the Marrow party was small, it embraced several men of talents and determination, who would not, even at the bidding of the Assembly, renounce the views they held. The act of Assembly was discussed in presbyteries and private circles, in letters and in conversations. On the one hand, it was declared to be unjust to judge a book by a few detached sentences picked out of its pages by enemies, and separated from the context. On the other hand, it was maintained that a perusal of the whole book would justify the fairness of the committee, and show that it contained the doctrines which were imputed to it, and more especially that its tendency was toward Antinomianism. Some of the discussions assumed all the subtlety of those subtle discussions about sufficient grace which are treated by Pascal in his "Provincial Letters" with such grave irony. In the "Marrow" it is taught that "the moral law may be either said to be the matter of the law of works, or the matter of the law of Christ. As it is the matter of the law of works, it ought not to be a rule of life to a believer; as it is the matter of the law of Christ, it ought to be a rule of life to a believer." Wodrow refined still farther, and declared that he could condemn this proposition, "As the law is the Covenant of Works, the believer is wholly delivered from it;" but not this one, "A believer is wholly delivered from the law, as it's a covenant of works." 1

A number of ministers, admirers of the "Marrow," resolved to make an effort to have the obnoxious act of Assembly repealed. With this end, they drew up a representation, begging the Assembly to reconsider its decision, and gave it in to the Committee of Bills for transmission to the Assembly, which had met in May 1721. This representation was signed by twelve men, who were henceforward called, sometimes the Representers, and sometimes the Marrow Men. They were -James Hog of Carnock, Thomas Boston of Ettrick, John Williamson of Inveresk, John Bonar of Torphichen, Gabriel Wilson of Maxton, James Kid of Queensferry, Ebenezer Erskine of Portmoak, Ralph Erskine of Dunfermline, James Wardlaw of Dunfermline, Henry Davidson of Galashiels, James Bathgate of Orwell, and William Hunter of Lilliesleaf.2

Such were the twelve apostles of the Modern Divinity. We at once see that there were amongst them some men who have

1 Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 553.

2 A copy of this representation will be found in Struthers's History of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 498-506.

achieved for themselves a long-lived renown. Thomas Boston had composed, amid the pastoral scenery of the Ettrick, his "Fourfold State," which is read at some cottage firesides still. James Hog is described as a man of great learning and singular piety, but withal he was a keen controversialist. His style, however, is clumsy, which he himself was wont to excuse by reminding his critics that he had spent many years upon the Continent before being settled at Carnock, and had learned to think and speak in a foreign tongue. But Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine stand out in bold relief from all the others, not as the writers of anything memorable, but as the authors of a Secession, and the founders of a Church which now estimates its adherents at half a million.

While the Assembly of 1721 was sitting, the Royal Commissioner became unwell: it was with difficulty he could be present; and as no one cared to revive the old disputes about the Church's independent powers,1 an adjournment took place, and the business still undisposed of was referred to the Commission. Among other matters thus left over was the representation of the Marrow Men. The Commission, however, met on the very day after the Assembly was dissolved, so that no time was lost. The representation occupied a considerable part of several days, and there were several stout joists between the theological foemen. Boston afterwards wrote in his Memoirs," Mr Williamson did, in a point of debate, fairly lay Mr Allan Logan, minister of Culross, and I was encouraged by the success of an encounter with Principal Haddow." 2 The other party, however, did not acknowledge the prowess of their opponents, for they persisted in the belief that the "Marrow" had been righteously condemned.

The Representers, besides asking the Assembly to repeal its act condemning the "Marrow" as derogatory to gospel truth, themselves ventured to condemn an act of the Assembly touching the preaching of catechetical doctrine. This was carrying the war into the enemies' country. In this act ninisters were enjoined to insist, in their catechetical sermons, 'upon the great and fundamental truths according to our Confession of Faith and Catechisms; such as that of the Being nd Providence of God, the Divine authority of the Holy

1 It appears from Wodrow's Correspondence, however, that there were ɔme private grumbling on this subject. (Vol. ii. p. 583.) Boston appears > have been one of those grumblers. (See his Memoirs.)

2 Boston's Memoirs, p. 373,

Scriptures, the necessary doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead, particularly of the eternal Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the satisfaction to Divine justice made by Him who is our only propitiation, of regeneration by efficacious grace, of free justification through our blessed surety, the Lord Jesus Christ, received by faith alone, and of the necessity of a holy life in order to the obtaining of everlasting happiness."1 These words sound like the words of men zealous for the purity of the faith; but the Marrow Men thought they discovered heresy in them, for they made no special mention of Christ's imputed righteousness, and they made holiness essential to salvation, "which they conceived to be of very dangerous consequence unto the doctrine of free grace."

All this had at first caused a good deal of bitterness, as mutual suspicions and recriminations are sure to do; but before the Assembly again met, men's minds had time to grow calm. In May 1722, the whole matter was brought before the Church met in its supreme judicatory, by a report from the Commission, in which they recommended the Assembly to adhere to its Act of 1720, and to censure the Representers for the groundless aspersions they had cast upon the Church. From this resolution only one member of the Commission had dissented. In the Assembly the subject was keenly contested. The battle was fought before a small committee, before a committee of the whole House, before the House itself. A great part of the Assembly's time was occupied with it. "Many speeches," says Wodrow, "were made before they (the Marrow Men) came in ; as to their good disposition, but little of it appeared."2 At length the Assembly came to a vote, and, by a hundred and thirty-four against five, accepted the report of the commission, with a few alterations, and converted it into an act.

It is an operose document, occupying eight closely printed pages. It fortifies the orthodoxy of the Assembly of 1720 by quotations from the Confession of Faith and Catechisms; it rebuts the assertions of the Representation; it vindicates the Act anent Catechetical Doctrine; and "considering that the brethren's desire that the Act 1720 should be repealed is unjust, the Assembly does refuse the same: and because of the injurious reflections contained in their representation, as above mentioned, the Assembly do appoint their Moderator, 1 Acts of Assembly, p. 538. 2 Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 646.

in their name, to rebuke and admonish them; and though their offence deserves a much higher censure, yet the Assembly forbears it, in hopes that the great lenity used towards them shall engage them to a more dutiful behaviour in time coming." The Marrow Men stood the rebuke, and then protested in the hands of a notary.

A Church which allowed some latitude of belief to its members would not have meddled with the "Marrow of Modern Divinity." If that celebrated treatise diverges from the standard of high orthodoxy, it is only by a hairbreadth, though the divergence is undoubtedly in a dangerous direction. It certainly delights in scholastic distinctions and startling paradoxes, and in detached passages speaks as if a believer's moral conduct were of no account; but these passages are to some extent modified by others, and its apologists affirm that the difference lies more in the statement of truth than in the truth itself. Still the Church was merciful in its judgment. It condemned the book; it did not depose the men who were known to have imbibed its sentiments. There have been Assemblies, both before and since, which would not have made such a distinction. Even afterwards, when the Marrow Men not only professed openly their admiration of a book which the Church had condemned, but ventured to challenge the orthodoxy of the Church itself, they were only rebuked. To have done anything, the Assembly could not have done

less.

But it has been affirmed, that it was because the Church had become latitudinarian that it hated the "Marrow ;" and that this latitudinarianism is to be traced to the admission of so many of the Prelatic curates into the ecclesiastical courts. They who make such a statement have mistaken the spirit of that time. The old jealousy between the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian had not yet died out. There were curates in the Church, but they exercised no influence in it. When they appeared before an ecclesiastical court, it was generally that they might be deposed for some alleged misdemeanour. At the very time the Marrow controversy was raging, the Episcopalians were under the ban for their connection with the still recent rebellion, and bitter things were everywhere said of them. To suppose that such men had such influence as to turn the Church out of the old doctrinal paths is sheer Wodrow was at that very time publishing his

nonsense.

1 Acts of Assembly, pp. 548-56.

History of the Church's Sufferings, and Wodrow was against the Marrow Men, though the personal friend of some of them ;—was the leaven of Episcopacy working in him? In one Assembly only four men, and in another only five, could be found to side with Boston, notwithstanding Boston's great reputation, so that if a defection there were, it must have been very sudden and very complete. We shall come nearer the truth by ascribing the movement to an actual zeal for the purity of doctrine, though men may still differ as to whether that zeal was according to knowledge. It must be admitted that to most men, not trained in theological subtleties, the book has an ugly look by reason of its excessive Paulinistic orthodoxy.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE decision of the Assembly in 1722 did not terminate the Marrow controversy. It continued to break out at intervals in different parts of the country, showing that though the fire had been quenched it continued to smoulder. On more than one occasion it came under the notice of the Church Courts.1 In 1727, Boston published a new edition of the obnoxious treatise with very copious and elaborate notes, under the feigned name of "Philalethes Irenæus." We cannot doubt but that he and his brethren spoke their sentiments freely in their pulpits. But after this the judicatories wisely let them alone; the animosity which had been excited gradually decayed; and again the Church had peace.2

The principal subject of discussion in the Assembly of 1724 was the constitution of the Commission. That court is regarded by many even still as of illegitimate birth and doubtful authority. It is recognised in no act of parliament as a judicatory of the Church.' When King James VI. was pressing on his Episcopal schemes, he got the Assembly persuaded to appoint a committee to manage the affairs of the Church in the interval of its sessions; and he soon brought this commit

1 See Boston's Memoirs, pp. 377-83. Acts of Assembly, p. 565.

2 History may stoop from her elevated position to notice that the Lord High Commissioner's dinners first began to acquire celebrity this year. Wodrow specially remarks that the Earl of Hopetoun, the Royal Com missioner, kept a plentiful board, and was greatly liked. See Corres pondence, vol. iii.