true character of God and of Christ, we have the fullest assurance is law is holy, just and good. Without this, what ever be the sufferings in support of it, or however punctually obeyed, we would have no certainty of its justice.
In this final atonement-related question, Gelston further affirms his commitment to something other than penal substitution. The key phrase here is when Gelston says, “Something more than merely suffering the threatening of the law is necessary to vindicate its justice.” In this way, Gelston is saying that Christ must do more than merely suffer by absorbing the penal consequences. He must honor the law and its requirement, which in turn honor’s the Father. Notice again, as with his previous answer, the link between the moral law’s demands and the demands of God, the legislator. Although, these finer distinctions do not allow us to make a simple and easy categorization of what Gelston actually believed. The difficulty is parsing out his understanding of the specific mechanism at work in the atonement and how this relates to God and his moral law, particularly the specifics of meting out the requirements of the law beckons a serious scholarly return to the New England theological tradition, Gelston offering us one window into what remains a veritable trove of rich, under-researched theology. The complexity and depth of insight amongst New England theologians and the intricacy of doctrinal developments that have emerged from it are reflected here in the reading of Gelston.
Conclusion
To speak of New England dogmatics still remains something of a contradiction. Our introducing Gelston and his doctrine of atonement is but a modest contribution to this untapped and underdeveloped field of research. The doctrine of atonement reflects a wider and deeper conversation needing to occur with New England theology. So also is the relationship of Reformed dogmatics at large with their New England brethren.
Having been almost exclusively a matter of historical interest, and motivated primarily by questions about the nature of President Edwards’ doctrinal relationship to his intellectual progeny, contemporary systematic and constructive use of Edwards’ intellection tradition remains very much in its infancy. The atonement is but one example; one that still requires serious or sustained systematic theological inquiry. While penal substation theory was swirling around in New England discussions, it is apparent that it is not the dominant theory of the day—unlike what we find today in Reformed evangelical churches. How penal substitution assumed the dominant place in contemporary discussions depends on the social, cultural, and theological mores leading to its acceptance. During Gelston’s time and location, the moral government and Anselmian satisfaction are live, even popular, and robust options for New Englander’s. They, too, should be live options for contemporary theologians, as we have shown above. Through a process of retrieval, New England thought helps us raise new questions, in our social and historical context, about God’s relationship to his creation, the law, and Christ’s relationship to these doctrinal loci. Again, Gelston leads us to raise these questions.
Our brief investigation into Gelston provides one way in which the theologian might find it useful. What you have in your hands is a lens into the New England tradition and its influence on Reformed theological developments in America. Certainly other doctrines deserve our reflection. Gelston advances some interesting thoughts on the nature of revelation, natural knowledge of God, God’s Trinitarian nature, and the study of last things. These thoughts may or may not be novel insights from Gelston. Even still, they too reflect the New England tradition of theological development.
1. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 405.
2. The collected works of the most prominent New England theologians are housed in the thirty-seven-volume series, Kuklick, American Religious Thought of the 18th and 19th Centuries.
3. The most recent contribution to this literature are the essays contained in Crisp and Sweeney (eds.), After Edwards: The Courses of the New England Theology.
4. Crisp, “Penal Non-Substitution,” 140–68.
5. The biographical information for Maltby Gelston is gathered from the following sources: Harrison, A Discourse Delivered . . . at the Funeral of Rev. Maltby Gelston (1857); Dexter, Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale with Annals of the College History, Vol. 4, July 1778–June 1792 (1907), 708–9; Ogden, An Address Delivered . . . Union Hall, Jamaica, Long Island (1842), 4; Franklin, History of Long Island (1839), 144–26, 397; Giddings, The Giddings Family (1882), 123; Verill (ed.), Maltby-Maltbie Family History (1916), 342–432.
6. For a helpful resource on ministerial education in New England during this period, see: Gambrell, Ministerial Education in Eighteenth-Century New England. More recently, see: Warch, School of the Prophets: Yale College, 1701–40; Kling, “New Divinity School of Prophets 1750–1825: A Case Study in Ministerial Education,” 185–206; Minkema, “Jonathan Edwards on Education and His Educational Legacy,” 31–50; Bezzant, “‘Singly, Particularly, Closely’: Edwards as Mentor,” 228–247.
7. Inscribed on the first page of Gelston’s Systematic Collection, is a note which reads, “A copy by Maltby Gelston when studying divinity of the questions and answers of Dr. Edwards a son of President Edwards, when he gave instruction in theology in his study in New Haven to young men seeking the ministry—Mills B. Gelston, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1887.” Mills Bordwell Gelston was the seventh child of Maltby Gelston. He was born August 27, 1817 and died of a paralytic stoke February 28, 1903. Like his father, Mills Gelston was educated at Yale College and eventually became a Presbyterian minister to Ann Arbor, Michigan.
8. (Courtesy of Gloria Thorne) Gelston’s ledger (c.1832) records some interesting details about the social affairs of the town and his own interaction with its various members, one of which was the town’s ‘shoemaker,’ Willy Bertrum:
Tapping a pair of shoes .12 ½ (cents)
By mending shoe- .03
Making a pair of shoes- .50
Mending shoes & boots .16
Making small pair of shoes- .40
Making small pair of shoes- .30
Sole leather 4 pr. Shoes- .35
The ledger also records a variety of details of Gelston’s personal and church related interactions:
P[ai]d. David Northrop for recording 2 deeds @ .20c ea.
Thomas Hall for repair of windows at Meetinghouse $1.50,
drawing away old steeple .75
Delazon Hungerford — 3 days worth threshing - $1.50
Cloth for pantaloons — $2.16
To John Appleby, a bull — $9.00
Cyrus Hungerford — making pair boots & mending upper leather — $2.75
Eggs — 10 cents doz.
15 pounds nails @ 7 cents # = $1.05
Use of team for the day = .50c.
2 days chopping wood — $2
