NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES
3 3433 07955972 4
CONCERNING THE
SCRIPTURE (ECONOMY OF
THE TRINITY AND
COVENANT OF
REDEMPTION.
%t
<?c?x£ovl cA&d&y* cf&yvt
f ovCecfam
■ // r.jr // Ce " r// /"J t /<"//■;
/,■ //„
J 0-0
OBSERVATIONS
CONCERNING THE
SCRIPTURE OECONOMY OF THE TRINITY.
TFHF
TLuTT€VOfA€V
Ets Ira ®eoV, Harepa iravTOKparopa *
Kai €ts era K.vpiov \-qcrovv XpicrToV, tw 'Yioj/ toO Q)eov,
bfjioovaiov tw IlaTpt, tov 6Y i^aas cvavOpmir-qdavra •
Kat cis to "Aytov Ilt/eiJ/xa.
OBSERVATIONS
CONCERNING
THE SCRIPTURE OECONOMY
99.
OF THE '*" ' '
TRINITY
AND COVENANT OF REDEMPTION
BY
JONATHAN EDWARDS
WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX
By EGBERT C. SMYTH
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
743 and 745 Broadway
1880
Copyright, 1880,
By Egbert C. Smyth.
University Press :
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.
INTRODUCTION.
h
^.
^
hi
>
3
■*
INTRODUCTION.
In 185 i, the Rev. Dr. Bushnell called attention to
a supposed manuscript of Jonathan Edwards.
" I very much desired," he remarked, " in my ex-
position of the Trinity, to present some illustrations
from a manuscript dissertation of President Ed-
wards 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' 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 manu-
script 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 dis-
burden himself as soon as may be of the very
important responsibility, so faithfully exercised, for
a whole century now past, by persons not more
4 Introduction.
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 Ed-
wards, in which his views appear to have under-
gone 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 ser-
pents 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 manu-
script, 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 emanci-
pated 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.
Introduction. 5
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 re-
ported 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 Ed-
wards 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 ac-
count 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
6 Introduction.
'•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 Bibliotheca Sacra. The latter testifies :
"The popular rumors regarding his [President Ed-
wards's] changes of theological opinion are many of
them utterly false, many of them singularly ex-
aggerated, and all unreliable. So far as his manu-
scripts 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 185 1, 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.
Introduction. 7
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 sug-
gested, 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 Congregatiojiatist,2 adopts these
statements respecting President Edwards's adhe-
rence to Calvinism and Trinitarianism from "a pretty
thorough examination of all the manuscripts" depos-
ited 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." 3
To these emphatic disclaimers I am able to add
a more specific refutation by publishing the manu-
script 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 Congregationalist, July 21, 1880.
8 Evening Transcript, July 8, 1880.
8 Introduction,
but a copy. It is, however, a very early and trust-
worthy 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 tran-
scribing this volume of miscellanies, which, if it prove accept-
able, 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 confi-
dence that there would be little difficulty in getting published
my father's practical tracts, on April 7, 1786, I sent to Mr.
Introduction. 9
written, as Dr. W. T. Dwight supposed, and com-
parison confirms, by Dr. Edwards, son of the first
President: "What follows top. 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 Hart-
ford, 1 781; another in Edinburgh, 1788; a third in 1789.
The Miscellaneous Observations appeared in 1793 ; Mis-
cellaneous 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.
io Introduction.
print (with the exception of a few sentences)
pages 573-588 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 11 74 against that of
the observations on Dr. Watts's theory. So far as
I have observed, the peculiarities of spelling1 ap-
pear in undoubted autographs. From correspond-
ence in my possession I learn of another copy,
endorsed by a granddaughter of President Edwards
as a treatise by him. This manuscript the corres-
pondence 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 in-
dications, 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.
2 See Appendix, Note A.
Introduction. 1 1
or's] own mind, and that he might retain the thoughts
which appeared to him worth preserving." Why,
after being carefully copied, apparently for publica-
tion, 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 unortho-
dox. 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 in-
dicates 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 Mis-
cellanies are "the most complete and important" of his
father's manuscripts.
1 2 Introduction,
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. D wight appears to have reviewed it for publica-
tion, 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, con-
tents, 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
Introduction. 1 3
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 ques-
tions 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 stand-
ards 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.
14 Introduction,
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 dif-
ferent modes of statement have obtained, now in-
clining 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 disserta-
tion 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, Christliche Glaubenslehre, I. 367.
Introduction. 1 5
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 econ-
omy 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 main-
tain, 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 Trin-
ity. It will be noticed, however, that this statement
is at once accompanied by others, which show an
1 6 Introduction.
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 ap-
pears, moreover, distinctly in the paper which, in
the manuscript book to which I have referred, im-
mediately succeeds the one now printed, and is indi-
cated 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 un-
dertakes the difficult task of progressive dogmatic
construction, is influenced by its apprehension of
Absolute Personality. God is the personal Abso-
lute, — not only one Essence, but also one Person.
And, from this point of view, the Trinitarian distinc-
tions, 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 state-
ment to the clearer conceptions which have been
gained of Personality.
In other respects, the orthodoxy of the paper now
Introduction. 1 7
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, Presi-
dent Edwards, it is believed, is in accord with the
results of the latest and most scholarly interpreta-
tion 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 reve-
rent 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 rela-
tions, as a mere blank to human thought.
With these statements and comments, perhaps
already too protracted, this little treatise of Presi-
dent Edwards is given to the public. If our liberal
friends who have recently manifested so hopeful an
1 8 Introduction.
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 occa-
sion to rejoice that " he being dead yet speaketh."
E. C. S.
Andover Theological Seminary,
August, i83o.
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
22 Observations,
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 sub-
sistence, on the Father ; because with respect
to His subsistence, He is wholly from the
Father and is begotten by Him ; yet this is
more properly called priority than superiority,
as we ordinarily use such terms. There is
dependance without inferiority of deity; be-
cause in the Son the deity, the whole deity
and glory of the Father, is as it were re-
peated or duplicated. Every thing in the
Observations. 2 3
Father is repeated, or expressed again, and
that fully : so that there is properly no infe-
riority.
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 accord-
ing 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 obliga-
tion 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 an-
other, and so may be said to be in some re-
spects dependant on another, yet it is no
dependance of one on the will of another.
24 Observations.
For it is no voluntary, but a necessary pro-
ceeding ; and therefore infers no proper sub-
jection of one to the will of another.1
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 themselves
into a society, for carrying on the great
design of glorifying the deity and communi-
cating 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.
Observations. 25
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 sub-
sistence 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
26 Observations.
of the Trinity with respect to their actions
ad extra, is to be conceived of as prior to the
covenant of redemption : as we must con-
ceive 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 natu-
rally disposed to cause the beams of His
glory to shine forth, and His goodness to
flow forth, yet we must look on the particu-
lar method that shall be chosen by divine
wisdom to do this as not so directly and im-
mediately 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
Observations. 2 7
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 glo-
rify and communicate Himself in general,
and superadded to it or subservient to it.
And therefore, that particular constitution or
covenant among the Persons of the Trinity
about this particular affair, must be looked
upon as in the order of nature after that dis-
position of the Godhead to glorify and com-
municate itself, and so after the will of the
Persons of the Trinity to act, in so doing, in
that order that is in itself fit and decent, and
what the order of their subsisting requires.
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 nat-
ural order of the eternal and necessary sub-
sistance of the Persons of the Trinity. And
this must be conceived of as prior to the
other.
28 Observations.
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 par-
ticular 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 be-
sides a new particular determination of a
work to be done for God's glorying and com-
municating 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-
Observations. 29
nant of redemption and prior to it, not only
appears from the nature of things ; but ap-
pears 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 Per-
son who, (in the place that He stands in
among the Persons of the Trinity), is espe-
cially 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 redemp-
tion shall be allowed for fallen men, as pre-
ceding the covenant or agreement of the
Persons of the Trinity relating to the partic-
3<D Observations.
ular manner and means of it; and conse-
quently, that the Father, who determines
whether a redemption shall be allowed or
no, acts as the Head of the society of the Trin-
ity, 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 evi-
dent, that that Oeconomy by which the Father
is Head of the Trinity, is prior to the cove-
nant of redemption. For He acts as such in
the very making of that covenant, in choos-
ing the Person of the Redeemer to be cove-
nanted 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 in-
vested with the office of a Mediator. Because
the Father, in the exercise of His Headship,
Observations. 3 1
invests the Son with that office. By which it
is evident, that that establishment, by which
the Father is invested with His character as
Head of the Trinity, precedes that which in-
vests the Son with His character of Media-
tor; and therefore precedes the covenant of
redemption; which is the establishment that
invests the Son with that character. If the
Son were invested with the office of a media-
tor 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 au-
thority 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 re-
demption, all the Persons act as upon a level,
32 Observations,
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 author-
ize 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 redemp-
tion 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 ulti-
mate consummation, and the Redeemer shall
present all that were to be redeemed to the
Father in perfect glory, having His work
compleatly finished upon them, and so shall
resign up that dominion that He received of
Observations. 33
the Father subservient to this work, agree-
ably to what had been stipulated in the cove-
nant 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 occa-
sion become more visible and conspicuous,
and the establishment of things by the cove-
nant of redemption shall then, as it were, give
place to this Oeconomy as 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
2,6 Observations.
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 Per-
sons 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 :
i. It is the Father that begins that great
transaction of the eternal covenant of re-
demption, is the first mover in it, and acts in
every respect as Head in that affair. He de-
termines 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.
Observations. 33
the Father subservient to this work, agree-
ably to what had been stipulated in the cove-
nant 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 occa-
sion become more visible and conspicuous,
and the establishment of things by the cove-
nant of redemption shall then, as it were, give
place to this Oeconomy as 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
2>6 Observations.
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 Per-
sons 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 :
i. It is the Father that begins that great
transaction of the eternal covenant of re-
demption, is the first mover in it, and acts in
every respect as Head in that affair. He de-
termines 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.
Observations. 37
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 oeco-
nomical prerogative, that He orders, deter-
mines 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
40 Observations,
mutual obligation between two of the Per-
sons, arising from this new establishment,
the covenant of redemption, the Son under-
taking 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 man-
ner 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 circum-
stances of a servant: from which engage-
ments 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 subordi-
nation that two of the Persons of the Trinity
Observations. 37
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 oeco-
nomical prerogative, that He orders, deter-
mines 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
40 Observations.
mutual obligation between two of the Per-
sons, arising from this new establishment,
the covenant of redemption, the Son under-
taking 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 man-
ner 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 circum-
stances of a servant : from which engage-
ments 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 subordi-
nation that two of the Persons of the Trinity
Observations. 41
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 agree-
able 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 cove-
nant of redemption, but only that which im-
plies 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-
44 Observations.
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 cove-
nant of redemption.
7. Hence it comes to pass, that that obedi-
ence, that Christ performs to the Father even
as Mediator, and in the work of our redemp-
tion, 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 volunta-
rily 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 humilia-
tion below His proper divine glory. There-
fore 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
Observations. 41
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 agree-
able 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 cove-
nant of redemption, but only that which im-
plies 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-
44 Observations.
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 cove-
nant of redemption.
7. Hence it comes to pass, that that obedi-
ence, that Christ performs to the Father even
as Mediator, and in the work of our redemp-
tion, 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 volunta-
rily 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 humilia-
tion below His proper divine glory. There-
fore 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
Observations, 45
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 re-
demption, that does not belong to Him in
His oeconomical 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 re-
demption, which the Father promises Him,
that does not belong to Him in His oeco-
nomical character; viz. that of Head of au-
thority 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 oeco-
nomically 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
48 Observations,
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 re-
demption 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 re-
signed 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 accord-
ing 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
Observations, 45
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 re-
demption, that does not belong to Him in
His oeconomical 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 re-
demption, which the Father promises Him,
that does not belong to Him in His oeco-
nomical character; viz. that of Head of au-
thority 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 ©eco-
nomically 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.
48 Observations.
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 re-
demption 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 re-
signed 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 accord-
ing 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
Observations. 49
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 man-
ner under the same Person in two natures
united, or as God-man, and in His two na-
tures 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
5<d . Obscrvatiojts.
itance. It is, in this regard, with the author-
ity 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, vica-
rious, 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 subjec-
tion to the Father as made under the law is.
1 See Appendix, Note E.
Observations. 5 1
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 subjec-
tion, 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 be-
come 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 com-
plex 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 abase-
ment of those that give it. It is given by
1 For " it," as written by the copyist.
5 2 Observations.
angels and men without any debasing or de-
grading of their worship. And the same sub-
jection 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 abase-
ment 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 sub-
jection or obedience besides what, under such
Observations.
53
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 humilia-
tion. Hence the Scripture mentions no re-
ward 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 cove-
nant 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 par-
ticular covenant, only on account of the new
kind of subjection of the Son, and the humi-
liation 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 estab-
lishment, 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-
5 4 Observa tions.
ject of this humiliation : which humiliation
was in His new subjection and obedience to
the Father. Therefore the covenant of re-
demption is only between the Father and the
Son. Neither is there any intimation in Scrip-
ture 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 sec-
ond 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 be-
tween 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 cove-
nant in which God the Father made over an
eternal reward to Christ mystical, and there-
fore 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.
Observations. 55
14. It is true, that the Holy Spirit is in-
finitely concerned in the affair of our re-
demption, as well as the Father and the Son,
and equally with them ; and therefore we
may well suppose, that the affair was, as it
wrere, 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
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 redernp-
5 6 Observa tions.
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 cove-
nanting.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 genera-
tion or proceeding from the Father as a Son,
consists only in His being appointed, con-
stituted 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.
Observations. 5 7
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, i. e., 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 re-
demption, and consequently that this su-
periority 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 con-
stituting 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 re-
specting 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 ref-
erence to the first publication of the Miscellanies.
This document is in the handwriting of Dr. Jona-
than Edwards, and contains, besides numerical
references to President Edwards's Miscellaneous
Observatiojis, an arrangement of them by topics
substantially the same with that followed in the
two Edinburgh editions. The numbers 1062 and
1 1 74 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.
62 Appendix.
It appears, for instance, that Part I. of the Mis-
cellaneous Obsei"vatio7is, 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 in-
stance, corresponds to number 142 ; the sixth to
155. The seventieth is identical with number 1206 ;
the preceding with 1192. The eighty-second re-
produces 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 11 74. 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.
Appe?idix. 63
Note B, page 24.
This explicit rejection of a dependence of the
Son on the will of the Father is specially notice-
able, 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 i1 "Let me say that
the Nicene definitions, in giving a certain prece-
dence to the Father, while affirming the true divin-
ity 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. Channing,
Boston, 181 5, p. 24.
64 Appendix.
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 con-
ceptions. See his " History of the Development of
the Doctrine of the Person of Christ" and his
" Glaubenslehre," of which a translation is pre-
paring.
Note C, page 36.
President Edwards left a number of w Observa-
tions " on the Covenant of Redemption and the
Covenant of Grace, which were copied in connec-
tion 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 which God has prom-
ised 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.
Appendix. 65
of the first covenant and the second, but this : be-
fore the fall, man was to be saved 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 cove-
nant was made 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 con-
dition 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 and
receiving is faith. 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
66 Appendix.
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 per-
fect obedience and sufferings. And that, that is
made to men, is a free offer. That, which is com-
monly called the covenant of grace \ is only Christ's
open and free offer of life, whereby He holds it out
in His hand to sinners, and offers it without any
condition. Faith cannot be called the condition of
receiving, for it is the receiving 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 condi-
tions, 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
Appendix. 67
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 con-
fusion from not rightly distinguishing between the
covenant that God made with Christ and with His
church or believers in Him, and the covenant be-
tween 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
68 Appendix,
son's wife, considered as one, must be looked upon
as different from the marriage covenant, or the cove-
nant which the son and the wife make between
themselves. The father is concerned in this cove-
nant only as a parent in a child's marriage, direct-
ing, consenting, and ratifying. These covenants
are often confounded, and the promises of each are
called the promises of the covenant of grace, with-
out due distinction. Which has perhaps been the
occasion of many difficulties, and considerable con-
fusion 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 a7id suffered to procure redemption.
The condition of Christ's covenant with His peo-
ple, 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 ob-
tained of the Father by what He has done and
Appendix. 69
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 no 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 cove-
nant 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 con-
version, 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 per-
haps 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-
jo Appendix,
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 con-
ditions 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 un-
derstand 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 con-
dition of it, which is a yielding to Christ's invita-
tions, and accepting His offers, and closing with
Appendix. 7 1
Him as a Redeemer and spiritual husband, is to be
performed by us." *
Note D, page 43.
Complaint is sometimes made of the severe lan-
guage 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 him-
self 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. 486 sqq.
72 Appendix,
this note to follow out these suggestions. But inci-
dentally 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 communi-
cate 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."
Appendix. 73
And again : " Christ took the nature of a crea-
ture, 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 na-
ture."
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 ac-
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. . . .
74 Appendix.
" 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 com-
munion 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 con-
sciousness."
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 Re-
demption, and what He should teach, what He
Appendix. 75
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 re-
member 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
J 6 Appendix,
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 conscious-
ness, 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 exer-
cise 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 ; other-
wise 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
Appendix. yy
the mind with another at the same time that is not
in the mind. And I do not see why a mind can-
not 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 be-
cause of the lovelinesses that He sees in the church ;
but He sees lovelinesses nowhere else but in par-
ticular 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
78 Appendix.
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 capa-
city 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 per-
fectly acquainted with them at first sight. What
kind of powers are they, besides His own immu-
table 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 no-
body 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
Appendix, 79
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 ten-
der of them, and effectually engaged to see to it
that they are well secured and gloriously magni-
fied. . . .
" 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
80 Appendix,
man ; and hereby He draws them to give up them-
selves 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 consum-
mate 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, per-
fectly delivered, perfectly restored, and perfectly
Appendix, 8 1
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 king-
dom 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 Per-
son 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 per-
sons, and acts as such in the affair of our redemp-
tion. . . . 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-
6
82 Appendix.
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 propor-
tional 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 other-
wise 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 inim-
ical, or inclined to act against it, that it may suffer,
or to see it suffer. And if we impute mens 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 de-
sire 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 suf-
fered 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
Appendix. 83
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 recom-
mends them not only to the favor of God, but of
one another ; for Christ's righteousness is exceed-
ing 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 con-
sider them as members of so amiable a head, as we
naturally love the children of those that we have a
very 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 enemies 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-
.84 Appendix,
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 Him-
self; by setting them such a wonderful example, in
manifesting God's and His own eternal transcend-
ent love to them, by the great things He did and
suffered for them ; by being an intermediate per-
son, 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 Observa-
tions. His treatment of it is intimately connected
Appendix, 85
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 au-
thority; 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
86 Appendix.
same with Him in nature and will ; as being in the
Son, and the Son from Him commissioned and in-
structed 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 king-
dom, but His representative kingdom. Christ,
Appendix. 87
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 econ-
omy 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 repre-
sentative 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 pur-
poses of it ; and therefore His mediation, or media-
88 t Appendix.
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 mediat-
ing 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, and 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 mediato-
rial work, His kingdom of vicegerency is committed
to Him) ; yet He will continue a Middle Person
Appendix. 89
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 commu-
nication 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 en-
joyment 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 expres-
sions of His love ; and the mouth to taste the
sweetness, and feed on the delights of the enjoy-
ment of God : the root of the whole tree, planted
in God, to receive sap and nourishment for every
branch."
90 Appendix,
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." 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 > Hodge, Syst.
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 Cove-
nants, pp. 114, 308, sqq; Boston, Works, p. 1 50;
Baxter, Works, V., p. 39 ; Willard, A compleat Body
of Divinity, p. 277, ed. 1726; Hopkins, Works, I.,
p. 487 ; Dr. A. A. Hodge, Outlmes, p. 274.
Appendix, 91
Note G, page 57.
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 173 1. 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 op-
poses it with his usual ability. It has been favored
by some later Trinitarians, but has not met with
general acceptance. See Ridgley, Body of Divin-
ity, 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 Reposi-
tory (1835), and the BibliotJieca 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- 500, 3d ed.) may fairly be classed here, though,
in general, he betrays an extreme sensitiveness to
metaphysical interpretations. See, also, Cremer,
Biblico-theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek ; and
92 Appendix,
an admirable article by Dr. H. Schmidt, " Uber
die Grenzen der Aufgabe eines Lebens Jesus," T/i.
Stud, tmd Krit., 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, de-
lightful 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 emana-
tions of perfections of the mind, and immediate
Appendix, 93
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 be-
cause there is an analogy between such a counte-
nance 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 such mental
perfections ; so that we cannot think of such habi-
tudes of mind without having an idea of them at
the same time. Nor can it be only from custom,
for the same dispositions and actings of mind natu-
rally 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, be-
cause 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 con-
sent between the beauty of the skies, trees, fields,
flowers, etc., and spiritual excellencies, though the
agreement be more hid, and require a more dis-
cerning, 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
94 Appendix,
agreement with such mental beauties. This makes
it natural in such frames of mind to think of them
and 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 cre-
ated the world for this very end, to communicate
Himself in an image of His own excellency. He
communicates Himself, properly, 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 im-
mediate influence, gives being every moment, and,
by His Spirit, actuates the world, because He in-
clines to communicate Himself and His excellen-
cies, 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 excellen-
cies of mind ; yet the beauties of nature are really
emanations or shadows of the excellencies of the
Son of God.
Appendix. 95
" So that, when we are delighted with flowery
meadows, and gentle breezes of wind, we may con-
sider 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 o£
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 communi-
cating 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
g6 Appendix.
we may discover the beauty of many of those meta-
phors 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 excellen-
cies 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 ; an<4 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 accord-
ing to their capacity: so all the rational and in-
telligent 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 to behold
the proper image and communications of Christ's
excellency in intelligent beings, having so much of
Appendix. 97
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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11