15 Mar 1543: Scottish Parliament Authorizes English Bibles for Churchmen

15 March 1543. The Scottish Parliament on 15th March 1543 declares the English Bible “was made free to all men and women to read the Scriptures in their own language, or in the English language, and so were all Acts made in contrary abolished.”

South of the border, Henry VIII had ordered English Bibles into all 9000 parishes...some 3 years after William Tyndale was murdered. Miles Coverdale and William Whittingham would carry on the work at Geneva resulting in England's influential "Geneva Bible" that ruled for 100 years.

But, “the toothpaste was never going back into that tube again.”

By contrast, the Tridentine Mass of 1570 would ensure Latin services for Latin-illiterate Roman throngs until the 1970s. 

By contrast to Rome and Vaticanaphiliacs, English-speakers would have access to God’s Word in their own tongue.

Here’s John  Knox’s account as told by PCA historians.

The story is told at: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2014/03/march-15-2/

The Gospel, for All Peoples, Everywhere.

We are privileged to have as our guest author this day John Knox . . . yes, that John Knox . . . of sixteenth century Scotland. Writing in chapter 2 of his History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, the Protestant and Presbyterian Reformer of Scotland describes for us the beginnings of “the People’s Bible” on pages 37 and following. It was the day when the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in English were made available to the masses, instead of only been printed in Latin and chained to ancient churches of the realm.  Knox writes:

“Men began to inquire, if it were not as lawful to men that understood no Latin to use the Word of their Salvation in the tongue (i.e. language) they understood, as it was for Latin men to have it in Latin, and Grecians to Hebrews in their languages.  It was answered, that the Kirk had forbidden all kinds of languages but these three, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But men demanded when that inhibition was given, and what Council  had ordained it, considering that in the days of Chrysostom, he complained that the people used not the psalms, and other Holy Books, in their own languages? And if you say they were Greeks, and understood the Greek language, we answer that CHRIST JESUS HAS COMMANDED HIS WORD TO BE PREACHED TO ALL NATIONS. Now if it ought to be preached to all nations, it must be preached in the language they understand; and if it be lawful to preach it, and to hear it preached in all languages, why shall it not be lawful to read it, and to hear it read in all languages, to the end that the people may ‘try the spirits,’ according to the commandment of the Apostle?

“(After further discussion) the conclusion was ‘by Act of Parliament (15th March 1543) ‘it was made free to all men and women to read the Scriptures in their own language, or in the English language, and so were all Acts made in contrary abolished.’

“This was no small victory of Christ Jesus, fighting against the conjured enemies of his Verity, no small comfort to such as before were holden in such bondage.

(3-Hr. Video): "Tares Among the Wheat" (Sequel to "Lamp in the Dark")

Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (Ch. 15) Plain Style & Bible Reading

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

 
Chapter 15—ENGLISH PLAIN STYLE AND BIBLE READING, 248-274

Prof. Daniell moves in a side-direction, to wit, to demonstrate the influence of plain speech and plain speaking mediated through Tyndale’s Biblical influences (and the translational progeny).

He raises several issues: (1) 3 influential plain stylists, (2) influences on Tyndale, (3) Magdalen College Vulgaria, (4) Queen Mary, (5) Bible reading, (6) Bible reading by individuals, (7) Bible reading and a national resurgence, and (8) the arrival of English.

English was a “poor thing” spoken on a tiny island “off the shelf of Europe,” a language unknown in Europe and spoken by over 2 million Englanders (compared to our time…2 billion as the first languagers?). Thomas More, the viciously anti-Reformed Anglo-Italian, claimed that 2/3rds could read English in England. This may have been over-stated in order to fan the hostile flames of De Haeretico Comburendo. We know he was given to over-blown and highly exaggerated language, viciously and murderously so. Even one strongly committed Anglo-Italian ass, Nicholas Harpsfield, operating during Elizabeth’s time, felt More was over-the-top. We'll stick with Tyndale's term, "asses."

But, whatever the literacy rate was in England, Prof. Daniell warms to his theme again: “I argue that the switch was thrown” by the English Bible and Tyndale (248). Prof. Daniell appears to like the metaphor of “switch” or “power switch” for a power-line or turning on the lights on a national level.

England alone.

England was alone in not having a vernacular Bible. Prof. Daniell points to these vernacular Bibles from European presses: 1466—Germany, 1471—Italy, 1474—France, 1477—Dutch, 1478—Catalin, and before 1500—Spain and Portugal. These were not for the “swine” (an Anglo-Italian term of art for the laity) or public use, liturgy or homes. Nevertheless, there were 1000 presses in Europe compared to 3 in England—Caxton, de Worde, and Pynsson. These vernaculars were translated from the Latin text and for use by one licensed by an Italian-based senior ass.

Luther’s German Bible in 1522 was based on Erasmus’ 1516 Greek NT. We previously reviewed the stern, murderous and oppressive policy of the Anglo-Italian asses in England: (1) the Parliamentary Act of 1401, De Haeretico Comburendo, (2) the repressive canons of the 1407 Provincial Council of Oxford, and the (3) works of the Ass-bishop of Canterbury, Lord Arundel, with his 11 deadly Constitutions, adopted in Canterbury, York, Lambeth, Oxford and across the nation. It was directed at Wyclif and his poor preachers. England was alone and under the Anglo-Italian thumb.

But, on Prof. Daniell’s reading, “something was happening in the 1520s-1530s internationally, nationally and locally” (250). The printers in Antwerp were all too happy to collect the profits trading off an English appetite. The hunger was for the English Bible—with more print runs than the Aeneid or Iliad.

“Plain style.” Tyndale made efforts to avoid the “colours of rhetoric.” The Bible was for the “mass of ordinary men and women,” not for the “Neoplatonic courtly poets” of Elizabeth’s period (251).

Prof. Daniell offers several examples of the impact.

1. Thomas Hobbes was constantly defending his plain style (253).

2. Addison continually defended this style. He desired this:

“It was said of Socrates that he brought Philosophy down from Heaven, to inhabit among men; and I shall be ambitious to have it said of me, that I have brought philosophy out of Closets and Libraries, Schools and Colleges, to dwell in Clubs and Assemblies, at Tea-tables and in Coffee-houses” (253).

3. Samuel Johnson, an advocate of heavily-Latinized English, nevertheless concluded this—negatively but illustratively—about Addison:

“Whoever wishes to attain an English style, familiar but not coarse, and elegant but not ostentatious, must give his days and nights to the volumes of Addison” (253).

4. Bishop John Wilkins, a man with a colorful background, wrote of the need for plain style speech in Ecclesiastes or a Discourse concerning the Gift of Preaching, as it falls under the rules of Art: 

“…must be plain and natural, not being darkened with the affections of Scholastical harshness or Rhetorical flourishes. Obscurity in the discourse is an argument of ignorance in the mind. The greatest learning is to be seen in the greatest plainness. The more clearly we understand anything ourselves, the more easily can we expound it to others. When the notion itself is good, the best way to set it off is in the most obvious plain expression. St. Paul does often glory in this” (254).

We would add a few logs to this fire: (1) Cornelius Van Til’s densities will largely die with his few enthusiasts. He never learned to write with clarity. (2) Jean Calvin, Martin Luther, Guido de Bres, Zachary Ursinus, William Tyndale and Thomas Cranmer learned to write with clarity. (3) Hooker "was and is" a thicket so thick as to be virtually in-penetrable. (4) Even Owen, though dense, is understandable. (5) Bishop J.C. Ryle (one of the men we willingly call “Bishop”) observed that many of his colleagues were caught up in the Victorian efforts at rhetorical flourish and flair. As an Eton and Oxford man, he witnessed it. He vowed to do the opposite. The old master of Liverpool is ever-accessible and direct. (6) Or, we would add the Rev. Dr. Prof. Allen C. Gulezo who writes with clarity, wit, scholarship and insight—it communicates. While the scholarship is powerful, it is not lost through obfuscation. (7) Or, who can ever forget the inimitably dense, uncommunicative yet widely hailed brilliance of the former Canterbury, Rowan Williams, talkative but saying nothing notable? Awful stuff. No English fogs from the Channel please, at least not for Tyndale and Cranmer.

But, rather wildly and out-of-the-blue, Prof. Daniell observes that this plain style speech—even in the scientific community—held forth “until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when Germanic-American obfuscation took over” (256). No evidence, just the claim. We’ll leave that there.

INFLUENCES ON TYNDALE, 256-258

Thomas More offered the jibe that “all England list now to go to school with Tyndale to learn English” (257). There is truth here for “many erstwhile illiterates did indeed go to school with Tyndale” (257).

For example, William Maldon of Chelmsford (about 40 miles to the NE of London, about 2 o'clock as the crow flies) spoke of the Sunday evening gatherings of poor men gathering to hear the “glad tidings” read. This itself led William himself to learn reading. It led him to buy, read, and treasure the NT. It also led to his father beating him and disputes with his mother about the English Bible. Prof. Daniell will have more to say later about Maldon.

Influences?

West Country speech patterns of Gloucestershire? Prof. Daniell thinks so, but believes more academic work is needed on a literary level. Numerous words need evaluation.

Prof. Daniell calls attention to William Langland’s Piers Ploughman written in the 1380s and just a few miles north of Tyndale’s birthplace in Gloucestershire. Yet while Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales was repeatedly published for courtly reading, Langland languished and was never printed…at least until 1550.

Prof. Daniell continues the discussion under his next rubric.

MAGDALEN COLLEGE VULGARIA, 258-263

Apparently, there was a “war of the grammarians.” Do we teach English grammar in English? In Latin? Do we teach Latin with Latin? If so, how? And who? Or, do we teach Latin using English? Tyndale had been at Magdalen Hall for 10 years while experiments and debates were to be had. Varied teaching books survive. The struggle was to translate “neither too high nor too low” (258).

Whatever the impact, Tyndale had a “registry of phrases just above the level of common speech” (258). This much, he was an exploratory connoisseur of words.

Prof. Daniell registers his familiar theme regarding Tyndale, Coverdale and the progeny of translations: “short, punchy Saxon forms,” clear and powerful verbs, and subject-verb-object forms. While Shakespeare never feared a good Latinized line, he often would alternate with a quick, punchy Saxon line in parallelistic clarification.

QUEEN MARY 1, 263-264

No English Bibles were printed during her reign (1553-1558). No surprises there. That was standard English policy from 1401 until Henry’s Great Bible, some 140 plus years. And even with its publication and distribution of the Great Bible with Cranmer's wonderful Preface, there were reversals, e.g. “pay and obey, but don’t read and think” in a few monumentally absurd proclamations by Henry and Parliament. Now, Cardinal Pole, an Anglo-Italian, had been out of country for 34 years. Mary recalled him. He advocated for the revival of the 1401 Act of De Haeretico Comburendo. Close to 300 were burned at the stake.

John Rogers was her first victim. Rogers was Tyndale’s friend, collaborator, and maker of the Thomas Matthew’s Bible (again, renamed as a theologico-political screen for Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s works and names). These were picked up by Henry as the Great Bible and it was now awash throughout the land. Rogers was burned at Smithfield on 11 FEB 1555. Prof. Daniell offers this quote:

“…with heroic fortitude. Even Catholic [=Anglo-Italians, not Reformed Catholics] opponents said so. The godly who had gathered wept and prayed God to give him courage to bear the pain and not to recant. Rogers’ ashes were collected, a martyr’s relics, and some seeing birds fly over as he expired thought this a sign of the Holy Ghost” (264).

Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer would be caught in the dragoons’ dragnets in the effort to extinguish God’s Gospel. The Anglo-Italian demons were roiling and raging.

800 Reformed Churchmen sailed the Channel to the Continent as fugitives and exiles for the Biblical faith, including some significant Biblical scholars. Mary’s policy did not extinguish the true faith nor did it advance the Anglo-Italian, Imperial or Roman-Vatican cause. The day of the English Bible had arrived and was to stay.

BIBLE READING, 264-268

Prof. Daniell will give portraits.

Richard Tracy, for example, wrote King Henry VIII in 1544. It is entitled A Supplication to our most Sovereign Lord King Henry VIII.  He argued that the Romanish conventicles [our word for them] had only been able to stand through the suppression of the vernacular Bibles. While the Great Bible was going into the 9000 national churches, Parliament had passed a proclamation warning that the “lower classes” were not to read the Bible” (264). But, the reality was outstripping Anglo-Italian imperialism. The Bible had seeped into the national life and was being read.

We return to the story of William Maldon of Chelmsford. A.W. Pollard, the Cranmer scholar, tells the story:

“…divers poor men of the town of Chelmsford in the county of Essex where my father dwelt and I born and with him brought up, the said poor men bought the New Testament of Jesus Christ and on Sundays did sit reading in the lower end of the church, and many would flock about them to hear their reading, then I came among the said readers to hear their reading of that glad tidings of the gospel, then my father seeing this that I listened to them every Sunday, then came he and sought me among them, and brought me away from the hearing of them and would have me say the Latin matins with him, the which grieved me very much, and thus did fetch me away divers times, then I see I could not be in rest, then I thought, I will learn to read English, and then I will have the New Testament and read thereon myself, and then I had learned of an English primer as far as patris sapientia and then on Sundays I plied my English primer, the Maytide following I and my father’s apprentice Thomas Jeffary laid our money together, and bought the New Testament in English, and hid it in our bedstraw and so exercised it at convenient times” (265).

A few self-evident observations: (1) The NT had surfaced in a parish 40 miles NE of London. (2) Sunday evenings were the occasion for the readings (following Latin-based services). (3) Apparently, many illiterates were gathered, but one amongst them could read. (4) Maldon was an illiterate, but resolved to learn to read English from a primer. (5) From the story, this was a continuing endeavor on his part. Reformed and Confessional Churchman call it the "due and ordinary means of grace." (6) The father was not pleased. (6) He buys a NT himself and “exercises” himself with/in it. Prof. Daniell refers to fights with his mother and father over it.

Prof. Daniell warms again to his frequent theme: many print-runs of the Tyndale, Coverdale Bibles and NTs for the English public, notwithstanding efforts to roll back the movement.

There is evidence for large assemblies doing this, which is, gathering for Bible reading. Some were so large that even Mary did not disrupt the practice: two notable illustrations come from a large parish in Bristol and one in London. It would appear that reading might occur provided there were no theological statements or reflections contrary to Anglo-Italian theology. But, the cat was out of the bag.

Here is one example of an assembly.

“We begin with prayer; after, read some one or two chapters of the Bible, give the sense thereof, and confer upon the same: that done, we lay aside our books, and after solemn prayer by the first speaker, he propoundeth some text out of the Scripture, and prophesieth [=teacheth, speaketh forth] out of the same by space of one hour or three quarters of an hour. After him standeth up a second speaker… [he is followed similarly by] the third, the fourth, the fifth, etc. as the time will give leave. Then the first speaker concludeth with prayer as he began with prayer, with an exhortation to contribution to the poor, which collection being made, is also concluded with a prayer. This morning exercise beginneth at eight of the clock and continueth until twelve of the clock. The like course and exercise is observed in the afternoon from two of the clock unto five or six of the clock. Last of all the business of the government of our church is handled” (267).

Unfortunately, Prof. Daniell does not date this record. This might be what Elizabeth had in mind regarding “prophesyings,” although the evidence for that appeared to be directed at Presbyters doing similarly. This appears to be a Congregationalist affair.

BIBLE REFERENCES BY INDIVIDUALS, 266-267

The Reformation was an “intellectual event” led by university men from the top of the academic food chain. It drew laymen into its orbit and gave them a new liberty. Many “ordinary people were bewildered…from their normal moorings” (267). But all the Reformers “wanted a nation of Bible readers” and for “all of England to be a university” in which “ploughboys and milkmaids sang the Scripture as they worked” (267). The Reformers did maintain the “authority of the Bible and control of its interpretation never more so than the Geneva Bible” (268), a note revealing Prof. Daniell's Dissenter roots.

Prof. Daniell returns to more illustrations of the commoner and the Bible.

1. Rawlins White of Cardiff, an illiterate fisherman, burned at the stake in 1555. Cardiff is about 150 miles from London and about 9 o'clock as the crow flies. The Bible was in a fisherman's home. He sent his son to school to learn to read English; they were Welsh-speakers. The boy read the English Bible at night. This indicates that the English Bible was to be had far outside London. The man became seriously literate—in terms of the readings—and was able to cite “chapter and leaf” (267).

2. John Maundrel was burned at Salisbury. Salisbury is about 90 miles from London at about 8 o'clock as the crow flies. He was illiterate too. But, he bought and owned a pocket-sized Tyndalian NT. He would ask anyone who could read to read to him. He too learned to cite and quote the Bible.

3. Joan Waste was a blind woman in Derby. Derby is about 130 miles from London at about 11 o'clock as the crow flies. She too bought a NT. She had others read it to her. She had sections memorized. She was burned at the stake in 1558.

4. Mrs. Prest of Exeter. Exeter is this scribe's ancestral home on mother's side. It is about 200 miles at about 8 o'clock as the crow flies. She was illiterate too, but attended readings and learned much by it. She was burned at the stake in Exeter in 1558.

5. A.G. Dickens in his English Reformation gives examples of youths who could read, did read, and were put to the stake.

Prof. Daniell again repeats his oft-made statement. Between 1536 (when Tyndale was strangled and roasted in Belgium) and 1549 (when the English Book of Common Prayer and English Bible were required in 9000 churches) was a meagre 13-14 years.

Despite the Anglo-Italian reversals of the 1540s, new forces were at work. Cranmer began studying liturgical example as his library at Lambeth reveals. He was absorbing Continental developments and scholarship. He chaired meetings at Windsor and Chertsey to review “phrasing and many other collects” (274).

To close off the chapter, Prof. Daniell offers two Cranmerian collects to show the force of the Saxon effort, the clear and direct language for use in national prayers:

1. The 21st Sunday After Trinity

“Grant we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people, pardon and peace: that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind: through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

We would offer that Prayer Book doctrine and piety makes no room for the rampant noises of modern charismania or the free-wingers in worship. People kneel and beseech the divine mercies.

2. The 4th Sunday after Easter drawn from the 4th century Gelasian Sacramentary

“O Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they many love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise: that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of this world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found: through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

There are reasons to be a Reformed Prayer Book Churchman.

Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (Ch 14) Edward VI (1547-1553)

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

 
Chapter 14—Toward the Reign of Edward VI, 1547-1553, pages 221-247

Prof. Daniell’s discussion entails the following elements: (1) directions for a reformation brewing since 1528, (2) Anglo-Roman-Italian reversals of reforms, (3) Edward VI, (4) Old Testament kings, (5) Monarchs and the “Two Regiments” (spirituals and temporals), (6) Edward VI as Josiah, (7) the enriching effects of Josiah, (8) those English Bibles again, and (9) contrary to Romanist and Tractarian historians (airbrush artists), the English Reformation was not a failure.

As the discussion develops towards Edward VI, 1547-1553, it should not be forgotten that Tyndale’s NTs, notwithstanding repressive English efforts, were still rolling off Continental presses. Furthermore, there were no further significant translation-tweaks to the Great Bible of 1540 until the efforts on the Geneva Bible, beginning in 1557 and going to the press in 1560, a reproduction with slight annotations. The Geneva Bible (1560, 1576, 1599), notwithstanding historical revisionists (airbrush artists), was an influential Bible in England for 100 years and, then, it reached the “creeks and coastal plains of America” (221); the Geneva Bible was a rich source book for personal and private lives. As said before, the toothpaste was not going back into the tube.

DIRECTIONS THAT THE REFORMATION SHOULD TAKE, c. 1528, pages 221-226

Tyndale was forward-looking. One strong clue comes from Tyndale’s printer, at one moment under the influence of alcohol. Tyndale had Miles Coverdale and the Observant friar William Roy as assistants in translation work. Peter Quesnell, an eminent publisher who would print any respectable volume of any persuasion, including Tyndale, took to too much wine. He had been drinking too much. “Under the influence” Quesnell told Cochlaeus (John Dobneck), a vitriolic and virulent anti-Lutheran in search of heretics...Quesnell revealed “the secret by which England was to be brought over to the side of Luther” (143). That was red-meat; it still is red-meat to Tractarians and even liberals. The Bible and Bible doctrines were vital and Tyndale knew it, like Luther. While Anglo-Italian leaders were fighting brushfires in the 1520s in England (e.g. Bp. John Fisher and Henry VIII), notably in London, Cambridge and Oxford, Tyndale was hovering over, digging in, thinking about, and being controlled by the constant inrush, overflow and immersion in the Biblical text. That begins to shape doctrine, worship and piety. Tyndale was miles beyond the imaginative powers of the majorities of Anglo-Italian leaders. An English Bible in the nation would force far too many--again, far too many--unappreciated, probing, penetrating—and even mocking—questions of the corrupted Anglo-Italian leaders literally “hell-bent” on control and darkness.

Many examples could be cited. A discussion of good and bad kings with applications to Popes, Bishops and Kings could invite unpleasant conflicts. Or, more simply, a little matter: WHAT? Married clergymen like the apostles? 1 Cor. 9.5? As one sheriff in one shire said upon reading that, “What? The Bible is heresy.” These are two, but there are far, far more. The power of the whole Bible, God’s Word, was feared; it still is; that’s why we get “driplet-droplet” theologies of Marcionism, continuing Romanism (masters of the selective quotation system with centuries of practice), liberalism, and modern day evangelicalism (think shallow music, liturgy and more).

Tyndale (like Cranmer later) saw the “power of the Scripture” (122). Few understand Cranmer's childlike and implicit power in the unvarnished reading of the Scriptures. This point about Cranmer rarely gets mentioned. Luther had the same conviction.

This applied to Kings (and Pope’s) as well, still a revolutionary message...the relationship to the rank-and-file governed by Scripture. One doesn't get the right to abuse Christ's sheep. Here’s Tyndale:

“…the people are God’s, and not theirs: yeah, are Christ’s inheritance and possession, bought with His blood. The most despised person in the realm is the king’s brother and fellow-member with him in the kingdom of God and of Christ” (222).

Hiding, stealing and obfuscating “the Word of God” was a constant theme of all Reformers. Notwithstanding all Thomas More's intemperate chest-pounding in strenuous opposition to English Bibles (and John Fishers and other Anglo-Roman-
Italians), again, from Tyndale:

“Judge whether it be possible that any good come out of their dumb ceremonies and sacraments unto thy soul. Judge their penance, pilgrimages, pardons, purgatory, praying to posts, dumb blessings, dumb absolutions, their dumb pattering, and howling, their dumb strange holy gestures, with all their dumb disguisings, their satisfactions and justifyings” (223).

“Dumb” means Latin throughout.

It’s worth re-reading the quote slowly. Tyndale has the indubitably clear sense that Latin-illiterate throngs faced “dumbness” from the Anglo-Italian imperialists.

“Dumbness” was sought, advocated and defended.

What good comes of that "dumbness" asked Tyndale? Ignorance was the name of the game. It kept the "swine" from "trodding the Gospel underfoot" to quote one Anglo-Roman-Italian.

Forcing such ignorance, dumbness and theft of God’s Word was, to Tyndale, the act of antichrists. His marginal note at 1 John 2.1 indicates such—antichrists. “…even now there are many antichrists come already” as Tyndale translates it. He lays into the money-schemes of Rome including the enormously wealthy English monasteries. Modern ecumenists cannot handle such an idea of an antichrist in religious leadership, or the Devil, or demons or humans in enslaved bondage to them (airbrush Eph. 2.1, John 8.44, Mt. 13 out of the text for example); that is beyond their ken, too rude...too un-Western and too un-advanced. It's not fit for country-club Republicans or modern professors of literature, history and theology. Not so for Tyndale.

The “dumbness” would be cured by English Bibles. Again, Tyndale was immersed in the text.

On the simplest and even more complex levels of Bible reading...rude, probing and awakening questions would indicate greed, pomp, avarice, power-grabbing, arrogance, wealth, theft, anger and more—even architecturally with penance-indulgence funds—dem' big bucks—underwriting construction-artistic developments at (Anti-) St. Peter’s in Rome. The Bible would expose such things (a Wycliffite theme). Rome was running a Ponzi-scheme, Peter's pence and all, like TBN.  Those rude observations by St. Paul about leaders not being covetous for wealth were unwelcomed notes. Calvin would call it "fleecing the sheep." Luther saw it with the indulgence trafficking.

On the simple or more complex reading of the Bible, Tyndale is also scathing about Anglo-Italian liturgical superstitions and power-abuses (still a feature with Tractoes, liturgical martinets and fundamentalists, "righta' lefta' right").

Again, from Tyndale:

“If any of them happen to swallow his spittle, or any of the water wherewith he washeth his mouth, ere he go to mass: or touch the sacrament with his nose: or if the ass [ = Tyndale’s word for priest, emphasis added] forget to breathe on him [Tyndale’s meaning the bread or the chalice], or happen to handle it with any of his fingers which are not anointed, or say Alleluia instead of Laus tibi Domine or Ite missa est instead of Benedictamus Domino or pour too much wine in the chalice, or read the gospel without light, or make not his crosses aright, how trembleth he! How feareth he! What an horrible sin is committed! I cry God mercy, saith he, and you my ghostly father. But to hold an whore, or another man’s wife, to buy a benefice, to set one realm at variance with another, and to cause twenty thousand men to die on one day, is but a trifle and a pastime with them” (224).

Or, on Anglo-Italian arrogance...the desires to inflict ignorance on the people (Latin services on the Latin illiterate throngs), and anti-Pauline theology, again from Tyndale:

“What then saith the pope? What care I for Paul? I command by virtue of obedience to read the gospel in Latin. Let them no pray but in Latin, no, not their Pater noster. If any be sick, go also and say them a gospel, and all in Latin…It is verily as good to preach it to swine as to men if thou preach it in a tongue they understand not. How shall I believe the truth and promises which God hath sworn, while thou tellest them unto me in a tongue which I understand not” (225)?

Or, again, on a simple or complex reading of the entire Bible, a simple person could easily discern world-consuming preoccupations and the unwarranted wealth relative to ministerial duties, again from Tyndale:

“To preach God’s word is too much for half a man: and to minister a temporal kingdom is too much for half a man also. Either other requireth an whole man. One therefore cannot well do both. He that avengeth himself on every trifle is not meet to preach the patience of Christ...He that is overwhelmed with all manner riches and doth but seek more daily not meet to preach poverty…” (226).

There are many themes—including theological ones, like Romans—that Bible reading would confront. Where's purgatory or indulgences?  Tyndale frequently noted: "...the pope sells what Christ gives freely."

Upon a simple or complex reading of Scriptures, one very simple theme was married clerks in collision with the authority of the Anglo-Italians and Continental Papists legislating mandatory celibacy; the Papists still require it. A simple reading must deal with such. It illustrates the continued arrogance of the senior clerk in Rome. Again, from Tyndale on marriage:

“He must have a wife for two causes. One, that it may thereby be known who is meet for the room. He is apt for so chargeable an office, which had never household to rule. Another cause is that chastity is an exceeding seldom gift, and unchastity exceeding perilous for that degree [position], inasmuch as the people look as well unto living as unto the preaching, and are hurt at once if the living disagree, and fall from the faith, and believe not the word” (226).

Married clergy were shockers to (some) Elizabethans. Even Elizabeth, rather un-Reformed on this point, was still in the Romanist grip of her past; she acquiesced for peace, but still did not like married clerks including Mrs. Grindal, the wife of the second Canterbury working for her.

UNDOING REFORMS, 226-229

As the monasteries were being dissolved, Bibles were going into the parishes of England. A “Bishops’ Book” in 1537 was published in great numbers. There were also Anglo-Italian works from the press, e.g. The Institution of Christian Men, expounding the 7 sacraments, Lord’s Prayer, Ave Maria, purgatory, papal authority and Rome’s definition of justification. It was a counter-reformation move. But, these volumes were in English...itself a shift, itself an indication of the need to counter growing sympathies for reform.

The Parliamentary Act, 1539, of "Six Articles" was a “weighty counter-move back to Rome” (227). The Jesuits had formed-up to support the senior clerk in Rome “against heresy.” The Articles were to be enforced “upon pain of death.” 

We ask, quite vigorously, where was Canterbury Cranmer? Was this one of those points where he capitulated? Cranmer hid his wife and kept his position, Latimer resigned his see, and Coverdale fled. 

Robert Barnes burned at Smithfield on 30 JUL 1540.

"The Six Articles" asserted: transubstantiation, communion in one kind, mandatory celibacy, necessity of monastic vows (unbreakable including vows of chastity and allegiance to the senior clerk in Rome), private and propitiatory masses for the departed, and mandatory auricular confession. The Anglo-Italians were on the move and the “power was shifting” (227).

Other Anglo-Italian moves:

1. Publication of the King’s Book

2. Publication of The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, both of these volumes supported in 1543 by the Parliament. This volume was for the “advancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the contrary,” making it a crime for any “unlicensed person” to “read the Bible to himself or others” (227). 

It proscribed “the crafty, false and untrue translation of Tyndale” although it was embedded in the Great Bible--a laughable fact. A monumental absurdity.

By 1540, the 1526 NT by Tyndale, the 1534 NT by Tyndale, ½ of the OT by Tyndale, Coverdale’s 1535 of the entire Bible, Coverdale’s minor tweaks of the 1537 Thomas Matthew’s Bible (Coverdale but renamed as a screen) and the Great Bible (again, by incorporation, containing the previous works) was going to 9000 parishes. Henry and the Parliament were acting with monumental absurdity and incoherence.

3. But, these moves were blows to the German Lutherans who had, increasingly, looked to Henry VIII to lead a “united Protestant front” against Anglo-Romanism and Romanism. Cranmer and even Tunstall had entertained 3 German reformer-delegates at Lambeth for 1 year. "The Six Articles" and government's counter-reformation moves ended the effort.

4. Yet, Henry VIII issued his Proclamation to “set up the largest and greatest Bible in every church” with the admonition to “avoid contention and altercation” (228).

5. An effort in 1542 to revise the Great Bible in the direction of greater Latinity came to nothing. For example, the great opponent of the English translations was Stephen Gardiner of Winchester (remember his running interference for the Pope in Paris while Coverdale was working on print-runs); if you couldn’t win on English Bibles, you could blow smoke and obfuscate; old Steve imported 132 odd-ballish words at key points: commilitio, lites, panis propositiones, digragma, ejicere, increpari, zizania, and a 100 more. Or, in the baptism of Christ, this gem for the lay-swine: “…this is my dilect son in whom complacui…” That'll teach em!'

6. Henry VIII issued a Proclamation in 1546 that “no man or woman of what estate, condition, or degree was…to receive, have, take or keep, Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s New Testaments…” Large numbers were collected and burned at St. Paul’s by the Anglo-Italian senior clerk of London, old Bonner. All of this ran against the explicit sense of poor Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible.

7. But, as we’ve noted, this was all quite a howler! F.F. Bruce called Henry VIII’s Proclamation a “monumental piece of absurdity” (229). Tyndale and Coverdale were already in the Great Bible now in many parishes. But, we can imagine the “chilling effect” upon the people—the fears. "Pay and obey, but don't read or think."

8. The real issue for the Anglo-Italians: control of the Bible and shielding parishioners from pervasive involvement with the Bible. They were “driplet-droplet theologians,” then like now. Like Jesus' Parable of the Sower, the Devil "stealing" the sown seed.

KING EDWARD VI, 229-230

Henry VIII mercifully and blessedly died--like all mortals--on time in JAN 1547. "The Six Articles" were repealed. Edward VI would accede to the throne on JAN 1547. The availability of Bibles—oh oh--an upswing without Royal opposition. Soon, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer would be put forward, an advance in one sense—English services nationwide and the reversal of the Anglo-Italian policies legislating darkness and ignorance. Martin Bucer would help Cranmer towards the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. The Anglo-Italians did not disappear; they would resurface with a furious and fire-like vengeance and a definite agenda in 1553-1558.

Roman and Tractarian analyses dub the English Reformation a failure. More largely, denial also accrues by means of neglect—a strong force to this day. Academic analyses often engage: politics, selective theological themes, selective focus on some recusant parishes and church wardens’ records, selective figures—and often on the “destructive forces” or the English Reformation as a “destroyer of religion.” It is near-wise always denied that English Bibles was a major factor in the English Reformation.

THIS PROBABLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE TEC, COE, and the ACNA-Tracto efforts at obfuscation, revision and denial. Prof. Daniell’s said new and scholarly efforts are needed in modern times to answer the rages of neglect and denial

Laying blame at the feet of Romanist and Anglo-Italian (Tractarian) historians, Diarmaid MacCulloch wrote in 1999:

“A negative image of Edwardean religion has prevailed since the early nineteenth century, the result of disapproval from both Romans Catholics and (within the Church of English itself) Anglo-Catholics. The distinguished Anglo-Catholic church historian Bishop Walter Frere would speak for many when in 1910 he contemplated the six years after 1547 and dismissed them as the `lowest depths to which the English church has ever sunk’…[recent historians] have echoed that dismissal…as an unmitigated disaster imposed by alien forces, wrecking not just the beauty of the parish church but also the intricate and orderly structure of village life and the financial system which sustained it…In 1957, another prominent Anglo-Catholic, Fr Humphrey Whistler (like Frere, a member of the Community of the Resurrection) produced an engaging little pamphlet on the Reformation which was intended as an exercise in ecumenism between Roman Catholics and Anglicans, picking up the pieces of misunderstanding from the sixteen century…In this we hear one solution to the problem of the Edwardian Reformation, simply to deny it any part in the Church of England story…Fr Whistler was completely silent on the first half-century of the English Reformation” (230).

It’s just bad history-writing, agenda-driven history-writing, replete with hate, denial and hostilities, the Tractarians contribution to the late 19th and 20th centuries that still live.

Again, more from Prof. MacCulloch and the power of the Old Testament fueling Edwardean reforms:

“The rebuilt Church [under Edward] was evangelical in essence. The assignment for evangelicals was a treasure hunt for the evangelion, the good news to be found in the New Testament…Yet spokesmen for the Edwardean revolution were also drawn to the Old Testament, where they could view other kingdoms, battling against great odds to hear the message of God. Henry VIII had already enjoyed posing as one or other of the two great success stories in Israelite politics, David and Solomon. However, in the turbulence of his son’s revolution, other kings of Israel and Judah entered the stage, because they were more urgently scripted to act as a warning or encouragement” (230).

We would add that these images would be taken up by Elizabeth, James, Charles and Royal supremacists including our good friend, Billy-goat Laud of Canterbury—who never saw a sermon he couldn’t shape like a wax nose against anything Reformed.

Englishmen were reading history scripted to the OT. It was the stuff of reform.

Calvin and Luther relied on the magistrates for reforms. So did the divines of the Westminster Assembly. Elijah was a favored story of Ahab and Jezebel and their Baalite priests. Elijah put forth the mocking question, “Why halt ye between two opinions?” (an apposite question for ACNA-Bob). Now, history could read like a “tick-tock” of good and bad rulers—raising uncomfortable questions for kings. Holinshed’s Chronicles and Foxe's Acts and Monuments would be found in many Elizabethan homes—Shakespeare would draw on the former. Oh no! Could there be "bad popes," "bad kings," "bad bishops" or "bad clerks?" Who needs those questions thought the power-brokers, then, like now.

MONARCHS AND “THE TWO REGIMENTS,” 235-238

The “power of the monarch under God” played a large role with the Reformers.

Tyndale’s Obedience (1528), Practice of Prelates (1530), and his Exposition on V, VI, VII Matthew (1533) dealt with the role of the monarch as did Simon Fish’s exhilarating Supplication of Beggars (1529), a volume that charmed Henry VIII.

John Frith, Robert Barnes, John Bale and later Cranmer himself were all loyal Henricians.

There were “two regiments,” the temporals and spirituals. A new force is what we would call the "insofar clause." That is, we obey the temporals "insofar" as they do not require unlawful compliance to unbiblical issues.

Tyndale had given thought to these things.

1. On the one hand, some have seen his Obedience as a profound argument for the control of a nation’s religion by the King, or Caesaro-papism, or Erastianism. Cuius region, cuius religio. That was the order of the day for all nations, not just England.

2. On the other hand, Tyndale in his Exposition on V, VI, VII Matthew (1533) said: “…The clergy have so ruffled the temporal to the spiritual together” and have “made such confusion that no man can know the one from the other…” This had been long in the making, going backwards to Rome’s Unam Sanctum...or to Thomas a Becket's engagements with the English king...or to Charlemagne bowing his head to receive the crown...or to Constantine convoking the Nicene Council.

3. Tyndale did not know how to see them easily distinguished: “…we cannot separate them into two watertight compartments” (237).

4. Yet, for Tyndale and reformers, the King must obey the Scriptures.

5. Even early American legal textbooks abounded with Biblical references; the early New England Puritans did not easily distinguish the lines either; theonomists like the 2-stepping-REC Ray, before his more recent iteration in favor of Tractos, called for the total subjection of the temporals to the OT spirituals including Mosaic Law. Or, even the Presbyterians and the Reformed had to amend their Erastian elements in their confessions. The Covenanter Presbyterians around Pittsburg still assert Christ over crown and the Solemn League and Covenant, but we digress.

EDWARD VI AS JOSIAH AND ENRICHING EFFECTS, 238-243

Edward VI was viewed as:

1. Josiah, 2 Kings 22-23 and 2 Chron. 34-35, a young king with a “burning and growing zeal for the LORD” (239)

2. Josiah, commendably “gathering officials” for reform

3. Josiah, who “swept away corruptions” and “sacrifices to the Canaanite gods” (239).

Prof. Daniell returns and rewarms his constant theme.
 
But, the standard histories on Edward never mention the growing role and force of the English Bible. The historians “slight,” stand “aloof,” or treat the “Bible like an unwelcome relative glimpsed at the far end of a room” (240). Prof. Daniell’s has already identified the Romanists and Anglo-Romanists as culprits; one might wish to see an analysis of the impact of the 19th-20th century liberalism as a co-enabler in the addiction to historical revisionism; mix in some secularism and other modern forces and one gets amnesia in some sectors and denial in others.

The question still survives. The Enlightenment appealed to natural law (whatever that means as identified by fallen sinners).

Yet, having said all that, for years, decades and centuries, in England and worldwide Anglicanism, an infant grew up heard the Book of Common Prayer and the English Bible. He or she heard that throughout their years, even if the cleric was boring holes in the theology of the Bible, Prayer Book or Articles. It still goes on, for example, at King's College, Cambridge.

The question arises: how can the role of the Bible be neglected in standard and modern histories? That’s Prof. Daniell’s probing question. He continues to repeat this point.

Prof. Daniell points to two telling volumes that speak to the issue: Margaret Ashton's England’s Iconclasts, 1: Laws against Images (1988) and The King’s Bedpost (1993). In these two books, she offers historical portraits of the figures around Edward and their “use of the Old Testament kings in European Reformation documents.” She points to Elizabeth’s Book of Homilies which commended the good kings of Judah. She notes that Edward as Josiah was reading the law, restoring the nation, destroying false religion and doing the will of God by rebuilding the nation (241).

Prof. Daniell raises the Roman and Anglo-Roman (within the Church of England) complaints against those who “mourn the destruction of the great monasteries under Henry VIII” and the “cultural disaster” (242). This is the theme of the Johnny-one-notes. They sing this in varied keys. If we've heard it once, we've heard it a few dozen times. The iconclasts painted over wall paintings and put up Bible verses instead.  We get it. Prof. Daniell rightly laments the scattering of Latin manuscripts to the wind; hah, they learned it, however, from the Romanists themselves, skilled in the very invective and animosities of many burnings of Bibles, books...and burnings of people too. Thomas More believed the "burnings" would purge the land. Little mention is made of the “grip of wealth,” the transfer of wealth from England to Rome, or the varied frauds perpetrated on the simple, naïve and gullible, e.g. the “blood of Christ at Hailes Abbey” to mention one. Or, the manipulation of the people through fear of purgatory or the control of the nation from Rome. Or, conversely, the flowering of a Reformation flood of culture, music, art, language, literature and high scholarship—Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton and others.

ENGLISH MONARCHS AS OLD TESTAMENT KINGS, 243-244

Up to the 1660s, the Royals of the time were frequently seen as a David, most notably with Henry VIII, but also James 1 through Charles II. “David, Solomon, and Josiah were united in Edward: but so were Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Jehu and Antiochus” (244). One scholar, commenting on the 16th century Reformer John Bale, and the view of 2 Sam. 16 and the cursing of David, said:

“…did not think kings should be seen as immune to the criticism of their subject, at least not the godly ones…allusions are made to Henry VIII’s ideological heritage with a whole series of bad kings from the Old Testament…part of the false church of Antichrist: `with such holy counsellors [sic]…nowadays Ioram, Achab, Ochosias, Ioachim, Zekeikiah and other kings more of Israel and Juda deceived and brought into the great indignation of God’s Writers [sic]l and preachers expected the king and their other readers to back to the Bible and read about the exemplars they mentioned” (244).

The issue is not so easily dismissed. One thinks of the Christian right, middle and left still bringing their moral perspectives to the political arena; the Pope still weighs in on geo-political issues.

ENGLISH BIBLES, 245-246

In an impressive section, Prof. Daniell retells a favorite point: print-runs and the ubiquity of the English Bible. 21 years between Tyndale’s 1526 NT and King Edward VI’s accession in JAN 1547, there were 64 editions (different editions, not fresh printings) of the “whole Bible in English” (245). Yet, in this same period there were no Latin Bibles printed on English presses, although there were 22 across Europe.

This fact is “impressive” given the opposition from Henry VIII and Anglo-Italian clerks (245). The printers had confidence in the “buying public” (245).

A math check. Each print-run = 2000 volumes. That means 120, 000 Bibles printed. One may subtract the 9000 parishes getting an English Bible. That leaves 111, 000 English Bibles for the people.

The nation in this period, on Prof. Daniell’s claim, was about 2.5 million people.

If we assume each family had five people—husband, wife and 3 children—we divide 2.5 million by 5 and get 500, 000 homes. If correct, that’s 1 Bible—roughly—for every 5 familes in the land.

As noted before, ENGLAND WAS AWASH WITH THE ENGLISH BIBLE. That cannot be airbrushed or diminished by historians.

Nailing his point further, Prof. Daniell claims that during Edward VI’s reign, 1547-1553, the whole Bible had 40 print runs at 2,000 per run producing 80, 000 more Bibles. Further, during these 6 years, there were no Latin Bibles produced either.

Or, adding 80,000 and 111, 000, we get 190, 000 English Bibles for 500, 000 homes, about 40% of English homes.

Roman and Anglo-Italian (Tractarian) revisers do not address these issues, given their “driplet-droplet” theologies and earnest wishes to airbrush history. Do Tractarians do exegetical homilies on Romans? Or Pauline theology?

Also, atop all the Bibles, don’t forget the masses singing the metrical Psalters or praying in English Collects and more. Prof. Daniell makes his points.

THE ENGLISH REFORMATION WAS NOT A FAILURE, 246-247

Prof. Daniell draws attention to a quote from the "Calendar of State Papers." The Imperial Ambassador, Van de Delft, during Edward VI’s reign, wrote that he was repeatedly—even unwillingly—impressed by the strong impact of the English Reformation “on the common people” who “turned against tradition religion” because of the “preaching” based on the text and the direct style (247).

An interesting side-note, is undeveloped but is noted by the Professor. Englishmen took Bibles to church to follow the reading and check the sermon references. These days, one never sees an English Bible in the hands of an American Episcopalian although many have a leather-bound 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The RSV is read in driplet-droplet-or-chunkette fashion, but not whole chapters.

In the days of Edward VI, the sermons weren’t 20-minute homilies either.

The massiveness of the revolution of English Bibles and English Books of Common Prayer cannot be missed by neglect, denial or revisionism.

Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" Coverdale's 5 Bibles & Life

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

Chapter 13-The Great Bible, 198-220, pages 198-220

Prof. Daniell continues his discussion of Coverdale: (1) Coverdale back in London, (2) “Matthew’s Bible” for revision, (3) the “Great Bible,” (4) the Title-Page of the Great Bible,” (5) the text, (6) Coverdale’s further life, (5) Coverdale’s second exile, 1540-1547, (6) Coverdale as the Bishop of Exeter, 1551-1553, (7) and Coverdale’s third exile, 1553-1559.

We place the summary upfront: (1) godly and upright, (2) high demand for the pulpit near-wise everywhere, (3) friend and collaborator in Bible translation activity with Tyndale and others, (4) sufferer through multiple exiles, (5) diligent bishop in Exeter, (6) persistent in Exile, (7) faithful in exile, (8) industrious scholar, (9) well-schooled in the Bible, and (10) an integral player in getting the English Bible into 9000 parishes, obstacles notwithstanding. We’ll repeat this at the end since this is an under-appreciated Churchman in the Catholic (=Reformed) Church of England.

We resume the storyline.

COVERDALE IN LONDON, 198-199

By the end of 1535, Coverdale was back in England. While there, he produces a metrical Psalter; he also imported some German hymns. By 1535, Thomas Gibson produced a Concordance to the New Testament based on Tyndale and Coverdale’s Bible (remember Tyndale is languishing in prison in Vilvoorde prison, outside Brussels).

Cromwell, the vice-regent for ecclesiastical affairs, was preparing the machinery to get Bibles into all parishes. On 4 AUG 1537, Cranmer wrote Cromwell advising that he liked the “Thomas Matthew’s” Bible better than all others. It was a political fig-leaf. Both knew that Tyndale and Coverdale were the authors embedded in the “Thomas Matthew’s Bible,” essentially a re-named Bible as a screening action from the Anglo-Italians; the renamed Bible was the best way to get the English Bible into all 9000 churches. Sympathetic bishops were ordering their clerks to comply. 1500 were printed.

THOMAS MATTHEW’S BIBLE TO BE REVISED, 200-201

Cromwell and Cranmer proposed a “revision of the Thomas Matthew’s Bible” (200). It was large, prominent, and easy to read whether alone or to a crowd. Two London printers, Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch, entered into a cross-channel print-arrangement with a better equipped press in Paris. Most “marginal notes” were to be removed” (200), another effort to mollify Anglo-Italians. FEAR. THEN THE REAL HOWLER! Mile Coverdale himself was appointed as the reviser. The reviser of his own work. Ya’ can’t make it up! Oh the ironies. Tyndale, now dead, would have approved of the arrangement and would have been struck by the advances.

Coverdale “tweaked” the “non-Tyndale half of the Old Testament,” the part he translated, while keeping Tyndale’s New Testament and large portions of the Old Testament.

Cromwell issued his infamous Second Injunctions that “a Bible of the largest volume [hint, hint the new “Thomas Matthew’s Bible” which was big and which he knew would be understood] be set up in every parish by 1538” (200).

Coverdale went to Paris. In MAY 1538, the printing started. However, on 23 JUN 1538, the English ambassador (= Anglo-Italian bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner) began running interference with the French Inquisitors—a man ever hostile to an English vernacular for English parishes. Remember, the Italians kept this policy until the 1970s! Gardiner should have been in Winchester feeding his sheep the Word of God (think Acts 6.4 and Jn. 21) instead of pro-actively, like a Devil, stealing the Word of God from English parishes. Yet, the printing continued.

Cromwell’s Injunctions ordered these Bibles be into every parish by “All Saints’ Day” on 30 NOV 1538. Gardiner the Anglo-Italian, a man who’d make quite a name for himself under Bloody Mary, was working his angles in Paris. Bonner, the senior Anglo-Italian clerk of London, was working with the French court in London to sink the English Bible. GAME ON!

On 13 DEC 1538, the French Inquisitors in France “confiscated 2500 Bibles destined for England” (200). They were burned.

The French were getting pressure from Rome. On 24 DEC 1538, Papal instructions ordered that English Bibles be burned and the presses stopped. Now, you may see why we call English bishops anti-Reformed and Anglo-Italian in orientation…quite warrantable. “What Papa wants, Papa gets, right?”

But, the conflict continued.

By APR 1539, Cromwell directed the print presses at Grey Friars, London to start rolling. 3000 Bibles were produced. However, none sold. Cromwell’s power was slipping.

By MAR/APR 1540, however, the “great Injunctions” were being fulfilled. Gardiner, Tunstall and Bonner and the Duke of Norfolk were moving against Cromwell in Parliament. They led the charge to get the “Six Articles” and a uniformity act to be passed. As 9000 churches were beginning to get English Bibles, Cromwell was arrested on 10 JUN 1540 for “charges of heresy and treason. Cromwell was executed on 28 JUL 1540, without a trial. (And Cranmer was where?)

THE GREAT BIBLE, 204-205

The “Great Bible,” a minor tweak of the “Thomas Matthew’s Bible of 1537 done by Coverdale, itself renamed but essentially the Tyndale/Coverdale Bible. It may have earned its name from its size. It was 14 inches by 9 inches. Coverdale’s 1535 Bible was 11 inches by 7 inches. The Thomas Matthew’s Bible was 12 inches by 9 inches. The name may have come from Cromwell’s Injunctions to all churches to have “the holy bible [sic] of the largest volume” (204).

BIG PICTURE: political chaos in London, Tyndale’s 1526 NTs being “smuggled into England,” yet the “Great Bible” was going nationwide. And again, this Great Bible was Tyndalian.

THE GREAT BIBLE’S TITLE PAGE, 205

The title page is full, crowded and was produced by Hans Holbein the Younger. God was at the top “blessing the moment in history,” blessing Henry VIII (205). While a bit triumphalist, there is profound truth too. Scrolls are rolling forth from the heavens with Biblical texts:

Isaiah 55.11: 

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

Acts 13.22: 

“And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.”

Of course, old Harry was the David “after mine own heart,” playing to his Tudor sovereignty and massive ego. But notably, the central panel says: “The Bible in English,” precisely what cut across the 150-plus year hostility to such an idea in English royal, ecclesiastical and Parliament policy…including Rome’s historic policies with their police forces, the secular arm. The Devils were screaming “bloody murder!”

Henry is handing the Bible to Canterbury Cranmer on the right with the vice-regent, Thomas Cranmer, on the left. In accord with medieval feudalism, the “food chain,” the two subordinates, Cranmer and Cromwell, are handing smaller Bibles down the food chain. Henry is seen as the new Moses and new David “destroying enemies of the Lord” (205).

David (Henry) is slaying Goliath (the Pope) with a “single stone—the Word of God.” Yet, hint, hint…in time, what was brewing in that narrative, to wit, even Kings had to read and submit to the Bible. England was becoming a “sanctuary of Zion in freedom from the Pope and necessity of the Verbum Dei to everyone” (205).

THE TEXT OF THE GREAT BIBLE, 208-209

The irony of ironies was Coverdale revising his own 1535 Coverdale Bible and the Thomas Matthew’s Bible of 1537. He left Tyndale’s NT, Pentateuch and historical books alone. Though dead, Tyndale was speaking God’s Word in English from the grave. Coverdale tweaked his own work on the poetic and prophetic sections—about half of the Old Testament. He left his Psalter alone. The 2nd edition in 1540 has the famous Preface by Canterbury Cranmer. We reproduce it in full (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cranmer.html).

"A prologue or preface made by the most reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Metropolitan Primate of England

"FOR two sundry sorts of people, it seemeth much necessary that something be said in the entry of this book by the way of a preface or prologue, whereby hereafter it may be both the better accepted of them which hitherto could not well bear it, and also the better used of them which heretofore have misused it. For truly some there are that be too slow and need the spur, some other seem too quick, and need more of the bridle; some lose their game by short shooting, some by overshooting; some walk too much on the left hand, some too much on the right. In the former sort be all they that refuse to read or to hear read the scripture in the vulgar tongue; much worse, they that also let or discourage the other from the reading or hearing thereof. In the latter sort be they which by their inordinate reading, indiscrete speaking, contentious disputing, or otherwise by their licentious living, slander and hinder the word of God most of all other, whereof they would seem to be greatest furtherers. These two sorts, albeit they be most far unlike the one to the other, yet they both deserve in effect like reproach. Neither can I well tell whether of them I may judge the more offender: him that doth obstinately refuse so godly and goodly knowledge, or him that so ungodly and so ungoodly doth abuse the same. And as touching the former, I would marvel much that any man should be so mad, as to refuse in darkness, light; in hunger, food; in cold, fire. For the word of God is light: Lucerna pedibus meis, verbum tuum. (See Psalm 119) Thy word is a lantern unto my feet. It is food: Non in solo pane viuit homo, sed in omni verbo dei. (See Matthew 4) Man shall not live by bread only, but by every word of God. It is fire: Ignem veni mittere in tertam, & quid volo nisi vt ardeat? (See Luke 12) I am come to send fire on the earth, and what is my desire but that it be kindled? I would marvel (I say at this) save that I consider how much custom and usage may do. So that if there were a people as some write, de Cymeriis, which never saw the sun, by reason that they be situated far toward the North pole, and be enclosed and overshadowed with high mountains, it is credible and like enough, that if by the power and will of God, the mountains should sink down and give place, that the light of the sun might have entrance to them, at the first some of them would be offended therewith. And the old proverb affirmeth, that after tillage of corn was first found, many delighted more to feed of mast and acorns wherewith they had been accustomed, than to eat bread made of good corn. Such is the nature of custom, that it causeth us to bear all things well and easily wherewith we have been accustomed, and to be offended with all things thereunto contrary. And therefore I can well think them worthy pardon, which at the coming abroad of scripture doubted and drew back. But such as will persist still in their wilfulness, I must needs judge not only foolish, froward and obstinate, but also peevish, perverse, and indurate.

"And yet, if the matter should be tried by custom, we might also to allege custom for the reading of the scripture in the vulgar tongue, and prescribe the more ancient custom. For it is not much above one hundred years ago, since scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue within this realm. And many hundred years before that, it was translated and read in the Saxons' tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remain yet divers copies found lately in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking, that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.

"But now to let pass custom, and to weigh - as wise men ever should - the thing in his own nature: Let us here discuss what it availeth scripture to be had and read of the lay and vulgar people. And to this question I intend here to say nothing but that was spoken and written by the noble doctor and most moral divine, saint John Chrysostom in his third sermon de Lazaro; albeit, I will be something shorter, and gather the matter into fewer words and less room then he doth there, because I would not be tedious. He exhorteth there his audience, that every man should read by himself at home in the mean days and time, between sermon and sermon, to the intent they might both more profoundly fix in their minds and memories that he had said before upon such texts whereupon he had already preached, and also that they might have their minds the more ready and better prepared to receive and perceive that which he should say from thenceforth in his sermons, upon such texts as he had not yet declared and preached upon. Therefore saith he there, My common usage is to give you warning before what matter I intend after to entreat upon, that you yourselves in the mean days may take the book in hand, read, weigh, and perceive the sum and effect of the matter, and mark what hath been declared and what remaineth yet to be declared, so that thereby your mind may be the more furnished to hear the rest that shall be said. And that I exhort you (saith he) and ever have and will exhort you, that you not only here in the Church give ear to that that is said by the preacher, but that also when ye be at home in your houses, ye apply yourselves from time to time to the reading of holy scriptures, which thing also I never lin [i.e. spare] to beat into the ears of them that be my familiars, and with whom I have private acquaintance and conversation. Let no man make excuse and say (saith he), I am busied about matters of the commonwealth; I bear this office, or that; I am a craftsman, I must apply mine occupation. I have a wife, my children must be fed, my household must I provide for. Briefly, I am a man of the world. It is not for me to read the scriptures. That belongeth to them that have bidden the world farewell, which live in solitariness and contemplation, and have been brought up and continually nuzzled in learning and religion. To this answering, What sayest thou man? (saith he) Is it not for thee to study and to read the scripture, because thou art encumbered and distracted with cares and business? So much the more it is behoveful for thee to have defense of scriptures, how much thou art the more distressed in worldly dangers. They that be free and far from trouble and intermeddling of worldly things live in safeguard and tranquility, and in the calm, or within a sure haven. Thou art in the midst of the sea of worldly wickedness, and therefore thou needest the more of ghostly succor and comfort! They sit far from the strokes of battle, and far out of gunshot, and therefore they be but seldom wounded. Thou that standest in the forefront of the host, and nighest to thine enemies, must needs take now and then many strokes, and be grievously wounded, and therefore thou hast most need to have thy remedies and medicines at hand. Thy wife provoketh thee to anger; thy child giveth thee occasion to take sorrow and pensiveness; thine enemies lie in wait for thee; thy friend (as thou takest him) sometime envieth thee; thy neighbor misreporteth thee or picketh quarrels against thee; thy mate or partner undermineth thee; thy lord, judge, or justice, threateneth thee; poverty is painful unto thee; the loss of thy dear and well beloved causeth thee to mourn; prosperity exalteth thee, adversity bringeth thee low. Briefly, so divers and so manifold occasions of cares, tribulations, and temptations, beset thee and besiege thee round about. Where canst thou have armor or fortress against thine assaults? Where canst thou have salves for thy sores but of holy scripture?

"Thy flesh must needs be prone and subject to fleshly lusts, which daily walkest and art conversant among women, seest their beauties set forth to the eye, hearest their nice and wanton words, smellest their balm, chive, and musk, with many other like provocations and stirrings: except thou hast in a readiness wherewith to suppress and avoid them, which cannot elsewhere be had, but only out of the holy scriptures. Let us read and seek all remedies that we can, and all shall be little enough. How shall we then do, if we suffer and take daily wounds, and when we have done, will sit still and search for no medicines? Dost thou not mark and consider how the smith, mason, or carpenter, or any other handy craftsman, what need soever he be in, what other shift so ever he make, he will not sell nor lay to pledge the tools of his occupation. For then how should he work his feat, or get his living thereby? Of like mind and affection ought we to be towards holy scripture. For as mallets, hammers, saws, chisels, axes, and hatchets, be the tools of their occupation; so be the books of the prophets, and Apostles, and all holy writers inspired by the holy ghost, the instruments of our salvation. Wherefore let us not stick to buy and provide us the Bible, that is to say, the books of holy scripture; and let us think that to be a better jewel in our house than either gold or silver. For like as thieves be loth to assault an house where they know to be good armor and artillery, so wheresoever these holy and ghostly books be occupied, there neither the devil nor none of his angels dare come near. And they that occupy them be in much safeguard, and have a great consolation and be the readier unto all goodness, the slower unto all evil; and if they have done anything amiss, anon even by the sight of the books their consciences be admonished, and they wax sorry and ashamed of the fact.

"Peradventure they will say unto me, How and if we understand not that we read, that is contained in the books? What then? Suppose thou understand not the deep and profound mysteries of scriptures. Yet can it not be but that much fruit and holiness must come and grow unto thee by the reading, for it cannot be that thou shouldest be ignorant in all things alike. For the holy ghost hath so ordered and tempered the scriptures, that in them as well publicans, fishers, and shepherds may find their edification, as great doctors their erudition. For those books were not made to vain glory, like as were the writings of the gentile philosophers and rhetoricians, to the intent the makers should be had in admiration for their high styles and obscure manner and writing, whereof nothing can be understood without a master or an expositor. But the Apostles and prophets wrote their books so that their special intent and purpose might be understood and perceived of every reader, which was nothing but the edification of amendment of the life of them that read or hear it. Who is it that reading or hearing read in the Gospel, Blessed are they that be meek, Blessed are they that be merciful, Blessed are they that be of clean heart, and such other like places, can perceive nothing except he have a master to teach him what it meaneth? Likewise the signs and miracles with all other histories of the doings of Christ or his Apostles. Who is there of so simple wit and capacity, but he may be able to perceive and understand them? These be but excuses and clokes for the rain, and coverings of their own idle slothfulness. But still ye will say I can not understand it. What marvel? How shouldest thou understand, if thou wilt not read, nor look upon it? Take the books into thine hands, read the whole story, and that thou understandest, keep it well in memory; that thou understandest not, read it again, and again. If thou can neither so come by it, counsel with some other that is better learned. Go to thy curate and preacher; show thyself to be desirous to know and learn, and I doubt not but God - seeing thy diligence and readiness (if no man else teach thee) - will himself vouchsafe with his holy spirit to illuminate thee, and to open unto thee that which was locked from thee. Remember the Eunuch of Candace, Queen of Ethiopia, which albeit he was a man of a wild and barbarous country, and one occupied with worldly cares and business, yet riding in his chariot, he was reading the scripture. Now consider, if this man passing in his journey was so diligent as to read the scripture, what thinkest thou of like was he wont to do sitting at home? Again, he that letted [i.e. omitted] not to read, albeit he did not understand: what did he then, trowest thou, after that when he had learned and gotten understanding? For that thou mayest well know that he understood not what he read, hearken what Philip there saith unto him: Understandest thou what thou readest? And he nothing ashamed to confess his ignorance, and answered, How should I understand, having nobody to show me the way? Lo, when he lacked one to show him the way, and to expound to him the scriptures, yet did he read; and therefore God the rather provided for him a guide of the way that taught him to understand it. God perceived his willing and toward mind, and therefore he sent him a teacher by and by. Therefore let no man be negligent about his own health and salvation. Though thou have not Philip always when thou wouldest, the holy ghost which then moved and stirred up Philip, will be ready and not fail thee if thou do thy diligence accordingly. All these things be written unto us for our edification and amendment, which be born towards the latter end of the world. The reading of the scriptures is a great and strong bulwark or fortress against sin; the ignorance of the same is a greater ruin and destruction of them that will not know it. That is the thing that bringeth in heresy; that is it that causeth all corrupt and perverse living; that is it that bringeth all things out of good order.

"Hitherto all that I have said, I have taken and gathered out of the foresaid sermon of this holy doctor, saint John Chrysostom. Now if I should in like manner bring forth what the selfsame doctor speaketh in other places, and what other doctors and writers say concerning the same purpose, I might seem to you to write another Bible, rather than to make a preface to the Bible. Wherefore in few words to comprehend the largeness and utility of the scripture, how it containeth fruitful instruction and erudition for every man: if anything be necessary to be learned, of the holy scripture we may learn it. If falsehood shall be reproved, thereof we may gather wherewithal. If anything be to be corrected and amended, if there need any exhortation or consolation, of the scripture we may well learn. In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul, therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing; they be the very dainty and pure feeding. He that is ignorant, shall find there what he should learn. He that is a perverse sinner, shall there find his damnation to make him to tremble for fear. He that laboureth to serve God, shall find there his glory, and the promissions [i.e. promises] of eternal life, exhorting him more diligently to labor. Herein may princes learn how to govern their subjects; Subjects obedience, love, and dread to their princes; Husbands how they should behave them unto their wives, how to educate their children and servants; and contrary, the wives, children, and servants may know their duty to their husbands, parents, and masters. Here may all manner of persons, men, women, young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants, and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen, and all manner of persons of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things what they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other. Briefly, to the reading of the scripture none can be enemy, but that either be so sick that they love not to hear of any medicine, or else that be so ignorant that they know not scripture to be the most healthful medicine. Therefore, as touching this former part, I will here conclude, and take it as a conclusion sufficiently determined and appointed, that it is convenient and good the scriptures to be read of all sorts and kinds of people, and in the vulgar tongue without further allegations or probations for the same, which shall not need, since that this one place of John Chrysostom is enough and sufficient to persuade all them that be not frowardly and perversely set in their own willful opinion, specially now that the king's highness, being supreme head next under Christ of this Church of England, hath approved with his royal assent the setting forth hereof, which only to all true and obedient subjects ought to be a sufficient reason for the allowance of the same, without further delay, reclamation, or resistance, although there were no preface nor other reason herein expressed.

"Therefore now to come to the second and latter part of my purpose. There is nothing so good in this world, but it may be abused, and turned from unhurtful and wholesome, to hurtful and noisome. What is there above better than the sun, the moon, and the stars? Yet was there that took occasion by the great beauty and virtue of them, to dishonor God, and to defile themselves with idolatry, giving the honor of the living God and creator of all things, to such things as he had created. What is there here beneath better than fire, water, meats, drinks, metals of gold, silver, iron, and steel? Yet we see daily great harm and much mischief done by every one of these, as well for lack of wisdom and providence of them that suffer evil, as by the malice of them that work the evil. Thus to them that be evil of themselves, everything setteth forward and increaseth their evil, be it of his own nature a thing never so good. Like as contrarily, to them that study and endeavor themselves to goodness, everything prevaileth them, and profiteth unto good, be it of his own nature a thing never so bad, as S. Paul said, Hiis qui diligunt deum, omnia cooperantur in bonum, All things do bring good success, to such as do love God, even as out of most venomous worms is made treacle [an antidote], the most sovereign medicine for the preservation of man's health in time of danger.

"Wherefore I would advise you all that come to the reading or hearing of this book, which is the word of God, the most precious jewel and most holy relic that remaineth upon earth; that ye bring with you the fear of God, and that ye do it with all due reverence, and use your knowledge thereof, not to vain glory of frivolous disputation, but to the honor of God, increase of virtue, and edification both of yourselves and other. And to the intent that my words may be the more regarded, I will use in this part the authority of saint Gregory Nazianzus, like as in the other I did of saint John Chrysostom. It appeareth that in his time there were some (as I fear me there be also now at these days a great number) which were idle babblers and talkers of the scripture out of season and all good order, and without any increase of virtue, or example of good living. To them he writeth all his first book, de theologia. Wherefore I shall briefly gather the whole effect, and recite it here unto you. There be some (saith he) whose not only ears and tongues, but also their fists be whetted [i.e. sharpened] and ready bent all to contention and unprofitable disputation, whom I would wish, as they be vehement and earnest to reason the matter with tongue, so they were all ready and practive [i.e. active] to do good deeds. But forasmuch as they, subverting the order of all godliness, have respect only to this thing, how they may bind and loose subtle questions, so that now every marketplace, every alehouse and tavern, every feast house, briefly every company of men, every assembly of women, is filled with such talk - since the matter is so (saith he) and that our faith and holy religion of Christ beginneth to wax nothing else but as it were a sophistry or a talking craft, I can no less do but say something thereunto. It is not fit (saith he) for every man to dispute the high questions of divinity. Neither is it to be done at all times, neither in every audience must we discuss every doubt. But we must know when, to whom, and how far we ought to enter into such matters. First, it is not for every man, but it is for such as be of exact and exquisite judgments, and such as have spent their time before in study and contemplation and such as before have cleansed themselves as well in soul as body, or at the least endeavored themselves to be made clean. For it is dangerous (saith he) for the unclean to touch that thing that is most clean, like as the sore eye taketh harm by looking upon the sun.

"Secondarily, not at all times, but when we be reposed, and at rest from all outward dregs [i.e. defiling matters] and trouble, and when that our heads be not encumbered with other worldly and wandering imaginations - as if a man should mingle balm and dirt together. For he that shall judge and determine such matters and doubts of scriptures, must take his time when he may apply his wits thereunto, that he may thereby the better see and discern what is truth. Thirdly, where, and in what audience? There and among those that have been studious to learn, and not among such as have pleasure to trifle with such matters, as with other things of pastime, which repute for their chief delicates [i.e. delights], the disputation of high questions, to show their wits, learning, and eloquence in reasoning of high matters. Fourthly, it is to be considered how far to wade in such matters of difficulty. No further (saith he) but as every man's own capacity will serve him, and again no further than the weakness or intelligence of the other audience may bear. For like as to great noise hurteth the ear, too much meat hurteth the man's body, heavy burdens hurt the hearts of them, too much rain doth more hurt than good to the ground, briefly in all things, too much is noxious; even so, weak wits and weak consciences may soon be oppressed with over hard questions. I say not this to dissuade men from the knowledge of God, and reading or studying of the scripture; for I say that it is as necessary for the life of man's soul, as for the body to breathe. And if it were possible so to live, I would think it good for a man to spend all his life in that and to do none other thing. I commend the law which biddeth to meditate and study the scriptures always both night and day, and sermons and preachings to be made both morning, noon, and eventide, and God to be lauded and blessed in all times, to bed-ward, from bed, in our journeys, and all our other works. I forbid not to read, but I forbid to reason [i.e. argue]. Neither forbid I to reason so far as is good and godly: but I allow not that is done out of season, and out of measure and good order. A man may eat too much of honey, be it never so sweet; and there is time for everything, and that thing that is good is not good if it be ungodly done. Even as a flower in winter is out of season, and as a woman's apparel becometh not a man, neither contrarily, the man's the woman, neither is weeping convenient at a bridal, neither laughing at a burial. Now if we can observe and keep that is comely and timely in all other things, shall not we then the rather do the same in the holy scriptures? Let us not run forth as it were wild horses, that can suffer neither bridle in their mouths nor sitter on their backs. Let us keep us in our bounds, and neither let us go too far on the one side, lest we return into Egypt, neither too far over the other, lest we be carried away to Babylon. Let us not sing the song of our Lord in a strange land, that is to say, let us not dispute the word of God at all adventures, as well where it is not to be reasoned, as where it is, and as well in the ears of them that be not fit therefore, as of them that be. If we can in no wise forbear but that we must needs dispute, let us forbear thus much at the least, to do it out of time and place convenient. And let us entreat of those things which be holy, holily: and upon those things that be mystical, mystically: and not to utter the divine mysteries in the ears unworthy to hear them, but let us know what is comely, as well in our silence and talking, as in our garments wearing, in our feeding, in our gesture, in our goings, in all our other behaving. This contention and debates about scriptures and doubts [i.e. disputed points] thereof (specially when such as do pretend to be the favorers and students thereof cannot agree within themselves) doth most hurt to ourselves, and to the furthering of the cause and quarrels that we would have furthered above all other things. And we in this (saith he) be not unlike to them that, being mad, set their own houses on fire, and that slay their own children, or beat their own parents. I marvel much (saith he) to recount whereof cometh all this desire of vain glory, whereof cometh all this tongue itch, that we have so much delight to talk and clatter? And wherein is our communication? Not in the commendation of virtuous and good deeds, of hospitality, of love between Christian brother and brother, of love between man and wife, of virginity and chastity, and of alms toward the poor; not in psalms and godly songs, not in lamenting for our sins, not in repressing the affections of the body, not in prayers to God. We talk of scripture, but in the meantime we subdue not our flesh by fasting, watching, and weeping, we make not this life a meditation of death, we do not strive to be lords over our appetites and affections, we go not about to pull down our proud and high minds, to abate our fumish and rancorous stomachs, to restrain our lusts and bodily delectations, our indiscrete sorrows, our lascivious mirth, our inordinate looking, our insatiable hearing of vanities, our speaking without measure, our inconvenient thoughts; and briefly, to reform our life and manners. But all our holiness consisteth in talking. And we pardon each other from all good living, so that we may stick fast together in argumentation, as though there were no more ways to heaven but this alone, the way of speculation and knowledge (as they take it); but in very deed it is rather the way of superfluous contention and sophistication. Hitherto have I recited the mind of Gregory Nazianzus in that book which I spake of before. The same author saith also in another place that the learning of a Christian man ought to begin of the fear of God, to end in matters of high speculation; and not contrarily to begin with speculation, and to end in fear. For speculation (saith he), either high cunning or knowledge, if it be not stayed with the bridle of fear to offend God, is dangerous, and enough to tumble a man headlong down the hill. Therefore saith he, the fear of God must be the first beginning, and as it were an A.B.C. or an introduction to all them that shall enter into the very true and most fruitful knowledge of holy scriptures. Where as is the fear of God, there is (saith he) the keeping of the commandments; and where as is the keeping of the commandments, there is the cleansing of the flesh, which flesh is a cloud before the soul's eye, and suffereth it not purely to see the beam of the heavenly light. Where as is the cleansing of the flesh, there is the illumination of the holy ghost, the end of all our desires, and the very light whereby the verity of scriptures is seen and perceived. This is the mind and almost the words of Gregory Nazianzus, doctor of the Greek Church, of whom saint Jerome saith that unto his time the Latin Church had no writer able to be compared and to make an even match with him. Therefore to conclude this latter part: every man that cometh to the reading of this holy book, ought to bring with him first and foremost this fear of almighty God, and then next, a firm and stable purpose to reform his own self according thereunto, and so to continue, proceed, and prosper from time to time, showing himself to be a sober and fruitful hearer and learner; which, if he do, he shall prove at the length well able to teach, though not with his mouth, yet with his living and good example, which is sure the most lively and effectuous form and manner of teaching. He that otherwise intermeddleth with this book, let him be assured that once he shall make account therefore, when he shall have said to him as it is written in the prophet David, Peccatori dicit deus. &c. Unto the ungodly said God: Why dost thou preach my laws, and takest my testament in thy mouth? Whereas thou hatest to be reformed, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou hast let thy mouth speak wickedness, and with thy tongue thou hast set forth deceit. Thou sattest and spakest against thy brother, and hast slandered thine own mother's son. (See Psal. 50) These things hast thou done, and I held my tongue, and thou thoughtest wickedly that I am even such a one as thyself: But I will reprove thee, and set before thee the things that thou hast done. O consider this ye that forget God, lest I pluck you away, and there be none to deliver you. Whoso offereth me thanks and praise, he honoreth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation right, will I show the salvation of God.
God save the King."

This preface was devastatingly anti-Papal and opposed to the 150-plus year policy of the Anglo-Italians that developed from the Wycliffite period.

Several quick observations can be made. (1) Anglo-Saxon readings, lections and preaching occurred. Cranmer says that ceased over 100 years previously. (2) Every man and woman of any sort or station should exercise themselves in the Scriptures. They are perspicuous and clear. The difficult places—read again and again. Seek the skill of those who are more exercised. (3) While reading, it is not for vain display and disputation, but to godliness and the fear of the Lord.

The 4th edition was printed in NOV 1540. The 6th edition was printed in 1541. “This Bible was to be used in very church by royal command” (209). This was a total smack-down of the Anglo-Italians, a policy that would prevail until the 1970s for Romanists. Even now, the old Anglo-Italian senior clerk, Tunstall of Durham who had burned Tyndale’s Bibles, had to comply with the royal command.

Whatever else might be said of Cranmer, including the compliance with the Six Articles, he wrote a brave, straightforward, wise, insightful and commendable Preface. But the mystery man, Thomas Cranmer, remains that and more questions are created. While Cranmer would continue in Canterbury, Coverdale was again in exile.

COVERDALE’S FURTHER LIFE, 209

Just before his second exile, Coverdale remained in England until/in/on/around the execution of Cromwell. Again, the great translator’s work would go to the presses. While in England, he was in Newbury and reporting to Cromwell about “papists breaching the Injunctions,” “honorers of Becket” (=code for opposition to the King), and, in good Tudor fashion, was preparing bonfires for papal primers and books.

When the Six Articles were passed, “official tolerance of reform” was over. On 28 JUL 1540, the English Reformer Robert Barnes was burned at Smithfield. On 30 JUL 1540, Cromwell’s head fell, the gentler version in view of his status. Coverdale fled.

SECOND EXILE (1540-1547)

Before leaving England, Coverdale married a Scots noble woman. They went to Strasbourg where they met the French Reformer, John Calvin. Coverdale stays in Strasbourg for 3 years. He translates 2 books by Heinrich Bullinger. He wrote a defense of the martyr Robert Barnes. He received a Doctorate of Divinity from Tubingen University. He also visited Denmark which, in time, would serves as a basis of release during Mary’s time, but we get ahead of ourselves. He also made acquaintance with Martin Bucer’s secretary, Conrad Hubert. Coverdale was becoming well-connected with Reformers. In SEPT 1543, we find Coverdale in Bergzabern as an assistant minister, just 40 miles north of Strasbourg. He held this position for 5 years…until his return to England—again. He received a supportive and favorable letter from Heinrich Bullinger.

During his stay in Bergzabern, he began to learn and master Hebrew. Coverdale, in this period, was “shocked at Luther’s violent attack late in 1544 on the sacramental views of fellow-reformers, including Zwingli [dead in 1531] and Oecolampadius” (210). Coverdale continued publishing “German tracts.” In England, they continued to revile his name.

On 8 JUL 1546, all of Coverdale’s books were condemned and burned at St. Paul’s Cross in London.

On 27 JAN 1547, King Henry VIII was dead.

BISHOP OF EXETER (1551-1553)

Edward VI came to the throne JAN/FEB 1547. Changes were in the air.

Coverdale stayed in Germany for 1 year. He wrote John Calvin on 26 MAR 1548, Calvin now being in Geneva rather than Strasbourg, that he was returning by invitation “after eight years in exile” (211). For Calvin’s perusal, he included a Latin-German translation for a “new English order of communion.”

On 24 JUN 1548, Coverdale preached at Merchant Taylors at St. Martin’s Outwich. By OCT 1548, he is at the Royal Chapel at Windsor Castle. He was probably working consultatively on the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Coverdale, probably at Cranmer’s request, invited Paul Fagius, a Continental Reformer in Strasbourg, to England. At the Second Sunday in Lent, Coverdale preached on the use of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer.

On 10 JUN 1549, Coverdale set out with Royal forces sent to quell a rebellion in Devon and Cornwall over the use of the Prayer Book. A chaplain, if you will, to pacify and persuade the people to adopt its use. He stayed for several months preaching and working.

John Vesey was the senior clerk of Exeter. Vesey was 86 years old, was largely absent to his diocese, and was worthless to the cause of reform. He was a functional time-server and bishop-in-name-only, a BINO. Vesey had basically abandoned his diocese and had driven it into the ground, financially. The diocese was in arrears.

Old Hugh Latimer preached a Lent Sermon that “Vesey bore the title but Coverdale did the work” (212).

By 1 JUN 1550, Peter “Martyr” Vermigli, the Italian Reformer with Reformed theology, was in England to help Cranmer, help the cause of Reform, to teach university students and to further reform and revise the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Peter Martyr wrote a favorable letter to Heinrich Bullinger predicting that Miles Coverdale would become the bishop of Exeter.

Let us never forget the ever-living animosity of the Goat of Canterbury, Billy Laud, and his hostility to the Continental Reformers in the 17th century. This hostility lives on with the Tracto-heads and Ritualists down to our time. But, that was not Cranmer’s or Coverdale’s view of things. The revisionists want these thing buried—permanently.

By EASTER 1551, Coverdale was spending time around the Oxford area. He was also attending Peter Martyr’s (Augustinian-Gottschalkian-Wycliffite-Calvinistic) lectures on Paul’s Romans at Magdalen College, Oxford. Peter Martyr noted that he was an “active and good preacher” (212). Undoubtedly, he was promoting the English Bible, clean against the old Anglo-Italian policy that was dying a long death with much screeching and backdoor operations. Coverdale was in “high demand.”

In keeping with those times and reprehensibly, Coverdale was a member of a commission that judged a German Anabaptist and alleged Arian, George van Parris of Mainz. Coverdale, knowing Germany, was a translator. The man was burned alive and died at the stake in APR 1551.

On 14 AUG 1551, the decrepit Vessey of Exeter was ejected. Coverdale was nominated.

On 30 AUG 1551, Coverdale “in surplice and cope” was consecrated at Croydon.

On 11 SEPT 1551, he was “enthroned,” an unbiblical, unnecessary and stupid term full of feudalistic and power-driven associations that is still retained in the Church of England. Tracto-heads still thrive on these things. But, Coverdale, in time, would switch views, but we get ahead of ourselves. And, he would prove to be a man who never could be bought; like John Foxe, another exile and fellow-sufferer, he was not about to yield to Royalist strong-arming, but, again, we are ahead of the story.

Coverdale regularly attended the House of Lord when in session. We may well surmise his involvements with the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, a significant advance in several respects over the 1549-model.

John Hooker, 20 years after Coverdale’s episcopacy, wrote in his Description of the City of Exeter:

“…he preached continually upon every holy day, and did most read commonly twice in the week in some church or other within this city. He was, after the rate of his livings, a great keeper of hospitality, very sober in diet, godly in life, friendly to the godly, liberal to the poor, and courteous to all men, void of pride, full of humility, abhorring covetousness, and an enemy to all wickedness and wicked men, whose company he shunned, and whom he would in no wise shroud [shelter] or have in his house and company. His wife a most sober, chaste and godly matron: his house and household another church, in which was exercised all godliness and virtue. No one person being in his house which did not from time to time give an account of his faith and religion, and also did live accordingly…Yet the common people, whose old bottles would receive no new wine, could not brook nor digest him, for no other cause but he was a preacher of the gospel, an enemy to papistry, and a married man” (213).

To summarize Hooker with our interpolation: Coverdale was Reformed, learned many good things in his suffering, and lived honorably.

But, things would change.

On 6 JUL 1553, England’s “Josiah,” Edward VI, died. Queen Mary took the throne.

Coverdale was “summoned immediately to appear before the Privy Council” (213).

The Anglo-Italians were making a come-back. According to Peter Vermigli and the King of Denmark, Coverdale was either under house arrest in Exeter or in prison. For us, it is not clear.

On 18 SEP 1553, the now-90-year-old Vesey was reinstated. If the walls could talk, 100% bet that the old man had been back-stabbing Coverdale and others. Old Vesey certainly suited the Anglo-Italians.

COVERDALE’S THIRD EXILE (1553-1559), 214-216

Hooker (supra) noted that “some” bishops were against Coverdale. No kidding. His Bible was all over England despite pockets of recusant-opposition and adherence to Romanist theology. Death was in the wind. Coverdale saw the vulnerabilities. Some thought Coverdale would recant. He wrote that he was “steadfastly determined never to return unto Egypt, never to kiss the calf…never to refuse or recant the word of life [hah, he’d already suffered exile previously and for years]…for the corn that the Lord hath appointed to his own barn shall be safe enough and kept full well by the help of Him that is the owner thereof” (214).

For a flavor of the times we get this from a sermon preached by Dr. Weston against the English Reformers as well as Coverdale. “…You have the Word and we have the sword” (214).

We find a series of exchanges between Queen Mary 1 and the King of Denmark. It suggests that Coverdale is in jail. He affixes his signature along with 12 others in a letter to the Queen.

The King of Denmark wrote a letter on 25 MAY 1554 to Queen Mary 1 requesting that Coverdale be released, saying he committed “no crime.” He offered Coverdale asylum. Mary and her councilors stonewalled for 5 months alleging that Coverdale had unresolved debts. The King wrote that he would pay any outstanding debts.

On 19 FEB 1555 (a year later), the Privy Council issued Coverdale a passport.

Coverdale left, his third exile, with “two servants, bags and baggage” (214). It is unclear where he went. Also, we find his wife and two children with him.

He accepted an invitation from the magistrates of Bergzabern, Germany and arrived there on 20 SEPT 1555 to serve ministerially. He stayed 2 years.

On 11 AUG 1557, he was at Arau where documents describe as born in York, having a wife and 2 children.

On 24 OCT 1558, he went to Geneva and settled there. Unquestionably, he knew the French Reformer, John Calvin, and other Reformed leaders. Can ya’ hear the Laudians and Tracto-Trojan Horses going “Harrumph! Harrumph!” We saw earlier that he had been with Peter Vermigli during Easter 1551. Anyone who thinks he was Lutheran or some soft conformist in years later is misreading history.

Miles Coverdale was a Reformed Churchman.

Blessedly, Mary died on 17 NOV 1558. But, Coverdale did not hurry home. Who could blame him really? There were still fire-breathing Anglo-Italians in England. Who needs them? He stayed in Calvin’s Geneva and helped Whittingham work on the 1560 Geneva Bible.

So, here’s a quick insert: Coverdale had been a collaborator-translator with William Tyndale whom the Anglo-Italians and Imperial Inquisitors killed. Coverdale finished and produced the Coverdale Bible of 1535 while Tyndale was imprisoned. Coverdale assists with the Thomas Matthew’s Bible (renamed to avoid the “heretical names” of Tyndale and Coverdale) which gets gently reworked with the “Great Bible” of 1540—which he, again, did. Then, in Geneva, he’s helping with the Geneva Bible.

Can anyone spell “S-I-G-N-I-F-I-C-A-N-T” for Coverdale and the English Reformation?

On 29 NOV 1558, Coverdale stood as the godfather for John Knox’s son (215).

On 16 DEC 1558, he became an “Elder of the English Church at Geneva” (215). Can ya’ hear old Laud sweating prematurely and other Non-Reformed Anglicans?

By AUG 1559, Coverdale is headed home. He takes residence with the Duchess of Suffolk and becomes the preacher and teacher to her children. This was a clear indication that he, a MAJOR FIGURE, sought a quieter life. He was 72 years old. Coverdale, a Reformed Churchman, wrote William Cob at Geneva and describes the Duchess “as having, like us, the greatest abhorrence of the Ceremonies” and “the increasing use of vestments” (216).

As a friend recently wrote me regarding Canterbury Bancroft (c. 1604ish): to wit, Bancroft was complaining about the “Scotticizing Englishmen and the Genevating Englishmen.” That would become a trend, unfortunately.

That trend was set with the Coverdales of the English Reformation. Bancroft would represent a developing trend against all-things-Genevan that flourished with Billy-goat Laud and others. Thanks, but we’ll listen to the man who hovered in close to the Bible for decades. Laud can’t own that.

LONDON, 1559-1569

Coverdale returned to England. He declined a bishopric. Two reasons: his age and dislike of vestments, the ever-living sacrament of validation that would vex the Church of England for centuries down to our time.

Yet, he, at age 72, assisted in the co-consecration of Matthew Parker to the see of Canterbury on 17 DEC 1559. Two others wore the cope. Coverdale wore a “black gown,” the badge of Genevan reforms and badge of contempt for Romishness still alive in the land. He was not conforming to new lords, yet was not entirely anti-conformist either.

He was heard preaching at St. Paul’s Cross, London, on 12 NOV 1559 and 28 APR 1560.

In 1563, Cambridge awarded him the Doctorate of Divinity “by incorporation” from the University of Tubingen, something awarded him years before.

In JAN 1564, Edmund Grindal, the new senior clerk of London, offered Coverdale the living at St. Magnus Martyr by the London Bridge.

In APR 1564, acting as the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, Coverdale conferred the Doctorate of Divinity on Edmund Grindal.

By summer of 1566, he left St. Magnus Martyr by the London Bridge. He was near 80. Canterbury Matthew Parker had summoned the London clergy to Lambeth for the enforcement of Elizabeth’s vestarian-laws—which Parker did not care about, as a few letters show, but which he supported since Elizabeth had ruled. Coverdale resigned his living at St. Magnus. Several letters from London clerics are sent to Zurich and Geneva about the developments. Coverdale discreetly absented himself from Parker’s summons.

Ya’ ain’t gonna bulldoze an old, experienced, informed, Biblically-driven, theologically trained and Reformed Churchman long acquainted with suffering, poverty, tyrannies, and exile.

As might be expected, he had a “keen following in Puritan circles” (217). But, he accepted poverty over preferment, consistency before compromise, the Scriptures above and ruling tradition, and principles above pandering to a Queen. He genuinely believed in Scriptures, the “supreme” [and final] Judge in all things, matters, opinions, councils and independent thoughts.

That’s Reformed theology.

In JAN 1569, he preached his last sermon, about 83 years old, at his former parish, St. Magnus. In other words, he was the former minister in attendance. However, for whatever reason, the presiding minister was not present or available. But Coverdale was in attendance, but not presiding, an indication of his acceptance of the-then-used 1559 Book of Common Prayer (or, at least, in the main, as was the case for Anglo-Puritans). John Hooker (supra) described it:

“…certain men of the parish came unto him, and earnestly entreated that considering the multitude was great, and that it was pity they should be disappointed of their expectation, that it would please him to take the place for that time. But he excused his age and infirmities thereof, and that his memory failed him, his voice scarce could be heard, and he not able to do it, that they would hold him excused. Nevertheless such were their importunate requests that, would he nould [sic] he, he must and did yield unto their requests: and between two men he was carried up into the pulpit, where God did with his spirit so strengthen him, that he made his last and the best and the most godly sermon that ever he did in all his life. And very shortly after he died, being very honourably buried with the presence of the duchess of Suffolk, the earl of Bedford, and many others, honourable and worshipful personages."

Coverdale died on 20 JAN 1569. He was buried in the chancel of St. Bartholomew by the Exchange under the “communion table” [hint, hint Tracto-heads, the “table” not the Laudian altar…gotta a problem there? Cranmer and Coverdale didn’t.

We end where we began.

We repeat what we said earlier: (1) Godly and upright, (2) in high demand for the pulpit near-wise everywhere., (3) a friend and collaborator in Bible translation activity with Tyndale and others, (4) Translator and reviser of several English editions, e.g. Coverdale 1535, Matthew Thomas Bible 1537, the Great Bible of 1540 and the Geneva Bible of 1560, (5) a sufferer through multiple exiles, (6) a diligent bishop in Exeter, (6) a persistent man in several exiles, (7) ever-faithful in exiles, (8) a Doctor of Divinity (University of Tubingen and Cambridge University), (9) well-schooled in the Bible, and (10) and, most notably, an integral player in getting the English Bible into 9000 parishes, obstacles notwithstanding.

As a grand understatement, Coverdale is an under-appreciated Churchman in the Catholic (=Reformed) Church of England.