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

In that Conference, these things are specially notable. 1. That the Oriental Bishops called Eutychians, condemned Eutyches, and yet honoured Dioscorus, who defended him; so that it was a quarrel more about Men, Names, and Words, than Doctrine. 2. That Hypatius, and the Orthodox (though they were not willing to suspect Corruption in Gyril's Epistles, yet) could not deny but Cyril used Eutyches words, that is asserted, one Nature of God Incarnate, after the Union. 3. That yet they proved that Cyril also held two Natures: (but say the Eutychians, he only held two before the Union considered intellectually) so that either Cyril was an Eutychian, or else his unskilful speaking, as both parties did, set the world together by the Ears. 4. That unrighteous partiality greatly prevailed with the Orthodox Bishops, and Councils of these times; when they could (as Hypatius here did) put a Charitable Construction upon the same words of Cyril, for which they condemned so many others, who as his obedient followers, held what they did of Cyril's. Unam naturam Dei incarnati: ¹They say, We neither Condemn it, nor Justify it. If they had used that moderation with all others, all had been in greater peace. 5. That they say so much of the falsifying of Athanasius Epistle to Epictetus, of Appollinaries Epistle fathered on Julius, of the falsehood of the Dionysius Areopag. &c. As he tells us, that we must not be over credulous in trusting to writings ascribed to the Ancients. 6. That Nullus ex antiquis recordatus est ea; was thought a good argument against the Authority of Dionysius Areopagita. 7. They instance in the difference between the Greeks and Latins about the words Hypostasis, and Persona, which set the Latins on condemning the Greeks as Arians, and the Greeks it on condemn the Latins as Sabellians, till Athanasius that understood both Tongues, persuaded them, that their meaning was the same (And necessity urged Athanasius to reconcile them) which Greg. Nazianzene and other peaceable men afterward promoted; And yet Hierome was judged a Heretic after, for disliking the word Hypostasis.) And yet must Hard ambiguous words confound and divide the Churches still?

In that Conference, these things are specially notable. 1. That the Oriental Bishops called Eutychians, condemned Eutyches, and yet honoured Dioscorus, who defended him; so that it was a quarrel more about Men, Names, and Words, than Doctrine. 2. That Hypatius, and the Orthodox (though they were not willing to suspect Corruption in Gyril's Epistles, yet) could not deny but Cyril used Eutyches words, that is asserted, one Nature of God Incarnate, after the Union. 3. That yet they proved that Cyril also held two Natures: (but say the Eutychians, he only held two before the Union considered intellectually) so that either Cyril was an Eutychian, or else his unskillful speaking, as both parties did, set the world together by the Ears. 4. That unrighteous partiality greatly prevailed with the Orthodox Bishops, and Councils of these times; when they could (as Hypatius here did) put a Charitable Construction upon the same words of Cyril, for which they condemned so many others, who as his obedient followers, held what they did of Cyril's. Vnam naturam Dei incarnati: