Arian creeds

Arian creeds are the creeds of Arian Christians, developed mostly in the fourth century when Arianism was one of the main varieties of Christianity.

A creed is a brief summary of the beliefs formulated by a group of religious practitioners, expressed in a more or less standardized format. Arian creeds are a subset of Christian Creeds.

Christian creeds
Christian creeds originate in the genres of the trinitarian formula and the Christological confession. In the mid-2nd century a type of doctrinal formula called the Rule of Faith emerged. These were seen as demonstrating the correctness of one's beliefs and helping to avoid heretical doctrines. In the third century, more elaborate professions of faith developed combining the influence of baptismal creeds (i.e., trinitarian formulae) and rules of faith. Learning the creeds was part of the process of gaining admission to the Christian religion. Interrogatory creeds were varieties of creeds used to test candidates for baptism, while declaratory creeds allowed the candidate to express their beliefs in the first person. Among the oldest known Christian Creeds are the Roman Creed and the Nicene Creed.

Arian controversy
Most Arian creeds were written in the fourth century after 325 and during the Arian controversy, a time when the church adopted replacements for the Nicene Creed; in particular, for the word homoousios, as contained in the creed. The Arian controversy began with a dispute between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and a local presbyter, Arius, in the late 310s and early 320s. It lasted until Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica in the year 380, in which he instructed the church to "believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity." The edict continued to describe Christians who do not accept this teaching as "foolish madmen" and as "heretics." And, "they will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict." This was followed by proclamation of the Creed of Constantinople in 381.

Controversy after Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea expressed its opposition to Arius' beliefs in the Nicene Creed. During the 55 years after Nicaea, there was a strong reaction in the church to the Nicene Creed; particularly to the word Greek homoousios ("same substance"). Consequently the church, during that period, formulated various creeds which offered alternatives to the word homoousios and which are regarded today as Arian creeds. Advocates of Nicene Christianity and Arian Christianity debated and competed throughout the fourth century, each claiming to be the orthodox variant. Nicene Christians called their opponents, as a group, Arians. However, many opponents of the Nicene Creed differed significantly from the teachings of Arius, and did not identify with Arius.

After Nicaea in 325, the Emperor Constantine gave orders that all of Arius' books be destroyed and that all people who hide Arius' writings, be killed. Therefore, very little of Arius' writings remains today. A brief statement of what Arius believed was preserved in a letter he wrote to the Arian archbishop of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341).

The church produced many more creeds after the Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s. These include the Second Sirmian Creed (357), the Creed of Nike (360), the Creed of Acacius (359), the Rule of Faith and the Creed of Ulfilas (383), Eudoxius' Rule of Faith, the Creed of Auxentius (364), and the Creed of Germinius.

Eusebian Creeds
In 2004, Lewis Ayres wrote:"'A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century.'"As discussed in the Arius page, scholars today agree that Arius was not the founder of 'Arianism' and that the anti-Nicenes were not followers of Arius and, therefore, are mistakenly called Arians. For example: Richard Hanson (1981) wrote: "The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer."

Rowan Williams (1987) wrote: "'Arianism' as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius."

Lewis Ayres (2004) wrote: "This controversy is mistakenly called Arian." For this reason, Ayres refers to the non-Nicenes of the fourth century not as 'Arians' but as 'Eusebians'. For example:"'My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius himself. This loose alliance I will term 'Eusebian'. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.'"The creeds on this page, therefore, should rather be called 'Eusebian' because their theology is significantly different from Arius'.

Arius' Writings
Arius was a presbyter of Alexandria in the early fourth century. Very little of Arius' writings survived until today: "'As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another.'""The Thalia is Arius' only known theological work," but "we do not possess a single complete and continuous text." We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius' enemies, "mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy."

Arius' Theology
Arius entered into conflict with his bishop, Alexander: "Alexander taught that God was always Father and that the Son was always Son, thus implying the eternal generation of the Son; as the Father's Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father. At the same time, he taught that the Son is the exact image of the Father.""

"Arius saw his bishop's theology as implying two ultimate principles in the universe, and he thought that Alexander compromised the biblical insistence on the Father's being alone God and alone immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). For Arius, any talk about Father and Son as coeternal ignored the hierarchy involved in the very language of Father and Son." Alexander excommunicated Arius in about 318. In a letter to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius stated that he was being excommunicated for teaching that "the Son has an origin, but God is unoriginated ... and also that the Son derives from non-existence." Arius stated that he taught these things because the Son was not a part (μέρος) of the Father, nor an emanation or exhalation of the substance of the Father. For his part, Alexander stated that Arius' beliefs were as follows: "There was a time when God was not Father, and the Son was created out of nothing. The Son is a created product and is not like in substance to the Father. He has come into existence whereas the Father has no origin. The Son is mutable and alterable while the Father is not. The Father is invisible to the Son. The Father created the Son in order to create humans. The father and the son are not consubstantial. Arius also argued that the word homoousios (consubstantial, or having the same substance) should not be used to describe the relation between God the Father and God the Son: Father and Son are not consubstantial according to Arius."

Arius' Support
Initially, Arius gained a great deal of support from other bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire. "Over the next few years Arius gained support from some bishops in Palestine, Syria, and North Africa, especially Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine and Eusebius of Nicomedia, near Constantinople. … Although these supporters may have been wary of some aspects of Arius' theology … they joined in opposition to Alexander. For all of them Alexander's theology seemed to compromise the unity of God and the unique status of the Father."

For example, Eusebius of Caesarea was "universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day." He "was certainly an early supporter of Arius" and he "thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius."

"Holger Strutwolf (1999) … concludes that Eusebius initially misunderstood Arius as saying something similar to himself, and then distanced himself more and more from the Alexandrian as he realized his error, while still opposing the theology … advanced by Alexander."

Letter to Alexander
In about the year 320, Arius and his supporters wrote a letter to Alexander of Alexandria setting out their beliefs in the hope of getting Arius' excommunication rescinded. The letter contained a profession of faith, the earliest known Arian creed.

Council of Nicaea
In an attempt to resolve the doctrinal controversy between the followers of Arius and of Alexander, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325. "Constantine himself summoned the bishops." "'Constantine … seems to have promoted Christianity as a unifying religion for the empire (although his personal beliefs will almost certainly remain unclear). Unity of Christians as a body was of as much concern to Constantine as any doctrinal issue involved.'"The council of Nicaea produced the Nicene Creed, which backed the doctrines of Alexander against those of Arius. "At that council, 'tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander's part and by events at the council of Antioch only a few months before.'"

Homoousios
Where Arius had declared that the Father and Son should not be considered consubstantial (homoousios), the Nicene Creed specifically declared the Father and Son to be consubstantial by declaring that the Son was of the substance of the Father (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς πατρός). "'The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it.' The meeting knew that the emperor would exile all who refused to sign the Creed and 'desired to secure the condemnation of Arius.'"

Controversy after Nicaea
The Arian controversy persisted for the next sixty years. However, "Arius himself is of little significance in the years that follow" after Nicaea. The Controversy now centered around the "new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day," namely, the terms substance (ousia) and 'same substance' (homoousios) to describe the relation between Father and Son in Christian theology but extending to many related aspects of Christian theology such as the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit.

The Dedication Creed - 341
In the year 341, approximately 90 bishops of the Eastern Church met in a Council of Antioch, formally presided over by bishop Flacillus of Antioch. Other leaders of this council included Eusebius of Nicomedia, now bishop of Constantinople, and Acacius of Caesarea, who become bishop of Caesarea in 340.

The Council produced four documents. The second is the most important and is known as the Dedication Creed because the Council met at the celebration of the dedication of a new church built by Constantius II.

Purpose of the Council
The Council met to discuss the decisions of the Council of Rome of the previous year (340), and the letter written to the Eusebians by Julius, Bishop of Rome, earlier in 341, after that council. That Council of Rome had vindicated Athanasius and Marcellus. Both of them were previously condemned at councils of the Eastern Church; Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians in his see and Marcellus some time earlier for Sabellianism. Their vindication, therefore, caused significant tension between the East and West. That tension was heightened by the letter that Julius, the bishop of Rome, after that council wrote to the Eastern Church. In that letter, he accused the East of Arianism, meaning, being followers of Arius’ already discredited theology.

An Eastern Council, like Nicaea
Both the Dedication Council and the Nicene Council of 325 were essentially councils of the Eastern Church. The Dedication Council consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire and represented the view of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop. Similarly, the vast majority of the bishops attending Nicaea were from the East: “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. ... The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” However, although the two meetings were only 16 years apart and represented the same constituencies, there are significant differences between the creeds produced at the two councils:

No Mention of Ousia or Homoousios
One difference is that, while Nicaea describes the Son using the terms ousia and homoousios, and while these terms are viewed today as a crucial part of that Creed, these terms are absent from the Dedication Creed. The reason is that, soon after Nicaea, these terms fell out of the Controversy. For more than twenty years, nobody mentioned it; not even Athanasius:"'What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture) “Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.”"The Nicene Creed and the term homoousios were only brought back into the Controversy in the 350s by Athanasius:"“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)."Both the Dedication Council and the Council of Serdica, two years later, were held during the period that nobody mentioned the Nicene Creed or the term homoousios. For that reason, these councils do not defend or attack the term homoousios. It simply was not an issue.

Anti-Sabellian
But the most significant difference between the two creeds is that, while the Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. Eminent recent scholars confirm the pro-Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed:


 * RPC Hanson: “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the [Sabellian] theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis . This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)
 * Lewis Ayres: After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)
 * Manlio Simonetti: “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory .” (Hanson, p. 171)

The following are indications in the Creed of its pro-Sabellian tendency:


 * Before, during, and after Nicaea, the term homoousios was used mainly by Sabellians. Before Bicaea, Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person. In the year 268, about 70 years before the Dedication Council, another council in the same city (Antioch) had already condemned both the Sabellianism of Paul of Samosata and the term homoousios.
 * One of the anathemas seems to say that the Father and Son are one single hypostasis, which is the view that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person with one single mind, which, as Hanson said, is the hallmark of Sabellianism.

This is not to say that the Nicene Creed is clearly Sabellian, but at the least, it can be said that it does not exclude Sabellianism. Elsewhere, Hanson describes it as "a drawn battle."

Note that these authors associate Sabellianism with one-hypostasis theology. Sabellianism is one form of one-hypostasis theology, which is the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis or Person with one single Mind. Monarchianism and Modalism are other one-hypostasis theologies. The main dividing line in the fourth-century Controversy was between one- and three-hypostasis theologies.

In contrast to Nicaea, the Dedication Creed explicitly opposes Sabellianism. Its main purpose is to oppose Sabellinism. In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.

Why do these creeds differ so much?
So, why is the Nicene Creed pro-Sabellian while the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian?

The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850) For that purpose, the emperor took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius. However, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus against the Eusebians. (Both Eustathius and Marcellus were later exiled for Sabellianism. ) Consequently, the Sabellians were able to include in the Creed at least a hint of Sabellianism.

The Dedication Creed
The Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian because the main threat was the Sabellian one-hypostasis tendency of the Western Church, which can be illustrated in a number of ways:


 * Firstly, the Council of Rome vindicated Marcellus, a well-known Sabellian. “That Julius and later the Westerners at Sardica should have declared him (Marcellus) orthodox was bound to appear to the Eastern theologians to be a condoning of Sabellianism.” (Hanson Lecture)
 * Secondly, the Council of Rome also vindicated Athanasius, who also maintained a one-hypostasis theology. In his theology, the Son is “in” the Father as the Father’s only Wisdom and Word. Athanasius, therefore, taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis (Person).
 * Thirdly, at the failed Council of Serdica in 343, the Western delegates explicitly formulated a one-hypostasis manifesto.

Anti-Arian
Julius, the bishop of Rome, accused the Easterners of Arianism, meaning that they were followers of Arius’ already discredited theology. The Dedication Council denied this. The Easterners did not follow Arius. In fact, Arius did not leave a school of followers. Consequently:"“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.”"In response to Julius' accusation, the Dedication Creed explicitly anathematizes some key aspects of Arius’ theology. For example, the Creed anathematizes all who say: “that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten.” The following is an apt summary of the Dedication Creed:"It 'represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.' (Hanson, p. 290-1)"

The Son is subordinate to the Father.
The Dedication Creed asserts that the Son is subordinate to the Father. But subordination was to be expected because subordination was orthodoxy at the time. “Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” In other words, the subordination in the Creed is not a concession to Arius' theology.

He is the image of the Father's substance.
The Creed says that “the Son is 'the exact Image of the Godhead, the ousia and the will and the power and the glory of the Father'.” In contrast to the Nicene Creed, which says that the Son is of the same ousia as the Father (homoousios), the phrase “exact image of the … ousia … of the Father” means that the Son is distinct from the substance of the Father. Later in the fourth century, in the mid-50s, after Athanasius had re-introduced the term homoousios into the Controversy, "image of the Father's substance" became the catchphrase of the Homoiousians (meaning 'similar substance').

The Son is God.
The Creed regards the Son as subordinate to the Father but also refers to the Son as “God” (theos) and as “God from God.” The reason is that the term theos is not equivalent to the modern word "God." While we use the term "God" only for the Almighty, there were many theoi in ancient Greek:"'It must be understood that in the fourth century the word 'God' (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)"

The Fourth Creed
The Fourth Creed of Antioch " was intended to function as a reconciling formula obnoxious to nobody and capable of being accepted by all.” It condemns both Marcellus and Arius. But otherwise, it leaves out all contentious issues, such as the words ousia and homoousios and does not even address the crucial aspect of the number of hypostases in God.

Text of the Dedication Creed
Four creeds were produced at this council; the Dedication Creed itself is the Second Creed of Antioch.

The phrases 'God from God,' 'whole from whole', and similar ones in the Dedication Creed were intended to deny the idea that the Son was a piece of the father that had been broken off or separated. Arians rejected the idea of the Son as a piece of the Father, so this is another sense in which the Dedication Creed was friendly to Arians. However, Hanson considers the rejection of the idea of the Son as a piece of the Father to be an Origenist doctrine rather than specifically an Arian one. The distinction of hypostases within the Godhead is also reminiscent of Origen, so that the Dedication Creed can be considered 'Origenist.' Hanson also finds a possible influence of Asterius in the terminology of hypostases 'agreeing' (συμφωνίαν), a phrase found in the known fragments of Asterius.

The Dedication Creed was intended to replace the Nicene Creed. The Dedication Creed excluded the kind of Arianism originally proposed by and associated with Arius himself. Because of this, Simonetti believes that by 341, Eusebius of Nicomedia had shifted his views from his earlier support of Arius. On the other hand, the Dedication Creed resembled the doctrines taught by Eusebius of Caesarea prior to the Arian controversy. Thus, Hanson concludes that the intellectual ancestors of the Dedication Creed are Origen, Asterius, and Eusebius of Caesarea.

"[The Dedication Creed] represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented."

The Macrostich - 344
The remainder of the decade after the failed Council of Serdica of 343 was a period of seeking reconciliation. One of these attempts was the Macrostich (the Long Liner Manifesto) which was compiled in 344 in Antioch, the main center of Christianity in the East, and brought to the West in 345.

Western one-hypostasis theology
The Macrostich was developed in response to the views of the Western Church as expressed, particularly, by the manifesto of the Western delegation at the Council of Serdica of 343, which explicitly asserts one single hypostasis. It says:"“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301)"In other words, the Father, Son and Spirit are one single Person with one single Mind. There are different versions of one-hypostasis theology. In the second-century Monarchianism and in Modalism, Father, Son, and Spirit are simply three names for the same Person. When the Macrostich was written, the best-known versions of one-hypostasis theology were those of Marcellus, who was condemned for Sabellianism, and Athanasius, who believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See the discussion of the Dedication Creed.) But in all one-hypostasis theologies, there is only one single Person and Mind. That is what the West also generally believed, as indicated by the fact that the Council of Rome in 340, accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodox.

Eastern three-hypostasis theology
In contrast, the Easterners believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three distinct Persons with three distinct Minds that are united by agreement. The Dedication Creed says this by describing the Father, Son, and Spirit as three hypostases. The Macrostich does not use the term hypostasis but uses ‘realities’ and ‘persons’ instead. It asserts “that there are three realities (πράγματα) or persons (πρόσωπα)" and condemns “those who treat Father, Son, and Spirit as three names of one reality (πράγμα) or person (πρόσωπον).”

It “argues against Marcellan doctrines which … treat the Word as ‘mere word of God and unexisting, having his being in another’.” (Ayres, p. 127) This shows that Marcellus believed that the Word or Son does not have distinct existence but is part of the Father. In contrast, the Macrostich “confesses the Son as ‘living God and Word, existing in himself’.” (Ayres, p. 128)

Although the Macrostich asserts three ‘Persons,’ it says that that does not assert “three gods” (Hanson, p. 310) because the Father alone exists without cause or beginning.

One-hypostasis theology has the highest claim on the unity of Father and Son because they are but one hypostasis (Person). The Macrostich explains the unity of Father and Son as that “Father and Son ‘are united with each other without mediation or distance’ and … they ‘exist inseparably’, all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father.” (Ayres, p. 128-9)

The Son of God
Arius said that the Son “is from non-existence.” In contrast, the Macristich says, He is “genuinely begotten from God alone.” (Hanson, p. 310)

Arius said, “there was when He (the Son) was not.” His enemies accused him of saying there was “time” when the Son was not. The Macrostich states: We do not envisage “an interval of time preceding him.” Only God who begot him timelessly, preceded Him. (Hanson, p. 310) “The Son of God existed before the ages.” (Hanson, p. 309) In other words, the Son had a beginning, but that beginning was before time even existed. Therefore, there never was “a time or age when He was not.”

In the one-hypostasis view, since the Father and Son are one single ‘Person’, the Son has existed for as long as the Father has. Consequently, the Father had never decided to beget the Son; the Father ‘always’ was Father, and the Son ‘always’ was Son. In contrast, the Macrostich says that the Father begat the Son by his counsel and his will. (Hanson, p. 309-10)

The Macrostich says that “the Son was not created as other creatures and products are produced; he cannot be compared with them.” He is the only being ever begotten by God. (Hanson, p. 310) All other creatures came into existence through the Son.

The Macrostich strongly affirms the subordination of the Son. (Hanson, p. 311)  However, “though he be subordinate to his Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, he is God according to his perfect and true nature.” (Ayres, p. 127) That the Macrostich also describes the Son both as subordinate and as God may sound confusing to the modern ear. See the discussion of the same point under the Dedication Creed.

The Holy Spirit
The Macrostich has a very scanty treatment of the Holy Spirit. It describes the Son as "God," and as "God from God," but does not refer to the Holy Spirit as such. On the contrary, it implies that the Holy Spirit is not God.

Ousia Language
Soon after, Nicaea, the term homoousios disappears from the Controversy and was only brought back in the 350s (see here). The Creeds of the 340s, therefore, including the Macrostich, do not refer to that term. The main issue was the number of hypostases in God.

The Nicene Creed says that the Son was begotten from the ousios (substance or essence) of the Father. The Dedication Creed of 431, which is, like the Macrostich, an Eastern creed, describes the Son as the image of the Father’s ousia. In contrast, although the Macrostich says that He is “from God,” and “begotten,” it does not use the term ousia.

Mission Failed
The Macrostich, since it was intended as a reconciliation tool, avoids, as far as possible, controversial and non-biblical language. However, that mission failed. In 345, the Eastern delegation presented their manifesto to the Latin-speaking bishops in the western part of the empire. “The Council of Milan … gave audience to the Antiochenes with their creed. Before the Council would consider the Macrostich, however, they demanded that the Eastern bishops should condemn Arius. The Eastern delegation refused to do this, not assuredly because they were unwilling to condemn Arius, but because they thought it insulting to be suspected and arraigned in this way. They returned to Antioch, their purpose unaccomplished.” (Hanson, p. 312)

First Sirmian Creed - 351
While Emperor Constantius was in Sirmium in the winter of 351, a council was held there. (Hanson, p. 325) The focus of the council was Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, who was the most visible Sabellian at the time. Photinus was condemned for the fifth time and exiled. This Council also produced a creed which was the same as the Fourth Creed of the Dedication Council of 341 - discussed above - with twenty-six more anathemas added.

Mainly Anti-Sabellian
Three of the anathemas strike at Arianism but its main weight certainly is directed towards stamping Sabellianism generally. At least fourteen out of the twenty-six new anathemas are directed against Sabellianism. This reveals the core issue in this stage of the Arian Controversy, namely, between the one-hypostasis Sabellian theologies and the three-hypostases Eusebian theologies:


 * In 325, the greatest winners at Nicaea were the Sabellians.
 * In the decade after Nicaea, the exiled ‘Arians’ were reinstated and the Sabellian supporters of the Nicene Creed were removed from their positions.
 * In 340, the Western Council of Rome vindicated Marcellus, the most prominent Sabellian at the time, as well as Athanasius, who also was a one-hypostasis theologian.
 * The main purpose of the Eastern Dedication Creed of 341 is to oppose Sabellianism.
 * In 343, the Western delegation at Serdica issue an explicit one-hypostasis manifesto.
 * In 344, the Easterners issue the Macrostich, which explicitly asserts three hypostases.
 * And now, in 351, the Easterners again produced a creed whose main weight certainly is directed against Sabellianism.

There are different forms of one-hypostasis (one Person) theologies. Some say that the Son simply is the same at the Father. Others say that the Son is part of the Father. Still others say that both Father and Son are aspects of the one Person. Sabellianism, therefore, is one of the one-hypostasis theologies. For a further discussion, see the Macrostich above.

First mention of homoousios
As mentioned above, the Nicene Creed and homoousios disappear from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was only brought back into the Controversy in the 350s. Athanasius reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy only in the 350s. Here, in the 351-creed, we see the first references to homoousios. Two of the 26 anathemas oppose ousia language.

The Second Sirmian Creed - 357
In the year 357, a small council in Sirmium produced a creed which Hanson regards as “a landmark” because “it was also a catalyst” (Hanson, p. 347) because it defined Arianism and reduced the level of confusion.

The Eastern Church is often regarded as anti-Nicene. What is surprising about this creed is that it was a Western creed, prepared in Latin (Hanson, p. 346). For example, Ossius, who also chaired the Nicene Council, was one of the signatories.

Hanson defines this as an Arian creed, not in the sense that it reproduces all Arius' chief doctrines but because of its drastic subordination of the Son to the Father. One of the ‘Arian’ characteristics of this creed is that the Son suffered. In pro-Nicene theology, the Son of God has the same substance as the Father and, therefore, cannot suffer. The opponents of this creed called it “The Blasphemy of Sirmium” and “Ossius’ lunacy.” (Hanson, p. 345)

While Sirmium 351 had not only omitted ousia language, but positively condemned some uses of that language, the confession of 357 even more strongly argues against ousia language, condemning all ousia language; not because the ousia-statements in the Nicene Creed are untrue but because the Bible does not say anything about God’s substance and it is beyond human understanding.

This was the first creed to use the term ‘homoiousios’. By rejecting all ousia language, this creed also attacks the Dedication Creed which said that the Son is the image of the Father’s substance. As such, this was a Homoian creed. Homoians said that the Son is “like” the Father but rejected all ousia language. This creed marks the emergence of the Homoian Arians as a visible movement.

The Second Sirmian Creed was written in Latin and is preserved in the writings of Hilary of Poitiers. The Second Sirmian Creed aroused strong opposition from pro-Nicene theologians; Hilary of Poitiers called it the Blasphemy of Sirmium and Ossius' lunacy.

The Second Sirmian Creed avoids the following beliefs characteristic of Arius' own beliefs: it does not discuss the relation of Son to Logos, it does not say that the Son was produced out of nothing, and it does not state that the Son is created, using instead terms translatable as begotten and born. However it is Arian in subordinating the Son to the Father, insisting on a unique status for the Father, rejecting the concept of substance (ousia), and asserting that the Son suffered by means of his body (reflecting the Arian belief that God the Father did not suffer). The Second Dedication Creed does not follow the Eunomian Arianism. It represents instead the Arians known as Homoian, who had broken with some of Arius' beliefs and refused to accept Eunomius'.

The Dated Creed
"In AD 359 Constantius decided to emulate his father's action in calling Nicaea and summon a general council." He called a small council of leading bishops in Sirmium to produce a document that, he hoped, would be signed by bishops on opposing sides of the Arian controversy, bringing an end to the conflict. Constantius brought together advocates of the Homoiousian position and of the Homoian Arian position, while excluding the extremes on either side of the controversy, represented by the supporters of Athanasius on the Nicene side and the Eunomians on the Arian side.

"The creed on which they finally agreed asserts, on the one hand, that the Son is 'like the Father in all respects, as the Holy Scriptures also declare and teach'." "On the other hand, it asserts that all ousia language should be avoided, because it was inserted in the creed of Nicaea 'though not familiar to the masses', because it caused 'disturbance', and because it is unscriptural."

"The creed caused Basil of Ancyra some difficulty and he only signed by adding, after his name, that this 'likeness' was also according to 'being'. Thus, although Basil of Ancyra was influential with the imperial authorities at one point during 358–9, it was not for long, and he never seems fully to have overcome long-standing Homoian influence at court."

"This creed is known as the 'Dated creed' because the prologue identifies the date of its promulgation."

The Creed of Nike
The Homoiousians had emerged only a year before, at the Council of Ancyra of 358. This council was called by Basil of Ancyra to discuss allegations made by George of Laodicea that the bishop of Antioch was encouraging extreme Arian positions such as Eunomianism, and specifically the doctrine that the Father and Son are unlike in substance. The Council of Ancyra of 358 included bishops Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople, Eugenius of Nicaea, and Eustathius of Sebaste. George of Laodicea was a signatory to the statement it produced though not present.

The position taken at the Council of Ancyra has often been called Semi-Arianism, but today is more often called Homoiousian theology. Hanson emphasizes that this group, centered on Basil of Ancyra, did not use the word homoiousian themselves. Their formula was that the Father and Son are 'like in ousia' (ὅμοιος κατ' οὐσίαν). They argued that while it was possible to state that the Father was creator (ktistes) and the Son, creature (ktisma), they were also Father and Son. Since all fathers beget sons that are like them in ousia, this must be so of the Father and Son. Therefore, to refer to the Father and Son without the notion of similar ousia is to reduce the relation to one of creator and creature. This group also opposed the idea of homoousios, or consubstantiality, for following their line of argumentation, Father and Son did not have the same but only like substance; assuming consubstantiality could reduce the Son to a part of the Father, or even suggest that Father and Son were in fact the same being, which was considered an approach to the Sabellian heresy.

Following the Council of Ancyra, Basil of Ancyra traveled to Sirmium with a delegation including Eustathius of Sebaste and Eleusius of Cyzicus. This delegation gained the approval of Constantius II, who declared his belief that the Son was like the Father in ousia (κατ'οὐσίαν ὅμοιος τῷ πατρί), the homoiousian position. A Fourth Council of Sirmium was called in which the homoiousians (Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius) met with the Homoian Arians (Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius) along with some other bishops from North Africa. Since these groups appeared were able to work out common statements of belief, Constantius decided to call a larger council to try to end the Arian controversy. In preparation for this council, Constantius asked for a smaller council to meet to prepare a creed that attendants would be asked to assent to. This smaller preparatory council was the Fifth Council of Sirmium, held in 359.

Those present at the Fifth Council of Sirmium were Germinius of Sirmium, Valens of Mursa, and Ursacius of Singidunum, Basil of Ancyra, George of Alexandria, Pancratius of Pelusium, and Mark of Arethusa. According to Germinius, after a long night's discussion they agreed to accept the formula proposed by Mark of Arethusa, 'the Son like the Father in everything as the holy Scriptures declare and teach.' The creed was written by Mark of Arethusa and was precisely dated to 22 May 359. For this reason it is often called the Dated Creed instead of the Fourth Sirmian Creed.

Following the Fifth Council of Sirmium, Constantius II summoned Christian bishops to a general church council. To avoid conflict between Western and Eastern churches, he summoned the Eastern bishops to meet at Seleucia and the Western bishops at Ariminium. His intention was that both councils would discuss and approve the Dated Creed. At the Council of Seleucia approximately 150 bishops attended. The largest contingent was homoiousian, led by Eleusius of Cyzicus, George of Laodicea, and Silvanus of Tarsus. Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople, and Eustathius of Sebaste did not attend as other bishops had them under accusation for ecclesiastical misdemeanors. The Homoians were also in attendance, represented by Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch. The Eunomians were not present. The Council did not agree to sign the Dated Creed. Instead, Acacius submitted his own creed for consideration. This creed was not accepted by a majority, and the council eventually dissolved without coming to any agreement. The various groups at the Council sent representatives to Constantinople, where Constantius II was now in residence.

Meanwhile, Western bishops were meeting at the Council of Ariminum. 400 bishops assembled at the Council. The Homoian Arians were represented by Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, Germinius of Sirmium, Gaius and Demophilus. This group proposed the Dated Creed, but the assembled bishops rejected it and reaffirmed their adherence to the Nicene Creed. They sent ten bishops to meet with Constantius II at Constantinople, but the Emperor refused to see them and made them wait at Adrianople. Constantius them moved the entire council from Ariminum to a placed called Nike in Thrace. He them sent Valens of Mursa back to pressure the bishops to sign a version of the Dated Creed. The Western bishops, and especially Claudius of Picenum made Valens publicly anathematize a series of Arian beliefs, and publicly reject Arius and Arianism. A series of anathemas were added to the Dated Creed that watered down its sense so that it no longer appeared a truly Arian creed. The bishops then signed the creed and Constantius allowed them to return to their homes for the winter.

The homoiousian group from the Council of Seleucia, now in Constantinople, was finally convinced to sign a creed similar to the Dated Creed, on 31 December 359. The words 'in all respects' were eliminated after 'like the Father', so that the homoiousian formula 'like the Father in all respects', which had been in the Dated Creed, was not in the Creed of Nike. Further, two sentences were added: one of them argued that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should not be regarded as having one 'hypostasis', while the other one anathematized all beliefs opposed to this creed. The creed signed by the homoiousians on New Year's Eve, 359, and by the Council of Ariminum relocated to Nike, has been called Creed of Nike, but is also known as the Creed of Constantinople since some of the Eastern bishops signed in Constantinople. However it should not be confused with the more famous Creed of Constantinople of 381. In 360, a follow-up council was held in Constantinople, the Council of Constantinople of 360. Acacius of Caesarea was now Constantius' main advisor, Basil of Ancyra having lost influence as the homoiousian formula 'like in all respects' had been unable to convince the bishops at the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. The Council of Constantinople promulgated once again the Creed of Nike as it had been signed by the twin councils the year before. For a time, the Creed of Nike became the official orthodox creed, replacing the Nicene Creed. It also became the creed of most Arians. Homoian Arianism replaced the old ideas of Arius as the leading variant of Arianism, and also gained strength against the rival Arian variant of Eunomianism.

The Creed of Acacius
During the Council of Seleucia in 359, Acacius of Caesarea produced his own creed, which he hoped the assembled bishops would agree to.

Hanson describes the Creed of Acacius as "a wholly characterless, insignificant creed (though it may have represented the kind of doctrine which the Emperor at that time favoured)." The bishops assembled at Seleucia did not accept this creed. Instead, since Acacius had previously argued with Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishops at Seleucia decided to examine Acacius' accusations against Cyril. Since Acacius refused to submit to this examination, the bishops deposed him on paper. The imperial officials at the council, Leonas and Lauricius, broke up the council, and Acacius went directly to Constantinople to present his case to the Emperor Constantius II. Acacius was not adversely affected, and became the Emperor's main advisor on ecclesiastical affairs. The Homoian Arians remained the most powerful group until the death of Constantius in November 361.

The Rule of Faith of Ulfilas
Ulfilas was the Arian bishop of the Goths. According to Auxentius of Durostorum, he uttered the following Rule of Faith on his death-bed in Constantinople:

"I believe in one God the Father, alone ingenerate and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, artificer and maker of the whole creation, who has nobody like him (similem suum) – therefore there is one God the Father of all who is also God of our God – and in one Holy Spirit, the power which illuminates and sanctifies, as Christ said after the resurrection to his apostles (quotation of Luke 24:49 and Acts I:8), and he (i.e. the Spirit) is not God nor our God, but the minister of Christ ... subordinate and obedient in all things to the Son, and the Son subordinate and obedient in all things to his God and Father ..."

This Rule of Faith demonstrates one of the characteristics of Arian belief, the "drastic subordination of the Son".

The Creed of Ulfilas
Auxentius of Durostorum provided a formal statement of what Ulfilas, Arian bishop of the Goths, believed: "He never hesitated to preach ... one sole true God the Father of Christ according to Christ's own teaching, knowing that this sole true God is solely ingenerate, without beginning, without end, eternal, supernal, high, exalted, the highest origin, higher than any superiority, better than any goodness, infinite, incomprehensible, invisible, immeasurable, immortal, indestructible, incommunicable, incorporeal, uncomposite, simple, immutable, undivided, unmoving, needing nothing, unhapproachable, whole (inscissum), not subject to rule, uncreated, unmade, perfect, existing uniquely (in singularitate extantem), incomparably greater and better than everything. And when he was alone, not to create division or reduction of his Godhead but for the revelation (ostensionem) of his goodness and power, by his will and power alone, impassibly himself impassible, indestructibly himself indestructible, and immovably himself unmoved he created and begot, made and founded the Only-begotten God.

According to the tradition, and the authority of the divine Scriptures he (Ulfilas) never concealed that this second God and originator of everything is from the father and after the Father and because of the Father and for the glory of the Father, but he always showed that according to the holy Gospel he (Christ) is also the great God and great Lord and great Mystery and great Light ... the Lord who is the Provider and Lawgiver, Redeemer, Saviour ... the Originator, the first Judge of living and dead, who has this God and Father as his superior, because he (Ulfilas) despised and trampled upon the hateful and execrable, evil and perverse creed of the Homoousians as a devilish invention and doctrine of demons, and he himself knew and handed down to us that if the unwearying power of the only-begotten God is openly proclaimed as having easily made everything heavenly and earthly, invisible and visible, and is rightly and faithfully believed by us Christians why should the impassible power of God the Father not be credited with having made One suitable for himself?

But ... through his sermons and his writings he (Ulfilas) showed that there is a differenece of deity between the Father and the Son, between the ingenerate and the only-begotten god, and that the Father is the creator of the whole creator, but the Son the creator of the whole creation, and the Father is the God of the Lord, but the Son the God of the whole of creation."

Eudoxius' Rule of Faith
Eudoxius of Antioch is sometimes considered a moderate Arian of the Homoian tendency, but was at times friendly to Aëtius and Eunomius, representatives of the Eunomian tendency. According to Hanson, "he made the transition from Eunomian to Homoian Arianism."

Hanson translates a section of Eudoxius' Rule of Faith that, he states, exemplifies the Arian belief concerning a suffering God. "It was a central part of Arian theology that God suffered" This is because Arians, in common with other Christians, believed that God had become incarnate in a human body. In Arian theology, God the Father begat God the Son, and God the Son was incarnated in a human body, where he was crucified and died in order to show humans the way to overcome death. However Arians also believed that God the Father was perfect and could not suffer. Thus suffering was transposed onto the Son, who experienced suffering when incarnate in a human body. Arians believed that the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, had no human soul, because it was God occupying a human body. This doctrine went together with the doctrine that Jesus was not "mere human," because if he were mere human his death would not lead to salvation for humanity. Thus Jesus had to be God, Word, or Logos incarnate, and not mere human; and as such it was the God within that animated the flesh, not a human soul.

"He became flesh, not man, for he did not take a human soul, but he became flesh, in order that he might be called for men God for us (θεὸς ἡμῖν) by means of the flesh as by means of a veil; there were not two natures, because he was not a complete man, but he was God in the flesh instead of a soul: the whole was a single composite nature; he was pαssible by the Incarnation (οἰκονομίαν) for if only soul and body suffered he could not have saved the world. Let them answer then how this passible and mortal person could be consubstantial with God who is beyond these things: suffering and death."

The Creed of Auxentius
In 364, Hilary of Poitiers tried to have Auxentius of Milan deposed for heresy. Hilary was a committed advocate of the Nicene Creed, while Auxentius was an Arian. Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli reported Auxentius to the Emperor Valentinian I. Unlike Constantius II, Valentinian tried to remain neutral and avoid involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. The Emperor ordered an investigation of Auxentius' beliefs. In response, Auxentius wrote the following letter declaring his beliefs. The letter convinced Valentinian I that Auxentius was no heretic. He dismissed the case and ordered Hilary back to Poitiers. Hilary wrote Contra Auxentium to describe the events. Hanson states that the creed of Auxentius is not representative of Homoian Arian doctrine, because Auxentius chose to defend himself by using traditional formulae passed down in the Milanese church since before the Arian controversy.

The Creed of Germinius
Germinius was the bishop of Sirmium and as such was present at the Councils of Sirmium. He was present at and involved in the drafting of the Dated Creed. In 365 he produced a creed called the Symbol of Germinius of Sirmium. This profession of faith caused concern among Homoian Arian bishops because Germinius said that the Son was like the Father 'in all things' (per omnia similem). This was the Homoiousian formula proposed by Basil of Ancyra and rejected at the Council of Seleucia. Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, Gaius, and Paulus met in a council at Singidunum in 366. They wrote a letter to Germinius asking him to say that the Son is like the Father 'according to the Scriptures' because 'in all respects' could be taken to accept homoousianism, that is, commonality of substance, which Arians consistently rejected. In response, Germinius produced the following creed. According to Hanson, although Germinius was at one time a committed Homoian Arian, this creed is not Homoian Arian, but instead shows that by 366 Germinius had abandoned Homoian Arianism. Instead, this position is similar to that of the Second Creed of Antioch or Dedication Creed produced at the Council of Antioch of 341.