THE SYNODS OF SARDICA AND PHILIPPOPOLIS
SECTION 71. PHOTINUS, AND THE FIRST SYNODS HELD ON HIS ACCOUNT
4. The three letters of pseudo-Liberius do not say which Sirmian formula the Pope had signed; the fragmentist, however, adds that it ‘was the one
4. The three letters of pseudo-Liberius do not say which Sirmian formula
Lastly, the fragmentist can no more have meant the third Sirmian formula than the second, for
(a) not only was Theodore of Heraclea dead at the time of the third as of the second Sirmian Synod, but Eudoxius (the friend of the Aetians) was so far from being a member of the third Sirmian Synod, that the latter was rather directed against him and his Antiochian assembly.
(b) But what alone would decide the question is, that these letters of pseudo-Liberius represent Liberius as having already signed a Sirmian formula during his exile, while still at Beroea, therefore before the third Sirmian Synod was held. If we have now come to the conclusion that Liberius signed the third Sirmian formula, the objections raised by Palma and Stilting fb220 cannot move us from this opinion. Both start from the belief that the third Sirmian Synod had drawn up no creed,
fb221 but only twelve anathemas, — those twelve, namely, of the
eighteen anathemas of Ancyra which Hilary fb222 brings forward, and in which precisely those theses of the Synod of Ancyra which are
suspicious, especially the last, which directly anathematizes the
oJmoou>siov, are left out. But Sozomen fb223 expressly says that Liberius had been brought to agree to the (Eusebian) decrees of faith, compiled by the Semi-Arians, against Paul of Samosata, Photinus of Sirmium, and the Synod of Antioch in 341. fb224 And this very compilation, together with the twelve anathemas of Ancyra, received at the third Sirmian Synod, we are justified in calling the third Sirmian formula. fb225 Hilary supplies materials for a further objection. As is known, he judged several Semi-Arian formulas very mildly, and was also during his exile in Phrygia in friendly intercourse with the Semi-Arians. How could he then, if Liberius only signed a Semi-Arian formula, write to the Emperor Constantius with reference to him: Nescio utrum majore impietate (eum) relegaveris quam remiseris? fb226Does not the blame contained in these words imply that Liberius allowed a real Arian formula to be forced upon him? I do not think so; for, in the first place, Hilary never sanctioned full communion with the Semi-Arians, especially never allowed participation with them in their Eucharist, fb227 and excused by the circumstances of the time rather than sanctioned all other communion with them. And, in the second place, Hilary in those words blames the Emperor far more than Liberius, and with full justice, for Constantius had in fact used violence
towards Liberius, and in so doing had been guilty of a fresh crime towards him.
We therefore conclude without doubt that Liberius, yielding to force, and sinking under many years of confinement and exile, signed the so-called third Sirmian formula, that is, the collection of older formulas of faith accepted at the third Sirmian Synod of 358. He did not do this without scruples, for the Semi-Arian character and origin of these formulas were not unknown to him; but, as they contained no direct or express rejection of the orthodox faith, and as it was represented to him, on the other side, that the Nicene oJmoou>siov formed a cloak for Sabellianism and
Photinism, he allowed himself to be persuaded to accept the third Sirmian confession. But by so doing he only renounced the letter of the Nicene faith, not the orthodox faith itself, as not only his former but his later stand against heresy testifies, as well as the addition which he made to his signature of the Sirmian formula, and in which he interprets the formula itself in an orthodox sense. fb228
The Semi-Arians now made use of their victory as far as possible for the annihilation of their opponents, the strict Arians. Eudoxius of Antioch was banished to his fatherland Armenia, Aetius to Pepuza in Phrygia (made so celebrated by the Montanists), his pupil Eunomius to Midaium also in Phrygia, Theophilus, the former missionary to the Homerites, to Heraclea in Pontus, others to other places, in all seventy Anomoeans;
and, indeed, as Philostorgius maintains, this was done chiefly at the instigation of Basil of Ancyra, who was supported by the ladies of the Imperial Court. Many, in consequence, who had hitherto belonged more to strict Arianism, now turned to the Semi-Arian side, especially
Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, the head of the subsequent Pneumatomaehians. fb229 Many of the violent measures practiced by Basil and his friends were, however, unknown to the Emperor; and when Bishop Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Narcissus of Irenopolis
(Neronias), made him acquainted with their acts, he at once recalled the exiles and commanded another Synod to be held. fb230
SECTION. 82. DOUBLE SYNOD AT SELEUCIA AND RIMINI IN 359.
According to the above statement of Philostorgius, we should suppose that Constantius summoned the new Synod in favor of the Anomoeans;
but Sozomen fb231 says just the contrary, that he thereby intended to put an end to the Anomoean doctrine. The truth is probably to be found in Socrates, fb232i.e. that Constantius desired to restore universal peace among the Arianizing parties by means of a new, great, and General Synod. The statements of S. Athanasius do not contradict this supposition, for he only means that the division of the great Council planned by the Emperor into two smaller contemporary Synods (but not the Synod itself) had been brought about by the Anomoeans. fb233 We learn from Sozomen fb234 that the Emperor at first intended to hold the great Synod at Nicaea, but that Basil of Ancyra, who then, and for some time after, had the greatest influence with him, proposed the neighboring Nicomedia instead of the city of Nicaea, which was displeasing to him on account of its associations with the Nicene oJmoou>soiv. Constantins now commanded that the wisest bishops from every ecclesiastical province should at once meet at Nicomedia, invested with full powers. Many of them were already on the road when, on the 24th August 358, Nicomedia was entirely destroyed by an earthquake, and a fire occasioned by it.
Cecropius, the bishop of that place, perished in it, and, to the great sorrow of the Christians, the splendid cathedral fell; calamities in which the heathens chose to recognize the visible judgment of the gods. fb235 The Emperor immediately wrote to Basil of Ancyra, inquiring what was now to be done; and as he now also advised Nicaea, Constantius
commanded that at the commencement of the following summer all the bishops should assemble there, and that the old and infirm should send priests or deacons as their representatives. The Synod itself was to send a deputation of ten Orientals, and as many Westerns, to the Court, to report the decisions arrived at, “that he (the Emperor) might himself know whether they had come to an understanding in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, and might decide according to his own judgment what was best to be done.” A second decree followed shortly, the purport of which was “that the bishops should wait wherever they might be, until another place for the Synod was determined and announced to them,”
and at the same time Basil was commissioned to inquire the views of the remaining Eastern bishops on this point. The opinions were very various, and Basil repaired in person to the Emperor at Sirmium, where were also Marcus of Arethusa, and George of Alexandria; Valens and Ursacius, as well as Germinius of Sirmium, were also present. The two latter, and other secret adherents of the strict Arian doctrine, feared, and certainly not without reason, that if the great Synod took place, the Semi-Arians