IN 1645 and the heady days of Cromwell's Commonwealth a book appeared in London bearing the initials E F. Its full title was The Marrow of Modern Divinity touching both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace with their use and end both in the time of the Old Testament and in the time of the New. Wherein everyone may clearly see how far he bringeth the Law into the case of Justification and so deserveth the name of Legalist; and how far forth he rejecteth the Law in the case of Sanctification and so deserveth the name of Antinomist with the middle path between them both, which by Jesus Christ leadeth to eternal life.
The author was probably Edward Fisher, a barber surgeon by trade and the author of other less important theological treatises from the same period.
He had been converted through a private conversation with Thomas Hooker after many years of "mere religion".
His book, like his other works, is set out in the form of a discussion. The speakers are Evangelista (the author's voice), Nomista, Antinomista and Neophytus and, as they speak, we learn the place of the Law in relation to faith and to the gospel.
Luther and Calvin are frequently quoted, as are John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, William Perkins, John Preston, Richard Sibbes and other contemporaries (hence the reference to modern divinity).
Ernest Kevan says that the book attracted little attention at first but it slowly came to the fore in the heated controversy of the day. It eventually became very popular indeed. Richard Baxter (wrongly, according to John J Murray and Dr Kevan, who notes that few Puritan works have been more misunderstood) opposed it as antinomian. However, Joseph Caryl gave it his official imprimatur on behalf of the Westminster Assembly and it was warmly welcomed by Jeremiah Burroughs, Ralph Venning and other Puritans.
By 1648, it had gone through seven editions and it was then that an inferior second part was added, mainly expounding the Ten Commandments. Though written in England in the seventeenth century, the book is remembered today chiefly for its influence in Scotland in the eighteenth century, where this second part seems to have remained unknown. Possibly an exposition of the Ten Commandments may have clarified its position and prevented some of the controversy it engendered. Nevertheless, the real fight, as so often, was between a narrow, dry, hard hyper-Calvinism and a broad, liberated, missionary minded Calvinism that gave due weight to the love of God.
In The Marrow these latter found great help. In his autobiography Thomas Boston of Ettrick describes how early in his ministry in his native Berwickshire (where he was until 1707) he came to clearer views of gospel preaching. He was influenced, firstly, by the preaching of George Mair, a colleague of Fraser of Brea.
Fraser was certainly influenced by The Marrow, as his own autobiography refers to it, and it is reasonable to suppose Mair was too. Boston was certainly affected, as well, by the book itself. He explains how in 1700,
... as I was sitting one day in a house of Simprin, I espied above the window-head two little old books, which when I had taken down, I found intitled, the one The Marrow of Modern Divinity ....
The second book (Saltmarsh's Christ's blood flowing freely to sinners) was no help but the first (part one of Fisher's work) he relished and eventually bought from its owner.
Boston gained most from the book's advocacy of a "free offer" of Christ to sinners.
The reading of a single book can have mighty ramifications. The perusal of this one came to be, in the words of the Scots ecclesiastical historian James Walker, "both an epoch in his life and in the religious history of Scotland".
In the General Assembly of 1717 at least two charges of heresy were made. One concerned Professor John Simson of Glasgow, accused of Arminianism. He was found not guilty. At the same time, the practice of the Auchterader Presbytery, of examining whether new ministers believed that we have to forsake sin in order to be able to come to Christ, was condemned.
This decision proved to be a watershed in the history of the gospel in Scotland. At the time, Boston lacked the courage to speak out publicly against the Assembly's decisions but in private conversation he made known his views on the "free offer" and related matters, mentioning The Marrow.
This led, indirectly, to part one being republished the following year, divided into sections and chapters, with a preface by Boston's fellow minister and contemporary, James Hog of Carnock.
Boston became aware of his part in this only some ten years later, not even remembering the conversation in which he had mentioned the book. In it, however, he saw the providence of God.
Though welcomed by many, the republished Marrow did not meet with universal approval in the Church of Scotland. It was opposed by the Principal of St Andrew's, James Hadow, and others who were in many respects quite orthodox but very wary of a supposed tendency toward universalism.
Hadow, like Hog, entered into a fierce pamphlet war that stirred great interest throughout the south of Scotland. In May, 1719, the Assembly ordered an investigation. This led, the following year, to the prohibition of Marrow teaching.
It was condemned for the following alleged reasons:
In the end, twelve Church of Scotland men together (hence The Twelve Apostles as they were sometimes dubbed, as well as Representers or Marrow men) drew up a representation and petition to the next Assembly declaring that
Boston gained most from the book's advocacy of a "free offer" of Christ to sinners.
The reading of a single book can have mighty ramifications. The perusal of this one came to be, in the words of the Scots ecclesiastical historian James Walker, "both an epoch in his life and in the religious history of Scotland".
In the General Assembly of 1717 at least two charges of heresy were made. One concerned Professor John Simson of Glasgow, accused of Arminianism. He was found not guilty. At the same time, the practice of the Auchterader Presbytery, of examining whether new ministers believed that we have to forsake sin in order to be able to come to Christ, was condemned.
This decision proved to be a watershed in the history of the gospel in Scotland. At the time, Boston lacked the courage to speak out publicly against the Assembly's decisions but in private conversation he made known his views on the "free offer" and related matters, mentioning The Marrow.
This led, indirectly, to part one being republished the following year, divided into sections and chapters, with a preface by Boston's fellow minister and contemporary, James Hog of Carnock.
Boston became aware of his part in this only some ten years later, not even remembering the conversation in which he had mentioned the book. In it, however, he saw the providence of God.
Though welcomed by many, the republished Marrow did not meet with universal approval in the Church of Scotland. It was opposed by the Principal of St Andrew's, James Hadow, and others who were in many respects quite orthodox but very wary of a supposed tendency toward universalism.
Hadow, like Hog, entered into a fierce pamphlet war that stirred great interest throughout the south of Scotland. In May, 1719, the Assembly ordered an investigation. This led, the following year, to the prohibition of Marrow teaching.
It was condemned for the following alleged reasons:
1. It made assurance of the essence of faithSeveral synods opposed the Act and eventually Boston approached Hog to consider a united response.
2. It was faulty on universal atonement and pardon
3. It declared holiness unnecessary to salvation
4. It denied fear of punishment and hope of reward as proper motives to obedience
5. It declared the believer not to be under the Law as a rule of life
In the end, twelve Church of Scotland men together (hence The Twelve Apostles as they were sometimes dubbed, as well as Representers or Marrow men) drew up a representation and petition to the next Assembly declaring that
1. The gospel includes a free and unlimited offer of salvation to allThis business did not finally come to the floor of the Assembly until 1722, following much learned theological debate. It came in the form of a censure against the Twelve.
2. Assurance of the truth of God's promise is included in the very nature of faith
3. Sanctification is in no way the price or condition of salvation
4. Hopes of heaven or fears of hell should not influence believers in yielding obedience to God's Law
5. The believer is in no way under the Law as a covenant of works.
6. The distinction between the Law as a covenant of works and a rule of life in Christ is a fair and scriptural distinction
From this time on the Church was divided and the Marrow men became marked individuals, efforts being made to limit their influence in the life of the Church.
No doubt the controversy hardened some in their attitudes and drove others farther down the road to legalism or licentiousness. Boston himself died in 1722 but the cause continued to be supported by others.
In 1722 an edition of part one appeared anonymously with extensive notes by Boston. The more judicious had always recognised that there were unguarded expressions in the book likely to be misunderstood. Boston also wanted to defend the work against its then current detractors.
Eventually, in 1733, a number of men seceded from the national Church and formed a breakaway group. The Church of Scotland became increasingly moderate but the Secession Church continued to keep the candle burning over the century.
Meanwhile The Marrow continued to have its supporters. In 1742 the Associated Presbytery passed an act defending it from the charge of unsoundness. In 1755 James Hervey, Rector of Weston-Favell in Buckinghamshire, came across it. He was sorry not to have read it sooner. "It is a most valuable book," he wrote; "the doctrines contains are the life of my soul and the very joy of my heart."
In his own influential Theron and Aspasio he commends it as
... just and striking ... solid and convincing ... exceedingly comforting because truly evangelical. Perhaps I may venture to say that this little treatise pours as much light upon the gospel and grace of Christ and affords as many important distinctions in divinity as any book of its size whatever.
Thomas M'Crie, Thomas Chalmers, Alexander Whyte and other Scots divines often commended it. Though it may not be read today, its teaching continues to be upheld by some in Scotland and in England and beyond.
This article first appeared in the Evangelical Library Bulletin
