had represented him to do, and that he really considered them as objecting to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from the very best principles.

In translating the passage in Theophilus, in which mention is made of God's speaking to nothing but his own word and wisdom, I inadvertently used the particle or for and, as you observe, p. 48; but I do not see how the right translation is at all less favourable to my argument, as it may still be interpreted of God's speaking, as it were, to himself, or to his own attributes, and by no means necessarily implies that the word and wisdom of God were distinct persons. However, I have other instances in proof of what I have advanced that are not liable to any charge of ambiguity, which it therefore behoved you to consider.

I also mistranslated a sentence in Theophilus, concerning his trinity. It was in consequence of his using a singular verb instead of a plural; but I have no doubt of your translation, p. 59, being right, and shall adopt it. I am still, however, fully satisfied, that neither Theophilus nor any person of his age made a proper trinity of persons in the Godhead; for they had no idea of the perfect equality of the second and third persons to the first.

You say, p. 61, "that they scrupled not to ascribe an equal divinity to all the three persons." If by equal divinity you mean something that might be equally called divine, though in a different sense, I admit it; but that will make nothing for your trinity. And that the fathers before the Council of Nice asserted, in the most explicit manner, the superiority of the Father to the Son, see my third section, in which you will find unanswerable proof of it.

Whenever the Antenicene fathers used the term God absolutely, 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 certainly have confined the use of the word God to express divinity in general, and have used the word Father, and not God, when they really meant the Father only, exclusively of the two other persons. Had there been no proper cor relative to the word Son, as a person, your explanation might have been attended to; but since 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 using 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 ceased to be proper.

Very happily the word God is still, in common use, appropriated to the Father, so that none but professed theologians are habitually trinitarians, and probably not even these at all times; and while the scriptures are read without the comments of men, the Father alone will be considered as God, and the sole object of worship, exclusively 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 christians, and who will not take the pains to study the scriptures themselves, must receive a very unfavourable impression of

our religion; and the manifest absurdity and impiety of our doctrine will effectually prevent its reception by them. I therefore think it of the greatest consequence to christianity, that this doctrine of the trinity (which I consider as one of its most radical corruptions) should be renounced in the most open and unequivocal manner by all those whose minds are so far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the christian doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they should exert themselves to enlighten the minds of others.

I am, &c.

THE CONCLUDING LETTER. DEAR SIR,

I HAVE now finished my reply to your animadversions on my History, omitting nothing that I think to be of any consequence to your argument. If you should 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 correspondence on the subject, as I would gladly discuss it with you in the fullest manner.

I only wish for your own sake, and for the more advantageous investigation of the truth, that you would drop that sarcastic manner of writing, which is so conspicuous in the greater part of your performance, and I should think peculiarly improper for the occasion on which it was composed. That mode of writing is also inconsistent with the compliments you sometimes pay me, unless you meant them to be ironical also.

Some of those compliments are, I think, rather imprudent, and unfavourable to your purpose. "In philosophical subjects," you say, p. 29, "Dr. Priestley would be the last to reason from principles, assumed without proof. But in divinity and ecclesiastical hi story he expects that his own assertion, or that of writers of his own persuasion, however uninformed or prejudiced, should pass with the whole christian world for proof of the boldest assumptions."

You should, indeed, Sir, be cautious how you lay these things before your readers; because it is very possible that they may draw a very different conclusion from them, and think that, if I have been so cautious and so successful in the investigation of truth in one province, I may, having the same talents, make the same successful application of them in other provinces. For the same mental habits generally accompany the same men in every scene of life, and in every mode of exertion. Your readers, therefore, may think it very improbable that a work written with so much care and attention, by such a person as you describe me to be, should deserve the character which you give of mine. "No work," you say, p. 66, " was ever sent abroad under the title of history, containing less of truth than his, in proportion to its volume." The passages which I have quoted, p. 4, 11, 14, and 89, are gross and coarse insults; but they affect yourself only, and not me. This is more extraordinary, as in other parts of your work you write with great candour and liberality. Your conclusion I particularly admire. My address to you on the subject of necessity was uniformly respectful.

It was particularly illiberal in you, and what I am

willing to hope you will never repeat, to use the term conventicle, p. 28, in speaking of the places of public worship in which I and Mr. Lindsey officiate. Would not that contemptuous appellation have applied equally well to the societies of the primitive christians, or to those of all the dissenters from the church of Rome before the Reformation? And what is it that has given your places of public worship a more honourable title, but the sanction of the civil powers, with which my religion never had any alliance? I glory in such independence and opprobrium.

By conventicle is usually meant an unlawful assembly. But since the late act of parliament in favour of Dissenters, our places of worship are as legal as yours. The only difference between them is, that ours are not supported by the wealth of the state as yours are; so that I am unjustly compelled to contribute to your maintenance, while you, instead of paying any thing towards mine, insult me for it. Our meetinghouses are equally known to the laws, and protected by them. If by conventicles you meant nothing more than a term of reproach, the good manners of the present age ought to have protected them from such an insult.

If your pride, as a churchman, p. 71, and the contemptuous airs you give yourself with respect to dissenters, be founded on the idea of your being a member of a great establishment; pray, Sir, what is your church establishment in this country? It is a thing of yesterday compared to the far more ancient and venerable church of Rome, whose members consider you as a schismatic and a sectary as much as myself. If, on the contrary, you boast of your separation from the