stance; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been mentioned. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in the Scripture, is a vain argument; and it may besides be objected to them, that their impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; for it is not written that the Son was created, and that there was a period in which he did not exist. And also, that they themselves complain of having been condemned for using expressions, which, though certainly not scriptural, are yet, they say, consonant with religion. They drew words from the dunghill, and published them upon earth.
"The bishops, on the contrary, did not invent any expressions themselves; but, having received the testimony of the fathers, they wrote accordingly. Indeed, formerly, as far back as about one hundred and thirty years, the bishops of the great city of Rome, and of our city,[1] disproved the assertion, that the Son is a creature, and that he is not of the substance of the Father. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, is acquainted with these facts. He, at one time, favored the Arian heresy; but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nice. He wrote a letter to inform his diocesans,[2] that the word 'consubstantial' is found in certain ancient documents, and is used, by illustrious bishops and learned writers, as a term for expressing the Divinity of the Father and of the Son.
"Some of the bishops, who had carefully concealed their obnoxious opinions, consented to coincide with
