-
THE SPRTXGFIELDER is published quarterly by the faculty of Con-
cordia Theological Seminar?. Springfield. Illinois. of the Lutheran
Church --Jlissouri S>nod.
-
EDITORI.II, COIIAIITTEE
ERTCH . HEISTZES, Editor
E.~E- ; \To~I ) F. Scr,sr.);c, Cook Recie~v Editor
D,\I.TI) P. S c a m , -4 ssociilte Editor
3 4 . 4 ~ ~ J. STEEGE, ,4~sociatc Editor
Contents
AN E \ ~ ~ L C : J I I O S OF HEILSGESCHICHTE
IF1 EOLOGIL5 \ \ ITM SE'ECIL4L REFEIXElC'E
TO THEIR IIlPI,I(:.4TIONS 4
F-: A \ \ro?.r, k . S c n ~ r EC;. Professor, Old rvstament,
S p r ~ n q t ~ c l d . Illinni,
JOHK ROGEIIS. 3IELAhCI-I'THON'S ENGLISH FRIEND 2 3
C~IKL 5. A . ~ E Y E E , Professor, Historical Theology,
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, llissouri
lndcxctl i ~ i IXDLX TO RELIGIOUS PERIODICAL LITERATURE, published by the
American Tl~eological Librav Association, AlcCo~tnick Seminmy Librav,
Chicagc.. Ill inois.
Clergy changis of 'iddrtss reported to Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis,
hlissouri, will also cover mailing change of The Springhlder. 0th- changes
of address should be sent to the Business Manager of The Springfiehr, Con-
cordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, IUlnois 62702.
Adtiress cornniunicntions to the Editor, Erich H, Heintzen, Concordia T h e
logical Seminar):, Springfield, Illinois 62702.
John Rogers, Melanchthon's
English Friend
T h e author is director of the Schriol for Graduate S t~ td ie~ ,
Co~zcordia Semi~znry, S t . Louis, iIlissollri. T h e f o l l o ~ o i ~ r ~ essal
reflects sollze of his recevrt research in England. Dr. Ale~rer is nlsb
the author of Elizabeth I and the Religiozts Settlement of 1559,
H E also editcd thc ~ lo lz i~ne Moving Fro~ltiers ant1 has colztrihuted
essays to nu itzerous scholnrly jozinznls.
W 51EN I N 1948 John Rogers translated a brief froin Wittenher< regarding thc Augsburg Interim, lie did so partly, h e said, "fo;
t ~ l e defence of his I3lelaiichthon's] nioste named and kno~ven failles
sake (wliicli he hat11 yet hitherto kcptc undefiled, so that even the
greatest enemyes of the Gospell neither coulde nor have saied other-
wise of liyni)."' It was an act of friendship and respect for a hig111\
cherished mentor and guide. The brief was only partially Xlelancl~;
thon's; i t \\.as issued by thc theologians of the LTniversity of \\'itten-
berg;' ho\ve\?er, I'l~ilip A,lclanchthon ( 149'7- 1 5 6 0 ) was almost ccr-
tainly its author."
John Kogers is remembered first of all as Protestantisni's proto-
niartyr under Alary I . ' H c \\{as burnt at Smitlificld on 4 Februarl
1555. I-Iis name has been honored for four centurjes since that
date.' He is remen~l>crcd, too, as Thomas Matthe\l:," for con~pleting
and editing an English translation of thc Bible,; authoring a general
comnientarv on the Bible,%nd compiling an English concordance of
the Bible.!'
A fcw aclclitional details of his life iliay be recalled. John Rogers
was horn in Deritend, Birmingham, in the parish of Aston. Al-
though the place of his birth has been fixed with a considerable
degree of certainty, the date has not. The best that the biographers
can come up with is "circa 1500." T h e date seems early; 1505
\vould fit known facts of his life better.'" Nothing can be said either
about Rogers' early schooling or tlie influences that led him into
scholarly pursuits and caused him to take holy orders. He attended
Pembroke Hall of tlie LTniversit): of Cambriclge, and in 1 5 3 5- 15 26 .
uree. ' according to the Grace Book, he received his Bachelor of Arts de,
Thomas Crannier proceeded for the doctorate that year.'"ogers'
Cambridge vears are shrouded in obscurity. Perhaps, in 1 526, hc
s e n t to 0xforcl as a junior canon of IVolsey's foundation, now Christ
Church, a n d entered holy orders at that time.'" If so, i t is not known
how long he rciliainecl in Oxford. A slight, but very slight, argument
for the plausibility of an Oxford stay is the fact that in 1 5 6 0 ~ a n i e l
Rogers, son of John Rogers, received an A.B. and a M.A. from
---
( I n n fclr; instnrzces througl~out , modern eqlritnients hni~e bcen strbstitrcteti tor thc
more archnic spelliag ntrd orfkogra~lh~.-Ed.)
John Rogers, Melanchrhotl's English Frirrld 2 5
/-~-------
-
~ ~ f ~ ~ d . ~ Neither John I.'oxc nor John Bale report that ]ohll Ixogers
\sent to Oxford.
There are questions that cannot be answered about John Rogersp
] i f e in the 1520s. \I-as h e associated with the "GcmlansV n.llo met
to read Luther, Melanchthon, and other reformers in the \\'hite
Horse Inn in C a m b r i d g e ? ' V o w intimately did he know Barnes,
~ i ] ~ ~ ~ r , overd dale, Latimer, Cranrner? \Vhat were his conncctions
\\.it]> ' ~homas Garret?"' Not until 1532 do details about his life
assume an!! degree of certainty. In December of that )ear 'fohn
Rogers becalm Rector of the Church of the Holy Trinitr, St. ~ [ i n i t v
IJess, in London. thin less that two years he in ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ r p ,
tlldl,Iain for the Company of the hlcrchant Adventurers.
rit this juncture, according to 101111 Foxe, Rovers began "to
rrcoynizt. the purer brightness of the Gospel light!'1' This has
oencrally not been disputed. I t may be questioned, howc\-er. In
1534 came Henry VIII's final break with Rome. B) 1534 the
\jcrcIlant Adventurers had long since abandoned a concern for strict
to Romanism; for perhaps a decade already they had been
engaged in an illicit trade in Protestant books.I8 \Vith good business
acumen they lrould appoint a "safe" chaplain, not a radical Gospeller,
\\]lo \\auld run afoul of the authorities, yet one who falored thc New
1 e r n . Rogers, it seems, was known to Tyndale and to Cover-
tlalc."' In spitc of Foxe's testimony i t is not likely that Tynclale
pl,~!ctl Rillley to Rogers' Latimer. Rogers hinlself ascribed his
repudiation of Ronle to Stephen Gardiner and the clergy ~vho nladc
Ilcnry 1'111 supreme head of the church in England. I-lc told the
I'n\ v Council ( 2 2 January 1555) :
1-c yourselves all be they that broughtc me to the knowledge
of the pretensed prinlacie of the b. of R., \vlihcn I was a youngc
man, sx. yeares agone, & wyll ye now, without collation, have
nie to say I do the contrarye? I cannot bc so persuaded.""
I l ~ c passage, of course, does not speak of a conversion to Protestant-
lwl, merely of a renunciation of the primacy of the Pope. In 15 3 6
that Ihgers began his work as the editor or proof-reader, perhaps
better "house editor," of Thomas Matthew's Bible.
In 15 38 John Rogers went to IVittenberg" with his bride
Adriana de IVeyden, an Antwerp girl. She was "more ricllly endowed
\\ l th ~ i r t ue and soberness of life, than with worldly treasure," says
Fo\c.." How he provided for himself and his wifc after leaving
.-\ntn erp is not evident. The statement that he was pastor in Witten-
berg') may mean perhaps that he assisted Johann Bugenhagell (Porn-
t.rd~lus) in his pastoral duties sometime between 15 3 8 and 1 54 3 .
was active in sonle ecclesiastical offices in or near Wittenberg
'luring those years.24 On 25 November 1540 he matriculated in
the Lnirersity of mTittenberg; John Maccabaeus of Scotland marticu-
Ia,ted rfith him on h e same day.25 Rogers very likely attended some
" tklanchthon'~ lectures as well as some of Martin Luther's. On
1 8 September 1 543 hle1;mchthon recommended hirn to john
Schneck, pastor of the church in Heide, Dit~narsch.'" hIclanchthon
\\'rote:
Since u-c truly \\:is11 to show a concern in this for your church
by our adrice', rvc hare exhorted Mastcr John Anglus to go to
you. T]lis \laster John Anglus is an eruclite man, and perceives
correctl\l the doctrine of Christ's church, and is not infected
\\.it11 w 1 - 0 ~ opinions. iintl we know that he is gifted with
great natural abilitv, which he adorns with the most upright
cllaracter; and sii~cr he mill be most zealous of the public peace,
hc \\.ill cl~erish harniony [co~zcordiaJ with his colleagues. fie.
cause of these distinguished virtues, \ye hope that h e will ser\.e
the Church of God advantageously, wherever he is called. He
has been invited at this very tinie to the governing of a church
in this neighborhood. But for the sake of tranquility he chooses
to go to you. At the beginning allow for a faulty pronunciation,
which he, neverthcless, will correct according to the usage of
our lwople. By ni!: ant1 N.'s [Luther's?] council he mas per-
suaded to accept this course. And we have exhorted him with
good and earnest consideration to this course for the sake of his
uscfulncss to your church. He is an Englishman, but he has
li\:c:cl for a long tinic among the Germans, and has shown in-
tegrity and faithfulness and constancy in every office, that he
ntlorned, so that all good men loi7e and respect him. Therefore
\!.e prnv \IOU most earnestly for the sake of Christ, the Soil of
God, thaj you \\.ill rcccive this stranger lovingly and coinmcnd
hi111 to yo~is citizens, that they may entrust to him an ecclesi-
;~stial office. I t is of the greatest good in the church that col-
leagues live in harmony. Since this John knows this well, ant1
s i i l ~ e by nature he himself lo\les peace, he will study earnest]!.
\\.it11 to upholtl the cominon tranquility. I t is of maximum
\vorth to you therefore that you desire such a colleague."
Thc letter is flattering, but sincere. It was not an effort to gtt
Rogers m a y from \\'ittenberg, but a move to put a partisan of the
"11eac.e part!," into a district that had experienced religious strife.
Rlelclorf \\as in the archdiocese of Bremen, which embraced Luther's
cause in 152 5; it remained Lutheran." Elements of religious instil-
bility persisted during thc period between 1525 and 1560 and
there are evidences of discoiltent and disharmony in the area. Rogers'
~redccessor in h,Ieldorf, Nicolaus Boie, published a book, possibll
only of a sermon's length, against ceremonies and ritualistic practices
in the church."' He could have, in his own words, adopted Christ's
advice, shaken the dust from his feet and departed,'{'' but he'd
remained there until his death. P e r h a p Anabaptists7 teachings had
invaded the territory; an exhortation to parents to have their children
baptircd testifies that infant baptism was being neglected in Dit-
marsch . ' ' During Rogers' incumbency in Meldorf forty clergymen
John Rogrrs, ,\lclanchtJzon's English Friend
-
2'7
--
-- . - - - - - -
of ~>itniarsch protested to the civic officials about their adll1inistration
,f justice; thev wanted the banns to be read in the churches on thrce
col;secutiv~ Sundays and baptism to be administered in the churches,
not in the homes. ;"
The unrest there is illustrated also by a letter \\hich Rogers 11 rote
1547 (the only letter by him still extant)!
lost Gracious Sir Master, I pray that by this messenger vo11
mill send me the worthy writing or article of Atlaster ~ i r o l a s of
l'ious memory Co~zcer~i iug the Harldling Of Gltiltless :\lurder
(De ~rzorieramilze i~lcidyatne tidtelae). I shall return it to vou
again by the next Sabbath. For they !\-ant to hear this article
from us. They also \\.ant to determine in thc future (as soon
as it is possible in these things), about so-called guiltless ~nurder .
And because they do not understand this on account of ignor-
ance of the law or they cannot determine it, the\ 11ai.e com-
mitted it to the Superintendent or the jurisdiction of thc council-
l e i r i a . Certainly, they do not \\:ish one. \\;]lo tried
to defend himself against harm by force, to suffer the same
punishment as one who willingly murderctl. For they \vish
this to be punished capitally; for thc other. cithcr mow!. is to
be paid or all punishment is to be set aside outright, as it will
seem proper by thc foremost or of the whole pro~,incc. \\-ith
these few words fare\\-ell and added to them the bcst \\;ishes.
In these 1i1ost periloils tinles ant1 these dregs of the \\orld o r
ragings of thc Devil nlay God excite in all of us through His
Spirit frequent and ardent prayers, sighings and In~iicnti~tions
for thc Church. A~ncn.:;"
I 'he letter breathes Rogers' pastoral concern for tllc problems
of his people. Fose points out that Rogers was a supcrintcndcnt i n
.\tcldorf;"-' this mav mean that lie was bishop there: ~vith him \\.ere
associated two snccllanj, chaplains.'' Fosc also affirms tliat hcre
"he, Lvith great danger to his life, did very much good.":'; The esag-
~cration in the "oreat clanger" is e\.ident on a momcnt's rcflccti1)n- C i t is one of Foxes literary flights of fancy. That Eogers did much
there need not be doubted. About eighty-fi\.c !.cars later a
lxal chronicler recorded that with sobs and tears thc ijcople of
lleldorf be~vailed Rogers' leave-taking.'"
- -.-
Rogers' initial recommendation calne from hlclanchthon because
the \\:ittenberg professor sensed in him a kintired spirit. He was
lcarncd; his iingilistic abilities can be deduced from his :tcti\jitics. fie
knew Einglisli and Latin, of course; he was at home w i t h the Biblical
languages, Hebrew and C;reck; he could preach in Low German a n d
con\erse in Flemish, and he understood the 3;liddle Saxon of Luther's
Bible. >;lelanchthon \ralued such men. liogers, A'lelnnchthon tcsti-
fkd, \\.as of sound doctrine. Besides that, Rogers had the traits of
"god "team mall," hard-\\-orhng, agreeable, conscic:ntious, peace-
laving. Rogers, to froin the one extant lcttcr he u.rotc,
was a man of prayer and a man deeplv concerned about the welfare
of the Church. O n all of these respects he nras not unlike
klclanchthon.
Already by 1 5 3 8 h,Ielanchthon hat1 become the great advocate
of concortlia et tro~~qz.~ilZitatis ecclesiac. The dedicatory epistle of
the 15 3 5 Loci, made to Henry VIII, asks the king to promote peace
in the church, hcr welfare, sound doctrine, the correction of abuses,
and the true worship of G o d . " T o Thomas Crannier he ~vrote on
30 March 1539: "\'(re pray God at the same time, that He both
kindle the light of the Gospel in the hearts of many and 110uchsaf~
lwace to the Church. The enemies of tlic Gospel threaten us no less
fiercely than in Britain. But ~ v e do not doubt that tlie church of
tlie godly is in God's care.":'!' And to Nicholas Heath, the then arch-
deacon of Caiitcrbiirv, hc wrote on the follo~ving dav: "If Germany
is quiet, I an1 optimistic both about studies and about the points o'f
dispute among tlie churches. I'ious and learned men shrink back
from tlie ~viclictlness ant1 barbaritv of the adversaries. )'lay God
defc-ntl anti govern us.""
Inibued with this man's spirit Rogers could write: "I11 thcsc
most perilous times and tlicsc dregs of tlie ~vorld, or ragings of tllc
Dc\.il ma! Got1 incitc in all of us through His Spirit frequent ant1
artlent Ixi\,ers, sighings and lamentations for the Church."'l Rogcrs
\\rote this 'on 8 Tulle 154 7; sis ~vceks before, on 24 April 1547, the
Emperor hacl crushctl the Lutheran forces in the battle of hliihlbcrg."
So wontler that tIic clays were vcrv evil to John Rogers, who st.c.111~
to h a w had a strong r~chatolo~icnl orientation, to juclge also from
the chronicler's remark that this "blessecl and zealous man . . .
prcachecl with particular pietv about the end of the world and the
nearness of Jutlgemcnt Da\.."'" The political circumstances \\-en.
as inai~spicious for Protcstantisili in German, as the\- were auspicious
in F:ngla~itl:' ' Ed\\-ard \'I ( 1 54 7- 1 5 5 3 ) was now King of England:
both the triumph of tlie Emperor and the accession of Ed\\artl
brought on john Rogers' reqignation as pastor in hleldorf, Dit~narsch,
and his return to F.nglant1.
Rogcrs rcturned to 1,ondon in 1548, \rer\: probablv before the
1st of cli~gust. Durino tlie remaining six and a half ;,ears of his ? life he \\,as Vicar of St. Scpulchre's and Rector of st. Nargaret
;\,lo~.se hcforc becoming l'rc-hcncl of St. Pau 1's and Rector of Chigivell.
1\11 'act of l'nrliamcnt n;ltiiralizcd his wife and eight children. The
thrcc voungest of his deven childrcn were born in England. He
W ~ I S ;,i pointed Ilivinitv I-ecturer at St. Paul's, as an indication of the
r q a n in which his scholarship n-as held. O n the death of Edaard
\!I he \\.as confined to his house, imprisoned, tried, and executed
His literilrv iictil itics, resumed \vlien he returned to London in 154s .
continiictl'until the time of his death.
Thosc literar! activities consisted largelv in translating ;\.lelanch-
thon: '"his is the main reason for callibg him "kle lancl l th~~l '~
English fricnd." Of his trans1;ltions on117 one is extant, already
11otetI. A 119il!i~lg n ~ u l coesidering of the i,lterita." He translated
]oh12 Rogers, Mclnnchthon's English Fricnd 29
sorlle of Melanchthon's sermons, a commentary on Daniel written
bv i\lelanchthon, Carion's Chronicle which h4elanchthon had edited,
the Locos c o n z m ~ n e s . ~ ' George Joye also wrote a commentary
,, Daniel for which he also used h l e l a n c h t h o n . - ' ~ i n c e Rogers'
of Melanchthon is not extant some doubt has been ex-
pressed about the unnamed author of a Commentary of Daniel in
one of John Foxe's list. '!' \Val ter Lynne also translated the Chrolz-
iclL>;j1' it is very probable that Rogers' translation was independent of
L\rnne's. Which sermons Rogers translated in the Homelias, we do
nbt know; his choice might throw an interesting sidelight on his
theology. The translation of the J20cos Conzmunes has vanished
completely. John Bale, whose work was printed only two years
after Rogers' death, is the only authority for their existence. Unhap-
pily Chester, Rogers' best biographer, scems to have been ignorant
of 'thcse works; at least, he ignored them altogether. They form
an arresting selection of the \Y ittenberger's contribution to theology :
sermonic materials (practical theology); a doctrinal treatise (syste-
nlatic theology); a chronicle (historical theology); a commentary
(exegetical theology). Rogers' translations were lost to posterity
hecnuse of Mary's efforts to repress Protestant writings and likely
because they were printed in a limited edition, if, indeed, they were
printed. Nonetheless, Rogers wanted to make Melanchthon's writ-
ings available in English.
To that end he stimulated others to translate iljelanchthon.
That statement is based on circumstantial evidence only, but the
c\.idencc seems strong enough to warrant making it. He most
probabli. encouraged Bradford in this direction. Rogers and Brad-
ford were close associates; both held prebencies at St. Paul's.'l
Bratlford's translation of Rlelanchthon on prayer'Qwas printed by
john \\:ight perhaps for Richard Jugge as A Go~Ilye treatyse of
prayer. 5 :; This is locus XIX, "De invocatione Dei, sev de precatione,"
of 31clanchthon7s 1550 Loci Pracciyvi Theologici."' There is no
c\.idence, except the proyinquitv of Roger and Bradford, to warrant
the statement that Roger stimulated Bradford's interest in Melanch-
thon.
Bradford was a faithful translator. He rendered Melanchthon's
characteristic emphasis on the church: "But suerlye it is moost profit-
able, that the church should be diligently & amplye instructed, how
she ought to pray, & how that prayer is the propre worke of the
churche alone."" A carefule page by page check of Bradford's
rendition verifies his faithfulness as a translator. The marginal
notes are his own, but thev serve onlv to emphasize blelanchthon's
ljresentetion. ~ e l a n c h t h o h stressed prayer for and in the Church,
Prayer for the remission of sins and all spiritual gifts as well as
Pra!er for temporal goods. He gave a brief exposition of the Lord's
l'ra).er, which Bradford rendered accurately and pleasingly in
English. 3lelanchthon's whollv Christ-centered prayer, movlng in
its strength, is rendered by ~ r a d f o r d : "Sanctify and governe me with
Ih r holy spirite, preserve and rule thy church and the common
weales, .rvhvche give harborough to thy people, helpe the studies
of such as iearne the doctrine of thy churclle, kk other honest artes,
&C. ";6
Bradford also translated other parts of Melanchthon's Loci,
hoping to complete the work, "vf," he said, "I shall percea~le anye
conlmoditie by thys to come to the Churche of Christe," doubting
not the worth of the Loci but his abilities as a translator." Bale
recorded that Bradford translated the LOCOS comnzaivzes kleln11~l~-
tho~zis.:'s Perhaps he was referring to Bradford's incomplete manu-
script; perhaps the reference is to the part taken from the Loci on
prayer. That both Bradford and Rogers were translating blelanch-
thon's Loci argues for competition, collaboration, or ignorance of
wha t the other was doing. The latter can be ruled out by BradfordQs
printed statenlent and their close association. O n the same score
conlpetition does not seem likely. T o say that Bradford and Rogers
were collaborating is a good conjecture but saying more than the
evidence warrants.
T h e e1:idenc.e is also tenuous for linking Nicolas Lesse
Rogers. Of Lesse little is knoivn:'!' He was John Bale's friend.w
Bale labelled him "a citizen and merchant of London, a Greek and
Latin schoIar.""' Lesse called himself Lady Anne, Duchcss Somer-
set's "most fayethfull and daylyc Oratoure."" T o Edward Seymour.
Duke of Somerset, the Lord Proctor, h e dedicated a work bv hlelancll-
thon in transhion and his one original work, T h e ivstificat'iol~ of nrnrl
by faith ovlly: made ntrd vvrittelz by Phylyy Me1alzchto.r~ n~rd Trnirs-
ZzteJ oztt of the Latyrl in to this oure mother tozrge by Nicholas
Lesse of London. AIZ apologie or Defevzce of the illorde of God,
declrzri~zge 117hat rz necessary thylzgc it is, to be in all wzevznes halriles.
the u7unt irllzer o f is the only cazise of a1 vngodli~zes conzmitted thoro11.e
tlze ~trhole artlrc', inade by the sayde Nicholas Lesse.""
hlelanchthon's work is taken from the Loci," dealing with Lan
and Gospel, sin, justification, grace, faith, and good works." It is
a prime document of the Lutheran Reformation, which does not
seem to have become very popular. That Lesse busied hi111seIf
with sola grrrtilr and sola fide and wrote a treatise on soln Scriptzi~ir
is an indication of his \17ittenberg Tende~zz .
He also translated a work on man's will, which set forth
R-IeIanchthon's doctrine as he expounded it in the I 5 2 1 Loci, teach-
ing tha t in spiritual matters man's will was bound. It \\-as ivritte11
by Francis Lainbert of Avignon, late professor at Philip of Hesse's
University of 12,1arburg.'jG Lambert's dependence on Il.lelanchthon
is readily seen."; Lcsse did not indicate whether he was aware of
this o r not. Nc~~ertheless, Lesse was one of the nlen actively engaged
i n t h e late 1540s in translating Continental reformers, of who111
Rlelanchthon was one of the most highly regarded. This favorable
image, it can be postulated, was due in part to John Rogers.
O n e can almost identify an informal group, which never seell;
to have had meetings of any kind as a group, or any kind of fornlal
s tructure, which promoted the translation and dissemination of the
John Rogers, Mclanchtho~z's English Friend 3 1
writings of German reforrner~."~ Iiogers, it seems, was near the
center of this group. Bradford, Lesse, Lynne, Somerset, perhaps
Cranmer, John Day, Jugge, and others were involved. T h e activ-
ities might have been inspired by Somerset. The printers fostered
these activities and John Rogers nras rather closely associated with
the printers.
However, Rogers was not responsihle for the most popular of
Rilelanchthon's tracts in English. It did not come from the group
postulated, although Kichard Jugge printed three editions after the
first edition printed perhaps in Z u r i c h . " V t dealt with the reception
of the Eucharist sub utraqzie by the laity.
If it is too hazardous to suppose that a group existed in the
late 1540s to propagandize England with anti-Roman religious writ-
ings, it is not too much to say that a group of Protestant divines
became a closely knit group in prison during 1554. John Kogers,
John Bradford, John Ferrar, and Rowland Taylor were in that
group and had been more or less closely associated in pre-Marian
days. John Philpot, Laurence Sanders, and John Hooper were part
of that company in prison.") Yet only Rogers and Bradford were
intimates. In prison, knowing that they all were doomed to die for
the faith, they were drawn together by these cords. About the
middle of December 15 54 these seven friends directed a petition to
Queen Alary and the Parliament, asking for an opportunity to be
heard, saying ". . . That your said subiectes are true and faithful
christians, and neither heretikes, neyther teachers of heresic, nor
cut of ( f ] from the true catholike vniversall church of Christ . . . "i I
This was the protest of the Augsburg Confe~sion,~%nd the general
contention of those who left the church of Rome. During his trial
Rogers contended most earnestly that he was a member of Christ's
church.
These seven men, with four others (two of these four by
initials only), signed a "Declaration" on 8 Allay 15 54, in which
they set forth eight articles of faith: the authority of the Scriptures;
the church; the ancient syn~hols; justification by faith only; church
services in the vernacular; no invocation of saints; no purgatory;
two Sacraments only, with a denial of the Roman doctrines and
ractices of the Eucharist."' They offered to "proue out of the infal-
eble veritie, even the very word of G d , and bv the testimonie of the
good and moste aunciente fathers in Christe'his churche, this our
I I faythe and every peece thereof." They say: . . . we confess and
beleve the catholyke churche (whiche is thc spouse of Christe,)
"7 1
By 1554 this was a general contention among Protestants and
the phrases had been wcll learned. John Bradford is generally
regarded as the author of the "De~1aration";~"ogers (it may safely
be conjectured) collaborated with him. They had no books with
them in prison and they could not have copied Aklanchthon. But
their words echo A4elanchthon's 1539 "De ecclesia et de autoritate
verbi Dei,"T6 which was known in England.77 In it Melanchthon
wrote (this one quotation is enough by \\.a)l of illustration \ ~ . i t l i ~ ~ t
goiilg to the Co~zfessio Az.igristn~zn or the Apologia or the i,oci):
Howe\.er, after I Iia\le defined \\.hat the true Church is, and
it is agreed that we faith full^, retain and preserj7c the doctrine
of the ciitl~olic Church of Christ, transmitted in the Prophetic
and clpostc,lic Scriptures and in the Sylllbols, it is evident that
\ve truly agrcc with the catholic Church of Christ.;'
The English reformer-prisoners refer to the Council of Nicara,
misdating it for 324 as did hlelanchthon, and to the Councils of
Constantii~ople, Epliesus, Chalcedon, and Toledo. Thcy give \\-rong
dates ant1 so ditl Aleliincl~tho~~, but they not agree in their
crrors. '!I
The "Dccliiration" uscd a characteristically Melai~chtl~oiiian
dcfillition for justification. Justification, Bradford, Rogers, and
their fello\\rs say, "coni~neth onclvc from Goddes merc?7e tl~l-oughe
Christ . . . by faith only. nhich faith is not an opinion, but ;i certain
persuasion \\.rought by the holy ghost in the nlyndc and heart of
a , . . . 1-his ii~stification is to be distinguishccl from sanctitica-
tion or "an inlicrcnt ryghtcousncsse"; it is the "forgcuenesse of s\nnes
? . < I )
ant1 (:liristcs iusticc imputctl to us . . . In the 15 5 1 ~:o~z'fessio
Sa.~vlii(.rz onc iirticle is hciidcd "Dc rcinissione peccatorum ct tlc
i~~stjfici~tioi~c."' ' Bv faith, Jlelanchthon said, "remission of sins.
rcconciliation, ancl imputation of righteousness are gi\.cn because of
that mcrit of Christ."" Faith to ~ lc lanch thon is ~ ~ L ~ Z I C ~ L I , trust, con-
ficlcncc, reliiincc a\\.akcnccl 1>y the Iiol\r Spirit; the I~nglish prisoncrs
c;lllctl it "ii ccrta! nc \ sure, confident1 persuasion wrought by the liol\.
ghost."
Xlclsnclitlion uscd the phrase Izui?a uberic.tltins' ant1 docs not
sjwak of "inlicrcnt rightcousncsse." mhich Bradford, Rogers, and thc
othcrs coi~j>lcd \\,it11 "rcgt.ncrution." The): did not cliffcr in this
tloctrinc. Both ~IcIanchtIion and the Englishmen discount miln's
r i l . ~ I f Cratlfortl iintl Rogcrs had not ivorkcd so clost.1~ \\ i t h
\lcliinclithon's \\.ritinps, tlicsc parallels ~vould not aclequatclj sup-
port a contention of a tlcj>cnclcncy on hIelanchthon. I-Io\\;e\-er, since
\Iclarichthon seems to liavc bccn Rogers' and, to a somc\vhat more
limited dcgrce. Bradford's theological inair~stay,""he contcn tion
must bc yi\.cn scl-ioils consitlrriition.
T h c "Declaration" of the se\.en nlartvrs did not agree who]]!
\\i t11 \Icl;inchtlion's De (*oelrn Do,,zirzi. Tlley agreed that the lait!.
~hollltl rcc.c*i\c the 1,orcl's Supper un<]er both kinds; the\. oj~j~oscd
tr-ans~lbstantiation, ant1 the doctrine that the mass is a propitiator\
sacrifice. ?-he\. \\care not dcpcndent on h,C.lela1lchthon or Rlelanch-
thon alonc,. j ) ~ r h i l ~ > ~ not chicfl, on I \ le]anchth~n for these tloctrincs.
I t is true. :is statrcl above, that Xlelanchtho~l'~ polemic on sub utrflq1ll7
\\-as \\-idel\- circulatetl in E n ~ l a n d . ~ ; Tile English reformers in prison
c l i J not ;rgrce on thc 111:11111~r of Christ's PreSCllce in thc Sacranlent,
- 7
Ihc\ arc ~ i l c n t on this point. The! empllasized the use of tbf
Jolzn Rogers, I%Iclunchthon's English Friend 3 3
Sacrament; this emphasis is 3lelanchthonian to the core. Bradford,
Rogers, and the others declared:
Eightly, we confesse ant1 belcue the Sacramentes of Christe,
which by Baptisnle and the Lordes Supper, that they ought to
be minvstered according to thc institution of Christ, concerning
the substantial1 partes of them. Ant1 that they be no longer
Sacramentes, then thei be had in vsc, and i-sccl to the ende for
the which they wer instituted.''
~lelanchthon in the Aurzs1~7ere to the Iuterinz, which Kogers trans-
lated," wrote :
Therc shall no Gods scruyce be ordened or done in the Church
that is not ordeyned and commaunded in thc worde of God.
And the vse of the Sacrarnentc is so ordeyned and not other-
I v y , that thc deal!.ng oute and thc vse by keptc and done, as
thc Sonne of God sa!eth. Take it and cate it. &c. And drynke
a11 thereof. kc. And, doe this in illy remembraunce. And it
was also thus holdcn many hundreth yeares in the f>rrste
churche.
Therefore is this fvrste vsc agreyng with the wordes of
Chqste, surel!. the right and true vse, and shalbe mayntened
vpholclen and kepte, and there shall no other workes be set lip
therein, which are not co~~~maundecl.!"'
The proper usc of the Lord's Supper in the midst of the congregation
~ 3 s en~phasi~ed by 3lelanchthon also in the 155 1 Confessio Snxon-
ire . 9 : His emphasis on the right use of the Sac,ranient, ho~vever, is
not separated from his belief in the Real Presence of the Body and
Blood of Christ in the Sacrament."' Alclanchthon urged the fre-
quent use of the Sacrament. In it the remission of sins is given to
tht. believers, he srtid." '
Did RJelanchthon influcrlcc Rogers on the Lord's Supper? John
1:ogcrs was examined, he tells us, what he
meante concerninge the sacramente? . . . whether 1 bele~ed in
the sacramente to be the verv bodv & bloivd of our saviour
christe, that nas bornc of the ~.irgin marye & hanged on the
crosse, really, substantially, etc.?
I anst\-ered I he writes! that I had ofte tvnlcs tolde hyrn
that it nas a matter in which I \\-as no inedkr, and therefore
suspectctl of nl! hrethrcn to be of a contrary opinion: but
scynge thc Falsehod of their doctrine in all other poyntes, &
the defence therof onl!, by forcc & crucltye, thoughte their
doctrine in chis matter to be as false as the reste; for christe
could not be corpall>c thcrc, & I could not otherwise vnderstand
rcally & substantially to signifie them corpallye, & so could not
christe be there & in hca\.cn also: " '
Rogers evidently was loathe to state his position. He \\-as
"spected by his brethren because he held "contrary opinions." These
have held the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, some-
times e r r o n e ~ ~ ~ l y labclled "consubstantintion." At any rate, he
,vas not a "medler," in this matter. "I have many grave reason
,vhv I have not meddled (adnziscuerim rrze) in such a hateful strife
.\lAanchthon told Oecolampadius in 1529. "I am very gieie>
that a disagreement has arisen about that thing, which was insti-
tute(! by Christ for a gluing-together love."!'" Rogers very probabl,
&arrd these sentiments. Now in prison the reformers discusse;l
their ,-ie\vs and Rogers was suspect by his brethren. lVhen forced
to oi\le an answer to Stephen Gardiner and the Council he denied
tll:doctrine of transubstantiation, conlpletely and rvholly in terlnr
his fellow prisoners would have endorsed to show his agreement \\ith
tllelll. fiqclanchthon had praised Rogers because he sought harmonl
\\ith his colleagues." Rogers gavc weight to the argument that liC
had testified against transubstantiation, rather than defended an-
other position.
"1 \\-as sayd to have denyed the sacramcnte," he wrote. ~ j " t .
he insisted that he said "that your doctrine of the sacramente i>
f~jlse."!': Yet he was condemned, in the words of the sentence:
"Item quad in Sacramento altaris non est realiter et substan-
tialitcr naturale corpus et naturalis sanguis C h r i ~ t i . " ~ ~
Thc second heresy for which Rogers was condemned was his
doctrine of the Church: "Quod Ecclesia Ronlana Catholica, est
Ecclesia ilntichristi."!'!' IVhile it is true that he repeatedly referred
to the Church of Rome as anti-Christian, it is also true that he had
a irery positive and dynamic doctrine of the Church. He refused
to ackno\vledge the bishop of Rome, because he nlaintained that
Christ is the Head of the Church.'"" The King is not head of the
Church in spiritual things, "as the forgiveness of sins, the gift of
thc Holy Spirit, and the supreme authority of the Word of God.":"
These phrases are lllelanchthonian. "" Melanchthon's accents rang
out still more clearly when Rogcrs contended that he is a member
of t11c one, holy, catholic Church, that he never dissented nor n.ill
dissent from the Church catholic, that he was never out of the true
C;hurch, but always taught the true and catholic doctrine.'""
Rogers appealed to the authority of the IVord of God and "this
doctrine of the old & pure catholic church 400 yeares after
christe.":fl i He affirmed that "Credo Ecclcsianl sanctam catll-
olicam" referred to the universal church, "the consentc of all
true teachinge churches of all tymes & of all ages. r r l n i HL
lirlnly insisted, to use his 01% n \vords, "that I had bene & \\old
bc able, bv godes grace, to prove that all the doctrine that clt.1
1 had taughte was true & catholic, & that by the scriptures A
the authoritie of the fathers that lyrred 4 0 0 yeares afer the
(lcnth of Christe, etc."'"" He repeated his demand that k
refuted "bringinge the worde of gal , & the consente of the old
catIlolic church of the moste pure tyme. that is 100 \ri1lr'
after christe."1~~'
rohrt Rogers, ~1eZnizchthon's English Friend 3 5
Enough has been said a b o ~ e , " ' ~ to underline the orientation
that ~ l~ lanc l l thon gave to this doctrine of the authority of the Church
and autliority of the fVord. Melanchthon and Rogers were not
schinnatic. In the Auns117ere hlelanchthon wrote (in Rogers' trans-
lation): "It is truthe that the churche is a congregacion or company
gathered togethcr of the right beleuing, and that no man shal deuide
ind disseuer him selfe from the C h u r ~ h e . " ' ~ "
For these two doctrines Rogers died-the denial of transub-
stantiation and his contentions about the Church. Rogers in his
convictions was valiant and steadfast and gave an example to those
\tho ~ ~ o u l d suffer after him. He admired Rllelanchthon for his
Ioralt! and steadfastness. Rfelanchthon is usually not cast in a
heroic mold or thought of as being made of the stuff from which
nlart!rs c o i n e . " V e t in 1548 John Rogers hailed his friend as a
I\-itness of the truth and an exainple for the faithful.
Ije translated The almswere of Phil. Mela~zchtlzon to the In-
terint for the comfortvng of many godly and christen hertes,
~vliiche have been not alytell dismayed and discouraged thorow
suche lves [ that Melanchthon denied the truth 1 . And verely
not uithout a cause, for his denying nlould do more harme to
the trueth in these last and most perelouse tymes, than any
tongue or penne can express. And God of his gootlnesse, boun-
tcfull mcrcye and great power, graunt that the neuer chaunce."'
Iio~et-s' \\ ortls presaged and justified his own and his companions'
dttitudc and actions in those dark days of Februarv 1555 when one
h! onc at Snlithfield, Coventrv, Gloucester, they were led to the
5takc. ' . l
Bcforc Rogers went to the stake a petition was drawn up on
h ~ \ bchalf. Perhaps the plea that Rogers be returned to Ditmarich
ncrcr reached Rlary. I t came from the "Forty-eight" to the city
fatlirrs of Hamburg, asking that they intercede for Rogers. These
officials of the Ditmarsch district were anxious that Rogers serve
d ~ d i n as pastor in that region." Perhaps the Hamburg Council
rlld not n rite to Xlary." ' Rogers went to his death.
Soon aftcr John Rogers suffered martyrdom his oldest son, the
\ e i entcen-\car-old Daniel ( 15 3 8?- 159 1 ) returned to Wittenberg to
qtt~d) undcr Philip hlelanchthon, his father's f r i e n d . " V n 15 84
he gratefullv c~ckilo~vledgcd the help he received from Stephen
Dryner. a ljoctor of the Civil Lajv, Counsellor to the old Baron of
'-\1111olt. "\\hich 1)octor." Daniel wrote, "twenty-seven years past
1 55 7 ; , hat] been in! school-fcllow under Melanchthon, at Witten-
h c ~ . ~ . " " '.
Dallicl Rogers commemorated both his father and Philip
\Irl.lllchthon, alllong the two hundred seventy plus short poems he
arote. Of the fifty-t~vo epigrams dedicated to Francis Russell, Earl
of Ecdford, there is an "Epitaph on Philip Melanchthon."ll' In
2 of his Epigrams, sixtyseven in number, there is one "On a
portrait of Melanchthon by Durer." Others include : "Tumulus of
his brother Samuel Rogers"; "TO his father John Rogers'; "Cenotaph
Rogersv; "Tumulus of Hester Rogers"; "Hester Rogers"; "Tumulus of
his brother Samuel Rogers"; "TO his father John Rogers'; "Cenotaph
of John Rogers the Martyr (2)"-"' Then in Book 3, in which
there are one hundred fifty-three poetic pieces, Daniel wrote "On
the death of John Rogers" again. Also among'the tumuli is one 'The
Martyr's crown of Thomas Cranmer" and one Of S ~ ~ s a n n a Rogers."u9
Among the thirtv-four "Sylvae" (also in Book 3 ) is a "Tun~ulus of
P. hlelanchthon:""' Scattered throughout these three books are
seven epigrams or tumuli to John Jewel.'" There are none about
Alartin Luther or John Calvin or Heinrioh Bullinger. One poem,
dedicated to the memory of John Jewel, in nineteen lines named
Calvin, 3Ielanchthon, Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Bullinger, A Lasco,
Hus, Hemming, and Knox. "The German lands call out and extol
hlelanchthon," Daniel wrote.""
These data do not say a great deal about a friendship between
Philip hlelanchthon and Daniel Rogers. Howevcr, there was more
in these poems, one may suppose, than the recollections about a
university lecturer. They were tributes, among those to man!
others, to Alelanchthon, John Rogers, his father's, German friend. '
Honorable, Alost \Vise, and Esteemed Lord Xlayor and Council-
men of the City of Hamburg, Our Especially Dear and Good Friends.
Our frier~dly greetings with the wish of all good for you.
Honorable, 111ost wise, and esteemed lords, our especially dear
and good friends.
\Ye would not hide from you esteemed, good, most wise men
that ahout four vears ap12 ' one of the Sul3erintendents of our land.
named Alaster Roger ~Rogerus], went from herc to England for
weighty rcasons, there to preach the divine, only-saving \Vord to the
latc young King.
Now we have learned that after the death of the said young
lord the present Queen of England again embraced Popery and after-
~ a r c l s arrested and imprisoned many learned, brave men (may God
be beseeched). Anlong them is also the afore-mentioned Master
John Roger, about whom we have received a trustworthy report fro111
faithfu1 friends.
Since, then, the said Rfaster John Roger served us nobly in
his i-ocatiorl and otherwise headed the parish in Meldorf with all
modesty, and without learned men like him we cannot be a blessing
in the highest degree nor to many people, this well-esteemed man
ought to be frced from prison and be p-nl i t ted to go his way free]!
that he might again come into this place for the consolation and
coinfort of manv harassed consciences.
Therefore. we pray and beseech vou most kindly that !ou
1-lonorable Gentlemcn would address thgpresent Queen of England
John Nogcrs, Mclanchthon's English Friend
-
3 7
through the proper ways and nleans to the intent that the afore-
named Master John Roger be freed from iinprisonment without
conditions and be permitted to go his way. Thereby he may be
granted his life and preserved, that he might again reside in this
place and that he might again teach and preach the Christ whom he
professes, ~vhonl he has hither to served so faithfully.
In this you Honorable Gentlenlen will be permitting us to find
preachers who are particularly well-pleasing to us for holding fast
to the Word of God.
Then God Almighty to whom we commend you Honorable
Gentlemen for continued blessing will not let you he without reward.
\Ve on our part will also be most friendly disposed to you Honorable
Gentlemen.
Dated, Heide, under our seal, Saturday before the Day of Vitus
and Modestus, Martyrs, / 1 5 June] Anno etc. '54.
Respectfully,
The Overseeers
of the Land of
Ilitmarsh
FOOTNOTES
1. A wuying and considering o f the Interim by the honour-worthy and
highly learned Philip Melanchthon, translated into Englyshe by John
Rogers (London: Edward Whitchurch, 1548), Sig. Aiir. Br. Mus.
press-mark 1019.b.3.(3.).
A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogzte o f
Books Printed in England, Scotland, G Ireland, And o f English Books
Printed Abroad, 14 75-1 640 (London : Thc Rihliographical Society,
1926), no. 17799. Cited as S.T.C.
Joseph L. Chester, John Rogers: Thc Compiler o f thc First Author-
ized English Bible; the Pioneer of the English Reformation; and Its
First Martyr (London : Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861 ),
p. 386. Sre pp. 386-406 for Rogers' translation of Melanchthon's
traci.
2. "Bedenken der Theologen zu Wittenberg iiher das Interim dcm Chur-
fiirstcn Herzog Moritzcn gestellt in Wittcnberg im Junio dcs 48.,"
I Das Augsburger Interim, ein Bedenken lMelanchthons und einige Briefe
tlesselhen in Bezug nuf das Interim, die Bulh reformatoris Paul 111.
und die Formttla reformationis Caroli V. , als Grund fur den Religions-
Friederl von 26. September 1555, ed. M . K. Th. Hcrgang (Leipzig: B.
13. Teubncr, 1855), pp. 156-197.
Both the Latin and the German texts are given. They were signed
by Johannes Bugenhagen, Johannes Pfeffinger (the German text only),
Caspar Creutziger CCrucigcrl, Georgius Major, Philippus Mclanchthon
[sic], and Sebastianus Frijschel [Froschelius] .
John Rogers did not say whether his translation was from the
Gcrman or the Latin text.
Chester did not recognize, it seems, that the document was issued
by the Wittenberg theologians, not by Melanchthon alone.
"Iudicum IV. de libro Interim," Corpus Reformatorum: Philippi
Melnnthonis opera suae supersunt omnia, cd. C. G. Bretschneider
(Hallc: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1838), VI, 924-942, no. 4259.
The editor noted the English translation, col. 924. Cited as C.R.
3. Hergang, p. 1 5 6 n , indicates that Melanchthon wrote the "Brdenkcn.-
The present writer has come to the conclusion on the basis of its
that the text is Melanchthon's.
4. E.g., Thomas H. Aston, John Rogers, the Proto-M~rtyr of ,Ilnryl'; nPigfr
(Birmingham: Birmingham Protestant Association, 1873), p. 3 .
A broadside, published in 1679, A Catalogue of . . . those on/!
Martyrs who were burned in Queen Mary's Reign lists the names of
the Marian Martyrs with Rogerts' name heading the list. However, it
incorrectly gives the place of his martyrdom as Coventry. B ~ . M,,~ ,
press-mark T.8 8 * .( 10.).
T h e best biography about Rogers is by Chester. J. F. ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ .
Coverdale and His Bibles (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953), brings
new materials. John Foxe, The Acts and Monunzents, ed. S. R . Cattle!
(New and complete edition; London: R. B. Seeley and W. Bumside,
1838), VI, 591-612.
5. Chester, pp. $43-445, gathered tributes to Rogers. Thomas H, !Iston
greatly admired him. In Birmingham the John Rogers Alcmorial Librar!
is named in his honor.
6. Mozley, pp. 1 3 1-1 41.
7. It was delivered in England b y the latter part of July 1 5 3 7 ; Chester,
p. 52.
Thomas A. Aston, John Rogers: The Martyr of Birmilzghnnr
(Birmingham: T. Medlicott, 1863), p. 9; eadem, John Rogers, rllc
ProteiVartyr o f Mary's Reigv (1873), pp. 13, 14. Aston follons
Chester.
8. S[idney j L[ce], "John Rogers, (1 500?-15 5 5)," Dictionury of Natio,lo/
Biography, ed. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (London: Smith, Elder.
tir Co., 1897) , XLIX, 126; Chester, p. 48.
9. Ibjd., pp. 49-5 1 ; D.N.B., XLlV, 126, 127. Lee's articIe is largcl!. de-
pendent on Chestcr. Both Chestcr and Lee wou1.d make it thr firct
concordance of the EngIish Bible. However, Mozley, Appendix F.
pp. 336-339, and S.T.C., no. 3046, show that Covcrdalc compilccl thi.
first English Biblc concordancc.
10. John Venn and J . A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigicnsis (Cambridge: .\t
the University Press, 1924), 1, iii, 479, give the date of his birth
"c.1509 ( ? I 500)." The year 1509, however, seems late; this would
make Rogers only fifteen when he received his B.A.
The date suggested by the present writer is purely conjectural. IIo\l-
ever, i t would make him twenty when he bccame a Bachelor of Arts.
instead of twenty-five according to the more usual reckoning.
1 1. Grace Book Containing the Records of the University o f Cumhridici
for the Years 1501-1 512, ed. William G . Searle (Cambridge: At t h ~
University Press, 1908), p. 221: "Item conceditur Johanni Ko,oc.rtsc
vt duodecim trrmini in quibus ordinaria audiuit licct non secunduln
formarn statuti cum opposicionibus et responsihus requisitis sufficianr
sibi ad respondcndum qucstioni."
C. H. Cooper, Athcnae CQ?ltabrigiensis (Cambridge, 18 58), 1. 1 2 1.
546; Venn, I, iii, 479; D.hr.B., XLIV, 126; Chcster, p. 2.
Gracc Book B , Part 11, Containing the Accounts of the Proctors 01
the L'ni~~crsity of Cambridge, 1511-1544, ed., for the cambridge :\nti-
quarian Society by Mary Bateson, Lourd Memorial Series 111 (Cam-
bridge: At the University Press, 1905), p. 131 (from p. 4 7 8 ) .
12. Gram Book 1, p- 225.
13. Chester, p. 2; however, he places the events in 1526. J O S C P ~ I'otcr.
Alumni Oxotrienses: Thc Members of the University of Oxford,
1 71 4 , Early Scrjcs (Oxford: Parker and Co., 189 1 ), 111, 12719 no.
credits a John Rogcrs with a B.A. from Oxford on 1 February 1523-4.
Al.A., 27 Febrr~ary 1526-7, a schoolmaster i n 1525; "one of these narnii
rector of st. Trinity-the-lcss7 London, 1532, Vicar-choral of St- sfephen'
John Rogers, !~leltz7zchthon's English Friend
-- - - -- - . -- - - -. -
3 9
---
Westnlinster 1545, rector of St. Margaret Moses 1548, vicar of St.
Sepulchre 1 j50, and canon of St. Paul's 155 1 ." He seemed to con-
fuse John Rogers and John Kodgers, conflating their careers.
14. Chester, 13. 258; Siclncy Lee, "Daniel Hogers (1538?-1591)," D.N.B.,
XLIV, 116, 11 7; Foster, 111, 1273, no. 2. Chester, pp. 258-271, has a
of Daniel's lift., which Lee has followed. I am indebted to
JIiss Norah Fudge of the Institute of Historical Research, University
London, for making a~ailable to me the manuscript biography pre-
pared there.
13, For the Cambridge group see Foxe, A. and M., V, 41 5; A. G. Dickens,
The Etzglivh Reformation (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), pp. 68,
69; 1\'. S. Tjcrnagcl, Henu VIII and the Lutherans: A Study in Anglo-
Lutheran Relations from 152 1 to 1 54 7 (St. Louis: Concordia Publish-
ing House, 1965), pp. 34-47; William A. Clebsch, England's Earliest
Protesta,tts, 1520-1535 (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1964), yp. 47, 48; E. G. Rupp, Studies in the Making o f the
English Protestant Tradition (Mainly in the Reign of Henry VIII)
(Cambrjdgc: At the University Press, 1947), pp. 18, 19.
16. jlickens, pp. 75-77, for Garret; also Clebsch, pp. 79, 80.
17. In the 15 59 Latin edition of his work as g~ven by Chester, p. 10.
Lee, D.N.B., LXIX, 126, said that when Rogcrs went to Antwerp
in 1534 "he was an orthodox catholic [i.e., Roman Catholic] priest."
18. Sct., c.g., Dickons, pp. 69-71.
19. Thc connections among the three and thcir conncctions with thc
merchant-printer Richard Grafton are most comprehensively, but in a
~oorly organized fashion, presented by J. A. Kingdon, Incidents in the
Livcs of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton, Two Citizens and
(;roccrs of Lolldcn, W h o S u f f ~ ~ r e d Loss and Incurred Danger in Com-
i i~o t~ with Tyndal, Coverdale, and Rogers, in Bringing out the Bible
1 1 2 t kc Vulgar Toilgzie (Privatcly printed in fifty copies only; London:
Risan and Arnold, 1895), passim.
20. Er. Aius. Lansdownc mss., vol. 389, fol. 191; Chester, p. 298.
2 I . hie, with somc degree of plausibility has Rogers going to Wittenberg.
We says: "Vuitenbergiam indc ad aliquot annos commoratus, multo
cssc cocpit cruditior, in diuinis illis scripturarum sanctarum mistcrijs:
cotulitq; industriam totam his in natiua regionc propagandis. Grande
Ribliorum opus, Tindalum sequutus, a uertice ad calcem a primo
Geneseos ad ultimum Apocalypseos uocabulum, uisitatis Hebraeorum,
Graecorum, Latinorum, Germanorurn, & Anglorum, exemplaribus, fidel-
issime, in indioma uulgare trastulir. Quod opus laboriosum, excellens,
saluhrc, pium ac sanctissimu, adiunctis ex Martino Luthero pracfationi-
bus & annotationibus utilissimis, Henrico octauo Anglorum regi, sub
xlo~rline Thomac Mathcvu, espistola praefixa, dedicauit." John Bale,
Scriptorvln lllzistrritt nzrrioris Brytannic . . . Catalogus (Basle: John
Oporimus, 1 5 57), p. 677. Br. Mus. press-mark C.28.m.6.
22 From the Latin edition of 1559 as quoted in translation by Chester, p. 14.
2 3 . Foxc, VI, 591, 592, puts him in Wittcnberg from 1538 to 1548. He
has hecn follo\vcd by Chester, e.g., p. 16. Foxc, IV, 354, noted that
1:ogers went tr, Dietmarsch, which later he forgot or, not knowing his
geography, regardcd ss a village in Saxony. Mozley, pp. 131, 132,
correctly obsc,rves that Rogcrs' ministry in Dictmarsch "has been al-
most universally disregarded."
Jlelanchthon to John Schneck, 1 8 September 1543, C.R., V, 178, no.
2 7 5 8 ; Mozley, p. 132. Mclanchthon speaks of "every office, which he
adored" (in omlzia tanto praeditus).
2 5 . Album Acadcirziac Vitebergcnsis, ed. Carl E . Foerstemann (Leipzig:
Carl Tauchnit, 1841), I, 186a, lines 24 and 25: "D. Joanncs Mac-
cabat.us Scotus. D. Joannes Roggerus Anglus." Preserved Smith, "Eng-
l i h ~ c n at Wittenlxrg in the Sixteenth Century," English Historical
Hievlu, XXXVI (July 1921 ), 428. Neither Lee in the D.N.B. or Chester
noted this matriculation.
.\jaccabac.us or John IIacalpine (died 1557) married tlgnes Alache-
son, a sister of 3liles Coverdale's wife. Hc \vent to Copenhagen, Den.
mark. in 1542. ~vhcre the remained until his death. Alozley, p. 8,
and rpfc.rcnccs givcn thcrc.
C . R . . \:, 178, no. 2758; A,IozIc)-, pp. 132, 133; Letters anti Pul>crs,
For-cign l r t l r l Du,tlestic, of thr Reign of Hcnr?, VlII, ed. J. S. Bre\ver
anti 1. Gairtlncr (London: Longlnan, Grccn, 1-ongman, Roberts, s:
C.rc.cn, 1863ff.3, XVlll, ii, 201, p. 103.
Transl;~tecl from C.H., V. 1'78, no. 2758. That Rogers accepted the
<.:111 is told in ,lol~a,!i~ Atiolfi's g~jtlailnt Ncocorus. Chronik des La1ldes
I_)itl~rrlrlrschcn, ed. F . C. Dahln~ann (I(ic.1: Koniglichen Schulbuch-
t]ruckcl-c.i, 1827>, 11, 8 3 : ''51. Johannes l:ogcrius. ISS dieser Tidt
; 1543; im I-antle tho 31eldorp ock noch Ao. 4 7 gewesen, . . ."
In H: