The writer of this paper had been long engaged in the study of the writings of Edwards, with reference to the essay he had in contemplation, when, on speaking of the subject to a very distinguished orthodox divine, this gentleman mentioned the existence of a manuscript of Edwards which had been held back from the public on account of some opinions or tendencies it contained, or was suspected of containing “High Arianism” was the exact expression he used with reference to it.  On relating this fact to an illustrious man of science, whose name is best known to botanists, but is justly held in great honor by the orthodox body to which he belongs, it appeared that he, too, had heard of such a manuscript, and the questionable doctrine associated with it in his memory was Sabellianism.  It was of course proper in the writer of an essay on Jonathan Edwards to mention the alleged existence of such a manuscript, with reference to which the same caution seemed to have been exercised as that which led, the editor of his collected works to suppress the language Edwards had used about children.

This mention led to a friendly correspondence between the writer and one of the professors in the theological school at Andover, and finally to the publication of a brief essay, which, for some reason, had been withheld from publication for more than a century.  Its title is “Observations concerning the Scripture OEconomy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption.  By Jonathan Edwards.”  It contains thirty-six pages and a half, each small page having about two hundred words.  The pages before the reader will be found to average about three hundred and twenty-five words.  An introduction and an appendix by the editor, Professor Egbert C. Smyth, swell the contents to nearly a hundred pages, but these additions, and the circumstance that it is bound in boards, must not lead us to overlook the fact that the little volume is nothing more than a pamphlet in book’s clothing.

A most extraordinary performance it certainly is, dealing with the arrangements entered into by the three persons of the Trinity, in as bald and matter-of-fact language and as commercial a spirit as if the author had been handling the adjustment of a limited partnership between three retail tradesmen.  But, lest a layman’s judgment might be considered insufficient, the treatise was submitted by the writer to one of the most learned of our theological experts,—­the same who once informed a church dignitary, who had been attempting to define his theological position, that he was a Eutychian,—­a fact which he seems to have been no more aware of than M. Jourdain was conscious that he had been speaking prose all his life.  The treatise appeared to this professor anti-trinitarian, not in the direction of Unitarianism, however, but of Tritheism.  Its anthropomorphism affected him like blasphemy, and the paper produced in him the sense of “great disgust,” which its whole character might well excite in the unlearned reader.