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.

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.

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.

God usually does much to prepare his people for those things which yet, if he pleased, he could bring to pass, and that in a due perfection, without any preparation. Thus much was done to prepare Joseph for his exaltation in Egypt. Much was done to prepare Moses for his high privileges and employment in his forty years banishment. Much was done to prepare the children of Israel to enter into covenant with God at Mt. Sinai, in the hard bondage they suffered in Egypt, and the great and terrible things which they had seen wrought by God on the Egyptians; and much was done to prepare them for the blessings of Canaan in their forty years’ travel through the wilderness, Deuteronomy 8. Much was done to prepare David for the crown of Israel, in the troubles he met with through Saul’s persecution, etc. How much was done to prepare the church for the blessings of the gospel introduced by Christ! What a law was given to [be] their tutor and schoolmaster, to train up the church for these privileges and their glorious inheritance, and what a variety of dispensations of providence did the church pass under, from the calling of Abraham, for that end. John the Baptist was sent to prepare the minds of men for Christ’s coming. What a long preparation had Christ himself for the work he had to do, before he entered on his public ministry. How much did the man Christ Jesus pass through, to fit him for the glory of his exaltation! How much did Christ do to the disciples, to prepare them for their privileges and business after his ascension. How long a time of preparation had they! The apostle Paul was long in Arabia, to fit him for the great things he was designed for. And how much have the church of God, to prepare them for the latter-day glory. And how much have the saints in this world, to fit ‘em for the heavenly state! God’s church and people are represented in Scripture by those plants that come to their perfection and ripe fruit through much preparation, and by many degrees. God reaps his harvest when it is ripe, and when the fields are white to the harvest, and gathers his fruits when come to maturity. Christ came into the world in the “fullness of time” [Galatians 4:4], when all things were ready; and so God accomplishes all that appertains to the salvation and glory of his people in the fullness of time. If the wisdom of God did not see it meet that there should be preparation for that spiritual good that he bestows on his church and people, there would be no use at all of means of grace, and prayer to God for the blessings we need would be of no benefit.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 20, The “Miscellanies:” 833-1152, ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 393-394.

In this miscellany entry, Edwards’s intent is to show that “enthusiasm” has been around as long as the church. There was excitement, and response to the proclamation of the Gospel, and perhaps much concern for the things of religion, but ultimately much of this would not amount to anything. The seeming movement of God’s Spirit through these people would prove to be, in Edwards’s words, “pretended.” If first century Judea was not immune to such “enthusiasm” at the preaching of such a saint of God as John the Baptist, Edwards is implying, then certainly it should be expected that there will be some excesses and false affections drafting the genuine work of God’s Spirit in the colonial awakenings.

Therefore, “enthusiasm” is no reason to discredit the awakenings outright, as the Old Lights would prefer. Rather, it is necessary to seek ways in which to separate the wheat and the chaff. In other words, to find what are “distinguishing marks of a work of the Spirit of God,” or what are “signs of truly gracious and holy affections.”

1058. ENTHUSIASM.
John the Baptist was a person greatly moved by the Spirit. He preached to the people in a very earnest manner, warning of their danger, calling upon ‘em to fly from the wrath to come with great pathos, manifesting his great engagedness not only in words but deeds: his incessant labor and great self-denial and great boldness in his work, fearing none, reproving great and small, whereby the people, seeing and hearing, were mightily moved. Christ therefore says concerning him, Matthew 11:7 and Luke 7:24, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” Which seems to imply that there is such a thing as men’s being mightily moved and actuated by something that is pretended to be the Spirit of God, but yet is vain and empty as the wind, exceeding unsteady, and soon comes to nothing, though violent; and that the persons that are the subjects of this emotion do show their great weakness in yielding to it, and being governed by [it]. Such there were, many of them, in the primitive ages of the Christian church. Christ denies John the Baptist to be such a one.

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 20, The “Miscellanies:” 833-1152, ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 395.

764b. INCARNATION OF CHRIST. UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.

What Christ says in the John 3:33–34, confirms that the Holy Spirit is the bond of union by which the human nature of Christ is united to the divine, so as to be one person. “He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” Which words may be thus paraphrased: he that hath received my testimony as true, and sets to his seal that I speak true, he therein sets to his seal that God speaks true, for in my speaking of it God speaks it. There is such an union between this human nature that immediately speaks with God’s [words], that the words in being my words are God’s words; which union is the consequence of God’s communicating his Spirit without measure to my human nature, so as to render it the same person with him that is God. Something more is doubtless intended than that he was an inspired person, and spake the Word of God as the prophets did. When Christ says that he that receives his testimony sets to his seal that God is true, because his words were God’s words, he doubtless has respect to something that is peculiar to himself, something that is his own prerogative; and therefore, the reason that he gives for it is something peculiar to him, viz. God’s giving the Spirit not by measure unto him. When he says that he that hears his words hears God’s words, and he that owns him to be true owns God to be true, ’tis most natural to understand him in a sense analogous to what he says elsewhere: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”; and “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” [John 5:17, John 14:9].

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 18, The “Miscellanies:” 501-832, ed. Ava Chamberlain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 411.

386. INCARNATION.

Christ, although he was conceived in the womb of one of fallen mankind, yet he was conceived without sin; because he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, which is divine love and holiness itself. That which infinite holiness and love immediately forms, it is impossible that it should have any sin.

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), 454.

121. INCARNATION.

Christ took the nature of a creature, not only because the creature’s great love to him desired familiar communion with him, more familiar than his infinite distance would allow, but also because his great love to us caused him to desire familiar communion with us. So he came down to us, and united himself to our nature.

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), 285.

27b. CONVERSION.

‘Tis most certain, both from Scripture and reason, that there must be a reception of Christ with the faculties of the soul in order to salvation by him, and that in this reception there is a believing of what we are taught in the gospel concerning him and salvation by him, and that it must be a consent of the will or an agreeableness between the disposition of the soul and those doctrines; so that the disposition is all that can be said to be absolutely necessary. The act cannot be proved to be absolutely necessary; that is, it can’t be proved that there is not the disposition before there is an act because it is said by some that [the fact that] a man can’t be saved before he has actually believed, if he is come to years of discretion, is plain by Scripture. But I say, no plainer than that a man must actually live a holy life before he can be saved; for the Scripture in many places speak as plainly about the necessity of a holy life as of believing. But by those expressions concerning a holy life, we can understand nothing else but a disposition that would naturally exert itself in holy [living] upon occasion; so we say of the believing disposition.

And as sometimes a person has this disposition within ‘em who have in times past felt the quickest: exercises of it, yet may not sensibly feel them for some time; so a man may have the disposition in him for some time before he ever sensibly feels them, for want of occasion and other reasons. ‘Tis the disposition and principle is the thing God looks at. Supposing a man dies suddenly and not in the actual exercise of faith, ’tis his disposition that saves him; for if it were possible that the disposition was destroyed, the man would be damned and all the former acts of faith would signify nothing.

Those particular acts our divines describe may possibly be necessary thus, that it is impossible for such a disposition to be in the mind, in such circumstances, without its being exercised in such particular kind of actions; which must be determined by plain consequence of nature or else by Scripture. The Scripture indeed, in many invitations to Christ, doth make use of the words “come,” “believe,” “trust,” “receive,” which without doubt signify those actions that are aptly represented by these expressions. It need not be doubted but that many of the ancient Jews before Christ were saved without the sensible exertions of those acts in that manner which is represented as necessary by some divines, because they had not those occasions nor were under circumstances that would draw them out; though without doubt they had the disposition, which alone is absolutely necessary now, and at all times and in all circumstances is equally necessary.

This is furthermore certain and evident concerning conversion, or a true reception of Christ, if it be actual: there must be a dying unto sin and an emptying of self that Christ may be all in all, what in the Scripture is called “hating our own life.”

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), 213-215.

27a. GOD

is a necessary being, because it’s a contradiction to suppose him not to be. No being is a necessary being but he whose nonentity is a contradiction. We have shown that absolute nothing is the essence of all contradictions; but being includes in it all that we call God, who is, and there is none else besides him.

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), 213.