That Trinitarians should translate this expression, The Word was God, in John i. 1, might be expected; but by the rules of translating the Greek language into English, the expression should be, The Word was a god. The rule of Middleton that the article must not be used in the predicate of a sentence may hold good, when it conflicts with no superior rule; but if taken absolutely, it has many exceptions. I suppose the renowned Origen understood the Greek language. He interprets the passage before us as I do. "Origen uses [Greek: theos] (god), not in our modern sense, as a proper name, but as a common name. This use of the term, _which was common to him with his contemporaries_, and continued to be common after his time, is illustrated by his remarks on the passage, 'and the Logos was God'; in which he contended, that the Logos was god, in an inferior sense;--not as we would say God, but _a god_, not _the_ divine being, but _a_ divine being. (Opp. iv. p. 48, reqq.)." See Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 120, note. The quotation from the Athanasian creed had better been omitted; for many will read it, who had not before known that it contained any such absurdity; and will have less respect for the Trinity than they would wish to have. The quotation is, "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they (?) are not three Gods, but one God." I am accused of following an "uncritical principle," in not reasoning in the same way. If it is "uncritical," I plead guilty, and beg that my sentence may be as mild as possible. But before the sentence is pronounced may it not be well to apply the reasoning to some other subject,--to Peter, James, and John, for instance? Each of these is a man; but they are not three men but one man! MELLO. I complained that the translators and revisors left out this word, apparently for the reason that it conflicts with their theology. It makes certain things to be near at hand, which they regarded as far in the future. My critic says, "The Greek _mell[=o]_ frequently has the meaning assigned to it by Dr. Manley, but it is not shut up to that meaning," p. 106. It probably has that meaning twenty times, where it has any other meaning once. In the passages from which it is excluded, if it has any other meaning, why did they not retain it, and render it according to its true import, and not throw it out? Mr. Kidder does not meet the case, when he shows that the word does sometimes have another meaning. His business is to show that _it has no meaning_, in the passages from which it is excluded. It will then be in order to show why the writers put such a word in these passages. When the translators recognize the word, they seldom fail to give it a meaning corresponding to the sense I assign to it.