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 of their obedience to the great rules of this law, as particularly “thou shalt have no other gods before me,” etc.: it was to try whether they would keep that moral law, the rules of which required that they should love God with all their heart, with all their souls, and with all their mind, and all their strength, and regard his authority and glory, and submit themselves wholly to him, and yield themselves up to him, and obey and serve him as their God’ (“Miscellanies” n. 884, WJE 20:144). See also: “Blank Bible,” WJE 24:702, 1125.
39. Edwards, “The Great Doctrine of Original Sin Defended,” WJE 3:141.
40. This move may well be as much an ecclesial manoeuvre as it is a theological one. Consider that the generation following Edwards’ death was marked by ecclesial difficulties consisting chiefly in a lack of authority. Mark Valeri argues that Edwards’ chief successor, Joseph Bellamy, in his True Religion Delineated, attempted to wed his theological determinism to the language of the “moral discourse of Enlightenment ethics,” convinced that the only hope for the doctrinal rehabilitation of New England was to demonstrate publicly the indispensability of divine authority to the virtue of the moral law. See: Bellamy, “True Religion Delineated,” 50, 51. See also: Valeri, Law and Providence, 42, 49, 51; Erskine to Bellamy: Jan. 26, 1753, HS document number 81199, Joseph Bellamy Papers, Boxes 187–90, Folders 2929–64, Case Memorial Library, Hartford Seminary, Hartford, Connecticut. According to Valeri, “Bellamy’s burden was to elucidate this axiom in a way that rendered experimental Calvinism ethically compelling” (Law and Providence, 50).
41. Park, The Atonement, xiii–x.
42. Edwards Jr, “On the Necessity of the Atonement,” 8–9. Compare with, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law.”
43. Bellamy, True Religion Delineated, 60. See also, “The design of the
