Chapter 58

“He needeth not to speken but of game,And letauctoritesinGoddesnameTo preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”

“He needeth not to speken but of game,

And letauctoritesinGoddesname

To preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”

And so a sermon is called “Expositio auctoritatis.”

The custom of taking a text for a sermon is probably coeval with that of preaching set discourses; and it is needless to remark, that the use of texts as authority in doctrinal points is of the very essence of true theology, and was ever the custom even of those who, professing the name ofChristians, denied the truth ofChrist. Even the most abominable and shameless heretics quoted Scripture for their worst tenets. A simple Christian, therefore, may well be on his guard against receiving everything for which a text is quoted, remembering that the “inspired writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind, for so many sentences, so many truths. But then the true sense of them must be known; otherwise, so many sentences, so many authorized falsehoods.”

THANKSGIVING. Giving of thanks is an essential part of Divine worship, as St. Paul expressly declares to St. Timothy, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) and has ever formed a part of the service both of Jews and Christians. In our own Book of Common Prayer there are many forms of thanksgiving, particular and general: as especially the general thanksgiving, which was added (being composed, as is conjectured, by Bishop Sanderson) at the last review, and appointed for daily use; and the eucharistic hymn, always used in the holy communion, sometimes with an appropriate preface, and introduced with the versicles,

“Let us give thanks unto ourLord God.

“It is meet and right so to do.

“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks,” &c.

But there are, besides, particular thanksgivings appointed for deliverance from drought, rain, famine, war, tumult, and pestilence; and there is an entire service of thanksgiving for women after child-birth, (seeChurching of Women,) and certain days on which we commemorate great deliverances of our Church and nation, are marked also with a solemn service of thanksgiving. (SeeForms of Prayer.)

THANKSGIVING, THE GENERAL. The general thanksgiving may perhaps, to some, appear superfluous, after we have thanked and praisedGodin the use of the psalms and hymns. But it was inserted at the Restoration, because others complained it was wanting.—Abp. Secker.

After the general intercession, there follows likewise a general thanksgiving. For though in the psalms and hymns after the lessons, with the several doxologies interspersed, we have everywhere “set forthGod’smost worthy praise,” yet it seemed meet also, in a distinct and appropriate form of thanksgiving, “to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at his hands,” which, according to the first exhortation, we therefore do,beginning with that original blessing, “our creation,” then “preservation,” attended with all these secondary benefits and “blessings of life,” “but above all,” because the greatest of all, “our redemption,” attended with all “the means of grace and hope of glory,” thus ascending gradually through the long scale of blessings received atGod’shand, from temporal to spiritual, from the first to the last, from our coming forth to our returning to him again.—Dr. Bisse.

Indeed, this is a more methodical summary of the several mercies ofGod“to us and to all men,” than we had before: it furnishes an opportunity of thanking him more expressly for the late instances of his loving-kindness to the members of our own congregation; and besides, as we cannot be too thankful toGod, the acknowledgments, which we offered up at the beginning of the service, are very properly repeated at the end. For surely we ought to ask nothing ofGod, without remembering what we have received from him: which naturally excites both our faith and resignation, and prepares the way for that admirable collect, with which we conclude.—Abp. Secker.

After enumerating the blessings for which we return our humble and hearty thanks, the form from eucharistic becomes petitionary. We beseechGodto make us truly sensible of his mercies, and really thankful for them, that we may show our gratitude, and promote his glory, not only by celebrating his praises day by day in the public assemblies of the Church, but by walking in the paths of holiness and righteousness all our lives. These petitions we enforce through the merits ofJesus Christ; and we conclude the whole with a doxology, in which we ascribe to theSon, with theFatherand theHoly Ghost, all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.—Shepherd.

THEOLOGAL. An officer in some foreign cathedrals, generally a canon, often a dignitary, whose business it was to profess theology.

THEOLOGY, (FromΘεὸς,God, andλόγος,a discourse.) A discourse concerningGod, it being the business of this science to treat of the Deity. The heathens had their theologues or divines, as well as the Christians; and Eusebius and Augustine distinguished the theology of the heathens into three sorts: first, the fabulous and poetical; secondly, natural, which was explained by philosophy and physics; the third was political or civil, which last consisted chiefly in the solemn service of the gods, and in the belief which they had in oracles and divinations, together with the ceremonies wherewith their worship was performed.

Divinity among the Christians is divided into positive and scholastical; the first being founded upon fact and institution, having the Scriptures, councils, and Fathers for its bottom and foundation, and, properly speaking, this is true divinity: the other, called scholastical, is principally supported by reason, which is made use of to show, that the Christian theology contains nothing inconsistent with natural light; and with this view it is that Thomas Aquinas makes use of the authority of philosophers, and arguments from natural reason, because he was engaged with philosophers, who attacked the Christian religion with arguments from those topics.

THEOPHORI. (Θεὸςandφέρω.) SeeChristophori.

THOMAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the 21st of December, in commemoration of St. Thomas the apostle.

THOMAS, ST., CHRISTIANS OF, who are of the Chaldæan and Nestorian sect, notwithstanding the several attempts made to reform them, remain firm to their ancient customs, and if they sometimes comply with the Popish missionaries, it is but in outward appearance: when they are desired to submit to the Church of Rome, they answer, that as St. Peter was chief of that Church, so St. Thomas was head of theirs, and both Churches were independent one of another, and they stand stedfast in acknowledging the patriarch of Babylon, without minding the pope: they hold, as Moreri relates, Nestorius’s opinion, receive no images, and do not much reverence the cross. They hold that the souls of saints do not seeGodbefore the day of judgment. They allow three sacraments, viz. baptism, orders, and the eucharist: but even in these they do not agree, there being several forms of baptism in the same Church: they abhor auricular confession; and for their consecration make use of small cakes, made with oil and salt; the wine they use is nothing but water in which they steep raisins: they observe no age for orders, but make priests at seven, eighteen, twenty, &c., who may marry as often as their wives die. They administer no sacrament without their fees or reward, and, as for marriage, they make use of the first priest they meet with. They have all an extraordinary respect for the patriarch of Babylon, chief of the Nestorians, and cannot abide tohear the pope named in their churches, where, for the most part, they neither have curate nor vicar, but the eldest presides: it is true they go to mass on Sundays, not that they think themselves obliged in conscience to do so, or that they would sin mortally if they did not. Their children, unless it be in case of sickness, are not baptized till the fiftieth day. At the death of friends, the kindred and relations keep an eight days’ fast in memory of the deceased: they observe the times of Advent and Lent, the festivals of ourLord, and many of the saints’ days, those especially that relate to St. Thomas, the Dominica in Albis, or Sunday after Easter, in memory of the famous confession which St. Thomas on that day made ofChrist, after he had been sensibly cured of his unbelief; another on the 1st of June, celebrated not only by Christians, but by Moors and Pagans. The people who come to his sepulchre on pilgrimage, carry away a little of the red earth of the place where he was interred, which they keep as an inestimable treasure, and believe it to be a sovereign remedy against diseases: their priests are shaven in fashion of a cross; but Simon does not charge them with so many errors as Meneses does, from whom this account is taken.

THRONE. The bishop’s principal seat in his cathedral. At St. Paul’s the bishop has two thrones; that at the end of the stalls probably representing the episcopal throne, properly so called, which he assumed at the more solemn part of the service; that more westerly his ordinary seat, or stall. In old times the bishop of London often occupied the stall usually assigned to the dean, as is still the custom at Ely and Carlisle. The bishop’s throne in the ancient basilicas and churches was at the apex of the apsis, a semicircle behind the altar. The marble chair of the archbishop at Canterbury, in which he is enthroned, formerly occupied a place behind the altar; a remnant of the old arrangement, as appears from Darl’s Canterbury. The cumbrous pew occupied by the doctors and university officers at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, is called the throne.

THUNDERING LEGION. (SeeLegion.)

THURIFICATI. In times of persecution Christians who were brought to be examined before the heathen tribunal, were permitted to escape punishment by casting frankincense on an altar dedicated to an idol. This was of course an act of idolatry, and amounted to open and unreserved apostasy: some however there were who were betrayed into this act by present fear, rather than a real wish to denyChrist, and who sought afterwards, by a rigid penance, the peace of the Church. These were calledThurificati. (SeeLibellaticiandSacrificati.)

TIARA. The name of the pope’s triple crown. The tiara and keys are the badges of the papal dignity, the tiara of his civil rank, and the keys of his jurisdiction; for as soon as the pope is dead, his arms are represented with the tiara alone, without the keys. The ancient tiara was a round high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown; Boniface VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.

TILES. The use of ornamented tiles in churches is at least as old as the Norman æra, and was never discontinued till the fall of Gothic art. A very valuable paper on the arrangement of tiles, by Lord Alwyne Compton, will be found in the first number of the collected papers of the Northamptonshire and other architectural societies.

TIPPET. In the 74th canon, in which decency in apparel is enjoined to ministers, it is appointed that “All deans, masters of colleges, archdeacons, and prebendaries, in cathedral and collegiate churches, (being priests or deacons,) doctors in divinity, law, and physic, bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with standing collars and sleeves straight at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used at the universities, with hoods ortippetsof silk or sarsenet, and square caps.” And that all other ministers admitted, or to be admitted, into that function shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid, except tippets only. (See “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” by G. I. French, London, 1850.) And in the 58th canon: “It shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decenttippetof black, so it be not silk.” See Mr. Gilbert French’s ingenious treatise on the Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical: from which it would appear that the present black scarf worn by some of the English clergy represents three things: 1. The stole; 2. the chaplain’s scarf; 3. the choir tippet. The chaplain’s scarf is a remnant of the ancient badges, or liveries, worn by the members of noblemen’s households, their chaplains included. The choir tippet grew out of the ancient almutium, or amice, that is, a vesture which covered the shoulders, and included the hood: theliripipium, or pendent part of the hood,sometimes hanging singly behind, (as in our modern hoods,) sometimes in duplicate before, like the scarf. In process of time the hood became separated from this pendent part in front, and hence the choir tippet. It is certain that the tippet so called, often made of sables or furs, was worn in the form of the scarf, by dignitaries of the Church and State for many ages in England. Thescarfhas been called atippetimmemorially in Ireland, and within memory in many parts of England. The law of the Church therefore seems to be this, that all ecclesiastics (whether priestsor deacons) being prebendaries or of higher rank in cathedral and collegiate churches, and all priestsor deaconsbeing Masters of Arts or of higher degree, may wear either hoods ortippets of silk: andallnon-graduate ministers (whether priestsor deacons) may not wear hoods, but onlytippetsnot of silk. Whence the tippet is to be worn by all clergymen. The 58th canon however is explicit as to the use of hoods by graduates. By the constant usage of cathedrals, both hood and scarf are worn by all capitular graduates.—Jebb.

TITHES, in the religious application of the phrase, is a certain portion, or allotment, for the maintenance of the priesthood, being the tenth part of the produce of land, cattle, or other branches of wealth. It is an income, or revenue, common both to the Jewish and Christian priesthood.

The priests among the Jews had no share allowed them in the division of the land, that they might attend wholly upon Divine service, and not have their thoughts diverted by the business of tillage, or feeding cattle, or any other secular employment. Their maintenance arose chiefly from the first-fruits, offerings, and tithes.

The ancient Christians, it is generally thought, held theDivine right of tithes, that is, that the payment of tithes was not merely a ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation; though Bellarmine, Selden, and others place them upon another foot. St. Jerome says expressly, that the law about tithes (to which he adds first-fruits) was to be understood to continue in its full force in the Christian Church. And both Origen and St. Augustine confirm the same opinion.

But why, then, were not tithes exacted by the apostles at first, or by the fathers in the ages immediately following? For it is generally agreed, that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under the gospel. It is answered, first, that tithes were paid to the priests and Levites, in the time ofChristand his apostles; and the synagogue must be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in the Church. Secondly, in the times of the New Testament, there was an extraordinary maintenance, by a community of all things; which supplied the want of tithes. Thirdly, paying tithes, as the circumstances of the Church then stood, could not conveniently be practised; for this requires that some whole state or kingdom profess Christianity, and the Church be under the protection of the magistrates; which was not the case in the apostolical times. Besides, the inhabitants of the country, from whom the tithes of fruits must come, were the latest converts to Christianity.

The common opinion is, that tithes began first to be generally settled upon the Church in the fourth century, when the magistrates protected the Church, and the empire was generally converted from heathenism. Some think Constantine settled them by a law upon the Church; but there is no law of that emperor’s now extant, that makes express mention of any such thing. However, it is certain tithes were paid to the Church before the end of the fourth century, as Mr. Selden has proved out of Cassian, Eugippius, and others. The reader may see this whole matter historically deduced, through many centuries, by that learned author.

The custom of paying tithes, or offering a tenth of what a man enjoys, is not so peculiar to the Jewish and Christian law, but that we find some traces of it even among the heathens. Xenophon has preserved an inscription upon a column near a temple of Diana, whereby the people were admonished to offer the tenth part of their revenues every year to the goddess. And Festus assures us, the ancients gave tithe of everything to their gods.

Before the promulgation of the law, Abraham set the example of paying tithes, in giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedech, king of Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer and the four confederate kings. And Jacob imitated the piety of his grandfather in this respect, when he vowed to theLordthe tithe of all the substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia. (SeeRevenues, Ecclesiastical.)

TITLE. (SeeOrders.) Canon 33. “It has been long since provided by many decrees of the ancient Fathers, that none should be admitted, either deacon or priest, who had not first some certain place wherehe might use his function: according to which examples we do ordain, that henceforth no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except (1.) he shall at that time exhibit to the bishop, of whom he desireth imposition of hands, a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical preferment then void in the diocese; or (2.) shall bring to the said bishop a true and undoubted certificate, that either he is provided of some church within the said diocese where he may attend the cure of souls, or (3.) of some minister’s place vacant either in the cathedral church of that diocese, or in some other collegiate church therein also situate, where he may execute his ministry; or (4.) that he is a fellow, or in right as a fellow, or (5.) to be a conduct or chaplain in some college in Cambridge or Oxford; or (6.) except he be a Master of Arts of five years’ standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the universities; or (7.) except by the bishop himself that doth ordain him minister, he be shortly after to be admitted either to some benefice or curateship then void. And if any bishop shall admit any person into the ministry that hath none of these titles, as is aforesaid, then he shall keep and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him to some ecclesiastical living; and if the said bishop refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the archbishop, being assisted with another bishop, from giving of orders by the space of a year.” The same rules apply to the Irish portion of the united Church.

TOBIT, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture, so called. Tobit, whose history is related therein, was of the tribe of Nephthali, and one of those whom Salmanassar, king of Assyria, carried away captive, when he took Samaria, and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. This happened in the fourth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, and the sixth of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The tribe of Nephthali was indeed carried away before by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria; but this was not a general captivity, there being several still left behind.

The Book of Tobit was written in Chaldee, by some Babylonian Jew, and seems, in its original draught, to have been the memoirs of the family to which it relates, first begun by Tobit, then continued by Tobias, and finished by some other of the family; and afterward digested by the Chaldee author into that form in which we now have it. It was translated out of the Chaldee into Latin by St. Jerome, and his translation is that which we have in the Vulgar Latin edition of the Bible. But there is a Greek version much ancienter than this, from which was made the Syriac version, and also that which we have in English among the apocryphal writers, in our Bible. But the Chaldee original is not now extant. The Hebrew copies of this book, as well as of that of Judith, seem to be of a modern composition. It being easier to settle the chronology of this book than that of the Book of Judith, it has met with much less opposition from learned men, and is generally looked upon, both by Jews and Christians, as a genuine and true history; though, as to some matters in it, (particularly that of the angel’s accompanying Tobias, in a long journey, under the shape of Azarias, the story of Raguel’s daughter, the frightening away of the devil by the smoke of the heart and liver of a fish, and the curing of Tobit’s blindness by the gall of the same fish,) it is much less reconcilable to a rational credibility. These things look more like poetical fictions than the writings of a sacred historian, and afford an objection against this book, which does not lie against the other.

This book is very instructive, full of religious and pious thoughts, and written in a plain, natural, and easy style. Tobit lived an hundred and two years; lost his sight at fifty-six years of age, and recovered it in the sixtieth. Before his death, he foretold the destruction of Nineveh, which happened under Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus, that is, under Astyages and Nabopalasar.

TOLERATION. Johnson defines this word as “the allowance given to that which is not approved.” The Church, as the depository and dispenser of religious truth, cannot bring within the range of its theory the allowance of that which it holds to be error. The Church of England holds (seeArt.VI.) that it is not to be required of any man, that anything should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation, which is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby. But if any man profess what is clean contrary to that which the Church has laid down as an article of the faith, then, in the Church’s view, he professes what is contrary to the Scripture, and there can be no warrant for allowing that which is contrary to the Scripture. The Church, however, while refusing any allowance to error, may refrain from denunciation and persecution of those who profess and maintain erroneous doctrines; and in this respect theChurch of England is conspicuously more charitable than the Church of Rome: that Church, which dares not venture to say that she requires nothing to be believed but that which may be found in Holy Scripture, or may be proved thereby, nevertheless, wherever she has the power, punishes those who refuse assent to her theories, and makes them personally answerable for the heterodoxy of their principles. Such is not the practice of the Church of England.

The State or political government in England, admits toleration, in the sense of the word as defined by Johnson. Although the Church is united with the State, and the State must be held to approve of the doctrines of the Church, yet it allows, and to a certain extent supports, religious teaching which the Church holds to be erroneous. Whether this be done upon the principle that the State does not hold itself competent to decide between truth and error in religion, but acts merely as the head of a community, in which a variety of conflicting doctrines are maintained, or whether it be done upon the ground of expediency, or what Dr. Paley calls “general utility,” (see his “Moral Philosophy,” book vi. ch. x.,) it is not necessary here to inquire.

Previously to the year 1688, the statute law (see 35 Eliz. and 22 Car. II. c. 1) forbade the public exercise of other religions than that of the Church of England. But the statute of 1 W.& M. c. 18, commonly called the Toleration Act, recognised and admitted the public profession of the religion of Protestant Dissenters, (except those who denied the doctrine of theTrinity,) while it confirmed all the severities, then upon the statute book, against the religion of Papists. This act, however, did not relieve Dissenters from the operation of the Corporation Act, 13 Car. II. c. 1, nor from that of the Test Act, 25 Car. II. c. 2. These acts, which made it necessary that all members of the corporations of towns, and all persons holding office under the Crown, should receive the sacrament of theLord’ssupper according to the usage of the Church of England, continued in force until the year 1828, when they were repealed by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 17.

By the Toleration Act of 1 W. & M. c. 18, it was provided, that no law or statute of the realm, made against Papists or Popish recusants, should extend to persons dissenting from the Church of England, who should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make and subscribe the declaration against Popery.

Section 8, provides that no person dissenting from the Church of England, in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shall make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, and take the said oaths at the general or quarter sessions of the peace, to be held for the county, town, parts, or division where such person lives, which court is hereby empowered to administer the same, and shall also declare his approbation of and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in the statute made in the 13th of Queen Eliz., except the 34th, 35th, and 36th, and these words in the 20th Article, viz. “the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith,” shall be liable to any of the pains or penalties mentioned in former acts.

Section 17, provides that neither this act, nor any clause, article, or 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 blessedTrinity, 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 AlmightyGod, 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 ofGod, 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 assertan 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 inshaven 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.

fig. 1.

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 seriesa1,a2,a3. 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 (seefigs. 3.and4.). 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 (seefig. 2.) or with cusping (fig. 4.) designed after the same laws. But we must omit for the future all consideration of cusping, (seeCusping,) and everything but the mere pattern of the tracery.

fig. 3.

fig. 4.

fig. 5.

fig. 6.

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 calledconcentric, 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 infig. 2.eight circles are struck either from the same centre, or points in the circumference of a circle concentric with the containing circle. Infigs. 3.and5.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 anexcentricGeometrical, 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. Infig. 8.we have lines each forming parts of two figures, which is the same asfig. 5., with the omission of the lower side of each triangle, and the consequent rejection of a centre of construction, i. e. fromconcentricthe figure has becomeexcentric. 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.); andfig. 10., instead offig. 1., becomes a normal form.

fig. 8.

fig. 9.

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 becalled tracery; its normal form is represented by mere intersections of vertical and horizontal lines (fig. 11.).

fig. 11.

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.and11.); 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 intofoilandfoiledtracery, 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. (SeeFathers.) 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 wayinfallible. 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 berejectedin 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 principlein 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 ofGodalone 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 isnot 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 theReformation,’ they say, ‘cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed;Poperymust 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 tosubvertall 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, asanti-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 modernsects, 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. (SeeCeremony.) “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 againstGod’sword. 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 ofGod, 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.”—ArticleXXXIV.

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 fromChristand his apostles: in this Article it means customs or practices, relative to the external worship ofGod, which had been delivered down from former times; that is, in the sixth Article, traditions meant traditionaldoctrines, of pretended Divine authority; and in this it means traditionalpracticesacknowledged 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. (SeeCathedral.)

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 “annotranslationisnostræ,” not “annoconsecrationisnostræ.”

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.

Translationof 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 atranslation.—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 ourLord, 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 theLordis 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 byChrist’sdeath: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body ofChrist; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood ofChrist.”

Transubstantiation, (or the change of the substance of bread and wine,) in the supper of theLord, 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 ofChristis given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after anheavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body ofChristis received and eaten in the supper is faith.

“The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was not byChrist’sordinance 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 theLord’ssupper doth certainly partake of the body and blood ofChrist, 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 ofChrist.’ 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, heldA. D.1215, the opinion of the real or carnal presence ofChristwas not only confirmed, but the wordtransubstantiatedwas 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 whichJesus Christhimself 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 ofGod; 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 ofChristourLord, 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 Churchtransubstantiation.’ So that, according to this opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine only, and not the body and blood ofChrist, are after consecration as properly the body and blood ofChrist, only, and not bread and wine; the bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body ofChristthat 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 ofChrist, because he doth really partake of the body and blood ofChrist, 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, ofChrist, 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 ofChrist, 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 thefirst, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures, is plain from theinsufficiency 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 ourSavioursaying, ‘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 ofChrist; not considering, first, that ourSavioursaid these words at the least a year before the sacrament of theLord’ssupper was instituted. For whenChristspake 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 ourSaviourhere saith concerning the flesh and blood here spoken of, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of theSonof 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 ofChrist, 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 ofChrist. And, secondly, suppose this place was to be understood of the sacrament, when ourSavioursaith, ‘My flesh is bread indeed, and my blood is drink indeed:’ this might prove indeed thatChrist’sbody 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 ourSaviourdoth 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 ofChrist. For he that saith, because ourSavioursaid, ‘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: asGodis 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, whenChristsaid, ‘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 ofChrist’sbody is the body ofChrist, and the sacrament of the blood ofChristis the blood ofChrist; 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 thesecondthing 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 eatingJesustook bread and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.’ (Matt. xxvi. 26.) So that that whichJesustook was bread, that whichJesusblessed was bread, that whichJesusgave 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’ ofChrist, 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 ofChristbefore 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 ofChristpresent, that not coming in till both that and the following words too are perfectly uttered; and therefore the body ofChristcan 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 breadsignifiesmy body,’ is asignorsacramentof it; it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body ofChrist: for if it be bread, and yet the very body ofChristtoo, then bread and the body ofChristwould 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 ourSavioursaid, ‘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 ourSaviourhaving 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 ourSaviourhimself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it thefruit 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 ofChristis. 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 ofChrist? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body ofChrist?’ (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, ofChrist. 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 ofChristis the communion of the blood ofChrist, and the body ofChristthe communion of the body ofChrist;’ and so the body ofChristmust 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 theLordunworthily,” &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 ofChrist; that which we drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood ofChrist; and therefore,that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood ofChrist, 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 ofChrist, there is no outward sign at all in the sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood ofChrist, 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 ofChrist, let them cease to call that holy action any longer a sacrament, but name it ‘the body and blood ofChrist;’ for, according to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood ofChrist. 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 ofChristhung 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 ofChrist’sbody and blood, in the administration of theLord’ssupper. The idea ofChrist’sbodily 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 ofChrist’sbody 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, ofChrist’sflesh and blood in the sacrament of theLord’ssupper.” 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 thatthe 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 forChrist, when he instituted theLord’ssupper, 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 ourSaviour’scommand 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, butChristalso had been a strict observer? They expressed not the slightest surprise or reluctance whenChristdelivered 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 theirLordand 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 ofChrist, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” and as the occasion was typical, so likewise were the words used by ourSaviour: “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. OurSaviourcalled 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 theLord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ.” That the early Christians understood ourSaviour’swords in a figurative sense, appears from the writings of more than twenty Fathers, without a single authority on the opposite side.—Bp. Tomlins.

Back to Index Next