Great find Alegare21! This is of course a famous English translation of the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, and is a classic of English Patristic editions. It is also virtually the ONLY English translation of these Fathers EVER done! The great work was begun by the Oxford Dons, during the early mid-19th century, including John Henry Newman, the leader of the Oxford Movement’s revitalized interest in the Early Church Fathers.
The original Oxford Library of Fathers was updated, revised and edited in the latter 19th Century. It is that edition that continues to be printed (and now, even online.)
It is also important to note that the original Oxford series was translated by Protestant Anglicans (including Newman who at the time, did the works of St. Athanasius.) However, for the most part a “catholic” understanding was central to the translators, as they never intended to use their translations in any sort of anti-Catholic manner.
The latter revisers, however, were a little more Protestant in their outlook, and tried to downplay and even excise the original translator notes as supposedly too polemical, or aimed against Protestantism. This, despite the fact that the whole original series was done by Protestants!
To give you an example, I have selected some quotes from the Editor’s Preface to the Works of St. Athanasius volume which was originally translated by a Protestant John Henry Newman:
Again, many opinions are expressed by Cardinal Newman which the present editor is unable to accept. It may not be invidious to specify as an example the many cases in which the notes enforce views of Church authority, especially of papal authority, or again of the justifiableness of religious persecution, which appear to be at any rate foreign to the mind of Athanasius; or the tacit assumption that the men of the fourth century can be divided by a broad and fast line into orthodox and heretical, and that while everything may be believed to the discredit of the latter, the former were at once uniform in their convictions and consistently right in practice. Such an assumption operates with special injustice against men like Eusebius, whose position does not fall in with so summary a classification. But it has been thought better to leave the notes in nearly all such cases as they stand, only very rarely inserting a reference or observation to call attention to another aspect of the case. And in no instance has the editor forgotten the respect due to the theological learning and personal greatness of Cardinal Newman, or to his peculiar eminence as a religious thinker.
But this has made it inevitable that many matters are regarded in one way in the notes of Newman, and in quite another where the present editor speaks for himself.
The fact that this great library is available on a Protestant website is therefore easily understandable, and also commendable!