Here is an interesting entry on the existence of God. Also interesting is the fact that this may have been the first miscellany entry that Edwards wrote after he moved to Northampton in 1726.

267. GOD’S EXISTENCE.

The mere exertion of a new thought is a certain proof of a God. For certainly there is something that immediately produces and upholds that thought; here is a new thing, and there is a necessity of a cause. It is not antecedent thoughts, for they are vanished and gone; they are past, and what is past is not. But if we say ’tis the substance of the soul (if we mean that there is some substance besides that thought, that brings that thought forth), if it be God, I acknowledge; but if there be meant something else that has no properties, it seems to me absurd. If the removal of all properties, such as extendedness, solidity, thought, etc. leaves nothing, it seems to me that no substance is anything but them; for if there be anything besides, there might remain something when these are removed.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 13, The “Miscellanies:” Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 373.

In light of recent dust-ups in the Evangelical world regarding the creation vs. evolution debate (a summation of the latest episode can be found here), I was reminded of this Miscellany entry. It is one of Edwards’s last Miscellany entries and gives particular insight into what the Creation conversation looked like in the mid to late 18th century.

It’s important to keep in mind that Edwards wrote this almost exactly one hundred years before Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species was published.

1336. There are these things that seem to show that there was NO CREATION BEFORE THE MOSAIC CREATION.

1. Those that suppose that there was a creation before the Mosaic creation, generally suppose the Mosaic creation to respect only this globe of the earth, and that the heavenly bodies in general were created before, concerning which I would observe:

(1) That this don’t well agree with the account Moses gives of the fourth day’s work of the creation he gives an account of. The accounts we have of the creation of the heavenly bodies, here and elsewhere from time to time in the Old Testament, with reference to Moses’ account, are so expressed that it would be most unreasonable to understand their mention they make of the creation of sun, moon and stars of any other than a proper making, creation and formation, and not merely a scattering away of fogs and mists that were over the face of the earth, so that they might have been seen here on the face of the earth, if there had been any inhabitants here to see them.

(2) Nor does it well agree with his account of the creation of the light on the first day. For if the Mosaic creation was only of this earth, then we must suppose the sun was created before, and so the light would have existed before.

(3) If any should suppose that the Mosaic creation, though it extended beyond this earth, yet it respected only the solar system, I think there is no manner of reason to suppose any other than that, as the whole visible universe, the many suns or fixed stars that belong to it, are all one frame, so that they were created together, not first one and then two, or first ten and then ten more, so gradually increasing the number till they came gradually to be so many millions. As if we find a stately building erected, it would be unreasonable to suppose any other than that it was built together, and not first one stick of timber hewed and then, after a long time, another.

2. They that suppose there was any creation before the Mosaic creation, suppose the angels to have been created before, in opposition to which I would observe:

(1) That place in Nehemiah 9:6, “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Here I think it most reasonable to suppose that Nehemiah has reference to the very same creation that God speaks of in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” The descriptions are the same. The things spoken of as created are plainly the same. The creation Nehemiah speaks of includes the angels. They are included in the host of heaven that he mentions, as part of the creation he speaks of, as is plain by what he says further of the host of heaven at the end of the verse, “and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” The angels are evidently that host of heaven that worships God.

(2) Christ’s eternity is largely set forth by his existing before the creation of this lower world, and all the parts of it, Proverbs 8:22–30, which would [not] be proper and significant if many created beings had existed long before these things, as well as he.

(3) God expresses his own eternity by that, that he was before the day, and that he then existed alone, existing before any other being that men erroneously worship as God. From whence we may conclude that no created ANGELS, who of old and most ages of the world have been worshipped as gods, had any existence before the day. And from Isaiah 43:13, with the three foregoing verses: from this place it is probable that the angels were created the first day with the light. See Pfaffius, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ et Moralis, pp. 190–91.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 23, The “Miscellanies:” 1153-1360, ed. Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 340-342.

Speaking of the Jonathan Edwards Center, they have just announced their own Facebook Fan Page. This site looks to be a one-stop shop for things pertaining not only to the center at Yale, but also the various satellite centers around the world.

If you’re unaware of these other centers, the JEC at Yale has formed partnerships in Melbourne, Australia, Tübingen, Germany, Wrocslaw, Poland, and Bloemfontein, South Africa, and has established a second American center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. These are exciting times in the history of Edwards studies and it’s wonderful that the JEC is doing so much to significantly extend such studies beyond the traditional American borders.

So become a Facebook fan of the JEC and take some time to check out the great work that they are doing!

For the second year in a row, Yale Divinity School, in cooperation with the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale, is hosting a weeklong summer course related to Jonathan Edwards. Last year was more of a general overview of Edwards’s life and major writings. This year, they are taking the entire week to look at one of Edwards’s greatest works, Religious Affections.

I had the high privilege of attending the class last year and it was a wonderful experience, well worth the time and cost. In addition to the class lectures, there is also an afternoon devoted to examining Edwards’s actual manuscripts at the Beinecke Library, and a “field trip” at the end of the week to Edwards related locations around New England. I would absolutely recommend attending this class if you are able to go.

Here’s some more information about this year’s class:

June 21-25, 2010

The staff of the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University will present a weeklong course examining Jonathan Edwards’s Religious Affections, including the historical context and background, the argument, a discussion of the signs, Edwards’s use of marks of distinguishing grace in preaching, and contemporary spirituality.

The classroom portion of the course will feature lectures and discussions of common readings. There will be ample time allowed for questions and dialogue. Common readings will include a guided reading of Religious Affections and selections from printed collections of Edwards’s writings and secondary sources. Also, the course will be integrated with the use of materials located in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (www.edwards.yale.edu).

Special features of the course will be a viewing of Edwards’s manuscripts related to Religious Affections at Yale’s Beinecke Library and a day-long tour of Edwardsean sites on Friday: the Joseph Bellamy House, Bethlehem, CT, and the Dwight L. Moody historic site, Northfield, MA. For course-specific inquiries, please contact edwards@yale.edu.

Register for the course here.

If you’d like to read about my experience from last year, you can find those posts here.

828. RULE OF FAITH. SCRIPTURE. HISTORY. FATHERS.

The way that history is to be made use of for our instruction and guidance in matters of faith is twofold: ’tis either in interpreting the Scriptures, or confirming the things that are taught in the Scripture.

1. There is no doubt but that what is to be learned of the ancient customs and state of things at the time when the Scriptures were written, as this is to be learned from other authors, may be made use of in interpreting the Scripture; as well as the ancient use of that language in which the Scriptures are written, as it is to be learned from other authors, is to be made use of in interpreting the words and phrases that are found in the original of the Scriptures: for the customary use of words and phrases is one instance of ancient customs, and what is found in other authors may be as much relied upon with respect to other customs, as the customary use of words and phrases. And the knowledge of ancient customs and the state of things is needful to [be] known in order to an interpretation of the Scripture, the same way as the knowledge of the custom of speech. For, from knowing what was the custom of speaking from other authors, we argue that the penmen of Scripture speak in the same manner: for ’tis a known and manifest thing that custom governs the use of speech and language, and so also it is a known and manifest thing that the state of affairs, in every age and country, governs the use of speech in many respects.

Indeed, so hath God wisely ordered that the Scripture, in both these respects, is more sufficient for itself by far than any other book. Both the use and force of its own phrases is more fully to be learned from the Scriptures themselves, and also the customs and state of things on which the interpretation mainly depends. The manifest design of God in the Scripture, is to speak so plainly as that the interpretation should be more independent than that of any other book which is ever to be remembered, and should always be of great weight with us in our interpretation of the Scripture; and so we should chiefly interpret Scripture by Scripture.

2. Another way that we may make use of history, etc., in affairs of this nature, is to help our weakness and unbelief, and to confirm the truths taught us in the Scripture. History and other ancient writings may, as well, be made use of to confirm anything in the Scripture, according to the force of reason that is in them; as reason may be made use of for this purpose from experience, from our present observation of what passes in our own hearts, or what we observe among our neighbors, or what is to be seen or heard of in the present state of God’s church, or the world of mankind, or the present dispensations of God’s providence.

Whatever affords a just argument to reason, whether history or anything else, may and ought to be made use [of] fully, according to the proportion of weight, or force of real argument, there is in it. The only question there can be is concerning the proportion of weight of argument between the Scripture and other things; and the danger is of not laying weight enough on what we find in the Scripture, not laying such weight on it as God expects we should, on that which he has given to us on purpose, that it might be a sufficient, perfect, and infallible rule.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 18, The “Miscellanies:” 501-832, ed. Ava Chamberlain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 538-539.

After a brief hiatus, due primarily to some technical issues, aDaSL is back and there are some exciting things coming in the next couple of months.

First, there is now a Facebook Fan Page for this site. So you can now keep up with what’s going on at aDaSL from your Facebook News Feed by becoming a fan. Also, feedback is always welcome, so if there is something Edwards related that you would like to know more about, please leave a comment here or post something on the aDaSL Fan Page wall!

Second, a while ago I mentioned a new series of books called The Essential Edwards Collection. Well, the kind folks at Moody Publishers have provided me with a set to review. I hope to begin this series of reviews shortly and review a book a week for the next five weeks. From the small amount of skimming I’ve done so far, this series looks to be quite valuable in making Edwards approachable to quite a wide variety of readers.

So be on the lookout for the start of that series and please become a Facebook fan! And, of course, I’m always looking for interesting Edwards-related tidbits around the web. If you find something, please let me know about it!

Yesterday, as I’m sure you’re aware, was Easter Sunday, one of the most important days in the Christian calendar. To mark this event, this week’s Miscellany Mondays entry focuses on resurrection. Here Edwards poses a question asking how Christ’s resurrection affects the bodies of believers and their own eventual resurrection, given the union that is said to be between Christ and individual Christians. This is one of Edwards’s earliest miscellanies, yet shows a great deal of maturity in thinking through such complex theological ideas.

bb. RESURRECTION.

How has the resurrection of Christ any influence on the bodies of believers and on their resurrection, by virtue of the union that is betwixt them? How shall we give a rational account of it? In order to answer this question, we must first show how can the bodies partake of this union, which are really no more than a stock or a stone. Indeed everything about a man besides the rational soul is no more than a house, ship or coach, but only this: the rational soul has power to affect the one and not the other, and the one and not the other has power to affect the rational soul. And how is it possible that a stock or stone should partake of the union to Christ?

To this I answer, that although the body be in itself no more than a stock, yet because God made the human soul with a design that it should be united to a body, therefore he has made it inseparable from its nature, eternally inseparable (that is, by any but God), that it should strongly incline to a union to the body. So that this inclination to the body is part of the nature of the soul, which is just the same thing as if the body were part of the soul; so that with the soul it becomes partaker of the union with Christ in common with the rest of the soul. That is to say, to speak plainly and intelligibly: that part of the souls nature, its inclination to the body as well as other parts of its nature, is united to Jesus Christ; which is the same thing as to say the body is united to him, and is most familiarly so expressed. If God had created the soul with the same inclination to some stone in the mountains as it has to the body, that stone, together with the soul, would be united to Christ. Thus we have shown how the body partakes of the union with Christ. So much for that.

Now it is by virtue of this inclination of soul to body, that the resurrection of the body becomes absolutely necessary in order to complete happiness. For how is it possible that the soul should be completely happy in the denial of an inclination that Almighty God, in the creation, has made inseparable from it? But then, you’ll say, at that rate the separated souls of saints are not completely happy. I answer: they have a certain hope, a certain knowledge of the resurrection, that completely satisfies this inclination during the separation; so that they are so far completely happy before the resurrection, that they are without any uneasiness.

But to return to the question first proposed: suppose it be granted that the body partakes of the union with Christ; what rational account can be given how, by virtue of that, the resurrection of Christ’s body influences the dead bodies of saints, though they are united? I answer, by virtue of the union between Christ and believers, it follows that believers must be partakers of all Christ’s glorification. That is, they are so united that he, having them as parts of him, necessarily wills it (don’t misconstrue necessity), John 17:22–24.

Thus it is that souls espoused to Christ must reign over the world, because Christ reigns over the world. This is frequently promised. They must sit down in his throne because he is set down on his Father’s throne, Revelation 3:21. Because Christ has power over all the nations, and rules [them] with a rod of iron, and breaks them in pieces as a potter’s vessel, so Christ says, Revelation 2:26–27, that they also shall have power over me nations, and “shall rule them with a rod of iron,” and break them in pieces as a potter’s vessel, too. Because Christ is God’s Son and heir of all God’s estate, believers must be sons and heirs of all God’s estate too, Romans 8:17. Because Jesus Christ is possessor of heaven earth and sea, sun moon and stars, so believers must be possessors of heaven earth and sea, sun moon and stars too (Revelation 21:7; 2 Corinthians 6:10; ), and, as I could mention, in fifty other things. So, because Christ rose from the dead, which was a great part of his glorification, so shall saints rise from the dead too, which is a great part of their glorification.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 13, The “Miscellanies:” Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 178-179.

Earlier today, the Wikipedia entry for Jonathan Edwards contained this little gem, which has now been removed:

His sermons such as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” inspired his parishioners to coin what has now become an American colloquialism: “Ain’t no sermons like a J. Edwards sermon, ’cause dem J. Edwards sermon don’ stop.”

My only question is, why was this removed??

(HT: Justin Taylor)

354. CONVICTION, HUMILIATION.

Christ himself endured great trouble and a sense of God’s wrath before his exaltation and the enjoyment of God’s love. The people of Israel endured cruel bondage and were forty years in a desolate wilderness before they came to the pleasant land.

As men are in two exceeding different states, first a state of condemnation and then a state of justification, so it seems reasonable and wise that they should be so sensibly; first that they should be sensibly in a state of condemnation, before they are sensibly in a state of justification: that so the sense of the mind should be in the same order as the state of the soul. For as the glory of the thing is in its being in this order—tis the glory of redemption that it is after so exceeding miserable, extreme, necessitous [a] condition—so it tends much to the sensibleness of the glory, that the man should be first sensible of his misery and extreme necessity, and afterwards of Christ’s sufficiency and salvation. It tends much to the perception of the glory, for there is no glory without perception; and the perception God intended is surely as much in the person that is the subject of the work, as any. It may in some measure answer the end to look back and see past misery and danger, and so only to be sensible of [them] after they are past, but ordinarily not so well. And if this order ben’t observed and they are not made sensible so, I believe God often, by one means or other, keeps them or brings them into doubts about their condition after they are converted, and so makes them sensible, or some other way makes it up.

Flying for refuge denotes fear preceding safety, or at least a sense of danger and necessity attending the application of the soul to Christ. He that comes to Christ does as it were resort to him as an hiding place from the wind and as a covert from the tempest, and as he that resorts to a cool shadow in a weary land after he has been scorched and made

faint by the heat, and as he that comes at length to a river of refreshing water in a dry place after he has been sore distressed with thirst; and Christ is so much the sweeter to him. Proverbs 18:10, “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 13, The “Miscellanies:” Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 428-429.

175. FUTURE STATE.

God, if he made the world, he undoubtedly ordered all things wisely in it. But he has made man and placed him in such circumstances, that he has made [it] his prudence with all his might and with all possible vigor to be providing for a future state. For he has made him so, and placed him in such circumstances that, let him exercise his reason never so much, he cannot be sure that there is no future state; but the more rational and most virtuous men are most apt to believe it—we find that by experience. God has given us no proofs that there is no future state, and he has placed man in such circumstances that, let him exercise his reason never so well, he will see many arguments for a future state which he cannot get over; and it can be proved by mathematical demonstration, that a probability or possibility of eternal happiness on one hand and misery on the other, is more to be regarded than the certainty of anything that has an end. But if God has made it our prudence to spend our lives in providing for a future state when there is none, he has not ordered things wisely.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 13, The “Miscellanies:” Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 325-326.