TRANSUBSTANTIATION. next century, the ingenuity of some theologian invented what was wanting; the change that takes place on the elements after consecration having been denominated by him transubstantiation. Still, however, some latitude was afforded to those who interpret ed the epithet; but this in the thirteenth century was taken away, a celebrated council of the Lateran, attended by no fewer than four hundred and twelve bishops, and eight hundred abbots and priors, having, at the instigation of Innocent the Third, one of the most arrogant and presumptuous of the pontiffs, explicitly adopted transubstantiation as an article of faith, in the monstrous form in which it is now held in the popish church, and denounced anathemas against all who hesitated to give their assent. The opposition which after this was made to a doctrine so revolting to the senses and the reason, was very feeble, insomuch that it may, in consequence of the decree of the Lateran council, be considered as having become the established faith of the western church. In the Greek church it was long resisted, and, indeed, was not embraced till the seventeenth century, a time at which it might have been thought that it could not have extended the range of its influence. After transubstantiation was thus sanctioned, a change necessarily took place with respect to various parts of the service used in administering the eucharist. That solemn service was now viewed as an actual sacrifice or offering of the body of Christ for the sins of men, and the elevation of the host was held forth as calling for the adoration and worship of believers; so that an ordinance mercifully designed to preserve the pure influence of the most spiritual and elevated religion, became the instrument, in the hands of ignorant or corrupt men, of introducing the most senseless and degrading idolatry. When the Reformation shook the influence of the church, and brought into exercise the intellectual faculties of man, the subject of the eucharist demanded and received the closest and most anxious attention. It might have been naturally supposed, that when Luther directed his vigorous mind to point out and to condemn the abuses which had been sanctioned in the Popish church, he would not have spared a doctrine the most irrational and objectionable which that church avows, and that he would have vindicated the holy ordinance of the Lord's supper from the abomination with which it had been associated. He did, indeed, object to transubstantiation, but he did so with a degree of hesitation truly astonishing, although that hesitation was displayed by many of the first reformers. He declared that he saw no warrant for believing that the bread and wine were actually changed into the body and blood of Christ; but he adhered to the literal import of our Saviour's words, teaching that his body and blood were re ceived, and that they were in some incomprehensible manner conjoined or united with the bread and wine. It is quite evident, that although this system got rid of one difficulty by leaving the testimony of the senses as to the bread and wine unchallenged, yet it is just as incomprehensible as the other, as sumes as a fact what the senses cannot discern, and involves in it difficulties equally repugnant to the plainest dictates of reason. Powerful accordingly as most deservedly was his ascendancy, and great as was the veneration with which he was contemplated, he was upon this point happily opposed; his colleague, the celebrated Carlostadt, openly avowing, that when our Lord said of the bread, "This is my body," he pointed to his own person, and thus taught that the bread was merely the sign or emblem of it. Lather warmly resisted this opinion; Carlostadt was obliged, surely in little consistency with the fundamental principle of Protestantism, in consequence of having pro fessed it, to leave Wirtemberg; and although it procured some adherents, yet as it rested upon an assertion of which there could be no proof, it was never extensively disseminated, and was ultimately abandoned by Carlostadt himself. The discussion, however, which he had commenced stimulated others to the consideration of the subject, and led Zuinglius, who had previously often meditated upon it, and Ecolampadius, two of the most distinguished reformers, to submit to the public the doctrine, that the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ's body and blood, but that the body of our Lord was in heaven, to which after his resurrec tion he had ascended. Luther composed several works to confute the opinions of Zuinglius. At the commencement of the controversy respecting the eucharist amongs the defenders of the Protestant faith, there seem to have been only two opinions, that of Luther, asserting that the body and blood of Christ were actually with the bread and wine, and that of Zuinglius, Ecolampadius. and Bucer, that the bread and wine wer the emblems or signs of Christ's body and blood, no other advantage being derived from partaking of them than the moral effect naturally resulting from the commemorat of an event so awful and so deeply interesting as the crucifixion of our Redeemer Calvin soon published what may be regarded as a new view of the subject. Admitting the justness of the interpretation of our Lord's words given by Zuinglius, he maintained that spiritual influence was conveyed to worthy partakers of the Lord's suppe, insomuch that Christ may be said to b spiritually present with the outward e ments. The sentiments of this most e nent theologian made a deep impression up the public mind; and although the churches of Zurich and Berne long adhered to the creed of Zuinglius, yet, through the per severance and dexterity of Calvin, the Swiss 1 Protestant churches at length united with that of Geneva in assenting to the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. In other countries, too, he saw many adhering to what he had taught, and carrying to as great length as it could be carried what, under his system, must be termed the allegorical language which he recommended. The French Protestants in their confession thus express themselves: "We affirm that the holy supper of our Lord is a witness to us of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, because that he is not only once dead and raised up again from the dead for us, but also he doth indeed feed and nourish us with his flesh and blood. And although he be now in heaven, and shall remain there till he come to judge the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he doth nourish and quicken us with the substance of his body and blood. But we say that this is done in a spiritual manner; nor do we hereby substitute in place of the effect and truth an idle fancy and conceit of our own; but rather, because this mystery of our union with Christ is so high a thing that it surmounteth all our senses, yea and the whole order of nature, and in short, because it is celestial, it cannot be comprehended but by faith." Knox, who revered Calvin, carried into Scotland the opinions of that reformer; and in the original Scottish confession, similar language, though somewhat more guarded than that which has been just quoted, is used: "We assuredly believe that in the supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becometh the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation,-but this union and communion which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carrieth us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus. We most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ's body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood; so that we confess and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful in the right use of the Lord's table so do eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus, that he remaineth in them and they in him; yea, that they are so made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, that as the eternal Godhead hath given to the flesh of Christ Jesus life and immortality, so doth Christ Jesus's flesh and blood, eaten and drunken by us, give to us the same prerogatives." The church of Scotland, which did not long use this first confession, seems to have seen, in the course of the following century, the propriety, if not of relinquishing, yet of more cautiously employing the phraseology now brought into view; for in the West minster confession, which is still the standard of faith in that church, there is unquestionably a great improvement in the style which has been adopted in treating of this subject. In it the compilers declare, that "the outward elements in the sacrament of the Lord's supper duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent; namely the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before." Then after most powerfully exposing the absurdity of transubstantiation, representing it as repugnant not to scripture alone, but to reason and common sense, they proceed: "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." The church of England was in its first reformation from Popery inclined to adhere to the Lutherans; but in the time of Edward the Sixth, a more correct and scriptural view seems to have been taken. In the thirty-nine articles, the present creed of the English church, it is said of this ordinance: "The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ." This strong language is, however, in the same article, so modified, as to show that all which was intended by it was to represent the spiritual influence conveyed through the Lord's supper; for it is taught, "that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." The idea of Zuinglius, that the Lord's supper is merely a commemoration of Christ's death, naturally producing a moral effect upon the serious and considerate mind, has been held by members of both the established churches in Great Britain. It was vigorously defended, about the beginning of last century, by Bishop Hoadly, in a work which he entitled, A plain Account of the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper;" and it has more recently been supported by Dr. Bell, in a treatise denominated "An Attempt to ascertain the Authority, Nature, and Design of the Lord's Supper." The ingenuity of particular individuals has been exerted in giving other peculiar illustrations of the subject. Cudworth and Bishop Warburton, for example, represented the sacrament of the supper under the view of a feast upon a sacrifice; but such speculations have not influenced the faith of any large denomination of Christians. TRAVELLING. The mode in which the patriarchs performed their pastoral migrations will be illustrated, with several differences in the circumstances, by the following extract from Parsons's Travels: "It was entertaining enough to see the horde of Arabs decamp, as nothing could be more regular. First went the sheep and goat herds, each with their flocks in divisions, according as the chief of each family directed; then followed the camels and asses, loaded with the tents, furniture, and kitchen utensils; these were followed by the old men, women, boys, and girls, on foot. The children that cannot walk are carried on the backs of the young women, or the boys and girls; and the smallest of the lambs and kids are carried under the arms of the children. To each tent belong many dogs, among which are some greyhounds; some tents have from ten to fourteen dogs, and from twenty to thirty men, women, and children, belonging to it. The procession is closed by the chief of the tribe, whom they call emir and father, (emir means prince,) mounted on the very best horse, and surrounded by the heads of each family, all on horses, with many servants on foot. Between each family is a division or space of one hundred yards, or more, when they migrate; and such great regularity is observed, that neither camels, asses, sheep, nor dogs, mix, but each keeps to the division to which it belongs, without the least trouble. They had been here eight days, and were going four hours' journey to the northwest, to another spring of water. This tribe consisted of about eight hundred and fifty men, women, and children. Their flocks of sheep and goats were about five thousand, besides a great number of camels, horses, and asses. Horses and greyhounds they breed and train up for sale: they neither kill nor sell their ewe lambs. At set times a chapter in the Koran is read by the chief of each family, either in or near each tent, the whole family being gathered round, and very attentive." Instead of the Koran of modern times, let us conceive of Abraham, and other patriarchal emirs, collecting their numerous dependents and teaching them the true religion, and we then see with what truth they are called the Lord's "prophets." TREASURE. The Hebrew word signifies anything collected together, provisions, or magazines. So they say, a treasure of corn, of wine, of oil, of honey, Jer. xli. 8; treasures of gold, silver, brass, Ezek. xxviii. 4; Dan. xi. 43. Snow, winds, hail, rain, waters, are in the treasuries of God, Psalm cxxxv. 7; Jer. li. 16. The wise men opened their treasures, Matt. ii. 11, that is, their packets, or bundles, to offer presents to our Saviour. Joseph acquainted his brethren, when they found their money returned in their sacks, that God had given them treasures, Genesis xliii. 23. The treasures of the house of God, whether in silver, corn, wine, or oil, were under the care of the Levites. The kings of Judah had also keepers of the treasures both in city and country, 1 Chron. xxvii. 25; and the places where these magazines were laid up were called treasure-cities. Pharaoh compelled the Hebrews to build him treasurecities, or magazines. TREE is the first and largest of the vege table kind, consisting of a single trunk, out of which spring forth branches and leaves. Heat is so essential to the growth of trees, that we see them grow larger and smaller in a sort of gradation as the climates in which they stand are more or less hot. The hottest countries yield, in general, the largest and tallest trees, and those, also, in much greater beauty and variety than the colder do; and even those plants which are common to both arrive at a much greater bulk in the southern than in the northern climates; nay, there are some regions so bleak and chill, that they raise no vegetables at all to any considerable height. Greenland, Iceland, and similar places, afford no trees at all; and the shrubs which grow in them are always little and low. In the warmer climates, where trees grow to a moderate size, any accidental diminution of the common heat is found very greatly to impede vegetation; and even in England the cold summers we sometimes have give us an evident proof of this in the scarcity d produce from all our large fruit-trees. Heat whatever be the producing cause, acts as well upon vegetation one way as another. The the heat of manure, and the artificial heat of coal-fires in stoves, are found to supply the place of the sun. Great numbers of the eastern trees, in their native soil, flower tw in a year, and some flower and bear ripe fru all the year round; and it is observed ef these last, that they are at once the most frequent and the most useful to the inhabitants; their fruits, which always hang on them in readiness, containing cool jures, which are good in fevers, and other of the common diseases of hot countries. The umbrageous foliage, with which the God of Providence has generally furnished all trees in warm climates, affords a most refreshing and grateful shade to those who seek rele from the direct and hurtful rays of a topical sun. The Land of Promise cannot boast, bly many other countries, of extensive woods but considerable thickets of trees and of reeds sometimes arise to diversify and adorn the scene. Between the Lake Samochonites the Sea of Tiberias, the river Jordan is almos concealed by shady trees from the view of the traveller. When the waters of the for dan are low, the Lake Samochonites is only a TRE marsh, for the most part dry and overgrown with shrubs and reeds. In these thickets, among other ferocious animals, the wild boar seeks a covert from the burning rays of the sun. Large herds of them are sometimes to be seen on the banks of the river, near the Sea of Tiberias, lying among the reeds, or feeding under the trees. Such moist and shady places are in all countries the favourite haunts of these fierce and dangerous animals. Those marshy coverts are styled woods in the sacred scriptures; for the wild boar of the wood is the name which that creature receives from the royal Psalmist: "The boar out of the wood doth waste it; and the wild beast of the field doth devour it," Psalm lxxx 13. The wood of Ephraim, where the battle was fought between the forces of Absalom and the servants of David, was probably a place of the same kind; for the sacred historian observes, that the wood devoured more people that day than the sword, 2 Sam. xviii. 8. Some have supposed the meaning of this passage to be, that the soldiers of Absalom were destroyed by the wild beasts of the wood; but it can scarcely be supposed, that in the reign of David, when the Holy Land was crowded with inhabitants, the wild beasts could be so numerous in one of the woods as to cause such a destruction. But, supposing the wood of Ephraim to have been a morass covered with trees and bushes, like the haunts of the wild boar near the banks of Jordan, the difficulty is easily removed. It is certain that such a place has more than once proved fatal to contending armies, partly by suffocating those who in the hurry of flight inadvertently venture over places incapable of supporting them, and partly by retarding them till their pursuers come up and cut them to pieces. In this manner a greater number of men than fell in the heat of battle may be destroyed. It is probable, however, that nothing more is intended by the sacred historian, than the mention of a fact familiar to military men in all ages, and whatever kind of weapons were then employed in warfare,-that forests, especially such thick and impassable forests as are common in warm countries, constitute the very worst ground along which a discomfited army can be compelled to retreat. Their orderly ranks are broken; the direction which each warrior for his own safety must take is uncertain; and while one tumultuous mass is making a pass for itself through intervening brushwood and closely-matted jungle, and another is hurrying along a different path and encountering similar or perhaps greater impediments, the cool and deliberate pursuers, whether archers or sharpshooters, enjoy an immense advantage in being able to choose their own points of annoyance, and by flank or cross attacks to kill their retreating foes, with scarcely any risk to themselves, but with immense carnage to the routed army. rendered "goodly trees," Lev. xxiii. 40, the Descriptions of the principal trees and shrubs mentioned in holy writ the reader will find noticed in distinct articles under their several denominations. TRIBE. Jacob having twelve sons, who were the heads of so many great families, which altogether formed a great nation; every one of these families was called a tribe But Jacob on his death-bed adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, and would have them also to constitute two tribes of Israel, Genesis xlviii. 5. Instead of twelve tribes, there were now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in the distribution of lands to each which Joshua made by the order of God, they counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe of Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities in which to dwell, and the first-fruits, tithes, and oblations of the people, which was all their subsistence. The twelve tribes continued united under one head, making but one state, one people, and one monarchy, till after the death of Solo3 R 3 ,עץ חדר Several critics imagine that by mon. Then ten of the tribes of Israel revolted from the house of David, and received for their king Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin continued under the government of Rehoboam. This separation may be looked upon as the chief cause of those great misfortunes that afterwards happened to those two kingdoms, and to the whole Hebrew nation. For, first, it was the cause of the alteration and change of the old religion, and of the ancient worship of their forefathers. Jeroboam the son of Nebat substituted the worship of golden calves for the worship of the true God; which was the occasion of the ten tribes forsaking the temple of the Lord. Secondly, this schism caused an irreconcilable hatred between the ten tribes, and those of Judah and Benjamin, and created numerous wars and disputes between them. The Lord, being provoked, delivered them up to their enemies. Tiglath-Pileser first took away captive the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, which were beyond Jordan, and carried them beyond the Euphrates, 2 Kings xv. 29; 1 Chron. v. 26; A. M. 3264. Some years after, Shalmaneser king of Assyria took the city of Samaria, destroyed it, took away the rest of the inhabitants of Israel, carried them beyond the Euphrates, and sent other inhabitants into the country to cultivate and possess it, 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 10, 11. Thus ended the kingdom of the ten tribes of Israel, A. M. 3283. As to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who remained under the government of the kings of the family of David, they continued a much longer time in their own country. But at last, after they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, God delivered them all into the hands of their enemies. Nebuchadnezzar took the city of Jerusalem, entirely ruined it, and took away all the inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and the other provinces of his empire, A. M. 3416. The return from this captivity is stated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. See JEWS. TRIBUTE. The Hebrews acknowledged none for sovereign over them but God alone: whence Josephus calls their government a theocracy, or divine government. They acknowledged the sovereign dominion of God by a tribute, or capitation-tax, of half a shekel a head, which every Israelite paid yearly, Exod. xxx. 13. Our Saviour, in the gospel, thus reasons with St. Peter: "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?" Matt. xvii. 25, meaning, that as he was the Son of God, he ought to be exempt from this capitation-tax. We do not find that either the kings or the judges of the Hebrews, when they were themselves Jews, demanded any tribute of them. Solomon, at the beginning of his reign, 1 Kings xi. 22, 33; 2 Chron. viii. 9, compelled the Canaanites, who were left in the coun try, to pay him tribute, and to perform the drudgery of the public works he had undertaken. As to the children of Israel, he would not suffer one of them to be employed upon them, but made them his soldiers, ministers, and chief officers, to command his armies, his chariots, and his horsemen. Yet, afterwards, towards the end of his reign, he imposed a tribute upon them, and made them work at the public buildings, 1 Kings v. 13, 14; ix. 15; xi. 27; which much alienated their minds from him, and sowed the seeds of that discontent which afterwards appeared in an open revolt, by the rebellion of Jero. boam the son of Nebat; who was at first indeed obliged to take shelter in Egypt. But afterwards the defection became general, by the total revolt of the ten tribes. Hence it was, that the Israelites said to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, "Thy father made our yoke grievous; now, therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and the heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee," 1 Kings xii. 4. It is needless to observe, that the Israelites were frequently subdued by foreign princes, who laid great taxes and tribute upon them, to which fear and necessity compelled them to submit. Yet in the latter times, that is, after Archelaus had been banished to Vienne in France, in the sixth year of the vulgar era, and after Judea was reduced to a province, Augustus sent Quirinius into this country, to take a new poll of the people, and to make a new estimate of their substance, that he might thereby regulate the tribute that every one was to pay to the Romans. Then Judas, surnamed the Gali lean, formed a sedition, and made an insurrection, to oppose the levying of this tribute. See in St. Matthew xxii. 16, 17, &c. the an swer that Jesus Christ returned to the ph risee, who came with an insidious design of tempting him, and asked him, whether not it was lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar? and in John viii. 33, where the Jews boast of having never been slaves to any body, of being a free nation, that acknowledged God only for master and sovereign. TRINITY. That nearly all the pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop Tomline, their various theological systems, acknow ledged a kind of Trinity, has been fully evinced by those learned men who have made the heathen mythology the subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost universal prevalence of this doctrine in the gentile kingdoms must be considered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine itself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is so very unlikely to have been the invention of mere human reason, that there is no way of a counting for the general adoption of so subgular a belief, but by supposing that it was revealed by God to the early patriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their pos terity. In its progress, indeed, to remote |