inconceivable and inexplicable by men and angels.” Alexander, that “the Father was always a Father because of the Son.” Arius, that “the Son was not before he was begotten;” and, that “he was, from before all ages, the begotten Son of God.” Alexander, that “he was of an unchangeable nature.” Arius, that “he was unchangeable.” Alexander, that “he was the unchangeable image of his Father.” Eusebius, that “he was made after the perfect likeness of the disposition and power of him that made him.” Alexander, that “all things have received their essence from the Father through the Son.” Arius, that “God made by the Word all things in heaven and earth.” Alexander, that “the Word, who made all things, could not be of the same nature with the things he made.” Arius, that “he was the perfect creature or production of God, but not as one of the creatures.”[87] Arius, again, that “the Son was no part of God, nor from any thing that did exist.” Alexander, that “the only begotten nature was a middle nature, between the unbegotten Father, and the things created by him out of nothing.” And yet, notwithstanding all these things, when Alexander gives an account of the principles of Arius to the bishops, he represents them in all the consequences he thought fit to draw from them, and charges him with holding, that the Son was made like every other creature, absolutely out of nothing, and that therefore his nature was mutable, and susceptive equally of virtue and vice; with many other invidious and unscriptural doctrines, which Arius plainly appears not to have maintained or taught. ----- Footnote 85: Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 5. Footnote 86: Id. Ibid. c. 6. Footnote 87: Theod. E. H. l. i. c. 4. -----