_________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 15: Tournely-Zwirner Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias _________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 15 Tournely to Zwirner New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________________________ Charles-Thomas Maillard de Tournon Charles-Thomas Maillard De Tournon Papal legate to India and China, cardinal, born of a noble Savoyard family at Turin, 21 December, 1668; died in confinement at Macao, 8 June, 1710. After graduating in canon and civil law he went to Rome where he gained the esteem of Clement XI, who on 5 December, 1701, appointed him legate a latere to India and China. The purpose of this legation was: to establish harmony among the missionaries there; to provide for the needs of these extensive missions; to report to the Holy See on the general state of the missions, and the labours of the missionaries; and, finally, to enforce the decision of the Holy Office against the further toleration of the so-called Chinese rites among the native Christians. These rites consisted chiefly in offering sacrifices to Confucius and the ancestors, and in using the Chinese names tien (heaven) and xang ti (supreme emperor) for the God of the Christians. On 27 December, 1701, the pope consecrated Tournon bishop in the Vatican Basilica, with the title of Patriarch of Antioch. The legate left Europe on the royal French vessel Murepas, 9 February, 1703, arriving at Pondicherry in India on 6 November, 1703. It was with greater zeal than prudence that he issued a decree at this place, dated 23 June, 1704, summarily forbidding the missionaries under severe censures to permit the further practice of the Malabar rites. On 11 July, 1704, he set sail for China by way of the Philippine Islands, arriving at Macao in China, 2 April, and at Peking on 4 December, 1705. Emperor Kang hi received him kindly at first, but upon hearing that he came to abolish the Chinese rites among the native Christians, he demanded from all missionaries on pain of immediate expulsion a promise to retain these rites. At Rome the Holy Office had meanwhile decided against the rites on 20 November, 1704, and, being acquainted with this decision, the legate issued a decree at Nanking on 25 January, 1707, obliging the missionaries under pain of excommunication latae sententiae to abolish these rites. Hereupon, the emperor ordered Tournon to be imprisoned at Macao and sent some Jesuit missionaries to Rome to protest against the decree. Tournon died in his prison, shortly after being informed that he had been created cardinal on 1 August, 1707. Upon the announcement of his death at Rome, Clement XI highly praised him for his courage and loyalty to the Holy See and ordered the Holy Office to issue a Decree (25 September, 1710) approving the acts of the legate. Tournon's remains were brought to Rome by his successor, Mezzabarba, and buried in the church of the Propaganda, 27 September, 1723. Memorie stor. dell' Em. Mgr. card. di Tournon esposte con monumenti rari ed autentici non piu dati alla luce (8 vols., Venice 1761-2), anti-jesuitical; (VILLERMAULES), Anec. sur l'etat de la religion dans la Chine (7 vols., Paris, 1733-42), Jansenistic and extremely biased against the Jesuits; PRAY, Hist. controvers. de ritibus sinicis (Pest, 1789), German tr. with numerous additions (Augsburg, 1791). Concerning his alleged murder by the Jesuits see DUHR. Jesuiten-Fabeln (4 ed. Freiburg, 1904), 776, 786. MICHAEL OTT Antoine Touron Antoine Touron Dominican biographer and historian, born at Graulhet, Tarn, France, on 5 September, 1686; died at Paris, 2 September, 1775. Of this author but little has been written, though the number and merit of his works have caused his name to become illustrious, particularly in his order. He was the son of a merchant, and seems to have joined the Dominicans at an early age. After the completion of his studies he taught philosophy and theology to the students of his province (Toulouse); but the later years of his life were devoted to biography, history, and apologetics. From his pen we have twenty-nine volumes, dealing largely with the history of the Dominican order and the biographical sketches of its notable men. His writings are valuable contributions to Dominican literature, and essential to students of Dominican history. Père Mortier, in his "Histoire des maîtres généraux de l'ordre des frères prêcheurs", now in course of publication, has made generous use of his "Histoire des hommes illustres...". Touron's writings include his "Vie de saint Thomas d'Aquin" (considered his best work); "Vie de saint Dominique avec une hist. abrégée des ses premiers disciples"; "Hist. des hommes illustres de l'ordre de saint Dominique"; "De la providence, traité hist., dogmat. et mor."; "La main de Dieu sur les incrédules, ou hist. abrégée des Israélites", a work in which he shows that as often as the Chosen People proved false to their Divine vocation, they were punished by God; "Parallèle de l'incrédule et du vrai fidèle"; "La vie et l'esprit de saint Charles Borromée"; "La verité vengée en faveur de saint Thomas"; and "Hist. génerale de l'Amérique depuis sa découverte", which is really an ecclesiastical history of the New World. Mortier, Hist. des maîtres gén. de l'ordre des frères prêcheurs (5 vols., Paris, 1903-11), passim; Hurter, Nomenclator literarius, III (Innsbruck, 1895),164-5. VICTOR F. O'DANIEL Archdiocese of Tours Archdiocese of Tours (TURONENSIS.) Comprises the Department of Indre-et-Loire, and was re-established by the Concordat of 1801 with the Dioceses of Angers, Nantes, Le Mans, Rennes, Vannes, St-Brieue, and Quimper as suffragans. The elevation to metropolitan rank of the Diocese of Rennes in 1859, with the last three dioceses as suffragans, dismembered the Province of Tours. The Diocese of Laval, created in 1855, is a suffragan of Tours. For the early ecclesiastical history of Tours we have an excellent document, the concluding chapter "De episcopis Turonicis" in Gregory of Tours's "History of the Franks", though Mgr Duchesne has shown that it requires some chronological corrections. The founder of the see was St. Gatianus; according to Gregory of Tours he was one of the seven apostles sent from Rome to Gaul in the middle of tile third century. Two grottos cut in the hill above the Loire, opposite Tours, are held to have been the first sanctuaries where St. Gatianus celebrated the Liturgy. According to Mgr Duchesne the tradition of Tours furnished Gregory with only the name of Gatianus, accompanied perhaps by the length, fifty years, of his episcopate; it was by comparison with the "Passio S. Saturnini" of Toulouse that Gregory arrived at the date 250. Mgr Duchesne considers this date rather doubtful, but admits that the Church of Tours was founded in the time of Constantine. After St. Gatianus, according to Mgr Duchesne's chronology, came: St. Litorius, or Lidoire (337-71); the illustrious St. Martin (4 July, 372-8 Nov., 397); St. Brice (397-444), who was accused to Celestine I of immorality and absolved by the pope, but who remained absent seventeen years from the episcopal city, which was governed by the intruded Bishop Armentius; St. Eustochius (444-61); St. Perpetuus (461-91); St. Volusianus (491-98), deprived of his see by the Visigoths, exiled to Toulouse, and perhaps martyred; Verus (498-509), also deprived of his see at the command of Alaric; St. Baud (546-52), chancellor of Clotaire I; St. Euphronius (55-73), who made at Poitiers the solemn transfer of the relic of the True Cross to the monastery founded by St. Radegunde; the historian Gregory (573-94). After St. Gregory the history of the diocese for two centuries and a half is obscure and confused, but the study of various episcopal catalogues has made it possible for Mgr Duchesne to some-what clear up this period. Landramnus, bishop under Louis the Pious, was by this prince appointed missus dominicus, or royal commissary, in 825. Among subsequent bishops were: Raoul II (1086-1117), who despite the prohibition of Hugues, legate of the Holy See, had dealings with the excommunicated Philip I, and under whose episcopate Paschal II came to Tours (1107); Hildebert de Lavardin (1125-34); Etienne de Bourgueil (1323-35), who founded the College of Tours at Paris; the jurisconsult Pierre Frétaud (1335-57); Jacques Gélu (1415-27), later Bishop of Embrun (see DIOCESE OF GAP); Philippe de Coetquis (1427-41), who, commissioned by Charles VII in 1429 to interrogate Joan of Arc, recognized her perfect sincerity, and who was made a cardinal by antipope Felix V. Hélie de Bourdeilles (1468-84), cardinal in 1483; Robert de Lenoncourt (1484-1501), afterwards Archbishop of Reims; Dominic Carette, Cardinal de Final (1509-14); Alessandro Farnese (1553-54), cardinal in 1534; De Maillé de Brézé (1554-97), who assisted the Cardinal de Lorraine at the Council of Trent and translated the homilies of St. Basil; Victor le Bouthiller (1641-70), who played an important part in the religious renaissance of the seventeenth century; Boisgelin de Cicé (1802-4), who under the old regime had been Archbishop of Aix and in 1802 was created cardinal; De Barral (1804-15); Francois Morlot (1843-57), cardinal in 1853, Archbishop of Paris at the time of his death; Joseph-Hippolyte Guibert (1857-71), cardinal in 1873, later be came Archbishop of Paris; Guillaume-René Meignan (1884-96), cardinal in 1893, known by his exegetical works. Tours was the capital of the Third Lionize province. The ecclesiastical province of Tours must have been established under the episcopate of St. Martin. Fifty years later it was in regular operation, as is proved by, among other documents, the synodal epistles of the Councils of Angers and Vannes in 453 and 461. (Concerning the prolonged efforts of the Breton Churches to emancipate themselves from the metropolis of Tours and the assistance given to this metropolis by royalty see ARCHDIOCESE OF RENNES.) About 480 the Visigoths were masters of Tours and it was in the Island of Amboise in 504 that the interview took place as a result of which the Frank Clovis and the Visigoth Alaric shared Gaul between them. But the Arising of the Visigoths eventually roused the Catholics of Tours and when in 507 Clovis and his army entered the Visigothic kingdom Tours opened its gate to him, and he received in that city the consular insignia sent by Emperor Anastasius. The Saracens threatened Tours when Charles Martel defeated them in 732. From 853 to 903 the Northmen made frequent inroads, terminated by the victory of St. Martin le Beau. Henry II of England became Count of Touraine in the middle of the twelfth century and the English dominion was maintained at Tours until John Lackland renounced it in 1214. In the Middle Ages Tours was composed of two cities, the Roman Caesarodunum and the Merovingian Martinopolis. The name of Tours was strictly reserved to the ancient Caesarodunum, and the territory of Tours depended on the archbishops. Martinopolis, which rose around the monastery of St-Martin, took, in the tenth century, the name of Chateauneuf and for five centuries was an independent community. Under Louis XI the two agglomerations were united in one which retained the name of Tours. The cathedral of Tours, dedicated to St. Gatianus, dates from the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. The windows, which belong to the thirteenth, are among the most beautiful in France. The towers belong to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The chapter of Tours is the oldest in France. It is said that it was established by St. Baud, who gave the canons property quite distinct from that of the arch-diocese. Simon de Brion, pope from 1281 to 1285 under the name of Martin IV, was canon and treasurer of the church of St. Martin of Tours. The prestige of the Church of Tours was very great during the Middle Ages. In a letter to Charles the Bald Adrian II designates it as the second in France. Philip Augustus in a letter to Lucius III says that he considers it one of the most beautiful jewels of his crown and that whosoever attacks this church attacks his own person. Kings John II, Charles VII, Charles VIII, and Henry III would never consent when they gave Touraine in fief that this church should be separated from the crown. It owed this prestige chiefly to the Basilica of St. Martin. This was first built by St. Perpetuus and dedicated in 472. It was there that Clovis was clothed with the purple robe and the chlamys sent him with the title of consul by the Emperor Anastasius. As early as the sixth century St. Martin's was a real religious centre. Queen Clotilde died in 545 in the vicinity of the basilica, and in the same neighbourhood St. Radegunde founded a small monastery, near which St. Gregory of Tours built the Church of the Holy Cross. Ingeltrude, daughter of Clotaire I, founded the monastery of Notre-Dame-de-l'Ecrignole, St. Monegunde that of St-Pierre-le-Puellier. When Charlemagne, before setting out to receive the imperial crown at Rome, assembled at Tours (800) the lords of his empire and divided his estates among his sons, his wife Luitgarde died there, and was buried at St-Martin. He gave the Church vast possessions in France and Normandy. Abbot Ithier, his chancellor, founded with some monks from St-Martin the monastery of Cormery. Alcuin, who succeeded Ithier in 796 and was buried in the basilica in 804, founded there a school of calligraphy to which is due the preservation of many ancient works. At this school, directed after Alcuin by Fredegisus (804-34), Adelard (834-45), and Count Vivian (845-54), were copied and illustrated the celebrated Bible of Charles the Bald and the Gospels of Lothaire preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, the Virgil in the library of Berne, the Arithmetic of Boetius in the library of Bamberg, and the superb Gospels preserved in the library of Tours, written throughout in gold letters on white vellum, and on which the kings of France took the oath as abbots of St-Martin. The beautiful artistic labours of the canons were disturbed by the Norman invasions. The body of St. Martin was transported by the canons to Auxerre in 853 to safeguard it against the invasions of the Northmen. Count Ingelger had to march with 6000 men against Auxerre in 884, before the body was restored. From 845 the abbots of St-Martin were laymen, namely the dukes of France, ancestors of Hugh Capet. When, in 987, Hugh Capet became King of France he joined the dignity of Abbot of St-Martin with the Crown of France in perpetuity. The Abbey of St-Martin had as honorary canons the Dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, Brittany, Vendôme, and Nevers, the Counts of Flanders, Dunois, the Earl of Douglas in Scotland, the Lords of Preuilly and Parthenay. From Clovis, doubtless until Philip Augustus, it enjoyed the right of coinage. Blessed Hervé, treasurer of the basilica, caused it to be rebuilt about 1000. It was in the abbey rebuilt by Hervé that Philip I, King of France, in 1092 arranged to meet Bertrade de Montfort, wife of Foulques le Réchin, and carried her off to the great scandal of the kingdom. Urban II, who came to Tours in 1096, refused to remove the excommunication inflicted on Philip and Bertrade. Paschal II in 1107, Callistus 11 in 1119, Innocent II in 1130, and Alexander III in 1163 came thither to venerate the tomb of St. Martin. Richard Coeur de Lion in 1190 and John of Brienne in 1223 took there the pilgrim's staff prior to setting out on the crusade. Louis XI had great devotion to St. Martin. The day on which he learned in the basilica itself of the death of Charles the Bold he vowed to surround the tomb of the saint with a silver grating, the cost of which would today equal 2,148,000 francs. In 1522 Francis I seized this grating, despite the chapter and the people of Tours. The devastations of the Reformation and the Revolution destroyed the Basilica of St. Martin. There now remain only two large towers, but at the end of the nineteenth century Cardinal Meignan caused a new basilica to be erected on the site of the old one. According to the legend, the Abbey of St. Julian arose around a church the building of which was ordered by Clovis after his victory of Vouille over the Visigoths. It is historically certain that there were monks from Auvergne there in the sixth century, on whom Gregory of Tours imposed the Rule of St. Benedict and to whom he gave the relics of St. Julian of Brioude. The Northmen destroyed this first monastery; it was rebuilt about 937 by St. Odo, Abbot of Cluny, and Archbishop Theotolon. The present Church of St. Julian is a beautiful monument of the thirteenth century. The monastery of Marmoutier dates from St. Martin. Near the grottos where St. Gatianus celebrated Mass he established some cells. The cell of St. Brice is still to be seen. Another grotto, known as the grotto of the Seven Sleepers, was inhabited by seven brothers, cousins of St. Martin, who all died on the same day after a lethargy. In the ninth century the Abbey of Marmoutier was ravaged by the Northmen, and out of 140 religious only 20 escaped massacre and were sheltered by the canons of St-Martin. Marmoutier was subsequently inhabited by a small colony of canons, and in 982 the abbey, which had fallen into some disorders, was restored by St. Mayeul, Abbot of Cluny, at the instance of Eudes I, Count of Blois and of Tours, who died a monk at Marmoutier. Urban II came to Marmoutier in 1096 and dedicated the newly-built basilica. Hubaud, canon of St-Martin and brother of the heresiarch Berenger, gave to Marmoutier superb pieces of religious gold work in order to secure prayers for Berenger, who died at the priory of St-Côme, which was dependent on Marmoutier. The fortune of the abbey was considerable, a popular saying runs: "De quelque cote que le vent vente, Marmoutier a cens et rente." In the eleventh century 101 priories were founded dependent on Marmoutier, ten of them in England. Hugh I, Abbot of Marmoutier from 1210 to 1226, organized the estates of Meslay and Louroux, which were models of agricultural exploitation, and began the reconstruction of the basilica. The latter undertaking was hindered by the violent attacks made by the counts of Blois on the monks of Marmoutier. In 1253 St. Louis took the abbey under his protection. In 1562 it was pillaged by the Protestants and the Revolution destroyed it almost entirely. The crosier gateway (Portail de la Crosse) which remains standing dates from the thirteenth century. The origin of the town of Loches was the monastery founded by St. Ours about the beginning of the sixth century. He installed in the bed of the Indre a hand-mill which became a place of pilgrimage. Geoffroy Grisegonelle, Count of Anjou, founded at Loches a Byzantine collegiate church to which he gave a girdle of the Blessed Virgin. Repaired in the twelfth century by the prior, Thomas Pactius, this church still exists. In the dungeon of Loches, founded about 1000 by Foulques Nerra, were imprisoned Cardinal la Balue and the historian Comines. The monastery founded by St. Mexme, disciple of St. Martin (d. shortly after 463), was the origin of a gathering of people which formed the town of Chinon. Cardinal de Richelieu was born in 1585 at the castle of Richelieu in the diocese. He transformed it into an imposing château, built around it an entire city, which took the name of Richelieu, and joined to his ducal peerage the town of Champigny. The Sainte Chapelle of Champigny was built in 1508 by the princely house of Bourbon-Montpensier to receive a thorn of the crown of Christ and one of the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas. Urban VIII, who prior to his pontificate had said Mass there, later prevented its demolition; hence the preservation of this fine monument of the Renaissance is due to him. The church of Cande, built between 1175 and 1215 on the site where St. Martin died, is remarkable as a monument not only of religious but also of military architecture. At Tours in 1163 Alexander III excommunicated the antipope Victor and Frederick Barbarossa. It was at the Château of Chinon in 1429 that Joan of Arc first saw Charles VII and gave him confidence in her mission, and in the same year she sent to St-Catherine-de-Fierbois in the diocese to seek in the tomb of an ancient knight the sword of Charles Martel. In the fifteenth century Tours had a brilliant school of painting; unfortunately nothing remains of the paintings executed at Notre-Dame-la-Riche by Jehan Fouquet. The studio of the sculptor Michel Colomb was at Tours; his master production was the tomb of Francis II of Brittany in the cathedral of Nantes. The tomb of the children of Charles VIII in the cathedral of Tours was the collective work of Colomb and his pupils and of some Italian decorators. There are in Touraine a great many châteaux rich in historic memories, such as Plessis-les-Tours, the residence of Louis XI, Amboise, where was hatched the plot against the Guises under King Francis II; Chenonceaux, built by Francis I, the residence of Diana of Poitiers and later of Catherine de' Medici; Langeais, where Charles VIII wedded Anne of Brittany. Of the château of Chanteloup near Amboise, where the Duc de Choiseul went into exile, there remains only the pagoda. A number of saints are honoured in a special manner or are connected with the religious history of the diocese: Sts. Maura and Brigitta, virgins (end of fourth century); St. Flodovaeus (Flovier), martyr (fifth century); St. Ursus (Ours), founder of the Abbey of Sennevieres, patron of the town of Loches, d. about 508; St. Leubatius (Leubais), Abbot of Sennevières (sixth century); St. Senoch, solitary and abbot, d. in 579; St. Leobardus (Libert), hermit of the grottos of Marmoutier, d. in 593; St. Odo, first Abbot of Cluny, d. at Tours in 942; St. Avertinus, deacon, companion in exile of St. Thomas Becket, d. in Touraine about 1189; Bl. Jeanne-Marie de Maillé, d. in 1414 after having spent her widowhood in the practice of a rigorously ascetic life near the Basilica of St. Martin. Among the natives of the diocese were: the great prose writer Rabelais (1495-1553), b. at Chinon; the philosopher Descartes (l596-1650), b. at La Haye-Descartes; the Abbé de Marolles (1600-81), b. at Genillé, celebrated for his translations, and whose collection of prints formed the basis of that of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; Saint-Martin, called the unknown philosopher (1743-1803), b. at Amboise; the poet Alfred de Vigny (1797-1863), b. at Loches; Balzac (1790-1850), b. at Tours. The chief places of pilgrimage in the diocese besides the grottos of Marmoutier, are: Notre-Dame-la-Riche, a sanctuary erected on the site of a church dating from the third century, and where the founder St. Gatianus is venerated; Notre-Dame-de-Loches; St. Christopher and St. Giles at St-Christophe, a pilgrimage dating from the ninth century; the pilgrimage to the Holy Face, established by M. Dupont, "the Holy Man of Tours", who founded the Priests of the Holy Face canonically erected on 8 December, 1876, to administer the chapel. Before the application of the law of 1901 there were in the diocese Jesuits, Lazarists, and various orders of teaching brothers. Several orders of women had their origin in the diocese the chief being: The Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, teaching and nursing, founded in 1684 at Sainville, in the Diocese of Chartres by Mother Marie Poussepin, and in 1813 transported to La Breteche near Tours; the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, teaching, founded in 1805 by the Abbe Guepin, rector of Notre-Dame-la-Riche, with mother-house at Tours; the Sisters of the Third Order of Carmel, since 1824 called the Sisters of St-Martin, teaching, with its mother-house at Bourgeuil. The religious congregations were directing in the diocese at the end of the nineteenth century 5 foundling asylums, 36 infant schools, 3 special houses for sick children, 5 orphanages for boys, 7 for girls, 1 house of retreat, 1 house of refuge, 18 hospitals or hospices, 2 dispensaries, 3 houses of religious for the care of the sick in their homes, 1 home for convalescents, 5 private hospitals and retreats. In the year 1911 the Archdiocese of Tours numbered 337,916 inhabitants, 23 deaneries, 37 first class parishes, and 254 succursal parishes. Gallia christiaina, nova, XIV (1856), 1-151, instr. 1-98; DUCHESNE, Les listes episcopales de la province de Tours (Paris, 1890); CHEVALIER, Les origines de l'eglise de Tours d'apres l'histoire (Tours, 1871); PITROU, L'episcopat tourangeau, notes biographiques (Tours, 1882) LAMBRON DE LIGNIN, Armorial des archeveques de Tours (Tours, 1858) DE LASTEYRIE, L'eglise S. Martin de Tours, etude critique sur l'histoire et Ia forme de ce monument du Ve au XIe siecle (Paris 1891) DELISLE, Memoirs sur l'ecole calligraphique de Tours au IX siecle (Paris, 1885); MARTENE, Histoire de l'abbaye de Marmoutver,ed. CHEVALIER (2 vols., Tours, 1874-75); CHANTELOU, Marmoutier cartulaire tourangeau et sceaux des abbes, ed. NOBILLAEU (Tours, 1879); CHEVALIER, Promenades pittoresques en Touraine (Tours, 1869); VITRY, Tours St less châteaux de Touraine (Paris 1905) VAUCELLES, Catalogus de lettres de Nicotas V, conc. la prov. eccl. de Tours (Paris, 1908). GEORGES GOYAU Charles-Francois Toustain Charles-François Toustain French Benedictine, and member of the Congregation of St-Maur, born at Repas in the Diocese of Séez, France, 13 October 1700, died at St-Denis, 1 July, 1754. He belonged to a family of note. On 20 July, 1718, he made the vows of the order at Jumièges. After finishing the philosophical and theological course at the Abbey of Fécamp he was sent to the monastery of Bonne-Nouvelle at Rouen to learn Hebrew and Greek. At the same time he studied Italian, English, German, and Dutch, in order to be able to understand the writers in these languages. He was not ordained priest until 1729 and then only at the express command of his superior. He always said Mass with much trepidation and only after long preparation. In 1730 he entered the Abbey of St-Ouen at Rouen, went later to St-Germain-des-Pres and Blancs-Manteaux, and died while taking his milk-cure at St-Denis. He had worn out his body by fasts and ascetic practices. His theological opinions were not entirely correct, as he inclined to Jansenism. As a scholar he made himself an honoured name. He worked for twenty years with a fellow-member of the order, Tassin, on an edition of the works of St. Theodore of Studium which was never printed, for a publisher could not be found. Another common undertaking of the two is the "Nouveau traité de diplomatique" (6 vols., 1750-65) in which they treated more fully and thouroughly the subjects taken up in Mabillon's great work "De re diplomatica". The publication of Toustain and Tassin is of permanent value. The last four volumes were edited by Tassin alone after Toustain's death. Of general interest among Toustain's personal writings are: "La vérité persecutée par l'erreur" (2 vols., 1733), a collection of the writings of the Fathers on the persecutions of the first eight centuries; and "L'authorité de miracles dans l'église" (no date), in which he expounds the opinion of St. Augustine. Tassin testifies that he was zealous in his duties, modest, and sincerely religious. TASSIN, Eloge de Toustain in Nouveau traité de diplomatique, II, IDEM, Hist. littéraire de la congrégation de St-Maur, II (Brussels, 1770); DE LAMA, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la congrégation de St-Maur (2nd ed., Munich-Paris, 1882), 174 sq. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Antoine-Augustin Touttee Antoine-Augustin Touttée A French Benedictine of the Maurist Congregation, b. at Riom, Department of Puy-de-Dôme, 13 Dec., 1677; d. at the Abbey of St. Germain-des-Prés, 25 Dec., 1718. He studied the humanities with the Oratorians at Riom, made vows at the Abbey of Vendôme, 29 Oct., 1698, and was ordained priest in December, 1702. He taught philosophy at Vendôme from 1702 to 1704 and theology at St-Benoît-sur-Loire from 1704-1708 and at St-Denis from 1708 to 1712. He then withdrew to St-Germain-des-Prés to prepare a new Greek edition and Latin translation of the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This was issued after his death by Prudent Maran under the title: "S. Cyrilli Hiersolymit. opera quae extant omnia et ejus nomine circumferunter; ad mss. codd. castigata" (Paris, 1720; also in P.G., XXXIII). It is preceded by three learned dissertations on the life, writings, and doctrine of St. Cyril, and was at the time the standard edition. TASSIN, Hist. litteraire de la congreg. de Saint-Maur (Brussels and Paris, 1770); German tr. (Frankfort, 1773-4), s.v.; LE CERF, Bibliotheque historique et critique des auteurs de la congreg. de Saint-Maur (The Hague, 1720), s.v. MICHAEL OTT Tower of Babel Tower of Babel The "Tower of Babel" is the name of the building mentioned in Genesis 11:1-9. History of the Tower The descendants of Noe had migrated from the "east" (Armenia) first southward, along the course of the Tigris, then westward across the Tigris into "a plain in the land of Sennar". As their growing number forced them to live in localities more and more distant from their patriarchal homes, "they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands." The work was soon fairly under way; "and they had brick instead of stones, and slime (asphalt) instead of mortar." But God confounded their tongue, so that they did not understand one another's speech, and thus scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. This is the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel. Thus far no Babylonian document has been discovered which refers clearly to the subject. Authorities like George Smith, Chad Boscawen, and Sayce believed they had discovered a reference to the Tower of Babel; but Frd. Delitzch pointed out that the translation of the precise words which determine the meaning of the text is most uncertain (Smith-Delitzsch. "Chaldaische Genesis", 1876, 120-124; Anmerk., p. 310). Oppert finds an allusion to the Tower of Babel in a text of Nabuchodonosor; but this opinion is hardly more than a theory (cf. "The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia", I, pl. 38, col. 2, line 62; pl. 41, col. 1, I. 27, col. 2, 1. 15; Nikel, "Genesis und Keilschriftforschung", 188 sqq.; Bezold, "Ninive und Babylon", 128; Jeremias, "Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients", 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1906, 286; Kaulen, "Assyrien und Babylonien", 89). A more probable reference to the Tower of Babel we find in the "History" of Berosus as it is handed down to us in two variations by Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor respectively ("Histor. Graec. Fragm.", ed. Didot, II, 512; IV, 282; Euseb., "Chron.", I, 18, in P.G., XIX, 123; "Praep. Evang.", IX, 14, in P.G., XXI, 705). Special interest attaches to this reference, since Berosus is now supposed to have drawn his material from Babylonian sources. Site of the Tower of Babel Both the inspired writer of Genesis and Berosus place the Tower of Babel somewhere in Babylon. But there are three principal opinions as to its precise position in the city. (1) Pietro della Valle ("Viaggi descritti", Rome, 1650) located the tower in the north of the city, on the left bank of the Euphrates, where now lie the ruins called Babil. Schrader inclines to the same opinion in Riehm's "Handworterbuch des biblischen Altertums" (I, 138), while in "The Cuneiform Inscriptions" (I, 108) he leaves to his reader the choice between Babil and the temple of Borsippa. The position of Babil within the limits of the ancient Babylon agrees with the Biblical location of the tower; the name Babil itself may be regarded as a traditional relic of the name Babel interpreted by the inspired writer as referring to the confusion of tongues. (2) Rawlinson (Smith-Sayce, "Chaldean account of the Genesis", 1880, pp. 74, 171) places the tower on the ruins of Tell-Amram, regarded by Oppert as the remnants of the hanging gardens. These ruins are situated on the same side of the Euphrates as those of the Babil, and also within the ancient city limits. The excavations of the German Orientgesellschaft have laid bare on this spot the ancient national sanctuary Esagila, sacred to Marduk-Bel, with the documentary testimony that the top of the building had been made to reach Heaven. This agrees with the description of the Tower of Babel as found in Genesis 11:4: "The top whereof may reach to heaven". To this locality belongs also the tower Etemenanki, or house of the foundation of Heaven and earth, which is composed of six gigantic steps. (3) Sayce (Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, p. 112-3, 405-7), Oppert ("Expédition en Mésopotamie", I, 200-16; "Études assyriennes", pp. 91-132), and others follow the more common opinion which identifies the tower of Babel with the ruins of the Birs-Nimrud, in Borsippa, situated on the right side of the Euphrates, some seven or eight miles from the ruins of the city proper. They are the ruins of the temple Ezida, sacred to Nebo, which according to the above-cited inscription of Nabuchodonosor, was repaired and completed by that king; for it had been left incomplete by a former ruler in far distant days. These data are too vague to form the basis of an apodictic argument. The Babylonian Talmud (Buxtorf, "Lexicon talmudicum", col. 313) connects Borsippa with the confusion of tongues; but a long period elapsed from the time of the composition of Genesis 11 to the time of the Babylonian Talmud. Besides, the Biblical account seems to imply that the tower was within the city limits, while it is hardly probably that the city limits extended to Borsippa in very ancient times. The historical character of the tower is not impaired by our inability to point out its location with certainty. Form of the Tower of Babel The form of the tower must have resembled the constructions which today exist only in a ruined condition in Babylonia; the most ancient pyramids of Egypt present a vestige of the same form. Cubic blocks of masonry, decreasing in size, are piled one on top of the other, thus forming separate stories; an inclined plane or stairway leads from one story to the other. The towers of Ur and Arach contained only two or three stories, but that of Birs-Nimrud numbered seven, not counting the high platform on which the building was erected. Each story was painted in its own peculiar colour according to the planet to which it was dedicated. Generally the corners of these towers faced the four points of the compass, while in Egypt this position was held by the sides of the pyramids. On top of these constructions there was a sanctuary, so that they served both as temples and observatories. Their interior consisted of sun-dried clay, but the outer walls were coated with fire-baker brick. The asphalt peculiar to the Babylonian neighbourhood served as mortar; all these details are in keeping with the report of Genesis. Though some writers maintain that every Babylonian city possessed such a tower, or zikkurat (meaning "pointed" according to Schrader, "raised on high" according to Haupt, "memorial" according to Vigouroux), no complete specimen has been preserved to us. The Tower of Khorsabad is perhaps the best preserved, but Assyrian sculpture supplements our knowledge of even this construction. The only indication of the time at which the Tower of Babel was erected, we find in the name of Phaleg (Genesis 11:10-17), the grandnephew of Heber; this places the date somewhere between 101 and 870 years after the Flood. The limits are so unsatisfactory, because the Greek Version differs in its numbers from the Massoretic text. Besides the works indicted in the course of the articles, see RAWLINSON, The Five Great Monarchies, II (London, 1862-7, 1878), 534-5; SCHRADER-WHITEHOUSE, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, I (London, 1885-8), 106-14; HOBERG, Genesis, 2nd ed. (Freiburg, 1899), 129. For critical view, see SKINNER, Genesis (New York, 1910, 228 sqq. A.J. MAAS Alexandre de Prouville, Marquis de Tracy Alexandre De Prouville, Marquis de Tracy Viceroy of New France, born in France, 1603, of noble parents; died there in 1670. A soldier from his youth, he had proved his valour in many battles and won the rank of lieutenant-general of the king's armies. He was no less prudent and wise as a negotiator and organizer. Entrusted by Louis XIV with a most extensive mission and jurisdiction over all the French possessions in the New World, he first redeemed Cayenne from the Dutch, restored order to the Antilles, and reached Quebec in 1665. He had been preceded by the Carignan regiment which had distinguished itself against the Turks in Hungary (1664) and was entitled to bear the royal colours. With the concurrence of Courcelles, the newly-appointed governor, and Talon, the famous intendant, he inaugurated a glorious period in the history of New France. To secure peace for the colony war was decided against the Agniers, and in spite of his advanced age, Tracy commanded the invading army. The year previous he had ordered the construction of three forts on the Richelieu River, including those of Sorel and Chambly. The enemies had fled from their villages, which were destroyed, and Tracy returned with nearly all his men. The humiliated Agniers sued for peace and asked for missionaries to instruct them in the Faith. Tracy with his two associates then devoted himself to the organization of the courts of justice and to the promotion of agriculture and industry. During his administration were imported the first horses seen in Canada. Tracy's noble and conciliatory conduct endeared him to the colonists and won the respect both of the aborigines and of the authorities of New York. His administration was marked by two chief events full of promise for the prosperity of the colony: the abolition of the monopoly of the West India company, which had replaced that of New France, and the conclusion of a peace with the Iroquois which lasted eighteen years and facilitated several brilliant discoveries in the interior of the continent. LIONEL LINDSAY Tradition and Living Magisterium Tradition and Living Magisterium The word tradition (Greek paradosis in the ecclesiastical sense; which is the only one in which it is used here; refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission (kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica). In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, in the second sense tradition relates that on the road to Calvary a pious woman wiped the face of Jesus. In theological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions. At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles. Finally with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority. Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. Such are in this respect the two main points of controversy between Catholics and so-called orthodox Protestants (as distinguished from liberal Protestants, who admit neither supernatural Revelation nor the authority of the Bible). The other differences are connected with these or follow from them, as also the differences between different Protestant sects--according as they are more or less faithful to the Protestant principle, they recede from or approach the Catholic position. Between Catholics and the Christian sects of the East there are not the same fundamental differences, since both sides admit the Divine institution and Divine authority of the Church with the more or less living and explicit sense of its infallibility and indefectibility and its other teaching prerogatives, but there are contentions concerning the bearers of the authority, the organic unity of the teaching body, the infallibility of the pope, and the existence and nature of dogmatic development in the transmission of revealed truth. Nevertheless the theology of tradition does not consist altogether in controversy and discussions with adversaries. Many questions arise in this respect for every Catholic who wishes to give an exact account of his belief and the principles he professes: What is the precise relation between oral tradition and the revealed truths in the Bible and that between the living magisterium and the inspired Scriptures? May new truths enter the current of tradition, and what is the part of the magisterium with regard to revelations which God may yet make? How is this official magisterium organized, and how is it to recognize a Divine tradition or revealed truth? What is its proper rôle with regard to tradition? Where and how are revealed truths preserved and transmitted? What befalls the deposit of tradition in its transmission through the ages? These and similar questions are treated elsewhere in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, but here we must separate and group all that has reference to tradition and to the living magisterium inasmuch as it is the organ of preservation and transmission of traditional and revealed truth. The following are the points to be treated: I. The existence of Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, and the Divine institution of the living magisterium to defend and transmit revealed truth and the prerogative of this magisterium; II. The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture; III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth; IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth; its limits, and modes of action; V. The identity of revealed truth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development; the identity of faith in the Church and through the variations of theology. A full treatment of these questions would require a lengthy development; here only a brief outline can be given, the reader being referred to special works for a fuller explanation. I. Divine Traditions not contained in Holy Scripture; institution of the living magisterium; its prerogatives. Luther's attacks on the Church were at first directed only against doctrinal details, but the very authority of the Church was involved in the dispute, and this soon became evident to both sides. However the controversy continued for many years to turn on particular points of traditional teaching rather than on the teaching authority and the chief weapons were Biblical texts. The Council of Trent, even while implying in its decisions and anathemas the authority of the living magisterium (which the Protestants themselves dared not explicitly deny), while appealing to ecclesiastical tradition and the sense of the Church either for the determination of the canon or for the interpretation of some passages of Holy Scripture, even while making a rule of interpretation in Biblical matters, did not pronounce explicitly concerning the teaching authority, contenting itself with saying that revealed truth is found in the sacred books and in the unwritten traditions coming from God through the Apostles; these were the sources from which it would draw. The Council, as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church. Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. Calvin parried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate. And this in fact was the only loophole, for Calvin recognized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. The Protestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by the infallible Church, to rest their faith in the Bible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner of doubts and prepared the way for Biblical rationalism. There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ. In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma. These disputes, anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine intention. Hence the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret the Bible. To say that the Bible was perfectly clear and sufficient to all was obviously a retort born of desperation, a defiance of experience and common sense. Catholics refuted it without difficulty, and their position was amply justified when the Protestants began compromising themselves with the civil power, rejecting the doctrinal authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium only to fall under that of princes. Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book. The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Briefly the Church continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full of truth no less than of grace, the Church is likewise an institution of truth as it is an institution of grace. This doctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task required miracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles the miraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with their doctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Their miracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is not necessary that every missionary should work miracles, the Church herself is an ever-living miracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness that God is with her. II. The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture. This relation is the same as that between the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. Christ made use of the Bible, He appealed to it as to an irrefragable authority, He explained and interpreted it and furnished the key to it, with it he shed light on His own doctrine and mission. The Apostles did in like manner when they spoke to the Jews. Both sides had access to the Scriptures in a text admitted by all, both recognized in them a Divine authority, as in the very word of God. This was also the way of the faithful in their studies and discussions; but with pagans and unbelievers it was necessary to begin with presenting the Bible and guaranteeing its authority -- the Christian doctrine concerning the Bible had to be explained to the faithful themselves, and the guarantee of this doctrine demonstrated. The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. It was the Church's part to guard the Bible, to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what she knew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moral doctrine with a view to our supernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, the Old Testament being a preparation and annunciation of the Messias and the new dispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies. It was for the Church in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case of doubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even when necessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity, chronology, exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or the veracity of its doctrine or to maintain a given body of revealed truth contained in a given text. It was above all for the Church to circulate the Divine Book by minting its doctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourish souls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium. On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture. There it finds the word of God, new-blown so to speak, as it was expressed under Divine agency by the inspired author; while oral tradition, although faithfully transmitting revealed truth with the Divine assistance, nevertheless transmits it only in human formulas. Scripture gives us beyond doubt to a certain extent a human expression of the truth which it presents, since this truth is developed in and by a human brain acting in a human manner, but also to a certain extent Divine, since this human development takes place wholly under the action of God. So also with due proportion it may be said of the inspired word what Christ said of His: It is spirit and life. In a sense differing from the Protestant sense which sometimes goes so far as to deify the Bible, but, in a true sense, we admit that God speaks to us in the Bible more directly than in oral teaching. The latter, moreover, ever faithful to the recommendations which St. Paul made to his disciple Timothy, does not fail to have recourse to Biblical sources for its instruction and to draw thence the heavenly doctrine, to take thence with the doctrine a sure, ever-young, and ever-living expression of this doctrine, one more adequate than any other despite the inevitable inadaptability of human formulas to divine realities In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon against error and heresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it. Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are not infallible as individuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable to error or heresy. As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question. It claims this power of infallible interpretation only in matters of faith and morals, that is where religious or moral truth is in danger, directly, if the text or passage belongs to the moral and religious order; indirectly, if in assigning a meaning to a text or book the veracity of the Bible, its moral value, or the dogma of its inspiration or inerrancy is imperilled. Without going further into the manifold services which the Bible renders to the living magisterium mention must nevertheless be made as particularly important of its services in the apologetic order. In fact Scripture by its historic value, which is indisputable and undisputed on many points, furnishes the apologist with irrefragable arguments in support of supernatural religion. It contains for example miracles whose reality is impressed on the historian with the same certainty as the most acknowledged facts. This is true and perhaps more strikingly so of the argument from the prophecies, for the Scriptures, the Old as well as the New Testament, contain manifest prophecies, the fulfilment of which we behold either in Christ and His Apostles or in the later development of the Christian religion. In view of all this it will be readily understood that since the time of St. Paul the Church has urgently recommended to her ministers the study of Holy Scripture, that she has watched with a jealous authority over its integral transmission, its exact translation, and its faithful interpretation If occasionally she has seemed to restrict its use or its diffusion this too was through an easily comprehensible love and a particular esteem for the Bible, that the sacred Book might not like a profane book be made a ground for curiosity, endless discussions, and abuses of every kind. In short, since the Church at last proves to be the best safeguard for human reason against the excesses of an unbridled reason, so by the very avowal of sincere Protestants does she show herself at the present day the best defender of the Bible against an unrestrained Biblicism or an unchecked criticism. III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth. There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal rôles of the living magisterium. But this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself. To better understand the latter it must be represented as a current of life and truth coming from God through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism. This conception of tradition is not always clear to all at the first glance. It must be reached, however, if we wish to form a clear and exact idea. We can endeavour to explain it to ourselves in the following manner: We are all conscious of an assemblage of ideas or opinions living in our mind and forming part of the very life of our mind, sometimes they find their clear expression, again we find ourselves without the exact formula wherewith to express them to ourselves or to others an idea is in search as it were of its expression, sometimes it even acts in us and leads us to actions without our having as yet the reflective consciousness of it. Something similar may be said of the ideas or opinions which live, as it were, and stir the social sentiment of a people, a family, or any other well-characterized group to form what is called the spirit of the day, the spirit of a family, or the spirit of a people. This common sentiment is in a sense nothing else than the sum of individual sentiments, and yet we feel clearly that it is quite another thing than the individual taken individually. It is a fact of experience that there is a common sentiment, as if there were such a thing as a common spirit, and as if this common spirit were the abode of certain ideas and opinions which are doubtless the ideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are the ideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of the Church, the sense or sentiment of the faithful, that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her. The living idea is the idea of all, it is the idea of individuals, not merely inasmuch as they are individuals, but inasmuch as they form part of the same social body. This sentiment of the Church is peculiar in this, that it is itself under the influence of grace. Hence it follows that it is not subject, like that of other human groups to error and thoughtless or culpable tendencies. The Spirit of God always living in His Church upholds the sense of revealed truth ever living therein. Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of the Church the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of the Church. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to express revealed truth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of to-day with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries. The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by them. Harnack has said that the Church is accustomed to conceal her evolution and to efface as well as she can the differences between her present and her former thought by condemning as heretical the most faithful witnesses of what was formerly orthodoxy. Not understanding what tradition is, the ever-living thought of the Church, he believes that she abjured her past when she merely distinguished between what was traditional truth in the past and what was only human alloy mixed with that truth, the personal opinion of an author substituting itself for the general thought of the Christian community. With regard to official documents, the expression of the infallible magisterium of the Church embodied in the decision of councils, or the solemn judgments of the popes, the Church never gainsays what she has once decided. She is then linked with her past because in this past her entire self is concerned and not any fallible organ of her thought. Hence she still finds her doctrine and rule of faith in these venerable monuments; the formulas may have grown old, but the truth which they express is always her present thought. IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth--its limits and modes of action. Closer study of the living magisterium will enable us to better understand the splendid organism created by God and gradually developed that it might preserve, transmit, and bring within the reach of all revealed truth, ever the same, but adapted to every variety of time, circumstances, and environment. Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents the truth, but it has the right to impose it, since its power is the very power given by God to Christ and by Christ to His Church. This authority is called the teaching Church. The teaching Church is essentially composed of the episcopal body, which continues here below the work and mission of the Apostolic College. It was indeed in the form of a college or social body that Christ grouped His Apostles and it is likewise as a social body that the episcopate exercises its mission to teach. Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body and to the head of that body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, with this difference, however, between the Apostles and the bishops that each Apostle was personally infallible (in virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated to St. Paul as to the Twelve), whereas only the body of bishops is infallible and each bishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire episcopal body. At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church. Beside the sovereign pontiff are the Roman Congregations, many of which are especially concerned with doctrinal questions. Some of them, such as the Congregation of the Index, are not so concerned save from a disciplinary standpoint, by prohibiting the reading of certain books, regarded as dangerous to faith or morals, if not by the very doctrine which they contain, at least by their way of expressing it or by their unseasonableness. Other congregations, that of the Inquisition, for example, have a more directly doctrinal authority. This authority is never infallible; it is nevertheless binding and exacts a religious submission, interior as well as exterior. Nevertheless this interior submission does not necessarily bear on the absolute truth or falsity of the doctrine concerned in the decree, it may only bear on the safety or danger of a certain teaching or opinion, the decree itself usually having in view only the moral qualification of the doctrine. To assist them in their doctrinal task the bishops have all those who teach by their authority or under their surveillance; pastors and curates, professors in ecclesiastical establishments, in a word, all who teach or explain Christian doctrine. Theological teaching in all its forms (in seminaries, universities, etc.) gives valuable assistance as a whole to the teaching authority and to all who teach under that authority. In the study of theology the masters themselves have acquired the knowledge which usually assists them to discern truth or falsehood in doctrinal matters, they have drawn thence what they themselves are to provide. Theologians as such do not form a part of the teaching Church, but as professional expounders of revealed truth they study it scientifically, they collect and systematize it, they illumine it with all the lights of philosophy, history, etc. They are, as it were, the natural consultors of the teaching authority, to furnish it with the necessary information and data; they thereby prepare and sometimes in an even more direct manner by their reports, their written consultations, their projects or schemata, and their preparatory redactions the official documents which the teaching authority completely develops and publishes authoritatively. On the other hand, their scientific works are useful for the instruction of those who should spread and popularize the doctrine, put it in circulation, and adapt it to all by speech or writings of every kind. It is evident what marvellous unity is attained on this point alone in ecclesiastical teaching and how the same truth, descended from above, distributed through a thousand different channels, finally comes pure and undefiled to the most lowly and the most ignorant. This multifarious work, of scientific exposition as well as of popularization and propaganda, is likewise assisted by the countless written forms of religious teaching, among which catechisms have a special character of doctrinal security, approved as they are by the teaching authority and claiming only to set forth with clearness and precision the teaching common in the Church. Thus the child who learns his catechism may, provided he is informed of it, take cognizance that the doctrine presented to him is not the personal opinion of the volunteer catechist or of the priest who communicates it to him. The catechism is the same in all the parishes of a diocese, apart from a few differences of detail which have no bearing on doctrine all the catechisms of a country are alike; the differences between those of one country and another are scarcely perceptible. It is truly the mind of the Church received from God or Christ and transmitted by the Apostles to the Christian society which thus reaches even little children by the voice of the catechist, or the savage by that of the missionary. This diffusion of the same truth throughout the world and this unity of the same faith among the most diverse peoples is a marvel which by itself forces the recognition that God is with His Church. St. Irenaeus in his time was in admiration of it and he expressed his admiration in language of such brilliancy and poetry as is seldom to be met with in the venerable Bishop of Lyons. The outer and visible cause of its diffusion and unity is the splendid organization of the living magisterium. This magisterium was not instituted to receive new truths, but to guard, transmit, propagate, and preserve revealed truth from every admixture of error, and to cause it to prevail. Moreover the magisterium should not be considered as external to the community of the faithful. Those who teach cannot and should not teach save what they have learned themselves, those who have the office of teachers have been chosen from among the faithful and they first of all are obliged to believe what they propose to the faith of others. Moreover they usually propose to the belief of the faithful only the truths of which the latter have already made more or less explicit profession. Sometimes it is even by sounding as it were the common sentiment of the Church, still more by scrutinizing the monuments of the past, that masters and theologians discover that such and such a doctrine, perhaps in dispute, belongs nevertheless to the traditional deposit. More than one among the faithful may be unconscious of personal belief in it, but if he is in union of thought with the Church he believes implicitly that which perhaps he declines to recognize explicitly as an object of his faith. It was thus with regard to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was inserted in the explicit faith of the Church. Hence there is between the teaching Church and the faithful an intimate union of thought and heart. The teaching authority loses nothing of its rights; these are limited only from above by the very conditions of the command which they have received. But the exercise of this authority is by so much more certain and easy as the faithful, generally, so to speak, confirm by their adhesion the decisions of this authority: a dogmatic definition scarcely does more than sanction the faith already existing in the Christian community. The better to understand, adapt, and preserve revealed truth against attacks or errors the masters in the Church and the professors of theology naturally appeal to all the resources offered by human science. Among these sciences philosophy, history, languages, philology in all its forms necessarily have an important place in the arsenal of the teaching magisterium. With regard to theological systematization in particular, philosophy necessarily intervenes to assist theology better to comprehend revealed truth, the better to synthesize traditional data, and the better to explain the dogmatic idea. In the Middle Ages a fruitful alliance was formed between Scholastic philosophy and theology. It may happen that philosophy and the other human sciences are at variance with theology, the science of revealed truth. The conflict is never insoluble, for the true can never be opposed to the true, nor the human truth of philosophy and human knowledge to the supernatural truth of theology. But the fact remains that scientific hypothesis, science which seeks itself, and philosophy which develops itself sometimes seem in opposition to revealed truth. In this case the teaching Church has the right, in order to preserve traditional truth, to condemn the assertions, opinions, and hypotheses which, although not direct denials, nevertheless endanger it or rather expose some souls to the loss of it. Authority has need to be prudent in these condemnations and it is well known that the cases are very rare when it may be asserted with any appearance of justification that it has not been sufficiently so, but its right to interfere is indisputable for anyone who admits the Divine institution of the magisterium. There are then between purely profane facts and opinions and revealed truths mixed facts and opinions which by their nature belong to the human order, but which are in intimate contact and close connexion with supernatural truth. These facts are called dogmatic facts and these opinions theological opinions. In very virtue of its mission the teaching authority has jurisdiction over these facts and opinions; it is even a positive truth, if not a revealed truth, that dogmatic facts and theological opinions may also like dogmatic truths themselves be the object of an infallible decision. The Church is no less infallible in maintaining that the five famous propositions are in Jansenism than in condemning these propositions as heretical. A distinction must be made between dogmatic traditions or revealed truths, pious traditions, liturgical customs, and the accounts of supernatural manifestations or revelations which circulate in the world of Christian piety. When the Church intervenes in order to pronounce in these matters it is never to canonize them, if we may so speak, nor to give them an authority of faith; in such cases it claims only to preserve them against temerarious attacks, to pronounce that they contain nothing contrary to faith or morals, and to recognize in them a human value sufficient for piety to nourish itself therewith freely and without danger. V. The identity of revealed truth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development, the identity of faith in the Church and through the variations of theology. The saying of Sully Prud'homme is well known, "How is it that this which is so complicated (the 'Summa' of St. Thomas) has proceeded from what was so simple (the Gospel)?" In fact when we read a theological treatise or the profession of faith and anti-Modernist oath imposed by Pius X they seem at first glance very different from the Holy Scripture or the Apostles' Creed. On closer study we become aware that the differences are not irreconcilable; despite appearances the "Summa" and the anti-Modernist oath are naturally linked with the Scripture and the faith of the first Christians. To grasp thoroughly the identity of revealed truth such as was believed in the early centuries with the dogmas which we now profess, it is necessary to study thoroughly the process of dogmatic expression in the complete history of dogma and theology. It is sufficient here to indicate its general outlines and characteristics. That which was shown in Scripture or the Evangelic Revelation as a living reality (the Divine Person of Jesus Christ) has been formulated in abstract terms (one person, two natures) or in concrete formulas (my Father and I are one); men passed constantly from the implicit seen or received to the explicit reasoned and reflected upon; they analyzed the complex data, compared the separate elements, built up a system of the scattered truths; they cleared up by analogies of faith and the light of reason points which were still obscure and fused them into a whole, in whose parts the data of Divine Revelation and those of human knowledge were sometimes difficult to distinguish. Briefly all this led to a work of transposition, analysis, and synthesis, of deduction and induction, of the elaboration of the revealed matter by theology. In the course of this work the formulas have changed, the Divine realities have become tinged with the colours of human thought, revealed truths have been mingled with those of science and philosophy, but the heavenly doctrine has remained the same throughout the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic expression. It is seen at different angles and to a certain extent with other eyes, but it is the same truth which was presented to the first Christians and which is presented to us to-day. To this identity of revealed truth corresponds the identity of faith. What the first Christians believed we still believe; what we believe to-day they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the living faith. Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith. Certain truths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in the Church either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, enveloped, as regards their precise detail, in a more general truth where faith did not discern them at the first glance. In the first case at a given time uncertainties may have existed, controversies have arisen, heresies cropped up. But the mind of the Church, the Catholic sense, has not hesitated as to what was essential, there has never been in the Christian world that darkening of the truth with which heretics have reproached it; these might have seen and they who had eyes to see did see. On these points disputes have never arisen among the faithful; there have sometimes been very sharp disputes, but they had to do with misunderstandings or bore only on details of expression. As regards truths such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e. g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ). It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church implied absolute exemption from all sin without exception, even from original sin; the faithful whom theological preoccupations did not prevent from beholding this idea in its purity, with that intuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and reflected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to the expression of St. Augustine, that there should be question of any sin whatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because the theologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment, had themselves to follow the movement, but because their perceptions, quickened by the faithful and by their own instinct of faith, grew more considerate of the sentiment of the faithful and eventually examined the new opinion more closely in order to make sure that, far from contradicting any dogma, it harmonized wonderfully with other revealed truths and corresponded as a whole to the analogy of faith and rational fitness. Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed. Thus to implicit faith in a revealed truth succeeded, after long discussions, explicit faith in the same truth thenceforth shining in the sight of all. There have been no new data, but there has been under the impulse of grace and sentiment and the effort of theology a more distinct and clear insight into what the ancient data contained. When the Church defined the Immaculate Conception it defined what was actually in the explicit faith of the faithful what had always been implicitly in that faith. The same is true of all similar cases, save for accidental differences of circumstances. In recognizing a new truth the Church thereby recognizes that it already possessed that truth. There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium and ecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense of truth in the Church, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditional truth lives and develops in the Church, always the same, at once ancient and new--ancient, for the first Christians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our present ideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life. JEAN BAINVEL Traditionalism Traditionalism A philosophical system which makes tradition the supreme criterion and rule of certitude. Exposition According to traditionalism, human reason is of itself radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order. Hence our first act of knowledge must be an act of faith, based on the authority of revelation. This revelation is transmitted to us through society, and its truth is guaranteed by tradition or the general consent of mankind. Such is the philosophical system maintained chiefly, in its absolute form, by the Vicomte de Bonald and F. de Lamennais in their respective works and, with some mitigation, by Bautain, Bonetty, Ventura, Ubaghs, and the school of Louvain. According to de Bonald, man is essentially a social being. His development comes through society; and the continuity and progress of society have their principle in tradition. Now language is the instrument of sociability, and speech is as natural to man as is his social nature itself. Language could not have been discovered by man, for "man needs signs or words in order to think as well as in order to speak"; that is "man thinks his verbal expression before he verbally expresses his thought"; but originally language, in its fundamental elements together with the thoughts which it expresses, was given him by God His Creator (cf. Législation primitive, I, ii). These fundamental truths, absolutely necessary to the intellectual, moral, and religious life of man, must be first accepted by faith. They are communicated through society and education, and warranted by tradition or universal reason of mankind. There is no other basis for certitude and there remains nothing, besides tradition, but human opinions, contradiction, and uncertainty (cf. Recherches philosophiques, i, ix). The system presented by Lamennais is almost identical with that of de Bonald. Our instruments of knowledge, namely sense, feeling, and reason, he says, are fallible. The rule of certitude therefore can only be external to man and it can consist only in the control of the individual senses, feelings, and reasoning by the testimony of the senses, feelings, and reason of all other men; their universal agreement is the rule of certitude. Hence, to avoid scepticism, we must begin with an act of faith preceding all reflection, since reflection pre-supposes the knowledge of some truth. This act of faith must have its criterion and rule in the common consent or agreement of all, in the general reason (la raison générale). "Such is", Lamennais concludes, "the law of human nature", outside of which "there is no certitude, no language no society, no life" (cf. Défense de l'Essai sur l'Indifférence, xi). The Mitigated Traditionalists make a distinction between the order of acquisition (ordo acquisitionis) and the order of demonstration (ordo demonstrationis). The knowledge of metaphysical truths, they say, is absolutely necessary to man in order to act reasonably. It must then be acquired by the child through teaching or tradition before he can use his reason. And this tradition can have its source only in a primitive revelation. Hence, in the order of acquisition, faith precedes science. With these truths, however, received by faith, human reason is able, through reflection, to demonstrate the reasonableness of this act of faith, and thus, in the order of demonstration, science precedes faith. When replaced in its historical surroundings, Traditionalism clearly appears as a reaction and a protest against the rationalism of the philosophers of the eighteenth century and the anarchic individualism of the French Revolution. Against these errors it pointed out and emphasized the weakness and insufficiency of human reason, the influence of society, education, and tradition on the development of human life and institutions. The reaction was extreme, and landed in the opposite error. Criticism Since Traditionalism, in its fundamental principles, is a kind of Fideism, it falls under the condemnation pronounced by the Church and under the refutation furnished by reason and philosophy against Fideism. We may, however, advance certain criticisms touching the characteristic elements of Traditionalism. It is evident, first of all, that authority, whatever be the way or agency in which it is presented to us, cannot of itself be the supreme criterion or rule of certitude. For, in order to be a rule of certitude, it must first be known as valid, competent, and legitimate, and reason must have ascertained this before it is entitled to our assent (cf. St. Thomas, I-II:2:1). Without entering upon the psychological problem of the relations between thought and expression, and even admitting with de Bonald that the primitive elements of thought and language were originally given directly by God to man, we are not forced to conclude logically with him that our first act is an act of faith. Our first act should rather be an act of reason, acknowledging, by natural reflection, the credibility of the truths revealed by God. Lamennais's criterion of universal reason or consent is open to the same objections. First, how could universal consent or general reason, which is nothing more than the collection of individual judgments or of individual reasons, give certitude, when each of these individual judgments is only matter of opinion or each of these individual reasons is declared to be fallible? Again, how could we in practice apply such a criterion, that is, how could we ascertain the universality of such a judgment in the whole human race, even if only moral universality were required? Moreover, what would be, in this system, the criterion of truth, concerning matters in which the human mind is not generally interested, or in the scientific problems of which it is generally incompetent? But above all, in order to give a firm and unhesitating assent to the teaching of universal consent, we must first have ascertained the reasonableness and legitimacy of its claims to our assent; that is, reason must ultimately precede faith, otherwise our assent would not be reasonable. Mitigated or Semi-Traditionalism, in spite of its apparent differences, is substantially identical with pure Traditionalism, and falls under the same criticism, since religious and moral truths are declared to be given to man directly by Revelation and accepted by him antecedently to any act of his reason. Moreover, there is no real foundation for the essential distinction between the orders of invention and demonstration, which is supposed to distinguish Semi-Traditionalism from pure Traditionalism. The difference between these two orders is only accidental. It consists in the fact that it is easier to demonstrate a truth already known than to discover it for the first time; but the faculties and process used in both operations are essentially the same, since to demonstrate a truth already known is simply to reproduce, under the guidance of this knowledge, the operation performed and to take again the path followed in its first discovery (cf. St. Thomas, "De Veritate", Q. xi, a. 1). Semi-Traditionalism and absolute Traditionalism, then, rest upon the same fundamental error, namely, that ultimately faith precedes reason. Let us point out, however, the partial truth contained in Traditionalism. Against Individualism and Rationalism, it rightly insisted upon the social character of man, and rightly maintained that authority and education play a large part in the intellectual, moral, and religious development of man. Rightly also it recalled to the human mind the necessity of respect for tradition, for the experience and teaching it contains, to secure a true and solid progress Universal consent may indeed be, in certain conditions; a criterion of truth. In many circumstances, it may furnish suggestion for the discovery of truth or afford confirmation of the truth already discovered, but it can never be the supreme criterion and rule of truth. Unless we admit that our reason is of itself capable of knowing with certainty some fundamental truths, we logically end in scepticism-the ruin of both human knowledge and faith. The true doctrine, as taught by the Catholic Church and confirmed by psychology and history, is that man is physically and practically able to know with certainty some fundamental truths of the natural, moral, and religious order, but that, although he has the physical power, he remains in the conditions of the present life, morally and practically incapable of knowing sufficiently all the truths of the moral and religious order, without the help of Divine Revelation (cf. Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. ii). GEORGE M. SAUVAGE Traducianism Traducianism Traducianism (tradux, a shoot or sprout, and more specifically a vine branch made to take root so as to propagate the vine), in general the doctrine that, in the process of generation, the human spiritual soul is transmitted to the offspring by the parents. When a distinction is made between the terms Traducianism and Generationism, the former denotes the materialistic doctrine of the transmission of the soul by the organic process of generation, while the latter applies to the doctrine according to which the soul of the offspring originates from the parental soul in some mysterious way analogous to that in which the organism originates from the parent's organism. Traducianism is opposed to Creationism or the doctrine that every soul is created by God. Both, however, against Emanationism and Evolutionism (q.v.) admit that the first human soul originated by creation. They differ only as to the mode of origin of subsequent souls. In the early centuries of the Christian Church, the Fathers who touch upon this question defend the immediate creation of the soul. Tertullian, Apollinaris, and a few other heretics advocate Traducianism, but the testimony of Saint Jerome (Epist. cxxvi, 1) that "the majority of Oriental writers think that, as the body is born of the body, so the soul is born of the soul" seems exaggerated, as no other writer of prominence is found to advocate Generationism as certain. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius, Rufinus, Nemesius, although their views on this point are not always clear, seem to prefer Generationism. After the rise of Pelagianism, some Fathers hesitate between Generationism and Creationism, thinking that the former offers a better, if not the only, explanation of the transmission of original sin. Among them Saint Augustine is the most important. Creationism is held as certain by the Scholastics, with the exception of Hugh of Saint Victor and Alexander of Hales, who propose it merely as more probable. In recent times Generationism has been rejected by all Catholic theologians. Exceptions are Froschammer who defends Generationism and gives to the generation of the soul from the parents the name of secondary creation; Klee and Ubaghs who leave the question undecided; Hermes who favours Generationism; Gravina who advocates it- and Rosmini who asserts that the sensitive soul is generated by the parents, and becomes spiritual when God illuminates it and manifests to it the idea of being which is the foundation of the whole intellectual life. From the philosophical point of view, the reasons alleged in favour of Generationism have little or no value. The parents are really generators of their offspring even if the soul comes from God, for the generative process is the condition of the union of body and soul which constitutes the human being. A murderer really kills a man, although he does not destroy his soul. Nor is man inferior to animals because they generate complete living organisms, since the difference between man and animals comes from the superiority of the human soul and from its spiritual nature which requires that it should be created by God. On the other hand the reasons against Generationism are cogent. The organic process of generation cannot give rise to a spiritual substance, and to. say that the soul is transmitted in the corporeal semen is to make it intrinsically dependent on matter. The process of spiritual generation is impossible. since the soul is immaterial and indivisible, no spiritual germ can be detached from the Parental soul (cf. St. Thomas, "Contra gent." II, c 86; "Sum. theol." I:90:2, I:98:2, etc.). As to the power of creation, it is the prerogative of God alone (see CREATION, VI). Theologically, corporeal Traducianism is heretical because it goes directly against the spirituality of the soul. As to Generationism, it is certainly opposed to the general attitude of the Church. Froschammer's book, "Ueber den Ursprung der menschlichen Seelen", was condemned in 1857, and Ubaghs's opinion expressed in his "Anthropologiae philosophicae elementa" was reproved in a letter of Cardinal Patrizi written by authority of Pius IX to the Archbishop of Mechlin (2 March, 1866). Moreover, Anastasius II in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (498) condemns Generationism (Thiel, "Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum", 634 sqq.). In the Symbol to be subscribed to by Bishop Peter of Antioch (1053), Leo IX declares the soul to be "not a part of God, but created from nothing" (Denzinger, 348). Among the errors which the Armenians must reject, Benedict XII mentions the doctrine that the soul originates from the soul of the father (Denzinger, 533). Hence, although there are no strict definitions condemning Generationism as heretical, it is certainly opposed to the doctrine of the Church, and could not be held without temerity. C. A. DUBRAY Trajan Trajan Emperor of Rome (A.D. 98-117), b. at Italica Spain, 18 September, 53; d. 7 August, 117. He was descended from an old Roman family, and was adopted in 97 by the Emperor Nerva. Trajan was one of the ablest of the Roman emperors; he was stately and majestic in appearance, had a powerful will, and showed admirable consideration and a chivalrous kindliness. He gained a large amount of territory for the empire and laid the foundations of civilization all over the provinces by the founding of municipal communities. He established order on the borders of the Rhine, built the larger part of the boundary wall (limes) between Roman and Germanic territory from the Danube to the Rhine, and with great determination led two campaigns (101-2 and 105-7) against the Dacian king, Decebalus, whose country he converted into a new province of the empire. Two other provinces were conquered, although neither proved of importance subsequently. The Governor of Syria conquered Arabia Petraea and Trajan himself entered Armenia during the Parthian War (114-7). In his internal administration Trajan was incessantly occupied in encouraging commerce and industries. The harbour of Ancona was enlarged and new harbours and roads were constructed. Numerous stately ruins in and around Rome give proof of this emperor's zeal in erecting buildings for public purposes. The chief of these is the immense Forum Trajanum, which in size and splendour casts the forums of the other emperors into the shade. In the middle of the great open space was the colossal equestrian statute of Trajan; the free area itself was surrounded by rows of columns and niches surmounted by high arches. At the end of the structure was the Bibliotheca Ulpia, in the court of which stood the celebrated Trajan's Column with its reliefs representing scenes in the Dacian wars. Later Hadrian built a temple to the deified Trajan at the end of the Forum towards the Campus Martius. Art and learning flourished during Trajan's reign. Among his literary contemporaries were Tacitus, Juvenal, and the younger Pliny with whom the emperor carried on an animated correspondence. This correspondence belonging to the years 111-3 throws light on the persecution of Christians during this reign. Pliny was legate of the double Province of Bithynia and Pontus. In this territory he found many Christians and requested instructions from Trajan (Ep. 96). In his reply (Ep. 97) Trajan considers the confession of Christianity as a crime worthy of death, but forbades a search for Christians and the acceptance of anonymous denunciations. Whoever shows by sacrificing to the gods that he is not a Christian is to be released. Where the adherence to Christianity is proved the punishment of death is to follow. The action he prescribed rests on the coercive power of the police, the right of repression of the magistracy, which required no settled form of procedure. In pursuance of these orders measures were taken against Christians in other places also. The most distinguished martyrs under Trajan were Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem. Legend names many others, but there was no actual persecution on a large scale and the position of the Christians was in general satisfactory. MERIVALE, Hist. of the Romans under the Empire (London, 1850-62), lxiii, lxiv; SCHILLER, Gesch. der romischen Kaiserzeit, I (Gotha, 1883), 543-94; DOMASZEWSKI, Gesch. der romischen Kaiser, II (Leipzig, 1909), 171-86; LA BERGE, Essai sur le regne de Trajan (Paris, 1877); RAMSAY, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893); ARNOLD, Studien zur Gesch. de plinianischen Christenverfolgung (Konigsberg, 1887). KLEMENS LOFFLER Trajanopolis Trajanopolis Titular metropolitan see of Rhodope. The city owes its foundation or restoration to Trajan. Le Quien (Oriens Christ., I, 1193-96) mentions a great many of its bishops: Theodulus, persecuted by the Arians in the fourth century; Syncletius, the friend of St. John Chrysostom; Peter, present at the Council of Ephesus in 431; Basilius at that of Chalcedon in 451; Abundantius in 521; Eleusius in 553; Cudumenes about 1270; Germanus in 1352. In 1564 Gabriel is called Metropolitan of Trajanopolis, that is of Maronia, which proves that Trajanopolis was then destroyed and that the title of metropolitan had passed to the neighbouring city of Maronia. About 640 Trajanopolis had two suffragan sees (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . .Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", 542); at the beginning of the tenth century, seven (Gelzer, op. cit., 558). St. Glyceria, a martyr of the second century, venerated on 13 May, was born there. The town is mentioned by Villchardouin (ed. Wailly, 382, 568); it was captured and pillaged in 1206 by Joannitza, King of the Bulgarians (George Acropolita, "Hist.", XIII). It is still mentioned in Nicephoras (Ancedota of Boissonade, V, 279), in John Cantacuzenus (Hist., I, 38; II, 13; III, 67), in George Pachymeres (ad ann. 1276, V, 6), etc. The site of Trajanopolis was discovered by Viquesnel and Dumont on the right bank near the mouth of the Maritza, not far from Ouroundjik. VIQUESNEL, Voyage dans le Turquie d'Europe: description phys. et geolog. de la Thrace, II, 297; DUMONT, Arch. des missions scientif., III (Paris, 1876), 174; MULLER, Ptolemaei geographia, I, 487; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s.v. S. VAILHÉ Trajanopolis Trajanopolis A titular see of Phrygia Pacatiana, suffragan of Laodicea. The only geographer who speaks of Trajanopolis is Ptolemy (v, 2, 14, 15), who wrongly places this city in Greater Mysia. It was founded about 109 by the Grimenothyritae, who obtained permission from Hadrian to give the place the name of his predecessor. It had its own coins. Hierocles (Synecedemus, 668, 150) calls it Tranopolis, and this abridged form is found, with one exception, in the "Notitae episcopatuum", which speak of the see up to the thirteenth century among the suffragans of Laodicea. Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, I, 803) names seven bishops of Trajanopolis: John, present at the Council of Constantinople under the Patriarch Gennadius, 459; John, at the Council of Constantinople under Menas, 536; Asignius, at the Council of Constantinople, 553; Tiberius, at the Council in Trullo, 692; Philip, at Nice, 787; Eustathius, at Constantinople, 879. Another, doubtless more ancient than the preceding, Demetrius, is known from one inscription (C. I. G., 9265). Trajanopolis has been variously identified; the latest identification is Radet ("En Phrygie", Paris, 1895), who locates it at Tcharik Keui, about three miles from Ghiaour Euren towards the south-east, on the road from Oushak to Sousouz Keui, vilayet of Brusa, a village abounding in sculptures, marbles, and fountains, and where the name of the city may be read on the inscriptions. However, Ramsay (Asia Minor, 149; Cities and Bishopries of Phrygia, 595) continues to identify Trajanopolis with Ghiasour Euren. S. PÉTRIDÈS Tralles Tralles A titular see, suffragan of Ephesus in Asia Minor. It was founded, it is said, by the Argians and Thracians, and is situated on one of the slopes of Mount Messogis in the valley of the Meander; it was one of the most populous and richest cities of Lydia. King Attalus had a splendid palace there. The local god was Zeus Larasios, but Apollo Pythius and other divinities were also worshipped. Tralles was destroyed by an earthquake but was rebuilt by Augustus and took the name of Caesarea. Christianity was introduced at a very early date. In his famous letter to the Church at Tralles, St. Ignatius of Antioch says that their bishop, Polybius, visited him at Smyrna, and he puts them on their guard against Docetism (q. v.). We see by this letter that the Church there was already well organized. Among its bishops were: Heracleon, in 431; Maximus, in 451; Uranius, in 553; Myron, in 692; Theophylactus, in 787; Theophanes and Theopistus, in the ninth century; John, in 1230 (Revue des etudes grecques, VII, 80). In 640 ("Ecthesis Pseudo-Epiphanii"; Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . . .Texte der notitiae episcopatuum", 537). Tralles appears as suffragan of Sardes in Lydia, and we know, despite Le Quien (Oriens christ., I, 697), that it was such in 553. Towards 1270 Andronicus, son of Michael VIII Palaeologus, rebuilt and repeopled the city; it then numbered 36,000 inhabitants, but it was not long before it was retaken and demolished by the Turks (Pachymeres, "De Michaele Palaeologo", VI, 20 and 21, in P.G., CXLIII, 929-34). The emir Aïdin then gave it the name which it still bears, Aïdin Guzel-Hissar; it is a sanjak of the vilayet of Symrna, numbering 40,000 inhabitants, of whom 28,000 are Mussulmans, 10,000 Greek Schismatics, and the remainder Jews or Armenians. There are 120 Catholics. The Mechitarists of Vienna and the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul have two schools there. Tralles was the birthplace of Anthemius, the architect of St. Sophia of Constantinople. LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I (1740), 695-8; TEXIER, Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 279-81; RAYET, Milet et le golfe latimique (Paris, 1877), 33-116; LEBAS-WADDINGTON, Asie Mineure, 597-616, 1651; CHAPOT, La province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie (Paris, 1904), passim; CUINET, La Turquie d' Asie, III (Paris, 1892), 591-9; PAPPACONSTANTINOU, Tralles (Athens, 1895), in Greek. S. VAILHÉ Trani and Barletta Trani and Barletta (Tranen, et Barolen.) Diocese in Italy. The city of Trani is situated on the Adriatic in a fertile plain, producing cereals, wine, and oil, which are exported in great quantities. For a long time, however, the port has lost the importance it had in the time of the Norman and Angevins who fortified it. The fishing industry is extensive. The cathedral, in Byzantine style, was built by Canon Nicola di Trani in 1143; its bronze gates by Barisano date from that period. Outside the city, on a peninsula, stand the old Benedictine Abbey of S. Maria de Colonna, containing a mineral spring, the ‘acqua di Cristo". Trani is built on the site of the ancient Turenum. It grew in importance under the Byzantines and was taken several times by the dukes of Benevento. In 840 and 1009 it fell into the hands of the Saracens. In the tenth and eleventh centuries it was a republic recognizing the nominal sovereignty of Byzantium. The ‘Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris", published in 1063 by the consuls of Trani is, after the "Tavole di Amalfi", the oldest maritime commercial code of the Middle Ages. Trani resisted the Norman invaders energetically, but in 1073 it had to open its gates to Pierre d'Hauteville, who assumed the title of Count of Trani. In the twelfth century, in league with Bari, Troia, and Melfi, it attempted to regain its ancient freedom; and in the battle of Bigano (1137) defeated Roger of Sicily, but two years later it had to capitulate. Frederick II constructed a fortress there and made it one of the royal residences. In the Neapolitan wars Trani became a place of the greatest importance, especially during the struggle between the Aragonese and the Angevins. From 1497 to 1509 it was held by Venice. Charles V established a school of jurisprudence there. In 1647 the populace rebelled against the nobles; in 1799 the people opposed the republic, and the city in consequence was sacked by the revolutionaries and the French. The legend of St. Magnus relates that there was at Trani about the middle of the third century a bishop, Redemptus, who was succeeded by St. Magnus. The first bishop whose date is known with certainty is Eusebius who was present at the dedication of the Basilica of Monte Gargano in 493. A few other names have been preserved like Suthinius (761) and Rodostanus (983). Till then Trani had certainly followed the Latin Rite and Bishop Bernardo opposed the decree of the Partiarch Polyeuctus (968) introducing the Greeek Rite; it is uncertain whether Joannes, who embraced the schism of Michael Caerularius and in consequence was deposed by Nicholas II (1059), belonged to the Greek Rite. His sxuccessor was Delius, and thenceforward Trani continued in the Latin Rite. In 1098 St. Nicholas Pellegrino, a Byzantine bishop, died there; under another Byzantine the new cathedral was dedicated to that saint. Grammaro was imprisoned in Germany by Henary VI for supporting King William; Bartolommeo Brancacci (1328) distinguished himself on several embassies and was chancellor of the Kingdom of Naples. Mention may be made likewise of Cardinal Latino Orsini (1438), Cosimo Migliorati (1479), Giovanni Castelar (1493), Giambernardo Scotti, a Theatine (1555), who introduced the Tridentine reform, Cesare Lambertini, the canonist (1503); Diego Alvarez, O. P. (1607), the famous adversary of Molina; Tommaso de Sarria, O. P. (1656), who enlarged the seminary; Giuseppe Antonio Davanzati (1717), who abolished many abuses. With the See of Trani is united the ancient Diocese of Salpe (Salapia of the Greeks), its known bishops comprising Palladius (465) and 23 successors before the definitive union in 1547. Anoather united see is that of Carnia, which had bishops before the time of St. Gregory, who entrusted it to the care of the Bishop of Reggio; in 649 it had a new ordinary, but later the city fell into decay. The Archbishop of Trani has also the title of Bishop of Nazareth, because when Palestine was lost in 1190 the title of that see was transferred to Barletta (the ancient Barduli), a seaport on the Adriatic, a little south of Trani, to which diociese it then belonged. At Nazareth between 1100 and 1190 there were eight Latin bishops; the names of the bishops resident at Barletta before 1265 are unknown. We may mention the following Bishops: Blessed Agostino Favorini (1431), General of the Augustinians, a learned writer, and Maffeo Barberini (1604), later Urban VIII. In 1455 the Diocese of Cannae, a city celebrated as the scene of Hannibal's victory (216 B.C.), was united with that of Nazareth. It was destroyed in 1083 by Robert Guiscard, with the exception of the cathedral and the episcopal residence. At Cannae St. Liberalis suffered martydom. It had bishops in ths sixth century, for St. Gregory entrusted the see to the care of the bishop of Siponto; its bishops are again mentioned after the tenth century. In 1534 Cannae was separated from Nazareth and united to Monteverde, but in 1552 the united dioceses were incorporated with Nazareth. In 1860 the See of Nazareth (Barletta) was united withTrani, the archbishop of which had been appointed in 1818 perpetual administrator of the ancient See of Bisceglie, the scene of the glorious martydom of Saints Pantelemon and Sergius, whose bodies repose in the cathedral. Tha names of fifty bishops of Bisceglie are known. Trani has been an archdiocese since the twelfth century. The united dioceses contain 19 parishes; 98,000 inhabitants; 110 priests; 1 house of religious (men); 15 convents of nuns; 2 schools for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, XXI, 47; VANIA, Cenno storico della citta di Trani (Barletta, 1870). U. BENIGNI Transcendentalism Transcendentalism The terms transcendent and transcendental are used in various senses, all of which, as a rule, have antithetical reference in some way to experience or the empirical order. (1) For the Scholastics, the categories are the highest classes of "things that are and are spoken of". The transcendentals are notions, such as unity, truth, goodness, being, which are wider than the categories, and, going beyond them, are said to transcend them. In a metaphysical sense transcendent is opposed by the Scholastics and others to immanent; thus, the doctrine of Divine Transcendence is opposed to the doctrine of Divine Immanence in the Pantheistic sense., Here, however, there is no reference to experience. (See IMMANENCE.) (2) In the loosest sense of the word any philosophy or theology which lays stress on the intuitive, the mystical, the ultra-empirical, is aid to be transcendentalism. Thus, it is common to refer to the New England School of Transcendentalism, of which mention is made further on. (3) In a stricter sense transcendentalism refers to a celebrated distinction made by Kant. Though he is not consistent in the use of the terms transcendent and transcendental, Kant understands by transcendent what lies beyond the limits of experience, and by transcendental he understands the non-empirical or a priori elements in our knowledge, which do not come from experience but are nevertheless, legitimately applied to the data or contents of knowledge furnished by experience. The distinction is somewhat subtle, Yet, it may be made clear by an example. Within the limits of experience we learn the uniform sequence of acorn and oak, heat and expansion, cold and contraction, etc., and we give the antecedent as the cause of the consequent. If, now, we go beyond the total of our experience and give God as the cause of all things, we are using the category "cause in a transcendent sense, and that use is not legitimate. If, however, to the data of sequence furnished by experience we apply the a priori form causation, we are introducing a transcendental element which elevates our knowledge to the rank of universal and necessary truth: "Every effect has its cause." Kant, as has been said, does not always adhere to this distinction. We may, then, understand transcendent and transcendental to refer to those elements or factors in our knowledge which do not come from experience, but are known a priori. Empirical philosophy is, therefore, a philosophy based on experience alone and adhering to the realm of experience in obedience to Hume's maxim, " 'Tis impossible to go beyond experience." Transcendental philosophy, on the contrary, goes beyond experience, and considers that philosophical speculation is concerned chiefly, if not solely, with those things which lie beyond experience. (4) Kant himself was convinced that, for the theoretical reason, the transcendental reality, the thing-in-itself, is unknown and unknowable. Therefore, he defined the task of philosophy to consist in the examination of knowledge for the purpose of determining the a priori elements, in the systematic enumeration of those elements, for forms, and the determination of the rules for their legitimate application to the data of experience. Ultra-empirical reality, he taught, is to be known only by the practical reason. Thus, his philosophy is critical transcendentalism. Thus, too he left to his successors the task of bridging over the chasm between the theoretical and the practical reason. This task they accomplished in various ways, eliminating, transforming, or adapting the transcendent reality outside us. the thing-in-itself, and establishing in this way different transcendentalisms in place of the critical transcendentalism of Kant. (5) Fiche introduced Egoistic Transcendentalism. The subject, he taught, or the Ego, has a practical as well as a theoretical side. to develop its practical side along the line of duty, obligation, and right, it is obliged to posit the non-Ego. In this way, the thing-in-itself as opposed to the subject, is eliminated, because it is a creation of the Ego, and, therefore all transcendental reality is contained in self. I am I, the original identity of self with itself, is the expression of the highest metaphysical truth. (6) Schelling, addressing himself to the same task, developed Transcendental Absolutism. He brought to the problems of philosophy a highly spiritual imaginativeness and a scientific insight into nature which were lacking in Kant, the critic of knowledge, and Fiche, the exponent of romantic personalize. He taught that the transcendental reality is neither subject or object, but an Absolute which is so indeterminate that it may be said to be neither nature nor spirit. Yet the Absolute is, in a sense, potentially both the one and the other. For, from it, by gravity, light and organization, is derived spirit, which slumbers in nature, but reaches consciousness of self in the highest natural organization, man. There is here a hint of development which was brought out explicitly by Hegel. (7) Hegel introduced Idealistic Transcendentalism. He taught that reality is not an unknowable thing in itself, nor the subject merely, nor an absolute of indifference, but an absolute Idea, Spirit, or Concept (Begriff), whose essence is development (das Werden), and which becomes in succession object and subject, nature and spirit, being and essence, the soul, law, the state, art, science, religion, and philosophy. In all these various meanings there is preserved a generic resemblance to the original signification of the term transcendentalism. The transcendentalists one and all, dwell in the regions beyond experience, and, if they do not condemn experience as untrustworthy, at least they value experience only in so far as it is elevated, sublimated, and transformed by the application to it of transcendental principles. The fundamental epistemological error of Kant, that whatever is universal and necessary cannot come from experience, runs all through the transcendentalist philosophy, and it is on epistemological grounds that the transcendentalists are to be met. This was the stand taken in Catholic circles, and there, with few exceptions, the doctrines of the transcendentalists met with a hostile reception. The exceptions were Franz Baader (1765-1841), Johann Frohschammer (1821-1893), and Anton Günther (1785-1863), who in their attempt to "reconcile" Catholic dogma with modern philosophical opinion, were influenced by the transcendentalists and overstepped the boundaries of orthodoxy. It may without unfairness be laid to the charge of the German transcendentalists that their disregard for experience and common sense is largely accountable for the discredit into which metaphysics has fallen in recent years. New England transcendentalism, sometimes called the Concord School of Philosophy, looks to William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) as its founder. Its principal representatives are Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888), Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), Theodore Parker (1810-1860), Frederick Henry Hedge (1805-890), George Ripley (1802-1880), and Margaret Fuller (1810-1850). It had its inception in the foundation of the Transcendental Club in 1836. The chief influences discernible in its literary output are German philosophy, French sociology, and the reaction against the formalism of Its sociological and economic theories were tested in the famous Brook Farm (1841), with which the names just mentioned and those of several other distinguished Americans were associated. For the history of German transcendentalism see Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, tr. Morris (New York, 1892); Falckenberg, Hist. of Modern Philosophy, tr. Armstrong (New York, 1893); Turner, Hist. of Philosophy (Boston, 1903); St=F6ckl, Gesch. der Phil. (Mainz, 1888). For New England transcendentalism see Frothingham, Transcendentalism in New England (New York, 1876); Codman, Brook Farm (Boston, 1894). WILLIAM TURNER Transept Transept A rectangular space inserted between the apse and nave in the early Christian basilica. It sprang from the need of procuring sufficient space for the increased number of clergy and for the proper celebration of the service. The length of the rectangle either equals the entire breadth of the nave, as in Santa Maria Maggiore and Santa Croce at Rome, or it exceeds this breadth more or less, so that the transept extends beyond the walls of the nave. The transept, though, is not peculiar to the Roman basilica, as was for a long time believed; it is also to be found in the churches of Asia Minor, as at Sagalassos. Beside this first form, in which the apse was directly united with the transept, there were to be found in Asia Minor and Sicily, even in the early era, a number of churches of a second form. These were formerly considered to belong to the medieval period, because they were not fully developed until the Middle Ages. This is the cross-shaped or cruciform church, over the origin of which a violent literary controversy raged for a long time. In the cruciform design the transept is organically developed from the structure. It contains three squares which in height and breadth correspond to that of the main nave. Beyond the central square, called the bay, and connected with it is a fourth square, the choir, and beyond, and connected with the choir, is the apse; in this way the cruciform shape of the church is produced. The transept generally terminates towards the north and south in a straight line. Still there are a number of churches, especially in Germany, that end in a semicircular or triple conch shape. Strzygowski thinks he has found the model of this style of structure in the Roman imperial palace; this form of transept is found in as early a church as that of the Virgin at Bethlehem erected by Constantine. A favourite method in the Romanesque style was to construct small apses opening into the transept to the right and left of the choir. In the churches of the Cistercians and of the mendicant orders these small apses were transformed at a later date into numerous chapels, as at Santa Croce at Florence. the prototype of this design can also be proved to have existed in the East and the districts under its influence. The doubling of the transept, however, seems to have been peculiar to Western architecture; this type of transept appeared both in the Romanesque and in the Gothic periods, although the manner of producing it varied greatly. Many Romanesque churches are constructed at the west end the same as at the east, that is, the west end also contains a transept and choir. The earliest known church with this double transept is the eighth-century church of St-Riquier at Centula in France. The style was also adopted in the church of St. Pantaleon at Cologne (981), and almost at the same time by Mittelzell on the island of Reichenau in Lake Constance, and in many other churches. The west transept disappeared in Gothic architecture, excepting that in England some of the great cathedrals have a second, short transept added to the east choir, as at Salisbury. Gothic architecture also emphasized the choir by giving it in the large cathedrals three aisles; in this way very beautiful vistas are produced. In the effort to gain large, well-lighted spaces the architecture of the Renaissance and the Baroque periods enlarged the transept and covered the bay with a cupola which caused the transept to dominate the entire structure. BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT Transfiguration Transfiguration The Transfiguration of Christ is the culminating point of His public life, as His Baptism is its starting point, and His Ascension its end. Moreover, this glorious event has been related in detail by St. Matthew (17:1-6), St. Mark (9:1-8), and St. Luke (9:28-36), while St. Peter (II Peter 1:16-18) and St. John (1:14), two of the privileged witnesses, make allusion to it. About a week after His sojourn in Cæsarea Philippi, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John and led them to a high mountain apart, where He was transfigured before their ravished eyes. St. Matthew and St. Mark express this phenomenon by the word metemorphothe, which the Vulgate renders transfiguratus est. The Synoptics explain the true meaning of the word by adding "his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow," according to the Vulgate, or "as light," according to the Greek text. This dazzling brightness which emanated from His whole Body was produced by an interior shining of His Divinity. False Judaism had rejected the Messias, and now true Judaism, represented by Moses and Elias, the Law and the Prophets, recognized and adored Him, while for the second time God the Father proclaimed Him His only-begotten and well-loved Son. By this glorious manifestation the Divine Master, who had just foretold His Passion to the Apostles (Matthew 16:21), and who spoke with Moses and Elias of the trials which awaited Him at Jerusalem, strengthened the faith of his three friends and prepared them for the terrible struggle of which they were to be witnesses in Gethsemani, by giving them a foretaste of the glory and heavenly delights to which we attain by suffering. LOCATION OF THE TRANSFIGURATION Already in Apostolic times the mount of the Transfiguration had become the "holy mount" (II Peter 1:18). It seems to have been known by the faithful of the country, and tradition identified it with Mount Thabor. Origen said (A.D. 231-54) "Thabor is the mountain of Galilee on which Christ was transfigured" (Comm. in Ps. lxxxviii, 13). In the next century St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., II, 16) and St. Jerome (Ep. xlvi, ad Marcel.; Ep. viii, ad Paulin.; Ep. cviii, ad Eust.) likewise declare it categorically. Later St. Proculus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 447; Orat. viii, in Transfig.), Agathangelus (Hist. of Armenia, II, xvii), and Arnobius the Younger (d. 460; Comm. in Ps. lxxxviii, 13) say the same thing. The testimonies increase from century to century without a single dissentient note, and in 553 the Fifth Council of Constantinople erected a see at Mount Thabor (Notitif. Antioch. . . . patriarch.). Some modern writers claim that the Transfiguration could not have taken place on Mount Thabor, which, according to Josephus, was then surmounted by a city. This is incorrect; the Jewish historian speaks neither of a city nor a village; he simply fortified, as he repeats three times, "the mount called Itabyrion" ("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 6; IV, i, 8; Vita, 37). The town of Atabyrion of Polybius, the Thabor or Celeseth Thabor, the "flank of Thabor" of the Bible, is situated at the foot of Mount Thabor. In any case the presence of houses on a wooded height would not have made it impossible to find a place apart. It is again objected that Our Lord was transfigured on Mount Hermon, since He was at that time in its vicinity. But the Synoptics are all explicit concerning the lapse of time, six days, or about eight days including those of departure and arrival, between the discourse in Cæsarea and the Transfiguration, which would infer a somewhat lengthy journey. Moreover the summits of Hermon are covered with snow as late as June, and even the lesser peaks of 4000 or 5000 feet are likewise snow-covered in February and March, the period of the Transfiguration. Finally, the ancients judged of the height of mountains by their appearance, and Thabor especially was considered a "high mountain", if not by David and Jeremias, at least by Origen and St. Jerome and the pilgrims who made the ascent. BARNABAS MEISTERMANN Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ Observed on August 6 to commemorate the manifestation of the Divine glory recorded by St. Matthew (Chapter 17). Origin. The Armenian bishop Gregory Arsharuni (about 690) ascribes the origin of this feast to St. Gregory the Illuminator (d. 337?), who, he says, substituted it for a pagan feast of Aphrodite called Vartavarh (roseflame), retaining the old appellation of the feast, because Christ opened His glory like a rose on Mount Thabor. It is not found however in the two ancient Armenian calendars printed by Conybeare (Armenian Ritual, 527 sq.). It probably originated, in the fourth or fifth century, in place of some pagan nature-feast, somewhere in the highlands of Asia. Propagation. The Armenians at present keep it for three days as one of the five great feasts of the year (seventh Sunday after Pentecost); it is preceded by a fast of six days. Also in the Syriac Church it is a feast of the first class. In the Greek Church it has a vigil and an octave. The Latin Church was slow in adopting this feast; it is not mentioned before 850 (Martyrology of Wandelbert, Gavanti, "Thesaurus Liturg.", II, August); it was adopted in the liturgy about the tenth century in many dioceses, and was celebrated mostly on 6 August; in Gaul and England, 27 July; at Meissen, 17 March; at Halberstadt, 3 September, etc. In 1456 Callixtus III extended the feast to the Universal Church in memory of the victory gained by Hunyady at Belgrade over the Turks, 6 August, 1456. Callixtus himself composed the Office. It is the titular feast of the Lateran Basilica at Rome; as such it was raised to a double second class for the Universal Church, 1 Nov., 1911. Customs. On this day the pope at Mass uses new wine or presses a bunch of ripe grapes into the chalice; raisins are also blessed at Rome. The Greeks and Russians bless grapes and other fruit. F.G. HOLWECK Transvaal Transvaal Vicariate apostolic; lies between 23° 3' and 27° 30' S. lat., and 25° and 32° E. long. The total population is approximately estimated at 960,000, consisting of about 320,000 whites and 640,000 natives. The agricultural and pastoral resources of this portion of south Africa are great, the vast rolling plains being capable of raising almost unlimited quantities of cereals. Stock-raising can also be pursued to great advantage. The discovery of gold in the Transvaal has brought about a large influx of British immigrants, who have developed the mineral resources of the country. Since the time of the "Great Trek" (1835-38) of the emigrant Dutch farmers from Cape Colony, several wars have been waged between the Boers, natives, and British. But streams of Boer immigrants succeeded in repelling the natives, and in gradually securing their own independence. In 1850 the British were engaged in a lengthy and costly war with the Kafirs, during which the Boers took advantage of the situation to demand the recognition of their independence; this was granted to them by the Sand River Convention, 17 Jan., 1852, and Great Britain gave up the Orange River Sovereignty in 1834, which they had proclaimed in 1848 after the battle of Boomplaats. In 1876 the Boers were defeated by the Kafirs, and Great Britain, afraid of a general rising of the natives throughout south Africa, deemed it expedient to annex the country, which was done, 12 April, 1877. A new war, however, broke out between British and Boers, in which the former were defeated, 27 Feb., 1881, and the Boers recovered their independence, which they enjoyed until the outbreak of the war in Oct., 1899, which resulted in their defeat and the final annexation of the country to the British Empire. The Transvaal formed a portion of the Vicariate of Natal until 1886. From time to time the few Catholics residing in this part of South Africa were visited by a priest from Natal, till 1877, when the first mission was founded in Pretoria by the Right Rev., Dr. Jolivet, O. Mi. I. The first church in the Transvaal was not, however, completed until the first Sunday of October, 1887, when it was dedicated by Bishop Jolivet. At that time the number of Catholics at Pretoria was about 100. In the other localities of the Transvaal the Catholic population was insignificant. Johannesburg, which has at the present day a population of about 130,000, including about 80,000 Europeans and 50,000 natives and Asiatics, was then hardly in existence. The Catholic population is about 9500, Europeans, natives, and Syrians included. The Transvaal was detached from Natal in 1886 by Leo XIII. It remained an independent prefecture Apostolic till 29 Jan., 1902. The first prefect Apostolic was the Very Rev. Father Moniginoux, O. M. I., who was succeeded by Very Rev. Father Schock, O. M. I., who died on his way to the chapter of his order held in Paris in 1898. Until Jan., 1902, father Jean de Laey, O. M. I., acted as prefect Apostolic. Then the Right Rev. Dr. Matthew Gaughran, O. M. I., was elected Vicar Apostolic of Kimberley, and administrator of the Transvaal prefecture. On 20 Nov., 1904, the prefecture Apostolic of the Transvaal became a vicariate, and the Right Rev. Dr. William Miller, O. M. I., was consecrated Bishop of Eumenia, and Vicar Apostolic of the Transvaal. He resides at Johannesburg. (See KAFIRS.) On 13 Jan., 1911, the northern portion of the Vicariate of the Transvaal, including the two districts of Zoutpansberg and Waterberg, lying between 24° and 23° S. lat., and between 28° and 32° E. long. was erected into a prefecture Apostolic, under the title of Prefecture Apostolic of the Northern Transvaal, and entrusted to the care of the Benedictines, with the Very Rev. Father Lanslots, O. S. B., as prefect Apostolic. The missionaries number at the present 6 fathers and 3 lay brothers, all of whom are natives of Belgium. Through the erection of the new prefecture Apostolic, the boundaries of the Vicariate of the Transvaal have been altered. They are at present delimited by 25° and 32° E. long., and 27° S. lat. (north of the Orange River Colony) and 28° S. lat. (west of the same Colony). There are at present (1911) in the Vicariate of the Transvaal: 27 priests (13 of whom are Oblates, 12 secular, 2 military chaplains); and 1 Oblate lay brother and 20 Marist Brothers, who conduct a very prosperous school at Johannesburg; also other schools, a sanatorium, a refuge, a hospital, and a home for children and aged, are under the management of various religious congregations, viz., the Sisters of the Holy Family; Sisters of Nazareth House; Dominican Sisters; Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Sisters of Mercy; Ursuline Sisters; and Sisters of Loreto; making a total number of 147 Sisters for the whole vicariate. Missiones catholicae (Rome, 1907), 444-45; The Catholic directory of British South Africa (Cape Town, 1910). A. LANGOUET Transylvania Transylvania (Also TRANSYLVANIENSIS or ERDELY). Diocese in Hungary, suffragan of Kalocsa Bács. The foundation of the see is attributed to King St. Stephen, but it was probably established by King St. Ladislaus, patron of Transylvania; Simon (1103-13) was the first bishop. The episcopal residence is at Gyula-Fehérvar (Alba Julia) in Alsó-Fehér. The original limits of the diocese varied somehat from the present boundaries, as they included the County of Mármaros, while the provostship of Szeben was exempt and some parts of the Szekler country were subject to the Bishop of Milkovia in Rumania. The bishops received rich donations from King Béla IV, Charles Robert, Louis I, and Sigismund. The diocese suffered greatly during the reign of Béla IV from the Tatar invasion, and during the civil disturbances under his successors, but recovered very quickly in the fourteenth century. The see was again imperilled by the advance of the Turks, but its decay did not set in until the sixteenth centruy, and was caused by the progress of Lutheranism, in consequence of which the exempt provostship of Szeben ceased to exist, and by internal disturbancea in Transylvania. It flourished again under Cardinal Martinuzzi, but after his assassination in 1551 it decayed rapidly. The advance of Protestantism led, in 1556, to the secularization of the see, which was, however, re-established by Prince Stephen Báthory. After the coming of the Jesuits the Catholic Faith flourished again, but only while the house of Báthory continued to rule. Bishop Demetrius Náprágyi was forced to leave the see, and in 1601 the cathedral of Gyula-Fehérvár, which had been founded in the thirteenth century, was taken and held by the Protestants until the eighteenth century, the Catholics not regaining possession of it until the reign of Charles III. When the Principality of Transylvania lost its independence, the decrees against the Catholic Church were withdrawn, but the bishopric and chapter were not re-established until 1713. The succession to the see had been kept up regularly till 1713, but the bishops resided abroad. The exempt provostship of Szeben was incorporated in the bishopric, which was completely restored under Maria Theresa in 1771. Of the bishops, who filled the see after 1713, the following may be mentioned: Ignatius Count Batthyany (1780-98), who founded the library at Gyula-Fehérvár, whic is named after him; Alexander Rudnay (1816-19), later Archbishop of Gran; Louis Haynald (1852-64), afterwards Archbishop of Kalocsa. Count Gustavus Majláth has occupied the episcopal see since 1897. The diocese contains: 16 archdeaconries; 10 titular abbeys; 2 titular provostships; 229 parishes; 398 secular priests; 226 regular clergy; 30 monasteries of men and 17 convents of nuns; the Catholics number 354,145. There are 103 patrons. The chapter consista of 10 active members and of 6 titular canons. Catholics are to a certain extent autonomous, i.e., certain church and school matters are managed by mixed boards, parly clerical, partly lay. This autonomy dates back to the time of the Reformation; it ceased in 1767 with the establishment of the Commissio catholica by Maria Theresa, and was re-established as late as 1873. The control is exercised by the general assembly of the Catholic estates and a managing committee. PRAY, Specimen hierarchiae Hungariae, II (POZSONY, 1776-9), 202-8: SZEREDAL, Series antiq. et recent. episcop. Transylvaniae (Gyula-Fehervar, 1790); Schematismus diacesis Tr. pro 1909; A katolikus Magyarorszag (i.e. Catholic Hungary) (Budapest, 1902). A. ALDASY Trapani Trapani (TREPANENSIS). Diocese in Sicily, suffragan of Palermo. The city is the capital of a Sicilian province situated on a tongue of land at the most western part of the island, shaped like a reaping-hook, hence the ancient name Drepanon (reaping-hook). It has a good harbour with exports of wine, acid fruits, fish (especially tunny-fish), salt, and ornaments of coral, alabaster, and mother-of-pearl, which are extensively manufactured. The cathedral, exteriorly resembling a fortress, contains paintings by Careca and Vandyke (Crucifixion), and statue of the Dead Christ in alabaster by Tartaglia. Other churches are: San Michele, with wooden statuary, and the sanctuary of the Annunziata outside the city, with a colossal statue of the Madonna, attributed to Nicolò Pisano. In the Jesuit church, called "Nazionale", are precious pictures by Morrealese, Spagnoletto, and Marabiti. The ancient college, now a lyceum, contains the Fardelliona Gallery, with valuable paintings by Reni, Luca Giordano, Caravaggio, Salvator Rosa, Guercino, etc. Trapani is the birthplace of Carrera and Errante the painters, Ximenes the mathematician, Scarlatti the musician, and the Carmelite St. Alberto degli Abbati. Excavations have proved that the shore about Trapani was inhabited during the Stone Age. Drepanon must have been founded by the Greeks, but fell under the sway of the Carthaginians. Hamilcar fortified the port against the Romans, who in 250 suffered a severe defeat near by, at the hands of Adherbal. In the vicinity is Mons Eryx (now San Giuliano), with a magnificent temple of Venus and many votive offerings. Under the Romans the temple fell into decay, but was restored by Tiberius. Trapani was sacked by the Moors in 1077. In 1282 Pedro III of Aragon landed there to begin the capture of the island. In 1314 it was besieged by Robert, King of Naples. Charles V fortified it. The city boasts of having received the Gospel from St. Paul; it is not known to have had any bishop before the Arab conquest of Sicily; certainly it was subject to the See of Mazzara from the Norman Conquest till 1844. Its first bishop was the Redemptorist Vincenzo M. Marolda. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, XXI, 556. U. BENIGNI Trapezopolis Trapezopolis A titular see in Phrygia Pacatiana, suffragan to Laodicea. Trapezopolis was a town of Caria acording to Ptolemy (V, 2, 18) and Pliny (V, 109); according to Socrates (Hist. eccl., VII, xxxvi), Hierocles (Synecdeus, 665, 5), and the "Notitiae episcopatuum" it was a town of Phrygia Pacatiana and among the suffragans of Laodicea until the thirteenth century. Nothing is known of its history. Its coins testify to close intercourse with Attouda, now Assar, and its site must be sought near this town, most probably at Kadi Keui, capital of a nahie in the sandjak of Denizli and the vilayet of Smyrna. Le Quien (Oriens christ., I, 809) names six bishops of Trapezopolis: Hierophilius, prior to 400; Asclepiades, present at the Council of Ephesus (431); John, at Chalcedon (451); Eugenius, at Constantinople (692); Zacharias, at Nicaea (787); Leo, at Constantinople (879). SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geogr., s.v.; RAMSAY, Cities and Bishopries of Phrygia, 171 and passim; MULLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 822. S. PÉTRIDÈS Trappists Trappists The common name by which the Cistercians who follow the reform inaugurated by the Abbot de Rancé (b. 1626; d. 1700) in the Abbey of La Trappe, were known; and often now applied to the entire Order of Reformed Cistercians. Thus it cannot be said that there is an Order of Trappists; though if one were to speak of Trappist monks, he would be understood to refer to monks of the Order of Reformed Cistercians, as distinguished from the Order of Cistercians of the common Observance (see Cistercians and La Trappe). The primitive austerities of the cistercians had fallen into desuetude in practically the entire order principally through the introduction of commendatory abbots, political disturbances, and human inconstancy; and though many and very praiseworthy attempts at their restoration had been made in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, etc., yet these were but local or at most national in extent. That of de Rancé, however, was destined by Divine Providence to be more enduring and of wider scope than any other. Although the Abbey of La Trappe flourished exceedingly, even after the death of its venerated reformer, as evidenced by more than 300 professions between the years 1714 and 1790, yet the spirit of materialism and sensualism rampant in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did not permit the rapid extension of the reform outside its walls; it did not even allow the entire severity of ancient Cîteaux to be introduced at La Trappe, though this reform was the most thorough and perfect of the many attempts that had then been made. Consequently it founded but a small number of monasteries; these were: Buon-Solazzo, hear Florence (1705), and St. Vito at Rome (1709); Casamari, in the Papal States, was obliged to adopt the Constitutions of de Rancé (1717), but for nearly a century there was no further expansion. It was from the time of these earliest foundations that they who embraced de Rancés reform were called Trappists. Too much credit cannot be given to these noble bands of monks, who by their lives demonstrated to a corrupt world that man could have a higher ambition than the gratification of the mere natural instincts of this ephemeral life. At the time of the Revolution, when the monastery of La Trappe, in common with all others, was ordered to be confiscated by the Government, the people of the neighbourhood petitioned that an exception be made in their favour, and the Trappists themselves, encouraged by this, addressed a memorial to the National Assembly and the king considered the matter for nearly a year, but finally decided that they should be despoiled like the others. com augustine de Lestrange (b. 1754; d. 1827, see Lestrange), vicar-general of the Archdiocese of Vienna, had entered La Trappe (1780) in order to escape the burden of the episcopate. He it was whom God had raised up to preserve the Trappists when so direly threatened with extinction; he resolved, therefore, to expatriate himself for the welfare of his order. Having been elected superior of those who were of the same mind, and with the permission of his higher superiors, he left La Trappe 26 april, 1791, with twenty-four religious, and established a monastery at Val-Sainte, Canton of Fribourg, Switzerland. Here they had much to suffer besides the rigour of their rule, for their monastery (which had formerly belonged to the Carthusians) was an unroofed ruin; they were in want of the very necessities of life, not even having the meagre requirements they were accustomed to. In France the Revolution was taking its course. On 3 June, 1792, the commissioners of the Government arrived at La Trappe, took the sacred vessels and vestments, as well as everything moveable, and obliged the eighty-nine religious yet remaining to abandon their abbey and find a home as best they could; some in other monasteries, and others in charitable families of the neighbourhood. At Val-Sainte, whilst celebrating the feast of St. Stephen, the religious resolved to put into practice the exact and literal observance of the Rule of St. Benedict, and three days afterwards, 19 July, they began the new reform; establishing the order of exercises prescribed by the holy patriarch, as well as all the primitive fasts, together with the first usages of Cîteaux; even making their rule still more severe in many points. They entered upon their new mode of life with a fervour that exceeded discretion and had soon to be moderated. Even in their exile many subjects were attracted to them, so that they were enabled to send religious to found several new monasteries: one in Spain (1793), a second in England at Lulworth the same year, a third at Westmalle, Belgium (1794), and a fourth at Mont-Brac, in Piedmont (1794). On 31 July, 1794, Pius VI encouraged these religious by a special Brief, and authorized the erection of Val-Sainte into an abbey and mother-house of the congregation of Trappists. Dom Augustine was elected abbot, 27 Nov. of this year, and given supreme authority over the abbey and congregation. This state of quiet and prosperity lasted but six years. When the French invaded Switzerland (1798) they compelled the Trappists to find a refuge elsewhere; thus they were obliged to roam from country to country, even Russia and America being visited by the indomitable abbot and some of his companions, with the hope of finding a permanent home, until after almost incredible sufferings the fall of Napoleon permitted them to return to France. The monasteries of La Trappe and Aiguebelle came into the possess ion of Dom Augustine, who divided the community of Val-Sainte between them. Other monasteries were re-established from time to time, as the number of religious increased and as they were able to purchase the buildings. From 1813 N.-D. de l'Eternite, near Darfeld, Westphalia (founded 16 Oct., 1795, from the Abbey of Val-Sainte), which had been exempted some years previous from the authority of Dom Augustine, followed the Regulations of de Rancé, which differed from those of Dom Augustine principally in the hour for dinner, and the length of time devoted to manual labour; their order of exercises was naturally followed by the houses founded by them, thus instituting a new observance and the nucleus of a congregation. In 1834 the Holy See erected all the monasteries of France into the "Congregation of the Cistercian Monks of Notre-Dame de la Trappe". The Abbot of La Trappe was by right the vicar-general of the congregation as soon as his election was confirmed by the president-general of the Order of Cîteaux. They were to hold a general chapter each year; were to follow the Rule of St. Benedict and the Constitutions of de Rancé, except for a few points, and retain the liturgical books of the Cistercian Order. Divergences of opinion on several matters concerning regular observance induced the abbots of the various monasteries to believe that this union could not be productive of that peace so much desired, and so at their solicitation the Holy See issued a new Decree, deciding that "All the monasteries of Trappists in France shall form two congregations, of which the former will be termed 'the Ancient Reform of Our Lady of La Trappe', and the second the 'New Reform of Our Lady of La Trappe'. Each shall be a congregation of the Cistercian Monks. The Ancient Reform is to follow the Constitutions of de Rancé, whilst the New Reform is not to follow the Constitutions of the Abbot de Lestrange, which it abandoned in 1834, but the Rule of St. Benedict, with the ancient Constitution of Cîteaux, as approved by the Holy See excepting the prescriptions contained in this Decree. The Moderator General of the Cistercian Order shall be at the head of both congregations and will confirm the election of all abbots. In France each congregation shall have its vicar-general with full authority for its administration" (Apostolic Decree, 25 Feb., 1847). After this the congregations began to flourish. The Ancient Reform made fourteen foundations, some of them in China and Natal; the New Reform was even more fruitful, establishing twenty monasteries as far as the United States, Canada, Syria, etc. The Belgian congregation of Westmalle also prospered, forming five new filiations. As the combined strength of the three congregations thus became greater than the Old Cistercian Order, the earnest desire soon developed amongst all to establish a permanent bond of union between them, with one head and a uniform observance; this was effected in 1892. Dom Sebastian Wyart (b. 1839; d. 1904), Abbot of Sept-Fons and Vicar-General of the Ancient Reform, was elected first abbot-general. After twelve years of zealous labour, the most worthy monument of which was the purchase of the cradle of the Order, Cîteaux, and making it again the mother-house, he passed to his reward, and was succeeded as abbot-general by Mgr Augustin Marre, then Abbot of Igny (a monastery which he had governed since 1881), titular Bishop of Constance and auxiliary to Cardinal Langénieux of Reims; he is still ruling the order (1911), with the greatest zeal and prudence. The name under which the order was reorganized is "Order of Reformed Cistercians" and while its members no longer bear the name of "Trappists", yet they are heirs to the old traditions, and even the name will continue to be connected with them in the popular mind. The present Constitutions (approved 13 Aug. 1894) under which the order is governed and upon which all the usages and regulations are based, is derived from the Rule of St. Benedict, the "Charta Charitatis" and ancient usages and definitions of the general chapters of Cîteaux, and the Apostolic Letters and Constitutions. It is divided into three parts. The first part regards the government of the order; the supreme power residing in the general chapter, which is composed of all the abbots (actually in office), titular priors and superiors of houses, and meets each year under the presidency of the abbot-general, who is elected by themselves for life. During the time the general chapter is not in session the order is directed, in urgent cases, by the abbot-general with the assistance of a council composed of five definitors, also elected by the general chapter, but for a term of five years. The abbot-general is titular Abbot of Cîteaux, and must reside at Rome. The order is not divided into provinces, nor is there an officer similar to a provincial. Each monastery is autonomous and maintains its own novitiate; its abbot or titular prior appointing all local subordinate superiors, and having full administration in both spiritual and temporal affairs. Nevertheless each monastery has the duty of visiting all the houses it has founded, either once each year, or once every two years, according to distance, and then rendering a report of its material and spiritual well-being to the next subsequent general-chapter. The abbot of such a monastery is called the father-immediate, and the houses thus subject are termed "daughter-houses" or filiations. It is especially prescribed that all houses be dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The second part is concerned with monastic observances; which must be uniform in all the monasteries of the order. The Divine Office must be sung or recited in choir according to the directions of the Breviary, Missal, Ritual and Martyrology, no matter how few may be the number of religious in a particular house; the canonical Office is always preceded (except at Compline, when it is followed) by the Office of the Blessed Virgin; and on all ferial days throughout the year Vespers and Lauds are followed by the Office of the Dead. Mass and the day Offices are always sung with the Gregorian Chant; Matins and Lauds also are sung on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. Mental prayer, one half-hour in the morning, and fifteen minutes in the evening, is of obligation, but of counsel much more frequently. Confession must be made once each week, and daily Holy Communion is strongly commended. Out of the time of Divine Office, before which nothing is to be preferred, and when not engaged in manual labour, the monks devote themselves to prayer, study, or pious reading, for there is never any time granted for recreation; these exercises always take place in common, never in private rooms. The hour for rising is at 2 a.m. on weekdays, 1:30 on Sundays, and 1 on the more solemn feasts; whilst the hour for retiring is at 7 p.m. in winter, and 8 in summer; in this latter season there is a siesta given after dinner, so that the religious have seven hours' sleeping the course of the day; about seven hours also are devoted to the Divine Office and Mass, one hour to meals, four hours to study and private prayers and five hours to manual labour; in winter there are only about four hours devoted to manual labour, the extra hour thus deducted being given to study. The monks are obliged to live by the labour of their hands, so the task appointed for manual labour is seriously undertaken, and is of such a nature as to render them self-supporting; such as cultivation of the land, cattle-raising, etc. Dinner is partaken of at 11 a.m. in summer, at 11:30 in winter, and at 12 on fast days, with supper or collation in the evening. Food consists of bread, vegetables, and fruits; milk and cheese may also be given except in Advent, Lent, and all Fridays out of Paschal time. flesh-meat, fish, and eggs are forbidden at all times, except to the sick. All sleep in a common dormitory, the beds being divided from each other only by a partition and curtain, the bed to consist of mattress and pillow stuffed with straw, and sufficient covering. The monks are obliged to sleep in their regular clothing; which consists of ordinary underwear, a habit of white, and a scapular of black wool, with a leathern cincture; the cowl, of the same material as the habit, is worn over all. Enclosure, according to canon law, is perpetual in all houses. It is never allowed for the religious to speak amongst themselves, though the one in charge of a work or employment may give necessary directions; and all have the right of conversing with the superiors at any time except during the night hours, called the "great silence". Studies Before ordination to the priesthood (and all choir religious are destined for that) the monk must pass a satisfactory examination before the abbot, in the curriculum prescribed by the order and the Decrees of the Holy See; and afterwards all are obliged to participate in conferences on theology and Sacred Scriptures at least once each month. Students preparing for ordination are granted extra time, during the hours of work, for the prosecution of their studies. The third part deals with the reception of subjects. The greatest care is insisted on to see that the postulants are of good character, honest birth, and without encumbrances of any kind; also that they have pursued the course of studies prescribed by the Holy See; they must have attained at least their fifteenth year. The novitiate is of two years' duration, during which time the novice is formed to the religious life, but he can leave, or the superior may send him away, if he is unable or unwilling to conform to the spirit of his vocation. The time of probation completed, the subject is voted for, and if accepted, makes simple, but perpetual vows; these are followed by solemn vows at the end of three, or in special cases, five years. Besides choir religious there are lay brothers. These must be at least seventeen years of age when received; they are then postulants for two years, novices for two more, after which they may be admitted to simple, though perpetual vows, then after six years more they may make solemn vows. They do not recite the Divine Office, but have special prayers appointed to be said at the same hours throughout the day. They are not obliged to follow special studies, but are engaged in manual labour for a somewhat longer time than the choir religious; their habit is nearly the same as that of those in the choir, but brown in colour. They are religious in the full sense of the word, and participate in all the graces and privileges of the order, except that they have neither active nor passive voice in the management of the affairs of the order. It may be well to deny a few customs that have been attributed, by ignorance, to the order. The monks do not salute one another by the "memento mori", nor do they dig a part of their grave each day; in meeting each other they salute by an inclination of the head, and graves are dug only after a brother is ready to be placed in it. (For statistics see Cistercians.) Gaillardin, Les trappistes ou l'order de Cîteaux au XIXe. (siecle Paris, 1844); Hist. populaire de N.-D. de la Grande Trappe (Paris, 1895); La Trappe, by a Trappist of Sept-Fons (Paris, 1870); VErite, Cîteaux, La Trappe et Bellefontaine (Paris, 1883); The Cistercian Order, its Object; its Rule (Cambridge, 1895); La Trappe, congregation de moines de l'ordre benedictino-cistercien (Rome 1864); M.P.P., La Trappe mieux connue (Paris, 1834); Reglements de la Maison Dieu de No.-D. de la Trappe mis en nouvel order et augmentes des usages particuliers de la Val-Sainte (2 vols., Fribourg, 1794); Hist. abregee de l'order de Cîteaux by a monk of Thymadeuse (St-Brieue, 1897); Us des cisterciens reformes de la congregation de la Grande Trappe, with the Charta Charitatis and Decretum Apostolicum quo institutae sunt dua congregationes B.M. de Trappa in Gallia, 1847 (Toulouse, 1876); Us de l'ordre des cisterciens reformes precedes de la regle de S. Benoit et des constitutions, published by the general chapter of 1894 (Westmalle, 1895); Reglement de la Trappe du Rev. Pere Dom Armand-Jean le Bouthillier de Rancé, revu par le chapitre general de la congregation (Paris, 1878). EDMOND M. OBRECHT Sts. Trasilla and Emiliana Sts. Trasilla and Emiliana Aunts of St. Gregory the Great, virgins in the sixth century, given in the Roman Martyrology, the former on 24 December, the latter on 5 January. St. Gregory (Hom. XXXVIII, 15, on the Gospel of St. Matthew, and Lib. Dial., IV, 16) relates that his father, the Senator Gordian, had three sisters who vowed themselves to God and led a life of virginity, fasting, and prayer in their own home on the Clivus Scauri in Rome. They were Trasilla (Tarsilla, Tharsilla, Thrasilla), Emiliana, and Gordiana. Gordiana, led on at first by the words and example of her sisters, did not persevere but returned to the vanities of the world. After many years in the service of God, St. Felix III, an ancestor, appeared to Trasilla and bade her enter her abode of glory. On the eve of Christmas she died, seeing Jesus beckoning. A few days later she appeared to Emiliana, who had followed well in her footsteps, and invited her to the celebration of Epiphany in heaven. Tradition says that their relics and those of their mother, St. Silvia, are in the Oratory of St. Andrew on the Celian Hill. FRANCES MERSHMAN Accusations of Treason Accusations of Treason A common misrepresentation concerning the Elizabethan persecution of English and Irish Catholics from 1570 onwards is the statement that the victims devoted to imprisonment, torture, and death suffered not for their religious belief but for treason against the queen and her government. This view, officially promulgated by Elizabeth's lord high treasurer, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, in 1583, was constantly reiterated by the judges in the courts, by Protestant writers in their controversial works, and has thence made its way into popular manuals of history. At the present day it frequently reappears as one of the stock accusations brought against the Church by Anglican controversialists of various types. The simple fact that in very many instances those condemned to death ostensibly for treason were offered their lives and liberty if they would attend Anglican worship, shows conclusively that the martyrs did in fact suffer for religion; but at this epoch religion and politics were so inextricably confused that this explanation, though valid in the case of individual martyrs, does not suffice to meet the general accusation. As a recent Anglican historian writes: "The vexed question whether the Romanists died for treason or for their faith implies an antithesis which had little meaning in that age of mingled politics and religion" (A.F. Pollard, "Political History of England", VI, 377). Everything centres round the excommunication of Elizabeth by St. Pius V, 25 February, 1570. This act created a situation full of perplexity for English Catholics. It even underlies the history of the rising of the northern earls in 1569, for when they rose they had reason to believe that the excommunication had already taken place. Harassed as they were, the Catholics would take no steps in defence of their rights till the pope declared that Elizabeth's misgovernment had so infringed the spiritual liberty of her subjects as to absolve them from their allegiance. Once this declaration was made a number of Catholics acted on it, and there was a certain section who under the influence of Mendoza and others were implicated in plots against Elizabeth which were undoubtedly treasonable from the Government's point of view. But they might well have urged that in so assailing the royal power they were doing no more against Elizabeth than Bolingbroke had done against Richard II, or Richmond against Richard III. Yet neither Henry IV nor Henry VII are usually branded as "traitors". The subsequent cases of Pym and Hampden, not to mention the successful revolutionaries of 1688, show that success or failure is often made the real test between treason and rebellion. That a certain party of English Catholics was in rebellion against Elizabeth is not disputed, but justified rebellion ceases to be treason and may be the noblest patriotism. Thus Allen with many of the exiles of Douai and Louvain, and Persons with many of the Jesuits, saw in the rule of Elizabeth a greater danger to the highest interests of England than had previously been threatened in cases where history had justified the deposition of kings. And the supreme authority had sanctioned this view. Moreover, such exercise of papal prerogative was one of the recognized principles of the Middle Ages throughout which it had served to protect the rights of the people. This became evident later, when, after the decline of papal power, the autocratic power of the European sovereigns was greatly increased and always at the expense of the people. Nevertheless, it remains true that in the eyes of Elizabeth and her ministers such opposition was nothing less than high treason. But a large number of English Catholics refused to go so far as rebellion. The historian already quoted admits that the opposition which relied on avowedly treasonable methods was "limited to extremists" (ibid., 297). Elsewhere he says of the rank and file of English Catholics: "They tried to ignore their painful dilemma between two forms of allegiance, for both of which they had deep respect" (p. 370). As Lingard writes: "among the English Catholics (the bull) served only to breed doubts, dissensions, and dismay. Many contended that it had been issued by an incompetent authority; others that it could not bind the natives till it should be carried into actual execution by some foreign power; all agreed that it was in their regard an imprudent and cruel expedient, which rendered them liable to the suspicion of disloyalty, and afforded their enemies a presence to brand them with the name of traitors" (ibid., 225). The terrible strain of this dilemma was relieved by the next pope, Gregory XIII, who on 14 April 1580, issued a declaration that though Elizabeth and her abettors remained subject to the excommunication, it was not to bind Catholics to their detriment. The large majority of English Catholics were relieved in conscience by this dispensation, and never gave the Government the least ground for suspecting their loyalty, but they persisted in the practice of their religion, which was made possible only by the coming of the seminary priests. With regard to these priests, who entered England at the risk of their lives to preserve the Catholic religion and to give facilities for Mass and the sacraments there could be no presumption of treason by the ancient laws of England. But in the panic which followed the Northern Rising, Parliament had passed a statute (13 Eliz. c. 2) declaring it to be high treason to put into effcet any papal Bull of absolution to absolve or reconcile any person to the Catholic Church, to be absolved or reconciled, or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever. Thus for the first time purely religious acts were declared by Parliament to be treasonable, a position which no Catholic could admit. It is clear that persons suffering under such a law as this suffered for religion and not for treason. Elizabeth's Government, however, for its own purposes refused to make any distinction between Catholics who had been engaged in open opposition to the queen and those who were forced by conscience to ignore the provisions of this statute of 1571. These two classes, really distinct, were purposely identified by the Government and treated as one for controversial purposes. For when the reports of so many bloody executions for religion began to horrify Europe, the queen's ministers adopted the defence that their severity was not exercised against Catholics as such, but as traitors guilty of treason against their sovereign. This view was put forward officially in a pamphlet by Lord Burghley, which was not only published in English but translated into Latin and other languages for foreign circulation. The very title of this work indicates its scope: "The Execution of Justice in England for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as is falsely reported, and published by the fautors and fosterers of their treasons." This pamphlet, which was issued on 17 December, 1583, may briefly be summarized. Attention is first drawn to late rebellions in England and Ireland which had been suppressed by the queen's power. Whereupon some of the defeated rebels had fled into foreign countries and there alleged that they were suffering for religion. Great stress is laid upon the Bull of excommunication; and all Catholics living abroad are represented as engaged in seditious practices with a view to carrying the Bull into effect. The seminaries are exhibited merely as foundations established to assist in this disloyal object. They have been "erected to nurse seditious fugitives". The priests who came forth at the risk of their lives are not given credit for any religious purpose, but "the seminary fugitives come secretly into the realm to induce the people to obey the Pope's bull". This view is important as it shows the pretext put forth by the Government to defend the Act of 1585 by which it became high treason for any seminary priest simply to come to England. The pamphlet proceeds to decIare that some of these "sowers of sedition" have been taken, convicted, and executed "not being ddealt withal upon questions of religion, but justly condemned as traitors". They were so condemned "by the ancient realm made 200 years past". Moreover, if they retracted their treasonable opinions their lives were spared. As "the foreign traitors continue sending of persons to move sedition in the realm" who cloak their real object of enforcing the Bulls under the pretext of religion and who "labour to bring the realm into a war external and domestical", it becomes the duty of the queen and her ministers to repel such rebellious practices. Burghley insists that before the excommunication no one had been charged with capital crimes on the ground of religion, and brings everything back to the question of the Bull. "And if then it be inquired for what cause these others have of late suffered death it is truely to be answered as afore is often remembered that none at all are impeached for treason to the danger of their life but such as do obstinately maintain the contents of the Pope's Bull aforementioned, which do import that her Majesty is not the lawful Queen of England, the first and highest point of treason, and that all her subjects are discharged of their oaths and obedience, another high point of treason. and all warranted to disobey her and her laws, a third and very large point of treason." A fourth point is taken from the refusal of the Catholics to disavow the pope's proceedings in Ireland. After many other points some of an historical nature addressed to foreign princes the writer anticipates the objection that many sufferers had been simple priests and unarmed scholars. He says "Many are traitors though they have no armour nor weapon." Such people are like spies, "necessary accessaries and adherents proper to further and continue all rebellions and wars. . . . The very causes final of these rebellions and wars have been to depose her Majesty from her crown: the causes instrumental are these kind of seminaries and seedmen of sedition. The pamphlet ends by proposing six questions or tests by which traitors might be distinguished from simple scholars. These interrogatories, known later as "the bloody questions", were ingeniously framed to entangle the victim into admissions with regard to the pope's action in excommunicating Elizabeth, which might be construed as treason. This is the government case and it was promptly answered by Allen in his "Answer to the Libel of English Justice", published in 1584, in which he joins issue on all points, showing "that many priests and other Catholics in England have been persecuted, condemned and executed for mere matter of religion and for transgression only of new statutes which make cases of conscience to be treason without all pretence or surmise of any old treasons or statutes for the same". He defends Campion and the other martyrs from the imputation of treason, points to the oppression of the Government and the prudent attitude of the Catholics with regard to the Bull; he explains the doctrine of the excommunication and deprivation of princes, the advantages of having a supreme authority to decide between princes and people in causes involving questions of deprivation; defends the pope's action in Ireland and concIudes by showing "that the separation of the prince and realm from the unity of the Church and See Apostolic and fall from Catholic religion is the only cause of all the present fears and dangers that the State seemeth to stand in. And that they unjustly attribute the same to the Pope's Holiness or Catholics and untruly call them the enemies of the Realm". In the following year, 1585, the Government took another step forward in their policy of drawing religious and indifferent acts into the political net. This was the statute 27 Eliz. c. 2, by which it was made high treason for any Jesuit or any seminary priest even to be in England, and felony for anyone to harbour or relieve them. Even so biased an historian as David Hume realized the injustice of this measure of which he says: "In the subsequent part of the queen's reign the law was sometimes executed by the capital punishment of priests; and though the partisans of that princess asserted that they were punished for their treason, not their religion, the apology must only be understood in this sense, that the law was enacted on account of the treasonable views and attempts of the sect, not that every individual who suffered the penalty of the law was convicted of treason" (Hist. of Eng., sub an 1584). The martyrs themselves constantly protested against this accusation of treason, and prayed for the queen on the scaffold. In very many instances they were offered a free pardon if they would attend the Protestant church, and some priests unfortunately yielded to the temptation. But the fact of the offer being made sufficiently shows that religion, not treason, was the ground of their offence. This is notably the ease with regard to Blessed Thomas Percy who had himself been the leader of the Northern Rising and who yet was offered his liberty at the price of conformity. There are three beatified martyrs directly connected with the excommunication, Felton, Storey, and Woodhouse, who for that reason stand in a class apart from the other martyrs; their cases have received special treatment by Father Pollen, S.J. (Camm's "Lives of the English Martyrs", II, xvii-xxii). It may not be amiss to state that so careful is the Holy See in such questions that the cause of beatification of James Laborne has been postponed for more careful consideration simply because of certain words he uttered about the queen. With regard to all the other martyrs there is no difficulty in showing that they died for their religion, and that the accusation of treason in their regard is false and unfounded. EDWIN BURTON Diocese of Trebizond Trebizond (TRAPEZUNTINA). An Armenian Catholic diocese. The city owes its ancient name to the fact that it was built on the shores of the Black Sea in the form of a trapeze. It was a Greek colony from Sinopus, established in the eighth century, B.C., and not a colony from Trapezus, in Arcadia, as Xenophon relates, who was received here with enthusiasm during the retreat of the Ten Thousand. After having formed a part of the Kingdom of Armenia, and then of that of Pontus, it fell into the hands of the Romans, and was declared a free city by Pompey. The Emperor Hadrian adorned it and endowed it with great commercial importance by creating its artificial harbor. Under Valerian the Goths took and pillaged it; its inhabitants were slain or sent as slaves to the Cimmerian Bosphorus. Justinian raised it from its ruins and thenceforth it became rich in monuments, especially churches and monasteries. In 1204 when Constantinople fell into the power of the Latins, a prince of the family of the Comneni, who in 1185 sought safety in Iberia, proclaimed himself Emperor of Trebizond under the name of Alexis, and founded a Greek empire, the rival of that of Nicaea. The new state comprised nearly all of the ancient Pontus Polemoniacus and stretched eastward as far as the River Phasis. It was in perpetual conflict with the Seljuk Turks and later with the Osmanli Turks, as well as with the Greeks of Nicaea and Constantinople, the Italian republics, and especially the Genoese. During the two centuries and a half in which it succeeded in subsisting the Empire of Trebizond contributed greatly to the development of Christian civilization and Greek literature in those distant parts, until then somewhat backward. In 1462 Trebizond was taken by assault by the troops of Mohammed II, and its last emperor, David, was exiled to the vicinity of Serrae in Macedonia. He was soon obliged to choose between embracing Islam or forfeiting his life; he kept the faith and was executed together with six of his children. The seventh fled to the Peloponnesus where he founded the Comneni of Morea. From 1204 to 1462 Trebizond had, in all, twenty emperors. At present Trebizond is the capital of the vilayet of the same name, bounded by those of Sivas and Erzeroum, the Black Sea, and Asiatic Russia, which after the war of 1877 absorbed a part of its territory. The vilayet measures about 270 miles from west to east by 65 miles at its extreme length; its area is 11,275 sq. miles. Its total population may be estimated at 900,000. The city itself has 50,000 inhabitants, among whom are 12,000 Greeks, 10,000 Armenians, some Jews, and a few hundred Catholics The remainder are Turkish Mussulmans, Lazis, Circassians, and Afghazis. Trebizond has a citadel, at least 40 mosques, 10 Greek churches, some of which have preserved ancient paintings, several Armenian churches, etc.; it carries on an active trade with Persia, Russia, and European countries by way of the black Sea. Close to the city are several Greek monasteries still inhabited, and which played a certain part in Byzantine history. The first traces of Christianity at Trebizond are found under Diocletian when St. Eugenius, still the patron of the city, St. Canoeists, and their companions were martyred. Among the saints of whom mention is still made were the Bishop St. Basil, tenth century (feast, 20 October), and St. Theodore Gabras, martyred about 1098 (feast, 2 October). At first merely a suffragan of Neocaesarea in Pontus Polemoniacus Trebizond became the metropolitan see of Lazica when the ancient metropolis, Phasis, was lost by the Byzantine Empire. At the end of the ninth century it had seven suffragans, which number continued to increase. The emperors of Trebizond profited by their political situation to secure privileges for the bishop of their capital. By an official act of 1 January, 1260, the Greek Patriarch of Nicaea, at the request of Michael VIII Paleologus, recognized a semi-independence of the Metropolitan of Trebizond. Thenceforth the titulars of this city went neither to Nicaea nor Constantinople to receive episcopal consecration from the patriarch; it was given them in their own church in the presence of a delegate from the patriarch who assisted at, or, if he were a bishop, presided at the ceremony. But the patriarch reserved to himself as formerly the ordinations of the other metropolitans or the autocephalous archbishops of the empire. Of course after the suppression of the Empire of Trebizond in 1462 the metropolitans of this city lost these privileges and were made like all the other metropolitans, in which condition they are at present. Le Quien (Oriens christ., I, 509-14) gives a list of eighteen Greek bishops of Trebizond, to which other names might be added. Among them Domnus, the oldest known, who assisted at the Council of Nicaea in 325; Atarbius, at Chalcedon in 451; Anthimus, the future Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople, who deposed Pope St. Agapitus in 536; Dorotheus, who assisted at the Council of Florence (1439), and signed its decree of union; Cyril, who in 1653 was in Paris with the Dominican Pere Goar, and made a profession of Catholic faith at Rome. To these may be added the Bishop Ouranios who, according to an inscription (C.I.G., 8636), restored buildings in the year 542. In the Middle Ages, because of the Venetian and Genoese merchants and also because of the missionaries who went to evangelize the Khazars, Comans, and Tatars, a Latin see was established at Trebizond. The oldest-known titular was a Franciscan, Andronicus Comnenus, mentioned in 1289. In Le Quien (op. cit.. III, 1097-1100) and in Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, I, 520) will be found the names of several other bishops from 1344 to 1437. The Latin diocese must have lasted until the capture of the city by Mohammed II. The Armenian Catholic diocese erected in 1850 by Pius IX, is of vast extent; it has 4300 faithful, 4 churches, 7 stations, 4 primary schools, 9 secular priests, and 4 Mechitarists. There are also Jesuits at Marsivan and Amasia, engaged exclusively with the Armenians; the Oblates of the Assumption are at Amasia for the same object. The Capuchins are established for the Latins at Trebizond, Samsun, and Ineboli, and are dependent on the delegate Apostolic at Constantinople; the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition have a boarding-school at Trebizond. GAINSFORD, The Historic of Trebizonde (London, 1616); FALLMERAYER Gesch. des Kaisertums Trapezunt (Munich, 1827); FISCHER, Trapezunt u. seine Bedeutung in der Gesch. in Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Gesch., III (Stuttgart, 1886), 13-39: IDEM Trapezuns im 11 u. 1 Jahrhundert in Mitteilungen des Instituts fur ost. Geschichtsforsch. X, 77-127; KRUMBACHER Gesch. der byzantinischen Literatur (Munich, 1897), 1049-1051; MILLET, Les monasteres et les eglises de Trebizonde in Bulletin de correspondance hellenique XIX, 419-459; IDEM, Inscriptions byzantines de Trebizonde, op cit. XX, 498-501; STRZYGOWSKI Les chapiteaux de Sainte-Sophie d Trebizonde, op. cit., XIX, 517-522; PETIT, Acte synodal du patriarche Nicephore II sur les privileges du metropolitain de Trebizonde in Bulletin de l'institut arch. russe de Constantinople VIII, 163-171; Missiones catholica (Rome, 1897), 759. S. VAILHÉ Trebnitz Trebnitz A former abbey of Cistercian nuns, situated north of Breslau in Silesia. It was founded in 1203 by Duke Henry the Bearded of Silesia and his wife St. Hedwig. The story of its foundation relates that one Duke Henry when out hunting fell into a swamp from which he could not extricate himself. In return for the rescue from this perilous position he vowed to build the abbey. With St. Hedwig's consent, Bishop Ekbert of Bamberg, her brother, chose the first nuns that occupied the convent. The first abbess was Petrussa; she was followed by Gertrude, the daughter of St. Hedwig. Up to 1515 the abbesses were first princesses of the Piast House and afterwards members of the nobility. The abbey was richly endowed with lands by Duke Henry. When Hedwig became a widow she went to live at Trebnitz and was buried there. It is said that towards the end of the thirteenth century the nuns numbered 120. In 1672 there were 32 nuns and 6 lay sisters, in 1805 there were 23 nuns and 6 lay sisters. The abbey suffered from all kinds of misfortunes both in the Middle Ages and in modern times: from famine in 1315, 1338, 1434, and 1617, from disastrous fires in 1413, 1432, 1464, 1486, 1505, 1595, and 1782. At the Reformation most of the nuns were Poles, as were the majority until during the eighteenth century. The Abbey of Trebnitz suffered so greatly during the Thirty Years War that the nuns fled to Poland, as they did again in 1663 when the Turks threatened Silesia. The last abbess, Dominica von Giller, died on 17 August, 1810, and on 11 November, 1810, the abbey was suppressed and secularized. The building, which was very extensive, was sold later and turned into a cloth factory. It is now used as the mother-house of the Trebnitz Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo and as a hospital conducted by the sisters. The church, a basilica with pillars in the late Romanesque style, to which Baroque additions were made, is now the parish church. The grave of St. Hedwig is in the chapel of St. Hedwig to the right of the high altar. The grave of Duke Henry I, her husband, is in front of the altar. SCHMIDT, Gesch. des Klosterstiftes Trebnitz (Oppein, 1853); Bach., Gesch. und Beschreibung des Klosterstiftes in Trebnitz (Neisse, 1859); JUNGNITZ, Wahrfahrtsbuchlein fur Verehrer der hl. Hedwig (3d ed., Breslau, 1902). KLEMENS LÖFFLER Lettice Mary Tredway Lettice Mary Tredway (Called "Lady" Tredway) Born 1595; died Oct., 1677; daughter of Sir Walter Tredway, of Buckley Park, Northamptonshire; her mother was Elizabeth Weyman. In July, 1616, Lady Tredway entered the novitiate of the Canonesses Regular of the Lateran of Notre-Dame-de-Beaulieu at Sin, near Douai (where she was probably educated), and in Oct., 1617, made her solemn profession. In 1631 she and Miles Pinkney, better known as Father Carre, a priest of the English College at Douai, conceived the project of opening a house for canonesses for English subjects only at Douai. The idea was approved by the authorities at home and abroad, and in 1634 it was decided to open this English convent at Paris. Dr. Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, then in exile in Paris, helped them so generously that he may be counted a co-founder. He blessed Lady Tredway as abbess, and the Convent of Notre-Dame-de-Sion was permanently established in the Rue des Fosses in 1639. Father Carre and Lady Tredway were also practically the founders of the Seminary of St. Gregory for training priests for the English Mission. A pension for English ladies and a school were attached to the new convent, of which Lady Tredway held the office of abbess till 1675, when her infirmities compelled her to resign. Since her death the superiors have held the title of prioress. For forty-one years this noble woman laboured bravely for her convent. The community has been obliged to leave France, and is established in England at Ealing (1912). CEDOZ, Un couvent de religieuses anglaises (1891); ALMOND, Les dames anglaises (Paris, 1911). FRANCESCA M. STEELE Francis Tregian Francis Tregian Confessor, b. in Cornwall, 1548; d. at Lisbon, 25 Sept., 1608. He was son of Thomas Tregian of Wolveden, Cornwall, and Catherine Arundell; and inherited property worth three thousand pounds a year, the whole of which was confiscated by Elizabeth becaused he had harboured Blessed Cuthbert Mayne (q.v.). Previously he had resided at Court in order to help the persecuted Catholics, and he is said by his biographer to have incurred the queen's displeasure by refusing her improper advances. After suffering imprisonment at Windsor and in various London prisons for twenty-eight years, he was liberated by James I, who banished him. Having visited Douai he retired to Madrid, where the King of Spain assigned him a pension. Seventeen years after death his body was found incorrupt, and miracles are stated to have been wrought by his intercession. He married Mary, daughter of Charles, seventh Lord Stourton, by whom he had eighteen children. PLUNKETT, Heroum speculum de vita D.D. Francisci Tregeon (Lisbon, 1655); ANONYMOUS, Great and Long Sufferings for the Catholic Faith of Mr. Francis Tregian, contemporary MS. printed by MORRIS in Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers, I (London, 1872); CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, I (London, 1741); CAMM, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1905); Third Douay Diary in Catholic Record Society Publications, X (London, 1911); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Tremithus Tremithus Titular see, suffragan of Salamis in Cyprus. The city is mentioned by Ptolemy (Geog., V, xiii, 6), Hierocles (ed. Buckhardt, 708, 7), George of Cyprus (ed. Gelzer, 1109), and other geographers. Among its bishops were: St. Spyridon, a shepherd and married, present at the council of Nicaea in 325, and whose cult is popular in the East (Anal. bolland., XXVI, 239); St. Arcadius and St. Nestor, venerated 14 Feb. or 7 March; Theopompus, at the Second Ecumenical Council in in 381; Theodore, at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681, and who wrote a biography of St. John Chrysostom (P.G., XLVII; 51-88); George, at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; Spyridon in 1081, when the see was temporarily restored. The usurper Isaac Comnenus was defeated here in 1191 by Richard Coeur de Lion who afterwards took possession of Cyprus. The city was then destroyed and survives only in the Greek village of Trimethusia in the district of Chrysocho. LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., II, 1069-72; GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig, 1890), 213; HACKETT, A History of the orthodox Church of Cyprus (London, 1901), 322 sqq. S. VAILHÉ Council of Trent Council of Trent The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. I. CONVOCATION AND OPENING On 28 November, 1518, Luther had appealed from the pope to a general council because he was convinced that he would be condemned at Rome for his heretical doctrines. The Diet held at Nuremberg in 1523 demanded a "free Christian council" on German soil, and at the Diet held in the same city in 1524 a demand was made for a German national council to regulate temporarily the questions in dispute, and for a general council to settle definitely the accusations against Rome, and the religious disputes. Owing to the feeling prevalent in Germany the demand was very dangerous. Rome positively rejected the German national council, but did not absolutely object to holding a general council. Emperor Charles V forbade the national council, but notified Clement VII through his ambassadors that he considered the calling of a general council expedient and proposed the city of Trent as the place of assembly. In the years directly succeeding this, the unfortunate dispute between emperor and pope prevented any further negotiations concerning a council. Nothing was done until 1529 when the papal ambassador, Pico della Mirandola, declared at the Diet of Speyer that the pope was ready to aid the Germans in the struggle against the Turks, to urge the restoration of peace among Christian rulers, and to convoke a general council to meet the following summer. Charles and Clement VII met at Bologna in 1530, and the pope agreed to call a council, if necessary. The cardinal legate, Lorenzo Campeggio, opposed a council, convinced that the Protestants were not honest in demanding it. Still the Catholic princes of Germany, especially the dukes of Bavaria, favoured a council as the best means of overcoming the evils from which the Church was suffering; Charles never wavered in his determination to have the council held as soon as there was a period of general peace in Christendom. The matter was also discussed at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, when Campegio again opposed a council, while the emperor declared himself in favour of one provided the Protestants were willing to restore earlier conditions until the decision of the council. Charles's proposition met the approval of the Catholic princes, who, however, wished the assembly to meet in Germany. The emperor's letters to his ambassadors at Rome on the subject led to the discussion of the matter twice in the congregation of cardinals appointed especially for German affairs. Although opinions differed, the pope wrote to the emperor that Charles could promise the convoking of a council with his consent, provided the Protestants returned to the obedience of the Church. He proposed an Italian city, preferably Rome, as the place of assembly. The emperor, however, distrusted the pope, believing that Clement did not really desire a council. Meantime, the Protestant princes did not agree to abandon their doctrines. Clement constantly raised difficulties in regard to a council, although Charles, in accord with most of the cardinals, especially Farnese, del Monte, and Canisio, repeatedly urged upon him the calling of one as the sole means of composing the religious disputes. Meanwhile the Protestant princes refused to withdraw from the position they had taken up. Francis I, of France, sought to frustrate the convoking of the council by making impossible conditions. It was mainly his fault that the council was not held during the reign of Clement VII, for on 28 Nov., 1531, it had been unanimously agreed in a consistory that a council should be called. At Bologna in 1532, the emperor and the pope discussed the question of a council again and decided that it should meet as soon as the approval of all Christian princes had been obtained for the plan. Suitable Briefs addressed to the rulers were drawn up and legates were commissioned to go to Germany, France, and England. The answer of the French king was unsatisfactory. Both he and Henry VIII of England avoided a definitive reply, and the German Protestants rejected the conditions proposed by the pope. The next pope, Paul III (1534-49), as Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, had always strongly favoured the convening of a council, and had, during the conclave, urged the calling of one. When, after his election, he first met the Cardinals, 17 October, 1534, he spoke of the necessity of a general council, and repeated this opinion at the first consistory (13 November). He summoned distinguished prelates to Rome to discuss the matter with them. Representatives of Charles V and Ferdinand I also laboured to hasten the council. The majority of the cardinals, however, opposed the immediate calling of a council, and it was resolved to notify the princes of the papal decision to hold a church assembly. Nuncios were sent for this purpose to France, Spain, and the German king, Ferdinand. Vergerio, nuncio to Ferdinand, was also to apprise the German electors and the most distinguished of the remaining ruling princes personally of the impending proclamation of the council. He executed his commission with zeal, although he frequently met with reserve and distrust. The selection of the place of meeting was a source of much difficulty, as Rome insisted that the council should meet in an Italian city. The Protestant rulers, meeting at Smalkald in December, 1535, rejected the proposed council. In this they were supported by Kings Henry VIII and Francis I. At the same time the latter sent assurances to Rome that he considered the council as very serviceable for the extermination of heresy, carrying on, as regards the holding of a council, the double intrigue he always pursued in reference to German Protestantism. The visit of Charles V to Rome in 1536 led to a complete agreement between him and the pope concerning the council. On 2 June, Paul III published the Bull calling all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots to assemble at Mantua on 23 May, 1537, for a general council. Cardinal legates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King of France, while a number of other nuncios carried the invitation to the other Christian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent to Germany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. The Protestant rulers received the ambassador most ungraciously; at Smalkald they refused the invitation curtly, although in 1530 they had demanded a council. Francis I took advantage of the war that had broken out between himself and Charles in 1536 to declare the journey of the French bishops to the council impossible. Meanwhile preparations were carried on with zeal at Rome. The commission of reform, appointed in July, 1536, drew up a report as the basis for the correction of the abuses in ecclesiastical life; the pope began preparations for the journey to Mantua. The Duke of Mantua now raised objections against the holding of the assembly in his city and made conditions which it was not possible to accept at Rome. The opening of the council, therefore, was put off to 1 November; later it was decided to open it at Vicenza on 1 May, 1538. The course of affairs, however, was continually obstructed by Francis I. Nevertheless the legates who were to preside at the council went to Vicenza. Only six bishops were present. The French king and the pope met at Nice, and it was decided to prorogue until Easter, 1539. Soon after this the emperor also desired to postpone the council, as he hoped to restore religious unity in Germany by conferences with the Protestants. After further unsuccessful negotiations both with Charles V and Francis I the council was indefinitely prorogued at the consistory of 21 May, 1539, to reassemble at the pope's discretion. When Paul III and Charles V met at Lucca in September, 1541, the former again raised the question of the council. The emperor now consented that it should meet at Vicenza, but Venice would not agree, whereupon the emperor proposed Trent, and later Cardinal Contarini suggested Mantua, but nothing was decided. The emperor and Francis I were invited later to send the cardinals of their countries to Rome, so that the question of the council could be discussed by the college of cardinals. Morone worked in Germany as legate for the council, and the pope agreed to hold it at Trent. After further consultations at Rome, Paul III convoked on 22 May, 1542, an ecumenical council to meet at Trent on 1 Nov. of the same year. The Protestants made violent attacks on the council, and Francis I opposed it energetically, not even permitting the Bull of convocation to be published in his kingdom. The German Catholic princes and King Sigismund of Poland consented to the convocation. Charles V, enraged at the neutral position of the pope in the war that was threatening between himself and Francis I, as well as with the wording of the Bull, wrote a reproachful letter to Paul III. Nevertheless, preparations were made for the council at Trent, by special papal commissioners, and three cardinals were appointed later as conciliary legates. The conduct, however, of Francis I and of the emperor again prevented the opening of the council. A few Italian and German bishops appeared at Trent. The pope went to Bologna in March 1543, and to a conference with Charles V at Busseto in June, yet matters were not advanced. The strained relations which appeared anew between pope and emperor, and the war between Charles V and Francis I, led to another prorogation (6 July, 1543). After the Peace of Crespy (17 Sept., 1544) a reconciliation was effected between Paul III and Charles V. Francis I had abandoned his opposition and declared himself in favour of Trent as the place of meeting, as did the emperor. On 19 Nov., 1544, the Bull "Laetare Hierusalem" was issued, by which the council was again convoked to meet at Trent on 15 March, 1545. Cardinals Giovanni del Monte, Marcello Cervini, and Reginald Pole were appointed in February, 1545, as the papal legates to preside at the council. As in March only a few bishops had come to Trent, the date of opening had to be deferred again. The emperor, however, desired a speedy opening, consequently 13 December, 1545, was appointed as the date of the first formal session. This was held in the choir of the cathedral of Trent after the first president of the council, Cardinal del Monte, had celebrated the Mass of the Holy Ghost. When the Bull of convocation and the Bull appointing the conciliary legates were read, Cardinal del Monte declared the ecumenical council opened, and appointed 7 January as the date of the second session. Besides the three presiding legates there were present: Cardinal Madruzza, Bishop of Trent, four archbishops, twenty-one bishops, five generals of orders. The council was attended, in addition, by the legates of the King of Germany, Ferdinand, and by forty-two theologians, and nine canonists, who had been summoned as consultors. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS In the work of accomplishing its great task the council had to contend with many difficulties. The first weeks were occupied mainly with settling the order of business of the assembly. After long discussion it was agreed that the matters to be taken into consideration by the members of the council were to be proposed by the cardinal legates; after they had been drawn up by a commission of consultors (congregatio theologorum minorum) they were to be discussed thoroughly in preparatory sessions of special congregations of prelates for dogmatic questions, and similar congregations for legal questions (congregatio proelatorum theologorum and congregatio proelatorum canonistarum). Originally the fathers of the council were divided into three congregations for discussion of subjects, but this was soon done away with as too cumbersome. After all the preliminary discussions the matter thus made ready was debated in detail in the general congregation (congregatio generalis) and the final form of the decrees was settled on. These general congregations were composed of all bishops, generals of orders, and abbots who were entitled to a vote, the proxies of absent members entitled to a vote, and the representatives (oratores) of the secular rulers. The decrees resulting from such exhaustive debates were then brought forward in the formal sessions and votes were taken upon them. On 18 December the legates laid seventeen articles before the general congregations as regards the order of procedure in the subjects to be discussed. This led to a number of difficulties. The main one was whether dogmatic questions or the reform of church life should be discussed first. It was finally decided that both subjects should be debated simultaneously. Thus after the promulgation in the sessions of the decrees concerning the dogmas of the Church followed a similar promulgation of those on discipline and Church reform. The question was also raised whether the generals of orders and abbots were members of the council entitled to a vote. Opinions varied greatly on this point. Still, after long discussion the decision was reached that one vote for the entire order belonged to each general of an order, and that the three Benedictine abbots sent by the pope to represent the entire order were entitled to only one vote. Violent differences of opinion appeared during the preparatory discussion of the decree to be laid before the second session determining the title to be given the council; the question was whether there should be added to the title "Holy Council of Trent" (Sacrosancta tridentina synodus) the words "representing the Church universal" (universalem ecclesiam reproesentans). According to the Bishop of Fiesole, Braccio Martello, a number of the members of the council desired the latter form. However, such a title, although justified in itself, appeared dangerous to the legates and other members of the council on account of its bearing on the Councils of Constance and Basle, as it might be taken to express the superiority of the ecumenical council over the pope. Therefore instead of this formula the additional phrase " oecumenica et generalis" was proposed and accepted by nearly all the bishops. Only three bishops who raised the question unsuccessfully several times later persisted in wanting the formula "universalem ecclesiam reproesentans". A further point was in reference to the proxies of absent bishops, namely, whether these were entitled to a vote or not. Originally the proxies were not allowed a vote; Paul III granted to those German bishops who could not leave their dioceses on account of religious troubles, and to them alone, representation by proxies. In 1562, when the council met again, Pius IV withdrew this permission. Other regulations were also passed, in regard to the right of the members to draw the revenues of their dioceses during the session of the council, and concerning the mode of life of the members. At a later date, during the third period of the council, various modifications were made in these decisions. Thus the theologians of the council, who had grown in the meantime into a large body, were divided into six classes, each of which received a number of drafts of decrees for discussion. Special deputations also were often appointed for special questions. The entire regulation of the debates was a very prudent one, and offered every guarantee for an absolutely objective and exhaustive discussion in all their bearings of the questions brought up for debate. A regular courier service was maintained between Rome and Trent, so that the pope was kept fully informed in regard to the debates of the council. III. THE WORK AND SESSIONS A. First Period at Trent Among the fathers of the council and the theologians who had been summoned to Trent were a number of important men. The legates who presided at the council were equal to their difficult task; Paceco of Jaen, Campeggio of Feltre, and the Bishop of Fiesole already mentioned were especially conspicuous among the bishops who were present at the early sessions. Girolamo Seripando, General of the Augustinian Hermits, was the most prominent of the heads of the orders; of the theologians, the two learned Dominicans, Ambrogio Catarino and Domenico Soto, should be mentioned. After the formal opening session (13 December, 1545), the various questions pertaining to the order of business were debated; neither in the second session (7 January, 1546) nor in the third (4 February, 1546) were any matters touching faith or discipline brought forward. It was only after the third session, when the preliminary questions and the order of business had been essentially settled, that the real work of the council began. The emperor's representative, Francisco de Toledo, did not reach Trent until 15 March, and a further personal representative, Mendoza, arrived on 25 May. The first subject of discussion which was laid before the general congregation by the legates on 8 February was the Scriptures as the source of Divine revelation. After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. It was also determined that the Bible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused for superstitious purposes. Nothing was decided in regard to the translation of the Bible in the vernaculars. In the meantime earnest discussions concerning the question of church reform had been carried on between the pope and the legates, and a number of items had been suggested by the latter. These had special reference to the Roman Curia and its administration, to the bishops, the ecclesiastical benefices and tithes, the orders, and the training of the clergy. Charles V wished the discussion of the dogmatic questions to be postponed, but the council and the pope could not agree to that, and the council debated dogmas simultaneously with decrees concerning discipline. On 24 May the general congregation took up the discussion of original sin, its nature, consequences, and cancellation by baptism. At the same time the question of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin was brought forward, but the majority of the members finally decided not to give any definite dogmatic decision on this point. The reforms debated concerned the establishment of theological professorships, preaching, and episcopal obligation of residence. In reference to the latter the Spanish bishop, Paceco, raised the point whether this obligation was of Divine origin, or whether it was merely an ecclesiastical ordinance of human origin, a question which led later to long and violent discussions. In the fifth session (17 June, 1546) the decree on the dogma of original sin was promulgated with five canons (anathemas) against the corresponding erroneous doctrines; and the first decree on reform (de reformatione) was also promulgated. This treats (in two chapters) of professorships of the Scriptures, and of secular learning (artes liberales), of those who preach the Divine word, and of the collectors of alms. For the following session, which was originally set for 29 July, the matters proposed for general debate were the dogma of justification as the dogmatic question and the obligation of residence as regards bishops as the disciplinary decree; the treatment of these questions was proposed to the general congregation by the legates on 21 June. The dogma of justification brought up for debate one of the fundamental questions which had to be discussed with reference to the heretics of the sixteenth century, and which in itself presented great difficulties. The imperial party sought to block the discussion of the entire matter, some of the fathers were anxious on account of the approaching war of Charles V against the Protestant princes, and there was fresh dissension between the emperor and the pope. However, the debates on the question were prosecuted with the greatest zeal; animated, at times even stormy, discussions took place; the debate of the next general session had to be postponed. No less than sixty-one general congregations and forty-four other congregations were held for the debate of the important subjects of justification and the obligation of residence, before the matters were ready for the final decision. At the sixth regular session on 13 January, 1547, was promulgated the masterly decree on justification (de justificatione), which consisted of a prooemium or preface and sixteen chapters with thirty-three canons in condemnation of the opposing heresies. The decree on reform of this session was one in five chapters respecting the obligation of residence of bishops and of the occupants of ecclesiastical benefices or offices. These decrees make the sixth session one of the most important and decisive of the entire council. The legates proposed to the general congregation as the subject-matter for the following session, the doctrine of the Church as to the sacraments, and for the disciplinary question a series of ordinances respecting both the appointment and official activities of bishops, and on ecclesiastical benefices. When the questions had been debated, in the seventh session (3 March, 1547), a dogmatic decree with suitable canons was promulgated on the sacraments in general (thirteen canons), on baptism (fourteen canons), and on confirmation (three canons); a decree on reform (in fifteen chapters) was also enacted in regard to bishops and ecclesiastical benefices, in particular as to pluralities, visitations, and exemptions, concerning the founding of infirmaries, and as to the legal affairs of the clergy. Before this session was held the question of the prorogation of the council or its transfer to another city had been discussed. The relations between pope and emperor had grown even more strained; the Smalkaldic War had begun in Germany; and now an infectious disease broke out in Trent, carrying off the general of the Franciscans and others. The cardinal legates, therefore, in the eighth session (11 March, 1547) proposed the transfer of the council to another city, supporting themselves in this action by a Brief which had been given them by the pope some time before. The majority of the fathers voted to transfer the council to Bologna, and on the following day (12 March) the legates went there. By the ninth session the number of participants had risen to four cardinals, nine archbishops, forty-nine bishops, two proxies, two abbots, three generals of orders, and fifty theologians. B. Period at Bologna The majority of the fathers of the council went with the cardinal legates from Trent to Bologna; but fourteen bishops who belonged to the party of Charles V remained at Trent and would not recognize the transfer. The sudden change of place without any special consultation beforehand with the pope did not please Paul III, who probably foresaw that this would lead to further severe difficulties between himself and the emperor. As a matter of fact Charles V was very indignant at the change, and through his ambassador Vaga protested against it, vigorously urging a return to Trent. The emperor's defeat of the Smalkaldic League increased his power. Influential cardinals sought to mediate between the emperor and the pope, but the negotiations failed. The emperor protested formally against the transfer to Bologna, and, refusing to permit the Spanish bishops who had remained at Trent to leave that city, began negotiations again with the German Protestants on his own responsibility. Consequently at the ninth session of the council held at Bologna on 21 April, 1547, the only decree issued was one proroguing the session. The same action was all that was taken in the tenth session on 2 June, 1547, although there had been exhaustive debates on various subjects in congregations. The tension between the emperor and the pope had increased despite the efforts of Cardinals Sfondrato and Madruzzo. All negotiations were fruitless. The bishops who had remained at Trent had held no sessions, but when the pope called to Rome four of the bishops at Bologna and four of those at Trent, the latter said in excuse that they could not obey the call. Paul III had now to expect extreme opposition from the emperor. Therefore, on 13 September, he proclaimed the suspension of the council and commanded the cardinal legate del Monte to dismiss the members of the council assembled at Bologna; this was done on 17 September. The bishops were called to Rome, where they were to prepare decrees for disciplinary reforms. This closed the first period of the council. On 10 Nov., 1549, the pope died. C. Second Period at Trent The successor of Paul III was Julius III (1550-55), Giovanni del Monte, first cardinal legate of the council. He at once began negotiations with the emperor to reopen the council. On 14 Nov., 1550, he issued the Bull "Quum ad tollenda," in which the reassembling at Trent was arranged. As presidents he appointed Cardinal Marcellus Crescentius, Archbishop Sebastian Pighinus of Siponto, and Bishop Aloysius Lipomanni of Verona. The cardinal legate reached Trent on 29 April, 1551, where, besides the bishop of the city, fourteen bishops from the countries ruled by the emperor were in attendance; several bishops came from Rome, where they had been staying, and on 1 May, 1551, the eleventh session was held. In this the resumption of the council was decreed, and 1 September was appointed as the date of the next session. The Sacrament of the Eucharist and drafts of further disciplinary decrees were discussed in the congregations of the theologians and also in several general congregations. Among the theologians were Lainez and Salmeron, who had been sent by the pope, and Johannes Arza, who represented the emperor. Ambassadors of the emperor, King Ferdinand, and Henry II of France were present. The King of France, however, was unwilling to allow any French bishop to go to the council. In the twelfth session (1 Sept., 1551) the only decision was the prorogation until 11 October. This was due to the expectation of the arrival of other German bishops, besides the Archbishops of Mainz and Trier who were already in attendance. The thirteenth session was held on 11 Oct., 1551; it promulgated a comprehensive decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist (in eight chapters and eleven canons) and also a decree on reform (in eight chapters) in regard to the supervision to be exercised by bishops, and on episcopal jurisdiction. Another decree deferred until the next session the discussion of four articles concerning the Eucharist, namely, Communion under the two species of bread and wine and the Communion of children; a safe-conduct was also issued for Protestants who desired to come to the council. An ambassador of Joachim II of Brandenburg had already reached Trent. The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whom Gropper, Nausea, Tapper, and Hessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, the dogmatic decree promulgated contained nine chapters on the dogma of the Church respecting the Sacrament of Penance and three chapters on extreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemning heretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemning heresies to the chapters on unction. The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both the theologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with the dogma of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ordination of priests, as well as with plans for new reformatory decrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of the Protestants, the decisions in regard to the subjects under consideration were postponed and a new safe-conduct, such as they had desired, was drawn up for them. Besides the three papal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present at Trent ten archbishops and fifty-four bishops, most of them from the countries ruled by the emperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony on Charles V, the city of Trent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) a decree suspending the council for two years was promulgated. However, a considerably longer period of time elapsed before it could resume its sessions. D. Third Period at Trent Julius III did not live to call the council together again. He was followed by Marcellus II (1555), a former cardinal legate at Trent, Marcello Cervino; Marcellus died twenty-two days after his election. His successor, the austere Paul IV (1555-9), energetically carried out internal reforms both in Rome and in the other parts of the Church; but he did not seriously consider reconvening the council. Pius IV (1559-65) announced to the cardinals shortly after his election his intention of reopening the council. Indeed, he had found the right man, his nephew, the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo, to complete the important work and to bring its decisions into customary usage in the Church. Great difficulties were raised once more on various sides. The Emperor Ferdinand desired the council, but wished it to be held in some German city, and not at Trent; moreover he desired it to meet not as a continuation of the earlier assembly but as a new council. The King of France also desired the assembling of a new council, but he did not wish it at Trent. The Protestants of Germany worked in every way against the assembling of the Council. After long negotiations Ferdinand, the Kings of Spain and Portugal, Catholic Switzerland, and Venice left the matter to the pope. On 29 Nov., 1560, the Bull "Ad ecclesiae regimen," by which the council was ordered to meet again at Trent at Easter, 1561, was published. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the papal nuncios, Delfino and Commendone, the German Protestants persisted in their opposition. Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga was appointed president of the council; he was to be assisted by the cardinal legates Stanislaus Hosius, Jacobus Puteus (du Puy), Hieronymus Seripando, Luigi Simonetta, and Marcus Siticus of Altemps. As the bishops made their appearance very slowly, the opening of the council was delayed. Finally on 18 Jan., 1562, the seventeenth session was held; it proclaimed the revocation of the suspension of the council and appointed the date for the next session. There were present, besides the four cardinal legates, one cardinal, three patriarchs, eleven archbishops, forty bishops, four abbots, and four generals of orders; in addition thirty-four theologians were in attendance. The ambassadors of the princes were a source of much trouble to the presidents of the council and made demands which were in part impossible. The Protestants continued to calumniate the assembly. Emperor Ferdinand wished to have the discussion of dogmatic questions deferred. At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of a decree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct for Protestants. At the next two sessions, the nineteenth on 14 May, and the twentieth on 4 June, 1562, only decrees proroguing the council were issued. The number of members had, it is true, increased, and various ambassadors of Catholic rulers had arrived at Trent, but some princes continued to raise obstacles both as to the character of the council and the place of meeting. Emperor Ferdinand sent an exhaustive plan of church reform which contained many articles impossible to accept. The legates, however, continued the work of the assembly, and presented the draft of the decree on Holy Communion, which treated especially the question of Communion under both species, as well as drafts of several disciplinary decrees. These questions were subjected to the usual discussions. At the twenty-first session (16 July, 1562) the decree on Communion under both species and on the Communion of children was promulgated in four chapters and four canons. A decree upon reformation in nine chapters was also promulgated; it treated ordination to the priesthood, the revenues of canons, the founding of new parishes, and the collectors of alms. Articles on the Sacrifice of the Mass were now laid before the congregations for discussion; in the following months there were long and animated debates over the dogma. At the twenty-second session, which was not held until 17 Sept., 1562, four decrees were promulgated: the first contained the dogma of the Church on the Sacrifice of the Mass (in nine chapters and nine canons); the second directed the suppression of abuses in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice; a third (in eleven chapters) treated reform, especially in regard to the morals of the clergy, the requirements necessary before ecclesiastical offices could be assumed, wills, the administration of religious foundations; the fourth treated the granting of the cup to the laity at Communion, which was left to the discretion of the pope. The council had hardly ever been in as difficult a position as that in which it now found itself. The secular rulers made contradictory and, in part, impossible demands. At the same time warm debates were held by the fathers on the questions of the duty of residence and the relations of the bishops to the pope. The French bishops who arrived on 13 November made several dubious propositions. Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando, who were of the number of cardinal legates, died. The two new legates and presidents, Morone and Navagero, gradually mastered the difficulties. The various points of the dogma concerning the ordination of priests were discussed both in the congregations of the eighty-four theologians, among whom Salmeron, Soto, and Lainez were the most prominent, and in the general congregations. Finally, on 15 July, 1563, the twenty-third session was held. It promulgated the decree on the Sacrament of Orders and on the ecclesiastical hierarchy (in four chapters and eight canons), and a decree on reform (in eighteen chapters). This disciplinary decree treated the obligation of residence, the conferring of the different grades of ordination, and the education of young clerics (seminarists). The decrees which were proclaimed to the Church at this session were the result of long and arduous debates, in which 235 members entitled to a vote took part. Disputes now arose once more as to whether the council should be speedily terminated or should be carried on longer. In the meantime the congregations debated the draft of the decree on the Sacrament of Matrimony, and at the twenty-fourth session (11 Nov., 1563) there were promulgated a dogmatic decree (with twelve canons) on marriage as a sacrament and a reformatory decree (in ten chapters), which treated the various conditions requisite for contracting of a valid marriage. A general decree on reform (in twenty-one chapters) was also published which treated the various questions connected with the administration of ecclesiastical offices. The desire for the closing of the council grew stronger among all connected with it, and it was decided to close it as speedily as possible. A number of questions had been discussed preliminarily and were now ready for final definition. Consequently in the twenty-fifth and final session, which occupied two days (3-4 December, 1563), the following decrees were approved and promulgated: on 3 December a dogmatic decree on the veneration and invocation of the saints, and on the relics and images of the same; a decree on reform (in twenty-two chapters) concerning monks and nuns; a decree on reform, treating of the mode of life of cardinals and bishops, certificates of fitness for ecclesiastics, legacies for Masses, the administration of ecclesiastical benefices, the suppression of concubinage among the clergy, and the life of the clergy in general. On 4 December the following were promulgated: a dogmatic decree on indulgences; a decree on fasts and feast days; a further decree on the preparation by the pope of editions of the Missal, the Breviary, and a catechism, and of a list of forbidden books. It was also declared that no secular power had been placed at a disadvantage by the rank accorded to its ambassadors, and the secular rulers were called upon to accept the decisions of the council and to execute them. Finally, the decrees passed by the council during the pontificates of Paul III and Julius III were read and proclaimed to be binding. After the fathers had agreed to lay the decisions before the pope for confirmation, the president, Cardinal Morone, declared the council to be closed. The decrees were subscribed by two hundred and fifteen fathers of the council, consisting of four cardinal legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and sixty-seven bishops, seven abbots, seven generals of orders, and also by nineteen proxies for thirty-three absent prelates. The decrees were confirmed on 26 Jan., 1564, by Pius IV in the Bull "Benedictus Deus," and were accepted by Catholic countries, by some with reservations. The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church. J.P. KIRSCH Trent Trent (TRIDENTUM; TRIDENTINA). Diocese; suffragan of Salzburg. Trent became universally known through the famous general council held there from 1545 to 1563. At an earlier date, however, it had a certain historical importance. In 15 B.C. its territory became subject to the Romans. As early as 381 there appeared at the Council of Aquileia Abundantius, Bishop of Trent. While Arianism and the barbarian invasions elsewhere smothered the seed of the gospel, it grew in Trent under the care and protection of St. Vigilius. Bishop Valerian of Aquileia had consecrated the youthful Vigilius, while the great Ambrose of Milan had instructed him as to his duties in lengthy, fatherly, epistles. Vigilius came to his end prematurely; he was stoned to death when barely forty years of age. In the sixth century during the Three Chapters controversy, the Provinces of Milan and Aquileia continued in schism even after Popes Vigilius and Pelagius I had recognized the decrees of the Council of Constantinople; through the Patriarch of Aquileia the bishops of Trent also persisted in the schism. Placed between Germany and Italy, Trent was exposed to the influences of both. Ecclesiastically it remained subject to Aquileia until 1751, but in political affairs it could not withstand the power of the Salic and Saxon kings and emperors. Under the first Franconian king, Bishop Ulrich II became an independent prince of the empire, with the powers and privileges of a duke. In consideration of imperial favour the bishops of Trent sided with Henry IV and Frederick I during the great struggle between the Church and the Empire, but in such a skilful manner so as to avoid a rupture with the pope. Bishop Adelbert is even revered as a saint, although he sided with the antipope Victor IV, who had been chosen by the emperor; in those times of confusion it was often difficult to find the right path. He died a martyr in defence of the rights of his see (1177). Under Innocent III, Friedrich von Wanga raised Trent to the height of its power and influence. He was a great temporal and ecclesiastical ruler. He used every means to kindle and strengthen the religious spirit, and began the building of the splendid Romanesque cathedral. He died at Acre in 1218 during the Fourth Crusade. The untimely death of Meinhard III, son of Margaret of Tyrol, brought Trent under the rule of Austria in 1363. In 1369 Rudolph IV concluded a treaty with Bishop Albrecht II of Ortenburg, by virtue of which Rudolph became the real sovereign of the diocese. The bishop promised in his own name and in that of his successors to acknowledge the duke and his heirs as lords, and to render assistance to them against their enemies. Thereafter Trent ceased to be an independent principality, and became a part of the Tyrol. Ortenburg's successor was George I of Liechtenstein, who endeavoured to regain its independence for the see. His efforts involved him in several wars, terminated only by his death in 1419. More than once during these wars he was taken prisoner, while the duke was excommunicated and the see interdicted. The much discussed story of the death of St. Simon of Trent belongs to the reign of Prince-Bishop Johannes IV Hinderbach. On Holy Thursday of the year 1475, the little child, then about 20 months old, son of a gardener, was missed by its parents. On the evening of Easter Sunday the body was found in a ditch. Several Jews, who were accused of the murder, were cruelly tortured. The sixteenth century was a time of trouble and worry for the Church in the Tyrol. In the towns the Lutherans, in the villages and among the peasants the Anabaptists, multiplied. After many ineffectual efforts, the sovereign, bishops and several monastic orders combined their authority, and a new order set in, which reached its climax in the Council of Trent. At the time of the council Cardinal Christoph von Madrutz was prince-bishop. He was succeeded by three members of his house, with the last of whom the house of Madrutz died out. The decrees of the council were executed but slowly. In 1593 Cardinal Ludwig von Madrutz founded the seminary, which later was conducted by the Somaschi. The Jesuits came to Trent in 1622. Peter Vigil, Count of Thun, governed the see during the Josephite reforms, with which he was in sympathy. He abolished some of the monasteries in his territory, interfered with the constitutions of the various orders, and closed some churches. When the patriarchate of Aquileia ceased to exist in 1751, Trent became exempt. During the administration of his successor, Emmanuel Maria Count of Thun, it ceased to be an independent ecclesiastical principality (1803). The Bavarian Government insisted on the following: (1) priests were to be ordained only after an examination at the university; (2) the bishops were to order their clergy to obey all orders of the Government in connection with the ecclesiastical police; (3) when filling benefices a list of three names was to be presented by the bishop to the Government or by the Government to the bishop; (4) recourse to Rome or combination with other bishops was forbidden. Bishop Emmanuel replied that he would remain true to his oath to support and defend the privileges of the Church, and that he would rather suffer all the consequences which might arise from his refusal rather than act against his conscience. He was expelled in 1807 and crossed the frontier into Salzburg at Reichenhall. He could only return after the Tyrolese had freed themselves of the Bavarian yoke. After the Peace of Viena negotiation were begun relative to the circumscription of the dioceses of the Tyrol, and were concluded in 1825. Trent was made a suffragan of Salzburg, and the bishops, instead of being chosen by the chapter, were appointed by the emperor. The 115th Bishop of Trent was Johann Nepomuk Tschiderer. He died on 12 March, 1860, and his canonization is already under way. The diocese numbers 602,000 Catholics, 1072 priests, 817 male religious, and 1527 nuns. Acta Tirolensia, urkundliche Quellen zur Geschichte Tirols (2 vols., 1886, 1899); KINK, Urkundenbuch des Hochstiftes Trient in Fontes rerum Austriacarum, II (5 vols., Vienna, 1812); ATZ, Der deutsche Anteil des Bistums Trient (Bozen, 1879); Austria sancta: Die Heiligen und Seligen Tirols. (Vienna, 1910); RONELLI, Notizie istorice-critiche delle Chiese di Trento (3 vols., Trent, 1761); PINCIUS, De vitis Pontificum Tridentinorum, lib. XII (Mantua, 1546); Kurze Geschichte des Bistums und der Bischofe von Trient (Bozen, 1852). C. WOLFSGRUBER Trenton Trenton (Trentonensis). Diocese created 15 July, 1881, suffragan of New York, comprises Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Salem, Somerset, and Warren counties in the State of New Jersey, U.S.A., an area of about 5,756 square miles. From 1808 to 1853 the territory now occupied by the Diocese of Trenton covered the lower sections of what was then known as East and West Jersey, the former belonging to the jurisdiction of New York and the latter to Philadelphia. In 1853 the Diocese of Newark was formed, and the entire State of New Jersey was placed under Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore. The Diocese of Trenton lies between New York and Philadelphia and has within its confines all the sea coast from Sandy Hook to Cape May Point, whereon thirty churches have been built to accommodate the summer visitors to the Jersey coast. The first Mass said within its territory was celebrated at Woodbridge, about 1672, and the city of Trenton, in 1814, witnessed the formation of the first congregation and the erection of the first church. The first bishop was the Right Rev. Michael Joseph O'Farrell (b. at Limerick, Ireland, 2 December, 1832; d. 2 April, 1894). Bishop O'Farrell completed his classics and philosophy at All Hallows College, Dublin, and went to St-Sulpice, Paris, where he made his theology course. He became a Sulpician and was ordained in his native city by the Most Rev. Dr. Ryan, 18 Aug., 1855. His superiors sent him to Montreal, Canada, where he taught dogmatic theology at the Grand Seminary. He left the Congregation of St-Sulpice and was made rector of St. Peter's Church, New York City. He took up the work of organizing the new diocese of Trenton with fifty-one priests, sixty-nine churches, and a Catholic population of about forty thousand. Soon new parishes and missions were formed, an orphan asylum was opened at New Brunswick, and a home for the aged at Beverly. At the Third Council of Baltimore Bishop O'Farrell was considered one of the most eloquentr speakers in the American hierarchy. He wrote pastoral letters on Christian marriage and Christian education. His remains were at first interred in the cathedral cemetery, Trenton, but in 1905 were transferred to a vault in the chapel of St. Michael's Orphan Asylum, Hopewell, New Jersey. Bishop O'Farrell was succeeded by his chancellor and vicar-general, the Right Rev. James Augustine McFaul (b. near Larne, Co. Antrim, Ireland, 6 June, 1850), the second and present Bishop of Trenton. The latter went with his parents to America when a few months old. The family dwelt for several years in New York City and then moved to Bound Brook, New Jersey. Bishop McFaul made his collegiate course at St. Vincent's, Beatty, Pennsylvania, and at St. Francis Xavier's, New York City, his theological studies being made at Seton Hall, South Orange, New Jersey. He was ordained on 26 May, 1877, and, when the See of Trenton was erected, was appointed an assistant priest at St. Mary's church, Trenton, which Bishop O'Farrell selected as his cathedral. Hence he early became a friend of his predecessor, by whom he was held in great confidence and by whom he was appointed pastor of the Church of St. Mary, Star of the Sea, Long Branch. In October, 1890, he returned to the cathedral to be its rector and to assist the bishop. He was made secretary and chancellor, and on 1 November, 1892, was appointed vicar-general. On the death of Bishop O'Farrell he acted as administrator of the diocese and on 20 July, of the same year, was raised to the episcopate, being consecrated in St. Mary's Cathedral (18 Oct., 1894) by Archbishop Corrigan, from whom, when Bishop of Newark, he received all his other orders. Being familiar with the diocese he soon placed it on a splendid financial basis, and erected many churches, schools, and institutions, among which are: the orphan asylum, at Hopewell; the home for the aged, at Lawrenceville; and Mount St. Mary's College for young ladies, at Plainfield. Bishop McFaul is organizer of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, which has a membership of about two million. Among the most widely known of Bishop McFaul's works are his pastoral letters, "The Christian Home", "The Christian School", and "Some Modern Problems", as well as a timely and valuable brochure on tuberculosis. His address on "The American Universities", delivered in New York City, June, 1909, revealed to the American people the fact that the professors of several of these institutions were advancing ideas in conflict with morality and the established standards of right and wrong. In May, 1911, he delivered an address on the Press before several thousand newspaper men, in St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York City. In the Diocese of Trenton there are many nationalities, and the Gospel is preached in the following languages: English, German, Italian, Polish, Hungarian, Slovak, Lithuanian, and Rumanian. The religious communities in the diocese are: men — Franciscans (Minor Conventuals), Augustinians, Fathers of the Pious Society of Missions, Dominicans, Brothers of the Sacred Hearrt, and Brothers of the Christian Schools (summer only); women — Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, Sisters of St. Francis, Mission Helpers of trhe Sacred Heart, Dominican Sisters of the Perpetual Rosary, Sisters of St. Dominic, Gray Nuns, Poor Clares, Felician Sisters, School Sisters of Notre-Dame, Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity, Pious Teachers (Pii Filippini), Sisters of the Precious Blood. General statistics (1911): bishop, 1; secular priests, 167; regular, 23; churches with resident priests, 124; missions with churches, 30; stations, 84; chapels, 13; religious women (including novices and postulants), 372; college (Franciscan) 1, students, 90; academies for young ladies, 5, pupils, 350; college for young ladies, 1, students, 87; parishes with parochial schools, 44, pupils, 12,263; Sunday-schools, 153; teachers, 900, pupils, 20,364; orphan asylums, 2, orphans, 313; total number of young people under Catholic care, 13,103: hospitals, 3, patients treated during 1910, about 7,000; day-nurseries 2, children, 125; homes for aged, 2, inmates, 100; Catholic population, about 130,000. FLYNN, The Catholic Church in New Jersey MORRISTOWN, 1904); LEAHY, The Diocese of Trenton (Princeton, 1907); MCFAUL, Memorial of the Rt. Rev. Michael J. O'Farrell; FOX, A Century of Catholicity in Trenton, N. J.; The Catholic Directory (1852, 1882, 1911). JAMES J. POWERS Sir Thomas Tresham Sir Thomas Tresham Knight Bachelor (in or before 1524), Grand Prior of England in the Order of Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem (1557); date of birth unknown; d. 8 March, 1558-9. The eldest son of John Tresham of Rushton, Northamptonshire, and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir James Harrington, of Hornby, Lancashire, he married (1) Anne, daughter of William, Lord Parr, of Horton, by whom he had two sons, and (2) Lettice, relict of Sir Robert Lee, who predeceased him without issue. He was chosen sheriff of Northamtonshire in 1524, 1539, 1545, and 1555, and returned as member for the county in 1541 and twice in 1554. He constantly served on commissions of the peace, of gaol delivery, of oyer and terminer, of sewers, and the like, and was appointed special commissioner in 1527 to search for grain, in 1530 to inquire into Wolsey's possessions, and in 1537 to inquire into the Lincolnshire rebellion. In 1539 he was one of the knights appointed to receive Anne of Cleves at Calais. In 1540 he had licence to impark the Lyveden estate in Aldwinkle St. Peter's parish, where the "New Bield" erected by his grandson still stands. In this year, though his main estates were in Northamptonshire, he had a house with twenty-nine household servants in Wolfeton, Dorsetshire. In 1544 he supplied men for the king's army in France, and a little later was one of the commissioners to collect the "benevolence" for the defence of the realm. In 1546 he was appointed assessor to the "Contribution Commission" and was summoned to Court to meet the French ambassador. In 1549 he assisted in suppressing the Norfolk rising and received £272, 19.6 for his services. He proclaimed Queen Mary at Northampton on 18 July, 1553, and accompanied her on her entry into London. He was one of those appointed on 3 August, 1553, "to staye the assemblies in Royston and other places of Cambridgeshire". In April, 1554, he conveyed a prisoner from Peterborough to be examined by the Privy Council in London. In May, 1554, he was one of the custodians of the Earl of Devonshire. Although by Royal Charter dated 2 April, 1557, he was named grand prior, it was not till 30 November that the order was re-established in England with four knights under him, and he was solemnly invested. In the meantime Sir Richard Shelley had been made turcopolier at Malta. The order was endowed by the queen with lands to the yearly value of £1436. He sat in the House of Lords in January, 1557-8, and sent his proxy to the first parliament of Queen Elizabeth. He was buried at Rushton with great pomp on 16 March, 1558-9. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Treviso Treviso (TARVISINA). Diocese in Venetia (Northern Italy). The capital is surrounded by the River Sile; its environs are the favourite summer resort of the Venetian nobility. The cathedral, erected in 1141, was transformed in 1485 by Tullio and Pietro Lombardo, and modernized in 1758 with five cupolas; the entrance portal dates from 1835. It contains sculptures by the brothers Bregno and by Antonio Lombardo; paintings by Paris Bourdone, Titian, and Francesco di Dominicis; frescoes by Seitz, Pordenone, etc.; and the tombs of Canon Malchiostro and the Bishop Zanetti. The Church of S. Nicolò, designed in Gothic style by Fra Nicolo da Smola, was erected by Benedict XI, who presented it to the Dominicans. It now belongs to the seminary which occupies the ancient convent of Santa Maria Maddalena; it has paintings by Paolo Veronese. Among the civil buildings is the Palazzo dei Trecento (1184) containing the Galleria Comunale with pictures by Lotto, Tintoretto, Bordone, Bellini. Natives of Treviso were: the painters Paris Bordone, Pier Maria and Girolamo Pennacchi; the historian Odorigo Rinaldi (Raynaldus), continuator of Baronius; the jurist Bartolommeo Zuccati; the Carmelite Francesco Turchi, mathematician and architect; and the poet Venantius Fortunatus. Tarvisium was an ancient city of the Veneti, which became Roman in 183 B.C. and was a stronghold of the Goths in the Gothic war. Through the intercession of Bishop Felix the city was spared during the Lombard invasion (569) and became the seat of a duchy. Charlemagne made it a marquisate, extending from Belluno to Ceneda, and from the Adige to the Tagliamento. In 922 Treviso, which was under episcopal jurisdiction, was sacked by the Hungarians. In 1014 it was organized as a commune ruled by consuls, with a council of three hundred citizens. A member of the Lombard league, it later made peace with Barbarossa, who respected its constitution, but appointed as podesta (1173) Ezzellino il Monaco. He was expelled, and thereafter the Ezzelini and Da Canino took turns in the office. Notwithstanding a war with Padua, Belluno, and Feltre, the city flourished through its riches, commerce, and the spirit of its inhabitants. Released from the tyranny of Ezzelino IV (1231-50), Treviso was an independent commune until Emperor Henry VII in 1309 made Riccardo da Canino imperial vicar. He was treacherously slain and succeeded by his son Guecello, against whom a conspiracy was formed. In 1314-18 Can Grande della Scala of Verona annexed Treviso to his state, but the inhabitants revolted to Frederick the Fair of Austria, and afterwards to Louis the Bavarian. Meanwhile, Guecello Tempesta was proclaimed ruler and liberator of the city (1328), but after four years he induced the citizens to recognize the supremacy of Can Grande. Becoming involved in war with Venice, Treviso was ceded to that city (1338), captured by Leopold of Austria (1383), sold to the Carrar, lords of Padua, taken by Gian Galezzo Visconti, Duke of Milan (1404), and finally returned to Venice. In 1848 the papal troops at Treviso, commanded by Ferrari, sustained a siege by the Austrians. The university, established at Treviso in 1317 by Frederick the Fair, did not flourish. The republic of Venice maintained the school until the conquest of Padua (1405), with its great university, resulted in closing the one at Treviso. Treviso probably received the Gospel from Aquileia. The first bishop of certain date was Jucundus, who in 421 took part in the consecration of the church of the Rialto in Venice. The bishops of Treviso who participated in the schism of the Three Chapters were: Felix (see above); Rusticus, present at the Council of Murano (588); and Felix II, who signed the petition to the Emperor Maurice. In 905 Bishop Adelbert received from King Berengar the temporal jurisdiction of the city, which extended to Rozo (969- 1001) and Rolando who adhered to the schism of Clement III. Bishop Tiso (1212-45) suffered from the tyranny of Ezzelino, and Alberto Ricco, O. M. (1255), was imprisoned for preaching against him. Successive bishops were: Loto Gambacurta (1394), exiled by the Florentines from his archbishopric of Pisa; Giovanni Benedetti, O. P. (1418), who reformed many convents of his order and concubinary priests; Ludovico Barbo (1437), Abbot of S. Giustina of Padua, and reformer of the Benedictine order; Ermolao Barbaro (1443), a learned and zealous prelate; Cardinal Pietro Riario, O. M. (1471); Fra Giovanni Dacri (1478), formerly general of the Franciscans, who restored the cathedral and reorganized the revenues of the bishopric, leaving many pious foundations; Nicolò Franco (1486), papal nuncio in various countries; Francesco Cornaro (1577), who founded a seminary, introduced the reforms of the Council of Trent, resigned his see, and was created cardinal; Gian Antonio Lupo (1646), who conflicted with his canons; Giambattista Saniedo (1684), zealous and beneficent pastor; Fortunato Morosini (1710), who enlarged the Seminary; Bernardino Marini (1788-1817), a canon of the Lateran, present at the Council of Paris, 1811, who united the abbey nullius of Novisa with the See of Treviso; and Giuseppe Giapelli, appointed by the Austrian Government, but not recognized by the Holy See, so that the diocese remained in turmoil until the death of the candidate. In 1818 Treviso passed from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Aquileia (Udine) to that of Venice. Bishop Giuseppe Grasser (1822) healed the evils caused by the interregnum, Bishop Antonio Farina (1890) conferred sacred orders on Giuseppe Sarto, now Pius X. United with Treviso is the ancient Diocese of Asolo, the bishops of which are unknown from 587 (Agnellus) until 1049 (Ugo), and that of Heraclea (Città Nova), a city founded in the times of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, as a refuge for the inhabitants of Opitergium (Oderzo), who with their bishop (Magnus) had been exiled by the Lombards. Twenty-six bishops are known, from 814 until the union of the see with Treviso, 1440. The Diocese of Treviso has 215 parishes with 386 secular and 30 regular clergy, 5 monasteries, 27 convents, 2 educational institutions for boys, five for girls, and 414,330 souls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, X; Collectio Historicorum de Marchia Trevisana (Venice, 1636); VERCI, Storia della Marchia Trivigiana (Venice, 1789); RIGAMONTI, Descrizione delle pitture piu celebri nelle chiese di Treviso (Treviso, 1744); RICCATI, Stato antico e moderno della citta di Asolo (Pesaro, 1763); SEMENZI, Treviso e la sua prorincia (Treviso, 1862); PICCOTTI, I Caminesi e la loro signoria in Treviso dal 1283 al 1312 (Leghorn, 1904). U. BENIGNI Jewish Tribe Jewish Tribe (Phyle, tribus.) The earlier Hebrew term rendered in our English versions by the word "tribe" is shebet, while the term matteh, prevails in the post-exilic writings. The two terms are nearly synonymous, signifying "branch", "rod", "staff", "sceptre", and in the sense of "tribe" are used figuratively with probable reference to the derivation of the tribe as a branch of the family of Jacob (stirps), or perhaps signifying originally a company led by a chief with a staff or sceptre. Arrangement by clans represents a form of social and political organization natural to Semitic nomads, as may be observed among the Bedouins of today, and the division of the Jewish people into twelve tribes is a prominent feature of the Old Testament records, while frequent allusion to the same is found in the New Testament writings. There is a difference of opinion among scholars as to the origin and nature of this most famous of all known tribal organizations. If the Biblical account of the patriarchs be accepted as personal (not tribal) history, each of the twelve tribes owed its origin to direct lineal descent from one of the sons or grandsons of Jacob. The sons of Jacob by Lia were Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Juda, Issachar, and Zabulon; and by Lia's handmaid Zelpha, Gad and Aser, who were legally reputed according to the custom of the time as children of Lia. Jacob's sons by Rachel were Joseph and Benjamin, and by Rachel's handmaid Bala, Dan and Nephtali. The names of all of these, with the exception of Joseph, were given to their respective groups of descendants in the tribal organization, but instead of the tribe of Joseph we find in most of the lists and in the final traditional classification two tribes named after his two sons, Ephraim and Manasses. Thus, in reality, there were thirteen tribes in all but they are habitually referred to as twelve, doubtless because in the distribution of the land after the conquest of Palestine only twelve tribal territories were assigned, the tribe of Levi being distributed among the others because of its priestly functions and Divine inheritance. To this may be added the fact that the sons of Jacob or Israel were twelve, to say nothing of the probable artificial influence of this mystic number. According to this traditional view the origin of the tribes was due to the fact that the descendants of each of these thirteen fathers or eponyms kept together, forming as many social groups which were to some extent augmented by the inclusion of foreign slaves and wives. Another theory, which has prevailed to a considerable extent among modern scholars, interprets as tribal history and tradition much of what is told of the patriarchal eponyms in personal form. The tribes, according to this view, were not constituted by a subdivision of Israel, but rather the nation was formed originally by the aggregation of some of the earlier tribes which had themselves grown out of the union of pre-existing groups of families and clans. Little is historically known of the tribal system during the nomadic period, but it is assumed on general grounds that the organization was much similar to that of the nomadic Arabs among whom the unifying forces are chiefly the blood bond and the tribal or family cult. At the time of the invasion of Palestine the nation was still in the stage of loose tribal confederation and the war was waged by tribes and subdivisions of tribes, sometimes acting separately, sometimes in combination with others (Judges, i, 3, iv, v). The process of consolidation went on after the conquest; the kindred families and clans naturally settled in the same neighbourhood, and finally the complete tribal organization was evolved with territorial boundaries and independent historical traditions. It would seem that prior to the monarchy the tribal districts varied in number and extent, as may be gathered from the discrepancies that occur in the Biblical descriptions of their respective boundaries, nor do they appear to have had any fixed or continuous political organization. Aggression by a foreign enemy would unite the clans of a tribe or even several distinct tribes under a common leader as in the case of Gideon and others of the judges; but there is no intimation that in times of peace the tribe was governed by any single chief, though mention is occasionally made of "ancients" and "princes" (Judges, x, 18; xi, 5; 1 Kings, iv, 3; xi, 3; 11 Kings, xix, 11; etc.). These were probably the heads of the clans and families of which the tribes were composed. After the establishment of the monarchy the autonomy and importance of the tribe as a political unit gradually waned, and at length the tribal names came to be little more than geographical expressions. On the other hand, veneration for the ancient tribes as social organizations with their religious and family traditions seems to have increased as time went on, and not only after the exile but also in the New Testament times we find much care displayed in recording the particular tribe or even family to which various persons are said to belong. The descendants of kings and other noted Old-Testament personages could, of course, name their tribe, but in the case of more obscure individuals it is likely that the tribal indication is inferred from the fact of family residence in a particular district of Palestine. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Diocese of Tricarico Diocese of Tricarico (TRICARICENSIS.) Located in the Province of Potenza in the Basilicata (Southern Italy), near the River Perrola. In 1694 it was almost destroyed by earthquake. The cathedral was erected in 968 by Polyeuctos, Patriarch of Constantinople. The names of the bishops, then of the Greek Rite, are not known. Of the Latin bishops after the Norman conquest the first was Arnoldo (1068); others were: the theologians Palmerio di Gallusio (1253) and Fra Nicolo; Cardinal Pier Luigi Caraffa (1624), who restored the cathedral and founded the seminary. From 1805 to 1819 the see remained vacant. The diocese is suffragan of the metropolitan See of Acerenza and Matera; it has 25 parishes, 80,540 souls, 180 secular and regular clergy, one educational institution for boys and one for girls. Cappelletti, Le Chiese d'Italia, XX, 481. U. BENIGNI Charles Joseph Tricassin Charles Joseph Tricassin One of the greatest theologians of the Capuchin Order, b. at Troyes; d. in 1681. There is but little positive information about his life. By continued study he acquired a profound knowledge of the writings of Augustine, and explained and defended with success his doctrine of grace against the Jansenists. Tricassin's writings were violently attacked; they treat exhaustively both the Augustinian doctrine of grace and that of St. Bonaventure. They comprise in the main: "De praedestinatione hominum ad gloriam" (Paris, 1669 and 1673), to which was added "Supplementum Augustinianum" (1673), the work being intended to prove predestination for foreknown merits; "De indifferenti lapsi hominis arbitrio sub gratia et concupiscentia" (Paris, 1673), a thorough explanation of many Augustinian tenets; "De necessaria ad salutem gratia omnibus et singulis data" (Paris, 1673), proof of the sufficient grace for every individual, with special emphasis upon difficult passages in Augustine's writings on which a full understanding of his doctrine depends; "De natura peccati originalis" (Paris, 1677); "De causa bonorum operum" (Paris, 1679), a proof of the virtue of the hope of eternal life and of the fear of hell; a "Supplementum" (Paris, 1679) shows that attrition in connection with the Sacrament of Penance is sufficient according to Augustine and the Council of Trent. Tricassin also published a commentary to several of Augustine's works to prove that Augustine calls the Pelagians heretical teachers, because they do not concede any necessity of grace for the will. Tricassin published at Paris in 1678 a French translation with explanations and applications of Augustine's books, "De gratia et libero arbitrio", "De correptione et gratia" and also a treatise to prove that the Cartesian philosophy was contrary to faith. The importance of the author and his writings is best shown by the fact that the Jansenists bought up his books and burned them because they could not answer them. FATHER ODORICK Tricca Tricca Titular see, suffragan of Larissa in Thessaly. It was an ancient city of Thessaly, near the River Peneius and on the River Lethaeus which devastated it in 1907. It is mentioned in Homer (Iliad, II, 729; IV, 202) as the Kingdom of Machaon and Podaleirius, sons of AEsculapius and physicians of the Greek army. It possessed the oldest known temple of AEsculapius, which was discovered in 1902, with a hospital for pilgrims. Tricca is mentioned by other writers, but not in connection with important events. It was a suffragan of Larissa at an early date and remained so until 1882 when this portion of Thessaly was annexed to the Kingdom of Greece, Since then the see, which bears the names of Triccala and Stagoi, is dependent on the Holy Synod of Athena. Socrates (V 22), Sozomenes (V 12), and Nicephorus Callistus (XII, 34) say that Heliodorus, probably the same as the author of the romance of the Ethiopian women or of Theagenes and Charicles (third century), became Bishop of Tricca. Another bishop, to whom have been wrongly attributed commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Paul and the Catholic Epistles (for the works published in his name are not his), lived at the end of the sixth century. He was an Origenist and Monophysite who wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse (Petrides "OEcumenius de Tricca, ses oeuvres et son culte" in "Echos d'Orient", VI, 307-10; Le Quien, "Oriens christ.", I, 117-20). Some Latin titular bishops in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are also known (Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi," II, 280; III, 338). Tricca, now Triccala, is the capital of the nome of the same name and has 28,000 inhabitants: Greeks, Turks, and Jews. S. VAILHÉ Diocese of Trichinopoly Diocese of Trichinopoly (TRICHINOPOLITAN.) Located in India, suffragan of Bombay, comprises the south east portion of the peninsula as far as the Western Ghauts by which it is separated from the dioceses of Verapoly and Quilon; bounded on the north by the Dioceses of Kumbakonam and Coimbatore, on the north-east by a portion of the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur on the east and south by the sea. In order to facilitate administration the diocese is divided into three districts, northern, central, and southern, each under a superior having his residence at Trichinopoly, Madura, and Palamcottah respectively; and these districts are again subdivided into pangus or sections, of which there are in all fifty-two. The Catholic population, according to the census of 1907, is 245,255, who are served by 60 priests of the Toulouse province of the Society of Jesus (41 European and 19 native) and 19 native secular priests, helped by 156 catechists. Besides these, 53 other priests, European and native, are engaged chiefly in educational work at Trichinopoly, Shembaganur, Palamcottah, etc. A novitiate, juniorate, and scholasticate of the Society is established at Shembaganur. There is a congregation of Brothers of the Sacred Heart (native lay brothers) engaged in catechetical work and teaching at Palamcottah, Madura, Panchampetti, and Trichinopoly, and also the following orders of nuns: Daughters of the Cross of Annecy at Trichinopoly and Tuticorin; Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons at Madura; native nuns of Our Lady of Seven Dolours and native nuns of St. Anna, both with their novitiate at Trichinopoly; finally the Oblates -- native women devoted to the baptism of pagan children and the instruction of village girls. The places of worship in the diocese amount to 282 churches and 811 chapels. There are also fifteen churches and some chapels scattered over the diocese which (by exemption) belong to the padroado jurisdiction of the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur. HISTORY The present diocese comprises a large portion of the ancient Madura mission, so that down to the year 1836 its history will be found under MANDURA MISSION. In that year the district was once entrusted to the Society of Jesus, and its first vicar Apostolic was appointed in 1845. In 1886, on the establishment of the hierarchy, the vicariate became a diocese suffragan of Pondicherry; but in 1893 it was made suffragan of Bombay, as it still remains. Succession of prelates: Alexis Canoz, S.J., vicar Apostolic 1847, became first bishop in 1887, in 1888; John Mary Barthe, S.J., in 1890, resigned on account of failing sight in 1909; A. Faisandier, S.J., coadjutor bishop from 1909. Educational institutions for boys: St. Joseph's College, Trichinopoly, first opened at Negapatam in 1846, transferred to Trichinopoly in 1883, with about 1800 pupils, prepares students for the degree of M. A. in Madras University; boarding-house for native Catholic boys; ecclesiastical seminary to prepare boys for one at Kandy; lower secondary school for Europeans and Eurasians and seven primary schools for natives, with total of 600 pupils, all at Trichinopoly; St. Xavier's High School, Palamcottah, with boarding-house and St. Anthony's primary school; St. Xavier's High School, Tuticorin; St. Mary's High School, Madura; lower secondary schools at Palamcottah, Dindigul, Uttamplayama; industrial schools at Trichonopoly, Irudaiyakulam, and Adaikalaburam; training schools for teachers at the same places; primary schools in the diocese number 260, with 11,027 pupils. For girls: St. Joseph's High School and lower secondary school, Trichinopoly, for European and Eurasian girls, both under Daughters of the Cross; three secondary schools for native girls (Trichonopoly) under Sisters of Our Lady of Seven Dolours, also training schools for mistresses; lower secondary schools at Palamcottah, Madura, Tuticorin, Vadakangulam, Manapad, Satankulam primary schools at Dindigul, Sarakanai and several other villages; industrial school (Tuticorin) under Daughters of the Cross. Various institutions: orphanages for children born of pagan parents at Trichinopoly, Madura, and Adaikalaburam, and one for girls at Pallamcottah; dispensaries in five places; asylums for native widows at Trichinopoly, Sarakanai, Adaikalaburam, and for Brahmin widows at Trichinopoly; St. Mary's Tope, a settlement in Trichinopoly for Brahmin converts, opened in 1893, has (1912) 45 residents; catechumenates for men and women in three places, besides associations of voluntary catechists who give their leisure time to teaching on Sundays and feasts; St. Joseph's College Press, which publishes the "Tamil Messenger of the S. Heart", the "Morning Star", devotional books, etc. There are over 100 sodalities in the diocese. ERNEST R. HULL Trichur Trichur (TRICHURENSIS.) Vicariate Apostolic in India, one of the three vicariates of the Syro-Malabar Rite, bounded on the north by the diocese of Mangalore, east by the diocese of Coimbature, south by the Vicariate of Ernaculam, and on the west by the Indian Ocean. According to the census of 1900 the Catholics of the, Syrian Rite in the vicariate numbered 91,998, having 63 churches and 23 chapels served by 66 native secular priests. There are also three monasteries of Tertiary Carmelite monks at Elthuruth, Ampalacad, and Paratti, containing about 20 professed and 11 lay brothers, besides a number of novices; also four convents for Carmelite nuns with 31 professed besides novices, postulants and lay sisters. There are in the vicariate 2 high schools, 2 lower secondary schools, and 184 elementary schools, the number of children under training being 19,093. A seminary at Trichur prepares candidates for Puthenpally or Kandy. The vicar Apostolic (John Menacherry, appointed 1896) resides at Trichur. For the ancient history of the Christians of the Syro-Malabar Rite see THOMAS CHRISTIANS. They remained under the jurisdiction partly of Cranganore, till 1887, when on the establishment of the hierarchy, the churches of the Syrian Rite were separated from those of the Latin Rite and placed under two vicars Apostolic with their centres at Trichur and Kottayam respectively. Later on, in 1896, a new division was made and three vicariates established, viz. of Trichur, Ernaculam, and Changanacherry. These three vicariates cover the same ground as the Archdiocese of Verapoly, the Archbishop of Verapoly exercising territorial jurisdiction over all Christians of the Latin Rite, while the vicars Apostolic hold personal and quasi-territorial jurisdiction over all of the Syrian Rite. The vicariates are nominally classed as belonging to the province of Verapoly, but without the usual ecclesiastical connection. (See CHANGANACHERRY, VICARIATE APOSTOLIC OF; VERAPOLY, ARCHDIOCESE OF; DAMAO, DIOCESE OF; EASTERN CHURCHES; THOMAS CHRISTIANS.) Madras Catholic Directory, 1910. ERNEST R. HULL Tricomia Tricomia Titular see, suffragan of Caesarea in Palaestina Prima. It is mentioned in George of Cyprus (Descriptio orbis romani, ed. Gelzer, 1024) and, according to the other cities preceding or following its name, would seem to have been situated in southern Palestine. Malalas (Chronographia, V, in P.G., XCVII, 236) relates an ancient legend regarding Tricomia, which he calls Nyssa and confounds with Scythopolis. According to his account it was the site of a famous temple of Artemis. It was never a Greek see, and Le Quien (Oriens Christ., III, 677) is at fault in his complaint of being unable to find any bishops. The Roman Curia, taking the "Descriptio orbis romani" of George of Cyprus, a civil document, for a "Notitia episcopatuum", has made Tricomia a titular see. It is now a Mussulman village called Terkoumieh on a high hill between Hebron and Bet-Djibrin. It must not be confused with another Tricomia in Arabia which was the camping place of the equites promoti Illyriciani. S. VAILHÉ Triduum Triduum (Three days). A time frequently chosen for prayer or for other devout practices, whether by individuals in private, or in public by congregations or special organizations in parishes, in religious communities, seminaries, or schools. The form of prayer or devotion depends upon the occasion or purpose of the triduum. The three days usually precede some feast, and the feast then determines the choice of the pious execises. In liturgical usage there is a triduum of ceremonies and prayers in Holy Week; the Rogation Days (q.v.); the three days of litanies prior to the feast of the Ascension, and the feasts of Easter and Pentecost, with the first two days of their octaves. There is ecclesiastical authorization for a triduum in honour of the Holy Trinity, of the Holy Eucharist, and of St. Joseph. The first of these, instituted Pius IX, 8 August, 1847, may be made at any time of the year in public or private, and partial or plenary indulgences are attached to it on the usual conditions. The second, also indulgenced, was instituted by Pius X, 10 April, 1907, for the purpose of promoting frequent Communion. The time for it is Friday, Saturday, and Sunday after the feast of Corpus Christi, though the bishops may designate any other more convenient time of the year. Each day there should be a sermon on the Holy Eucharist and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and on Sunday, there should be besides a sermon on the Gospel and on the Holy Eucharist, at the parochial Mass. This triduum is specially for cathedral churches, though the bishops may also require other churches to have it. The prayer, "O Most Sweet Jesus" (Dulcissime Jesu), as given in the "Raccolta", is appointed for reading during Benediction. The triduum in honor of St. Joseph, prior to his feast on 19 March, was recommended by Leo XIII in the Encyclical "Quamprimum pluries" (15 August, 1889), with the prayer, "To thee, O blessed Joseph." The most frequent occasions for a triduum are: when children are in preparation for their first Communion; among pupils in school at the beginning of the scholastic year; among seminarians at the same time; and in religious communities for those who are to renew their vows yearly or every six months. The exercises of these triduums are mainly meditations or instructions disposing the hearers to a devout reception of the sacraments of penance and of Holy Communion and to betterment of life. ST. JOHN, The Raccolta (6th ed., London, 1912); BERINGER, Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen u. Gebrauch (Paderborn, 1900, tr., Fr., Paris, 1905). JOHN J. WYNNE Diocese of Trier Trier (TREVIRENSIS) Diocese; suffragan of Cologne; includes in the Prussian province of the Rhine the governmental department of Trier, with the exception of two districts administered by mayors, and the governmental department of Coblenz with the exception of ten such districts that belong to the Archdiocese of Cologne; it also includes the Principality of Birkenfeld belonging to the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg (see map to article GERMANY). The diocese is divided into 46 deaneries, each administered by a dean and a definitor. In 1911 it comprised 750 parishes, 28 parishes administered by vicars, 200 chaplaincies and similar offices, 70 administrative and school offices. In 1912 there were 711 parish priests, 28 parish vicars, 210 chaplains and curates, 122 ecclesiastics in other positions (administration and schools), 65 priests either retired or on leave of absence, 105 clergy belonging to the orders, 1,249,700 Catholics, and 450,000 persons of other faiths. In most of the country districts the population is nearly entirely Catholic; in the mining and manufacturing districts on the Saar, as well as on the Hunsrück and in the valley of the Nahe River, the Catholic faith is not so predominant. The cathedral chapter has the right to elect the bishop; besides the bishop there is also an auxiliary bishop. The chapter consists of a provost, a dean (the auxiliary bishop), 8 cathedral canons, 4 honorary canons; 6 curates are also attached to the cathedral. The educational institutions of the diocese for the clergy are the episcopal seminar for priests at Trier, which has a regent, 7 clerical professors, and 220 students, and the gymnasial seminaries for boys at Trier and Pr m. Since the close of the Kulturkampf the religious orders have prospered greatly, and in 1911 there were in the diocese: a Benedictine Abbey at Maria-Laach containing 26 fathers, 80 brothers; a Franciscan monastery on the Apollinarisberg at Reimagen, 9 fathers, 8 brothers; 2 houses of the Capuchins, 18 fathers, 12 brothers; 1 house of the Oblates, 5 fathers, 21 brothers; 2 houses of the Pallotines, 9 fathers, 24 brothers; 1 house of the Redemptorists, 9 fathers, 8 brothers; 1 house of the White Fathers, 5 fathers, 5 brothers; 1 house of the Fathers of the Divine Word, 21 fathers, 50 brothers; 126 Brothers of Charity in 4 houses, and 144 Brothers of St. Francis in 7 houses. The female orders and congregations in the diocese in 1911 were: Benedictine Nuns of the Perpetual Adoration, 1 house with 37 sisters; Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, 71 houses with 500 sisters; Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 4 houses, 41 sisters; Serving-Maids of Christ, 30 houses, 193 sisters; Dominican Nuns, 2 houses, 69 sisters; Sisters of St. Francis from the mother-houses at Aachen, Heithuizen, Olpe, and Waldbreitbach, 94 houses, 476 sisters; Capuchin Nuns, 1 house, 10 sisters; Sisters of St. Clement, 1 house, 6 sisters; Nuns of the Visitation, 1 house, 50 sisters; Sisters of the Holy Spirit, 47 houses, 300 sisters; Sisters of the Love of the Good Shepherd, 2 houses, 125 sisters; Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus, 1 house, 9 sisters; Sisters of St. Joseph, 1 house, 20 sisters; Ursuline Nuns, 5 houses, 220 Sisters; Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, 7 houses; 30 sisters. The most important church of the diocese is the cathedral, the oldest church of a Christian bishop on German soil. The oldest section of the building goes back to the Roman era and was a church as early as the fourth century. In the course of time other parts were added which belong to all forms of architecture, although the Romanesque style preponderates. The cathedral contains the remains of twenty-five archbishops and electors as well as those of the last four bishops of Trier. The most precious of its numerous treasures is the Holy Coat of Christ, which, according to legend, was given to the Church of Trier by St. Helena. Two exhibitions of this venerable relic are worthy of special note: that of 1844, connected with the rise of the sect of German Catholics, and the one held in 1891, which attracted over two million pilgrims. Other noted churches in Trier are: the Church of Our Lady, one of the most beautiful ecclesiastical monuments of Gothic architecture, built 1227-43; the Church of St. Paulinus or of the Martyrs, the burial place of Bishop Paulinus, erected in 1734 in Rococo style to replace the old church destroyed by the French in l674; the thirteenth-century Romanesque church of the former Benedictine Abbey of St. Matthias, containing the grave of St. Matthias, the only grave of an Apostle in Germany; it is much visited by pilgrims. Other noted churches of the diocese are: the churches of St. Castor and Our Lady at Coblenz, the abbey church of Maria-Laach, the old monastery churches of Pr m, M nstermaifeld, and Merzig; the Church of St. Maria at Oberwesel, the Gothic churches of Andernach, Boppard, Remagen, Sinzig, and of other places on the Rhine and the Moselle. HISTORY The beginnings of the see of Trier are obscure. From the time of Diocletian reorganization of the divisions of the empire, Trier was the capital of Belgica Prima, the chief city of Gaul, and frequently the residence of the emperors. There were Christians among its population as early as the second century, and there was probably as early as the third century a bishop at Trier, which is the oldest episcopal see in Germany. The first clearly authenticated bishop is Agricius who took part in the Council of Arles in 314. His immediate successors were St. Maximinus who sheltered the excommunicated St. Athanasius at Trier, and St. Paulinus, who was exiled to Phrygia on account of his opposition to Arianism. Little is known of the later bishops up to the reign of Charlemagne; during this intervening period the most important ones were St. Nicetius (527-66) and Magnericus (d. 596), the confidant of the Merovingian king, Childebert II. The bishops during the reign of Charlemagne were: Wiomad (757-91), who accompanied the emperor on his campaign against the Avars; Richbod (792-804), one of Alcuin's pupils; and Amalarius Fortunatus (809-14), sent by Charlemagne as ambassador to Constantinople, and the author of liturgical writings. Charlemagne's will proves that Trier at this era was an archdiocese; Metz, Toul, and Verdun are mentioned as its suffragans. In 772 Charlemagne granted Wiomad complete immunity from the jurisdiction of the ruling count for all the churches, monasteries, villages, and castles belonging to the Church of St. Peter at Trier. In 816 Louis the Pious confirmed to Archbishop Hetti (814-47) the privileges of protection and immunity granted by his father. At the partition of the Frankish empire at Verdun in 843, Trier fell to Lothair's empire; at the partition of Lothair's empire at Mersen in 870, it fell to the East-Frankish kingdom which later became the German Empire. However, after the death of Louis the Child, the lords of Lorraine separated from the East-Frankish Kingdom and became vassals of the West-Frankish ruler King Charles the Simple, until Henry I conquered the country for Germany again. Archbishop Ratbod (883-915) received in 898 complete immunity from all state taxes for the entire episcopal territory from the King of Lorraine and Burgundy, Swentibold, son of Emperor Arnulf. He obtained from Louis the Child the district and city of Trier, the right to have a mint and to impose customs-duties; from Charles the Simple he gained the right of a free election of the Bishop of Trier. In this way the secular possessions of the bishops of Trier, which had sprung from the valuable donations of the Merovingian and Carlovingian rulers, were raised to a secular principality. Archbishop Ratbert (931-56), brother-in-law of King Henry I, was confirmed by Otto I in all the temporal rights gained by his predecessors. Archbishop Poppo (1016-47), son of Margrave Leopold of Austria, did much to enlarge the territory owned by the church of Trier. During the strife over Investiture, Engelbert of Ortenburg (1078-1101) and Bruno of Laufen (1102-24) belonged to the imperial party. Albero of Montreuil (1131-52) had, as Archdeacon of Metz, opposed lay Investiture; during his administration the cathedral school of Trier reached its highest fame. From about 1100 the Archbishop of Trier was the Arch-Chancellor of Gaul, for the German emperor, and thus became the possessor of an imperial office and an Elector of the German king and emperor. As the archbishops of Trier were among the leading spiritual princes of the empire, they became involved in all the struggles between pope and emperor. While Hillin (1152-69) was a partisan of Frederick Barbarossa, Arnold I (1169-83) made successful efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the emperor and pope (1177). John I (1190-1212) was excommunicated by Innocent III on account of his adherence to King Philip of Swabia; Bishop John increased the possessions of the archdiocese by gaining several countships and castles. Theodoric II of Wied (1212-42) belonged to the party of Frederick II, while Arnold II of Isenburg (1242-59) opposed the emperor. Henry II of Vinstingen (1260-86) was the first Archbishop of Trier who took part in the election of a German emperor as one of the seven Electors; the electoral dignity, together with the right to the first vote, was confirmed by the Golden Bull in 1356. As in other German dioceses, so also in Trier, the rising cities, especially Trier and Coblenz, sought to rid themselves of the suzerainty of the bishop. Such attempts were crowned with considerable success during the rule of Archbishop Diether of Nassau (1300-07), brother of King Adolph of Nassau. On the other hand, Baldwin of Luxembourg (1308-54), the most noted of the medieval archbishops of Trier, was able to restore and raise the importance of the See of Trier by his wide-reaching activity both in secular and spiritual affairs. He brought the cities of Coblenz and Trier under his suzerainty again, and was the actual organizer of his possessions as an electoral state. Werner of Falkenstein (1388-1418), one of Baldwin's successors, acquired Limburg on the Lahn; during the great Western Schism he held loyally to Gregory XII. After the death of Otto of Ziegenhain (1418-30), who laboured zealously for the reform of the Church, there was a double election; upon this Pope Martin V appointed a third person archbishop. During the struggle of the candidates to secure the diocese it suffered severely. James of Sierck (1439-56) sought to restore order in the confused finances of the diocese. He was deposed by Eugenius IV as an adherent of the Council of Basle and of the Antipope Felix V, who was elected there. However, the deposition had no effect as the German Electors opposed it. John II, Margrave of Baden (1456-1503), promoted the reform of the Church. He left the diocese heavily in debt, and these debts were increased by his great-nephew and successor, James II of Baden (1503-11). The Reformation limited the spiritual jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Trier. Although the energetic Richard von Greiffenklau (1511-31) vigorously opposed the Reformation, still he could not prevent the new doctrine from gaining a foothold in the district of the Hunsr ck, and in that on the right bank of the Rhine. He defeated the attacks of Franz von Sickingen upon the city of Trier, as well as the efforts of that city to become independent of the bishop. In 1512 he exhibited the Holy Coat for the first time and spent the donations of the pilgrims on the cathedral. John II von Metzenhausen (1531-40) attempted reforms which were frustrated by his death. John II von Hagen (1541-47) sent a representative to the Council of Trent and began earnest measures of reform. John V von Isenburg (1547-56) attended the council himself, but was recalled home by the incursion of Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg-Ansbach into the archdiocese, which the margrave devastated horribly. John VI von der Leyen (1556-67) was able to regain Trier, but could not prevent the French from taking possession of his three suffragan dioceses, Metz, Toul, and Verdun. He checked the further spread of the new doctrines by calling the Jesuits into his diocese (1561). James III von Eltz (1567-81) and John VII von Schönenberg (1581-99) carried out in their possessions the reformatory decrees of the Council of Trent. The former secured the administration of the Abbey of Prüm, whereby the secular possessions of the archdiocese reached their final extent; the latter established two seminaries at Coblenz and Trier. Lothair von Metternich (1599-1623) joined the Catholic League in order to secure the stability of the Catholic Church in Germany. In this way his see became involved in the Thirty Years War. His successor, Philip Christopher von S tern (1623-52), withdrew from the League, formed an alliance with France, and permitted the French to garrison the fortress of Ehrenbreitstein. When he made advances to the Swedes he was captured by the Spanish troops in 1635 under suspicion of heresy, and was kept a prisoner at Vienna until 1645. In the struggle between the imperial troops and the French the archdiocese was often devastated. Charles Caspar von der Leyen (1652-76) had scarcely repaired the damage done by the Thirty Years War by an excellent administration, when the marauding wars of Louis XIV of France brought fresh misery upon the country. John Hugo von Orsbeck (1676-1711) refused to recognize the seizure of some of his territories and their incorporation into France by Louis XIV through what was called the "reunions", neither would take the oath of loyalty to Louis. Consequently, during the years 1684-97 large parts of the see were garrisoned by French troops. During the long period of peace in the eighteenth century the archdiocese had excellent rulers. Francis Louis von Pfalz-Neuburg (1716-29) gave particular attention to the organization of the administration of justice, and raised the decaying university by establishing new professorships. Francis George von Sch nborn (1729-56) encouraged learned studies and founded a university library and building. The short administration of John Philip von Walderdorf (1756-68) was followed by the reign of the last Elector of Trier, Clement Wenceslaus, Duke of Saxony (1768-1812), who was also Bishop of Augsburg. He gained a reputation by improving the schools and reforming the monasteries, but, on the other hand, influenced by the ideas of the "Enlightenment", he supported Febronianism, shared in the labours of the Congress of Ems (q.v.), and also was involved in the dispute about the nunciatures (see NUNCIO). After the outbreak of the French Revolution the territories of Trier, especially Coblenz, became the gathering place of the French émigrés. In 1794 Trier and Coblenz were besieged by the French. In 1797, by the Peace of Campo-Formio, the part of the archdiocese on the left bank of the Rhine was ceded to France; in 1797 the university was suppressed. In 1801 the Peace of Lunéville gave to France, in addition, the fortress of Ehrenbreitstein. When the German Church was secularized in 1803, the section of the archdiocese on the right bank of the Rhine was also secularized and the greater part of it was incorporated into Nassau. Clemens Wenceslaus renounced his rights in return for an annual pension of 100,000 gulden and withdrew to the Diocese of Augsburg. An ecclesiastical administration, which lasted until 1824, was established in Ehrenbreitstein for the part of the former archdiocese on the right bank of the Rhine. The French Diocese of Trier was established in 1801 for the section of the former archdiocese which had been ceded to France. It embraced hardly a third of the old diocese and was made suffragan to Mechlin. Its first and only bishop was Charles Mannay (1802-16). The Congress of Vienna gave the territory included in this diocese once more to Germany, largely to Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg. In 1816 Bishop Charles Mannay resigned his office and retired to France, where he died in 1824 as Bishop of Rennes. For six years the see remained vacant, the administration being conducted in the interim by Hubert Anthony Corden as vicar-general, from 1818 as vicar Apostolic. On the reorganization of the Catholic Church in Prussia in 1821, Trier was revived as a simple diocese by the Bull "De salute animarum", made suffragan to Cologne, and received about its present territory. In 1824 it contained 531 parishes with 580,000 Catholics. The first bishop of the new diocese was Joseph von Hommer (1824-36). The election of his successor, William Arnoldi (1842-64) which took place in 1839 and was renewed in 1842, was not recognized by the Government until Frederick William IV ascended the throne. Arnoldi did a great deal for the reawakening of Catholic consciousness in Germany. The exhibition of the Holy Coat, which he brought about in 1844, led to the forming of the sect called German Catholics. He was succeeded by Leopold Pelldram (1865-67), formerly chaplain general of the Prussian army, who was followed by Matthias Eberhard (1867-76), who enjoys the honours of a Confessor of the Faith. Eberhard was one of the first to suffer by the Kulturkampf which broke out in Prussia. After being repeatedly condemned to pay heavy fines he was sentenced on 6 March, 1876, to ten months imprisonment. Trier was one of the dioceses that suffered the most during the Kulturkampf. The number of its parishes robbed of their parish priests amount to 197, while nearly 294,000 Catholics lacked regular spiritual care. After the death of the bishop on 30 May, 1876, the see was vacant for five years and had to be secretly administered by an Apostolic Delegate. Finally in 1881, through the personal efforts of Leo XIII, an agreement was made with the Prussian Government, and Mich l Felix Korum (cathedral canon and parish priest of the minster at Strasburg) was appointed Bishop of Trier by the pope, consecrated at Rome on 19 August, and enthroned on 25 September. Up to the present day the bishop has sought to repair the damage inflicted upon his diocese by the Kulturkampf, through the confessional, the pulpit, and religious associational life. He has founded religious institutions for education, and promoted the establishment of numerous houses of the orders. The exhibition of the Holy Coat in 1891 which he carried out was the occasion for impressive demonstrations of Catholic faith and life in Germany (cf. Korum, "Wunder und Gnadenerweise, die sich bei der Austellung 1891 zugetragen haben", Trier, 1894). A complete bibliography is to be found in MARX, Trevirensia. Literaturkunde zur Gesch. der Trierer Lande (Trier, 1909). Most important works are: BROUWER AND MASENIUS, Antiquitatum et annalium Trevirensium libri XXV (Li ge, 1670-71); HONTHEIM, Hist. Trevirensis diplomatica et pragmatica (Augsburg and W rzburg, 1750); IDEM, Prodromus Hist. Trevirensis (1757); Gesta Trevirorum, ed. WYTTENBACH AND M LLER (Trier,1836-39); MARX, Gesch. des Erzstifts Trier (5 vols., Trier, 1858-1864); G RZ, Regesten der Erzbisch fe zu Trier von Hetti bis Johann II, 814-1503 (Trier, 1859-61); IDEM Mittelrheinische Regesten (Coblenz, 1876-86); Codex diplomaticus Rheno-Mosellanus, ed. G NTHER (5 vols. Coblenz, 1822-26); Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der mittelrheinischen Territorien, ed. ZEYER, ELTESTER, AND G RZ (Coblenz, 1860-74); DE LORENZI, Beitr ge zur Gesch. s mtlicher Pfarreien der Di zese Trier (Trier, 1887); SAUERLAND, Trier Geschichtsquellen (Trier, 1889); IDEM, Urkunden u. Regesten zur Gesch. der Rheinlande aus dem vatikansichen Archiv (4 vols., Bonn, 1902-07); SCHORN, Eiflia illustrata (Bonn, 1888-1892); NEY, Die Reformation in Trier 1559 ihre Entstehung (Leipzig and Halle, 1906-07); VON SCHR TTER, Die M nzen von Trier, II (Bonn, 1908); BASTGEN, Die Gesch. des Trierer Domkapitels im Mittelalter (Paderborn, 1910); EWALD, Die Siegel der Erzbisch fe von Trier (Bonn, 1910). On art and architecture: VON WILMOWSKY, Der Dom zu Trier (Trier, 1874); IDEM, Die Grabst tten der Erzbisch fe von Trier (Trier, 1876); BEISSEL, Gesch. der Trierer Kirchen (1888-89); KR GER AND KENTENICH, Trier zur R merzeit u. im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1911); VON SCHLEINITZ, Trier (Leipzig, 1909). One of the series, Ber hmte Kunst tten; CRAMER, Das r mische Trier (G tersloh, 1911). Most important periodicals: Trierisches Archiv (Trier, 1898----), and its supplementary numbers (Trier, 1901----); Westdeutsche Zeitschrift f r Gesch. u. Kunst (Trier, 1882----), with supplementary numbers. JOSEPH LINS Francis a Paula Triesnecker Francis a Paula Triesnecker Astronomer, b. at Kirchberg on the Wagram, in Lower Austria, 2 April, 1745; d. at Vienna 29 January, 1817. At the age of sixteen he entered the Society of Jesus, and, after several years' study of philosophy (Vienna) and mathematics (Tyrnau), he taught at various Jesuit colleges. After the suppression of the Society he went to Gras, where he completed his theological studies and was ordained shortly afterwards. He soon attained a reputation as a mathematician and astronomer and was appointed assistant to the director of the Vienna Observatory, Father Max Hell, whom he succeeded in 1792. He occupied this post during the remainder of his life. Triesnecker was thoroughly grounded in the science of mathematics and its applications to astronomy; and the accuracy of his observations, which in spite of ill-health he pursued till an advanced age, was universally recognized. His numerous treatises mainly deal with geography and astronomy. A considerable portion of his time was taken up by the "Ephemerides" of Vienna, the editorship of which, after Father Hell's death, he shared with the ingenious computer Burg. In this periodical he published, between the years 1787-1806, his "Tabulae Mercurii, Martis, Veneris, Solares", and the greater part of his micrometrical observations of the sun, moon, planets, and positions of stars. His "Novae motuum lunarium tabulae" were published separately in 1802. Other astronomical investigations may be found in "Zach's monatliche Correspondenz", in the "Commentarii soc. leg. Götting.", and in Bode's "Astron. Jahrbuch". In geography he determined or corrected the longitude and latitude of various places from the best available data. The results of this labour are embodied in the periodicals referred to above, the "Transactions of the Royal Soc. of Bohemia", and Zach's "Allgemeine geographische Ephemeriden". He completed Father Metzburg's triangulation of lower Austria, using it as a basis for the production of a new map of that country, and assisted him with the triangulation of Galicia. The erection of the "New Observatory" of Vienna (which afterwards gave place to the new structure on the "Turkenschanze") was Triesnecker's work. He was a member of the scientific associations of Breslau, Göttingen, Munich, St. Petersburg, and Prague. J. STEIN Triest-Capo d'Istria Triest-Capo d'Istria (TERGESTINA ET JUSTINOPOLITANA.) Suffragan diocese of Görz-Gradiska; exists as a triple see since 1821, when Cittanova (Æmonia) and Capodistria (Ægida, Capris, Justinopolis) were united to Triest, and its present name was assigned to the see. St. Frugifer, consecrated in 524, was the first Bishop of Triest; since then it exhibits a long line of eighty-seven bishops. Despite their high character and great abilities, however, these bishops only in rare instances attained to eminence, owing to the small size of their diocese, which was subject to Aquileia, and to the rivalry between Aquileia and Venice. Foremost among the bishops is Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II. Petrus Bonomo, a secretary of Frederick IV and Maximilian I, became Bishop of Triest in 1502, and was known as pater concilii in the fifth Lateran Council (1512). Giovanni Bogarino, teacher of Archduke Charles of Styria, was bishop from 1591. Joseph II abolished the Diocese of 'Triest in 1788, transferring the see to Gradiska. His brother, Leopold II, divided Gradiska into the Dioceses of Gorz and Triest, re-establishing Triest in 1791 and appointing as its bishop, Sigismund Anton, Count of Hohenwart and tutor of his children. Other attempts were made to suppress the see, but the emperor decreed its preservation, and von Buset was appointed bishop. After his death (1803) the see remained vacant eighteen years, owing to the disorders caused by Napoleon. Emperor Franz finally appointed Leonardi as Bishop of Triest. At the Synod of Vienna in 1849, Bartholomew Legat was present; he defended, with considerable fervour, the views of the minority in the Vatican Council. In 1909 Bishop Franz X. Nagi was appointed coadjutor cum jure successionis to the ninety-year-old Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Anton Gruscha of Vienna. The see numbers 409,800 Catholics with 291 priests, 81 male religious and 174 nuns. CÖLESTIN WOLFSGRUBER Trincomalee Trincomalee (TRINCOMALIENSIS.) Located in Ceylon, suffragan of Colombo, was created in 1893 by a division of the diocese of Jaffna. The diocese comprises the whole of the eastern province as well as the district of Tamankuduwa. Out of a total population of 186,251 the Catholics number 8773, with 28 churches and chapels served by 13 fathers and two lay brothers of the Belgian province of the Society of Jesus, with two missionaries Apostolic. Candidates for the priesthood are sent to Kandy seminary. There are fifty-five schools with 2523 pupils, and one convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny with five inmates who conduct an orphanage attached to the convent. The bishop is Charles Lavigne, S.J. (consecrated 1887), who resides at Trincomalee. Madras Catholic Directory, 1910. ERNEST R. HULL Abbey of Trinita di Cava Dei Tirreni Abbey of Trinità di Cava dei Tirreni Located in the Province of Salerno. It stands in a gorge of the Finestre Hills near Cava dei Tirreni, and was founded in 980 by Alferio Pappacarbona, a noble of Salerno who became a Cluniac monk. Urban II endowed this monastery with many privileges, making it immediately subject to the Holy See, with jurisdiction over the surrounding territory. In 1394 Boniface IX made it a diocese, but in 1513 Leo X erected the Diocese of Cava, detaching that city from the abbot's jurisdiction. About the same time the Cluniacs were replaced by Cassinese monks. This monastery, an abbey nullius, possesses a very rich store of public and private documents, which date back to the eighth century, and is now the seat of a national educational establishment, under the care of the Benedictines. The church is famous for its organ. In 1893 the cultus of the first four abbots (Alferius, Leo, Petrus, and Constabilis) was sanctioned. There are 18 parishes with 68 priests, regular and secular, and 28,000 faithful, subject to the abbacy. U. BENIGNI Order of Trinitarians Order of Trinitarians The redemption of captives has always been regarded in the Church as a work of mercy, as is abundantly testified by many lives of saints who devoted themselves to this task. The period of the Crusades, when so many Christians were in danger of falling into the hands of infidels, witnessed the rise of religious orders vowed exclusively to this pious work. In the thirteenth century there is mention of an order of Montjoie, founded for this purpose in Spain, but its existence was brief, as it was established in 1180 and united in 1221 with the Order of Calatrava. Another Spanish order prospered better; this was founded in the thirteenth century by St Peter Nolasco under the title of Our Lady of Mercy (de la Merced), whence the name Mercedarians. It soon spread widely from Aragon, and has still several houses at Rome, in Italy, Spain, and the old Spanish colonies. Finally, the Order of Trinitarians, which exists to the present day, had at first no other object, as is recalled by the primitive title: "Ordo S. Trinitatis et de redemptione captivorum". its founder, St. John of Math, a native of Provence and a doctor of the University of Paris, conceived the project under the pious inspiration of a pious solitary, St Felix of Valois, in a hermitage called Cerfroid, which subsequently became the chief house of the order. Innocent III, though little in favor of new orders, granted his approbation to this enterprise in a Bull of 17 December, 1198. The primitive rule, which has been in turns mitigated or restored, enacted that each house should comprise seven brothers, one of whom should be superior; the revenues of the house should be divided into three parts, one for the monks, one for the support of the poor, and one for the ransom of captives; finally it forbade the monks when journeying to use a horse, either through humility, or because horses were forbidden to Christians in the Mussulman countries, whither the friars had to go; hence their popular name of "Friars of the Ass". In France the Trinitarians were as much favoured by the kings as by the popes. St. Louis installed a house of their order in his château of Fontainebleu. He chose Trinitarians as his chaplains, and was accompanied by them on his crusades. Their convent in Paris is dedicated to St. Mathurin; hence they are also known in France as Mathurins. Founded in 1228, the Paris house soon eclipsed Cerfroid, the cradle of the Trinitarians, and eventually became the residence of the general, also called grand minister, of the order. Towards the end of the twelfth century the order had 250 houses throughout Christendom, where its benevolent work was manifested by the return of liberated captives. This won for it many alms in lands and revenues, a third of which was used for ransoms. But the chief source was collections; and to make these fruitful it was not considered enough to attach indulgences to the almsdeed, recourse was had to theatrical demonstrations to touch hearts and open purses. The misfortunes of the unhappy captives in the Mussulman countries were the readiest subjects for descriptions, sermons, and even tableaux. In Spain these alms-quests were made solemnly: the religious on their mules were preceded by trumpeters and cymbal-players, and a herald proclaimed the redemption by inviting families to make known their kinsfolk in captivity and the alms destined for their ransom. From the fourteenth century the Trinitarians had lay assistants, i.e., charitable collectors, authorised by letters patent to solicit alms for the order in their respective towns; these were called marguilliers. There were also confraternities of the Holy Trinity, chiefly in the towns where the order had no convent; these consisted of lay tertiaries who wore the scapular of the order, were associated with its spiritual favours, and devoted a portion of their income to its work. In fact the Trinitarians had considerable resources to meet the needs of their work. The funds being collected, the ransomers to the number of three or four set sail from Provence or Spain with objects to alleviate the lot of the captives or coax their jailers. Their destination was usually the Barbary States, especially in the sixteenth century when the corsairs of Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco infested the Mediterranean and made plunder their chief means of existence. The Mercedarians went chiefly to Morocco, while the Trinitarians went preferably to Tunis or Algiers. There began their trials. They had to confront the dangers of the journey, the endemic diseases of the African coast, exposed to the outrages of the natives, sometimes to burst of Mussulman fanaticism, which cost several lives. The most delicate part of the task lay in the choice of captives amid the solicitations with which the monks were besieged and the negotiations for settling the ransom-price between the corsairs and the Trinitarians, between the exactions of the former and the limited resources of the latter. When the sum was not sufficient, the Trinitarians were held as hostages in the place of the captives until the arrival of fresh funds. The choice of captives was made according to the funds; ransom was first paid for the natives of the regions which had contributed to the redemption. Sometimes certain captives were previously indicated by their family who paid the ransom. When the captives returned to Europe, the Trinitarians had them go in procession from town to town amid scenery intended to impress the imagination in justification of the use of the alms and to inspire fresh almsdeeds. The number of those ransomed during the three centuries is estimated at 90,000. The most famous of these was Cervantes (ransomed in 1580), who at his death was buried among the trinitarians at Madrid in a habit of a Trinitarian tertiary. Despite the large sums of money which passed through their hands, the Trinitarians had to struggle constantly with poverty. They had to defray the expenses of numerous hospitals, as well as to administer parochial charges. They suffered greatly in France during the English invasion of the fifteenth century and the wars of religion of the sixteenth. Moreover, there were conflicts between the Mercedarians, who had spread from Spain to France, and the Trinitarians, who had spread from France to Spain. They contested each other's right to collect and receive legacies: attempts at fusion failed, and their rivalry gave rise to numerous suits in both countries and to a whole controversial literature. Their poverty resulted in a relaxation of the rules which had often to be revised, and in divisions in the order. While one party followed the mitigated rule, there was a reform party which aimed at a return to the primitive observance. Thus arose the first schism in 1578 at Pontoise, which in 1633 succeeded in entering the mother-house at Cerfroid. About the same time the Trinitarians of Spain formed a schism by separating from the Trinitarians of France under Father Juan Bautista of the Immaculate Conception; the latter added fresh austerity to their rule by founding the Congregation of "Discalced Trinitarians of Spain". This rule spread to Italy and Austria (1690), where the ransom of captives was much esteemed during the constant wars with the Turks. Hence the three congregations, which gave rise to regrettable dissensions. The Discalced also went to France, where they were suppressed by a Papal Bull in 1771. The division between those observing the mitigated and the reformed rule was terminated by uniting without fusing them under a common general. At this time also they began to lay claim in France to the title by which they have since been known: Canons Regular of the Holy Trinity. The Revolution of 1789 suppressed them in all the territories to which they had spread. Joseph II had already suppressed them in 1784 in Austria and the Low Countries. They have retained a few houses in Italy, Spain, and the Spanish colonies. At Rome, where the convent of St. Thomas was united with the chapter of St. Peter in 1387, the Trinitarians protested many times unsuccessfully against this spoliation, when on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the foundation of the order in 1898, the chapter of St. Peter's voluntarily restored it. But their chief house is the Basilica of St. John Chrysogonus which was given to them by Pius IX in 1856. There have always been nuns attached to the hospitals of the order, but they do not seem to have formed an integral part of it. The true Trinitarian Sisters were founded in Spain by Maria de Romero in 1612 and they still have convents at Madrid and in other cities. They form part of the discalced congregation. The Trinitarians wear a white habit, with a cross of which the upright is red and the cross bar blue. CH. MOELLER The Blessed Trinity The Blessed Trinity This article is divided as follows: I. Dogma of the Trinity; II. Proof of the Doctrine from Scripture; III. Proof of the Doctrine from Tradition; IV. The Trinity as a Mystery; V. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Greek Theology; VI. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Latin Theology. I. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986). It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine ot the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation. II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE A. New Testament The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias. Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature. + He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative. + In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.). + He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31). + He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias -- a step long since taken by all the Apostles -- but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17). + Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71). St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father. Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see Logos.) In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14-16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17, 18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23). In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in II Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in I Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; I Peter 1:2-3.) But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. I Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (II Timothy 4:18; II Peter 3:18; Revelations 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. I Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, I Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (I Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, I Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; II Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, I Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philemon 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles. The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him. + He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (I Corinthians 2:10); + it is He who distributes charismata (I Cor., 12:11); + He is the giver of supernatural life (II Cor., 3:8); + He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). + The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (I Cor., 6:11; Rom., 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (I Cor., 1:2; Gal., 2:17). To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see Holy Ghost). B. Old Testament The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, "Dial.", 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", IV, xx, 7-11; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 15-16; Theoph., "Ad Autol.", ii, 22; Novat., "De Trin.", 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity: and one or two (Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", II, xxx, 9; Theophilus, "Ad. Aut.", II, 15; Hippolytus, "Con. Noet.", 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom, vii, 25, 26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", v, 26; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", II, 22; Cyril Alex., "In Joan.", xii, 20.) Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiph., "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril Alex., "Con. Julian.," I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaias 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaias 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place,"the angel of great counsel." A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclus., 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i. e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told thnt the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclus., 24:8-13). In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is. . .a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asuerted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", Ixxiv). III. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE FROM TRADITION A. The Church Fathers In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv, n. 2). (1) Baptismal formulas We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptised to the one true God (Tert., "De spect.", iv; Justin, "Apol.", I, iv). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10). The doxologies (2) The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii). It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Heb. 13:15). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use. + In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Mart. S. Polyc., n.14; cf. n. 22). + Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (Paed., III, xii). + St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet., n. 18). + Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", xxix, n. 72). + St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God"). (3) Other patristic writings The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine. Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things. Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in "Paedag." I, vi, and somewhat later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his creed (P.G., X, 986). (4) As contrasted with heretical teachings Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects. The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus. It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared -- at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum," claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man." Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in whioh he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P. G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality. The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on apoint so vital. B. Later Controversy Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e. g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his great theological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, and other Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene belief of the Church: + That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not equal to the Father; + that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, however, not so; + that the Son is a created being; + that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time. We shall examine these four points in order. (1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from Justin (Apol., I, xiii, xxxii), Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, viii, n. 3), Clem. Alex. ("Strom." VII, ii), Hippolytus (Con. Noet., n. 14), Origen (Con. Cels., VIII, xv). Thus Irenaeus (loc. cit.) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established. And Origen, loc. cit., says: "We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as derivlng from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being: tbe sole source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin writers who insist thst creation and all God's works proceed from Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other. But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers. (2) Justin (Dial., n. 60) Irenaeus (Adv. haer., IV, xx, nn. 7, 11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; "Adv. Prax.", 15, 16), Novatian (De Trin., xviii, 25), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, xxii), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work. (3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv; VI, vii), Tatian (Orat., v), Tertullian ("Adv. Prax." vi; "Adv. "Adv. Hermong.", xviii, xx), Origen (In Joan., I, n. 22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) Of the Father. Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Colossians 1:16, St. Paul says that all things were created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word, since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the Word. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses. The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse, Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen, "Princ.", I, ii, n. 3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequent errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous. (4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from the Father. These are found in Justin (C. Tryphon., lxi), Tatian (Con. Graecos, v), Athenagoras (Legat., x), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, x, 22); Hippolytus (Con. Noet., x); Tertullian ("Adv. Prax.", v-vii; "Adv. Hermogenem" xviii). Thus Theophilus writes (op. cit., n. 22): "What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos), but having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason." Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the Church herself was never involved in the error (see Logos). Yet it does not seem necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatibIe with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense. It should further be remembered that throughout this period theologians, when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible. IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 9:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae -- "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil. "In Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusdem, "Cat.", VI; St. John Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.). At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915). V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY A. Nature and Personality The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology. In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect. This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them. The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", n. 38; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost." B. The Divine Unity The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenaeus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, "His two hands" (Adv. haer., IV, xx, 1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha -- P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him. This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (I Cor., 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the Son the Father would be without Hls Wisdom; apart from the Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases. Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them. The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, "Ep. clxxxix," n. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom.," John Damascene, "De fide orth.", III, xiv). Here we see an important advance in the theology of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a distinct and separate function. Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence, will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Fid. orth., I, viii). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the Homoüsia. It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developedby St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one. Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix). C. Mediate and Immediate Procession The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology. It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed. It is assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxi, 31, 32), of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene ("Fid.orth." I, 13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son. Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P. G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to Holy Ghost.) D. The Son The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxix", p. 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", xi, 19; John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", I, viii). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, viii). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word ("Dion. Alex."; Athanasius, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, "C. Eunom.", IV; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxx", p. 20; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi). We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John Damascene (Origen apud Athan., "De decr. Nic.", p. 27; Athanasius, "Con. Arianos", I, p. 19; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, xii). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No actlon, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their bssis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power -- a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink. E. The Holy Spirit A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (De Trin., xv, n. 37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Ecth. fid."; Basil, "Ep. ccxiv", 4; Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. xxv", 16). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4). On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of Christ (John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", 1, viii), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the Three Persons come to his soul. In Greek theology the order is reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have received sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive the gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued existence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, "In Joan. ii", vi; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of God's children (Athanasius, loc.cit.; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on us the gift of the Holy Ghost. VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected. It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points: + He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father,but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius. + He insists that every external operation God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see Holy Ghost). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. + By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind (De Trin., IX, iii, 3; X, xi, 17), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer. In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St. Thomas. A. The Son Among the terms empIoyed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3). Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Suarez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petav., VI, i, 7; Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth. B. The Holy Spirit Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." If the immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to note St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his love. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the Latins before his time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the "De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the "De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the West. The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of revelation. C. The Divine Relations The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", V, ix; John Damascene, "F.O.", I, viii). Augustine insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found in God ("De Trin.", V, v). But it was at the hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it. From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be digtinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three Persons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine Nature, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.) It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like quantity or quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the infinite perfection of the Godhead. The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see Personality). Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction. The question was raised by the Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know, indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2). D. Divine Mission It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes two conditions: + That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender and + that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated. The procession, however, may take place in various ways -- by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul. (See also Holy Ghost; Logos; Monotheists; Unitarians.) Among the numerous patristic works on this subject, the following call for special mention: ST. ATHANASIUS, Orationes quatuor contra Arianos; IDEM, Liber de Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto; ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orationes V de theologia; DIDYMUS ALEX., Libri III de Trinitate; IDEM, Liber de Spir. Sancto; ST. HILARY OF POITIERS, Libri XII de Trinitate; ST. AUGUSTINE, Libri XV de Trinitate; ST. JOHN DAMASCENE, Liber de Trinitate; IDEM, De fide orthodoxa, I. Among the medieval theologians: ST. ANSELM, Lib. I. de fide Trinitatis; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, Libri VI de Trinitate; ST.THOMAS, Summa, I, xxvii-xliii; BESSARION, Liber de Spiritu Saneto contra Marcum Ephesinum. Among more recent writers: PETAVIUS, De Trinitate; NEWMAN. Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism in Theol. Tracts. (London, 1864). G. H. JOYCE Trinity College Trinity College An institution for the higher education of Catholic women, located at Washington, D.C., and empowered under the terms of its charter (1897) to confer degrees. The college originated in the desire of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, who had been thirty-five years established in the city of Washington, to open a select day-school in the suburb of Brookland. Before requesting the necessary ecclesiastical sanction, it was proposed to them by the authorities of the Catholic University to make the new school a college equal in efficiency to the women's colleges already established in the United States. Cardinal Gibbons, chancellor of the university, heartily endorse this project, "persuaded", he wrote, "that such and institution, working in union with, though entirely independent of, the Catholic University, will do incalculable good in the cause of higher education" (5 April 1897). Sister Julia, then provincial superior of the Sisters of Notre Dame, secured a tract of thirty-three acres lying between Michigan and Lincoln Avenues, Brookland. The corner-stone was laid on 8 December, 1899; the South Hall of the building was dedicated by Cardinal Gibbons, on 22 November 1900, and the structure was completed in 1910. It contains residence halls for two hundred students, lecture rooms, laboratories, a museum, a library of 12,000 volumes, and a temporary chapel. The O'Connor Art Gallery and Auditorium, a hall provided by the generosity of Judge and Mrs. M.P. O'Connor of San Jose, California, houses a large and valuable collection of paintings, water colours, mosaics, photographs, and statuary, which was opened to visitors on 31 May, 1904, in the presence of the donors. The Holahan Social Hall contains some rare old paintings, a bequest to the college in 1907 by Miss Amanda Holahan of Philadelphia. The administration of the college is in the hands of an advisory board, of which Cardinal Gibbons is president, and the members comprise the rector, and vice-rector of the Catholic University, the provincial superior of the Sisters of Notre Dame, the president of the college, who is also the superior of the community, and the president of the auxiliary board of regents. The auxiliary board of regents and its associate boards draw their members from all parts of the United States, being composed of Catholic ladies who can help the cause of higher education by their influence and example. The college has no endowment. By the liberality of friends, seventeen scholarships have been established. The faculty of Trinity College is composed of six professors from the Catholic University in the departments of philosophy, education, apologetics, economics, and sociology, and seventeen Sisters of Notre Name in the departments of religion, Sacred Scripture, ancient and modern languages, English, history, logic, mathematics, the physical sciences, music, and art. The college opened its courses on 7 November 1900, with twenty-two students in the Freshman class and has grown only by promotion and admission. For 1911-1912, 160 were registered. Admission is by examination according to the requirements of the College Entrance Examination Board; no specialists are received; and there is no preparatory department. The number of degrees conferred (1904-1912) is 160, viz.: master of arts, 8; bachelor of arts, 130; bachelor of letters, 20; bachelor of science, 2. Annals of Trinity College (Washington, D.C.); SISTER OF NOTRE DAME, The Life of Sister Julia, Provincial Superior of the Sisters of Notre Dame (Washington, D.C., 1911); MCDEVITT, Trinity College and the Higher Education in The Catholic World (June, 1904); HOWE, Trinity College in Donahoe's Magazine (October, 1900). SISTER OF NOTRE DAME Trinity Sunday Trinity Sunday The first Sunday after Pentecost, instituted to honour the Most Holy Trinity. In the early Church no special Office or day was assigned for the Holy Trinity. When the Arian heresy was spreading the Fathers prepared an Office with canticles, responses, a Preface, and hymns, to be recited on Sundays. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great (P.L., LXXVIII, 116) there are prayers and the Preface of the Trinity. The Micrologies (P.L., CLI, 1020), written during the pontificate of Gregory VII (Nilles, II, 460), call the Sunda after Pentecost a Dominica vacans, with no special Office, but add that in some places they recited the Office of the Holy Trinity composed by Bishop Stephen or Liège (903-20) By other the Office was said on the Sunday before Advent. Alexander II (1061-1073), not III (Nilles, 1. c.), refused a petition for a special feast on the plea, that such a feast was not customary in the Roman Church which daily honoured the Holy Trinity by the Gloria, Patri, etc., but he did not forbid the celebration where it already existed. John XXII (1316-1334) ordered the feast for the entire Church on the first Sunday after Pentecost. A new Office had been made by the Franciscan John Peckham, Canon of Lyons, later Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1292). The feast ranked as a double of the second class but was raised to the dignity of a primary of the first class, 24 July 1911, by Pius X (Acta Ap. Sedis, III, 351). The Greeks have no special feast. Since it was after the first great Pentecost that the doctrine of the Trinity was proclaimed to the world, the feast becomingly follows that of Pentecost. NILLES, Kal. man. (Innsbruck, 1897); BINTERIM, Denkwürdig keiten, I. 264; KELLNER, Heortology (London, 1908). 116; BÄUMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895), 298. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Triple-Candlestick Triple-Candlestick A name given along with several others (e.g. reed, tricereo, arundo, triangulum, lumen Christi) to a church ornament used only in the office of Holy Saturday. The three candles of which it is composed are successively lighted, as the sacred ministers proceed up the church, from the fire consecrated in the porch, and at each lighting the deacon sings the acclamation "Lumen Christi", the assistants genuflecting and answering "Deo gratias". As this ceremony is fully discussed under the heading Lumen Christi (and cf. Liturgical Use of Fire) it will be sufficient to say a word here about the material instrument used for the purpose. Both the rubrics of the Missal and the "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" seem to assume that the so-called triple candlestick is not a permanent piece of furniture, but merely an arrangement of three candles temporarily attached to a reed or wand, such a reed for example as is used by the acolytes to light the candles with. "Praeparetur arundo cum tribus candelis in summitate positis" (Caer. Epis., II, xxvii, I). In practice, however, we often find a brass candlestick constructed for the purpose with a long handle. Barbier de Montault (Traité pratique, ete.,II,311) infers from the wording of the Missal rubric (arundo cum tribus candelis in summitate illius triangulo distinctis) that one of the three candles should stand higher than the other, so that the three flames may form a triangle in the vertical plane. A triple and double candlestick are used by bishops of the Greek Church to bless the people with, and an elaborate symbolism is attached to this rite. Thurston, Lent and Holy Week (London, 1904). HERBERT THURSTON Tripolis Tripolis (Tripolitana). A Maronite and Melchite diocese, in Syria. The primitive name of the town is not known; Dhorme (Revue biblique, 1908, 508 sqq.) suggests that it is identical witrh Shi-ga-ta mentioned in the El-Amarna letters between 1385 and 1368 B.C. The name Tripolis is derived from the fact that the city formed three districts separated from each other by walls, inhabited by colonists from Aradus, Tyre, and Sidon, and governed by a common senate. Almost nothing is known of its ancient history. Christianity was introduced there at an early date; mention may be made of a much frequented sanctuary there which was dedicated to the martyr St. Leontius, whose feast is observed on 18 June (Analecta bollandiana, XIX, 9-12). The see, which was in the Province of Tyre and the Patriarchate of Antioch, had a bishop, Helladicus, in 325; other bishops were: the Arian Theodosius; Commodus, who was present at the Council of Ephesus in 431; and Theodorus, at that of Chalcedon in 451 (Le Quien, "Oriens christ.", II, 821-24). After an earthquake Tripolis was restored by Emperor Marcianus about the middle of the fifth century, to be captured by the Arabs in 638, when it became a powerful centre of the Shiite religion, resisting all attacks by the Byzantines. It then had a university and a library of more than 100,000 volumes; the latter was burned on the arrival of the Crusaders. As early as 1103 Raymond, Count of Saint-Gilles, being unable to capture the city, built on a neighbouring hill the stronghold which still exists and compelled the inhabitants to pay him tribute. In 1109 the city was captured, made a countship, and given to Bertrand, Raymond's son, and to his descendants. The latter owned it until 1289, when it was taken from them by Sultan Qalaoun, who massacred the entire Christian population. Du Cange (Les familles d'outre-mer, 811-13) and Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii ævi, I, 526: II, 281; III, 339) give the list of its Latin residential and titular bishops. In 1517 the Turks finally captured Tripoli and still retain possession of it. In 1697 the Maronite prince Younès was martyred there for the Faith, and in 1711 the Sheikh Canaan-Daher-Shhedid. Tripolis is now a sanjak of the vilayet of Beirut, and contains two towns linked by a tramway: El-Mina, or maritime Tripolis, on the site of the ancient city, and Taraboulos, built since 1289, at the foot of Raymond's fortress. The two cities together contain 37,000 inhabitants, of whom 110 are Latins, 2200 Oriental Catholics of various rites, and 4000 schismatic Melchites; the remainder are Mussulmans. The Maronite bishop, Mgr. Antoine Arida, consecrated on 18 June, 1908, resides at Karrusadde. The Melchite bishop, Mgr. Joseph Doumani, was consecrated on 21 March, 1897. The Franciscans have the Latin parish and two establishments. In this parish are also established the Lazarists, the Carmelites, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and the Sisters of Charity. The sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin is called Saïdyat el-Harah, Our Lady of the Quarter. The Maronite diocese has 48,000 faithful, 350 priests, and 70 churches. The Melchite diocese, created in 1897, has 1225 faithful, 14 priests, 10 churches or chapels, and 6 schools. The schismatic Melchite diocese has 50,000 members. DU CANGE, Les familles d'outre-mer (Paris, 1869), 477-95; RENAN, Mission de PhÈnicie (Paris, 1864), 120-30; GUÉRIN, Description de la Palestine: Galilee, II, 23-30; GOUDARD, La Sainte Vierge au Liban, 269-77; Missiones catholicæ (Rome, 1907), 783, 819; CHARON in Annuaire pont. cath. (Paris, 1911), 430. S. VAILHÉ Giangiorgio Trissino Giangiorgio Trissino Italian poet and scholar, b. of a patrician family at Vicenza in 1478; d. at Rome, 8 December, 1550. He had the advantages of a good humanistic training, studying Greek under the noted Demetrius Chalcondylas at Milan and philosophy under Nicolò Leoniceno at Ferrara. His culture recommended him to the humanist Leo X, who in 1515 sent him to Germany as his nuncio; later on Clement VII showed him especial favour, and employed him as ambassador. In 1532 the Emperor Charles V made him a count palatine. In spite of the banishment from Vicenza pronounced upon him in 1509 because his family had favoured the plans of Maximilian, he was held in honour throughout Italy. Wherever he abode his home was a centre for gatherings of scholars, littérateurs, and the most cultured men of the time. His family life was far from happy, apparently through little fault of his own. In the history of modern European literature Trissino occupies a prominent place because of his tragedy "Sofonisba" (1515; recent ed., Bologna, 1884), the first tragedy in Italian to show deference to the classic rules. Constantly a partisan of Aristotelean regularity, he disapproved of the genial freedom of the chivalrous epic as written by Ariosto. In his own composition the "Italia liberata dai Goti" (1547-8), dealing with the campaigns of Belisarius in Italy, he sought to show that it was possible to write in the vernacular an epic in accordance with the classic precepts. The result is a cold and colourless composition. He was one of the many who engaged in the discussion as to what is true literary Italian. Following the lead of Dante, he espoused in his "Castellano" (1529) the indefensible theory that the language is a courtly one made up of contributions from the refined centres in Italy, instead of being, as it is, fundamentally of Tuscan origin. For clearness he proposed that in writing Italian certain new characters (derived from the Greek alphabet) abe adopted to show the difference between open and close e and o and voiced and voiceless s and z. This wise proposition was ignored. "I Simillimi" (1548) which is a version of the "Menæchmi" of Plautus, "I Ritratti" (1524) which is a composite portrait of feminine beauty, and the "Poetica", which contains his summing up of the Aristotelean principles of literary composition, made up the rest of his important writings. An edition of his collected works was published by Maffei at Verona in 1729. MORSOLIN, Giangiorgio Trissino (Florence, 1894); FLAMINI, Il Cinquecento 132 sqq.; CIAMPOLINI, La prima tragedia regolare della lett. ital. (Florence, 1896); ERMINI, L'Italia lib. di G.T. (Rome, 1893). J.D.M. FORD Tritheists Tritheists (TRITHEITES). Heretics who divide the Substance of the Blessed Trinity. (1) Those who are usually meant by the name were a section of the Monophysites, who had great influence in the second half of the sixth century, but have left no traces save a few scanty notices in John of Ephesus, Photus, Leontius, etc. Their founder is said to be a certain John Ascunages, head of a Sophist school at Antioch. But the principal writer was John Philoponus, the great Aristotelean commentator. The leaders were two bishops, Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia in Isauria, who were deposed by their comprovinicals and took refuge at Constantinople. There they found a powerful convert and protector in Athanasius the Monk, a grandson of the Empress Theodora. Philoponus dedicated to him a book on the Trinity. The old philosopher pleaded his infirmities when he was summoned by Justinian to the Court to give an account of his teaching. But Conon and Eugenius had to dispute in the reign of Justin II (565-78) in the presence of the Catholic patriarch, John Scholasticus (565-77), with two champions of the moderate Monophysite party, Stephen and Paul, the latter afterwards Patriarch of Antioch. The Tritheist bishops refused to anathematize Philoponus, and brought proofs that he agreed with Severus and Theodosius. They were banished to Palestine, and Philoponus wrote a book against John Scholasticus, who had given his verdict in favour of his adversaries. But he developed a theory of his own as to the Resurrection (see EUTYCHIANISM) on account of which Conon and Eugenius wrote a treatise against him in collaboration with Themistus, the founder of the Agnoctae, in which they declared his views to be altogether unchristian. The two bishops together with a deprived bishop named Theonas proceeded to consecrate bishops for their sect, which they established in Corinth and Athens, in Rome and Africa, and in the Western Patriarchate, while their agents travelled through Syria and Cilicia, Isauria and Cappadocia, converting whole districts, and ordaining priests and deacons in cities villages, and monasteries. Eugenius died in Pamphylia; Conon returned to Constantinople. We are assured by Leontius that it was the Aristoteleanism of Philoponus which made him teach that there are in the Holy Trinity three partial substances (merikai ousiai, ikikai theotetes, idiai physeis) and one common. The genesis of the heresy has been explained (for the first time) under MONOPHYSITES, where an account of Philoponus's writings and those of Stephen Gobarus, another member of the sect, will be found. (2) In the Middle Ages Roscellin of Compiegne, the founder of Nominalism, argued, just like Philoponus, that unless the Three Persons are tres res, then the whole Trinity must have been incarnate. He was refuted by St. Anselm. (3) Among Catholic writers, Pierre Faydit, who was expelled from the Oratory at Paris in 1671 for disobedience and died in 1709, fell into the error of Tritheism in his "Eclaireissements sur la doctrine et Phistoire ecclésiastiqes des deux premiers siecles" (Paris, 1696), in which he tried to make out that the earliest Fathers were Tritheists. He was replied to by the Premonstratensian Abbot Louis-Charles Hugo ("Apologie du système des Saints Pères sur la Trinité," Luxemburg, 1699). A canon of Trèves named Oembs, who was infected with the doctrines of the "Enlightenment", similarly attributed to the Fathers his own view of three similar natures in the Trinity, calling the numerical unity of God an invention of the Scholastics. His book, "Opuscula de Deo Uno et Trino" (Mainz, 1789), was condemned by Pius VII in a Brief of 14 July, 1804. Gunther is also accused of Tritheism. (4) Among Protestants, Heinrich Nicolai (d. 1660), a professor at Dantzig and at Elbing (not to be confounded with the founder of the Familisten), is cited. The best known is William Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's, whose "Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity" (London, 1690) against the Socinians was attacked by Robert South in "Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication" (1693). Sherlock's work is said to have made William Manning a Socinian and Thomas Emlyn an Arian, and the dispute was ridiculed in a skit entitled "The Battle Royal", attributed to William Pittis (1694?), which was translated into Latin at Cambridge. Joseph Bingham, author of the "Antiquities", preached at Oxford in 1695 a sermon which was considered to represent the Fathers as Tritheists, and it was condemned by the Hebdomadal Council as falsa, impia et haeretica, the scholar being driven from Oxford. For bibliography see MONOPHYSITES. JOHN CHAPMAN John Trithemius John Trithemius A famous scholar and Benedictine abbot, b. at Trittenheim on the Moselle, 1 February, 1462; d. at Würzburg, 13 December, 1516. The abbot himself, in his "Nepiachus", gives an account of his youth, which was a time of hard suffering owing to the harsh treatment of his selfish stepfather, who allowed the talented boy to grow up in complete ignorance till the age of fifteen, when he learned reading and writing as well as the rudiments of Latin in a remarkably short time. But as his persecution at home did not cease, he ran away, and after a painful journey succeeded in reaching Würzburg, where the well-known humanist, Jacob Wimpheling, was teaching; here the ambitious youth pursued his classical studies till 1482. In order to revisit his home he determined to make an excursion to the neighbourhood of Trèves accompanied by a comrade; it was January and the young men travelled afoot. A short visit to the monastery of Sponheim was to prove of decisive importance for the young Trithemius; hardly had the travellers taken leave of the monks when a snowstorm obliged them to return to the monastery. At the invitation of the prior, Henry of Holzhausen, who had quickly discerned the talents of his young guest, Trithemius remained in Sponheim; eight days later he received the habit of the order and made his vows in the same year, 8 December. His life in the monastery was exemplary; he commanded the respect of his brethren, and the love of his superiors. The proof of the respect in which he was held by all was the fact that although he was the youngest member of the community, and had not yet been ordained, he was elected abbot at the age of twenty-two, during the second year of his life in the order. His election was a great blessing for Sponheim. With youthful vigour and a firm hand he undertook the direction of the much-neglected monastery. He first turned his attention to the material needs of his community, then set himself to the much more difficult task of restoring its discipline. Above all, his own example, not only in the conscientious observance of the rules of the order, but also in the tireless pursuit of scientific studies, brought about the happiest results. In order to promote effectively scientific research, he procured a rich collection of books which comprised the most important works in all branches of human knowledge; in this way he built up the world-renowned library of Sponheim for the enriching of which he laboured unceasingly for twenty-three years till the collection numbered about 2000 volumes. This library, unique in those days, made Sponheim known throughout the entire world of learning. The attractive personality of the abbot also helped to spread the fame of the monastery. Among his friends he numbered, not only the most learned men of his time, such as Celtes, Reuchlin, and John of Dalberg, but also many princes -- including the Emperor Maximilian, who held him in great esteem. But the farther his reputation extended in the world the greater became the number of malcontents in the monastery who opposed the abbot's discipline. Finally he resigned as head of his beloved abbey, which he had ruled for twenty-three years, and which he had brought to a most flourishing condition; after his departure the monastery sank into its former insignificance. The Emperor Maximilian desired to bring the famous scholar to his Court, and to make him the historiographer of the Imperial House with a life-long pension; he was also promised rich abbeys. But Trithemius sought the quiet and peace of a more retired life, and this he found as abbot of the Scottish monastery of St. Jacob, at Würzburg (1506). Here he found only three monks, so he had ample opportunity to display the same activity he had shown at Sponheim. He spent the last ten years of his life in the production of many important writings. Only once did he leave his monastery (1508) for a short stay at the imperial Court. He died at fifty-five years of age and was buried in the Scottish church at Würzburg. The Order of St. Benedict was indebted to this energetic abbot for his zealous promotion of the Bursfeld Congregation, for his encouragement of learning in the order, and for his earnest furtherance of monastic discipline. "The great abbot", says one of his biographers, "was equally worthy of respect as a man, as a religious, and as a writer." Of his more than eighty works only part have appeared in print. The greater number of these are ascetical writings which treat of the religious life and were published by John Busaeus, S.J., under the title "Joannis Trithemii opera pia et spiritualia" (Mainz, 1604); they are among the best works of devotional literature produced at the time. Marquard Freher published a part of his historical works as "Joannis Trithemii opera historica" (Frankfort, 1601). This collection, however, did not include the two famous folio volumes, published in 1690 under the title of "Annales Hirsaugiensis". Trithemius also wrote interesting contributions on points of natural science, then much debated, and on classical literature. The question whether he, by citing two otherwise unknown authorities (Megiahard and Kunibald), was guilty of intentional forgery, is still under debate by some critics. Surely the inscription on his tomb testifies to the truth: Hanc meruit statuam Germanae gloria gentis Abbas Trithemius, quem tegit ista domus (The Abbot Trithemius, the glory of the German race, whom this house covers, merited this statue). [Note: A portrait of John Trithemius was printed in Thevet's Livre des Vrais Pourtraits, Paris, 1584.] SILBERNAGEL, Joh. Trithemius (Landshut, 1868); RULAND in Chiliancum, new ser., I, 45-68 (Bonn, 1869); SCHNEEGANS, Abt. Joh. Trithemius u. Kloster Sponheim (Kreuznach, 1882); JANSSEN-PASTOR, Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes, I (Freiburg, 1897). NICHOLAS SCHEID Trivento Trivento (Triventensis) Diocese in southern Italy. The earliest bishop was St. Castus of an uncertain epoch, the local legend assigning him to the fourth century. Other bishops were: the monk Leo, intruded and deposed by Agapetus I (946); Alferius (1109); the Franciscan Luca (1226), exiled by King Manfred; Pietro dell' Aquila (1348), noted for his learning; Giulio Cesare Moriconda (1582), who restored the cathedral, rearranged the archives, and erected a seminary; Alfonso Moriconda (1717), O.S.B., a learned prelate who restored the cathedral and the episcopal residence. The diocese is suffragan of Beneventum; it has 58 parishes with 130,000 souls, 160 secular priests, and three religious houses. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1844), 469. U. BENIGNI Nicholas Trivet Nicholas Trivet (Or "Trevet" as he himself wrote it) B. about 1258; d. 1328. He was the son of Thomas Trevet, a judge who came of a Norfolk or Somerset family. He became a Dominican in London, and studied first at Oxford, then at Paris, where he first took an interest in English and French chronicles. Little is known of his life except that at one time he was prior of his order in London, and at another he was teaching at Oxford. He was the author of a large number of theological and hstorical works and commentaries on the classics, more especially the works of Seneca. A large number of these exist in MS. in various libraries, but only two appear to have been printed, one being the work by which he is chiefly remembered, the chronicle of the Angevin kings of England, the other was the last twelve books of his commentary on St. Augustine's treatise "De civitate dei". The full title of the former work is "Annales sex regum Angliae qui a comitibus Andegavensibus originem traxerunt", an important historical source for the period 1136-1307, containing a specially valuable account of the reign of Edward I. Trivet also wrote a chronicle in French, parts of which were printed by Spelman, and from which Chaucer is believed to have derived the "Man of Law's Tale". His theological works include commentaries on parts of the Scripture, a treatise on the Mass and some writings on Scholastic theology. HOG, preface to Trivet's Chronicle, Eng. Hist. Soc. (London, 1845); TRIVET, Annales sex Regum Angliae (Oxford, 1719); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1871); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., with exhaustive list of MSS.; CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age (Paris, 1905), gives a list of earlier references. EDWIN BURTON Troas Troas A suffragan of Cyzicus in the Hellespont. The city was first called Sigia; it was enlarged and embellished by Antigonus, who peopled it with inhabitants drawn from other cities, and surnamed it Antigonia Troas (Strabo, 604, 607); it was finally enlarged by Lysimachus, who called it Alexandria Troas (Strabo, 593; Pliny, V, 124). The name Troas is the one most used. For having remained faithful to the Romans during their war against Antiochus, Troas was favoured by them (Titus Livius, XXXV, 42; XXXVII, 35); it became afterwards Colonia Alexandria Augusta Troas. Augustus, Hadrian and the rich grammarian Herodes Atticus contributed greatly to its embellishment; the aqueduct still preserved is due to the latter. Julius Caesar and Constantine the Great thought of making Troas the capital of the Roman Empire. St. Luke came to Troas to join St. Paul and accompany him to Europe (Acts, xvi, 8-11); there also many of St. Paul's friends joined him at another time and remained a week with him (Acts, xx, 4-12). A Christian community existed there and it was at that place that Eutychus was resuscitated by the Apostle. He mentions his sojourn there (II Cor., ii, 12), and he asks Timotheus to bring him his cloak and his books which he had left with Carpus (II Tim., iv, 13). St. Ignatius of Antioch stopped at Troas before going to Rome (Ad Philad., XI, 2; Ad Smyrn., XII, 1). Several of its bishops are known: Marinus in 325, Niconius in 344, Sylvanus at the beginning of the fifth century; Pionius in 451, Leo in 787, Peter, friend of the patriarch Ignatius, and Michael, his adversary, in the ninth century. In the tenth century Troas is given as a suffragan of Cyzicus and distinct from the famous Ilium (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . .Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", 552; Idem, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", 64); it is not known when the city was destroyed and the diocese disappeared. To-day Troas is Eski- Stambul in the sanjak of Bigha. LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 777; TEXIER, Asie mineure (Paris, 1862), 194-97; LEBAS-WADDINGTON, Asie mineure, 1035-37, 1730-40; PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopadie fur clas. Altertumswissenschaft, s. v. Alexandria Troas. S. VAILHÉ Trocmades Trocmades (Trocmada) Titular see of Galatia Secunda, suffragan of Pessinus. No geographer or historian mentions a city of this name; Hierocles (Synecemus, 698, 1) gives "regio Trocnades", instead of Regetnoknada, referring, doubtless, to the Galatian name of some tribe on the left bank of the Sangarius; its principal centre was probably in the present village of Kaimez, about twenty-four miles east of Eski Shehir, a vilayet of Broussa. All the "Notitiae episcopatuum" up to the thirteenth century mention the see Trokmadon among the suffragans of Pessinus; the two most recent (thirteenth century) call it Lotinou; perhaps it should be Plotinou, from St. Plotinus, venerated there. The official lists of the Roman Curia give Trocmadae. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 493), gives Trocmada. From these erroneous forms arises a confusion of the name with the Galatian tribe of Trocmi. The last named author gives a list of the known bishops: Cyriacus, who represented his metropolitan at the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449), and was represented by a priest at the Council of Chalcedon (451); Theodore, present at the Council of Constantinople (681); Leo, at Nicaea (787); Constantine at the Photian Council of Constantinople (879). Cyriacus, said to have assisted at the Council of Nicaea (325), is not mentioned in the authentic lists of bishops present at that council. S. PÉTRIDÈS John de Trokelowe John de Trokelowe (THROWLOW, or THORLOW) A monastic chronicler still living in 1330, but the dates of whose birth and death are unknown. He was a Benedictine monk of St. Albans who in 1294 was living in the dependent priory of Tynemouth, Northumberland. The prior and monks endeavoured to sever connection with St. Albans and to obtain independence by presenting the advowson to the king; but abbot John of Berkamsted resisted this arrangement, visited Tynemouth, and sent Trokelow with other monks as prisoners back to St. Alban's. There Trokelowe wrote his "Annales" including the period 1259 to 1296 and a useful account of the reign of Edward II, from 1307 to 1323, after which date his chronicle was continued by Henry de Blaneford. A reference made by Trokelowe to the execution of Mortimer shows that he was writing after 1330. RILEY, Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde chronica et annales in Rolls Series (London, 1866). See also RILEY, Introduction to RISHANGER, Chronicle in the Chronica monastica S. Albani in the same series. HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1871); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog. EDWIN BURTON Ancient See of Trondhjem Ancient See of Trondhjem (NIDAROS). In Norway it was the kings who introduced Christianity, which first became known to the people during their martial expeditions (Hergenröther, "Kirchengeschichte", 1879, II, 721). The work of Christianization begun by Haakon the Good (d: 981) (Maurer, "Die Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes", Munich, 1855, I, ii, 168) was carried on by Olaf Trygvesson (d. 1002) and Olaf Haraldsson (St. Olaf, d. 1030). Both were converted vikings, the former having been baptized at Andover, England, by Bishop Aelfeah of Winchester, and the latter at Rouen by Archbishop Robert (Bang, "Den norske Kirkes Historie under Katholicismen", Christiania, 1887, 44, 50). In 997 Olaf Trygvesson founded at the mouth of the River Nid the city of Nidaros, afterwards called Trondhjem, where he built a royal palace and a church; he laboured to spread the truths of Christianity in Norway, the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland (Maurer, op. cit., I, iii, 462). King Olaf Haraldsson created an episcopal see at Nidaros, installing the monk Grimkill as bishop. Moreover, many English and German bishops and priests laboured in Norway, and by degrees Christianity softened the rough instincts of the people. The Norwegian bishops were at first dependent on the Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, and afterwards on the Archbishop of Lund, Primate of Scandinavia. As the Norwegians nevertheless wanted an archbishop of their own, Eugene III, resolving to create a metropolitan see at Trondhjem, sent thither as legate (1151) Cardinal Nicholas of Albano (Nicholas Breakspeare), afterwards Adrian IV. The legate installed Jon Birgerson, previously Bishop of Stavanger, as Archbishop of Trondhjem. The bishops of Oslo (bishop 1073), Bergen (about 1060), Stavanger (1130), Hamar (1151), the Orkneys (1070), Iceland (Skalholt, 1056; Holar, 1105), and Greenland became suffragans. Archbishop Birgerson was succeeded by Eystein (Beatus Augustinus, 1158-88), previously royal secretary and treasurer, a man of brilliant intellect, strong will, and deep piety (Daae, "Norges Helgener", Christiania, 1879, 170-6). Such a man was then needed to defend the liberty of the Church against the encroachments of King Sverre, who wished to make the Church a mere tool of the temporal power. The archbishop was compelled to flee from Norway to England. It is true that he was able to return and that a sort of reconciliation took place later between him and the king, but on Eystein's death Sverre renewed his attacks, and Archbishop Eric had to leave the country and take refuge with Archbishop Absalon of Lund. At last, when Sverre attacked the papal legate, Innocent III laid the king and his partisans under interdict (Baluze, "Epp. Innocentii III", Paris, 1682, I, i, 226, 227). King Haakon (1202), son and successor of Sverre, hastened to make peace with the Church, whose liberty had been preserved by the unflinching attitude of the pope and his archbishops. What would have happened, asks the Protestant ecclesiastical historian of Norway, Dr. A. Chr. Bang, "if the Church, deprived of all liberty, had become the submissive slave of absolute royalty? What influence would it have exercised at a time when its chief mission was to act as the educator of the people and as the necessary counterpoise to defend the liberty of the people against the brutal whims of the secular lords? And what would have happened when a century later royalty left the country? After that time the Church was in reality the sole centre about which was grouped the whole national life of our country" (op. cit., 109). To regulate ecclesiastical affairs, which had suffered during the struggles with Sverre, Innocent IV in 1247 sent Cardinal William of Sabina as legate to Norway. He intervened against certain encroachments on the part of the bishops, reformed various abuses, and abolished the ordeal by hot iron. Owing in great measure to the papal legates, Norway became more closely linked with the supreme head of Christendom at Rome. Secular priests, Benedictines, Cistercians, Augustinians, Dominicans, and Franciscans worked together for the prosperity of the Church. Archbishops Eilif Kortin (d. 1332), Paul Baardson (d. 1346), and Arne Vade (d. 1349) showed specially remarkable zeal. Provincial councils were held, at which serious efforts were made to eliminate abuses and to encourage Christian education and morality (Bang, op. cit., 297). Nidaros (Trondhjem), the metropolis of the ecclesiastical province, was also the capital of Norway. The residence of the kings until 1217, it remained until the troubles of the Reformation the heart and centre of the spiritual life of the country. There was situated the tomb of St. Olaf, and around the patron of Norway, "Rex perpetuus Norvegiae", the national and ecclesiastical life of the country was centred. Pilgrims flocked from all quarters to the tomb. The feast of St. Olaf on 29 July was a day or reunion for "all the nations of the Northern seas, Norwegians, Swedes, Goths, Cimbrians, Danes, and Slavs", to quote an old chronicler ("Adami gesta pontificum Hammaburgensium", Hanover, 1876, II, 82), in the cathedral of Nidaros, where the reliquary of St. Olaf rested near the altar. Built in Roman style by King Olaf Kyrre (d. 1093), the dome had been enlarged by Archbishop Eystein in Ogival style. It was finished only in 1248 by Archbishop Sigurd Sim. Although several times destroyed by fire, the ancient dome was restored each time until the storms of the Reformation. Then Archbishop Eric Walkendorf was exiled (1521), and his successor, Olaf Engelbertsen, who had been the instrument of the royal will in the introduction of Lutheranism, had also, as a partisan of Christian II, to fly from Christian III (1537). The valuable reliquaries of St. Olaf and St. Augustine (Eystein) were taken away, sent to Copenhagen, and melted. The bones of St. Olaf were buried in the cathedral, and the place forgotten. But when Norway regained its liberty and resumed it placed among independent nations (1814), the memory of the glory of its ancestors awoke. It was resolved to rebuild the ancient dome, and the cathedral stands once more renewed, although not in possession of the religion which created it. But new churches have arisen in the city of St. Olaf, bearing witness that the Catholic Faith still lives in Scandinavia in spite of all its trials. Besides the works cited above see: MUNCH, Throndhjems Domkirke (Christiania, 1859); KREFTING, Om Throndhjems Domkirke (Trondhjem, 1885); SCHIRMER, Kristkirken; Nidaros (Christiania, 1885); MATHIESEN, Det gamle Throndhjem (Christiani, 1897). GUSTAF ARMFELT Trope Trope Definition and Description Trope, in the liturgico-hymnological sense, is a collective name which, since about the close of the Middle Ages or a little later, has been applied to texts of great variety (in both poetry and prose) written for the purpose of amplifying and embellishing an independently complete liturgical text (e.g. the Introit, the Kyrie, Gloria, Gradual, or other parts of the Mass or of the Office sung by the choir). These additions are closely attached to the official liturgical text, but in no way do they change the essential character of it; they are entwined in it, augmenting and elucidating it; they are, as it were, a more or less poetical commentary that is woven into the liturgical text, forming with it a complete unit. Thus in France and England, instead of the liturgical text "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth" the lines sung were: 1. Sanctus ex quo sunt omnia; 2. Sanctus, per quem sunt omnia; 3. Sanctus, in quo sunt omnia; Dominus Deus Sabaoth, tibi gloria sit in saecula. The most accurate definition, applicable to all the different kinds of Tropes, might be the following: A Trope is an interpolation in a liturgical text, or the embellishment brought about by interpolation (i.e. by introductions, insertions, or additions). Herein lies the difference between the Trope and the closely- related Sequence or Prose. The Sequence also is an embellishment of the liturgy, an insertion between liturgical chants (the Gradual and the Gospel), originating about the eighth century; the Sequence is thus an interpolation in the liturgy, but it is not an interpolation in a liturgical text. The Sequence is an independent unit, complete in itself; the Trope, however, forms a unit only in connection with a liturgical text, and when separated from the latter is often devoid of any meaning. Accordingly the several Tropes are named after that liturgical text to which they belong, viz. Trope of the Kyrie, Trope of the Gloria, Trope of the Agnus Dei, etc. Originally there existed no uniform name for that which is now combined under the idea and name of Tropus. Only the interpolations of the Introit, the Offertory, and the Communion were called Tropi (trophi, tropos, trophos), and even that not exclusively but only predominantly; for the Introit Trope was frequently called "Versus in psalmis", the Offertory Trope also "Prosa [or prosula] ad [or ante] Offerenda". To all the other interpolations a great variety of names was applied, as "Prosae de Kyrieleison", or "Versus ad Kyrieleison", = Kyrie Tropes; "Laudes" (Lauda, laus), "Gloria cum laudes", "Laudes cum tropis", or simply "Ad Gloria", = Gloria Tropes; "Laudes ad Sanctus", "Versus super Sanctus", = Sanctus Tropes; "Laudes de Agnus Dei", "Prosa ad Agnus Dei", = Agnus Tropes; "Epistola cum Versibus", "Versus super epistolam", = Epistle Trope (Epître farcie); "Verba", or "Verbeta", or "Prosella", = Breviary Trope. How and when the general name of Tropus sprang up, has not yet been exactly ascertained. And just as little has the priority been established of the different kinds of interpolations, whether that in the Introit is the oldest, or that in the Gloria, or the Kyrie, or in any other part of the Mass; for that very reason it is not known yet which of the various designations (Versus, Prosae, Tropi, or Laudes) is the oldest and most original. One thing is certain: the Latin Tropus is a word borrowed from the Greek tropos. The latter was a musical term, and denoted a melody (tropos lydios, phrygios = Lydian, Phrygian, Doric melody), or in general a musical change, like the Latin modus or modulus, similar to the international "modulation". It is quite conceivable that the name of the melody was transferred to the text which had been composed to it, as is the case with the word Sequentia. In reasoning thus, one would have to presuppose that over one syllable of a liturgical text, e.g. over the e of the Kyrie, a longer melisma was sung, which bore the name of tropus; furthermore, that to such a melisma a text was composed later on, and that this text was also called "Tropus". And it is an actual fact that from early times such melismata existed over a vowel of the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc.; likewise there were many texts which were produced for these melismata, consequently they were interpolations. But the date when these melismata of the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, etc., were first called "Tropi" is still a matter of research; what we know is that the texts under that kind of melisma which has just been described were not called "Tropi" from the earliest times. On the contrary, by the name of "Tropi" were originally designated the interpolations of precisely those parts of the Mass which do not exhibit any long melismata, as the Introit and Offertory. To give an example, an interpolation of the Christmas Introit written in prose, reads: Ecce, adest de quo prophetae cecinerunt dicentes; Puer natus est nobis, Quem virgo Maria genuit, Et filius datus est nobis, etc. The first introductory phrase of this and similar interpolations, particularly when it comprises an entire stanza, as, e.g., Laudemus omnes Dominum, Qui virginis per uterum Parvus in mundum venerat Mundum regens, quem fecerat, Puer natus est nobis, etc. cannot possibly be considered as text to an already existing melisma which was called "Tropus", and which then gave its name to the text that was put to it. And yet, just such interpolations of the Introit and the Offertory were called "Tropi". In this article it must suffice to allude to these difficulties, on the solution of which will depend the theory of the origin and the early development of the "Tropi". As yet no definite theory can be advanced, although several writers on liturgy, music, and hymnology have been so confident as to make assertions for which there is absolutely no ground. Division On the basis of the two choir books for the Mass and the Breviary, namely the Gradual and the Antiphonal, Tropes are divided into two large classes: "Tropi Graduales" and "Tropi Antiphonales," i.e. Tropes of such parts of the Mass and of the Breviary as are chanted. The latter are of slightly later date, are chiefly limited to interpolations of the Responsory after the Lessons, and are almost exclusively insertions into one of the concluding words of such Responsory. Their entire structure resembles so much the structure of the Sequences of the first epoch, upon which they were undoubtedly modelled, that later on they were often used as independent Sequences. Such is the case with the oldest Breviary Trope of the Blessed Virgin, which is built upon the penultimate word, inviolata, of the Responsory of the Assumption: "Gaude Maria virgo . . . et post partum inviolata permansisti." The syllable la of inviolata was the bearer of a long melisma; to this melisma towards the close of the tenth century in France the following text was composed: 1a. Invio-lata integra et casta es, Maria, 1b. Quae es effecta fulgida regis porta. 2a. O mater alma Christi carissima, 2b. Suscipe pia laudum precamina 3a. Nostra ut pura pectora sint et corpora. 3b. Quae nunc flagitant devota corda et ora, 4a. Tu da per precata dulcisona, 4b. Nobis perpetua frui vita, 5. O benigna, quae sola inviolata permansisti. Of a similar structure are all the Breviary Tropes or "Verbeta", and they are dovetailed, as shown above, more or less ingeniously, between the penultimate and last word of their Responsory. The "Tropi Graduales" in their turn are divided into two classes, namely into "Tropi ad Ordinarium Missae" or to the unchangeable text of the Mass, i.e. to the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Ite missa est, and into "Tropi ad Proprium Missarum" or to those parts of the text which change according to the respective feast, i.e. to the Introit, Lesson, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion. This latter class frequently differs from the former also in the external structure of its Tropes; and at first it was the most widespread; it might perhaps even claim to be the oldest and most original; but it disappeared at a relatively early date, whereas the "Tropi ad Ordinarium Missae" still kept their place in liturgy for a considerable time. History and Significance The origin of the Tropes, that is to say of the Gradual Tropes (since the Antiphonal Tropes are evidently of a later date), must almost coincide with that of the Proses or Sequences which are most closely related to them; this would mean that their history begins somewhere in the eighth century. Whether the Trope or the Sequence was the older form is all the more difficult to decide, since the Sequence itself is to a certain degree a kind of Trope. The St. Martial Troper, the oldest one known, of the middle of the tenth century (Cod. Parisin., 1240), abounds in Tropes to the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion; in other words it has a great many "Tropi ad Proprium Missarum". In addition it contains thirteen Gloria Tropes, but only two of the Sanctus, and not one of the Kyrie. Comparatively poor in Tropes are the St. Gall Tropers, and this fact alone makes it extremely doubtful whether Tutilo of St. Gall was the inventor of the Tropes. It appears that the Trope, like the Sequence, originated in France, where from the tenth century onward it enjoyed great popularity and was most eagerly cultivated. From there it soon made its way to England and to Northern Italy, later to Central and Southern Italy, and became widespread in all these countries, less so, however, in Germany. It was known there as early as in the ninth century, since Tutilo of St. Gall can rightly be considered a composer of Tropes. It remains a curious fact that in spite of the great number of Tropes no poet can be named who gained distinction as a composer of Tropes. In the thirteenth century this once important branch of literature began to decline and survived almost exclusively in Kyrie Tropes, particularly in France until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Regarding the poetical contents, the Tropes, with few exceptions, are of no great value. But this peculiar poetical production is all the more interesting for the student of liturgy, and especially great is its significance in the development of music and poetry. It is worthy of note that, instead of short insertions into the liturgical text, as time went on several verses, entire stanzas, even a number of stanzas, were fitted in. The non-essential part developed into the main work; the liturgical text withdrew entirely into the background, and was scarcely even considered as the starting-point. In this manner the Tropes grew to be independent cantions, motets, or religious folk-songs. Also the dramatic character, which was quite peculiar to many Introit Tropes at Christmas and Easter, developed more and more luxuriantly until it reached its highest perfection in larger dramatic scenes, mystery plays, and plays of a purely religious character. Tropes finally left the liturgical and religious ground altogether, and wandered away from the spiritual to the profane field of songs of love, gambling, and drinking. And for that reason many specimens of religious as well as secular poetry of later date can be fully understood only when they are traced back to their source, the Tropes. The importance from a musical standpoint of both the Tropes and the Sequences has been most suitably characterized by Rev. Walter Howard Frere in his introduction to "The Winchester Troper" where he says: "For the musician the whole story is full of interest, for the Tropers practically represent the sum total of musical advance between the ninth and the twelfth century. . . . All new developments in musical composition, failing to gain admission into the privileged circle of the recognised Gregorian service-books, were thrown together so as to form an independent musical collection supplementary to the official books; and that is exactly what a Troper is" (op. cit., p. vi). FRERE, The Winchester Troper (London, 1894); WOLF, Ueber die Lais (Heidelberg, 1841); GAUTIER, Les Tropes (Paris, 1886); REINERS, Tropen-Gesange u. ihre Melodien (Luxemburg, 1887); BLUME AND BANNISTER, Tropi Graduales ad ordinarium Missae in Analecta hymnica, XLVII (Leipzig, 1905); BLUME, Tropi Graduales ad Proprium Missarum in Anal. Hymn., XLIX (Leipzig, 1906). CLEMENS BLUME Scriptural Tropology Scriptural Tropology The theory and practice of interpreting the figurative meaning of Holy Writ. The literal meaning, or God-intended meaning of the words of the Bible, may be either figurative or non-figurative; for instance, in Canticles, the inspired meaning is always figurative. The typical meaning is the inspired meaning of words referring to persons, things, and actions of the Old Testament which are inspired types of persons, things, and actions of the New (cf. Exegesis). WALTER DRUM John Thomas Troy John Thomas Troy Archbishop of Dublin; b. in the parish of Blanchardstown, near Dublin, 10 May, 1739; d. at Dublin, 11 May, 1823. He belonged to an Anglo-Norman stock, and received his early education at Liffey Street, Dublin, after which, in 1777 [This is probably a typo for 1757 or 1767 — Ed.], he joined the Dominican Order and proceeded to their house of St. Clement, at Rome. Amenable to discipline, diligent in his studies, and gifted with much ability, he made rapid progress, and while yet a student was selected to give lectures in philosophy. Subsequently he professed theology and canon law, and finally became prior of the convent in 1772. When the Bishop of Ossory died, in 1776, the priests of the diocese recommended one of their number, Father Molloy, to Rome for the vacant see, and the recommendation was endorsed by many of the Irish bishops. But Dr. Troy, who was held in high esteem at Rome, had already been appointed Bishop of Ossory. He arrived at Kilkenny in August, and for the next nine years he laboured hard for the spiritual interests of his diocese. They were troubled times. Maddened by excessive rents and tithes, and harried by grinding tithe-proctors, the farmers had banded themselves together in a secret society called the "Whiteboys". Going forth at night, they attacked landlords, bailiffs, agents, and tithe-proctors, and often committed fearful outrages. Bishop Troy grappled with them and frequently and sternly denounced them. It was not that he had any sympathy with oppression, but he had lived so long in Rome and had left Ireland at such an early age, that he did not quite understand the condition of things at home, and did not fully appreciate the extent of misery and oppression in which the poor Catholic masses lived. The bent of his mind was to support authority, and he was therefore ready to condemn all violent efforts for reform, and had no hesitation in denouncing not only all secret societies in Ireland, but also "our American fellow-subjects, seduced by specious notions of liberty". This made him unpopular with the masses, but there could be no doubt that he was zealous in correcting abuses in his diocese and in promoting education. So well was this recognized at Rome that in 1781, in consequence of some serious troubles which had arisen between the primate and his clergy, Dr. Troy was appointed Administrator of Armagh. This office he held till 1782. In 1786 he was appointed Archbishop of Dublin. At Dublin, as at Ossory, he showed his zeal for religion, his sympathy with authority, and his distrust of popular movements, especially when violent means were employed; in 1798 he issued a sentenc