302.
The [Greek: homoousion] itself might have been spared, at least out of the Creeds, had not a fraudulent abuse of good words brought matters to that pass, that the Catholic Faith was in danger of being lost even under Catholic language.
Most assuredly the very 'disputable' rendering of [Greek: homoousion] by consubstantial, or of one substance with, not only might have been spared, but should have been superseded.

Why not--as is felt to be for the interest of science in all the physical sciences--retain the same term in all languages?
Why not 'usia' and homouesial, as well as 'hypostasis', hypostatic, homogeneous, heterogeneous, and the like;--or as Baptism, Eucharist, Liturgy, Epiphany and the rest?
Query XXI.p.

303.
The Doctor's insinuating from the 300 texts, which style the Father God absolutely, or the one God, that the Son is not strictly and essentially God, not one God with the Father, is a strained and remote inference of his own.
Waterland has weakened his argument by seeming to admit that in all these 300 texts the Father, 'distinctive', is meant.
Ib.p.

316-17.
The simplicity of God is another mystery.

* * When we come to inquire whether all extension, or all plurality, diversity, composition of substance and accident, and the like, be consistent with it, then it is we discover how confused and inadequate our ideas are.