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 notChrist’sflesh, 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 isexposedby the Papists, to appeaseGod’sanger, 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 beGod, 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. (SeeRoman 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 onekind 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; whetherChristoffered 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 ofChrist, 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 theerrors 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 theHoly Ghost, and presided over by the three legates of the apostolic see, havingit constantly in view that, by the removal of errors, the gospel, which, promised aforetime in the Holy Scriptures by the prophets,Christhimself 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 booksand unwritten traditions, which traditions have been received by the apostles from the mouth ofChristhimself, or dictated by theHoly 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 havingGodfor their author,and the traditions relating both to faith and practice, inasmuch as these traditions were either delivered by word of mouth, fromChrist,or dictated by theHoly 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. (SeeBible,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. (SeeFathersandTradition.)
III. Whosoever shall say, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted byJesus ChristourLord, or that they aremore or lessin number than seven; that is to say, baptism, confirmation, theLord’ssupper, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be accursed. (SeeSeven Sacraments.)
IV. Whosoever shall say, that by the sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferredby the mere performance of the act, but that faith alone in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace: let him be accursed. (SeeOpus 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. (SeeIntention, Priests’.)
VI. Whosoever shall say, that the free will of man, after the sin of Adam, was lost and extinguished: let him be accursed. (SeeFree Will.)
VII. The formal cause of justification is the righteousness ofGod: 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 theSpiritdivideth to every man severally as he will, and according to every man’s disposition and co-operation. (SeeSanctification.)
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. (SeeJustification.)
IX. Whosoever shall say, that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered up toGod, and that theoffering up is no more than the giving usChristto eat: let him be accursed. (SeeSatisfaction, Romish.)
X. Whosoever shall say, that by these words, “This do in remembrance of me,”Christdid 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. (SeeOrders.)
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. (SeeMass, 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 ourLord Jesus Christ, and, consequently, the whole ofChrist, are truly, really, and substantially contained; but shall say that they are there only symbolically, figuratively, or virtually: let him be accursed. (SeeReal PresenceandTransubstantiation.)
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 ourLord 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. (SeeTransubstantiation.)
XIV. Whosoever shall say, thatChristexhibited in the eucharist is only spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be accursed. (SeeEucharist.)
XV. Whosoever shall say, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist,Christ, the only-begottenSonofGod, is not to be adored with the worship calledLatriaeven 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. (SeeCorpus 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. (SeeElevation of the Host.)
XVII. Whosoever shall say, that it is the commandment ofGod, 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. (SeeCommunion 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. (SeeCup.)
XIX. Whosoever shall deny, that the whole ofChrist, the source and author of all grace, is received in the bread, because, as some falsely affirm, according toChrist’sown institution, he is not received under one and each kind: let him be accursed. (SeeCommunion in One Kind.)
XX. Whosoever shall say, that the mass ought to be performed only in the vulgar tongue: let him be accursed. (SeeLiturgy.)
XXI. The Catholic Church, instructed by theHoly 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. (SeePurgatory.)
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. (SeePurgatory.)
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 withChristoffer up their prayers toGodfor men, that it is good and profitable to invoke them in a supplicating manner, and that, in order to procure benefit fromGodthrough hisSonJesus ChristourLord, who is our onlyRedeemerandSaviour, we should have recourse to theirprayers, 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 ofGod, and contrary to the honour of the one Mediator betweenGodand men,Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to supplicate orally or mentally those who reign in heaven. (SeeInvocation of Saints.)
XXIV. Also the bodies of the holy martyrs and others living withChrist, having been lively members ofChristand temples of theHoly 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 byGodon 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 ofChrist, and of the Virgin Mother ofGod, 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. (SeeImage Worship,Mariolatry, andRelics.)
XXV. Since the power of granting indulgences hath been bestowed byChristupon 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. (SeeIndulgences.)
XXVI. The holy synod exhorts and adjures all pastors, by the coming of ourLordandSaviour, 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. (SeeChurch 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. (SeeSupremacy, 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. (SeePope.)
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. (SeePopery.)
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; sinceGoddenies it not to such as rightly ask it, nor will he suffer us to be tempted above what we are able. (SeeCelibacy.)
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. (SeeMatrimony.)
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, andNeale’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 meredecorative 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. (SeePerson,God,Jesus,Christ,Messiah,Son of God,Holy Ghost.)Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.—“There is but one living and trueGod, 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 thisGodheadthere be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; theFather, theSon, and theHoly Ghost.”—ArticleI.
“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 oneGodin Trinity, and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.”—Athanasian Creed.
Here it is said, that in the unity of theGodheadthere be three persons; that is, though there be but one living and trueGod, yet there be three persons, who are that one living and trueGod. Though the trueGodbe 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 isGod, and yet all three but oneGod, are really related to one another; as they are termed in Scripture, one is aFather, the other aSon, the other aHoly Ghost. The first isFatherto the second, the second isSonto the first, the third is neitherFathernorSon, but the issue or spirit of both. The first was aFatherfrom eternity, as well asGod; the second wasGodfrom eternity, as well as aSon; the third was bothHoly GhostandGodfrom eternity, as well as either of them. TheFatheris the first person in the Deity; not begotten, nor proceeding, but begetting; theSon, the second, not begetting, nor proceeding, but begotten; theHoly Ghost, the third, not begotten, nor begetting, but proceeding. The first is called theFather, because he begot the second; the second is called theSon, because he is begotten of theFather; the third is called theHoly Ghost, because breathed both from theFatherand theSon.
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. TheFathersubsists as a Father, theSonas a Son, theHoly Ghostas 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 sameGod. 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 theFather,Son, andHoly Ghosthave 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 sameGod. TheFatheris the self-same individualGodwith theSon; theSonis the self-same individualGodwith theFather; and theHoly Ghostis the self-same individualGodwith them both. We say,individualGod, 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 theGodheadthere be three persons,Father,Son, andHoly 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 theTrinityin 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 theGodheadis 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 alsofrequently 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, theDeityis 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: “Letusmake man,” &c., “the man is become as one ofus!” This peculiar fact seems referred to, and corroborated by, the introduction to St. John’s Gospel; which declares that the “Wordwas in the beginning withGod.” Again, each of the sacred Three is noticed as acting separately in the work. With respect to theFatherthis is clear from innumerable passages, in which theLord Godis mentioned as the Creator, unless in such a Trinity be implied, which then shortly decides the point at issue. Of theSonit 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 theHoly 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 theLordwere 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 sacredThreeare 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 wordElohimis a plural noun (Gods); and as that was the first term used in the Divine revelation, it seems intended to indicate that plurality—the holyTrinity—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 nameGodexpressly declares he appeared unto them, when by his “nameJehovah” 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.) JehovahGodhath 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 byAdonai(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 theLordthyGod,” (Jehovah Elohim,) thou “shalt have no other gods before me;” more plainly set forth in the baptismal “name”—theFather, theSon, and theHoly 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 sacredThreeare mentioned in different order—theFatherfirst, in Matt. xxviii. 19,—theSonfirst, in 2 Cor. xiii. 14,—and theHoly Ghostfirst, 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 ofGod, 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 theLord!” it could not but be that plurality in theGodheadwas 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 ofChrist, the other inspired withlearning in an extraordinary degree.—SeeBishop 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 aTrinity, 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 theDeity. 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 ofFather,Son, andHoly Ghost, and the simple oneness ofGod! The use is admissible, to prevent circumlocution; and irreverence may be deprecated where language is inefficient. The wordTrinitywas 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 theGodhead, it is difficult to imagine thatαὐτάρκεια, 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 aTrinityhas 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 blessedJesus, demonstrate how great things theSonofGodhath 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 theGodhead; 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 theTrinity, 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 ourLordascended into heaven, andGod’sHoly Spirit descended upon the Church; but there ensued the notice of the glorious and incomprehensibleTrinity, which before that time was not so clearly known. The Church therefore, having solemnized in an excellent order all the high feasts of ourLord, and after that of the descent ofGod’sSpirit 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 theGodhead; for, besides the “Spirit ofGod” 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 theWordorSonofGodwas 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 theFather,Son, andHoly 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 greatJehovahto 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 theSon, the voice of theFather, and the descent of theHoly 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 ourLordwith Nicodemus; and the mention, which we find therein, of baptism, of theHoly Spiritand 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 blessedTrinity. The mission of theHoly Ghostbrings with it, as aforesaid, more light and clearness to the doctrine of theTrinity: and when more fit to think of the gifts of theSpirit, 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 sacredTrinity, and the same likewise represented in the vision, which the Epistle speaks of, with an hymn of praise, “Holy, holy, holy,Lord GodAlmighty,” &c.: which expressions, by ancient interpretation, relate to the HolyTrinity, 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. (SeeTersanctus.)
TRUCE OF GOD. In the French,Treve de Dieu: in modern Latin,Trevia,Treuvia,Treuga, orTruga 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 calledTruce 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 beGod, who hath sanctified us with his precepts,” &c., subjoining these words: “Blessed beGod, 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, OLord, 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,Godwas 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, thatGodmarked 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 thatGodwould 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. Thetuniclein 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 theantitype. 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 ofJesus Christis (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 ofJesus 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 ofChrist’sbody was the leading article. However, the Ubiquitarians were not quite agreed among themselves; some holding thatJesus 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. (SeeVia Media.)
UNCTION. (SeeExtreme 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 thefirst 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, (seeJesus,Lord,Christ,Messiah,Mediator,) is the union of the human nature ofChristwith the Divine, constituting two natures in one person. Notconsubstantially, as the three persons in theGodhead; norphysically, as soul and body united in one person; normystically, as is the union betweenChristand believers; but so as that the manhood subsist in the second person, yet without making confusion, both making but one person. It wasmiraculous. (Luke i. 34, 35.)Completeand real:Christtook a real human body and soul, and not in appearance.Inseparable.(Heb. vii, 25.)—SeeBurton.
UNITARIANS. A title which certain heretics, who do not worship the trueGod, assume most unfairly, to convey the impression that those who worship the one and onlyGoddo not hold the doctrine of the Divine Unity. Christians worship theTrinityin Unity, and theUnityin Trinity.
This name includes all, whether Arians of old, or more lately Socinians, and other Deists, who deny the Divinity ofJesus Christ, and the separate personality of theHoly 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 thesame 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. (SeeMoravians.)
UNIVERSALISTS. Those who, contrary to the express word ofGod, 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 calledstudia 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, (seeDegrees,) 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 consultingGod; 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 ofGodto 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 fromGod, when he was consulted by thehigh 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 signifieslight, 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 consultGod, 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 beforeGod, 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 beforeGod, 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 accountGodwas 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 ofGodin all cases; and from thence he was answered by an audible voice. In the same way didGodafterwards 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, andGodcommuned with him, as it were, face to face, no other person was admitted thither to ask counsel ofGodbut 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 ofGod’sbeing consulted this way; and the answer, in most of them, is introduced with, “theLordsaid.” And when the Israelites made a peace with the Gibeonites, they are blamed because they did not ask counsel at the mouth ofGod: 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 ofGodwere delivered to such as asked counsel of him.