Many of the assembled bishops and the clergy who accompanied them were remarkably skilled in dialectics and trained in the art of rhetoric. They appeared prominent and so attracted the notice of the emperor and the court.[1] For when the priests of God were convened from across the world by the zeal of the religious emperor, many philosophers and logicians who were held to be very noble heard the news and also gathered.[2] The enemies of truth, having placed their hope in them, as we just said, were fittingly refuted along with their teacher and his blasphemy. So with respect to him and his followers the Holy Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Cursed is everyone who puts his hope in humans and whose heart turns away from the Lord” [Jer. 17:5].[3] A number of the pagan philosophers desired to take part in the debates. Some wanted to learn more about the doctrine that was being taught. Others, who hated the Christians because of the recent suppression of pagan religions,[4] wanted to turn the discussion about doctrine into an argument over words. They sought to introduce dissension among the Christians and make them appear to hold contradictory opinions.[5]

Now a short time before the bishops gathered in one place, the disputants competed in preliminary debates before the crowds.[6] One of Arius’s mercenary philosophers, admired much more than all the others, fiercely contended for Arius against our bishops for many days. Each day a large audience gathered to hear the war of words. The crowd of those who gathered grew larger as the philosopher poured forth the ungodly blasphemies of Arius against the holy council’s statements.[7] He said about the Son of God, “He did not always exist,” and, “He is a creature, a product from what did not exist, and of a different essence and substance.” He staunchly supported the abominable doctrine of Arius; his words were like a blizzard as he ranted against the Son of God and derided that company of holy priests, for the enemy of mankind’s salvation was speaking in him and through him. But our bishops, fighting for truth, fearlessly employed proper and fitting arguments for apostolic doctrine against the philosopher. They thus imitated the great prophet and king David, who said, “I was prepared and was not deterred” [Ps. 118:60]; for they destroyed all the philosopher’s crafty premises with God’s Word just as flax is consumed by fire. 

Nevertheless, trusting in his devilish skill with words, the philosopher kept shooting his arrows at the truth the bishops proclaimed. He easily addressed all the arguments brought against him very adequately, so he thought. He vigorously tried to resolve the issues which had been raised. Although he seemed to vindicate himself by these arguments, slipping free like an eel by presenting his superior thoughts, he got caught by his own words and fell with them. Yet he kept arguing against the peaceful council, deluded in his frenzy, in the hope of overcoming the unconquerable power of Christ’s invincible Spirit in them.

But God, “who catches the wise in their craftiness” [Job 5:13; 1 Corinthians 3:19], wanted to show that “his rule resides not in word but in power” [1 Corinthians 4:20], so through one of his servants there he not only forcibly silenced the evil demon speaking in the philosopher but also drove it out.[8] One of the confessors was present with the other bishops who were listening. He was a man of the simplest nature and knowing nothing except “Jesus Christ and him crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2]. When he saw the philosopher insulting us and boasting in his cleverness and skill in disputation, he requested a chance to speak from the audience, for he desired to converse just a little with the philosopher.[9] The less serious of those who knew the confessor laughed at his expense for what he wished to do; but the more thoughtful were anxious that he would only make a fool of himself by opposing such an eloquent man. Yet his influence was so great and his reputation so high that they could not stop him from engaging in the debate.[10] Refusing to be deterred, he approached the philosopher and said to him, “In the name of Jesus Christ, God the Word, who always exists with the Father, listen to true doctrine, o philosopher!” The philosopher replied, “Speak.”[11]

The former then said, “There is one God who created heaven and earth, who also fashioned man out of the earth, who caused both visible and invisible things to subsist by his Word and the Holy Spirit. Recognizing this Word as Son of God, we worship him, believing that he was born of a virgin for our redemption and that through the cross and death he has freed us from eternal condemnation, and that through his resurrection he has prepared eternal life for us. We also expect him to come to be judge of all that we have done. Do you believe this, o philosopher?”[12]

And the latter was dumbfounded. It was as if he had never before experienced speeches that involved the raising of objections. As if deaf or dumb, he remained silent, saying to him this only, “These things seem to be so to me also, and I have nothing to add beyond what you have just said.” And the old man said to him, “If you believe that these things are so, philosopher, get up and follow me and let us hurry to the church, in which you will receive the sign of this faith.” And the philosopher, changing to piety, turned and said to his students and all those who had come together in the audience, “Listen, gentlemen; ever since I took up serious study of discourse, I would set argument against argument, and whatever was proposed I could overturn by my skill in speaking. But when, instead of discourses, a kind of power came forth from the mouth of this debater, my words were unable to fight against that power; for neither is man able to resist God. For this reason, if there are any among you who are able to understand as I myself have come to comprehend, he will believe in Christ, and let him follow this old man through whom God has spoken.”[13]

In this way the philosopher, becoming a Christian, rejoiced at being defeated by the old man.[14] He thanked the old man for overcoming him with his argument and he began to teach the same doctrines to others. He encouraged those who still held his former opinions to adopt the view he had now embraced, assuring them on oath that some inexplicable power had compelled him to become a Christian.[15]  The philosopher was baptized, was accepted into the church of God, and rested and exulted in the mighty works of God, and the council rejoiced.[16]

Before the appointed time arrived, the bishops assembled together and summoned Arius to attend. They began to examine the disputed topics, and each one of them advanced his own opinion. As might have been expected, however, many different questions grew out of the discussion. Some of the bishops spoke against the introduction of novelties contrary to that faith which had been handed down to them from the beginning. Those who had especially adhered to simplicity of doctrine argued that the faith of God ought simply to be accepted. Others, however, contended that ancient opinions ought not to be followed without examination.[17]

Previous: The Participants

Next: The Council Opens and Constantine Arrives

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] Soz. CH 1.17.7.

[2] Ruf. CH 10.3.

[3] ACH 2.12.9

[4] Sozomen, writing over a century later, is anachronistic in this statement. There was no suppression of pagan religion until a generation or two after Nicaea. Eusebius (LC 2.44-45 and 4.23, 25) does mention Constantine as having instituted laws banning idolatry, divination, and pagan sacrifice. While the emperor clearly showed his pro-Christian bias, most scholars see minimal anti-pagan legislation during his reign and little enforcement of such legislation if it did exist. Cf. e.g., Av. Cameron and S. Hall, Eusebius: Life of Constantine. Clarendon Ancient History Series (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999), 242-44.

[5] Soz. CH 1.18.1.

[6] Soc. CH 1.8.14.

[7] The passage indicates that this debate took place before the council’s formal beginning, so it is anachronistic to have the debater attack the council’s statements. He must here mean an attack on the position later adopted by the council.

[8] ACH 2.13.1-6.

[9] Ruf. CH 10.3

[10] Soz. CH 1.18.2-3.

[11] ACH 2.13.9.

[12] Gel. CH f.12d = Ruf. CH 10.3 = Soz. CH 1.18.3b = ACH 2.13.9-10.

[13] Gel. CH f.12d = Ruf. CH 10.3 = ACH 2.13.11-14.

[14] Gel. CH f.12d.

[15] Soz. CH 1.18.4.

[16] ACH 2.13.15. ACH 2.14-24 has an extremely long debate (about 1/3 of book 2) with the philosopher Phaedo who defended Arius’s teaching. See Appendix 6.

[17] Soz. CH 1.17.6. If the opening phrase refers to the time appointed for the council, this section belongs here. It may also refer to the time during the council appointed for voting on the matter.

No Responses yet