This finished, some of the bishops present at the Council (seventeen or eighteen, whereof Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea was one) not sufficiently satisfied, refused to subscribe till this doctrine of ὁμοούσιος should be better explained. Thereupon the Council decreed, that whosoever shall say that God hath parts, shall be anathematized; to which the said bishops subscribed. And Eusebius, by order of the Council, wrote a letter, the copies whereof were sent to every absent bishop, that being satisfied with the reason of their subscribing, they also should subscribe. The reason they gave of their subscription was this, _that they had now a form of words prescribed, by which, as a rule, they might guide themselves so, as not to violate the peace of the church_. By this it is manifest, that no man was an heretic, but he that in plain and direct words contradicted that form by the church prescribed, and that no man could be made _an heretic by consequence_. And because the said form was not put into the body of the creed, but directed only to the bishops, there was no reason to punish any lay-person that should speak to the contrary. But what was the meaning of this doctrine, _that God has no parts_? Was it made heresy to say, that God, who is a real substance, cannot be considered or spoken of as _here_ or _there_, or any where, which are parts of places? Or that there is any real thing without length every way, that is to say, which hath no magnitude at all, finite, nor infinite? Or is there any whole substance, whose two halves or three thirds are not the same with that whole? Or did they mean to condemn the argument of Tertullian, by which he confuted Apelles and other heretics of his time, namely, _whatsoever was not corporeal, was nothing but phantasm, and not corporeal_, for heretical? No, certainly, no divines say that. They went to establish the doctrine of _one individual God in Trinity_; to abolish the diversity of species in God, not the distinction of _here_ and _there_ in substance. When St. Paul asked the Corinthians, _Is Christ divided_, he did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet, but that they might think him, according to the manner of the Gentiles, one of the sons of God, as Arius did; but not the only-begotten Son of God. And thus also it is expounded in the Creed of Athanasius, who was present in that council, by these words, _not confounding the persons, nor dividing the substances_; that is to say, that God is not divided into three persons, as man is divided into Peter, James, and John; nor are the three persons one and the same person. But Aristotle, and from him all the Greek Fathers, and other learned men, when they distinguish the general latitude of a word, they call it division; as when they divide _animal_ into man and beast, they call these εἴδη, _species_; and when they again divide the _species_ man into Peter and John, they call these μίρη, _partes individuæ_.