put by the fathers & not being understood by the people gives offense, & because it is not in the scriptures, we have thought fit to remove, & that henceforth in speaking of God no more mention be made of ὀυσία, because the holy scriptures no where mention the ὀυσία of the father & the son. But we say that the Son is in all things like the ffather as the holy Scriptures speak & teach. Thus far the Council of Ariminum. The descent into the infernal regions is also found in the following Creed of Aquileia into which Ruffin saith he was baptized. Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, et in Iesum Christum Iesum unicum filium ejus, Dominum nostrum: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato & sepultus, descendit in inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos: et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, hujus carnis resurrectionem. This Article of the descent into Hades or Hell is also found in the Creed of the Latines usually called the Apostles Creed.

Another new Article was that the Holy Ghost is consubstantial to the ffather & Son. But for understanding how this Article came into the Creed, I should acquaint you that Athanasius being accused of several crimes by the Meletians & condemned for them by the Council of Tyre & banished into Gallia by Constantine the great A.C. 335, & sent back into Egypt by his son Constantine A.C. 338, & this Constantine the younger dying son being A.C. 340 the Council of Antioch wchwhich met consisted of about 97 bishops & met in the beginning of the next Spring A.C. 341 wrote to the Emperors against him & he made one Gregory bishop of Alexandria in the room of Athanasius & sent an account of these proceedings to the emperors & Churches for their approbation as was usual & Athanasius at the same time calling a Council of about 90 Bishops of Egypt & Libya wrote also to the Churches in his own defense & sent the Letter to the Bishop of Rome, & one Gregory being made Bishop of Alexandria & sent thither While the Legates of both parties were going with them Letters to yethe bishop of Rome, the Eastern Emperor Constantius sent Gregory to Alexandria with an armed force at Easter, & then Athanasius fled to Rome, as did also Paul of ConstantipleConstantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza whom the Eastern Bishops had also deposed. Whereupon These bishops appealed from the Eastern Councils to Iulius Bishop of Rome, who & he accepted of the appeal examined them, received them into communion & called a Council of about 50 or 60 Bishops of Italy & the parts adjacent to meet at Rome A.C. 342 & cited the eastern Bishops then met in the said Council of Antioch to appear before in this Council & justify their proceedings. The eastern Bishops came not, but wrote back to Iulius a reprimanding Letter, telling him that they were his equals & their synods had an unshaken authoryauthority & the Iudge is used reproachfully whose judgment is reexamined; that when the western Bishops condemned Novatian the eastern acquiesced & when the eastern condemned Paul of Samosat the western acquiesced; that to communicate with persons excommunicated by others without the consent of those who excommunicated them is criminal by the constitutions of the Church; & that if he desisted they would have peace with him, otherwise not. When the Council met at Rome & the eastern Bishops came not, they Council communicated with Athanasius & the rest as Iulius had done before, & Iulius by their order 2 order wrote back to the eastern Bishops complaining of the sharpness of their Letter, & of their not coming to the Council & of their favouring the Arians & defending Athanasius at large, & blaming them for acting in their Councils in matters of such consequence without giving him notice to whom it belonged to do justice. Cur igitur, saith he, et imprimis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis? An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit? Quapropter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat, id huc ad nostram ecclesiam referri oportuit. Thus Iulius in attempting contending for the universal Bishopric, gained the Bishops of Italy to his party together with the friends of Athanasius & some others in Egypt Libya & some other places, & persisted in his designe.

About four year after when by spreading a clamour against the eastern Bishops as if they were Arians, the party of the Bishop of Rome was sufficiently encreased, the Emperors by the working of the western Bishops were induced to call a general Council to meet the next year A.C. 347, at Serdica a city in the confine of both Empires to examin the matter, but first to treat of the faith. And there came thither about 80 eastern B & a much greater number of western Bishops & Egyptian Bishops. But before the two parties met the eastern hearing that the Western communicated with Athanasius Marcellus & some others who stood excommunicated by them, sent to them several times to dismiss the excommunicated persons from their assembly. And the western Bishops on the other hand summoned the eastern several times to come to their barr of their tribunal & justify their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest. And when neither party would yeild, five of the six eastern Bishops who had been sent by the Council of Tyre into Egypt to examin the matters of Athanasius upon the place proposed to the western that an equal number of Bishops of both parties should be sent from Serdica into Egypt to reexamin the matter upon the place; & if the report wchwhich they had made to the Council of Tyre proved false then they would quietly submit to be excommunicated without ever complaining to any body Emperor Council or Bishop, & if their report was found true then five of the western Bishops who absolved Athanasius should be excommunicated without ever complaining. But this proposal would not be accepted. Nothing would satisfy the western Bishops but to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges over the eastern. And therefor the eastern Bishops seeing that the western contended for superiority would not joyn with them in Council to hear the excommunicated persons at the barr but contended for preeminence & dominion, went back from Serdica to Philippopolis, & both parties writing circulatory letters in defence of their own proceedings, the western in their letter accused the eastern as guilty both because they appeared not when Iulius cited them & because they now fled from justice. They declared also in the same letter their faith of one ὀυσία & one ὑπόστασις of the father & son & holy 3holy Ghost, & the equality of the Son to the ffather & his assumption of a man. They made some Canons also in wchwhich they decreed that appeals might be made from to the Bishop of Rome from all Councils not called by him; & by doing so they submitted all their churches to his authority, constituting him their Oecumenical Bishop & themselves Roman Catholicks; & endeavoured that the eastern Churches should be brought into the same subjection.

Athanas. Epist. ad Antiochenos.It was proposed also in this Council that a new profession of of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene Profession; & Sozomen tells us Sozomen. l. 3. c. 12 that they did compose a new form of faith prolixer then the Nicene but conteining the same opinion & not much differing in words, & that Hosius & Protogenes wrote to Iulius Bishop of Rome that they confirmed the Nicene faith, but for greater perspicuity explained it more at large that the Arians might not abuse the brevity in wchwhich it was written & draw it to an absurd sense. And certainly a new profession of faith was published & handed about for some years in the name of this Council, & I mistake if it was not the following Creed. We beleive in one God, the ffather Almighty, the maker of all things visible & invisible; & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, begotten of the father, the only begotten, that is of the substance of the father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial to the father by whom all things were made which are in heaven & in earth, visible & invisible: who for us men & for our salvation came descended, was incarnate & made man, that is, begotten perfectly of Mary always a Virgin by the holy Ghost: who had truly & not only in appearance a body soul & mind & all things which are in men except sin: who suffered, that is, was crucified buried & rose again the third day & ascended into heaven in glory in the same body: sitteth at the right hand of the father & shall come again in the same body in glory to judge the quick & the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And we beleive in the holy Ghost who is not alien from the ffather & the Son but is consubstantial to the ffather & the Son; who is uncreated, perfect, the Paraclete, who spake in the Law & in the Prophets & in the Gospells, who descended on Iourdan, preached to the Apostles, dwelt in the saints. And we beleive in this one only catholick & Apostolick Church, in one baptism for the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the dead in eternal judgment of souls & bodies, in the kingdom of heaven & in life everlasting. But those who say there was a time when the son was not, or there was a time when the holy Ghost was not, or that he was made out of nothing, or that the son of God or holy Ghost was of another ὑπόστασις or another ὀυσία, or mutable or variable, We anathematize because our catholick mother & Apostolick Church anathematizes them. And We anathematize all those who confess not the resurrection of the flesh, & every heresy, that is, all those who do not hold this faith of the holy & only Catholick Church 4 Church. This Creed was found in a very old parchment Manuscript in the Vatican amongst the works of Cyrill & in another MS in the king of France's library & printed in the works of Athanasius at Paris A.C. 1698, Tom. 2. p. 1278. & was certainly composed before the meeting of the Council of Alexandria A.C. 362. For it uses the language of one hypostasis of the father son & Holy Ghost, wchwhich language was abolished in that Council. In the Manuscript it is attributed to Athanasius but runs in the plural number, We beleive &c, & after the manner of a Creed made by a Council anathematizes all that hereticks, & has all the characters of the Serdican Creed. ffor it is the Nicene Creed enlarged with the Serdican faith & with so much of the Creed of the Latines called the Apostles Creed as was then wanting in the Nicene & therefore was made by Athanasius & the Latines together for completing the Nicene Creed. And it uses the word ὑπόστασις in such a sense as no other Council did besides that of Serdica. And as the Serdican fathers proposed only by their Creed to confirm the Nicene & explain it more at large, so this Creed above recited is in the Manuscript called an Interpretation upon the holy Creed. I have therefore recited it his as the oldest Creed in wchwhich the ffather Son & holy Ghost are declared consubstantial.

The Council of Serdica being convened by the Emperors to treat of the faith in the first place, the eastern Bishops also in their return from Serdica published a profession of their faith composed about two years before by a Counsil at Antioch: which Profession was as follows. We beleive in one God the father Almighty the maker & creator of & maker of all things from whom all paternity in heaven & earth is named, & in his only begotten son our Lord Iesus Christ, begotten of the father before all ages, God of God, light of light very God of very God by whom all things were made in heaven & in earth visible & invisible; who is the Word, the wisdom the power the life & the true light; who in the last days, for us, was made man, & born of the holy Virgin. crucified dead & buried & rose again from the dead the third day & was taken up into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God the ffather, who shall come in the end of ages to judge the quick & the dead & to give unto every one according to his works, whose kingdom without intermission continues to endless ages. For he sitteth at the right hand of the ffather, not only in this world but also in that wchwhich is to come. We beleive also in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Paraclete, whom Christ, having promised him to his Apostles, after his resurrection sent to teach them & admonish them 5them all things, by whom also the souls of those ytthat are sanctified who sincerely beleive in him. But those who say the Son was of nothing, or of another substance & not of God, or that there was a time or age when he was not, the Catholick Church accounts alien from her; & those likewise who say there are three Gods, or that Christ was not God before the ages, or that he is neither Christ nor the son of God, or that the ffather Son & holy Ghost are the same, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that the ffather did not beget the Son by his Counsel & will the holy & catholick Church anathematizes.

This profession of faith Hilary approved & commended as made in short but most absolute definitions. And hitherto the Greeks Churches of the Greeks & Latines had continued united in external communion throughout the whole Roman Empire; but now they began to separate, the Latines being offended that the Greeks called the ffather & Son & holy Ghost three hypostaceshypostases & omitted the word ὁμοούσιος in their Creeds, & the Greeks that yethe Latines translated it unius hypostasis absolved persons excommunicated by the Greek Church & endeavoured to subject that Church to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, & both parties that five or six of the principal Bishops of their party were excommunicated by those of the other party.

Six years after these things were done Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor of his brother Constance in the western Empire, & two years after that conquest called a Council of above 300 Bishops at Millain to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius. They offered to subscribe if the Nicene faith might be first confirmed, but were made to understand that nothing could be regularly debated or proceed in Councils till they quitted the communion of persons excommunicated & returned into communion with the Bishops with whom they were to debate, that the Emperor called them together for that purpose & they could not go upon other things till they had his leave, that the wilful communicating with persons who stood excommunicated by others was contrary to the rules of the Church & of a criminal nature, & that those who persisted in such communion, must expect, for restoring the peace of the Church disturbed by them to be banished as criminals. Whereupon they all subscribed except Paulinus Tervirensis, Eusebius Vercellensis, Dionysius Mediolanensis 6Mediolanensis, Lucifer Calaritanus, & Rhodanius, who were therefore banished as was also Liberius bishop of Rome & Hosius of Corduba a little after & Hilary & Dosanus a year after. And all these offered to subscribe if the Nicene faith were confirmed first & thereby they allowed that they could subscribe wthwith a good conscience. There were also Councils called at Arles & Biters in Gallia & at Aquileia, and Messengers sent with publick notaries to take the subscriptions of the rest of the Bishops who staid at home. Hosius also & Liberius after they had been a year or two in banishment subscribed. And thus the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome set up by the Councils of Rome & Serdica over the eastern Churches fell, the Bishop of Rome himself with all the western Bishops except seven or eight & all their Presbyters except a few, subscribing & thereby acknowledging the supreme & absolute judicial authority of the Councils of the Greek churches over her own members

But over the Latine Churches of the Consubstantial faith in Europe, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome still remained being no ways opposed by Constantius or the Greek Church. And thence it came to pass that when the western Empire was invaded by several barbarous nations, those nations, particularly the Franks in Gallia, the Goths in Spain & the Lombards in Italy, & the Saxons in Britain as fast as they became converted to the consubstantial faith, subjected their Churches to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. And all this was done before the Greek Emperor Phocas granted him the universal Bishoprick over the Churches also of his Empire.

After the authority of the Greek Church over her own members was restored, new Councils were called to reconcile the Churches about the faith, & for that end they abolished the use of the word ὀυσία with its compounds ὁμοούσιος & ὁμοιούσιος wchwhich had given occasion to the discord. This was first done by the Council of Sirmium A.C. 357 in a Creed subscribed by Hosius. T & then in another Creed Council of Sirmium A.C. 359 in a Creed in wchwhich they professed the Son to be similis Patri secundum scripturas. This Creed was published at Sirmium in in the presence of the Emperor at Sirmium & subscribed the same year by the Councils of Nice in Thrace & Ariminum in Italy. A copy thereof is set down above. The Council 7Council of Seleucia meeting the same year subscribed the Creed of Lucius the Martyr with a preface in wchwhich they abolished the use of those words & declared the son to be like the father according to the Apostle & a conclusion in wchwhich they approved the sense of the said said Creed of Ariminum & Seleucium & Ariminum Sirmium published before the Emperor. And their Legates in the end of the year subscribed this Creed of Sirmium & so did the Council of Constantinople the next year A.C. 360 without any material alteration variation of words.

The principal reasons for abolishing the use of those words isare thus set down by the Council of Seleucia in their preface to yethe Creed of Lucius: Cum hæ voces ομοούσιον & ὁμοιούσιον præteritis temporibus atqꝫque etiam nunc multos conturbarint; imò a quibusdam ἀνόμοιον (sive dissimilem patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ‘ομοούσιον (sive dissimilem patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ὁμοούσιον et ὁμοιούσιον utpote voces a scripturis alienas rejicimus ἀνόμοιον autem anathemate damnamus. And thus by the Council of Sirmium at the end of their Creed: Nomen autem ὁυσίας quod simplicius a Patribus positum, a populisqꝫque minime intellectum, offensionis causa sit; quod etiam in scripturis non contineatur, de medio tolli placuit. And thus by Hilary out of an epistle of some western Bishop, read in the Council of Sirmium: Hilar. de Synod.De homousio … tractantes primùm idcirco respuendum pronunciastis, quia [per] verbi hujus enunciationem substantia prior intelligeretur, quàm duo inter se partiti essent – Secundo quoqꝫque id addidistis quod patres nostri cum Paulus Samosatenus hæreticus pronunciatus est, etiam homousion repudiaverint. …. Tertio etiam hæc causa improbandi homousij commemorata a vobis est, quia in Synodo quæ apud Nicæam fuit, coacti patres nostri propter eos qui filium patri creaturam filium dicebant, nomen homousij indidissent; quod non recipiendum idcirco sit, quia nusquam scriptum reperietur.

The word ὀυσία with its compounds was therefore laid aside for these reasons. ffirst because the word ὁμοούσιος in its proper signification (of wchwhich the Greeks were the best judges) imported a distinction or division of a prior substance into two or the coming of one substance out of another by emanation, emission, projection or partition as light comes from the Sun, a river from the fountain, a branch from the root, a piece from the whole, a child from the mother &c. And in this sense the word implies that yethe son & holy ghost sprang from yethe father after the manner of the Æons of the Gnosticks, or were parts of him as in the Trinity of Montanus: & therefore it was not a proper word to be applied to the Trinity. For Basil tells us Basil. Epist. 300 that the Council of Antioch rejected the in condemning Paul of Samosat rejected the Ὁμοούσιος for this very reason.

Secondly because the Council of Nice had admitted yethe word hastily & against their inclination, the Emperor being present in the Council & admitting pressing it, & the Council making scruples, & excepting against the signification above mentioned 8mentioned wchwhich was the proper signification of the word & cautioning that it should not be taken in that sense nor for any thing more then ὁμοιούσιος, & th admitting it in this sense least the Emperor should be disgusted & return to the heathen religion, & the Bishops in all the East disputing afterwards against the use of the word & contending that it was proper to bodies & ὁμοιούσιος to spirits, & omitting it in a bigger Council at Tyre & in all their Councils which followed. For how universally the Greeks rejected this word may appear by the character wchwhich Hilary Hilar. de Synodis p. 381. Edit. Paris. 1652. A.C 358 gave of the eastern Provinces where he was then in banishment. Tantum ecclesiarum orientalium periculum est, saith he, ut rarum sit hujus fidei [consubstantialis,] quæ qualis sit vos judicate, aut sacerdotes aut populum inveniri. — Nam absqꝫque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majori parte Asianæ decem provinciæ vere deum nesciunt.

Thirdly, because the Latines & their friends among the Greeks had interpreted the word ὁμοούσιος by μιας ὀυσίας & μιας ὑποστασ unius substantiæ, & thereby departed from the sense of the Nicene Council wchwhich had interpreted that word by ὁμοιούσιος similis substantiæ, as appeared by the Acts of that Council produced in the Council of Ariminum for convincing the Latines. And there having arisen great disturbances between the Greeks & Latines about the language of similis substantiæ & unius substantiæ, the best way to put an end to those disturbances was to abolish the use of the words wchwhich had caused them.

ffourthly, the words homousios, ex substantia, & unius substantiæ were very ambiguous & apt to be misunderstood & taken together, very much favoured the errors of the Gnosticks Cataphrygians & Sabellians & caused them to spread in the west. For Hilary in his banishment wrote thus to the western Bishops of Gallia & Britian. Multi ex nobis, fratres charissimi, ita unam substantiam Patris et Filij prædicant, ut videri possint non magis id pie quam impie prædicare: habet enim hoc verbum in se et fidei conscientiam et fraudem paratam Nam si secundum naturæ proprietatem ac similitudinem ut similitudo non speciem suam auferat, sed genus teneat, religiose unam substantiam prædicaums, dummodo unam substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelligamus, ut quod unum sunt non singularem significet sed æquales: æqualitatem dico, id est, indifferentiam similitudinis, ut similitudo habeatur æqualitas. Æqualitas verò unum idcirco dicitur esse quia par sit. Vnum autem in quo par significatur, non ad unicum vendicetur. Una igitur substantia si non personam subsistentem perimat, nec unam substantiam 9substantiam partitam in duas dividat, religiose prædicabitur: Quæ ex nativitatis proprietate & ex naturæ similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. At verò si idcirco unius substantiæ pater et filius dicatur ut hic subsistens, sub significatione licet duûm nominum unus ac solus sit: confessum nomine filium conscientia non tenemus, si unam substantiam [cum Sabellio] confitentes ipsum sibi unicum ac singularem & patrem esse dicimums et filium. Quinetiam et hujus tanti erroris occurrit occasio, ut divisus a se ipse pater intelligatur, & partem execuisse quæ esset sibi filius. Id enim hæretici [Cataphryges sc.] unam substantiam prædicantes contendunt. Et his multum piæ confessionis nostræ sermo blanditur; ut dum hoc verbum indefinita brevitate dubium est, proficiat ad errorem. Est præterea error hic tertius ut cum unius substantiæ pater et filius dicatur esse dicatum esse dicuntur, significari existimetur substantia prior, quam inter se duo pares [juxta Theologiam Gnosticorum] haberent: ac si tres res sermo significet, substantiam unam, et duos unius substantiæ velut cohæredes. Here Hilary gives four significations of unius substantiæ three of which were heretical, & tells his brethren the western Bishops that many of them taught it in the heretical senses, & endeavours to instructs them in the right fourth signification, namely that the union was only specific or that yethe father & son & holy Ghost were three sub two equal substances in number & one in nature & species. It was not therefore without some reason that when Hilary came to the Council of Seleucia the Oriental Bishops examined him, ac primum quæsitum ab eo, saith Sulpicius, quæ esset Gallorum fides: qui tum, Arianis prava de nobis vulgantibus, suspecti ab orientalibus habebamur trionymam solitarij Dei unionem secundum Sabellium credidisse. Sed exposita fide sua [de unitate specifica] juxta ea quæ Nicææ erant a patribus conscripta, Occidentalibus perhibuit testimonium. The language of homousios, ex substantia & unius substantiæ therefore being being therefore a stumbling block to Christians & leading them to dangerous heresies & the worship of fals Gods, was for that reason abolished by the Greeks.

ffiftly, this language was first used by hereticks such ✝ as were the Cataphrygians & Sabellians. It was originally the language of hereticks, & was condemned in Paul of It was their language & was condemned by the ancient Church, & gave occasion to the Arian controversy. For controversy. For when Abimander bishop of Alexandria a a Socr. l. 1. c. 5 maintained an essetialessential unity of the father & son, Arius took it for the una substantia of Sabellius & thereupon set himself to oppose it. Vna substantia was also the language of the Montanists, & so was ὁμοούσιος. And this last word was condemned in Paul of Samosat Samosat by a Council of 80 eastern bishops or above voluntarily convened at Antioch about 60 years before the Council of Nice, & the sentence against Paul b b Euseb. Hist. Eccles. was communicated to all the Churches of the Roman Empire for their approbation & approved by them without any controversy arising upon it. And Paul was ejected by the consent of the Bishops of 10of Rome & Italy under their hands in writing, so that the sentence against him was the sentence of the Church catholick. But And for this & other reasons the Council of Nice scrupled the homousion, admitted it only at the importunity of the Emperor & limited its signification; & as soon as the fathers of that Council were at liberty, they disputed against it vehemently & dropt it in all their following Councils & never desisted till they got it repealed. If numbers of bishops are to be considered the Council of Ariminum was bigger then the Nicene: if antiquity freedom & universal approbation, the Council of Antioch must take place. But Hilary is of another opinion. Male intelligitur homousion saith he; quid ad me bene intelligentem? Male homousion Samosatenus confessus est, sed nunquid melius Ariani negaverunt? Octaginta Episcopi olim respuerunt, sed trecentium decem et octo nuper receperunt. Thus Hilary argues for repealing the sentence of the primitive Church catholic against Paul, as if the best way of opposing Arius was to set receive the language of the older hereticks, & as if the Greeks did not enough in condemning the language of Arius unless they receded from the decrees of their ancestors & received the language of Paul & Montanus & the Sabellians & Manichees & ancient Gnosticks. For the Greeks condemned the language of Arius in almost all their Councils.

A sixt reason alledged for omitting the word ὁμοούσιος was that the Nicene fathers had admitted it out of simplicity (or without due examination) & by compulsion. For Constantine the great soon after his victory over Licinius A.C. 324 hearing of the controversy between Alexander & Ath Arius & sending to them by Hosius a letter to forebear disturbing the Empire by their trifling disputes & Arius not submitting but representing that he had the multitude & particularly all Libya: the Emperor set against him vehemently & resolved to suppress this multitude & for that end composed against them a florid epistle directed to Arius & the Arians & caused it to be published in every city throughout the whole Empire & then called the Council of Nice. This letter was to silence the multitude in all places till the Council could meet. It began thus. Malus interpres negotium est diaboli ejusqꝫque effigies ac imago. And in the body of the Epistle the Emperor repeating the words of Arius, Multitudinem habemus, replies, Ipse igitur exiguus propius accedam qui hominum dementium bella sedare consuevi ut insanorum bellorum spectator sim. Ipse, inquam, Ego ipse, inquam, propius accedam qui hominum dementium bella sedare consuevi. And a little after: O audaciam dignam quæ fulminibus deponatur. And again: At dices magnum hominum numerum tecum facere et sublevare curas 11curas tuas. Audi et parumper aures præbe nefane Ari, intellige dementiam tuam &c. And in another part of the Letter: Vnum dicis Deum: habes ejusdem me sententiæ: sic igitur sentias. Ejus essentiæ Verbum & principij et finis expers Verbum esse dicis: eo contentus sum. ita crede. Si quid præterea adjungis, id tollo. Si quid ad impiam separationem fraudulenter consuis, id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor. Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensationem non improbo. Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. Alexander Bis in his circulatory epistle against Arius sent to all the Churches, had declared the Son to be the internal or essential reason or wisdom of the father. Quod si filius ratio Patris est ac sapientia, quomodo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dicerent, Deum aliqua ἄλογον καὶ ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν Θεόν Deum aliquando rationis & sapientiæ expertem fuisse. The Emperor in his circulatory epistle published in all the cities of the Empire declared himself (in his words last mentioned) to be of the same opinion. And therefore this was the opinion of the party of Alexander & the grownd of their declaring the father & Son to be consubstantial to the father & of one substance with him in opposition to Arius who taught that the Son was another Word. And after the Emperor had declared to all the Empire that he was of this opinion, & for establishing it called the Council, came into it in person, & proposed the ὁμοούσιος & pressed it: the Bishops were no longer at liberty to act freely in examining & adjudging the matter between the two parties. They condemned the novel expressions of Arius because they were not in scripture & disturbed the peace of the Church. They might have condemned the ὁμοούσιος for the same reason. But the Emperor might have thought him self highly affronted & flown off from the Christian to the heathen religion. And therefore they limited the signification of the word, dropt it in their following Councils & rejected it as soon as they were at liberty And in rejecting the new language of both parties without introducing a new language of their own, they were of neither party but kept the faith of their ancestors.

A seventh reason alledged for repealing the word ὀυσία with its compounds was because it was not in scripture. And this reason is the stronger because we are commanded by the Apostle 1 Tim. 1.13. to hold fast the form of sound words. Contending for a language wchwhich was not handed down from the Prophets & Apostles is a breach of this command & they that break it are also guilty of the disturbances & schisms occasioned thereby. It is not enough to say that an article of faith may be deduced from scripture. It must be exprest in the very form of sound words in wchwhich it was delivered by the Apostles. Otherwise there can be no lasting unity nor peace of the Church catholick. ffor men are apt to vary dispute & run into parties about deductions. All the old Heresies lay in deductions, the true faith was in the text.