was the only absolute way of thinking of the Holy Trinity. Nor let any one suppose that this addition to theology was a small one, or had little influence on the Faith. The right mode of scientific thought is inseparable from the right mode of belief. The relative value of the two modes of conceiving the Unity of the Trinity as a generic or a numerical oneness, is all-important. The former may be used as an analogy, helping us to understand the truth; but if a man stops short at it, he becomes a heretic. The identity of Substance is the truth; and the authoritative definition of it as such at Nicæa was an addition to the knowledge of very many Christians, though no addition to what the Apostles had explicitly taught.

3. We cannot consider the description which Kuhn has given of the course of development to have proved the inexorable necessity of a passage through the stages, which he no doubt in general correctly enumerates. One fact, which he has himself pointed out without seeing its bearing, ought to have modified his view. Kuhn* thus states the facts of the case:-"Not a single ante-Nicene Father taught that the substance of the Son was foreign to that of the Father; but only a few (such as Callistus and Dionysius of Rome) raised. themselves up to the concept of Consubstantiality, and held thoroughly to it throughout their teaching." It is strange that he did not see that there was no such fatal necessity to pass through stages of imperfect teaching, since some actually did not pass through them. One Church at least, on his own showing, was raised up above the laws of development, and that was the Church of Rome.

Not in a spirit of captious controversy, but in deep earnestness and charity we recommend this fact to Mr. Liddon's consideration. We know that he loves the Faith; his book, with all its faults, shows a profound enthusiasm for the Person of Jesus. He is, however, unjust to and rebellious against the Roman Church, as though it had taught new doctrine in defining the Immaculate Conception. But so far at least as his case is concerned, the parallel is complete. Some Fathers in the third century not only deny the expression "Consubstantial," but show that they have an inadequate conception of the doctrine by statements perfectly at variance with it. Nevertheless, we believe that it was the Church's doctrine, nay, her explicit doctrine at the beginning, though not from the beginning promulgated as strictly of faith. In like manner S. Thomas denies the Immaculate Conception in

* i. 172.

the thirteenth century; in spite of this we believe that it was taught by the Apostles, and left as a part of the deposit with the Church. Again, the difficulties felt by S. Dionysius in receiving at once the oμooúotov as the one truth were scientific; he did not see how it harmonized with the real distinction between the Father and the Son. In like manner, the hesitation of S. Thomas was scientific; he could not understand how the Immaculate Conception could be reconciled with the real redemption of Mary. Lastly, who taught the clear and complete dogma of the Holy Trinity from the beginning? The Church of Rome. Who, while Alexandria wavered and Antioch denied it, unequivocally inculcated it, though he may not have promulgated it throughout the Church? The successor of S. Peter. This is a most pregnant fact; for, be it remembered, facts are dogmatic in matters of Faith. What is, is a guide to what ought to be. Fact and theory go together. Now we find from the first a theory that Apostolical Churches are especially the standards of faith imposed, and Rome more than all others. This is the very least that can be conveyed by the words of S. Irenæus and even of Tertullian. Various Churches have the Catholic tradition; Rome has the whole tradition. What can this mean except that Rome is the developing authority in the Church? Such is the theory; now what is the fact? The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was more fully and completely taught at Rome in the third century than anywhere else. Right and fact go together. Rome was meant to be the teacher of the Church, and she did teach the Church. This fact occurs perpetually in ecclesiastical history. A hundred years before Nicæa, Rome had fought and won its battle against what was afterwards Arianism by condemning Hippolytus. It is true of the doctrine defined at Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as at Nicæa. In every case the result is the same; the doctrine proposed by Rome, however Rome herself may wait, ends by being accepted by the whole Church. Let us compare the two letters extant written by S. Dionysius of Alexandria. In the first letter he uses expressions afterwards distinctly condemned at Nicæa as Arian. In the second he asserts the Consubstantiality of the Son. What had happened in the meanwhile? The Sovereign Pontiff had spoken, and the Patriarch of Alexandria submits. In like manner S. Thomas denies the Immaculate Conception, and a long debate ensues. There is as much discussion as about the

* Ista quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt. De Præs. Hæret. 36.

óμоoúσiov. The Roman Church tolerated for a time the denial of the doctrine concerning Mary, without ever ceasing, as the Bull Ineffabilis declares, to defend, vindicate, and assert that doctrine; but its voice became ever stronger and more clear. Pius IX. was enabled, in the Bull Ineffabilis, to recount the steps taken by his predecessors, ever to intimate their own view on the doctrine. At length the time came when he could proclaim that to be of faith which all Catholics already believed.

In conclusion, we now sum up, in a few words, the results of our inquiry. The facts to be accounted for are these. In the third century a large and important school of theologians, comprising not only suspicious writers, like S. Hippolytus and Origen, but even S. Dionysius of Alexandria, teaches not Arianism, but something which may be called Tritheism. Does this prove that the doctrine of the Consubstantiality of the Divine Word is not an Apostolic tradition, but an addition to the faith made in the fourth century? Certainly not: first, because this teaching was unknown to earlier times; secondly, because they themselves, except perhaps S. Hippolytus, in simpler statements teach the truth; thirdly, because the Roman Church, at least on two occasions, in the condemnation of S. Hippolytus and in the letter of S. Dionysius of Rome, explicitly teaches the ὁμοούσιον. What, however, do the facts prove, and how are they to be accounted for? What theory will take in the double fact of the Apostolic origin of the doctrine of Consubstantiality and of the contrary teaching of such a man as S. Dionysius the Great? The Anglican theory is that the difference between the Pope and the school of Alexandria was merely verbal; a theory contrary to fact, and only to be maintained on Dean Mansel's view that theological terms do not stand for thoughts. The Hegelian theory is, that Christianity, being a collection of ideas, must necessarily involve a process of real change, each step of which is as true as another; consequently that Pope and Patriarch were contradictory and both equally true. The Catholic view is that the whole Faith was delivered once for all to the Apostles, and has never changed, but that its contents have been elucidated through the decrees of the infallible Church. The particular theory which has been advocated by us in order to express this doctrine is that of development, which may be defined to be the evolution of judgments out of ideas wholly conveyed by the teaching of the Apostles. The process of this development we have found to consist of three stages. First, the teaching of the Apostles conveyed to their successors an idea of the Holy Trinity, the legitimate analysis of which is

all that is now held to be de fide on the subject. Of course this idea could only be conveyed through some express teaching, a part of which was, as we believe, in equivalent terms, the ὁμοούσιον. Secondly, there came a period, which we may call the scientific. In the first stage the doctrine was held unsystematically, or without reflection on its place in the system of theology. As the Unity of God may be held together with the multiplicity of attributes, without reflection on the fact that it is the highest truth, before which multiplicity must disappear, so the identity of Substance was held without its being perceived that it is the truth, before which the notion of a generic unity must vanish and be acknowledged as an imperfection. In this second stage, some theologians did not perceive the supremacy of this truth, and were in danger of Tritheism, by giving undue weight to the view of a generic unity of hypostases. This was a period of confusion, in which a wrong theology was endangering the faith. Thirdly, came the period of Nicæa, when the Church brought theology into harmony with the original idea, and imposed the oμoovolov authoritatively, as the only concept which was absolutely true. It was the old truth with the important scientific advance, that it alone was the concept which adequately expressed the reality, while all others, which had hitherto been used side by side with it, were most imperfect representations, which must either be corrected or excluded by it. It was the old Apostolic doctrine, but it was now the result of a process by which it was ascertained that of the two rival views of unity, the numerical and generic, the former was the truth; the latter, if held alone, was false.

After all, we are so conscious of the difficulties of the subject, that we, in all sincerity, wish the foregoing pages to be considered only as an essay towards a theory for others to complete. Of two facts, however, we are certain. First, it is possible to assert that the Church from the beginning inculcated, if she did not promulgate, the ouooúσiov; but only possible on the Catholic hypothesis that the teaching of the Church of Rome, the centre of unity, is the true standard of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The only one of the three great original Patriarchal Sees which without a break and without hesitation taught the oμoovolov, at least in equivalent terms, was that of Rome. In other words, the whole history of the óμоovolov proves that no argument can be drawn against the Apostolicity of a tradition, because in some places it is denied; and that from the very earliest times the only guarantee for orthodoxy was submission to the Holy See. Secondly, as there was from the first an idea of the Holy

Trinity, and of the Sacred Humanity, remaining one, notwithstanding variations of conception and of expression, so there was also from the first impressed on the mind of the Church the idea of Mary. It was seen in the visions of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus. It found expression on the lips of S. Justina when her chastity was in danger. It persuaded S. Irenæus of the salvation of the guilty Eve. It consoled Saints in the wilderness. It had its poet in S. Ephrem; its preacher in many a Saint. It was a power in the Church. It was like nothing else, being the idea of a Virgin and Mother of God. It was one and integral, in spite of variations. It was too real to be turned aside, even by so great a Doctor as S. Thomas Aquinas. Its legitimate development, which it contained from the first, is the Immaculate Conception.

ART. III.-THE JESUITS IN CANADA.

The Jesuits in North America. By FRANCIS PARKMAN. Second Edition. Boston.

IT

T is one of the characteristics of our age, but chiefly of men outside the Church, that, doubting all else, they never doubt themselves. Every one is intimately persuaded that he is able to do everything. And this assurance, which on ordinary occasions is serene and tranquil, becomes vehement and magisterial when such men treat of the mysteries of religion, for which they have a peculiar attraction, but which to them are no mysteries at all. There are thousands in our day-the author whom we are going to notice is probably of the number-who would cheerfully engage to write a “Life of the Creator," with authentic details, and an appendix containing "Suggestions for the general improvement of all things in Heaven and on Earth," if the task were proposed to them by an enterprising publisher. Why not? To such men nothing is difficult, nothing impossible. They would teach philosophy to Aristotle, eloquence to Bossuet, and Christian doctrine to S. Francis Xavier. When some one asked Proudhon if he could not have offered some useful hints to the Almighty in designing the universe, he is said to have calmly replied, without astonishing either himself or his interlocutor, " Cela se pourrait bien."

The most notable fact in connection with non-Catholic philosophers is, that they will write about religion, though it is