New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-09-21
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
rpwARps,s ECONOMY OF THE TRINITY

Int
svo pp. 81 Charles strlbnsr's some
There has been for nearly thirty years much
talk IN theological circles and much conjecture aoo"'
this little tract, which until the present time mas re
NAMED In manuscript The Rev DIR. Bushhe'' 50 cary
ms 1851 mad heard Of IT, and mentioned II Us ocihg WI
prio, argument for the TRINITY but access 10 inc eio
was denied hm on the ground OF 1.-THE nature OF tne
co,,en,s~ The manuscript then in the possession
nj Dr. Dwight, OF Portland. Dr. Oliver "enoel'
Holmes In The International Rerte'c Tor Juy' 1851
blinded 10 the manuscript as exhibiting great chauge
I'm the views OF Dr. Edwards IN the direction OF Ara"
ism, or sabellianism. DIR. Holmes called upon inc Al"
dover scholars for information (which would I've CRATE
,,y rece,ve nv many inauirers would be reJoced
10 know that so abe and good man ived 10 De emau
c.patcd from than heather conceptions wh'ch
had 90 long unclaimed his powerful but crippled uhuer
standing" THUS the scent II we may say &c. gre"
keener and kecner. Professor Edwards A. PafS OF An
dover was said be in possession OF the manuscript
which now was declared not only 10 lean toward sape
uapsm but even to approach Plagiarism. Upon THIS
came strong denial from various quarters Inc Etor
of The Bi6ieothcca Sdcra having examined inc manu-
sc.iots OF the theoogan. declared mat Jonathan
Edwards in the OF the Trinity no more inchneo
TO Una ranism than Thomas Aquinas or the Doctorso
the Roman Church. DR.. Tryon Edwards IN note 10
The Couoregotio nanalist. ADOPTED these statements
Now Mr.. Egbert c. smyth adds more specihc reiu-
ts,on by publishing the manuscript to which Dr. BUSH
neil in 1851 referred 1t out after ALL that 1t Is
not an AUTOGRAPH but copy; and that belonged W
manuscript book prepared by the sou Of Dr. Jonathan
Edwards for Edinburgh edition OF his fathers WORKS
1t is doubtless one OF President Edwardss numerous
observations and there would appear 10
be no doubt OF its genuine character MI shy'h CANS
attention to tue fact that this treatise 10 no' ne D
Bushnell and others have supposed, treause On ''o
sujec of the Trinity. IL does not touch the relation Oh
the three Persons OF the Trinity to the Divine UNITY s
main purpose show that the work OF the Redemp
,,on a Az execution OF divine covenant Dr. Edwarcs
writes out privately thoughts and reasonngs whcn he
had elaborated respecting the parties to this Covenant
H. considers its relation TO al agreement entered INTO
between the Persons OF the Trinity with reference 10
mauifestDg TIE divine glory, aud the conformity oi 'niS
divine economy to the natural order OF subsistence But
he does not maintain or even state the doctrine OF the
TRINITY itself in the fragment which
ould seem TO trithesto and especially nose when
MAINTAIN that the Covenant OF Redemption was
contracted solely between two Persons OF the lriniy
Attention is called 10 the fact that such statements are
Of once accomp .nied by others which show an ad-
her-nce TO the accepted doctrine of the Unity OF God III
COUNSEL aud work well as being In other respects
Mr. smyth insists that the orthodoxy OF the paper Is APP
parent. He says:
The souslip the Second Person IN the Trinity im,
pies depsndence on The VIII OF tne ' ,h no
doctrnc sent Edwards, II is beiievcd i III accom-
ret ,iou of the Scrpturcs. and with some Of the most
inuutant phases of recent religious Eoieht an9 me-
wc, ~ me Church in its state Of final perfection
ana his discrmnliion between the eteina
N.lato, of the and HIS Lumlia Ion Tor inc SAKE
of mans rcdempton and his 'ogntion OF the tncar-
nation once conditioned 10y ma nan sn' anu lou,
ded H. a divine Economy instituted for The purpose OF
scErevelation aud self coinmunc tiol are snn9pa-
fous o ne most vauloe Oh MOI
eru Dlssy and indications OF mis- peculiar genius
fl is also Something worth knowing that inind so eF
ceutrd a. me teaching II Scripture, ddno resard the
,uect OF hc Trinity IN it' oDtJiOSlcai rea'Ioh>' 40
a mere blank 10 human Thought.
=, t6s'a Drtu
the great subject OF tails paper match more succiucV
th,n he states them himself lie begins 10y Calming
that there "a su6or'bnauon OF The Persons oi 'he
Trinity III their actngs with respect 10 the creature
that one ac.s nom another and under another ana
with dependence on another in Their act'ngs and
partieutdriy 81 what they act IN tie dgars OF mans re
dempt,on." This Is the Keynote OF this Treatise
ana must I've constantly kept In mind 1t 10 further set
forth by proposition that the Father IN that anaire
IN the matter redemption, acts as Head OF the TRINITY
and the under HIM. ana the Holy spirit uhdet them
hath Tnis however is at qualified by the PROPOSE
,i,n which ust also kept IN mind that the Persons
OF Trinity not inferior ono TO another ID Foiy
and excellence If nature The Son. for instance Ii not
infeor to The T. iner IN gioy hut in tie brightness o'
His glory tn image OF Ill, Father ana perfect jill
age o II person. The Father infinite happiness IS N
Him and tie way thar the Father eujoys The glory of the
Deity is in siioy Hin. Yet there is KIND oTucpend'
fnce The IN His Subsistence on thc rather; be-
c,us tin $pect His su5sisteu.e lie is wholly for
the Fsfber begoten 10y Hun This Is more prop
rry priority lhHn superiority THerc Is no natu3! SUP
jeclioa OF tie other Persons OF til" Trinity 10 the
Father. There Is no dependence of ous on the VIII Of
another. There has been mutual. free agreement
whereby tie PRISONS Of the Trinity. OF Their own Will.
have Ms II were for,ued themselves into u society
for carrying on the great dcs IN oI g.cr!y!nE
the Deity. THIS implies certain economy ~ order
of acting This not Of the mere pleasure of the
members 81 this society. but through natural deceDcy
and ~
Trinity are not obliged 10 come into this order though
they originate from tie First Deceucy does not oblige
this, Tut IL Qaires 10.
Now this order or economy OF the Persons OF the Tim
y with respect their actions al eTfrd is to be con-
,cd Of as prior to tie of redemption. be-
canse Coos determination must Precede this method
There eternal covenant between some of tho Per
sos Of the trinity about that particular affair OF mems
reaeinpt There things appcr;aning to The par
,,cuar off e Of Of the Persons aui their particular
order and of acting resulting from particular
po,,-aereemeut Edwards holds that only God the Fa-
ther could determine whether there should be any such
thing admitted rs the redemption of sinners. He
chose the Person that should be the Redcemer,
and appointed HIM. Tie place OF the Son as Mediator
must have been determined after mediation was n1cd
upon Prior to the covenant OF redemption. all the
persons acted upon level Dr. Edwards thus states
the matter:
Eoch Person. by one common agreement fn that
covenant OF r@lcmpiion invested with His proper
Once the Father with that OF Hcsd the son with that
of Ms;iia:or the spirit with that OF common emssay
aad cousunatuar OF The designs OF the other two 20
f,f nv MS suupositiuD has His Office by The par
ticuar appointment Of one singy. or more thau
another; all alike by common consents there beng
1, Dtccedcui estah,ishmeut giving one any power or
IIeadshp au0b"i to uthorze or appoint another
cit is the Father" says DR. Edwards, that Is eco
Ironically tho King OF Heaven aud Earth. Lawgiver ana
Judge OF all Therefore when the Son is made so, He is
h, the Father advanced into His throne. by having the
Fathers authority committed unto Him, to rule in His
name AMI His vcegerent." Tins the Son
receives the dominion OF the Father over the
universe H. has also the dspensaion aud disposal OF
the Holy Spirit comDitted to Him. lie has the disposal
OF that In order that lie may promote the grand de-
sieus OF Ills REDEEM pti0n Indeed the subsection of the
Holy spirit twOod The last acts under the Son, In
toe spects with that subsection that s economically
md LIZ fhnt In