The Marrow condemned

The book reprinted

The Marrow of Modern Divinity was the work of an Englishman, Edward Fisher. MacPherson writes that Thomas Boston, while minister of Simprin, found it in the house of one of his parishioners. Beaton tells how, in conversation about the Auchterarder case [a presbytery’s test for students, which the Assembly condemned], Boston mentioned the book to John Drummond of Crieff, who found a copy in Edinburgh; it passed to James Webster and then to James Hog, minister of Carnock in Fife, who “made up his mind to have it reprinted.”¹

The Assembly’s Act describes it as “reprinted at Edinburgh, anno [in the year] 1718, with an ample recommendation prefixed thereto, which they found was dispersed and come into the hands of many of the people”. Boston writes that it was “reprinted at Edinburgh, anno 1718, with a preface by Mr. James Hog, minister of Carnock”, and Beaton also gives 1718. M’Crie has Hog republish it “in 1717”.²

Boston records that Principal James Hadow of St Andrews attacked the book “in his sermon before the synod of Fife, April 7, 1719”, and that the Assembly that year told its Commission “to call before them any authors or recommenders of books or pamphlets containing any doctrine not agreeable to the Confession of Faith”. About the beginning of April 1720 the Commission’s committee examined Hog, Alexander Hamilton of Airth, James Brisbane of Stirling and John Warden of Gargunnock. Hog told them, Boston writes from Hog’s own narrative, “that he had received more light about some important concerns of the glorious Gospel by perusing that book, than by other human writings”.³

The Act of 20 May 1720

The Act sets out passages “collected out of the said book by a committee for preserving the purity of doctrine”, under five heads:⁴

• “Concerning the Nature of Faith”
• “Of Universal Atonement and Pardon”
• “Holiness not necessary to Salvation”
• “Fear of Punishment and Hope of Reward not allowed to be motives of a Believer’s Obedience”
• “That the Believer is not under the Law as a Rule of Life”

It adds “six following Antinomian [against the moral law] Paradoxes”, and further “Expressions in the Marrow”. Beside each head it sets the texts of Scripture and the chapters of the Confession and Larger Catechism which it judged the passages to contradict.⁵

The Assembly found “that the said passages and quotations, which relate to the five several heads of doctrine above mentioned, are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, our Confession of Faith and Catechisms”, and then decreed: “the General Assembly do hereby strictly prohibit and discharge all the ministers of this Church, either by preaching, writing, or printing, to recommend the said book, or, in discourse, to say any thing in favour of it; but, on the contrary, they are hereby enjoined and required to warn and exhort their people, in whose hands the said book is, or may come, not to read or use the same.”⁶

Boston dates the Act “May 20, 1720”, and notes that three days before, on 17 May, James Webster had died, who “expressed his concern that they would beware of condemning it.” MacPherson writes that the Assembly resolved, “only four members dissenting”, to prohibit the book.⁷

The Representers

Boston, with his friends Gabriel Wilson and Henry Davidson, brought the Act before the Presbytery and then the Synod of Merse and Teviotdale, where they were outvoted. They wrote to Hog, and in the latter end of February 1721, Boston writes, “There met then, in the house of Mr. William Wardrobe, apothecary in Edinburgh, Mr. James Kid, minister at Queensferry, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine at Portmoak, his brother Mr. Ralph aforesaid, Mr. James Wardlaw at Dunfermline, Mr. William Wilson at Perth, Mr. James Bathgate at Orwell, my two friends, and I. The first meeting was spent mostly in prayer”.⁸

They agreed on a representation to the Assembly; “the forming whereof was committed to Mr. Ebenezer Erskine”, from Boston’s draft. On the first night of the Assembly of 1721 a larger meeting broke into dispute, but the representation was “signed by the twelve brethren” and given in that afternoon to the committee of bills, “Mr. Kid presenting it, being a man of singular boldness.” From this time, Beaton writes, “they were known as the Representers”. The twelve were:⁹

• James Hog, Carnock
• Thomas Boston, Ettrick
• John Bonar, Torphichen
• John Williamson, Inveresk
• James Kid, Queensferry
• Gabriel Wilson, Maxton
• Ebenezer Erskine, Portmoak
• Ralph Erskine, Dunfermline
• James Wardlaw, Dunfermline
• Henry Davidson, Galashiels
• James Bathgate, Orwell
• William Hunter, Lilliesleaf

Boston records that the Assembly of 1721 was dissolved “in regard of the commissioner’s indisposition” [the King’s Commissioner was ill], “after they had referred our representation, without reading it, to the commission.” The Assembly’s instructions told its Commission “to take under consideration the representation presented to this Assembly by Mr James Hog and others … and to call the subscribers of that representation before them … but not to give a final decision therein.”¹⁰

The Commission put twelve queries to the Representers. Boston writes that their answers, given in in March 1722, “were, as I remember, begun by Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, but much extended and perfected by my friend, Mr. Wilson”.¹¹

Rebuked and admonished, 21 May 1722

The Assembly of 1722 considered “a representation and petition, signed by twelve ministers of this Church, and craving that the 5th Act of the General Assembly, 1720 … might be repealed”. It found that they “do lay a grievous and heavy charge against the General Assembly, anno [in the year] 1720”, and it declared that that Assembly “had no design to recede from the received doctrine of this Church”.¹²

The Act ends: “considering that the brethren’s desire that the Act, 1720, should be repealed, is unjust, the Assembly does refuse the same. And because of the injurious reflections contained in their Representation, as above mentioned, the Assembly do appoint their moderator, in their name, to rebuke and admonish them; and though their offence deserves a much higher censure, yet the Assembly forbears it, in hopes that the great lenity used towards them shall engage them to a more dutiful behaviour”.¹³

Boston writes: “we were admonished and rebuked. … And the admonition and rebuke being received with all gravity, the said protestation subscribed by us all, was given in by the hand of Mr. Kid … But the assembly would not read it, but quickly closed the sederunt [sitting].” He adds, “I received the rebuke and admonition as an ornament put upon me, being for the cause of truth.” A little before the hour of three that day, he records, came “a most dreadful storm of thunder and hail”.¹⁴

M’Crie quotes an account by “the late Dr. M’Crie” in the Christian Instructor: “Had not this influence been exerted, there is reason to think 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.” Two of the Representers, Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, were among the eight ministers deposed as Seceders in 1740.¹⁵