_________________________________________________________________ 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 o