Page:History of the First Council of Nice.djvu/57

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
COUNCIL OF NICE.
47

namely, that the Father has always been, and that the Son has always been. That as the Father, so is the Son; that the Son is unbegotten as the Father; that he is always being begotten, without having been begotten; that neither by thought, nor by any interval, does God precede the Son, God and the Son having always been; and that the Son proceeds from God.

"Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotius, Paulinus, Athanasius [of Anazarbus], Gregory, Ætius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of the Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. One of them says that the Son is an effusion, another that he is an emission, the other that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we could not listen, even though the heretics should threaten us with a thousand deaths.[1] But we say


  1. Arius intended, by no means, to lower the dignity of Christ by ascribing to him a beginning of existence. He would ascribe to him the greatest dignity which a being could have after God, without entirely ignoring the distinction between that being and God. Still he did not hesitate to ascribe to him the name of God. Probably he appealed to those passages of scripture where the name of God seems to be applied, in an improper sense, to created beings, and thence argued that it was also applied in an analogous manner, but in the highest sense, to the Logos.—Neander Ch. Hist., ii. 362–4.

    Gibbon says the most implacable enemies of Arius have acknowleged the learning and blameless life of that eminent presbyter, who, in a former election, had perhaps declined the proffered episcopal throne in favor of Alexander of Alexandria, his subsequent first great opponent in Egypt. This last statement is on the authority of Philostorgius, the Arian.—See Decline and Fall, ii. chap. 21.

    Philostorgius says [book i. chap 3] that "when the people, by their votes, were on the point of electing Arius, he declined the honor in favor of Alexander," who, soon after his election,