Part A: Time Period 275-325

[Peter Kirby]

Recall from the (xxxiii), immediately previous, that Eusebius of Caesarea referred to what Marcellus wrote in Against Marcellus, and that this Marcellus in turn refers to what Asterius wrote in his Against Asterius. Fragment XVIII of what Asterius wrote refers to a concern regarding "the letter of Eusebius to Paulinus" (xxxiv), where Asterius is clarifying the meaning of a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia. This letter is shown below, as it is quoted in Theodoret, Church History 1.6. This letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia objects to the silence of Paulinus of Tyre, known to be someone to whom Eusebius of Caesarea dedicated books and made panegyrics in (xxiv) and to whom Arius appealed in (xxvi), quoted in Epiphanius, Panarion 2.69. This silence concerns the defense of the idea that the unbegotten is one, something Eusebius of Caesarea for example defended in a letter to Euphration, quoted from notes regarding the 2nd Council of Nicaea in (xxix).

This is just to say that the strong impresssion that we have the actual remains of this exchange has everything to recommend it.

Noteworthy for Eusebius of Nicomedia defending the idea that his deductions are from scripture. Ultimately, the appeal here is that Paulinus send his own missive, revised to reflect his own thoughts, to Alexander of Alexandria, in the hopes that Alexander will see reason. It is evident also that Eusebius of Nicomedia nowhere implies that Arius is the teacher of these ideas, nor does he copy the extant arguments of Arius. This combines with the other items quoted to suggest that a majority of church leadership "in the East" (xxvi) at the time are able to produce their own varied and sincere thoughts on the subject of the unbegotten God and first-begotten Son.

(xxxiv) Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre [ca. 320-325] in Theodoret, Church History 1.6

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-8/

To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius sends his greetings in the Lord.

(1.) The zeal of my lord Eusebius [of Caesarea] in the cause of the truth, and likewise your silence concerning it, has not failed to reach our ears. Accordingly, if, on the one hand, we rejoiced on account of the zeal of my lord Eusebius; on the other we are grieved at you, because the mere silence of man like you appears like a defeat of our cause. (2.) Hence, as it is not proper for a wise man to be of a different opinion from others, and to be silent concerning the truth, stir up, I exhort you, within yourself the spirit of wisdom to write, and at length begin what may be profitable to yourself and to others, especially if you consent to write in accordance with Scripture, and tread in the tracks of its words and will.

(3.) We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that the unbegotten has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature. On the contrary, we affirm that the unbegotten is one. One also is that which exists in truth by him, yet was not made out of his substance, and does not at all participate in the nature or substance of the unbegotten, entirely distinct in nature and in power, and made after perfect likeness both of character and power to the maker. We believe that the mode of His beginning not only cannot be expressed by words but even in thought, and is incomprehensible not only to man, but also to all beings superior to man.

(4.) These opinions we advance not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture, whence we learn that the Son was created, established, and begotten with respect to his essence and his unchanging, inexpressible nature, in the likeness of the one for whom he has been made. The Lord himself tells us this: ‘God created me the beginning of his ways; Before the ages he established me; he begat me before all the hills” [Prov. 8.22-23,25, LXX] (5.) If the Son had been from him or of him, as a portion of him, or by an emanation of his substance, it could not be said that the Son was created or established; and of this you, my lord, are certainly not ignorant. For that which is from the unbegotten could not be said to have been created or founded, either by him or by another, since it is unbegotten from the beginning. (6.) But if the fact of his being called “the begotten” gives any ground for the belief that, having come into being of the Father’s substance, he also has from the Father likeness of nature, we reply that it is not of the Son alone that the Scriptures have spoken as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to God by nature. (7.) For of men it is said, ‘I have begotten and brought up sons, and they have rebelled against me;’ [Is. 1:2]; and in another place, ‘You have forsaken God who begat you” [Deut. 32:18]; and again it is said, ‘Who begat the drops of dew” [Job 38:28]? This expression does not imply that the dew partakes of the nature of God, but simply that all things were formed according to his will. There is, indeed, nothing which shares his substance, yet every thing which exists has been called into being by his will. (8.) For there is God on the one hand, and then there are the things towards (pros) his likeness which will be similar to the Word, and these things which have come into being by [his] free will. All things were made by God by means of the Word. All things are from God. When you have received my letter, and have revised it according to the knowledge and grace given you by God, I beg you will write as soon as possible to my lord Alexander. I feel confident that if you would write to him, you would succeed in bringing him over to your opinion. Salute all the brethren in the Lord. May you, my lord, be preserved by the grace of God, and be led to pray for us.

[Peter Kirby]

There are four separate small fragments of a letter of Paulinus, such as the one requested in (xxxiv), found referenced here.

Paulinus argues against the idea that the Son was brought forth from the Father, like Arius in (xxvi). He also says that Christ was a creation, like the Syntagmation of Asterius in (xxxi), Athanasius of Anazarbos in (xxv), and Arius in (xxviii).

(xxxv) Fragments of a Letter of Paulinus [ca. 320-325], from Marcellus Against Asterius, in Eusebius of Caesarea Against Marcellus [ca, 336-340]

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-9/

(1.) It is time now when we are debating about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to set out a few points which were omitted then [in Origen’s day]. On the subject of the Father, he is Father as undivided and not imparting himself to the Son, not bringing him forth, as some people think. For if the Son is an issue of the Father and a production from him, as are the productions of animals, then it is necessary that both the producer and the produced shall be a body….

(2.) [Later]…With these words, he who is considered the father of this saying, Paulinus, was not ashamed to speak and to write. Once he said that Christ was a second God, and that he had been begotten as a more human God, and another time he was defining him as a creation….

(3.) …Then he [Marcellus] slanders the blessed [Paulinus] as though he had said there were many Gods…

(4.) …And since he has learned this, Paulinus, the father of Asterius, thinks that they are younger Gods…

[Leucius Charinus]

You might like to include the Oration of Constantine c.324/325 CE.

It's very long. Here's a sample chapter.

Chapter 9.
Of the Philosophers, who fell into Mistaken Notions,
and Some of them into Danger, by their Desire of Universal Knowledge.
— Also of the Doctrines of Plato.

We ought, therefore, to aim at objects which are within our power, and exceed not the capacities of our nature. For the persuasive influence of argument has a tendency to draw most of us away from the truth of things, which has happened to many philosophers, who have employed themselves in reasoning, and the study of natural science, and who, as often as the magnitude of the subject surpasses their powers of investigation, adopt various devices for obscuring the truth. Hence their diversities of judgment, and contentious opposition to each others' doctrines, and this notwithstanding their pretensions to wisdom. Hence, too, popular commotions have arisen, and severe sentences, passed by those in power, apprehensive of the overthrow of hereditary institutions, have proved destructive to many of the disputants themselves. Socrates, for example, elated by his skill in argumentation, indulging his power of making the worse appear the better reason, and playing continually with the subtleties of controversy, fell a victim to the slander of his own countrymen and fellow citizens. Pythagoras, too, who laid special claim to the virtues of silence and self-control, was convicted of falsehood. For he declared to the Italians that the doctrines which he had received during his travels in Egypt, and which had long before been divulged by the priests of that nation, were a personal revelation to himself from God. Lastly, Plato himself, the gentlest and most refined of all, who first essayed to draw men's thoughts from sensible to intellectual and eternal objects, and taught them to aspire to sublimer speculations, in the first place declared, with truth, a God exalted above every essence, but to him he added also a second, distinguishing them numerically as two, though both possessing one perfection, and the being of the second Deity proceeding from the first. For he is the creator and controller of the universe, and evidently supreme: while the second, as the obedient agent of his commands, refers the origin of all creation to him as the cause. In accordance, therefore, with the soundest reason, we may say that there is one Being whose care and providence are over all things, even God the Word, who has ordered all things; but the Word being God himself is also the Son of God. For by what name can we designate him except by this title of the Son, without falling into the most grievous error? For the Father of all things is properly considered the Father of his own Word. Thus far, then, Plato's sentiments were sound; but in what follows he appears to have wandered from the truth, in that he introduces a plurality of gods, to each of whom he assigns specific forms. And this has given occasion to still greater error among the unthinking portion of mankind, who pay no regard to the providence of the Supreme God, but worship images of their own devising, made in the likeness of men or other living beings. Hence it appears that the transcendent nature and admirable learning of this philosopher, tinged as they were with such errors as these, were by no means free from impurity and alloy. And yet he seems to me to retract, and correct his own words, when he plainly declares that a rational soul is the breath of God, and divides all things into two classes, intellectual and sensible: [the one simple, the other] consisting of bodily structure; the one comprehended by the intellect alone, the other estimated by the judgment and the senses. The former class, therefore, which partakes of the divine spirit, and is uncompounded and immaterial, is eternal, and inherits everlasting life; but the latter, being entirely resolved into the elements of which it is composed, has no share in everlasting life. He farther teaches the admirable doctrine, that those who have passed a life of virtue, that is, the spirits of good and holy men, are enshrined, after their separation from the body, in the fairest mansions of heaven. A doctrine not merely to be admired, but profitable too. For who can believe in such a statement, and aspire to such a happy lot, without desiring to practice righteousness and temperance, and to turn aside from vice? Consistently with this doctrine he represents the spirits of the wicked as tossed like wreckage on the streams of Acheron and Pyriphlegethon.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2503.htm

The following chapter 10 deals with the poets.

About the oration Robin Lane Fox writes:

Constantine's Orations to the Saints

At p.646/7 Fox suggests that Constantine's Oration to the Saints
was authored and orated by Constantine "at Antioch, Good Friday, 325".
Most ancient historians are today convinced that Constantine
both authored and read aloud this "document" in 324/325 CE.
It contains a number of novel social and political insights,
and a whole string of fraudulent misrepresentations:

(1) Berates the philosophers: "Socrates critical questioning ... menace to the state".
"Pythagoras had stolen his teaching from Egypt, Plato believed there were many gods."
"Plato strived for the unknowable ... wrote about a first and second God."

(2) Berates the poets as worse than the philosophers;
because "poets wrote falsely about the gods".
FOX: "In a few broad sweeps, Constantine had damned
the free use of reason and banished poetic imagination."

(3) "A dove, said Constantine, had alighted on the virgin mary,
like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark.

(4) Constantine refers to an ancient Sibyl, a priestess from Erythrae
who had served Apollo at the 'serpents Tripod' at Delphi.
Constantine then quotes (in the Greek) thirty-four hexameters,
from the inspired truth of the Sibyl.
Most notably, the acrostic formed by the first Greek letter
of each line spelt "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross."

But Constantine was alive to the arguments of skeptics ...

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.
These skeptics were already known to Origen ... (Constantine continues)
"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

(5) But wait, Robin Lane Fox has more to say:

His proof of this comparison was unexpected: Cicero (106-43 BCE)
Cicero chanced upon this poem and translated it to Latin.
The Sibyl, Constantine said, had prophesized Christ
in an acrostic, known to Cicero.

Robin Lane Fox comments ... "the proof was a fraud twice over."


(6) Moving on through the Oration, Constantine informs us that
the advent of Christ had been predicted by Virgil (70-19 BCE)
in a Latin poem, written 40 BCE, to the poet's patron Pollio.
Fox says: "Constantine cites Latin's loveliest Eclogue
to a Christian audience for a meaning which it never had."

Constantine began with the seventh line, in a free Greek translation which changed its meaning"

p.651: Fox writes:

"Has there ever been such a sequence of misplaced discoveries in a christian sermon,
let alone in a speech at the end of a Christian synod?

(7) One sentence of the Oration trod unwarily on Arius' ground.

Conclusion:
"Men have witnessed battles and watched war in which
God's Providence granted victory to this host." God, in short, had willed
Constantine's victory in response to his piety and prayers,
the themes of which ran through history and his entire Oration ...
Philosophy and paganism were as dead as the old Assyrian cities:
Constantine had freed the East by his prayers and piety,
and before them both lay the promised future of God."

Extracted from "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine" --- Robin Lane Fox

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks! I certainly will.

[Peter Kirby]

We've seen a number of quotations of texts attributed to those contemporaries who defended Arius, prior to the councils involved, which gives us their perspective on the subject. It would certainly be incomplete to stop there.

Noteworthy for the references to "those supporting Arius and Pistus" and "some in your own ranks - the priests Chares and Pistus and the deacons Serapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus." It agrees with (xxvi) in that "the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us." Here we find the expression "Arian," something not used by Arius himself (calling himself Lucianist), as it conjoins with the accusation of heresy, something that Arius himself attributed to Alexander's allies in the East (Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius).

Addressed locally and a straightforward appeal for obedience, it appears to belong to the earliest stage of this conflict.

(xxxvi) Letter from Alexander of Alexandria to his clergy [ca. 318-325]

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-4a/

Alexander, to his assembled and beloved brethren, the priests and deacons of Alexandria, and the Mareotis. Greetings in the Lord.

(1.) Indeed, you have already subscribed to the letter I addressed previously to Arius’s supporters, in which I encouraged them to renounce his impiety, and to submit themselves to the sound catholic faith. You have shown your right commitment to and agreement with the doctrines of the catholic church. Yet, since I have written also to our fellow-ministers in every place concerning those supporting Arius, I decided that I needed to assemble you, the clergy of the city, and to send for you the clergy of the Mareotis. (2.) This was especially needed since some in your own ranks – the priests Chares and Pistus and the deacons Serapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenæus – have joined themselves with the Arian faction, and devoted themselves to undergo destruction with them. You need to learn what I am now writing, and to testify your agreement to it and to vote together for the deposition of those supporting Arius and Pistus. (3.) For it is desirable that you understand what I write, and that each of you have a heart-felt adherence to it, as though each had written it himself.

[Peter Kirby]

It looks like I neglected to quote the two fragments of letters from George, who Athanasius introduces in these words: "And George who now is in Laodicea, but was at that time a priest of Alexandria, and was spending time in Antioch, wrote to Bishop Alexander."

Noteworthy for defending the idea of Arius that "There was a time when the Son of God did not exist," one of the two things that Arius says that he is persecuted for in (xxvi). This idea is also defended by Eusebius of Nicomedia in (xxvii) and by Eusebius of Caeseara in (xxix). This idea is also present in the Syntagmation of Asterius in (xxxi).

(xxxvii) Letter from George to Alexander of Alexandria [ca. 318-325], in Athanasius, On the Synods 17

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-12/

Don’t find fault with Arius and his followers for saying, “There was a time when the Son of God did not exist.” For Isaiah became the son of Amos, and, since Amos existed before Isaiah came to be, Isaiah did not exist prior, but afterwards came into being.

[Peter Kirby]

Here is the other fragment of a letter from George, this time writing to correct Arius.

This makes it clear that the most controversial claim from Arius was "saying he came from non-being" (xxvi). George rushes to the defense of Arius in saying "the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning" (xxvi), i.e. "There was a time when the Son of God did not exist" (xxxvii), while at the same time partially correcting Arius "for saying he came from non-being" (xxvi). We can consider this further support for the widespread acceptance in the East of the idea that "the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning" (xxvi), which church leaders would defend even if they found other ideas attributed to Arius to be distasteful.

Also interesting for its conciliatory logic: sure, all things are made from nothing, in agreement with both points of Arius in (xxvi), but that doesn't preclude them from also being from God. George argues from the ex nihilo creation of all things to the idea that all things are from God (1 Cor 11:12), even if created from nothing. In so doing, he shows fundamental agreement with Arius even on this controversial point, while chiding Arius for being disagreeable about what Alexander is saying about the Son being from the Father.

(xxxviii) Letter from George to Arius and his followers [ca. 318-325], in Athanasius, On the Synods 17

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-13/

Why do you find fault with Bishop Alexander for saying that the Son is from the Father? For you also should not be afraid to say that the Son is from God. For if the Apostle wrote ‘All things are from God’ [1 Cor 11:12], (though all things have clearly been made from nothing), and if also the Son is also a creature (κτίσμα), and he too was made, then the Son can can be said to be “from God,” just as all things are said to be “from God.”

[Peter Kirby]

I have also neglected to present another fragment of a letter of Eusebius of Caesarea. A comparison can be made between the faith as presented by Arius in his letter to Alexander (quoted in Athanasius' On the Synods and Epiphanius' Panarion), item (xxviii) above, to the one stated by Eusebius of Caesarea here (quoted in the "Sessions" of the 2nd Council of Nicaea).

Arius to Alexander of Alexandria	Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we learned from you, blessed father, is this:	But they have brought forth their own document, which they have written for you, in which they explain their faith, confessing it with these very words:
We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament	The God of the Law and of the Prophets and of the New Testament
who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages	begat an only begotten son before time began (pro chronōn aiōnōn)
through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made	through whom he also made the ages (aiōnas) [Heb1:2] and all things
who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality	begetting him not in appearance but in reality
and that he made him subsist at his own will	causing him to exist by his own will
unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God	He is unchanging and unchangeable, God’s perfect creation
but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten	but not a creation in the same way like one of God’s other creations

Eusebius of Caesarea starts by saying that Alexander has "misrepresented them" and that Arius is not saying that the Son "must therefore be just like the rest of creation," quoting the above, with emphasis on the last line. Eusebius of Caesarea is accurate here.

Eusebius of Caesarea also refers to the position expressed in the letter of Arius to Alexander, saying "they confess that the son of God existed before time began, that God also made the ages through him," where Arius had allowed that the first-begotten Son was made outside of time (shown above). Eusebius of Caesarea is accurate here too. However, it does seem like Arius may have developed his views to be more compatible with Alexander's, as in his earlier letter Arius said "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist" (xxvi).

Eusebius of Caesarea is also accurate a third time in saying that Arius regarded the Son as "unchangeable," referring to both to the creed above and to the phrase "the only-begotten God, unchangeable" in his earlier letter (xxvi).

This provides some valuable context for understanding what Alexander is saying about Arius, which may not be entirely accurate.

(xxxix) Letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria [ca. 318-325], quoted in the sessions of the 2nd Council of Nicea

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-7/

(1.) [Similarly also in his letter to St. Alexander the instructor of the great Athanasius, which begins: I came upon this letter with such anxiety and concern… He clearly is speaking blasphemy when he says the following concerning Arius and his party:]

(2.) Your letters have misrepresented them as though they were saying that since the Son came into being from nothing (ek tou mē ontos), he must therefore be just like the rest of creation (‘eis tōn pantōn). But they have brought forth their own document, which they have written for you, in which they explain their faith, confessing it with these very words: “The God of the Law and of the Prophets and of the New Testament begat an only begotten son before time began (pro chronōn aiōnōn), through whom he also made the ages (aiōnas) [Heb1:2] and all things, begetting him not in appearance but in reality, causing him to exist by his own will. He is unchanging and unchangeable, God’s perfect creation, but not a creation in the same way like one of God’s other creations.”

And so surely indeed their writings speak the truth, since these opinions are certainly held by you also when they confess that the son of God existed before time began, that God also made the ages through him, that he is unchanging, God’s perfect creation, but not like God’s other creations. (3.) But your letter surely misrepresents them as saying that the son is the same as the other created things. They are not saying this! But they clearly draw a distinction, saying that he is, “not like one of the created things.”

Take care, then, lest immediately again a pretext be found for arresting them and keeping them from moving about as much as they wish. (4.) Again, you accuse them of saying, “He-who-was begat he-who-was-not”? I would be astonished if someone were able to speak differently. For if there is only one who exists [eternally], it is clear that everything which exists has come into being from him, whatever indeed exists after him. If it were not he alone who exists eternally, but the son also exists eternally, how indeed could one who exists beget another who already exists? It would have to follow that there would actually be two who exist eternally.

(5.) [So wrote Eusebius to the famous Alexander. But also other letters of his were taken to that holy man, in which were found other various blasphemies, which those of the Arian party defend]