MARROW CONTROVERSY. One of the 11mm-watt1e struggles in the religious history of Scotland. It took its name from a book entitled the Marrow of .11 ncleret rirtit y. imblished at ford in lI.5s Tlx 4110 horship of the book has been a tt riliuted, t hough probably incorrect ly,tii Edward Fisher. The high 'evangelical' character of this work. and especially its doctrine of flit' free grace of Coil in the redemption of sinners. had made it a great favorite with certain of the ministers of the Church of Scotland, and in 1718 an edition was published in Edinburgh by the Rev. 'lames Ilog of ('arnoek, followed in 171!) by an expina tory pamphlet. A committee app.rinted by the I;cneral Assembly the same year, after an ex amination. drew up a report which was to the .\-,mthly of 1720, and the result was the formal condemnation of the doctrines of the .1I() /You. a prohibition to teach or preach them for the future. and an exhortation to the people of fscotbind not to read them. This net of the
.l—olithly we. immediately brought by Thomas 1:..ston bef,we the Presbytery of Who 111 id it before t lie Synod of \lerse and Teviotdale. The •evangelicar ministers in the 'hurch. few in number. hnl supported by a very considerable amount of popular resolved to pre sent a representation to the next General Assem bly (1721), eomplaining of the late act. and vin dietating the 'truths' which it emidettim•d. A commission of the Assembly of 1721 was ap Med to deal with the ministers. and a series of questions was put to them, to while!) answers were drawn up by Ebenezer Erskine and Gabriel \\ ilsun. These replies did not prove satisfactory, and the 'Alarrow-then' were called before the bar of the Assembly (1722) and solemnly rebuked. Titc matter was then 1111 /Vt. ly dropped, but it really occasioned the secession of 1734. See llos -VON, and EnsK]\K, EBENEZER.