reprover and despiser of other men’s translations,” but “lowly and faithfully have I followed mine interpreters, and that under correction.” The five interpreters to whom Coverdale thus refers were probably the Vulgate, the Latin version of Pagninus, Luther’s translation, the Zurich Bible, and Tyndale’s New Testament and Pentateuch. Though the volume was dedicated to the king, and though Coverdale was backed by powerful patrons, this Bible was not published with a royal license. No direct attempt, however, was made to suppress it. In the following year (1536) it was virtually condemned by the members of Convocation, who prayed the king that he would “grant unto his subjects of the laity the reading of the Bible in the English tongue, and that a new translation of it be made for that end and purpose.” But notwithstanding this two new editions of Coverdale’s Bible were printed in London in 1537, and on the title-page of both of these there appeared the words, “Set forth with the kynge’s moost gracious licence.” In the same year, 1537, and probably in the earlier part of it, there was issued in London another Bible, which also bore upon its title-page the inscription, “Set forth with the kinge’s most gracyous lycence.”[15] This Bible, commonly known as Matthew’s Bible, was, it is now generally believed, prepared for the press by John Rogers, who suffered martyrdom at Smithfield, under the Marian persecution. In the New Testament and Pentateuch he agrees substantially with Tyndale’s version. Of the other books of the Old Testament, a portion is obviously taken from Coverdale, the remaining part, Joshua to Chronicles, has been thought with good reason to be the work of Tyndale. It is known that Tyndale, after the publication of his Pentateuch, continued to labour at the translation of the Old Testament. In a letter written during his imprisonment he prays to be allowed to have his Hebrew Bible, and his Hebrew grammar and dictionary; and it is by no means unlikely that the results of his studies were committed to the care of Rogers. If this surmise be correct, then this Bible may be viewed as a compilation, two-thirds of it being due to Tyndale, and one-third to Coverdale. A sufficient reason for the adoption of the assumed name of Thomas Matthew is thus supplied, since Rogers could not claim the work as his own, and Tyndale’s name would have arrayed against it the opposition both of the king and of the Romish party.