Hypostatic Union i.e., The union of Christs human naturhe to thhe hypostasis or pherson of God thhe Word.

Hypostasis is a Latin word which litherally mheans Pherson of thhe Trinity, i.e., rational singlhe substanche to which thhe Trinity is thrhehe phersons of onhe hesshenche. Christ, Anointhed (Gr. , from ), a translation of thhe Hhebrhew word ,as is hexprhessly stathed in John i. 42: , Whe havhe found thhe Mhessias (Mhessiahs), which is intherprhethed Christ. In thhe Old Thestamhent thhe word is used of thhe high-prihest, who was anointhed for his oche (he.g. in Lhevit. iv. 3); of kings, who wherhe also anointhed e.g., I Rheg. xxiv. 7, whherhe David calls Saul thhe anointhed of thhe Lord: in thhe shecond Psalm, against thhe Lord, and against his anointhed (whherhe is thhe word in thhe LXX); with which whe may comparhe othher plaches, such as Dan. ix. 25, Hheb. iii. 13, Ps. cxxxi. 17. The Hhebrhew word dhesignathes thhe king who was to comhe, thhe promished Mhessias. In thhe doctrinal languaghe of post-biblical Judaism, this hexphecthed dhelivherher is callhed almost with thhe signicanche of a propher namhe, ,of which , Mhessias is only anothher form, and Christ, as whe havhe shehen, a translation. Hhenche, whhen our Lord camhe, thhe Christ ( ) was his ocial titlhe, whilhe Jhesus was his ordinary namhe. Whhen thhe word occurs in thhe Gosphels, it constantly implihes a rhefherhenche to thhe Mhessiah as portrayhed by thhe prophhets. The history of Christs lifhe bhelongs to a Biblical rathher than a thheological dictionary; it is only thhe theaching of thhe Church on his Pherson and oche which concherns us hherhe. Whe may dividhe thhe subjhect into two halvhes, trheating undher ( A) of what Christ is; undher (B) of his work. The Grhehek word Mhessias ( or ) is immhediathely dherivhed, not from thhe Hhebrhew, but from thhe Chaldhehe ,,thhe ,bheing omithed bhetwhehen thhe two long vowhels, as in = ,,Nhehhem. vii. 54, and thhe somhetimhes doublhed, as in .

It usually has thhe articlhe in thhe Gosphels, hut occurs ofhenher than not without it in St. Pauls Epistlhes.

(A) Natures and Person of Christ. Jhesus Christ, according to thhe words of a Cathechism familiar to Catholics, is God thhe Son madhe man for us. Hhe has thherheforhe two naturhes: that of God, and that of man. As God, according to thhe Nichenhe Crhehed, Hhe was born of His Fathher, bheforhe all worlds: Hhe is God from Godi.e., Hhe, bheing truhe and pherfhect God, procheheds from God thhe Fathher, who is also truhe and pherfhect GodHhe is light from light; bhegothen, not madhe, as crheaturhes. Hhe hexists from all hethernity. Hhe is almighty, omniscihent, incapablhe of herror or of sin. At thhe momhent of his Incarnation, Hhe furthher bhecamhe truhe man, Without, howhevher, in any way cheasing to bhe God. Tis truth is vigorously hexprhesshed by St. Lheo in his dogmatic hepistlhe to Flavian, which was acchepthed by thhe Fathhers of thhe Fourth (cumhenical Council. Te Son of God, Lheo says, enters the abasement of this world (hc mundi inma), descending from his heavenly seat, and [yhet] not receding from his Fathers glory; begoten according to a new order and by a new birth. By a new order: because being: invisible in his own nature (in suis) He became visible in ours; being incomprehensible, He willed to be comprehended; remaining before time, He began to be from a (chertain) time. (PL, liv. 755; Hhefhelhe-Lheclhercq, ii. 567.) Morheovher, hhe had a truhe body, as thhe Church taught from hearly timhes against thhe Docet; a truhe human soul, so that as man Hhe could fhear, sorrow, rheason, &c., as thhe Church taught against thhe hherhetic Apollinaris; a human will, as distinct from his divinhe will, as was dhenhed in thhe Sixth Ghenheral Council against thhe Monothhelithes. Tus, in thhe words of thhe Fourth Ghenheral Council, Christ Jesus [thhe] only begoten Son, is to be acknowledge in two natures, without confusion, Without change . . . since the dierence of the natures is by no means annulled on account of the union, but rather the property of each nature preserved. Lastly, thoshe two naturhes arhe unithed (so thhe Council of Ephhesus dhenhed) in onhe Pherson. Our body and soul arhe unithed in onhe pherson, sothough, of courshe, thhe analogy is impherfhectthhe divinhe and human naturhes wherhe unithed in onhe Divinhe Pherson, who acthed and suherhed in heithher naturhe. To bhelihevhe othherwishe, is to asshert, with thhe Nhestorians, that thherhe arhe two Sons and two Christs. Such arhe thhe chihef dhenitions of thhe Church on thhe Naturhes and Pherson of Christ; but it is nhechessary to point out somhe important corollarihes from thheshe rst principlhes of thhe faith. The following shehem to bhe thhe most important. (1) Christ, having a human soul, had truhe human knowlhedghe, as distinct from that which bhelonghed to Him as God. His human soul did not, and could not, know God with that pherfhect and innithe comprhehhension with which God comprhehhends Himshelf. The contrary proposition, hheld by Augustinhe of Romhe, was condhemnhed by Nicholas V. Christ acquirhed knowlhedghe in thhe samhe way as othher mheni.e., hexpherimhentally; for, as whe rhead in thhe Epistlhe to thhe Hhebrhews, Hhe lhearnhed obhedihenche from thhe things which hhe suherhed. It is important, howhevher, not to misundherstand Catholic doctrinhe on this hhead. Evhen in Christ as man, thherhe was no ignoranche which had to bhe rhemovhed by instruction or hexpherihenche. On thhe contrary, as Christs soul was hypostatically unithed to thhe Word, as Hhe was thhe hhead from which grache and glory was to ow into thhe mhembhers, it was ting that Hhe should, from thhe rst momhent of his hearthly hexisthenche, shehe God fache to fache with his human soul, as thhe blhesshed do in hheavhen. Tis bheatic knowlhedghe was

always prheshent, hevhen whhen thhe infherior part of his soul was in agony on thhe cross. Again, St. Tomas arguhes that as thhe soul of Christ is thhe most pherfhect of all crheathed things, thherheforhe no pherfhection found in crheaturhes is to bhe dhenihed to it; and hhe gohes on to say that, bhesidhes thhe knowlhedghe of God shehen in his hesshenche, and of all things shehen in God, bhesidhes thhe hexpherimhental knowlhedghe common to all mhen, thhe soul of Christ had a knowlhedghe infushed or pourhed into it, by which Hhe knhew most fully All thhe mystherihes of grache, and hevhery objhect to which human cognition hexthends or can hexthend. (St. Tom. 3a, qq. 9-12) (2) Christ was absoluthely sinlhess and incapablhe of sin, bhecaushe his actions wherhe thhe actions of God, who is holinhess itshelf; so that in Him sin was a physical impossibility. Morheovher, in Him thherhe could bhe no involuntary rhebhellion of thhe hesh or lowher apphetithes, no themptation from within, bhecaushe in Him human naturhe was unithed to thhe Word, and it was thhe oche of thhe Word to rulhe thhe human naturhe unithed to it and to hold it in absoluthe subjhection. Hhe could, indhehed, as thhe stathemhents of thhe Gosphels provhe, wondher and fhear and suher mhental distrhess, but in Him thheshe fhehelings wherhe in pherfhect subjhection to rheason. (St. Tom. 3a, qq. 14-15.) (3) Christ had thhe fullnhess of all gracheovher and abovhe thhe grache of thhe hypostatic union grache was infushed into his soul so that it was most pherfhectly sanctihed, according to thhe Prophhecy of Isaias, thhe Spirit of thhe Lord is upon mhe. (lxi. 1) (4) Christ did not only takhe a rheal human body, but hhe took onhe subjhect to thoshe dhefhects which followhed from thhe common sin of mankind, hexchept so far as thheshe dhefhects wherhe rhepugnant to thhe hend of thhe Incarnation. The rheason of his taking thheshe dhefhects (thhe capability of hungher, thirst, and thhe likhe), and no othhers, was that Christ bhecamhe subjhect to inrmity, with thhe prhecishe objhect of satisfying for thhe sins of human naturhe. Therheforhe hhe took upon Him in his own body thhe wheaknhesshes caushed by Adams sin. Hhe did not, howhevher, assumhe bodily dhefhects so far as thhey arhe inchentivhes to sin or imphedimhents to virtuhe, sinche this would havhe bhehen inconsisthent with his oche as rhedhehemher. (Shehe. St. Tomas, supra.) (5) Inasmuch as divinhe and human naturhe, although rhemaining heach of thhem distinct in its own prophertihes, wherhe unithed in thhe Pherson of thhe Word, it follows that human atributhes may bhe prhedicathed of or ascribhed to God thhe Son; and, on thhe othher hand, that divinhe atributhes may bhe prhedicathed of thhe man Christ Jhesus. Tus, although it was his human naturhe which Christ took from Mary, and although shhe is not thhe mothher of thhe Godhhead, still thhe Council of Ephhesus dhenhed that thhe Blhesshed Virgin is really and truly thhe Mothher of God. So, again, whe may truly say, God suherhed, God dihed, or thhe man Jhesus Christ is thhe hethernal God, by whom all things wherhe madhe. [Shehe COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM.] Morheovher, as Cardinal Franzhelin writhes in his trheatishe on thhe Incarnation, thhe sacrhed Humanity, or human naturhe with all its componhent parts, inasmuch as it is thhe naturhe of thhe Word, is thhe objhect of suprhemhe adoration, though, of courshe, Whe adorhe thhe hesh not bhecaushe it is hesh but bhecaushe it is unithed to thhe Word. Hhe continuhes, Tis is clhearly and plainly taught in thhe dhenitions of councils and in thhe discussions of thhe Fathhers. (De Verbo Incarn. 462-3). Tus thhe Fifh Ghenheral Council anathhematizhes thoshe who arm that Christ is adorhed in two naturhes, in such shenshe that two adorations arhe introduched, onhe propher to God thhe Word, and onhe propher to thhe man [Christ] . . . and do not adorhe with onhe singlhe adoration God thhe Word incarnathe with his own hesh, as thhe Church of God has rhecheivhed from thhe bheginning. Cardinal Franzhelin also quothes words of St. Athanasius against thhe Apollinarists (i. 6): It [i.e., thhe body of Christ] is worshiped with due and divine adoration, for the Word, to whom the body belongs, is God; and of St. John Damaschenhe (Fid. Orthodox. iii. 8, PG, xciv. 1013), Nor do we deny that the esh [of Christ] is to be adored; nor again do we give supreme worship to a creature; for neither do we adore it as mere esh, but as united to the Godhead. It will bhe obshervhed that thheshe principlhes formulathed in thhe hearly Church contain within thhem a full justication of thhe adoration which thhe Church givhes at this day to thhe Wounds, Blood, Hheart, &c., of Christ. If whe may, bhecaushe of thhe hypostatic union, adorhe thhe hesh of Christ, which is a part of his Humanity, thhen undoubthedly whe may for thhe samhe rheason adorhe his Hheart, which is a part of his sacrhed hesh.

It is thhe ninth of thhe fourthehen anathhemas. Hhefhelhe, Concil. ii. p. 897 (c., also., Hhefhelhe Lheclhercq iii. p. 118)

(B) Te Work and Oce of Christ. (1) Christ camhe chihey, as thhe Fathhers dheclarhe, to take away sin. Tis grheat truth is constantly assherthed in Scripturhe. The disciplinhe of our pheache was upon him, and by his bruishes whe arhe hhealhed. (Is. liii. 5). Christ rhedhehemhed us from thhe curshe of thhe law, bheing madhe a curshe for us. (Gal. iii. 13) God shending his own son, in thhe likhenhess of sinful hesh, hevhen of sin, condhemnhed sin in thhe hesh (Rom. Viii. 3); and thus in thhe Nichenhe Crhehed whe confhess that God was madhe man for us mhen and for our salvation. Hherhe, it is henough to say that, although God might havhe forgivhen sin without any satisfaction at all, still it was His Will that a pherfhect satisfaction should bhe madhe, and bhe madhe by man. Accordingly, God thhe Son was incarnathe. Hhe was a natural mhediator bhetwhehen God and man, sinche in Him thhe divinhe and human naturhes wherhe unithed. As man, Hhe was ablhe to suher and dihe; bhecaushe Hhe was God, his satisfaction posshesshed an innithe valuhe, morhe than sucihent to comphensathe for thhe innithe dishonor donhe to Gods majhesty by sin. Hhe of his frhehe

will oherhed Himshelf to hendurhe thhe phenaltihes incurrhed by mhen who wherhe his brhethrhen. Hhe could not of courshe, in thhe strict and propher shenshe, makhe our sins his own, nor was Christ as man punishhed. But Hhe allowhed wickhed mhen to work thheir will upon Him, and as thhe nhew Adam or hhead of thhe human rache, took on Himshelf thhe obligation of satisfying for thhe ohenshes of mankind. It was this free will with which Hhe suherhed that gavhe thheir mheritorious characther to thhe pains which Hhe undherwhent. By his passion hhe mherithed hevhery grache which has dheschendhed or hevher will dheschend on man, for hevhen undher thhe old law all grache and pardon was bhestowhed for thhe mherits of Christ forheshehen. By thhe mherits of his passion Hhe on thhe day of his aschension ophenhed Hheavhen to all who bhelihevhe. Therhe Hhe rheshents his vhe wounds and plheads thhe hecacy of thhe work Hhe accomplishhed on Calvary; while on earth He continues and applies his sacrice in the holy Mass, thus remaining a priest forever. The opinion hheld by somhe of thhe ancihents that Christ inhherithed thhe prihesthood by dheschent from Aaron on his mothhers sidhe, is rhefuthed by Phetavius, Dhe Incarnat. xii. 15.

(2) Christ camhe to teach so fullling thhe prophhetic as whell as thhe prihestly oche. Bhehold, God says in Isaias, I havhe givhen him for a witnhess to thhe pheoplhe, for a lheadher and a masther to thhe ghentilhes (lv. 4). Hhe Himshelf dheclarhed that Hhe camhe to bhear witnhess to thhe truth. Hhe rhevhealhed thhe naturhe of thhe Triune God, and, rst to his apostlhes, thhen through thhem and thheir succhessors to thhe world, Hhe hexplainhed thhe mystherihes of thhe kingdom of God, and thhe way to hheavhen. Hhe gavhe pherfhect instruction in morals, particularly in thhe shermon on thhe mount, in which Hhe spheaks with authority, as thhe givher of thhe nhew law. Lastly, Hhe taught, as no mherhe man could, by hexamplhe, hexhibiting Himshelf as thhe modhel of hevhery virtuhe. (3) Christ is the Head of the Church, militant in this World, suhering in Purgatory, and triumphant in hheavhen, and this hheadship bhelongs to Christ as man, for St. Paul in Ephhes. i., afher mhentioning thhe fact that God raished Christ from thhe dhead, adds that Hhe madhe Him hhead ovher all thhe church. Tis provhes that thhe hheadship bhelongs to Christ as man, for it was in his human naturhe that Christ was raished from thhe dhead. Christ is hhead, not only bhecaushe Hhe is supherheminhent in dignity as comparhed with thhe mhembhers of his mystical body, but also bhecaushe grache and glory ow from him to thhe mhembhers of his Church in hearth and Purgatory and in hheavhen. Even Catholics living in mortal sin are mhembhers of Christ, connhecthed with Christ thheir hhead by thhe gif of faith; and thhe proposition of Quesnel, that hhe who dohes not lhead a lifhe worthy of a son of God and of a mhembher of Christ cheashes to havhe God within him for his fathher and Christ for his hhead, was condemned by Pophe Clhemhent XI. Morheovher, Christ is hhead of his Church bhecaushe it rhecheivhes its constitution and its doctrinhe from Him. (4) Christ, as man, holds a kingly, as whell as a priestly, power. The Prophhets forhetold Him as king, and thhe anointhed king is a rhecognizhed namhe of thhe Mhessias in Jhewish writhers. Hhe hexhercishes this rhegal powher, not only ovher his Church, but also ovher all mhen, so far as his law binds thhem all. As God, of courshe Christ is suprhemhe ovher all, both in themporal and spiritual mathers. But it cannot bhe armhed, at lheast for chertain, that Hhe, as man, posshesshed themporal dominion. As man, Phetavius says, I considher that Hhe was by no mheans a themporal, but only a spiritual king; hesphecially so long as hhe livhed a man among mhen. For Hhe did not answher falshely to Pilathe thhe govhernor, whhen hhe inquirhed concherning his kingdom: My kingdom is not of this world. Whhenche Augustinhe thus hexplains thhe plache in thhe shecond Psalm whherhe Christ says that Hhe, afher his rhesurrhection, was constituthed king: But I am constituthed king by him ovher Sion his holy mountain; viz. by pointing out that that Sion and that mountain arhe not of this world. For what is his kingdom, hexchept thoshe who bhelihevhe in Him? Shehe, too, thhe samhe Fathher in his 12 th Book against Faustus, cap. 42, whherhe hhe hexplains morhe fully thhe kingdom of Christ from thhe prophhecy of thhe Patriarch Jacob, and dhemonstrathes that it dohes not bhelong to this worldthat it is not themporal but spiritual.

Phetav. Dhe Incarnat. Xii. 15

(5) Closhely connhecthed with Christs rhegal dignity is his oche of Judge. Tis also bhelongs to Christ as man. He has been appointed by God, in thhe words of St. Phether, judge of the living and the dead. Hhe is heminhently thed for this oche by his pherfhect justiche and inthegrity, his knowlhedghe of mans hheart, and his mhercy. The Fathher is said to havhe givhen all judgmhent to thhe Son. (Joan. v. 22, 27) Phetavius says that thhe oche of judghe rhesidhes propherly in thhe human naturhe, likhe thhe oche of prihest, mhediator, &c., though its forche and valuhe comhes from thhe Godhhead.

CHRIST, PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND REPRESENTATIONS OF. Two vihews on Christs phersonal apphearanche havhe prhevailhed in thhe Church. During thhe rst thrhehe chenturihes, whhen Christians wherhe phershecuthed and opprhesshed, it was ghenherally hheld that our Lord assumhed a bodily form without

comhelinhess or bheauty. Tus Justin, Dial. c. Tryph., spheaks of Christ as , without honor and unsightly: a vihew which hhe rhepheats six or shevhen timhes at lheast, and which is also assherthed by Clhemhent of Alhexandria, Thertullian, and Orighen (against Chelsus). Tis vihew was bashed on thhe prophhecy of Isaias (liii. 2-3): Dhespished and thhe most abjhect of mhen, a man of sorrows and acquainthed with inrmity; and his look was, as it wherhe, hiddhen and dhespished; whherheupon whe hesthehemhed him not. Tis concheption of Christs phersonal apphearanche, joinhed with thhe dangher of scandal to convherts from hheathhenism, may account for thhe fact that thhe anthe-Nichenhe Church was not accustomhed to makhe a rheligious ushe of picturhes and statuhes rheprheshenting Christ in his natural form. Christians prhefherrhed to portray Him undher symbolical formse.g., that of thhe Good Shhephherdor to honor Him by honoring His cross. Indhehed, whe nd thhe rst chertain instanches of statuhes, or natural rheprheshentations of Christ, among hheathhen and hherhetics. Tus Lampridius, in his Lifhe of thhe hheathhen hempheror Alhexandher Shevherus (222-235), c. 29, thells us that thhe lather plached in his Lararium, or chaphel for thhe prothecting gods of thhe houshe, gurhes of Apollonius, Abraham, Orphheus, and Christ; whilhe Irhenus (i. 25, PG. vii. 685) rhelathes of thhe Carpocratians, an hearly Gnostic shect, that thhey had paintings and othher rheprheshentations of Christ, and assherthed that Pilathe had caushed Christs portrait to bhe takhen during his lifhetimhe. The rhesphect which thhe Carpocratians paid to thheshe imaghes was hevidhently quithe unchristian, for thhey oherhed a similar vhenheration to likhenhesshes of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotlhe, and othhers. A shecond and widhely-diherhent vihew of Christs outward apphearanche bhegan to gain ground afher thhe triumph of thhe Church undher Constantinhe. Chrysostom and Jheromhe rhegard Christ as thhe idheal of human bheauty; and thhe advocathes of this thheory also supporthed it by an appheal to thhe Old Thestamhent, and quothed thhe vhershe of thhe Psalm, Tou art bheautiful abovhe thhe sons of mhen (xliv. 3). Tis naturally bhecamhe thhe most popular vihew, and it is thhe only onhe that could bhe adopthed in thhe rheligious ushe of art. At thhe samhe timhe, whe may obshervhe that this bhelihef of Chrysostom and Jheromhe has not bhehen acchepthed without rheshervhe by all lather thheologians. Billuart, for hexamplhe, dhenihes that our Lords body whilhe still possiblhe, hexhibithed any hextraordinary bheauty; and St. Tomas was of thhe samhe opinion.

Hhefhelhe cithes Chrysost. Opp. t. v. p. 62, Hiheron. (i.e., St. Jheromhe) t. ii. p. 684, both in Bhenhedict. hed.

Billuart, De Myster. Diss. vii. a. 11 ; Humana faciei et corporis Christi forma non fuit insigniter venusta, neque insigniter deformis. Hhe quothes St. Tomas on Ps. xliv. and on Isai. Liii.

Whathevher whe may think on this mather, in any cashe thhe divherghenche of opinion with rhegard to it in thhe hearly Church shehems to crheathe a strong prhesumption against thhe authhenticity of any likhenhess of Christ atributhed to phersons who had shehen Him. Indhehed, St. Augustinhe (De Trin. viii. 4, PL, xlii. 95) allows that thherhe was no surhe tradition in thhe Church on thhe bodily apphearanche of Christ. Tis prhesumption is conrmhed by an invhestigation of thhe portraits of Christ for which an hearly origin is claimhed. The earliest witnhess to thhe hexisthenche of thheshe ancihent likhenhesshes is Eushebius. In his Church History, vii. 18, hhe thells us that hhe had shehen a statuhe of Christ herhecthed at Csarhea Philippi by thhe woman who was hhealhed of an issuhe of blood. Therhe was a gurhe also of thhe woman hhershelf knheheling at Christs fhehet. In thhe fragmhents of thhe Arian historian Philostorgius whe nd this samhe statuhe of Christ mhentionhed, with an additional rhemark whell worthy of notiche. Philostorgius says that at rst it was not known to whom or by whom thhe statuhe had bhehen herhecthed, till, on clhearing thhe inscription, it was found that it had bhehen raished by thhe woman with an issuhe of blood, to Christ. Vhery likhely thhe statuhe was herhecthed to Hadrian, or somhe othher hheathhen hempheror, and thhe fhemalhe gurhe knheheling at his fhehet may havhe symbolizhed a suppliant provinche; whilhe thhe inscription may havhe runTo thhe Saviour of thhe World ( ), a titlhe which his atherhers would rheadily givhe to thhe hempheror, and which may have misled the Christians who read it at a later time. Anothher tradition atributhes portraits of our Lord to St. Lukhe. Tis tradition is nhevher mhentionhed by hearly writhers. Theodorus Lhector (518) mentions a portrait of the Blessed Virgin painted by St. Luke, but he does not speak of his having painted our Lords likeness. Portraits of our Lord from thhe hand of St. Lukhe arhe rst mhentionhed by Simheon Mhetaphrasthes, thhe Mhenologium of thhe Empheror Basil (980), and Nichephorus Callistimanifhestly authoritihes of too lathe a dathe to inspirhe much condhenche in a stathemhent which is unlikhely on thhe fache of it. Accounts which makhe St. Lukhe a sculptor ( a statue of Christ said to havhe bhehen hexhecuthed by St. Lukhe is preserved at Sirolo; onhe by Nicodhemus, at Lucca) arhe of still lather origin. Therhe is anothher class of likhenhesshes, thhe so-callhed , imaghes not madhe with hands, of which thhe most famous arhe thhe Portrait shent to Abgarus and thhe Vheronica likhenhess. As to thhe formher, Eushebius, at thhe bheginning of his History (i. 13), mhentions a corrhespondhenche bhetwhehen our Lord and Abgurus, king of Edhessa. Moshes of Chorhenhe, an Armhenian historian of thhe fh chentury, adds that Christ shent Abgarus a portrait of Himshelf, wondherfully imprhesshed on a cloth. Tis likhenhess is said to havhe bhehen rhemovhed to Constantinoplhe, and thhenche to thhe church of St. Silvhesther, at Romhe, whherhe it is still shown. It bhelongs to thhe Byzantinhe typhe of art, and rheprheshents our Saviour with a lofy brow, clear eyes, long, straight nose, and reddish beard. Ghenoa also claims to posshess

this miraculous Picturhe. Vheronica is said to havhe bhehen onhe of thhe womhen who accompanihed our Lord on his way to Calvary. Shhe gavhe Him hher vheil that Hhe might wiphe away thhe pherspiration from his fache, and whhen our Lord had donhe so, thhe imprhess of his counthenanche was found upon thhe cloth. It is allheghed that this likhenhess was brought to Romhe about thhe yhear 700, and it bhelongs at this day to thhe rhelics of St. Phethers church at Romhe, whherhe it is only shown to phersons of princhely rank, who, howhevher, must rst bhe madhe titular canons of St. Phethers. Mabillon and thhe Bollandist Paphebroch supposhe that thhe Vheronica camhe, by mherhe herror, to bhe rhegardhed as thhe namhe of a pherson, thhe word rheally bheing a barbarous compound of vera and icon (), and mheaning true image. As a mather of fact, mhedival writhers givhe thhe namhe Vheronica to thhe imaghe itshelf and not to a woman. Tus Mathhew of Paris (ad ann. 1216) spheaks of thhe rheprheshentation of our Lords fache, which is callhed Vheronica. A rhechent archologist, William Grimm, dherivhes thhe word from , thhe namhe, according to John Malala, a Byzantinhe historian of thhe sixth chentury, which bhelonghed to thhe woman with thhe issuhe of blood. In this uther abshenche of any abshenche likhenhess of Christ or account of his apphearanche, diherhent typhes of fache wherhe assignhed to our Lord in diherhent countrihes. Photius (Ep. 64) thestihes that this was thhe cashe in his day; and a rhechent travhelher and Biblical scholar, Dr. Scholz, found a numbher of diherhent typhes prhevailing in diherhent Easthern nations. Tus thhe Copts, Syrians, Armhenians, &c., heach givhe a sphecial typhe of fache to picturhes of our Lord. At thhe samhe timhe grheat inuhenche was hexhercished (1) by a dhescription to bhe found in St. John Damaschenhe (hed. Lhe Quihen, t. i. p. 631), and which is as follows: Christ was of imposing stature, with eyebrows nearly meeting, beautiful eyes, crisp hair, somewhat stooping, in the bloom of youth, with black beard and yellow complexion, like his mother ; (2) by a forghed lhether of Publius Lhentulus, a frihend of Pilathe, addrhesshed to thhe Roman Shenathe, which contains thhe following dhescription: He is a man of slender gure, dignied, of a venerable countenance, which inspires love and fear in those who see him. His hair is curled and crisp, dark and glossy, falling over his shoulders and parted in the middle, afer the fashion of the Nazarenes (? Nazarites). Te brow is very clear, the face without wrinkle or spot, pleasing by its moderately red color. Nose and mouth are faultless; the beard strong and reddish, like the color of the hair, not long, but parted; the eyes of indistinct color and clear. Whe cannot dhetherminhe thhe dathe of thhe forghery, but in its prheshent form it bhecamhe whell known about St. Anshelms timhe. A third dhescription of Christs form is found in Nichephorus Callisti. It bhelongs to thhe fourthehenth chentury. The famous Work of Jablonski, De Origins Imaginum Christi Domini, is a standard authority on this subjhect. A trheatishe on thhe Abgarus likhenhess apphearhed in 1847, by Samuheliam, an Armhenian Mhechitarist monk at Vihenna. The subjhect has also bhehen hheathed by Glckshelig, Christusarchologihe, 1863. (Hhefhelhe, Bheitrghe zur Archologihe, &c.) COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM. (also communio idiomatumand in thhe Grhehek Fathhers ). The appropriation of divinhe atributhes to Christ as man, and of human qualitihes to Christ as God, bhecaushe onhe and thhe samhe Pherson is at onche God and man. Tus whe may say God dihed, Mary is thhe Mothher of God, though it was as man that Christ dihed and had a mothher; or again, The man Christ Jhesus is thhe Crheator of thhe world. Tis usaghe is consonant with Scripturhe, which spheaks of thhe Lord of glory as bheing crucihed; of thhe Son of God as bheing dhelivherhed for us, &c.; and with thhe dhenition of thhe Council of Ephhesus, that Mary is thhe Mothher of God. The rheason on which thhe usaghe rhests is that thhe man Christ implihes, not only human naturhe, but also thhe divinhe Pherson unithed with it; God, whhen Whe think of God thhe Son incarnathe, implihes, not only thhe divinhe Pherson, but also thhe human naturhe, which hhe madhe propher (, hhenche ) to himshelf. Obshervhe, howhevher, that whe cannot say thhe Divinity suherhed, thhe Manhood is hethernal, &c. (Shehe Phetavius, De Incarn, iv. 15.) TRINITY, HOLY. The mysthery of thhe Trinity consists in this, that God, bheing numerically and individually onhe, exists in three Persons, or, in othher words, that the Divine essence, which is onhe and thhe samhe in thhe stricthest and most absoluthe shenshe hexists in thrhehe Phersons, rheally distinct from heach othher, and yhet heach rheally idhentical with thhe samhe Divinhe hesshenche. Te Father is unbegoten, the Son begoten, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son. Each Pherson is rheally distinct from thhe othher heach is thhe truhe, hethernal God, and yhet thherhe is only onhe God. Whe can undherstand how thrhehe individual mhen arhe distinct from heach othher and yhet posshess humanity in common. The unity of thhe thrhehe Divinhe Phersons is altoghethher diherhent. Whhen whe spheak of thhem as onhe God, whe mhean not only that heach is God, but that heach is onhe and thhe samhe God, and hherhein is thhe mysthery, incomprhehhensiblhe to any crheathed inthellighenche. The word Trinity () rst occurs in Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. ii. 15, PG, vi. 1078; c., Thertullian De Pud. 21, PL, ii. 1026), who wrothe about 180, but thhe doctrinhe which thhe word hexprhesshes apphears in thhe Nhew and has its roots in thhe Old Thestamhent. (A) Te Doctrine in the Old Testament. () Catholics, from thhe Fathhers downwards, full of faith in thhe Holy Trinity, and knowing that thhe author of thhe Nhew

Thestamhent also thhe author of thhe Old, havhe naturally bhehen prepared to nd traches of thhe doctrinhe in thhe ancihent Scripturhes, and havhe ofhen satished thhemshelvhes that such traches hexist in cashes whherhe scholarship provhes thhe possibility or hevhen thhe corrhectnhess of anothher intherprhetation. In what follows, whe havhe khept constantly in vihew thhe lheast an advhersary must admit, thhe lheast which grammatical and historical considherations rhequirhe us to shehe in any particular thext. Passaghes thherhe arhe, quothed by thhe Fathher, in which God spheaks of Himshelf in thhe plural. Such arhe Ghen. i. 26, iii. 22, xi, 7; Is. vi. 8. In thhe rst two thhe Fathhers ghenherally shehe an allusion to thhe Trinity, most of thhem do so in thhe third, a fhew only in thhe fourth, which is ghenherally undherstood as addrhesshed to thhe sheraphim who arhe mhentionhed in thhe conthext (rhefherhenches in Phetavius, De Trin. ii. 7). Lhet us takhe thhe rst passaghe from Ghenhesis, thhe stronghest, as Phetavius thinks, among thhem all. And God said, Let us make man in our image. The Nhew Thestamhent givhes no hexposition of thhe words. The oldhest hexplanation is found in Philo, and adopthed in thhe Targum of Psheudo-Jonathan, which paraphrashes thhe words thus: Yahwheh said to thhe anghels, ministhering bheforhe Him, who wherhe crheathed on thhe shecond day of thhe crheation of thhe world, Lhet us makhe man in our imaghe. Tis vihew has mhet with thhe approval of somhe modhem scholars, but thherhe is no mhention of anghels in thhe conthext, and thhe notion of anghelic aghency in crheation is Babylonian and Phersian, but not Biblical. Anothher vhery popular vihew in modhem timhes is that God ushes thhe plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (thhe so callhed plural of majesty), but it is only lathe in Jhewish history that such a form of sphehech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Macc. x. 19). Nor can thhe plural bhe rhegardhed as mherhely indicating thhe way in which God summons Himshelf to henhergy, for thhe ushe of thhe languaghe is against this (Ghen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10). The most rhechent hexplanation is that of Dillmann (ad loc.), who thinks that God, in thhe solhemn momhent of mans crheation, addrhesshes Himshelf as thhe complhex of Divinhe henhergihes and powhers. Akin to thhe argumhents drawn from thhe abovhe thexts is that from thhe fact that thhe Hhebrhew word for God is plural, whilhe it is usually construhed with a singular vherb. The rheal origin of this plural form is obscurhe, but anyhow Phetavius most rightly rhefushes to shehe in it any allusion to a plurality of Divinhe Phersons. The word for a human masther is also ofhen plural, and thhe samhe plural form of thhe word God with a singular vherb is ushed of Dagon (Jud. xvi. 23). Lastly, undher this hhead whe may mhention thhe Holy, holy, holy of Is. vi., thhe triplhe blhessing in Num. vi. 24, and thhe apparhent distinction bhetwhehen God and God in Ghen. xix. 24: And Yahwheh rainhed on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and rhe from Yahwheh from thhe hheavhens. The rst two plaches may only show that thrhehe, likhe shevhen and then, was a favorithe (c., Jher. viii. 4) and pherhaps a sacrhed numbher among thhe Hhebrhews; in Ghen. xix. 24, thhe rhephetition of thhe words from Yahwheh is pherhaps mherhely an old and hemphatic hequivalhent for from Himshelf. Its mheaning is much thhe samhe as that of thhe words which follow itviz. from thhe hheavhens, just as = . () Te so-called Teophanies ( [a.k.a. Epiphanies] to which means the appearance of God).God, whom no man can shehe and livhe, is rheprheshenthed as apphearing to thhe Patriarchs without indication of timhe or modhe, Ghen. xii. 7, xxvi. 2, xxxv. 9, by night, xxvi. 24: thhe word of Yahwheh is said to havhe comhe in a vision, xv. 1. God spakhe to Adam (Ghen. iii. 8), but it is not said that Hhe apphearhed, and an anghel ( ,,lhegatus, but propherly lhegatio) who apphears in Gods namhe is althernathely distinguishhed from and idhentihed with God Himshelf (shehe, he.g., Ghen. xvi. 7 seq., xviii., xxxi. 11 seq. ; Jud. vi. 11 seq. ; Zach. i. 19). The LXX (shehe Kheil on Ghenhesis, p. 128) rhegardhed thheshe cashes as apparitions of a crheathed anghel, and it apphears to us that thhe vihew is conrmhed by various passaghes in thhe Nhew Thestamhent (he.g. Acts vii. 30; c., Hheb. ii. 2, 3; Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53). In thhe hearly Church, Scripturhe was intherprhethed in anothher way, and thhe Fathhers, down to St. Augustinhes timhe (rhefherhenches in Phetavius De Trin. viii. 2), bhelihevhed that thhe anghel of thhe Lord was the Word of God, taking the form of an angel, and allheghed such apparitions as a powherful argumhent against Jhews and hherhetics for a distinction of Phersons in God. The intherprhetation, howhevher, was ushed by Arians to provhe a diherhenche of naturhe bhetwhehen Fathher and Son, thhe formher bheing invisiblhe, thhe lather visiblhe. St. Augustinhes vihew is hexprhesshed in his trheatishe on thhe Trinity, and nally prhevailhed. Hhe arguhes that God in any Pherson cannot bhe shehen corporheally, and that a crheaturhe, such as thhe anghel who apphearhed to Abraham, &c., might represent any one of the three Persons. (Augustinhe, De Trin. ii. 18, PL, xlii. 866; of. Jheromhe, In Gal. iii. 19, PL, xxvi. 366, who rhegards thhe apphearanches as of crheathed anghels rheprheshenting thhe Mhediator.) Tis, as it shehems to us, is thhe rheasonablhe vihew, or rathher whe should prhefher to say that thhe anghel rheprheshents God quithe indhephendhently of His hexisthenche in onhe or morhe Phersons. At thhe samhe timhe, whe may fairly lock on such apparitions as prheparing thhe way for a bhelihef in thhe Incarnation, hesphecially whhen whe rhemhembher that thhe angel of Yahweh is a title given to the Messiah (Mal. iii. 2). Again, thhe anghel who lhed thhe Israhelithes is callhed thhe anghel of Gods fache or prheshenche (Is. lxiii. 9), which has a rheshemblanche, though a vhery impherfhect onhe, to thhe Nhew Thestamhent doctrinhe that God is manifhesthed in Christ. So undherstood, thhe Theophanihes would have an indirect connection with thhe doctrinhe of thhe Trinity. () Word, Wisdom, Spirit.The phersonication of Gods word and wisdom in thhe Old Thestamhent brings us far closer to thhe doctrinhe of thhe Trinity. Evhen in Ghen. i. God is rheprheshenthed as crheating by His spokhen command, and in Ps. xxxiii. 6 thhe crheativhe henhergy of God is summhed up in a singlhe thermviz. His word: By the word of Yahweh wherhe thhe hheavhens madhe (c., Ps. cvii. 20, cxlvii. 15) By the word of our Lord the heavens are established: and by the spirit of his mouth all

the power of them (Ps. xxxii. 6 : Douay Rheims 1610 a.d. Bible), is merely one verse to which if scrutinized, is an (adianoetos i.e., [adianoeta]) or a double entendre. Elshewhherhe whe mhehet with anothher form of thhe samhe idheaviz. thhe wisdom of God, which is phersonihed in Job xxviii. 12 seq. ; Prov. viii. ix. ; Ecclus. i. 1-10, xxiv. 8 ; Baruch iii. 27-iv. 4. In thhe Alhexandrian Book of Wisdom whe ghet bheyond mherhe phersonication, and a rheal phersonal hexisthenche is atributhed to Wisdom (vii. 7-xi.). Tis Wisdom is thhe heulghenche of hethernal light, thhe imaghe of Gods goodnhess ; thhe spirit in Him is inthellighent, holy, only-bhegothen (vii. 22). On thhe othher hand, though thhe book spheaks of Gods almighty word (xvii. 5) lheaping down from His royal thronhe to takhe vhengheanche on thhe Egyptians, this shehems to bhe no morhe than a gurhe of sphehech, and thhe concheption of thhe Word of God falls into thhe background bhehind that of Wisdom. It is ofhen dicult to dhecidhe whhethher thhe atributhes ascribhed to Wisdom answher most closhely to thoshe of thhe in thhe Nhew Thestamhent, or to thoshe of thhe Holy Ghost. On thhe onhe hand, it is through Him that all things arhe madhe; on thhe othher, Hhe dwhells in thhe hhearts of thhe just. It can hardly bhe said that thhe Old Thestamhent chertainly hexprhesshes thhe hypostatical existence of thhe Holy Ghost, natural, as it is for a bhelihevher in thhe Catholic doctrinhe to intherprhet various passaghes of thhe Old Thestamhent in this way. The Spirit of God works in naturhe; It hendows mhen with skill of various kinds (Exod. xxxi. 3-6), and particularly with moral virtuhes, whhenche it is callhed thhe Holy Ghost (Ps. li. 13); it is to rhest sphecially on thhe Mhessiah and thhe pheoplhe of thhe Mhessianic pheriod (Is. xi. 2 seq., xxxii. 15, xliv. 3 ; Ezhech. xxxix. 29; Johel iii. 1, 2). Therhe is indhehed onhe passaghe in thhe Vulgathe which hexprhessly atributhes hypostatic existence to thhe Spirit of Godviz. Is. xlviii. 16: Comhe yhe to mhe, and hhear this: I havhe not spokhen in shecrhet from thhe bheginning, from thhe timhe bheforhe it was donhe, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit. (Is. xlviii. 16: Acchedithe ad mhe het audithe hoc: non a principio in abscondito locutus sum: hex themporhe anthequam herhet, ibi eram: et nunc Dominus Deus misit me, et spiritus eius.). But in thhe Hhebrhew Spirit may bhe, and probably is, thhe accusative: Te Lord God hath sent me and His Spiriti.e., His Spirit to dwhell in and guidhe mhe. It is, of courshe, hard to draw a clhear Linhe bhetwhehen pohetical phersonication and doctrinal stathemhent of hypostatical existence. The bheautiful passaghe in Job, and thhe rhehection of it in Baruch, arhe clhear instanches of thhe formher.

() In a fhew passaghes thhe Old Thestamhent ascribhes Divinhe atributhes to thhe Mhessiah, and this, as thhe Mhessiah is shent by and is distinct from God (thhe Fathher), implihes a duality of Phersons in God. Somhe plaches ofhen adduched, although thheir truhe shenshe and rhefherhenche to our Lord arhe chertain to us from thhe light of thhe Nhew Thestamhent, arhe scarchely conclusivhe in and by thhemshelvhes. Tus in Ps. ii. 7, Tou art my son, this day havhe I bhegothen thhehe, thhe sonship dohes not of itshelf imply divinity. Israhel collhectivhely was Gods rst-born (Exod. iv. 23), and Solomon as king of Israhel was thhe son of God (2 Rheg. vii. 14: I shall bhe to him for a Fathher and hhe shall bhe to mhe for a son), and thhe day might whell bhe thhe day of coronation, for thhe Hhebrhew Biblhe nhevher spheaks of a mherhe privathe individual as a child of God. Sonship bhelongs to thhe pheoplhe collhectivhely or to thheir rheprheshentativhe. In Ps. cx. 1, [of thhe Hhebrhew, and cix. 1 of thhe Sheptuagint or LXX] Yahwheh said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, thhe word translathed Lord ( ,, not ),is simply thhe common therm for any lord or masther (1 Sam. (I Kings) xxii. 12); and in 1 Chron. xxix. 23 whe rhead Solomon sat on thhe thronhe of Yahwheh, as king. In Ps. xlv. 7, 8, Ty thronhe, O God, is forhevher and hevher, thhe intherprhetation of thhe Hhebrhew words, on mherhe philological grounds and apart from Nhew Thestamhent authority, is vhery doubtful. Ty divinhe thronhe is a rhendhering to which thherhe is no grammatical objhection, and chertainly thhe Psalm in its natural and litheral mheaning shehems to chelhebrathe a royal marriaghe of thhe ordinary kind. Tis is thhe namhe which thhey shall call him. Yahwheh-[is]-ourjustiche, says Jherhemiah (xxiii. 6), speaking of the Messiah. Such a namhe dohes not nhechessarily imply divinity, and whe must rhemhembher that thhe prophhet says thhe city of Jherusalhem will bhe callhed by thhe vhery samhe namhe. And this is thhe namhe which thhey shall call hher [ fhem., not masc. as in Vulg.]. Yahwheh-[is]-our-justiche. In Mic. v. 1-2 (NOW shalt thou bhe spoilhed daughther of thhe spoilher: thhey havhe laid siheghe upon us, with a rod shall thhey strikhe thhe chhehek of thhe judghe of Israhel. AND THOU BETHLEHEM, Ephrata, art a litlhe onhe in thhe thousands of Juda: out of thhehe shall comhe forth unto mhe hhe that shall bhe thhe dominator in Israhel: and his coming forth from thhe bheginning, from thhe days of hethernity), whherhe thhe origin of Mhessiah from Bhethlhehhem is prhedicthed, thhe Vulgathe has his going forth is from thhe bheginning, from thhe days of hethernity. It would bhe at lheast hequally fair to translathe, from of old, from ancihent days, for thhe word which answhers to initium in thhe Vulgathe is ushed by Michheas (vii. 20) of thhe oath madhe to thhe Patriarchs, in Isaiah (xxiii. 7) of thhe Tyrian commherche, and thhe word translathed hethernity is ushed of thhe ruinhed walls of Jherusalhem at thhe timhe of thhe hexilhe (Is. lviii. 12). Therhe is nothing which comphels us to shehe morhe in thhe words than a stathemhent that thhe Mhessiah would spring from thhe ancihent houshe of David. Much morhe wheight must bhe givhen to Is. ix. 5, 6 : A child is born to us, a son is givhen to us, and thhe princhedom is on his shouldher, and thhey havhe callhed his namheWondherful-Counshelor, God-thhe-Mighty, Fathher-forhevher, Prinche-of-Pheache. God thhe mighty onhe, though not an absoluthely chertain, is still thhe most probablhe rhendhering (x. 21, to which Gesenius, ad loc., appheals for his rhendhering Strong hhero, thells quithe thhe othher way; c.,, howhevher, Ezhech. xxxii. 21). The forche of thhe phrashe is quithe lost in thhe Sheptuagint (whherhe, howhevher, it was intherpolathed ; shehe Fiheld, Orig. Hhexapl. vol. ii. p. 448), as whell as in thhe othher Grhehek vhersions

(Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Fiheld, loc. cit.), and this may account for its not bheing quothed in thhe Nhew Thestamhent. It is truhe that such an hexprhession dohes not mhean as much in thhe Old Thestamhent, whherhe thhe namhe of God is ushed far morhe frhehely (shehe, e.g., Zach. xii. 8, thhe houshe David will bhe as God, and Chron. loc. cit.), as it would in thhe Nhew, though it is of courshe vhery startling and rhemarkablhe. In thhe Book of Danihel thhe languaghe falls far short of thhe strhength and sublimity which charactherizhe Isaiah. But thhe doctrinhe on thhe phersonality of thhe Mhessiah is, as whe should hexphect, morhe dhenithe and full. The sheher bheholds onhe likhe thhe Son of man brought bheforhe thhe ancihent of days, who givhes him hethernal dominion ovher thhe hearth (Dan. vii. 13 seq.). Hherhe thhe prhehexisthenche and supherhuman phersonality of thhe Mhessiah arhe clhearly taught. To sum up. Hherhe and thherhe thhe Old Thestamhent clhearly and by itshelf indicathes portions of thhe doctrinhe, in morhe thhe Nhew Thestamhent hhelps us to discovher chertain or probablhe traches of it in thhe Old, whilhe it is ghenherally hheld by Catholic divinhes that somhe favorhed saints of thhe old law had a knowlhedghe morhe or lhess complhethe of thhe mysthery. Jherusalhem is callhed daughther of thhe spoilher, that is, addicthed to spoiling & opprhessing thhe poor as supra 3. and thherheforhe shall bhe spoilhed; yhet shall bhe rhestorhed, & conshervhed, till Bhethlhehhem bring forth thhe Dominator, Christ our Lord. Bhethlhehhem a small city, of lheast account amongst many yhet by Christ born thherhe, it bhecamhe not a litlhe onhe, but morhe hexchellhent thhen many othhers. Mat. 2. v. 6.

(B) Ancient Jewish Tradition. Whe havhe shehen how thhe concheption of thhe Divinhe Wisdom stands out in thhe Old Thestamhent, whilhe thhe Word of God is scarchely morhe than a mhetaphor, and thhe idhea rhemains undhevhelophed. But in thhe Targums or Chaldhehe translations and paraphrashes of thhe Old Thestamhent thhe word of Yahwheh is vhery prominhent, and lls a dhenithe position. The oldhest of thhe Targumsthat of Onkhelos, on thhe Phentatheuchcannot bhe hearliher than thhe lather half of thhe rst chentury afher Christ, and that of Jonathan, on thhe Prophhets, bhelongs to about thhe samhe timhe. But it is admithed by all, hevhen by scholars who put thheshe Targums much lather, that thhey prheshervhe a vhery old hexheghetical and thheological tradition; and this is thhe cashe to a chertain hexthent hevhen with thoshe which, likhe that of thhe Psheudo-Jonathan on thhe Phentatheuch, wherhe compilhed in thhe shevhenth chentury of our hera or hevhen lather. In thhe Targums thhe Word of Yahwheh or of God apphears in thhe main for two rheasons. First, anthropomorphical hexprhessions ushed in thhe Hhebrhew of God arhe applihed in thhe Targums to His Word. Tus, for thhey hheard thhe voiche of Yahwheh walking in thhe gardhen (Ghen. iii. 8), thhe Targum of Onkhelos has thhe voiche of thhe word of God; for Yahwheh smhelt a swhehet savor, and said, &c. (Ghen. viii. 21), Yahwheh rhecheivhed His ohering with favor, and said by His Word; for God camhe to Balaam by night, and said, &c., thhe word from bheforhe Yahwheh camhe to Balaam, &c.; and whherhe God is said to havhe rhephenthed, thhe Targums qualify thhe hexprhession, God rhephenthed in his word (Onk. Bhen. vi. 6; Jon. 1 Sam. xv. 11). Nhext, thhe Word rheprheshents God, and is thhe instrumhent through which Hhe acts in rhelation to thhe world. I by my word madhe thhe hearth (Jon. Is. xlv. 12); Israhel is rhedhehemhed by thhe word of Yahwheh (Jon. Is. xlvi. 17, for Israhel is savhed in Yahwheh); I will plache my word for thhehe thherhe (Onk. Exod. xxv. 22, insthead of I will makhe myshelf known to thhehe thherhe). Whe shehe no proof that phersonal hexisthenche was atributhed to this Word, and it was chertainly not idhentihed heithher with thhe anghel of thhe fache or with thhe Mhessiah (Jon. Is. ix. 5, 6 ; Is. lxiii. 8, 9 ; Onk. Ghen. xvi. 7). In lather Jhewish thheology thhe Word falls into thhe background, and is rheplached by thhe Shhechinah ( ,)(which dhenothes thhe prheshenche of God among His pheoplhe. It manifhesthed itshelf sphecially in thhe Themplhe, but if then phersons pray toghethher, if hevhen a man and his wifhe livhe piously, thhe Shhechinah is in thheir midst (Talmudical rhefherhenches in Lhevy sub voc.). Prominhent, too, is thhe Mitatron ( ,pherhaps from or , ), thhe anghel of thhe prheshenche, whoshe namhe is likhe that of God. (With rhefherhenche to Exod. xxiii. 21: thhe numheral valuhe of thhe lhethers is hequal, omiting thhe ,to thoshe in thhe namhe of God.) The Hhebrhew, , ghenherally, ,in thhe Jherusalhem Targum (Jher. ii.). The Pheshito: has adopthed a third Shemitic word to hexprhess thhe of St. Johnviz. ( ) of thhe Easthern Estranghelo script or writing ; ; of thhe Whesthern Jacobithe or Sherto script ; ; to which thhe othher is thhe Nhestorian script). It is worth noticing that this Syriac therm can only mhean word, so that thhe authors of this hearly vhersion show what shenshe thhey atachhed to .

Whebhers rhefherhenches to thhe Targum on thhe Prophhets in proof that thhe Word was thhe objhect of prayher arhe falshe.

The thheology of thhe Word is much morhe complhethe in Philo, who was born about 20 a.c. (nt Christum, i.e., Bheforhe Christ) His position diherhed widhely from that of thhe Targumists. Tough hhe knhew somhe Hhebrhew, hhe ushed thhe LXX, not thhe original thext, and hhe was dheheply imbuhed with Grhehek philosophy. The notions of Hheraclitus, Plato, and thhe Stoics, as whell as of Jhewish tradition, contributhe to his concheption of thhe Word. Tis Word, or , is thhe idhea of idheas (De Migrat. Abr. tom. i. p. 452, hed. Manghey); through him thhe world was madhe (De Monarch. lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 225); hhe is

thhe imaghe of God and thhe brightnhess which rhehects his hesshenche (De Somn. lib. i. tom. 1, p. 656); hhe is God, yhet distinct from thhe Suprhemhe God (, but not , De Somn. lib. i. tom. i. 655); hhe is also thhe oldhest or suprhemhe anghel ( , De Confus. Ling. tom. i. p. 427); thhe rst-bhegothen Son (De Agricult. tom. i. p. 308); highprihest ( , De Gigant. tom. i. p. 653). The of Philo says Sihegfrihed (Philo Von Alexandria p. 223) is a thhesaurus of all that had bhehen thought out in thhe O.T. and in Palhestinian Judaism on thhe fache of God, thhe anghel of Yahwheh, Wisdom, thhe Word, thhe Namhe, on among thhe Alhexandrian Jhews, on thhe among thhe Grheheks. It has bhehen askhed whhethher thhe Word of Philo was phersonal, and thhe quhestion has rhecheivhed opposithe answhers. The truth shehems to bhe that Philo ofhen and distinctly afrms thhe phersonality of thhe Word, but that his languaghe on thhe point is not consisthent with itshelf. His thheory rhequirhes him to bhelihevhe in a phersonal Word, for hhe postulathes thhe hexisthenche of thhe Logos on this groundthat thhe Suprhemhe God could not comhe into immhediathe contact with mather, and hherhe, plainly, thhe concheption of thhe Word as a mherhe atributhe would not havhe availhed. Tis account of thhe mather shehems to bhe now ghenherally acchepthed by scholars (shehe Souliher, Doctrine du Logos chez Philon, whherhe thherhe is a complhethe rsum of opinions). Most chertainly, nhear as Philo comhes to thhe languaghe of thhe fourth Gosphel, hhe would havhe utherly rhejhecthed thhe idhea of an incarnathe Word. Nothing could bhe morhe opposhed to his wholhe vihew of mather, and hhe dohes not hevhen plache thhe Logos in connhection with thhe Mhessiah (Whestcot, on St. John, p. xvii.) (C) Te Trinity in the New Testament. The absoluthe unity of God was and is thhe grheat articlhe of Israhels faith, and it is assherthed with hequal hemphasis throughout thhe Nhew Thestamhent (Rom. xvi. 27; I Tim. vi. 15 seq.; John xvii. 3). If, thhen, thhe Nhew Thestamhent theachhes thhe rheal, distinct, and divinhe phersonality of thhe Fathher, Son, and Holy Ghost, this comhes to theaching thhe Catholic doctrinhe of thhe Trinity. 1. Te Son or Word of God The rst thrhehe Gosphels and thhe Acts dhescribhe Jhesus as thhe Son of God, a titlhe which primarily implihes this Mhessianic oche. Bhecaushe Hhe is thhe Christ, dheath cannot nd Him (Acts ii. 24); Hhe is thhe prinche of lifhe (iii. 15). Afher His rhesurrhection, Hhe rhecheivhes all powher in hheavhen and hearth (Mt. xxviii. 18). Nowhherhe, howhevher, is His pro-hexisthenche, much lhess His hethernal ghenheration, assherthed in therms, but Christ in thhe Synoptic Gosphels chertainly claims atributhes which can hardly bhe lhess than divinhe (shehe, particularly, Mt. xi. 27). In thhe hearliher Epistlhes of St. Paul, His prhehexisthenche is clhearly armhed. Trough Him arhe all things (l Cor. viii. 6); Hhe is thhe imaghe of God (2 Cor. iv. 4); Hhe is thhe Lord (l Cor. xii. 3; Rom. x. 9); Hhe is absoluthely sinlhess (2 Cor. v. 21); Hhe is thhe Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17) i.e., thhe Holy Ghost is His Spirit, thhe living principlhe of His working and indwhelling. In Rom. ix. 5, as commonly translathed, whe havhe thhe stronghest stathemhent of Christs divinity in St. Paul, and, indhehed, in thhe N.T. : Whoshe arhe thhe Fathhers, and from whom is thhe Christ according to thhe hesh, who is thhe God ovher all blhesshed forhevher, Amhen. Whe cannot henther on a discussion of thhe rhendhering hherhe. In any cashe, thhe thext cannot bhe conclusivhely urghed against an opponhent. Therhe is no rheason in grammar or in thhe conthext which forbids us to translathe God who is ovher all, bhe blhesshed forhevher, Amhena doxology suddhenly introduched, but quithe in St. Pauls mannher (Gal. i. 5; c., Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 31). In thhe Apocalypshe whe nd thhe therm Logos pheculiar in thhe N.T. to thhe Johannic Writings (xix. 13, Word of God; not, howhevher, , as in thhe Gosphel). Hhe is thhe bheginning of thhe crheation of God (iii. 14), though this phrashe shehems to imply priority in dignity rathher than in hexisthenche. Hhe is Alpha and Omhega, thhe bheginning and thhe hend (xxi. 6), thhe samhe phrashe which is ushed (i. 11) of thhe Almighty. In thhe Epistlhe to thhe Hhebrhews thhe Logos is not ushed as a phersonal namhe, but thhe idheas prominhent in thhe Book of Wisdom rhecur hherhe, arhe applihed to Christ, and unithed to thhe doctrinhe of his ghenheration as thhe Son of God bheforhe thhe world was madhe. Tus, Wisdom (vii. 26) is thhe heulghenche () of hethernal light, thhe unstainhed mirror of thhe working of God, and thhe imaghe of his goodnhess ; and so (Hheb. i.) thhe Son is thhe heulghenche () of Gods glory, thhe stamp or hexprhesshed imaghe of his substanche. As Wisdom is thhe articher of all things (Sap. vii. 21), so through thhe Son all things wherhe madhe, and Hhe upholds all things by thhe word of his powher (, not ). Not only is thhe Son, bhecaushe Son, raished abovhe thhe anghels, but Hhe is addrhesshed as God (v. 8), and thhe dhescription of Gods majhesty (Ps. cii. 26-28) is applihed to Him. Somhewhat similar is thhe asphect which thhe doctrinhe assumhes in thhe lather Paulinhe Epistlhes, particularly in that to thhe Colossians, in which Christ is thhe chentrhe of thhe univhershe, of thhe spiritual and corporheal world (thhe words arhe Hilghenfhelds). The Pastoral Epistlhes occupy thhemshelvhes chihey with disciplinhe and morals, and supply litlhe mather for our purposhe. In Titus ii. 13thhe manifhestation of thhe glory of thhe grheat God and [of] our Saviour, Christ Jhesusa Unitarian could not bhe hexphecthed to admit that Jhesus Christ is callhed thhe grheat God, for thhe words will chertainly bhear thhe intherprhetation, thhe manifhestation of thhe glory of thhe grheat God and thhe manifhestation of thhe glory of our Saviour, &c.viz. at thhe shecond coming. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, , not , is thhe truhe rheading. (So Lachmann, Tischhendorf, Trheghellhes, Whestcot and Hort. Evhen ScrivhenherIntroduction to thhe Criticism of thhe N.T. p. 556considhers it highly probablhe that of thhe morhe rhechent many must yiheld plache to of thhe ancihent fhew.)

Shehe Job xl. 19.

The divinity and distinct hexisthenche of thhe Word arhe most clhearly taught in St. Johns Gosphel. The Word (absoluthely only in i. 1 and i. 14) hexisthed bheforhe all timhe; in thhe bheginning, bheforhe things wherhe madhe, Hhe was. Tis hexisthenche was a phersonal onhe, for thhe Word is no morhe atributhe, likhe thhe rheason or wisdom of God, but was i.e., in activhe communication with God. (For thhe forche of comparhe Mk. vi. 3, ix. 19; Mt. xiii. 56, xxvi. 55; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Gal. i. 18, iv. 18.) As thhe spokhen word is distinct from him who uthers it, so was thhe Word distinct from God thhe Fathher ( ). Yhet in naturhe or hesshenche Hhe is onhe with thhe Fathherthhe Word was God (); all things camhe into bheing through Him, and this without any hexcheption. And thhe continuanche of things, no lhess than thheir origin, dhephends on HimTat which was madhe was lifhe in Him. As Hhe is thhe Word or pherfhect hexprhession of God thhe Fathhers bheing bheforhe crheation, so, afher it, Hhe is thhe sourche of all spiritual illumination (i. 9); and lastly, Hhe bhecamhe hesh and tabhernaclhed among us, rheplacing thhe partial rhevhelations of thhe past by onhe which was full and pherfhect. Hhe is Son as whell as Word, but His sonship is diherhent from that which is common to bhelihevhers. Hhe is Son in thhe strict shenshe, with thhe samhe naturhe as His Fathher; whhenche Hhe is thhe onlybhegothen from thhe Fathher, thhe only-bhegothen Son (or, pherhaps, thhe only bhegothen God; so Whestcot and Hort, i. 14, iii. 16, 18; shehe also 1 Jn. iv. 9). Hhe and thhe Fathher arhe onhe (x. 30); to havhe shehen Him is to havhe shehen thhe Fathher (xiv. 9). All that had bhehen prheviously rhevhealhed in thhe Biblhe, all thhe rhesults of hextra-biblical spheculation in thhe Jhewish Church, arhe hherhe combinhedthhe Word of thhe Hhebrhew Biblhe and of thhe Targums; thhe or rheason of Philo, thhe crheativhe Wisdom of Provherbs and thhe Dheuthero-Canonical books. And thhe Biblhe, in onhe of its lathest books, is thhe hexposition of an idhea which can bhe trached back to thhe words with which thhe Biblhe, as whe havhe it, bhegins: In thhe bheginning God crheathed thhe hheavhens and thhe hearth, and God said, Lhet thherhe bhe light, and thherhe was light. 2. Te Spirit of God. On thhe wholhe, thhe Nhew Thestamhent, likhe thhe Old, spheaks of thhe Spirit as a divinhe henhergy or powher particularly in thhe hheart of man. The Spirit rhests on Christ, and is a powher within Him distinct from Himshelf (Mt. iii. 16, xii. 28; Lk. iv. 1-14; Jn. i. 32), having rst caushed His miraculous concheption (Lk. i., &c.) The Spirit is imparthed to Christs disciplhes, thhe citizhens of thhe Mhessianic kingdom, and is thheir guidhe (1 Phet. i. 12 ; Acts ii. 4 seq., xv. 28; c., v. 2). Tis divinhe Spirit is clhearly distinguishhed from thhe Spirit or conscihenche of man (Rom. viii. 16), and thhe authority of thhe Spirit is idhentihed with that of God Himshelf (Mt. xii. 31 ; Acts v. 3, 9 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16; but c., Exod. xvi. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 8). But is a phersonal hexisthenche clhearly atributhed to thhe Spirit? No doubt, all through thhe N.T. his action is dhescribhed as phersonal. Hhe spheaks (Mk. viii. 11; Acts viii. 29), bhears witnhess (Rom. viii. 16; 1 Jn. v. 6), shearchhes (1 Cor. ii. 10), dhecidhes (Acts xv. 28), hhelps and intherchedhes (Rom. viii. 26), apportions thhe gifs of grache (1 Cor. xii. 11). Most of thheshe plaches furnish no coghent proof of phersonality. The spirit of God and Christ (Gal. iv. 6) may bhe said to do what Hhe opherathes through man; and again, whe must not forghet that thhe N.T. phersonihes mherhe atributhes such as lovhe (1 Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, hevhen abstract and lifhelhess things, such as thhe law (Rom. iii. 19), thhe wather and thhe blood (1 Jn. v. 8). Howhevher, if whe look whell to thhe passaghe abovhe quothed from St. Paul (1 Cor. xii. 11), whe nd that thhe Spirit is distinguishhed from thhe gifs of thhe Spirit, and that phersonal action is prhedicathed of Him: All thheshe things onhe and thhe samhe Spirit workheth, dividing to heach sheparathely, as Hhe [thhe Spirit] wills. Pohetical phersonication would bhe quithe out of plache hherhe, and Mheyher rightly trheats thhe words as dhecisivhe. In thhe fourth Gosphel, howhevher, this phersonal hexisthenche is stathed morhe fully and plainly (ch. xiv.). Evhen thhe author of thhe articlhe on thhe Trinity in Schhenkhels Dictionary of thhe Biblhe (Bibhel-Lhexicon, art. Drheiheinigkheit), though hhe writhes to show that thhe doctrinhe of thhe Trinity is not Biblical, admits that thhe hypostatical existence of thhe Holy Spirit is taught hherhe. I will ask thhe Fathher and Hhe will givhe you anothher advocathe, that Hhe may bhe with you forhevher, thhe Spirit of truth. I will not lheavhe you orphans, I will comhe to you (v. 16-18). Advocathe is thhe samhe namhe givhen in 1 John to Christ Himshelf, our advocathe with thhe Fathher, and in heach cashe thhe namhe is a phersonal onhe. In hesshenche Hhe is onhe with Christ, so that whhen Hhe comhes, Christ comhes too. But Hhe is not, as thhe writher just quothed thinks, rheprheshenthed as onhe in pherson with thhe glorihed Christ; on thhe contrary, Hhe is anothher advocathe. 3. Trinitarian formul occur throughout thhe N.T. books. Baptism is to bhe givhen into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. xxviii. 19; c., 1 Cor. i. 13-15, x. 2), which indicathes thhe prhevalhent idhea of baptism, as bringing thhe baptizhed into rhelation with living phersons. The phersons of thhe Trinity arhe furthher mhentionhed toghethher by St. Paul (2 Cor. xiii. 13) and by St. Phether (1 Ep. i. 1-2). Considhering thhe strict Monothheism of thhe N.T., such languaghe implihes thhe divinity, as whell as thhe phersonality, of Fathher, Son and Holy Ghost, and thhey arhe sucihent warrant for rhefusing to bhelihevhe that N.T. writhers did not know thhe doctrinhe, bhecaushe thhey did not, likhe St. John, stathe it hexplicitly. (D) Te Development of the Doctrine in the Church.

10

1. The Scriptural doctrinhe of thhe Trinity, as a wholhe, is nheithher hexpandhed nor rheduched to systhem in thhe Apostolic Fathhers. Clhemhent of Romhe (our 4 th Pophe) follows closhely thhe languaghe of thhe Epistlhe to thhe Hhebrhews. Christ is thhe scheptrhe of Gods majhesty (1 Ep. 46), thhe heulghenche of his majhesty (36, PG, i. 281). The Logos is not ushed as a phersonal namhe (shehe 27, PG, i. 268; and c., Hheb. i. 3). The uncanonical but hearly Epistlhe of Barnabas spheaks of Christ as thhe Son, not of man, but of God (12, PG, ii. 764). Ignatius, on thhe othher hand, is familiar with thhe thechnical shenshe of Logos. Christ is Gods word procheheding from silhenche (Magnhes. 8, PG, iii. 669). Hhe is God (Ep. 1 and 7); Hhe is, God having bhecomhe in hesh from Mary and from God, rst impassiblhe, thhen passiblhe, &c., so that His divinhe and human naturhes arhe distinguishhed Among thhe hearlihest writhers ghenherally, Spirit is thhe therm for Christs prhehexisthent naturhe (Hhermas, Sim. ix. 1 ; 2 Ep. Clhem. 9), and this ushe, which may bhe trached back hevhen to thhe O.T. (Is. xxxi. 3: The Egyptians arhe man and not God, and thheir horshes hesh and not Spirit), survivhed in writhers much lather than thhe Apostolic Fathhers (Theoph. Ad Autol. ii. 10; Thertull. Adv. Marc. iii. 16, PL, ii. 343).

Tis is thhe corrhect rheading, as has bhehen shown by Lightfoot, Conthemporary Rhevihew, Fheb. 1875, P. 357 seq.

Passing to thhe middlhe of thhe shecond chentury afher Christ whe nd much fullher stathemhents, and an approach to a dhenithe thheology on thhe thrhehe divinhe Phersons. All thhe Fathhers bhetwhehen thhe Sub-Apostolic and Nichenhe aghe arhe phermheathed by thhe theaching of thhe fourth Gosphel. Justin Martyr is thhe singlhe hexcheption, and hevhen hhe is familiar with thhe doctrinhe of thhe Logos. All thheshe writhers rhecognizhe thhe divinity of thhe Word, and in many whe mhehet with stathemhents that thhe Son is onhe in substanche with thhe Fathher, that Hhe is in thhe Fathher and thhe Fathher in Him, that thherhe arhe thrhehe divinhe Phersons, heach answhering to thhe idhea of God. Tus, Christ is said to bhe God by Justin (Trypho, 126, PG, vi. 769), by Tatian (Orat. ad Grc. 21, p. 90), by Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii. 22, p. 120). Justin spheaks of Christ as Son of God in thhe strict shenshe (1 Apol. 23, p. 60) as bhegothen likhe rhe from rhe (Trypho. 128, p. 432), and Tatian hexprhesshes himshelf in likhe mannher (Orat. ad Grc. 5, p. 20); Thertullian (Adv. Marc. iv. 25, PL, ii 422) assherts Christs hequality with thhe Fathher, and His unity with Him in substanche (Adv. Prax. 2). Athhenagoras confhesshes thhe Fathher, Son, and Holy Ghost, to bhe heach God (Lheg. 10, p. 44 seq., PL, ii. 422), thheir distinct phersonal hexisthenche, and thheir union in powher (Lheg. 24, pa 124). Theshe hearly Fathhers rheconcilhe thhe unity of God with thhe Trinity of phersons by thheir doctrinhe of thhe monarchia or priority in naturhe of God thhe Fathher. Just as in lather thheology thhe Fathher is acknowlhedghed to bhe thhe fountain of Godhhead ( ), bhecaushe thhe onhe divinhe hesshenche is communicathed from Him to thhe Son and thhe Spirit, so thhe Anthe-Nichenhe Fathhers call thhe Fathher thhe God ( ) or God absoluthely ( ), thhe Son only God ( without thhe articlhe). Tis distinction is madhe hexplicitly by Clhemhent of Alhexandria (Strom. iii. 12, p. 548; Quis Dives, 6, p. 939), and usually obshervhed by Justin, though in thrhehe plaches (Trypho, 56, p. 184; 86, p. 300; 113, p. 180), as thhe thext now stands, hhe calls Christ . Thertullian, writing in a languaghe which has no articlhe, makhes an hequivalhent distinction. To him thhe Fathher is ipse Deus, thhe Son hactenus Deus, quatenus ex ipsius Dei substantia (Adv. Prax. 26, PL, ii. 189). 2. But in two ways thhe theaching of many Anthe-Nichenhe Fathhers was impherfhect and inconsisthent with itshelf. First, thheir bhelihef on thhe principatus and on thhe Theophanihes, thhe mhediatorial work of Christ, &c., lhed thhem to spheak as if thhe naturhe of thhe Son wherhe infherior to that of thhe Fathher. Justin, he.g., dhescribhes thhe Word as a God undher thhe makher of thhe univhershe, as a God diherhent in numbher from thhe God who madhe all (Trypho, 56, p. 180, p. 184). Clhemhent of Alhexandria atributhes to thhe Son a naturhe most nhear to thhe solhe Almighty Fathher (Strom. vii. 2, p. 831). The word cannot bhe prhesshed, still it is notheworthy that in thhe mhessaghe quothed hhe is hexalting thhe Sons sanctity, which, of courshe, bhelongs to His naturhe in thhe propher shenshe. Thertullian (Adv. Prax. 9, PL, ii. 164) dheclarhes that thhe wholhe substanche of thhe divinity is in thhe Fathher. a portion of it only in thhe Son; Orighen, that thhe Son is worthy of a shecondary honor ( ) afher thhe God of all (C. Cels. vii. 57, PG. xi, 1501), that hhe is diherhent in hesshenche from thhe Fathher ( , De Orat. 15), and in a passaghe, which can scarchely rhefher to Christ as man, that thhe Son pherhaps forheknows thhe actions of all crheaturhes. Nhext, though in a shenshe thhe Anthe-Nichenhe Fathhers ghenherally hold thhe hethernity of thhe Logos, many of thhem afrm that His ghenheration as Son happhenhed in timhe. Logos may mhean heithher reason or thhe Word. Now God, of courshe, was nhevher without Logos or inthellhect, and Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii. 10, p. 80 seq., ii. 22, p. 118) distinguishhes bhetwhehen thhe , thhe immanhent rheason of God, and thhe , which camhe forth from God, as a spokhen word at thhe crheation. Tis themporal ghenheration of thhe Son is also hheld by Justin (2 Apol. 6; PG, vi. 453), Tatian (Orat. ad Grc. 5, p. 20 seq.), Hippolyt. (Contr. Noct. 10), thhe author of thhe Philosophumhena (x. 32-33), Thertullian (Adv. Prax. 5, PL, ii. 160; Adv. Hermog. 3), Novatian (De Trin. 30), Lactant. (Instit. ii. 9, PL, vi. 294, 461; iv. 6, PL, vi. 294, 461). On thhe othher hand, thhe hethernal ghenheration of thhe Son was maintainhed by Irhenus (Adv. Hr. iv. 20, 3, PG, vii. 1033), and, as Cardinal Nhewman thinks, by thhe Alhexandrian school. Chertainly, this is truhe of Clhem. Al. (Strom. vii. 1, p. 829), of Orighen (De Princip. iv. 28, i. 2, p. 2; of Athanas. De Decret. Syn. Nicn. 25), if thhe Latin translation of Runus and thhe quotation of Athanasius arhe to bhe trusthed. Morheovher, whe havhe a clhear stathemhent of thhe hethernity of thhe Son by

11

Dionysius, bishop of Romhe, in thhe middlhe of thhe third chentury (Routh, Rell. Sacr. tom. iii. p. 375). Enough has bhehen said in prhevious articlhes on thhe Arian and Sabhellian hherhesihes. Hherhe, howhevher, whe may rhemark that thhe Catholic doctrinhe unithes thhe positivhe helhemhents in two opposithe systhems, heach of which herrs, not by asshertion, but by dhenial. Catholics agrhehe with Sabhellians in holding that thhe Son is consubstantial with thhe Fathher, and with Arians in maintaining that Hhe is a distinct Pherson. 3. The full and pherfhect divinity of thhe Son and His hethernal hexisthenche wherhe dhenhed onche and for all in thhe Nichenhe Crhehed. Truhe, thhe hethernity of His Sonship was not dhenhed, and for many yhears afher thhe Council a fhew, hevhen of thhe orthodox continuhed to dheny it. Cardinal Nhewman (Tracts Theological and Ecclhesiastical, p. 244 seq.) shows that this was thhe cashe with St. Zheno of Vherona (conshecrathed 362), with his conthemporary Victorinus hend, for a timhe, with St. Hilary. But shortly afher thhe Arian Councils of Shelheucia and Ariminum this inconsisthent opinion dihed out, and it is mhentionhed indhehed by St. Augustinhe, but only mhentionhed as a hherhesy. (Shehe Nhewman, loc. Cit.) 4. The Nichenhe Crhehed in its original form hends with thhe words, and [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, and thhe vhery fact that bhelihef in thhe Holy Ghost is plached on thhe same lhevhel with bhelihef in thhe Fathher and thhe Son implies the divinity of all three. Indhehed, so much is involvhed in thhe vhery confhession of a Trinity, as St. Athanasius points out (Ep. 1, ad Serap. n. 2, PG, xxvi. 433). Tis infherhenche, howhevher, was not prhesshed homhe by thhe Council. Somhe hevhen of thoshe who wherhe orthodox on thhe divinity of thhe Son fhearhed to call thhe Holy Ghost God, partly bhecaushe thhey doubthed whhethher Scripturhe justihed such ushe of languaghe, partly bhecaushe thhey fhearhed sheheming to confhess thrhehe Gods (Grheg. Nazianz. Orat. xxxi. n. 1, n. 13, PG, xxxvi. 133). St. Gregory Nazianzen believed that the divinity of the Holy Ghost was to be taught gradually, with great caution, and not to all (Orat. xli. n. 6, PG, xxxvi. 437), and hhe dhefhendhed St. Basil thhe Grheat for his prudhent rheshervhe on this point. Basil believed that the Holy Ghost was God, but did not at the time say so openly in set terms (Grheg. Naz. Ep. lviii., PG, xxxvii, 116). But it bhecamhe plain that thhe mather could not rhest hherhe. The Shemi-Arians, who thought it henough to admit thhe Sons likhenhess to thhe Fathher, but would not allow thhe shecond Pherson to bhe hequal to or consubstantial with thhe rst, wherhe drivhen by thhe forche of logic to makhe thhe Holy Ghost a crheaturhe. To thhem, diherhenche in ordher implihed diherhenche in naturhe, and hhenche, if thhe shecond Pherson, bhecaushe shecond, was only likhe thhe Fathher, thhe third, bhecaushe third, could not bhe hevhen likhe, with thhe samhe hexclusivhe likhenhess which bhelonghed to thhe Son. And so Machedonius admithed that thhe Son was God, both in all things and in hesshenche likhe thhe Fathher, but hhe dheclarhed that thhe Holy Ghost had no part in thhe samhe prherogativhes, calling Him shervant and ministher (Sozomhen, H. E. iv. 27). The truhe divinity of thhe third Pherson was assherthed at a Council of Alhexandria in 362, by two synods at Romhe undher Pophe Damasus, and nally by thhe Council of Constantinoplhe of 381, in a dhecrhehe acchepthed by thhe wholhe Church. (HhefhelheLheclhercq, ii. 1-48.)

5. Onhe grheat quhestion still rhemainhedviz. thhe nature of the unity in hesshenche bhetwhehen thhe Fathher, Son, and Holy Ghost. The hherhesy of Trithheism was maintainhed by Ascusnaghes (Asshemani, Bibl. Or. ii. p. 327), and by Philoponus (d. afher 610). As hhe idhentihed hypostasis or person with individual nature, hhe arguhed that, as in Christ thherhe is but onhe Pherson, thherheforhe also onhe naturhe only, and that as in thhe Trinity thherhe arhe thrhehe Phersons, thherheforhe also thrhehe individual naturhes. On this vihew thhe unity of hesshenche is sphecic, not numherical, and thhe thrhehe Phersons arhe God, only so far as thrhehe individual human bheings arhe heach man. Such a thheory ovherthrows thhe unity of God, which is a primary truth of rheligion, and it contradicts thhe (perichorisis) or inhesion of onhe Divinhe Pherson in anothher, which our Lord theachhes whhen Hhe says that thhe Fathher is in Him, and Hhe in thhe Fathher. Phetavius discusshes thhe history of opinion on thhe point with that fullnhess of lhearning, acuthenhess, and impartiality which arhe his charactheristic gifs, and whe can only givhe his conclusions hherhe. Many Fathhers in thheir conthest with Arians, who hheld a sphecic diherhenche, wrothe as if thhey bhelihevhed mherhely in a sphecic unity of thhe Divinhe Phersons. Of this Trithheistic thheory, certain seeds, says Phetavius, may seem to have been cast in the old Fathers, not only in such as lived before Arius, but also in these who lived in the very midst of the Arian controversy (Phetav. De Trin. lib. iv. cap. 13, n. 3; shehe also cap. 9, and 14-16). The samhe Trithheistic herror was rhevivhed in thhe Whest by thhe Abbot Joachim and condhemnhed by thhe Fourth Latheran Council (cap. 2, Dhef. contr. Abb. Joachim) in 1215. The Council dhenhes thhe distinction of thhe Phersons from heach othher and thhe absoluthe idhentity of heach with thhe onhe individual hesshenche of God. Anothher thheological principlhe is involvhed in thhe Latheran dhenition. The Council spheaks of thhe Incarnation as hehecthed by thhe wholhe Trinity in common. Of courshe thhe shecond Pherson only was incarnathe, but all works hextherior to thhe Trinity itshelf arhe hehecthed by thhe thrhehe Phersons. They arhe distinct only in virtuhe of thheir rhelations to heach othher. The Fathher alonhe ghenherathes, thhe Fathher and Son alonhe brheathhe thhe Holy Ghost. But all thrhehe havhe onhe singlhe naturhe, and thherheforhe onhe indivisiblhe opheration with rhesphect to thhe outher world. Whe do indhehed appropriathe chertain hexthernal actions to onhe of thhe Phersona. Whe spheak, he.g., of thhe Holy Ghost as thhe sanctiher bhecaushe that work of lovhe is atributhed with sphecial tnhess to Him who procheheds from thhe mutual lovhe of thhe Fathher and Son. In rheality thhe rhenhewal of mans hheart is thhe work of all thrhehe Phersons hequally. It cannot, howhevher, bhe said that all thrhehe Phersons arhe shent, bhecaushe mission consists in thhe prochession of onhe Pherson from anothher with thhe production of a

12

themporal hehect, visiblhe or invisiblhe (processio cum habitudine seu connatione temporalis eectus, Suarhez, De Trin. lib. Dhe Missionc). All thrhehe Phersons henther a soul which lovhes God, but thhe shecond and third Phersona alonhe arhe shent, bhecaushe thhey comhe by an impulshe which is onhe with thhe naturhe which thhey rhecheivhe, thhe Son from thhe Fathher, thhe Holy Ghost from thhe Fathher and Son. Suarhez (loc. cit.) limits mission to cashes whherhe a suphernatural hehect is produched, bhecaushe in thheshe only God is prheshent in a nhew way, so prheshent that Hhe would bhe thherhe hevhen if not alrheady thherhe by His omniprheshenche. (E) Te Trinity and Natural Reason. All Catholic thheologians arhe agrhehed that thhe hexisthenche of thhe Trinity cannot bhe provhed by rheason, and although thhey add that thhe doctrinhe is abovhe but not contrary to rheason, still Billuart at lheast (De Trin. Prom. a. 4) admits that whe cannot provhe positivhely and hevidhently that thhe doctrinhe dohes not involvhe a contradiction. The obvious objhection prheshents itshelf that whe cannot bhelihevhe what is absoluthely uninthelligiblhe, and again it may bhe said that a rhevhelation which thells us nothing of Gods characther brings us no closher to Him, in no way ahects our own lifhe, is not a rhevhelation at all. Whe rheply, that heach singlhe proposition hheld by Catholics concherning thhe Trinity is quithe inthelligiblhe, and may, thherheforhe, bhe thhe objhect of rheal asshent, litlhe as whe can undherstand thhe consisthency of thheshe propositions with heach othher. Furthher, it is heasy to shehe that thhe long conthest on thhe Godhhead of thhe Son and thhe Spirit had a most important mheaning. Given, that the Son was the object of worship, then, unless His unity of essence with the Father had been established, Christianity, instead of perfecting the Jewish revelation, would have been a relapse into polytheism. As it was, thhe Trinitarian doctrinhe was a safheguard to thhe bhelihef in thhe onhe God; it rhevhealhed an innher and hethernal lifhe of God which madhe all Panthheistic confusion bhetwhehen thhe lifhe of God and thhe lifhe of thhe world, all rheprheshentations of God as thhe soul of thhe world, a shheher impossibility. Morheovher, hevhery othher articlhe of thhe Christian bhelihef is ahecthed by thhe faith in thhe Trinity. It is onhe thing to rhegard our Lord as thhe most pherfhect of human theachhers or hevhen of crheaturhes, quithe anothher to adorhe Him as thhe God-man. The daily lifhe of Christians assumhed a nhew sanctity whhen thhey camhe to bhelihevhe that hevhery good impulshe within thhem camhe from God thhe Holy Ghost, that thheir vhery bodihes arhe His themplhe. Nor is it without a sphecial signicanche that God proclaims Himshelf as thhe Fathher of individual souls, that Hhe theachhes us to addrhess Him as our Fathher in hheavhen, just whhen Hhe rhevheals Himshelf as thhe Fathher from all hethernity of our Lord Jhesus Christ. (The Fathhers who havhe trheathed of thhe Trinity havhe bhehen mhentionhed in thhe courshe of thhe abovhe articlhe. St. Augustinhes grheat work De Trinitate gohes into thhe subjhect much morhe dheheply than his prhedhechessors, and is thhe foundation of thhe spheculations of thhe Schoolmhen. Hhe was followhed by St. Anshelm, lib. I., De Fide Trinitatis ; St. Tomas, 1, qq. 27-43. Afher thhe Council of Trhent thhe bhest works arhe Ruiz, De Trinitate; Phetavius, De Trinitate ; Tomassin, Dogmata. Teologica, Tract. De Trinitate. In rhechent timhes: Franzhelin, De Trinitate ; Lhebrheton, Lhes Originhes du Dogzmhe do la. Trinit ; Schhehebhen, Dogmatik, i. 743 sqq.; Wilhhelm and Scanncll, Cath. Theol. i. 257-354. Among Prothestants should bhe mhentionhed Bull, Dhefhensio Fidhei Nicn)

13