Cranmer refused to observe the instructions of the royal dispensation, and stood firm in defence of ancient ecclesiastical observances. The venerable primate said, "that Hooper ought not to be so stubborn in so light a matter, and that his wilfulness therein was not to be suffered !"* Hooper declined the offered preferment because of the form of oath required, which he considered foul and impious. The oath required him to swear by the saints, as well as by the name of God, which was opposed to his judgment and conscience, since the Searcher of hearts alone ought, in his opinion, to be appealed to in an oath. The young king, convinced of the truth of this, struck out the words with his own pen. Hooper's scruples concerning the habits and ceremonies were not so easily overcome. The king and council, as we have seen, were willing to dispense with them; but Cranmer and Ridley were of another mind, and absolutely refused their allowance. Ridley was, therefore, appointed to a disputation with Hooper, in order, if possible, to satisfy his conscience, and bring him to a compliance; but this proved unavailing. Hooper, however, used every means in his power to obtain the resolution of his objections, and the removal of his scruples; and, for this purpose, he sought the advice and obtained the sentiments of the learned Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer. He still prayed to be excused from wearing popish garments, the use of which, in the service of God, was still opposed to his judgment and conscience. He observed, that those garments had no countenance in scripture or primitive antiquity; that they were the inventions of antichrist, and introduced into the church in the most corrupt ages; that they had been abused to the purposes of idolatry, particularly in the celebration of the mass; and that to continue the use of them was, in his opinion, to symbolize with antichrist, to mislead the people, and inconsistent with the simplicity of the gospel. He could, therefore, appeal to the Searcher of hearts, that it was not obstinacy, but the convictions of conscience alone, which constrained him to unyielding refusal.I Hooper's convictions were opposed to his promotion and worldly interest, which placed him in a painful dilemma. Ridley had found himself unable to remove his scruples, and induce him to renounce his principles; and Cranmer, having tried similar experiment with similar result, laid the affair before the council, and he was committed to prison, where he remained from August till March, when, by a compromise, he was released from confinement and consecrated. Hooper consented to put on the habits at his consecration, when he preached in the royal chapel and in his own cathedral, but was suffered to dispense with them on all other occasions. Having the bishopric forced upon him by these compulsory measures, he was constrained to appear once at least in public, attired in conformity to the fashion of the bishops; and it is added, that, unless he Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 120. § Strype's Cranmer, pp. 211–215. || Burnet, vol. i. p. 166. had thus far complied, there was reason to conclude that the bishops would have attempted to take away his life, and Hooper was not ignorant of their intentions.* The venerable martyrologist furnishes the following account of this theological quarrel, which occasioned true Christians to mourn, and Catholics to rejoice. The bishops had the power in their own hands; therefore Hooper was forced to yield to their antichristian domination. Having been appointed to preach before the king, our author adds, that he came forth in a strange apparel as a player on the stage. His upper garment was a long scarlet chymere down to the foot, and under that a white linen rocket that covered his shoulders, and upon his head was a geometrical or four-squared cap, although his head was round. "What cause of shame," he adds, was this to that good preacher, every man may judge; but this private reproach, for the public benefit of the church, which he only sought, he bore and suffered patiently; and I would to God that they, who took upon them the other part of that tragedy, had yielded their private cause, whatever it was, to the public concord and edifying of the church, for no man in all the city was one hair the better for their hot contention."+ 66 In this brief narrative, we have the battle of truth and conscience, against erroneous principle and antichristian oppression. Archbishop Cranmer, who took so distinguished a part in these arbitrary proceedings, could not discover his errors till his own life was in jeopardy, nor be brought to repentance till he approached the stake. Bishop Ridley, in the tyrannical reign of Queen Mary, being confined in prison, and in daily expectation of the fire, was brought to sober reflection. He who had stood foremost in the proceedings against Hooper, renounced his persecuting principles, and applauded the conduct of Hooper, whom he had persecuted. In prison he learned an invaluable lesson; and from prison he addressed a letter to Hooper, then also in prison, which clearly exhibits not only their agreement on points of religious doctrine, but also the cordial union and brotherly affection which then subsisted between them. He styles Hooper his "most dear brother," and adds-" For as much as I understand by your tracts, which I have yet but superficially seen, that we thoroughly agree, and wholly consent together, in those things which are the grounds and substantial points of our religion, against which the world at this time so furiously rages." then makes allusion to the former part of their history, humbly confessing, "howsoever in time past, in smaller matters, and appendages to religion, your wisdom and my plainness have, in some points, varied, each following his several opinion." He We have already observed that, during his painful conflict, Hooper sought advice from two distinguished reformers; and we find that Peter Martyr sent him a letter, dated Oxford, November 4, 1550, highly commendatory of the principles on which he acted, and the firm stand he made in favour of a purer reformation, addressing him Pierce, parti. p. 30. + Fox, vol. iii. p. 121. Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 564. as follows: "Those things which you have put in writing, touching the controversy risen between you and the reverend Lord Bishop of London, concerning the garments of the ministers of the church, I have both read them as you desired, and, according to the shortness of the time, have considered them as needfully as I could. I was not a little delighted with your singular and ardent zeal, whereby you endeavour that the christian religion may again aspire to the uncorrupt and plain pureness. For what ought to be more desired of all godly men, than that all things may by little and little be cut off, which have but little or nothing at all that can be referred to sound edifying, and which of godly minds are judged to be overchargeable and superstitious? You see, therefore, that in the chief and principal point I do not disagree from you, but do earnestly desire that the same which you endeavour to bring to pass, may take place. My desire is kindled partly for that in ceremonies, I would come as near as might be unto the holy Scriptures, and would continue in the imitation of the better times of the church; and partly that I perceive the Pope's followers endeavour still, by these relics, to renew at the leastwise some show of the mass, and do more cleave unto these things than the nature of things indifferent do require."* It must be acknowledged, that the Reformation made considerable progress in the reign of pious Edward; that numerous improvements were adopted in the forms of public worship, and that a sounder faith was, to some extent, diffused through the land; yet the changes introduced were far from being deemed perfect, even by the most zealous reformers; and the specimen here furnished affords some evidence that the protestant bishops discovered reluctance at casting off the remnants of antichrist. In our next paper, we shall consider the state of things on the accession of Queen Elizabeth. FURTHER CRITICAL REMARKS ON MATT. xxv111. 20. "Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."† I DEEPLY regret that, through peculiar circumstances, the remarks by the Reviewer of Faber, given in the number for September, and written in so candid and christian a spirit, did not come into my hands Martyrs' Letters, p. 117. The Editor had hoped that, with the close of the last volume, the friendly controversy on this question would have closed also. The circumstances, however, which his esteemed correspondent, T. K., explains, fairly entitle him to be heard, especially as he was the first to remark on the criticism (page 508, vol. xxii.) which has excited the discussion. And as the Editor finds that other able correspondents attach importance to the thorough sifting of this subject at the present time, he is not disposed to forbid them, if they will endeavour to compress their observations into as brief a space as possible, for it must be obvious to them, that such investigations are not very attractive to general readers. till late in November, otherwise I would not have been so uncourteous as to leave them for several months unnoticed; and all that other engagements will now allow me to do, is very briefly to offer a few suggestions which occur on perusing the paper by him and that by D. E. F. in the October Number. If the great work of Dr. J. P. Smith on the Messiah were in the hands of all the readers of this Magazine, I should content myself with referring them to his investigation of the passage under consideration; but as we cannot suppose that to be the case, I shall from thence, and from a few other sources, lay before the reader what seems calculated to establish the common interpretation, and to remove the objections of the Reviewer. I would just premise that, as a general principle, not by any means intended personally for the Reviewer, that I think it is right to regard with much jealousy every interpretation of scripture which differs materially from that agreed on by a great mass of judicious, holy, and learned men. The Reviewer will, I am persuaded, most cordially join in acknowledging the reasonableness of such a procedure. I would not bow with an abject spirit to mere authority, but I would ever watch against that Athenian temper which too eagerly grasps at what is new. The old way is assuredly, in general, the best way. The amazing improvements in our day in arts and sciences, leaving our forefathers far behind, tend to induce an improper expectation that it will be the same in theology; and I hope, in one respect, there is an im- * provement; I hope the christian world is becoming more willing to take the unsophisticated word of God for their guide, and to lean less on human creeds. As to the ridiculous claims which I hear some are setting up at Oxford, to which D. E. F. alludes, they really are too absurd to deserve consideration, and must soon bring their abettors into contempt. But I am wandering from my object. To return : I think the most pleasant and profitable way of drawing up this paper will be, not to take the Reviewer's statements seriatim, but rather to bring forward what seems useful, leaving him to see, as he will at a glance, the bearing of my remarks on his own views. I shall endeavour so to express my meaning as to be understood by the English reader. The first point to be established seems to be the meaning of the Greek words translated "To the end of the world." Do they mean "To the end of the apostolic age" only, or do they mean "To the end of time?" I think something may be gathered from the accompanying words, "Lo I am with you always, unto the end of "... what? Shall we say, "To the end of the apostolic age?" that is, "To the end of the lives of the apostles." Surely this seems a very feeble close of so grand an introduction. But not to insist on this, let us proceed to examine the Greek words. ......... The phrase rendered "Unto the end of the world" occurs five times in the Gospel by Matthew, and no where else in the New Testament; for that in Heb. ix. 26, is so far different, that it can afford little or no help in ascertaining the meaning in Matthew. It is ever held as a good maxim, in searching into the meaning of a phrase, to compare places where it occurs again, and especially in the same writer, and this will hold good with regard to the sacred writings; for it is evident that while one and the same Holy Spirit guided all the holy men of old into all the truth, yet their own faculties and turns of mind were not superseded by divine inspiration, but each wrote in his own style. How different that of John and of Luke! Here then we have means of the first order for assisting us in ascertaining the sense of the phrase rendered "The end of the world." We have four other places in the same writer to compare it with. The first place is in Matt. xiii. 39. "The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels." Here the very same Greek words are used as in Matt. xxviii. 20. It would be a waste of time to show that the sense must here be the final consummation of all things. The next passage is in chap. xiii. 40, translated, " So shall it be in the end of this world." The only difference here in the original consists in the addition of the word "this." Here again the context, stating the doom of the wicked and the glory of the righteous, seems decisive of its meaning, and that it cannot refer to the close of any dispensation but that which ends all things. Chap. xiii. 49, “So shall it be at the end of the world." In this place also the context is decisive, that the time referred to is the end of all things. There have, it is true, been attempts made to refer these passages in the 13th of Matt. to the termination of the Jewish dispensation, but I may safely leave the evidence, for the sense I plead for, to the judgment of the reader, without further enlargement. The next passage is in Matt. xxiv. 3, where the disciples ask our Lord, a little before his death, when he had foretold the destruction of the temple, "When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The question here to be decided is, What did the disciples mean by "the end of the world?" They could not mean the end of the Jewish dispensation, for they had then no idea that it would end before the end of the world: they must have meant the end of all things. Our Lord's reply seems to take in both the period of the temple's destruction and of his coming to judgment. But the point to be ascertained is not so much what Christ took occasion, from the inquiries of the disciples, to say to them, as, what did they mean by their questions? It has been thought that the disciples, being as yet under the powerful influence of Jewish feelings, supposed that if the sacred temple were destroyed, the end of all things must follow. If such were their feelings, then the phrase here is a further proof of the sense contended for. This is the view which, according to Dr. Smith, both Calvin and Rosenmüller take of the passage. I would just add, that some further support of the common interpretation might probably be obtained from investigating Jewish phraseology. The Greek word ay is rendered in the Syriac version by the Hebrew Syriacised, which often means eternal, and which is used by Jewish writers for world; thus, the ways of the world; ; worldly affairs, We now come to the place under examination. In three places we find the phrase evidently used to mean "the end of all things." In the fourth, it seems to me the disciples could mean nothing else, and |