hree 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.

All this is, however, of little importance, for this is not the work
of Edwards referred to by the present writer in his previous essay. The
tract recently printed as a volume may be the one referred to by Dr.
Bushnell, in 1851, but of this reference by him the writer never heard
until after his own essay was already printed. The manuscript of the
"Observations" was received by Professor Smyth, as he tells us in his
introduction, about fifteen years ago, from the late Reverend William
T. Dwight, D. D., to whom it was bequeathed by his brother, the Reverend
Dr. Sereno E. Dwight.

But the reference of the present writer was to another production of
the great logician, thus spoken of in a quotation from "the accomplished
editor of the Hartford 'Courant,'" to be found in Professor Smyth's
introduction:

"It has long been a matter of private information that Professor Edwards
A. Park, of Andover, had in his possession an published manuscript
of Edwards of considerable extent, perhaps two thirds as long as his
treatise on the will. As few have ever seen the manuscript, its contents
are only known by vague reports.... 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 account of it says that the manuscript
leans toward Sabellianism, and that it even approaches Pelagianism."

It was to this "suppressed" manuscript the present writer referred, and
not to the slender brochure recently given to the public. He is bound,
therefore, to say plainly that to satisfy inquirers who may be still
in doubt with reference to Edwards's theological views, it would be
necessary to submit this manuscript, and all manuscripts of h