The Marrow Men - Why the 1719 Marrow Controversy Still Matters
Dr. Donald John Maclean - Scottish Reformation Society
Dr. Maclean: It’s now time to turn to why the Marrow controversy matters; The theology and the four key areas:
First, the gospel offer and preparation for grace;
Second, the gospel offer and the atonement ;
Third, the gospel offer and saving faith and assurance; and
Finally, evangelical obedience.
We’ll begin by looking at the Marrow and its teaching on the gospel offer and preparation for grace.
The freeness of the gospel offer
Who is the gospel offered to? To that question was much agitated during the Marrow controversy and it's fair to say that in contrast to a universal gospel offer, the general assembly of the church tended towards, what we might call a Preparationist position (preparationism held that a person who is not yet regenerated (saved) can participate in behaviors like prayer, Bible study, and church attendance in order to “prepare” himself for the Holy Spirit to actually save him), where the gospel offer is only made to those who are prepared or sensible sinners.
So, the assembly combined in opposition to “antinomianism” with a related fear that the gospel would look too cheap and too easy if it was offered freely to all. Principal James Haddow of St Andrews, one of the great opponents of the Marrow; his position on the gospel offer has been rightly summarized, “the gospel was not to be offered to all sinners indefinitely but to sinners who by their divinely enabled obedience to the gospel commands to repent and believe had manifested their identity among the definitive group of the elect.”
Sinclair Ferguson (opponent) explains this limiting of the gospel offer, this idea that the gospel is only offered to those who are thirsty, who are repenting, as follows, “the major premise was this; the grace of God in Christ saves the elect. The minor premise was this; the elect are known by their forsaking of sin. The conclusion drawn; grace is given to those who forsake sin.” With these, the restrictive legalistic views in the air it's no surprise that the Marrow Men felt it was their duty to defend the free offer of the gospel over against a misguided and misinformed hyper-Calvinism.
Now before explaining explicitly the scope of the gospel offer, it's important to say that in general the Marrow Men emphasized the unconditional nature of the good news of the gospel. They said, “The gospel taken strictly, and as distinct from the law, is a doctrine of grace or good news from heaven, of help in God through Jesus Christ to lost self-destroying creatures of Adam’s race. The gospel is the glad tidings of a Savior with life and salvation in him, even to the chief of sinners.”
And they felt this emphasis on the free nature of the gospel was important because the Marrow Men saw themselves as wrestling against Socinians, Arminians, Papists and Baxterians who by holding the gospel to be a new proper perceptive law with sanctions, turn it into a real, though mild Covenant of Works that have confounded the law and the gospel and brought works into the matter of a sinner's justification before God.
The Marrow Men held tenaciously that strictly speaking, the essence of the gospel, the essence of the covenant of grace, is promise. So the gospel promises, the law commands. And this distinction they thought cut at the root of any Baxterism, legalism or any prior qualifications being necessary, like conviction of sin to earn a right to access the gospel. And the implications of this gospel freeness are seen in how the Marrow Men constructed the order of coming to faith, the order of salvation.
It’s long been debated from time to time whether faith or repentance comes first in this order of salvation. And while acknowledging that faith and repentance in practice are absolutely inseparable, the Marrow Men in line with much, but not all older reformed theology, felt it important to emphasize faith is logically prior to repentance. This, they felt secured the free gracious nature of the gospel. They were following much older reformed theology, Calvin writes, “as for those who think repentance goes before faith rather than flowing or springing from it, as fruit out of a tree, they never knew the force of faith.”
Later the great representative statement of Continental Theology, the Synopsis of Purer Theology produced by the theological faculty in Leiden, 1625 similarly said, “Repentance is usually kept distinct from faith. Faith is a cause and repentance is the proper effect and result of that cause. In order for us to have a true hatred of our sins, genuinely grieve for the offences we have committed against God, to cherish righteousness and in our souls to begin fostering the hope of forgiveness and spiritual joy, it is altogether necessary that in faith we first apply Christ to ourselves, and in him to regard God as our Father.”
On the same subject Ebenezer Erskine writes, “some speak of forsaking sin in order to, and before coming to Christ. But, he says, you will never forsake sin evangelically, never repent evangelically till once Christ comes to you and you come to him. It is when Christ comes into the temple then he drives out all the buyers and sellers. So let him in and he will make the house clean.”
Thomas Boston agreed. He said in his notes on the Marrow, “we must take Christ in our way to the Father, else it is impossible that we guilty creatures can reach him, and no man can come to Christ but by believing in him. Therefore it is impossible that a man can truly repent before he believe in Christ. Him, God has exalted Christ with his right hand to be a prince and a savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. In this insistence that the gospel is free, faith comes before repentance, although in our experience they are bound together.
The Marrow Men walked in the lights of Samuel Rutherford’s warning. “We would beware”, says Rutherford, “of Mr. Baxter’s order of setting repentance and works, of new obedience before justification which is indeed a new covenant of works”. The Marrow Men listened to Rutherford. their opponent Principal Haddow did not.
Now this order of salvation accepts the freeness of the gospel that faith is logically prior to repentance, avoids the tendency of driving the sinner in on themselves as to whether they have repented enough before they can believe. and so when the Marrow Men with that order of salvation in their minds come to explicitly face into the question of preparation or the restriction of the gospel offer to thirsty repenting sinners, it is no surprise that they condemn out of hand any restriction of the gospel to those so qualified. In the Marrow itself, in response to a question from Nomists asking whether Christ requires a thirsting before a man come to him, Evangelista, the good gospel minister replies, “the gospel proclamation is not simply let him who is a thirst come, but also whoever will. So that thirsting is not a limitation of the gospel offer or of the warrant to come to Christ. Thomas Boston agreed with this teaching in the Marrow, commenting that Isaiah 55:1, Revelation 22:17 and this mention of thirsting did not in any way he said restrict the offer. He rejected the claim that the thirsting in these texts referred to a particular mourning over sin to constitute as thirsty sensible sinners. Rather Boston argued that in these texts the idea of thirst refers to a thirst after happiness and satisfaction which is common to all.
Now in accenting the freeness of the gospel, in criticizing any idea of preparationism or conviction warranting our acceptance of the gospel, the Marrow Men were in no way denying the importance of the conviction of sin or in no way denying the importance of the preaching of the law. Ehat they were emphasizing was that a sense of sin does not comprise our warrant our right to embrace Jesus Christ as Savior. The idea of conviction of sin does not restrict the scope of the gospel. Says Boston, “I make no question, but before a sinner will come to Christ by believing he must be an awakened convinced sensible sinner, pricked in his heart with a sense of his sin and misery and therefore the law must be preached by all who would preach Christ aright. But that these things or any other things in the sinner are required to warrant him that he may come to Christ by believing is what I conceive the scriptures do not teach. Rather the general offer of the gospel warns every man that he may come.”
And this position of Boston is the old Scottish doctrine found for example in Jamestown.” Grace”, says Durham, “stands not precisely on four preparations as that he had not been so and so humbled and have not had such and such previous qualifications. Nay, grace excludes these as offering to bring money and price which would quite spoil the nature of the market of free grace. Nay, yet let me say further, if it were possible that a soul would come without sense of sin, grace would embrace it.” So the Marrow and the Marrow Men emphasized the freeness of the gospel, and because they did that, they stood strongly for an unrestricted, unqualified universal gospel offer.
Now we don't have time to consider it, but an interesting study is the textual basis that Thomas Boston uses for his gospel appeals particularly in his sermons on Matthew 11, “come to me o ye who labor and are heavy laden”, the verses that he uses to show the fullness the freeness of the gospel. Isaiah 55 1 “ho, everyone who thirsts…” Revelation 3:20, “behold, I stand at the door and knock” Luke 14 23, “compel them to come in”. Ezekiel 33 11, “I don’t have any pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Matthew 23 37 Luke 19, Christ's laments over Jerusalem. These are the verses he uses, and they are almost identical exegetical basis to that used by James Darwin to highlight the willingness of Christ to save sinners. there's a strong thread of connection in how they understood the gospel offer, the Marrow Men back to the days of the second reformation. And indeed a comparison of Durham's sermons on Matthew 22 4, gospel presentations are the strongest invitations. Durham says in that sermon, “God the Father and the King's son, the bridegroom are not only content and willing, but very desirous to have sinners come to the marriage. They would fight to speak with reverence, “have poor souls aspires to Christ.”
Boston has a sermon on the parallel wedding banquet passage in Luke 14, and Boston speaks in almost the same words as Darwin; “sinners are desired to come in they not only have leave to come in but they are desired by the master of the house to come in”, he says, “this desire is evident in the very nature of the gospel. If you were not desired to come, why would he send his servants to compel you to come in?” Go compare Durham's sermon on Matthew 22 Gospel Presentations, the Dtrongest Invitations” with Boston sermon on Luke 14 23 and see how similar they are.
Well, this teaching of the Marrow Men led Donald Beaton and his excellent work on the Marrow controversy to say, “never before perhaps in Scottish preaching or such stress laid on the free offer of the gospel to every sinner of the human race. and while there's much in the Marrow Men's preaching to give weight to Beaton’s comment, I think it's better to say that in maintaining a gospel offer that was as full and free and earnest and pressing as he could make it, Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men were simply following the footsteps of classic reformed theology. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the Marrow doctrine of the gospel offer is the doctrine of the Westminster standards and it would require a larger degree of charity than I possess to say the same of their opponents who hedged in the gospel offer with conditions and restriction. So that is the freeness of the gospel offer.
The atonement and the gospel offer
The atonement and the gospel offer, as well as debates over who the gospel was offered to all or just to convicted sinners. The general assembly condemned the teaching in the matter on the free offer of the gospel on the ground that it necessarily taught universal atonement and pardon. The assembly particularly objected to the statements, (A). “The Father have made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind that whoever of them, all shall believe in his son shall not perish”. (B). And they objected to the idea that there was a gospel warrant to go tell every man without exception Christ is dead for him.” Haddow explicitly asked the question, “How can ministers of the gospel tell every man as the truth of God that Christ is dead for him without the supposition of a universal redemption?”
And the assembly explicitly asked them our Men whether the revelation of the divine will in the word offering a warrant to offer Christ to all and to all to receive him can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift or grant unto all mankind. is this grant made to all by sovereign grace and is it absolute or conditional?. They raised these quotations explicitly with the Marrow Men. The motherland responded by saying that by this phrase deed of gift or ground. they simply understood no more than the revelation of the divine will in the word affording warrants to offer Christ to all and the warrant to all to receive him. They were insistent that they held to particular redemption nothing in their doctrine of the gospel offer they felt led in any way to a denial of definite atonement. Donald Beaton is right when he comments, “it's evident from there the Marrow Men's writings that they strongly held the doctrine of a definite atonement.” it could easily be shown while steering clear of Arminianism. they managed to steer no less successfully passed Amyraldism (the belief that God decreed Christ's atonement, prior to his decree of election, for all alike if they believe, but he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, seeing that none would believe on their own, and thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.)
So, the Marrow Men in no way felt the universal gospel offer was hindered by particular redemption. They said, “although we believe the purchase and application of redemption to be particular to the elect given by the Father to Christ in the council of peace, yet the warrant to receive him is common to all. Ministers by virtue of the commission they have received from their great lord are authorized and instructed to go preach the gospel to every creature. That is to make full free unhampered offer of him his grace righteousness and salvation to every rational soul they may in providence have access to speak to.” They went on, “and though we had a voice like a trumpet that could reach all corners of the earth, we think we would be bound by virtue of our commission to lift it up and say to you o Men do we call our voice is to the sons of men, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
And the Marrow Men argued that this position was faithful to the reformed tradition. Citing Samuel Rutherford as teaching, “the reprobate have us fare a warrant to believe as the elect have.” More can be gleaned from Boston's notes on these phrases in his annotated edition of the Marrow. Boston said, “the deed of gift and grant to all mankind is simply the authentic gospel offer. The gospel offer was to all without exception. Where the gospel comes, the grant is published the ministerial offer made. There is no exception to any of all mankind in the ground”.
And it's important to note that the disputed phrases in the Marrow occur in response to the question, “have such a one as I any warrants to believe in Christ”. At the heart of the debate over these phrases was the question of is the gospel offer itself sufficient to provide all men a warrant to believe in Christ or does it also need a universal atonement? And Boston believed clearly that the gospel offer itself, accompanied with a particular redemption provided a sufficient basis for anyone to believe. He argued simply that the good old way of providing sinners a warrant to believe was the universal gospel offer as a particular invitation to every individual here quite apart from whom the atonement was intended for in the decree.
And in all this Boston is not stating anything and what countless reformed theologians before him had held. In his defense he explicitly cited Westminster confession 7-3 larger catechism 6, 3 with our references to the offer. He quoted the Cannons of Dort 2, 5 and 2, 6 with their references to the gospel offer. And he made use of David Dixon and James Durham in their work, “The sum of saving knowledge”, particularly the practical use of saving knowledge where it says, “the general offer in substance is equal to a special offer made to everyone in particular as appears by the apostle making use of it, Acts 16:31. The reason which offer is given John 3:16, and the use of John 3:16 by Dixon and Durham and “the Sum of Saving Knowledge” was particularly important for Boston as the Marrow was expounding John 3:16 when it spoke of the deed of gift or ground.
The deed of gift or grant
Now turning more explicitly to these two disputed phrases, Boston argued repeatedly that the deed of gift or grant and Christ is dead for you neither of them implied a universal atonement. Both for Boston spoke only of the warrant sinners have to believe in Christ, namely that the offer of Christ is general. With regard to the phrase the deed of gift or grant, Boston notes this phrase comes from the puritan Ezekiel Culverwell and his work A Treatise of Faith a Work commended by Westminster divine William gouache” never any took such pains to so good purpose in and about the foundation of faith as he, Culverwell, hath done” did Culverwell's teaching of universal atonement? Had Boston understood Culverwell's phrase correctly, it’s relating only to the gospel offer? But it's certainly plausible to say Boston understood Culverwell correctly. Ezekiel Culverwell wrote a follow-up work, “a brief answer to certain objections against the Treaties of Faith” and he posed himself the question whether salvation in Christ be in the gospel proclaimed and offered in general to only hear or only the elect?” and Culverwell answered that, “by most evident scriptures, salvation is offered to all who hear the gospel. this position”, he said, “was approved by the learns and was indeed the profession of orthodox defenders of the truth ancient and modern.” he said, “this understanding of the gospel offer echoed the teaching of that famous Synod at Dort wherein were assembled a great number of learned divines out of the reformed churches.” he cited article 2- 5 2- 6 stating, “this suffices for my defense in the point of the gospel offer.”
But Culverwell went on to clarify some of his earlier writings. He insisted when he spoke of enlarging Christ's merits to all, he was speaking of the office only or proclaiming them to all. This proclaiming or offer of what Christ had done was the outward calling of the gospel. “None can deny,” Culverwell said, “this belongs to many that are not chosen. He referred to Dort on the question of universal redemption saying he gave his full consent to the synod's teachings, and this is important, he went on to say, “in my treaties on faith I have purposefully avoided the question of the extent of the atonement. And he said I deny from my heart that every man is actually reconciled by Christ. None have any benefit by Christ but believers and their seed. and he went on to explicitly say that any phrases of his such as God has made a deed of gift and grant of Christ to all mankind accepting none”, were to be taken of God's dispensation of his mind in and by the gospel rather than any decree. So, when Boston explains this expression, “deed of gift and grant” as relating to the gospel offer, he is simply stating what the author, Culverwell himself said a century before.
On this whole idea of a “universal deed of gift and grant beyond the elect”, let me just relate this from Ebenezer Erskin, at a meeting of the synod of Fife with Cooper, some members openly denied the Father's gift of Christ to sinners of the human family. Erskine rose and says, “moderator, our Lord Jesus says himself, my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. This he uttered to a promiscuous multitude and let me see the man who dares to affirm that Jesus said wrong.”
Christ is dead for you
Now that's the first troublesome phrase the deed of gift or grant. The second one was Christ is dead for you. Now Boston drew a sharp distinction between the phrase “Christ died for you and Christ is dead for you.” the former implies a universal redemption, whereas the latter, for Boston, simply implies a universal gospel offer. And again this phrase is from a famous puritan, in this case, John Preston and his work “the Breastplate of Faith and Love”. Now there have been recent works which argue that Preston denied particular redemption. I must say for myself their theological analysis and understand and leave much to be desired. They tend to argue that Preston using the image of the gospel was inviting was evidence of his hypothetic universalism, that is seeing the gospel as an earnest beseeching that is using revelation 3:20 as a text appealing for conversion and that is linking of the gospel offer to Christ's tears over Jerusalem. The idea that all these things points to him as a hypothetic universalist are just plainly not true. Because Rutherford, Durham many opponents many strict particularists preach the gospel in all these ways themselves.
So the theological rigor behind recent analyses of Preston I found lacking. and in contrast to these recent readings of Preston, Boston himself quotes from Preston’s work, “according to that eternal and mutual agreement that was betwixt the Father and him, according to that agreement Christ put himself in the room and place of who, of all the faithful. and again Jesus Christ the second Adam did as a common person enter into covenant with God his Father for all the elect and for them he kept it.” and no less an astute theologian then Donald Beaton comments that Preston’s work “the breast plate of faith and love”, evidences many statements supporting particular redemption. Believing Preston’s overall position to one side again the context of this phrase, “Christ is dead for you” Preston himself says it's the gospel offer. Many other places of scripture he says “there be to prove what? The extent of the atonement no to prove the generality of the offer and having a sure word for it, consider it”.
And so Boston is not to be blamed for taking Preston at his word allowing Preston himself to determine the context he's speaking in and to believe that he is speaking of the gospel offer. For Boston the phrase Christ is dead for you” is simply the same as Matthew 22:4 “come!” Why? “Because all things are ready for you”. There is a crucified savior offered to you in the gospel. Nothing is lacking, nothing needs to be done, come for all things are ready. So, far from entangling the gospel offer in matters relating to the extent of redemption, election or related points, the Marrow Men urged individuals not to make the secret things a rule of faith, but to give attention to the express revealed will of God in the gospel offered. The gospel commanded all to believe savingly and promised salvation to all on their coming to Christ. And that gave everyone the right and the duty to embrace the gospel. Its universal offers commands and promises put beyond doubt that any and all should come to Christ and there was no need to use the alleged extent of the atonement as either a hindrance or a further encouragement.
So, l understand the world is fully justified in concluding that the Marrow Men evidenced an understanding of the gospel of her bound to consistent particularist Calvinism, cogently reflected of their federal theology. So, that's the gospel offer in its freeness. The gospel offer and the extent of redemption.
The relationship of faith to assurance
Next the relationship of faith to assurance. Whenever there's a dispute over the gospel offer, almost inevitably there are disputes over the nature of faith and assurance. The gospel offer, faith and assurance are interrelated theological and practical matters. This is seen in the Westminster shorter catechisms definition of faith.
“Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the gospel.”
Faith, assurance, receiving and resting on Jesus Christ and the gospel offer are all linked in one short answer in the catechism. And so having critiqued the Marrow on the gospel offer, it's no surprise the assembly continued to critique the Marrow on faith and assurance. They felt that the Marrow taught assurance was of the essence of faith, specifically critiquing the statement wherefore, as Paul and Silos said to the jailer, so I say, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, that is be verily persuaded in your heart that Jesus Christ is yours, you shall have life and salvation by him and whatever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, he did it for you.
Now, in defending the Marrow Men were not slow to point out that this statement the assembly condemned was a verbatim quote from the venerable puritan John Rogers of Dedham. Nor were they backward in pointing out John Rogers theological stature, a man so noted for orthodoxy, holiness and the Lord's countenancing of his ministry that no signed protestants in Britain or Ireland of whatever the denomination, would in the age wherein he lived have taken upon them to condemn his views as inner erroneous. To condemn his definition of faith, which we have as follows in the Marrow. But beyond the origin of the statement, the theological stature of the puritan who gave this statement, the Marrow Men defended the Marrow by explaining, “it was not speaking here of that assurance of faith whereby believers are certainly assured they are in the state of grace which is founded on the evidence of grace which is the kind of assurance the Westminster Confession explicitly treats chapter 18 and so on. “rather”, the Marrow Men said, “it is speaking of a kind of assurance inherent in the act and definition of faith.” Now faith has been defined in a threefold manner by the reformed churches; “Knowledge, we know the gospel. Ascent, we know the gospel to be true and trust it. We commit ourselves to the savior offered freely to us in the gospel.
The Heidelberg Catechism, for instance captures this. Question 21 “What is true faith? True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
For the Heidelberg Catechism, knowledge, truth, trust. What is true in general the gospel is also true to me. What the Marrow was saying is that the trust element of faith necessarily involves some element of assurance. Before I trust in something, they argued, I must have sufficient assurance that it is worthy of my trust and available for me to place my trust in.
Take the example of a well-made chair. I know the chair. I know in truth the chair will hold my weight and then I show “assurance” of this as I trust the chair by sitting in it, making it my seat. And in the same way to trust in Christ the Marrow Men argued inevitably involved this assurance of the trustworthiness of Christ as my savior. That assurance that Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world is worthy of all acceptance by me.
Now this element of faith, what the Marrow Man called disappropriating persuasion, wherein trust in Christ as the savior becomes mine, they know that this was basic to reform thought. They felt this was embedded in the Westminster standards. They said according to our larger catechism,
“Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God as an instrument receiving and applying Christ and his righteousness held forth in the promise of the gospel and rested thereupon for pardon of sin and the accepting and accounting one once person righteous before God.” And they said “we cannot see how faith can do all this receiving and resting upon Christ for pardoning from sin without the confidence of an appropriating persuasion trust.”
As well as the larger catechism, the Marrow Men cited earlier Scottish theologians John Davidson and Preston Founds. His catechism says, “what is faith? It is a hearty assurance that our sins are freely forgiven as in Christ for after this manner it is the hearty receiving of Christ offered in the preaching of the word and sacraments by the working of the holy spirit for the remission of sins.”
Now despite his emphasis on trust, assurance, the appropriating nature of faith, the Marrow Men were realistic. They knew the ideal is not always the reality. They acknowledged that the sinner has not always at his first closing with Christ, not afterwards having such a clear steady and full persuasion that Christ is his, that his sins are forgiven, that he shall be saved as he dare profess the same to others or even positively asserted within himself.
However, this did not change their definition of faith, because this struggle within a believer was not faith but unbelief. The doubts fears and darknesses which so frequently are found in true believers are not of this faith, which in its nature and exercise is an opposite to them as the light is to darkness. Therefore faith wrestles against others but with various success. It being sometimes so far overcome and brought under by prevailing unbelief that it cannot be discerned more than the fire when covered by ashes or the sun when wrapped up in thick clouds. But the struggle of unbelief in the heart does not change the nature of faith in itself.
That the Marrow was picking up earlier reformed language on the nature of faith cannot be disputed. Calvin’s Geneva catechism, as we understand the foundation on which faith ought to rest it will be easy to extract from it the true definition of faith. Answer it will. Faith may be defined as sure and steadfast knowledge of the paternal goodwill of God toward us as he declares in the gospel and for the sake of Christ he will be our Father and savior.
Well, where does all this leave us? Well the Marrow Men acknowledged that expressions regarding assurance change over time. They were fully aware that the manner of speaking regarding assurance is much altered from what some time was in use. Yet we doubt not they said the substance of the doctrine of assurance is still the same from the days of early reformed theology to the Westminster assembly. In the light of changing expressions though they knew it was important to distinguish between saying, “receiving and resting in Christ for salvation did imply assurance.” They qualified this. They are only speaking of the fiducial act or the appropriating persuasion of faith; The assurance that Christ is an all-sufficient savior.
They noted that the assurance treated of in the Westminster confession is a complex assurance, full and clear containing not only the assurance included in the direct act of faith, trust, but also that assurance which arises from spiritual sensation and rational argumentation for which is found in confession chapter 18. They therefore said we agree with the confessional teaching on assurance. We agree that trust, and in that sence assurance, is inherent in faith. But we also agree that there is a full and clear assurance which is not so of the essence of faith, but that believers can belong without it.
Regardless of our comfort over the language of assurance in connection with receiving the gospel offer, it is vital that we emphasize the self-abandoning trust element of faith. That faith involves an appropriating persuasion regarding Jesus Christ as the savior. Faith is not knowledge. Faith is not knowledge plus ascent. Faith is knowledge, ascent and self-abandoning trust; the Marrow Men and earlier reformed theology called it assurance.
Evangelical Obedience
So, the gospel offers faith and assurance and finally evangelical obedience or holiness and its necessity to salvation. The entrance to the Christian life as we've seen was a matter of great dispute in the Marrow controversy, but no less was the right manner of going on in the Christian life a dispute in the early 18th century Scottish church. The dispute centered on the role of the law in the life of the believer. The question wasn't, “are believers bound by the law”, but “in what way and out of what motives should the law be obeyed?” The Marrow Men and their opponents all agreed, believers are bound by the moral law. The general assembly taught this, “believers are under the law, that believers are under requirement of good works as a federal or conditional mean of and is having a causality in order to the obtaining of glory and yet gives no federal right to it.
A confusing statement but good works are necessary as a condition to obtain heaven even though they don't give us the title deeds. Again, the assembly, “the believer ought to be moved to obedience by hopes of enjoying heaven and any good rewards temporal or eternal as a federal condition and mean cause thereof. So the hopes of enjoying heaven conditioned on holiness and obedience. And to the Marrow Men these complex difficult expressions the assembly ascended to sounded suspiciously like works righteousness. Ralph Erskine’s saying, “this way of speaking of means and holiness with respect to the obtaining of salvation is without warrant in scripture, dissonant from the doctrinal standards of our and other reformed churches.” Means of grace, according to the gospel are connected with the end, salvation not as proper and federal conditions nor are they any way causes of it, but ordinances of God which he blesses according to his good pleasure, all in the way of sovereign grace reigning through the righteousness of Christ unto eternal life.”
Now in opposing these statements regarding the necessity of holiness, the Marrow Men did not forget to oppose genuine antinomianism. They oppose the monstrous opinions of some that the law is not a rule of life. That holiness is not necessary to salvation and the like; “our hearts do abhor them as egregious blasphemy against our Lord and Savior.” But they opposed this anti-nomian spirit with all their might while still saying and telling sinners, “you are to do or work nothing for life and salvation but only receive the free gift of life and salvation from Christ by faith, yet with all we tell sinners that repentance, holiness obedience and good works are inseparable attendance of faith.” And for this doctrine, telling believers their salvation is complete in Christ, though they still have to show obedience, the Marrow Men were called peddlers of antinomianism licentious doctrine.
Now why did the Marrow Men place such an emphasis on salvation being completed in Christ? Why did they emphasize his promises before our duties? It's because, and I quote,
“these good men fully apprehended that a believing application of the promises to oneself is absolutely necessary in order to gospel obedience and that the more application of the gospel there is the more evangelical and perfect the holiness be. Where there is none of this there may be legal obedience but no gospel holiness.”
And under these scriptural views of the source of holiness none, in their church in their day were more eminent patrons of holiness than the Marrow Men.
The great insight of the Marrow Men was that they understood obedience to the law flowed not from fear of hell as punishment or earning heaven's reward but from an understanding of our privileges and position in Christ.
The more they preached Christ and his salvation, the more the law as a rule of life would be kept. They understood Paul’s order of theology. They understood that the indicative, what has been done for us, (mood of certainty, actuality) grounds the imperative, what we must have to do, (mood of command) in response. So, Thomas Boston said,
“faith is the foundation of duty or obedience, not obedience or duty. The foundation of faith, the things to be believed are placed before the things to be practiced. to distinguish the covenant of grace from the covenant of works. Let it be remembered the apostle Paul calls gospel obedience the obedience of faith springing from founded upon faith, and if we examine the order of doctrine laid down in all his epistles,” says Boston, “we shall find that he first propounds the doctrine of faith, or what man is to believe, and upon that foundation indicates the duties that are to be practiced.”.
As well as understanding the order which underpins gospel obedience, the Marrow Men also grasp the truth of Westminster confession 19:6, “true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as others as a rule of life informing them of the will of God and their duty.” The Marrow Men understood that the covenant of works condemning them or promising and life on obedience, in that sense the law was utterly dead to them, but as a rule of life, ordering Christian living, it remained their guide and their abounding duty. And this freeness from the law as a covenant of works is profoundly, pastorally important. The guilt of believer sin is not such guilt as the sins of those who are under the covenant of works. God does not look upon the sins of believers after their union with Christ as breaches of the covenant of works. So when, in his anger against them for their sins he smites them, yet he does not proceed against them in the way of the covenant of works. And again, in their confessions and addresses to God for pardon, fastings, mournings and humiliations they ought to eye him as their Father in Christ. not as their wrathful judge proceeding against them according to the law of the covenant of works.
Understanding that we are dead to the law as it is a condemning covenant is so pastorally important. And because of this, the Marrow Men said that,
“fear of hell or hope of heaven, i.e. obtaining it by our own works and doings, were not to be motives of obedience because these things are punishment and rewards of a covenant, we are dead to by faith.”
But if we're not under the law as a covenant of works to condemn or save us, what role is left for good works? The Marrow Men were absolutely insistent that “holiness remains absolutely necessary for salvation as the believers walking in the way of eternal happiness, but not as a condition or state that merits us the possession of heaven.” they said, “we cordially and sincerely own a holy life or good works necessary as an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty and obedience to his command, for this is the will of God, our sanctification necessary for glorifying God before the world. Necessary as being the end of our election. Necessary as expressions of our gratitude to our great benefactor. Necessary as being the design of the word and all ordinances and providences. Necessary for the evidencing and confirming our faith. Necessary for making our calling and election sure. Necessary for maintaining inward peace and comfort,” and on and on and on they went.
“Good works are absolutely necessary,” the Marrow Men said, but they were clear, “we dare not say a holy life is necessary to obtain eternal happiness, being a way of expression shunned by protestant churches and divines, rather we call and they call holiness and good works necessary duties of the persons justified and saved and conditions, consequences and effects of salvation rather than causes or proper means for obtaining the possession of salvation. And we say holiness is necessary to them that are saved rather than necessary to salvation. But we are saved not by good works, but rather to them as fruits and effects of saving grace.
The Marrow Men understood the relationship of holiness to salvation as well as any and they expressed these difficult matters so carefully. The key that unlocked so much for them pastorally was that we are delivered from the law as a covenant of works. This helped them explain some of the more offensive statements in the Marrow and it enabled them to explain rightly the necessity of works and our motivation for doing good works. They faithfully represented the older reformed theology. The Lleiden Synopsis of a Purer Theology, (records a cycle of academic disputations at the University of Leiden)
“good works are neither necessary for the beginning of salvation, for this consists in the forgiveness of sins and our reconciliation with God, nor are good works necessary for its consummation which finds its place in eternal glorification as if they were efficient causes, rather they follow our justification in the sight of God through faith and they precede the inheritance that has been prepared in heaven for us only as a way and required condition in the inheritors.”
So briefly, just to close with some applications.
Proclaim the fullness and freeness of the gospel! The Marrow of Modern Divinity preserved two of the great notes of the New Testament's message, “that in Jesus Christ there is a fullness of grace for all who will come to him and that that fullness of grace is freely available to all.” And that's why Boston agreed with The Auchterarder Creed. “It is not sound to say that a man must first quit sin in order to be qualified to receive the gospel offer, because that construction of the gospel, The Auchterarder Creed, is the construction that secures the fullness and freeness of the gospel.
So, if we are to proclaim the fullness and freeness of the gospel, we're also to beware of a conditional gospel and a conditional gospel offer.” The opponents of the Marrow, in the words of Sinclair Ferguson were men who held to the doctrine of unconditional election but were preaching a doctrine of conditional and conditioned grace. He said, “The opponents of the Marrow were confusing the fruit of grace with qualifications for grace. They were turning the free grace of God and the gospel on its head and distorting the message of the glorious God.
Their gospel was conditioned on our repentance, on our fleeing sin and being worthy to be saved.” and Sinclair Ferguson said, “Whenever we make the offer of the gospel dependent upon conditions, we have taken the grace of God in the gospel and disgraced it. Grace is no more grace; however, subtly it happens, no matter the reformed language we clothe it in, if we make the gospel conditioned. Proclaim the gospel in fullness and freeness. Beware a conditional gospel.
Then preach the law, preach the whole counsel of God, but never stop until you have preached Christ. In his gracious providence God uses conviction of sin in various ways to bring men and women to his son but he never bids us to preach conviction of sin as the warrant of faith. He bids us to go, freely the offer of Jesus Christ in all his sufficiency as a reward to faith to any man woman or child to come and believe. Never stop preaching until you've preached Christ.
And finally, never separate Christ from his benefits. Legalistic preaching, moralistic preaching will never, the Marrow tells us, produce true holiness. The law as a rule of life will never captivate our hearts when it comes as a covenant of works. It is when it comes in the hand of Jesus Christ who is made unto us sanctification. It is clothed in his person that we find the grace and the strength to live out the wonderful rule of life he has given for us as his redeemed people. We do not earn our deliverance from Egypt by keeping the law, rather we keep the law as a redeemed people. “I am the Lord thy God which have brought the out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
Now these brief applications for the issues the matter presents to us are always relevant. The dark specter of restricting the gospel offer so long held at bay in Scotland by the Marrow is in these days no theoretical risk. And in the broader reform church debates over the role of works relative to salvation have surfaced again and again the controversy over Norman Shepard then the controversy over the so-called Federal Vision still rumbling on in some circles. We need to hear the Marrow again and again to ensure that in the areas it touches on we remain faithful to our reformed heritage. So, take it up, read the Marrow. Follow the references in Boston's notes. Dig deeply into the legacy of reformed theology he was building on. And at the end hopefully you will say with Thomas Chalmers, “finished reading of the Marrow. I feel a growing delight in the fullness and sufficiency of Christ.” May God grant us all Thomas Chalmers experience.
Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters: The Theology - YouTube