God'. In this controversy concerning the Trinity, we shall find that `The Father is given the supreme place in the

Godhead, that the `Son' is at one time spoken of as co-eternal with the Father, at other times `derived' from the

Father, and this again because of its necessary implications corrected and preserved from its logical consequences by

the invention of the phrase `The eternal generations of the Son'. No wonder Dr. South said, when dealing with this

vexed question:

`The Trinity is a fundamental article of the Christian religion, and he that denieth it may lose his soul, so he who

strives to understand it may lose his wits!'

If this is the considered opinion of a theologian, it is evident that something is seriously amiss. We will

introduce the inquiry that must next occupy our most earnest and prayerful attention by quoting from `The orations

of Athanasius against the Arians'. And first a word of explanation may be called for that the term `Arian' be

understood. Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria in the fourth century, believed that the Son was the first

of all created beings, not one with the Father, nor equal to Him, and it was to the confutation of the errors of Arius

that the Athanasian creed owes its inception. Dr. Newman says `I am sure at least that St. Athanasius frequently

adduces passages in proof of points of controversy, which no one would see to be proofs, unless apostolic tradition

were taken into account, first as suggesting, then as authoritatively ruling this meaning'. This admission by Newman

should be borne in mind as we place before the reader some of the arguments used by Athanasius. Further, in order

that the reader may not miss the purpose of these quotations, we suggest that the arguments adduced by Athanasius

would have been true had John 1:1 been written as follows:

`In the beginning was the SON, and the Son was with the FATHER and the SON was the FATHER'.

This is monstrous, but is the only conclusion that the creed reaches, however it be ringed around with verbal

safeguards. Throughout the battle of the creeds, it is assumed by contestants of both sides that `The Father' is the

title of God in His essence and from all Eternity, that before creation, before time, God was `The Father'. In later

times, this has been most dogmatically stressed by such writers as Dr. Cudworth, who died in 1688. He said:

`The three persons of the Trinity are three distinct spiritual substances, but the Father alone is truly and properly

God, that He alone in the proper sense is supreme, and that absolute supreme honour is due to Him only, and that

He absolutely speaking, is the only God of the universe, the Son and the Spirit being God, but only by the

Father's concurrence with them and their subordination or subjection to Him' (R. Nelson).

Here is the logical consequence of projecting the title `Father' back to the beginning, making it a title of Essence,

instead of one of the assumptions of Ineffable Deity, yet we believe that 999 out of every 1,000 that have recited the

Creed, have, and do conjure up in their minds some such Trinity as Dr. Cudworth has so frankly yet so dreadfully

admitted. Here are some of the arguments of Athanasius, all marred by the same fatal mistake:

`Tell us then, you blasphemers, what was it which had a being before the Son had any?'

`He has always been what He is now, the Father of the Son'.

`And to the same purpose and effect is that other proposition of yours, "the Son was not before He was

`The Scriptures declare our Saviour to have existed from all eternity in union with the Father'.

`The generation of the Son is not like that of a man, which requires an existence after that of the Father, but the

Son of God must, as such, have been begotten from all eternity'.

`If the Word did not exist from all eternity with the Father, then there was not a trinity from all eternity'.

`We detest and abominate the wild blasphemies of the Arians, and we know and confess that the Son existed

from everlasting'.

`There is nothing in which the Son is more expressly and evidently the character and image of the Father, that in

that absolute and unvariable state of being which He derives from the Father'.

Is the writer, or the reader, a blasphemer, when he answers Athanasius's question `What was it which had a

beginning before the Son had any?' by quoting the Scripture `In the beginning was the Word' for `The Word was

made flesh'. He was `The Word' before He became `The Son'. Can we not perceive that where the Scriptures speak

of the Word, the Form and the Image, Athanasius persists in speaking of the Son? He maintains that the Scriptures