§2. The superfluity of such assemblies.
§§3, 4. Monstrosity of a dated creed.
§5. Necessity of the Nicene Council.
§6. Its decisions make any fresh council unnecessary.
§7. The true motives of the promoters of the new councils.
§§8-11. Proceedings of the 400 at Ariminum.
§8. The Dated' Creed propounded.
§9. Rejection of the Dated Creed and deposition of Valens, &c.
§10. The Council's Letter to the Emperor.
§11. Decree of the Council.
§12. Proceedings of the 160 at Seleucia Trachea.
Deposition of Acacius, &c., and report to the Emperor.
§13, 14. Reflections on the two councils, especially as to the divergence of the Arians from the Fathers and from each other.
Part II. History of Arian Creeds.
§15. The belief of Arius as expressed in his Thalia.
§16. Letter of Arius to Alexander.
§17. Statements of early partizans of Arius.
§§18, 19. Extracts from Asterius the sophist.
§20. The true character of this doctrine.
Arian Councils and their formularies.
§21. Jerusalem (335). Letter announcing reception of Arius to Communion.
§22. Antioch (Dedication' 341). First creed.
§23. Second (Lucianic) Creed.
§24. Third creed (of Theophronius).
§25. Fourth creed (342; revision of the Nicene).
§26. (344) Fifth creed: the Macrostich' (the fourth with additions and explanations).
§27. Sirmium (against Photinus, 351, fourth of Antioch with 27 anathemas), the First' Sirmian.
§28. Second Sirmian' (357, the blasphemy').
§29. Creed propounded by the Acacians at Seleucia (359, the Dated' Creed revised in the Homoean sense).
[§30. Creed of Niké and Constantinople (359, 360, a new recension of the Dated' Creed, rejecting Hypostasis' as well as Essence.')
§31. A further Anomoean creed published under the patronage of Constantius at Antioch (361)].
§32. Reflections on the significance of these many changes.
Part III. Appeal to the Semi-Arians.
a. §§33-40. Homoeans confuted.
§33. The terms objected to give offence only because misunderstood.
§34. The true Divinity of Christ implies Coessential.'
§35. To reject the term implies that Christ is a creature.
§36. The objection to unscriptural' language condemns the Arians.
§37, 38. If the Son is truly Like' the Father, he is Coessential.'
§39. The sense, not the occurrence of the terms in Scripture, must be attended to.
§40. Alleged obscurity of the Nicene formula.
b. §§41-54. Semi-Arians conciliated.
§41. The party of Basil of Ancyra are with us on the main question.
§42. Coessential' conveys a meaning which they would adopt.
§43, 44. Alleged rejection of the term by the 70 bishops at Antioch, subsequent to its recognition by Dionysius of Alexandria.
§45. We must not hastily assume contradictions between the Fathers.
§46, 47. Parallel of the word Unoriginate.'
§48. Coessential' guards the acknowledged attributes of the Son.
§49. The Son is all that the Father is, except Father.
§50. If the Son is not Coessential, the Unity of the Godhead is lost.
§51. The Son cannot impart to man what is not His own; The oneness of Essence does not imply a common or prior essence.
§52. The Son not an independent God.
§53. Coessential' why preferable to Like in Essence.'
§54. Appeal for union among those who are really agreed.
Postscript (supplementing Part I.)
§55. Reply of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum, and remonstrance of the bishops upon receipt of it.