A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

“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.