plead a principle of piety, and who fear" to make "two Gods." He afterwards recurs to the fame fubject, and introduces it as an objection of perfons. with whom he would not trifle, and whom he was far from charging with hypocrify. "But fince," he fays, "it is probable that many may be "offended, because we say that one is the true "God, namely the Father, and besides this true "God there are many who are made Gods by "participation, fearing that the glory of him, "who excels all creatures, should be brought down.

to that of others, who attained the appellation of "Gods, &ct.". On the whole, therefore, I think that Origen must have thought as refpectfully of thefe early unitarians as I had reprefented him to do, and that he really confidered them as objecting to the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift from the very best principles.

In tranflating the paffage in Theophilus, in which mention is made of God's fpeaking to nothing but his own word and wisdom, I inadvertently used the particle or for and, as you obferve, p. 48; but I do not fee how the right tranflation is at all lefs

Και το πολλές φιλοθεός είναι ευχομένες ταρασσον, ειλα Copères duo avaz opevσal Jees. Comment. in Johannem, Edit. Huetii, vol. ii. p. 46.

† Αλλ' επει εις & προσκόψειν τινας τοις ειρημενοις, ένος μεν αληθινό θεό το πατρα απαγγελλομενο, παρα δε τον αληθινόν θεον θεων πλειόνων τη μετοχη το θεν γινομένων, ευλαβόμενος την το πάσαν κτισιν υπερεχοντας δοξαν εξίσωσης τοις λοιποις The Deos @poonyopias Toyxanol, &c. Ibid. p. 47.

favourable

favourable to my argument, as it may still be interpreted of God's fpeaking, as it were, to himself, or to his own attributes, and by no means neceffarily implies that the word and wifdom of God were diftinct perfons. However, I have other inftances in proof of what I have advanced that are not liable to any charge of ambiguity, which it therefore behoved you to confider.

I alfo miftranflated a fentence in Theophilus, concerning his trinity. It was in confequence of his ufing a fingular verb instead of a plural; but I have no doubt of your tranflation, p. 59, being right, and shall adopt it. I am still, however, fully fatiffied, that neither Theophilus, nor any person of his age, made a proper trinity of perfons in the Godhead; for they had no idea of the perfect equality of the fecond and third perfons to the firft.

You fay, p. 61, "that they fcrupled not to afcribe "an equal divinity to all the three perfons." If by equal divinity you mean fomething that might be equally called divine, though in a different fenfe, I admit it; but that will make nothing for your trinity. And that the fathers before the Council of Nice afferted, in the moft explicit manner, the fuperiority of the Father to the Son, fee my third fection, in which you will find unanswerable proof of it.

Whenever the Antenicene fathers ufed the term God abfolutely, they always meant the Father only,

as you do not deny. But if, in their idea, the Father had been no more entitled to the appellation of God than the Son, or the Spirit, they would cer tainly have confined the use of the word God to exprefs divinity in general, and have used the word Fa ther, and not God, when they really meant the Father only, exclufively of the two other perfons. Had there been no proper correlative to the word Son, as a perfon, your explanation might have been attended to, but fince the term Father is perfectly correlative to the term Son, and as familiar, it would certainly have been used by them to denote the Father, as well as the term Son to denote the Son. It is natural, therefore, to conclude that their custom of ufing the term God to denote the Father only, was derived to them from earlier times, in which no other than the Father was deemed to be God, in any proper sense of the word. This language was continued long after, from a change of ideas, it ceafed to be proper.

Very happily, the word God is ftill, in common ufe, appropriated to the Father, fo that none but profeffed Theologians are habitually Trinitarians, and probably not even thefe at all times; and while the fcriptures are read without the comments of men, the Father alone will be confidered as God, and the fole object of worship, exclufively of the Son or the Spirit. But while a different doctrine is taught in christian schools, and continually held up to the world in the writings of christian divines, those who are not chriftians, and who will not take

the

the pains to study the fcriptures themselves, muft receive a very unfavourable impreffion of our religion; and the manifest abfurdity and impiety of our doctrine will effectually prevent its reception by them. I therefore think it of the greatest confequence to christianity, that this doctrine of the trinity (which I confider as one of its moft radical corruptions) fhould be renounced, in the most open. and unequivocal manner, by all thofe whofe minds are fo far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the chriftian. doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they fhould exert themfelves to enlighten the minds of others.

I am, &c.

I

THE

CONCLUDING

LETTER.

DEAR SIR,

HAVE now finifhed my reply to your animadverfions on my Hiftory, omitting nothing that I think to be of any confequence to your argument. If you fhould think that I have overlooked any thing material, and please to point it out to me, I will answer it as explicitly as I can : for I hope that this will only be the beginning of our correfpondence on the fubject, as I would gladly difcufs it with you in the fulleft manner.

I only wish for your own fake, and for the more advantageous investigation of the truth, that you would drop that sarcastic manner of writing, which is fo confpicuous in the greater part of your performance, and I fhould think peculiarly improper for the occafion on which it was compofed. That mode of writing is also inconfiftent with the compliments you sometimes pay me, unless you meant

them to be ironical also.

66 In

Some of thofe compliments are, I think, rather imprudent, and unfavourable to your purpose. "philofophical fubjects," you fay, p. 29, "Dr.

66

Priestley would be the last to reason from prin"ciples affumed without proof. But in divinity "and ecclefiaftical hiftory, he expects that his

own affertion, or that of writers of his own "perfuafion, however uninformed or prejudiced, "fhould pass with the whole christian world for proof of the boldest affumptions."

You fhould, indeed Sir, be cautious how you lay these things before your readers, because it is very poffible that they may draw a very different conclufion from them; and think that, if I have been fo cautious, and fo fuccessful in the investigation of truth in one province, I may, having the fame talents, make the fame fuccessful application of them in other provinces. For the fame mental habits, generally accompany the fame men, in every scene of life, and in every mode of exertion. Your readers, therefore, may think it very impro

bable