taught it to others. But even while I taught the doctrine, I was often embarrassed by it both in prayer and in preaching. In giving thanks to God for his astonishing love in giving his Sox to die for our offences, the theory has occurred with a chilling and confounding influence. These thoughts would un avoidably rush into my mind-GoD and his Son are one and the same Being; the Sox could not in reality die or suffer any more than the FATHER; it was only a mere man that suffered, to whom the Son was mysteriously united. In my preaching, while expressing the love of God in SPARING NOT HIS OWN SON, the same theory and the same train of thoughts would occur; and, in some instances, both in prayer and in preaching, the influence of these thoughts has been so great as, for a time, to obstruct my utterance.

Such embarrassments had a natural tendency to excite suspicions in my mind that there must be some defect in the theory winch I had adopted. But the doctrine had been so long and so generally believed by great divines and good people, that I almost trembled at the thought of indulging my suspicions. At length I became acquainted with the views of Dr. Watts, as exhibited in connection with the Memoirs of his life. These I read with care. He supposed the Son of God not to be a self-existent Person, but a human Being created before the worlds, and intimately united to the Father, so that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead; and that from this union his Divinity

sulted. His reasonings, to prove that the union of the Man Jesus was with the Father, and not with a second self-existent Person, appeared to me conclusive and unanswerable. And as a union with the Father must imply as great fulness and dignity as a union.

with another Person just equal with the Father, I was unable to see why his theory did not support the Divinity of Jesus Christ in as ample a manner as the Athanasian hypothesis.

Another consideration, which greatly recommended to my acceptance the theory of Dr. Watts, was this, it freed me from those distressing embarrassments which I had formerly felt in prayer and preaching. For on his theory, the real Person, who is called the SON of GOD, was the real Sufferer on the cross.

Having obtained this relief to my mind, I rested pretty quietly for several years as a believer in Watts's theory of the Trinity. But my apprehensions and ideas were so indistinct, that I indulged no thought of writing on the subject with any view to publication, until the year 1807. In the course of that year, my attention was in a peculiar manner arrested by the natural import of this text, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I noted, that in this verse the apostle was exhibiting the faith of christians, in contrast with the faith of heathens.In the preceding verse he had said, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many.") Such is the faith of the heathen world. With this he contrasts the faith of christians, "But to us there is but ONE GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, by whom are all things, and we by him.” The ideas which appeared to me to lie plainly on the face of this text were these:-

* 1 Cor. viii. 6.

1. That the one SELF-EXISTENT GOD is ONE PERSON, viz. the FATHER. The apostle does not say, But to us there is but one God, yet this one God is three Persons. His language is, "But to us there is but one Gop, the FATHER." He distinctly names the Person whom he styles the ONE GOD, and calls him the FATHER.

2.

That this one God is the Fountain or Source of all things" of whom are all things.”

3. That Jesus Christ, the one Lord, is a Person as distinct from the Being of GoD as he is from the Person of the FATHER. After the apostle had distinctly told who is the one God, he then proceeded to say, "and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST." As he had named the one God, so he also named the one Lord.

4. That Jesus Christ, the one Lord, is the MEDIUM OF AGENT, through whom or by whom God displays his fulness in the production of events-"Br whom are all things, and we вr HIM.”

Such being the views I had of the text, a field was opened which appeared clear, spacious, and delightful. This field I entered, and began to write on the doctrine of the Trinity, in a great measure conformable to the views of Dr. Watts. Nearly two years my mind was absorbed in these inquiries, and my time employed in writing on the subject. I wrote pretty largely, and thought I had produced something which might be useful to the public.

But while writing for the press, it frequently occurred to my mind that the definitive and emphatical language used in Scripture respecting the Son of GOD, did import a higher character than is implied in Watts's theory-that the terms owN SON, ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, &c. did import that Christ was the

Son of God in the most strict and proper sense of the terms. After I had written what I intended for the press, that idea became more and more impressed on my mind as the natural meaning of the word of God. But though I could not find that any person had ventured to advance the idea, I viewed it to be my duty to examine the point with the utmost care.*

This I

Since the first edition of these letters satisfactory evidence has been obtained that many others have asserted the same views of the Son of God which are contained in these letters. The dispute between Arius and his opponents had no respect to the number of persons in deity; but simply to the derived nature of the Son of God. Arius maintained "that the Son was not begotten of the Father, i. e. produced of his substance, but created out of nothing." On the contrary, the Council of Nice affirmed "that the Son was peculiarly of the Father, being of his substance as begotten of him." The creed of that Council contains no idea of a "three one God." The "one God" is clearly represented as one Person only, and the Son as derived from God. It was by adding to the Nicene Creed that the Council at Constantinople made out the doctrine of a "three one God." Dr. Mosheim says, 66 They gave the finishing touch to what the Council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed in a full and determinate manner the doctrine of three persons in one God." Vol. I. p. 426.

Mr. Milner says, "This Council very accurately defined the doctrine of the Trinity, and enlarging a little the Nicene Creed, they delivered it to us as we now have it in our communion service." The Macedonian heresy gave occasion to a more explicit representation of the third Person in the Trinity." Vol. II. p. 184-5.

Dr. Lardner informs us about the "little" which this Council enlarged the Nicene creed. It was this" The Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets."

we

This was not a very "little" to add; for the Nicene creed conveys no idea that the spirit is a person, but simply says believe in the Holy Spirit."

have attempted to do; and the result of my inquiries on that point is this, that Jesus Christ is as truly the SON of GOD, as Isaac was the son of Abraham; and that this view of the matter is essential to a due estimation of the love of God as displayed in the gospel of his grace. It is also my real belief, that this view of the subject will be found much better to harmonize with the Scriptures, and unspeakably more HONORARY to the FATHER and to the SoN, than any other hypothesis which has been advanced.

Having, therefore, experienced such a revolution in my own views, I have occasion to write anew on the subject. I have concluded to write in the form of letters, and to address them to you, as to a candid friend and brother in Christ.

While writing on my former ground, I derived some consolation from the thought that my views harmonized with the theory of Dr. Watts. I am now in a measure deprived of that source of consolation; but I have another which I esteem much more important, viz. that my views now harmonize with the most obvious and natural meaning of the language of GOD, of CHRIST, and his APOSTLES; and that if I am in an error, my error has not resulted from departing from the natural import of scripture language, but from preferring that to a meaning which is foreign, figurative, or mystical.

The Doctor also introduces the following concession of Bishop Burnet-" So that the Creed here called the Nicene Creed, is indeed the Constantinopolitan Creed, with the addition of Filioque by the Western church." See first postscript to the "letter on the Logos." p. 185.

Thus we have three Trinitarians and one Unitarian concurring in the fact that the doctrine of a "three one God" was not finish ed until A. D. 381.