This excellent and orthodox book became the occasion of a protracted controversy, styled the ‘‘ Marrow Contro- versy,” which conspired with other and deeper causes to effect that alienation which issued in. the formation of the Secession Church. There were good and sound men on both sides; but the most eminent Christians and theologians of that age were ranked among the “‘ Marrow men,’—such as the Rev. James Hogg, Thomas Boston, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, &c. We have at present nothing to do with the general course or merits of this controversy. I refer to it only for the purpose of notic- ing the peculiar language which these men used with respect to what they called the ‘double reference” of the Atonement——a peculiarity which consequently for a
oe at
352 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
carrer Jono time unhappily distinguished the theology of the
Secasdion Churches from that of the great current of the Reformed Churches. The lanoaiage of the ‘‘ Marrow men.”’ was far less philosophical and profound than that used for very much the same purpose by Amyraldus and Baxter in the preceding century ; while, perhaps, for the same cause their speculations were far more innocent. The characteristic interest of the professors of Saumur was speculative, while that of the ‘“‘Marrow men” was practical and moral. The one party was composed of professors of theology; the other of preachers of the gospel. The one sought to define the order of the Divine Decrees ; the other sought to establish firmly the Warrant of Faith.
The statement in the Marrow from which they took their departure is as follows: ‘I beseech you to con- sider that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus
Christ, moved by nothing but his free love to mankind
lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men, that whosoever shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life’ * The “Marrow men” were all sound as to the nature of the Atonement, and as to the great Calvinistic principle that Christ died in pursuance of an eternal covenant with the Father in order to secure the salvation of his elect. As far as the bearing of the
Atonement upon the elect was concerned, their writings —
were marked by no peculiarity. Their distinction was that they insisted that the Atonement had ALso a designed general reference to all sinners of mankind as such. The early “Marrow men” were accustomed to say that although Christ did not die for all—that is, to save all—yet that he is dead for all, that is, available for all, if they will receive him; that God, out of his general philanthropy, or love for human sinners as such, * Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 126.
a ee ee rf
OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 352
has made a Deed isi Gift of Christ and of the benefits of caarter’
his redemption to all indifferently, to be claimed upon the condition of faith. This general love of God is styled his “giving love,” and is distinguished from his “electing love,’ of which only the elect, and his “ com- placent love,” of which only the sanctified, are the objects. This Deed of Gift or Grant of Christ to all sinners as such, they held, is not to be merely resolved into the general offer of the gospel, but is to be regarded as the foundation upon which that general offer rests. It is a real grant; universal; an expression of love; con- ditioned on faith ; the foundation upon which the minis- terial offer of salvation rests; and it is the ‘‘ warrant” upon which the faith of every believer rests, and by which that faith is justified.
As late as 1843 Dr. Balmer and the late learned and excellent Dr. John Brown, professors in the United Secession Church, were examined as to their doctrinal views under suspicion of heresy. After Balmer’s death Brown was libelled for heresy before the Synod in 1845. The statement then made by Brown of his views as to the extent of the Atonement was in substance as follows: “The proposition ‘that Christ died for men,’ had been held in three senses. In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In _ the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men.” *
* History of Atonement Controversy in the Secession Church, by the
Rey. Andrew Robertson.
The two classes of the recent advocates of an in- definite Atone- ment con- sidered.
CHAPTER TV.
B04 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT,