PAGE

3. Text of Scripture not a sufficient protection to the

revealed dogma :-

Implicit faith . . . . . . . . 147

Action of the intellect upon it.

The mind tranquillized thereby . .

Attempted comprehensions : .

Fail to secure the truth

And to make it a bond of fellowship . .

153

Hence the necessity of Creeds, with what limitations. 154

·

SECTION II.-The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity .

The position of the matter of evidence :-

In the Old Testament commenced . . .

Completed in the New . . . . .

Inference to be made thence . . . .

The word Person . . . . . .

. 156

. 158

. 159

. 160

164

SECTION III.—The Ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity . 161

1. Our Lord considered as the Son of God :-

The term “Son” denotes His derivation . . . 163

And therefore His dissimilarity to all creatures. .

Passages from the Fathers . . . . . 165

He who is born of God is God . . . . . 166

In like manner He is “Radiance from the Sun”. . 167

Hence, on the other hand, a subordination of the Son to

the Father . . . . .

As explained by Bull and Petavius . . ..

Ministration of the Son and Spirit . .

Abuse of the term “Son” . . . . . . 172

Leading to materiality and ditheism . . . . 172

2. Our Lord considered as the Word of God :-

The term “Word” corrects the abuse of the term

“Son,” as teaching His co-etei nity with God . 174

And His office of mediation . . . . . 174

Passages from the Fathers . . . . . 175

Abuse of the term “Word ” ..

176

3. Our Lord considered “ of God” and “ in God”:-

Passages from the Fathers . . . . . 177

The “in God” is the “co-inherence” . . 178

Passages.

.

The “ of God” is the “ monarchia” .

Passages . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

PAGE

. 179

. 180

. 182

190

192

195

SECTION IV.–Variations in the Ante-Nicene Theological

statements . . . . . . . . . 184

1. The term “ Ingenerate :"-

Applied to God; whether to be predicted of the Son . 186

The Anomæan controversy . . . . . 186

2. The “Unoriginate:”—

Whether to be predicted of the Son . . . . 187

Passages from the Fathers in illustration . . . .188

3. The “ Consubstantial :”—

The meaning of “substance” or “ being”.

Of“ Consubstantial”. .

Early use of the term . . . . . . 193

Doctrine of Emanation . . . .

. 194

Imposed an heretical sense on the term .

The history of the term “offspring ". .

Rejection of the term “consubstantial” by the Council

against Paulus . . . . . . . 197

The Alexandrians keep it . . . . . . 198

4. The “ voluntary generation :”-

Its relation to the doctrine of Emanation . . . 199

How it was understood in relation to our Lord. ..

5. The “ Word Internal” or “External :"-

A term of the Stoics and Platonists . . . . 202

Used by the Fathers . . . . . . . 202

The Word's change from Internal to External at the

creation . . . . . . . . 203

A kind of “ generation” . . . . . . 203

Five Fathers accused of a misconception . . . 204

Passages from them in illustration . . . . 205

195

201

207

SECTION V.—The Arian Heresy

1. Contrasted with other heterodox beliefs :-

As to its fundamental tenet . .

With that of the Five Fathers . .

PAGE

.

214

Viz. with that of the Eclectics. .

209

Of Gnosticism . . . . . . .

209

Of Paulianism . . . .

. . . 209

And of Sabellianism.

210

2. Its doctrine that:-

What has an origin has a beginning . . . 212

What has a beginning is a creation . . . . 213

What God willed to be is a creation. ..

What is not ingenerate is a creation.

What is material is a creation . . . . . 215

“ Only-begotten ” means“ immediately” . . 216

“Not one of the creatures” is “not like other creatures” 216

“Before all time” is “ before all creation”. . 216

All titles admit of a secondary sense . . . . 217

3. Its original documents :-

Arius to Eusebius . . .

Arius to Alexander .

Arius's Thalia .

221

Eusebius to Paulinus

Alexander to Alexander ...

Alexander's Encyclical

224

4. Its characteristic qualities

Unscriptural . .

.

.

.

. . . . 225

Rationalistic .

Versatile . .

Shallow . .

Evasive . . . . . . . . . 237

How met at Nicæa . . . . . . . 240

PART II. HISTORICAL.

CHAPTER III.

THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICÆA, IN THE REIGN OF

CONSTANTINE.

·

·

·

SECTION I.-History of the Nicene Council.

1. History of Arius :-

Before his heresy . . . . .

Upon it . . . . . . .
2. Character and position of Constantine :-

His view of Christianity . . .
His disappointment at its dissensions.
His conduct towards the Donatists
His wish for religious peace . .
His letter to Athanasius and Arius .

He convokes the Nicene Council

3. Transactions at the Council :-

Disputations . . . . . .

Its selection of the test, Homoüsion.

Its creed . . . . . . .

Dissentients . . . . . .

Brought over . . . . . .

Banishment of Arius . . . . .

SECTION II.—Consequences of the Nicene Council.

1. The Arians :-

Their political and party spirit . . .

Ingratiate themselves with Constantine ..

Their leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia

And Eusebius of Cæsarea. .

Constantia, sister to Constantine . .

2. The Catholics :-

Successful at Nicæa . . .

Yet their prospects clouded
Arius's restoration attempted by Constantine
At Alexandria . . . . . .
At Constantinople .:. : : :
The prayers of Bishop Alexander .

Death of Arius . . . . . .

CHAPTER IV.

COUNCILS IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS.

PAGR

.

·····

285

286

SECTION I.—The Eusebians.

1. Character of the Eusebian leaders :-

Acacius

George . . . . . .

Leontius . . . . . .

Eudoxius . .

Valens . . . . .

2. Their proceedings :-

Against Eustathius, &c. . . .

They join the Meletians of Egypt .

Against Athanasius. .

Hold Councils at Cæsarea and Tyre.

And depose him . . . .

3. Their Creeds :-

Athanasius and other exiles at Rome .

Roman Council . . . . .

Eusebian Council of the Dedication.

Adopts the creed of Lucian . .

Its second, third, and fourth creeds .
Its fifth creed, the Macrostich . .

Great Council of Sardica . ..

Eusebians leaving it for Philippopolis,

Acquits and restores Athanasius

Recantation of Valens and Ursacius.

291

·

292

·

SECTION II.-The Semi-Arians.

1. Their doctrine:-

Its subtlety and indistinctness . .

Its symbol, the Homạüsion . .

It considered our Lord to be a true Son

Its self-contradictions . . .

Their leaders :-

Men of high character

Basil of Ancyra . . . .

Mark of Arethusa . . i .

Cyril of Jerusalem . . . .