This book made available by the Internet Archive.

£26

Copyright, 1880, By Egbert C. Smyth.

73

"university pees3: John "Wilson and Son, Cambridge.

INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION.

In 1851, the Rev. Dr. Bushnell called attention to a supposed manuscript of Jonathan Edwards. " I very much desired," he remarked, " in my exposition of the Trinity, to present some illustrations from a manuscript dissertation of President Edwards on that subject. Only a few months ago I first heard of the existence of such a manuscript. It was described to me as 'an a priori argument for the Trinity/ the ' contents of which would excite a good deal of surprise 1 if communicated to the public. The privilege of access to the manuscript is declined to me, as I understand, on the ground of 'the nature of the contents/ As this manuscript has just now come into the possession of Dr. Dwight, of Portland, it is to be hoped that, unless some restrictions on the use of it have descended as a trust from the author, he will disburden himself as soon as may be of the very important responsibility, so faithfully exercised, for a whole century now past, by persons not more

competent, certainly, than Jonathan Edwards, to guard the orthodoxy of this very distinguished name." 1

In the International Review for July, 1880, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes alludes apparently to the same manuscript in the following terms: " The writer is informed on unquestionable authority that there is, or was, in existence, a manuscript of Edwards, in which his views appear to have undergone a great change in the direction of Arianism, or of Sabellianism, which is an old-fashioned Uni-tarianism, or, at any rate, show a defection from his former standard of Orthodoxy, and which its custodians, thinking it best to be as wise as serpents in order that they might continue harmless as doves, have considered it their duty to withhold from the public. If any of our friends at Andover can inform us what are the facts about this manuscript, such information would be gratefully received by many inquirers, who would be rejoiced to know that so able and so good a man lived to be emancipated from the worse than heathen conceptions which had so long enchained his powerful but crippled understanding."

The accomplished editor of the Hartford Courant was stirred by these intimations to publish an article on " The Injustice to Jonathan Edwards," which has 1 Christ in Theology, p. vi.

been widely noticed, and has excited much inquiry. After referring to alleged editorial alterations of the text in the published works of Edwards, the writer continues: "But this matter is a light one compared to the existing suppression referred to by Dr. Holmes. If Jonathan Edwards changed his views in regard to these awful aspects of the future of mankind, . . . justice to him no less than to the cause of truth requires a publication of that change. Dr. Holmes makes inquiry for the reported suppressed manuscript of ' our friends at Andover/ It is time that this inquiry were made more pointedly.

" It has long been matter of private information that Professor Edwards A. Park, of Andover, had in his possession an unpublished manuscript of Edwards of considerable extent, perhaps two-thirds as long as his treatise on the Will. As few have ever seen this manuscript, its contents are only known by vague reports. Its importance may be exaggerated, although it is impossible to exaggerate the interest, one would say, of an unpublished work of Edwards. It is said that it contains a departure from his published views on the Trinity, and a modification of the view of original sin. One account of it says that the manuscript leans toward Sabellianism, and that it even approaches Pelagian-ism. In the recollection of some, the title of it is

'Divine Charity/ or 'Love of God.' 1 ... But it matters little what this manuscript contains. . . . Everything that Edwards wrote has a value either as literature or as doctrine. ... If the importance of the suppressed manuscript is exaggerated in regard to its reported relaxing of uncompromising doctrines, the only way to show this is to publish it. If it is what it is reported to be, its publication is demanded by common morality." 2

The reports embodied in these statements have met with a general denial of their correctness from the Rev. Tryon Edwards, D.D., and also from the editor of The Bihliotheca Sacra. The latter testifies : "The popular rumors regarding his [President Edwards's] changes of theological opinion are many of them utterly false, many of them singularly exaggerated, and all unreliable. So far as his manuscripts have been examined by the present writer, the views of Edwards on the Trinity are no more inclined to Unitarianism than were the views of Augustine and his followers, of Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors of the Roman Church through

1 President Edwards's work on " Charity," or " Christian Love," was published, with an Introduction by the Rev. Dr. Tryon Edwards, in 1851, and* has passed through numerous editions. It has also been republished in England.

2 Hartford Courant, June 23. I quote from a reprint in the Boston Daily Advertiser, June 25.

the Middle Ages. The present writer, having heard the popular rumors, has been surprised at the fact that he has found so little which could have suggested, and so much refuting, the statement that Edwards ever wavered. in adopting any of the essential doctrines of Calvinism." 1 Dr. Edwards, in a note to The Congregationalist? adopts these statements respecting President Edwards's adherence to Calvinism and Trinitarianism from "a pretty thorough examination of all the manuscripts" deposited with him as trustee and now in the hands of Professor Park. In a previous communication to the Boston Evening Transcript, Dr. Edwards also says: " Personally I know of no suppression of any opinions of Edwards, much less of any omission or change of expression that would modify, in the least, his well-known theological or doctrinal views. d

To these emphatic disclaimers I am able to add a more specific refutation by publishing the manuscript to which Dr. Bushnell referred, and which appears to have occasioned, through erroneous and exaggerated reports, the present misunderstanding respecting its author's opinions.

It is not, as Dr. Bushnell supposed, an autograph,

1 The Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1880, p. 592.

2 The Congregationalism July 21, 1880. 8 Evening Transcript, July 8, 1880.

but a copy. It is, however, a very early and trustworthy one, having also a special value in the disappearance of the original, perhaps at the time this copy was made nearly a century ago.

I received it, about fifteen years since, from the late Rev. William T. Dwight, D.D., to whom it was bequeathed by his brother, Rev. Dr. Sereno E. Dwight, author of a well-known biography of President Edwards, and the latest editor of his collected works. The manuscript is in a chirogra-phy unlike that of any of the copyists known to have been employed in connection with Dr. Dwight's edition; and the paper, also, is different. It appears •to have belonged to a manuscript book prepared for publication. The first page is numbered 573, and begins with a paragraph printed on page 466 of the Miscellaneous Observations, published at Edinburgh in 1793. 1 Then comes this direction,

1 Dr. Erskine, in a Preface to this work, states that " Dr. Edwards, of Newhaven, has not grudged the labour of transcribing this volume of miscellanies, which, if it prove acceptable, will be followed by more, as the Doctor's health and leisure permit." In an unpublished letter from Dr. Edwards, addressed to the Rev. Dr. John Erskine, Edinburgh, and dated New Haven, Feb. 8, 1787, there is an allusion to "packets of May 25 and March 8, 1785," and the following statement: "In consequence of the communication by Mr. Hart of part of your letters to him, expressing your confidence that there would be little difficulty in getting published my father's practical tracts, on April 7, 1786, I sent to Mr.

written, as Dr. W. T. Dwight supposed, and comparison confirms, by Dr. Edwards, son of the first President: "What follows to p, 588 not to be printed, but preserved." On page 588, at the close of the treatise now printed, the manuscript reads: " To these Observations on the Sonship of Christ I shall add some Reasons against Dr. Watts's notion of the Pre-existence of Christ's Human Soul. 1. God's manner with all creatures is to appoint them a trial," &c, proceeding thus as in the Edinburgh edition, p. 409, except that the printing commences with the word " Reasons." This change, however, conforms to the manuscript as it now stands, for a line of erasure is drawn through the words, " To these Observations on the Sonship of Christ I shall add some," as though the manuscript had thus been revised for the printer at the time when Dr. Edwards appears to have written the direction I have quoted. It is not unlikely that when it was decided not to

Hyslup to be forwarded to you the MS. sermons which I transcribed about the beginning of the late war." One volume of sermons thus transcribed was published in Hartford, 1781; another in Edinburgh, 1788; a third in 1789. The Miscellaneous Observations appeared in 1793; Miscellaneous Remarks, in 1796. The allusions above given show that Dr. Edwards himself transcribed many of his father's manuscripts. As the work advanced he probably had assistance. Copying for the printer was indispensable, on account of the illegibility of many of the manuscripts, especially the later ones.

print (with the exception of a few sentences) pages S73-588 of the manuscript book, they were taken out, and kept in this country, and thus have been preserved. On the margin are cancelled the number 1062, over against the title of the paper now printed, and the number 1174 against that of the observations on Dr. Watts's theory. So far as I have observed, the peculiarities of spelling * appear in undoubted autographs. From correspondence in my possession I learn of another copy, endorsed by a granddaughter of President Edwards as a treatise by him. This manuscript the correspondence recognizes as belonging to Dr. W. T. Dwight, and as about to be sent to him, but I have not found it among his papers. When, to these external facts, is added the internal evidence, the proof of the genuineness of this treatise will not, I presume, be questioned. 2

The numbering referred to above, and other indications, show that this treatise belongs to the class of papers published under the title " Miscellaneous Observations." Dr. Hopkins, President Edwards's earliest biographer, remarks of these miscellanies, that they were written, " not with any design that they should ever be published in that form, but for the satisfaction and improvement of his [their auth-

1 These are retained in the print. a See Appendix, Note A.

or's] own mind, and that he might retain the thoughts which appeared to him worth preserving." Why, after being carefully copied, apparently for publication, the treatise now printed was held back by the son, is, so far as I am aware, purely a matter of conjecture. Its "lack of orthodoxy" 1 has recently been suggested as the reason. But the treatise excludes such a supposition, for it is not unorthodox. Nor is it at all probable that Dr. Edwards would have objected, on other grounds, to the theory of a "Social Trinity " which underlies its argument. His direction that the manuscript be preserved indicates that he attached some value to it, 2 and he seems, as already noticed, to have thought of publishing it. If, in these circumstances, any conjecture is admissible, it would appear to be one suggested by Dr. Erskine's statement) that Dr. Edwards was solicited " to collect and print such part of those manuscripts [viz., the " Observations "] as might be generally useful." It is quite possible that being invited to make a selection from his father's papers or " practical tracts," for such an end, he doubted, upon reflection, whether the present paper was properly included, and so withheld it,

1 The Independent, July 15, 1880.

2 In a letter to Rev. Mr. Ryland, Jr., he says that the Miscellanies are "the most complete and important" of his father's manuscripts.

directing at the same time that it be preserved. It should be borne in mind that there is no reason whatever to suppose that President Edwards left it for publication, or that the son could have thought he was " suppressing" any opinions of his father which he was called upon to divulge. At the same time, it should be added, the manuscript has been transmitted without restriction as to its being made public. There is no evidence that Dr. Edwards intended to withhold it permanently. Dr. Sereno E. Dwight appears to have reviewed it for publication, together with many others of the miscellanies which he prepared for the press but did not print. His brother regarded himself as at liberty to publish it, and so bequeathed it.

In deciding to make it public, I am influenced by still other considerations than the desire to correct any existing misconceptions. Its authorship, contents, and character are stronger reasons for its appearance, though in other circumstances this might well be delayed in the hope of a still more complete edition of President Edwards's writings than has as yet been secured. These reasons, also, are quite independent, or at least in large measure so, of the value which may be put upon special lines of reasoning it adopts.

Though a private paper, and not written for publication, it is not, as sometimes represented, a

crude and hasty production, nor an early one. President Edwards left above 1400 miscellaneous observations. The number of the present one is 1062, which indicates a somewhat late origin. 1 It will be at once recognized as an elaborately reasoned discussion.

Careful students of Edwards's published writings may have wondered that they contain so little directly on the subject of the Trinity, or on questions pertaining to Christology. The Observations now printed indicate that these great themes were not neglected by him, and that he brought to bear upon them his maturest powers. New evidence is thus afforded of the range of his thinking. 2

As before noticed, the discussion pursued keeps strictly within the bounds of orthodoxy.

If this conformity to the generally accepted standards of belief were simply a matter of inheritance, it would be of little account. But President Edwards was no mere traditionalist. His Observations are characterized by great independence, and even boldness of reasoning and freedom of dissent. If they still recognize certain limits of belief, this fact

1 The first fifty-two numbers were designated by letters of the alphabet, single and double. Probably these are included in the total estimate. In either case, 1062 really represents the number 1114, reckoning from the beginning.

2 See, also, the extracts from unpublished manuscripts in the Appendix.

affords a valuable testimony to the legitimacy and authority of such restrictions.

The Church doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there are, in the Godhead, three distinct hypostases or subsistences, — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, — each possessing one and the same divine nature, though in a different manner.

. Within the limits of this article of faith, quite different modes of statement have obtained, now inclining more to Tritheistic forms, now to a less definite assertion of hypostatic properties. 1 Some, especially in later times, have contented themselves with simply affirming eternal distinctions, the ground of the Trinitarian revelation, and have deemed it unwise to venture upon more explicit statements. So long as, on the one side, the Unity of Essence has been held, and, on the other, the reality of immanent or ontological distinctions, the Church doctrine has not been infringed upon.

In considering the following Observations, it should be remembered that they are not, as Dr. Bushnell and others appear to have supposed, a treatise on the subject of the Trinity. A dissertation having such scope would necessarily consider a question nowhere touched upon in them, — that of the relation of the three Persons of the Trinity 1 Cf. Dorner, Ckristliche Giaubenslehre, I. 367.

to the divine Unity. Other topics, also wholly unnoticed, would inevitably be considered.

It is also obvious that the discussion, though suggestive at many points of wider relations, turns chiefly to a single aspect of the subject. President Edwards, in common with the Puritan theologians of his day, and earlier divines, gave prominence to the conception that the work of Redemption is an execution of a divine covenant. In the remarks under consideration, he writes out privately thoughts and reasonings which he had elaborated respecting the parties to this covenant; its relation to an agreement entered into between the Persons of the Trinity with reference to manifesting the divine glory; and as to the conformity of this divine economy to the natural order of subsistence. The range and scope of the discussion are remarkable, and also its logical power, whatever may be thought of the sufficiency of its premises; but it would obviously be going too far to regard it as designed to maintain, or even to state, the doctrine of the Trinity.

This fragmentary character of the paper being recognized, it may still be thought that some of its author's statements are tritheistic, particularly his maintenance that the covenant of Redemption was contracted solely between two Persons of the Trinity. It will be noticed, however, that this statement is at once accompanied by others, which show an

adherence to the accepted doctrine of the Unity of God in counsel and work, as well as in being. That Edwards held to the unity of the divine nature appears, moreover, distinctly in the paper which, in the manuscript book to which I have referred, immediately succeeds the one now printed, and is indicated by its number as written not long subsequently. It speaks of "the union of several divine persons in one essence," and interprets Deut. vi. 4 as designed to "guard the people against imagining that there was a plurality of Essences or Beings among whom they were to divide their affections and respect."

Modern thought on this subject, so far as it undertakes the difficult task of progressive dogmatic construction, is influenced by its apprehension of Absolute Personality. God is the personal Absolute, — not only one Essence, but also one Person. And, from this point of view, the Trinitarian distinctions, in themselves regarded, are not three persons, in the modern sense of this word, though each is in the highest and fullest sense personal, as possessing the one divine nature, and in and through the other hypostases. This, however, is no new doctrine, but rather the legitimate development of what has been held from the beginning, an adjustment of its statement to the clearer conceptions which have been gained of Personality.

In other respects, the orthodoxy of the paper now

published is at once apparent. The Sonship of the second Person in the Trinity implies no dependence on the will of the Father, and no inferiority of nature. It is eternal. In adhering to this doctrine, President Edwards, it is believed, is in accord with the results of the latest and most scholarly interpretation of the Scriptures, and with some of the most important phases of recent religious thought and life. His conception, moreover, of the relation of the Incarnate Word to the Church in its state of final perfection and blessedness, his discrimination between the eternal Mediation of the Son, and His Humiliation for the sake of man's Redemption, and his recognition of the Incarnation as at once conditioned by human sin, and founded in a divine Economy instituted for the purpose of self-revelation and self-communication, are anticipations of some of the most valuable contributions of modern Chris-tology, and indications of his peculiar genius. It is also something worth noting, that a mind so reverent and profound, and so controlled by what he accepted as the teaching of Scripture, did not regard the subject of the Trinity, in its ontological relations, as a mere blank to human thought.

With these statements and comments, perhaps already too protracted, this little treatise of President Edwards is given to the public. If our liberal friends who have recently manifested so hopeful an

interest in the opinions of "so good a man" shall be led by it to a fresh perusal of his "Observations" already published, and shall also be stimulated to the study of the papers, which, in the pages of The Bibliotheca Sacra, are soon to be put within their reach, they and we may together have occasion to rejoice that " he being dead yet speaketh."

E. C. S. Andover Theological Seminary, August, 1880.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBSERVATIONS

CONCERNING THE

SCRIPTURE OECONOMY OF THE TRINITY, AND COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.

We should be careful that we do not go upon uncertain grounds, and fix uncertain determinations in things of so high a nature. The following things seem to be what we have pretty plain reason to determine with respect to those things.

i. That there is a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity, in their actings with respect to the creature; that one acts from another, and under another, and with a de-pendance on another, in their actings, and particularly in what they act in the affairs of man's redemption. So that the Father in

that affair acts as Head of the Trinity, and the Son under Him, and the Holy Spirit under them both.

2. It is very manifest, that the Persons of the Trinity are not inferiour one to another in glory and excellency of nature. The Son, for instance, is not inferiour to the Father in glory; for He is the brightness of His glory, the very image of the Father, the express and perfect image of His person. And therefore the Father's infinite happiness is in Him, and the way that the Father enjoys the glory of the deity is in enjoying Him. And though there be a priority of subsistence, and a kind of dependance of the Son, in His subsistence, on the Father; because with respect to His subsistence, He is wholly from the Father and is begotten by Him; yet this is mpr t e properly called priority than superiority, as we ordinarily use such terms. There is dependance without inferiority of deity; because in the Son the deity, the whole deity and glory of the Father, is as it were repeated or duplicated. Every thing in the

Father is repeated, or expressed again, and that fully: so that there is properly no inferiority.

3. From hence it seems manifest, that the other Persons' acting under the Father does not arise from any natural subjection, as we should understand such an expression according to the common idiom of speech; for thus a natural subjection would be understood to imply either an obligation to compliance and conformity to another as a superiour and one more excellent, and so most worthy to be a rule for another to conform to; or an obligation to conformity to another's will, arising from a dependence on another's will for being or well-being. But neither of these can be the case with respect to the Persons of the Trinity, for one is not superiour to another in excellency: neither is one in any respect dependant on another's will for being or well-being. For though one proceeds from another, and so may be said to be in some respects dependant on another, yet it is no dependance of one on the, will of another.

For it is no voluntary, but a necessary proceeding; and therefore infers no proper subjection of one to the will of another!*'

4. Though a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their actings, be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, whereby the Persons of the Trinity, of their own will, have as it were formed t hems elve s into .a^ ociety, for carrying on the gr eat design of glorify in g the, deity a nd communicating its fulness, in which is established a certain oeconomy and order of acting; yet this agreement establishing this Oeconomy is not to be looked upon as meerly arbitrary, founded on nothing but the meer pleasure of the members of this society; nor meerly a determination and constitution of wisdom come into from a view to certain ends which it is very convenient for the obtaining. But there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and oeconomy that is established. It

1 See Appendix, Note B.

is fit that the order of the acting of the Per-sons of the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of their subsisting. That as the Father is first in the order of subsisting, so He should be first in the order of acting. That as the other two Persons are from the Father in their subsistence, and as to their subsistence naturally originated from Him and are dependant on Him; so that in all that they act they should originate from Him, act from Him and in a dependance on Him. That as the Father with respect to the subsistences is the Fountain of the deity, wholly and entirely so ; so He should be the fountain in all the acts of the deity. This is fit and decent in itself. Though it is not proper to say, decency obliges the Persons of the Trinity to come into this order and oeconomy; yet it may be said that decency requires it, and that therefore the Persons of the Trinity all consent to this order, and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally delight in what is in itself fit, suitable and beautiful. Therefore,

5. This order or oeconomy of the Persons

of the Trinity with respect to their actions ad extr^ is to be conceived of as prior to the covenatrL-oi. redemption: as we must conceive of God's determination to glorify and communicate Himself as prior to the method that His wisdom pitches upon as tending best to effect this. For God's determining to glorify and communicate Himself must be conceived of as flowing from God's nature; or we must look upon God from the infinite fullness and goodness of His nature, as naturally disposed to cause the beams of His glory to shine forth, and His goodness to flow forth, yet we must look on the particular method that shall be chosen by divine wisdom to do this as not so directly and immediately owing to the natural disposition of the divine nature, as the determination of wisdom intervening, choosing the means of glorifying that disposition of nature. We must conceive of God's natural inclination as being exercised before wisdom is set to work to find out a particular excellent method to gratify that natural inclination. Therefore this particular invention of wisdom, of God's

glorifying and communicating Himself by the redemption of a certain number of fallen inhabitants of this globe of earth, is a thing diverse from God's natural inclination to glorify and communicate Himself in general, and superadded to it or subservient to it. And therefore, that particular constitution or cove nant among the Persons of the T rinity about this particular aff air, must be looked upon as in t he order of nat ure after that dispositio n ot the Godhead to glorify and communicate itself and so^ after the will of th e Persons of J he T rinity ta-act T in $q dnjno^in t hat order that is inits elf fit and decent, a nd w)iat the order of their sj stbsis^^^eqwFes. We must distinguish between the covenant of redemption, that is an establishment of wisdom wonderfully contriving a particular method for the most conveniently obtaining a great end, and that establishment that is founded in fitness and decency and the natural order of the eternal and necessary sub-\§istance of the Persons of the Trinity. And t@T must be conceived of as prior to the other.

It is evident by the Scripture, that there is an eternal covenant between ( some >of the Persons of the Trinity, about that particular affair of men's redemption; and therefore that some things that appertain to the particular office of some of the Persons and their particular order and manner of acting in this affair, do result from a particular new agreement; and not meerly from the. order already fixed in a preceding establishment founded in the nature of things, together with the new determination of redeeming mankind. There is something else new besides a new particular determination of a work to be done for God's glorying and communicating Himself. There is a particular covenant entered into about that very affair, settling something new concerning the part that some at least of the Persons are to act in that affair.

6. That the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, establishing that order of their acting that is agreeable to the order of their subsisting, is entirely diverse from the cove-

nant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things; but appears evidently from the Scripture, being plainly deduced from the following things evidently collected thence.

(1.) It is the determination of God the Father, whether there shall be any such thing admitted as redemption of sinners. It is His law, majesty and authority, as supreme Ruler, Legislatour and Judge, that is contemned.

He is every where represented as the Person who, (in the place that He stands in among the Persons of the Trinity), is especially injured by sin, and who is therefore the Person whose wrath is enkindled, and whose justice and vengeance are to be executed, and must be satisfied. And therefore, it is at His will and determination whether He will on any terms forgive sinners; and so whether there shall be any redemption of them allowed any more than of fallen angels. But we must conceive of the determination that a redemption shall be allowed for fallen men, as preceding the covenant or agreement of the Persons of the Trinity relating to the partic-

ular manner and means of it; and consequently, that the Father, who determines whether a redemption shall be allowed or no, acts as the Head of the society of the Trinity, and in the capacity of supreme Lord and one that sustains the dignity and maintains the rights of the Godhead antecedently to the covenant of redemption; and consequently, that that Oeconomy by which He stands in this capacity is prior to that covenant.

(2.) Nothing is more plain from Scripture than that the Father chooses the Person that shall be the Redeemer, and appoints Him; and that the Son has His authority in His office wholly from Him: which makes it evident, that that Oeconomy by which the Father is Head of the Trinity, is prior to the covenant of redemption. For He acts as such in the very making of that covenant, in choosing the Person of the Redeemer to be covenanted with about that work. The Father is the Head of the Trinity, and is invested with a right to act as such, before the Son is invested with the office of a Mediator. Becau se the Father, m the, exer cise of His Headship.

invests the ^onjdthJiaL£ifl&ce» B y^which it is evident, that that establishment, by which t he Fa ther is invested with His character as Head of th e Trinity, pre cedes that which invests the SoGjadth.- His character of Mediator; a nd therefo re precedes the covena nt of redemption; which is the e stablishment that invests the Son with that character. If the Son were invested with the office of a mediator by the same establishment and agreement of the Persons of the Trinity by which the Father is invested with power to act as Head of the Trinity, then the Father could not be said to elect and appoint the Son to His office of Mediator, and invest Him with authority for it, any more than the Son elects and invests the Father with His character of Head of the Trinity; or any more than the Holy Ghost elects both the Son and the Father to their several oeconomical offices; and the Son would receive His powers to be a mediator no more from the Father, than from the Holy Ghost. Because in this scheme it is supposed, that, prior to the covenant of redemption, all the Persons act as upon a level,

and each Person, by one common agreement in that covenant of redemption, is invested with His proper office; the Father with that of Head, the Son with that of Mediator, the Spirit with that of common emissary and con-summatour of the designs of the other two. So that by this supposition no one has His office by the particular appointment of any one singly, or more than another; but all alike by common consent; there being no antecedent establishment giving one any power or Headship over another, to authorize or appoint another.

(3.) That the forementioned Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity is diverse from all that is established in the covenant of redemption and prior to it, is further confirmed by this, that this Oeconomy remains after the work of redemption is finished, and every thing appertaining to it brought to its ultimate consummation, a nd the Redeem er shall present all that were to_be„ redeemed Jcl the Father in perfect glory, having His work compleaflyfinished^jJ£on them, and so shall resignup thatdominion JhaJJd&j^ceked of

the Father subservient to this work, agree^. "aBIyTo what had.Seen stipulated in the covenant of redemption. Then the oeconomical order of the Persons of the Trinity shall yet remain, whereby the Father acts as Head of the society and supreme Lord of all, and the Son and the Spirit [shall be] 1 subject unto Him. Yea, this oeconomical order shall not only remain, but shall then and on that occasion become more visible and conspicuous, and the establishment of things by the covenant of redemption shall then, as it were, give place to this Oeconomyas prior; for thus the apostle represents the matter, 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. " Then cometh the end when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. -For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith ' all things are put under Him, it is manifest

1 Words thus enclosed appear to be in the handwriting of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, son of the first President

3

that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

Now if that establishment that settles the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, was no other than the covenant of redemption itself, or that agreement that the Persons of the Trinity entered into establishing their order of acting in that affair, and assigning each one His part and office in that work; it would at least be unreasonable to suppose, that this oeconomy or order of the Persons of the Trinity should be least conspicuous and manifest while this work lasts, and most so after the Redeemer has finished it and resigned His office ; and that the resignation of His office should be to that end, that things might return to that oeconomical order, and be governed more conspicuously and manifestly agreeably to it.

(4.) Another argument that shews the covenant of redemption to be entirely a distinct establishment from that which is the founda-

tion of the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, is this, that the place and station that the Son attains to by this establishment is entirely distinct from that which He stands in by the Oeconomy of the Trinity; insomuch that by the covenant of redemption the Son of God is for a season advanced into the ©economical seat of another Person, viz., of the Father; in being by this covenant established as the Lord and Judge of the world, in the Father's stead and as His vicegerent, and as ruling in the Father's throne, the throne that belongs to Him in His oeconomical station. For by the Oeconomy of the Trinity it is the Father's province to act as the lawgiver and judge and disposer of the world.

(5.) Another argument of the same thing is this, that the Scriptures do represent that the promises made to the Son in that covenant are made by the Father only, and that the honour and reward, that He has by that covenant, are granted only by the Father. Whereas, if the 'Oeconomy empowring the Father thus to act as the Son's Head, in making promises to Him and making over re-

wards to Him, were not prior to the covenant in which these promises are made and these things made over, the Father could have no power to make such promises, and grant such things to the Son: nor would it be done by the Father any more than by the Holy Spirit; for it would be done equally by all the Persons of the Trinity acting conjunctly.

Concerning the Covenant of Redemption. 1 In order rightly to understand it and duly to distinguish it from the establishment of the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, the following things may be noted:

1. It is the Father that begins that great transaction of the eternal covenant of redemption, is the first mover in it, and acts in every respect as Head in that affair. He determines to allow a redemption, and for whom it shall be. He pitches upon a Person for a Redeemer. He proposes the matter unto Him, offers Him authority for the office, proposes precisely what He should do, as the terms of man's redemption, and all the work that He 1 See Appendix, Note C.

should perform in this affair, and the reward He should receive, and the success He should have. And herein the Father acts in the capacity in which He is already established; viz., that of Head of the Trinity and all their concerns, and the fountain of all things that appertain to the deity, and its glorification and communication.

2. Though the Father, meerly by virtue of His oeconomical prerogative as Head of the Trinity, is the first mover and beginner in the affair of our redemption, and determines that a redemption shall be admitted, and for whom, and proposes the matter first to His Son, and offers Him authority for the office; yet it is not meerly by virtue of His oeconomical prerogative, that He orders, determines and prescribes all that He does order and prescribe relating to it. But He does many things that He does in the work of redemption in the exercise of a new right, that He acquires by a new establishment, a free covenant entered into between Him and His Son, in entering into which covenant

the Son, (though He acts on the proposal of the Father), yet acts as one wholly in His own right, as much as the Father, being not under subjection or prescription in His consenting to what is proposed to Him, but acting as of Himself. Otherwise there would have been no need of the Father and Son's entering into covenant one with another, in order to the Son's coming into subjection and obligation to the Father, with respect to any thing appertaining to this affair. The whole tenour of the Gospel holds this forth, that the Son acts altogether freely and as [of] His own right, in undertaking the great . and difficult and self-abasing work of our redemption, and that He becomes obliged to the Father with respect to it by voluntary covenant engagements, and not by any establishment prior thereto. So that He merits infinitely of the Father in entering into and fulfilling these engagements. The Father meerly by His oeconomical prerogative can direct and prescribe to the other Persons of the Trinity in all things not below their oeconomical characters. But all those

things that imply something below the infinite majesty and glory of divine Persons, and which they cannot do, without, as it were, laying aside the divine glory, and stooping infinitely below the height of that glory; these things are below their oeconomical divine character; and therefore the Father cannot prescribe to the other Persons any thing of this nature, without a new establishment by free covenant impowring Him so to do. But what is agreed for with the Son concerning His coming into the world in such a state of humiliation, and what He should do and suffer in that state, is His descending to a state infinitely below His divine dignity, and therefore the Father has no right to prescribe to Him with regard to those things, unless as invested with a right by free covenant engagements of His Son.

3. From what has been said it appears, that besides that oeconomical subordination of the Persons of the Trinity that arises from the manner and order of their subsisting, there is a new kind of subordination and

mutual obligation between two of the Persons, arising from this new establishment, the covenant of redemption, the Son undertaking and engaging to put Himself into a new kind of subjection to the Father, far below that of His oeconomical station, even the subjection of a proper servant to the Father, and one under His law, in the manner that creatures that are infinitely below God and absolutely dependant for their being on the meer will of God, are subject to His preceptive will and absolute legislative authority; engaging to become a creature, and so to put Himself in the proper circumstances of a servant: from which engagements of the Son the Father acquires a new right of Headship and authority over the Son, to command Him and prescribe to Him and rule over Him, as His proper Lawgiver and Judge; and the Father, also, comes under new obligation to the Son, to give Him such success, rewards, &c.

4. It must be observed, that this subordination that two of the Persons of the Trinity

come into, by the covenant of redemption, is not contrary to their oeconomical order; but in several respects agreeable to it, though it be new in kind. Thus, if either the Father or the Son be brought into the subjection of a servant to the other, it is much more agreeable to the Oeconomy of the Trinity, that it should be the latter, who by that Oeconomy is already under the Father as His Head. That the Father should be servant to the Son would be contrary to the oeconomy and natural order of the Persons of the Trinity.

5. It appears from what has been said, that no other subjection or obedience of the Son , to the Father arises properly from the covenant of redemption, but only that which implies humiliation, or a state and relation to the Father wherein He descends below the infinite glory of a divine Person: all that origination in acting from the Father, and dependance on and compliance with His will, that implies no descent below His divine glory, being no more than what properly flows from the oeconomical order of the Per-

sons of the Trinity. No other subjection or obedience is new in kind, but only that which implies humiliation; and if there were any such thing as a way of redemption without the humiliation of any divine Person, the Persons would act in man's redemption in their proper subordination, without any covenant of redemption or any new establishment, as they do in the affair of rewarding the elect angels. It is true that if there were no humiliation of any divine Person required, in order to man's redemption, the determination that there should be a redemption would be a determination not implied in the establishment of the Oeconomy of the Trinity, as indeed the determination of no particular work is implied in, that establishment. The establishment of the Oeconomy is a determination that in whatever work is done, the Persons shall act in such a subordination: but the determining what works shall be done is not implied in that establishment. God's determining to make a certain number of the angels happy to all eternity was not implied; but yet that being determined of the Father,

the Son and the Spirit act in subordination to the Father in that affair of course, without any particular covenant or new establishment to settle the order of their acting in that particular affair. Meerly the work to be performed being superadded to the agreed general Oeconomy, the order of their acting in that particular affair does [not] require any new agreement.

6. The obedience which the Son of God performs to the Father even in the affair of man's redemption, or as Redeemer or Mediator, before His humiliation, and also that obedience He performs as God-man after His humiliation, when as God-man He is exalted to the Glory He had before, 1 is no more than flows from His oeconomical office or character, although it be occasioned by the determination or decree of the work of redemption, which is something new, yea, is occasioned by the covenant of redemption. Yet that decree and covenant being supposed, such an obedience as He performs in 1 See Appendix, Note D.

His divine glory follows of course from His oeconomical character and station. Nor is it any other kind of obedience than what that character requires. There is no humiliation in it, and no part of it implies that new sort of subjection, that is engaged in the covenant of redemption.

7. Hence it comes to pass, that that obedience, that Christ performs to the Father even as Mediator, and in the work of our redemption, before His humiliation, 'and now, in His exalted state in Heaven, is no part of that obedience that merits for sinners. For it is only that obedience which the Son voluntarily and freely subjected Himself to from love to sinners, and engaged to perform for them in the covenant of redemption, and that otherwise would not have belonged to Him, that merits for sinners. And that is only that obedience that implies an humiliation below His proper divine glory. Therefore it is only that obedience that He performs as made under the law, and in the form of a servant, that merits for us. The obedience

He performs in the affair of our redemption in His state of exaltation does not merit for sinners, and is no more imputed to them than the obedience of the Holy Spirit.

8. As there is a kind of subjection, that the Son came into by the covenant of redemption, that does not belong to Him in Hisoeconomical character; which subjection He promises to the Father in that covenant: so also there is a kind of rule and authority which He receives by the covenant of redemption, which the Father promises Him, that does not belong to Him in His oeconomical character; viz. that of Head of authority and rule to the universe, as Lord and Judge of all. This does not belong to the Son but the Father by the Oeconomy of the Trinity. It is the Father that is ©economically the King of Heaven and earth, Lawgiver and Judge of all. Therefore when the Son is made so, He is by the Father advanced into His throne, by having the Father's authority committed unto Him, to rule in His name and as His vicegerent.'

This the Father promised Him in the covenant of redemption as a reward for the fore-mentioned subjection and obedience that He engaged in that covenant. And to put Him under greater advantages to obtain the success of His labours and sufferings in the work of redemption, this vicarious dominion of the Son is to continue to the end of the world; when the work of redemption will be finished, and the ends of the covenant of redemption obtained; when things will return to be administered by the Trinity only, according to their oeconomical order.

9. Not only does the Son, by virtue of the covenant of redemption, receive a new dignity of station which does not belong to Him meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, in the dominion he receives of the Father over the universe; but also in His having the dispensation and disposal of the Holy Spirit committed to Him. For when God exalted Jesus Christ, God-man, and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, and solemnly invested Him with the rule over the

angels and over the whole universe; at the same time did He also give Him the great and main thing that He purchased, even the Holy Spirit, that He might have the disposal and dispensation of that, to thp same purposes for which He had the government of the universe committed to Him, viz., to promote the grand designs of His redemption. (This is very evident by the Scripture). And this was a much greater thing, than God's giving Him the angels and the whole creation. For whereby the Father did, as it were, commit to Him His own divine infinite treasure, to dispense of it as He pleased to the-redeemed, He made Him Lord of His House, and Lord of His treasures. This new authority that the Son receives with regard to the Spirit of God, at His enthronization at the Father's right hand, will be resigned at the end of the world, in like manner as He will then resign the new dominion that He then is invested with over the universe.

10. But it is to be observed, that there is a two-fold subjecting of the Holy Spirit to the

Son, as our Redeemer, in some respect new and diverse from what is meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity.

First. The Spirit is put under the Son, or given to Him and committed to His disposal and dispensation, as the Father's vicegerent and as ruling on His Father's throne ; as the angels and the whole universe were given to Him to dispose of as the Father's vicegerent So that the Holy Spirit, 'till the work of redemption shall be finished, will continue to act under the Son, in some respects, with that subjection that is oeconomically due to the Father. For the Son will have the disposal of the Spirit in the name of the Father, or as ruling with His authority. This authority that the Son has over the Spirit, will be resigned at the end of the world, when He shall resign His vicarious dominion and authority, that God may be all in all, and that things thenceforward may be dispensed only according to the order of the Oeconomy of the Trinity.

Secondly. There is another subjecting of the Spirit to the Son, that is in some respect

diverse from what is meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, and that is, a giving Him to Him not as the Father's vicegerent, but only as God-man and Husband, and vital Head of the Church. All that is new in this subjection is this, that, whereas by the Oeconomy of the Trinity the Spirit acts under the Son as God or a divine Person, He now acts in like manner under the same Person in two natures united, or as God-man, and in His two natures the Husband and vital Head of the Church, This subjection of the Spirit to Christ will continue to eternity, and never will be resigned up. For Christ, God-man, will continue to all eternity to be the vital Head and Husband of the Church, and the vital good, that this vital Head will eternally communicate to His church, will be the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was the inheritance that Christ, as God-man, purchased for Himself and His church, or for Christ mystical; and it was the inheritance that He, as God-man, received of the Father, at His ascension, for Himself and them. But the inheritance He purchased and received, is an eternal inher-

4

itance. It is, in this regard, with the authority with which Christ was invested at His ascension, with respect to the Spirit, as it is with the authority which He then received over the world. He then was invested with a two-fold dominion over the world, one, vicarious, or as the Father's vicegerent, which shall be resigned at the end of the world: the other, as Christ, God-man and Head and Husband of the Church, and in this latter respect He will never resign His dominion, but will reign forever and ever, as is said of the saints in the new-Jerusalem, after the end of the world, Rev. xxii. 5. 1

11. Though the subjection of the Holy Spirit to the Son has, in these respects that have been mentioned, something in it that is new and diverse from that subjection that flows meerly from the oeconomical order of the Persons; yet it is only circumstancially new; it is not new in that sense, as to be properly a new kind of subjection, as the Son's subjection to the Father as made under the law is. 1 See Appendix, Note E.

There is no humiliation or abasement in this new subjection of the Spirit to the Son. The Spirit's subjection to the Son as God-man, (though the human nature in its union with the divine be a sharer with the divine in this honour and authority), implies no abasement of the Spirit; i. e., is no lower sort of subjection, than that which the Holy Spirit is in to the Son by the Oeconomy of the Trinity. When once the eternal Son of God was become man, and this Person was not only God, but God-man, this Person considered as God-man was a no less honourable Person than [He] 1 was before: and especially was it visibly and conspicuously so, when this complex Person was exalted by the Father to His throne, for God the Father glorified Him as God-man, with the glory that He had before the world was. And therefore, divine respect was as properly due to Him as before; and the respect, that was before due to the second Person by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, is now given to Him by all, without any abasement of those that give it. It is given by

1 For " it," as written by the copyist.

angels and men without any debasing or degrading of their worship. And the same subjection is yielded by the Holy Spirit that it before yielded according to the Oeconomy of the Persons, without stooping at all below the station the Spirit stood in with respect to the Son before. And when once it has pleased the Father to set the Son on His throne, as His vicegerent, the subjection of the Spirit to the Son, as to the Father, follows of course, without any stooping below the dignity of His oeconomical character. The Holy Spirit is not thus subject to the Son by any abasement He submits to, by any special covenant; but by the gift of the Father, exercising His prerogative as Head of the Trinity, as He is by His oeconomical character.

12. From what has been now observed, we may learn the reason why the obedience of the Holy Spirit to the Son, though it be in some respect new, and for our sakes, yet is not meritorious for us; viz., that it implies no humiliation, is properly no new kind of subjection or obedience besides what, under such

circumstances, flows from the oeconomical order of the Persons of the Trinity. As I observed before, it is only that obedience of the Son of God that merits for sinners, that is properly new in kind, and implies humiliation. Hence the Scripture mentions no reward that the Holy Spirit receives of His obedience for us or Himself.

13. The things that have been observed, naturally lead us to suppose, that the covenant of redemption is only between two of the Persons of the Trinity; viz., the Father and the Son. For, as has been observed, there is need of a new establishment, or particular covenant, only on account of the new kind of subjection of the Son, and the humiliation He is the subject of in His office of Mediator, wherein He stoops below His proper oeconomical. character. Otherwise, there would be no more need of a new establishment, by a special covenant in this affair, than concerning God's dealing with the elect angels, or any other work of God whatsoever. But it is the Son only that is made the sub-

ject of this humiliation: which humiliation was in His new subjection and obedience to the Father. Therefore the covenant of redemption is only between the Father and the Son. Neither is there any intimation in Scripture of any such thing as any covenant, either of the Father, or the Son, with the Holy Ghost. He is never represented as a party in this covenant, but the Father and the Son only. The covenant of redemption, which is the new covenant, the covenant with the second Adam, that which takes effect in the second place, (though entered into first in order of time), after the covenant with the first Adam was broken, was made only between God the Lawgiver, and man's Surety and Representative; as the first covenant, that was made with the first Adam, was. The covenant of redemption was the covenant in which God the Father made over an eternal reward to Christ mystical, and therefore was made only with Christ the Head of that body. No proper reward was promised or made over in that covenant to the Holy Ghost, although the end of it was the honour and glory of all the Persons of the Trinity.

14. It is true, that the Holy Spirit is infinitely concerned in the affair of our redemption, as well as the Father and the Son, and equally with them; and therefore we may well suppose, that the affair was, as it were, concerted among all the Persons, and determined by the perfect consent of all. And that there was a consultation among the three Persons about it, as much doubtless as about the creating of man, (for the work of redemption is a work wherein the distinct concern of each Person is infinitely greater, than in the work of creation), and so, that there was a joint agreement of all; but not properly a covenant between them all. There is no necessity of supposing, that each one acts, in this consent and agreement, as a

w

party covenanting; or that the agreement of each one is of the nature of a covenant, stipulation and engagement.

15. It is not only true, that the Holy Ghost is concerned in the work of redemption equally with the other Persons; but that He is also concerned in the covenant of redemp*

tion, as well as they. And His concern in this covenant is as great as theirs, and equally honourable with theirs, and yet His concern in the covenant is not that of a party covenanting. 1

Corol. From the things that have been observed, it appears to be unreasonable to suppose, as some do, that the Sonship of the second Person in the Trinity consists only in the relation He bears to the Father in His mediatorial character; and that His generation or proceeding from the Father as a Son, consists only in His being appointed, constituted and authorized of the Father to the office of a mediator; and that there is no other priority of the Father to the Son but that which is voluntarily established in the covenant of redemption. For it appears by what has been said, that the priority of the Father to the. Son is, in the order of nature, before the covenant of redemption. And it appears evidently to be so, even by the scheme of those now mentioned, who sup-1 See Appendix, Note F.

pose the contrary. For they suppose that it is the Father who by His power constitutes the Son in His office of Mediator, and so that the Mediator is His Son, L e. y is made a mediator by Him, deriving His being in that office wholly from Him. But if so, that supposes the Father, in the Oeconomy of the Trinity, to be before the Son or above Him (and so to vest with authority and thus to constitute and authorize the other Person in the Trinity) before that other Person is thus authorized, which is by the covenant of redemption, and consequently that this superiority of the Father is antecedent to that covenant. And the whole tenour of the gospel exhibits the same thing. For that represents the wondrous love and grace of God as appearing in appointing and constituting His own only begotten and beloved Son, to be our Mediator; which would be absurd, if He were not God's Son, till after He was appointed to be our Mediator. 1

1 See Appendix, Note G.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

Note A, page 10.

After the statements of the Introduction respecting the genuineness of the manuscript were prepared, a paper was found which is not only decisive of this question, but confirmatory also of the supposition that the copy was made with reference to the first publication of the Miscellanies. This document is in the handwriting of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and contains, besides numerical references to President Edwards's Miscellaneous Observations, an arrangement of them by topics substantially the same with that followed in the two Edinburgh editions. The numbers 1062 and 1174 are included in this scheme in their proper order. The paper gives also a key to other numbers on the manuscript before unintelligible, and explains how the arrangement was changed in consequence of the decision to omit 1062.

The document is interesting, also, as showing how Dr. Edwards edited his father's Miscellanies.

It appears, for instance, that Part L of the Miscellaneous Observations y Edinburgh, 1793, containing " Observations on the Facts and Evidences of Christianity," in 112 sections, is made up from as many separate Observations, whose notation ranges from a a, and 6, to 1342. The order of the divisions is from the editor. The seventh section, for instance, corresponds to number 142; the sixth to 155. The seventieth is identical with number 1206 ; the preceding with 1192. The eighty-second reproduces number 6, &c. Part II., " Concerning the Mysteries of Scripture," is not fully made out, but thirteen of its sections are taken from numbers running as low as 190, and as high as 1234. Part III. is entitled: "Observations concerning the Divinity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity." The latter portion of the heading seems to have been inserted when it was expected to print 1062 as well as 1174. The document also has checks apparently designating the numbers published, or so intended. Such a mark seems to have been set against 1062, though this is not absolutely certain. The order of arrangement in the second volume of Miscellanies is an improvement on that of this scheme, — an indication of its early origin.

Note B, page 24. This explicit rejection of a dependence of the Son on the will of the Father is specially noticeable, Since it absolutely excludes that sort of sub-ordinationism which was a germ of Arianism. The subordination which Edwards admits is common to him and to historical Trinitarianism. Professor Fisher has recently remarked: x "Let me say that the Nicene definitions, in giving a certain precedence to the Father, while affirming the true divinity of the Son, accord with the teaching of the New Testament, and while they do not pretend to clear up the inscrutable mystery, are better adapted to remove practical difficulties than many later and less authoritative expositions of the subject." So Dr. Worcester, in one of the ablest essays produced by the Unitarian Controversy in this country: 2 " In the Holy Trinity, . . . though there is an essential equality, yet there is order, and there is subordination. The Father is first, the Son is second, the Holy Spirit is third, in order; and in relation especially to the great work of redemption, as the Scriptures most plainly represent, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit both to the Father and the Son." Cf. Calvin, Institutes

1 Faith and Rationalism, pp. 55-56.

2 A Third Letter to the Rev. William E> Ckanning^ Boston, 1815, p. 24.

I. xiii. 20. Dr. Dorner, more carefully than most writers on this subject, has eliminated from his exposition of the doctrine elements of subordina-tionism which might be construed as either adverse to the deity of Christ, or friendly to tritheistic conceptions. See his " History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ" and his " Glaubenslehre," of which a translation is preparing.

Note C, page 36.

President Edwards left a number of "Observations " on the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace, which were copied in connection with Dr. S. E. Dwight's edition, but were not published. 1 I make a few quotations which may be helpful to a right understanding of the Essay, though they relate only indirectly to its special theme.

In the first of these papers,—one of the earliest in the series, — their author remarks : —

"Many difficulties used to arise in my mind about our being saved upon the account of Faith, as being the condition upon 1 which God has promised salvation; as being that particular grace and virtue for which men are saved. According to which there is no difference between the condition

1 The extracts in the following Notes are also from similar copies.

of the first covenant and the second, but this: before the fall, man was to be save^d upon the account of all the virtues ; and since, upon the account only of one virtue and grace, even this of faith; for where is the difference ? . . .

" But it seems to me that all this confusion arises from the wrong distinction men make between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. It seems to me to be true, that as this first covenant was rhade with the first Adam, so the second covenant was made with the second Adam. As the first covenant was made with the seed of the first Adam no otherwise than as it was with them in him, so the second covenant is not made with the seed of the second Adam any otherwise than as it was made with them in Him. ... As the condition of the first covenant was Adam's standing, so the condition of the second covenant is Christ's standing. Christ has performed the condition of the new covenant. . . . We can do nothing but only receive Christ and what He has done already. Salvation is not offered to us upon any condition, but freely and for nothing. We are to do nothing for it; we are only to take it. This taking zxA ^ receiv ing is fait h. It is not said, If you will do so, you may have salvation ; you may have the water of life; but,.Come and take it; whosoever will, let him come. It is very improper to say that a cove-

5

nant is made with men, any otherwise than in Christ; for there is a vast difference between a free offer and a covenant. The covenant was made with Christ, and in Him with His mystical body; and the condition of the covenant is Christ's perfect obedience and sufferings. And that, that is made to men, is a free offer.- Tha t, which is com-monly called th e covenant of gra ce, is only Christ's open and free offer of 7y^wEereby He holds it out m HisTTand to sinners, and offers it without any condition. Faith jannot be, called the condition of receiving, for-itis. thcj gceivinfr itself : Christ holds out, and believers receive. There was no covenant made or agreement, upon something that must be done before they might receive. It is true, those that do not believe are not saved, and all that do believe are saved ; that is, all that do receive Christ and salvation, they receive it, and all that will not receive salvation never do receive it, and never have it. But faith, or the reception of it, is not the condition of receiving it. It is not proper when a man holds out his gift to a beggar, that he may take it without any manner of preliminary conditions, to say that he makes a covenant with the beggar. No more proper is it to say, that Christ's holding forth life in His hand to us, that we may receive it, is making a covenant with us. But, I must confess, after all, that if men will call this free

offer and exhibition a covenant, they may; and if they will call the receiving of life the condition of the receiving of life, they are at liberty so to do; but I believe it is much the more hard for them to think right, for speaking so wrong.

" This making faith a condition of life fills the mind with innumerable difficulties about faith and works, and how to distinguish them. It tends to make us apt to depend on our own righteousness. It tends to lead men into Neonomianism, and gives the principal force to their arguments; whereas, if we would leave off distinguishing the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, we should have all those matters plain and unperplexed."

Much later, in another essay, he treats of the two covenants of Grace and Redemption^ as follows, — not so much changing his ground, as finding room for the former by precise definition:—

" It seems to me, there arises considerable confusion from not rightly distinguishing between the covenant that God made with Christ and with His church or believers, in Him, and the covenant between Christ and His church, or between Christ and men. There is doubtless a difference between the covenant that God makes with Christ and His people, considered as one, and the covenant of Christ and His people between themselves. The covenant that a father makes with his son and his

son's wife, considered as one, must be looked upon as different from the marriage covenant, or the covenant which the son and the wife make between themselves. The father is concerned in this covenant only as a parent in a child's marriage, directing, consenting, and ratifying. These covenants are often confounded, and the promises of each are called the promises of the covenant of grace, without due distinction. Which has perhaps been the occasion of many difficulties, and considerable confusion in discourses and controversies about the covenant of grace. . . .

"These covenants differ in their conditions. The condition of the covenant that God has made with Jesus Christ, as a public person, is all that Christ has done and suffered to procure redemption. The condition of Christ's covenant with His people, or of the marriage covenant between Him and men, is that they should close with Him and adhere to Him. They also differ in their promises. The sum of what is promised by the Father, in the former of these covenants, is Christ's reward for what He has done in the work of redemption, and success therein. And the sum of what is promised in Christ's marriage covenant with His people, is the enjoyment of Himself, and communion with Him in the benefits He Himself has obtained of the Father by what He has done and

suffered; as in marriage the persons covenanting give themselves and all that they have to each other."

Again, in a subsequent paper: —

" There are two covenants that are made, that are by ho means to be confounded one with another:

1. The covenant of God the Father with the Son, and with all the elect in Him, whereby things are said to be given in Christ before the world began, and to be promised before the world began. . . .

2. There is another covenant, that is the marriage covenant between Christ and the soul; the covenant of union, or whereby the soul becomes united to Christ. This covenant before marriage is only an offer or invitation: ' Behold, I stand at the door and knock/ etc. In marriage, or in the soul's conversion, it becomes a proper covenant. This is what is called the covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant of redemption?

Later still he elaborates and confirms the same distinctions, and adds: —

"The due consideration of these things may perhaps reconcile the difference between those divines that think the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace the same, and those that think them different. The covenant that God the Father makes with believers is indeed the very same with the covenant of redemption made with Christ be-

fore the foundation of the world, or at least is entirely included in it. And this covenant has a Mediator, or is ordained in the hand of a Mediator. But the covenant, by which Christ Himself and believers are united one with another, is properly a different covenant from that; and is not made by a Mediator. There is a Mediator between sinners and the,Father, to bring about a covenant union between them; but there is no Mediator between Christ and sinners, to bring about a marriage union between Christ and their souls.

"These things may also tend to reconcile the difference between those divines that think the covenant of grace is not conditional as to us, or that the promises of it are without any proper conditions to be performed by us ; and those that think that faith is the proper condition of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace, if hereby we understand the covenant between God the Father and believers in Christ, ... is indeed without any proper conditions to be ^performed by us. Faith is not properly the condition of this covenant, but the righteousness of Christ. . . . But the covenant of grace, if thereby we understand the covenant between Christ Himself and His church as His members, is conditional as to us. The proper condition of it, which is a yielding to Christ's invitations, and accepting His offers, and closing with

Him as a Redeemer and spiritual husband, is to be performed by us." l

Note D, page 43.

Complaint is sometimes made of the severe language which Edwards applies to human nature.

But it should be remembered that when he thus reproaches and condemns, it is of that nature as sinful, corrupt, and guilty that he is speaking. His own investigations have led to more biblical conceptions of personal responsibility than he himself inherited, and so it is easy now to criticise some of his statements by his own aid,—a proof of his greatness; yet it is but simple justice to keep in mind always that the underlying principle of his strong and intense language is that abhorrence of sin, and sense of its ill desert and infinite peril, which must be entertained by a holy mind. A complete representation of his opinions respecting human nature must take into account his estimate of that nature as unfallen, as united to God in the Incarnation, as redeemed and purified. When this line of examination is pursued, it will be found that Edwards's conceptions of the dignity of our humanity are pre-eminently noble and inspiring.

It would be foreign to the immediate purpose of

1 Cf. the discussion of this subject by Rev. Dr. Samuel Hopkins, Works, i. p. 48^ sqq.

this note to follow out these suggestions. But incidentally a strong light will be shed on his conceptions of human nature in its true or divine idea, and apart from the perversion and deformity of sin, by the following extracts, whose main design is to present more fully some of the thoughts of the Essay respecting the Person of Christ.

In the Essay, the Incarnation appears as the fruit of the Covenant of Redemption, and of a " great design " to glorify the deity and communicate its fulness. In the following extract, it is traced to the love of the Second Person in the Trinity for man.

" Such was the love of the Son of God to the human nature, that He desired a most near and close union with it, — something like the union in the Persons of the Trinity; nearer than there can be between any two distinct creatures. This moved Him to make the human become one with Him, and Himself to be one of mankind that should represent all the rest; for Christ calls us brethren, and is one of us. How should we be encouraged when we have such a Mediator! It is one of us that is to plead for us ; one that God from love to us has received into His own person from among us. And it is so congruous that it should be so, and is also so agreeable to the Scripture, that it much confirms in me the truth of the Christian religion."

And again: " Christ took the nature of a creature, not only because the creature's great love to Him desired familiar communion with Him, — more familiar than His infinite distance would allow, — but also because His great love to us caused Him to desire familiar communion" with us. So He came down to us, and united Himself to our nature."

The personal union of the human nature to the divine in Christ, Edwards represents as brought about by the same Spirit who is given to believers.

" As the union of believers with Christ is by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in them, so it may be worthy to be considered, whether or no the union of the divine with the human nature of Christ is not by the Spirit of the Logos dwelling in Him after a peculiar manner and without measure. Perhaps there is no other way of God's dwelling in a creature but by His Spirit. The Spirit of Christ dwelling in man causes an union so that in many respects they are looked upon as one. Perhaps the Spirit of the Logos may dwell in a creature after such a manner that the creature may become one person, and may be looked upon as such, and 2S> cepted as such. There is a likeness between the union of the Logos with the man Christ Jesus and the union of Christ with the church, though there be in the former great peculiarities. . . .

" The man Christ is united to the Logos these two ways : —

" I. By the respect which God hath to this human nature. God hath respect to this man, and loveth Him as His own Son. This man hath communion with the Logos in the love which the Father hath to Him as His only begotten Son. Now the love of God is the Holy Ghost, and

" 2. By what is inherent in this man, whereby He becomes one person with the Logos; which is only by the communion of understanding, and communion of will, inclination, spirit, or temper. It is not any communion of understanding and will that makes the same person; but the communion of understanding is such that there is the same consciousness,"

Of the knowledge and powers of the man Christ Jesus he remarks, in other papers : —

" The man Christ Jesus, being the same Person with the eternal Son of God, has a reminiscence or consciousness of what appertained to the eternal Logos, and so of His happiness with the Father. Therefore we often find Christ speaking as being very well acquainted with the Father before He came into the world, and speaking of transactions betwixt Him and the Father before He came; as if there were an agreement about the work of Redemption, and what He should teach, what He

should do, and who should be His. Thus Christ frequently tells us that what He doth He does not do of Himself, but as He was ordered of the Father, and that He did not teach of Himself, but that He had received of His Father what He should teach, before He came down from heaven, &c. So He speaks of His coming down from heaven, as if He remembered how He was once there, and how He came down. Now, when He remembered these things, He could not remember them as they were in the infinite mind; for the idea of the Creator cannot be communicated to the creature, as it is in God. But the remembrance as it was in His mind was the same after a different manner. The things which He remembered were from all eternity in the Logos after the manner of God, and the man Christ Jesus was conscious to Himself of them as if they had been after the manner of a creature. Those transactions which Christ speaks of in the Covenant of Redemption were no other than the eternal and immutable gracious design, both of the Father and Son, of what was to be done by the Son, and what was to be the fruit of it. It was impossible that the man Christ Jesus should remember this as it was in the Deity; for then an idea of the eternal mind could be communicated to a finite mind, even as it is-in the infinite mind. But He remembered it as if it had been really such

a transaction, before the world was, between Him and the Father. Not that He was deceived, for He knew how it was; but, as the consciousness of it was communicated to Him, it must of necessity seem thus. . . . That in the general it was thus is no bold conjecture, but so it must of necessity be. Though the particular manner of this consciousness, and how far the ideas of a creature can be after the manner of the divine [mind], and how a creature may be said to remember what is in God, is uncertain."

And again : " It is probable that the faculties of the man Christ Jesus, now in His glorified state, are so enlarged that He can, with a full view and clear apprehension of mind, at the same time think on all the saints in the world, and be in the exercise of an actual and even of a passionate love (such as we experience) to all of them in particular. It is certain that human souls can have two ideas and more at the same moment in the mind ; otherwise how could the mind compare ideas and judge between them. It will not suffice that they are very speedily, one after another, in the mind for comparing ; for let the second idea be in the mind never so quick after the first, yet the mind cannot at that moment compare the second idea with the first, if the first be entirely gone out of the mind ; for how can the mind compare an idea that is in

the mind with another at the same time that is not in the mind. And I do not see why a mind cannot be of such powers as to be exercised about millions of millions of ideas with as great intense-ness and clearness of apprehension as we admit two only. No doubt but the man Christ Jesus loves believers; not only the church in general, without particularly viewing one person, but that He loves believers in particular. No doubt but that the man Christ Jesus loves the church in general, because it is made up of those particular persons that He loves. He loves the church because of the lovelinesses that He sees in the church; but He sees lovelinesses nowhere else but in particular persons. Nor can we suppose that the man Jesus only loves the persons that are most eminent, with a particular love, but that every true saint may have the comfort of this consideration. And, seeing that He loves them, no doubt but that He, with a proper desire, desires communion with them ; and even the man Christ, being the same person with the divine, has communion with them, by the communion of this person, as much as if His human soul were present, and suggested and answered by suggestions those sweet meditations. And there is the same delight in the man Christ as if He were bodily present with them, talking and conversing with them. And this seems to be one

glorious end of the union of the human to the divine nature, to bring God near to us ; that even our God, the infinite being, might be made as one of us ; that His visible Majesty might not make us afraid ; that Jehovah, who is infinitely distant from us, might become familiar to us. This capacity of the man Jesus is so large, by reason of the personal union with the divine nature, that by this means He knew the thoughts of men while on earth, and knew things acted at a distance. No doubt but if the man Christ Jesus were, with His glorified power, now on earth, and should meet here and there with holy men, He would be perfectly acquainted with them at first sight. What kind of powers are they, besides His own immutable attributes, that God cannot create a finite being with ? And what kind of powers may we justly conclude His are, who is the first-born of every creature, and is personally united to the Deity ? This seems to have been the universally received belief of the primitive church, which nobody ever thought of denying."

Christ as God and man in one Person is qualified to unite man to God.

" Christ as God-man is a fit person for a Mediator between God and man, not only as He is a Middle Person between the Father and the Holy Ghost* but also as He is a Middle Person between God and

men themselves; He is really allied to both. He is the Son of God and the Son of man, He is both God and man, He is God's son and our brother; and as He has the nature of both, so He has the circumstances of both, — the glory, majesty and happiness of the one, and the infirmity, meanness, disgrace, guilt and misery of the other. As it was requisite in order to His being Mediator between God and man, that He should be the subject of our calamity, that He might know, on the one hand, how to pity us who suffer, or are exposed to those calamities; so, on the other hand, it was requisite that He should be possessed of the glory and majesty of God, that He might know how to value that glory and majesty, and to be careful and tender of them, and effectually engaged to see to it that they are well secured and gloriously magnified. ...

" Christ brings God and man to each other, and actually unites them together. This He does by various steps and degrees, which terminate in the highest step, in that consummation of actual union which He will accomplish at the end of the world.

"First, He came into the world, and brought God or Divinity down with Him to us ; and then He ascended to God, and carried up humanity, or man, with Him to God; and from heaven He sent down the Holy Spirit, whereby He gives God to

man ; and hereby He draws them to give up themselves to God. He brings God to dwell with their souls on earth, at their conversion; and He brings their souls to dwell with God in heaven, at their death.

" The time will come when He will come down again from heaven in person, and will bring God with Him to man, a second time; and He will then ascend, a second time, to carry up man with Him to God. At the first descent, He brought divinity down to us, under a veil; at His second coming, He will bring divinity down with Him, without a veil, appearing in its glory. At His first ascension, after His own resurrection, He carried up our nature with Him to God. At His second ascension, after the general resurrection, He will carry up our persons with Him. At death, He brings the souls of the saints to God in heaven; whereby a part of the church is gloriously united to God. At the end of the world, He will bring in both body and soul to heaven, and will bring all the church together to their highest and consummate union with God; and this will be the last step He will take, in the office of a Mediator, to unite God and man. Having presented all His church together, in body and soul, to the Father, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, perfectly delivered, perfectly restored, and perfectly

glorious; saying, ' Here am I, and the children which Thou* hast given me ;' and having finished the work which the Father gave Him to do, then cometh the end, when He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father."

In the next Note passages will be cited showing how Edwards carries the idea of Christ's mediation beyond the period here considered. The following extract treats of its extension as respects the beings whom it influences: —

" Christ, God-man, is not only Mediator between God and sinful men, but He acts as a Middle Person between all other persons, and all intelligent beings, that all things may be gathered together in one in Him, agreeably to Eph. i. 10. He is the Middle Person between the other two divine persons, and acts as such in the affair of our redemption. . . . Though He is not properly a Mediator between God and angels, yet He acts in many respects as a Middle Person between them; so that all that eternal life, glory and blessedness that they are possessed of is by His mediety. And He is a kind of Mediator between one man and another to make peace between them. . . . He reconciles one man to another by His blood by taking away all just cause one can have to hate another for what is indeed hateful in them, and for which they deserve to be hated of both God and man, by suffer-

ing for it fully as much as it deserves ; so that what the hatred of both God and man desires is here fully accomplished in a punishment fully proportional to the hatefulness of the crime. Were it not that the sins of men are already fully' punished in the sufferings of Christ, all, both angels and men, might justly hate all sinners for their sins. For, appearing as they are in themselves, they are indeed infinitely hateful, and could appear no otherwise to any than as they are in themselves, had not another been substituted for them; and therefore they must necessarily appear hateful to all that saw things as they are- It is impossible for any to hate a crime as a crime or fault, without desiring that it should be punished, for he that hates sin is thereby an enemy to it, and therefore necessarily is inimical, or inclined to act against it, that it may suffer, or to see it suffer. And if we impute men's sins to them, i. e. if we look on the hatefulness of their sins as their hatefulness, we necessarily hate them, and are inclined that the sufferings that we desire for their sins should be their sufferings. But now Christ has suffered for the sins of the world, we ought to hate no man, because Christ has suffered and satisfied for his sins, and therefore we should endeavor to bring him to Christ. A right consideration of Christ's sufferings for the sins of others is enough to satisfy all just indignation

against them for their sins. So that Christ, by His sufferings, has in a sense made propitiation for men's sins, not only with God but with their fellow-creatures ; and so, by His obedience, He recommends them not only to the favor of God, but of one another; for Christ's righteousness is exceeding amiable to all men and angels that see it aright, and Christ Himself is amiable to them on that account; and it renders all, that they look upon to be in Him, amiable in their eyes, to consider them as members of so amiable a head, as we naturally love the children of those that we have a vejy dear love to. Christ, by His death, has also laid a foundation for peace and love among enemies, in that therein He has done two things: —

" 1. In setting the most marvellous, affecting example of love to enemies; an example in an instance wherein we are most nearly concerned, for we ourselves are those enemie # s that He has manifested such love to; and,

" 2. He has done the greatest thing to engage us to love Him, and so to follow His example; for the examples of such as we have a strong love to have a most powerful influence upon us. . . .

"Christ was Mediator between the Jews and Gentiles to reconcile them together, breaking down the middle wall of partition. He also unites men and angels. He unites angels to men by the fol- •

lowing things: by taking away their guilt by His blood ; by suffering for that which otherwise would necessarily have rendered them hateful to the angels ; by taking away sin itself by sanctification ; by rendering those that are so much inferior in their natures honorable in their eyes, and worthy that they themselves should be ministering spirits to them, going forth to minister to their salvation; by His taking their nature upon Him, dying for them and uniting them to be members of Himself; by setting them such a wonderful example, in manifesting God's and His own eternal transcendent love to them, by the great things He did and suffered for them; by being an intermediate person, as a bond and head of union, being a common head to each, in which both are united; and by confirming their hearts by His Spirit against all pride, which was the thing that caused such an alienation between the angels that fell and men, so that they could not endure to be ministering spirits to Him, which was the occasion of their fall." (Cf. Works, Dwight's Ed., Vol. VIII., pp. 521-522.)

Note E, page 50.

The subject of the eternal reign of Christ is considered by Edwards in several of the Observations. His treatment of it is intimately connected

with the general principles of his Christology, and is an important development and application of them. "Christ, God-man, shall reign after He has delivered up the kingdom to the Father; but not as He doth now. Now He reigns by a delegated authority; as a king's son may reign in some part of his dominions, as his viceroy; or over the whole, by having the whole government and management committed to him, and left with him for a time. But then Christ will reign, as a king's son may reign, in copartnership with his father. Now He reigns by virtue of a delegation or commission ; then He will reign by.virtue of His union with the Father. Now things are managed in Christ's name; they are left to His ordering and government; and the Father reigns by the Son. Then the Father will take the government upon Himself; and things will be managed in the Fathers name, and the Son shall reign in, and with the Father. As it cannot be said that the Father does not reign now, when the kingdom is in the hands of His Son, so neither can it be said that the Son will not reign then, when the kingdom shall be delivered up into the hands of the Father. The government of the world, now, takes its rise from the Son, as the head and spring of it; and the Father reigns now by virtue of the relation of the Son, and His government, to Him, as His Son, infinitely near and dear to Him, the

same with Him in nature and will; as being in the Son, and the Son from Him commissioned and instructed by Him, acting and influencing by the same Spirit; and so the Father now governs all by the Son. Then the government of the universe will be from the Father, and will take its rise from Him, and then the Son will reign by virtue of the Father s relation to Him, and His to the Father, as being His Father, the same in nature and will; the Son being His perfect image, and being in the Father, being His Fellow, admitted to fellowship and communion with Him in government; and the Spirit of the Father, by which He actuates and influences, being also His Spirit . . . Christ will forever continue to reign over all things for two reasons:—

" i. Because it is His natural right, as He is a divine person, the Son of God; He has a right to reign forever, as He is the Father's proper heir.

" 2. He will also reign forever, in reward for what He did as God-man, in the work of redemption."

And again :• " Christ will to all eternity continue the medium of communication between God and the saints."

And in a subsequent paper: "That kingdom, that Christ shall deliver up to the Father, at the end of the world, is not properly His mediatorial kingdom, but His representative kingdom. Christ,

God-man, rules now, as representing the Father's person in His government; and therefore that work is committed to Christ, that, according to the economy of the Trinity, is properly the work of the Father; as particularly the work of lawgiver and judge. . .. But this state of things will not last always. God the Father has committed His work to the Son for a season for special and glorious reasons, but things are not thus fixed to be thus ultimately and eternally; for that would amount even to an overthrowing of the economy of the Persons of the Trinity. But doubtless this representative kingdom, when the several ends of it shall be answered, shall be delivered up; and things shall return to their own primeval, original order; and every Person of the Trinity, in the ultimate and eternal state of things, shall continue each one in the exercise of His own economical place and work. " This representative, or delegated, kingdom of Christ is not just the same with His mediatorial kingdom. Indeed the kingdom that He has as the Father's vicegerent, is given and improved to sub^ serve the purposes of His mediation between God and the elect; but yet it is not the same with His mediatorial kingdom. It is rather something that is superadded to that, which is most essential in His mediatorial office and work, to subserve the purposes of it; and therefore His mediation, or media-

torial work, will continue, after that which is thus superadded ceases. Christ's mediatorial kingdom never will be delivered up to the Father. It would imply a great absurdity to suppose, that Christ should deliver up, or commit, the work of a Mediator to the Father; as if the Father Himself should thenceforward take upon Him the work of mediating between Himself and man. Christ's mediation between the Father and the elect will continue after the end of the world, and He will reign as a Middle Person between the Father and them to all eternity; though He will not continue to do the same things as Mediator, then, as He does now, as He now does not do the same things as Mediator that He has done heretofore, arid particularly the work which He did when He was here on earth, called the Impetra-tion of Redemption^ which work He finished and rested from when He rose from the dead. But still unto men He is as much the Mediator now, as He was then, and doing the work of a Mediator now, as well as then. So, though He will not continue to do the same parts of His mediatorial work after the end of the world as he does now, such as delivering the saints from the remains of sin, and interceding for them as sinful creatures, and conquering their enemies (to subserve which parts of His mediatorial work, His kingdom of vicegerency is committed to Him); yet He will continue a Middle Person

between the Father and the saints to all eternity; and as the head of union with the Father, and of derivation from Him, and of all manner of communication and intercourse with the Father.

" When the end comes, that relation that Christ -stands in to His church, as the Father's viceroy over her, shall cease, and shall be swallowed up in the relation of a vital and conjugal: Head, or Head of influence and enjoyment; which is more natural and essential to the main ends and purposes of His union with them. And henceforward His dominion or kingship over them will be no other than what naturally flows from, or is included in, such an head^ ship. And now God will be all. The church now shall be brought nearer to God the Father, who by His economical office sustains the dignity and appears as the fountain, of the deity; and her enjoyment of him shall be more direct. Christ, God-man, shall now no longer be instead of the Father to them; but, as I may express it, their head of their enjoyment of God; as it were the eye to receive the rays of divine glory and love for the whole body ; and the ear to hear the sweet expressions of His love; and the mouth to taste the sweetness, and feed on the delights of the enjoyment of God: the root of the whole tree, planted in God, to receive sap and nourishment for every branch."

Note F,.page 56. " This covenant transaction," says Dr. Hopkins, Edwards's pupil and friend, "is more particularly and often mentioned as taking place between the Father and the Son, though not excluding the Holy Spirit! 1 Others have preferred to say that the Father, in this affair, represents the entire Deity. It has been a fixed canon of belief that there is a unity of the Godhead in works as well as in nature. " Every divine work, and every part of every divine work," says John Owen, " is the work of God; that is, of the whole Trinity, unseparably and undivid-edly." Opera ad extra sunt communia, indivisa. Yet each Person of the Trinity participates in these operations in a different way. Edwards's representation is not inconsistent with this law. Cf. Owen: Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, Works, ed. Goold, I., pp. 66-67, 94 J Hodge, Sysl. TheoL I., p. 445 ; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, I., p. 370. On the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Covenant of Redemption, see Strong, Disc, of the Two Covenants, pp. 114, 308, sqq; Boston, Works, p. 150; Baxter, Works, V., p. 39; Willard, A compleat Body of Divinity, p. 277, ed. 1726; Hopkins, Works, L, p. 487; Dr. A. A. Hodge, Outlines, p. 274.

Note G, page $7*

The interpretation of the Sonship of our Lord which Edwards here controverts, was advanced by Dr. Thomas Ridgley, in a work entitled " A Body of Divinity/' first published in 1731. Dr. Samuel Hopkins, in his "System of Doctrines," 1792, (Vol. I., p. 434), says: " This opinion seems to be rather gaining ground and spreading of late." He opposes it with his usual ability. It has been favored by some later Trinitarians, but has not met with general acceptance. See Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 1st ed, I., p. 125 sqq. ; Emmons, Works, II., pp. 135-136, 141-142; Stuart, Commentaries on Romans and Hebrews, Letters to Dr. Channing, to Dr. Miller, and Articles in the Biblical Repository (1835), anc * tne Bibliotkeca Sacra (1850). See, per contra, Hopkins, Works, I., p. 299 sqq., and, of the more recent literature, the Commentaries of Ellicott, Lightfoot, Westcott ; Plumptre, Canon Cook, Prof. Watkins, Drs. Schaff and Riddle, Shedd, Haupt, Godet, Meyer; also, Works on Christian Doctrine, by Hodge, Raymond, Van Oosterzee, Dorner. Weiss [Biblische Theologie, P- Soo, 3d ed.) may fairly be classed here, though, in general, he betrays an extreme sensitiveness to metaphysical interpretations. See, also, Cremer, Biblico-theo logical Lexicon of JV. T t Greek; and

an admirable article by Dr. H. Schmidt, " Uber die Grenzen der Aufgabe eines Lebens Jesus/' Tk. Stud, und Krit. t 1878. Dr. Hodge very justly distinguishes between "the speculations of the Nicene fathers and the decisions of the Nicene Council." (Theol., I., p. 471.)

In Dr. Dwight's edition of President Edwards's works (Vol. VIII., p. 530), a few sentences are given from one of the " Observations," which is now presented entire. Its theme is the

"Excellency of Christ."

"When we behold a beautiful body, a lovely proportion and beautiful harmony of features, delightful airs of countenance and voice, and sweet motions and gestures, we are charmed with it, not under the notion of a corporeal but a mental beauty. For if there could be a statue that should have exactly the same, that could be made to have the same sounds and the same motions precisely, we should not be so delighted with it, we should not fall entirely in love with the image, if we knew certainly that it had no perception or understanding. The reason is, we are apt to look upon this agreeableness, those airs, to be emanations of perfections of the mind, and immediate

effects of internal purity and sweetness. Especially it is so, when we love the person for the airs of voice, countenance, and gesture, which have much greater power upon us than barely colours and proportion of dimensions. And it is certainly because there is an analogy between such a countenance and such airs and those excellencies of the mind, — a sort of I know not what in them that is agreeable, and does consent with suGh mental perfections ; so that we cannot think of such habitudes of mind without having an idea of them at the same time. Nor can ife be only from custom, for the same dispositions and actings of mind naturally beget ■ such kind of airs of countenance and gesture; otherwise they never would have come into custom. I speak not here of the ceremonies of conversation and behavior, but of those simple and natural motions and airs. So it appears, because the same habitudes and actings of mind do beget [airs and movements] in general the same amongst all nations, in all ages.

" And there is really likewise an analogy or consent between the beauty of the skies, trees, fields, flowers, etc., and spiritual excellencies, though the agreement be more hid, and require a more discerning, feeling mind to perceive it, than the other. Those have their airs, too, as well as the body and countenance of man, which have a strange kind of

agreement with such mental beauties. This makes it natural in such frames of mind to think of them arid fancy ourselves in the midst of them. Thus there seem to be love and complacency in flowers and bespangled meadows ; this makes lovers so much delight in them. So there is a rejoicing in the green trees and fields, and majesty in thunder beyond all other noises whatever.

" Now we have shown that the Son of God created the world for this very end, to communicate Himself in an image of His own excellency. He communicates Himselfgproperly, only to spirits, and they only are capable of being proper images of His excellency, for they only are properly beings, as we have shown. Yet He' communicates a sort of a shadow, or glimpse, of His excellencies to bodies, which, as we have shown, are but the shadows of beings, and not real beings. He, who, by His immediate influence, gives being every moment, and, by His Spirit, actuates the world, because He inclines to communicate Himself and His excellencies, doth doubtless communicate His excellency to bodies, as far as there is any consent or analogy. And the beauty of face and sweet airs in men are not always the effect of the corresponding excellencies of mind; yet the beauties of nature are really emanations or shadows of the excellencies of the Son of God.

"So that, when we are delighted with flowery meadows, and gentle breezes of wind, we may consider that we see only the emanations of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ. When we behold the fragrant rose and lily, we see His love and purity. So the green trees, and fields, and singing of birds are the emanations of His infinite joy and benignity. The easiness and naturalness of trees and vines are shadows of His beauty and loveliness. The crystal rivers and murmuring streams are the footsteps of His favor, grace, and beauty. When we behold the light and brightness of the-sun, the golden edges of an evening cloud, or the beauteous bow, we behold the adumbrations of His glory and goodness ; and, in the blue sky, of His mildness and gentleness. There are also many things wherein we may behold His awful majesty, in the sun in his strength, in comets, in thunder, in the hovering thunder-clouds, in ragged rocks, and the brows of mountains. That beauteous light with which the world is filled in a clear day, is a lively shadow of His spotless holiness, and happiness and delight in communicating Himself; and doubtless this is a reason that Christ is, compared so often to those things, and called by their names, as the sun of Righteousness, the morning star, the rose of Sharon, and lily of the valley, the apple tree amongst the trees of the wood, a bundle of myrrh, a roe, or a young hart. By this

we may discover the beauty of many of those metaphors and similes, which to an unphilosophical person do seem so uncouth.

" In like .manner, when we behold the beauty of man's body, in its perfection, we still see like emanations of Christ's divine perfections: although they do not always flow from the mental excellencies of the person that has them. But we see far the most proper image of the beauty of Christ when we see beauty in the human soul.

" Corol. I. From hence it is evident that man is in a fallen state ; and that he has naturally scarcely anything of those sweet graces, which are an image of those which are in Christ. For no doubt seeing that other creatures have an image of them according to their capacity: so all the rational and intelligent part of the world once had according to theirs.

" Corol. II. There will be a future state wherein man will have them according to his capacity. How great a happiness will it be in Heaven for the saints to enjoy the society of each other, since one may see so much of the loveliness of Christ in those things which are only shadows of being. With what joy are philosophers filled in beholding the aspectable world. How sweet will it be ta behold the proper image and communications of Christ's excellency in intelligent beings, having so much of

the beauty of Christ upon them as Christians shall have in heaven. What beautiful and fragrant flowers will those be, reflecting all the sweetnesses of the Son of God ! How will Christ delight to walk in this garden among those beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies!"

University Press: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.