Appendix

By Egbert C. Smyth

Note A, page 10.

After the statements of the Introduction respecting the genuineness of the manuscript were prepared, a paper was found which is not only decisive of this question, but confirmatory also of the supposition that the copy was made with reference to the first publication of the Miscellanies. This document is in the handwriting of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and contains, besides numerical references to President Edwards’s Miscellaneous Observations, an arrangement of them by topics substantially the same with that followed in the two Edinburgh editions. The numbers 1062 and 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.

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

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

1 Faith and Rationalism, pp. 55-56.

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

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

Note C, page 36.

President Edwards left a number of “Observations” on the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace, which were copied in connection with Dr. S. E. Dwight’s edition, but were not published. 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 promised salvation; as being that particular grace and virtue for which men are saved. According to which there is no difference between the condition

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

of the first covenant and the second, but this: before the fall, man was to be 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 covenant was rhade with the first Adam, so the second covenant was made with the second Adam. As the first covenant was made with the seed of the first Adam no otherwise than as it was with them in him, so the second covenant is not made with the seed of the second Adam any otherwise than as it was made with them in Him. ... As the condition of the first covenant was Adam’s standing, so the condition of the second covenant is Christ’s standing. Christ has performed the condition of the new covenant.... We can do nothing but only receive Christ and what He has done already. Salvation is not offered to us upon any condition, but freely and for nothing. We are to do nothing for it; we are only to take it. This taking zxA 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 covenant is made with men, any otherwise than in Christ; for there is a vast difference between a free offer and a covenant. The covenant was made with Christ, and in Him with His mystical body; and the condition of the covenant is Christ’s perfect obedience and sufferings. And that, that is made to men, is a free offer.- That, which is commonly called the covenant of grace, is only Christ’s open and free offer of 7ywEereby He holds it out m HisTTand to sinners, and offers it without any condition. Faith jannot be, called the condition of receiving, for-itis. thcjgceivinfr itself: Christ holds out, and believers receive. There was no covenant made or agreement, upon something that must be done before they might receive. It is true, those that do not believe are not saved, and all that do believe are saved; that is, all that do receive Christ and salvation, they receive it, and all that will not receive salvation never do receive it, and never have it. But faith, or the reception of it, is not the condition of receiving it. It is not proper when a man holds out his gift to a beggar, that he may take it without any manner of preliminary conditions, to say that he makes a covenant with the beggar. No more proper is it to say, that Christ’s holding forth life in His hand to us, that we may receive it, is making a covenant with us. But, I must confess, after all, that if men will call this free offer and exhibition a covenant, they may; and if they will call the receiving of life the condition of the receiving of life, they are at liberty so to do; but I believe it is much the more hard for them to think right, for speaking so wrong.

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

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

“It seems to me, there arises considerable confusion from not rightly distinguishing between the covenant that God made with Christ and with His church or believers, in Him, and the covenant between Christ and His church, or between Christ and men. There is doubtless a difference between the covenant that God makes with Christ and His people, considered as one, and the covenant of Christ and His people between themselves. The covenant that a father makes with his son and his son’s wife, considered as one, must be looked upon as different from the marriage covenant, or the covenant which the son and the wife make between themselves. The father is concerned in this covenant only as a parent in a child’s marriage, directing, consenting, and ratifying. These covenants are often confounded, and the promises of each are called the promises of the covenant of grace, without due distinction. Which has perhaps been the occasion of many difficulties, and considerable confusion in discourses and controversies about the covenant of grace....

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

Again, in a subsequent paper: —

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

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

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

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

“The due consideration of these things may perhaps reconcile the difference between those divines that think the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace the same, and those that think them different. The covenant that God the Father makes with believers is indeed the very same with the covenant of redemption made with Christ before the foundation of the world, or at least is entirely included in it. And this covenant has a Mediator, or is ordained in the hand of a Mediator. But the covenant, by which Christ Himself and believers are united one with another, is properly a different covenant from that; and is not made by a Mediator. There is a Mediator between sinners and the, Father, to bring about a covenant union between them; but there is no Mediator between Christ and sinners, to bring about a marriage union between Christ and their souls.

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

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

Note D, page 43.

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

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

It would be foreign to the immediate purpose of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The man Christ Jesus, being the same Person with the eternal Son of God, has a reminiscence or consciousness of what appertained to the eternal Logos, and so of His happiness with the Father. Therefore we often find Christ speaking as being very well acquainted with the Father before He came into the world, and speaking of transactions betwixt Him and the Father before He came; as if there were an agreement about the work of Redemption, and what He should teach, what He should do, and who should be His. Thus Christ frequently tells us that what He doth He does not do of Himself, but as He was ordered of the Father, and that He did not teach of Himself, but that He had received of His Father what He should teach, before He came down from heaven, &c. So He speaks of His coming down from heaven, as if He remembered how He was once there, and how He came down. Now, when He remembered these things, He could not remember them as they were in the infinite mind; for the idea of the Creator cannot be communicated to the creature, as it is in God. But the remembrance as it was in His mind was the same after a different manner. The things which He remembered were from all eternity in the Logos after the manner of God, and the man Christ Jesus was conscious to Himself of them as if they had been after the manner of a creature. Those transactions which Christ speaks of in the Covenant of Redemption were no other than the eternal and immutable gracious design, both of the Father and Son, of what was to be done by the Son, and what was to be the fruit of it. It was impossible that the man Christ Jesus should remember this as it was in the Deity; for then an idea of the eternal mind could be communicated to a finite mind, even as it is- in the infinite mind. But He remembered it as if it had been really such a transaction, before the world was, between Him and the Father. Not that He was deceived, for He knew how it was; but, as the consciousness of it was communicated to Him, it must of necessity seem thus.... That in the general it was thus is no bold conjecture, but so it must of necessity be. Though the particular manner of this consciousness, and how far the ideas of a creature can be after the manner of the divine [mind], and how a creature may be said to remember what is in God, is uncertain.”

And again: “It is probable that the faculties of the man Christ Jesus, now in His glorified state, are so enlarged that He can, with a full view and clear apprehension of mind, at the same time think on all the saints in the world, and be in the exercise of an actual and even of a passionate love (such as we experience) to all of them in particular. It is certain that human souls can have two ideas and more at the same moment in the mind; otherwise how could the mind compare ideas and judge between them. It will not suffice that they are very speedily, one after another, in the mind for comparing; for let the second idea be in the mind never so quick after the first, yet the mind cannot at that moment compare the second idea with the first, if the first be entirely gone out of the mind; for how can the mind compare an idea that is in the mind with another at the same time that is not in the mind. And I do not see why a mind cannot be of such powers as to be exercised about millions of millions of ideas with as great intenseness and clearness of apprehension as we admit two only. No doubt but the man Christ Jesus loves believers; not only the church in general, without particularly viewing one person, but that He loves believers in particular. No doubt but that the man Christ Jesus loves the church in general, because it is made up of those particular persons that He loves. He loves the church because of the lovelinesses that He sees in the church; but He sees lovelinesses nowhere else but in particular persons. Nor can we suppose that the man Jesus only loves the persons that are most eminent, with a particular love, but that every true saint may have the comfort of this consideration. And, seeing that He loves them, no doubt but that He, with a proper desire, desires communion with them; and even the man Christ, being the same person with the divine, has communion with them, by the communion of this person, as much as if His human soul were present, and suggested and answered by suggestions those sweet meditations. And there is the same delight in the man Christ as if He were bodily present with them, talking and conversing with them. And this seems to be one glorious end of the union of the human to the divine nature, to bring God near to us; that even our God, the infinite being, might be made as one of us; that His visible Majesty might not make us afraid; that Jehovah, who is infinitely distant from us, might become familiar to us. This capacity of the man Jesus is so large, by reason of the personal union with the divine nature, that by this means He knew the thoughts of men while on earth, and knew things acted at a distance. No doubt but if the man Christ Jesus were, with His glorified power, now on earth, and should meet here and there with holy men, He would be perfectly acquainted with them at first sight. What kind of powers are they, besides His own immutable attributes, that God cannot create a finite being with? And what kind of powers may we justly conclude His are, who is the first-born of every creature, and is personally united to the Deity? This seems to have been the universally received belief of the primitive church, which nobody ever thought of denying.”

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

“Christ as God-man is a fit person for a Mediator between God and man, not only as He is a Middle Person between the Father and the Holy Ghost* but also as He is a Middle Person between God and men themselves; He is really allied to both. He is the Son of God and the Son of man, He is both God and man, He is God’s son and our brother; and as He has the nature of both, so He has the circumstances of both, — the glory, majesty and happiness of the one, and the infirmity, meanness, disgrace, guilt and misery of the other. As it was requisite in order to His being Mediator between God and man, that He should be the subject of our calamity, that He might know, on the one hand, how to pity us who suffer, or are exposed to those calamities; so, on the other hand, it was requisite that He should be possessed of the glory and majesty of God, that He might know how to value that glory and majesty, and to be careful and tender of them, and effectually engaged to see to it that they are well secured and gloriously magnified. ...

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

“First, He came into the world, and brought God or Divinity down with Him to us; and then He ascended to God, and carried up humanity, or man, with Him to God; and from heaven He sent down the Holy Spirit, whereby He gives God to man; and hereby He draws them to give up themselves to God. He brings God to dwell with their souls on earth, at their conversion; and He brings their souls to dwell with God in heaven, at their death.

“The time will come when He will come down again from heaven in person, and will bring God with Him to man, a second time; and He will then ascend, a second time, to carry up man with Him to God. At the first descent, He brought divinity down to us, under a veil; at His second coming, He will bring divinity down with Him, without a veil, appearing in its glory. At His first ascension, after His own resurrection, He carried up our nature with Him to God. At His second ascension, after the general resurrection, He will carry up our persons with Him. At death, He brings the souls of the saints to God in heaven; whereby a part of the church is gloriously united to God. At the end of the world, He will bring in both body and soul to heaven, and will bring all the church together to their highest and consummate union with God; and this will be the last step He will take, in the office of a Mediator, to unite God and man. Having presented all His church together, in body and soul, to the Father, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, perfectly delivered, perfectly restored, and perfectly glorious; saying, ‘Here am I, and the children which Thou* hast given me; ’ and having finished the work which the Father gave Him to do, then cometh the end, when He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father.”

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

“Christ, God-man, is not only Mediator between God and sinful men, but He acts as a Middle Person between all other persons, and all intelligent beings, that all things may be gathered together in one in Him, agreeably to Eph. i. 10. He is the Middle Person between the other two divine persons, and acts as such in the affair of our redemption.... Though He is not properly a Mediator between God and angels, yet He acts in many respects as a Middle Person between them; so that all that eternal life, glory and blessedness that they are possessed of is by His mediety. And He is a kind of Mediator between one man and another to make peace between them.... He reconciles one man to another by His blood by taking away all just cause one can have to hate another for what is indeed hateful in them, and for which they deserve to be hated of both God and man, by suffering for it fully as much as it deserves; so that what the hatred of both God and man desires is here fully accomplished in a punishment fully proportional to the hatefulness of the crime. Were it not that the sins of men are already fully’ punished in the sufferings of Christ, all, both angels and men, might justly hate all sinners for their sins. For, appearing as they are in themselves, they are indeed infinitely hateful, and could appear no otherwise to any than as they are in themselves, had not another been substituted for them; and therefore they must necessarily appear hateful to all that saw things as they are- It is impossible for any to hate a crime as a crime or fault, without desiring that it should be punished, for he that hates sin is thereby an enemy to it, and therefore necessarily is inimical, or inclined to act against it, that it may suffer, or to see it suffer. And if we impute men’s sins to them, i. e. if we look on the hatefulness of their sins as their hatefulness, we necessarily hate them, and are inclined that the sufferings that we desire for their sins should be their sufferings. But now Christ has suffered for the sins of the world, we ought to hate no man, because Christ has suffered and satisfied for his sins, and therefore we should endeavor to bring him to Christ. A right consideration of Christ’s sufferings for the sins of others is enough to satisfy all just indignation against them for their sins. So that Christ, by His sufferings, has in a sense made propitiation for men’s sins, not only with God but with their fellow-creatures; and so, by His obedience, He recommends them not only to the favor of God, but of one another; for Christ’s righteousness is exceeding amiable to all men and angels that see it aright, and Christ Himself is amiable to them on that account; and it renders all, that they look upon to be in Him, amiable in their eyes, to consider them as members of so amiable a head, as we naturally love the children of those that we have a vejy dear love to. Christ, by His death, has also laid a foundation for peace and love among enemies, in that therein He has done two things: —

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

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

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

Note E, page 50.

The subject of the eternal reign of Christ is considered by Edwards in several of the Observations. His treatment of it is intimately connected with the general principles of his Christology, and is an important development and application of them. “Christ, God-man, shall reign after He has delivered up the kingdom to the Father; but not as He doth now. Now He reigns by a delegated authority; as a king’s son may reign in some part of his dominions, as his viceroy; or over the whole, by having the whole government and management committed to him, and left with him for a time. But then Christ will reign, as a king’s son may reign, in copartnership with his father. Now He reigns by virtue of a delegation or commission; then He will reign by. virtue of His union with the Father. Now things are managed in Christ’s name; they are left to His ordering and government; and the Father reigns by the Son. Then the Father will take the government upon Himself; and things will be managed in the Fathers name, and the Son shall reign in, and with the Father. As it cannot be said that the Father does not reign now, when the kingdom is in the hands of His Son, so neither can it be said that the Son will not reign then, when the kingdom shall be delivered up into the hands of the Father. The government of the world, now, takes its rise from the Son, as the head and spring of it; and the Father reigns now by virtue of the relation of the Son, and His government, to Him, as His Son, infinitely near and dear to Him, the same with Him in nature and will; as being in the Son, and the Son from Him commissioned and instructed by Him, acting and influencing by the same Spirit; and so the Father now governs all by the Son. Then the government of the universe will be from the Father, and will take its rise from Him, and then the Son will reign by virtue of the Father s relation to Him, and His to the Father, as being His Father, the same in nature and will; the Son being His perfect image, and being in the Father, being His Fellow, admitted to fellowship and communion with Him in government; and the Spirit of the Father, by which He actuates and influences, being also His Spirit... Christ will forever continue to reign over all things for two reasons: —

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

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

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

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

God-man, rules now, as representing the Father’s person in His government; and therefore that work is committed to Christ, that, according to the economy of the Trinity, is properly the work of the Father; as particularly the work of lawgiver and judge.... But this state of things will not last always. God the Father has committed His work to the Son for a season for special and glorious reasons, but things are not thus fixed to be thus ultimately and eternally; for that would amount even to an overthrowing of the economy of the Persons of the Trinity. But doubtless this representative kingdom, when the several ends of it shall be answered, shall be delivered up; and things shall return to their own primeval, original order; and every Person of the Trinity, in the ultimate and eternal state of things, shall continue each one in the exercise of His own economical place and work.” This representative, or delegated, kingdom of Christ is not just the same with His mediatorial kingdom. Indeed the kingdom that He has as the Father’s vicegerent, is given and improved to sub serve the purposes of His mediation between God and the elect; but yet it is not the same with His mediatorial kingdom. It is rather something that is superadded to that, which is most essential in His mediatorial office and work, to subserve the purposes of it; and therefore His mediation, or mediatorial work, will continue, after that which is thus superadded ceases. Christ’s mediatorial kingdom never will be delivered up to the Father. It would imply a great absurdity to suppose, that Christ should deliver up, or commit, the work of a Mediator to the Father; as if the Father Himself should thenceforward take upon Him the work of mediating between Himself and man. Christ’s mediation between the Father and the elect will continue after the end of the world, and He will reign as a Middle Person between the Father and them to all eternity; though He will not continue to do the same things as Mediator, then, as He does now, as He now does not do the same things as Mediator that He has done heretofore, arid particularly the work which He did when He was here on earth, called the Impetration of Redemption which work He finished and rested from when He rose from the dead. But still unto men He is as much the Mediator now, as He was then, and doing the work of a Mediator now, as well as then. So, though He will not continue to do the same parts of His mediatorial work after the end of the world as he does now, such as delivering the saints from the remains of sin, and interceding for them as sinful creatures, and conquering their enemies (to subserve which parts of His mediatorial work, His kingdom of vicegerency is committed to Him); yet He will continue a Middle Person between the Father and the saints to all eternity; and as the head of union with the Father, and of derivation from Him, and of all manner of communication and intercourse with the Father.

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

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

Note G, page $7*

The interpretation of the Sonship of our Lord which Edwards here controverts, was advanced by Dr. Thomas Ridgley, in a work entitled “A Body of Divinity,” first published in 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 opposes it with his usual ability. It has been favored by some later Trinitarians, but has not met with general acceptance. See Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 1st ed, I., p. 125 sqq.; Emmons, Works, II., pp. 135-136, 141-142; Stuart, Commentaries on Romans and Hebrews, Letters to Dr. Channing, to Dr. Miller, and Articles in the Biblical Repository (1835), anc* the Bibliotkeca Sacra (1850). See, per contra, Hopkins, Works, I., p. 299 sqq., and, of the more recent literature, the Commentaries of Ellicott, Lightfoot, Westcott; Plumptre, Canon Cook, Prof. Watkins, Drs. Schaff and Riddle, Shedd, Haupt, Godet, Meyer; also, Works on Christian Doctrine, by Hodge, Raymond, Van Oosterzee, Dorner. Weiss [Biblische Theologie, P- Soo, 3d ed.) may fairly be classed here, though, in general, he betrays an extreme sensitiveness to metaphysical interpretations. See, also, Cremer, Biblico-theo logical Lexicon of JV. It Greek; and an admirable article by Dr. H. Schmidt, “Uber die Grenzen der Aufgabe eines Lebens Jesus,” Tk. Stud, und Krit.t 1878. Dr. Hodge very justly distinguishes between “the speculations of the Nicene fathers and the decisions of the Nicene Council.” (Theol., I., p. 471.)

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

“Excellency of Christ.”

“When we behold a beautiful body, a lovely proportion and beautiful harmony of features, delightful airs of countenance and voice, and sweet motions and gestures, we are charmed with it, not under the notion of a corporeal but a mental beauty. For if there could be a statue that should have exactly the same, that could be made to have the same sounds and the same motions precisely, we should not be so delighted with it, we should not fall entirely in love with the image, if we knew certainly that it had no perception or understanding. The reason is, we are apt to look upon this agreeableness, those airs, to be emanations of perfections of the mind, and immediate effects of internal purity and sweetness. Especially it is so, when we love the person for the airs of voice, countenance, and gesture, which have much greater power upon us than barely colours and proportion of dimensions. And it is certainly because there is an analogy between such a countenance and such airs and those excellencies of the mind, — a sort of I know not what in them that is agreeable, and does consent with suGh mental perfections; so that we cannot think of such habitudes of mind without having an idea of them at the same time. Nor can ife be only from custom, for the same dispositions and actings of mind naturally beget such kind of airs of countenance and gesture; otherwise they never would have come into custom. I speak not here of the ceremonies of conversation and behavior, but of those simple and natural motions and airs. So it appears, because the same habitudes and actings of mind do beget [airs and movements] in general the same amongst all nations, in all ages.

“And there is really likewise an analogy or consent between the beauty of the skies, trees, fields, flowers, etc., and spiritual excellencies, though the agreement be more hid, and require a more discerning, feeling mind to perceive it, than the other. Those have their airs, too, as well as the body and countenance of man, which have a strange kind of agreement with such mental beauties. This makes it natural in such frames of mind to think of them arid fancy ourselves in the midst of them. Thus there seem to be love and complacency in flowers and bespangled meadows; this makes lovers so much delight in them. So there is a rejoicing in the green trees and fields, and majesty in thunder beyond all other noises whatever.

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

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

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

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

“Corol. II. There will be a future state wherein man will have them according to his capacity. How great a happiness will it be in Heaven for the saints to enjoy the society of each other, since one may see so much of the loveliness of Christ in those things which are only shadows of being. With what joy are philosophers filled in beholding the aspectable world. How sweet will it be ta behold the proper image and communications of Christ’s excellency in intelligent beings, having so much of the beauty of Christ upon them as Christians shall have in heaven. What beautiful and fragrant flowers will those be, reflecting all the sweetnesses of the Son of God! How will Christ delight to walk in this garden among those beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies!”