Allen Brent: Constantius II’s quest for an inclusive Imperial Church and the putative Synod of Sirmium, 357.

Commentators since Petavius reallocate Socrates’ (and Sozomen’s) attribution of the Second Sirmium formulary from Sirmium 351 to a putative Sirmium 357. A confused historical narrative results of the events that lead to the final, short-lived success of Constantius’ quest for a united, imperial church at Constantinople 360. Löhr in thus dating the Homoean position regards it a problem for Constantius, who was compelled to side temporarily with Basileius and Ancyra 358 in adopting their Homoiousianism by the initial failure of putative Sirmium 357. But finally, in order to include Eudoxius and Aetius and the Anomoeans, at Sirmium 359 and subsequently at Seleucia and Ariminum/Nike, Constantius backtracked. Vacillating Constantius thus emerges as either a knave or a fool, either cynically seeking any agreement, or otherwise simply unconsciously assuming contradictory positions.
My argument is that there was no Homoean creed of 357:  the first appearance of an οὐσία-denying Creed was at Sirmium 359. Basileius at Ancyra 358 opposed Eudoxius and Aetius in claiming ἀνόμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν and supported κατ᾽οὐσίαν ὅμοιος: οὐσία-denial was the final basis of a new consensus subsequently prosecuted by Constantius from 359 onwards in which Basileius reluctantly acquiesced. Putative Sirmium 357, according to Barnes’ a ‘position paper’ of that year, was instead a record of the Homoean consensus of 359. The customary dating of Hilary,De Synodis, 11 and the citation of Hosius will be critically examined, along with Brennecke’s claim that Sozomen’s (Sabinus’ ?) redescribed of an originally Homoean council in Homoiousian terms.