Quære 1. Whether Christ sent his Apostles to preach Metaphysick{s} to the \unlearned/ common people & to their wives & children.

Qu. 2. Whether the word h Ὁμοούσιος ever was in any Creed before the Nicene; or any Creed was produced by any one B Bishop at the Council of Nice for authorizing the use of that word.

Qu. 3. Whether the \introducing the use/ use of that word is not contrary to the Apostles rule of holding fast the form of sound words.

Qu. 4. Whether the use of that word was not pressed upon the Council of Nice against the inclination of the major part of the Council

Qu. 5 Whether it was not pressed upon them by the Emperor Constan{th}tine ye great a Chatechumen not yet baptized & no member of the Council.

Qu. 6 Whether it was not agreed by the Council |yt| that word \when applied to ye Son of God/ should signify nothing more then that Christ was the express image of the father, & whether many of the Bishops in pursuance of that interpretation of the word then allowed \by the Council/, did not in their subscriptions by way of caution add τουτεστιυ ὁμοιούσιος?

Quære 7. Whether Hosius (or whoever translated that Creed into Latin,|)| did not impose upon the western Churches by traslating {sic} that ὁμοούσιος by the words unius substantiæ instead of consubstantialis & whether by that translation the Latin Churches were not seduced \drawn/ into an opinion that the father & son had one common substance \called by \in/ the Greeks Hypostasis/ & \whether they did not/ thereby ga|i|ve occasion to the western \eastern/ Churches to cry out (in the middle of the fourth Century \presently after the Council of Serdica/) that the western Churches were become Sabellian.

Qu. 8. Whether the Greeks in opposition to this notion \& language/ did not use the language of three hypostases, & whether in those days \the word/ hyposta{sis} did not signify a substance.

Qu. 9. Whether the Latins did not tax \at that time accuse all those of Arianism who used/ the language of three hypostases with Arianism & thereby charge Arianism upon the Council of Nice without knowing the true meaning of their \Nicene/ Creed.

Q. 10. Whether the {illeg} Latines were not convinced in the Council of Ariminum that the Council of Nice by the word ὁμοούσιος understood nothing more then that the son was the express image of the father. \the Acts of the Council of Nice were not produced for convincing them./ |And whether upon| Q. 11 Whether producing the Acts of that Council for proving this, the Macedonians \& some others/ did not accuse those \the Bishops/ of hypocry|i|sy who in subscribing those Acts had interpreted them by the word ὁμοιούσιος in their subscriptions.

Qu. 11. Quære w|W|hether Athanasius, Hilary & in general the Greeks & Latines did not from the time of the reign of Iulian the Apostate acknowledge the father & Son & holy Ghost to be three substances & continue to do so till the Schoolmen changed the signification of the word hypostasis & brought in the notion of three persons in one single substance.

Qu. 12. Whether the \opinion of the/ equality of the three substances was not \{f} first/ set on foot in the reign of Iulian the Apostate by Athanasius Hilary &c.

Qu. 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first \first/ set on foot in the middle of the Holy Ghos fourth Century \presently after the Council of Serdica./

Qu. 14 Whether the Council of Serdica was not the first Council wch declared for the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity & whether the same Council did not decree the supremacy of the Bp of Rome, & \affirm/ \affirm/ that there was but one hypostasis of the father son & H. Ghost.


Qu. |15| Whether the Bishop of Rome eleven \five/ years after the death of Constantine the great \A.C. 341/ did not receive appeals from the Greek Councils & thereby begin to set up \usurp/ the universal Bishopric

Qu. |16| Whether the Council \Bishop/ of Rome in summoning all the Bishops of the Greek Church did not to appear at {illeg} absolving the Appellants from excommunication & communicating with them & summonin did separate from the communion of the Greek Church \not excommunicate himself & begin a quarrel with the Greek Church/.

Qu. |17| Whether the Counci Bishop of Rome in summoning the all the Bps of the Greek Church to appear at the next Council of Rome A.C. 342 did not {illeg} challenge domnion {sic} over them & begin to make war upon them for obteining it.

Qu |18| Whether that Council of Rome in receiving the Appellants into Communion did not seperate from the Communion excommunicate themselves & joi support the Bishop of Rome in claiming appeals from all the world.

Qu. |19| Whether the Council of Serdica in receiving the Appellants into Communion & decreeing Appeals from all the Churches to the Bishop of Rome did not excommunicate themselves & become guilty of the schism wch followed thereupon, & deserve the na sep|t| up Popery in all the west.

Qu. |20| Whether the Emperor Constantid|u|s did not by calling the Council of Millain & Aquileia      A.C. 365, abolish Popery, & whether Hilary, Lucifer, were not banished for {illeg} adhere|ing| to the authority of the Pope to receiving|e| appeals from the Greek Councils.

Qu. |21| Whether the Emperor Gratian A.C. 379 did not by his Edict restore the Vniversal Bishopric of Rome over all the west? And whether this authority of the Bishop of the or \of Rome/ hath not continued ever since

Qu |22| Whether \Hosius St/ Atha\na/sius, Basil, \St/ Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, \St/ Ambrose, \St/ Hierome, \St/ Austin were not Papists.


Qu. |23| Whether the western Bishops upon being convinced that the Council of Nice by the word Ομοούσιος did

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC