rupt clergy, but by the opinions of the Lollards, which had been now in England, since the days of Wickliffe, for about 150 years; between which opinions and the doctrines of the reformers there was great affinity, and therefore, to give the better vent to the books that came out of Germany, many of them were translated into the English tongue, and were very much read and applauded."* This, therefore, being the state of the nation, the king had nothing further to do than to favour the doctrines and opinions which were already advancing among the people, and by that means he would constitute a religious authority independent of the pope, and more consonant to his own views. This he did, and following the advice of Cranmer, a man who appears to have been attached from his earliest years to the more liberal opinions of the Protestants, he appealed no longer to the pope, but to a council of the most learned men of his own universities. This happened in the year 1530, and the result was, that the majority gave their opinion in favour of the king's divorce. In the year 1534, (so rapidly had the principles of the reformation. advanced,) an act of parliament was passed, entirely abrogating the supremacy of the pope within the dominions of the king of England; and shortly after, another act was was passed, * Burnet, Hist. Ref. book ii. pronouncing the king the supreme head of the church of England. This great event was not, however, brought about without much difficulty, nor without bloodshed. The cruelty of the clergy was excessive. Many accused of favouring the Protestants had been brought to the stake, among whom, Tindal, who had published a translation of the new testament, Bilney, and more particularly John Frith,* who seems to have been one of the first English reformers who preached against the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This first denial of the Romish doctrine of the mass, is worthy of our notice. The substance of his arguments is given by bishop Burnet :-"That Christ, in the sacrament, gave eternal life, but the receiving of the bare sacrament did not give * Bilney suffered martyrdom in the year 1527, Frith in the year 1533. Together with Frith, a young man, by name Andrew Hewet, was brought before the bishop of London, and being asked, "What he thought touching the Lord's Supper," answered, "Even as John Frith doth :" and then, being asked, "Dost thou not believe that it is really the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary ?" answered, "So do I not believe :" and for this these two martyrs perished together. Tindal, though an Englishman, did not suffer in England. Persecution followed him for the same heretical opinions out of England to the continent. He died near Antwerp in the year 1535. These are but samples of multitudes upon multitudes who perished for the Protestant faith; whose principal error was, the denial of the bodily presence of Christ, and the other blasphemous doctrines of the mass.-See Fox, Burnet, &c. eternal life, since many took it to their damnation; therefore, Christ's presence there was only felt by faith: this being further proved by the fathers before Christ, who did eat the same spiritual food, and drink of the rock, which was Christ, according to St. Paul. Since then, they and we communicate in the same thing, and it was certain that they did not eat Christ's flesh corporeally, but fed by faith on a Messias to come, as Christians do on a Messias already come; therefore we now do only communicate by faith. He also insisted much on the signification of the word sacrament, from whence he concluded that the elements must be the mystical signs of Christ's body and blood, for if they were truly the flesh and blood of Christ, they should not be sacraments; he concluded that the ends of the sacrament were these three-by a visible action to knit the society of Christians together in one body,-to be a means of conveying grace upon our due participating of them, and to be remembrances to stir up men to bless God for that unspeakable love which in the death of Christ appeared to mankind. To all these ends, the corporeal presence of Christ availed nothing, they being sufficiently answered by a mystical presence; yet he drew no other conclusion from these premises, but that the belief of the corporeal presence in the sacrament was no necessary article of our faith. This either flowed from his not having yet arrived at a sure persuasion in the matter, or that he chose in that modest style to encounter an opinion, of which the world was so fond, that to have opposed it in downright words would have given prejudices against all that he could say."* In the year 1573, a book appeared, giving an account of the dispute maintained between Frith and Sir Thomas More. In this book Frith confirmed what he had before asserted. He proved from Scripture, "that after the consecration, the elements were still bread and wine, and were so called both by our Saviour and his apostles; that our senses shew they are not changed in their natures, but that they are still subject to corruption, which can in no way be said of the body of Christ. He proved that the eating of Christ's flesh, in the sixth of John, cannot be applied to the sacrament, since the wicked receive it, who yet do not eat the flesh of Christ, otherwise they should have eternal life. He shewed, also, that the sacrament coming in the room of the Jewish paschal lamb, we must understand Christ's words, This is my body,' in the same sense in which it was said that the lamb was the Lord's passover. He confirmed this by many * Burnet, Hist. Ref. book ii. passages from Tertullian, Ambrose, and many other fathers. He brought likewise several testimonies to shew that they knew nothing of the consequences that follow transubstantiation ; of a body being in more than one place at once; or being in a place after the manner of a spirit, or of the worship to be given to the sacrament. From hence it may appear upon what solid and weighty reasons they then began to shake the received opinion of transubstantiation, and with how much learning this controversy was managed by him who first undertook it."* In consequence of these opinions, and his faithful adherence to the doctrines of common sense, Frith was tried and condemned before the bishop of London. In the year 1534, he suffered martyrdom at the stake; while these words stand in the register of his confession: "Frith thinketh and judgeth that the natural body of Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar, but in one place only at once." Such was the violence with which the new doctrines of Protestantism were assailed. The clergy naturally were averse to any innovation, and clung most closely to every doctrine in which the church had trained them. But the opposition was not only on the * Burnet, Hist. Ref. book ii. |