Abstract
The Marrow controversy (1718–22) most often is understood as a dispute between evangelical and legalistic parties within the eighteenth-century Kirk. Various forms of this analysis, however, leave certain questions unanswered. Rather than a clash between evangelicalism and legalism, the Marrow controversy was a collision between two differing developments of Scottish federal theology. Through the theological refinement precipitated by John Simson’s views, Thomas Boston and Ebenezer Erskine had crafted, from within the Scottish federal tradition, an evangelical federalism that emphasized the freeness and immediacy of grace. Through that same process of refinement, James Hadow had constructed, from within the same coherent Scottish federal tradition, an ordered federalism that emphasized the means through which God sovereignly bestowed his free grace upon sinners. These two federal systems, when confronted with the particular doctrinal expressions of The Marrow of Modern Divinity, produced both radically different readings of the same text and enduring controversy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
