The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these two words is well illustrated in the account which Athanasius De Synodis, c. 45, p. 474, in this Series. himself gives of this same Synod of Antioch:  “They who deposed the Samosatene, took Co-essential (ὁμοούσιος) in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, ‘Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Co-essential with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three essences (οὐσίαι), one the previous essence, and the other two from it;’ and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not Co-essential (ὁμοούσιον).”  Athanasius then explains on what grounds the Bishops at Nicæa “reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was Co-essential.”  Athanasius himself states that, in giving this explanation of the rejection of οὐσιον by the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene, he had not their Epistle before him Ib. c. 43.; and his statement, that Paul used the term not to express his own view, but to refute that of the Bishops, is thought to be opposed to what Hilary says Liber de Synodis, 513., “Male ὁμοούσιον Samosatenus confessus est:  sed numquid melius Ariani negaverunt?”