© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/156973109X448724 Journal of Reformed eology 3 (2009) 175-201 brill.nl/jrt Jonathan Edwards on the Divine Nature Oliver D. Crisp Reader in eology, University of Bristol, UK E-mail: oliver.crisp@bristol.ac.uk Abstract In the recent literature there have been several accounts of Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of God (eology Proper). In this paper, I offer a rather different interpretation of Edwards, showing that his understanding of the divine nature is much more in keeping with the Reformed scholastic tradition in which he was educated, despite the fact that he ends up embracing a version of panentheism. Keywords divine nature, pure act, simplicity, dispositions, excellency, Trinity I confess there is a degree of indistinctness and obscurity in the close consideration of such subjects, and a great imperfection in the expressions we use concerning them; arising unavoidably from the infinite sublimity of the subject, and the incomprehensibleness of those things that are divine. —Jonathan Edwards, End of Creation I. IV One important question raised by several recent studies of the theology of the New England divine, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), is whether what he says about the divine nature constitutes an innovation in Reformed theology. Is Edwards’s eology Proper a departure from key claims in the Reformed orthodox theology in which he had been schooled? In contrast to several recent accounts of Edwards’s philosophical theology, I shall argue that his under- standing of dispositions (a key notion for his doctrine of God) is entirely consistent with his allegiance to a traditional, scholastic understanding of the divine nature. However, Edwards does go beyond his theological forbearers in asserting that God must create some world. It turns out that his argument is, to coin a phrase, a species of pure act panentheism—a term that will be explained in the course of the argument.