THE HERESY OF PHOTINUS

 

A heretic of the fourth century, a Galatian and deacon to Marcellus, Metropolitan of Ancyra; d. 376. He became the Bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia, an important position on account of the frequent residence of the Emperor Constantius there. The city was more Latin than Greek, and Photinus knew both languages. Marcellus was deposed by the Arian party, but was restored by Pope Julius and the Synod of Sardica (343), and was believed by them to be orthodox. But Photinus was obviously heretical, and the Eusebian court-party condemned them both at the Synod of Antioch (344), which drew up the "macrostich" creed. Three envoys were sent to the West and in a synod at Milan (345) Photinus was condemned, but not Marcellus; communion was refused to the envoys because they refused to anathematize Arius. It is evident from the way in which Pope Liberius mentions this synod that Roman legates were present, and St. Hilary calls its sentence a condemnation by the Romans. Two years later another synod, perhaps also at Milan, tried to obtain the deposition of Photinus but this was impossible owing to an outbreak of the populace in his favour. Another synod was held against him at Sirmium; some Arianizing propositions from it are quoted by St. Hilary. The heretic appealed to the emperor, who appointed judges before whom he should be heard. For this purpose a great synod assembled at Sirmium (351). Basil, the supplanter of Marcellus as Bishop of Ancyra and the future leader of the Semi-Arians, disputed with Photinus. The heretic was deposed, and twenty-seven anathematisms were agreed to. Photinus probably returned to his see at the accession of Julian, like the other exiled bishops, for St. Jerome says he was banished by Valentinian (364-75). Eventually he settled in Galatia. Epiphanius, writing at about the date of his death, considered his heresy dead in the West. In Pannonia there were still some Photinians in 381, and a Photinian named Marcus, driven from Rome under Innocent I, found adherents in Croatia. In later writers, e. g., St. Augustine, Photinian is the name for any who held Christ to be a mere man.

We obtain some knowledge of the heresies of Photinus from the twenty-seven anathematisms of the council of 351, of which all but 1, 10, 12 , 13, 18, 23, 24, 25 (according to St. Hilary's order: 1, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22, 24, 25) and possibly 2 are directed against him. We have corroborative evidence from many writers, especially St. Epiphanius, who had before him the complete minutes of the disputation with Basil of Ancyra. The canons obviously misrepresent Photinus's doctrine in condemning it, in so far as they sometimes say "Son" where Photinus would have said "Word". He makes the Father and the Word one Person (prosopon). The Word is equally with the Father unbegotten, or is called a part of the Father, eternally in Him as our logos is in us. The latent Word (endiathetos) becomes the explicit Word (prophorikos) not, apparently, at the creation, but at the Incarnation, for only then is He really Son. The Divine Substance can be dilated and contracted (so St. Hilary translates platynesthai and systellesthai, while Mercator's version of Nestorius's fourth sermon gives "extended and collected"). This is exactly the wording of Sabellius, who said that God platynetai, is broadened out, into Son and Spirit. To Photinus the expansion forms the Son, who is not, until the human birth of Christ. Hence before the Incarnation there is no Son, and God is Father and Word, Logopator. The Incarnation seems to have been conceived after a Nestorian fashion, for Photinus declared the Son of Mary to be mere man, and this is the best-known point in his teaching. He was consequently classed with Paul of Samosata; Jerome even calls him an Ebionite, probably because, like Mercator, he believed him to have denied the Virgin birth. But this is perhaps an error. He certainly said that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ and that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. By His union with the prophoric Word, Christ was the Son. The Holy Ghost is identified like the Word with the Unbegotten; He is a part of the Father and the Word, as the Word is a part of the Father. It is evident that Photinus went so far beyond Marcellus that it is unfair to call him his follower. In his Trinitarian doctrine he is a Modalist Monarchian, and in his Christology a Dynamistic Monarchian, combining the errors of Theodotus with those of Sabellius. But it is clear that his views were partly motived by the desire to get away from the Ditheism which not only the Arians but even the Eastern moderates were unable to avoid, and he especially denounced the Arian doctrine that the Son is produced by the Will of the Father. His writings are lost; the chief of them were "Contra Gentes" and "Libri ad Valentinianum", according to St. Jerome; he wrote a work in both Greek and Latin against all the heresies, and an explanation of the Creed.

John Chapman.

 

 

 

Eusebian Reaction from the year 325 to the year 337.

Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus.

 

Constantine had hoped that the decisions of Nicaea would restore religious peace to the Empire. Anus and the two obstinate bishops, Secundus and Theonas, had been exiled.

Some time after, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also banished for having favored the Arians of Alexandria.48 But the Emperor was lacking in that steadiness of purpose, necessary to secure the work of pacification. He let himself be imposed upon by his sister, Constantia, who was devoted to the cause of Arianism, and recalled from exile, in the year 328, Eusebius and Theognis, and a short time after — perhaps in the year 329 or 330, — Arius himself, after accepting from him a profession of faith that was altogether insufficient.49 Meanwhile Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, died, and Athanasius was chosen to succeed him, on June 8, 328. Orthodoxy had found in Egypt its invincible defender.

But the Eusebians now revived. Against the definitions of Nicaea there was formed a large party, made up of elements, which although heterogeneous, were, as in all opposition parties, bound together by that opposition itself. The Arians, strictly so called, were very few in number: conscious, as they were, of their comparative weakness, they hid themselves in the main body of those who opposed the Council. The indifferent, i. e., the ambitious and the shrewd, were the most numerous; but this group was made up chiefly of many bishops whose doctrinal views were rather vague, Origenists and Subordinationists by training, they were afraid chiefly of Sabellianism, which they thought was to be found in the homoousios. Mediocre theologians, they had no relish for clear and precise terms.

They were to draw up, later on, those semi-Arian and semi-orthodox professions of faith to be mentioned in the following pages,— which, of course, satisfied neither the Orthodox nor the Arians. However, as long as Constantine lived, the doctrinal question was not discussed. The Eusebians seemed to respect the decisions of Nicaea. They endeavored to do away merely with its defenders. In the year 330, they deposed the Bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, who was one of their most determined opponents. In the year 336, in consequence of repeated accusations, they had Athanasius exiled to Treves. Unfortunately for ortho doxy, there occurred then an incident, which justified apparently all the prejudices of the Eusebians against the homoousios and the Nicaeans in general : — the errors of Marcellus of Ancyra.

Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra,50 who was an ardent follower of the Council of Nicaea, determined to refute the writings of the sophist Asterius of Cappadocia in behalf of Arianism, and for this purpose composed, about the year 335, a work, Liber de subiectione Domini, of which Eusebius and St. Epiphanius have left us many fragments. The Eusebians claimed that the book contained Sabellian together with Adoptionist views. This, of course, they seized upon as grievous error. They met at Constantinople and deposed Marcellus in the year 335. It was on this occasion that Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been commissioned to refute the book of Marcellus, wrote the Contra Marcellum, and the De ecclesiastica theologia, which are the chief sources from which we draw our knowledge of the doctrine of the Bishop of Ancyra.

What was that doctrine? — First of all, Marcellus observes, we must affirm the unity of God; we must lay down the monad, from which the triad will follow ; for it is impossible, if three hypostases are first affirmed, to reduce them to unity. God is an indivisible monad: He is not three hypostases. The plurality introduced in God, as well as the inferiority of the Logos, in relation to the Father, comes from pagan infiltrations and from Origen's errors.

However, there exists in God the Word. Marcellus does not say, the Son, for he declares that the name Son, like those of Image, Christ, Jesus, Life, Way, etc., refers to the Incarnate Word only. The Word is not Son, He is merely Word; and of this Word the Bible says three things. First, He was in the beginning, which means that He was in the Father potentially. Secondly, He was near God in active energy, and that He Himself created all.

Lastly, Holy Writ tells us that the Word was God, to teach us that the divinity is not divided, since the Word was in God, and God in the Word. Thus the Word is eternal, consubstantial  with God. That He was a person is not at all clear.

However, the monad determines to create: the Word comes forward to be the author of creation : He becomes a creative energy: this is the first economy. The second takes place at the time of the Incarnation. Once more, the divinity extends itself through its operation and dwells in a real and complete humanity : "If we consider the Spirit only, the Word will seem rightly to be one and identical with God ; but if we add ‘according to the flesh’ which belongs to the Savior, the divinity seems to have expanded by the mere operation, so that the monad is truly and rightly in divisible."  The principle of activity in Jesus Christ lies in this divine energy : it moves the body and makes the latter perform those actions related in the Gospels. By means of this union, the Word ceases to be merely the Word and becomes Son. Four hundred years have not as yet elapsed, Marcellus used to say, since the day when the Word became Son of God, the first born of creatures and king. In Him the whole creation has been summed up, and sinful man, whose nature has thus been united to the Word, has become, in his turn, God's adopted Son, incorruptible and immortal. It is for this purpose that the Word assumed flesh. Marcellus, however, hesitated to grant to this body assumed by the Word, an undefined existence and union with Him. Considered in itself, he said, a body does not become God; and even though it has, through the resurrection, acquired immortality, yet it has not thereby become more worthy of God, who is above immortality. Hence we may believe that, after the parousia, the Word will give up His humanity, and reenter into God, as He was before the creation. What will become of this humanity we do not know, since Scripture is silent on this point. As to the Holy Ghost, whose action constituted a third economy, Marcellus spoke of Him in about the same terms as he did of the Word. Till He breathed on the Apostles (John, XX, 22), the Holy Spirit was contained in the Word and the Father. But at that moment, there was taking place, as we read in Theodoret, an extension of the extension, and the monad was expanding itself into trinity. Again, the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and the Son; otherwise, we could not understand why St. John says (XV, 26; XVI, 14, 15) that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son.

These are the outlines of the doctrine of Marcellus. We are not so well informed regarding the doctrine of his disciple, Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, who was condemned, together with Marcellus by the Eusebians as early as the year 344, and, alone, by the Orthodox in the year 345. According to Photinus, God is one hypostasis ; but He has in Himself His reason. The Holy Ghost is a second extension.

By the Incarnation, the Word becomes Son. According to St. Epiphanius, Photinus described the Incarnation as a change of the Word into the flesh; but here the Bishop of Constantia is mistaken.

Photinus looked upon Jesus, born miraculously of the Virgin and of the Holy Ghost, simply as a man who had deserved by his virtues to be interiorly united to the Word, and thus to become God's adopted Son. As the Word did not acquire through this union the personality in which He was wanting at first, it is evident that the system of Photinus was after all absolutely the same as that of Paul of Samosata.

Consequently the Eusebians and the Orthodox had no difficulty as regards the judgment to be passed on the views of Photinus, and both parties agreed in condemning him. But the heterodoxy of Marcellus was not so evident. Loofs does not look upon him as a Sabellian, and prefers to connect his Trinitarian doctrine with that of the Asiatic school before the time of St. Irenaeus. In reply to the adversaries who accused him of adopting Paulianism, by making Jesus Christ a man, in whom the divine energy had acted, Marcellus retorted the same accusation against them, and affirmed that the divinity had dwelt in Mary. He insisted also on the close and permanent bond which, in Jesus, united the Word to the flesh, in contrast with the passing and external action exercised by the Word  in the Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Law.76 On the other hand, his speculations regarding the cessation of the kingdom of Christ with the parousia, were, after all, mere hypotheses which he did not advance as certain; finally — and this is the most important of all,— it must be granted that his language was so lacking in accuracy that it lent itself easily to the most diverse interpretations.

On this account, while the Eusebians condemned him, the Nicaeans and St. Athanasius upheld him. As for himself he did not lose courage, and when banished from his diocese for the second time in the year 338, he waited on Pope Julius, to whom he presented a formula of faith, which is still extant and which he accompanied with the Roman baptismal Symbol. Although Marcellus insisted much in that document on the divine unity, yet, after all, he concealed or even perhaps recanted his former views, and at any rate, professed the cuius regni non erit finis. Judging the question merely from the Trinitarian and Nicaean point of view, the Pope and the Roman Council of the year 341 deemed his explanations satisfactory and affirmed his orthodoxy. He was also acquitted in the Council of Sardica (343). The Fathers of this Council had all his book read, and thought that the points reproved by the Eusebians were, after all, in the author's intent, mere attempts at explanation, which were not given as final. However, later on, and especially after the appearance of Photinus, the Nicaeans were less enthusiastic about Marcellus, and St. Athanasius in particular, while he did not separate himself absolutely from communion with him, did not look upon him as altogether innocent. The Cappadocians were far more severe with him. Taken all in all, it is to be regretted that the ortho dox party deemed it advisable to uphold him before demanding of him a precise and explicit repudiation of the errors of which he was accused. This attitude was like playing into the hands of the Eusebians, and gave them the opportunity of joining in the same condemnation Marcellus and his friends.

We may now take up the sequence of events

 

Councils and Formulas of faith, from the year 337 to the year 350.

 

Constantine died on May 22, 337, leaving the Empire to his three sons. Constantine the Younger received Spain, Gaul and Brittany ; Constantius ruled over the East, and to Constans Italy and Africa fell as his share. The exiled bishops were recalled, and Athanasius returned to Alexandria (November 23, 338). But in Constantius the Eusebians found the man they wanted,— an emperor who was fond of dogmatizing, and who besides was fickle and easily influenced. Deprived of his see, his life threatened, Athanasius had to leave hurriedly his abode (March 19, 340), and take refuge in Rome. There he was safe under the protection of Pope Julius and of the young Constans, who this same year had defeated his brother Constantine, and had thus become master of the whole West, except Thrace. A Council of fifty bishops, which the Eusebians, who had asked for it, refused to attend, was held in Rome in October, 341, and recognized the lawful claims of Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra. The Pope communicated these decisions to the Eusebians and complained at the same time that a matter concerning a patriarch of Alexandria should have been examined and settled in the East before he, the Bishop of Rome, had been made cognizant of it by writing, "as the custom has been." But the Eusebians, who had no time to attend the Council of Rome, found time to hold several such assemblies in the East. In the year 341, May-September, they held that of Antioch in encaeniis. It adopted three formulas of faith, the beginning of that series of symbols which were to follow one another for twenty years, and were characterized by these two features : ( 1 ) The omission, nay, at times, the express rejection of the omooúsios. (2) The condemnation of Arianism strictly so called. Thus they oscillate between error and orthodoxy, coming closer to the one or to the other according to the party which is predominant in the Council. At times, they do not affirm error; but they do not proclaim the whole truth : they fail chiefly through in sufficiency and omission.

The three formulas of the Council in encaeniis have been preserved by St. Athanasius. The first is dogmatically insignificant. Let us merely notice the affirmation — against Marcellus — of the eternal dominion of Christ,— an affirmation which will occur often in the other formulas.

The second is that which, as we have seen, was ascribed to Lucian of Antioch. It is directed chiefly against the Sabellians. St. Hilary deems it satisfactory, and, as a matter of fact, it is sufficiently plain regarding the divinity of the Son, and very, explicit about His eternity.

The third formula, proposed by Theophronius of Tyana, opposes directly the view of Marcellus of Ancyra, and proclaims the Son “True living God True living God”

A fourth formula is ascribed to this same Council of Antioch: whether it was the work of the Council or only that of the four bishops whom the Fathers sent to Constans, we cannot say. While this formula condemns explicitly both Marcellianism and Arianism strictly so called, its positive elements are very vague. The formula was handed over to Constans by the four deputies : their embassy did not go further than this.

Meanwhile, Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, since the year 339, had been holding the see of Constantinople, died (end of 341), and his death gave rise in this city to serious disturbances. On the advice of the Pope, Hosius and Athanasius, Constans came to an understanding with his brother Constantius on the question of convoking a great Council that would endeavor to restore peace. This was the Council of Sardica (343). The Council was presided over by Hosius. The two Papal legates, Archidamus and Philoxenus, signed after him. The Orthodox,— half of whom came from the West properly so called,— were about eighty, among them Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra. The dissenters, who could no longer be called Eusebians, were not quite so numerous. Their leaders were Acacius of Caesarea in Pales tine, Basil of Ancyra, Maris of Chalcedon, and the two bishops Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa.

Being conscious of their inability to cope with their opponents, they alleged a defect of procedure and refused to sit in the Council; then they retired to Philippopolis, where they adopted a new profession of faith. This was the fourth formula of Antioch, that which had been carried to Constans, augmented by another anathema against the Sabellians and those who claimed that the Father did not beget the Son by His will (.

Meanwhile the legitimate Council of Sardica continued to hold its sessions. The Fathers restored Athanasius and Marcellus to their sees, deposed Acacius of Caesarea, George of Laodicea, Ursacius and Valens, and enacted twenty canons. There was some thought of promulgating a new profession of faith to replace that of Nicaea, which was deemed incomplete. Theodoret has preserved its text.

It proclaimed also that the Father was not the Son, nor the Son the Father. Here the word hypostasis is evidently taken as the equivalent of substantia. However, as the dissenters were much inclined to use it in the sense of person, to adopt it would have resulted in confusing still more the questions under consideration and exasperating many bishops. The Council wisely abstained from it.

Its decisions were communicated to Constantius. This prince, realizing that Constans must be treated gently, answered this communication by sending an embassy of two bishops to his brother and to the Latins. The ambassadors carried with them a new formula of faith, probably prepared in a Council of Antioch held in the year 345, which has been called Macrostich (with long lines) on account of its length. It comprised (1) The fourth formula of Antioch; (2) The addition made at Philippopolis, and (3) several explanations, six or seven times longer than these two texts. The Son was proclaimed to be of the hypostasis of the Father (III), perfect and true God by nature, joined to the Father without any interval of separation and having together with Him only one divine dignity, subordinate, how ever, to Him, begotten by Him spontaneously and voluntarily. Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, Photinus, the Patripassians and the Sabellians were also condemned.

On the whole, if we except the omission of the omooúsios and the subordination feature, this formula marked a real advance towards doctrinal agreement. The following year, on October 21, 346, Athanasius returned to Alexandria.

The various parties were becoming tired of fighting one an other. Athanasius seemed ready to disown Marcellus, after the sensational utterances and condemnation of Photinus.

General peace would have perhaps prevailed, when Constans died January, 350. This event, which placed the whole Empire in the hands of Constantius, increased considerably the strength of the dissenters.

Divisions of the Antinicaean party. Triumph of the Acacians.

 

As a matter of fact, the dissenters hastened to take ad vantage of this event. In the year 351, they held a Council at Sirmium: a new formula — the seventh of the series — was drawn up. It consisted of the fourth formula of Antioch and twenty-seven anathemas, the first of which re produced the addition made at Philippopolis. The spirit with which it is animated is substantially that of the Macrostich formula; but it is directed especially against the error of Photinus and speaks more explicitly of the Holy Ghost, of whom it says that He is not the unbegotten God, that He is really distinct from the Son and is a part (méros) neither of the Father, nor of the Son.

Then fresh intrigues were formed against Athanasius. The new Pope, Liberius (May 17, 352), endeavored in vain to protect him. Betrayed by his legates in the Council of Arles (354), he saw also the violence of the Arians triumph in the Council of Milan (355) over the consciences of the bishops. Condemned and pursued even in his own Church, Athanasius fled on February 9, 356, while Hilary, exiled after the synod of Beziers (356), left for Asia and Phrygia.

The party of the Antinicaean opposition seemed to be definitely victorious. But, as has been already remarked, the elements of which it was made up were essentially lacking in homogeneity. After uniting for the attack, the Antinicseans, now triumphant, ceased to agree and formed three groups corresponding to as many doctrinal tendencies.

The first group was that of the true, or rather, reinforced Arians. Their leaders were Aetius, Eunomius and Eudoxius of Constantinople. The latter was best known for his assurance and self-conceit; the two others were logicians for whom theology was mere dialectics. Their system, which we know quite well from what remains of their writings and of the refutations of the same, amounted to this:

God is the being essentially simple and one; by essence He is unbegotten and not produced. Be cause He is infinitely simple and very little comprehensive, He is perfectly intelligible. I know God, Eunomius said, as well as He knows Himself. But because essentially, He is not produced, anything that is begotten or produced in some way cannot be God.

Since He is begotten — that is, created, according to Eunomius,— the Son resembles the Father at most morally, but in His physical being He is in no way like the Father. His privilege consists merely in being the immediate work of God, whereas other creatures, even the Holy Ghost, are the work of the Son.

This first group received the name of Aetians, Eunomians, Anomoeans, Exoucontians ( !) and Heterousiasts.

At the other extreme, we find a second group which had Basil of Ancyra for its leader. It was made up of the bishops who were rightly called Semi-Arians. The word which for them best expressed the relations between the Father and the Son was omiooúsios; in their eyes, it marked more clearly than the word omooúsios the distinction between the two Persons, and moreover, it enabled the most advanced in the party to understand also the subordination of the Son. Several members of this group — to which St. Cyril of Jerusalem belonged for many years— were in reality orthodox, but they placed no trust in Athanasius and in his formulas.

Some years later, about the year 360, others denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Thus the name of Semi-Arians designated henceforth those who held correct or al most correct views about the person of the Son, and departed from the doctrine of the Church regarding the per son of the Holy Ghost. Finally, there soon arose between these two parties a third party, of which Acacius of Caesarea was the leader.

This was a mere political party, which aimed at keeping up the combination of all the Antinicaean forces by avoiding as much as possible all precise formulas. Its motto was omoios, an expression which they thought was so vague that it could give offence to no one. The theologians of this party were called Acacians or Homoeans.

It is between these three parties — the Anomoeans, Semi-Arians and Homoeans — that the battle is to be fought till the end of the reign of Constantius (361).

A scandalous utterance of the Anomoeans gave rise to the division. In the year 357, some bishops whose views were still more erroneous than those of the average dissenters, met at Sirmium, where Constantius happened to be.

These were Ursacius and Valens, Potamius of Lisbon, and Germanicus of Sirmium. They drew up in Latin a formula of faith which Hilary calls a blasphemy: a name under which it has ever since been known. Both the omooúsios and the omoioúsios were rejected; the Son was declared to be unquestionably inferior to the Father in honor, dignity and majesty, and subject to Him; the Holy Ghost was said to be by the Son: Paracletus autem Spiritus per Filium est. This is the second Sirmium formula.

Hosius, then almost a hundred years old, was made to subscribe to it, and it was accepted in a synod of Antioch, in the year 358, by Eudoxius and Acacius. But the bishops of Gaul opposed it strenuously, and there arose al most immediately a strong protest against it from the Semi-Arians, who had met at Ancyra shortly before Easter, 358. The few bishops who attended this meeting set forth a long doctrinal manifesto divided into two parts. The first part declared that, taken by itself, the notion of paternity implied a similarity in substance between father and son; that the Word is Son in the natural meaning of the term, and therefore is not created (3) ; that, in what belongs essentially to it, the notion itself of Son can be reduced to the notion of similarity with the Father (4) ; hence, that the Son is like the Father in substance. The second part included nine teen anathemas grouped two by two, directed alternately against Anomoeanism and Sabellianism ; the last anathema condemned the omooúsios.   The opposition of this anathema to the preceding one, which condemns Eunomius, show plainly that those who drew up the formula deemed the last word a Sabellian expression.

Although all the parts of that manifesto are not equally clear, and, in particular, it does not affirm the strict con-substantiality, still it shows plainly that the Semi-Arians were gradually advancing towards orthodoxy and with drawing from Eudoxius and his friends. The document, which was brought to Sirmium and presented to Constantius, wrought a change in the mind of the Emperor, whom the Anomoeans had already won over to their side. By his order, a Council — the third — met at Sirmium that same year, 358; but the bishops abstained from drawing up a new symbol. They merely adopted, as an expression of their faith, a group of documents: (1) The decisions of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata; (2) The second formula of Antioch of the year 341, called Lucian's formula; (3) The first formula of Sirmium, which included the fourth formula of Antioch and the twenty-seven anathemas against Photinus.

It is at this time that we must place what has been styled the fall of Pope Liberius. Since the year 355 he had been living in exile at Berea and had been supplanted at Rome by the antipope Felix II. To obtain, even by violence, his adhesion to the Antinicaean party would be of course a great, nay a crowning victory, which Constantius and the Semi-Arians, who were then enjoying the imperial favor, ardently desired. This satisfaction they obtained when one, or even two, signatures were at last extorted from the Pope, one at Berea in the year 357, the other, much better proved, at Sirmium, in the year 358. In this document, he stated that he severed his connection with Athanasius, entered in communion with the dissenters and accepted one or two formulas of faith, which, while they were not heretical, did not contain, however, the omooúsios. The formulas which he signed at Sirmium were probably those adopted by the Council that had met there a short time be fore. Sozomen remarks, however, that, in order to define his meaning with more precision, and answer the insinuations of some Anomoean bishops, Liberius declared that he looked upon as strangers to the Church those who held that the Son is not like to the Father in substance, nay, in everything.

The triumph of Basil of Ancyra seemed almost complete : but he misused it, first by obtaining from the Emperor the exile of the Anomoeans in a body and particularly of their leaders, Aetius, Eunomius and Eudoxius, and then, by at tempting to have his victory acknowledged by a large Council. There was some delay in the determination of the place and date of this meeting. Following in the footsteps of the early Arians, who, after the Council of Nicaea, had become Eusebians, the Anomoeans became Acacians or Homoeans and prejudiced Constantius against Basil. The Emperor decided that there should be two Councils, one at Rimini for the West, the other at Seleucia for the East, and that each Council should send ten delegates who would bring to him its decisions. Meanwhile and before leaving Sirmium, those bishops who were present agreed on a formula of faith — the third formula of Sirmium, and the eleventh in the whole series — which was to be conciliatory and serve as a basis for the deliberations of the two Coun cils. In it the Son was proclaimed "begotten impassibly from God, before all ages, and before all origin, and before all conceivable time . . . like to the Father who begat Him, according to the Scriptures." The use of the word oúsia in reference to God was henceforth placed under the ban, inasmuch as it was misunderstood by ordinary people and not found in Holy Writ; however, the bishops added that the Son was like the Father Kara, for ever, as the Bible said and taught.

On May 22, 359, all the bishops who were present at Sirmium signed this formula; however, from several incidents related by St. Epiphanius, we may safely infer that in reality they did not agree. When subscribing to the document, Valens tried to juggle with the words for ever. On the other hand, Basil of Ancyra insisted strongly on these two words, which, as he declared, meant that the Son was like the Father, not only in will, but in hypostasis, subsistence and being. He affirmed, moreover, that anyone who said that the Son was like the Father only in some respects, was outside the Catholic Church.

The formula thus subscribed was brought to Rimini by Valens. There he found more than four hundred bishops gathered — of whom about eighty were Antinicaeans,— and presided over by Restitutus of Carthage. The majority of the bishops put aside the formula presented by Valens, declared the symbol of Nicaea sufficient and insisted on the use of the word substance.1But he dissenters, who realized their numerical inferiority, held clandestine meetings by themselves.115 Their ten deputies reached Constantius at the same time as those of the regular Council.

After being made cognizant of this state of affairs, Constantius forbade the Fathers of Rimini to disperse before receiving his answer, and, partly through violence, and partly through cunning, he prevailed upon their deputies to sign, at Nice, in Thrace, a formula — the twelfth of the series,— which reproduced most of the third formula of Sirmium, but did not contain the words for ever, and besides condemned the term one hypostasis  and the term ousia; moreover, by resorting once more to violence and cunning, the Emperor succeeded in having the bishops present at Rimini subscribe to this new formula. However, twenty persisted in their refusal and gave their signatures only after some qualifications, which condemned Arianism, had been added. But the qualification, skilfully inserted by Valens, to the effect that “the Son was not a creature like other creatures” was ambiguous. No one saw the snare, and after Valens had solemnly declared that he was not an Arian, the bishops went away, each party ascribing the victory to itself: the Arian party, on account of the symbol, the orthodox party, on account of the additions. At Seleucia, matters were no better. The Semi-Arians were in the majority, and St. Hilary, who was present, did not hesitate to hold intercourse with them. The bishops put aside the blasphemous views of Eudoxius, and refused to adopt a profession of faith drawn up by Acacius, in which he rejected at one and the same time omooúsios, omoioúsios and anomoios, and kept only omios. All that they did, was to sign one of the Antiochian formulas of the year 341. Immediately after, the Council was officially declared closed by the quaestor Leonas, and ten deputies were sent to Constantius. But the Acacians interfered again, and after all sorts of discussions and intrigues, the deputies from Seleucia signed, at last, the formula of Nice, augmented with the additions made thereto by the twenty bishops at Rimini (359). This was a victory for the Acacians. They marked it by a synod held at Constantinople in the year 360, and, after deposing the leaders of the Semi-Arian party — Basil of Ancyra, Cyril of Jerusalem and many others,— they installed Eudoxius at Constantinople and Eunomius at Cyzicus, and by main strength succeeded in having the formula of Nice subscribed to throughout the provinces. In the words of St. Jerome, the whole world might have believed itself Arian.