That the statement of Athanasius himself is not free from difficulty is clear from the way in which so great a Theologian as Bishop Hefele endeavours to explain it:  “Athanasius says that Paul argued in this way:  If Christ is ῾Ομοούσιος with the Father, then three subsistences (οὐσίαι) must be admitted—one first substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and the Spirit); that is to say, that the Divine Substance is separated into three parts Councils, I. p. 124..”  The logical subtlety of Paul was better understood by Basil the Great Epist. 300 (al. 52), quoted by Bull, D.F.N. ii. 1, § 11.:  “For in truth they who met together about Paul of Samosata found fault with the phrase, as not being distinct; for they said that the word ὁμοούσιος gave the idea of an οὐσία and of those derived from it, so that the title ὁμοούσιον assigned the οὐσία separately to the subjects to which it was distributed:  and this notion has some reason in the case of copper and the coins made from it; but in the case of God the Father, and God the Son, there is no substance conceived to be antecedent and superior to both:  for to say and to think this surpasses all bounds of impiety.”