§ 6. Having accepted, then, these men’s interpretation of their language and their defence, we made inquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of one subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and Holy Ghost, or as though the Son was non-substantial, or the Holy Ghost without subsistence. But they in their turn assured us that they neither said this nor had ever held it, but, “we use the word subsistence thinking it the same thing to say subsistence or essence.”(121) But we hold there is One, because the Son is of the essence of the Father and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that the nature of it is one, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Ghost are distinct. Well, thereupon, they who had been blamed for saying that there were three subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of one essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematized as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichæus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God’s grace, and after the above explanations, agreed together that the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa is better and more accurate than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.