A26898:1919
Church-history of the government of bishops and their councils abbreviated including the chief part…
Church-history of the government of bishops and their councils abbreviated including the chief part of the government of Christian princes and popes, and a true account of the most troubling controversies and heresies till the Reformation ... / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by B. Griffin for Thomas Simmons, 1680
Church-History OF BISHOPS And their COUNCILS ABRIDGED, &c. › Chapter 12
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
§ 161. CCCCXV. An. 1140. A Council at Soissons condemned Peter Abailard's Books to the Fire; but saith Otto Frising. (& Bin. ex eo) they would not hear him speak for himself, suspecting or fearing his skill in disputation, his great acuteness being famous. His Heresy was, That whereas (saith Otto) the Church holdeth the Three Persons in the Trinity to be res distinctas,*, distinct things; Peter used an ill similitude, and said that [As the same argument or speech is Proposition, Assumption and Conclusion, so the same Essence is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost] and this was judged Sabellianism. But sure, 1. Peter never meant this similitude should hold in all respects. 2. Sure this asserteth unhappily such a difference as is between the Whole and the Parts, if he had meant it to be fully simile. And that maketh a greater difference inter personas, than the Schools allow. But be the Man Heretic or not, what justice was in these pitiful Prelates that condemned him, and durst not hear him speak? Is such Hereticating much regardable?
§ 161. CCCCXV. An. 1140. A Council at Soissons condemned Peter Abailard's Books to the Fire; but saith Otto Frising. (& Bin. ex eo) they would not hear him speak for himself, suspecting or fearing his skill in disputation, his great acuteness being famous. His Heresie was, That whereas (saith Otto) the Church holdeth the Three Persons in the Trinity to be res distinctas,*, distinct things; Peter used an ill similitude, and said that [As the same argument or speech is Proposition, Assumption and Conclusion, so the same Essence is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost] and this was judged Sabellianism. But sure, 1. Peter never meant this similitude should hold in all respects. 2. Sure this asserteth unhappily such a difference as is between the Whole and the Parts, if he had meant it to be fully simile. And that maketh a greater difference inter personas, than the Schools allow. But be the Man Heretick or not, what justice was in these pitiful Prelates that condemned him, and durst not hear him speak? Is such Hereticating much regardable?
- *See in the Schoolmen what they hold; particularly Menrisse de Trinit. And Peta• de Trinit.