[Page 231]

12

CONFESSING THE TRINITY TODAY

In this final chapter, we shall reflect upon aspects of what it means in a practical sense to confess the Holy Trinity today, recalling as we do the words of wisdom from Augustine that were quoted in the Preface.

When we speak about the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, we need to be clear what we mean.  The word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible.  For millions of Christians over the centuries the biblical doctrine of the Trinity has meant providing proof texts from the Bible for the theological statements of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds – or for the later confessions of faith and public statements of doctrine, based on the Creeds.  At the same time, because to believe that somehow three is one and one is three is contrary to normal logical thinking, there have always been those in the Catholic and Protestant traditions who have swung toward Unitarianism, Modalism, or Deism.

However, it is only in modern times, since the Enlightenment and with the development of the historical-critical method and its application to the Bible, that serious questions have been

[Page 232]

raised within the mainline churches as to what portrayal of God is actually found in the New Testament, and to what extent the early church dogma of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed is the growth of the Gospel in the soil and atmosphere of Hellenism.  There has been a swing from one extreme where the Bible is a quarry of proof texts to the other extreme where it is a book so complicated in its origins and its content that only scholars can possibly fathom its purpose and meaning.

In this book the conviction has been expressed that what the Bible provides is not a developed doctrine of the Holy Trinity and not even proof texts for developing such a doctrine.  Rather the whole of the New Testament stands as a witness to a basic Trinitarian consciousness in the hearts of the writers and of the early Christian church.  They knew the reality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their Christian experience, worship, and contemplation.  Sometimes they expressed an implicit Trinitarianism and sometimes an explicit Binitarianism.  Yet underlying these varying expressions there is a vision of YHWH as the Three, a conviction that the Father, his only Son, and his Holy Spirit are in some profound sense One.

So the church with the Old and New Testaments in its possession could only go theologically in one direction, even though the road was not straight and easy.  That direction was to confess in the ecumenical Councils the full doctrine of the Holy Trinity.  Having confessed the Holy Trinity, then the Bible was read from this doctrinal perspective and released ever deeper levels of meaning to believing hearts.

If a person is introduced to the mystery of the Holy Trinity through a careful statement of what is called the ontological or immanent Trinity (God as God is toward and unto himself) then it is not surprising if he thinks that the doctrine of the Trinity is merely an intellectual puzzle.  The first half of the Quicunque Vult, often called the Athanasian Creed, and part of the doctrinal heritage of the Western church, is primarily a brief and concise exposition of God in his substance (essence), of the Three Persons within the One Godhead.  Here is part of it.

[Page 233]

The Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance; for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.  Such the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost.  The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate.  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.  The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal.  And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal, as also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated but one uncreated and one incomprehensible, so likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty.  And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.  So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God.  And yet there are not three Gods but one God.  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Ghost is Lord.  And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.... So that in all things... the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped.¹

To read this alone and in isolation from the study of the portrayal of the Holy Trinity in Scripture and the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Patristic period is certainly to run the danger of thinking that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is merely a cerebral, intellectual extra to the Christian Faith.  Historically, the Christian in the West was introduced first to the Apostles’ Creed and its presentation of the economic Trinity and only later to the Athanasian Creed.

The Quicunque Vult was produced in the fifth century in Latin as an orthodox response to two major heresies which were plaguing the church in Gaul – Arianism and Modalism.  As such it remains valuable for the church today since Arianism and Modalism in various forms are still with us, and they have to be recognized and rejected on the solid grounds provided by this

[Page 234]

creed and the testimony of sacred Scripture.  Yet if we give the impression that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is only and solely the doctrine of the immanent or ontological Trinity then we run the risk of its confession being irrelevant to Christian worship, life, and service.  This doctrine of the Trinity appears to have no practical relevance to life in this world because it speaks of that which is outside space and time.

Unless we begin with God-as-God-is-toward-us and think first of all in terms of God in relation to us and we in relation to God, we shall miss the biblical emphasis upon the Holy Trinity.  Christians are baptized into "the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and they know the Father through the Son and in and by the Holy Spirit, even as they look to the Father through the Son and in and by the Holy Spirit.  They are led to adore the Holy Trinity and contemplate the relations between the Three Persons only because the Father has graciously called them through the Son and in and by the Spirit.  The natural way for the ontological Trinity to enter Christian experience is through contemplation.²

However, since some prevalent heresies arid errors can only be shown to be such by speaking of what we know of God in his essence, that is, reflecting upon and speaking the truth concerning the ontological Trinity, it is necessary for teachers and preachers to have the intellectual facility to move from the economic to the ontological Trinity and back again in order rightly to defend the Faith.  Practically speaking, this means that teachers and preachers must be wholly familiar with the exposition of the Holy Trinity in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and know how this teaching was incorporated into the major Protestant confessions of faith in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The major point here is that preachers and teachers need so to communicate the Faith and so direct public worship that they really and truly give the impression that the Holy Trinity is God and God is the Holy Trinity.  That is, when they speak of creation and salvation they speak of the Father through the Son and in/by the Spirit as Creator and Savior, and when they pray and worship they address the Father through the Son and in and by the Holy Spirit.  In such a context and atmosphere their hearers and congregations will recognize that we only know God-as-God-is-

[Page 235]

in-himself because by grace we know God-as-God-is-toward-us.  Then, from time to time and when occasion requires, the people will be prepared to appreciate the teaching of the Athanasian Creed – especially if they are encountering heresy.

Alisdair Heron, the Scottish Reformed theologian, has expressed the truth of this point very well.

The heart of the matter is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an abstract mathematical puzzle, not the articulation of the rhythm of life, and not the projection upon the Ultimate of the manifold triplicities that a little inspired imagination can easily suggest to us.  It arises from the fundamental recognition that Jesus Christ is Immanuel, God with us, a recognition which is itself enabled by awareness of participation in the Spirit in that same mystery.  The rhythm is that of faith and of worship, and the mystery at the center is the crucified and risen Christ, the sacrament and pledge of the reconciling and redeeming good favour of the Father extended even to us.  Yet just because he is God with us, the awareness of faith opens into recognition of the triune being of God, for nothing less is required if the truth of the Gospel is not in the last resort to be set aside.³

Christians believe in the Holy Trinity because of the Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ.

Heron continued by referring to the constant danger of Modalism (= Sabellianism):

[Page 236]

theological mind into realms too high for it, but as the doxological answer evoked in us by the divine condescension that in Christ comes down to meet us and in the Spirit bears us up from within.⁴

God’s movement is from the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit unto his creatures who are called and enabled by grace to ascend in the Spirit and through the Son unto the Father.  Only so will they become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), enjoy and glorify God forever and behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who has studied the theological controversies concerning the precise relation of the Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father will know that precision in language is important.  For example, there is, theologically speaking, a major difference in meaning between saying with the orthodox that Jesus is homoousios (consubstantial – of one and the same identical substance) with the Father and of saying with others that Jesus is homoiousios (of like substance).  The iota made a difference in the Arian controversy in the fourth century!

There is a world of difference between the now common expression, "God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," and the more traditional, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" or "God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  Here the point is that to be precise in English the definite article matters. In speaking of Yahweh-Elohim, Christians do not speak of any father but of the one, unique Father, from whom all fatherhood is derived; they do not speak of any son but of the one and only Son, begotten of the one, unique Father before all ages; and they do not speak of any spirit but of the one and only eternal Spirit, who proceeds from the one, unique Father.  From the time before the Athanasian Creed was produced, Christians have been aware of the danger of falling into Modalism – of saying that God is One Person with three Names or three forms of manifestation.  In writing and speaking in English we cannot be accused of being modalist if we speak of the glorious tran-

[Page 237]

scendence of the living God and we use carefully the definite article in naming the Blessed, Holy, and Undivided Trinity.  YHWH is not "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" but "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Many times I have heard this benediction at the end of a service: "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be upon you and remain with you always."  This sounds as though it is Almighty God who has three names!  In contrast, as handed down in Western Christianity, the authentic benediction is, "The Blessing of Almighty God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ..."  Here, as in the Nicene Creed, "God" is "the Father" and a genuine Trinity of Persons gives the Blessing.

B.B. Warfield emphasized the presence of four definite articles in our Lord’s baptismal command – "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  He wrote:

[Page 238]

The "one Name" is that of YHWH ("Jehovah" for Warfield).

Very few theologians write or speak today as did Warfield!  At this time within modern American culture people do not generally place too great an emphasis upon either clarity of speech or precision in expression.  While it can be argued that vagueness and imprecision of expression make little or no difference for the ordinary aspects of daily living, the same cannot be argued for specific areas of life.  For example, a doctor has to state precisely what medical problem he has diagnosed and to be accurate for the sake of right treatment he usually has to use words which mean little or nothing at first to the patient.  However, the patient has to learn the basics of the new vocabulary in order to know precisely what is his problem and how to make responsible decisions.

Words, phrases, and sentences about the Holy Trinity belong both to the realm of public speech (e.g., corporate worship) and also to the realm of doctrinal clarity (e.g., distinguishing truth from error).  We need to be as careful and accurate as possible in addressing and speaking of the Trinity in both spheres, reserving the full weight of technical language for the latter.  Certainly correct speech can be an empty shell but, on the other hand, it can be, should be, and must be the verbal adornment of the mystery of the living YHWH.

We can never be as those who lived before the great debates which helped to clarify the mind of the church and to produce the dogma of the Holy Trinity.  We cannot pretend that the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople did not take place.  We cannot deny the existence of the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds.  We live in a world which has known and still knows many doctrinal errors concerning the identity of God and the identity of Jesus Christ.  Yet we also live in a church which has developed a precise way of talking about God.  Surely we ought to pay attention to that (not dead but) living tradition of precise expression in words and learn gratefully from it.

If the "Name" of YHWH is revealed by God to man; and if the "Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is also

[Page 239]

revealed by God to man, then there is no room for negotiation.  The Name of the Holy Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is a given.

However, if the name of YHWH is merely the projection into the metaphysical sphere by Moses of his view of God, and if "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is the projection by Jesus and his disciples of images in their minds related to their patriarchal culture, then these "holy" Names are all negotiable.  They may be changed at any time with or without general consent.

It is clear that many of the claims made by feminist theologians concerning the supposed androcentric, sexist, and patriarchalist basis of Israelite and Christian speech about God are false or in need of revision.  However, even if all the feminist theologians were to disappear overnight and take with them all their ideology and claims, we would still have to face and hear again that which for over a century liberal theology has been proclaiming – that we name God out of our religious experience and thus project our naming of God into God (whoever God as ultimate Mystery be).  We cannot avoid the question: Has God in self-revelation named God, and, do we have the right and capacity to name God ourselves?  Christian orthodoxy answers decisively in terms of God’s self-naming, and especially so with regard to the Holy Trinity.

A further question to arise for orthodoxy today is whether there is any relation between God’s self-naming and the way Christians speak about the creatures whom the Holy Trinity has made in his image and after his likeness.  If we are not free to use inclusive language about YHWH (e.g., not to baptize "in the name of Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" or "in the name of Mother-Father, Child, and Spirit"), are we free to use inclusive language about God’s creatures made in his image?  This is a question which receives various answers from orthodox Christians.  All I can indicate here is the relation I see between the Name of the Holy Trinity and the way we speak of men and women in Christian discourse.

There is holy order in the divine Name.  It is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Of course, as we have seen, when the actual work of God for and in man is being described, then

[Page 240]

the order of the Persons may be different – e.g., "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit."  However, concerning God in his own essence, we say that the Father is truly the first in order for he is the Father of the only Son; the Son is second in order for he is the Son of the unique Father; and the Holy Spirit is third in order for he is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son.  This order does not mean inferiority of the Second and Third Persons, for they are all equal in that each Person is as fully God as are the other two Persons.  (This is a truth clearly stated in the Quicunque Vult and the major Reformation confessions of faith.)

As the Creator, the Holy Trinity has communicated holy order into his creation including the creature who is made in his image and after his likeness.  We read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27).  There is holy order in the creation where the male man is first in order and the female man is second in order; but, at the same time there is a perfect equality in terms of essential being of the male and female man.  In the New Testament Jesus Christ, the male Man who is the Word made flesh, is proclaimed as the true image of God.

To maintain holy order we need also to maintain the long-established custom of speaking of God’s creatures made in his image as man or as mankind.  We do not have to be saying "man and woman" and "he and she" all the time.  The use of the word man in the traditional sense conveys the notion of order for he being first in order contains in himself she who is second in order.  It is wholly appropriate that the word man can mean both the human race and the male species; and that the word woman can only mean female man and never the human race.  This, in a trinitarian perspective, mirrors the truth that the Father is first and the Son is included in the Father, for he is begotten of the Father before all ages.

From this perspective responsible fatherhood can be proclaimed – and it is certainly needed in modern society.  Yet at the same time, the approach can easily be intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood and also used by sinful men to justify evil attitudes and actions.  What seems clear to me is that too many who profess an orthodox doctrine of God have swung on the

[Page 241]

pendulum of inclusivity too far away from traditional Christian discourse with regard to human beings. Paul K. Jewett’s fine exposition of the doctrine of God, God, Creation & Revelation (1991), is one clear example.  He denies any connection between the classic dogma of the Holy Trinity and the preservation of traditional ways of speech using the word "man."

When we feel the need to use the adjective "human" as a noun to avoid speaking of "man," when we consistently use the word "gender" instead of "sex" to refer to the chromosomal and physical reality of maleness or femaleness, and when we cannot write "he" without adding "she" in a sentence then perhaps we have gone too far on the pendulum of modernity.  When we use the word "patriarchy" in a pejorative sense and have not examined the nature and character of fatherhood in Israel, when we suggest that the male images for God imply that God is sexually male or favors male human beings, and when we translate "the male man" in Psalm 1:1 as "they" or "the one" then perhaps we have been blown away from our anchors by the winds of modernity.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity gives us the assurance and the humble confidence to speak of man in such a way as to celebrate the divine order in creation.  To do this is not (see chap. 1) to say that God is male!

We must also add that the Christian understanding of personhood flows from the Christian doctrine of the Three Persons who are God.  The decision by God to create man in his image was an interpersonal decision. Elohim (God in his plurality) said, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness" – the decision of the Three.  Yet the Three acted as one: "Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created him" (where the plural noun takes the singular verbs).  If God is simply a monad then he cannot be or know personality.  To be personal otherness must be present together with oneness, the one must be in relation to others.  Personhood is only a reality where there are relations, relatedness, and relationships.  In the holy, eternal life of the Blessed Trinity personhood as relation is eternally present and human personhood exists because man is created by the Holy Trinity in the image of God and because (as we saw in chap. 8) the Son is the Image of God.

[Page 242]

On various occasions we have made reference to Modalism (Sabellianism) and to pantheism.  Widmert, the Genevan, Calvinist theologian, offers a summarizing comment: "Modalism, on the level of popular piety, dissolves into gross Pantheism."⁶  I take this as a very important observation, and I fear that it is very true of much North American religion.

In chapter 1, the presence of pantheism in European religion and culture and, very particularly, in American popular religion and culture was described.  One point made there was that in modern democratic society, where evolution and development are taken for granted, the tendency is to think of God as in some way the equivalent of the cosmos, the Zeitgeist, or the mind and unity of the cosmos.  Then, in reference to modern feminist theology, we noted that it is normally panentheistic in its description of God in order to allow for the naming of God as "Mother" (with the world as God’s body).  So pantheism is evident on all sides.

In much religion of both a conservative and liberal kind, the tendency is to refer to the Trinity in such a way as to imply by the grammar used and illustrations given that God is One Person with Three Names.  It is often said that the triangle with its three sides, or the man who is simultaneously the son of his father, the husband of his wife, and the father of his son, illustrate how God is One in Three.  And both "God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" from the conservatives and "God: Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" from the liberals can reflect Modalism, just as the illustrations obviously do.  Now if this way of thinking of God as one Person with several names is not set in the context of a clear belief in YHWH, who is the Creator of the world out of nothing (ex nihilo), then the belief expressed is probably not even Unitarianism; it is more likely pantheism.

Another way of stating this matter is to say that where the expression of religion is primarily experiential in a modern sense (i.e., in terms of self-worth, self-expression, self-development, "meeting my needs," and so on) and horizontal and immanentalist (God is primarily in the here and the now), and not primarily experiential in the classic sense (i.e., an encounter with the tran-

[Page 243]

scendent God of glory to whom we ascend through Christ and in the Holy Spirit) then the danger of modalistic pantheism is real – and real whether we be conservatives or liberals.

If there is truth in what has just been explained, then the duty of pastors and teachers in their congregations joyfully and clearly to proclaim the Holy Trinity in both his Transcendence and his Immanence (where his Immanence flows from his Transcendence) is always necessary.  Only when God is known and adored first and foremost as the Majestic, Transcendent, Holy and Glorious Unity in Trinity, who creates the world and redeems his creatures in love, will experience be of such a kind as to rise heavenward and not to slip from Modalism into pantheism.

Let us not forget that to love God is to love in unity the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit – to love their equality and their order.  To love God is to love and not confound the operations, the eternal communications, and the mutual relations of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  To love God is to love all that makes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be One, and all that makes them Three.

In the midst of much uncertainty and little doctrinal clarity in the churches, it is good to find solid orthodoxy being professed.  On the nineteenth centenary of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome (June 30, 1968), the Bishop of Rome, Pope Paul VI, closed the liturgical celebrations with a profession of faith.  Here is the first part of it which states the received Western doctrine of the immanent Holy Trinity – God-as-God-is-in-himself.

[Page 244]

his almighty power, his infinite knowledge, his providence, his will and his love. He is "the One who is" as he revealed to Moses (Ex. 3:14, Vulgate).  He is "Love" as the apostle John has taught us (1 Jn. 4:8); so that these two names, Being and Love, express ineffably the same divine Reality of him who has wished to make himself known to us and who, "dwelling in light inaccessible" (1 Tim. 6:16) is in himself above every name and every created thing and every created intelligence.  God alone can give us true and full knowledge of this Reality by revealing himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here on earth in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.  The mutual bonds which from all eternity constitute the Three Persons, each one of whom is one and the same Divine Being, constitute the blessed, inmost life of the most holy God, infinitely above all that we can humanly understand.  We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men of the unity of God, even though they do not know the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

We believe then in God who eternally begets the Son; we believe in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; we believe in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal Love.  Thus in the three divine Persons, who are co-eternal and co-equal among themselves, are found in superabundant and consummated fashion, the life and beatitude of God, who is perfectly one; and we must always worship the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in the unity.⁷

In the following paragraphs of the confession, the Incarnation of the only begotten Son is confessed in detail and the Person and mission of the Holy Spirit is described.  At this point the creed has moved from God the Holy Trinity in eternity to the revelation and work of the Holy Trinity in space and time.  In Christian confession of the Faith, knowledge of God-as-God-is-

[Page 245]

in-himself is inextricably united to knowledge of God-as-God-is-toward-us.

So we return to where we began.  The Holy Trinity is revealed for those with eyes to see in the creation and sustaining of the cosmos; in the election and redemption of Israel; in the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth; in the formation of the church; in the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church; and in the experience of God in worship, fellowship, and service within the church.  In fact, Holy Scripture bears witness in its inspiration and its content to the Holy Trinity: the books of the Bible present the glorious, majestic YHWH, the Father, and his only-begotten Son together with his Holy Spirit, active in the creation and redemption of the world.  Thus God has been/is revealed in what he did/does and said/says for he is the living God. Because the Father makes himself known through his only Son and in his Holy Spirit, the church militant on earth (on behalf of the whole, visible creation) unites with the invisible world of holy angels and the church triumphant in heaven to adore and serve the Father through the Son (the great high priest) in the Holy Spirit.  Led by the Holy Spirit to contemplate the glory of the Father in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), the church on earth is given insight into the ordered, eternal relations within the one Godhead of the Father, his only-begotten Son, and his Holy Spirit.  Reverential knowledge of the immanent Holy Trinity comes through experiential knowing of the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

With knowledge through revelation of the immanent Trinity, Christians know and experience the economic Trinity in grace and in prayer.  In illustration of this, I end this book with one of the much used prayers of the Anglican tradition – the General Thanksgiving from the Daily Service in The Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1662, 1928, etc.).

[Page 246]

Jesus Christ; for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory [i.e., the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the church].  And we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all thy mercies that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful; and that we show forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives, by giving up ourselves to thy service, and by walking before thee in holiness and righteousness all our days; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee [O Father] and the Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end.  Amen.

"Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, even unto ages of ages."  Amen.

Heron, Alisdair. The Holy Spirit. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983.

Hughes, Philip E. The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Kelly, J.N.D. The Athanasian Creed. London: A & C Black, 1965.

Tavard, George H. The Vision of God. Washington, D.C.: Univ. Press of America, 1981.

Toon, Peter. The Art of Meditating on Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

-----. Yesterday, Today and Forever: Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity in the Teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Swedesboro, N.J.: Preservation, 1995.

Warfield, B.B. "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity." In Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968.