Chapter LXXV: Section 17: , provides that neither this act, nor any clause, article, or (1)

thing herein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to or give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist or Popish recusant whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the blessed TRINITY, as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion.

By the 19 Geo. III. c. 44, it was recited, that certain Protestant Dissenters had an objection to the declaration in favour of the articles set forth in sect. 8 of the Toleration Act; and it was provided that, in lieu of that declaration, the following might be made:—“I, _A. B._, do solemnly declare, in the face of Almighty GOD, that I am a Christian and a Protestant, and, as such, that I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as commonly received among Protestant Churches, do contain the revealed word of GOD, and that I do receive the same as the rule of my doctrine and practice.”

In 1813, by 53 Geo. III. c. 160, the clause of the Toleration Act, excepting those persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, was repealed.

As to Roman Catholics, the severity of the laws against them was relaxed in 1778, and again in 1780. Further disabilities were removed in 1793, and at subsequent periods; but still they were excluded from parliament, and from all important civil offices, till 1829, when the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed (10 Geo. IV. c. 7); and, in regard to all civil and political rights and privileges, they were placed upon the same footing as Protestants. Since then they have endeavoured, in respect to ecclesiastical matters, to assert an independence of the Crown of Great Britain, to which the Church of England itself does not lay claim. This attempt has been met by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60.

TONSURE. The having the hair clipped in such a fashion as the ears may be seen and not the forehead, or a shaved spot on the crown of the head. A clerical tonsure was made necessary about the fifth or sixth century. No mention is made of it before, and it is first spoken of with decided disapprobation.

The ancient tonsure of the Western clergy by no means consisted in _shaven crowns_: this was expressly forbidden them, lest they should resemble the priests of Isis and Serapis, who shaved the crowns of their heads. But the ecclesiastical tonsure was nothing more than polling the head, and cutting the hair to a moderate degree.

The rituals tell us, the tonsure is a mark of the renunciation of the world and its vanities; but the hair that is left denotes with what sobriety the person tonsured ought to use the things of this world.

_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 series _a^1_, _a^2_, _a^3_. Windows of three or other odd numbers of lights were less frequent and less successful; and the reduplication was effected by arithmetical rather than geometrical progression, the six-light windows being of two three-light windows, with the addition of a centre piece (see _figs. 3._ and _4._). Throughout the windows of this early style of tracery, all is effected by simple reduplication, no attempt being yet made to extend a single composition throughout the space to be filled. Circles, when of a considerable size, were filled with smaller circles (see _fig. 2._) or with cusping (_fig. 4._) designed after the same laws. But we must omit for the future all consideration of cusping, (see _Cusping_,) and everything but the mere pattern of the tracery.

_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 called _concentric_, because each perfect figure is either itself a circle, or is composed of circles or parts of circles struck from centres within the resultant figure, and themselves in the circumference of a circle, whose centre is the centre of the whole system. Thus in _fig. 2._ eight circles are struck either from the same centre, or points in the circumference of a circle concentric with the containing circle. In _figs. 3._ and _5._ the triangles are composed of parts of circles, of which the centres are the opposite angles, and as the triangles are equilateral, all the centres are in the circumference of the circle whose centre is the centre of the triangle. This may be called the first law of the concentric Geometrical. It has two corollaries, 1. that each line forms a part of one figure, only, and, 2. that each circle, or part of a circle, touches, or cuts, but never flows into, another. As this law is broken, its consequences also are reversed; and we get an _excentric_ Geometrical, in which there is no one ruling centre within the figure; but, on the contrary, the spirit of the style consists in having curves struck from centres alternately within and without the resulting figure, as in the accompanying trilobate and tricuspidate triangle (_fig. 7._); but still the lines cut or touch, and never flow into one another. In _fig. 8._ we have lines each forming parts of two figures, which is the same as _fig. 5._, with the omission of the lower side of each triangle, and the consequent rejection of a centre of construction, i. e. from _concentric_ the figure has become _excentric_. This makes a very near approach to the flowing Decorated, which indeed it becomes by the reversal of the last remaining rule, i. e. by suffering the curves which are struck from circles within and without the resulting figure, and which already form part of two figures, to flow into another, instead of cutting or touching. By this process, _fig. 4._ is altered into the ordinary reticulated tracery of the flowing Decorated (_fig. 9._); and _fig. 10._, instead of _fig. 1._, becomes a normal form.

_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 be called 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._ and _11._); or it fills the whole window head with no such equal division of its parts[19] (_figs. 5., 8., 9._); or, again, it is divided into _foil_ and _foiled_ tracery, the latter being the ordinary form, the first that of tracery, which itself, in its principal bars, follows the direction of foils, without a circumscribing arch (_fig. 12._); or, again, according as the surface of the tracery bar which traces the pattern is a fillet, an edge, or a roll, it is fillet, edge, or roll tracery; or, again, if it is only a plate of stone, pierced, without being moulded, it is plate tracery. Flowing tracery is convergent, or divergent, or reticulated. But the greatest source of beauty next to cusping is the due subordination of mouldings, which is itself sufficient to remedy the apparent sameness of pattern in the concentric Geometrical, and which adds infinite grace to the flowing tracery, in which, however, it is too seldom found. The student of ecclesiastical architecture will do well to pursue the subject of this article in Sharpe’s “Decorated Windows,” and in Freeman’s “Essay on the Origin and Development of Window Tracery.”

TRACT, in the Roman Missal, is an anthem, generally taken from the Psalms, following, and sometimes substituted for, the Gradual, (i.e. the anthem after the Epistle,) during penitential seasons, as the third Sunday in Advent, the three Sundays before Lent, Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Lent, Easter Saturdays, and Easter Even, and certain holidays. Cardinal Bona says it is so called, “a trahendo: quia tractim et graviter, et prolixo descensu cantatur,” because it is sung in a protracted or slow manner.—_Jebb._

TRADITION. (See _Fathers_.) The doctrine which has been delivered or handed down from one age to another. The great deference paid by the Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church to tradition, is so misrepresented by the wicked, and so misunderstood by the weak, that we quote the following passage from Palmer’s “Treatise on the Church.” Speaking of those who calumniate us for our use of this doctrine, he says: “The various methods which these men employ in endeavouring to prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church, may be classed under the following heads:

“1. Systematic misrepresentation. We do not appeal, in proof of Christian doctrine, to the ancient Christian writers as in any way _infallible_. Our sentiments on this head are well known; they have been repeatedly explained. We hold that the doctrine of any Father, however great and learned he may have been, _e. g._ that of Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be _rejected_ in any point where it contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians. Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs that particular Fathers have taught errors in faith or morality—that they were credulous—that their writings are in some points obscure—that their criticisms or interpretations of Scripture are sometimes mistaken—that they invented scholastic doctrines and were tinged with false philosophy—that the later Fathers were better theologians than the earlier—that there are Fathers against Fathers, and councils against councils, on some points. This is all calculated merely to excite prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of the Church, by misrepresenting our design and principle in making it. Our answer to all these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the Fathers as inspired and authoritative writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by Christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Christianity, and the external evidence of revelation is subverted.

“2. Pretended respect for religion. Under this head may be classed that mode of argument which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the Christian Church, under pretence that the Word of GOD alone ought to be the rule of our faith, in opposition to all the doctrines of man; that the Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else; that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that it is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence for Scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to the belief of all Christians from the beginning. But in asserting this liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation; that Scripture has no Divine meaning; that it is _not a revelation_. In short, tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the Scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort, or misinterpret, and to destroy that very Scripture.

“The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the defence of the Reformation, which infidels, Unitarians, and other enemies of the doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as a plea for rejecting all appeal to the doctrines of the universal Church. ‘The doctrines of the _Reformation_,’ they say, ‘cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed; _Popery_ must triumph.’ Excellent men! They will maintain the Reformation at all hazards; all evidence shall be pronounced worthless if it be opposed to the interests of that sacred cause! But what is the end sought by all this pretended devotion? It is, that every man may be permitted, without any check, to interpret Scripture in such a manner as to _subvert_ all the doctrines of the Reformation, whether positive or negative, to prove the Reformation itself needless, erroneous, bigoted, equally absurd as the system to which it was opposed, and more inconsistent. I charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and unthinking, than this effort of deists and heretics to set aside tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are the opponents of the Reformation. They are the representatives of those whom the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines, they charge it with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of Popery. They have separated from its reformed institutions, as _anti-Christians_, and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The Reformation has no connexion with these men: its defence belongs exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines and adhere to its institutions, and they alone are proper judges of the mode of argument suited to its interests.

“3. Statements directly untrue. Under this head may be included the palmary argument employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of the Church universal, namely, that it was the principle of the Reformation to reject any such appeal; and its principle was, ‘the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.’ Nothing can be more untrue than this assertion; the Reformation as a whole acknowledged and appealed to the authority of Catholic tradition, though it denied the infallibility of particular Fathers and councils. With equal veracity it is asserted that the Church of England rejects tradition in her sixth Article of Religion, when it is manifest that her object is simply to maintain the necessity of Scriptural proof for articles of faith; while our canons, our rituals, and the whole body of our theologians, so notoriously uphold the authority of tradition, that it is a subject of unmeasured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the doctrines of the Church. The nature of these various arguments testifies sufficiently that the doctrine of the universal Church is opposed to those who employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The employment of these weapons by all sects, in order to prevent any appeal to universal tradition, proves two points. First, as the sole fundamental principle on which they all agree is, the rejection of an appeal to the doctrines of the Church as a check on the interpretation of Scripture, and the assertion of an unlimited right of private interpretation; this principle is the source of all their divisions and contradictions, and therefore must be radically false. Secondly, the doctrine of the universal Church from the beginning must condemn that of all modern sects, in every point in which they differ from our Catholic and apostolic Churches; and therefore, on every such point, they are in error, and misinterpret Scripture, and the Church is in the right.”

TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. (See _Ceremony_.) “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

“Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”—_Article_ XXXIV.

The word “tradition” is not here used in the same sense in which it was used in the explanation of the sixth Article. It there signified unwritten articles of faith, asserted to be derived from CHRIST and his apostles: in this Article it means customs or practices, relative to the external worship of GOD, which had been delivered down from former times; that is, in the sixth Article, traditions meant traditional _doctrines_, of pretended Divine authority; and in this it means traditional _practices_ acknowledged to be of human institution.—_Bp. Tomline._

The word means the same as is expressed immediately by the word “ceremonies,” which is only explanatory; and which the Church afterwards calls “rites,” supposing them the same with ceremonies.—_Dr. Bennet._

TRADITORS. Persons who in times of persecution delivered the sacred Scriptures and other ecclesiastical records to their persecutors, were thus called, and were subjected to severe censures.

TRANSEPT. (See _Cathedral_.)

TRANSITION. About the year 1145, the use of the pointed arch was introduced into English architecture, and with this so many constructive changes in the fabric, that though Norman decorations were long retained, and even the round arch was used, except in the more important constructive portions, a style equally distinct from Norman and from Early English was the result, and this style is called Semi-Norman, or Transition. Before the close of the twelfth century, the round arch had entirely disappeared, and the Early English, or Lancet, style was fully developed about 1190.

TRANSLATION. The removal of a bishop from the charge of one diocese to that of another, in which case the bishop in his attestations writes “anno _translationis_ nostræ,” not “anno _consecrationis_ nostræ.”

Also, in literature, the rendering of a work from the original into another language. All the scriptural portions of the Prayer Book are not derived from the translation in common use. For example, the Psalter is from the great English Bible set forth and used in the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI.

TRANSLATION of festivals. In the Roman Church, when two festivals of a certain class concur on the same day with other festivals of the same or similar class, the celebration of one or other of these festivals is transferred to some future day, according to rules which are given in the Breviary and Missal. This is called a _translation_.—_Jebb._

TRANSOM. A horizontal mullion, or cross-bar, in a window or in panelling. The transom first occurs in late Decorated windows, and in Perpendicular windows of large size it is of universal occurrence.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The pretended miraculous conversion or change of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of our LORD, which the Romanists suppose to be wrought by the consecration of the priest. This false doctrine is condemned by the Church of England in her 28th Article. “The supper of the LORD is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by CHRIST’S death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of CHRIST; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of CHRIST.”

Transubstantiation, (or the change of the substance of bread and wine,) in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

“The body of CHRIST is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of CHRIST is received and eaten in the supper is faith.

“The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was not by CHRIST’S ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

Bishop Beveridge has the following remarks on this article, from Scripture and the Fathers:

“Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whosoever worthily receives the sacrament of the LORD’S supper doth certainly partake of the body and blood of CHRIST, the devil thence took occasion to draw men into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was crucified upon the cross; and the wine after consecration the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side. The time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory III., pope of Rome. The persons that were the principal abettors of it were Damascen in the Eastern, and afterwards Amalarius in the Western Churches. It was no sooner started in the East, but it was opposed by a famous council at Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, the famous opposers of idol worship. But afterwards, in the second Council of Nice, it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who confidently affirmed that, ‘after the consecration, the bread and wine are called, are, and are believed to be, properly the body and blood of CHRIST.’ In the West also, Amalarius having broached this opinion, Paschasius Radbertus readily swallowed it down. But Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus or Bertramnus, (of whom more presently,) as also Johannes Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against it as a poisonous error. And, after them, Berengarius too, who was not only written against by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, but condemned for it in a council held at Verceli, (where the book of Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also condemned,) and at another council held at Rome about the same time. And though he did recant his opinion at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, as some think, so as never to hold it more, yet his followers would never recant what they had learned of him. But in the Lateran Council, held A. D. 1215, the opinion of the real or carnal presence of CHRIST was not only confirmed, but the word _transubstantiated_ was newly coined to express it by; that council determining that ‘there is one universal Church of the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which JESUS CHRIST himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of GOD; that for the perfecting the mystery of our union, we might receive of him what he had received of us.’ And ever since this word was thus forged by this council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare their minds by concerning this great mystery; still holding with the Council of Trent, ‘that by the consecration of the bread and wine is made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which change is aptly and properly called by the holy Catholic Church _transubstantiation_.’ So that, according to this opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine only, and not the body and blood of CHRIST, are after consecration as properly the body and blood of CHRIST, only, and not bread and wine; the bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of CHRIST that hung upon the cross; and the wine into the very blood that ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.

“Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to fall into this desperate error, so as to say the bread and wine are really changed into the body and blood of CHRIST, because he doth really partake of the body and blood of CHRIST, that rightly receives the bread and the wine; that truth is no sooner delivered but this error is presently opposed. It being no sooner declared that the bread we break is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the blood, of CHRIST, but it is immediately subjoined, that, notwithstanding the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST, is to be rejected upon a fourfold account. First, because it cannot be proved by the Scriptures. Secondly, it is repugnant to them. Thirdly, it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament. Fourthly, it hath given occasion to many superstitions. Of which in their order briefly.

“1. As for the _first_, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures, is plain from the insufficiency of those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution. In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find our SAVIOUR saying, ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ (John vi. 55.) And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. From whence they gather, that the bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of CHRIST; not considering, first, that our SAVIOUR said these words at the least a year before the sacrament of the LORD’S supper was instituted. For when CHRIST spake these words, it is said, that ‘the passover was nigh,’ (ver. 4,) whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the passover following; and it is very unlikely that he should preach concerning that sacrament before it was instituted. To which we may also add, that our SAVIOUR here saith concerning the flesh and blood here spoken of, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the SON of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you’ (ver. 53); whereas it is manifest that a man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament must of necessity be damned. And, therefore, though the thing signified, even the flesh and blood of CHRIST, is here to be understood, yet the signs themselves of the sacrament cannot. And so this place, not intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, cannot be a sufficient foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST. And, secondly, suppose this place was to be understood of the sacrament, when our SAVIOUR saith, ‘My flesh is bread indeed, and my blood is drink indeed:’ this might prove indeed that CHRIST’S body and blood were turned into bread and drink, but not at all that [that] bread and drink are turned into his body and blood. Thirdly, it is plain that in these words our SAVIOUR doth not mean any external or bodily, but internal and spiritual, feeding upon him. So that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, (ver. 50,) but live for ever (ver. 51). Yea, ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ (ver. 56). So that, as Origen observeth, ‘No wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners, as well as saints, the worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine in the sacrament.’ And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so neither do the words of institution, ‘This is my body,’ prove the transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of CHRIST. For he that saith, because our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ the bread is therefore changed into his body, may as well say that, because Joseph said, ‘The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years,’ (Gen. xli. 26,) therefore the seven good kine, and the seven good ears, were all changed into seven years. And because Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Thou art this head of gold,’ (Dan. ii. 38,) therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into a head of gold; whereas it is plain that in Scripture that is often said to be a thing which is only the sign of it: as GOD is pleased to explain himself when he said of circumcision, ‘This is my covenant,’ (Gen. xvii. 10,) and in the next verse, ‘And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant betwixt me and you’ (ver. 11). And what sense the Most High explains himself by in that sacrament we may well understand him in this. When he said, ‘This is my covenant,’ he tells us what he meant by that phrase, even ‘This is the sign of my covenant:’ and so here, when CHRIST said, ‘This is my body,’ according to his own explication of himself before, it is no more than if he should have said, ‘This is the sign or token of my body.’ And therefore saith Augustine, ‘For if sacraments should not have a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they often receive the names of the things themselves. Therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of CHRIST’S body is the body of CHRIST, and the sacrament of the blood of CHRIST is the blood of CHRIST; so the sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.’ So that the words, ‘This is my body,’ prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of his body; not at all that it is really changed into his body. But that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Scriptures, is further evident in that it is contrary to them.

“2. And this is the _second_ thing here asserted of transubstantiation, that it is ‘repugnant to the plain words of the Holy Scriptures;’ which to prove I need go no further than to show, that the Scripture doth still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before consecration. And this one might think was plain enough, in the first place, even from the words of institution themselves; for the Scripture saith, ‘And as they were eating JESUS took bread and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.’ (Matt. xxvi. 26.) So that that which JESUS took was bread, that which JESUS blessed was bread, that which JESUS gave to his disciples was bread; and therefore that of which he said, ‘This is my body,’ must needs be bread too, as the Fathers long ago acknowledged. And truly in reason it cannot be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun ‘this’ but ‘bread;’ for the ‘body’ of CHRIST, that cometh after it, cannot possibly be the antecedent to it. For, according to the principles of our adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed into the body of CHRIST before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until the words, ‘This is my body,’ be all pronounced; so that when the priest saith, ‘This,’ there is no such thing as the body of CHRIST present, that not coming in till both that and the following words too are perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of CHRIST can by no means be looked upon as the antecedent to this pronoun; but that it is bread and bread only that it hath reference to. So that ‘This is my body,’ is as much as to say, ‘This bread is my body, this bread that I have taken, and blessed, and give unto you, is my body.’ Now, as Bellarmine himself acknowledged, this proposition, ‘This bread is my body,’ cannot possibly be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense should be, ‘This bread _signifies_ my body,’ is a _sign_ or _sacrament_ of it; it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body of CHRIST: for if it be bread, and yet the very body of CHRIST too, then bread and the body of CHRIST would be convertible terms. So that the very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of which our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ was real bread, and so his body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence that the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only represented by the bread. But if this will not do, we may consider, in the second place, the institution of the other part of the sacrament; for it is said, ‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’ (Matt. xxvi. 27, 28.) Where these last words, ‘for this is my blood,’ &c., being the words of consecration; and our SAVIOUR having given them the cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it; it could not possibly be meant of anything else than the wine in the cup of which he said these words. To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words of consecration: ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ (Matt. xxvi. 29.) Whence we see our SAVIOUR himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the _fruit of the vine_; and in saying that he will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, plainly shows that it was the fruit of the vine which he before drank. So that the very wine of which he said, ‘this is my blood,’ was wine still, and the fruit of the vine; which I hope none of our adversaries will say the very blood of CHRIST is. But, thirdly, this may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of CHRIST?’ (1 Cor. x. 16); where we may take notice of two things. First, that he here calleth the sacramental elements still ‘a cup,’ or wine, and bread, ‘the bread which we break;’ so that it is still bread: and, secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and the bread broken the communion of the body, of CHRIST. Now, if the bread be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real body; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, ‘The blood of CHRIST is the communion of the blood of CHRIST, and the body of CHRIST the communion of the body of CHRIST;’ and so the body of CHRIST must be the communion of itself, which is impossible; to which we might also add the several places where the apostle calls the elements still bread and wine, or the cup; as, ‘For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup.’ (1 Cor. xi. 26.) “Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the LORD unworthily,” &c. (Ver. 27.) ‘But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.’ (Ver. 28.) From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of CHRIST; that which we drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of CHRIST; and therefore, that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of CHRIST, is repugnant to the plain words of the Scripture.

“3. The third thing is, that it ‘overthroweth the nature of the sacrament,’ which I need not spend many words to prove; for in a sacrament it is required, first, that there be some outward sign representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed into the body of CHRIST, there is no outward sign at all in the sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of CHRIST, which are not signs, but the thing signified. Nay, as Augustine observes, ‘The signs themselves are the sacraments,’ and therefore where there is no sign there can be no sacrament. And so, by depriving this sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament in it. And therefore, if they will still hold, that by the words of consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of CHRIST, let them cease to call that holy action any longer a sacrament, but name it ‘the body and blood of CHRIST;’ for, according to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of CHRIST. So that it is plain that, by this doctrine, the nature of a sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacrament in particular must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.

“4. The fourth and last thing here objected against this doctrine of transubstantiation is, that it ‘hath given occasion to many superstitions,’ which any one that ever observed their customs and practices cannot but acknowledge. For this fond opinion possessing their brains, that the bread is the real body of CHRIST hung upon the cross, and pierced for their sins, oh! how zealous are they in wrapping it up neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasures, carrying it about in their processions; yea, and, at the length, in worshipping and adoring it too!”

This learned and orthodox bishop proceeds to show how inconsistent this tenet is with the teaching of the Fathers. We add a few quotations upon the subject from other orthodox divines.

“The article next condemns the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the real substance of CHRIST’S body and blood, in the administration of the LORD’S supper. The idea of CHRIST’S bodily presence in the eucharist was first started in the beginning of the eighth century, and it owed its rise to the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language upon this subject, understood and urged them in their literal sense. Thus the true meaning of these expressions was grossly perverted: but as this conceit seemed to exalt the nature of the holy sacrament, it was eagerly received in that ignorant and superstitious age; and was by degrees carried farther and farther, by persons still less guarded in their application of these metaphorical phrases. This has always been a favourite doctrine of the Church of Rome, as it impressed the common people with higher notions of the power of the clergy, and therefore served to increase their influence. It met however with opposition upon its original introduction, particularly from Bertram and John Scot; and again at the first dawn of the Reformation, both upon the Continent and in this country. It was objected to by the Waldenses; and there are strong expressions against it in some parts of Wickliff’s works. Luther, in contradiction to the other reformers, only changed transubstantiation into consubstantiation, which means that the substance of CHRIST’S body and blood is present in the holy sacrament with the substance of the bread and wine; and his perseverance in this opinion was a principal cause of the division among the reformed churches. He was opposed by Zuingle and Calvin, but the Confession of Augsburg, which was drawn up by Melancthon, favours consubstantiation. There is, however, considerable doubt concerning the real sentiments of Melancthon upon this subject, especially in the latter part of his life. Some of our early English reformers were Lutherans, and consequently they were at first disposed to lean towards consubstantiation; but they seem soon to have discovered their error, for in the articles of 1552 it is expressly said, “A faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of CHRIST’S flesh and blood in the sacrament of the LORD’S supper.” This part of the article was omitted in 1562, probably with a view to give less offence to those who maintain the corporal presence, and to comprehend as many as possible in the Established Church.”—_Bp. Tomline._

In arguing against this doctrine we may first observe, that it is contradicted by our senses, since we see and taste that the bread and wine after consecration, and when we actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration whatever. And again, was it possible for CHRIST, when he instituted the LORD’S supper, to take his own body and his own blood into his own hands, and deliver them to every one of his apostles? or was it possible for the apostles to understand our SAVIOUR’S command to drink his blood literally, when they were forbidden, under the severest penalties, to taste blood by the law of Moses, of which not only they themselves, but CHRIST also had been a strict observer? They expressed not the slightest surprise or reluctance when CHRIST delivered to them the bread and wine, which could not have been the case, had they conceived themselves commanded to eat the real body and drink the real blood of their LORD and Master. The bread and wine must have been considered by them as symbolical, and indeed the whole transaction was evidently figurative in all its parts; it was instituted when the Jews, by killing the paschal lamb, commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand of Moses, which was typical of the deliverance of all mankind from the bondage of sin by the death of CHRIST, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” and as the occasion was typical, so likewise were the words used by our SAVIOUR: “This is my body which is broken,” and “this is my blood which is shed.” But his body was not yet broken, nor was his blood yet shed; and therefore the breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine, were then figurative of what was about to happen, as they are now figurative of what has actually happened. He also said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. xi. 25); which words could not be meant in a literal sense; the cup could not be changed into a covenant, though it might be a representation or memorial of it. Our SAVIOUR called the wine, after it was consecrated, “the fruit of the vine,” (Matt. xxvi. 29,) which implied that no change had taken place in its real nature. Since then the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” upon which the Papists pretend to support this doctrine, were manifestly used in a figurative sense, and must have been so understood by the apostles, to whom they were originally addressed, we may safely pronounce that “transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved by Holy Writ.” That the early Christians understood our SAVIOUR’S words in a figurative sense, appears from the writings of more than twenty Fathers, without a single authority on the opposite side.—_Bp. Tomlins._

1. That transubstantiation is “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,” appears from St. Paul’s saying, “we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17); and, “as often as ye eat this bread” (1 Cor. xi. 26); so that it is bread, and not CHRIST’S flesh, even when we eat and partake thereof. Parity of reason proves the same of the wine. 2. That transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” is evident, because it supposes what we eat and drink to be, not the sign, but the thing signified. 3. It has also “given occasion to many superstitions.” That it has given occasion to abominable idolatry is evident from the adoration of the host, which is grounded on it. But, though idolatry is worse than superstition, yet it is different from it. Wherefore, for the proof of this branch of the proposition, let it be considered, that, in cases of imminent danger or great calamities, the host is _exposed_ by the Papists, to appease GOD’S anger, and prevent or remove his judgments: or reference may be had to the provisions made in the Romish Church, in the event of any accident happening to the consecrated elements. Our reformers were too well acquainted with these superstitions: though, blessed be GOD, we have not instances ready at hand.—_Dr. Bennet._

TRAVERSE. A seat of state with a canopy, formerly placed at the upper end of the choir in the royal chapels, and temporarily in cathedrals, for the use of the sovereign.

TREASURER. A dignitary formerly existing in all cathedrals and collegiate churches of old foundation in England, and in Ireland and Scotland in such churches as followed the English model. The treasurer was not the bursar, but rather the chief sacristan. He had the care of the plate, vestments, furniture, necessaries of Divine service; the control of the sacristan and inferior officers, of the bells, and the general superintendence of the fabric. In many foreign churches the place of treasurer was discharged by a dignitary called a sacristan; but in others, as at Glasgow, and the royal chapel, Stirling, there was a treasurer and a sacristan, both dignitaries. In cathedrals of the new foundation, the treasurer is merely the bursar; the canons taking this office in annual rotation.—_Jebb._

TRENT, COUNCIL OF. (See _Roman Catholic Church_, _Popery_, _Council of Trent_.) This important council met in 1545, and was dissolved in 1563. Its nominal period extended over eighteen years, but its actual sessions occupied less than five. Protestants from the days of Luther had been urgent for the convocation of a free synod. They had reiterated the demand at Nuremberg, and Ratisbon, and Spires. There were indeed on both sides earnest and pious persons who were anxious that the questions at issue should be settled by competent authority. The evil lives of the clergy, and the general disorders of the Church, afforded another strong reason by which many were influenced. At the same time, the endless extortions of the papal chancery had raised disputes in every European state, which there seemed no other hope of allaying. It was the great object of the pope and his adherents to condemn Lutheran doctrine, and to avoid definition on points disputed in the Roman Church. Clement VII. had promised that a general council should be held in Italy for raising subsidies against the Turks, and for the suppression of heresy, but he really used his influence to prevent its assembling. On his death in 1534 his successor, Paul III., published a bull of convocation. Various difficulties however arose, partly on account of the proposed place of meeting, and partly through the war between the emperor and the king of France, and interposed a delay of some years. The city of Trent in the Tyrol, on the confines of Italy and Germany, and now in the dominions of Austria, was at length selected, the summons was issued, and the council was opened December 13, 1545. The meeting had been so long deferred, that when a few ecclesiastics and others assembled, it was hardly believed that the synod was really convened; and the importance of the movement was not perceived until somewhat later.

The first three sessions were occupied by preliminary matters, after which the actual business commenced. The constitution of the assembly, as well as the form of procedure, was governed by arbitrary rules. The legates presided as the representatives of the pope; who also appointed the secretaries and other officers. Bishops alone were allowed to vote, but an exception was made in the case of certain abbots and generals of orders, for whose admission no precedent could however be alleged, but such as would be equally availing for all presbyters. Proxies were generally refused, although some were allowed by the sole authority of the pope. All discussions were confined to previous congregations, and in the sessions which followed there was no deliberation, but only the acceptance or rejection of the proposed conclusions. The judgments of the council were embodied partly in decrees which profess to contain the Catholic doctrine on the points in question, partly in canons by which the contrary opinions are anathematized as heretical.

In the fourth session, which was held April 5, 1546, somewhat less than fifty bishops being present, it was decreed that the canon of Scripture includes the books commonly called apocryphal, and that tradition is to be received as of equal authority with the written Word; that the Vulgate is to be taken for the standard text, and no interpretation allowed but such as the Church has affixed. In the fifth session the decree on original sin was passed; in the sixth, that on justification; and in the seventh, that on the sacraments in general, and baptism and confirmation in particular. In the eighth session, the removal to Bologna was appointed, where the two following sessions were held; but no decrees were passed, and in September, 1547, the council was prorogued. The translation to an Italian city had been made under a bull of Paul III., when the German bishops were urgent for reformation, and there seemed no other escape. A disease which broke out at Trent was the alleged excuse. In 1551 the council was again convened by Julius III., who had been present at a former period as legate. The eleventh and twelfth sessions were spent in formal business; in the thirteenth the sacrament of the eucharist was treated; in the fourteenth, the sacraments of penance and extreme unction; in the fifteenth, a safe-conduct was granted to the Protestants; and in the sixteenth, which was held in April, 1552, the prorogation of the council for two years was decreed. Paul IV. was, however, resolutely opposed to its revival, on the ground that his authority was higher than that of a synod, which was therefore needless; and by the threat of secular reformation he deterred some princes from urging the reassembling of the council, which did not take place till January, 1562, when the seventeenth session was held under Pius IV. In the eighteenth, certain of the fathers were appointed to prepare an index of prohibited books, and at the same time, the safe-conduct was removed; in the eighteenth and nineteenth no business was transacted; in the twenty-first, the communion under one kind was enjoined for all, except the celebrant; in the twenty-second, the sacrifice of the mass was declared to be a true and Catholic doctrine; in the twenty-third, the subject handled was the sacrament of order; in the twenty-fourth, the sacrament of matrimony; and in the twenty-fifth, decrees were passed on purgatory, the invocation of saints, the worship of relics and images, indulgences, fasting, the index of prohibited books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal. After which, the decrees passed under Paul III. and Julius III. were read, and the council was dissolved.