ent ones, who had rendered the scriptures, not only into Latin, but also into Dutch. Here it is to be observed, that Coverdale does not pretend that he made his translation from the originals; he only followed his interpreters, that is, other translators. And by calling his a special translation, he wished to have it considered as different from Tyndal's. Yet it is well known, that he adopted all Tyndal's translations, both of the old testament and of the new, with some small alterations. Only he omitted Tyndal's prologues, and notes, because they had given offence to the papists. That Coverdale adopted Tyndal's translations, appears likewise from his saying in his preface, that Tyndal's helpers and companions would finish what Tyndal had left unfinished, and publish it in a better manner than himself had now done; referring to the books of the old testament, and of the apocrypha, which Tyndal had not translated, but which Coverdale had now published. These, therefore, are the only translations in this bible which are properly Coverdale's own; and joined with Tyndal's translations, are what hath been commonly called Coverdale's bible, or rather, Tyndal and Coverdale's translation. Soon after the publication of this bible, Cromwell, as vicargeneral to the king in matters ecclesiastical, ordered a copy of it to be laid in the quire of each church, that every one, who pleased, might read it.

MATTHEW'S BIBLE.-In the year 1537, Richard Grafton and Edward Whytchurch, printers, published a second edition of Coverdale's bible, with Tyndal's prologues and notes. Because this bible was printed with German types, and was superintended by John Rogers, pastor of a church at Marbeck, in the dutchy of Wittemberg, Lewis thinks it was printed at Marbeck.— Rogers was educated at Cambridge, where, in 1525, he took the degree of bachelor of arts: then removing to Oxford, he was made a junior canon of Cardinal's college: after that, taking orders, he was appointed chaplain to the English factory at Antwerp; where, meeting with Tyndal, he was by him made. sensible of the errors of popery. From Antwerp he went to Marbeck, and became pastor of a congregation there.

Before this edition of Coverdale's bible was finished, Tyndal was burnt as an heretic. Wherefore Rogers, fearing that the prefixing of Tyndal's name to it, might occasion its being ill received by the common people, he published it under the feigned name of Thomas Matthew, and dedicated it to Henry VIII. Bishop Bale says, Rogers translated the bible from the beginning

to the end, having recourse to the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, and German copies. But Lewis says this is evidently a mistake. For the bible called Matthew's, is not a new translation, but, as Wanley observes, to the end of Chronicles, it is Tyndal's, and from that to the end of the apocrypha, it is Coverdale's. He ought to have excepted Jonah, which is of Tyndal's translation, having his prologue prefixed to it. The translation of the new testament is likewise Tyndal's, as are the prologues and notes. Farther, that the translation, which goes under the name of Matthew's, was not made from the originals, is evident from the title, which runs thus: The Bible, which is all the Holy Scripture, in which are contayned the Olde and Newe Testament, truelye and purelye translated into Englysh: By Thomas Matthewe. This, which is commonly called Matthew's bible, was begun and finished under the patronage of archbishop Cranmer; for it was presented by Grafton to him, and to the lord Cromwell; and Cromwell, at the archbishop's request, presented it to the king, who permitted it to be bought, and used by all persons without distinction. Rogers returned to England in Edward VI.'s time, and was made a prebendary of St. Paul's. But when Mary came to the throne, he was apprehended and condemned, under the name of Rogers, alias Matthew, for having published this translation of the bible under the name of Matthew. He was the first martyr in that reign.

HOLLYBUSHE'S NEW TESTAMENT.—It seems the papists, about this time, to discredit the English translations of the scriptures before mentioned, affirmed that they were contrary to the Latin bible, which was then used in the churches, and which, as the Rhemish translators afterwards expressed it, was considered as truer than the original itself; by which they meant the copies of the Greek testament then used. For in the year 1538, Coverdale, to shew that his translation of the new testament was not different from the common Latin bible, allowed one Johan Hollybushe, to print, in a column opposite to the vulgate Latin, the English translation of the new testament, which Coverdale had formerly set forth in his bible. This Hollybushe published, while Coverdale was abroad, with the following title: The Newe Testament, both in Latine and Englishe, eche corresfondent to the other, after the Vulgate text, communely called St. Jerome's, faithfully translated by Johan Hollybushe, anno 1538*.

To this edition Coverdale prefixed a dedication to Henry VIII. in which he takes notice of the reflections made on the translation of the bible in English, which he had published, as if he

GREAT BIBLE.-In the year 1539, Grafton and Whytchurch published a new edition of the English bible, with the following title: The Byble in Englishe, that is to say, the content of all the holy scripture, bothe of the Olde and Newe testament, truly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes, by the dylygent studye of diverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tonges. This is the first time any English translation of the bible was set forth as made after the verity of the originals. (See page 13. note.) Who the diverse excellent learned men were, by whose diligent study this translation was made, is not known. Johnson says, it was corrected by Coverdale. And from the splendid manner in which it was printed, Lewis conjectures that it was intended to be used in the churches, and was patronised by Cranmer, who might appoint some learned men to assist Coverdale in correcting it. But whoever these excellent learned men were, it is certain that this is no new translation from the originals, but, as Lewis observes, a revisal

Intended to pervert the scripture, and to condemn the commune translation into Latyn, which costumably is red in the church. To obviate these false suggestions, he tells his majesty, he has here set forth this commune translation in Latin, and also the English of it. Next he observes, concerning this present Latin text, forasmuch as it has been, and was yet so greatly corrupt, as he thought none other translation was, it were a godly and gracious dede, yf they that have authorite, knowledge, and tyme, wolde, under his grace's correction, examen it better, after the moost ancient interpreters, and most true textes of other languages. Accordingly, in his epistle to the reader, speaking of the Latin text, he says, wherein, though in some places he used the honest and just libertye of a grammarian, as was needful for the reader's better under standynge ; yet, because he was lothe to swerve from the text, (the vulgate Latin) he so tempered his pen, that if the reader wolde, he might make plain construction of it, by the English that standeth on the other side. In 1539, Coverdale set forth a second edition of this new testament, with a dedication to the lord Cromwell, in which, speaking of his inducement to publish the former edition, he says, Inasmuch as the new testament which he had set forth in Englis before (namely in his bible,) did so agree with the Latyn, he was hartely well content that the Latyn and it shulde be set together, (namely, by Hollybushe) provyded alwaye, that the corrector shulde followe the true copye of the Latyn in anye wyse, and to kepe the true and right Englishe of the same; and se doing, he was content to set his name to it ; and that so he did, trusting that, though he was out of the land, all should be well. But when he had perused this copie, he found, that, as it was disagreeable to his former translation in English, (Tyndal's translation, which he had copied in his bible) so was not the true copye of the Latyn text observed, neither the English so correspondent to the same as it ought to be. Therefore he had endeavoured himself to wede out the faults that were in the Latyn and English, &c. From these quotations, it is evident, that the translation of the new testament, which Coverdale allowed Hollybushe to print with the Latin text, was the one which he had published in his bible; consequently it was Tyndal's translation. It is evident, likewise, that that translation was made from the vulgate, and in so literal a manner, that the reader might make plain construction of the Latin by the English. It is true Coverdale, in some places, corrected the Latin text; but it was only as a grammarian: and in these corrections he was careful to swerve as little as possible from his text. Wherefore Coverdale, having assisted Tyndal in making his translation, they followed one and the same method; that is, both of them translated the scriptures from the vulgate; both of them translated the vulgate literally; and both of them corrected the text of the vulgate as grammarians, making use of other translations for that purpose; such as, for the old testament, the Septuagint, Luther's German version, and Munster's Latin translation; and for the new, Wieklif's and Erasmus' versions, and what others they could find.

only of Matthew's that is, Rogers's edition, with some small alterations. However, to make it appear different, Matthew's name was omitted, as were Tyndal's prologues and notes, because they had been blamed as heretical and defamatory. In this edition, the additions to the Hebrew and Greek originals in the vulgate Latin, are translated, and inserted in a smaller letter than the text, particularly the three verses in Ps. xiv. which were omitted by Coverdale and Matthew; likewise the famous text, John ch. v. 7. which Tyndal, in his new testament, (published in 1526) had printed in small letters, to shew that it was not then in the common Greek copies. Next, where the editors found various readings in the text, they prefixed a cross to the word. In the third place, to supply, in some measure, the want of the notes, they placed on the margin, hands pointing to the texts which were supposed to condemn the errors of popery, that the reader might attend to them. This bible being printed with types of a greater size than common, and in a large folio, with a fine emblematical frontispiece, said to be designed by Hans Holben, and beautifully cut in wood, it was called The Great Bible.

When the liturgy was first compiled, in the reign of Edward VI. the epistles, gospels, and psalms put into it, were all according to this translation; and so they continued till the restoration of Charles II. when the Epistles and gospels were inserted from king James's bible; but the psalms of the great bible were allowed to remain.

CRANMER'S BIBLE.-In 1540, another edition of the English bible was printed in folio, with this title: The Byble in Englishe; that is to say, the content of al the holy scripture, both of the Olde and Newe testament, with a prologe thereinto made by the Reverende Father in God, Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury. On account of this prologue, and because Cranmer amended the translation in this edition, in some places, with his own pen, it hath been called Cranmer's bible, though it is little different from the great bible. In this, as in the great bible, the verses of the Psalms, Proverbs, &c. which are not in the Hebrew, but which are translated from the vulgate, are printed in smaller letters, and the order of the Psalms is different from that of the vulgate, being according to the Hebrew.

By Cranmer's influence with the king, a proclamation was issued, in May 1540, ordering this bible to be bought, and placed in the churches. But the popish party, making great

complaints of the English translations in general as heretical, an act of parliament passed in January 1542, prohibiting the reading of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation, in any church or open assembly within the kingdom. However, the king being resolved to have an English translation of the new testament, which should be authorized by the clergy, Cranmer, in a convocation which met in February 1542, required the bishops and clergy, in the king's name, to revise the translation of the new testament. Accordingly, each bishop had his part assigned to him. Dut Stokesly, bishop of London, refusing to execute his part, the design miscarried.

Of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation of the bible, and of its revisions by Cranmer and others, many complaints were made, even by the protestants. B. Sandys wrote to abp. Parker, that the setters forth of this our common translation followed Munster too much. And of the new testament in the great bible, Laurence, a noted Greek scholar in that age, observed, that there are words which it hath not aptly translated; words and pieces of sentences in the original which it hath omitted; words not in the original which it hath superfluously added; nay, he charged this translation even with errors in doctrine. The encouragers also of the Geneva edition represented this bible as ill translated, and falsely printed, and gave it the invidious name of a corrupted bible.

Henry VIII. dying in January 1546, was succeeded by his son Edward VI. in whose first parliament the above-mentioned statute was reversed. The gospels and epistles were now, for the first time, appointed to be read in English in the public service.

In 1550 an edition of the new testament was published, with this title, The Newe Testament, diligently translated by Myles Coverdale, and conferred with the translacyon of William Tyndal. Coverdale's translation here mentioned, seems to have been that which he published in the second edition of Hollybushe's new

testament.

* Sebastian Munster was a learned protestant, well skilled in the Hebrew language, and in rabbinical learning. He published a Latin translation of the Hebrew bible at Basil, in the year 1534. And in 1546 he gave a second edition of it in two vols. folio, containing not only his Latin translation, but the Hebrew text with grammatical annotations, which F. Simon commends as useful for understanding the Hebrew language. Huet gives Munster this commendation: He always adapted his style to the Hebrew; and at the same time is not neglectful of the Latin, though he be not over attentive to the elegance of it. F. Simon preferred Munster's version, both to Pagnin's translation, and to that of Arias Montanus.