Rehabilitating Nestorius (Part Two)

It should come as no surprise then that the near-immediate result of Chalcedon was major schism, on both sides of the divide: those who could not assent to the condemnation of Nestorius as well as those who judged that Dioscorus of Alexandria had been unfairly deposed. In the latter case, nearly the entire ancient Church of Alexandria, Cyril's former see, would break away from the rest of the Orthodox world. (The Coptic Orthodox Church descends from this break.)

Read the Article Here

Rehabilitating Nestorius (Part One): Historical Background

Like the his compatriots of the Antiochene school, Nestorius was a dyophysite, ironically, the position that would ultimately win the day at the Council of Chalcedon (451). Had it been as simple as the question of one or two natures, history might have been kinder to Nestorius, perhaps even vindicating him as the champion of orthodoxy rather than Cyril. But Nestorius's misstep was in the way he went about articulating the dyophysite position. For Nestorius, the two-natures Christology necessitated the reality of two corresponding hypostases or subsistences, each the proper and unique subject of its own nature. But if this were the case then how could a true union of the divine and human in Christ be posited?

Read the Article Here.

The Formula of Reunion (433)

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man composed of a rational soul and a body, begotten before the ages from the Father in respect of His divinity, but likewise in these last days for us and our salvation from the Virgin Mary in respect of His manhood, consubstantial with the Father in respect of His divinity and at the same time consubstantial with us in respect of His manhood. For the union (henosis) of two natures has been accomplished. Hence we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In virtue of this conception of a union without confusion we confess the holy Virgin as Theotokos because the divine Word became flesh and was made man and from the very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her. As for the evangelical and apostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians employ some indifferently in view of the unity of person (hos eph henos prosopon) but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures (hos epi duo phuseon), applying the God-befitting ones to Christ's divinity and the humble ones to His humanity.

The Christological Divide That Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 4: The Formula of Reunion

In the aftermath of the events at Ephesus in 431, the division between the Antiochene dyophysitic and Alexandrian monophysitic traditions was never greater. But two rays of hope for reconciliation came out of the controversy at Ephesus. First, the Cyrillian synod (i.e., the one subsequently dubbed the Third Ecumenical Council) had neglected to canonize Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. Second, the opposing synod under John of Antioch did not actually rehabilitate Nestorius. These two omissions would serve as the foundation upon which the next attempt at rapprochement would be built: The Formula of Reunion.

Ten More Important Facts Concerning the Christological Divide That Anticipated Chalcedon:

(1) Prior to the events in Ephesus of 431, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata had been commissioned by John of Antioch to refute Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, which were viewed by the Antiochene party as little better than Apollinarianism. While the literary exchange was fierce, the debate served the purpose of fixing the meaning of the term hupostasis to be synonymous with prosopon. As a result, while neither fully endorsed Cyril's "hypostatic union," both came close in the end to sanctioning the "one hypostasis" formula (on the premise that this was the equivalent of the Antiochian "prosopic union").

(2) The two years following Ephesus proved pivitol, as Imperial pressure was exerted on both sides to heal the doctrinal breach. However, the way to reconciliation was made clear by the death of Pope Celestine in 432. His successor, Xystus III was intent on finding a mutually acceptable accord provided that the decisions of the Cyrillian synod at Ephesus were upheld.

(3) After intense negotiations, in which Acacius of Berea played a leading role, both sides made important concessions. Cyril agreed to furnish an explanation for his Twelve Anathemas that made clear his disavowal of Apollinarianism. Upon acceptance of Cyril's explanation, the Antiochian party then, with considerable reluctance, agreed to the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius.

(4) In 433, John of Antioch sent Cyril a letter that contained the text that would be used, upon Cyril's assent, as the instrument of agreement between the two parties (from henceforth called "The Formula of Reunion"). Ironically, this very statement, undoubtedly re-drafted at pivotal points by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, had been the very formula approved by the anti-Cyrillian synod at Ephesus in August of 431.

(5) The Formula of Reunion admitted to the orthodoxy of the term Theotokos for the Virgin Mary, but only after safeguards were put in place to satisfy Antiochene scruples. The Formula went on to explain that the Christ is "complete God and complete man," but also that "a union of two natures has occurred, as a consequence of which we confess...one Son." Meanwhile, all talk of "two Sons" and a "conjunction of two natures" had disappeared, and the identification of the subject of the God-Man as the Logos was emphasized.

(6) Cyril greeted the new confession contained in the Formula of Reunion with enthusiasm in his famous letter Laetentur caeli. However, his endorsement shocked many of his followers who saw the Formula's notion of a "union of two natures" as a contradiction of Cyril's earlier position on the hypostatic union (i.e., "one nature of the incarnate Word").

(7) Meanwhile, Nestorius' cause was now wholly lost. He was finally banished to Upper Egypt where, just before his death in 450, he completed his Book of Heracleides of Damascus, the definitive defense of his position over against Cyril.

(8) In time, the Formula of Union would prove to be no more than a truce. By 438, Cyril suspected Antiochene duplicity, and began to write against the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (both of blessed memory), who were still held in esteem by the Antiochene signers of the Formula.

(9) The old debate was now renewed, but with political power decidedly in the Alexandrians' favor, since Constantinople, after Nestorius' deposition, was now supporting Cyril's cause in the person of Nestorius' successor, Proclus.

(10) The political situation changed dramatically upon the death of Cyril in 444 and, shortly after, the death of Proclus in 447. Cyril was replaced by the unscrupulous Dioscorus, who had little use for the Formula of Union and was determined to see to the complete victory of the Alexandrian position. Meanwhile, Flavian, a moderate Antiochene and supporter of the Formula, replaced Proclus in Constantinople. The conditions were now set for the next round of open conflict.

Nestorius' Complaint Against Cyril in the Aftermath of the Council of Ephesus

Cyril is therefore prosecutor and accuser, and I the defendant: is this the council that has heard and judged my words? Is it the Emperor who summoned it, if Cyril was among the judges?

Why do I say 'among the judges'? He was the whole tribunal, for whatever he said was immediately repeated by the rest, and his single personality took the place of a tribunal for them. If all judges had been assembled, and the accusers and accused set in their proper role, all would have had equal liberty of speech, instead of Cyril being everything, accuser, Emperor, and judge. He did everything with arbitrary authority, and after ousting from this authority the Emperor's emissary, set himself up in his place. He assembled those who pleased him both from far and near, and made himself the tribunal. I was summoned by Cyril, who assembled the council, by Cyril, who presided. Who was judge? Cyril! Who was accuser? Cyril!! Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril!!! Cyril was everything. Cyril was bishop of Alexandria and held the place of Coelestine, the holy and venerable bishop of Rome.

--Nestorius, The Book of Heracleides of Damascus.

The Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 3

Commissioned by Pope Celestine of Rome to prosecute the judgment of the Roman synod of 430 concerning the teachings of Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria proceeded to write his infamous third letter to Nestorius, to which he appended twelve anathemas (see entry below). This turned out to be ill-judged, as the pope's charge did not envision a new definition of the faith, and the language of the anathemas only served to incite moderate Antiochenes against Cyril in defense of Nestorius.

Ten More Interesting Facts Concerning the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 3:

(1) Moderate Antiochene thinkers like John of Antioch, Andrew of Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrrus were alarmed by what they perceived to be Apollinarian implications in the Cyrilline Christology.

(2) The teachings of Theodoret can be seen as representative of the mature Antiochene position at this stage of the christological divide. Avoiding the pitfalls of Nestorius' clumsy assertion of two natural prosopa united under one prosopon of identity, Theodoret asserted both the completeness and distinction of the two natures (phusis) while maintaing but one person (prosopon) in which the natures were united. Interestingly, at this point in the history of the debate, Antiochenes like Theodoret were of a mind to avoid Theodore of Mopsuestia's distinction between "the Word who assumes" and "the Man who is assumed."

(3) The essential difference between the Cyrilline and Antiochene christologies lies in the nature of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. The Antiochenes objected to Cyril's "hypostatic union" as implying some kind of necessary union, harkening back to pre-Apollinarian days when Alexandrian christology, using an essentially platonic anthropology as its base, understood the Logos as constituting the "spirit or soul" of the incarnate Christ. The Antiochenes also objected to Cyril's insistence on a genuine communicatio idiomata as implying a mixing or confusion of the two natures.

(4) At the prompting of Nestorius, and the concurrence of the western emperor, Valentianian III, Emperor Theodosius II of the East summoned a general council to meet on Pentecost (June 7) in the city of Ephesus in 431.

(5) Cyril and his supporters were the first two arrive in the city. On June 22, despite the protests of the imperial commissioners, Cyril and sixty like-minded bishops proceeded to hold a synod without the Antiochene delegation. Nestorius, who had arrived earlier in Ephesus, naturally refused to attend.

(6) After the letters of both Cyril and Nestorius had been read aloud, the Cyrillian synod proceeded to condemn Nestorius as "the new Judas." The synod also canonized the symbol of Nicaea (325) as summarizing the orthodox faith and Cyril's second letter to Nestorius as its authoritative interpretation. This all took place in a one-day session.

(7) When the Antiochene delegation finally arrived on June 26, they proceeded to hold their own synod under the presidency of John of Antioch, and promptly deposed and condemned Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, while also repudiating Cyril's Twelve Anathemas as Apollinarian.

(8) The Roman delegation finally arrived on July 10, and, following the instructions of the pope, joined the Cyrillian synod. At this point, John of Antioch was added to the list of the deposed, and, as a gesture of good will to the western delegation, Pelagianism was condemned. It was this synod that would go down in history as the Third Ecumenical Council.

(9) Amidst the confusion, Theodosius was compelled to intern the leaders of both parties. However, given his own theological sympathies, and helped by the aggressive diplomacy of Cyril's supporters, he quickly restored Cyril to the see of Alexandria and deposed Nestorius, who retired to his monastary near Antioch.

(10) While at this point the two parties appeared hopelessly and irreparably to be more divided than ever before, two important factors pointing toward the possibility of future rapprochement deserve attention. First, the Twelve Anathemas appended to Cyril's third letter, while being read aloud at the Cyrillian synod, were not given its endorsement, being passed over in favor of Cyril's second letter. Second, John of Antioch's synod, while condemning Cyril and Memnon, had nonetheless failed to endorse or rehabilitate Nestorius.

The Twelve Anathemas that Cyril of Alexandria Demanded of Nestorius

The things which it is necessary that thy Piety anathematize have been annexed to this our Letter:-

1. If any one confess not that Emmanuel is in truth God and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God (theotokos), for she bare after the flesh the Word of God made Flesh, be he anathema.

2. If any one confess not that the Word of God the Father hath been Personally united (kath hupostasin) to Flesh and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.

3. If any one sever the Persons of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a meeting unto Unity of Nature (henosin phusiken), be he anathema.

4. If any one allot to two Persons (prosopa) or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.

5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man (theophoros anthropos), and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son and That by Nature (phusis), in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh [Heb. 2:14], be he anathema.

6. If any one say that the Word That is of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema.

7. If anyone say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.

8. If any one dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, constantly appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with One worship and attribute to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs upon men; and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom He hath wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.

10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

11. If any one confess not that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is from God the Father, but say that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.

12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

The Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 2

The last segment of this series saw the victory of Antiochene dyophysite christology ("Logos-man") over Apollinaris' extreme version of Alexandrian monophysite christology ("Logos-flesh"), culminating in the condemnation of Apollinarianism at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Ten Interesting Facts Concerning the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 2:

(1) As defenders of Nicene dogma, the Antiochene school's main concern was to uphold the full deity of the Logos by denying that any human attributes or limitations could be attributed to the divine Son. For this reason, Apollinaris' teaching that the incarnate Logos is a composite nature, and thus the proper subject of both divine and human attributes and actions, was considered blasphemous. Prominent Antiochene representatives include John Chrysostom, Diodore of Tarsus (a participant at the Council of Constantinople), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (a pupil of Diodore).

(2) Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428, bishop from 392) is credited for providing the definitive Antiochene solution to the conundrum of the unity of the Logos with a complete human nature: the theory of "prosopic union." Theodore's account of the prosopic union posits an indissoluble conjunction of the divine and human natures (phusis) that is so complete and intimate as to effect one "person" (prosopon), in the sense of an external functional subject or outward identity.

(3) While Theodore explicitly denied the old Samasotan heresy of two Sons or two Christs, he nevertheless often spoke of the incarnation in terms of the Logos assuming "the man" (homo assumptus), albeit indissolubly and ineffably, at conception. Furthermore, he described the nature of the union in terms of an indwelling of the Logos in "the man" by "good pleasure" (eudokia), whereby the Word in grace confers his own prosopon to the man. On account of the severe criticism his position would receive from Cyril of Alexandria during the Nestorian controversy, Theodore's christological writings would eventually be condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

(4) The leading proponent of Alexandrian Christology in this era was Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378-ca. 444), the nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria, who Cyril succeeded to the patriarchal see in 412. This same Theophilus had engineered the deposition and exile of John Chrysostom from Constantinople in 401. Cyril shared with Theophilus his jealously for the traditional prerogatives of Alexandria, as well as his adroitness at ecclesiastical politics.

(5) Cyril, the latest in the long line of Alexandrian "Logos-flesh" thinkers, understood the incarnation in terms of the Logos adding human flesh (sarx) to his hypostasis, while yet remaining unchanged in his essential deity. The Logos who had existed asarkos (i.e., "outside flesh") had become ensomatos (i.e., "embodied") at the incarnation. Hence, Cyril posited one nature (phusis) "out of two" (eis ek duo). In contrast to the Antiochene "indwelling by good pleasure," Cyril spoke in terms of a "natural" or "hypostatic" union. To express this teaching, Cyril vigorously employed the Apollinarian phrase, "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" (mia phusis tou theou logou sesarkomene), which he mistakenly attributed to Athanasius.

(6) In 428 the Antiochene and Alexandrian christologies collided once again, this time occasioned by the elevation of the Antiochene monk Nestorius to the see of Constantinople. No sooner did Nestorius arrive in the imperial city than he found himself embroiled in a controversy over the use of the venerable title Theotokos ("God-bearer") for the Virgin Mary. Echoing the misgivings of Theodore on the same issue, Nestorius ruled that "that which was formed in the womb is not God," and "God was within the one who was assumed." Hence, Theotokos was judged to be misleading unless qualified with the term Anthropotokos ("man-bearer"), or replaced altogether with the honorific Christotokos ("Christ-bearer").

(7) To make matters worse, Cyril and Nestorius were already at odds over the case of a group of Egyptian monks who had appealed to Nestorius concerning a judgment rendered against them by Cyril. However, Nestorius's disavowal of the unqualified use of Theotokos (a term that had been employed by Athanasius of blessed memory), presented Cyril with tour de force grounds for challenging the authority of the see of Constantinople. Cyril began his attack on Nestorius by writing to the disaffected Egyptian monks in defense of Theotokos.

(8) Despite his reliance on Theodore, Nestorius' articulation of the Antiochene position was deemed innovative and clumsy even by those who were his natural supporters, like John of Antioch. This is because Nestorius spoke in terms of a distinct "prosopon of union," considered by him to be the common prosopon (external identity) of the divinity and the humanity in Christ. This "prosopon of union," not that of the Logos per se, was the historical figure presented in the Gospels. Hence, the truly innovative and heretical feature of Nestorius' position was the coalescence of the two natures, divine and human, into one prosopon that was nevertheless distinct from the prosopa of either the Logos or the man (a genuine tertium quid).

(9) Both Cyril and Nestorius went to great lengths to garner support, writing a series of accusatory letters to each other. Cyril understood the importance of gaining the support of the emperor, Theodosius II, his wife, and his influential sister, Pulcheria, against Nestorius, as well as appealing to the Roman pope, Celestine I. Nestorius also appealed to Celestine, but the latter was already disgruntled by the extension of hospitality in Constantinople to certain exiled Pelagians. A synod held in Rome in 430 called for Nestorius to recant within ten days of the receipt of its judgment and affirm the teaching of "Rome, Alexandria and the whole Catholic Church," or face excommunication.

(10) Cyril, charged by Celestine to execute the sentence, held a synod in Alexandria that confirmed the Roman decision. He then proceeded to write his infamous third letter to Nestorius, to which he presumed to append twelve anathemas that articulated his own uncompromising "Logos-flesh" christology in provocative language and tone. The letter with appended anathemas could not help but alienate prominent Antiochene thinkers like John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who would now come to the support of Nestorius.

To be continued in Part 3...

Ten Interesting Facts on the Christological Divide that Anticipated Chalcedon, Part 1

(1) The major christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries are directly attributable to the fallout from the Arian controversy, particularly the widening rift between two distinct approaches to christology within the Nicene party -- repectively dubbed the Alexandrian and Antiochene approaches to christology.

(2) Arianism shared a fundamental conception of the incarnation with orthodox Alexandrians (i.e., the Nicene party), wherein the Logos was seen as constituting the real subject of everything that happens to the Christ presented in the Gospel accounts. Consequently, both positions agreed that the Logos in the flesh experienced hunger, thirst, doubt, suffering, and every other limitation known to the human condition.

(3) The Arians appealed to these limitations as proof that the Logos possesses a passible nature, and thus is a creature. In contrast, Athanasius and the Alexandrain party argued that in assuming human flesh the Logos had also assumed a human way of being without forfeiting his divine way of being.

(4) Despite these differences, both the orthodox Alexandrians and the Arians worked from the Platonic premise that the physical body is animated by a spirit or soul that is essentially alien to it. Hence, the Logos, in assuming flesh, constitutes the true life-principle or "ego" of Jesus Christ. The weakness of this approach was that it did not adequately account for a separate created human mind in Christ. This approach is aptly characterized as a "Logos-flesh" Christology, and is fundamentally monophysite in its conception of the incarnation.

(5) In contrast, the dyophysite approach of the orthodox Antiochene school, aptly characterized as a "Logos-man" Christology, emphasized the role of Christ as the "Second Adam," and thus understood the Word or Logos as uniting Himself to a complete human nature, both body and soul. However, the weakness of this position lies in viewing the incarnation as a conjoining, rather than a union, of two complete natures, divine and human, each considered to be the proper subject of its own respective actions and attributes.

(6) Tensions between the two christologies can be dated as early as 352 AD. In 362, a temporary doctrinal accord was reached at a synod held in Alexandria, in which Athanasius himself presided. There Paulinus of Antioch successfully argued that Christ must have assumed a full human nature (both body and soul) in order to save man's body and soul. This argument clearly impressed Athanasius. Yet since he held (in common with other Alexandrians) that the Logos was the very archetpye of the mind or soul, it is doubtful that he actually understood or appreciated the full anthropological implications of the Antiochene position.

(7) Serious controversy erupted a decade later when Apollinaris of Laodicea, an ardent defender of Nicene dogma and a friend of Athanasius, put forward an extreme version of the Alexandrian position. Interestingly, Apollinaris had been the person largely responsible for bringing Basil of Caesarea to the homoousian position.

(8) Anticipating the Eutychian heresy of the 5th century, Apollinaris took the Platonic conception of anthropology to its logical conclusion by denying the existence of a human psychology in Christ and contending that the assumption of the flesh by the Logos resulted in a composite unity of impassible divinity and passible flesh, in which the flesh was considered to be fully absorbed into the divine (flowing from an extreme application of the Alexandrian principle of communicatio idiomata). Incidentally, Apollinaris was the first to employ "hypostasis" (Gr. hupostasis) in a christological setting, a term which he understood to be synomous with the terms prosopon (i.e., person) and phusis (i.e., nature).

(9) For the orthodox Alexandrians, the scandal of Apollonaris' teaching was his admission that Christ's nature was different from that of ordinary human nature, thus rendering Christ immune from human passions, suffering, and limitations. The resulting christology was expressed in the phrase "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" (Gr. mian phusin tou theou logou sesarkomenen).

(10) Pope Damasus condemned Apollinaris outright at a synod in Rome in 377. The actions of this synod were confirmed by synods held in Alexandria (378) and Antioch (379) respectively, and finally at the Council of Constantinople (381). Despite the condemnation of Apollinaris' teaching, the Apollinarian-inspired phrase "one incarnate nature of the divine Word" would eventually become associated with the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the champion of the Council of Ephesus (431).

Ten More Interesting Facts About the Struggle for the Nicene Faith, Part II: The First Council of Constantinople (381)

(1) After the death of Athanasius (373), the intellectual and spiritual struggle against Arianism was taken up by the "new" Nicene party of the Eastern or Greek Church, consisting of old Origenists and former Homoiousians (i.e., "of like substance" with the Father), who had been persuaded by Athanasius to support the Nicene formula. Early on, the mantle of both organizational and theological leadership fell upon Basil of Caesarea (in Cappadocia). He, along with his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and lifelong friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, would come to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers.

(2) Basil wrote his famous treatise, On the Holy Spirit, to combat the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi ("Spirit-fighters"), a party of former Homoiousians who admitted the divinity of the Son, but not that of the Spirit. Gregory of Nazianzus, known as an orator of great distinction, left behind many homilies defending the cause of the Nicene Faith. Of the three, Gregory of Nyssa possessed the most theological depth, and it was his development of Basil's theology that led to the critical rethink and revision of Eastern Origenist theology that finally brought the "new" Nicenes and the "old" Nicenes together.

(3) Up to this point, the "old" Nicenes had always contended for a single divine hypostasis through which the three Persons -- Father, Son, and Spirit -- subsisted. This explanation sounded suspiciously modalistic to Eastern ears, and, indeed, in some individual cases (like that Marcellus of Ancyra) it frequently was! In contrast, the East had always contended for three individual Hypostases.

(4) By carefully distinguishing between the terms ousia and hupostasis, Gregory successfully contended that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct hypostases (i.e., concrete, subsistent realities) that shared a single, identical being or nature (thus properly considered homoousios). What sets the hypostases apart is not activity, but how each hypostasis relates to the others and to the whole, as Source, Offspring, and Procession.

(5) The political and theological turning point for the Cappadocian cause was the defeat of the eastern Augustus, Valens, by the Visigoths at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The surviving emperor in the West, Gratian, promptly appointed Theodosius I ("the Great") as Augustus in the East, who, unlike Valens, was committed to the Nicene faith. Together, Gratian and Theodosius issued a decree that the whole empire should practice the religion of Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), effectively establishing these sees as the "senior churches" and guardians of orthodoxy. The Nicene faith was now the official religion of the entire Empire.

(6) Theodosius summoned the council of Constantinople in 381 to deal with the Macedonian issue. Consisting of only 150 eastern bishops, the council had not been intended as an "ecumenical" council at all, but would gradually and eventually be recognized as such.

(7) The council, in contending for the deity of the Spirit, naturally confirmed the original symbol of Nicaea. It also considered another formula based on a baptismal creed in which key Nicene terms and phrases were inserted, and including a phrase declaring that the Holy Spirit is "worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son."

(8) The council never actually adopted the new symbol, ironically due to the desire of some and the reluctance of others to insert the term homoousios in reference to the Spirit. Nevertheless, the creed would always be associated with its name and work. Because of its increasing popularity and use as a liturgical symbol, the creed eventually achieved universal acceptance. It was finally confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which solemnly declared it to be the faith of the 150 bishops assembled under Theodosius at Constantinople. This creed, rather than the original symbol of Nicaea, is the one we know and recite today as the "Nicene Creed."

(9) Far from being free of contention and controversy, the Council of Constantinople became the source of further tensions between the East and the West: first, by bypassing Rome and Alexandria's choice for president of the council -- Paulinus , a prominent leader of the "old" Nicenes -- in favor of Meletius, a "new" Nicene supported by the majority. Meletius, however, died in the course of the meeting, and the council proceeded to appoint another "new" Nicene, Flavian of Antioch. Gregory of Nazianzus, who had been elected at the beginning of the council to replace the Arian bishop of Constantinople, quickly resigned his see in protest to the council's failure to conciliate Rome. The council then elected Nectarius to be bishop of Constantinople.

(10) The council's Second and Third Canons served to further alienate Rome and Alexandria by declaring (i) Constantinople to be a patriarchal see, and (ii) the bishop of Constantinople to have "the primacy of honor" after the bishop of Rome on the grounds that Constantinople was "new Rome." This not only set up a new source of friction between East and West, but also a new rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria

Athanasius on the Semi-Arians: De Synodis, ca. 359 AD

Those who deny the council (of Nicaea) altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Co-essential (i.e., homoousios), must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from another subsistence, and that he is not a creature nor work, but his genuine and natural offspring, and that he is eternally with the Father as being his Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase Co-essential. Now such is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence' (i.e., homoiousios) is very far from signifying 'of the essence', by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuine relationship of the Son to the Father is signified....This is sufficient to show that the meaning of the beloved ones, that is, the Semi-arians, is not foreign nor far from the 'Co-essential' (Athanasius, De Synodis, 41, 43).

Ten Interesting Facts About the Struggle for the Nicene Faith

1. Constantine's initial solution to the Arian controversy was to send a letter (in 324) to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius stating that the issue being debated amounted to a minor difference over a point of detail.

2. The idea for dealing with the Arian controversy in an "ecumenical" council came from Hosius of Cordova, who on his return from dropping off Constantine's letter, presided over a council in Antioch which installed Eustathius, an anti-Arian, and issued a rather clumsy confession of faith that proclaimed the Logos "begotten not from non-existence but from the Father, not as made but as properly an offspring."

3. In 325, Constantine invited every bishop of the empire to convene at Nicaea, over 1800 in all, at the empire's expense. However, only about three hundred (the traditional number is 318) actually attended, and only six from the West.

4. Three disparate parties were represented at Nicaea: (1) Arius' supporters, the most prominent being Eusebius of Nicodemia; (2) Alexander's supporters, such as Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra; and (3) those holding a "conservative" subordinationist position (as taught by Origen), by far the largest contingent, among them Eusebius of Caesarea. Many from this last party were at the time, or would eventually become, sympathizers of Arius.

5. All but two bishops signed the creed, wishing to keep the emperor happy. Yet many expressed suspicion that the creed's language -- particularly the term homoousios -- implied or outright taught the error of modalistic monarchianism. And, indeed, the views of at least one of the creed's prominent fervent supporters, Marcellus of Ancyra, were implicitly monarchian.

6. Eusebius of Nicodemia was exiled shortly after the Council of Nicaea for communicating Arius, but was recalled by Constantine in 328 to become bishop of the imperial capital and Constantine's principle advisor in the process. From this position, he labored to reestablish the dominance of the Eastern subordinationist position, undermining the Nicene formula (under Constantine's nose). Eusebius managed to depose and exile Alexander's successor, Athanasius, on trumped up charges, and Marcellus of Ancyra.

7. After Constantine's death, the depositions of Athanasius and Marcellus would lead to a schism between the East and the West when both bishops appealed to Julius of Rome. Eastern bishops gathered in Antioch in 341 to repudiate Arianism, disavow Rome's right to act as a court of appeal, and assert a subordinationist view of the Logos over against the alleged monarchianism implied by the Nicene symbol. The Latin church convened a separate council at Sardica, from which the Greeks withdrew when Athanasius and Marcellus were invited to sit, where they insisted that there is but one hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (ousia and hypostasis were not yet distinct terms).

8. The efforts of Emperor Constantius (Constantine's son) to enforce a non-committal imperial orthodoxy led to the Council of Sirmium's (357) prohibition of terms such as ousia and homoousios, effectively repudiating the Nicene formula. This made room for a revival of "Arianism" in various forms, such as the Homoean party (from homoios, asserting that the Son is "like" the Father), the Anomoeans (who held that the Son was "unlike" the Father), and, lastly, those who insisted that the Son was not only "like" the Father, but "like in respect of substance" (the Homoiousian party).

9. The efforts of Athanasius from 359 to achieve reconciliation between the Homoousian and the Homoiousian parties opened the way to a fresh reappraisal of the Nicene symbol. The pro-Arian policies of Constantius II (and fifth and final exile of Athanasius) further encouraged the budding alliance between the two parties. From this alliance a "new Nicene party" would emerge, eventually finding worthy leadership in Basil of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and Miletius of Antioch. Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, would also contribute their theological acumen to the Nicene cause. (These three would come to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers.)

10. Differences between the "old" Nicenes (West) and "new" Nicenes (East) continued to persist for a time, including uncertainty as to the divine status of the Holy Spirit. The differences would be resolved by the Cappadocians' ingenious distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis in their articulation of the Trinity. The Council of Constantinople in 381 marked the final triumph of Nicene orthodoxy. Intriguingly, while condemning the Pneumatomachi ("Spirit-fighters"), the council did not insist on using homoousios to describe the Holy Spirit's relation to the Father, in deference to the few remaining Homoiousians.