udi ate ▁explicitly ▁the ▁Ari ans ' ▁stated ▁claims . ▁▁ ▁The ▁view ▁that ▁" there ▁was ▁once ▁when ▁he ▁was ▁not " ▁was ▁rejected ▁to ▁maintain ▁the ▁co et ern ity ▁of ▁the ▁Son ▁with ▁the ▁Father . ▁ ▁The ▁view ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁" mutable ▁or ▁subject ▁to ▁change " ▁was ▁rejected ▁to ▁maintain ▁that ▁the ▁Son ▁just ▁like ▁the ▁Father ▁was ▁beyond ▁any ▁form ▁of ▁weak ness ▁or ▁cor rupt ibility , ▁and ▁most ▁important ly ▁that ▁he ▁could ▁not ▁fall ▁away ▁from ▁absolute ▁moral ▁per fection . ▁ ▁Thus , ▁instead ▁of ▁a ▁bapt ism al ▁cre ed ▁acceptable ▁to ▁both ▁the ▁Ari ans ▁and ▁their ▁oppon ents , ▁the ▁council ▁prom ul g ated ▁one ▁which ▁was ▁clearly ▁opposed ▁to ▁A rian ism ▁and ▁in compatible ▁with ▁the ▁distinct ive ▁core ▁of ▁their ▁belief s . ▁The ▁text ▁of ▁this ▁profession ▁of ▁faith ▁is ▁preserved ▁in ▁a ▁letter ▁of ▁E use b ius ▁to ▁his ▁con greg ation , ▁in ▁Ath anas ius , ▁and ▁elsewhere . ▁Although ▁the ▁most ▁vocal ▁of ▁anti - A ri ans , ▁the ▁H omo ous ians ▁( from ▁the ▁Ko ine ▁Greek ▁word ▁translated ▁as ▁" of ▁same ▁subst ance " ▁which ▁was ▁condem ned ▁at ▁the ▁Council ▁of ▁Ant io ch ▁in ▁ 2 6 4 – 2 6 8 ) ▁were ▁in ▁the ▁minor ity , ▁the ▁Cre ed ▁was ▁accepted ▁by ▁the ▁council ▁as ▁an ▁expression ▁of ▁the ▁b ish ops ' ▁common ▁faith ▁and ▁the ▁ancient ▁faith