Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology

by Lewis Ayres

Lewis Ayres offers a new account of the most important century in the development of Christian belief after Christ. He shows how the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, and in particular argues that a conception of God's mysteriousness and spiritual progress towards understanding is central to that doctrine. He also proposes that modern theologies of the Trinity fail to appreciate the depth and power of Nicene trinitarianism.

Genres: Theology, Church History, History, Religion, Christian History, Christianity, Ancient History

475 pages, Paperback

First published October 15, 2004

Reviews

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This walk through of how orthodoxy prevailed from Paul throughout the early church and how it was articulated via the Nicene Creed is helpful and profitable history resource. Ayers does not ignore the complexities of the early church, and heavily discusses the issues concerning the Godhead, personhood of Christ, and the deity of the Spirit by examining the primary sources of those who influenced and were influenced by Nicene theology. The first 300 pages provide a helpful history of what happened and how the creed was formed. The closing pages emphasize more so the implications of pro-Nicene theology. Ayers provides scholarly work in drawing connections between the Nicene theologians and those who followed, such as Saint Augustine. I highly recommend this resource, but encourage it to be read alongside of John Behr’s works on the similar topic. The debate between the two is also helpful.

[Liam Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely helpful. Ayers balances a deconstruction of the standard, overly-simplistic frameworks many read the fourth-century through with a clear proposal that pro-Nicene theology should be understood as a theological culture. This culture, for Ayers, is characterised by shared understanding of unity and diversity in the trinity, the relationship between Christology and Cosmology, and what it means for a person to gain knowledge of God by reading the scriptures. Ayers pretty persuasively demolishes a crude yet common eastern-from-the-three-to-the-one v. western-from-the-one-to-the-three division. I read this after Behr's books on Nicaea, so I found particularly helpful the way Ayers relates what is often seen as an Eastern conversation with what was taking place in the West. I suspect I'll re-read this and get much more out of it on a second read. Still, I must say that despite how much I enjoyed and agreed with much of his scathing criticism of the state of modern systematic theology in his final chapter, I am too proud and happy a protestant to accept any invitation to see Scripture as the penultimate focus of the theologian's attention.

[Erin Ching]

I dont want to give this one a star review, because I feel like it's 5 stars in quality and I got about 3 stars of value due to my own lack of knowledge. It would be helpful to come into this book with knowledge about the Trinity that goes beyond catechism level, and also some knowledge of church history, ecclisiology, epistemology, philosophy, and Greek wouldn't hurt. Without this, I was working quite hard to understand and still failing to understand much of the content.

However, I'm still glad to have read it. I feel like I understand the structure, the importance, and the complexity / mystery of the trinity much better. I find myself looking for the Trinity in sermons, Scripture reading, and discussions, and it shows me that I've been missing out on a really foundational part of who God is, and im grateful to this book for helping me see it so much better. I also have a better appreciation for how much deep thought and discussion and study has gone on for centuries about this doctrine.

[Jack Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant scholarly, and historical evaluation of different Nicene theologies; their origins and developments.

[Lee Irons · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is now regarded as the “go to” book on the Arian controversy and the development of what he calls the “pro-Nicene” doctrine of the Trinity in the latter half of the fourth century culminating in the Council of Constantinople in 381 when the Nicene Creed was reaffirmed and expanded. Ayres pursues a number of historical and theological arguments, and his scholarship is daunting, so it is not an easy read by any means. He tries to accomplish so many things that at times I lost the thread of the argument. But the main thing I took away from it was this: the divine simplicity + three persons = inseparable operation of the three persons. This is the heart of the mature doctrine of the Trinity as articulated by the “pro-Nicene” theologians, especially the Cappadocian fathers and Augustine. It is an essential part of the answer to the question, “How can we say God exists in three persons while upholding the oneness of God?” Understanding this with clarity also provides a sound basis for mounting a devastating critique of the social Trinitarianism that is growing in popularity in contemporary theology.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was fascinating but, not sure I'd reccomend it widely.

Ayres presents an alternative account of 4th century trinitarian debates which has a lot going for it BUT I think his theological convictions underpin some of the moves he's willing to make.

Ayres is a Roman Catholic who is happy to allow that scripture is not necessarily sufficient to teach us Nicene Trinitarianism (though he argues that the two are consistent with each other).

He presents some strong critiques of the dangers of modernist (post-Hegel) approaches to theology and church history which are worth hearing - though the protestantised version of similar critiques which you can find in Craig Carter is probably more immediately helpful for a wider audience.

I'd like to say more but thoughts are still forming - this is an impressive work and I'm glad I've read it but it ought to come with many health warnings, don't start your study of Nicaea or the Trinity or how to interpret scripture here.

[wyclif · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding single volume account of fourth-century trinitarian theology. Sure to be a standard text for years to come, and one that I'll no doubt refer to repeatedly.

[Josef Muench · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important reading, if intentionally provocative. Most theologians will find much to agree with, much to stimulate their own thought, and a fair amount with which to disagree. The responses written by Khaled Anatolios and John Behr in Harvard Theological Review should especially be noted.

[Colin Fast · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book on the development of Trinitarian grammar, contra some prevailing assumptions.

A go-to resource that may be best served for those who teach and preach on the Trinity due to its density—though any Christian could be served in reading it.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Hanson's 'Search for the Christian Doctrine of God' is more extensive and detailed (but no less readable). However, Lewis Ayres provides concise and updated arguments. Extremely helpful guide for historians and theologians alike.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lewis Ayres’ Nicaea and Its Legacy is a valuable contribution to the field of Patristic scholarship. Published in 2004, Ayres has attempted to provide a new narrative for the development of theology in the 4th century. Ayres does not try to re-write the contributions of Hanson and Simonetti or Behr’s relatively contemporaneous work. Instead, Ayres attempts to consolidate the insights of previous scholarship into a revised narrative for this period. His approach is confessedly theological history, so he eschews the various tools of sociology that could be used to analyse this period. Against the older narrative that sees a conflict between orthodoxy and heresy in the 4th century, Ayres argues that there were competing theological trajectories that led to the emergence of pro-Nicene theology in the late 4th century. Pro-Nicene theology, according to Ayres, is characterised not by uniform theology but a by shared “life of the mind.”

Summary

For Ayres, the debates at this time involved two points, “the generation of the Son or Word” and the “grammar” of human speech concerning God (3). For Ayres, a “grammar” is “a set of rules or principles intrinsic to theological discourse, whether or not they are formally articulated” (14). After discussing three points of departure for 4th-century theology in Chapter 1, He identifies four trajectories surrounding these points in Chapters 2 and 3. None of these trajectories was “orthodox” over against the others in their time; they existed in tension as orthodoxy was worked out (78ff). The first two trajectories were two trends concerning the “generation of the Son.” On the one hand, Athanasius and Alexander stressed the eternal “correlative status of the Father and Son” and the others the volition of God in the generative act (43). On the other hand, there was a shared emphasis among the loose alliance of “Eusebians,” including Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom Ayres groups according to their supposed association with Lucian of Antioch (55). Their theological emphases are varied but generally emphasise the difference between the Father and Son, at times stressing the volition of God in the generation of Christ and the Father’s eternality over against the son. The third trajectory, associated mainly with Marcellus of Ancyra, was theological stress on the indivisibility or unity of God. Finally, there was a tendency in Western theology to oppose Adoptionism; these emphases eventually conflicted with non-Nicene theology.
Chapters 4 – 10 take up the task of narrating the theological development of this century more directly. The heresiological categories of “Arianism” are abandoned for terminology more generally employed in this period and suiting the parties involved, such as Eusebians, Homoousians (those who claim the Father and Son are of the same substance), Homoians (those who say the Father and Son are alike), Homoiousians (those who say the Father and Son are of similar substances), Heterousians (those who say they are of other substance), etc. In Chapters 11-13, Ayres moves to describe the share pro-Nicene “life of the mind.” By “life of the mind,” Ayres adapts sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept habitus for a more flexible disposition that evolves and takes different forms in different contexts. The “life of the mind” he intends is essentially an enduring yet adaptable “disposition” that functions as “principles which generate and organise practices and representations” (275). Studying the pro-Nicene theology of this time, “we are watching literate Christians articulate the ideas and practices that they think together shape and constitute an appropriate Christian habitus” (275). Ayres identifies three themes shaping this Pro-Nicene life of the mind, strategies for thinking about Christ and the Trinity. First, they spoke of unity and diversity in the Trinity: “The pro-Nicene life of the mind finds its core in attention, on the one hand, to the dynamics not simply of ‘revelation’, but of the divine economy that condescends to our categories but does so only to draw us slowly towards a contemplation of the divine realities of which they speak” (300). Second, they employed two related themes of Christology, manifesting in a Christologically determined notion of spiritual determination, and Cosmology, involving ontological speculation. By the former, he means “that pro-Nicenes take the soul’s formation to be shaped by the action of Christ as incarnate” (304). Regarding the latter, they did not undertake the task of creating a uniquely Christian ontology but negotiated different theological and philosophical traditions (312). They employed two broad strategies in this regard: 1) to interweave an understanding of the structure of the created order with their theology (“Trinitarian doctrine”) and soteriology (314) and 2) to pay attention to the manner the created order leads to the contemplation of God (semiotics) (314). Third, they had a shared strategy of considering their understanding of God and their theological grammar in terms of anthropology, epistemology, and the reading of Scripture. What united them was not their conclusions but their shared strategy in this regard.
The final chapter considers what it means to hold to Nicaea as an authority for modern Christian thought. He proposes that theology be thought of as the contemplation of Scripture grounded in the creeds. The plain sense of Scripture should govern philosophical appropriation, but the latter is necessary for trinitarian doctrines (419). He interprets the Creeds and articles of faith as guides to the plain sense (420). But moving towards theology, the plain sense of Scripture is penultimate; it moves us towards but is not the goal of theology. It is the “ultimate point of reference in the human task of shaping imagination and intellect towards the vision of and life within the Triune God that constitutes the end of the Christian life” (417).

Evaluation

Overall, Ayres’ book is a valuable contribution. His incorporation of the West is a helpful supplement to the Eastern-focused work of John Behr (see my reviews here and here). Ayres’ constructive proposal deserves some thoughts, for it offers an interesting convergence between recent Evangelical theology and Ayres’ Catholicism. Ayres suggests that the Creeds provide the authoritative context in which we contemplate the plain sense of Scripture towards the ultimate goal of understanding “the principles of science identical with God’s self-knowledge” (416). Scripture, on this account, is thus “penultimate,” a step towards theology and not the goal in itself. This emphasis on theology as a science concerning universal, interrelated principles identified with the mind of God is explicit in Aquinas, Barth, Torrance, and Webster. This view also seems to be the implicit schema behind more traditionally Evangelical approaches to theology. These are views which see theology as the goal of organising something behind the text of Scripture, such as its propositional content (e.g. Hodge), or beyond Scripture, such as the framework of theology that leads to its expressions (e.g. Putman). Ayres approach to the creeds—seeing them as organised and summarised accounts of the plain sense and their function as leading us in the right reading of Scripture—echoes recent Evangelical accounts of the Bible’s function and authority (cf. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel). However, the view of theology presented in this book, which coheres with the approach of the Neo-Barthians and some Reformed approaches, is a dangerous one. Showing this is part of my current PhD research and my series "God's Gifts for the Christian Life." This review is not the place to unpack this, but in brief, this view offers an untenable view of the Bible, epistemology, and theology.
That is, the Bible is viewed exactly as Ayres puts it, “penultimate.” Instead of being sufficient for the Christian life and knowledge of God (e.g. 2 Tim 3:16-17), Scripture is the starting point for the heaving lifting of theological labour. Knowledge of God and right understanding comes from reading through Scripture, using “abduction” to offer a possible hypothesis explaining the statements of the text. This gap between Scripture and theology is devastating for the Christian life and ministry (see here and my series "God's Gifts"). Epistemologically, this presupposes that knowledge is properly concerned with abstract, universal truths; however, the history of philosophy has repeatedly shown us how unattainable such lofty principles are. Furthermore, the Bible presents a different view of knowledge, deeply entwined with the contingencies of life and personhood (the topic of my thesis). Lastly, theology becomes an academic discipline divorced from the practical matters of Scripture and its intended audience, the people of God (cf. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, by John Frame). Ayres has contributed to our understanding of 4th-century theology and the history of its development, but his constructive proposal resonates with the most unhealthy trends within Protestant and Catholic theology.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the most part Ayres gives us a magisterial survey and exposition of the Nicene era. His goal is to identify and commend what he terms a “pro-Nicene” theology. His second goal is to combat a problematic understanding of Trinitarian theology: Eastern personalism vs. Western monism, also known as the “De Regnon” Thesis.

He begins his narrative as most do—with a discussion of Origen. Ayres helpfully notes that early Christian thinkers were reticent to use the term “homousios” since it implied a material division in God. Also, “hypostasis” was seen as connoting a reality; therefore, thinkers were reluctant to confess multiple realities in God.

Ayres then continues with a long discussion of Athanasios. While he gives us much useful information and helpfully establishes the context, he really isn’t breaking any new ground. Ayres’ key sections deal with explicating his “pro-Nicene” theology, particularly as the Cappadocians relate to Augustine. He gives us very helpful analyses of the two Gregories and Hilary.

Of his erudition and scholarship there can be no doubt. This will likely serve as a standard reference for doctoral students, and rightly so. I do not think his analyses are wrong, just incomplete. I agree with Ayres that simplistic readings of “Greek vs. West” are wrong. I just don’t see it as really that prevalent, even among Orthodox scholars. They only people I’ve seen fret over this issue are Ayres’ disciples. Even a radical Orthodox scholar like Joseph Farrell—who wrote a 1,200 page critique of forms of Western culture, never reduced scholarship to those categories. I honestly think Ayres is shadow-boxing dead Frenchmen.

Ayres’ protestations against dead Frenchmen notwithstanding, one must pursue this line of thought a bit further. De Regnon did not make up this “persons vs. essence” historiography. St Hilary of Poitiers was acutely aware of it. No one is claiming that the Evil Latins begin with the one essence while the Trinitarian Greeks begin with the Persons. Rather, one is making the argument that formulating theology within a specific philosophical framework reduces the persons to the one essence (shades of Aquinas!). St Hilary specifically identifies this problem in De Synodis 67-69. He said if you start with the one essence (homousion) as a template for theology, you will end up with modalism.

While I can agree with his arguments on what constitutes a pro-Nicene theology, I don’t see how this category is any more logically tight than de Regnon’s. I suspect that Ayres commits the “Word = concept” fallacy in his chapter on divine simplicity. He appears to work under the assumption that the “pro-Nicene” guys used the term “simplicity” (aplosis) univocally, notably Augustine. I think one example will suffice. In de Trinitate Book VII (and numerous other places) Augustine identifies person and essence, along with identifying within God all of God’s attributes. If all of the attributes are identifiable with the divine essence, and the divine essence admits of no distinctions, then all of the attributes are identifiable (synonymous) with each other. Interestingly, this is what Ayres’ student Andrew Radde-Galwitz calls the “Identity Thesis.” Fair enough; Augustine is entitled to it.

In Letter 234 St Basil specifically identifies the Identity Thesis and rejects it (along similar lines as recent analytical philosophers did). Therefore, I don’t see how Ayres can claim that Augustine and the Cappadocians taught the same thing on simplicity.

Conclusion
This book is outstanding on so many levels. The student gets much information on key passages in Athanasios and the Cappadocians. The book occasionally borders on overkill and Ayres’ constant raising and rebutting the “De Regnon” Thesis gets old very quickly. Since the book was written in 2003, some passages probably need to be cross-referenced with more recent scholarship by Bradshaw (2007) and Radde-Galwitz (2009).

[Радостин Марчев]

Ако не най-доброто, то едно от най-добрите изложения на тринитарното богословие през 4 век, което вероятно ще наложи стандарт. Сложна материя изкисваща доста предварителни знания, за да си позволи човек изобщо да се захване с нея, но определено заслужаваща си усилието. Айерс не пише много, но почти всичко, което напише е добро.
Трябва да призная, че въпреки най-добрите си намерения не успях да се преборя с последните няколко десетки страници. Или авторът започва да пише още по-сложно (а стилът му поначало е труден) или се уморих много. поне част от това, което казва минава над главата ми.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the best interpretation of fourth-century Trinitarian theology of reasonable length. It is quite dense, though, and should not be used an introduction. Several of Ayres' claims cut against the scholarly status quo. They are well argued, but the reader should probably be familiar with other literature beforehand. I recommend first reading The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God by R. P. C. Hanson, a very large but comprehensive work.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a truly outstanding book, with detailed, full explanations of the different theological streams that flower in and out of Nicaea and then to the council of Constantinople. There are full discussions of the Cappadocians as well as St Augustine. It is hard to imagine more thorough account.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I respect this book and would highly recommend it for anyone who seriously is interested in controversies related to modern Trinitarian theology, with a warning that it's scholarly and highly technical, even for me. However, here is the short version:

Before Nicaea, there were two "streams" of tradition before Nicaea, one stream that emphasized the unity and closeness of the Father and the Son, and another stream emphasizing the distinctions. Alexander came to see Arius as compromising the unity of the Father and Son and the council of Nicaea eventually used homoousios to make an on the ground condemnation of him. In no way were they following a tradition of "authoritative councils" and it was certainly not intended to found a new theology or even serve as an authoritative statement of faith. The council members might be shocked that we have said the creed so many times in chuch. And by and large, it didn't resolve the two threads emphasizing unity and distinction.

Athanasius largely invented the idea of a "grand Arian conspiracy," even though most would have seen themselves as consistent with other streams of Christian theology and been worried about Athanasius' theology turning into modalism. (Often said to be related to Origen, but this too is exaggerated). There was also a lot of politics and on the ground confusion, so theology isn't the best way to tell the story all the time.

As far as theology goes, Homians argued that the Son was like the father, but ontologically inferior. They tried to ban the use of essence. Aetius and Eunomius argued strongly for this position, but many people in this stream was not popular. Eunomians became a distinct group. Basil of Ancyra opposed the Eunomians and led to the creation of a group known as Homoiousians (sorry if you're not confused, just remember Homoousian, Homoiousian, Homoian). A Homoian creed was enforced by the Emperor, and Basil got banished, but different groups as a result agreed to unite around Nicaea, and Athanasius recognized Homoiousians as orthodox. Athanasius called for people to rally around the creed, but not to press for distinctions.

However, at this point a broad "pro-Nicene" theology does indeed emerge, leading to a broad consensus that has been accepted in the church for a long time, even when key pieces are lost. The book gets really interesting after the two-thirds point, and is the most important part for people into modern theology to read. In essence, "pro-Nicene" theology believed that "God was one power, nature, and activity; that there could be no degrees in divinity; that the divine persons were irreducible although all sharers in the divine being without any ontological hierarchy; that human beings would always fail to comprehend God and that one could only make progress towards knowledge and love of God through entering a discipline and practice that would reshape the imagination" (p. 434).

This leads to careful readings of the Cappadocian fathers and of Augustine as representatives of Pro-Nicene theology which are not nearly as different as people believe. Also, the idea that East and West are radically different at this point is left in pieces by the end of the book, much less the idea that the East "begins" with the persons or is fine with social analogies or that the West "begins" with oneness and is fine with psychological analogies.

In the last part of the book, Ayres makes the point that the church fathers all assumed divine simplicity, and that whenever modern theologians, following in Hegel's wake, do Trinitarian theology, they are assuming things that the church fathers would never have assumed, including the idea that the three persons are three centers of consciousness. This would have been the sort of thing that would have made Arians and pre-Nicene theology very happy, but not broad pro-Nicene theology.

This book is very good, and at the end it includes some Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant statements and footnotes which we can all forget, but by and large it is very good, dense scholarship and it would not be bad for more theologians to read him, especially if you get excited about these things like I do.

[Andrzej Stelmasiak · Rating 5 out of 5]

very good book that seeks to show (successfully) that 'east Vs west' and 'hellenization of Christianity' are not found in reality. at times borders on an overkill, but it's still, after 20+ years, THE resource on the subject.
Until the very end, I thought that he did a very good job in shying away from anti-protestant rhetoric and didn't betray his ecclesiastical allegiances, this is always a sign of good scholarship. but footnotes, like no. 70 from page 421, where he says that protestant Trinitarian theology is necessarily 'parasitic', well, I have no time with such loaded language. But it doesn't take away from the overall value of his work. And, the chapters on Nyssa and Augustine are superb.

[Sandy Grant]

A highly dense scholarly account of the messiness of the development of 4th century pro-Nicene trinitarian theology, challenging simpler systematic accounts, from a theologian of Roman Catholic origin.

It was more detailed and denser reading than I needed with the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea coming up in 2025, but hey, the journey and not just the destination.

(Pro-tip hack: read the epilogue which summarises the 4th century developments beautifully and you could skip 429 very dense pages prior!)

Not the sort of book to rate by stars on Goodreads!

[André Sette · Rating 2 out of 5]

We should not, as historians, aspire to a “history” that merely recycles our own preconceptions. I truly don’t understand how this book continues to receive such acclaim. It gathers a substantial number of valuable sources, only to interpret them in a dangerously tendentious manner. Perhaps it makes for stimulating reading among seasoned experts in Nicaea. But for those just approaching the topic—or with only a moderate grasp—it is far more likely to make you think like Ayres than to help you think Nicaea itself.

[Graham Shearer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful book. Historically, it clears up many of the misconceptions that have accumulated about the fourth century. Theologically, it paints a wonderful picture of how the Gospel in the Scriptures can lead us to know, contemplate and adore the Triune God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Timothy Winterstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear and insightful, especially in delineating the multiple theological positions both pro- and anti-Nicaea, as well as how Nicaea actually came to be authoritative (many years after the Council itself).

[Tynan Brooks]

Complicates simplistic, partisan narratives of Nicaea while simultaneously drawing out the deep resources for creative sanctification and theologizing around the Trinity that the Fathers offer. Great read.

[Melody Schwarting · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful work on Arius, Nicaea, and the still stormy years following the council. Particularly useful for Ayres's carefully defined terminology.

[Daniel]

the dynamics of heresy

[Michael Abraham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ayres thoroughly presents how pro-Nicene theology developed.

[Louis Boyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very comprehensive. Final chapter on Hegel’s reworking of a number of these authors is interesting.

[Nathan Porter]

Ayres is on my dissertation committee, so I feel obligated to say that this is a good book. Thankfully obligation coincides with truth in this case.

[Bob Buice · Rating 3 out of 5]

Subordinationist Christology, the Son is subordinate to the Father, was heavily preached by thinkers such as Origen of Alexander (c. 185 – c. 254), historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 339 CE), Eusebius of Nicomedia (c. 260 – c. 340 CE), and others. However, this was not the universal teaching of the church. When Arius (c. 253 – 336 CE), presbyter of the church of the Baucalis in Alexander, said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing", he drew the attention of the church hierarchy. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328) was criticized for his slow reaction against Arius. However, when Alexander intervened, a feud arose between Arius and Alexander. At first, emperor Constantine I (r 306-337) wrote to Alexander and Arius telling them to stop quarrelling over such a trivial matter. However, as each side started to gain powerful support, Constantine I feared a serious problem. The emperor convened a meeting in Nicaea (325) and invited all bishops within Christendom (more than 1800) to attend. It was attended by approximately 250 – 300 bishops, mostly from the east. Supposedly, Constantine I did not care about the outcome, but only wanted to settle the dispute.

There are no proceedings from the meeting. Our only knowledge is from post-meeting writings of attendees. The issue was settled in favor of what is now the known as the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, with only three dissenting votes. Further, the council issued the Nicene Creed, a version of which is read in mainline churches today. The role of Constantine I is uncertain and it is typically assumed that he did not influence the outcome. However, after the council meeting, Constantine I exiled Arius and the two bishops who voted with him. Moreover, Eusebius of Nicomedia later said, “I voted with my hand, not with my heart”.

In “Nicaea and Its Legacy”, Lewis Ayres presents a well-researched and very thorough treatment of the Council of Nicaea (325) and its impact on Christendom throughout the fourth century.

Ayers describes the activities of many fourth century Christian fathers on both sides of the Arian Controversy, which actually continued into the fifth century. His discussions recount events from the Council of Nicaea (325) - to St. Basil the Great (330-379), who was considered the “architect” of the Trinitarian victory - to Emperor Theodosius I (r 379-392), who issued the Edictum de Fide Catolica (380), mandating Trinitarian Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Ayers assumes a certain knowledge on the part of the reader, such that the reader who is not reasonably familiar with fourth century Christianity might find it a difficult read. He constantly refers to Constantius, rather than Constantius II. He mentions the Council of Antioch (341) as, “ostensibly to dedicate a church built by the Emperor Constantius”, but doesn’t name the church (the Domus Aurea). He presents a rambling description of the various councils and tends to ignore chronological order – e.g. he mentions that Constantius II became sole emperor in 353, while many pages later he discusses Council of Sirmium of 351. Certain of his sentences are long and complex, potentially requiring the reader to re-read them several times for a clear understanding. He overuses phrases such as, “It is important ant to note”. This material might have been presented in far fewer pages if his writing style could have been simplified. The “Epilogue” is reasonably clear and perhaps should have been the “Introduction”.

Nevertheless, the knowledge gleaned from this reading is well worth the workout. I recommend this writing for all who are seriously interested in history and theology. However, I suggest some basic reading first.

[Sagely · Rating 2 out of 5]

I recently read a critique of Henri de Lubac's theological program that cast it as a retreat into some Patristic Middle Earth. The theological methodology Lewis Ayres lays out in the last chapter of Nicaea and Its Legacy sets course on a similar heading.

Initially, in Part I (chs 1-5), I applaud Ayres' method. Ayres offers a thick description of the theologically diverse early to mid 4th century. In fact, throughout NaIL, Ayres offers admirable opposition to traditional narratives about Nicaea and its aftermath that simplify and distort the story.

Part II (chs 6-10) describe a gradual rapprochement between the parties opposing the Homoian and Eunomian theologies which denied the Word's essential unity and equality with the Father. Ayres as a historian accomplishes this through close readings many, many texts. A high level of familiarity with these texts is necessary to feel the full impact of Ayres' argument. (I am no such expert, so I'm sure I missed out on some of this.)

Even up through the beginning chs of Part III (chs 11-16), I track with Ayres. In fact, the historical theological method which he performs in ch 11, "On the Contours of the Mystery," is exemplary. If ever I get to teach a seminar on theological method, this ch will likely be required reading. Ayres draws on Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus and the work of Michel de Certeau to describe a theological culture that nurtured and was nurtured by those who raised the Creed of Nicaea as a symbol of right theology. This is excellent work.

But all this beautiful work falters on the fault-line dug by Ayres' constructive methodological proposal in the final ch. At this point, Ayres begins to argue that the pro-Nicene theological culture should be normative (or at least authoritatively inform) current theological practice.

In an understated but very clear moment, Ayres writes

Even though my own argument is strongly revisionist in its advocacy of the gradual development of pro-Nicene theology and even though I have not attempted to present this development as one that occurred apart from political and ecclesio-political forces, there is possible a fruitful understanding of the relationship between creedal authority and historical scholarship.

This possibility is fiercely (though unconvincingly) argued throughout this final ch. In Ayres view, this relationship would be typified by a return to the "plain sense" of Scripture (as understood in the 4th century) and that circularly flows into and proceeds from the authoritative creed. Theologies should only draw ad hoc from philosophy and maintain only a secondary interest in the changing contexts (and crises) of culture. Rather than telling God's story in the world, theologians should strive for the transcendent vision of God.

For me, Ayres view of Nicaea is quite helpful, but his vision of theology is anything but.

[Joel Zartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

An advanced, difficult work, but Ancient Church historiography at its best. Familiarity with the persons, the period and the primary works will help you understand this book. You need a frame of reference first. The last chapter gives a summary of the steps the book works through and can serve as a frame of reference.

Ayres sets himself the task of undermining contemporary theological method, which proceeds against pre-modern theology by means of three fallacious strategies (387-391). He shows that the theology of Nicea was only possible after a century's effort to create a theological culture: a set of common assumptions about philosophical categories and of intellectual habits for the purpose of accurately interpreting Scripture.

“By now it should be clear that the challenge to modern Trinitarian theologies from pro-Nicene theologies stems from a difference in theological culture: the principles of classical Trinitarian theology were sustained by a culture taken to be essential to the appropriate use and belief of them, but a theological culture very different from that shaped by the broad field of modern systematic theology.”

“Claims about the metaphysical bondage of Christian thought are not simply part of modernity’s dislike of metaphysics per se: they are also closely related to post-Enlightenment thought’s suspicion of the idea that contemplation of the divine might be the goal and root of theology, wanting instead to focus Christian attention on the ‘practical’ and on the narrative of Christ’s ministry as transformative of human possibility.”

“Pro-Nicene theologies combined both doctrinal propositions and a complex of intellectual theological strategies. Together these doctrines and the strategies within which those doctrines were intended to be read constitute a theological culture.”

“The greater one’s ability to place theologies within the traditions that nurtured them, the better one understands their dynamics.”

“The better we understand the process of adapting (and transforming) technical terminologies and persuasive non-Christian ideas to read the resource of the plain sense [of Scripture], the better we understand early Christian ‘theology’.”

3 central principles for pro-Nicene theology: (1) “a clear version of the person and nature distinction, entailing the principle that whatever is predicated of the divine nature is predicated of the three persons equally and understood to be one”; (2) “clear expression that the eternal generation of the Son occurs within the unitary and incomprehensible divine being;” (3) “clear expression that the persons work inseparably.”