Most often misrepresented and thus not understood, stands Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. He is honored as the Father of Church History and credited by many as the first founder of that 'formula' or Creed of faith that was to become known as the Nicene Creed. Yet after his death the Catholic Church has basically anathematized him for his Christian beliefs, and has withdrawn their 'honor' from him. Once considered a Saint, he now stands to be viewed as a man of heresy by the traditional Christian sects who have adopted the Nicene Creed, but not in accord as to Bishop Eusebius' inaugural Nicene presentation of true belief given as the basis of the nature of God. And yet his religious histories and writings are treasured and relied upon. And thus we ask, just who was this Bishop of such controversy, this Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea?

Eusebius was acquainted with and likely a 'student' of Bishop Pamphilus, the curator of the magnificent theological library and glory of the Church of Caesarea. Eusebius assisted Bishop Pamphilus in various tasks, including editing the Septuagint. When Bishop Pamphilus was beheaded in the persecutions of Diocletian, Eusebius assumed the name Eusebius Pamphili and was himself Bishop of Caesarea by 315 BC. Having had the tutorage and access to the Great Bishop Pamphilus and his magnificent theological library of many 'original' works of the gospel lost to the world, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea is consider by most to have been one of the more scholarly well prepared men of thrological understanding and prowes of his day and age.

In 312 BC, Bishop Alexander of Egypt had delivered his oration setting forth, according to him, the very nature of God. In comparison to the beliefs of Bishop Eusebius, as set forth in his 'Ecclesastical History', Bishop Alexander's stance upon the 'Trinity' would have been considered by Bishop Eusebius, and likely his mentor, Bishop Pamphilus, as being one of those 'who through the love of innovation had ran into great errors by proclaiming themselves discovers of knowledge falsely, and being one so-called to have been like a fierce or grievous wolf who had entered in (Acts 20:29 & 2 Thes. 2:3) to unmercifully devastate the flock of Christ'. And while the doctrines of Arian, which seemed to deny Christ his divinity, would have likewise been so deemed as innovative and in error, the matter in consideration of the concept of Alexander's Tinity was more of a challenge against the faith. And though Bishop Eusebius was clearly of the position that Christ was Divine and of, or that is, drawn from the same eternal 'essence [of divine intelligence]' as was the Father, he would be against the concept of the Trinity, which make of Father and Son but one entity and being. And because of this the Trinitarians would label Eusebius as either a sympathizer with or even one who was among those of the Arian Heresy. Seldom do you hear the truth that Bishop Eusebius was among the middle 'mainstream' - 'Eusebian' Christians of his day, niether Trinitarian nor Arian. Sadly many of today's proposed difinitions of 'Eusebian' makes of these 'mainstream' followers of Eusebius friends and protectors of Arius, rather than the 'moral majority' who were in stronger opposition to the doctrines of the Trinity than they were to Arius, who possed less of a threat to the determination of the true nature of God. Seldom do they point out that Bishop Eusebius did vote to 'anathematize' Arius at the Nicene Council of 325 AD, where he had falsely been convinced by the 'Trinitarian' Bishops there that they did not make of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son, one and the same entity and being in the 'agreed upon creed statement'.

Now any who have studied Bishop Eusebius objectively, and read his works which clearly convey his beliefs, would certainly understand that he was not an adherer to the doctrines of Arian. His own words in his Ecclesiastical History, which proclaim his 'testimony' of Jesus Christ, are the unquestionable evidence of that. And though his critics tout that Eusebius did not subscribe to the 'Divinity' of Jesus Christ, the divine word, because of his Arian beliefs, are either totally ignorant or are but prevaricators of truth and liars of the worst kind, being so bound by the commandments of God not to bare false witness. For they need but read no further than the second chapter of the first book of Eusebius' history in which Eusebius explains the pre-existence and the Divity of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ and in the fourth paragraph of that chapter fully explains even the creation and how it was done by the Father and Our Lord in the order of how the Father Commanded or directed the roll of our 'divine Word, none other than the one who is proclimed by us, as carrying out the Father's commands.'

And yet still having declared the Divinity of Christ, for not being 'for' Alexander's and his student, Athanasius' position upon the Trinity, they would slander and make of Bishop Eusebius one to be demonized and to be categorized by them and those of them then as well as by the modern followers of Alexander and 'Saint' Athanasius, as being one of their great enemies and lie by labeling Eusebius Arian. And perhaps in truth, while Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea did not adhere to the doctrines of Arius, he found less evil in those such as Arius, who would also stand in opposition to the doctrine and 'heresy' of the Trinity. It was more of the case that the enemies of my worst enemy become allies of expediency for the time being, such as Russia with the United States and Great Britain against Hitler's Germany, Italy and Japan.

History does in fact place Bishop Eusebius, as far as doctrinal concerns, as what historians call a moderate peacemaker during the Nicene Council. He was neither for that polar position held by the Trinataians which innovated the pagan concept of three Gods in One, nor was he of the opinion that Christ was not Divine and not of the same eternal essense from which the Father also so originated. This 'common eternal essence' is that which in latter day revelations has been termed 'intelligence'. And when one has come to understand somewhat concerning the eternal nature of that essence of 'intelligence' from which all living self actuated beings are derived, then one can begin to see the lack of understanding and confusion there was in it. And in not understanding the nature of divine intelligence, that while it was the basic essence of God, it was but one of the component parts which made God who God was. And due to that lack of understanding it would in the course of the development of the Nicene Creed, reduce God to a retrogression from his high and exalted status to take him down to merely being such an entity as of that rudamentary basic form alone, of whence he was. It would take away his divine and eternal parenthood of Jesus Christ and the spirits of the whole race of mankind. It would deny him the advanced celestial glory of having an immortal and exhalted body of parts and passions. And it would reduce him to being but of intelligence only, similar to one of those old 'B' quality honor movies of a mind, brain or head without its enabling body, parts and passions. And in terms of God's great plan of eternal progression, it would turn it inside out, upside down and backwards; reversing the evolution of the race of the God of the universe back to its very rudimenty though eternal essense of mental intelligence alone.

Now by 325 BC, Bishop Eusebius had already weathered one attack upon himself by those followers of the Trinity who had falsely labeled him doctrinally an Arian. This was a lie and likely easily dispelled. The Emperror Constanine was unaffected by it, as he had appearently a prior appreciation and knowledge of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. And by the time of the great assemblly at Nicea, it was Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea whom Constantine would entrust to deliver the inaugural address and set a moderate stage of proper understanding upon which all the Bishops could come to an agreement upon as being the 'truth' of the religion of Christianity. This Eusebius did with the subscribed entent of bring peace to a divided Christian realm.

It would be the end to which Bishop Eusebius would stive, and the falsified initial appearant achievment of the first council due to misrepresentations upon intent and mean by the 'Trinitarian' movement. He would set forth one of the most orthodox and 'universally' accepted doctrinal statements of the early church. A 'Baptismal Creed' or doctrine to which all those who were baptised into the faith would be familiar and would know to be a true foundational doctrine of Christianity. And as to just what this was, we need not speculate, as Bishop Eusebius has written what that was by his own hand, which has been preserved in the records of Bishop Eusebius as being a letter to his own congregation giving an account of the matter. Here then is Bishop Eusebius' own words as number one eye witness of the council from his letter:

"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicaea you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:-

"`As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:-

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages [Col. 1:15], begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.'

"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, `One in substance' (omoousioj), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of `One in substance,' drew up the following formula:-

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.

"`And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church anathematizes.'

"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,' and `one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase `of the substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term `One in substance,' peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted `begotten, not made'; since the Council alleged that `made' was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is `one in substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance; no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the Father is alien), but because `one in substance with the Father' suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and substance, but from the Father.

"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term `one in substance' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and `once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms. Moreover, to anathematize `Before His generation He was not' did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before he was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always and Saviour always, having all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published."³

And now, having presented the very words of Bishop Eusebius the prime self eyewitness to that which he did so deliver unto the great council, let us now examine that statement of faith in comparison to that which we of the latter days have been given to understand as the true doctrine of the matter.

The Original Words and Baptismal Creed Given by Eusebius

`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible.     `And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead,             `And we believe also in One Holy Ghost;       believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy.                               `That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.'

The first statement is a simple undenighable statement of belief in God the Eternal Father, the Maker of all things, and that he consists of 'Body and Soul', being 'visible as well as invisible' or being both 'physical and spiritual' in his present eternal status. This we believe. (D&C 130:22) Next, we too believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is the literal Son of God, literally begotten of the Father in the flesh, the Only-begotten in the flesh, from the very DNA substance of the Fahter; God from God [Note this denotes that Jesus Christ is also a God, a second God], Light or 'Intelligence' from Light or 'Intelligence', very God from very God, begotten [procreated], not made, One in substance [of that same substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth [Here one must appreciate Eusebius' own writings in his Church history which quotes the verses of John chapter one, which points out that the temporal creation was performed by the Son or Word, as directed by the Father.]; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead [This is His work and his glory, for the benefit of men, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. ~ Moses 1:39]. Now for understanding, it ought to be noted that the baptismal creed of belief which Bishop Eusebius is here reciting, now declares a third God or third God memeber of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost; who is a personage of spirit, as was Jehovah in the Old Testament, even as yet. (D&C 130:22) Eusebius continued on making the very point that the three were each distinctive and separate, The Father truly Father, meaning literally that he was the parent of Christ both in the preexistance as the Father of his spirit (see EH Book 1 Chapter 2) as well as having 'begotten him' in the flesh; not to mention being the Father of the spirits of all mankind. And he further states that the Son truly was Son, or literally the Son of God. And he also states that the Holy Ghost was also separate in the role as the Holy Ghost. And of great interest is that Eusebius recites a portion of the Baptismal ordiance pray as we also know it to be, 'baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' (see 3 Nephi 11:24-25) And thus it is obvious that Bishop Eusebius was for a certainty referencing the church's 'baptismal formula, creed and ordinance', and that it did so stipulate the three separate beings of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as such. Now for those who would peg Eusebius as being associated with the doctrine of Arius, they do not know whereof they speak. For certainly they have not done their homework. Bishop Eusebius pronouces all to be of 'godless heresy' to be 'anathematized'. And this exact pronouncement of excommunication is later in the 'revised edition agreed upon' state in a manner that Arius and his follows would be so treated and Eusebius signed that statement with all the other Bishops, that any that say that Jesus Christ was 'made' of 'came from nothing' would be so anathematized. For indeed he is and was of that same eternal substance or essence, 'intelligence', form which all living sons and daughters of God the Father in the Spirit have also been derived from and so being co-eternal with God in being so derived. Eusebius then testifies that this which he has explained has been the truth in respect to God and that he was able to provide the proofs and show and convince all that this was the case in times past and that such had always ben their belief and preaching. And Eusebius stood well to so produce that proof from the archives of the great theological library of Caesarea.

Now there is nothing that is not true doctrine as was stated by Bishop Eusebius before the council when it is so understood by the guidance and gift of the spirit of understanding, with is the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. But when men have lost that spirit and begin to innovate God out of their own personal opinion and contrivance, then the forces of error and corruption do creep in. It is the design and influence of Satan which wiggles in and begins to turn, twist and altar and such true understanding of God into a corruption of lies and deception.

What Bishop Eusebius presented is said to be the 'basis' for the Nicene Creed. Yet immediately the simple truths were began to be altered. One word and the false interpretation of it can wedge the matter into the doctrinal lies which Lucifer would have believed concerning God the Father. It begins with one word and then a phrase and a 'clarification' into a lie, which at the time of Bishop Eusebius' letter to his congregation, he states has made the whole of the matter not that which he agreed to at all.

The one word was transformed into 'homoousios' meaning as guaranteed to Bishop Eusebius to merely mean that both the Father and Son have their origin in that same eternal essence we know as 'intelligence' and in that they are co-eternal, 'intelligence' being of an eternal nature, never having been made from nothing and having always existed. And Bishop Eusebius was guaranteed that 'homoousious' had only such reference unto that 'intelligence' and NOT that God the Father and His Only-Begotten Son were one and the same being. And Bishop Eusebius was assured that even with using that word, the separate character and beings of the Father and the Son would not be made into that Trinitarian lie of the pagan concept of three Gods in one God, or all made into being the same single being. Eusebius presents it this way:

"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, `One in substance' (omoousioj), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of `One in substance,' drew up the following formula:-

This was but the first assurance which Eusebius received. Where upon those in their design proceeded to draw up, alter and change the creed to the following formula with altering words and explanations. Which would yield additional questions of interpretation in the mind of Bishop Eusebius. The following is a comparison between what Bishop Eusebius had originaly state which we have just analyzed in view of latter day understandings. And next to it is now compared that which was then first initially changed and altared, notice those items in [red] which were either eliminated or added in each case:

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead,   And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.'

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. "`And in the Holy Ghost.         But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church anathematizes.'

Even this so framed formula could be interpreted according to correct doctrine as follows:

`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:- [Note, this first statement is not a 'mono-theist' declaration, for there are 'two ands' to follow for the Lord Jesus Christ 'and' the Holy Ghost.] `And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. [Here it pronouces the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Eusebius in his writings also declares, that being the 'Son of God', Jesus Christ, who is also Jehovah, is also God. Bishop Eusebius writes such doctrine in his first book of his Church History, Chapter 2, which speaks of the preexistence of Jesus Christ, his appointment by the Father, and his working with the Father as a God also in the temporal creation of all things.] `And in the Holy Ghost. [Though the Holy Ghost is mentioned briefly, it is understood that he is also of the power and nature of God, witnessing to the divinity, design, order and purpose of the Father and the Son.] `But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church anathematizes.' [Speaking of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or any of God's spirit children, they are of that same 'intelligence' and substance and are 'co-eternal' with God.]

The first statement is a simple undenighable statement of belief in God the Eternal Father, the Maker of all things, and that he consists of 'Body and Soul', being 'visible as well as invisible' or being both 'physical and spiritual' in his present eternal status. This we believe. (D&C 130:22) Next, we too believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is the literal Son of God, literally begotten of the Father in the flesh, the Only-begotten in the flesh, from the very DNA substance of the Fahter; God from God [Note this denotes that Jesus Christ is also a God, a second God], Light or 'Intelligence' from Light or 'Intelligence', very God from very God, begotten [procreated], not made, One in substance [of that same substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth [Here one must appreciate Eusebius' own writings in his Church history which quotes the verses of John chapter one, which points out that the temporal creation was performed by the Son or Word, as directed by the Father.]; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead [This is His work and his glory, for the benefit of men, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. ~ Moses 1:39]. Now for understanding, it ought to be noted that the baptismal creed of belief which Bishop Eusebius is here reciting, now declares a third God or third God memeber of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost; who is a personage of spirit, as was Jehovah in the Old Testament, even as yet. (D&C 130:22) Now for those who would peg Eusebius as being associated with the doctrine of Arius, they do not know whereof they speak. For certainly they have not done their homework, as Bishop Eusebius pronounces excommunication upon all that say that Jesus Christ was 'made' of 'came from nothing'. For indeed he is and was of that same eternal substance or essence, 'intelligence', form which all living sons and daughters of God the Father in the Spirit have also been made from and co-eternal with God in being so derived.

And thus all the believing Bishops did sign the accord as then explained, and it was so explained to Eusebius and others satisfaction, that the 'same substance' statement still allowed the separation of the three as being separate and distinct, though being so derived from that 'same essence or substance' we understand to be identified as 'intelligence'. But the actual underlying design of it gave rise to vageries an alternative interpretation, which the formers of it would turn and resort to after it was signed, sealed and delivered, despite their afore affirmation that it did not mean what they would afterward so claim it to say.

Bishop Eusebius explains in some detail what exactly occured with them receiving assurances during the council before any signing was so afixed.

"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,' and `one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase `of the substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term `One in substance,' peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted `begotten, not made'; since the Council alleged that `made' was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had nolikeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is `one in substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance; no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the Father is alien), but because `one in substance with the Father' suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and substance, but from the Father.

"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term `one in substance' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and `once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms. Moreover, to anathematize `Before His generation He was not' did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before he was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always and Saviour always, having all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published."

Now Eusebius and others were assured that 'one in substance with the Father' meant that the Son was from the Father and of that 'Higher Essence' we understand as 'Intelligenc'. And they were assured that it DID NOT make the Son 'a part' of the Father, thus they retained their distinct individuality. And under that understanding, the majority of all the Bishops did sign, only to be betrayed by those of a designing nature who would thereafter translate it to mean, according to the concept of the Trinity of Alexander, that they were one and the same being, being of the same substance. As Bishop Eusebius explains in his post Nicene letter to his congregation, because of this betrayal in interpreted meaning, he formally withdrew his signing and support of such 'creed' as explained and defined with the Father and Son being but one and the single same God, having lost their individuality as well as there literal relationship to each other as Father and Son.

It is of interest that because of such deceit, Bishop Eusebius with others in council anathematize Bishop Alexander of Alexandrea and Anthansius, who was but a 'Deacon' at the time of the Nicene Council. And it is only after the death of Bishop Eusebius about 340 AD, that in the council of 381 AD (some 41 years even later), that their 'formula' is 'reinstated' as they would have it defined so indicating the unity of the Trinity as one God and one and the same being (yet of diferent in person as the Catholic of today so state but not in the way that we normally think of persons, each being a separate being one from the other). And it would be even a later alteration that would make the Holy Ghost as the one who 'begot' the Son and not the Father at all. And thus the Nicene Creed eventuated into that which denies God the Father his true Fatherhood and Parentage of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. And it further removes from the Father his tangible gloriefied and immortal body of parts and passions; thus making him nothing more than the 'divine essence of intelligence'.