(Continued from page 17.)
HAVING given a brief description of the book which Boston looked upon as a discovery, let us now turn our attention to what befell it in Scotland. Mr. Drummond, hearing Boston speaking so highly of the book, desired to get a reading of it. After perusal, it passed into the hands of the Rev. James Hog, Carnock, who republished it in 1718. It was again republished in 1726, with notes by Thomas Boston, which notes occupy much more than half the space of the “Marrow.”
The “Marrow” was not long in circulation when Principal Hadow of St. Andrews, in a sermon which he preached before the Synod of Fife, attacked the book as teaching universal redemption and other errors. His sermon, which was entitled “The Record of God, and Duty of Faith therein required,” was published, by request of the Synod, in April, 1719. Immediately a shower of pamphlets was poured upon the religious public, which had the effect of stirring up the interest of the people. Principal Hadow seems to have been one of those coldly orthodox men who have pretty clear views of doctrinal truth, but whose hearts have never been moved by the wail of the perishing, nor their souls made glad because the Gospel of Christ is so extensive in its call, and so effectual when applied by the Spirit. It is commonly said that the Principal bore a grudge against Hog since their student days in Holland. Be that as it may, this one thing is certain, that the General Assembly were not long in taking the book into consideration after the Principal’s attack. After the Auchterarder case the Assembly had appointed a committee under the name of “the Committee for Purity of Doctrine.” This committee, we will charitably suppose, fired with a zeal worthy of a better cause, and deeply concerned for the purity of doctrine in the national church, summoned Messrs. Hog, Warden, Hamilton, and Brisbane before it. Hog, in answer to one of the questions put by the Committee, said “he had received more light about some of the important concerns of the glorious Gospel by perusing that book than by any other human writings which Providence had put into his hands.” The committee having reported to the Assembly, that court at once condemned the “Marrow” as teaching (1) assurance is the essence of faith, (2) universal atonement and pardon, (3) holiness not necessary to salvation, (4) fear of punishment and hope of reward not allowed to be motives of a believer’s obedience, (5) believers are not under the law as a rule of life. Needless to say, the “Marrow” taught no such doctrines, but owing to the manner in which sentences were wrenched from their context, the “Marrow” appeared to be a very dangerous book. The passing of this Act caused alarm and distress to the friends of evangelical truth, for, as the Marrowmen put it, the
Assembly had condemned “a bundle of sweet and pleasant Gospel truths.” They lost no time in an endeavour to get this Act repealed. At the next Assembly a representation was presented to the following effect:—”The representers express their grief that inasmuch by their Act the Assembly had given a severe blow to gospel truth in condemning the following positions as unsound and dangerous, viz.:—’That in the Gospel the Father hath made a free unlimited offer of Christ and of salvation to all men, by virtue of which every individual who hears the Gospel has warrant to take hold of the said offer, and to apply salvation to his own soul; that an assured persuasion of the truth of God’s promise in the Gospel, with respect to one’s self in particular, is included in the very nature of saving faith; that the believer’s holiness is in no way the price or condition of his salvation; that believers, in yielding obedience to the law as a rule of life, ought not to be influenced either by mercenary hopes of heaven or by slavish fears of hell; that the believer is not in any respect under the law as a covenant of works; and that it is a just and scriptural distinction which is made betwixt the law as a covenant of works and the law as a rule of life in the hands of Christ.'”* The names of the ministers who signed this representation are James Hog, Carnock; Thomas Boston, Ettrick; John Bonar, Torphichen; John Williamson, Inveresk; James Kidd, Queensferry; Gabriel Wilson, Maxton; Ebenezer Erskine, Pormoak; Ralph Erskine and James Wardlaw, Dunfermline; Henry Davidson, Galashiels; James Bathgate, Orwell; and William Hunter, Lilliesleaf. Among these the reader will at once recognise the names of Thomas Boston, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine as names that have been familiar to him from earliest years. Boston was one of the most outstanding men of his day. “Brave, honest, capable of forming his own opinions about everything, never letting a question lie by him unsettled, combining with the aspirations or ambitions of a strong and active intellect, a sense of responsibility which pressed him to work with his might. In spite of the most unfavourable circumstances he found his way to theological eminence, and left his mark both on the theology and religion of his country.” He was the ablest Hebrew scholar of his day in his own country, and by far the ablest divine. The figure of Boston stands out very prominently on the page of Scottish Church History, his memory is kept fragrant in the hearts of his pious countrymen, and it may be safe to predict that the name of Thomas Boston will be lovingly remembered and cherished in Scotland as long as there is a people who love the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. The Erskines, while not having written anything that attained such a wide circulation as the “Fourfold State,” have exercised quite as great an influence over the people of Scotland, if not greater than Boston. The burning
* Mackenrow’s “History of the Secession Church,” vol. I., p. 18.
fervour of their preaching, and the evident delight they had in proclaiming the infinite fulness that dwelt in Christ, gave them an honoured and revered place in the hearts of their hearers. Again, being prominent figures in the Secession of 1733, the sphere of their influence was widened, and the mark of their theology was for long stamped upon the teaching of the church which made such a noble stand against the tyranny of General Assemblies, and the unjust claims of patronage. The other names are not quite so well known to us, but while they may not have been men to whom the world would beck and bow, their names have come down to us in honoured company, and we honour them for the noble stand which they took against the moderatism of the national church. But to return to the proceedings of the General Assembly against the representers as they were called. The King’s Commissioner having become suddenly indisposed during the sitting of the Assembly of 1721, the court was dissolved, and the representation was referred to the Commission. After various appearances before the Commission, twelve queries were presented to them, to which they were requested to return answers. Ebenezer Erskine and Wilson of Maxton prepared the answers, stating at the same time that “their condescension herein shall not be construed as an approbation of this method of proceeding, nor be improved as a precedent.” These answers were apparently not received by the Assembly—they are usually printed as an appendix to the later editions of the “Marrow”; further reference will be made to them when we come to deal with the theology of the Marrowmen. The Assembly of 1722, while apparently ignoring the answers of the Marrowmen, did not ignore the Marrowmen themselves, for they were ordered to the bar, where they were rebuked and admonished “in the hope that the great lenity used towards them shall engage them to be more dutiful in future.” The blind irony of these words did not chill the representers’ ardour, for they protested against the Assembly’s Act, declaring “it shall be lawful for us to profess, preach, and bear testimony unto the truths condemned by the said Acts, or whatsoever shall follow thereupon.” Here now was a grave crisis! Will the Assembly depose these men, seeing that they refuse to obey its decisions? No doubt they would had it not been for the earnest solicitations of the government, who dreaded the effect of a breach in the church at a time when the country was threatened with an invasion. “Had not this influence been exerted,” says the elder Dr. MacCrie, “there is reason to believe that the sentence would have been more severe, and in that case the Secession would have taken place ten years earlier than it actually happened.”* So ended the judicial proceedings of one of the greatest controversies ever carried on within the Church of
Scotland. The condemnation of the “Marrow” made the people all the more anxious to know about it, and the Marrowmen became the people’s heroes. Popular feeling was certainly on the side of the marrowmen, and their communion seasons were attended by thousands. From Boston’s account of such times they must have much resembled our own Highland communions. D. B.
(To be Continued.)