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

There are two traditional ways of narrating the events of the so-called Arian controversy. The first approach underlines continuity throughout the fourth century and argues that these debates are about a clearer restatement of an "original" Nicene position defined by Athanasius, augmented by the terminological insights of the Cappadocians, and confirmed by Constantinople. The second approach, associated with Adolf von Harnark, argues that the Cappadocians and their insights represent a retreat from Athanasius and hence discontinuity with an "original" Nicene theology expressed in 325. An important assumption for both of these approaches is that any narrative of the Trinitarian disputes should be focused on the continuity/discontinuity between Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Over the past thirty years a great deal of revisionist scholarship has appeared on the fourth-century Trinitarian debates that offers a redefinition of these traditional categories and narratives. Lewis Ayers's monograph continues that revisionist work not only by showing the gradual development of pro-Nicene theology and how various figures composed different theologies to articulate their pro-Nicene commitment but also by suggesting that the structures of pro-Nicene thought might helpfully inform our modern theological culture.

The first section of Ayers's monograph narrates the beginnings of the Trinitarian disputes and suggests that we must view this controversy against the backdrop of competing theological trajectories present at the beginning of the fourth century. He argues that the focus of these debates and these distinct trajectories lies in competing accounts of the Son's generation (emphasizing either the sameness of Father and Son or their diversity) and in the manner in which competing terminologies and metaphors either expressed or obscured the unity of God. The first trajectory, represented by Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, emphasizes the eternal relationship between Father and Son and resists the language of three hypostases. The second and broadest trajectory is termed "Eusebian" and encompasses such diverse thinkers as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea. During the early stages of the controversy, the "Eusebian" party opposed the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra and in different ways emphasized the Son's distinct status and his subordination to the Father. The third trajectory is primarily associated with Marcellus of Ancyra, his emphasis on the unity of God, and his belief that any language of subordination or generation would constitute a breach of that unity. The final trajectory focuses on western anti-adoptionism and on such figures as Novatian, Lactantius, and the early Hilary of Poitiers.

The fourth trajectory identified by Ayers is a welcome addition since it is often overlooked in surveys of the period. At the same time, his engagement with the western material is overly brief and tends to simplify his assessment of the trajectory. For example, the identification of the early Hilary of Poitiers and his Commentarium in Matthaeum (c. 350) with the same anti-adoptionist polemical context as Novatian and Lactantius prevents Ayers from exploring the possible role of Photinus of Sirmium in the theological consciousness of the west during this period. Photinus's adoptionist theology was repeatedly condemned in the west between 345–356, and his theology appears to be, in part, the polemical context of Hilary's In Matt. 31. How does this contemporary adoptionist theology affect the theological concerns and polemical strategies of the emerging minority party in the west as it embraced the creed from Nicaea and the Latin trajectory identified by Ayers?

In the second section of the monograph, Ayers provides a narrative of the fourth-century Trinitarian disputes, highlights the emergence of pro-Nicene theology, and emphasizes the particular theological commitments of prominent figures during this period. Although there are excellent discussions of figures like Athanasius, Eunomius, and Basil of Caesarea in this section, we continue to find only minimal reflection on western pro-Nicene theology. To be sure, Ayers could not discuss every figure during the fourth century, but when Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan...