Christology of the Arian Controversy:
Arius Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, c318AD:
"... But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, fully God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten." (para 4 & 5)
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balanea: (uncertain, between 318-323AD)
"But he (Jesus) teaches that that one (the Father) is alone true when he says, "that they may know you, the only true God" (John 17:3), not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for (Scripture says) "and the Word was God" (John 1:1), but not as the only true God." (para 3)
Arius Letter to Alexander of Alexandria (320AD) He also writes The Banquet (Thalia), a verse collection perhaps to popularise his doctrine.
"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; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages (Hebrews 1:2) and all that was made... that he made him (Son) subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten ... but, as we say, he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father. (para 2-3)
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria (320AD):
Your letters have misrepresented them (the Arians) 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) (Hebrews 1:2) 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. 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." (para 2-3)
Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre (321AD):
"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." (para 3)
Fragment of a letter of Presbyter George to Alexander of Alexandria (322AD):
"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."
Fragment of a letter of Presbyter George to the Arians (322AD):
"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 Corinthians 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'."
Finally, Emperor Constantine wrote to them both (Spring, 325AD):
"So when I found that an intolerable spirit of mad folly had overcome the whole of Africa, through the influence of those who with heedless frivolity had presumed to divide the religion of the people into diverse sects, I was anxious to stop the course of this disorder. After I had removed the common enemy of mankind (Licinius, who was Emperor of the East, and was defeated by Constantine, Emperor of the West) who had interposed his lawless sentence which prohibited your holy synods, I could discover no other remedy equal to the occasion, except to send some of you churchmen to aid in restoring mutual harmony among the disputants." (para 2)
".... now that I have made a careful enquiry into the origin and foundation of these differences, I have found the cause to be of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention. I feel compelled to address you in this letter, and to appeal at the same time to your unity and discernment. I call on Divine Providence to assist me in the task, while I interrupt your dissension as a minister of peace..." (para 4)
"I understand that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the priests what opinion they each maintained respecting a certain passage in Scripture, or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question. You then, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to have been speculated about at all, or if pondered, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, and the holy people were rent into diverse factions, no longer preserving the unity of the one body. And so I now ask you both to show an equal degree of consideration for the other, and to receive the advice which your fellow-servant impartially gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, and also wrong to reply to them when they were presented. For those points of discussion are not commanded by the authority of any law, but are rather the product of an argumentative spirit which is encouraged by the idle useless talk of leisure. Even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, they ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the ears of the general public. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and difficult to comprehend in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or again, who in dealing with questions involving such subtle distinctions as these can be sure he is not dangerously departing from the truth in some point? We ourselves may be unable, through the weakness of our natural abilities, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, our hearers understanding may prevent them from arriving at an accurate understanding of what we say. Lest that be the case, it is our obligation to be sparing with our words, so that neither of these situations will cause the people to be reduced either to blasphemy or to schism." (para 6-8)
"Now forgive one another for both the careless question and the ill-considered answer. The cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are really of one and the same judgment; and so it is fitting for you to join in communion and fellowship." (para 9)
Suffice to say both parties chose to ignore the Emperor's wishes in the matter.
Constantine calls an Ecumenical Council (ie 'of the whole world') for which he will foot the bill for travel costs and accommodation. He invites 1,800 bishops to attend, each allowed to bring two priests and three deacons – 10,000 participants! He convenes this council at Nicaea, so he can keep an eye on proceedings.
Numbers are uncertain, but generally agreed that around only 200 or so bishops attend. Mostly Easterners, notably the Bishop of Rome did not attend, although he sent delegates.
