§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.