“To Walk According To The Gospel”: The Origin And History Of “The Marrow Of Modern Divinity”

By William VanDoodewaard

A popular, practical theology of the English Puritan era, The Marrow of Modern Divinity sees what is at least its 40th republication this year, journeying to the present day through the twists and turns of four centuries of history. [1] Its origins are mysterious, though not without hints and clues that yield an intriguing story. It is a volume which, just when it seemed about to slip into obscurity after years of considerable readership in England, ignited a firestorm of controversy in Scotland. As decades and generations passed it seemed time and again that it would fade from memory, but it re-emerged, gaining fresh attention and speaking to new generations. It encouraged many, bringing spiritual clarity and liberty while simultaneously creating fear, concern, frustration, and division among others. The story of The Marrow of Modern Divinity, its author, and the lives it impacted is one strand in the grand saga of the history of the church.

A Journey Into The Past

The Marrow of Modern Divinity first appeared in print during the long days of early summer in 1645 in London, England. Written in a popular dialogue form, the work features three individuals — Nomista, a legalist; Antinomista, an antinomian; and Neophytus, a young Christian—being counseled by a minister, Evangelista, towards a biblical understanding of law and gospel. Joseph Caryl, a leading Independent preacher appointed by the Parliament as imprimatur (official censor) for theological literature, praised the work’s clarity, moderation, and helpfulness in “endeavouring to reconcile and heal those unhappy differences which have lately broken out afresh amongst us.” [2] Caryl penned his preface on May 10, a little less than a month before the bloody Battle of Naseby, a decisive military victory marking the gradual ascendancy of the New Model Army against the Royalist forces of King Charles I. Marked by disorder in the nation, these were days of heady freedom in London for both Puritans and Parliamentarians. Newfound liberties allowed for gatherings like the Westminster Assembly but also led to new tensions in the face of the fading religious-political yoke of Charles I and the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Although by the 1640’s most Puritans and Parliamentarians shared a common dislike for the policies of Charles and laud, including heavy taxation, imprisonment without trial, and the direction of the Church of England, they were not immune to fractious controversy with its attendant varieties of mediating spirits.

The author of The Marrow sought to mediate that spring of 1645 in a controversy over the theology and life of the church. “I, by the grace of God,” he stated, “endeavoured in this ensuing Dialogue to walk… as a middle man” between “the Strict Professor according to the law, and the loose Professor according to the Gospel”—to elucidate a biblical middle way between the errors of legalism and antinomianism. [3] Dedicating the work to Member of Parliament, John Downes, Esq., E.F. revealed little more than the initials of his identity in print. [4] Why? Perhaps it was a spirit of modesty; perhaps he knew his position was certain to evoke religious criticism — the specter of laudian oppression and ongoing Civil War were reminders that public address was a potentially costly venture, even with the imprimatur of Joseph Caryl; perhaps it was another concern. However, the Westminster Assembly and many of its constituents were living and writing publicly, without anonymity. So why not E.F.? Who was he?

Searching For E.F.

Certain clues aid us in learning more about the author of The Marrow. In his dedication to John Downes, a member of Parliament, the author notes, “[I have] by mine own experience, and by the confession, and observation of others, found out our aptness to tread in one of these erroneous paths [legalism or antinomianism].” [5] E.F. had personally wrestled with the issues in the midst of “hot contentions” in the churches “about some 18 or 20 years ago, and now within these three or four years last past.” [6] This means that he must have been living as an adult during the early years of the reign of Charles I (r.1625 – 1649) and his attempts with Archbishop laud to move the Church of England away from the toleration and partial support for Calvinist, Puritan influences manifest under King James I (r.1603 –1625) and Archbishop George Abbott. [7] In the first few years of Charles’ reign, there was an “uneasy coalition” between some of the Puritan minded and the laudian regime; both were briefly united in civil and ecclesiastical action against what they viewed as antinomian threats to truth and order. [8] Evidence from the latter 1620’s indicates a variety of antinomian fringe movements proclaimed law was irrelevant for those in a state of grace. [9] There were also those among the Puritans who noted concern over both antinomian and legal tendencies among their own. Laudian leadership in the Church of England stressed the law or moral righteousness at the expense of gospel grace, in keeping with their movement towards a high church, sacramental theology. As laudian ruling policy quickly evolved beyond anti-antinomianism to repression and persecution of Puritanism, the initial, tentative unity quickly dissipated. [10] Decades later, with laud’s removal to the Tower of London (1640) and his beheading (1645), the author of The Marrow had both freedom to publish and a readership willing to peruse and purchase his volume.

Republished numerous times during the years following 1645, The Marrow must have met demand and interest. A second edition, substantially revised, came out in early 1646. It included the appended “Patrick’s Places,” a series of propositions written by the early Scottish Reformer Patrick Hamilton on the relation of law and grace in justification by faith and in Christian living. The publisher, Giles Calvert, was a Londoner with wide religious connections who eventually embraced Quakerism. [11] The new notice on the title page stated that the work was “corrected, amended, and much enlarged by the author, E.F… [and now included] the commendatory epistles of divers divines of great esteem in the citie of London.” [12] Bearing the same commendatory imprimatur of Joseph Caryl, the second edition also included commendations by Jeremiah Burroughs and William Strong, men respected for their theological acumen as Westminster divines. As Independents, Burroughs and Strong pushed for Congregational church government, though in this they manifested a spirit of moderation towards their Presbyterian brethren at the Assembly. Along with these commendations, E.F. also gained the commendation of Joshua Sprigge, a popular London Independent preacher who served as a chaplain to Lord Fairfax and the New Model Army. [13] These connections suggest that E.F., either by virtue of his person or writings, was gaining the respect of notable Reformed theologians and popular preachers of his day. A commendation by a less prominent divine, Samuel Prettie, gives what appears to be a tantalizing hint about E.F.’s identity. Prettie states: “God has endowed his Fisher with the net of a trying understanding, discerning judgment, and discretion.” [14] In light of Puritan love for allegory and wordplay, it seems a legitimate possibility that E.F. may be E. Fisher, a lead opening up at least two further lines of evidence toward discovering the hidden author of The Marrow.

The Two Fishers

Historical evidence points to the existence of at least two E.F.s who authored religious works during the time of The Marrow’s early editions. One was Edward Fisher, Esq., the son of Sir Edward Fisher of Mickleton. He studied at Brasenose College, Oxford, gained accolades for his scholarly ability, and received a Bachelor of Arts in April 1630. In the first Scottish reprint of The Marrow, James Hog of Carnock cited Anthony Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses as giving an account of this E.F. as the author of The Marrow. [15] It is undisputed that this Edward Fisher did author numerous works, including The Feast of Feasts, or, The Celebration of Sacred Nativity, defending the observance of holy days such as Christmas, and A Christian Caveat to the Old and New Sabbatarians, in which he argued “the morality and divine institution of the Lord’s Day are mere fictions.” [16] A man with royalist inclinations during the Civil War, Fisher’s writings indicate sympathy for the laudian order of high church Anglicanism. Despite the fact that he would be the Fisher popularly attributed with the authorship of The Marrow by Scottish publishers following the historiography of Anthony Wood, there are several reasons why it seems unlikely. The theology expressed in works that are clearly written by Edward Fisher, Esq., does not conform to what would be expected of the author of The Marrow. While The Marrow was published in Welsh in 1651, and Edward Fisher Esq., did spend time in Wales, the Welsh publication of The Marrow predates his arrival by some five years. [17] Finally, all of Edward Fisher’s works bear either his full name and title on the front page, or E.F., Esq. The stated title “esquire” seems to suggest a self-distinction from the other E.F., who wrote and published at the same time and was a commoner.

E. Fisher, author of The Marrow, while gaining numerous commendations for the second edition of 1646, also made substantial editorial and content changes to the work. He toned down bold language; he clarified vague statements. Expanding discussions of the covenant of works and of grace and enlarging the final section on “the heart’s happiness, or soul’s rest,” Fisher improved his level of theological and pastoral discourse. [18] Perhaps most interesting and helpful in the search for his full identity were the changes made in the preface to the reader between the first and second editions. In the second edition, Fisher mentions “Master Dod” by name in his discussion of his own former legalism and “Master Thomas Hooker” as the one who counseled him toward his conversion, made him aware of his hypocrisy, and taught him an understanding of the free riches of Christ’s grace. [19] Dod and Hooker were both respected among Puritans; Hooker suffering persecution, and fleeing to exile in the Netherlands, where he continued to face danger from laud’s agents. [20] like the commenders of The Marrow, Hooker held to a Congregational view of church polity. This second edition indicated that Fisher was well connected in Independent circles. Perhaps most fascinating was a hint, erased in the second edition, that, after his conversion and movement away from spiritual legalism, Fisher’s affections for the free grace of the gospel led to a feeling of sympathy and respect for those within Puritan circles who were thought to lean toward antinomianism. Did he evidence a weakness common to many in church history—a greater sympathy towards those beyond his theological position than those from whose ranks he had come?

Fisher deliberately removed the statement, “I have endeavoured to imitate the laborious Bee, who out of divers flowers gathers honey and waxe, and thereof makes one combe…yet I hope it will not be distasteful to any...” from the second edition. [21] A marginal reference beside the original text cited Henry Burton, a bold Puritan Independent who preached and wrote in fiery opposition to antinomianism, specifically to one John Eaton of London. Due to his bold Puritan preaching, Burton had suffered the punishment of having his ears cut off under Archbishop laud’s persecutions. Fisher’s juxtaposition of his bee analogy with his concern of offense and mention of Burton’s writings raise an intriguing question. Was his allusion to the work of the bee a veiled reference to the work The Honey-Combe of Free Justification written by Eaton in 1630-31, and first published posthumously by supporters in 1642 in London? [22] Despite being in the mainstream of Reformed thought in most respects of his writing, Eaton developed an emphasis in The Honey-Combe on what he viewed as the implication of Christ’s imputed righteousness: free justification meant the abolishment of “all the filthy nakedness of our sins out of God’s sight.” [23] He appears to have stressed this to “the conclusion that justification utterly banished the sins of believers from God’s sight.” [24] Burton and other leading figures in London churches saw Eaton heading dangerously near antinomianism, a perspective only reinforced by Eaton’s bold attacks against what he saw as legalism and phariseeism among fellow Puritans. [25] The picture seems clear—Fisher was sympathetic to Eaton’s work The Honey-Combe of Free Justification, but did not want to offend men like Burton. He wanted to carefully “walk as a middle man in this ensuing dialogue.” [26] Why was this removed for the second edition? The work had already received Caryl’s approval. One possibility may be that either Jeremiah Burroughs or William Strong, men noted for theological precision and moderation, suggested its removal prior to its second publication. Whatever the case, these changes did not prevent published criticism of the work from surfacing that year, shortly after the publication of the third edition of The Marrow. [27]

There is further evidence toward uncovering the full identity of E. Fisher. Prettie’s commendation, the connection to John Eaton, numerous London Independent connections, and his publisher all indicate that the author of The Marrow was either a Londoner, or had strong ties in the city. London’s civil and ecclesiastical records provide further clues toward filling in the gaps in the search for the E. Fisher of The Marrow.

Looking In London

Through much of history, tax officials have shown meticulous skill in keeping tabs on citizen income and property. Seventeenth-century poll tax records for companies of the city of London are no exception, providing what some have considered a compelling possibility for solving the identity mystery of The Marrow’s author. Stephen Wright notes that “on 14 November 1626, an Edward Fisher was made free of his master Richard Marshalsey of the Company of Barber-Surgeons, and this was certainly the Edward Fisher who appears in the poll tax returns for 1641, as a barber and member of that company, and resident in the parish of St. Sepulchre. This was the only Edward Fisher recorded among all the members of the London companies in the returns of that year.” [28]

What appears to strongly confirm this as relevant to our author are references made in statements by the former antinomian, Giles Creech, before the laudian High Commission in 1638. In naming various antinomian sects, underground libertine movements, and other connected individuals (all while fearing the judgment of the Commission against him), Creech referred to a part-time bookseller and barber-surgeon named Edward Fisher. [29] His testimony was part of the effort during the 1630s by the laudian Commission to impose high church uniformity and quell dissent. Previous records indicate that, “in 1632, John Eaton’s widow, sought in the aftermath of her husband’s death…to publish ‘The Honey-Combe of Free Justification’…and she too was dragged before the High Commission…[and] received a four-month stint at Newgate [prison].” [30] In 1633, the same year that Fisher’s early mentor, Thomas Hooker, escaped laud’s agents in the Netherlands by heading to New England, an Edward Fisher was called to appear before the Court of the High Commission, which recorded his occupation as “barber” and manuscript dealer, and charged him with failing to comply “with the Court in not giving his personal Answers to the Articles objected against him.” [31] He was ordered to prison until he accommodated the court’s requests. These records compellingly suggest that E.F. was indeed this Edward Fisher. Fisher’s further publications in the years following 1646 only help solidify the case for Edward Fisher, the London barber-surgeon, as the author of The Marrow.

Concluding The Case Of Edward Fisher

Despite some initial criticism, it appears The Marrow’s popularity steadily continued. A fourth edition came to print in 1646, a fifth in 1647, and a sixth in 1648. In late 1647, Edward Fisher wrote and, with the aid of a new publisher, published a work on qualifications for participation in the Lord’s Supper, which also received Caryl’s imprimatur. [32] like The Marrow, Fisher wrote it in the form of a pastoral dialogue “betwixt a minister of the Gospel, Zacheus a worthy communicant, and Simon an unworthy communicant.” [33] Interestingly, Simon was a morally upright, self-righteous church member, and Zacheus, one who had sinned visibly but repented and rested in Christ alone for forgiveness. The lessons of the work were clearly in harmony with the heart of the teaching of The Marrow —the covenant of grace in Christ, the free gospel offer proclaimed all-sufficient grace, both for justification and sanctification.

The following year, Fisher published a second dialogue on the role of office-bearers in examining those who sought to participate in the Lord’s Supper titled London’s Gate to the Lord’s Table (1648). [34] For the first time, his work bore the imprimatur’s commendation of Edmund Calamy, a Presbyterian Westminster divine. As a preacher to the House of Commons in 1642, Calamy addressed the necessity of following a scriptural path that turned neither to Arminian moralism, nor to antinomianism. While serving as a leading Presbyterian in the Westminster Assembly, Calamy engaged in pamphlet warfare with the Henry Burton who had been opposed to John Eaton’s antinomian tendencies. Calamy-Burton tensions arose after Burton began advocating Congregationalism in Calamy’s parish, leading to Calamy giving orders to have him locked out of the church buildings. [35] Their debate, however, was over Independent versus Presbyterian church polity, rather than legalism versus antinomianism.

Evidence from church records suggests that, by this point, Edward Fisher was a member of a Presbyterian congregation. The content of London’s Gate to the Lord’s Table corresponds with this. In it, Fisher proposes the “Presbyterial way in the case of examination of communicants…so that our dissenting brethren…may be moved thereby to come in amongst us.” [36] He also notes what appears to be a new state of church membership for himself in his dedication to Sir Henry Rolle, a chief justice and a ruling elder “chosen, in that congregation whereof you have been pleased to admit me a member.” [37] The preface to the reader states that this E.F. is the same one who has written A touch-stone for a communicant, and who prays for “increase either of sound knowledge or sweet feeling in the mysteries of Christ…as blessed by God (I have been informed) my Marrow of Modern Divinity hath done to many.” [38]

In 1648, Fisher wrote what would be published in 1649 as The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The Second Part. Touching the most plain, pithy, and spiritual exposition of the Ten Commandments…in a dialogue. [39] Joseph Caryl, commending this addition to The Marrow, wrote, “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.” [40] One of the other commenders of this addition was the Independent Ralph Venning, a respected Puritan preacher and theologian who was appointed to the prominent chaplaincy of the Tower of London in 1648; he also served under the Westminster Assembly as examiner for all naval chaplains. [41] Other commendations of the work came from Samuel Moore and John Cradocot. [42] Moore’s praise of Fisher’s new publication intriguingly echoed the preface of Fisher’s first edition of The Marrow: “Reader… bless God for this Author, who hath like the Bee, painefully fetched this honey out of various flowers, and at last brought it into this hive.” [43] Was this simply the analogy that came to Moore’s mind at the moment, or did it recall a mutual respect for John Eaton’s writing? And, if Fisher had become convinced of Presbyterian principles, why was it that the second part of The Marrow again appeared to predominantly have the publication support of Independents?

Fisher’s final work may provide some insight into this intriguing combination of strong Independent ties and support for Presbyterianism. Published in 1650, the manuscript was entitled Faith in five fundamental principles, strongly fortified against the diabolical, atheistical, blasphemous batteries of these times. [44] In these last years of his life, Fisher sought to encourage a correct path between legalism and antinomianism, seeking what he viewed as the biblical path of moderation. The publication of The Marrow’s second part clearly exposited and applied the law to the lives of both believers and unbelievers. Now in the midst of an intensifying Presbyterian-Independent controversy, Fisher wrote a defense of some essentials of the faith in dialogue form with two godly counselors—“a moderate Independent Minister” and “a moderate Presbyterian Minister”—and “a tempted doubting Christian.” [45] For one final time, his pen exhibited his pastoral heart, mediating spirit, and, above all, his love for the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. That same year a London obituary noted the death of “Mr. Fisher, bookseller and barber in the Old Bailey.” [46]

Scotland And The Marrow

The obituary notice of 1650 is the last known contemporary reference to Edward Fisher. After his death, republication of his works continued, though at a slower pace. It would only be in its eighth edition in 1658 that The Marrow would be published with first and second parts together in one volume. After this, it appears that the first part of Fisher’s work was republished in England in 1668 and then in 1699, when a ninth revised edition without the second part on the Ten Commandments was published in London. Fisher’s works seemed to be fading into obscurity.

The Scottish story of The Marrow’s sudden rise to new prominence began in such obscurity. During a pastoral visit with an elderly veteran of the English Civil War, Thomas Boston, a young rural parish minister of the Church of Scotland, noticed the book on a shelf. [47] Boston recorded reading it with profit “by the latter end of the year 1700.” [48] The Marrow brought theological clarity and spiritual relief, lifting him out of personal and pastoral struggle with the application of the gospel, due to the legalism and hyper-Calvinism in the church. [49] In his Memoirs, Boston describes the direct link between this personal liberation, The Marrow’s republication, and a 1717 Assembly decision against the Auchterarder Presbytery’s attempt to require an ordination vow to guard itself from legalist influences:

...here, namely, in the condemnation of that [Auchterarder] proposition, was the beginning of the torrent, that for several years after ran, in the public actings of this church, against the doctrine of grace, under the name of Antinomianism; and is unto this day overflowing. Meanwhile, at the same sitting in the assembly house, and conversing with Mr. John Drummond, minister of Crief, one of the brethren of that presbytery above mentioned, I happened to give him my sense of the gospel-offer; Isa. lv. 1; Matt. xi. 28, with the reason thereof; and withal to tell him of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Hereupon he, having inquired in the shops for the said book, at length got it; and from him Mr. James Webster getting it, was taken therewith; and afterward, Mr. Drummond himself being hardly allowed time to read it through, it came into the hands of Mr. James Hog, minister of Carnock; and in the end was reprinted in the year 1718, with a preface by the said Mr. Hog, dated at Carnock, Dec. 3, 1717. [50]

Boston did not give his own copy of The Marrow to James Hog, as some believe; Hog borrowed the copy from a mutual friend, John Drummond, who had searched for a copy in Edinburgh’s bookshops. Reading through Fisher’s work, the men were deeply impressed at how clearly this work of English theology answered the issues they faced in the Church of Scotland. Within the year, Hog had prepared the work for its first Scottish publication, with the bold assessment in his preface that “this excellent and spiritual piece” answered the “darkening of the glorious gospel, and perversion thereof, by anti-evangelical errors and heresies…. That the tares of such…are sown in the reformed churches, and by men who profess reformed faith, is beyond debate…such dregs of antichristianism do yet remain, or are brought in amongst us.” [51] Hog’s reprint was of the ninth London edition—only the first part of The Marrow.

Publication ignited controversy, with Hog defending The Marrow against attacks. This quickly developed into pamphlet warfare, primarily between Hog and Principal James Hadow of St. Andrews College. Hadow’s opposition to Hog’s defence of The Marrow led Hadow to preach against the book at the opening of the Synod of Fife on April 7, 1719. [52] That same year, the General Assembly received a formal complaint against The Marrow and gave the Commission for Purity of Doctrine the task of examining the matter. [53]

The Commission’s report the following year was not favorable for The Marrow’s cause. Seeing the intensifying “Marrow controversy” as a substantial issue, the 1720 General Assembly delayed official discussion and decision until late in its meetings, allowing members time to read excerpted statements from and doctrinal complaints against the work, as well as giving the Committee for Overtures time for further investigation. [54] Accepting Hadow’s charges of universalism and antinomianism, supported by the Committee, the resulting Act of Assembly stated that the theological expressions in The Marrow were “exceptionable” and “exceedingly harsh and offensive.” [55] Criticisms were directed in their entirety to Hog’s edition; the Assembly appeared to ignore John Williamson’s 1718 publication of the second part of The Marrow, to the frustration of The Marrow’s supporters. [56] The Assembly also “strictly prohibit[ed] and discharge[d]” all ministers

either by preaching, writing, or printing to recommend the said book, or, in discourse, to say anything 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. [57]

This act of the 1720 Assembly drew national attention to a little-known book, stimulating The Marrow’s promoters and supporters all the more to try to rectify the wrong done to the “truth of the gospel, the doctrine of free grace.” [58] Acting without success at the Presbytery level, they drafted a complaint, their Representation and Petition, to the 1721 Assembly. [59] They argued that condemnation of The Marrow was condemnation of gospel truth. Answering charges of antinomianism, universalism, and other theological errors against The Marrow, the petitioners requested

the very reverend assembly, seriously and impartially to consider the premises, with the great weight and importance of this affair, in which the Honour of our common Master and Message, the Salvation of our Souls, our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the Covenants National and Solemn league, and the Remains of the Peace of this Church are so much concerned: and laying aside all Considerations of another Kind, to repeal the 5th Act of the late Assembly.... And to provide such Remedy, as may remove the Offence, arising from the two above specific clauses, in the 8th Act of the said Assembly, entitled, Act for Preaching Catechetical Doctrine, with Directions Therein: Which will afford Matter of Thanksgiving unto God, in behalf of the Truth, and of your Selves, to many who love the Truth and Peace. [60]

The 1721 Assembly referred their complaint to a commission to be reported on and dealt with at the 1722 Assembly. [61] This Assembly confirmed the earlier decisions, including in its act a more extensive summary and refutation of doctrine found in The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Partly in response to the Representation and Petition, the statements also addressed the continuing determined defense of The Marrow and its full, free gospel offer in discussions, sermons, tracts, and pamphlets. [62] The Assembly rebuked the “Marrow men,” but stopped short of requiring subscription to its decisions in order to preserve the church from what “would certainly have meant a split in the national Church.” [63] The Assembly avowed that continued promotion of The Marrow and its doctrine would not be tolerated.

While the Assembly Act of 1722 was the Assembly’s final statement on the Marrow controversy, pamphleteering continued for several years. The last and most substantial written work of the Scottish controversy was a new, full edition of The Marrow of Modern Divinity in 1726, including extensive explanatory notes by the pastor and theologian Thomas Boston. [64] Controversy and dissent continued at local levels, some of the “Marrow men” being charged with doctrinal error and others kept from moving to more influential parishes. The theological division and tension lingering after the Marrow controversy merged with frustration over the issue of patronage, leading many of The Marrow’s supporters to join the Secession Church movement in the early 1730s. All four of the initial figures of the Secession movement—Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, and James Fisher—were strongly supportive of Marrow theology. In 1744, the Secession church acted to vindicate and ecclesiastically establish this gospel view, responding specifically to the Acts of Assembly of the Church of Scotland in their Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace. [65] From these roots, the Secession churches, along with a continuing minority stream within the Church of Scotland, brought the gospel theology of Boston’s edition of Fisher’s The Marrow into a new Reformed and Presbyterian context of influence, one flowing with emigrant and missionary impulses to the “ends of the earth,” and to an enduring impact. [66]

The Marrow Of Modern Divinity In The Twenty-First Century

The Marrow’s teaching, particularly with the clarifications provided by Boston’s annotations, epitomizes the heart of evangelical Reformed theology, both in its English Puritan setting and its later Scottish Presbyterian context. In both situations, the twin errors of legalism and antinomianism pulled parts of the church away from a biblical understanding of the doctrines of grace. Some in the church taught a hyper-Calvinistic legalism, stressing preparationism, or the development of conviction of sin in the unbeliever prior to offering the gospel, which in some cases was only offered to those bearing “evidences” of election. Others taught an Arminian legalism, where the unbeliever, through acts of moral living and free will, came to fulfill what they saw as prerequisites to receiving salvation. From the latter came those who in time argued for a full-fledged rationalism and Pelagianism; they would turn to deism and were often skeptics of the atonement’s necessity and Christ’s deity. Antinomians stressed the free and universal offer of the gospel of grace in Christ, but argued that the law had little or no role in the life of the believer. Asserting that the believer had liberty in Christ and freedom from the law, their lives, without holiness or sanctification, belied their profession of faith. Almost all within this wide and divergent range of theology claimed that they were the legitimate heirs of the Reformed faith; many proclaimed adherence to Reformed creeds and confessions.

The enduring nature of the controversies that The Marrow addressed reflect the words of the Preacher of Ecclesiastes: “Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us” (Eccles. 1:10). While error may change in appearance, its reshaped continuity exists in every generation and culture. The twenty-first century is no exception. Spirits of legalism and antinomianism continue to rise from human hearts, their influences tangibly evident in both the broad realm of evangelical Protestantism and the Reformed community. In sin we attempt self-righteousness and pursue self-satisfaction rather than finding our entire righteousness and satisfaction in and through the Triune God. The story of The Marrow also reflects a greater reality, stated in Peter’s quote of Isaiah: “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:24 –25). Fisher and Boston, each in his own generation, positively explained, defended, and applied the truth of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke with hearts experiencing transforming grace—forgiveness and freedom from legalism and lawlessness to a new, growing, thankful life in Christ. They knew the necessity of an accurate knowledge of the doctrines of justification and sanctification. under God’s providence, they, along with many others, promoted a right understanding of the law and gospel, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace in Christ. While they and their early commenders and critics have long since faded away, The Marrow continues to direct new generations to the grace and truth of the Word of God, who “was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

Notes

1. The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with Thomas Boston’s Annotations (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009). This volume includes introductory essays by Philip Ryken and William VanDoodewaard on both The Marrow and Thomas Boston, as well as indexes of Scripture references and an extensive bibliography.
2. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: Printed by R.W. for G. Calvert, at the Black-Spread Eagle near Pauls, 1645), 1.
3. Ibid., 13.
4. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645), A3, 14.
5. Ibid., 12-13.
6. Ibid., 13.
7. King James I and Archbishop George Abbott had taken keen interest in the controversy between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants in the united Provinces of the Netherlands, sending a delegation to the Synod of Dort which took part in the deliberations and eventual framing of the Canons of Dort. With the ascension of Charles I to the throne, the leadership of church and nation moved towards a high church or “Romish” Anglicanism.
8. David R. Como, Blown By The Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil War England (Stanford, California: Stanford university Press, 2004), 91. Como’s fresh historical study provides helpful insights relevant to the origins of The Marrow. However, his descriptive language and, at points, questionable analysis of historical and theological evidence tends to a sensationalized and fractured portrait of the era.
9. Como, 91.
10. Ibid., 91-92.
11. Ibid., 455.
12. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Second edition (London: Printed by R. Leybourn, for Giles Calvert, 1646), 1.
13. Sprigge would later hold to an unorthodox view of the second coming of Christ as a present inward experience. Ian J. Gentles, “Sprigg [Sprigge], Joshua” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2004).
14. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Second edition (1646), 28-29.
15. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis: An Exact History of All the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the Most Famous and Ancient University of Oxford (London: Printed for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in S. Pauls Churchyard, 1691), 1:132.
16. Edward Fisher, Esq., A Christian Caveat to the Old and New Sabbatarians, Or a Vindication of Gospel Festivals (London: Printed for E. Blackmore, at the Angel in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1650), 1.
17. Records indicate that he became deeply indebted, selling his father’s estate in 1656, fleeing creditors to teach in Wales before fleeing again, this time to Ireland, where he died.
18. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Second edition (1646), 240-45.
19. Ibid., 14-15. The diversity of concerns among the broad Puritan movement of the seventeenth century is exemplified in Thomas Goodwin’s concerns about Thomas Hooker’s theological tendency towards a legal spirit. Como notes that in one letter written to Samuel Hartlib he criticized Hooker’s “preparationist notions,” stating he was “ ‘a severe and Cruel Man like John Baptist, [who] urges too much and too farre the Worke of Humiliation.’ ” Sheffield university library, Hartlib Papers, MS. 29/2/61B. The Hartlib Papers: A Complete Text and Image Database of the Papers of Samuel Hartlib (c.1600-1662) held in Sheffield University Library, 2nd ed., (Sheffield: Humanities Research Online, 2002), as cited in Como, 450.
20. Hooker eventually immigrated to Boston, Massachusetts in 1633.
21. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645), 14.
22. See “John Eaton, the Eatonists, and the ‘Imputative’ Strain of English Antinomianism” in Como, 176 – 218.
23. John Eaton, The honey-combe of free justification by Christ alone collected out of the meere authorities of Scripture and common and unanimous consent of the faithfull interpreters and dispensers of Gods mysteries upon the same, especially as they expresse the excellency of free justification / preached and delivered by John Eaton (London: Printed by R.B. at the charge of Robert Lancaster, 1642), B2v.
24. Como, 183.
25. Eaton’s repute included a somewhat dubious past: in 1619, under a Church of England which had just taken part by delegation in the Synod of Dort, Eaton was disciplined, tried by the High Commission for teaching “errors and false opinions,” and deprived of his pulpit in Suffolk. After a period of study he was allowed to reenter the ministry as a curate, and appears to have spent substantial time in London prior to his death in the 1630s (Como, 179).
26. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645), 13.
27. The first published opposition to The Marrow criticized it particularly on the grounds that it argued “true and evangelical repentance is a fruit of faith, and cannot be before faith in Christ.” The concerned author went on to state, “I will show you the contrary…that it is not a fruit of justifying faith, but a work of the Spirit, to prepare the heart to the believing of the promise…. God doth always work repentance in them whom he hath a purpose to save forever, before he bestows on them that faith which doth justify or assure them of the pardon of their sins in the blood of Jesus Christ…. I do not say that repentance is the condition required in our parts to our justification, as being our own work, but yet I affirm that it is the way which God doth always take…. For Christ calls none but such [poor penitents] unto him, neither ought any minister to apply the promises of mercy to any other but such as are weary, heavy laden, mourn, and earnestly desire mercy and pardon of sin.” J.A., A manifest and brief discovery of some of the errours contained in a dialogue called the Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: Printed by T.W. for Joshua Kirton, 1646), 8-13. Some believe the critic J.A. may have been John Angel of Grantham “a man mighty in word and doctrine among the Puritans, but one harassed by much soul-distress.” Other critics of The Marrow in the late 1640’s and early 1650’s included John Trapp, Richard Baxter, and Thomas Blake. David Martin McIntyre, “First strictures on ‘The Marrow of Modern Divinity,’” Evangelical Quarterly 10:1 (Jan. 1938), 66-67.
28. Stephen Wright, “Fisher, Edward” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2004).
29. Como, 51.
30. Ibid., 99.
31. Ibid., 99.
32. E.F., A touch-stone for a communicant. Serving for the trial of a man’s fitness or unfitness to come to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (London: Printed for John Wright at the King’s Head in the Old Bayley, 1647). It appears that from this point onwards Edward Fisher chose to work with a new publisher for his new publications, though Giles Calvert would continue to republish the first part of The Marrow of Modern Divinity.
33. Ibid., 1.
34. E.F., London’s Gate to the Lord’s Table (London: Printed for John Wright at the King’s Head in the Old Bayley, 1648), 1.
35. Sharon Achinstein, “Calamy, Edmund,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2004).
36. E.F., London’s Gate to the Lord’s Table, 5.
37. Ibid., 4 – 5.
38. Ibid., 19 – 20.
39. E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The second part. Touching the most plain, pithy, and spiritual exposition of the Ten Commandments…in a dialogue…whereunto is added the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel. By E.F. Author of the first part (London: Printed for John Wright at the King’s Head in the Old Bayley, 1649).
40. Ibid., A1. Caryl’s commendation is dated “6 Septemb. 1648,” and the other commendations are dated later in the same month indicating the work must have been near completion prior to 1649.
41. Stephen Wright, “Venning, Ralph,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2004).
42. Samuel Moore, An heavenly wonder, or, A Christian cloath’d with Christ purposely penned to comfort Christs sin-sick-spouse (London: Printed by Matthew Simmons, 1650). Samuel Moore, a London minister, published three works between 1647 and 1650, the last bearing some similarity in emphasis to John Eaton’s Honey-Combe.
43. Moore in E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The second part, 13.
44. E.F., Faith in five fundamental principles, strongly fortified against the diabolical, atheistical, blasphemous batteries of these times. Serving for the conviction of opposers, the satisfaction of doubters, and the confirmation of believers. In a conference which a godly independent minister and a godly Presbyterian minister had with a doubting Christian. (London: Printed for John Wright at the King’s Head in the Old Bailey, 1650), 1.
45. Ibid., A3.
46. See David Martin McIntyre’s “First strictures on ‘The Marrow of Modern Divinity,’” Evangelical Quarterly 10,1 ( Jan. 1938), 61-70.
47. It is possible that other Scots who fought in the wars also acquired The Marrow. David McIntyre argues that during the days of Covenanter “persecution in Scotland The Marrow was well known and highly esteemed. It passed from hand to hand, and because copies were scarce, many transcribed it with much labour. These manuscript copies circulated freely among ‘the afflicted remnant’; and one of Christ’s confessors in that dark day, Fraser of Brea, at one time prisoner on the Bass Rock, afterwards minister in Culross, expressly acknowledges in his Memoirs the help which he received from this book in the beginning of his Christian life.” There is also some evidence of later use, cited by McIntyre: “Mr. Osburn, professor of Divinity in Aberdeen, from 1697 to 1711, was accustomed to commend The Marrow ‘as one of four books to fix the scholar’s true notions of the fundamental principles of religion.’ The other works were The Westminster Standards, Vincent’s Catechism, and Pareus’ Edition of Ursinus on the Palatine Catechism” (McIntyre, 70).
48. Thomas Boston, Memoirs of Mr. Thomas Boston ...in The Complete Works of the late Reverend Thomas Boston, ed. Samuel M’Millan (London: William Tegg and Co., 1854), 7:154-56.
49. See Boston, Memoirs, 94-95.
50. Boston, Memoirs, 291– 92. It is interesting to note that, according to the attendance roll, a number of the leading figures involved in the Marrow controversy were present at the General Assembly of 1717 decision on Auchterarder. These included the following: James Hog, minister of Carnock; Thomas Boston, minister of Ettrick; James Hadow, Principal of St. Andrew’s College; and Thomas Blackwell, Professor of Divinity at Marischal College, Aberdeen (Register of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland... 1717, 657-62).
51. Preface by James Hog in E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Edinburgh: John Mosman and William Brown, 1718), 1.
52. Boston, Memoirs, 317. See also James Hadow, The Record of God and Duty of Faith Therein Required (Edinburgh: John Mosman and Company for John Paton, 1719).
53. Register of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Held and begun in the year 1719...in Register of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland annes 1718, 19, 20, & 1721. (MSS 233, Special libraries and Archives, King’s College, Aberdeen), 177– 342.
54. Ibid., 404-405, 407, 422, 427.
55. Ibid., 432.
56. Stewart Mechie, “The Marrow Controversy Reviewed” in Evangelical Quarterly 22 (Jan. 1950), 20-31.
57. Register of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scot-land...1720, 432-33.
58. Boston, Memoirs, 319.
59. The Representation and Petition of us under subscribing Ministers of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 1721).
60. Ibid., 42.
61. Register of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Held and begun in the year 1721...in Register of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland annes 1718, 19, 20, & 1721 (MSS 233, Special libraries and Archives, King’s College, Aberdeen), 587-88.
62. Ibid., 149-80.
63. David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), 418.
64. E[dward] F[isher], The Marrow of Modern Divinity...with notes in The Complete Works of the late Reverend Thomas Boston, ed. Samuel M’Millan (London: William Tegg and Co., 1854), 7:143– 489. Part of the purpose of Boston’s notes was to address the concerns and criticisms of The Marrow voiced by the Assembly.
65. Act of the Associate Presbytery, Concerning the Doctrine of Grace: Wherein the said Doctrine, is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and, agreeably thereto, set forth in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms (Edinburgh: Printed by T.W. and T. Ruddimans, for James Jaffray Bookseller in Stirling, and by David Duncan in the Grassmarket, Edinburgh, 1744), 18-78.
66. Adam Gib, Christ Has Other Sheep, Whom He Must Bring. A Sermon Upon John X. 16.… Before the Ordination of Mr. Thomas Beveridge To The Office of Holy Ministry, Upon a Mission to North America (Edinburgh: Printed by Neill and Company, 1783), 28; William VanDoodewaard, “The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Marrow Theology in the Associate Presbytery and Associate Synod Churches of Scotland (1718 –1799)” (Ph.D. dissertation, university of Aberdeen, 2009).