6V2 



Monthly Review of Literatur 



JUNE, 



and the ceremonial became more and more 

 complicated, and an air of deeper mystery 

 was thrown over the rite. Imperceptibly 

 the sign and the signification were con- 

 founded. Some such confounding is ob- 

 servable in the fifth century, in the sen- 

 timents ofEntyches; but it was not till 

 the year 787 that the second Council of 

 Nice gave its sanction, as essentially it 

 did, to this novel doctrine. It was not 

 yet called transubstantiation. The Coun- 

 cil of Constantinople, as a reason for re- 

 nouncing the use of images, had alleged, 

 that Christ left no image of himself, ex- 

 cept the sacramental elements, which re- 

 present his bodyand blood. This decla- 

 ration of the divines of Constantinople, 

 the Council of Nice decided to be wrong 

 the consecrated bread and wine not being, 

 they said, types, but truly the body and 

 blood of Christ. This decision, however, 

 failed of producing any general acqui- 

 escence in Western Europe. Charle- 

 magne or some one rather in his name 

 in an epistle to Alcuin, expressed his 

 belief that the sacred elements are figures 

 of Christ's body and blood; and, for any 

 thing that appears, in this belief he con- 

 tinued, whatever might be that of the 

 Church of Rome. 



Early in the ninth century, the atten- 

 tion of the learned at least was drawn 

 particularly to the subject by the circu- 

 lation of a work by Paschavius Radbert, 

 abbot of Corbey in Picardy, in which he 

 maintained a doctrine, corresponding pret- 

 ty closely with what was afterwards de- 

 fended by Luther, that is, consubstantia- 

 tion rather than transubstantiation. This 

 however met with little favour in France ; 

 and Charles the Bald employed a monk 

 and priest, of the name of Ratram, or 

 Bertramus, of the same abbey, to reply to 

 Radbert. This work is still extant, and 

 there is an English translation of it. It is 

 a document of considerable importance, 

 as shewing incontrovertibly, that in the 

 ninth century a distinguished member of 

 the Church of Rome, uncensured, incul- 

 cated opinions, utterly irreconcilable 

 with the doctrines of modern popery ; and 

 that so far were his sentiments from giv- 

 ing offence, they were expressly ap- 

 proved of by almost every cotemporary 

 name of any theological celebrity, as Ra- 

 banus Maurus, the archbishop of Mentz; 

 A gobard, archbishop of Lyons; Claudius, 

 bishop of Turin, John Scot (Erigena), and 

 Druthmar. In our own country, too, El- 

 fric, the grammarian, who was abbot of 

 Cerne, in Dorsetshire, in the tenth cen- 

 tury, and probably afterwards archbishop 

 of York, in a sermon of his, written in 

 Saxon, affords incontestible proofs that 

 transubstantiation was not the doctrine of 

 the English Church. 



The following age produced a powerful 



patron of the new doctrine in Lanfranc, 

 afterwards abbot of Caen ; and among the 

 lower classes of life, it had by that time 

 spread far and wide; but among the 

 learned there were still opponents, among 

 whom the most distinguished was Beren- 

 ger, archdeacon of Angers. A letter of 

 his addressed to Lanfranc on the subject 

 fell into the hands of the Pope, Leo IX., 

 who forthwith excommunicated the au- 

 thor. A synod was held atVercelli, and 

 Berenger's opinions were peremptorily 

 condemned. The consequence was a vio- 

 lent ferment in France. Another synod 

 was held at Tours ; but the partizans of 

 the court of Rome prevailed ; Berenger 

 appeared and submitted. Of this submis- 

 sion, however, he quickly repented, and 

 republished his sentiments. But resolute 

 as he appeared to be on paper not being 

 born with the spirit of a martyr he again 

 submitted ; and again repented ; and a 

 third time proclaimed the same opinions. 

 Of so little influence, however, were these 

 efforts of his exerted with so little firm- 

 ness that he was at, last left in peace,, 

 apparently in contempt. Even in the 

 twelfth century there were Catholic wri- 

 ters expressing the same sentiments 



Peter Lombard for instance. As an ar- 

 ticle of faith, indeed, transubstantiation 

 seems not to have been enforced till 1215, 

 by Innocent III. Cardinal Langton, a 

 favourite of Innocent's, when he became 

 archbishop of Canterbury, was the first 

 who took any official measures towards 

 the establishment of this doctrine in Eng- 

 land ; Peckham, archbishop of the same 

 see, about half a century afterwards, fol- 

 lowed them up vigorously, and with con- 

 siderable effect. Yet even to the close of 

 the thirteenth century, it was found ne- 

 cessary to press upon the English clergy 

 the necessity of assiduously teaching this 

 doctrine. For a time, and among a few in 

 the following century, Wickliffe preached 

 up the old belief; and then, for nearly two 

 centuries, no more was heard of it in Eng- 

 land. In 1524 Zuingle discussed the 

 question, and revived the doctrines of 

 Berenger and Wickliffe. Luther halted 

 midway between the two opinions ; and it 

 was not, as we have said, till 1547, that 

 Cranmer and Ridley shook off their pre- 

 judices. 



Throughout Edward's reign Cranmer 

 was indefatigable in prosecuting the pro- 

 gress of reform. Generally his measures 

 were conspicuously judicious precipita- 

 ting nothing taking one thing at a time. 

 He had much to do. He began with for. 

 bidding certain ceremonies perhaps the 

 most hazardous step he ever took such 

 as carrying candles in procession on Can- 

 dlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, 

 palms on Palm Sunday ; creeping to the 

 cross, taking holy water, &c. Then fol- 



