|Newton, Isaak keynes11|
Quære 1. Whether Christ sent his Apostles to
to the unlearned common people & to their wives & children.
Qu. 2. Whether the word h
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
tine ye great a Chatechumen not yet baptized & no member of the
Qu. 6 Whether it was not agreed by the Council
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 interpre
tation of the word then allowed by the Council, did not in their subscriptions by way of
caution add τουτ εστιυ ομοιουσιος?
Quære 7. Whether Hosius (or whoever translated that Creed into
Latin) did not impose upon the western Churches by traslating that
ομοουσιος 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 Greek Hypostasis &
whether they did not thereby give 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 Sabelli
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
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 the Nicene Creed.
Q. 10. Whether the Latines were not convinced in the Council of
Ariminum that the Council of Nice by the word ομοουσιος 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 hypocrisy who in subscribing those Acts
had interpreted them by the word ομοιουσιος in their subscriptions.
Qu. 11. Quære Whether Athanasius, Hilary & in general the Greeks
& Latines did not from the time of the reign of Iulian the Apostate ack
nowledge 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
on foot in the reign of Iulian the Apostate by Athanasius Hilary &c.
Qu. 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not
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.