Marrow Theology And Secession Church History

By William Vandoodewaard

[William VanDoodewaard is Assistant Professor of European history at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., and Visiting Professor of Church History at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Mich.]

I. A Historical Introduction To The Secession Churches

The theological roots of the Secession churches, due to their origin in the Church of Scotland, pass through the Marrow controversy of 1718-1726. Perhaps in part due to the historical proximity of these events, along with the role of several Marrow brethren in the early Secession movement, numerous theologians and historians state that the Secession churches were defined and shaped by a continuity of the Marrow understanding of the gospel and its proclamation.[1] This claim, however, has not been supported to date by a comprehensive study of historical and theological evidences for the continuity of Marrow theology into the Secession churches: such a study does not exist. The question remains whether a clear continuity of Marrow theology can be found within the Secession churches. The search for evidence towards the answer rightly begins in an examination of the events marking the formation of the Secession churches.

On 5 December 1733, four ministers of the Church of Scotland—Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, Alexander Moncrieff, and William Wilson—met together at Gairney Bridge, where they constituted the Associate Presbytery of the Church of Scotland.[2] Their action effectively marked the beginning of the Secession churches in Scotland. What had brought about this action?

The period after the end of the Marrow controversy (1718-1726) saw the continuation of debates, divisions, and tensions in the Church of Scotland which were formative in the nascent secession movement. The issues included continued concerns over preaching, ministerial qualifications, and appointments; controversy over teaching at divinity schools; and patronage. The last of these provided what historians have referred to as “the immediate ‘occasion’ of the Secession.”[3] In 1731, through an overture before the General Assembly, the Church of Scotland undermined its own Act of 1690 by proposing to give absolute rights in the selection of office-bearers for local churches to elders, local heritors, magistrates, and town councils.[4] The heritors, magistrates, and town councilors were required to be Protestant, but nothing more.[5] Much to the chagrin of those who held strongly to Presbyterian governance in the Church of Scotland, this meant that those who favored Episcopalian government, or who potentially held any of a possibly wide range of theological convictions, or lack thereof, could now play a key role in the settlement of ministers; at the very least the Act took a substantial step towards an Erastian model of church government. Despite protest within the churches, the overture was enacted as church polity by the General Assembly of 1732.[6]

Ebenezer Erskine, a Church of Scotland minister in Stirling and one of the supporters of The Marrow during the controversy, led public criticism of the Assembly’s 1732 decision on patronage. Having brought failed petitions and overtures against the proposal for the Assembly’s 1732 decision, Erskine preached against the Act in a sermon at the opening of the October 1732 Synod of Perth and Stirling. His sermon, “The Stone rejected by the builders exalted as the Head-Stone of the corner,” presented a New Testament pattern for church governance and selection of ministers, drawing parallels between the refusal of Jewish priests and rulers to accept Christ’s authority over the church, and the Church of Scotland’s acceptance of patronage.[7] In regard to the latter, Erskine boldly declared that

the Call of the Church lies in the free choice and election of the Christian people. The promise of conduct and counsel in the choice of men that are to build the church is not made to patrons, heritors, or any other particular set of men, but to the church, the body of Christ, to whom apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are given. As it is the natural privilege of every house or society of men to have the choice of their own servants or officers, so ‘tis the privilege of the house of God in a particular manner. What a miserable bondage would it be reckoned for any family to have stewards or servants imposed upon them by strangers or enemies, who might give the children of the family a stone for bread, or a scorpion instead of a fish, and poison instead of medicine? And shall we suppose, that ever God granted to any set of men, patrons, heritors, elders, or whatever they be, a power to impose servants on his family, without their consent, being the freest society in the world? . . . Those Jewish rulers [those who crucified Christ] ruled the Lord’s people with rigour, invaded their freedoms and liberties, bound heavy burdens on them . . . by this means the Lord’s people were fettered from the worship of God in their synagogues, as sheep having no shepherd. Hence is that plain dealing, by the prophet Ezekiel xxxiv. from ver. 2 to 6. Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds, Woe be to the shepherds of Israel, that do feed themselves; should not the shepherds feed the flocks?[8]

Arguing that the choice of men by the church was God-given and a natural privilege, Erskine went on to preach that

whatever church-authority may be in that act [of the assembly of 1732], yet it wants the authority of the Son of God. All ecclesiastical authority under heaven is derived from him; and therefore any act that wants his authority, has no authority at all. And seeing the reverend synod has put me in this place, where I am in Christ’s stead, I must be allowed to say of this act, what I apprehend Christ himself would say of it, were he personally present where I am, and that is, that by this act, the corner-stone is receded from, he is rejected in his poor members, and the rich of this world put in their room; I say, were Christ here present, I think he would say with relation to that act, In as much as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it unto me. By this act Christ is rejected in his authority.[9]

The response to Erskine’s sermon was immediate. Outraged Synod delegates moved to formally complain against his preaching as soon as the meeting was convened. The Synod appointed a committee to deal with the issue. Calling on Erskine, they asked whether he was aware of the offence he had created and whether he would admit to having done wrong in preaching this sermon. While clarifying some of his statements, Erskine refused to acquiesce to the commit-tee’s efforts to persuade him to disavow his words, stating that he was convinced of the truth and necessity of what he had spoken.[10]

The majority of the Synod voted to declare Erskine censurable, against the protests of a vocal minority made up of ten ministers and two ruling elders.[11] Having declared him censurable, the Synod then moved to rebuke and admonish Erskine and to appoint “the Presbytery of Stirling to enquire into his behaviour in time coming, and report.”[12] Erskine appealed the decision to the General Assembly. At the following Synod meeting, in April of 1733, the proceedings against Erskine continued, and he in turn adhered steadfastly to his protest. At the General Assembly of May 1733 in Edinburgh, Ebenezer Erskine, along with “three protesters against the deed of Synod appeared . . . William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, and James Fisher.”[13] The Assembly moved to rebuke and admonish Erskine; he rose before the Assembly declaring “that he could not submit in silence” and requested permission to read a formal protest, which included the signed support of Wilson, Moncrieff, and Fisher.[14] When the Assembly rejected this request, Erskine and the other dissenters left, leaving behind their protest.

Sometime after their departure from the Assembly hall a minister picked up the paper and read it. Angered by its contents, which both echoed and supported Erskine’s sermon, he immediately petitioned the Assembly to “consider the insult which had been offered to them,” the end result being that the Assembly appointed the Commission to call before them the four brethren, and if they did not “show their sorrow for their conduct and misbehavior . . . [and] retract the same [protest] . . . the Commission is . . . empowered and appointed to suspend the said brethren.”[15] The four brethren refused to retract the protest before the Commission in August of 1733. Despite petitions from presbyteries, kirk-sessions, magistrates, and town councils in Perth and Stirling, the Commission acted to suspend the men.[16] As the Assembly had called for greater disciplinary action if this failed to bring repentance on the part of the brethren, the Commission on 16 November 1733, once again convened on the issue, and despite pleas by seven synods to delay the proceedings, moved to “loose the relation” of the brethren from their ministerial charges and “declare them no longer ministers of this church, and prohibit all ministers of this church to employ them in any ministerial function.”[17] The four brethren in turn read a statement of protest in which they stated their continuing adherence to former protests and that they would continue in communion with all those who desired a “true presbyterian, covenanted Church of Scotland, in her doctrine, worship, government, and discipline.”[18] They also stated that it was the Church of Scotland which was “carrying on a course of defection from our reformed and covenanted principles” obliging the brethren “to make a secession from them . . . till they see their sins and mistakes, and amend them.”[19] Before the four brethren left Edinburgh they decided to meet at Gairney Bridge, near Kinross, on 5 December. At this meeting they formed themselves into the Associate Presbytery, marking the beginning of the Secession church.

While a number of the ministers initially involved in or later joining the Secession movement had actively supported or sympathized with Marrow theology, there is little evidence suggesting that such theological concerns or convictions played a direct role in the formative moments of the Secession church.[20] As this is the case, what possibilities remain towards establishing a continuity of Marrow theology into the Secession churches? The remainder of this article will consider evidences for the impact of Marrow theology in the published histories of the Secession church stream, from its inception as the Associate Presbytery in 1733 to the point of the United Secession Church union with the Relief Churches in 1847.

II. Historiographical Evidence For The Continuity Of Marrow Theology

Some evidence for the continued influence of Marrow theology does exist in the church histories produced by pastors and theologians within Secession churches. As a separating body from the Church of Scotland, recounting their new denominational history in part justified their existence. While these records of historical roots often begin with or focus on the issues of patronage and ecclesiastical order immediate to the Secession, as might be expected there are recurring references to the Marrow controversy and Marrow theology.

The first Secession histories, written by the four initial Seceders, appeared shortly after the beginnings of the Secession movement. Often polemical or controversial in nature, these initial works prefaced historical narrative with theological argument and rebuttal, or combined both. Some took the form of ecclesiastical testimonies or “declarations issued by the Secession churches . . . consisting of historical narrative and theological statements applying the principles of subordinate standards to contemporary issues.”[21] These early works appeared to reemphasize the theological concerns of the Marrow supporters during the Marrow controversy in their recounting of the recent history of Secession events. The Testimony to the doctrine, worship, government and discipline of the Church of Scotland aimed to defend publicly reasons for secession, stating the Seceders’ concerns not only with patronage in the Church of Scotland, but also lack of gospel preaching among 

many preachers and ministers that have lately entered into the Church . . . there is as little of Christ to be found in most of their discourses, as in Plato’s or Seneca’s Morals; and, if he be at all preached, he is preached as the pattern, not of gospel-holiness, but of abstracted morality; at best, as the author of a new gospel-law, enjoining faith, repentance, and new obedience, as the conditions of a new covenant, and of a sinner’s justification before God. People are generally pressed to the practice of duty, as if their abilities for obedience at the creation were not entirely lost by the fall of Adam.... Yet, how little care is taken to preach the law in its spirituality, extent, and severity, condemning every man to death and the curse, that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, in order to discover the impotency of fallen man to please God by his obedience? How little . . . laying open the deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of the heart, that so sinners may be brought off from the covenant of works, unto Him who is the alone foundation that God hath laid in Zion, and who is become the end of this law for righteousness unto every one that believes? . . . How little are the duties of obedience . . . preached in a gospel-way? How little are they enforced from gospel-motives, or pressed for gospel-ends and purposes? How little is the necessity of a vital union with Christ discovered? How little of free justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, is taught, or of the gospel-mystery of sanctification, as inseparably connected with justification, and maintained and carried on by a life of faith in the Son of God, who is made of God unto us, not only righteousness, but sanctification?[22]

While the Testimony of 1734 made clear reference to doctrinal concern regarding the preaching of the gospel, thus moving beyond the immediate and decisive issues of patronage, the 1737 Act, Declaration and Testimony of the Associate Presbytery stated these historic concerns with greater clarity, placing them directly in the context of the Church of Scotland’s leniency in the Simson case and its concurrent Acts of 1720 and 1722 where “many gospel-truths were wounded . . . particularly by condemning as erroneous the two following propositions, that, as the Law is the Covenant of Works believers are wholly and altogether free from it; and, that believers are set free both from the commanding and condemning power of the Covenant of Works.”[23] The Act, Declaration and Testimony not only presented concern regarding the declension of gospel truth in the Church of Scotland, but did so with manifest sympathy towards the doctrine of The Marrow.

Following close on the heels of the two Seceder testimonies, both of which he had assisted in authoring, William Wilson wrote The Defense of Reformation Principles in 1738. His work outlined the Secession as a movement in harmony with the biblical and historic principles of reformation in church history. Continuing the thread of concern for gospel doctrine, Wilson illustrated a section on the need for the preservation of gospel truth with a more explicit use of the example of the events of the Marrow controversy in the Church of Scotland. He stated:

The reformation testimony is much fallen to the ground . . . not only in the things that concern the worship, government and discipline of the Lord’s house, but also in matters of doctrine, particularly in what concerns the doctrine of justification and salvation by the free grace of God, thro’ the imputed righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ.... If the acts of the several assemblies 1720 and 1722, with respect to some propositions contained in the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity, as also with respect to the representation of twelve ministers upon the act of assembly 1720; if, I say, the acts and deeds of these several assemblies are duly and seriously considered, it may be found, that a deep wound has been given by the present judicatories to the reformation-testimony, as it has been stated against the church of Rome, for the doctrine of justification and eternal salvation by the free grace of God thro’ the imputed righteousness of our Lord Jesus. I am not here to enquire into the import, or the design and tendency of the acts above-mentioned, but only to observe, that in the last clause of the act 1722, which is said to be explicatory of the act 1720, the assembly 1722 declare, That it is of a pernicious and dangerous tendency to say, That holy obedience is not properly a federal or conditional mean, nor has any causality, in order to the obtaining of glory. When the said doctrine is declared to be of a pernicious and dangerous tendency, then it plainly follows, that the assembly 1722 have declared and affirmed, That holy obedience is properly a federal or conditional mean, and has some kind of causality, in order to the obtaining of glory; and this proposition it appears to me, to be giving up a considerable branch of the reformed testimony as it was stated against the causality of good works in order to the obtaining of eternal glory, in opposition unto the church of Rome.[24]

Wilson’s argument was that part of the legitimacy of secession was found in the fact that the Church of Scotland was moving towards a neonomian understanding of salvation, wounding the cause of the gospel of the free grace of God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. He clearly framed his argument in terms of the historic context of the Marrow controversy; as such his reflective perspective provided what appears to be another step toward a new element in the written history of the Secession churches.

Wilson’s statement on the theological declension of the Church of Scotland exemplified in the Marrow controversy soon became more than a retrospective analysis for the justification of secession. In 1742 the Associate Presbytery enacted its Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, prefaced by “An Introduction Discovering the Rise and Progress of the Opposition to the Doctrine of Grace, and the Reasons of passing and establishing this Act....”[25] The preface explained the reasons for the Act by tracing the history of the doctrine of grace through the Reformation into the Church of Scotland, concluding by noting the urgency of a correct understanding of the doctrines of grace in light of the recent events of the Marrow controversy:

When a worthy minister of this Church recommended the Marrow of Modern Divinity, a book designed to vindicate the doctrine of grace, in opposition to the antinomian and neonomian extremes, the Assemblies Annis 1720 and 1722 severely animadverted upon it: But, when a scheme of Arminian and Socinian doctrine is now recommended, the judicatories take no manner of notice of it. Hence it follows . . . that ministers have been encouraged to entertain their hearers with harangues upon moral subjects, without ever mentioning the peculiar or supernatural truths of Christianity, or shewing the connection that is between the duties of the law and promises of the gospel.... The people hear nothing from many of them, but a system of heathen philosophy intermixed with Arminian tenets, instead of the mysteries of the gospel.[26]

The introduction and the restatement of Marrow theology in the Act were not merely reflective, but formative for the historical self-understanding of the Secession Church. The Marrow controversy, and The Marrow’s doctrines, had become a part of the official ecclesiastical history of the Secession Church.

The next historical references in Secession history to the Marrow controversy or to Marrow theology came after the tumultuous years 1745-1748. In 1745, the year after the publication of the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, the growing Associate Presbytery met at Stirling to constitute itself as “The Associate Synod.”[27] While steady expansion caused the denomination’s growth into three presbyteries under a synod, questions arose within the churches as to whether church members could legitimately take a new civic oath required to gain the status of burgess in certain cities.[28] As a result of the predominantly Roman Catholic Jacobite rebellion, citizens in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Perth who desired to “engage in commerce, belong to a trade guild, or enjoy the privilege of voting” were required to vow:

I profess . . . the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof: I shall abide thereat, and defend the same to my life’s end; renouncing the Roman religion called papistry.[29]

While the Secession churches and their members were strongly supportive of King George, often actively joining in or leading militias against Jacobite forces, the issue of the oaths caused concern among members of Secession congregations. The Presbytery of Dumfermline requested in 1745 

that the synod take under their consideration, whether or not the burgess oath be agreeable to the word of God, and to the received principles of this church founded thereupon; and particularly to those contained in the Judicial Act and Testimony emitted by the Associate Presbytery . . . in the act concerning the renovation of our covenants.[30]

As the synod deliberated, divisions arose over conflicting interpretations of what the vows meant. Some saw the vows as giving solemn assent to the legitimacy of the Church of Scotland and all its corruptions; others saw the oath as simply binding the individual to support true religion itself, not necessarily the manner in which it was being carried out in the established church. The latter party believed individuals could wholeheartedly make the vow, without assenting to corruptions of true religion in church or state. The debates over the oath within the Associate Synod led to deepening division to the point of a separation into two Secession bodies in 1747: the Associate Synod (Burgher), and the General Associate Synod (Anti-Burgher), both of which continued as denominations until the turn of the century, when further division occurred.

The two leading historians within these separate streams of the Secession church were John Brown of Haddington and Adam Gib. Brown, an able church historian, published numerous works during the latter part of the eighteenth century, and also served as theological instructor for the Associate Synod between the years 1767-1787.[31] Like Wilson’s, Brown’s first historical work contained direct reference to the Marrow controversy. Shorter than his later histories, Brown’s Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Secession focused specifically on the origins and history of the Secession church, including a recounting of the events of the Marrow controversy.[32] Brown used his account of the Marrow controversy to preface his account of the doctrinal reasons for the Secession, particularly the Church of Scotland’s “evident tendency to corrupt the doctrines of truth, contained in their own Confession of Faith . . . in their permitting or encouraging preachers, to entertain their hearers with dry harangues, of almost mere heathen morality, instead of the gospel of Christ.”[33] Concluding his work by giving “a brief character or view of the Seceders,” he included a renunciation of the errors of the Church of Scotland Assembly, who “in their rage against the Marrow of modern divinity, condemned a variety of precious gospel truths.”[34] While Brown’s Historical Account positively mentioned Marrow theology, it not only defended the general legitimacy of the Secession, but also vindicated the Associate Synod’s acceptance of the Burgess Oath, while opposing “the Antiburghers [who] still continue upon their quarreled constitution of synod in Mr. Gib’s house.”[35]

Brown’s second historical work, A General History of the Christian Church, covered the first to the eighteenth centuries, concluding in its final chapter with a discussion of the impacts of Baxter and Williams’s neonomianism as well as the efforts by “Marrow theologians in Scotland, and the renowned Hervey, Venn, and others of late”to refute their doctrine in England and Scotland.[36] Brown substantially expanded this brief reference to the Marrow theologians in his third work on church history, A Compendious History of the British Churches in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America.[37] Commenting on the state of the church in England during the eighteenth century, he appeared to reveal sympathy to Marrow theology. Brown said,

It is most pleasant to observe, that within these fifty years past, the doctrines of the free grace of God reigning thro’ the imputed righteousness of Christ, have, by Hervey and others in the established church, as well as by dissenters of different denominations, been not a little revived, and successfully spread, and are at present preached by hundreds, though too often with a restriction of the gospel offer to sensible sinners.[38]

As a historian and commentator on the recent history of the church in Scotland, Brown reflected a deep self-awareness of the importance of Marrow theology to the Secession churches. Recounting the events of the Presbytery of Auchterarder’s attempts to promote “the doctrines of free grace reigning through the righteousness of Christ” by requiring ministerial candidates “to acknowledge it unsound to teach that men must forsake their sins in order to come to Christ,” he criticized the Assembly’s condemnation and “abhorrence of that proposition . . . as if men ought only to come to Christ the alone Saviour from sins, after they have got rid of them by repentance.”[39] Noting the Assembly’s condemnation of The Marrow and simultaneous leniency towards Simson’s Arminianism, Brown’s complaint of ecclesiastical injustice and error towards the doctrines of grace echoed the complaints of the Marrow brethren and those of the 1744 introduction to the Act of the Associate Presbytery Concerning the Doctrine of Grace. They also echoed his own earlier commentary in his Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Secession. Brown’s perspective on The Marrow was restated with clarity as he recounted the Marrow controversy itself:

Mr. James Hogg one of the holiest ministers in the kingdom, having published or recommended a celebrated and edifying tract of the Cromwellian age, called the Marrow of modern divinity, the Assembly 1720, fell upon it with great fury, as if it had been replete with Antinomian errors, though it is believed, many of these zealots never read it, at least had never perused it, in connection with the 2d part of it, which is wholly taken up in manifesting the obligation, meaning and advantages of observing the law of God. They condemned the offering of Christ as a Saviour to all men, or to sinners as such,—and the doctrine of believers full deliverance from under the law as a broken covenant of works. They asserted men’s holiness to be a federal or conditional mean of their obtaining eternal happiness. They condemned these almost express declarations of Scripture, that believers are not under the law; that they do not commit sin; that the Lord sees no sin in them; and cannot be angry with them,—as Antinomian paradoxes, and condemned the distinction of the moral law as a covenant of works, and as a binding rule of duty in the hand of Christ, in order to explain these expressions. Mess. James Hogg, Thomas Boston, Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, Gabriel Wilson, and seven others remonstranted to the next Assembly against these decisions, as injurious to the doctrine of God’s grace; and, in their answers to the Commissions twelve queries, they illustrated these doctrines with no small clearness and evidence.[40]

The result of the Assembly’s actions, according to Brown, was that after the controversy “many of the clergy, perhaps fond of avoiding every appearance of good will towards the Marrow of modern divinity, seemed more legal and Baxterian in their doctrine than formerly,”causing many to seek out those who were willing to preach “gospel truth.”[41] All the while the issue of patronage, and the forced settlement of unwanted ministers in parishes, led, Brown argued, to the Secession itself. With that he ended his Compendious History.

Adam Gib was in some respects the General Associate Synod (Antiburgher) equivalent to John Brown of Haddington as a historian of the Secession church. Theologically educated under William Wilson at the Secession divinity hall, Gib was ordained in 1741 as the minister of the Secession congregation of Bristo Street, Edinburgh.[42] He became a key figure in the Antiburgher movement, which in 1747 developed into the General Associate Synod, meeting as a separate body for the first time in Gib’s home in Edinburgh. His primary contribution to historiography on the Secession churches was a two-volume work, The Present Truth: A Display of the Secession Testimony; in the Three Periods of the Rise, State, and Maintenance of that Testimony.[43] A chronological compilation of the ecclesiastical documents of the Secession church, Gib’s Display of the Secession Testimony also provided historical narrative and contextual explanation, partly with the intent of enabling a new generation of Seceders to recapture and retain the importance of their roots.[44]

Gib’s history contained not only the story of the struggle against patronage in the Church of Scotland and the ensuing formation of the Associate Presbytery, but also traced the importance of the Secession movement in maintaining an accurate gospel understanding and proclamation. This is particularly clear in his republication of The Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, which was entirely a summary and defense of The Marrow’s theology. In his introductory comments Gib noted that “the Associate Presbytery having had under their consideration, for about two years,—an enlargement of their Testimony, with respect to some injuries done to the Doctrine of Grace . . . the Act contains a vindication of the Doctrine of Grace, against several injuries done to it,—by the Assemblies 1717, 1720 and 1722; with a view of evangelical subjection and obedience to the moral law.”[45] Despite Gib’s offering little other comment on the Act, its inclusion in the collection reflected a continuing awareness of the importance of Marrow theology in Secession history, and gave this ecclesiastical statement of Marrow theology a renewed audience in the Secession churches of the 1770s.

Around the turn of the century both streams of the Secession church once again experienced increasing fragmentation due to the Old Light–New Light controversy;[46] however, this in turn was followed by movements of reunion. In the midst of this era of change, in 1817, the eldest son of John Brown of Haddington, John Brown of Whitburn, an ordained minister of the Associate Synod, published Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated.[47] Containing the history and original documents of the Marrow controversy, the work included biographies and extracts from the works of the Marrow brethren, as well as an abbreviated form of the 1742 Act of the Associate Presbytery Concerning the Doctrine of Grace. Brown’s work echoed the intent of the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, both in republishing it and in his stated purpose of giving a “general account of the controversy respecting the doctrine of grace in the church of Scotland.”[48] His history detailed the struggle between “legal doctrine” and the “doctrine of grace” in the Church of Scotland from the time of the Reformation to the Marrow controversy, and continued by tracing the legacy of the renewal of gospel understanding by the Marrow brethren.[49] Brown’s work stood as a strong reaffirmation of Marrow theology as a continuing heritage of the Secession churches. Despite being an ordained minister of the Associate Synod (Burgher), Brown noted that “the Associate Reformed Synod in America, and the General Associate Synod (Antiburgher), also clearly state and illustrate the same important truths.”[50] His ecumenical spirit in noting the shared gospel heritage of the divided Secession churches might well have been indicative of the developing movements toward reconciliation and reunion occurring at the time.

The first reunion among Secession churches occurred three years after Brown’s publication of the Gospel Truth, forming the United Secession Church in 1820; in 1827 the Original Secession Church formed out of a second reunion movement. These events, perhaps along with the increasing distance from their origins, led to renewed reflection on the Secession churches’ heritage of Marrow theology. In 1831, Thomas M’Crie, Sr., an ordained minister of the Original Secession Church and a respected Reformation historian, published a series of articles in The Edinburgh Christian Instructor on the history of the Marrow controversy, his goal being to aid readers “to understand aright the controversy respecting the Marrow of Modern Divinity.”[51] The articles presented an extensive account of the controversy, also detailing the continuing difficulties faced by those who supported Marrow theology within the Church of Scotland after the controversy.

While M’Crie’s presentation of the history of the Marrow controversy at times reflected some sympathy towards the Marrow brethren and their successors, he sought to avoid any evaluative commentary, stating it would not “be proper, in a publication of this kind, to discuss the merits of the controversy, or to indulge in reflections on the manner in which it was conducted.”[52] Why he felt it would be improper appears to be at least partly connected with the nature of the publication itself—The Edinburgh Christian Instructor was “the principal voice of the evangelical party within the Church of Scotland.”[53] Nonetheless, he clearly felt the topic was one that should be retained in the memory of both the Secession churches and the Church of Scotland. M’Crie’s final comments reflected this aim as he stated “enough, it is presumed, has been said to make the reader acquainted with the facts of a dispute . . . and to put him in possession of the sentiments held by the respective parties.”[54]

Just as John Brown of Haddington passed on the legacy of Marrow theology to his son in the Associate Synod and United Associate Synod churches, so Thomas M’Crie, Sr., passed the legacy to his son Thomas M’Crie, Jr., in the General Associate Synod churches and Original Secession Synod churches. The younger Thomas M’Crie, an ordained minister in the General Associate Synod–Old Light stream of the Secession churches, became professor of theology at the Theological Hall of the Original Secession Church in 1836.[55] Near the end of his life he published The Story of the Scottish Church, which contained a detailed narrative of the Marrow controversy, along with a historical account of the origins and development of the Secession churches. Regarding the latter, M’Crie stated, “Although the Marrow controversy cannot be said to have originated the Secession, there can be no doubt that the truths involved in it were uniformly held and faithfully preached in her pulpits.”[56] He went on: “There is no part of the Secession testimony on which we dwell with more unmixed satisfaction than on that bearing the unpromising title of ‘Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace.”‘[57] M’Crie’s writings, like those of previous Secession historians, provide further evidence that Marrow theology was believed to be a historic and integral component of Secession church doctrine.

The final and perhaps the greatest historian of the Secession churches in Scotland prior to their mergers into the United Presbyterian Church (1847) and the Free Church of Scotland (1852), was John M’Kerrow. A minister of the United Secession Church, M’Kerrow first published the History of the Secession Church in 1839, less than a decade prior to the merger of the United Associate Synod with the Relief Church.[58] His voluminous study of Secession history soon gained the acclaim of leading theologians in the United Secession Church, including James Peddie, John Mitchell, John Brown, and Donald Fraser. While it was the best of the Secession histories in terms of its tremendously detailed record of events in the varied streams of Secession churches, it also stood as the last major Secession history, in part because the mainstreams of the Secession churches in Scotland were by the late 1840s merging with other Presbyterian denominations who did not share their particular origins.

M’Kerrow’s history began with a statement of his intent “to trace the rise and progress, to describe the present state, and to dwell upon the future prospects of the Secession Church.”[59] To do this he took his readers “backward to the beginning of the eighteenth century,” giving them an understanding “of some of those circumstances . . . which, operating as so many predisposing causes, paved the way for a rapid, as well as an extensive revolt, so soon as the banner of the Secession was unfurled.”[60] M’Kerrow left no uncertainty as to his general sympathy for the Secession as a historian. But to what extent would this latter history of the Secession trace the impact of the doctrines of grace as expressed in Marrow theology? Would he view them as significant to both the history and the doctrinal identity of the Secession churches, as they had been by previous Secession historians?

M’Kerrow’s opening chapter followed the well-established pattern set by previous Secession historians, outlining the struggles over oaths in the Church of Scotland after the restoration of Presbyterianism in 1690 and the continuing influences of Erastianism upon the ecclesiastical life of the church. From this he turned to describe the leniency evidenced by the Church of Scotland in the case of the “unscriptural opinions” of Professor Simson of the University of Glasgow. The Simson affair served as the context illuminating the condition of the Church of Scotland, particularly when contrasted with their harsh response to the Auchterarder Creed, and their actions against The Marrow. Here again M’Kerrow’s history followed patterns set in previous histories of the Secession. Like other Secession historians, he believed that the Marrow controversy bore positive fruit in the life of the church:

The result of the controversy was, in some respects, highly beneficial to the interests of religion, inasmuch as the excellent publications which it called forth from the press— relating to the vital doctrines of Christianity—tended to diffuse widely among the people correct views of the gospel, and to lead not a few of them to a more diligent cultivation of practical godliness. The spirit which it excited and fostered, had a powerful, and not a very remote, influence in bringing about the Secession.[61]

M’Kerrow went on to state that the republication of The Marrow of Modern Divinity “was of great service to not a few, in giving them correct views of the doctrines of the gospel.”[62] The Assembly’s decisions, he argued, “were viewed by a large class of both ministers and people, as having fixed, under the false charge of antinomianism, the stamp of their reprobation upon some of the most important doctrines of the Christian religion.”[63] While M’Kerrow’s history of the controversy manifested a clear sympathy to the cause of the Marrow as a revival of gospel understanding, he was nonetheless careful to note:

It would be an act of injustice, however, to the memory of many good men, to affirm that all who were united together in condemning the Marrow, were influenced by hostility to the truth. This was far from being the case. There were amongst them many excellent persons, whose piety and orthodoxy were unquestionable, and who, from conscientious motives, opposed the sentiments maintained by the Marrow-men, because they considered them unscriptural, and calculated to injure the interests of sound morality. Though it must be admitted, that the book which gave rise to this controversy, contains in it startling propositions, and unguarded expressions, yet it contains in it also (what the title of it imports) the very marrow of gospel truth; and those persons who attempted to fasten upon it, and upon its defenders, the charge of antinomianism, certainly acted under mistaken views, and carried their opposition to an unreasonable length.[64]

M’Kerrow’s reflections on The Marrow’s opponents were more generous and sympathetic than those of earlier Secession histories, marking a change in historiographical approach somewhat similar to Thomas M’Crie’s attempts to avoid evaluation of the Marrow controversy in The Edinburgh Christian Instructor. The passionate historiography of earlier writers was tempered by a growing impartiality of spirit—perhaps reflecting a greater historical distance or a degree of decline from the earlier deep commitments to the theological heritage of the early Secession churches. Yet these men still viewed The Marrow’s cause as historically beneficial to the church. M’Kerrow’s writing reflected this sentiment throughout his commentary on the Marrow controversy, concluding by noting that through publicity surrounding the controversy

the peculiar doctrines of the gospel were brought prominently forward into notice . . . they imparted to [the people] clearer and more enlarged views of the gospel system, they tended at the same time, to produce in them a relish for evangelical preaching. The current of popular opinion ran strongly in favour of those ministers who espoused the Marrow doctrines.[65]

After narrating the Marrow controversy, M’Kerrow turned to the growing issues of patronage in the Church of Scotland as the immediate cause of the Secession, at one point noting a connection between the events of the Secession and those surrounding The Marrow. In describing events leading to Secession he depicted the prevailing party of the Church of Scotland as deeply prejudiced against Ebenezer Erskine:

Already had he, when a minister in Fife, been accused, first before the Synod, and next before the Commission of the General Assembly, of teaching doctrines inconsistent with the Confession of Faith; by which his accusers meant the obnoxious doctrines of the Marrow.[66]

M’Kerrow argued that this antipathy toward Erskine as one of the “Marrowmen” meant the supporters of patronage “were desirous of an opportunity to check his boldness.”[67] Erskine’s sermon at the Synod of Perth and Stirling in 1732, he argued, provided the opportunity.

In his discussions of Secession events, M’Kerrow provided no further analysis of connections between the Marrow controversy and the Secession church. His next references to the Marrow came in his account of the 1742 meetings of the Associate Presbytery and the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace. M’Kerrow stated, “In this act, the Presbytery entered fully into a vindication of those doctrines taught by the Marrow-men, which the Assembly thought proper, first to misrepresent, and then to condemn.”[68] Presenting a detailed summary of the doctrinal statement, he indicated its harmony with and connection to the doctrine espoused by the Marrow supporters in the early 1720s. M’Kerrow’s concluding comments again reflected sympathy toward, though also a certain degree of distance from, the doctrinal fervor of the early Seceders:

Whatever may be the opinion entertained concerning the Marrow doctrines, which are avowedly defended in this document, it is impossible not to admire the zeal which these good men displayed in the vindication of the truth. Tremblingly alive to everything that affected the interests of godliness, and the honour of their Redeemer, the grand object which they kept steadily in view, was maintaining, pure and uncorrupted, the truth as it is in Jesus. Grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, was their darling theme,—a theme which warmed their affections, which employed their pens, which gave life and energy to their preaching, and to the frequent publication of which they were indebted, more than to anything else, for the great success which attended their ministrations among the people.[69]

After his discussion of the events surrounding the passage of the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, M’Kerrow made little further mention of Marrow theology. His account and summary of the overture and eventual Act of the General Associate Synod of 1754 “containing an assertion of some gospel truths, in opposition to Arminian errors,” related theological tenets in harmony with the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace, but made no mention of Marrow connections or continuity.[70] The remainder of his work presented a detailed ecclesiastical history, referring at times to the republication of the Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace in the various testimonies of the Secession churches, but making no further direct mention of Marrow theology.

M’Kerrow did often note “gospel preaching” as a distinction of the Secession churches, but there is little ground to argue that in doing so he specifically had a Marrow understanding of the gospel in mind.[71] One place where again he explicitly referred to the Marrow controversy, or Marrow theology, was in an appendix to the History of the Secession Church “containing an account of the literature and authors of the secession.”[72] Here M’Kerrow noted the direct impact of “Marrow doctrine” on early Secession ministers including the Erskine brothers, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncrieff.[73] A final possible reference came in his biography of John Swanston (1720-1767) “[whose] sermons have been very much esteemed by those who set a value on the marrow of the gos-pel.”[74] M’Kerrow made no mention of Marrow doctrine in his accounts of Secession ministers and writers after Swanston.

While M’Kerrow’s History of the Secession Church clearly portrayed the significance of the Marrow controversy and theology for the early period of Secession history, his record does not present an awareness of a continuing heritage of Marrow doctrine. This may simply reflect M’Kerrow’s personal understanding of Secession history, or his priorities as an ecclesiastical historian. Perhaps with the passage of time Secession churches continued to maintain an evangelical heritage, but one, by M’Kerrow’s day, no longer cogently framed by the distinct doctrine and terminology espoused in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, the writings of Marrow men, and the restatement of Marrow theology in The Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace. This understanding, however, seems to conflict with the younger Thomas M’Crie’s assessment that “there can be no doubt that the truths involved in [the Marrow] were uniformly held and faithfully preached” in the Secession churches.[75]

An assessment of M’Kerrow’s Secession historiography, along with the other histories of the Secession church provides valuable evidence but limited insight into the impact of Marrow theology on the Secession churches. Certainly there is substantial proof for a purposeful historical self-connection and ecclesiastical connection to The Marrow by Secession historians. Yet the question remains, to what extent did this stated historical connection reflect actual theological continuity? More particularly, was there a continuity of Marrow doctrine in the understanding of key doctrines of grace such as the atonement, saving faith, and the gospel offer? A fuller answer to these questions requires a comparative examination of Marrow theology with the theological works published by the Secession churches, and their pastors and theologians.

Notes

1. See, e.g., John MacLeod, Scottish Theology (Edinburgh: The Publications Committee of the Free Church of Scotland, 1943), 167-68; James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?,” SJT 23 (1970): 60; David Lachman, “Marrow Controversy,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 547; A. T. B. McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997), 45-46; Joel Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 249.
2. John M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Oliphant, 1839). This work was revised and enlarged and republished as a single-volume edition two years later, dedicated “anew to the service of the Saviour.” References herein refer to the one-volume edition: John M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church (Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1841), 71.
3. Jack Whytock, “The History and Development of Scottish Theological Education and Training, Kirk and Secession (c. 1560–c. 1850)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2001), 204.
4. “Act and Overture concerning the Method of Planting vacant Churches. Edinburgh, May 14th, post merid. Sess. 9,” in The Principal Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Conveened at Edinburgh the 6th Day of May 1731 (Edinburgh: Printed by Mr. James Davidson & Robert Fleming, Printers to the Church of Scotland, 1731), 7-8.
5. Ibid., 7. Heritors were gentry with hereditary title to lands within the bounds of the parish.
6. “Act Anent the Method of Planting Vacant Churches. Edinburgh, May 15, 1732, Sess. 11,” in The Principal Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Conveened at Edinburgh the 4th Day of May 1732 (Edinburgh: Printed by Mr. James Davidson & Robert Fleming, Printers to the Church of Scotland, 1732), 22-24.
7. Ebenezer Erskine, The Stone rejected by the Builders, exalted as the Head-Stone of the Corner (Edinburgh: Printed for David Duncan, 1732), 1-47.
8. Ibid., 14-15.
9. Ibid., 40.
10. A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories of the Church of Scotland with relation to Mr. Ebenezer Erskine and other Ministers who have seceded from the said Church . . . Published by Order of the General Assembly of 1739 (Edinburgh: Printed by J. Davidson & R. Fleming, 1739), 1, 8-10.
11. M’Kerrow notes that the Synod of Stirling’s decision that Ebenezer Erskine was censurable passed by a majority of six votes (History of the Secession Church, 50).
12. A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories, 12.
13. Register of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Held and Begun in the Year 1733. In Register of the General Assembly annes 1731, 1732 & 1733 (MSS 237, Special Libraries and Archives, King’s College, Aberdeen), 465-66; see also A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories, 43.
14. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, 52.
15. “Act and Sentence concerning Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, and other Ministers adhering to his Protest, for their Contempt of the Authority of the General Assembly. Edinburgh, May 15th, 1733, ante merid.,” in A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories, 43-44. See also Acts of the General Assembly Concerning Some of the Ministers of the Presbytery of Dumfermline &c., And concerning Mr. Ebenezer Erskine and some other Ministers adhering to his Protest (Edinburgh, 1733), 13.
16. A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories, 49-50.
17. Acts of the General Assembly, 13; A Narrative of the Procedure of the Judicatories, 52-54.
18. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, 64; The Representations of Masters Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher and of Masters William Wilson and Alexander Moncrieff to the Commission of the Late General Assembly: Containing Their Reasons . . . Together with The Protestations entred by them . . . (Edinburgh: Printed by Thomas Lumsden & John Robertson, 1733), 1-68.
19. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, 64.
20. Ministers taking part in the Secession movement who were also directly involved in the earlier events of the Marrow controversy include Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine, Alexander Moncrieff, and William Wilson.
21. Sherman Isbell, “Testimonies,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 817.
22. A testimony to the doctrine, worship, government and discipline of the Church of Scotland; or, reasons by Mr. Ebenezer Erskine Minister at Stirling, Mr. William Wilson Minister at Perth, Mr. Alexander Moncrieff Minister at Abernethy, and Mr. James Fisher Minister at Kinclaven, for their Protestation entred before the Commission of the General Assembly, November 1733 . . . (Edinburgh: Printed by Thomas Lumisden & John Robertson, 1734), 77-78.
23. Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Doctrine, Worship, Government and Discipline of the Church of Scotland, Agreeable to the Word of God, the Confession of Faith, the National Covenant of Scotland . . . By some Ministers associate together for the Exercise of Church Government and Discipline in a Presbyterial Capacity . . . (Edinburgh: Printed by Thomas Lumisden & John Robertson, 1737), 84-85.
24. William Wilson, A Defense of the Reformation-Principles of the Church of Scotland. With a Continuation of the Same . . . (Glasgow: Printed by Joseph Galbraith & Co., 1769), 460-61.
25. “An Introduction Discovering the Rise and Progress of the Opposition to the Doctrine of Grace ...,” in Act of the Associate Presbytery Concerning the Doctrine of Grace: Wherein the said Doctrine, As revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and, agreeably thereto, set forth in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, Is Asserted, and Vindicated (Edinburgh: Printed by T. W. & T. Ruddimans, 1744), i-x.
26. “An Introduction Discovering the Rise and Progress,” ix.
27. David Lachman, “Associate Presbytery,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 35-36.
28. M’Kerrow notes the Associate Synod at this point consisted of twenty-six ministers representing the same number of congregations; along with this there were some seventeen vacant congregations and growing interest for further congregations both in Scotland and Ireland (History of the Secession Church, 196-97).
29. Sherman Isbell, “Burgess Oath,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 109-10.
30. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, 210.
31. Whytock, “History and Development,” 254-309.
32. John Brown [of Haddington], An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Secession . . . (5th ed.; Glasgow: Printed by William Smith, 1788), 1-75. This work was first published in 1766. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, 858.
33. Brown, An Historical Account, 24.
34. Ibid., 74.
35. Ibid., 60-63.
36. John Brown, A General History of the Christian Church from the Birth of our Saviour to the present Time (Edinburgh: Printed for Gray & Alston, 1771), 266-67.
37. John Brown, A Compendious History of the British Churches in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America (2 vols.; Glasgow: Printed by John Bryce, 1784).
38. Ibid., 1:293-94.
39. Ibid., 2:352-53.
40. Ibid., 2:353-55.
41. Ibid., 2:355.
42. Sherman Isbell, “Adam Gib,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 356-57.
43. Adam Gib, The Present Truth: A Display of the Secession Testimony; in the Three Periods of the Rise, State, and Maintenance of that Testimony (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Printed by R. Fleming & A. Neill, 1774).
44. In his preface Gib stated “The first generation of Seceders is now mostly off the field: And the new generation is ready to lose sight, in a great measure, of the cause which they possess; partly through want of ready information: it is therefore considered not only as a piece of justice to that cause before the world, (and a necessary information for posterity),—but also as a matter of duty to the friends of it; that such a Display be made thereof, as is now proposed” (Display of the Secession Testimony, 1:vi-vii).
45. Ibid., 1:172-73.
46. The Old Light–New Light controversy in the Secession Churches revolved around the issue of whether there should be national establishments of religion. Those who held to the conviction that national covenants were obligated before God, and who thus supported established religion in principle (though not in its current practice in the Church of Scotland) were termed Old Lights. Those who sought the disestablishment of religion, or who believed that individuals should have liberty within the church regarding their views on the establishment of religion by the state, were termed New Lights. The controversy split both the Associate Synod and the General Associate Synod into Old and New Light streams. For further discussion of this controversy in the Secession Churches see Sherman Isbell, “New Light,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 625.
47. John Brown [of Whitburn], Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated (Edinburgh: Ogle, Allardice & Thomson; David Brown, 1817), 1-376. The work was enlarged and republished in a second edition in 1831. The first American edition was published in Canonsburgh, Pa., by Andrew Munro in 1827.
48. Brown, Gospel Truth, 9.
49. Ibid., 9-11.
50. Ibid., 37.
51. Thomas M’Crie, Sr., “Account of the Controversy respecting the Marrow of Modern Divinity,” The Edinburgh Christian Instructor 30, no. 8 (August 1831): 539.
52. M’Crie, Sr., “Account of the Controversy ...,” The Edinburgh Christian Instructor, n.s., 1, no. 1 (February 1832): 94.
53. John A. H. Dempster, “The Edinburgh Christian Instructor,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 275.
54. M’Crie, Sr., “Account of the Controversy,” The Edinburgh Christian Instructor (February 1832): 94.
55. David B. Calhoun, “Thomas M’Crie,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, 507.
56. Thomas M’Crie, Jr., The Story of the Scottish Church (London: Blackie & Son, 1875), 470.
57. Ibid., 471.
58. M’Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, xvi, 1-956.
59. Ibid., 1.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., 10-11.
62. Ibid., 11.
63. Ibid., 13.
64. Ibid., 19.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 44.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid., 179.
69. Ibid., 183-84.
70. Ibid., 261.
71. In his concluding remarks M’Kerrow stated, “Whatever may have been the faults connected with [the Secession church], the sound of a faithful gospel ministry has always been heard in its pulpits. It has held forth, with plainness, affection, and fidelity, the word of life, for the benefit of others” (ibid., 768).
72. Ibid., 777.
73. Ibid., 813, 818, 820, 828, 837.
74. Ibid., 852.
75. M’Crie, Jr., The Story of the Scottish Church, 471.