The true and only way of concord of all the Christian churches the desirableness…

§. 30. And (O doleful case) even these also seem fully to me to contend about nothing but bare words, and really agreed and did not know it, partly following the stream for worldly interest, and partly ⟨p. 192⟩having not skill enough to explicate ambiguous words and state the Controversy. Who knoweth not that ever read any Metaphysics, how many senses the word [One] or [Unity] hath? and how the same thing in several respects may be said to be One or Two? And was this discussed in any of these Councils? Which? where? and when? 1. Two things may concur to one effect, where, say the subtlest Philosophers, materially they are two causes, but formally and properly but one; All set together make but one cause (being ejusdem generis) and are but many parts of that one cause, though many things: And so some called Christs Wills One as being but One cause in these School-mens sense of the same effect. For the Deity operateth only per essentiam and hath no effect in God himself. 2. And as Voluntas and operatio signify the Internal principle of the effect, no one can doubt but Christ had two; for the Divine essential Will, and the humane faculty or Act, were not the same principle or thing: But Objectively they are One; that is, The Divine Nature or principle and the humane do will the same thing, and contradict not one another. 3. And the Controversy is the same as the former with the Eutychians: Christ hath but One Will as opposite to Divisions; One as not divided: but Two as intellectually distinguishable. Two as denominated à principiis from two natures; one as 1. from One person, and 2. as undivided, and 3. as terminated on One object. I doubt not but had this been thus opened to them, all the sober men would have said, we are all agreed in it. And yet this wordy difference maketh the name of an Anathematized heresy to this day.

§. 30. And (O doleful case) even these also seem fully to me to contend about nothing but bare words, and really agreed and did not know it, partly following the stream for worldly interest, and partly ⟨p. 192⟩having not skill enough to explicate ambiguous words and state the Controversie. Who knoweth not that ever read any Metaphysicks, how many senses the word [One] or [Vnity] hath? and how the same thing in several respects may be said to be One or Two? And was this discussed in any of these Councils? Which? where? and when? 1. Two things may concur to one effect, where, say the subtilest Philosophers, materially they are two causes, but formally and properly but one; All set together make but one cause (being ejusdem generis) and are but many parts of that one cause, though many things: And so some called Christs Wills One as being but One cause in these School-mens sense of the same effect. For the Deity operateth only per essentiam and hath no effect in God himself. 2. And as Voluntas and operatio signifie the Internal principle of the effect, no one can doubt but Christ had two; for the Divine essential Will, and the humane faculty or Act, were not the same principle or thing: But Objectively they are One; that is, The Divine Nature or principle and the humane do will the same thing, and contradict not one another. 3. And the Controversie is the same as the former with the Eutychians: Christ hath but One Will as opposite to Divisions; One as not divided: but Two as intellectually distinguishable. Two as denominated à principiis from two natures; one as 1. from One person, and 2. as undivided, and 3. as terminated on One object. I doubt not but had this been thus opened to them, all the sober men would have said, we are all agreed in it. And yet this wordy difference maketh the name of an Anathematized heresie to this day.