thing herein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to or
give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist or Popish recusant
whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing
the doctrine of the blessed TRINITY, as it is declared in the aforesaid
Articles of Religion.
By the 19 Geo. III. c. 44, it was recited, that certain Protestant
Dissenters had an objection to the declaration in favour of the articles
set forth in sect. 8 of the Toleration Act; and it was provided that, in
lieu of that declaration, the following might be made:—“I, _A. B._, do
solemnly declare, in the face of Almighty GOD, that I am a Christian and
a Protestant, and, as such, that I believe that the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, as commonly received among Protestant Churches,
do contain the revealed word of GOD, and that I do receive the same as
the rule of my doctrine and practice.”
In 1813, by 53 Geo. III. c. 160, the clause of the Toleration Act,
excepting those persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, was
repealed.
As to Roman Catholics, the severity of the laws against them was relaxed
in 1778, and again in 1780. Further disabilities were removed in 1793,
and at subsequent periods; but still they were excluded from parliament,
and from all important civil offices, till 1829, when the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act was passed (10 Geo. IV. c. 7); and, in regard to all
civil and political rights and privileges, they were placed upon the
same footing as Protestants. Since then they have endeavoured, in
respect to ecclesiastical matters, to assert an independence of the
Crown of Great Britain, to which the Church of England itself does not
lay claim. This attempt has been met by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60.
TONSURE. The having the hair clipped in such a fashion as the ears may
be seen and not the forehead, or a shaved spot on the crown of the head.
A clerical tonsure was made necessary about the fifth or sixth century.
No mention is made of it before, and it is first spoken of with decided
disapprobation.
The ancient tonsure of the Western clergy by no means consisted in
_shaven crowns_: this was expressly forbidden them, lest they should
resemble the priests of Isis and Serapis, who shaved the crowns of their
heads. But the ecclesiastical tonsure was nothing more than polling the
head, and cutting the hair to a moderate degree.
The rituals tell us, the tonsure is a mark of the renunciation of the
world and its vanities; but the hair that is left denotes with what
sobriety the person tonsured ought to use the things of this world.
[Illustration:
_fig. 1._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 2._
]
TRACERY. The system of ornamental framework in a window, or in a
compartment of panelling or screen-work. The first form of tracery was
doubtless suggested by the pierced circle often found between the heads
of two lancets, and connected with them by a single hood.[18] For some
time the form thus suggested (_fig. 1._) was rigidly adhered to; even
the number of lights being, in a great majority of cases, either two,
four, or eight, the square and cube of two, and the simple two-light
window was multiplied into itself once or twice, as in (_fig. 2._), so
that the pattern may be expressed by a geometrical series _a^1_, _a^2_,
_a^3_. Windows of three or other odd numbers of lights were less
frequent and less successful; and the reduplication was effected by
arithmetical rather than geometrical progression, the six-light windows
being of two three-light windows, with the addition of a centre piece
(see _figs. 3._ and _4._). Throughout the windows of this early style of
tracery, all is effected by simple reduplication, no attempt being yet
made to extend a single composition throughout the space to be filled.
Circles, when of a considerable size, were filled with smaller circles
(see _fig. 2._) or with cusping (_fig. 4._) designed after the same
laws. But we must omit for the future all consideration of cusping, (see
_Cusping_,) and everything but the mere pattern of the tracery.
[Illustration:
_fig. 3._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 4._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 5._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 6._
]
[Illustration:
_fig.7._
]
The exclusive use of circles led to great sameness of character, and the
first effort to avoid this was by the introduction of convex-sided
triangles, sometimes alone (_fig. 5._), sometimes enclosed in or
accompanying circles (_fig. 3_). Later still this triangle is resolved
into a three-lobed figure, of which, however, the triangle is still the
ruling form (_fig. 6._). All these characteristics belong to the earlier
class of Geometrical tracery, which is called _concentric_, because each
perfect figure is either itself a circle, or is composed of circles or
parts of circles struck from centres within the resultant figure, and
themselves in the circumference of a circle, whose centre is the centre
of the whole system. Thus in _fig. 2._ eight circles are struck either
from the same centre, or points in the circumference of a circle
concentric with the containing circle. In _figs. 3._ and _5._ the
triangles are composed of parts of circles, of which the centres are the
opposite angles, and as the triangles are equilateral, all the centres
are in the circumference of the circle whose centre is the centre of the
triangle. This may be called the first law of the concentric
Geometrical. It has two corollaries, 1. that each line forms a part of
one figure, only, and, 2. that each circle, or part of a circle,
touches, or cuts, but never flows into, another. As this law is broken,
its consequences also are reversed; and we get an _excentric_
Geometrical, in which there is no one ruling centre within the figure;
but, on the contrary, the spirit of the style consists in having curves
struck from centres alternately within and without the resulting figure,
as in the accompanying trilobate and tricuspidate triangle (_fig. 7._);
but still the lines cut or touch, and never flow into one another. In
_fig. 8._ we have lines each forming parts of two figures, which is the
same as _fig. 5._, with the omission of the lower side of each triangle,
and the consequent rejection of a centre of construction, i. e. from
_concentric_ the figure has become _excentric_. This makes a very near
approach to the flowing Decorated, which indeed it becomes by the
reversal of the last remaining rule, i. e. by suffering the curves which
are struck from circles within and without the resulting figure, and
which already form part of two figures, to flow into another, instead of
cutting or touching. By this process, _fig. 4._ is altered into the
ordinary reticulated tracery of the flowing Decorated (_fig. 9._); and
_fig. 10._, instead of _fig. 1._, becomes a normal form.
[Illustration:
_fig. 8._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 9._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 10._
]
This introduction of curves of contrary flexure is the ruling principle
of flowing tracery, and its results are far too various to be pursued
here. We must, however, observe, that in England the resulting forms
have a great tendency to become pear-shaped, i.e. with the lower end
pointed and the upper round and turned downward; whereas, on the
Continent, while our Decorated was stiffening into the Perpendicular,
their Geometrical was waving upward in their Flamboyant, which differs,
as to mere pattern of tracery, from our flowing, in having both ends of
each figure acutely pointed, and the upper point with an additional
curve upward. Our own Perpendicular is scarcely worthy to be called
tracery; its normal form is represented by mere intersections of
vertical and horizontal lines (_fig. 11._).
[Illustration:
_fig. 11._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 12._
]
We have at present described only the component figures of tracery. The
character of windows is further altered by several other means common to
all the styles, consistent with every form here described. Thus, for
instance, tracery is grouped in these three ways: a large and prominent
centre-piece is carried by two independent arches (_fig. 2._); or it is
divided into two windows, as it were, by two main arches, of the same
curvature with the window arch (_figs. 3._ and _11._); or it fills the
whole window head with no such equal division of its parts[19] (_figs.
5., 8., 9._); or, again, it is divided into _foil_ and _foiled_ tracery,
the latter being the ordinary form, the first that of tracery, which
itself, in its principal bars, follows the direction of foils, without a
circumscribing arch (_fig. 12._); or, again, according as the surface of
the tracery bar which traces the pattern is a fillet, an edge, or a
roll, it is fillet, edge, or roll tracery; or, again, if it is only a
plate of stone, pierced, without being moulded, it is plate tracery.
Flowing tracery is convergent, or divergent, or reticulated. But the
greatest source of beauty next to cusping is the due subordination of
mouldings, which is itself sufficient to remedy the apparent sameness of
pattern in the concentric Geometrical, and which adds infinite grace to
the flowing tracery, in which, however, it is too seldom found. The
student of ecclesiastical architecture will do well to pursue the
subject of this article in Sharpe’s “Decorated Windows,” and in
Freeman’s “Essay on the Origin and Development of Window Tracery.”
TRACT, in the Roman Missal, is an anthem, generally taken from the
Psalms, following, and sometimes substituted for, the Gradual, (i.e. the
anthem after the Epistle,) during penitential seasons, as the third
Sunday in Advent, the three Sundays before Lent, Sundays, Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays in Lent, Easter Saturdays, and Easter Even, and
certain holidays. Cardinal Bona says it is so called, “a trahendo: quia
tractim et graviter, et prolixo descensu cantatur,” because it is sung
in a protracted or slow manner.—_Jebb._
TRADITION. (See _Fathers_.) The doctrine which has been delivered or
handed down from one age to another. The great deference paid by the
Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church to tradition, is so
misrepresented by the wicked, and so misunderstood by the weak, that we
quote the following passage from Palmer’s “Treatise on the Church.”
Speaking of those who calumniate us for our use of this doctrine, he
says: “The various methods which these men employ in endeavouring to
prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church, may be classed under
the following heads:
“1. Systematic misrepresentation. We do not appeal, in proof of
Christian doctrine, to the ancient Christian writers as in any way
_infallible_. Our sentiments on this head are well known; they have been
repeatedly explained. We hold that the doctrine of any Father, however
great and learned he may have been, _e. g._ that of Augustine,
Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be _rejected_ in any point where it
contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men,
and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians.
Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and
principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs that particular
Fathers have taught errors in faith or morality—that they were
credulous—that their writings are in some points obscure—that their
criticisms or interpretations of Scripture are sometimes mistaken—that
they invented scholastic doctrines and were tinged with false
philosophy—that the later Fathers were better theologians than the
earlier—that there are Fathers against Fathers, and councils against
councils, on some points. This is all calculated merely to excite
prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of the Church, by
misrepresenting our design and principle in making it. Our answer to all
these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the Fathers as inspired and
authoritative writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by
Christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they
are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Christianity,
and the external evidence of revelation is subverted.
“2. Pretended respect for religion. Under this head may be classed that
mode of argument which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the
Christian Church, under pretence that the Word of GOD alone ought to be
the rule of our faith, in opposition to all the doctrines of man; that
the Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else;
that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that it
is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence for
Scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it
according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to the
belief of all Christians from the beginning. But in asserting this
liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular
interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation; that Scripture
has no Divine meaning; that it is _not a revelation_. In short,
tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the
Scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort, or misinterpret,
and to destroy that very Scripture.
“The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the defence of the
Reformation, which infidels, Unitarians, and other enemies of the
doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as a plea for rejecting all
appeal to the doctrines of the universal Church. ‘The doctrines of the
_Reformation_,’ they say, ‘cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed;
_Popery_ must triumph.’ Excellent men! They will maintain the
Reformation at all hazards; all evidence shall be pronounced worthless
if it be opposed to the interests of that sacred cause! But what is the
end sought by all this pretended devotion? It is, that every man may be
permitted, without any check, to interpret Scripture in such a manner as
to _subvert_ all the doctrines of the Reformation, whether positive or
negative, to prove the Reformation itself needless, erroneous, bigoted,
equally absurd as the system to which it was opposed, and more
inconsistent. I charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was
there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and
unthinking, than this effort of deists and heretics to set aside
tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are the
opponents of the Reformation. They are the representatives of those whom
the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines, they charge it
with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of
Popery. They have separated from its reformed institutions, as
_anti-Christians_, and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The
Reformation has no connexion with these men: its defence belongs
exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines and adhere to its
institutions, and they alone are proper judges of the mode of argument
suited to its interests.
“3. Statements directly untrue. Under this head may be included the
palmary argument employed by all sects against any appeal to the
tradition of the Church universal, namely, that it was the principle of
the Reformation to reject any such appeal; and its principle was, ‘the
Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.’ Nothing can be more untrue
than this assertion; the Reformation as a whole acknowledged and
appealed to the authority of Catholic tradition, though it denied the
infallibility of particular Fathers and councils. With equal veracity it
is asserted that the Church of England rejects tradition in her sixth
Article of Religion, when it is manifest that her object is simply to
maintain the necessity of Scriptural proof for articles of faith; while
our canons, our rituals, and the whole body of our theologians, so
notoriously uphold the authority of tradition, that it is a subject of
unmeasured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the doctrines
of the Church. The nature of these various arguments testifies
sufficiently that the doctrine of the universal Church is opposed to
those who employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on
this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual
misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The employment
of these weapons by all sects, in order to prevent any appeal to
universal tradition, proves two points. First, as the sole fundamental
principle on which they all agree is, the rejection of an appeal to the
doctrines of the Church as a check on the interpretation of Scripture,
and the assertion of an unlimited right of private interpretation; this
principle is the source of all their divisions and contradictions, and
therefore must be radically false. Secondly, the doctrine of the
universal Church from the beginning must condemn that of all modern
sects, in every point in which they differ from our Catholic and
apostolic Churches; and therefore, on every such point, they are in
error, and misinterpret Scripture, and the Church is in the right.”
TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. (See _Ceremony_.) “It is not necessary that
traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at
all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the
diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be
ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever, through his private judgment,
willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies
of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of GOD, and be
ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly,
(that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the
common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate,
and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
“Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change,
and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s
authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”—_Article_ XXXIV.
The word “tradition” is not here used in the same sense in which it was
used in the explanation of the sixth Article. It there signified
unwritten articles of faith, asserted to be derived from CHRIST and his
apostles: in this Article it means customs or practices, relative to the
external worship of GOD, which had been delivered down from former
times; that is, in the sixth Article, traditions meant traditional
_doctrines_, of pretended Divine authority; and in this it means
traditional _practices_ acknowledged to be of human institution.—_Bp.
Tomline._
The word means the same as is expressed immediately by the word
“ceremonies,” which is only explanatory; and which the Church afterwards
calls “rites,” supposing them the same with ceremonies.—_Dr. Bennet._
TRADITORS. Persons who in times of persecution delivered the sacred
Scriptures and other ecclesiastical records to their persecutors, were
thus called, and were subjected to severe censures.
TRANSEPT. (See _Cathedral_.)
TRANSITION. About the year 1145, the use of the pointed arch was
introduced into English architecture, and with this so many constructive
changes in the fabric, that though Norman decorations were long
retained, and even the round arch was used, except in the more important
constructive portions, a style equally distinct from Norman and from
Early English was the result, and this style is called Semi-Norman, or
Transition. Before the close of the twelfth century, the round arch had
entirely disappeared, and the Early English, or Lancet, style was fully
developed about 1190.
TRANSLATION. The removal of a bishop from the charge of one diocese to
that of another, in which case the bishop in his attestations writes
“anno _translationis_ nostræ,” not “anno _consecrationis_ nostræ.”
Also, in literature, the rendering of a work from the original into
another language. All the scriptural portions of the Prayer Book are not
derived from the translation in common use. For example, the Psalter is
from the great English Bible set forth and used in the time of Henry
VIII. and Edward VI.
TRANSLATION of festivals. In the Roman Church, when two festivals of a
certain class concur on the same day with other festivals of the same or
similar class, the celebration of one or other of these festivals is
transferred to some future day, according to rules which are given in
the Breviary and Missal. This is called a _translation_.—_Jebb._
TRANSOM. A horizontal mullion, or cross-bar, in a window or in
panelling. The transom first occurs in late Decorated windows, and in
Perpendicular windows of large size it is of universal occurrence.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The pretended miraculous conversion or change of the
bread and wine into the very body and blood of our LORD, which the
Romanists suppose to be wrought by the consecration of the priest. This
false doctrine is condemned by the Church of England in her 28th
Article. “The supper of the LORD is not only a sign of the love that
Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it
is a sacrament of our redemption by CHRIST’S death: insomuch that to
such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread
which we break is a partaking of the body of CHRIST; and likewise the
cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of CHRIST.”
Transubstantiation, (or the change of the substance of bread and wine,)
in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is
repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a
sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
“The body of CHRIST is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after
an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of
CHRIST is received and eaten in the supper is faith.
“The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was not by CHRIST’S ordinance
reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”
Bishop Beveridge has the following remarks on this article, from
Scripture and the Fathers:
“Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whosoever worthily
receives the sacrament of the LORD’S supper doth certainly partake of
the body and blood of CHRIST, the devil thence took occasion to draw men
into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the
very body that was crucified upon the cross; and the wine after
consecration the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side. The
time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory
III., pope of Rome. The persons that were the principal abettors of it
were Damascen in the Eastern, and afterwards Amalarius in the Western
Churches. It was no sooner started in the East, but it was opposed by a
famous council at Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, the famous
opposers of idol worship. But afterwards, in the second Council of Nice,
it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who
confidently affirmed that, ‘after the consecration, the bread and wine
are called, are, and are believed to be, properly the body and blood of
CHRIST.’ In the West also, Amalarius having broached this opinion,
Paschasius Radbertus readily swallowed it down. But Rabanus Maurus,
Ratramnus or Bertramnus, (of whom more presently,) as also Johannes
Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against
it as a poisonous error. And, after them, Berengarius too, who was not
only written against by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, but
condemned for it in a council held at Verceli, (where the book of
Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also condemned,) and at another
council held at Rome about the same time. And though he did recant his
opinion at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, as some think,
so as never to hold it more, yet his followers would never recant what
they had learned of him. But in the Lateran Council, held A. D. 1215,
the opinion of the real or carnal presence of CHRIST was not only
confirmed, but the word _transubstantiated_ was newly coined to express
it by; that council determining that ‘there is one universal Church of
the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which JESUS CHRIST
himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the
sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and
wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into
his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of GOD; that for the
perfecting the mystery of our union, we might receive of him what he had
received of us.’ And ever since this word was thus forged by this
council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare
their minds by concerning this great mystery; still holding with the
Council of Trent, ‘that by the consecration of the bread and wine is
made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the
body of CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of his blood; which change is aptly and properly called by the
holy Catholic Church _transubstantiation_.’ So that, according to this
opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine
only, and not the body and blood of CHRIST, are after consecration as
properly the body and blood of CHRIST, only, and not bread and wine; the
bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of
CHRIST that hung upon the cross; and the wine into the very blood that
ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.
“Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so
much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to
fall into this desperate error, so as to say the bread and wine are
really changed into the body and blood of CHRIST, because he doth really
partake of the body and blood of CHRIST, that rightly receives the bread
and the wine; that truth is no sooner delivered but this error is
presently opposed. It being no sooner declared that the bread we break
is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the
blood, of CHRIST, but it is immediately subjoined, that, notwithstanding
the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of
the bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST, is to be rejected
upon a fourfold account. First, because it cannot be proved by the
Scriptures. Secondly, it is repugnant to them. Thirdly, it overthroweth
the nature of the sacrament. Fourthly, it hath given occasion to many
superstitions. Of which in their order briefly.
“1. As for the _first_, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot
be proved from the Holy Scriptures, is plain from the insufficiency of
those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and
they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution.
In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find our SAVIOUR saying,
‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ (John vi. 55.)
And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of
his flesh, and drinking of his blood. From whence they gather, that the
bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of CHRIST; not
considering, first, that our SAVIOUR said these words at the least a
year before the sacrament of the LORD’S supper was instituted. For when
CHRIST spake these words, it is said, that ‘the passover was nigh,’
(ver. 4,) whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the
passover following; and it is very unlikely that he should preach
concerning that sacrament before it was instituted. To which we may also
add, that our SAVIOUR here saith concerning the flesh and blood here
spoken of, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the SON of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you’ (ver. 53); whereas it is manifest that a
man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life
in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament
must of necessity be damned. And, therefore, though the thing signified,
even the flesh and blood of CHRIST, is here to be understood, yet the
signs themselves of the sacrament cannot. And so this place, not
intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, cannot be a sufficient
foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into
the body and blood of CHRIST. And, secondly, suppose this place was to
be understood of the sacrament, when our SAVIOUR saith, ‘My flesh is
bread indeed, and my blood is drink indeed:’ this might prove indeed
that CHRIST’S body and blood were turned into bread and drink, but not
at all that [that] bread and drink are turned into his body and blood.
Thirdly, it is plain that in these words our SAVIOUR doth not mean any
external or bodily, but internal and spiritual, feeding upon him. So
that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, (ver. 50,) but
live for ever (ver. 51). Yea, ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ (ver. 56). So that, as Origen
observeth, ‘No wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas
it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners, as well as saints, the
worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine
in the sacrament.’ And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so
neither do the words of institution, ‘This is my body,’ prove the
transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of CHRIST. For he
that saith, because our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ the bread is
therefore changed into his body, may as well say that, because Joseph
said, ‘The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are
seven years,’ (Gen. xli. 26,) therefore the seven good kine, and the
seven good ears, were all changed into seven years. And because Daniel
said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Thou art this head of gold,’ (Dan. ii. 38,)
therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into a head of gold;
whereas it is plain that in Scripture that is often said to be a thing
which is only the sign of it: as GOD is pleased to explain himself when
he said of circumcision, ‘This is my covenant,’ (Gen. xvii. 10,) and in
the next verse, ‘And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant betwixt
me and you’ (ver. 11). And what sense the Most High explains himself by
in that sacrament we may well understand him in this. When he said,
‘This is my covenant,’ he tells us what he meant by that phrase, even
‘This is the sign of my covenant:’ and so here, when CHRIST said, ‘This
is my body,’ according to his own explication of himself before, it is
no more than if he should have said, ‘This is the sign or token of my
body.’ And therefore saith Augustine, ‘For if sacraments should not have
a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they
would not be sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they often
receive the names of the things themselves. Therefore, as after a
certain manner the sacrament of CHRIST’S body is the body of CHRIST, and
the sacrament of the blood of CHRIST is the blood of CHRIST; so the
sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.’ So that the words, ‘This is my
body,’ prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of
his body; not at all that it is really changed into his body. But that
this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the
Scriptures, is further evident in that it is contrary to them.
“2. And this is the _second_ thing here asserted of transubstantiation,
that it is ‘repugnant to the plain words of the Holy Scriptures;’ which
to prove I need go no further than to show, that the Scripture doth
still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before
consecration. And this one might think was plain enough, in the first
place, even from the words of institution themselves; for the Scripture
saith, ‘And as they were eating JESUS took bread and blessed it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.’ (Matt.
xxvi. 26.) So that that which JESUS took was bread, that which JESUS
blessed was bread, that which JESUS gave to his disciples was bread; and
therefore that of which he said, ‘This is my body,’ must needs be bread
too, as the Fathers long ago acknowledged. And truly in reason it cannot
be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun ‘this’ but
‘bread;’ for the ‘body’ of CHRIST, that cometh after it, cannot possibly
be the antecedent to it. For, according to the principles of our
adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed
into the body of CHRIST before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until
the words, ‘This is my body,’ be all pronounced; so that when the priest
saith, ‘This,’ there is no such thing as the body of CHRIST present,
that not coming in till both that and the following words too are
perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of CHRIST can by no means be
looked upon as the antecedent to this pronoun; but that it is bread and
bread only that it hath reference to. So that ‘This is my body,’ is as
much as to say, ‘This bread is my body, this bread that I have taken,
and blessed, and give unto you, is my body.’ Now, as Bellarmine himself
acknowledged, this proposition, ‘This bread is my body,’ cannot possibly
be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense
should be, ‘This bread _signifies_ my body,’ is a _sign_ or _sacrament_
of it; it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body
of CHRIST: for if it be bread, and yet the very body of CHRIST too, then
bread and the body of CHRIST would be convertible terms. So that the
very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any
rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of
which our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ was real bread, and so his
body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence that
the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only
represented by the bread. But if this will not do, we may consider, in
the second place, the institution of the other part of the sacrament;
for it is said, ‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to
them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’ (Matt.
xxvi. 27, 28.) Where these last words, ‘for this is my blood,’ &c.,
being the words of consecration; and our SAVIOUR having given them the
cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it; it could not possibly be
meant of anything else than the wine in the cup of which he said these
words. To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words
of consecration: ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of
this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
my Father’s kingdom.’ (Matt. xxvi. 29.) Whence we see our SAVIOUR
himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the
_fruit of the vine_; and in saying that he will drink no more of the
fruit of the vine, plainly shows that it was the fruit of the vine which
he before drank. So that the very wine of which he said, ‘this is my
blood,’ was wine still, and the fruit of the vine; which I hope none of
our adversaries will say the very blood of CHRIST is. But, thirdly, this
may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: ‘The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
CHRIST?’ (1 Cor. x. 16); where we may take notice of two things. First,
that he here calleth the sacramental elements still ‘a cup,’ or wine,
and bread, ‘the bread which we break;’ so that it is still bread: and,
secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and
the bread broken the communion of the body, of CHRIST. Now, if the bread
be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it
cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real
body; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, ‘The blood
of CHRIST is the communion of the blood of CHRIST, and the body of
CHRIST the communion of the body of CHRIST;’ and so the body of CHRIST
must be the communion of itself, which is impossible; to which we might
also add the several places where the apostle calls the elements still
bread and wine, or the cup; as, ‘For as oft as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup.’ (1 Cor. xi. 26.) “Whosoever shall eat this bread and
drink this cup of the LORD unworthily,” &c. (Ver. 27.) ‘But let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that
cup.’ (Ver. 28.) From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at
the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of CHRIST; that which we
drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of CHRIST; and therefore,
that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of
CHRIST, is repugnant to the plain words of the Scripture.
“3. The third thing is, that it ‘overthroweth the nature of the
sacrament,’ which I need not spend many words to prove; for in a
sacrament it is required, first, that there be some outward sign
representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed
into the body of CHRIST, there is no outward sign at all in the
sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of CHRIST,
which are not signs, but the thing signified. Nay, as Augustine
observes, ‘The signs themselves are the sacraments,’ and therefore where
there is no sign there can be no sacrament. And so, by depriving this
sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a
sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament in it.
And therefore, if they will still hold, that by the words of
consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body
and blood of CHRIST, let them cease to call that holy action any longer
a sacrament, but name it ‘the body and blood of CHRIST;’ for, according
to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of
CHRIST. So that it is plain that, by this doctrine, the nature of a
sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacrament in particular
must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.
“4. The fourth and last thing here objected against this doctrine of
transubstantiation is, that it ‘hath given occasion to many
superstitions,’ which any one that ever observed their customs and
practices cannot but acknowledge. For this fond opinion possessing their
brains, that the bread is the real body of CHRIST hung upon the cross,
and pierced for their sins, oh! how zealous are they in wrapping it up
neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasures, carrying
it about in their processions; yea, and, at the length, in worshipping
and adoring it too!”
This learned and orthodox bishop proceeds to show how inconsistent this
tenet is with the teaching of the Fathers. We add a few quotations upon
the subject from other orthodox divines.
“The article next condemns the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, or
the change of the substance of bread and wine into the real substance of
CHRIST’S body and blood, in the administration of the LORD’S supper. The
idea of CHRIST’S bodily presence in the eucharist was first started in
the beginning of the eighth century, and it owed its rise to the
indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead
of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language upon
this subject, understood and urged them in their literal sense. Thus the
true meaning of these expressions was grossly perverted: but as this
conceit seemed to exalt the nature of the holy sacrament, it was eagerly
received in that ignorant and superstitious age; and was by degrees
carried farther and farther, by persons still less guarded in their
application of these metaphorical phrases. This has always been a
favourite doctrine of the Church of Rome, as it impressed the common
people with higher notions of the power of the clergy, and therefore
served to increase their influence. It met however with opposition upon
its original introduction, particularly from Bertram and John Scot; and
again at the first dawn of the Reformation, both upon the Continent and
in this country. It was objected to by the Waldenses; and there are
strong expressions against it in some parts of Wickliff’s works. Luther,
in contradiction to the other reformers, only changed transubstantiation
into consubstantiation, which means that the substance of CHRIST’S body
and blood is present in the holy sacrament with the substance of the
bread and wine; and his perseverance in this opinion was a principal
cause of the division among the reformed churches. He was opposed by
Zuingle and Calvin, but the Confession of Augsburg, which was drawn up
by Melancthon, favours consubstantiation. There is, however,
considerable doubt concerning the real sentiments of Melancthon upon
this subject, especially in the latter part of his life. Some of our
early English reformers were Lutherans, and consequently they were at
first disposed to lean towards consubstantiation; but they seem soon to
have discovered their error, for in the articles of 1552 it is expressly
said, “A faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the
real and bodily presence, as they term it, of CHRIST’S flesh and blood
in the sacrament of the LORD’S supper.” This part of the article was
omitted in 1562, probably with a view to give less offence to those who
maintain the corporal presence, and to comprehend as many as possible in
the Established Church.”—_Bp. Tomline._
In arguing against this doctrine we may first observe, that it is
contradicted by our senses, since we see and taste that the bread and
wine after consecration, and when we actually receive them, still
continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration
whatever. And again, was it possible for CHRIST, when he instituted the
LORD’S supper, to take his own body and his own blood into his own
hands, and deliver them to every one of his apostles? or was it possible
for the apostles to understand our SAVIOUR’S command to drink his blood
literally, when they were forbidden, under the severest penalties, to
taste blood by the law of Moses, of which not only they themselves, but
CHRIST also had been a strict observer? They expressed not the slightest
surprise or reluctance when CHRIST delivered to them the bread and wine,
which could not have been the case, had they conceived themselves
commanded to eat the real body and drink the real blood of their LORD
and Master. The bread and wine must have been considered by them as
symbolical, and indeed the whole transaction was evidently figurative in
all its parts; it was instituted when the Jews, by killing the paschal
lamb, commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand
of Moses, which was typical of the deliverance of all mankind from the
bondage of sin by the death of CHRIST, “the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world;” and as the occasion was typical, so likewise
were the words used by our SAVIOUR: “This is my body which is broken,”
and “this is my blood which is shed.” But his body was not yet broken,
nor was his blood yet shed; and therefore the breaking of the bread, and
the pouring out of the wine, were then figurative of what was about to
happen, as they are now figurative of what has actually happened. He
also said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. xi. 25);
which words could not be meant in a literal sense; the cup could not be
changed into a covenant, though it might be a representation or memorial
of it. Our SAVIOUR called the wine, after it was consecrated, “the fruit
of the vine,” (Matt. xxvi. 29,) which implied that no change had taken
place in its real nature. Since then the words, “This is my body,” and
“This is my blood,” upon which the Papists pretend to support this
doctrine, were manifestly used in a figurative sense, and must have been
so understood by the apostles, to whom they were originally addressed,
we may safely pronounce that “transubstantiation, or the change of the
substance of bread and wine, in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved
by Holy Writ.” That the early Christians understood our SAVIOUR’S words
in a figurative sense, appears from the writings of more than twenty
Fathers, without a single authority on the opposite side.—_Bp. Tomlins._
1. That transubstantiation is “repugnant to the plain words of
Scripture,” appears from St. Paul’s saying, “we are all partakers of
that one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17); and, “as often as ye eat this bread” (1
Cor. xi. 26); so that it is bread, and not CHRIST’S flesh, even when we
eat and partake thereof. Parity of reason proves the same of the wine.
2. That transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” is
evident, because it supposes what we eat and drink to be, not the sign,
but the thing signified. 3. It has also “given occasion to many
superstitions.” That it has given occasion to abominable idolatry is
evident from the adoration of the host, which is grounded on it. But,
though idolatry is worse than superstition, yet it is different from it.
Wherefore, for the proof of this branch of the proposition, let it be
considered, that, in cases of imminent danger or great calamities, the
host is _exposed_ by the Papists, to appease GOD’S anger, and prevent or
remove his judgments: or reference may be had to the provisions made in
the Romish Church, in the event of any accident happening to the
consecrated elements. Our reformers were too well acquainted with these
superstitions: though, blessed be GOD, we have not instances ready at
hand.—_Dr. Bennet._
TRAVERSE. A seat of state with a canopy, formerly placed at the upper
end of the choir in the royal chapels, and temporarily in cathedrals,
for the use of the sovereign.
TREASURER. A dignitary formerly existing in all cathedrals and
collegiate churches of old foundation in England, and in Ireland and
Scotland in such churches as followed the English model. The treasurer
was not the bursar, but rather the chief sacristan. He had the care of
the plate, vestments, furniture, necessaries of Divine service; the
control of the sacristan and inferior officers, of the bells, and the
general superintendence of the fabric. In many foreign churches the
place of treasurer was discharged by a dignitary called a sacristan; but
in others, as at Glasgow, and the royal chapel, Stirling, there was a
treasurer and a sacristan, both dignitaries. In cathedrals of the new
foundation, the treasurer is merely the bursar; the canons taking this
office in annual rotation.—_Jebb._
TRENT, COUNCIL OF. (See _Roman Catholic Church_, _Popery_, _Council of
Trent_.) This important council met in 1545, and was dissolved in 1563.
Its nominal period extended over eighteen years, but its actual sessions
occupied less than five. Protestants from the days of Luther had been
urgent for the convocation of a free synod. They had reiterated the
demand at Nuremberg, and Ratisbon, and Spires. There were indeed on both
sides earnest and pious persons who were anxious that the questions at
issue should be settled by competent authority. The evil lives of the
clergy, and the general disorders of the Church, afforded another strong
reason by which many were influenced. At the same time, the endless
extortions of the papal chancery had raised disputes in every European
state, which there seemed no other hope of allaying. It was the great
object of the pope and his adherents to condemn Lutheran doctrine, and
to avoid definition on points disputed in the Roman Church. Clement VII.
had promised that a general council should be held in Italy for raising
subsidies against the Turks, and for the suppression of heresy, but he
really used his influence to prevent its assembling. On his death in
1534 his successor, Paul III., published a bull of convocation. Various
difficulties however arose, partly on account of the proposed place of
meeting, and partly through the war between the emperor and the king of
France, and interposed a delay of some years. The city of Trent in the
Tyrol, on the confines of Italy and Germany, and now in the dominions of
Austria, was at length selected, the summons was issued, and the council
was opened December 13, 1545. The meeting had been so long deferred,
that when a few ecclesiastics and others assembled, it was hardly
believed that the synod was really convened; and the importance of the
movement was not perceived until somewhat later.
The first three sessions were occupied by preliminary matters, after
which the actual business commenced. The constitution of the assembly,
as well as the form of procedure, was governed by arbitrary rules. The
legates presided as the representatives of the pope; who also appointed
the secretaries and other officers. Bishops alone were allowed to vote,
but an exception was made in the case of certain abbots and generals of
orders, for whose admission no precedent could however be alleged, but
such as would be equally availing for all presbyters. Proxies were
generally refused, although some were allowed by the sole authority of
the pope. All discussions were confined to previous congregations, and
in the sessions which followed there was no deliberation, but only the
acceptance or rejection of the proposed conclusions. The judgments of
the council were embodied partly in decrees which profess to contain the
Catholic doctrine on the points in question, partly in canons by which
the contrary opinions are anathematized as heretical.
In the fourth session, which was held April 5, 1546, somewhat less than
fifty bishops being present, it was decreed that the canon of Scripture
includes the books commonly called apocryphal, and that tradition is to
be received as of equal authority with the written Word; that the
Vulgate is to be taken for the standard text, and no interpretation
allowed but such as the Church has affixed. In the fifth session the
decree on original sin was passed; in the sixth, that on justification;
and in the seventh, that on the sacraments in general, and baptism and
confirmation in particular. In the eighth session, the removal to
Bologna was appointed, where the two following sessions were held; but
no decrees were passed, and in September, 1547, the council was
prorogued. The translation to an Italian city had been made under a bull
of Paul III., when the German bishops were urgent for reformation, and
there seemed no other escape. A disease which broke out at Trent was the
alleged excuse. In 1551 the council was again convened by Julius III.,
who had been present at a former period as legate. The eleventh and
twelfth sessions were spent in formal business; in the thirteenth the
sacrament of the eucharist was treated; in the fourteenth, the
sacraments of penance and extreme unction; in the fifteenth, a
safe-conduct was granted to the Protestants; and in the sixteenth, which
was held in April, 1552, the prorogation of the council for two years
was decreed. Paul IV. was, however, resolutely opposed to its revival,
on the ground that his authority was higher than that of a synod, which
was therefore needless; and by the threat of secular reformation he
deterred some princes from urging the reassembling of the council, which
did not take place till January, 1562, when the seventeenth session was
held under Pius IV. In the eighteenth, certain of the fathers were
appointed to prepare an index of prohibited books, and at the same time,
the safe-conduct was removed; in the eighteenth and nineteenth no
business was transacted; in the twenty-first, the communion under one
kind was enjoined for all, except the celebrant; in the twenty-second,
the sacrifice of the mass was declared to be a true and Catholic
doctrine; in the twenty-third, the subject handled was the sacrament of
order; in the twenty-fourth, the sacrament of matrimony; and in the
twenty-fifth, decrees were passed on purgatory, the invocation of
saints, the worship of relics and images, indulgences, fasting, the
index of prohibited books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal.
After which, the decrees passed under Paul III. and Julius III. were
read, and the council was dissolved.
In reviewing the history of this remarkable assembly, it is impossible
to overlook the want of unity both in purpose and opinion among its
members. The representatives of the emperor of Germany, of the kings of
France and Spain, of the duke of Bavaria, and of other secular princes,
urgently demanded the reformation of the Church, while the partisans of
the Roman court were desirous only to suppress Protestantism. There were
none but Italians on whom the pope could entirely depend, for even the
Spanish prelates wished his power to be restrained, and that of other
bishops to be enlarged. The Germans and French demanded the restoration
of the cup, and the marriage of the clergy, while the Spaniards, who
opposed them on these points, were united with them on some others
against the Roman faction. One great party was urgent that the later
sessions should be declared a continuation of the earlier, while another
vehemently opposed the declaration; and the council never ventured to
rule the question either way. There were endless conflicts between the
bishops and the monastic orders, and of Franciscans and Dominicans, with
each other. Whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; what
is the true nature of transubstantiation; whether CHRIST offered himself
in the holy supper; whether the apostles were ordained priests at that
time or previously,—were among the topics of vehement contention. On the
subject of the great doctrine of justification by faith, the members of
the council were far from being agreed, and it is beyond denial that
some of them held the Protestant view. Even the scanty number, who
ventured to decide on the canon of Scripture, and on tradition, were at
variance among themselves. Some disputes lasted throughout the whole
period, such as whether the council should be said to represent the
universal Church; whether the legates should have the privilege of
proposing all matters for debate; and whether doctrine should precede
reformation. The question of the residence of bishops, that is, whether
it is binding by Divine ordinance, or by the law of the Church, in which
important considerations were involved, excited long and angry
conflicts. Day after day, through weeks and months of the most critical
period, the dispute was renewed. The legates themselves were divided;
and at one time the dissolution of the council seemed inevitable.
There are many controverted points on which the council gives no
information, and they are the very questions which it was most important
to decide. No one can learn from its decrees, for instance, what is the
sound doctrine about purgatory, nor in what due veneration for images
consists, nor which is the sacramental form in penance, or matrimony,
nor what is the nature of original sin, nor what is the proper
definition of a sacrament. There were some subjects debated more than
sufficiently, but left at last undecided; and there were some positions
which the council could not renounce, because this would have
contradicted the decrees of former popes and councils, and which they
could not affirm, because they were opposed by powerful members of the
existing Church.
In spite, however, of the imperfect and contradictory statements of the
Fathers of Trent, they had no hesitation in pronouncing judgment on what
they esteemed Lutheran opinions. We can indeed find no parallel for the
prodigality of their curses, unless we go back to the days of the
Donatists. They reach not only to those whom the Church of all ages has
called blessed, but to many also of the doctors most esteemed in the
Roman communion itself. If any one, for example, denies that the works
of justified persons are truly meritorious of eternal life, or that the
mass is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, or that the custom of
confessing privately to a priest has existed from the apostolic age, or
that the Church has power to change an institution of CHRIST, he falls
under the imprecation of the council. In the decree of the last session
on the invocation of saints, and the use of images and relics, an
anathema is pronounced, not only against those who teach, but those who
even think differently. And yet the synod which spoke with so much
boldness had no claim, either from numbers or character, to be taken as
the representative of the Catholic Church. In the first seven sessions
held under Paul III., when the ground was laid for maintaining all the
errors and corruptions of the Roman Church, less than sixty bishops were
present. In the thirteenth, under Julius III., when transubstantiation
and the worship of the host were defined, only forty-five bishops and
two cardinals were assembled. And in the ninth session there were only
thirty-five collected, who yet presumed to take the title of an
Ecumenical Council. In the later sessions held under Pius IV., there was
a greater number of bishops at Trent; but the chief subjects in dispute
had been ruled in the earlier periods of the council, and the deficiency
of numbers was not remedied by any subsequent confirmation. Of those who
were present, the chief part were Italians; some were bishops of
inconsiderable sees, and some mere titulars. There were among them not a
few, who subsisted on pensions granted by the pope.
The council was in no sense the free assembly to which Luther and others
had appealed, for it was guided throughout by papal influence; and, as
the Protestants complained in 1546, it was not convened in a neutral
place, while the pope, who was the great delinquent on trial, was
allowed to be the judge in his own cause. There were external causes at
work, which prevented the freedom of debate. At the very time when the
doctrine of justification was under review, a league was formed between
the pope and the emperor, for putting down the Protestants; and while
the council was debating, the bishop of Rome was sending his contingent
of troops. In the council itself, the legates assumed unreasonable
authority, and their interruptions were the subject of continual
complaint. During the later sessions, the Inquisition was in full force,
and there were persons present in the council who had been sufferers.
The assembly was overborne by Italian prelates. At one time, when very
important subjects were under discussion, there were no more than two
bishops to represent the Church of France. On another occasion, forty
bishops were sent by the Roman court for the purpose of carrying a
particular point, by outvoting the Spanish bishops, by whom it was
opposed. We find the ambassadors of secular princes expressing in the
strongest language their sense of the tyranny under which the council
was held, and by which its freedom was annihilated.
No one who considers these circumstances can wonder that the beneficial
reforms of the Church did not result, which had been so long expected
and so anxiously desired. They had been demanded, but in vain, by the
emperor, and other great princes, as well as by diets and other
assemblies of the empire. Even as late as 1563, the French ambassador
delivered a list of thirty-four articles of required reformation. After
the twenty-second session we find the Imperialists affirming that none
of the desired changes had been proposed. And just before the close of
the council, the Spanish ambassador came to the legates with a written
complaint, that the principal things for which it was assembled had been
omitted, and the rest carried with precipitation. The French envoy
filled the letters which he addressed to his court with similar
testimony. Whatever beneficial changes in the administration of Church
affairs seemed to have been made, were neutralized by the terms in which
the rights of the see of Rome were reserved, and which were vague enough
to admit every abuse, the pope himself being constituted judge in each
case, and possessing also a dispensing power.
The last session was brought hastily to a close, partly through the
diplomatic skill of the legate Morone; but chiefly on account of the
illness of the pope, because everybody knew that if he died during the
sitting of the assembly, a schism was inevitable.
The history of the council was written, in 1619, by Sarpi, and forty
years later by Cardinal Pallavicini. The former was the most learned
person of the age, a statesman and historian as well as a divine; the
latter is chiefly known as an apologist of the court and Church of Rome.
His work has been described as more injurious to papal interests than
that of his predecessor; because if the one has shown how much may be
said against the Council of Trent, the other has made it equally plain
how little can be alleged in its defence.
The decrees of the council were signed by only 255 members: four of
these were legates of the papal see; two, cardinals; three, patriarchs;
twenty-five, archbishops; one hundred and sixty-eight, bishops;
thirty-nine, deputies of absent prelates; seven, abbots; and seven were
generals of religious orders. The Greek Church and the English Church
were not represented. It was subscribed on separate schedules, by the
ambassadors of the sovereigns who still adhered to the Romish system.
The following are the anathemas of the council.
I. The sacred œcumenical and general synod of Trent, lawfully assembled
in the HOLY GHOST, and presided over by the three legates of the
apostolic see, having it constantly in view that, by the removal of
errors, the gospel, which, promised aforetime in the Holy Scriptures by
the prophets, CHRIST himself first published with his own mouth, and
then commanded his apostles to preach to every creature, as the source
of all saving truth and instruction of manners, should be preserved pure
in the Church; and clearly perceiving that this truth and this
instruction are contained in written books _and unwritten traditions_,
which traditions have been received by the apostles from the mouth of
CHRIST himself, or dictated by the HOLY SPIRIT, and by the apostles
handed down even to us, receives and reverences, conformably to the
example of the orthodox Fathers, with the same pious regard and
veneration, all the books as well of the Old as of the New
Testament—both having GOD for their author, _and the traditions relating
both to faith and practice, inasmuch as these traditions were either
delivered by word of mouth, from_ CHRIST, _or dictated by the_ HOLY
GHOST, and preserved by uninterrupted succession in the Catholic Church.
The books received by this council are, of the Old Testament, the five
books of Moses, viz. Genesis, &c., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings,
two of Chronicles, first of Esdras, second of Esdras, called Nehemias,
Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, consisting of 150,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve minor prophets, viz.
Hosea, &c., the first and second of Maccabees. Of the New Testament, the
four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Paul the
Apostle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one
to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to
the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to
the Hebrews, the Epistle catholic of St. James, the two Epistles of St.
Peter, the three Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the
Revelations of St. John.
Whosoever shell not receive these books entire with all their parts, (i.
e. the Apocrypha as well as the canonical books,) as they are used to be
read in the (Roman) Catholic Church, and are contained in the ancient
Vulgate Latin edition, for sacred and canonical, and shall knowingly and
wilfully contemn the aforesaid traditions: let him be accursed. (See
_Bible_, _Scripture_, _Apocrypha_.)
II. Moreover, in order to repress the arrogant and self-sufficient, the
council decrees, that no one, relying on his own wisdom, shall presume
to pervert and interpret Holy Scripture to his own sense, in matters of
faith and manners, pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,
contrary to the sense which hath been and is maintained by the holy
mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true meaning and
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers, even if such interpretations should never be
made public. (See _Fathers_ and _Tradition_.)
III. Whosoever shall say, that the sacraments of the New Law were not
all instituted by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, or that they are _more or less_
in number than seven; that is to say, baptism, confirmation, the LORD’S
supper, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or that any one
of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be
accursed. (See _Seven Sacraments_.)
IV. Whosoever shall say, that by the sacraments of the New Law, grace is
not conferred _by the mere performance of the act_, but that faith alone
in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace: let him be
accursed. (See _Opus Operatum_.)
V. Whosoever shall say, that it is not requisite that the ministers,
when celebrating the sacraments, should have, at least, _the intention
of doing that which the Church doeth_: let him be accursed. (See
_Intention, Priests’_.)
VI. Whosoever shall say, that the free will of man, after the sin of
Adam, was lost and extinguished: let him be accursed. (See _Free Will_.)
VII. The formal cause of justification is the righteousness of GOD: not
that whereby he is himself righteous, but that whereby he maketh us
righteous; that with which we, being by him endowed, are renewed in the
spirit of our mind, and are not only accounted, but are truly called,
and are righteous, each of us receiving into himself righteousness,
according to the measure whereby the SPIRIT divideth to every man
severally as he will, and according to every man’s disposition and
co-operation. (See _Sanctification_.)
VIII. Whosoever shall say, that the ungodly is justified by faith alone,
so as to understand that nothing else is required to co-operate in
obtaining the grace of justification; and that it is by no means
necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his
own will: let him be accursed. (See _Justification_.)
IX. Whosoever shall say, that in the mass there is not a true and proper
sacrifice offered up to GOD, and that the offering up is no more than
the giving us CHRIST to eat: let him be accursed. (See _Satisfaction,
Romish_.)
X. Whosoever shall say, that by these words, “This do in remembrance of
me,” CHRIST did not ordain the apostles, priests, or that he did not
appoint that they and other priests should offer up his body and blood:
let him be accursed. (See _Orders_.)
XI. Whosoever shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of
praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made
on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it is profitable
only to the partaker, and that it ought not to be offered up for the
quick and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other
necessities: let him be accursed. (See _Mass, Sacrifice of_.)
XII. Whosoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the
eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and, consequently, the whole of CHRIST, are
truly, really, and substantially contained; but shall say that they are
there only symbolically, figuratively, or virtually: let him be
accursed. (See _Real Presence_ and _Transubstantiation_.)
XIII. Whosoever shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist,
the substance of bread and wine remains, together with the substance of
the body and blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and shall deny that
wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into
the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the
species of bread and wine still remaining, which change the (Roman)
Catholic Church very fitly calleth Transubstantiation: let him be
accursed. (See _Transubstantiation_.)
XIV. Whosoever shall say, that CHRIST exhibited in the eucharist is only
spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be
accursed. (See _Eucharist_.)
XV. Whosoever shall say, that in the most holy sacrament of the
eucharist, CHRIST, the only-begotten SON of GOD, is not to be adored
with the worship called _Latria_ even outwardly; nor honoured by a
peculiar festival, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according
to the praiseworthy and universal rite and usage of the holy Church, nor
exposed publicly to the people to be worshipped, and that its
worshippers are idolaters: let him be accursed. (See _Corpus Christi_.)
XVI. Whosoever shall say, that the holy eucharist ought not to be
reserved in a sacred place, but is immediately after consecration
necessarily to be distributed to those present, or that it ought not to
be carried in a respectful manner to the sick: let him be accursed. (See
_Elevation of the Host_.)
XVII. Whosoever shall say, that it is the commandment of GOD, or
necessary to salvation, that all and every faithful Christian should
receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, under both kinds: let
him be accursed. (See _Communion in One Kind_.)
XVIII. Whosoever shall say, that the holy Catholic Church hath not been
moved by just cause and reason to administer the bread only to the
laity, and even to the clergy not officiating, or that it is in error in
so doing: let him be accursed. (See _Cup_.)
XIX. Whosoever shall deny, that the whole of CHRIST, the source and
author of all grace, is received in the bread, because, as some falsely
affirm, according to CHRIST’S own institution, he is not received under
one and each kind: let him be accursed. (See _Communion in One Kind_.)
XX. Whosoever shall say, that the mass ought to be performed only in the
vulgar tongue: let him be accursed. (See _Liturgy_.)
XXI. The Catholic Church, instructed by the HOLY GHOST, and in
conformity to the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the
Fathers, hath taught in its sacred councils, and, lastly, in this
œcumenical synod, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained
therein are assisted by the prayers of the faithful, and more especially
by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. (See _Purgatory_.)
XXII. Whosoever shall say, that after receiving the grace of
justification, any penitent sinner hath his offence so remitted, and his
obnoxiousness to eternal punishment so blotted out, as to render him no
longer obnoxious to temporal punishment, to be undergone either in this
world or in the future in purgatory, before an entrance can be opened to
the kingdom of heaven: let him be accursed. (See _Purgatory_.)
XXIII. This holy synod enjoins all bishops and others who undertake the
office of teaching, to instruct the faithful, that the saints who reign
together with CHRIST offer up their prayers to GOD for men, that it is
good and profitable to invoke them in a supplicating manner, and that,
in order to procure benefit from GOD through his SON JESUS CHRIST our
LORD, who is our only REDEEMER and SAVIOUR, we should have recourse to
their prayers, help, and assistance; and that those persons hold impious
opinions who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven
are to be invoked; or who affirm, that the saints do not pray for men,
or that the invoking them that they may pray ever for every one of us in
particular, is idolatry, or is repugnant to the word of GOD, and
contrary to the honour of the one Mediator between GOD and men, JESUS
CHRIST, or that it is foolish to supplicate orally or mentally those who
reign in heaven. (See _Invocation of Saints_.)
XXIV. Also the bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with CHRIST,
having been lively members of CHRIST and temples of the HOLY GHOST, and
to be raised again by him to eternal life and glory, are to be
reverenced by the faithful, as by them many benefits are bestowed by GOD
on men; so that they who affirm that reverence and honour are not due to
the reliques of saints, or that it is useless for the faithful to honour
them or other sacred monuments, and a vain thing to celebrate the memory
of the saints, for the purpose of obtaining their assistance, are wholly
to be condemned, as the Church hath before condemned and now condemns
them. The images of CHRIST, and of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and of the
other saints, are to be set up and retained, especially in churches, and
due honour and reverence to be paid unto them. (See _Image Worship_,
_Mariolatry_, and _Relics_.)
XXV. Since the power of granting indulgences hath been bestowed by
CHRIST upon the Church, and such power thus Divinely imparted hath been
exercised by her even in the earliest times; this holy synod teaches and
enjoins that the use of indulgences, as very salutary to Christian
people, and approved of by the sacred councils, be retained in the
Church, and pronounces an anathema on such as shall affirm them to be
useless, or deny the power of granting them to be in the Church. (See
_Indulgences_.)
XXVI. The holy synod exhorts and adjures all pastors, by the coming of
our LORD and SAVIOUR, that as good soldiers they enjoin the faithful to
observe all things which the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress
of all Churches, hath enacted, as well as such things as have been
enacted by this and other œcumenical councils. (See _Church of Rome_.)
XXVII. The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them
in the universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some
graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment. (See _Supremacy,
Papal_.)
XXVIII. The more weighty criminal charges against bishops which deserve
deposition and deprivation may be judged and determined only by the
supreme Roman pontiff. (See _Pope_.)
XXIX. This holy synod enjoins all patriarchs, primates, archbishops,
bishops, and all others who, by right or custom, ought to assist at a
provincial council, that in the first provincial synod that may be
holden after the conclusion of the present council, they do openly
receive all and each of the things which have been defined and enacted
by this holy synod; also that they do promise and profess true obedience
to the supreme Roman pontiff, and at the same time publicly detest and
anathematize all heresies condemned by the sacred canons, the general
councils, and especially by this present synod. (See _Popery_.)
XXX. Whosoever shall say, that the clergy in holy orders, or regulars
having made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage, and
that a marriage so contracted is valid, notwithstanding the
ecclesiastical law or vow; and that to maintain the contrary is nothing
else than to condemn matrimony, and that all may contract marriage who
do not feel themselves to have the gift of continence, even though they
should have made a vow of it: let him be accursed; since GOD denies it
not to such as rightly ask it, nor will he suffer us to be tempted above
what we are able. (See _Celibacy_.)
XXXI. Whosoever shall say, that the state of matrimony is to be
preferred to the state of virginity or single life, and that it is not
better or more blessed to continue in virginity or single life: let him
be accursed. (See _Matrimony_.)
TRENTAL. A service of thirty masses for the dead, usually celebrated on
as many different days.
TRICANALE. “A round ball with a screw coin for the water of mixture,” at
the holy communion in Bishop Andrewes’s chapel, and in Canterbury
cathedral. _Canterbury’s Dom._, 1646, and _Neale’s Hist. of the
Puritans_, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224.—_Jebb._
TRIFORIUM. Any passage in the walls of a church, but generally
restricted in its use to the passage immediately over the arches of the
great arcade, usually, in Norman and Early English, marked by an arcade
of its own. It is so called as being in most cases a triple aperture,
opening to the nave. In the Geometrical style, the Triforium is
sometimes treated as a mere decorative arcade, connected in composition
with the clerestory; and in the Decorated it sinks still lower into a
course of panels, pierced at intervals; while in the Perpendicular it
either wholly disappears, or is a mere lengthening of the mullions of
the clerestory windows.
TRINITY. (See _Person_, _God_, _Jesus_, _Christ_, _Messiah_, _Son of
God_, _Holy Ghost_.) _Of Faith in the Holy Trinity._—“There is but one
living and true GOD, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions: of
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all
things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this GODHEAD there
be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the FATHER, the
SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—_Article_ I.
“Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he
hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole
and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
Catholic faith is this: That we worship one GOD in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
substance.”—_Athanasian Creed._
Here it is said, that in the unity of the GODHEAD there be three
persons; that is, though there be but one living and true GOD, yet there
be three persons, who are that one living and true GOD. Though the true
GOD be but one in substance, yet he is three in subsistence; and so
three in subsistence, as still to be but one in substance. And these
three persons, every one of which is GOD, and yet all three but one GOD,
are really related to one another; as they are termed in Scripture, one
is a FATHER, the other a SON, the other a HOLY GHOST. The first is
FATHER to the second, the second is SON to the first, the third is
neither FATHER nor SON, but the issue or spirit of both. The first was a
FATHER from eternity, as well as GOD; the second was GOD from eternity,
as well as a SON; the third was both HOLY GHOST and GOD from eternity,
as well as either of them. The FATHER is the first person in the Deity;
not begotten, nor proceeding, but begetting; the SON, the second, not
begetting, nor proceeding, but begotten; the HOLY GHOST, the third, not
begotten, nor begetting, but proceeding. The first is called the FATHER,
because he begot the second; the second is called the SON, because he is
begotten of the FATHER; the third is called the HOLY GHOST, because
breathed both from the FATHER and the SON.
And though these be thus really amongst themselves distinct from one
another, yet are they not distinct in the Divine nature; they are not
distinct in essence, though they be distinct in the manner of their
subsisting in it. The FATHER subsists as a Father, the SON as a Son, the
HOLY GHOST as a Spirit, and so have distinct subsistences; yet have all
the same numerical substance. We say numerical or individual substance;
for otherwise they might have all the same Divine nature, and yet not be
the same GOD. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were three distinct persons,
and had all the same human nature; yet they could not all be called one
man; because, though they had but one human nature, yet they had it
specifically, as distinguished into several individuals; not
numerically, so as to be the same individual man; and, therefore, though
they had but one specifical, they had several numerical, natures, by
which means Abraham was one man, Isaac another, Jacob a third. And upon
the same account is it, that, amongst the angels, Gabriel, Michael,
Raphael, though they have the same angelical nature, yet they are not
the same angel. But here the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST have not only
the same Divine nature “in specie,” but “in numero;” and so have not
only one and the same nature, but are one and the same GOD. The FATHER
is the self-same individual GOD with the SON; the SON is the self-same
individual GOD with the FATHER; and the HOLY GHOST is the self-same
individual GOD with them both. We say, _individual_ GOD, for the Divine
nature is not divided into several Gods, as the human is into several
men, but only distinguished into several persons, every one of which
hath the same undivided Divine nature, and so is the same individual
God. And thus it is, that in the unity of the GODHEAD there be three
persons, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; which great mystery, though we be
not able adequately to conceive of it, yet the Scriptures give a
sufficient testimonial to it.—_Beveridge._
The sublime mystery of the TRINITY in Unity is taught by revelation—not
by reason; although it is not in contradiction to this, rightly
exercised, nor more unintelligible than many of the “things hard to be
understood” in Holy Scripture. A plurality in the GODHEAD is indicated
by the language of the very earliest revelations; which plurality is
plainly expressed under the Gospel dispensation—a sacred Three being
enumerated by mutual relation in the form of baptism, and by name in the
apostolic benediction; which Three are also frequently mentioned
together elsewhere, though not in terms so clear.
The doctrine may perhaps be gleaned as much from the economy of
creation, as from that of redemption; and herein may be observed, that
in the very commencement of the sacred history, the DEITY is mentioned
under a term of plural signification; and when man, the more eminent
work, is to be made, and is afterwards spoken of, a Divine council seems
implied: “Let _us_ make man,” &c., “the man is become as one of _us_!”
This peculiar fact seems referred to, and corroborated by, the
introduction to St. John’s Gospel; which declares that the “WORD was in
the beginning with GOD.” Again, each of the sacred Three is noticed as
acting separately in the work. With respect to the FATHER this is clear
from innumerable passages, in which the LORD GOD is mentioned as the
Creator, unless in such a Trinity be implied, which then shortly decides
the point at issue. Of the SON it is said, “all things were made by
him;” and expressly, “without him was not anything made that was made.”
(John i. 3; Col. i. 16.) And of the HOLY SPIRIT, that by him are made
and created both man and beast. (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30.) Thus is
that passage intelligible, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens
made: and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Ps. xxxiii.
6.) The mode of operation in the work of redemption has been before
noticed. To all these may be added, that the sacred THREE are mentioned
equally as sending and instructing the prophets and teachers, (Jer. vii.
25; Matt. ix. 38; x. 5; Acts xxvi. 16–18; Isa. xlviii. 16; Acts xiii. 2,
4; xx. 28,)—and equally speaking by them. (Heb. i. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 3;
Mark xiii. 11.) Each, too, gives life—raises the dead—and is joined in
the form of baptism, and Christian benediction.
The word _Elohim_ is a plural noun (Gods); and as that was the first
term used in the Divine revelation, it seems intended to indicate that
plurality—the holy TRINITY—afterwards more plainly revealed. And it is
to be noticed, that by this word (_Elohim_) was the earliest revelation
made to man. In this was the faith of the patriarchs expressed, as
particularly in Gen. xxviii. 20–22; and by this name GOD expressly
declares he appeared unto them, when by his “name JEHOVAH” he was “not
known.” (Ex. vi. 3.) Indeed this latter term seems for a time to have
been used less as a name, than as a character, of the Elohim, since it
was subsequently that it was announced as the “name”—I AM—by which the
Divine plurality was to be known in unity. (Ex. iii. 14; vi. 2.) Jehovah
GOD hath not been “seen at any time;” whereas, of the Elohim, one, at
least—the angel Jehovah in prelude to his incarnation—condescended
frequently to appear, and talk with man. The translation of Jehovah by
_Adonai_ (or Lords) is also remarkable; with the coincidence to be found
in the mode adopted by the heathen, of speaking of their gods; as in the
name of Baalim for Baal. (Judges ii. 11; Hosea xi. 2.)
That Elohim implies plurality seems evident, from the construction of
such a passage as Gen. xx. 13, where it is said, “when they, Elohim,
caused me to wander.” Again, (xxxv. 7,) when “they appeared unto him,”
at Bethel. And (Josh. xxiv. 19) “the Elohim are holy.” In Ps. lviii. 11,
the Elohim are called “judges;” in Ps. cxlix. 2; Isa. xliv. 2, and liv.
5, “makers” and “kings;” in Eccl. xii. 1, “creators;” and in Jer. xxiii.
36, “the living Gods.” Other places are mentioned by Parkhurst; as Gen.
xxxi. 53; Deut. iv. 7; v. 23, or 26; 1 Sam. iv. 8; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Isa.
vi. 8; Jer. x. 10, &c.
In perfect accordance with this is the first great commandment given
from Mount Sinai: “I am the LORD thy GOD,” (_Jehovah Elohim_,) thou
“shalt have no other gods before me;” more plainly set forth in the
baptismal “name”—the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, a “holy,
blessed, and glorious Trinity,” in inseparable Unity, and perfect
co-equality, as may be most safely concluded, from the various passages
in which the sacred THREE are mentioned in different order—the FATHER
first, in Matt. xxviii. 19,—the SON first, in 2 Cor. xiii. 14,—and the
HOLY GHOST first, in 1 Cor. xii. 4–6; Eph. iv. 4–6, and Luke i. 35.
The laws and ordinances of the Jews were peculiarly adapted to guard the
pure worship against heathen idolatry; therefore, when the legislator,
in speaking of GOD, uses a term implying plurality, which he does, with
verbs and persons singular, above thirty times, this, too, in the
Decalogue, and in the repetition of laws, and frequently prefaced by an
address, demanding attention,—“Hear, O Israel!” “Thus saith the LORD!”
it could not but be that plurality in the GODHEAD was intended to be
announced. This is strongly corroborated by such expressions as “holy
Gods,” “thy Creators,” being used by Joshua and Solomon; the one an
eminent type of CHRIST, the other inspired with learning in an
extraordinary degree.—See _Bishop Huntingford’s_ “_Thoughts on the
Trinity_,” xxii., xxiii. And we may be rather confirmed in the opinion,
by the futile attempts of the Jewish Rabbins, to make tolerable sense of
the peculiar phraseology adopted, while denying the implication of a
plurality.
The doctrine of a TRINITY, and this in Unity, is not then an arbitrary
assumption, or an attempt to be wise “above that which is written;” but
it necessarily arises out of certain Scriptural expressions and
passages, which though apparently, or to human sense, contradictory to
each other, must in reality be consistent: and the Catholic, or orthodox
system, framed on the whole of these, reconciles them in a more easy and
natural manner than any other scheme offered.
The word “Trinity,” it is confessed, does not occur in Holy Scripture;
nor does the word “Unity,” as applied to the DEITY. But neither do the
words “omnipresence” and “omniscience;” and as the use of these has
never been objected to in speaking of the attributes of Him who is
everywhere present, and “knoweth all things,” so may the others be used
with equal propriety to express the distinct existence of FATHER, SON,
and HOLY GHOST, and the simple oneness of GOD! The use is admissible, to
prevent circumlocution; and irreverence may be deprecated where language
is inefficient. The word _Trinity_ was used by the Greek and Latin
Fathers, in the middle of the second century, in a way that indicated it
was not then a novel expression; and was considered by the orthodox so
unobjectionable, as to be employed without reserve in their opposition
to the Sabellian heresy.
Indeed, the primitive Fathers appear to have indulged an idea, that
without a distinction of hypostases in the GODHEAD, it is difficult to
imagine that αὐτάρκεια, or self-sufficiency, and perfect bliss, which
seems to have arisen from a Divine society, as in Prov. viii. 22, 23,
particularly 30, and elsewhere. Indeed, the notion of a TRINITY has
prevailed immemorially, long before the term was adopted; and is found
in the heathen worship, as well as in the Church; both, no doubt, having
it from a common original.
TRINITY SUNDAY. The solemn festivals, which in the foregoing parts of
our annual service have propounded to our consideration the mysterious
work of man’s redemption, and the several steps taken to accomplish it,
naturally lead us up to, and at last conclude with, that of the Trinity.
The incarnation and nativity, the passion and resurrection of the
blessed JESUS, demonstrate how great things the SON of GOD hath
condescended to do for us. The miraculous powers with which the first
disciples were endued, and the sanctifying graces with which all the
faithful are assisted, do prove how great and how necessary a part the
“HOLY SPIRIT” bore in this work, both for publishing the salvation of
the world, and for rendering it effectual. And all agree in representing
to us the inestimable love of the “FATHER,” by whom that “SON” was sent,
and that “SPIRIT” so wonderfully and so plentifully shed abroad. Most
justly, therefore, after such informations how fit a subject this is for
our wonder and adoration, does the Church on this day call upon us to
celebrate the mystery of those “three” persons in the unity of the
GODHEAD; each of whom hath so kindly, and so largely, contributed to
this united and stupendous act of mercy, upon which the whole of all our
hopes and happiness depends.—_Dean Stanhope._
Notwithstanding on each day, and especially Sundays, the Church
celebrates the praises of the TRINITY, in her doxologies, hymns, creeds,
&c.; yet the wisdom of the Church thought it meet, that such a mystery
as this, though part of the meditation of each day, should be the chief
subject of one, and this to be the day. For no sooner had our LORD
ascended into heaven, and GOD’S Holy Spirit descended upon the Church;
but there ensued the notice of the glorious and incomprehensible
TRINITY, which before that time was not so clearly known. The Church
therefore, having solemnized in an excellent order all the high feasts
of our LORD, and after that of the descent of GOD’S Spirit upon the
apostles, thought it a thing most seasonable to conclude these great
solemnities with a festival of full, special, and express service to the
holy and blessed Trinity.—_Bp. Sparrow._
This mystery was not clearly delivered to the Jews, because they, being
always surrounded by idolatrous nations, would have easily mistaken it
for a doctrine of plurality of Gods; but yet it was not so much hidden
in those times, but that any one with a spiritual eye might have
discerned some glimmerings of it dispersed through the Old Testament.
The first chapter in the Bible seems to set forth three persons in the
GODHEAD; for, besides the “Spirit of GOD” which “moved upon the face of
the waters,” (ver. 2,) we find the great Creator (at the 26th verse)
consulting with others about the greatest work of his creation, the
making of man, of which we may be assured the WORD or SON of GOD was
one, since “all things were made by him, and without him was not
anything made that was made.” So that those two verses fully pointing
out to us the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, make this a very proper
lesson for the solemnity of the day. The reason of the choice of the
other first lesson is as obvious: it records the appearance of the great
JEHOVAH to Abraham, whom the patriarch acknowledges to be the “Judge of
all the earth;” and who therefore, by vouchsafing to appear with two
others in his company, might design to represent to him the “Trinity of
Persons.” But this sacred mystery is nowhere so plainly manifested as in
the second lesson for the morning, which at one and the same time
relates the baptism of the SON, the voice of the FATHER, and the descent
of the HOLY GHOST: which, though they are (as appears from this chapter)
three distinct persons in number, yet the second lesson at evening shows
they are but one in essence.—_Wheatly._
The Epistle and the Gospel are the same that were anciently assigned for
the Octave of Pentecost; the Epistle being the vision of St. John (Rev.
iv.); and the Gospel, the dialogue of our LORD with Nicodemus; and the
mention, which we find therein, of baptism, of the HOLY SPIRIT and the
gifts of it, though it might then fit the day as a repetition, as it
were, of Pentecost, so is it no less fit for it as a feast of the
blessed TRINITY. The mission of the HOLY GHOST brings with it, as
aforesaid, more light and clearness to the doctrine of the TRINITY: and
when more fit to think of the gifts of the SPIRIT, than on a solemn day
of ordination, as this is one, when men are consecrated to spiritual
offices? But, besides this, we have in the Gospel set before us all the
three persons of the sacred TRINITY, and the same likewise represented
in the vision, which the Epistle speaks of, with an hymn of praise,
“Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD Almighty,” &c.: which expressions, by
ancient interpretation, relate to the Holy TRINITY, as is above
said.—_Bp. Sparrow._
In the Roman Church the Sundays between Whitsunday and Advent are
reckoned from Pentecost: in our Church, following the old English custom
in the unreformed office, we count from Trinity Sunday.
TRISAGION. (See _Tersanctus_.)
TRUCE OF GOD. In the French, _Treve de Dieu_: in modern Latin, _Trevia_,
_Treuvia_, _Treuga_, or _Truga Dei_.
In the eleventh century, when the disorders and licences of private
wars, between particular lords and families, were a great disturbance to
the peace of the kingdom of France, the bishops took upon them to
publish injunctions, forbidding acts of violence, within certain times,
under canonical pains. These prohibitions were called _Truce of God_; a
phrase frequently to be met with in the councils held about that time.
The first regulation of this kind was in a synod, held in the diocese of
Elno in Rousillon, A. D. 1027; where it was enacted, that, throughout
that country, no person should attack his enemy, from the hour of nones
on Saturday to that of primes on Monday, that Sunday might have its
proper celebration: that no person should, at any time, attack a
religious or priest walking unarmed; nor any person going to, or
returning from, church: that nobody should attack a church, or any house
within thirty paces round it: all this under penalty of excommunication.
TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. An annual festival of the Jews, expressly enjoined
by the law of Moses, and observed upon the first day of the seventh
month, called Tisri, which was the beginning of the civil year.
This festival is expressly called a sabbath, and was a very solemn day,
on which no servile work was to be done; only provision made for their
meals, which were usually very plentiful at this time. Among other
dishes they served up a ram’s head, in memory of that ram which was
sacrificed in the room of Isaac; which they fancy was done upon this
day.
All the festivals of the Jews, it is true, were introduced by the sound
of trumpets: but this was attended with more than usual solemnity. For
they began to blow at sunrising, and continued till sunset. He who
sounded, began with the usual prayer: “Blessed be GOD, who hath
sanctified us with his precepts,” &c., subjoining these words: “Blessed
be GOD, who hath hitherto preserved us in life, and brought us unto this
time.” At the conclusion, the people said with a loud voice these words
of the Psalmist: “Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they
shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance.” And whereas, in
other places, the beginning of the year was sounded with a trumpet of
ram’s or sheep’s horn, at the temple they used two silver trumpets, and
the Levites upon that day sung the eighty-first psalm.
This festival is called a memorial of blowing of trumpets: but it is not
so easy to determine what this blowing of trumpets was a memorial of.
Maimonides will have it to be instituted to awaken the people out of
sleep, and call to repentance; being intended to put them in mind of the
great day of expiation, which followed nine days after. Basil imagined,
that by these soundings the people were put in mind of that day, wherein
they received the Law from Mount Sinai with blowing of trumpets. Others
think it more probable, that, since all nations made great shouting,
rejoicing, and feasting in the beginning of the year, at the first
new-moon, in hopes that the rest of the year by this means would prove
more prosperous, GOD was pleased to ordain this festival among his
people, in honour of himself, upon the day of the first new-moon, to
preserve them from idolatry, and to make them sensible that he alone
gave them good years. Others again imagine, that GOD marked this month
with a peculiar honour, because it was the seventh; that, as every
seventh day was a sabbath, and every seventh year the land rested, so
every seventh month of every year should be a kind of sabbatical month:
and upon that account the people might be awakened by this blowing of
trumpets, to observe this festival with the proper ceremonies. Lastly,
others explain this blowing of trumpets to be a memorial of the creation
of the world, which was in autumn. Upon this account it was that they
anciently began their years at this time, as the eastern people do at
this day. By this means they also confessed the Divine goodness in
blessing the year past, and bringing them to the beginning of a new
year, which they prayed that GOD would make happy and propitious to
them.
TUNICLE. An ecclesiastical garment mentioned in the rubrics of King
Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the assistant ministers at the
holy communion. It is the same as the tunic or the dalmatic, which was
also an episcopal garment. Originally it had no sleeves; and was the
same with the Greek colobion. The sleeves were added in the west about
the fourth century; and then the vestment was called a dalmatic. The
_tunicle_ in the Roman Church is proper to subdeacons.—_Palmer. Goar._
TURRET. A small tower appended to a tower, or the angle or other part of
any component portion of a building for support, or to carry stairs, or
for ornament. Like the tower, it is often finished with a high conical
capping, which is then called a spiret or pinnacle.
TYPE. An impression, image, or representation of some model, which is
termed the _antitype_. In this sense we often use the word to denote the
prefiguration of the great events of man’s redemption by persons or
things in the Old Testament.
UBIQUITARIANS. A sect of heretics, so called because they maintained
that the body of JESUS CHRIST is (_ubique_) everywhere, or in every
place.
Brentius, one of the earliest reformers, is said to have first broached
this error, in Germany, about the year 1560. Melancthon immediately
declared against it, as introducing a kind of confusion in the two
natures of JESUS CHRIST. On the other hand, it was espoused by Flacius
Illyricus, Osiander, and others. The universities of Leipsic and
Wirtemburg in vain opposed this heresy, which gained ground daily. Six
Ubiquitarians, viz. Smidelin, Selneccer, Musculus, Chemnitius, Chytræus,
and Cornerus, had a meeting, in 1577, in the monastery of Berg, and
composed a kind of creed, or formulary of faith, in which the Ubiquity
of CHRIST’S body was the leading article. However, the Ubiquitarians
were not quite agreed among themselves; some holding that JESUS CHRIST,
even during his mortal life, was everywhere, and others dating the
Ubiquity of his body from the time of his ascension only.
ULTRA-PROTESTANT. (See _Via Media_.)
UNCTION. (See _Extreme Unction_.)
UNIFORMITY, ACTS OF. The Acts of Uniformity are 1 Eliz. c. 2, and 14
Car. II. The Irish Acts of Uniformity are also 2 Eliz. cap. 2, and 17
and 18 Car. II. See Stephens’s Edition of both the English and Irish
Prayer Book. By stat. 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 4–8, If any parson, vicar, or
other minister that ought to use the Common Prayer, or to minister the
sacraments, shall refuse to do the same, or shall use any other form, or
shall speak anything in derogation of the same book, or of anything
therein contained, he shall, on conviction for the first offence,
forfeit to the queen one year’s profit of all his spiritual promotions,
and be imprisoned for six months; for the second offence, shall be
deprived of all his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned for a year;
and, for the third offence, shall be deprived of all his spiritual
promotions, and be imprisoned during life. And if he has no spiritual
promotion, he shall, for the first offence, be imprisoned for a year;
and, for the second, during life.
And by the same act, if any person shall in plays, songs, or by other
open words, speak anything in derogation of the same book, or anything
therein contained; or shall, by open fact, cause or procure any minister
in any place to say Common Prayer openly, or to minister any sacrament
in other form, or shall interrupt or let any minister to say the said
Common Prayer, he shall (being indicted for the same at the next
assizes) forfeit to the queen for the first offence 100 marks, and for
the second 400 marks, which, if not paid in six weeks after conviction,
he shall suffer six months’ imprisonment for the first offence, and
twelve months’ for the second, and for the third offence shall forfeit
all his goods and chattels, and be imprisoned during life.
By stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, Where an incumbent resides upon his
living and keeps a curate, the incumbent himself, (not having lawful
impediment, to be allowed by the bishop,) shall at least once a month
openly and publicly read the Common Prayer, and (if there be occasion)
administer the sacraments and other rites of the Church.
UNIGENITUS, THE BULL. The instrument issued by Pope Clement XI., in
1713, against the French translation of the New Testament, with notes,
by Pasquier Quesnel, priest of the Oratory, and a celebrated Jansenist.
The book, having occasioned considerable disputes, had already been
condemned by the court of Rome in 1708; but this step being found
ineffectual, Clement, who had privately spoken of it in terms of
rapture, declaring it to be an excellent book, and one which no person
resident at Rome was capable of writing, proceeded to condemn one
hundred and one propositions of the notes; such as—grace, the effectual
principle of all good works; faith, the first and fountain of all the
graces of a Christian; the Scriptures should be read by all, &c. This
bull, procured by Louis and the Jesuits, occasioned great commotion in
France. Forty Gallican bishops accepted it; but it was opposed by many
others, especially by Noailles, archbishop of Paris. Many of the
prelates, and other persons eminent for piety and learning, appealed, on
the subject, from the papal authority to that of a general council, but
in vain.
UNION, HYPOSTATICAL, (see _Jesus_, _Lord_, _Christ_, _Messiah_,
_Mediator_,) is the union of the human nature of CHRIST with the Divine,
constituting two natures in one person. Not _consubstantially_, as the
three persons in the GODHEAD; nor _physically_, as soul and body united
in one person; nor _mystically_, as is the union between CHRIST and
believers; but so as that the manhood subsist in the second person, yet
without making confusion, both making but one person. It was
_miraculous_. (Luke i. 34, 35.) _Complete_ and real: CHRIST took a real
human body and soul, and not in appearance. _Inseparable._ (Heb. vii,
25.)—See _Burton_.
UNITARIANS. A title which certain heretics, who do not worship the true
GOD, assume most unfairly, to convey the impression that those who
worship the one and only GOD do not hold the doctrine of the Divine
Unity. Christians worship the TRINITY in Unity, and the UNITY in
Trinity.
This name includes all, whether Arians of old, or more lately Socinians,
and other Deists, who deny the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST, and the
separate personality of the HOLY GHOST. They are not very numerous in
England, although most of the old English Presbyterian congregations
have fallen into Unitarianism.
These persons made little progress in England till the opening of the
eighteenth century, when many of the old Presbyterian ministers embraced
opinions adverse to the Trinitarian doctrine. A noticeable controversy
on the subject was begun in 1719, in the West of England, and two
Presbyterian ministers, in consequence of their participation in these
sentiments, were removed from their pastoral charges. Nevertheless, the
Presbyterian clergy gradually became impregnated, although for some time
they gave no particular expression from their pulpits to their views in
this respect. In course of little time, however, their congregations
either came to be entirely assimilated with themselves in doctrine, or
in part seceded to the Independent body. Thus, the ancient Presbyterian
chapels and endowments have, in great degree, become the property of
Unitarians, whose origin, as a distinct community in England, may be
dated from the first occurrence of such virtual transfers, viz. from
about the period just subsequent to 1730.
Persons denying the doctrine of the Trinity were excepted from the
benefits of the Toleration Act, and remained so until 1813, when the
section in that statute which affected them was abrogated by the 53 Geo.
III. c. 160, which was extended to Ireland by 57 Geo. III. c. 70. Since
that period they have been exactly in the same position as all other
Protestant Dissenters with respect to their political immunities. These
persons do not object to the form of attestation, “on the true faith of
a Christian,” though denying the principal doctrines of Christianity as
recognised by the Catholic Church.
The form of ecclesiastical government adopted by the Unitarians is
substantially “congregational;” each individual congregation ruling
itself without regard to any courts or synods.
Returns have been received at the Census Office from 229 congregations
connected with this body.
UNITED BRETHREN. (See _Moravians_.)
UNIVERSALISTS. Those who, contrary to the express word of GOD, deny the
eternal punishment of the wicked.
UNIVERSITY. _University_, as Johnson observes, originally meant a
community or corporation;—it afterwards came to be restricted to those
communities for divine and secular learning, which were originally
called _studia generalia_, _schools_, _pædagogies_, (as St. Andrew’s,)
_academies_, &c. In all of these, the four great branches of knowledge
were professed, divinity, law, medicine, and the liberal arts and
sciences. In the twelfth century, degrees were conferred, (see
_Degrees_,) first in canon and civil law, afterwards in theology and
philosophy; though all these branches of learning had long been taught.
The universities were gradually endowed with important privileges. For
ages they had been regarded in England as great and influential, with
corporate titles though not with corporate privileges. These were
formally given to them by Queen Elizabeth; under whose auspices the
third university of Dublin, endowed with like privileges, was founded.
It is foreign to the object of a Church Dictionary to notice those
corporations for mere secular learning, to which in England the title of
University, though with a novel meaning, has of late years been legally
given. The term, as formerly understood in England, Ireland, and
Scotland, as throughout Europe for ages, comprehended Divine learning as
an essential and crowning part of the system. The old universities are
connected with the Church by the closest ties. Their discipline is
recognised by the canons, (the xvi., xvii., and xxiii., for example,)
and their degrees are essential qualifications for many Church
preferments; these also are conferred under the invocation of the Holy
Trinity; all their solemn assemblies are accompanied with the prayers of
the Church; and the foundation within the universities, upon which their
influence and very existence depend, has been made with the plain and
obvious understanding that these great corporations are the nurseries of
the Church; that those who partake of their privileges are to be
educated as her generic children.
It is beyond the object of this work to give any detailed account of
their constitution. It may suffice to observe, that the English system
of having many colleges within the precincts of, and subordinate to, the
greater corporation, though forming each a minor corporation in itself,
is not peculiar to this country. Such was the system of the most ancient
universities, Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca; and of many more modern
ones, as Louvain, &c. Paris had anciently fifty-three colleges,
(including eight for the religious order,) and up to the Revolution had
twenty-three, (of which fifteen were not monastic,) several of the
secular ones having been amalgamated by Louis XIV. Besides these, each
faculty had its corporate assembly; and over all the rector, assisted by
three deans and four proctors, presided. The constitution at Louvain was
similar, where there were twenty colleges. The college system is the
best auxiliary to the university, and grew up from the obvious necessity
of securing to the younger students a proper domestic discipline, and to
the elder the means of pursuing their maturer studies.
URIM AND THUMMIM. So the Hebrews called a certain oracular manner of
consulting GOD; which was done by the high priest, dressed in his robes,
and having on his pectoral, or breastplate.
Concerning the Urim and Thummim, various have been the sentiments of
learned men. Josephus, and others after him, have maintained, that Urim
and Thummim meant the precious stones set in the high priest’s
breastplate; which, by some extraordinary lustre, made known the will of
GOD to those who consulted him. Spencer, in his dissertation on these
words, believes they were two little golden figures, shut up in the
pectoral, as in a purse, which gave responses with an articulate voice.
In short, there are as many opinions concerning the Urim and Thummim, as
there are authors that have written about them. The safest opinion seems
to be, that the words Urim and Thummim signify some divine virtue and
power annexed to the breastplate of the high priest, by which an
oracular answer was obtained from GOD, when he was consulted by the high
priest; and that this was called Urim and Thummim, to express the
clearness and perfection which these oracular answers always carried
with them; for Urim signifies _light_, and Thummim, _perfection_. These
answers were not enigmatical and ambiguous, like the heathen oracles,
but clear and evident; and never fell short of perfection, either with
regard to fulness in the answer, or certainty in the event.
The use made of the Urim and Thummim was, to consult GOD, in difficult
and momentous cases, relating to the whole state of Israel. For this
purpose the high priest put on his robes, and over them the breastplate,
in which the Urim and Thummim were; and then presented himself before
GOD, to ask counsel of him. But he was not to do this for any private
person; but only for the king, for the president of the Sanhedrim, for
the general of the army, or for some other great personage; nor for any
private affairs, but such only as related to the public interest of the
nation, either in Church or State. The place where he presented himself
before GOD, was before the ark of the covenant; where standing with his
robes and breastplate on, and his face turned directly towards the ark,
and the mercy-seat over it, upon which the Divine presence rested, he
proposed what he wanted to be resolved about; and directly behind him,
at some distance without the holy place, stood the person, upon whose
account GOD was consulted, and there, with all humility and devotion,
expected the answer that should be given.
It seems plain from Scripture, that the answer was given by an audible
voice from the mercy-seat, which was within, behind the veil. There it
was that Moses went to ask counsel of GOD in all cases; and from thence
he was answered by an audible voice. In the same way did GOD afterwards
communicate his will to the governors of Israel, as often as he was
consulted by them; only with this difference, that whereas Moses,
through extraordinary indulgence, had immediate access to the Divine
presence, and GOD communed with him, as it were, face to face, no other
person was admitted thither to ask counsel of GOD but through the
mediation of the high priest, who, in his stead, asked counsel for him
by Urim and Thummim. There are many instances in Scripture of GOD’S
being consulted this way; and the answer, in most of them, is introduced
with, “the LORD said.” And when the Israelites made a peace with the
Gibeonites, they are blamed because they did not ask counsel at the
mouth of GOD: both which phrases seem plainly to imply a vocal answer.
And for this reason it is that the holy of holies, the place where the
ark and the mercy-seat stood, from whence this answer was given, is so
often in Scripture called the oracle; because from thence the divine
oracles of GOD were delivered to such as asked counsel of him.
It is variously conjectured by learned men, when this Urim and Thummim
entirely ceased: it is certain there is no instance of it in Scripture
during the first temple; and it was wholly wanting in the second. And
hence came that saying among the Jews, that the HOLY SPIRIT spake to the
Israelites during the tabernacle, by Urim and Thummim; under the first
temple, by the prophets; and, under the second, by Bath-Col.
URSULINES. An order of nuns, founded originally by St. Angeli, of
Brescia, in the year 1537, and so called from St. Ursula, to whom they
are dedicated.
USE. In former times each bishop had the power of making some
improvements in the liturgy of his church: in process of time, different
customs arose, and several became so established, as to receive the
names of their respective churches. Thus gradually the “Uses” or customs
of York, Sarum, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, Aberdeen, &c., came to be
distinguished from each other.
The missals and other ritual books of York and Hereford have been
printed; but we have inquired in vain for the names of the bishops who
originated the unessential peculiarities which they contain. Their
rubrics are sometimes less definite than those of the Sarum “USE,” and
they contain some few offices in commemoration of departed prelates and
saints, which are not found in other missals, &c. The “Use” or custom of
Sarum derives its origin from Osmund, bishop of that see in A. D. 1078,
and chancellor of England. We are informed by Simeon of Durham, that
about the year 1083, King William the Conqueror appointed Thurstan, a
Norman, abbot of Glastonbury. Thurstan, despising the ancient Gregorian
chanting, which had been used in England from the sixth century,
attempted to introduce in its place a modern style of chanting invented
by William of Fescamp, a Norman. The monks resisted the innovations of
their abbot, and a scene of violence and bloodshed ensued, which was
terminated by the king’s sending back Thurstan to Normandy. This
circumstance may very probably have turned the attention of Osmund to
the regulation of the ritual of his church. We are informed that he
built a new cathedral; collected together clergy, distinguished as well
for learning as for a knowledge of chanting; and composed a book for the
regulation of ecclesiastical offices, which was entitled the “Custom”
book. The substance of this was probably incorporated into the missal
and other ritual books of Sarum, and ere long, almost the whole of
England, Wales, and Ireland, adopted it. When the archbishop of
Canterbury celebrated the liturgy in the presence of the bishops of his
province, the bishop of Salisbury (probably in consequence of the
general adoption of the “Use” of Sarum) acted as _precentor_ of the
college of bishops, a title which he still retains. The churches of
Lincoln and Bangor also had peculiar “Uses;” but we are not aware that
any of their books have been printed. A MS. pontifical, containing the
rites and ceremonies performed by the bishop, still (we believe) remains
in the church of Bangor; it is said to have belonged to Anianus, who
occupied that see in the thirteenth century. The church of Aberdeen in
Scotland had its own rites; but whether there was any peculiarity in the
missal we know not, as it has never been published. The breviary of
Aberdeen, according to Zaccaria, was printed in A. D. 1609 (qu. 1509?).
Independently of these rites of particular churches, the monastic
societies of England had many different rituals, which, however, all
agreed substantially, having all been derived from the sacramentary of
Gregory. The Benedictine, Carthusian, Cistertian, and other orders, had
peculiar missals. Schultingius nearly transcribes a very ancient
sacramentary belonging to the Benedictines of England; Bishop Barlow, in
his MS. notes on the Roman missal, speaks of a missal belonging to the
monastery of Evesham; and Zaccaria mentions a MS. missal of Oxford,
written in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, which is in the library
of the canons of S. Salvator at Bologna. This last must probably be
referred to some of the monastic societies, who had formerly houses in
Oxford; as the bishopric or church of Oxford was not founded till the
sixteenth century.
It may be remarked in general of all these missals and rituals, that
they differed very little; the sacramentary of Gregory was used every
where, with various small additions. However, the rites of the churches
throughout the British empire were not by any means uniform at the
middle of the sixteenth century, and needed various corrections; and
therefore the metropolitan of Canterbury, and other bishops and doctors
of the holy Catholic Church, at the request and desire of King Edward
VI., revised the ritual books; and having examined the Oriental
liturgies, and the notices which the orthodox fathers supply, they
edited the English ritual, containing the common prayer and
administration of all the sacraments and rites of the Church. And
although our liturgy and other offices were corrected and improved,
chiefly after the example of the ancient Gallican, Spanish, Alexandrian,
and Oriental, yet the greater portion of our prayers have been
continually retained and used by the Church of England for more than
1200 years.—_Palmer._
VALENTINIANS. Heretics, who sprang up in the second century, and were so
called from their leader, Valentinus.
This sect was one of the most famous and most numerous amongst the
ancients. Valentinus, who was the author of it, was an Egyptian, and
began there to teach the doctrine of the Gnostics. His merit made him
aspire to the episcopacy; but another having been preferred before him,
Valentinus, enraged at this denial and resolved to revenge himself of
the affront given him, departed from the doctrine of the Church, and
revived old errors. He began to preach his doctrine in Egypt, and from
thence coming to Rome, under the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, he there
spread his errors, and continued to dogmatize till the pontificate of
_Anicetus_, i. e. from the year 140 to 160.
Of all the Gnostics, none formed a more regular system than Valentinus.
His notions were drawn from the principles of the Platonists. The Æons
were _attributes_ of the Deity, or Platonic _ideas_, which he realized,
or made persons of them, to compose thereof a complete deity, which he
called _Pleroma_, or Plenitude; under which was the Creator of the
world, and the angels, to whom he committed the government of it. The
most ancient heretics had already established those principles, and
invented genealogies of the Æons: but Valentinus, refining upon what
they had said, placed them in a new order, and thereto added many
fictions. His system was this:
The first principle is _Bythos_, i. e. depth: it remained for many ages
unknown, having with it _Ennoia_, i. e. Thought, and _Sigê_, i. e.
Silence. From these sprung the _Nous_, or Intelligence, which is the
only son, equal to it alone, and capable of comprehending it; whose
sister is _Aletheia_, i. e. Truth. This is the first quaternity of Æons,
which is the source and original of all the rest. For Nous and Aletheia
produced the _Word_ and the _Life_; and from these two proceeded _Man_
and the _Church_. This is the second quaternity of the eight principal
Æons. The Word and the Life, to glorify the Father, produced five couple
of Æons: man and the Church formed six. These thirty Æons bear the name
of attributes and compose the Pleroma, or Plenitude of the Deity.
_Sophia_, or Wisdom, the last of these Æons, being desirous to arrive at
the knowledge of Bythos, gave herself a great deal of uneasiness, which
created in her anger and fear, of which was born matter. But the
_Horos_, or Bounder, stopped her, preserved her in the Pleroma, and
restored her to perfection. Then she produced the CHRIST and the HOLY
SPIRIT; which brought the Æons to their last perfection, and made every
one of them contribute their utmost to form the SAVIOUR. Her
_Enthymese_, or Thought, dwelling near the Pleroma, perfected by the
CHRIST, produced everything that is in the world, by its divers
passions. The CHRIST sent into it the SAVIOUR, accompanied with angels,
who delivered it from its passions, without annihilating it; and from
thence was formed corporeal matter, which was of two sorts; the one bad,
arising from the passions; the other good, proceeding from conversion,
but subject to the passions.
There are also three substances, the material, the animal, and the
spiritual. The Demiurgus, or maker of the world, by whom the Enthymese
formed this world, is the animal substance: he formed the terrestrial
man, to whom the Enthymese gave a spirit: the material part perished
necessarily; but that which is spiritual can suffer no corruption; and
that which is animal stood in need of the spiritual Saviour, to hinder
its corruption. This SAVIOUR or CHRIST passed through the womb of the
Virgin, as through a canal, and at his baptism the Saviour of the
Pleroma descended upon him in the form of a dove. He suffered as to his
animal part, which he received from Demiurgus, but not as to his
spiritual part. There are likewise three sorts of men, the spiritual,
material, and animal. These three substances were united together in
Adam; but they were divided in his children. That which was spiritual
went into Seth, the material into Cain, and the animal into Abel. The
spiritual men shall be immortal, whatever crimes they commit; the
material, on the contrary, shall be annihilated, whatever good they do:
the animal shall be in a place of refreshment, if they do good; and
shall be annihilated, if they do evil. The end of the world shall come,
when the spiritual men shall have been formed and perfected by the Nous.
Then the Enthymese shall ascend up to the Pleroma again, and be
re-united with the SAVIOUR. The spiritual men shall not rise again: but
shall enter with the Enthymese into the Pleroma, and shall be married to
the angels, who are with the SAVIOUR. The Demiurgus shall pass into the
region where his mother was, and shall be followed by the animal men,
who have lived well; where they shall have rest. In fine, the material
and animal men, who have lived ill, shall be consumed by the fire, which
will annihilate all matter.
The disciples of Valentinus did not strictly confine themselves to his
system. They took a great deal of liberty, in ranging the Æons according
to their different ideas, without condemning one another upon that
account. But what is most abominable is, that from these chimerical
principles they drew detestable conclusions as to morality: for, because
spiritual beings could not perish, being good by nature, hence they
concluded that they might freely and without scruple commit all manner
of actions, and that it was not at all necessary for them to do good;
but above all, they believed continence to be useless. We have, in
Clemens Alexandrinus, an extract of a letter of Valentinus, in which he
maintains, that GOD does not require the martyrdom of his children, and
that, whether they deny or confess CHRIST before tyrants, they shall be
saved. If they believed that good works were necessary, it was only for
animal men. Some believed that baptism by water was superfluous; others
baptized in the name of the unknown Father, of the truth the mother of
all, of him who descended in JESUS, of the light, redemption, and
community of powers. Many rejected all outward ceremonies.
In fine, the errors of the Valentinians were wholly incompatible with
the Christian doctrine. If they did not destroy the unity of GOD, they
made of him a monstrous composition of different beings. They attributed
the creation to another principle: they set up good and bad substances
by nature. JESUS CHRIST, according to them, was but a man, on whom the
celestial CHRIST descended. The HOLY GHOST was but a simple Divine
virtue. There is no resurrection of the body. Spiritual men do not merit
eternal life; it is due to them by their nature; and do what they will
they can never miss of it; as material men cannot escape annihilation,
although they live an unblameable life.
VALESIANS. Christian heretics, disciples of Valesius, an Arabian
philosopher, who appeared about the year 250, and maintained that
concupiscence acted so strongly upon man, that it was not in his power
to resist it, and that even the grace of GOD was not sufficient to
enable him to get the better of it. Upon this principle he taught that
the only way for a man to be saved was to make himself an eunuch. The
Origenists afterwards fell into the same error; but it was Valesius who
gave birth to it. The bishop of Philadelphia condemned this philosopher,
and the other Churches of the East followed his example.
The maxims of the Valesians were very cruel. They were not satisfied to
mutilate those of their sect, but they had the barbarity to make eunuchs
of strangers who chanced to pass by where they lived. This heresy spread
greatly in Arabia, and especially in the territory of Philadelphia.
VAUDOIS. (See _Waldenses_.)
VAULT. An arched roof, so constructed as to be supported by mutual
compression. Vaulting and Gothic architecture are so intimately
connected, that the latter has been defined as “the truthful elaboration
of vaulted structure;” and vaulting has been called “the final cause of
Gothic architecture, that to which all its members subserve, for which
everything else is contrived, and without which the whole apparatus
would be aimless and unmeaning.”[20] To enter into the science of
vaulting would be quite beyond our present purpose; we can only very
loosely assign the various forms of vaults to the respective styles to
which they belong.
The earliest and simplest vault is that called the _waggon vault_, i. e.
a simple semi-cylindrical vault, one side of which rests throughout on
each wall of the span to be vaulted. This vault was used by the Romans,
and for a while in our Romanesque: but it was very soon discontinued for
one in which the whole space to be vaulted was divided into equal
squares, and a semi-cylinder being supposed to be thrown over each
square in each direction, the one crossing and cutting the other, the
points at which they would cut were taken as the groins, and all below
these parts being removed, an arched way was left in either direction.
This formed a simple quadripartite vault, but as yet of very rude
construction. Some of the defects of this were remedied by supplying
ribs at the groins, which not only strengthened the vault, but also
served in a great degree to conceal its defects of form. By and by the
compartments were also separated by a rib, springing transversely over
the space to be vaulted. The introduction of bosses at the intersection
of the diagonal ribs, and the various moulding of the ribs themselves,
was as far as the Normans proceeded with this kind of vault, except that
they had various methods of bringing the apex of the intersecting
cylinders into the same plane, by stilting or depressing them, where
they were obliged to apply low vaults to rectangles with unequal sides.
In the Early English, the pointed arch was applied to the vault, as well
as to all other arched constructions, and groining ribs were never
omitted; still the transverse rib, or that separating two bays, is by no
means invariably found. The ribs were multiplied as architecture
advanced; and, during the Geometrical period, we have often, in addition
to the diagonal and transverse ribs, a rib along the apex of the vault,
both longitudinal and transverse, and sometimes two or more additional
ribs rising from the vaulting shaft to the ridge rib. In the later
Decorated, these ribs are often tied together by little cross ribs, at
various angles, and the vault thus formed is called a _lierne vault_:
this was continued into the Perpendicular period; its complexity rather
than richness gradually increasing with the multiplication of ribs and
bosses. It is a long process to arrive at the exact office of each rib;
but there is in each case a constructive reason for its adoption.
The later architects of England adopted a more gorgeous, and, in some
respects, a more scientific vault than any of those mentioned, which,
from the equal radiation of its numerous ribs over the whole surface of
the inverted conoids, of which the whole surface consists, is called fan
vaulting; a system really more simple and perfect than any of the
others, though to the eye so exceedingly elaborate.
VENIAL SIN. The Church of Rome, following the schoolmen, represents some
sins as pardonable, and others not. The first they call _venial_, the
second, _mortal_, sins. Thomas Aquinas makes seven distinctions in sin.
(See _Sin_.)
VENI, CREATOR SPIRITUS. A hymn to the HOLY GHOST. The HOLY GHOST is that
person of the Blessed TRINITY, to which the distributing of the several
offices in the Church, and qualifying the persons for them, is generally
ascribed in Scripture. (Acts xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 11.) And
upon that ground it is fit that a particular address be made to the
Spirit before the ordination, which we do by this hymn. It is said to
have been composed by St. Ambrose, and is placed among his works as an
hymn for Pentecost; and on that day it is annually used in the Roman
Church, and was so of old. It was inserted into the office for
consecrating a bishop as early as the year 1100; and with a later hand
put into the ordination of a priest about 500 (620) years ago in the
Roman Church, and so it stands there to this day. And the Protestants
have so well approved of it, that the Lutheran Churches begin their
office with the same hymn. And our reformers translated it into metre in
the larger way in King Edward the Sixth’s first ordinal. Since which
time (namely, in the review of the Common Prayer under King Charles the
Second, _Dr. Nicholls_) it hath been abbreviated, and put into fewer
words, but to the same case, as it stands foremost here.—_Dean Comber._
Though the words of these hymns have lost something from time, the
prayer is too serious, too important, ever to be forgotten. We are not
so enthusiastic as to expect an extraordinary communication of the
SPIRIT to any minister of the gospel. Neither are we so void of
spiritual feeling as to imagine that the Divine influence, which GOD
himself has promised, and an innumerable host of Christians have
displayed by their conduct, cannot touch our hearts. We do truly believe
that it is the grace of GOD, operating with our spirit, which enables us
to fulfil our duty in so arduous a situation. We may “resist and quench
the SPIRIT” (Acts vii. 51; 1 Thess. v. 19); and we may “grow in grace.”
(2 Pet. iii. 18.) From these expressions we are taught, to leave our
hearts open in the one case, and in the other to aim at greater
perfection. In both our connexion with the SPIRIT is made manifest; for,
“if we have not the Spirit of CHRIST, we are none of his.” (Rom. viii.
9.) May the SPIRIT of Divine grace “visit our minds,” and “inspire our
souls” with holy affections, that we may improve those “manifold gifts,”
which alone give stability to the Church of CHRIST, and are derived from
him, “the fountain and the spring of all celestial joy.”—_Brewster._
VENITE. The 95th Psalm. The Psalmist here calls upon us with this
arousing exhortation, “O come, let us sing unto the LORD!” and the
apostle to the same purpose wills us to “admonish one another in psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts
unto GOD.” (Col. iii. 16) Where he seems to quicken our backwardness,
and to stir us up to a due sense of the Divine favour and goodness. And
this is to be done, both outwardly with the voice, by singing unto the
LORD; and inwardly with the heart, by heartily rejoicing in GOD, who is
“the strength of our salvation.” It is by his power that our salvation
is effected, and upon his mercy alone all our hopes of it are founded,
and therefore both our heart and tongue are to become the instruments of
his praise.—_Hole._
Whenever we repeat this psalm, we should, if we wish to improve and be
edified by it, always make some such reflections as these that follow.
The wandering of the Israelites through the wilderness represents our
travelling through this world; their earthly Canaan, or promised land,
being a type or figure of heaven, of that blessed country, to which we
are all invited, and where, if it be not our own fault, we may all one
day arrive. The same Divine providence which once guided and protected
them, now watches over and defends us;—“they did all eat the same
spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink.” (1 Cor. x.
3, 4.) The manna, with which they were miraculously sustained, was an
emblem of the true “bread of life, which came down from heaven,” for the
support of our souls; and the water, which they drank out of the rock,
prefigured the graces of the HOLY SPIRIT, which we receive from the true
fountain of life; for “that rock was CHRIST,”—that is, it represented
CHRIST. Now if they, through their infidelity and disobedience,
notwithstanding all the signal favours they enjoyed, fell short of the
promised rest, and perished in the wilderness, so shall we, who are
blessed with still higher privileges, if we tread in their steps, most
assuredly fail of our eternal inheritance in the heavenly Canaan, and be
doomed to everlasting destruction. “Take heed,” therefore, “brethren,”
as the apostle justly infers, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart
of unbelief, in departing from the living GOD. But exhort one another
daily, while it is called to-day, lest any of you be hardened through
the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb. iii. 12, 13.) Let us not rest in a bare
speculative belief, but endeavour to obtain and preserve a lively faith
and hearty trust in the promises of GOD made to us in the gospel. This,
and this only, will support us in our pilgrimage here on earth, and
carry us safe to our eternal rest in heaven.—_Waldo._
According to ancient use in the Western Church, the Venite always
precedes the Morning Psalm, except on Easter Day, when another anthem is
appointed.
VERGER. (From _virgu_, a rod.) He who carries the mace before the dean
or canons in a cathedral or collegiate church. In some cathedrals the
dean has his own verger, the canons theirs: in others the verger goes
before any member of the church, whether capitular or not, when he
leaves his place to perform any part of the service. An officer of a
similar title precedes the vice-chancellor in the English universities.
VERSE. A line or short sentence, generally applied to poetry, but also
applicable to prose, as Cicero employs it. See _Facciolati in voc_.
Hence it came to mean a short sentence. It has, in an ecclesiastical
sense, these several meanings:
1. The short paragraphs, numbered for the sake of reference, into which
the Bible is at present divided, are called verses. These divisions were
introduced into the Old Testament by Rabbi Nathan, in the fifteenth
century. Those in the New were introduced by Robert Stephens in 1551.
2. The short sentence of the minister, which is followed by the response
of the choir or people, in the Latin ritual. These are marked V. & R. It
is something like the versicles in our service, but is frequently
longer.
3. A sentence or short anthem, as in the Introits of the Latin service.
4. Verse in the English choral service means those passages in the hymns
or anthems which are sung by a portion only of the choir, sometimes by a
single voice, as contradistinguished from the _full parts_, or chorus.
Thus we have full and verse anthems.