A Catholic about to state that the substance of the Father and the Son is one, must not begin at that point: nor hold this word all important as though true faith did not exist where the word was not used. He will be safe in asserting the one substance if he has first said that the Father is unbegotten, that the Son is born, that He draws His personal subsistence from the Father in might, honour and nature, that He is subject to the Father as to the Author of His being, that He did not commit robbery by making Himself equal with God, in whose form He remained, that He was obedient unto death. He did not spring from nothing, but was born. He is not incapable of birth but equally eternal. He is not the Father, but the Son begotten of Him. He is not any portion of God, but is whole God. he is not Himself the source but the image; the image of God born of God to be God. He is not a creature but is God. Not another God in the kind of His substance, but the one God in virtue of the essence of His exactly similar substance. God is not one in Person but in nature, for the Born and the Begetter have nothing different or unlike. After saying all this, he does not err in declaring one substance of the Father and the Son. Nay, if he now denies the one substance he sins.
~Hilary of Poiters On the Councils 69
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the charactre of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that[ which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named “Apocrypha.” These they would not have read in the Churches.
~Rufinus A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 38
So let me see if I’ve got all this right. Athanasius was from Alexandria, but exiled to Gaul. Hillary was from Gaul but exiled to Asia Minor. And they both were able to return home.
Furthermore, Alexandria was closely allied with Rome, with Athanasius often fleeing there for help from both Emperor and bishop.
Ossius of Cordoba was a Spaniard who became a close counselor of Constantine and was thus able to preside at Nicaea, supporting the final creed.
Marcellus of Ancrya was an influential Eastern bishop who supported Athanasius and defended the homoousious.
Of course Ossius later turned on Athansius, condemning him of Sabellianism, while Marcellus actually was a Sabellian, and Athansius had to distance himself from him, though he never condemned him as forcefully as Basil of Caeserea would have liked.
Hillary becomes more Athanasian, influencing Ambrose (with some help from Eusebius V.), who in turn influenced Augustine.
And all the while the Eastern bishops are anathematizing Athanasius and all who support him, including the bishop of Rome, and the Western bishops are anathematizing anyone who doesn’t support homoousious. Both parties are burning down baptisteries, hiring Jews to desecrate altars, hiring prostitutes to seduce bishops, and killing people.
Does that sound about right?