 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
The Marrow Controversy
Submitted by
Joel Gillespie
April 29, 1988
For “Calvin and the Reformed Heritage”
For J. I. Packer, Regent College, Vancouver
The marrow of the second bone is like that of the first, sweet and good. The commandments of God are marrow to the saints, as well as the promises, and they shall never taste the marrow of the promise who distaste the commandments. This little treatise breaketh the bone, the hard part of the commandments, by a plain exposition, that so all, even babes in Christ, yea, such as are yet out of Christ, may suck out and feed upon the marrow by profitable meditation. Joseph Caryl, Sept. 1, 1648(1).
With the words printed above, three years and seven editions after the initial printing in 1645 of Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Joseph Caryl recommended to the world, for its edification and sanctification, Fisher’s little gold mine of truth. Joseph Caryl, known to Puritan scholars as the writer of a pondersome commentary of the book of Job, had been assigned by the Westminster assembly the job of approving and revising books for publication(2). Little could caryl have known that E.F.’s (Edward Fisher of Mickleton, Gloucestershire?) little book would have a profound impact on the development of the Scottish Church almost a century later, a much greater role than it would ever have in England itself.
The purpose of The Marrow of Modern Divinity (hereafter referred to mostly as simply The Marrow) is to lay forth the way of eternal life, a way which is marked by a course moving between legalism on one side and antinomianism on the other. In E.F.‘s own words:
Now, both these paths leading from Christ, have been justly judged as erroneous; For this cause I, though I be nothing, have by the grace of God endeavoured, in this Dialogue, to walk as a middle man betwixt them both, in showing to each of them his erroneous path, with the middle path, (which is Jesus Christ received truly and walked in answerably,)...(3).
Although The Marrow of Modern Divinity went through a ninth edition in 1690, its popularity was virtually limited to England until the year 1698, when the Rev. Thomas Boston of Ettrich, Scotland discovered the book in the home of a parishioner, a soldier who had carried the book home from England. Boston, troubled prior to his discovery of The Marrow over the preaching of a colleague regarding death to the law, and struggling with certain implications of the doctrine of definite atonement, found in The Marrow a solution to many of these problems. The Marrow revolutionized his life and his preaching, and abolished all problems which had hindered him from giving a free offer of the gospel to his parishioners. Twenty years after his great find, as will be shown shortly, Boston aroused the interest of his friends in the book, an interest which led to The Marrow Controversy.
The presentation in this paper will take place in four phases: first, the theological and cultural milieu of Scotland in the 18th century will be examined; second, the historical facts surrounding the Marrow Controversy will be outlined; third, the theological issues raised in this controversy will be reviewed in some detail; and fourth, an evaluation will be offered by this writer.
The history of the Scottish church in the one hundred and thirty years prior to the Revolution Settlement of 1690 was passionate, turbulent, and often violent. Politics and religion were inseparably linked. Yet the Reformed Church of Scotland was rooted, not among a theological or aristocratic elite, but in the life of the people, people stirred by the preaching of the Word.
As H.T. Buckle wrote,
“its pulpits ...stirred up the minds of men, woke them from their lethargy … and excited that inquisitive and demonatic spirit, which is the only effectual guarantee the people can have against the tyranny of those set over them”(4).
This rooting of the spiritual life of the Church of Scotland in the people is perhaps all the more remarkable (particularly to modern ears in light of contemporary negative criticism of Calvinist Theology), given the strict discipline maintained in the Church and the adherence to these now “offensive” doctrines of Calvinism. James Walker in his excellent review of the theology of Scotland between 1560 and 1750, makes note of the common view that Scotch religion was “harsh, austere, gloomy; -- a stern and frowning thing, reveling in the dark, dread mysteries of a stern theology”(5).Given the strict discipline which found elders searching out Sabbath breakers, the grinding poverty of the people, the emphasis on Election and Reprobation, one can believe that there was perhaps a certain sternness and austerity to Scottish religion. Certainly theirs was a feisty lot of churchmen and theologians who were eager to fight over principle and truth. And fight they did, often to death. One does get the impression that perhaps by the end of the 17th century, the people were just tired out.
It is certainly not possible to discuss all the factors which shaped the world into which The Marrow entered Scotland in the 1720’s. Many factors were at play: the poverty of the nation, the union with the British with the economic conflict and opportunity brought by the union, the impact of the Age of Reason, the emerging spirit of toleration, the after-effects of the Covenanters and the reigns of Charles II and James II, and an abiding influence of British Erastians, -- all of these had a role. In the early 1700’s, the theological mood of moderation was ascendant but not yet mature. C.R. Cragg in his Pelican history The Church and The Age of Reason(6)describes these Scottish moderates as they reached full flower toward the middle of the century:
An optimistic view of human nature replaced the doctrine of total depravity. Reprobation, and even salvation by faith alone, dropped from sight as he expounded an ethic in which man’s duty consisted in achieving the beauty of an inner harmony….Preachers instructed in the new doctrine spoke much of virtue, liberality, and benevolence; they extolled the harmony of the passions and were silent about the great themes of Calvinism. They quoted Plato oftener than Paul… Preaching was simple, direct, and practical, but often it consisted of little more than common sense, doled out as moral counsel … they had drifted far from the doctrines to which they still pledged assent… we are aghast at the unveiled secularism which pervades them...(7).
It must be remembered that The Westminster Confession was the established doctrinal confession of the Church after the Revolution Settlement. In the four decades after that settlement, great energy and effort was expended making certain that every minister conformed to those confessional standards. Yet, when The Marrow arrived onto the scene, its detractors were at one and the same time rooted in a type of orthodox doctrinal legalism concerning The Westminster Confession, and moving steadily towards a theological moralism typical of the Moderates. The doctrinal legalism had been tainted by the ascendant rnoralism. One better understands the thinking of these theologians by seeing how they dealt with Marrow doctrine.
The controversy surrounding The Marrow arose out of another controversy which hit the Church in 1717. In that year, the Presbytery of Auchterarder, concerned about the legal preaching of the moderates, began to require that all ministerial students applying for licensure sign the following statement, known as the “Auchterarder Creed,”: “I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” One student refused to sign, was declined licensure, and appealed the matter to the General Assembly, which, the next year, condemned the Auchterarder Creed as “unsound and detestable.” Whether their concern was more with the dangers latent within the wording of the creed, or whether they in fact did not believe the statement to be true as naturally understood, is difficult to say. The Presbytery had certainly overstepped its authority vis a vis the General Assembly at large in demanding acquiescence to such a statement. Participating in the Assembly proceedings was Thomas Boston, a supporter of the Auchterarder Creed, who made reference to The Marrow in a conversation with a colleague. Word about the book spread; in 1718 a certain James Hog, Carnock, republished The Marrow, the first Scottish edition. Great interest and popularity followed the book and a pamphlet war was aroused.
Principal Hadow of St. Andrews attacked The Marrow in a sermon presented at the Assembly, and soon the matter came up before the Committee on Purity of Worship, whose real aim, in Boston’s view, was to hold watch over the Evangelical Party(8). This committee called The Marrow supporters before it, and after examination reported to the Assembly, which then cited The Marrow with teaching that “assurance is of the essence of faith, that the atonement is universal; that holiness is not necessary to salvation; and that the fear of punishment and hope of reward are all not allowed to be motives to a believer’s obedience”(9).
The next year the General Assembly strictly prohibited ministers to preach, print, recommend, or publicly favor The Marrow. Eventually twelve noted Evangelical ministers delivered a representation to the Assembly protesting its action and defending The Marrow’s doctrine. Twelve queries were presented to these “Marrowmen” in regard to controversial points (the queries and answers are fortunately added in the appendix to Thomas Boston’s edition of The Marrow.) The Assembly never received the answers, but the Representatives were rebuked and admonished.
Despite the fact that the Marrowmen were thereafter persecuted and The Marrow theology suppressed, the people flocked to the preaching of the Marrowmen. These men refused to abide by the directions of the Assembly, and in 1728 Boston, after four fruitful years of labor, published his own extensively annotated version of The Marrow. That nothing more was made of the matter by the Assembly probably had to do with the fact that Boston and Hadow had become teammates in another significant heresy trial.
One can only speculate as to whether the Secession of 1733 would have occurred in 1721, specifically over the Marrow controversy, had not the civil government, fearing schism, solicited the Assembly to be lenient on the Marrowmen. It is true that only two of the Marrowmen became Seceders -- the Erskine brothers, Ralph and Ebenezer. Others, such as Boston, preferred to avoid schism and remain a faithful witness within the Scottish church. (Boston eventually left in the 1761 schism). Yet, when one reads the Secession literature, one finds less material on the patronage issue than on clear presentations of Marrow doctrines. It appears that the patronage issue was primarily a “last straw.” The theological gulf had been established officially in the controversy surrounding The Marrow.
It is somewhat of a mystery to this writer how anyone could have indicted The Marrow or the Marrowmen on the charge of antinomianism. In the “Address to the Reader” at the beginning of the book, the author defines what he means by Antinomians:
These are they that content themselves with gospel knowledge, with mere notions in the head, but not in the heart; glorying and rejoicing in free grace and justification by faith alone; professing faith in Christ, and yet are not possessed of Christ; -- these are they that can talk like believers, and yet do not walk like believers; these are they that have language like saints, and yet have conversation like devils; -- these are they that are not obedient to the law of Christ, and therefore are justly called Antinomians(10).
What is this “Law of Christ?” Later in The Marrow, Edward Fisher distinguishes between the law of Christ, the law of the Gospel, and the law of the Ten Commandments. The Antinomian conceives that the Ten Commandments are no way to be a rule of life to a believer, for Christ has delivered him from them. This is rejected by the author. The law of the Ten Commandments is in fact to be a rule of life for the believer, because it is part of the law of Christ. That is, the natural law of the Ten Commandments, while for the unbeliever a law of works leading to cursing or blessing according to the promise of God, is a law for the Christian, but not a law unto life or death. It is a law to be obeyed out of love for Christ and before God as Father rather than before God as Judge(11). Evangelist, the spokesman for Fisher in the book’s dialogues, so repudiates Antinomist’s refusal to live under the Ten Commandments as a rule of life, that he counts the Antinomians as outside of the Grace of Christ(12).
In Query II, the Assembly questioned the Marrowmen on this matter: “Is not the believer now bound, by the authority of the Creator, to personal obedience to the moral law, though not in order to justification?” The reply was direct:
We are clear and full of the same mind with our confession, ‘That the moral law of the Ten Commandments doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of God the creator, who gave it’(13).
On the other hand, The Marrow makes it abundantly clear from the very first, that obedience to the moral law can in no way merit acceptance or forgiveness from God. Indeed the book as a whole offers a more direct attack against such Legalism that it does against Antinomianism. One can only assume that the opponents of The Marrow were angered by its teaching because they were in fact committed legalists. In a moving account, Nomista, the legalist in The Marrow’s dialogue, describes auto-biographically how he had committed himself, in all sincerity, to the obedience of the law, in order that he might please God and make himself worthy of God. This process involved deep grief of soul, repentance, tears, and great discipline. And for what he could not reach, Nomista depended on Christ to make up the difference. That is, his efforts plus Christ’s efforts equaled justification. To Evangelist, Nomista remained outside of Christ.
The Marrow was also charged with teaching that assurance is of the essence of faith. Here is seems that the Moderates were attempting to remain true to the letter of The Westminster Confession, which asserts that infallible assurance “doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he is partaker of it” (Chap. XVIII, sec. 3). Here the Confession stands against the reformers, who by and large maintained that “by saving faith the believer had a certainty or assurance that he was saved”(14).Unfortunately, The Marrow language is simply not clear on the matter. The key text occurs in a section where Evangelist is encouraging Neophyte in the way of salvation:
Wherefore, as Paul and Silas said to the jailer, so say I unto you, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;” That is, be verily persuaded in your heart that Jesus Christ is yours, and that you shall have life and salvation be him, that whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, he did for you(15).
The Marrow itself does not actually use the phrase “assurance of faith,” but rather “be verily persuaded.” In the context of the passage just cited, this may be called an “appropriating persuasion,” such that there is an application to the person’s self of what is believed. What is involved here is certainly not mere mental assent. But what is this appropriating persuasion? The Marrowmen, expanding upon the contents of The Marrow, used the phrase ‘‘assurance of faith,” but did not assign to it the same meaning as the Reformers. They distinguished between “assurance of sense” and the “assurance of faith”(16). The assurance of sense has the same meaning as the assurance spoken of by the Reformers and by the Confession. This is a believer’s assurance that he is in fact in Christ, or in a state of grace. The “assurance of faith,” however, is indispensable to true faith. The actual act of believing in Christ involves a type of persuasion, else one would not believe. That is, to believe something you have to believe something. There is something inherent in the nature of belief apart from self-conscious awareness of the efficacy of the belief that involves appropriating personally the object of belief. A summary of the distinction between these two assurances is found in Dr. Colquhoun of Leith’s Treatise on Saving Faith. It is somewhat lengthy, but is as clear a statement as can be found:
A man cannot have faith without having assurance in it; but he may have faith and not have assurance of it. For, though the mind cannot but be conscious of its own act, yet whether that act have the peculiar properties and nature of saving faith cannot satisfactorily be known but by reflection. The assurance of sense or reflection, then, is not a believing in Christ; but it is a believing that we have believed in Him. It is not a direct act terminating on Him, but a reflex act by which we are assured of the saving nature of that direct act. But, although the direct act may be without the reflex, yet the latter cannot be without the former. A man must begin to believe before he can begin to know that he has believed …. The assurance of faith is commonly not so strong nor sweet as the assurance of sense which is supported by evidences. By the former, a man trusts upon the warrant of the free offer and promise that Christ will do the part of the Savior to him; by the latter he believes upon the inner evidences of grace, that his faith is unfeigned and operative …. The object of the assurance of faith in Christ revealed and offered in the Word; the object of the assurance of sense in Christ formed and perceived in the heart, the former in the root and the latter in the fruit(17).
It is no wonder that the Assembly, given the nature of The Marrow itself as it merely touched down briefly and ambiguously on this matter, went after The Marrow on this issue. One senses here the selective theological exactness of the anti-Marrow forces. Whatever The Marrow may have possibly implied by “verily persuaded,” the issue of assurance was simply not a central focus of the book. Were the Assemblymen so personally opposed to the Reformers’ view of assurance (possibly because of their anti-evangelical, anti-personal-salvation emphasis) that even a slight hint of it made their blood rise? Or were they, as legalists, so opposed to the central brunt of The Marrow that they were merely looking for ways to discredit it? Since the Marrowmen’s answers to the Assembly’s queries were never received or responded to officially, there is no record of how the Assembly may have regarded the Marrowmen’s “creative” interpretation.
The question of the extent of the atonement, or perhaps more accurately, the problem of a universal call and a definite atonement, raises itself in The Marrow in relation to the issue of “persuasion.” That is, those things the believer is to be persuaded about (i.e., the content of what is to be believed) themselves raise questions as to what sense Christ is available to all men. After Evangelist exhorts Neophyte to believe, Neophyte asks the following question: “But sir, has such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?” The controversial reply is as follows:
I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life. And hence it was that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, Mark xvi. 15, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven.” That is, go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him: Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him(18).
First, it must be noted that the Marrowmen and the author of The Marrow were “particular redemptionists.” In The Marrow, this is clear even in the opening address to the reader:
“even so Jesus Christ, the second Adam, did, as a common person, enter into covenant with God his Father, for all the elect, that is to say, all those that have, or shall believe on his name”(19).
Evangelist later states unequivocally that some are ordained to condemnation and some to eternal blessing. But to wonder about who may be elect and who may be reprobate is to pry into the hidden counsel of God. Election and reprobation are secrets which belong to God. In regard to the doctrine of reprobation, Walker notes of the Marrowmen that they “treat it, as it were, with a holy awe, and do not care to think it forwards”(20).Yet, Walker also points out that The Marrow theology was almost extreme in its doctrine of particular redemption”(21).The Marrow clearly distinguishes the revealed will of God from the hidden or decretive will of God. The latter is put into the background, as it is in Scripture. The former is that which encompasses the true thrust of Scripture; that is, the command to believe and the promise that “if you believe you shall not perish but have everlasting life.” The Marrow wanted to put the gospel as near as possible to the human heart in an authentic personal gospel offer. This offer is that of a gift, a gift described in the phrase, “Christ is dead for you.” As Boston explains in his notes, this means that “Christ is there for him to come to, that a Savior is provided, that there is a crucified Christ for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the making of which he may be saved”(22).Much is made of the “whosoever will” passages -- of the banqueting table spread and ready for anyone to come to. The gift is objective, there, for every man to take. Indeed it is the availability of this gift, combined with the command to take it, which gives the believer warrant to believe. The warrant is the free gospel offer. “Christ is ours before we believe,” writes Boston, in the sense that He is there to take possession if we will believe. The gift of Christ is not of possession, but by way of grant or offer, that one may take possession. There is a genuine love for mankind on God’s part such that he makes the gift available to all men [not all kinds of men], such that the fledgling believer may believe that “whatsoever He has done for all men He has done for me.”
There is no doubt here that The Marrow used words and phrases open to question. The distinction between “Christ is dead for you” and “Christ has died for you” is subtle at best. And there is a type of universalism described, a universalism of gift or grant, although not a universalism of election. There is an atoning love which extends to all men by way of the free offer of the gospel, the deed or grant to believe. What seems to have disturbed the GeneralAssembly was this very concept of a “free offer.” Their questions suggest that a free offer was only compatible with universalism, not with definite or particular atonement. There seems among them to have been a cold legalism in regard to the decrees of God, a legalism which precluded the warm free offer of salvation to all men.
The very fact that Thomas Boston had need to print such extensive notes on The Marrow suggests that The Marrow was at least open to misinterpretation. Often Boston writes as if he knew what the Marrow really meant. One could claim that he was trying to use the Marrow to substantiate his perceptions, that he was using his scholarship to substantiate The Marrow’s substantiations. Nevertheless, there is a spirit about The Marrow to which this writer would think that any evangelical’s heart could pulse. Indeed, much of the teaching of The Marrow is taken for granted in Reformed Evangelical circles today.
But the Assembly was not without warrant in having concern over the book. There are unguarded phrases and questionable expressions. One could have hoped that the Assembly could have offered a more careful reading, especially in regard to the charge of Antinomianism, which The Marrow whatever else it may be, is certainly not. Yet in its theology of assurance and free-offer The Marrow does go beyond the confines of what was then, and perhaps even now, orthodox reformation teaching. Louis Berkhof, as he deals with assurance and the extent of the atonement respectively in his Systematic Theology, in both cases has a special word for the Marrowmen. In regard to the teaching of the Confession on assurance, Berkhof writes, “The Marrowmen in Scotland certainly gave a different interpretation of its position”(23). He does not expand on this. Concerning the extent of the atonement, under the Reformed Position, he offers a separate place The Marrow teaching:
The Marrowmen of Scotland were perfectly orthodox in maintaining that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, though some of them used expression which pointed to a more general reference of the atonement. They said that Christ did not die for all men, but that He is dead, that is available, for all. God’s giving love, which is universal, led him to make a deed or gift or grant to all men; and this is the foundation of the universal offer of salvation. His electing love, however, which is special, results in the salvation of the elect only(25).
There is nothing in Berkhof’s six-point substantiation of the bona-fide offer of salvation to all men which would call The Marrow teaching into question. He does however express concern regarding the wider hearing of the atonement in the Marrowtheology, whereby all sinners are legates of the administration of the covenant of grace(26). Here is an expansion of the Reformers’ legate-legatee distinction. According to Boston, every man is entitled to put in his claim for the testament of Christ. As Walker summarizes “To the elect-only the testament becomes effectual; but they are not the only persons to whom the legacies are left”(27). Berkhof notes that this legate-legatee position was condemned by the Church of Scotland(28). Does Berkhof mean by this the moderate-controlled church or something else? Does Berkhof imply that he agrees that the teaching was condemnable? Whether the Marrowmen erred in this matter or not, one is grateful for the extent to which they went both to put forth and to justify the offer of the gift of salvation to all sinners. Their equating of the “elect” with the “whosoever believes” is also quite helpful. Their refusal to probe into the mind of God regarding election and reprobation is commendable. James Walker, while not sympathizing with Marrow teaching on all counts, was able to say of these Marrowmen:
Boston and The Marrowmen, first of all among our divines, entered fully into the missionary spirit of the Bible; were able to see that Calvinistic doctrine was not inconsistent with world conquering aspirations and efforts(29).
Endnotes
(1) Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes by The Rev. Thomas Boston. (Philadelphia Presbyterian Board of Publication, ?). p. 3.
(2) Donald Beaton, “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy,” Records of the ScottishChurch History Society., (Vol. 1, Pt. III., 1925), p. 118.
(3) Fisher, p. 19.
(4) John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 307.
(5) James Walker, Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560- 1750, (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), p. 157.
(6) G.R. Cragg, The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), P. 89.
(7) lbid., p. 89.
(8) Beaton, p. 117.
(9) lbid., p. 118.
(10) Fisher, P. 18.
(11) Ibid., p. 337.
(12) lbid., p. 349.
(13) Ibid., p. 349.
(14) Beaton, p. 124.
(15) Fisher, p. 116.
(16) Beaton, p. 124.
(17) lbid., p. 124.
(18) Fisher, p. 130.
(19) Ibid., P. 15.
(20) Walker, p. 91.
(21) Ibid., p. 91.
(22) Fisher, p. 128.
(23) L. Berkhof. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 508.
(24) Ibid., p. 394.
(25) Ibid., p. 398.
(26) Ibid., p. 398.
(27) Walker, p. 92.
(28) Berkhof, p. 398.
(29) Walker, p. 94.
Bibliography
Beaton, Donald. “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy.” Records of the ScottishChurch History Society. VolI., pt. III., 1925, pp. 112-134.
Berkhof. L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Burleigh, J.H.S. A Church History of Scotland. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1960.
Campbell, Andrew J. Two Centuries of the Church of Scotland 1707-1929. Paisley: Alexander Gardner, Ltd., 1930.
Cragg, G.R. The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1966.
Fisher, Edward. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,
Henderson, Henry F. The Religious Controversies of Scotland. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905.
Henderson, G.D. The Church of Scotland: A Short History. Edinburgh: The Church of Scotland Youth Committee,
King, Ray A. A History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Charlotte: A.R.P. Board of Christian Education, 1966.
McCrie, Thomas. The Story of the ScottishChurch. London: Blackie and Son, 1875.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1967,
Story, Robert Herbert, editor. The Church of Scotland Past and Present, 4 Vols. London: William MacKenzie P. Vol 4: The Doctrine of the Church of Scotland, by Adam Milroy.
Thomson, Andrew. Historical Sketch of the Origin of the SecessionChurch. London: A. Fullurton and Co., 1848.
Walker, James. Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750. Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982. |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
