Twenty-three queries about the word <seg rend="greek" rendition="greek">ὁμοούσιος</seg> Isaac Newton c. 988 words Newton Project London 2006 Newton Project, Imperial College

The copyright and rights in the nature of copyright worldwide for the images of this manuscript are reserved to King's College, Cambridge. These images may be viewed without payment on the understanding that they have been made available by the copyright holder for private study, educational or research purposes only. Please contact the Archivist at <archivist@kings.cam.ac.uk> for permission to use this material in print or any other medium. Please click OK to agree to these terms.

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

 early 1700s, in English, c. 996 words, 3 pp. on 2 ff.

Wrongly described in the Sotheby catalogue as twenty-four queries.

Printed in Brewster (1855), 2: 532-4 (apart from Question 23, which is incomplete) and McLachlan, Theological Manuscripts, 44-7 (including what there is of Question 23).

 3 pp. on 2 ff.

in English

 Keynes Ms. 11, King's College, Cambridge, UK UKCambridgeKing's College Keynes Mss Keynes Ms. 11 SL269

Bought at the Sotheby sale by Keynes for £7.10s.

18

The Ms. breaks off in mid-sentence

 early 1700s England English Greek Latin Holograph Unknown Hand ReligionDoctrine Transcribed by Stephen Snobelen Catalogue information compiled by Rob Iliffe, Peter Spargo & John Young Checked against original by John Young Tagged by John Young Coding audited and updated to Newton v2.0 DTD by Michael Hawkins Coding reviewed and updated to Newton v2.1 DTD by John Young Updated to Newton V3.0 (TEI P5 Schema) by Michael Hawkins Catalogue exported to teiHeader by Michael Hawkins
4

Quære 1. Whether Christ sent his Apostles to preach Metaphysicks 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 Constanthtine yethe great a Chatechumen not yet baptized & no member of the Council.

Qu. 6 Whether it was not agreed by the Council ytthat that word when applied to yethe 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 traslatingtranslating 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 gaive 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 hypostasis 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 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 hypocryisy who in subscribing those Acts had interpreted them by the word ὁμοιούσιος in their subscriptions.

Qu. 11. Quære wWhether 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 wchwhich declared for the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity & whether the same Council did not decree the supremacy of the BpBishop 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 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 BpsBishops of the Greek Church to appear at the next Council of Rome A.C. 342 did not challenge domniondominion 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 wchwhich followed thereupon, & deserve the na sept up Popery in all the west.

Qu. 20 Whether the Emperor Constantidus did not by calling the Council of Millain & Aquileia A.C. 365, abolish Popery, & whether Hilary, Lucifer, were not banished for adhereing to the authority of the Pope to receivinge 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 StSaint Athanasius, Basil, StSaint Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, StSaint Ambrose, StSaint Hierome, StSaint Austin were not Papists.

2

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