Photinus and the Council of Sirmium

About this time Photinus, who governed the church of Sirmium, laid before the emperor, who was then staying in that city, a heresy he had started some time earlier. His natural ease of speech and powers of persuasion enabled him to draw many people over to his way of thinking. He acknowledged that there is one God Almighty, by whose own word all things were created, but he would not admit that the Son was begotten and existed before all ages. On the contrary, he claimed that Christ had his existence from Mary. As soon as this opinion became known, it angered the bishops of both the West and the East, and both alike regarded it as an innovation against their own belief; for it was opposed equally by those who held the doctrines of the Council of Nicaea and by those who favored the teachings of Arius. The emperor also disliked the heresy, and he called a council at Sirmium, where he was then living. [a]

Of the Eastern bishops, George, who governed the church of Alexandria, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Mark, bishop of Arethusa, were present at this council. Among the Western bishops were Valens, bishop of Mursa, and Hosius the Confessor. Hosius, who had attended the Council of Nicaea, took part in this one against his will. Not long before, he had been condemned to banishment through the schemes of the Arians. He was summoned to the Council of Sirmium by a command of the emperor that the Arians had extracted from him, for they believed their party would be strengthened if they could win over, by persuasion or by force, a man as universally admired and respected as Hosius. The council met at Sirmium in the year after the consulship of Sergius and Nigrinian. During that year there were no consuls in either the East or the West, because of the uprisings stirred up by the usurpers. Photinus was deposed by this council, because he was accused of favoring the errors of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata.

The council then went on to draw up three statements of faith, in addition to the earlier confessions. One was written in Greek, the others in Latin. But they did not agree with one another, nor with any of the earlier statements of doctrine, either in wording or in meaning. The Greek statement does not say that the Son is of one substance, or of like substance, with the Father. Instead it declares that those who hold that the Son had no beginning, or that he came from an expansion of the Father’s substance, or that he is united with the Father without being subject to him, are excommunicated. In one of the Roman statements it is forbidden to say, of the essence of the Godhead, which the Romans call substance, that the Son is either of one substance or of like substance with the Father, since such statements do not occur in the Holy Scriptures and are beyond the understanding and knowledge of men. It says that the Father must be acknowledged as superior to the Son in honor, in dignity, in divinity, and in the relationship implied by his name of Father; and that it must be confessed that the Son, like all created beings, is subject to the Father, that the Father had no beginning, and that the begetting of the Son is known to no one but the Father. It is said that when this statement was finished, the bishops became aware of the errors it contained and tried to withdraw it from public view and correct it, and that the emperor threatened to punish anyone who kept or hid any of the copies that had been made of it. But once it had been published, no efforts were enough to suppress it altogether.

The third statement has the same meaning as the others. It forbids the use of the term “substance” because of the terms used in Latin. It says that the Greek term had been used too simply by the Fathers, and had offended many of the unlearned multitude because it is not found in the Scriptures: “We have thought it right to reject its use entirely, and we direct that no mention at all be made of the term in speaking of the Godhead; for it is nowhere said in the Holy Scriptures that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance, where the word ‘person’ is written. But we say, in agreement with the Holy Scriptures, that the Son is like the Father.” [f]

Such was the decision about the faith reached in the emperor’s presence. At first Hosius refused to agree to it. But force was used, and, being extremely old, he gave way, it is said, under the blows inflicted on him, and gave his consent and his signature.

After Photinus had been deposed, the synod thought it wise to see whether he could somehow be persuaded to change his views. The bishops urged him, and promised to give him back his bishopric if he would renounce his own teaching and vote for their statement of faith. But he would not agree, and instead challenged them to a debate. So on the day set for it the bishops gathered with the judges the emperor had appointed to preside over their meetings, men who held the first rank in the palace for eloquence and dignity. Basil, bishop of Ancyra, was chosen to open the argument against Photinus. The contest lasted a long time, because of the many questions raised and the answers given on each side, which were taken down in shorthand as they were spoken; but in the end the victory went to Basil. Photinus was condemned and banished, but he did not on that account stop expanding his own teaching. He wrote and published many works in Greek and Latin, in which he tried to show that every opinion except his own was wrong. I have now finished all I had to say about Photinus and the heresy that bears his name.