Page:History of the First Council of Nice.djvu/92

82 created objects, for he was begotten of the Father, as the Holy Scriptures teach, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible and inexplicable to all created beings. The mode in which the Son is said to be of the substance of the Father, was declared to bear no relation to the body, nor to the laws of mortal life. It was also shown that it does not either imply division of substance, nor abscission, nor any change or diminution in the power of the Father.

"The nature of the unbegotten Father is not susceptible of these operations. It was concluded that the expression of the substance of the Father, implies only that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which he has made; but that to the Father, who begat him, he is in all points perfectly similar; for he is of the nature and of the substance of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to receive it, especially as some of the ancient and most celebrated bishops and writers have used the term consubstantial when reasoning on the Divinity of the Father and of the Son.

"These are the circumstances which I had to communicate respecting the formulary of the faith. To it we all agreed, not thoughtlessly, but after mature reflection; and after having subjected it to thorough examination, in the presence of our most beloved emperor, we all, for the above reasons, acquiesced in it. We also willingly submitted to the anathema appended by them to their formulary of faith, because it prohibits the use of words which are not scriptural,—for almost all the disorders and troubles of the church have arisen from the introduction of such words. As no one part of the inspired