ings contains the assertion that the Son was called out of nothing into being, or that there was a period in which he had no existence, nor, indeed, any of the other phrases of similar import which have been introduced, it does not appear reasonable to assert or to teach such things. In this opinion, therefore, we judged it right to agree; and, indeed, we had never, at any former period, been accustomed to use such words.[1] ……
" And here our most beloved emperor began to reason concerning the Son's divine origin, and his existence before all ages. 'He was power in the Father, even before he was begotten,—the Father having always been the Father, just as the Son has always been a King and Saviour; he has always possessed all power, and has likewise always remained in the same state.'
"We thought it requisite, beloved brethren, to transmit you an account of these circumstances, in order to show you what examination and investigation we bestowed on all the questions which we had to decide; and also to prove how firmly, even to the last hour, we persevered in refusing our assent to certain sentences, which, when merely committed to writing, offended us. But yet we subsequently, and without contention, received these very doctrines, because, after thorough investigation of their signification, they no longer appeared objectionable to us, but seemed conformable to the faith held by us and confessed in our formulary."
- ↑ The statement that follows next is omitted by me, because its authenticity is very doubtful, it being omitted by Socrates and Epiphanius. The purport of it is, that, during the debate in the Council of Alexandria, A. D. 321, at which Arius was first anathematized, Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the other; but finally declared himself in favor of the "consubstantial" and "co-eternal" dogma.
