ABOU CHAPTER V. MATTHEWE'S BIBLE. A. D. 1537. BOUT this time there were three distinct versions of the English Bible issued in the short space of four years. These were Coverdale's Bible, 1535, Matthewe's Bible, 1537, and Cromwell's Bible, 1539. In the accounts given of these several editions, more or less confusion has existed. Burnet complains that the facts respecting the translation of the Bible have not been preserved with "that care that the Importance of the thing required."1 Unfortunately, Burnet transmits an error in tracing a direct connection between the action of the convocation of 1536, and Cromwell's Bible of 1539. The arguments put forth in this convocation favoring the Bible in English, he says, "were so much considered by the King, that he gave order for setting about it immediately." He further adds in this connection, "that the work was carried on at a good rate; for three years after this it was Printed at Paris.”8 There was a petition ordered to be presented to the king, requesting that the Bible might be given to the laity in their own tongue, during the sittings of this convocation of 1536, but with no known results. The Bible printed three years after was Cromwell's Bible, which was a revision of the Bible of 1537, and though the printing was begun at Paris it was completed in London. Again, Burnet in giving an account of the Bible of 1537, says: "the Translation had been sent over to France to be printed at Paris,......but upon a complaint made by the French Clergy, the Press was stopt and 1 History of the Reformation in England, I., B. III., p. 196. London, 1681. 3 Ibid, p. 196. 2 Ibid, p. 195. 1535-39.] CONFUSION IN HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS. 173 most of the Copies were seized on, and publickly burnt; but some Copies were conveyed out of the way, and the Workmen and Forms were brought over to England; where it was now finished and published.”1 All of which is true of the Bible of 1539, but not that of 1537. Another example of this confusion is found in Strype, who gives Archbishop Cranmer the credit of originating the translation of 1537, and hence connects it with the efforts of Cranmer towards a new translation made soon after the convocation of 1534, in which the archbishop assigned certain portions of Scripture to divers learned bishops and others to be revised and corrected. And now, adds Strype, "to his inexpressible Satisfaction, he saw the Work finished."2 But as a matter of fact this effort of the archbishop was unsuccessful. In another connection, Strype gives comparatively a correct account of the Bible of 1537; that it was "called Matthews Bible of Tyndal's and Roger's Translation, (and,) was printed by Grafton and Whitchurch at Hamburgh.....It was done by one John Rogers, who flourished a great while in Germany, and was Superintendent of a Church there..... He added Prefaces, and Notes out of Luther; and dedicated the whole Book to King Henry, under the Name of Thomas Matthews, by an Epistle prefixed; minding to conceal his own Name." 4 Still another example of this confusion is found in Froude, when in describing Coverdale's Bible, 1535, he confounds it with Matthewe's Bible, 1537. He says: "Miles Coverdale ... silently went abroad with a licence from Cromwell; with Tyndal's help he collected and edited the scattered portions; and in 1536, there appeared in London, published cum privilegio, and dedicated to Henry VIII. the first complete copy of the English Bible. The canon and textbook of the new opinions—so long dreaded, so long execrated— was thenceforth to lie open in every church in England; and .... 1 History of the Reformation in England, p. 249. 2 Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, B. I., ch. XV., p. 57. London, 1694. 4 Ibid, p. 82. See above on pages 152, 153. the clergy were ordered not to permit only, but to exhort and encourage, all men to resort to it and read."1 Possibly Rogers may have had Tyndale's help or they may have labored together in translating the Bible of 1537; but not so Coverdale and Tyndale. The above statement, however, is for the most part true of the Bible of 1535. So again Mr. Froude confounds the Great Bible of 1539, with the Bible of 1535, when he describes the frontispiece of the former as belonging to the latter; introducing as he does the description, with the statement, that this frontispiece was "equally remarkable, and even more emphatic in the recognition of the share in the work borne by the king."2 But so far as is known Henry VIII. had no "share in the work" of producing Coverdale's Bible, not even so much as granting his royal privilege to the first edition. Though these three editions appeared so near each other as to time, yet in their origin they were so distinct, that there can be no excuse for historically confounding them. There is, however, in the history of the Bible of 1537, an obscurity attaching itself to the name Thomas Matthewe, which the utmost discrimination and research has failed to make clear. In seeking to account for this straunge name of Thomas Matthewe being connected with the Bible, Foxe declares that: "In the translation of this Bible, the greatest doer was in dede William Tyndall. .... But because the sayd William Tyndall in ye meane tyme was apprehended, .... it was thought good to them whiche had the doyng therof, to chaunge the name of William Tyndall, because that name then was odious, and to father it by a straunge name of Thomas Mathewe." 3 Strype adopted the same theory, adding, that Tyndale's name "then growing into ignominy, as one burnt for an Heretick, they thought it might prejudice the Book, if he should be named for the Translator thereof and so they used a feigned Name, calling it Thomas 1 History of England, III., 83. New York, 1869. 3 Acts and Monuments, p. 1363. 1696-7. 2 Ibid, p. 85. 1525-55.] 2 Matthews Bible." 1 But whether Thomas Matthewe was a straunge, or feigned name; or whether it was an alias of John Rogers, which seems the most likely as there are some incidental proofs; or whether it was the name of some individual who by his means first aided the enterprise, as has been surmised; or whether it was the name of the first printer, which seems the most unlikely supposition of all, though Hallam states it not as a supposition but as a fact; or whether it be a fictitious name "under which the Editor chose to appear,' as Lewis thinks; whatever the relation of this name, it would seem as an act of justice, that the name of John Rogers ought to be more intimately linked with this Bible of 1537, on account of the prominent place he holds as its reviser and editor. John Rogers was educated at Cambridge, where, according to Foxe, "he profitably traueiled in good learnyng." At length he was called by the merchant adventurers at Antwerp to become their chaplain, whom he served to their "good contentation" for many years. "Knowing by the Scriptures that unlawful vowes may lawfully be broken," Rogers was married. He afterwards went to Wittemburg, where he increased not only in "Good and Godly learnyng; but.... in the knowledge of the Dutch toung." A congregation here was committed to his care, which he served till the time of Edward VI., when he returned to England. "A prebend in the Cathedrall church of Paules" was granted him, and the dean appointed him reader of the divinity lessons, wherein he diligently served till the time of Queen Mary, when for the crime of preaching the Gospel and upholding the doctrines 1 Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, B. I., ch. XVI., p. 59. London, 1694. 2 In the condemnation of Rogers, as recorded by Foxe, he is referred to several times, as "John Rogers, Priest, alias called Mathew." Acts and Monuments, p. 1661. It was not uncommon in those bitter days of trial for good men to take upon themselves other names. Tyndale's alias was Hutchins or Hytchens. "taught in King Edwardes daies," he was summoned before the council, by whose judgment he was commanded "as prisoner to keepe his own house;" but afterwards by the uncharitable procurement of Bishop Boner he was removed to New Gate. Foxe, likewise, records the particulars of his trial before the Lord Chancellor, also his sentence of condemnation, together with an account of his martyrdom, which took place at Smithfield, February 4, 1555.2 At Antwerp Rogers became intimately acquainted with Tyndale. So intimate were they, according to Foxe, "that he was engaged with Tyndall in the prayerful and most profitable labour of translatyng the Bible in to the English toung, which is intituled the translation of Thomas Matthew." Doubtless, in John Rogers, Tyndale found a friend in whom he could trust, and to whom in his extremity he could commit his private papers. The same morning in which Tyndale was led to the stake, "he deliuered a letter to the keeper of the Castle, which the keeper hym self brought to the house of the foresaid Pointz in Antwerpe, shortly after." This letter or package may have contained other private papers of Tyndale, or information respecting them; or such papers may have remained, as Foxe understood, "in the handes of the keper's daughter." In either case take into connection the circumstance of Tyndale's letter to the procurator, in which he requested the privilege of a candle and Hebrew books, and the not unfair inference follows that Tyndale not only carried on his work of translation while in prison, but that the results of such labor were preserved. And as John Rogers was the editor of the Bible of 1537, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that either through the family of Poyntz, or that of the keeper of the prison, these manuscripts together with any others he may have prepared before his arrest, found their way into the hands of Rogers, who incorporated them in the Matthewe's Bible. Besides, internal evidences favor the 1 Acts and Monuments, p. 1657. 2 Ibid, p. 1663-4. See above on page 136. |