The Cambridge Companion To The Council of Nicaea II The Council of Ariminum (359) and The Rise of The Neo-Nicenes

14 The Council of Ariminum (359) and the Rise
of the Neo-Nicenes
d. h. williams
By the time Constantius (II) called for a general council in 359,

a doctrinal/confessional upheaval was already boiling over in the West.
Passage and issuance of the Nicene Creed in 325 had not assuaged the
problems it was intended to; rather, it functioned like a lightning rod that
called for more acute clarification of multiple theological currents.1
After Nicaea, a host of councils and creeds were promulgated with short-
lived success. The debacle of Serdica (343) served as a useful indicator for
the way doctrinal ideals were colliding, not at all congealing into a more
unified stance between bishops and churches. To think of this dynamic
as a division between East and West oversimplifies the various allegi-
ances that existed between pockets of bishops with varying loyalties that
were roughly divided into single substance terminology when it came to
expressing the relation of the Father and the Son versus dyo-hypostatic.2
Then there was the monarchial tendency, best known in the thought of
Photinus of Sirmium. From hostile sources it seems that Photinus main-
tained that the Son did not exist until his incarnation at Bethlehem. By
the late 340s, Photinus’s teaching had come to be the demonstration of
(adoptionist) monarchianism in the West.3 While no one could articulate
1
My use of “Neo-Nicene” is quite similar to “Pro-Nicene” except that the former is
time related. As we will see, the term “neo-Nicene,” while strictly a modern invention,
has to do with the galvanization of pro-Nicenes once a movement against the Council
of Ariminum was underway.
2
Lienhard’s division of the conflict as a division between trajectories is still valuable;
mia-hypostatic and dyo-hypostatic is well known. See Lienhard 1987. The use of such
parameters, however, cannot cope with the kind of ecclesiastical and doctrinal com-
plexities that evolved by the later 350s as the very terminology of ousia (hypostatic)
came under attack as a confessionally valid term.
3
Eusebius of Vercelli (?), De trinitate 3.47 (CCSL 9, 42); Lucifer of Cagliari, De non
parcendo in Deum delinquentibus 28 (CCSL 8, 250); Zeno of Verona, Tractatus 2.8
(CCSL 22, 177.37–38). In the earliest Latin handbook of heresy, “Fotinus” was high-
lighted as a heretic because “he denied that Christ is God with the Father before the
ages.” Filastrius (Filastr.), Diversarum haereseon liber 91.2 (CSEL 9, 257).
305
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. King's College London, on 20 Dec 2020 at 08:44:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108613200.014
306 d. h. williams
it at the time, the success of pro-Nicene theology was contingent upon

its proving the dissimilarity between itself and monarchianism.
the “blasphemia” and its responses

We begin with Hilary of Poitiers,4 who, as a western bishop in exile in
Anatolia, was in a unique position to understand the complexity and
variety of doctrinal perspectives among the eastern bishops.5 In the De
synodis, he sought to translate and comment on several “eastern” creeds
to his episcopal confrères, as well as informing them about the enormity
of a doctrinal explication that took shape in 357, as Hilary termed it, the
“Blasphemia.” He knows the councils of Ancyra (358) and Ariminum
(359) are already planned and that western bishops will be attending. He
wishes to warn them of “this most impious statement,” which argues for
one God and the Son begotten, not from the Father, but from nothing just
as a creature (ex nihilo ut creatura).6 As it concerned the begetting on the
Son, Hilary snidely remarks that we are not supposed to know anything
about it – “this Compulsory Ignorance Act” – except that the Son is of
God. Hilary then quotes the “godless blasphemy” for his readers.7
Curiously, nothing in the statement is said about the Son being begotten
from nothing, nor that he is a creature, both of which Hilary claims to be
the case. Although it could easily be divined from the sentence “[the] Son
is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the Father
has subordinated to Him” (my emphasis)8 that the Son partakes of the
sane nature as “all things,” Phoebadius of Agen also interprets the
Manifesto as teaching that the Son is a creature.
This document is not a creed in the conventional sense nor is it
framed as a creed by those who responded to it.9 It is rightly regarded as
a theological working or position paper meant for public presentation,
a kind of theological manifesto that had the confidence of the emperor,
who caused it to be widely distributed.10 But this raises a question. Why
have a position statement promulgated instead of a creed, which had
4
For the pre-history of councils, bishops, and creeds during the 340–350s, see Kelly 1972
and Williams 2014.
5
Writing in early 358, given that Hilary knows Basil and company have been received
by Constantius in Constantinople (Hilary of Poitiers [Hilar.], De synodis [De syn.] 78).
6
Hilar., De syn. 10 (PL 10:486B).
7
Greek versions of the same are in Athanasius (Ath.), De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae
(De syn.) 28; Socrates (Socr.), Historia ecclesiastica (HE) 2.30.
8
Hilar., De syn. 11 (PL 10:489A).
9
Though Hilary refers to the “Manifesto” as a fides (Hilar., De syn. 11; PL 10:487A).
10
Ayres 2004, 139.
ariminum and the rise of the neo-nicenes 307
been the custom? The answer is linked to the expectation that the
Manifesto was intended to have, namely, to prepare the ecclesiastical
groundwork for acceptance of a later creed that reflects the Sirmium
document. As the emperor Constantius sought to unify the empire, he
also attempted to prompt unity of the various factions out of which could
come a creed that the majority of bishops would accept.
The general response to the Sirmium document is unknown but
appears to have been positive or neutral on the part of the majority of
bishops. But it also raised immediate and virulent rejoinders from Hilary,
Phoebadius, and perhaps Marius Victorinus, who saw treachery within
it.11 Nonetheless, it was officially issued under the emperor’s aegis to
eastern and western churches, probably with a cover letter, though it
does not seem that subscriptions were required. It was said to be penned
by Hosius and Potamius of Lisbon,12 in the company of Valens of Mursa,
Ursacius of Singidunum, and Germinius of Sirmium, who would have
appealed to bishops with a doctrinal proclivity toward mia-hypostatic
theology,13 and Potamius for those who did not.14 Was their aim to set
aside the creed of Nicaea once and for all?15 Undoubtedly this was part of
the intent of the authors, and yet Nicaea’s language was not the only one
embargoed. Any terms containing ousia were to be shunned, including
the short-lived homoiousios, a term which Hilary uses.16
There were responses to the “Blasphemia,” although we ought not to
think of these as well-defined groups. As the 340s and 350s showed,
bishops changed allegiances in accordance with the latest developments.
11
It is usually concluded that the first letter from Candidus to Victorinus and the latter’s
response (CSEL 83/1, 1–48) were motivated by the Sirmium manifesto, though there is
virtually no internal evidence to substantiate such a date. Alternatively, this part of
the correspondence may have been just as easily a product of the circumstances
surrounding Liberius’s exile (following the Council of Milan, 355), about which
Victorinus would have taken a strong interest.
12
Conti 1998, 17–18.
13
A point Phoebadius of Agen (Phoeb.) observes in Liber contra Arrianos (Ar.) 28.1: “But
even with all these [arguments of theirs] shattered and cast into the light of public
knowledge, I am not unaware that the name of Hosius, that most elderly priest who
always had such resolute faith, is now tempered to serve as a battering ram, one might
say, against us in order to drive away the [seeming] rashness of our objections” (Wessel
2008, 62; PL 20:30B).
14
Potamius of Lisbon, who sided with anti-ousian theology in the later 350s, is quoted as
teaching, “in the flesh and spirit of Christ, coagulated through Mary’s blood and
reduced to a single body, was made the passible God” (passibilem Deum factum).
Cited by Phoeb., Ar. 5.1. This is the only indisputable text that comes from Potamius.
15
Barnes 2007, 279.
16
Hilary also refers to this position as similitudo essentiae configurata in genere (“the
similarity of substance conformed to the [Father’s] nature”) or similis est Patri (“He is
like the Father”) (Hilar., De syn. 25; PL 10:499).
308 d. h. williams
Late twentieth- and twenty-first-century scholarship has demonstrated

that it is more useful to talk about theological trajectories. It is
a misnomer to imagine we are dealing with groups tightly knit around
a particular creed or doctrinal platform. This is demonstrated by the
loose coalitions of bishops that formed together in one context and
could be found in a new configuration in another context. At most we
can talk about theological trajectories as expressed above. Of course, it is
possible to go too far in a way that the subject becomes reframed accord-
ing to post-modern exigencies such that doctrinal categories are too
unstable and pluriform to make any fundamental divisions in the reli-
gious landscape.
One response entailed a sharp reaction, as we witnessed with
Hilary’s De synodis, which pushed back toward a mia-hypostatic/pro-
ousian direction, but without what Hilary called “the heresy which
arises from an erroneous interpretation of homoousian.”17 In the West
Phoebadius of Agen dashed off his Liber contra Arrianos (sic) regarding
the “Manifesto” as nothing less than a deceptive ploy in spreading
catholic doctrine: “I saw through this devilishly subtle deception –
a deception that had nearly taken over everyone’s thoughts [. . .] I very
much desire to be able to reveal this heresy to the public conscience,
blind as it is with devilish deceit.”18 Certainly Phoebadius regarded the
“Manifesto” as a negation of Nicaea. There is no question that
Phoebadius is pro-Nicene – perhaps more than Hilary – when he calls
the Nicene creed the “fixed, perfect rule of universal faith with such
careful wording.”19
Phoebadius’s conviction about the Nicene creed did not appear out
of thin air. Whereas the Nicene creed had lain more or less dormant
during the 330s and 340s, it reappeared with a new surge of urgency as
bishops who supported a mia-hypostatic perspective were oppressed and
exiled in the councils of Arles (353), Milan (355), and others. These
synods reflected the emperor Constantius’s efforts to establish ecclesias-
tical harmony by encouraging the inculcation of a formula that was the
least contentious. Constantius was not an “Arian” or a supporter of
17
That is, any form of Monarchianism associated with Photinus. Hilar., De syn. 84 (PL
10:535C).
18
Phoeb., Ar. 1.1, 1.5 (Wessel 2008, 9–10; PL 20:13C–D). Sidaway 2013, identifies four
interrelated tenets of Phoebadius’s argument based on substance language: (1) God the
Father and God the Son are of one substance; (2) the Son is eternally with the Father,
without beginning and without end; (3) Father and the Son are distinct but indivisible,
so the Son is equal in honor, greatness, dignity and majesty; and (4) the Son in his
incarnate form has two natures, divine and human, which remain distinct.
19
Phoeb., Ar. 6.2. In 8.2 he more typically regards it as a remedy to heresy.
“Arianism.” Nonetheless, the emperor now decided to take a firmer

hand in the issues in contention – never resolved at Serdica. And we
see that for him these issues were not so much theological, but ecclesi-
astical/political; in particular, the condemnation of Athanasius,
Marcellus and Photinus.29 After the Council of Arles, Liberius of Rome
addressed the emperor in a letter requesting another council where
reconsideration might be given to the decisions of Arles. Liberius had
a very different vision from the emperor about what would best consti-
tute unity among the churches and bring peace to the empire.20 It was
unnecessary to invent other formulas but necessary to return to that
“exposition of the faith ratified between such great bishops at the
Council of Nicaea.”21 When Eusebius of Vercelli presented the Nicene
Creed for signatures at the synod of Milan,32 an emotional outburst from
Valens of Mursa easily scuttled the plot to introduce it, and the synod
concluded with a majority of western bishops endorsing the decisions
made at Arles. Constantius did not intercede in the way Liberius
requested, but it probably would have made little difference. Few west-
ern bishops were prepared to sacrifice their sees by favoring a creed that
they had little investment in anyways.22
In the year after the Manifesto, a group of eastern bishops led by Basil
of Ancyra reacted to Aetius’s more radical heteroousian (or anhomoou-
sian) teaching – that the Son was an altogether different substance from
the Father – and sought to propose yet another creed with yet another
term that might mollify episcopal tensions. Just before Easter in the year
358, Basil of Ancyra and a group of like-minded bishops gathered at
a council in Ancyra and approved a creedal document explaining that
group’s understanding of the Son’s relation to the Father, to which they
appended nineteen anathemas. It should be noted that these bishops
never use homoiousios, but articulate several ways of expressing the
mystery. Founded on the principle that the Son is the very image of
God, he must be the Son according to essence. Like Hilary, Athanasius
also expresses a positive opinion that the affirmations of Basil of Ancyra
are consistent with the homoousios. Basil and company took their creed
to Sirmium for imperial approval, and with it, a new formula for the
20
We must recall that Julius, Liberius’s predecessor, had extended communion to
Athanasius and Marcellus.
21
Hilar., Collectanea antiariana Parisina (CAP) A.7.6 (CSEL 65, 93).
22
Of the bishops that were deposed at Milan included Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of
Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, along with two of his clergy. See Sulpicius Severus (Sulp.
Sev.), Chronicorum libri duo (Chron.) 39.6–7; Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 1.20;
Socr., HE 2.36; Sozomen (Soz.), Historia ecclesiastica (HE) 4.9.3.
310 d. h. williams
empire. But it was not to be.23 Very soon Basil and company would find it
necessary to assimilate themselves into another confederation of bishops
that produced another creed.
Meanwhile, the “Manifesto” was taking shape as Athanasius
describes it, certifying whatever fears Hilary had that the “Blasphemia”
would become the grounds for erecting a new doctrinal creed.24 We do
not know how many bishops favored the simpler theology of the
Sirmium Manifesto, but it would have been far more than the few pro-
Nicene. In only his first year as bishop of Antioch, Eudoxius held
a council in the city of Antioch that openly endorsed it and the task of
shrinking it into a concise definition of faith, dubbed by Athanasius as
the “Dated Creed.”
the “dated creed”

One of the emphases in evaluations of the Nicene–“Arian” controversies
over the last twenty years is how the Ariminum creed served as
a confessional rallying point for the majority of western anti-Nicenes.
In effect, it acted like a fulcrum on which sporadic and individualist
defenses of the Nicene faith were raised to the level at which Nicaea
came to function as a canonical statement of faith that superseded all
others. As an alternative to the theology of consubstantiality and its
interpreters, the Ariminum creed was accepted as an authoritative doc-
trinal standard by such leading bishops as Auxentius of Milan, Palladius
of Ratiaria, and the renowned missionary to the Goths, Ulfila. Its funda-
mental place in Latin-speaking “Arianism” is perhaps best revealed
when that same creed was named in a law issued by the pro-Homoian
government of Valentinian II in 386 as a counter-standard of faith to the
Nicene Creed.
Athanasius provides our earliest version of the “Dated Creed,”
wherein the logic of the “Manifesto” of 357 is repeated.25 Concerning
the Son it is stated that He is,
[. . .] one only-begotten Son of God, who, before all ages, and before
all origin, and before all conceivable time, and before all compre-
hensible essence, was begotten impassibly from God: through
23
There was no council held at Sirmium in 358. Soz., HE 4.15, presents a confused
context with the various councils held in Sirmium as did Socrates.
24
Ath., De syn. 29.
25
The title was given by Athanasius because of the irregularity of ascribing a specific
date to the issuances of the creed, “the eleventh of the Kalends of June” (= May 22).
Ath., De syn. 8.3 (Martin and Morales 1985, 199).
whom the ages were disposed and all things were made; and Him
begotten as the Only-begotten, Only from the Only Father, God
from God, like to the Father who begot Him, according to the
Scriptures; whose origin no one knows save the Father alone who
begot Him [. . .]
But whereas the term ousia has been adopted by the Fathers in
simplicity, and gives offense as being misconceived by the people,
and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to
remove it, that it be never in any case used of God again, because
the divine Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and Son. But we say
that the Son is like (homoios) the Father in all things (kata panta),
as also the Holy Scriptures say and teach.26
According to Athanasius, this formula of faith of 359 was also a kind of

working paper, being drawn up in preparation for the ecumenical councils
planned for Ariminum and Seleucia (in Cilicia). One notices that this
statement draws on traditional language. Some features of the text hint at
a kinship with the (second) Antiochene creed when it comes to “One only
and True God” and “through whom the ages were fashioned.”27 But more
significant is the reuse of the term homoios, which could have indeed
functioned as a term mediating opposing groups. We will recall this was
Athanasius’s preferred word for talking about the Father and Son in his
Adversus Arianos, for example, “If the Son is the offspring and Image and is
like in all things to the Father” (1.21 cf. 1.40, 1.52, 2.17, 3.10–11, 3.20).28
Hilary also uses it as designating essential likeness.29 If the quest was to
find a commonplace and familiar theological language, then it is arguable
that the reintroduction of homoios makes good sense. There was nothing
new, therefore, about employing homoios for doctrinal purposes.
Those architects of the “Dated Creed” are named, and the overlap with
the “Manifesto” is not coincidental: Germinius, Auxentius of Milan,
Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, Gaius of Illyricum, and Mark of Arethusa,
who acted as the final editor. No doubt Basil of Ancyra and his fellow
delegates were disappointed not to see “like-in-substance,” but the
moment they agreed to the clause that the term ousia is too stark and
causes more confusion than clarity, their doctrinal purpose was annulled.
According to Epiphanius, Basil tried to compensate for this situation by
26
NPNF 2.4, 454 (with modifications).
27
Kelly 1972, 290.
28
The expression that the Son was “like all things to the Father” also appeared in the so-
called Long-lined Creed (ekthesis makrostichos), itself a document of rapprochement
between East and West in 344.
29
Hilar., De syn. 73.
312 d. h. williams
adding a postscript that emphasized that the text “like the Father” must be
qualified by “in all things” not merely in will but in essence (hypostasis),
and in existence, and in substance (ousia). Little did Basil know that his
creedal gloss would have no effect, since the qualifier of similis – “in all
things” – would be expunged from the final version of the creed at
Ariminum.
Was this event the beginning of the “Homoians” or at least the start
of a Homoian theology? Maybe the second, but not the first. From the
series of events we have just recounted, we are hard pressed to identify
the crystallization of a “party” or “platform” known as the Homoians.30
But we do see the resurgence of the term homoios (or similis in Latin),
a term well known and sufficiently ambiguous to use for most of the
theological trajectories of the time.31 Neither was there a group of pro-
Nicenes in any organized sense. It is more the case that those who called
for the acknowledgement of the Nicene Creed were lone voices in the
West. That Hilary exclaimed that he had even heard of the Nicene Creed
recited before he went into exile (356) must have been a state of know-
ledge indicative of most Latin bishops.
the council of ariminum (rimini)

The decades of the 350s and 360s constitute a period of theological
awakening and development in the West, as the controversies so long
engaging the East become more prominent in the Latin-speaking world.
Now the movement of events picked up speed in 359. The Council of
Ariminum (Rimini) commenced in late spring, probably in the third or
fourth week of May. Indecision over the eastern location made it impos-
sible for enough bishops to converge at Seleucia until September.32
Not surprisingly Ariminum eventually came to endorse an edited
version of the “Dated Creed” along with several qualifying statements
that sparked such controversy in the West for the rest of the century. The
best ancient source for the vicissitudes of this council is Hilary’s Liber
contra Ursacium et Valentem where it is Hilary’s intention to show how
an enormous maneuver of deceit was successfully perpetrated against the
whole council by Valens and his associates.
30
Contra Hanson 1988, 126, 347, 583 who sees the creation of the “Homoians” with the
Sirmium “Manifesto.”
31
We would have to exclude, however, the Eunomians or Heteroousians for whom the
Son is dissimilis from the Father.
32
September 27, 359. Hilar., In Constantium 12.9–10; Socr., HE 2.39. The meeting of the
easterners, around 150 bishops, will remarkably coincide with events at Ariminum.
The council’s proceedings are divided into two parts. The first half
bears witness that the warnings of Hilary, Phoebadius, and Liberius had
had some impact on their western colleagues. The unveiling of the
“Dated Creed” in the midst of the council by Valens and his fellows
was rejected out of hand by the majority of bishops, though not because it
was thought to contain heretical doctrine.33 Rather, it was felt by the
majority that no other creed or addition need be considered except “that
which has been received from the beginning,” namely, the Nicene Creed.
Such a decision split the council and made it impossible to fulfill
Constantius’s demand of the bishops: “to recognize the need for
a discussion on faith and unity.”34 On the contrary, the members of the
council proceeded to condemn and excommunicate Valens, Ursacius,
Germinius, and Gaius. Ten delegates from the majority were sent to
Constantius at Constantinople. The reporting delegation, whose decision
was already made known to the emperor, was not given an audience and
made to wait first in Hadrianople and then at Nikē in Thrace. In the
meantime, pressure was laid on those delegates representing the majority
of bishops at Ariminum to reach an agreement with the minority party; the
result was a dramatic reversal on their part. By October 10, 359, the hard-
line position of the majority had been overturned by its own delegates.
Restutus (or Restitutus) of Carthage, the leader of the majority delegation,
tells how the two groups met together (in comminus positi) at Nikē and
explains that the excommunication of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and
Gaius was a grave error that should be annulled. Furthermore, Restutus
claimed they had also experienced mutual agreement over “the catholic
faith in these matters according to their profession,”35 which was none
other than the formula recently drawn up at Sirmium. It declared that ousia
should be abolished on the grounds that it was ambiguous and non-
scriptural and confessed that “the Son was like the Father.” Note that
a small but significant alteration had taken place. The traditional phrase
“in all things” (kata panta) had been removed, perhaps at the behest of
Valens, who is said to have tried unsuccessfully to excise the phrase several
months before at Sirmium.36 A copy of the new formula that was approved
at Nikē is preserved in Theodoret.37
33
Socr., HE 2.37; Soz., HE 4.17.6–7.
34
Hilar., CAP A.8.1 (CSEL 65, 94).
35
Hilar., CAP A 5.3.2 (CSEL 65, 86.14).
36
Epiphanius, Panarion 73.22.6.
37
Theodoret (Thdt.), Historia ecclesiastica (HE) 2.21.3–7 (translation from NPNF 2.3,
184–85).
314 d. h. williams
We believe in one only true God, Father Almighty, of Whom are all
things. And in the only-begotten Son of God, Who before all ages
and before every beginning was begotten of God, through Whom all
things were made, both visible and invisible: alone begotten, only-
begotten of the Father alone, God of God: like the Father that begot
Him, according to the Scriptures, Whose generation no one knows
except only the Father that begot Him [. . .]
But the word “the Substance,” which was too simply inserted
by the Fathers, and, not being understood by the people, was
a cause of scandal through its not being found in the Scriptures,
it has seemed good to us to remove, and that for the future no
mention whatever be permitted of “Substance,” on account of the
sacred Scriptures nowhere making any mention of the
“Substance” of the Father and the Son. Nor must one “essence”
be named in relation to the person of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call
Him and teach.
But the exclusion of “in all things” was not the point of betrayal; the
emphasis placed on the significance of its omission by modern historians
is much overstressed. When both sets of the delegates returned to
Ariminum, the majority was surprised, not so much that a new form of
the “Dated Creed” was introduced, but that the Nicene faith had been
omitted and replaced with another creed.
A second letter to Constantius, which was sent under the name of
the whole council, tells how those who had endorsed the use of ousia and
homoousios changed their minds, and agreed that such names were
“unworthy to God, since they are never found in Scripture.”38 In the
same letter, such denials give way to hyperbole: the use of these terms is
potently described as a sacrilegium and are said to no longer have a place
in sound doctrine. The council also indicated that its position was now
unified with the eastern council (Seleucia), a claim which the pro-
Homoian bishops may have used manipulatively.
The Council of Ariminum seems to have ended on a note of outward
unity and harmony. Even certain resistant bishops finally subscribed to
the Nikē formula, once Valens assented in dramatic fashion to a series of
anti-“Arian” anathemas.39 At this point, writes Jerome, “all the bishops
and the whole church together received the words of Valens with
38
Hilar., CAP A.6.1.2 (CSEL 65, 87).
39
Phoebadius of Agen and Servatio of Tungri are mentioned as the leaders of those who
had not yielded. Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2.44.1.
clapping of hands and stamping of feet.”40 The wording of the Ariminum

creed, slightly modified, was ratified at Constantinople in the winter of
360 and thus designated as the confessional standard of the Roman
empire.41 Regrettably, no subscription list(s) of either council survives.
Among the anathemas affirmed in the assembly, Valens is said to
have claimed that the Son of God was not a creature like other creatures.
Despite the fact that the sincerity of his testimony was accepted prima
facie by all, it is this statement in particular which Sulpicius Severus
singles out as containing a secret guile:
Then Valens [. . .] added the statement, in which there was hidden

cunning (occultus dolus), that the Son of God was not a creature as
was other creatures; and the deceit (fraus) of this profession
bypassed the notice of those hearing. Even though he denied in
these words that the Son was like other creatures, the Son was,
nevertheless, pronounced to be a creature, only superior to other
creatures.42
Jerome too claims that that underneath Valens’ acclamation of orthodox-

sounding anathemas, there was deceit. What the bishops failed to recog-
nize at the time was the corollary to Valens’ assertion at the council that
if the Son was not a creature like other creatures he was nevertheless
a creature and in this the Son is in fact dissimilis to the Father.43 More
importantly, herein lay the kernel of Homoian theology, that homoios
was being harnessed to mark the unlikeness or at the very least a certain
vagueness between the Father and Son, a usage which stood the trad-
itional use of homoios on its head. It is unlikely that the western bishops
at Ariminum realized they were subscribing against the Nicene faith.
Nevertheless, Hilary sardonically refers to the difference between the
two sessions: “They condemned the sound faith which they defended
earlier, and received the treachery which they condemned earlier.”44
40
Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos 18 (PL 23:171C–172A).
41
The Homoian formula from Ariminum was endorsed by the synod and on February 15,
360, Constantius, along with the bishops present, consecrated the Great Church at
Constantinople, named the “Sophia,” which his father had begun a generation earlier.
42
Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2.44.7 (CSEL 1, 97–98).
43
Meslin 1967, has tried to present Valens and Ursacius, not as unscrupulous schemers,
but as sincere theologians. His point, that Valens does unambiguously declare that he
was no Arian, should be taken at face value. But it is hardly surprising that anyone in
late fourth century should deny a connection to Arius or to the name “Arian.”
Another Homoian bishop, Palladius of Ratiaria, made the same denial at the
Council of Aquileia in 381. Neither Valens nor Palladius saw themselves as points
on a line that stretched back to Arius.
44
316 d. h. williams
Perhaps the most impugning testimony was that one of the signers of the
“Dated Creed,” Germinius of Sirmium, openly charged Valens with
doctrinal vacillation and duplicity. It was Valens, Germinius testifies,
who changed his position at Ariminum by declaring that the Son was like
the Father but eschewing the important qualifier, “in all things.”45
A decade later the great disparity between the two sessions of the
council was still being rehearsed by Ambrose in his attack on
Homoianism.46 In a letter to Valentinian II, Ambrose bypassed the argu-
ment for the numerical superiority of Ariminum by explaining how
sound decisions of the majority of bishops in support of the Nicene
Creed were altered only by the illegitimate tactics (circumscriptionibus)
of a few.47 This Homoian theology that emerged from Ariminum became
a standard around which its proponents rallied for the next two or more
decades.
the aftermath of ariminum

The combination of foisting what were perceived as eastern creeds on
western churches throughout the 350s, the exiling of western bishops,
the fraus (deceit) committed at Ariminum, plus the prohibition of “sub-
substance” language for all subsequent theological language, contributed
to an unparalleled counter-reaction in the West. A Neo-Nicenism that had
slightly reared its head in the last decade now emerged in the 360s ener-
gized and ready to reclaim the field. This is certainly not meant to imply
that the Nicene faith dominated the doctrinal minds of bishops through-
out the Roman empire. But we will see the slow ascendancy of Nicaea,
though in sharp conflict with the Homoian creed and theology that had
now crystallized in theocratic style under the emperor Constantius.
Indeed, the Homoian platform will vigorously contend with its opponents
well into the fifth century, revealing that the hegemony of Neo-Nicenism
is not a fait accompli by Constantinople 381. As late as 427/8, the author-
ity of the Nicene and Ariminum creeds was still being contested.48
The immediate aftermath of Ariminum and Constantinople is quite
telling. A gathering of bishops in Paris in 360 condemned Ariminum as
a “deceit of the devil” and declared that those bishops who subscribed to
the acts of the council did so out of ignorance.49 This protest is echoed in
45
Hilar., CAP B.6.3 (CSEL 65, 163).
46
Ambrose, De fide 1.18.122.
47
Ambr., Epistulae 75.15.
48
Augustine, Contra Maximinum Arianum 2.14.3.
49
the Roman bishop’s (Liberius) general letter to the Italian bishops (ad
362/3) when he describes bishops at Ariminum as deceived and
ignorantes.50 Around this same time an unnamed gathering of Italian
bishops professed (c. 363) that they had renounced the decrees of
Ariminum; and in order for their episcopal colleagues to establish com-
munion with them, the latter must not only subscribe to the Nicene
faith but also disavow the Council of Ariminum without ambiguity.51
As the last letter shows, not only was Ariminum – not
Constantinople – being rejected, but it was necessary to embrace
Nicaea. The bishops at the Council of Paris further stipulated to their
eastern colleagues that they had fully accepted the term homoousios as
the proper way of speaking about,
the true and genuine birth (nativitatem) of the only-begotten God

from God the Father [. . .] God born from whole and perfect ingene-
rate God, and therefore confessed by us to be of one ousia or
substance (substantiae) with the Father.52
We know that the decisions made at Paris were the tip of the stick.
Later in 360, Gregory of Elvira penned a hostile attack entitled, De fide
orthodoxa, on the proceedings at Ariminum and closed by wholeheart-
edly embracing the decisions of Nicaea.53 Other similar pro-Nicene
initiatives were taken.54 The question that plagued the Neo-Nicenes,
however, concerned the hundreds of bishops who had subscribed at
Ariminum or Seleucia even if under false pretenses.
Constantius’s death in November 361 meant the collapse of his
ecclesiastical policy. Julian was now emperor of the entire empire, and
following Constantius’s death he wasted little time in undoing the reli-
gious policies of his predecessor. His ostensibly neutral attitude toward
such matters had cloaked his zeal for pagan religion – at least for the first
few months of his reign. Of the two general edicts published early in the
new year, one declared a general amnesty for all bishops who were in
hiding or in exile for religious offences.55 Now the “confessors” of Arles
and Milan, as well as bishops condemned at other councils under
Constantius, were permitted to return to their towns and have their
50
Hilar., CAP B.4.1 (CSEL 65, 157).
51
Hilar., CAP B.4.2 (CSEL 65, 157).
52
53
CCSL 69.
54
Hilar., Liber contra Auxentium Mediolanensem (Aux.); Filastr., Diversarum hereseon
liber; Zeno of Verona, Tractatus; Gregory will produce a second version of his De fide
in 361.
55
Historia acephala 3.2 (Martin and Albert 1985, 150).
318 d. h. williams
property restored. Still, the lineaments for continued discord were

already well in place and the emperors Julian, Jovian, and Valentinian
showed no interest in overriding the status quo. Except that Julian
published an edict freeing all bishops who had been exiled on religious
grounds, including western bishops, such as Eusebius of Vercelli and
Lucifer of Cagliari, who were exiled in the East. Athanasius also returned
to Alexandria where he called a small council of eastern and western
bishops that met in mid-362 and issued a statement of faith that called
for homoousios per the Nicene faith. But the real concern was to deal
with those bishops who wished to dissociate themselves from the con-
ciliar compromise that had been made in 359. Once the gravity of the
situation was fully set forth to the bishops present, the synod agreed to
extend a conditional pardon to the fallen bishops. In his letter to
Rufinianus, written soon after the close of the synod, Athanasius
describes this pivotal decision in concise terms: acquitting those “not
deliberate in impiety, but drawn away by necessity and violence, that
they should not only receive pardon, but should occupy the position of
clergy.”56 Sulpicius Severus tells us that through frequent councils held
in Gaul, nearly all the bishops publicly owned (and forsook) the error that
had been committed at Ariminum.57
homoian christianity
It may be that Homoian communities were fewer in number than Nicene
after the passing of Constantius, but they were no less cohesive and
vibrant communities, spawning theological, exegetical, homiletic, and
polemical literature of which sizeable fragments have come down to us
today. In fact, it now appears, as Y.-M. Duval has observed, that this
literature became more abundant from the moment when the Homoians
were completely abandoned by imperial authority.58 Western
Homoianism was hardly a “lame duck” even after the death of
Constantius and the temporary loss of imperial patronage. So widespread
was pro-Homoian literature in the West, that Hilary of Poitiers, in his
tract Contra Auxentium written under the reign of Valentinian I in 364,
complains that the “Arian” opposition to the Nicene faith is consider-
ably augmented: “all of the churches contain full records (chartae) of
their most impious blasphemies, and even complete books.”59 Unless
56
Ath., Epistula ad Rufinianum (PG 26:1180B–C).
57
Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2.45.
58
Duval 1969, 146.
59
Hilar., Aux. 7 (PL 10:613B).
a bishop could be rightly accused of civil disturbance, Homoian bishops

remained in their sees. Hilary of Poitiers discovered this when he tried to
have Auxentius of Milan removed on heretical grounds. He failed to do
so, and Auxentius remained bishop until his death in 374.60
An otherwise unknown Italian synod that met in Rome (c. 368) sent
the results of its decisions to pro-Nicene bishops in Illyricum condemn-
ing publicly Auxentius and all supporters of Ariminum, but nothing
came of it.61 Similarly, Urbanus of Parma is said to have retained his
episcopal see despite conciliar attempts to have him ejected as an
“Arian.”62 In the early 360s, Florentius of Puteoli had been condemned
by his peers for theological reasons that are almost certainly linked to the
anti-Ariminum fervor that swept across Italy after 359. An isolated
record of another unidentified Italian council complained to the emperor
Gratian in 378 that Florentius was still active in the city, and “by his
persuasive speech, corrupted a multitude of lost souls.”63 Earlier and
more influential than Florentius was Epictetus of Centumcellae
(Civitavecchia), bishop of an important city north of the Tiber. After
Constantius’s death in 361, we hear no more about Epictetus, although
he likely remained in his see till death. The infamous and now aging
Illyrian bishops, Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum, had been
repeatedly condemned by the assembly at Paris (360) and other synods in
Gaul and Italy, and then at least on one other occasion by a Roman synod
under Damasus in 371.64 Nevertheless, Valens continued to preside over
the see of Mursa as late as the reign of the emperor Valens (364–78), nor
had the bishop’s influence been abated by the series of condemnations. In
367, we find Valens, assisted by another Homoian bishop, Domninus of
Marcianopolis (metropolitan of Moesia Secunda), successfully interced-
ing on behalf of Eunomius with the eastern emperor. It is the last act of
Valens known to us from the sources; presumably he died soon after-
wards – still in control of his see. Ursacius also maintained a grip on his
see until his death c. 366, and he was succeeded by another anti-Nicene,
Secundianus, who joined the side of Palladius of Ratiaria at the Council
of Aquileia.65 But the clock was ticking for the continuance of most of
these bishoprics.
60
See Williams 1992.
61
Soz., HE 6.23.7–15; Thdt., HE 2.22.
62
Collectio Avellana, 13.6–7, Gratianus et Valentinianus Augg. Aquilino vicerio (CSEL
35, 55–56).
63
CSEL 35, 56.7–8.
64
Ath., Epistula ad Afros episcopos 3 (PG 56:1033B).
65
See Williams 1995, 70–72.
320 d. h. williams
council of aquileia
By the time of the Council of Aquileia (381), Italy’s bishops were almost
solidly pro-Nicene, especially since the most influential sees – Milan,
Aquileia, and Rome – were theologically united.66 The identities of the
bishops known to be at the council also reveal how the weight of episco-
pal authority had shifted to North Italy, largely due to the influence of
Ambrose over the region. The Council of Aquileia was an event which
Ambrose orchestrated to remove what he hoped were the last pockets of
Homoian Christianity in Italy and Illyricum.
Only two Homoian bishops attended: Palladius of Ratiaria and
Secundianus of Singidunum. Valerianus of Aquileia presided over the
synodical proceedings as the host bishop, although the gesta record that
Ambrose led the questioning of the accused, who were summarily con-
demned and excommunicated. But perhaps Ambrose’s most influential
activity was the consecration of new bishops in the cities of Como
(Felix), Lodi (Bassianus), Ticinum (Profuturus?), and Aquileia
(Chromatius). Besides these, there is from Ambrose’s extensive corres-
pondence positive reference to other north Italian bishops such as
Gaudentius of Vercelli (c. 379) and Felix of Bologna, all of which provides
us with a broader picture of the sphere of episcopal influence at the end of
the fourth century.
Of course, the conflict between Neo-Nicenes and Homoians was
also fought in the political area. Once Valentinian II had abandoned
Milan for Ravenna, the political leverage that Homoians enjoyed in
that city evaporated. This was especially the case once the pro-Nicene
Theodosius defeated Maximus and stayed in Milan October 388 to the
end of April 389.67 Theodosius had already stipulated in Constantinople
that only those who confess the Nicene faith would be considered
Catholic (January 381). He enacted several anti-heretical (ant-Arian)
edicts while in Milan and Rome.68 The future of Homoian Christianity
lay with the Gothic groups of peoples in the empire.
Toward the end of his life, Augustine was drawn into debate with an
“Arian” bishop from Illyricum named Maximinus, who came to Africa
with the Gothic commander Sigiswulf and a Roman army in 427.69 This
is quite likely the same Maximinus who later wrote against Ambrose’s
66
Ironically, the church at Milan continued to experience discord between Nicenes and
Homoians, exacerbated by the arrival of Valentinian II in the imperial residence. For
the young emperor’s pro-Ariminum policies, see Williams 1995, 259–71.
67
Seeck 1919, 235.
68
Codex Theodosianus 16.5.17–20.
69
The English translation is in Teske 1995.
treatment of Palladius and Secundianus at Aquileia. According to

Maximinus, Sigiswulf had sent him to Hippo “with a view to peace”
between Arians and Catholics. The advantage of this debate with
Maximinus is that it contains one of the fullest extant presentations by
an adherent of Homoian Christianity. As mentioned earlier, Maximinus
appealed to the Council of Ariminum as his conciliar authority: “If you
ask for my faith, I hold that faith which was not only stated but also
ratified at Ariminum by the signatures of three hundred and thirty
bishops.”70 The actual debate did not go well for Augustine, who claimed
that his opponent monopolized all the time given to them. But the truth
may also lie in the fact that the aged bishop was not prepared for a debater
and exegete as knowledgeable as Maximinus. So Augustine wrote two
books in response to his opponent’s arguments.
nicaea versus ariminum

By now it should be obvious that Latin “Arians” (Homoian Christianity)
were not extinct at the end of the fourth century, but had lost most of
their earlier vitality and certainly were in decline numerically.71 And yet
we continue to find pro-Homoian writings of self-defense, spirituality,
and exegesis. In fact, a sizeable body of Latin “Arian” documents sur-
vived the imperial proscriptions of the later fourth and fifth centuries and
have come down to the present. This literature can be divided roughly
into two categories: (1) credal formulae and (2) homiletic, exegetical, and
polemical treatises and fragments (some of them very large fragments).
The bulk of Latin “Arian” literature which remains has been preserved
in three collections: the Arian scholia from the Codex Parisinus ms. lat.
8907, an ensemble of short and complete texts from the ms. Verona LI,72
and a series of fragmented palimpsests originally discovered in the
library of Bobbio, now partly preserved in the Vatican library (ms. lat.
5750) and partly in the Ambrosian library (S. P. 9/1–2; 9/9).73 Outside of
these three groups of texts there are also extant a very lengthy and
70
Also in Teske 1995, entitled, “Debate with Maximinus” and “Answer to
Maximinus.”
71
Duval 1973, 183–92.
72
In Gryson 1982a. One finds in this collection an explanation of the names of the
apostles (f. 2r–5v), a series of 24 homilies on the Gospels (f. 5v–39v), 15 sermons on the
principal feast days of the year (f. 1r–1v; 40r–77v), a treatise against the Jews (77v–98v),
a treatise against the Pagans, in two somewhat different recensions (98v–119r; 119v–
132v), and a short polemical sermon directed against the doctrine that the Pater et
Filius aequales sunt (133r–136r).
73
See Gryson and Gilissen 1980; Gryson 1982b; and Gryson 1983.
322 d. h. williams
fragmented commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which was attrib-

uted to John Chrysostom throughout the Middle Ages but is now known
simply as the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum,74 an anonymous com-
mentary on Job,75 and an exposition or catechism of Homoian doctrine
known as the Sermo Arrianorum against which Augustine writes
a refutation.76
conclusion
In the preceding historical reconstruction, we have seen that the West
had not always been sympathetic to Nicene Christianity nor was its
subjugation of Homoian “Arianism” accomplished only because of the
loss of its political support under the emperor Constantius. In the first
place, Nicene or Homoian “parties,” that is, as conscious theological and
ecclesiastical identities, did not fully crystallize until after the councils
of Ariminum and Constantinople – events that marked the beginning of
the (Neo-)Nicene–Homoian conflict in the West. It is surely an exagger-
ation to call “Arianism” a “dying” religion after 360, or theologically
unable to sustain enduring devotion without political support any less
than the Nicene form of faith. Homoianism became increasingly isolated
in western communities in the 370s and 380s, but the ostensibly neutral
political policies toward religion under Valentinian I and Gratian’s early
reign quelled any serious aggression by Neo-Nicenes or disgruntled
Homoians. And it was during this time that we charted a surge in
Homoian and pro-Nicene texts which provided insights into the ecclesi-
astical-doctrinal dynamics of the period. Hanson’s general thesis that the
victory of pro-Nicene Christianity was established in 381 has long been
proven to be short-sighted, at least in the West.
It was not inevitable that the Nicene Creed or faith would become
the post-fourth-century church’s way of confession. There were factors
that led to its hegemony in the West that were neither inexorable nor
necessary. This does not mean there were no fundamental agreements
about what constituted acceptable trinitarian expression, but simply
that there existed no uniform articulation which faith communities
were prepared to acknowledge as universally orthodox before 360. In
any case, by the time the Nicene faith became the primary doctrinal
expression among Latin churches, Neo-Nicenism in the later fourth and
74
CCSL 87B.
75
CSEL 96. See 1.73.40–41 and 1.11.6–14.
76
Against which Augustine composed the Contra sermonem Arianorum (in Teske
1995, 133–38).
early fifth centuries represented a considerable accretion to the doctrines

articulated in 325, such as the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, as
insisted by the threefold homoousios in the Epistula Catholica of the
Alexandrian synod of 362, or how pro-Nicene Latin trinitarianism
defined itself in sharp contradistinction to the Marcellan/Photinian
tradition. Nicene theology and ecclesiology by this time meant some-
thing that had substantially evolved and expanded from what they meant
in 325.
select references
Barnes, Timothy D. 2007. “A Note on the Term ‘Homoiousios’.” ZAC 10(2):
276–85.
Duval, Yves-Marie. 1969. “Sur l’arianisme des Ariens d’Occident.” Mélanges de
science religieuse 26: 145–53.
Duval, Yves-Marie. 1973. “Les relations doctrinale entre Milan et Aquilée durant
la seconde moitié du IVe siècle: Chromace d’Aquilée et Ambroise de Milan.” In
Aquileia e Milano. Antichità Altoadriatiche 4, 171–234. Trieste: EUT Edizione
Università di Trieste.
Gryson, Roger. 1982a. Le recueil arien de Vérone (Ms. LI de la Bibliothèque
Capitulaire et feuillets de la Collection Giustiniani Recanti): Étude
codicologique et paléographique. Instrumenta Patristica 13. Sint-Pietersabdij:
Steenbrugge.
Gryson, Roger. 1982b. Scripta Arriana Latina I: Collectio Veronensis, Scholia in
concilium Aquilense, Fragmenta in Lucam rescripta, Fragmenta theologica
rescripta. CCSL 87. Turnhout: Brepols.
Gryson, Roger. 1983. Les palimpsestes ariens latins de Bobbio: Contributions à
la méthodologie de l’étude des palimpsestes. Turnhout: Brepols.
Gryson, Roger, and Léon Gilissen. 1980. Les scolies ariennes du Parisinus
latinus 8907: Un échantillonage d’écritures latines du Ve siècle. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Lienhard, Joseph. 1987. “The ‘Arian’ Controversy: Some Categories
Reconsidered.” Theological Studies 48: 415–37.
Martin, Annick, and Micheline Albert. 1985. Histoire “acéphale” et Index
syriaque des Lettres festales d’Athanase d’Alexandrie. SC 317. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf.
Martin Annick, and Xavier Morales. 1985. Athanase d’Alexandrie: Lettre sur les
synodes. SC 563. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
Meslin, Michel. 1967. Les Ariens d’Occident 335–430. Patristica Sorbonensia 8.
Paris: Éditions de Seuil.
Sidaway, Janet. 2013. “Hilary of Poitiers and Phoebadius of Agen: Who Influenced
Whom?” StPatr 66: 286–90.
Wessel, Keith C. 2008. Phoebadius of Agen: Liber Contra Arianos. www
.fourthcentury.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Wessel-Phoebadius.pdf.
Williams, D. H. 1992. “The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the
Liber Contra Auxentium.” CH 61(1): 7–22.
324 d. h. williams
Williams, D. H. 1995. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene–Arian

Conflicts. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Williams, D. H. 2014. “Italy and Its Environs.” In Early Christianity in Contexts,
ed. William Tabbernee, 407–11. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

The Cambridge Companion To The Council of Nicaea II The Council of Ariminum (359) and The Rise of The Neo-Nicenes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cambridge Companion To The Council of Nicaea II The Council of Ariminum (359) and The Rise of The Neo-Nicenes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 The Council of Ariminum (359) and the Rise

By the time Constantius (II) called for a general council in 359,

it at the time, the success of pro-Nicene theology was contingent upon

the “blasphemia” and its responses

Late twentieth- and twenty-ﬁrst-century scholarship has demonstrated

“Arianism.” Nonetheless, the emperor now decided to take a ﬁrmer

the “dated creed”

According to Athanasius, this formula of faith of 359 was also a kind of

the council of ariminum (rimini)

clapping of hands and stamping of feet.”40 The wording of the Ariminum

Then Valens [. . .] added the statement, in which there was hidden

Jerome too claims that that underneath Valens’ acclamation of orthodox-

the aftermath of ariminum

the true and genuine birth (nativitatem) of the only-begotten God

property restored. Still, the lineaments for continued discord were

a bishop could be rightly accused of civil disturbance, Homoian bishops

treatment of Palladius and Secundianus at Aquileia. According to

nicaea versus ariminum

fragmented commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which was attrib-

early ﬁfth centuries represented a considerable accretion to the doctrines

Williams, D. H. 1995. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene–Arian

You might also like