/> 357 is important as attempting to abolish in connection with the

discussion the use of the term ousia and likewise homoousios and

homoiousios (a). At Nice in Thrace a still greater departure from

Nicaea was attempted in 359, and a creed was put forth (b), which is of

special significance as containing the first reference in a creed to the

descensus ad inferos and to the fact that it was subscribed by the

deputies of the West including Bishop Liberius of Rome. For the discussion

of this act of Liberius, see J. Barmby, art. "Liberius" in DCB; see also

Catholic Encyclopaedia, art. "Liberius." It was also received in the

synod of Seleucia in the East. On these councils see Athanasius, De

Synodis (PNF). It was in reference to this acceptance of the creed of

Nice that Jerome wrote "The whole world groaned and was astonished that it

was Arian." See Jerome, Contra Luciferianos, §§ 18 ff. (PNF. ser. II,

vol. VI).



Inasmuch as the anti-Nicene opposition party was a coalition of all

parties opposed to the wording of the Nicene creed, as soon as that creed

was abolished the bond that held them together was broken. At once there

arose an extreme Arianism which had remained in the background. On the

other hand, those who were opposed to Arianism sought to draw nearer the

Nicene party. These were the Homoiousians, who objected to the term

homoousios as savoring of Sabellianism, and yet admitted the essential

point implied by it. That this was so was pointed out by Hilary of

Poitiers (c) who contended that what the West meant by homoousios the

East meant by homoiousios. The Homoiousian party of the East split on the

question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Those of them who denied the

deity of the Spirit remained Semi-Arians.





(a) Second Creed of Sirmium, in Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis, ch.

11. (MSL, 10:487.) Cf. Hahn, § 161.





The Council of Sirmium in 357 was the second in that city. It was

attended entirely by bishops from the West. But among them were

Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, leaders of the opposition to the

Nicene creed. Hosius under compulsion signed the following; see

Hilary, loc cit. The Latin original is given by Hilary.





It is evident that there is one God, the Father Almighty, according as it

is believed throughout the whole world; and His only Son Jesus Christ our

Saviour, begotten of Him before the ages. But we cannot and ought not to

say there are two Gods.



But since some or many persons were disturbed by questions as to

substance, called in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more

exactly, as to homoousios or what is called homoiousios, there ought

to be no mention of these at all, nor ought any one to state them; for the

reason and consideration that they are not contained in the divine

Scriptures, and that they are above man's understanding, nor can any man

declare the birth of the Son, of whom it is written: "Who shall declare

His generation?" For it is plain that only the Father knows how He begat

the Son, and the Son how He was begotten of the Father. There is no

question that the Father is greater. No one can doubt that the Father is

greater than the Son, in honor, dignity, splendor, majesty and in the very

name Father, the Son himself testifying, He that sent Me is greater than

I. And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two

persons of Father and Son; and that the Father is greater, and that the

Son is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the

Father hath subordinated to Him; and that the Father has no beginning and

is invisible, immortal, and impassible, but that the Son has been begotten

of the Father, God of God, light of light, and of this Son the generation,

as is aforesaid, no one knows but His Father. And that the Son of God

himself, our Lord and God, as we read, took flesh or a body, that is, man

of the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel announced. And as all the

Scriptures teach, and especially the doctor of the Gentiles himself. He

took of Mary the Virgin, man, through whom He suffered. And the whole

faith is summed up and secured in this, that the Trinity must always be

preserved, as we read in the Gospel: "Go ye and baptize all nations in the

name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Complete and

perfect is the number of the Trinity. Now the Paraclete, or the Spirit, is

through the Son: who was sent and came according to His promise in order

to instruct, teach, and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.





(b) Creed of Nice A. D. 359, Theodoret, Hist. Ec., II, 16. (MSG,

82:1049.) Cf. Hahn, § 164.





The deputies from the Council of Ariminum were sent to Nice, a

small town in Thrace, where they met the heads of the Arian party.

A creed, strongly Arian in tendency, was given them and they were

sent back to Ariminum to have it accepted. See Theodoret, loc.

cit., and Athanasius, De Synodis.





We believe in one and 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; begotten, only begotten, alone of the

Father alone, God of God, like the Father that begat Him, according to the

Scriptures, whose generation no one knoweth except only the Father that

begat Him. This only begotten Son of God, sent by His Father, we know to

have come down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin

and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, as it is

written, according to the flesh. Who companied with His disciples, and

when the whole dispensation was fulfilled, according to the Father's will,

was crucified, dead and buried, and descended to the world below, at whom

hell itself trembled; on the third day He rose from the dead and companied

with His disciples, and when forty days were completed He was taken up

into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, and is

coming at the last day of the resurrection, in His Father's glory, to

render to every one according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, which

the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, both God and Lord, promised to

send to the race of men, the comforter, as it is written, the spirit of

truth, and this Spirit He himself sent after He had ascended into the

heavens and sat at the right hand of the Father, from thence He is coming

to judge both the quick and the dead.



But the word "substance," which was simply inserted by the Fathers and not

being understood was a cause of scandal to the people because it was not

found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove, and that for

the future no mention whatever be permitted of "substance," because the

sacred Scriptures nowhere make any mention of the "substance" of the

Father and the Son. Nor must one "subsistence" [hypostasis] be named in

relation to the person [prosopon] of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we

call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach.

But all heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be,

which have arisen against the document thus put forth, let them be

anathema.





(c) Hilary of Poitiers. De Synodis, §§ 88, 89, 91. (MSL, 10:540.)





That the Homoiousian party meant substantially the same by their

term homoiousios as did the Homoousians or the Nicene party, by

their term homoousios.





Hilary was of great importance in the Arian controversy in

bringing the Homoiousian party of the East and the Nicene party of

the West to an agreement. The Eastern theologians, who hesitated

to accept the Nicene term, were eventually induced to accept,

understanding by the term homoousios the same as homoiousios. See

below, § 70.





§ 88. Holy brethren, I understand by homoousios God of God, not of an

unlike essence, not divided, but born; and that the Son has a birth that

is unique, of the substance of the unknown God, that He is begotten yet

co-eternal and wholly like the Father. The word homoousios greatly helped

me already believing this. Why do you condemn my faith in the homoousios,

which you cannot disapprove by the confession of the homoiousios? For you

condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal

equivalent. Does somebody else misunderstand it? Let us together condemn

the misunderstanding, but not take away the security of your faith. Do you

think that one must subscribe to the Samosetene Council, so that no one

may make use of homoousios in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us

subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the

word homoousios. Have we to fear that homoiousios does not imply the same

belief as homoousios? Let us decree that there is no difference between

being of one and being of a similar substance. But may not the word

homoousios be understood in a wrong sense? Let it be proved that it can be

understood in a good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I

beseech you that the one and the same truth which we hold, we should

regard as sacred among us. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked

you to do. You are not Arians; why, then, by denying the homoousios,

should you be thought to be Arians?



§ 89. True likeness belongs to a true natural connection. But when the

true natural connection exists, the homoousios is implied. It is likeness

according to essence when one piece of metal is like another and not

plated. Nothing can be like gold but gold, or like milk that does not

belong to that species.



§ 91. I do not know the word homoousios or understand it unless it

confesses a similarity of essence. I call God of heaven and earth to

witness, that when I heard neither word, my belief was always such that I

should have interpreted homoiousios by homoousios. That is I believed that

nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same

nature.