downfall of Somerset, gave the advantage in the Council to the side of the bishops, and Hooper was looked upon as obstinate and contumacious. Further conferences and inquiries being without effect, he was first ordered to keep to his own house, and having disregarded that order, he was handed over to the Archbishop's custody, and finally sent to the Fleet Prison. In this noisome den, and wearied with the contentions and trials of several months, the Bishop-elect of Gloucester foretasted the bitterness of death. At length the controversy was brought to an end, mainly by the influence of the two eminent foreign Reformers Peter Martyr and Bucer, who held the Divinity Professorships at Oxford and Cambridge. They felt Hooper's objections to the vestments, but urged him to consent to wear them at his consecration, that he might enter upon his episcopal work. He consented, but with a heavy heart. His consecration immediately followed his liberation from prison, and after preaching once before the King, attired in the canonicals, he hastened to Gloucester, glad to escape from the scenes, and if possible, from the remembrance also of his persecution for conscience' sake.

As if conscious that his time was short, Hooper entered upon his episcopal duties with unquenchable fervour and devotion. His appetite for work was insatiable, and while fulfilling in an exemplary manner his obligations to his diocese, his loved employment was, as when in London, the public preaching of God's Word. Foxe's account of this period of Hooper's life has never been questioned:-"No father in his household, no gardener in his garden, nor husbandman in his vineyard, was more or better occupied than he in his diocese amongst his flock, going about the towns and villages, teach

ing and preaching to the people there. With his continual doctrine, he joined due and discreet correction, and to none so much as to those who from abundance of wealth and possessions, thought they might do as they pleased. Nor was he less exemplary in his private than in his public character. As to the revenues of the bishoprics, if anything surmounted thereof, he saved nothing, but bestowed it in hospitality. Twice I was in his house at Worcester, where in his common hall, I saw a table spread with a good store of meat, and beset full of beggars and poor people; and on my asking the servants what this meant, they told me that every day their master's manner was to have at dinner a certain number of the poor of the city by course, who were served with wholesome meats, after being examined by him and deputies, of the Lord's Prayer, the articles of faith, &c."

In 1552, scarcely a year after his consecration, his bishopric was dissolved, and he was appointed to the diocese of Worcester, that of Gloucester being made an archdeaconry dependent upon Worcester, as it had been before. Not long afterwards another arrangement seems to have been thought desirable, and the two bishoprics were united under the name of the diocese of Worcester and

Gloucester, the bishop being ordered to live one year in each alternately.

This increase of his charge only inflamed his zeal and enlarged the region in which he "fully preached the Gospel of Christ." His abundant labours would probably have soon cut short his career, for his exertions were often beyond his strength. But on the 6th of July, 1553, the young King died. Although Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen, the feeling of the country in favour of Mary's right soon com

pelled Queen Jane's abdication. Hooper took a very decided course at this crisis, of which an account remains in his own words :-" When Queen Mary's fortunes were at the worst, I rode myself from place to place (as is well known) to win and stay the people for her party. And when another was proclaimed, I preferred our Queen, notwithstanding the proclamation. I sent horses into both shires, to serve her in great danger, as Sir John Talbot and William Lygon, Esq., can testify." But his loyalty did not avail him anything with Mary; his Protestantism was too pronounced, and too dangerous to be tolerated. On the 12th of September he was committed by authority of the Privy Council to the Fleet Prison, having refused the entreaties of his friends to save his life by flight. Sundry charges were laid against him when brought before the Council, but the surer one of heresy was soon substituted instead. Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor, presided at the examination, assisted by Bishops Bonner, Tonstal, and others. Several times, so Foxe writes, he was brought before the Commission, sometimes with John Rogers, the first martyr in Mary's persecution, for his companion, and the streets were SO thronged by multitudes, that the guards could with difficulty make their way to and from the place where the Commissioners sat. One of the first questions Gardiner asked him was, whether he was married? "Yea, my Lord, and will not be unmarried, till death unmarry me; a reply which procured him a storm of abuse, Tonstal even calling him "beast." He was soon asked the more deadly question "what authority moved him not to believe the corporal presence?" to which he answered, "the authority of God's Word." Refusing him the liberty of

defending his opinions, the Commission resolved that he was worthy to be deprived of his bishopric. On subsequent occasions some of the Commission ventured to argue with him, and Hooper's intrepid and vehement spirit did not desert him. Some of the "shocking" things which he said were recorded in the books of the Ecclesiastical Court, and it may be seen by the curious how the blank horror and astonishment of the ecclesiastical scribe remains mirrored in the page. Having been asked again about the corporal presence, the record runs "perrupit in blasphemias, that the very natural body of Christ is not really and substantially in the Sacrament of the Altar; that the Mass is the iniquity of the Devil; and that the Mass is an idol." Also, being questioned concerning Matrimony, whether it was one of the seven Sacraments, "in pertinacia et malicia sua perseverans, that Matrimony is none of the seven Sacraments, and if it be a Sacrament, he can prove seven-score Sacraments." What wonder that the Council unanimously said, as certain kindred of theirs of old had said, "away with such a fellow from the earth; it is not fit that he should live."

Hooper lay in prison more than eighteen months, and during that period was frequently visited by Bonner and others, who vainly endeavoured to induce him to recant. Promises and threats were alike useless. Knowing, however, the influence of his name, it was pretended that Bonner had prevailed with him, and that he had recanted.

This calumny would doubtless have done much damage to the Protestant cause, had not Hooper, as soon as he heard of it, boldly and publicly denounced the falsehood in a letter addressed "to all who unfeignedly looked for the coming of our Saviour," and in which he as

He pro

serted in stronger terms than ever his unwavering constancy to his principles. Bonner had no sooner heard of this new proof of his boldness than he determined to hasten the long-delayed event. ceeded to Newgate, to which prison Hooper had been removed, and performed the ceremony of degrading him and John Rogers from their priest's orders. Rogers was immediately led away to Smithfield; and as it was now decided to strike terror into the Protestants by the last weapon of persecutors, orders were given by the Queen in Council that the execution of Rogers should be followed immediately by the burning of Lawrance Saunders, at Coventry; of Rowland Taylor, at Hadleigh, in Suffolk; and of Hooper, at Gloucester. The fires were thus kindled almost at once in different parts of the kingdom. The morning after Rogers suffered, February 6, 1555, Hooper was sent in custody of the Queen's guards to Gloucester, praising God on the way that the malignity of his enemies had contrived the accomplishment of his desire "to confirm with his death amongst the people over whom he was pastor, the truth which he had before taught them." On his arrival at Gloucester the whole city assembled to show him respect and sympathy. Sir Sir Anthony Kingston, one of his personal friends and converts, was appointed by Royal command to see execution done upon him; and being overcome with grief, the good knight besought him to submit to the ruling powers that his life might be spared. But Hooper thus nobly answered his pleadings:-" True it is, Master Kingston, that death is bitter, and life is sweet; but I have settled myself, through the strength of God's Spirit, patiently to pass through the torments and extremities of the fire now prepared for me rather than deny the

truth of His Word." The next day, being market day, about seven thousand persons, it is said, were assembled to witness the spectacle. The stake had been driven near a great elm tree in front of the Cathedral, where he had been wont to preach (the spot is now marked by a fine monumental memorial), and through a dense crowd, who loudly and bitterly bewailed his fate, he made his way with cheerful countenance. to the place. Strict orders had been given that he should not be permitted to speak to the people, and although he prayed aloud as he came to the stake, the bystanders were not suffered to hear but a few sentences of his prayer. A box was brought and laid before him, which contained, it was said, his pardon if he would recant; but when he was told what it was, he twice exclaimed, "If you love my soul, away with it!" The greatest cruelty seems to have marked all the proceedings of the executioners. He was stripped to his shirt, and although a tall man, he was placed upon a high stool that he might be exposed to the view of all the multitude. The wood of which the fire was made, was green, and was thrice kindled before it had strength to finish its dreadful work. For three-quarters of an hour he endured this fiery trial of his faith, and then, with the words of one upon his lips whom in many points he singularly resembled, he expired, crying aloud "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'

Lord Macaulay, in a well-known essay, has expressed his deliberate judgment "that the Reformation in England displayed little of what had in other countries distinguished it, unflinching and unsparing devotion, boldness of speech, and singleness of eye. These were, indeed, to be found, but it was in the lower ranks of the party which opposed the authority of Rome--in such men as

Hooper, Latimer, Rogers, and Taylor." To concede the chief place to Hooper is no injustice to the illustrious men named with him as the real heroes of the English Reformation. Latimer's junior in the episcopate, as well as in years, he was scarcely his inferior in those qualities with which Latimer's name is always associated. And in gravity of mien, eloquence of speech, and clear perception of the great principles at issue, Hooper was the greater man. The vigorous sentence quoted in the beginning of this paper must be allowed by candid minds to be a fulfilled prophecy. While Cranmer schemed and temporized, and Ridley, with honest zeal for ritual splendour, aided his chief, Hooper's voice was firm and clear for the old truth Wickliffe had preached, that the Scripture was the rule of reformation in the church. He saw that to compromise was to betray the cause into the enemy's hands. Hence his persistent refusal of the episcopal robes, and the painful results of the controversy.

Hooper's conduct in this matter has been incomprehensible to those writers who regard religion as committed to the care of statesmen. According to every allowed principle of statecraft, a reformation of church doctrine and discipline, if undertaken at all, must be most tenderly and warily undertaken, and only under the pressure of necessity. And to the most eminent professors of the art of governing men, caution has always been a more attractive quality than justice, and the public safety of greater moment than the whole galaxy of the virtues. It is freely granted that it is desirable for moderation and prudence to hold the helm of the state; but is it imperative that the statesman and the reformer of religion should possess identical qualifications? And if the two cannot be combined in the same per

son, must it be considered imperatively necessary that the reformer should act as if he were a statesman ? Amongst the leaders of the English Reformation there were men who evidently thought so, and therefore governed their course by the maxims of State policy. And there were others, such as Hooper and many of the German reformers, who asserted that the Word of God alone was the law of the church, and yet more or less acknowledged the authority of the magistrate in matters of religion. It is easy to charge such men, and the English Puritans generally, with inconsistency of sentiment and practice. But, however inconsistent they were,

however imperfectly they apprehended the logical consequences of their avowed principles-they saw clearly the supremacy of Scripture above all worldly policies, and protested earnestly against the half-andhalf measures of temporizing friends. They desired that the churches should be purified from idolatrous rites, and the liturgy pruned of all unscriptural elements; and they desired that these things might be done step by step with the progress of the Word of God amongst the people, believing stedfastly that the influence of the Scriptures would soon overcome all opposition that might be dangerous to the public safety. Hooper and his brethren had faith in the power of divine truth, but they had none in Acts of Uniformity, or in timid compromises.

It was the determination of Cranmer, Ridley, and others of lesser note among the leaders of the Reformation in Edward VI.'s court, to secure uniformity of doctrine and discipline in the church, and the repugnance Hooper expressed to the obnoxious vestments probably strengthened this determination. If so potent a leader of the ultra section would be subdued to conformity, there

Yet

would be no difficulties with others. No severities, therefore, could be wrong for such a gain. The sad story already narrated in brief, is rendered more intelligible if we regard Hooper as the greatest man amongst the objectors to the old Romish ritual and formularies. historians, with modern Anglicanism before their eyes, persist in calling him narrow-minded and contentious. "The candles, crosses, vestments, and altars" are become, as Hooper foretold, "things necessary" in not a few English parishes at this day.

Scotland passed through her religious crisis as England did, amidst grave perils, but her ecclesiastical leaders were averse to the trimming policy so much in favour here, and the result is seen in the sturdy and intelligent Protestantism of the northern country. What was good for the north, we may be excused for thinking, would have been good for the south also, although we allow the superiority a Scotchman may claim in virtue of his country and his race.

Hooper has been styled the Puritan bishop. He is rather the St. Stephen of the English Reformation. "Full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," he was, like Stephen, the proto-martyr of his age. The one fell a victim to the blind rage of zealots who "made void the Word of God by their tradition;" the other suffered all but the extreme pangs of death defending a renovated Christianity against obsolete Judaism. Both were fervid and impassioned in speech, impatient of insincerity, and faithful unto death for the rights of conscience and for spiritual religion. Anthony Wood calls him "a thorough-paced Protestant, if not worse,' testant, if not worse," a description richly suggestive of the estimation in which the High Anglicans have always held him. "The head and front of his offending" is his protesting against the policy of compromise and concession, of which the Church of England of the present day is the embodiment and condemnation.

THE recent proceedings of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, following so soon upon its revival, have naturally arrested the attention of statesmen as well as Churchmen, and deserve the gravest consideration by Nonconformists also. From 1717 till the other day, Englishmen only heard of its existence at the commencement of each session of Parliament, and were well content to learn that it was then adjourned by the Archbishop from time to time, without having attended to any business whatever. But of late it has pleased Government to permit it to meet and discuss questions of interest

to Churchmen; and the country at large has been sometimes amused, and occasionally edified, by discussions. which have decided nothing, save the impotence of State-Churchinen to do as they would.

It would be ridiculous to pretend that this ecclesiastical body commands the confidence of the clergy and laity at large. Its constitution renders it unpopular with thoughtful men of all parties in the Establishment, and not without reason. Upper House is composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his twenty suffragan bishops; and the Lower House, consisting of 149

The