed 12 April, 2015). xlv David Keep: Is not Tyndale also among the Prophets? http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/keep.html (accessed 12 April, 2015). xlvi Bogomilism and Related Doctrines and Medieval Movements: Patarenes, Cathars, Lollards http://www.bogomilism.eu/Studies/Tyndale__the_covert_dualist.html (accessed 12 April, 2015). xlvii Georgi Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2008), 150. xlviii Bogomilism and Related Doctrines and Medieval Movements: Patarenes, Cathars, Lollards http://www.bogomilism.eu/Studies/Bogomils_and_Lollards.html (accessed 13 April 2015). xlix G. H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1996), 333. l Adam Blair, History of the Waldenses: with an introductory sketch of the history of the Christian churches in the South of France and North of Italy, till these churches submitted to the pope, when the Waldenses continued as formerly independent of the Papal See, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Anderson and Bryce, 1832), 453. li Hay-on-Wye Holiday Houses http://hayonwyeholiday.co.uk/?page_id=516 (accessed 13 April 2015). lii G. H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1996), 333. liii Adam Blair, History of the Waldenses: with an introductory sketch of the history of the Christian churches in the South of France and North of Italy, till these churches submitted to the pope, when the Waldenses continued as formerly independent of the Papal See, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Anderson and Bryce, 1832), 453. liv Hay-on-Wye Holiday Houses http://hayonwyeholiday.co.uk/?page_id=516 (accessed 13 April 2015).

lv G. H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1996), 333. lvi Hay-on-Wye Holiday Houses http://hayonwyeholiday.co.uk/?page_id=516 (accessed 13 April 2015). lvii Adam Blair, History of the Waldenses: with an introductory sketch of the history of the Christian churches in the South of France and North of Italy, till these churches submitted to the pope, when the Waldenses continued as formerly independent of the Papal See, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Anderson and Bryce, 1832), 453. lviii Bogomilism – An Important Precursor to the Reformation http://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/38/tsq38_vasilev.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015). lix Bogomilism – An Important Precursor to the Reformation http://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/38/tsq38_vasilev.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015). lx Robert Baird, History of the Ancient Christians Inhabiting the Valleys of the Alps (Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon, 1847), 25. lxi W. R. Cooper, ed., The Wycliffe New Testament (1388) (London: The British Library, 2002), 6 – 7. lxii Bogomilism and Related Doctrines and Medieval Movements: Patarenes, Cathars, Lollards http://www.bogomilism.eu/Studies/John%20Wycliffe-and-the-Dualists.html (accessed 13 April 2015). lxiii W. R. Cooper, ed., The Wycliffe New Testament (1388) (London: The British Library, 2002), 13. lxiv Bogomilism and Related Doctrines and Medieval Movements: Patarenes, Cathars, Lollards http://www.bogomilism.eu/Studies/John%20Wycliffe-and-the-Dualists.html (accessed 13 April 2015). lxv Georgi Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2008), 148. lxvi Cathar amd Cathar Beliefs in the Languedoc http://www.cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm (accessed 28 April, 2015). lxvii Fred C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth (London: Clarendon Press, 1898), 160 - 167. lxviii Giorgio Tourn et al., You Are My Witnesses: The Waldensians Across 800 Years (Torino, Italy: Claudiana Editrice, 1989), 17. lxix Peter Biller and Anne Hudson, Heresy and Literacy, 1000 - 1530 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 55. lxx Janet Hamilton, ed. and trans., Contra Patarenos (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004), 78 - 79. lxxi Fred C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth (London: Clarendon Press, 1898), 142 - 143.