In this well written, scholarly and attractively published book, William Vandoodewaard relates what he considers to be the central tenets of ‘Marrow’ theology to the doctrines which he implies were characteristic of the churches of Associate Presbytery and Associate Synod in Scotland in the eighteenth century.
The Marrow of Modern Divinity was first published in 1645. Its anonymous author was advertised as ‘E.F.’. Dr Vandoodewaard identifies its core as particular understandings of: atonement; saving faith; and the free offer of the gospel. Although it remains a strong one, his case for asserting that the author of the book was Edward Fisher is weakened by his uncritical assertion that the author actually had the initials ‘E.F.’ How could we be justifiably sure that someone who wished to remain anonymous was happy to divulge his initials?
Dr Vandoodewaard's thesis, that the theology of the secessionist churches in question is a continuation of Marrow theology, is well supported by his quotations from and expositions of the published works of numerous secessionist ministers. However, one wonders what were the views of those secessionist ministers who did not write books or whose publications did not survive. Furthermore, a comparative study of the theological views of contemporary Church of Scotland ministers would be required to give an indication of the fuller significance of such continuity.
What were the views of the members of the secessionist churches? Did they differ from the views of the Church of Scotland laity? We cannot comfortably assume that the members of a congregation will tend to share the particular pet theological theories of their minister. Do we belong to particular churches because of or despite some particular theological views?
This is a history of particular ideas rather than an analysis or evaluation of them. However, the Marrow account of atonement consistently comes across as by far the weakest of the three tenets. That each person deserves punishment and requires to be redeemed because Adam was in breach of a covenant he made with God while acting as the representative of the human race is an analogy which provides only very limited illumination.
Suppose that someone acts as a representative for, say, Elderslie Golf Club. In that capacity, he might enter into a contractual arrangement which binds Elderslie Golf Club to follow a particular course of action. If Elderslie Golf Club fails to fulfil the terms of the agreed arrangement, it might be held to account. However, current and future members of the club cannot be held to account as individual people for the debts and other obligations of Elderslie Golf Club. They are not bound as individual people by the deal that was struck by the representative of Elderslie Golf Club in his capacity as a representative of Elderslie Golf Club.
In general, there is a crucial difference between criminal and civil law the force of which should, surely, pertain to the analogy at issue. Breach of contract provokes the sanction of compensation rather than of punishment. There is a profound difference between the rightful punishment of thieves and the appropriate treatment of those who have failed to fulfil a contractual agreement they have, without fraudulent intent, entered into. A fortiori, it would be inappropriate to mete out punishment to individual people who happened to be members of Elderslie Golf Club for the failure of Elderslie Golf club to fulfil its contractual arrangements.
This is an interesting and a very stimulating book. The clear, well-structured prose as well as its generous type – the size I would choose if reading on my Kindle – makes it a pleasure to read.
