he was himself sometimes influenced by the fawning subtility which he despised.

Gardiner was the inveterate enemy of the Reformation, and with consummate art availed himself of every opportunity which presented for obstructing its progress. He was now at the head of the popish party, and, aided by the powerful influence of the duke of Norfolk, he meditated a blow which he hoped would prove fatal to the protestant cause. The state of affairs on the continent was particularly favourable to his design. The reformers had received a check, and the enterprising spirit of Charles the Fifth, then in league with the pope, seemed to aim at nothing less than re-establishing throughout Europe the spiritual dominion of the holy see.

Well acquainted with the temper of the king, Gardiner knew when it was necessary to yield to him, and by what means he might, at other times, be guided. The artful prelate now dwelt on the precarious situation of the German protestants, whom he represented as on the point of being crushed by the emperor; and that, if this should be the case, there was a great probability, considering the peculiar circumstances in which Henry was placed by his opposition to the court of Rome, that he would see a formidable league combined against him; that

it was prudent to guard against such an event; and that it might easily be done by enacting some laws in favour of the old religion, which would prove that he had no quarrel with the. church, but had merely renounced the supremacy of the pope.

This reasoning seemed very plausible, and had its full effect on the king, with whose apprehensions it coincided. It was also well calculated to work upon feelings of another description. Still proud of the title which he had gained by defending the faith, Henry could not endure to be regarded as an upholder of heresy; and Gardiner represented that nothing could so effectually remove that imputation as the prosecution of heretics. One good and learned man fell a victim to the suggestions of this evil counsellor, and in the following year it was determined to venture on measures yet more decided: that all diversities of opinion should be extinguished, and the national faith regulated by an act of the legislature*. It is scarcely possible to read, without a smile, the manner in which this strange project was brought before parliament.

The duke of Norfolk, pursuant to a plan pre

Gilpin, p. 50-53; Southey, p. 75-82; Aikin's Biog. Dict. Art. Gardiner.

viously arranged, informed the house that it was the king's wish to show his regard to the old religion; that it would be agreeable to his majesty for every body to hold the same opinions as himself; and therefore, the duke presumed that no person would wish to entertain different sentiments. He then laid before them six questions, relating to the sacrament of the altar, the celibacy of priests, the necessity of confession, and some other particulars considered of great importance by the church of Rome. We have already explained the popish doctrine of confession*, and shall at present notice only the first of the questions proposed by the duke of Norfolk. It related to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and asserted as truth, an opinion so extravagant, that it must excite the astonishment of all who have not been reconciled to it by the prejudices of education.

Transubstantiation, in its general and literal sense, implies any change of one substance into another. This may be effected by the immediate interposition of Divine power, or by the ordinary operation of the laws of nature. The change of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, was a miraculous transubstantiation: the change of the

See "The Two Chancellors."

But

food we eat into the blood which circulates in our veins, is a natural transubstantiation. this word, as used by the church of Rome, is confined to one particular meaning. It expresses a supposed change of the bread and wine received in the sacrament of the altar, into the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In contradiction to the plain testimony of their senses, papists are required to believe this strange tenet; not in a figurative sense, as when Christ called the doctrine of the Pharisees leaven, or himself the living bread which came down from heaven *; but as a change of substance, which actually takes place, when the priest consecrates the bread and winet.

This is not one of the most ancient corruptions of the church. It was first introduced in the eleventh century, but not established till the time of Innocent the Third, that ambitious pontiff, who employed his uncommon talents in converting the spiritual authority of the bishops of Rome into a real dominion, on which it was his aim to render all civil and ecclesiastical government absolutely dependent.

* Matt. xvi. 12; and John, vi. 51.

+ Rees, Art. Transubstantiation.

For the character of Innocent, and the power exercised by him in England, see the Story of king John, in the first vol. of this work.

It is very easy to account for a pope of Innocent's character, exerting all his abilities for the extension and firm establishment of those doctrines which produce a direct accession of power or of revenue to the church. We can imagine him delighting in the melancholy spectacle of a kingdom laid under an interdict, or in hurling the thunder of excommunication against any sovereign prince who should dare to resist his will; but, at first sight, it is difficult to imagine what advantage he could propose to himself from maintaining a doctrine so absurd as that of transubstantiation. We must, however, recollect, that Innocent lived at a period when feudal institutions generally prevailed; and that prelates, as well as barons, were required to perform those acts of homage, which were, in fact, an acknowledgment of the superiority of the regal to the ecclesiastical power*. As he openly maintained that all lawful authority is derived from the pope, it was natural that he should desire to establish a doctrine, which manifestly tends to exempt the clergy from the performance of feudal homage. It does not, however, appear to have been a contrivance of his own. Urban the Second, who was contemporary with William Rufus, and