declare the Son to have existed from all eternity in union with the Father, but quotes no Scripture in proof. Where

he does quote proof texts they speak not of the `Saviour' nor `The Son' nor of `The Father', and inasmuch as the

Scripture emphasizes that God is one, his regret that `then there was not a Trinity from all eternity' may have been

actually expressing a sublime and solemn truth!.

Bishop Pearson, a recognized authority on the Creed says:

`That God is the proper and eternal Father of His eternal Son - that in the very name Father there is something of

eminence which is not in the Son; and some kind of priority we must ascribe to Him we call the First, in respect

of Him we call the Second Person'.

This priority he says:

`Consisteth of this, that the Father hath the essence in Himself, the Son by communication from the Father, from

whence He acknowledgeth that He is from Him, that He liveth by Him, that the Father gave Him to have life in

Himself'.

`He must be understood to have Godhead communicated to Him by the Father, Who is not only eternally, but

originally God'.

Had Bishop Pearson confined these comments to the relation that existed between the Father and the Son during

that Son's life in the flesh, after He had made Himself of no reputation and had been found in the form of a servant

and found in fashion as a man, all would be well, but because the Bishop and the orthodox persist in teaching that

the Trinity is eternal, that the essence of the Godhead from all eternity is a Trinity, logical and scriptural writers

descend to such awful statements that `He must be understood to have the GODHEAD communicated to Him by the

Father, Who is not only eternally but ORIGINALLY God'! How men who endorse the Athanasian Creed can tolerate

such terms is beyond understanding. The fatal concept, that the Father is

`The fountain of the Godhead, owned

And foremost of the Three'

is categorically denied by the Creed they seek to uphold, which says `In this Trinity none is afore or after other, none

is greater, or less than another'.

See how men of God, when once they make one fatal mistake, are compelled to make others! Bishop Pearson

speaks `of priority' and `first' of the Father, but any who know the epistle to the Colossians could quote passages

which give these titles to the Son. If we can but see that the Trinity is a mode of the Godhead assumed in time for

the purpose of Creation and for Redemption, but that before the world was, before Creation came into being God

was essentially ONE, we shall have taken a step nearer to the truth of the great and holy subject. Moses Stuart has

this to say on the subject, which is very much to the point:

`There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully examines, that the Nicene fathers and the Greek

commentators, one and all, held that Christ, as to His divine nature was DERIVED from the Father ... Yet we may

well ask the question - We cannot help asking it, Is then the Son, Who is God over all blessed for ever - is He, in

His DIVINE nature, derived and dependant? Has He, as very God an aitia (a cause) and an arche (a beginning)?

And is it possible for us to make the idea of true and proper divinity harmonize with that of derivation and

consequent dependence? No; it is not ... Their views of the divine nature were built on the metaphysical

philosophy of their day; but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as correct; nor is it indeed possible, now,

for our minds to admit it'.

One writer on the subject has said:

`The consummation of creation is to consist of the return of the logos from the humanity of Christ to the Father,

so that the original Trinity of the Divine nature is after all held to have been temporarily compromised, and only

in the end will it be restored that God may be all in all'.

Here the titles `Father' and `Son' are kept in their place as relative terms. Tertullian is said to have introduced the

term oikonomia into the answer to the problem, meaning by its use to teach this, that the Trinity is not to be affirmed

of God in the Absolute sense, but was assumed by God for the economies and dispensations of Creation and