Church-history of the government of bishops and their councils abbreviated including the chief part…

§. 17. The Council at Calcedon was called, an. 451. Dioscorus is accused for his Ephesine General Council, and for his violence, and defence of Eutiches, and the death of Flavianus. He allegeth the Emperors Order to him [Authoritatem & Primatum tuae praebemus beatitudini, (If the Popes Universal Rule be essential to the Church, then the pious and excellent Emperor Theodosius, and the General Council that consented, were none of them Christians that knew it, but went against it.) Eos qui per additamentum aliquod, aut imminutionem conati sunt dicere, praeter quae sunt exposita de fide Catholica à sanctis Patribus qui in Nicaea, & post modum qui in Epheso congregati sunt, nullam omnino fiduciam in sancto Synodo habere patimur, sed & sub vestro judicio esse volunus.] Here Binnius accuseth the good Emperor ⟨p. 101⟩as giving that which he had not but by usurpation, and this through ignorance of the Ecclesiastical Canons. But were all the Bishops ignorant of it also? Or was so good an Emperor bred up and cherished in ignorance of such a point pretended by the Papists to be necessary to the Being of a Church, and to salvation; The Bishops of Jerusalem and Seleucia also partook of the same power by the Emperor's Grant. Dioscorus answered that All the Synod consented and subscribed as well as he, and Juvenal Hieros. and Thalassius Seleuc.

§. 17. The Council at Calcedon was called, an. 451. Dioscorus is accused for his Ephesine General Council, and for his violence, and defence of Eutiches, and the death of Flavianus. He alledgeth the Emperours Order to him [Authoritatem & Primatum tuae praebemus beatitudini, (If the Popes Universal Rule be essential to the Church, then the pious and excellent Emperour Theodosius, and the General Council that consented, were none of them Christians that knew it, but went against it.) Eos qui per additamentum aliquod, aut imminutionem conati sunt dicere, praeter quae sunt exposita de fide Catholica à sanctis Patribus qui in Nicaea, & post modum qui in Epheso congregati sunt, nullam omnino fiduciam in sancto Synodo habere patimur, sed & sub vestro judicio esse volunus.] Here Binnius accuseth the good Emperour ⟨p. 101⟩as giving that which he had not but by usurpation, and this through ignorance of the Ecclesiastical Canons. But were all the Bishops ignorant of it also? Or was so good an Emperour bred up and cherished in ignorance of such a point pretended by the Papists to be necessary to the Being of a Church, and to salvation; The Bishops of Ierusalem and Seleucia also partook of the same power by the Emperour's Grant. Dioscorus answered that All the Synod consented and subscibed as well as he, and Juvenal Hieros. and Thalassius Seleuc.