LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

correspondence between Bellamy and Hopkins reveals Hopkins’ desire for Bellamy to be the spokesman for the New England Calvinists (see: Hopkins to Bellamy, October 8, 1758, HS 81268; Valeri, Law and Providence in Joseph Bellamy’s New England, 72, n. 36). For a competing sentiment, see: Edwards Amasa Park, The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge and Weeks, with an Introductory Essay, lxii-lxiii.

19. Crisp, “The Moral Government of God: Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Bellamy on the Atonement,” 78–90.

20. Bellamy, “True Religion Delineated,” 345.

21. Ibid., 320–22.

22. “True Religion Delineated,” WJB 1811, 390–92.

23 For two helpful accounts of conservative theology’s descent into liberalism in New England from the mid-eighteenth century, both of which implicate Bellamy’s work as a substantive cause, see: Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in American; Smith, Changing Conceptions of Original Sin: A Study of American Theology Since 1750.

24. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity Movement: Calvinism, the Congregational Ministry and Reform in New England between the Great Awakenings.

25. Ibid., 13. For more detailed treatment of Hopkins and Disinterested Benevolence, see: Post, “Disinterested Benevolence: An American Debate over the Nature of Christian Love,” 356–68.

26. Ferm, Jonathan Edwards the Younger, ch. 5.

27. Harrison, A Discourse Delivered, 18. Bezzant rightly points the impertinence that such thinking would have been to Gelston’s mentor at the time, were it to have been made public. According to Bezzant, “Such an attitude in [President] Edwards stood in stark relief to the later reputation of those in the New Divinity, who, it was said, developed quite hierarchical conceptions of master and learner, in which refusal to accept the received wisdom of the theological system was met with disapproval,” “Edwards as Mentor,” 237–38.

28. The locus classicus for the decline and fall narrative of New England theology is found in Harountunian, Piety Versus Moralism. Arguably, the most helpful treatment of this dominant historiography is put forward by Brietenbach in “Piety and Moralism,” 177–204. See also: Valeri, Law and Providence, ch. 2.

29. Various iterations of the development of an atonement theory in New England theology appear in: Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 101–2; Stephens, “An Appeal to the Universe,” 55–72; Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 134–5; Ferm, Jonathan Edwards the Younger, 114–16. Rudisill, The Doctrine of the Atonement; Foster, A Genetic; Boardman, A History of New England Theology.

30. The Moral Government model of atonement comes in a surprising variety of expressions. Traditionally, though perhaps mistakenly, the first to articulate a Moral Government model was Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), the Dutch (Arminian) theologian, and jurist (this has recently been contested; see: Williams, “A Critical”).

31. According to Packer, there is no single paradigm that accounts for all iterations of the doctrine of penal substitution. Nevertheless he locates certain features or aspects common to most accounts, aspects including: 1) the retributive demands of divine justice, 2) the necessity of the atonement, 3) the substitutionary and penal nature of atonement, and 4) the infinite, objective value of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice; see: Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve?” 3–46.

32. See e.g.: Crisp, “Penal Non-Substitution,” 299–327 (hereafter, RCPT); Crisp, “The Moral Government of God,” 78–90; Cooley and Sweeney, “The Novelty of the New Divinity;” Cooley, “The New England Theology and Atonement”

33. Joseph Bellamy was the first of the New England theologians to articulate what has been traditionally characterized as a full-scale moral government theory of atonement. His account was in many ways formulaic for many later Edwardsians, including Samuel Hopkins, Jonathan Edwards Jr, Edwards Amasa Park, amongst other. Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated (1750) is commonly regarded as the first expression of the moral government theory in America. Its wild success is recorded in such works as: Stowe, Oldtown Folks, 373–75; Valeri, Law and Providence. For more on the relationship between Bellamy and Edwards and an explanation of the so-called “endorsement story,” see: Crisp, “The Moral Government of God,” 78–90.

34. Park, “The Rise of the Edwardian Theory of the Atonement.” For some helpful and rather critical interaction with Parks essay, see: Cooke, “Edwards on the Atonement,” 97–120. Works comparable to the value of Parks’ essay, include: Bellamy, True Religion Delineated; Edwards Jr, “On the Necessity of the Atonement,” 1–42; Edwards Jr, “Remarks on the Improvements,” 481–92; Edwards Jr, “Thoughts on the Atonement;” West, The Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement.

35. “When moral creatures are brought into existence, there must be a moral government. It cannot be reconciled with the wisdom and goodness of God, to make intelligent creatures and leave them at random, without moral law and government” (Edwards Jr, “On the Necessity of the Atonement,” 6).

36. Edwards, WJE 1:431 (Edwards discusses God’s moral government at varying lengths throughout his works. For some of his more detailed discussion, see: “Miscellanies” nos. 13, 102, 119, 132, 137, 177, 346, 422, 525, 547, 651, 661 n. 5, 702, 742, 752, 760, 762, 954, 1039, 1183, 1196, 1299; “Concerning the End for which God Created the World,” WJE 8:429, 488–99).

37. According to Park, “The moral law is a transcription of the divine perfections, and all God’s government is designed to unfold his own true character, and exhibit a genuine picture of it to the world. Accordingly, we may forever expect to see his mind written, and his character as indubitably expressed, in what he does, as in what he says, in the government which he exercises, as in the law which he has given,” The Atonement, lxvii). In this passage, Park quotes West, The Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement, 23, 25, 26, 66, 88, 112, 114, 150, 153.

38. Edwards writes elsewhere that “this was the grand rule given to Adam; and the command of not eating the forbidden fruit was only given to try whether he would keep God’s commands or no, to try whether he would be obedient to the law of nature, or moral law. As the moral law was the grand law given to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and is often called THE LAW, and is spoken of as THE LAW given to them, and the time of the giving of the Ten Commands is spoken of as the time of the giving the law, as if that had been the whole of the law given—and indeed, it was virtually so—and all those ceremonial laws that were added were only for the trial

Скачать книгу