LEST WE FORGET

BRING UP YOUR CHILDREN IN LIGHT AND TRUTH

In the year 1519, in Coventry, England, the Bible was unavailable in the English language. Some scholars thought it should be translated, and in defiance of king and church, disseminated their translations. Many were arrested and martyred, and not just the scholarly. The record on one particular day, April 4th, lists seven people—four of them shoemakers, whose names were Hatchets, Archer, Hawkins, and Bond; a glover named Wrigsham; Landsdale, a hosier; and one woman, Mistress Smith, a widow. On that day, these seven were all burned at the stake, for the crime, as it was noted, of “teaching their children and family the Lord’s Prayer and Ten Commandments in English.”

By comparison to 500 years ago, light and truth from on high is flooding the earth, and we may freely bask in it, if we choose, and may bathe our children in it night and day, if we are willing. Not that this is easy or obvious. This flood has been answered by the adversary with a flood of counterfeits and distractions, which do great harm, either by robbing us and our children of innocence, or simply keeping good people from focusing on the truth, as if drinking from puddles when we might be drinking from pure fountains of living water.

This principle was understood by those parents of Coventry, England 500 years ago. They were committed to bringing up their children in light and truth, at all costs.

How shall we in our time answer this act of love?

So we have great hope if we partake! Do we esteem the truth as taught in the scriptures and from the prophets, above our next breath of air? Would the children of our homes and our extended families, observe that we cherish it?

Do we seek wisdom there, and do we teach them to do so? Do we talk of Christ, rejoice in Christ, preach of Christ, prophesy of Christ, that our children may know to what source they may look?

May we recognize, cherish, and trust in what we have been given. Let us show the Lord our gratitude as we immerse ourselves and our children in the Lord’s flood.

The first complete translation of the New Testament into English was done by William Tyndale in 1525.

Translation fragments described above existed and were used by those few faithful souls who gave their all for even morsels of the translated sacred record in 1519.

Is not this a “very sobering reminder” to us today, of our need to repent and search and immerse ourselves in the sacred writings?

How many of us today would be willing to be burned at the stake for teaching our children the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer in English?

The previous post is something that many may take lightly. To our family, however, it take on a very tender, personal and special significance.

The Reverend John Rogers, who was the Proto martyr or first martyr of the English reformation was burned at the stake at Smithfield England in 1555. It was he who assisted William Tyndale in translating the complete Bible into English in 1537.

The Reverend John Rogers was perhaps not only one of the greatest
ministers of his day, but also happens to be one of our most honored ancestors.

Today we hold in our hand this sacred collection of books that we title the Bible.

How we use these sacred writings determines and demonstrates either our love of God by searching prayerfully it's contents, or our hypocrisy by our neglect of the same.

We should all ask ourselves this question, is my bible a neglected stored relic, whose main function is to collect dust?

Or is it a cherished companion so used that it now has a tattered leather binding and well worn and marked pages caused by daily searching of it's priceless contents?

Do we choose to cherish and drink deeply from it's contents or starve our spirits and ignore the feasts contained therein?

How do those early translators such a William Tyndale, John Frith, John Rogers and others view us today from their vantage point, after they have sacrificed so much to translate and bring this once forbidden record into our homes?

It has been said that one of our greatest sins is the sin of ingratitude. One also closely related is the sin of ignorance.

What? How many have thought of ignorance as being a sin?

“To him that knoweth to do good, but doeth it not, to him, it is sin”

Therefore if we know we should search the scriptures as Christ has so commanded us, then we are keeping one of his commandments and avoid the sin of spiritual ignorance.

A few years ago, I undertook the task of editing and making a very condensed account of the “proto Martyr John Rogers”. This required more than two years to condense about 800 pages of Parliament records, Trial transcripts and other research data into just 30 pages. I trust it will be worthwhile to share this with you in the hopes that you will cherish the bible and it’s precious contents more than ever. Additionally, after hearing the John Rogers story, I hope that you and those you teach in any setting will have a new appreciation for the ultimate sacrifice given by those who opened the way for us to freely possess this sacred record today.

John Rogers

The Compiler of The First Authorized English Bible;
A Pioneer of The English Reformation;
And Its First Martyr.

The Reverend John Rogers was born about 1500. About the same time Martin Luther began the Great Reformation, which lasted for approximately one hundred and fifty years before being completely reconciled. A reformation in which he would play such a prominent part, giving not only the productive years of his life, but defending his convictions with his life. He was born in Deritena, near Birmingham, Warwick County, England.

He was educated at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, England, where he took his bachelor of Arts Degree in 1525, then chosen to the Cardinal College at Oxford and made Junior Cannon, and soon thereafter went into Holy Orders in the Roman Catholic Church. On December 26, 1532, he became Rector of “Holy Trinity the Less" in the city of London. He resigned in 1534. He was afterward called by a company of English merchants to be one of its Chaplains at Antwerp, Brabant which he accepted.

It is apparent Rogers left the Roman Catholic Church when he resigned his Rectorship at “Holy Trinity the Less,” as evidenced by his statement to Gardiner at his trial; he said, “As for your false Church, you need not excommunicate me there out, I have not been in it these twenty years.” Rogers never considered himself out of the true Catholic Church. At the time of the trial, for it was a Church trial, he wanted to prove himself by the Bible. The Bishops of the Court, headed by Stephen Gardiner, presiding, denied the Bible, telling him “that he could prove nothing by the Scriptures, that the Scriptures were dead and must have a lively exposition." “No, No, the scripture is alive," said Rogers. But they refused to hear him, saying, “Away, away with him, we have more to talk with". Then up he stood, for he had been kneeling all the while.

He told them he was not a heretic, that he never was out of the true Catholic Church and never would be. He then gave a definition of the word “Catholic" as used in that connection, which might well take its place even in modern dictionaries, viz. “the consent of all true teaching Churches of all times and of all ages", of which the Romish Church certainly was not one, because it taught “many doctrines which are plainly and directly against the Word of God."

Being called upon instantly to mention one, he selected the custom of conducting public service in a strange tongue.(Latin) which led to a spirited dispute, until, by their own admission and his cogent arguments, he had driven them fairly into a logical corner, when they sought to escape the consequences by creating such a noise and confusion that he could no longer be heard, from out of which the already thrice unfortunate Lord Chancellor (Stephen Gardiner) only emerged, by absolutely disavowing the Scriptures as a credible witness in behalf of his premises. Then ending it by sending him back to prison.

William Tyndale, (1492-1536) studied at Cambridge College. He was a Chaplain with the English Merchants at Antwerp, who were supporters of the Reformation. He was translating the Bible into the English language, and was a great leader in the Reformation. He published his translation of the New Testament in 1525, and was working on the translation of the Old Testament. He was greatly assisted by John Frith, to whom he was warmly attached. Frith was martyred, on the 4th of July 1534, which was a great and sorrowful loss to Tyndale.

Rogers joining the English Merchants, as a Chaplain so soon after the death of Frith, would seem more than just a coincidence.

Tyndale had bitterly opposed in his writings, the divorce of King Henry VIII, and Catherine of Aragon. Henry had him arrested in March, 1535. He was charged with heresy, and found guilty, and was burned at the stake, 6th of October, 1536.

Rogers left his Rectorship at “Holy Trinity the Less” in England in 1534 and came to Antwerp, and Tyndale being arrested in March, 1535, shows their relationship to be but a few months at the most. Their relationship must have been kept secret. Whether Rogers received the unfinished manuscript before the arrest of Tyndale is not clear. In any event he got the manuscript and went undercover (continuing to serve as Chaplain for the English Merchants at Antwerp). He continued unmolested until he had finished the translation, together with his own Bible commentary and marginal references. When finished, he signed it “Thomas Matthew.” It appeared in England in August 1537 as the translation of “Thomas Matthew,” and was thereafter known as the “Matthew Bible.”

Rogers married in 1536, Adryana Pratt, alias “de Weyden" a niece of Jacob Von Metern. They had eleven children, eight boys and three daughters. Susan, John and Daniel, born in Brabant, the next seven in Saxony and the three youngest in England.

There were many problems and fierce opposition, before and after this first printing. It was the first authorized, complete edition of both Old and New Testaments and was printed at the Antwerp press of Jacob Von Metern. There are three original copies in the British Museum. This great work was done by John Rogers, and by him alone, under the assumed pseudonym of “Thomas Matthew" (probably an intended combination of the names of the two Apostles). After the translation was completed and the Bible printed, he resigned his Chaplainship, and moved with his family to Wittenberg, Saxony, where he acquired much knowledge of the German language. He took charge of a Protestant congregation and remained Pastor thereof for eleven years. On the accession of King Edward VI to the English throne, he with his wife and eight children returned to England in 1548.

Thomas, Lord Crumwell (such is the orthography in most old MSS.), afterwards Earl of Essex, was then in the zenith of his power, having arisen from the humblest station to be Lord Privy Seal, Vicar General and Viceregent, thus occupying an eminence next only to that of the King himself. His subsequent disgrace and downfall appear to have been unmerited, for no serious charge against him was ever sustained. Though not immaculate, he was probably the best Minister that Henry VIII, ever had. He was beheaded at Tower Hill, July 28th, 1540, having been hurriedly tried, and attained, on very frivolous accusations.

Miles Coverdale. (1488-1568) Was educated at Cambridge College, was a Bishop of Exeter, England, and from his youth was a favorite and protege of Lord Crumwell. He began in England under Crumwell's protection, about 1528 to translate the Bible into the English language. By 1535 the work was finished and a small edition published. It was the first complete Bible printed in the English language. It was not approved or authorized because of its many errors and mistakes, such as, where the word “repentance” was in the original, he translated it to be “penance.” Even within close relationship with Lord Crumwell, his Bible was not accepted by either the civil authorities or the clergy, and no more copies were printed. Coverdale was a rival to, and had nothing to do with the translation of the original Matthew Bible.

Rogers, “Thomas Matthew” Bible reached England by the last of July, 1537. This is proved by a letter from Archbishop Cranmer to Lord Crumwell, written on the 4th of August in that year, in which he notifies him that he sends him a copy of it. He declares that he regards this translation to be superior to any former one, and does not think that the Bishops can produce a better one (to use his own expressive language) “till a day after dooms day.” He speaks of the great care and labor evinced in its preparation, and praises particularly the Dedication to the King, to whom he begs the Minister to present it, and obtain, if possible, the royal license for its publication and free distribution.

Certainly, this would seem to have been an extraordinary letter to send to a man, who must naturally have been aggrieved at the recent fate of the similar production of one whom he had been petting and patronizing for the past ten years, and proves conclusively one of two things: either that Coverdale’s translation must have been regarded, by all parties, as radically imperfect and impracticable; or else Crumwell was a most remarkable man, in that he could see his protege so cooly thrust aside, hear his competitor so warmly applauded, and go at once so actively and generously to work, as he did, in behalf of the rival volume. Possibly it proves both.

Certainly, Crumwell did act thus nobly and promptly, in response to the request of the Archbishop. For only nine days later, on the 13th of August, Cranmer wrote to him again, thanking him most warmly for having effected the object he desired, and assuring him that his having obtained the King's license for the introduction of this Bible gave him more pleasure than would the gift of a thousand pounds. (See appendix 428) Indeed, Cranmer seems to have been greatly overjoyed on account of this success. For, in still another letter to Crumwell, written fifteen days later, on the 28th of August, though chiefly relating to other matters, he again repeats his thanks for the service rendered in that behalf.

Here, then, is a singular state of things. Only a short time before, certainly much less than two years, and probably only a few months. A complete translation of the Bible made its appearance. That also was dedicated to the King, in an address characterized, even by Coverdale's most ardent biographers, as flattering, and even extravagantly fulsome. The friend and patron of the author was the highest civil officer of the realm, possessing almost unbound influence, (Crumwell), and yet that work failed to attract attention or to receive encouragement.

Now a similar volume appears, unheralded, with no powerful friend to proclaim its merits or urge its claims and only protected by a poor printer who had invested his all in its publication. Yet, it is instantly hailed with almost frantic joy by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest religious dignitary in the land, (Cranmer). Who at once commends it in unmeasured terms to the Prime Minister, the identical patron of the former volume, (Crumwell), who in turn presents it promptly to King, Henry VIII, and who, apparently without an hour's hesitation, gives it his royal endorsement. Surely, there must have been something more than a mere change in public sentiment to produce this wonderful antithesis.

We hear of no especial alteration, during this short interval, in the religious views of either the King, the Minister, or the Archbishop, that can account for it. Apart from the intrinsic merits of the two books themselves, everything was in favor of the first translation, (Coverdale's Bible) and yet, that fell dead to the ground, while the other is suddenly rose to the highest pinnacle of success.

It has been attempted (and it is painful to see it where we do) to connect Cranmer in some way with the printers, and to represent him as pecuniarily interested in the publication of the Bible. Not the slightest evidence can be found to sustain a presumption so lame and unkind. The very language of Cranmer, in the letters referred to, cannot be reasonably distorted into anything else than expressions of his grateful delight that, at last, the Sacred Volume had assumed a character that must redound to the glory of God and the spiritual benefit of the world.

No, the real secret of Cranmer's rejoicing, of Crumwell's zeal, and of royal assent, must evidently be looked for in the radical superiority of the Translation itself. For this assertion ample proof is to be found in the fact that their judgment, at that crisis (whatever the King may have afterwards done), has been confirmed by every succeeding generation to the present time.

Translations may have since multiplied. Whatever amount of labor and wisdom may have been expended upon subsequent revisions, THAT BIBLE- the bible which John Rogers prepared, and whose publication he superintended, is still the basis of the version now in our churches and our dwellings in 1861. And will continue to be (please God!) until the Book itself has finally accomplished its mission. (The above quote by Mr. Chester, states a Mr. Grafton was seeking the Bible printing profits.)

Be it so noted that although the King and Archbishop approved the Matthew Bible and had it put in the churches, fierce opposition continued with the Popish Priests, with Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor as their head. As early as one year after the Matthew Bible was published, Grafton, one of the publishers of the first Matthew Bibles, was in Paris, with Myles Coverdale, Crumwell's old friend, and under the direction or sanction of Crumwell, who had the power to choose whoever he wanted to produce the next edition. (The Popish Priests regarded the commentary and marginal notes as equal to or more dangerous than the Bible itself). Coverdale made changes, as instructed. More changes were made in the next four editions. The first changes seemed to have more to do with the commentary than the Bible itself. But Bible changes were made. Rogers was that time in Brabant and was not invited to help with the new edition.

With Tyndale and Frith martyred, Rogers did not step into their shoes to make money. It was for a much higher and nobler cause that he entered into the task of finishing the translation of the Holy Scriptures with a courage and determination that did not cease. When the work was finished he dedicated it to King Henry VIII. He then signed it “Thomas Matthew.” After the finished Bible reached London and was approved by the King as above stated, it appears that Rogers had nothing more to do with it.

It is not determined just when it was learned that Rogers was in fact “Thomas Matthew.” Rogers’ determination was not only to get the Bible in the hands of the people, but to help them understand it. He wrote a two page summary which covered the main points of the Bible, followed by twenty-six (26) pages of “principal matters contained in the Bible.” Also a concordance and the marginal references.

All this, together, made it possible for the reader to follow through on the scriptural subject he wanted to peruse. This was the first time such information had been added to a Bible, and the thing the Popish Bishops feared and hated the most. So far as the records show, Rogers received no monetary compensation for completing and publishing the first authorized English version of the complete Bible. Because of its accuracy, it has been the base for most Bibles printed since.

Edward VI, (1537-1553) The boy King, son of Henry VIII and his third wife, Jane Seymour, came to the throne at age ten, on the 28th of January, 1547. He died six years later on the 6th of July, 1553. His uncle Edward Seymour, controlled the affairs of the Kingdom. Protestantism was established as the State Religion. Although he had a few good and judicious men, both in and out of the Church, it was not enough. During the later years of the reign of Henry VIII, concessions were continually made and the Papist gained power. During the brief six year period of Edwards reign, the Papist continued to in filter high positions in both Church and State. Machinations of the Pope and his emissaries were quietly but surely, undermining the foundations of the Religious structure whose erection had proceeded slowly. Treason stalked in it's midst.

Rogers was doing well in Wittenberg, and was well thought of. But thinking the duty of every good man to devote his best abilities to his own Country, he preferred to abandon his worldly fortune, rather than disregard the calls of that duty. Having returned, therefore, to his native land, he manfully devoted himself to furthering the work of the Gospel. Laboring willingly and earnestly, he had various assignments, then on the 24th of August, 1550, was appointed to the stall of St. Pancras. He was recognized as a man of ability and was assigned to the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, in London, in June, 1553.

Mary I, (1516 -1558) was the daughter of King Henry VIII , (who separated the English Church from that of Rome), and Catherine of Aragon. She was a Catholic and was determined to restore the Roman Catholic Faith in England.

The persecutions which she undertook in her effort to make England Roman Catholic have made her known in history as “Bloody Mary.”

During these persecutions, more than three hundred persons were put to death. Among them were the martyrs Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer. She became Queen on the 17th day of July, 1553.

After the death of her brother Edward VI. An attempt was made to set her aside in favor of Lady Jane Grey, “the nine day Queen,” but it was unsuccessful. Queen Mary immediately repealed all the religious laws of Edward VI.

She revived certain severe laws against heresy or disbelief in church doctrine. Cardinal Pole was sent to England as the Pope’s representative and England was formally brought back into the Catholic Church. (Ref. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1959 edition, for this paragraph on Queen Mary I.)

The real troubles of Rogers, and of the “Noble army of martyrs,” commenced on the death of Edward VI, which event occurred on the 6th of July, 1553. The great majority of the Church was still, secretly, if not avowedly, papist. While Edward, that good and very promising child, was uttering sound and seasonable sentiment, prittly and properly clothed for him in appropriate language, by his tutors and ministers, his very court had become the scene of vice and wickedness. and the rankest popist filled offices of high trust and importance, cloaking their evil intentions under the garb of extraordinary sanctity. On the 7th of July, the day after Edwards death, Lady Jane Grey, was proclaimed Queen. Openly she was for the Reformation, but secretly plotting against it. Her reign lasted only nine days, and is mentioned here because, in the course of her brief reign occurred the turning point in the life of Rogers.

On the 9th of July, 1553, being the first Sunday after Lady Jane was proclaimed Queen. Bishop Ridley, by order of the Council, preached a sermon at Paul’s Cross. His discourse seems to have been, not only of a very plain, personal character, but even violent in his denunciation of the Princess Mary, whom he represented as a thorough Papist. Who would, if she had succeeded to the Crown, have restored the Papal dominion, and betrayed the Kingdom to a foreign power. He also made other severe animadversions upon her, contrasting her character, and that of her probable government, with those of the Lady Jane. It unquestionably sealed Ridley's doom, from the moment of delivery.

On the next Sunday, July 16th, Rogers preached in the same place, but opposite to the preaching of Bishop Ridley the week before. Rogers sermon was on righteousness and the abuses of wickedness, with firmness, with no reference to the political conditions, which may have been disappointing to some of his friends. But it was offence enough that he had succeeded the obnoxious Ridley at Paul's Cross and was recognized by the Council as one of its ablest preachers. This added to the fear of him already entertained by the Papist. On account of his boldness and ability, this alone rendered him, from that occasion, a marked man.

On the 17th of July Mary was proclaimed Queen. She arrived in London on the 3rd of August. On the following Sunday, August 6th, Rogers again preached at Paul's Cross, delivering, according to Foxe, “a most Godly and vehement sermon, avowing and confirming such true doctrine as he and others had there taught in King Edwards days. Exhorting the people constantly to remain in the same and to beware of all pestilent Popery, idolatry, and superstition.”

Here, it may be safely asserted, shone forth, for perhaps the first time, the true character of the man. Here ended the career of the mere minister, and began that of the martyr.

The occasion was an important one, and demands closer consideration. Why was he the first who was called to deliver a public discourse, after the arrival of Queen Mary in London? It surely could not have been his regular day for that duty, for he had preached at the Cross only three weeks before, and it was customary for the principal clergy to officiate there in rotation. The answer is plain. History records that the Council was already "overmatched with Popish Bishops.” There can be little doubt, with their undisguised hatred of him, or, at least, of compelling him to define his future position. They did not reckon erroneously. Rogers was prepared for the emergency, which may not have been unexpected.

He had already foreseen the results of Mary's accession, had counted the cost of his opposition, and had deliberately made up his mind as to the course which he should pursue. There is no doubt that, even in that day, he saw in the dim distance the stake that was to be the goal of his career. The considerations of life, liberty, a loving family, ability to do good abroad, all had passed before him and been carefully weighed, but he did not falter.

He had come to his native land at the call of duty, and he would not forsake that duty, or avoid its performance, for any earthly inducements, dear and tender, or high and holy as human affection might regard them. Even at that early day, he had formed the resolution which he afterwards enunciated to the cruel sheriff on the morning of his execution, “that what he preached he would seal with his blood.”

There was no wavering, no timidity, no effort to escape the command of the Council. No shrinking from the responsibilities of the position into which he had been forced and no lukewarmness or time serving in his address. When he stood for the last time where his voice had often been heard before and knew every word that fell from his lips was only adding to the terrors of his future doom. How different this discourse from the last one at that place! Then, there being no motive and no necessity for severity, he had mildly preached a Gospel sermon, and sent his hearers to their homes, comforted in their hopes of salvation or mourning over their sins.

Now, the scene and occasion were changed! He was no longer the mere pastor of an anxious flock, but the dread censor of a vile and angry priesthood, into whose hands he saw, had already been committed, to the direction of the future Government.

We can well imagine the tenor of his language and how his auditors must have writhed under the lashings of his earnest and indignant soul. Suppose it had been otherwise. That he had failed on this occasion. That put forward as he was, if he was the first to temporize with the ruling powers, or to compromise himself and the cause inextricably. If he had, through moral weakness or physical timidity, chosen the former course. What a crushing blow would he have inflicted upon the cause, and how his example would have deterred others from maintaining their steadfastness, when it should come their turns to be in peril! There never was any position in the whole history of the Reformation, all things being considered, where the responsibilities that were thrown upon a single man, were greater and the results more important, or where they were more nobly sustained. Surely, his conduct was more than noble “it was magnificent!”

The immediate effect was what might have been and probably was expected. He was forthwith summoned before the same Council which had ordered him to preach this discourse, but he defended himself so ingeniously that they were compelled, for the time, to dismiss him unharmed. From all that can be gleaned, his defense appears to have consisted in a simple appeal to the fact that the Protestant religion was still recognized and protected by the law of the land. Acts passed in its behalf in King Edward's time not having yet been repealed. This was an argument which even such a Council as that was, could not dispute. Angry as they must have been to see their supposed prey so easily elude them, they could not safely do otherwise than release him. This was Rogers’ last sermon, and, according to his own testimony, his last public address.

The Queen lost no time in surrounding herself with councillors and ministers suited to her peculiar taste and religious creed. Summarily ejecting the Protestants who were obnoxious to her and filling their places with such characters as Gardiner and Bonner and others of their stamp. It is interesting to note that during the ensuing week, she gave repeated assurances and positive promises to the Protestants generally and especially those of Suffolk. Without whose loyalty and timely assistance, it is quite certain that she never could have reached the throne so easily. She also promised that she would make no change in the, then lawfully established religion, but would be quite content with privately enjoying her own. However, measures were resolved upon and preparations made for carrying out the long settled determination to, crush the Reformers and the Reformation and reinstate the Papacy throughout England.