Here again!  This contradiction of Waterland to his own principles is continually recurring;—­yea, and in one place he involves the very Tritheism, of which he was so victorious an antagonist, namely, that the Father is Jehovah, the Son Jehovah, and the Spirit Jehovah;—­thus making Jehovah either a mere synonyme of God—­whereas he himself rightly renders it [Greek:  Ho On], which St. John every where, and St. Paul no less, makes the peculiar name of the Son, [Greek:  monogenaes uhios, ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros]—­; or he affirms the same absurdity, as if had said:  The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Son, and yet there are not three Sons but one Son.  N. B. [Greek:  Ho on] is the verbal noun of [Greek:  hos esti], not of [Greek:  ego eimi].  It is strange how little use has been made of that profound and most pregnant text, ‘John’ i. 18!

Query XX. p. 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[Greek:  homoousion] by consubstantial, or of one substance with, not only might have been spared, but should have been superseded.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. * * To this head belongs that perplexing question (beset with difficulties on all sides), whether the divine substance be extended or no.

Surely, the far larger part of these assumed difficulties rests on a misapplication either of the senses to the sense, or of the sense to the understanding, or of the understanding to the reason;—­in short, on an asking for images where only theorems can be, or requiring theorems for thoughts, that is, conceptions or notions, or lastly, conceptions for ideas.

Query XXIII. p. 351.

  But taking advantage of the ambiguity of the word ‘hypostasis’,
  sometimes used to signify substance, and sometimes person, you
  contrive a fallacy.