On the Equality of the Persons of the Trinity
on the equality of the persons
of the trinity This untitled fragment, in the collections of the Boston Public Library and written on a salvaged letter cover, addresses the equality of the persons of the Trinity. In the manner of the “Discourse on the Trinity,” Edwards asserts that each person has his own “distinct glory” but not a “distinct essence.” Also, each person has his own “personal dignity” or responsibility that the others have not, and the combination of these dignities makes them equal. For example, the Father and Son “principally stand in the place of lords,” but the Holy Ghost is the only person against whom the unpardonable sin can be committed.1 The same equality applies both to their “personal glory” and their “economical glory.” Finally, divine essence is “undivided and independent” in “being” and in the autonomy of its will.
The theme of the fragment would suggest a relation to “Miscellanies,” no. 1062, which deals with the economy of the Trinity and the covenant of redemption. However, this composition has no content parallels with, and seems to predate, no. 1062, and so was probably written in the very early 1740s, and no later than 1742. The handwriting is roughly contemporaneous with that on the quarto-sized fragment at the end of the “Discourse on the Trinity.”
1. This fragment also includes an important new development in JE’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit. See “Editor’s Introduction,” pp. 18–19.
on the equality of the persons
of the trinity To show how the personal glory of each of the persons in the Trinity is equal, though each one, as they have a distinct personality, have a distinct glory, and so one has a peculiar glory that another has not.
Their personal glory is only a relative glory, or a glory of relation, and therefore may be entirely distinct. And to apply a distinct glory to the Father, Son and Spirit in that sense, don’t at all infer an application of proper distinct perfections or attributes, and so a distinct essence: for if we call those relations attributes, as the use of words is arbitrary, yet to2
apply distinct attributes in this sense in no wise implies an applying of a distinct essence, for personal relations are not the divine essence. They have their personal glory entirely distinct, and therefore one may have a peculiar personal dignity that another has not.
And though3 one has a personal dignity in one respect that another has not, yet the others have also in other respects; so that they appear as equal in their personal dignity.
Thus God the Father be the first person from whom the others proceed, and herein has a peculiar personal honor. And the Holy Ghost is the last that proceeds from both the other two, yet the Holy Ghost has this peculiar dignity: that he is as it were the end of the other two, the good that they enjoy, the end of all procession.
So the Son has his peculiar glory, though the Son as it were depends on the Father, as the Father is as it were his principle. Yet in other respects the Father depends on him as his object. The Father has good, and though the Son receives the infinite good, the Holy Spirit, from the Father, the Father enjoys the infinite good through the Son. He is the end of the other two in their acting ad intra, and also in his acting ad extra, in all they do in redemption and their distinct economical concerns.
The end of the Father in electing is the Spirit. He elects to a possession of this benefit. His end in giving the Son [is] to purchase this. The end of the Son in all his suffering is to obtain this, to purchase this. This was the great precious thing to which all that the other two do is subordinated. So that the Spirit is highest in this respect, though he be last, as he is the messenger sent by the other two.
The Spirit is the messenger of both the other persons; but he hath this peculiar honor, though he represents and acts in the name of both the others, he as it were sustains the character and honor of both the other persons in acting. Whereas the Father acts only in his own name, the Son in his own name and the name of the Father, but the Holy Ghost in the name of both. Hence a reproaching him only is the unpardonable sin, is looked upon as reproaching the whole Trinity; but a reproaching of either of the other persons is not so.
The Father and the Son principally stand in the place of lords, and the Holy Ghost is servant to them both, and commanding chiefly belongs to them. But the Holy Ghost has this peculiar honor: that sinning against commands is most heinous and unpardonable when leveled against the Holy Ghost.
And as ’tis in their personal glory, so it is in their economical glory. That there is a dependence in the Godhead of one person on another—if we don’t understand it of an arbitrary [dependence] or a depending on another’s will—is not at all inconsistent4 with a perfect equality in glory. There is a dependence every one has on another, though necessary and of different kinds.
In one respect the Father has the superiority: he is the fountain of Deity, and he begets the beloved Son. In another respect the Son has the superiority, as he is the great and first object of divine love. The beloved has as it were the superiority over the lover, and reigns over him. In another respect the Holy Ghost, that is, divine love, has the superiority, as that is the principle that as it were reigns over the Godhead and governs his heart, and wholly influences both the Father and the Son in all they do.
The Son derived the divine essence from the Father, and the Holy Spirit derives the divine essence from the Father and the Son. ’Tis objected against that, that the divine essence is undivided, and that it belongs to the very notion of the divine essence to be independent. I answer, ’tis true the divine essence is undivided and independent, in two respects:
On the Equality of the Persons of the Trinity 147 to speak more plainly, that the divine essence should be, and should be what it is, is not in any respect in any dependence or by derivation. But yet it may be by derivation. That it should be here or there, or that in some instances it should be where it is, or belonging to such persons, this don’t in the least detract from the glory of the divine essence in itself considered.
That though the Son has life in himself because he is possessed of the divine essence, that has life in itself and in an independence, yet the Father has given him to have life in himself.
2. The divine essence is independent and underived in another respect, i.e. it is not dependent on any arbitrament or voluntary communication. Not but that its relative being may be dependent on a necessary, essential, and so an independent, communication. Though it be communicated, yet the person is not dependent for its communication: for the communication itself is independent; it don’t depend on the will of any, but is essential to the Godhead.
To show and prove out of Scripture how that it cannot be that Christ is called the wisdom of God only in a figurative sense, because the wisdom of God appears in that work in which he has a special concern, and the like; but that he is the real proper wisdom of God.
148 On the Equality of the Persons of the Trinity
Notes
2. MS: “the.” 3. MS: “so th so Each have & yet one has a dignity & tho.” JE apparently intended to delete “so Each have.”
1. With respect to its being, but not with respect to its relative being; or,
4. MS: “dont at all derogate from Inconsistent.” In changing the sentence, JE neglected to change “don’t” to “is not.”