Differences between Resolutioners and Protestors (Thomas McCrie the younger)

[Reformed Covenanter]

I found this observation on the differences between the two parties of Covenanters (Resolutioners and Protestors) by the younger Thomas McCrie to be decidedly odd. What do you make of it?

The differences in religious sentiment between the two parties thus formed within the church, though sufficiently marked in the pulpit, were of too ethereal a type to admit of being tested in the crucible of any existing creed. Both sections professed adherence to the same Confession, and yet nothing could be more unlike than the cold-drawn orthodoxy of the one, and the warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other. Had we space to insert a few specimens from David Dickson's Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (whom, by the way, he compels to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms), and to give in another column a few sentences from Samuel Rutherford, the reader would see at once what we mean.

Thomas McCrie (the younger), ‘“The Marrow” Controversy: with Notices of the State of Scottish Theology in the beginning of the last century’, British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 2, no. 5 (1853), p. 419.

N.B. Dickson was a Resolutioner, while Rutherford was a Protestor. So, in effect, McCrie is saying that the Resolutioners were more warmly evangelistic than their Protestor brethren.

 

[TylerRay]

I found this observation on the differences between the two parties of Covenanters (Resolutioners and Protestors) by the younger Thomas McCrie to be decidedly odd. What do you make of it?

The differences in religious sentiment between the two parties thus formed within the church, though sufficiently marked in the pulpit, were of too ethereal a type to admit of being tested in the crucible of any existing creed. Both sections professed adherence to the same Confession, and yet nothing could be more unlike than the cold-drawn orthodoxy of the one, and the warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other. Had we space to insert a few specimens from David Dickson's Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (whom, by the way, he compels to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms), and to give in another column a few sentences from Samuel Rutherford, the reader would see at once what we mean.

Thomas McCrie (the younger), ‘“The Marrow” Controversy: with Notices of the State of Scottish Theology in the beginning of the last century’, British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 2, no. 5 (1853), p. 419.

N.B. Dickson was a Resolutioner, while Rutherford was a Protestor. So, in effect, McCrie is saying that the Resolutioners were more warmly evangelistic than their Protestor brethren.

It's hard to tell from the quote you provided which party he's commending. He says that Dickson "compels [Paul] to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms," which doesn't sound like a sympathetic assessment to me. I wonder if it's the Protestors that he is commending. What are the quotes he provides like?

He does seem to be exaggerating the differences in character between the two parties a great deal.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

and yet nothing could be more unlike than the cold-drawn orthodoxy of the one, and the warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other.

The writings of Rutherford don't appear to be cold-drawn orthodoxy.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

He is commending Rutherford in my opinion too seems to me. The Resolutioners get dinged as a group of closet conformists though they did have a handful of worthies like Dickson. I posted something that relates to the characteristics of the Resolutioners a while back: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wodrow-why-the-second-reformation-in-scotland-failed.99656/

 

[RamistThomist]

The writings of Rutherford don't appear to be cold-drawn orthodoxy.

His Examination of Arminianism, originally written in Latin, sometimes gives that impression.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He is commending Rutherford in my opinion too seems to me.

Had we space to insert a few specimens from David Dickson's Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (whom, by the way, he compels to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms), and to give in another column a few sentences from Samuel Rutherford, the reader would see at once what we mean.

He seems to be pitting Dickson and Rutherford here. I guess I am trying to discern what we the reader would see.

I thought this was what he was trying to get us to see.

yet nothing could be more unlike than the cold-drawn orthodoxy of the one, and the warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other.

Can you clarify he's actually commending Dickson. It's a strange comment. I'm not saying it can't be true; but as you say it is odd given how Rutherford is perceived from his letters and sermons, and I think many would assume the warm one is Rutherford. Though it doesn't make sense to be calling Dickson cold either. He's comparing Dickson's Matthew commentary directed toward the common people to what exactly though in Rutherford? And even if true of Rutherford, that he's the cold one, the generalization needs proving up. Referencing the other thread on Baillie's not liking Grey and Binning etc. They were Protesters, yet would not fit the characterization as cold, if that is the intent.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I read your resource Chris and I must admit I am too ignorant of the history and references to distinguish what is being said in most of it.

and I think many would assume the warm one is Rutherford. Though it doesn't make sense to be calling Dickson cold either. He's comparing Dickson's Matthew commentary directed toward the common people to what exactly though in Rutherford?

Maybe Daniel can give us more context for what he posted. The post does seem to be strange to me.

Both sections professed adherence to the same Confession, and yet nothing could be more unlike than the cold-drawn orthodoxy of the one, and the warm and somewhat eccentric evangelism of the other. Had we space to insert a few specimens from David Dickson's Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (whom, by the way, he compels to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms), and to give in another column a few sentences from Samuel Rutherford, the reader would see at once what we mean.

Daniel, can you give us more context on our discussion? Who is being referenced as cold and who is referenced as warm? Rutherford? Dickson? What is being referenced by Rutherford that would be in the other column?

Is the following your conclusion saying Dickson was warm and Rutherford cold?

N.B. Dickson was a Resolutioner, while Rutherford was a Protestor. So, in effect, McCrie is saying that the Resolutioners were more warmly evangelistic than their Protestor brethren.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Thomas McCrie is commending Dickson in contrast to Rutherford. Immediately after the section that I have quoted above, he cites The Sum of Saving Knowledge as an example of the warm evangelism of the likes of Dickson. He then cites a couple of extracts from Hugh Binning's works and contrasts them with Dickson by saying:

Dickson and Binning would no doubt have agreed had they come to mutual explanations, yet neither of them would have been satisfied with the mode in which the other presented the truth. And who does not feel the difference! The instrument is the same — the words are the same — even the music to which they are set is the same; and yet the one performance grates on our ear with harsh dissonance, while the other is like that of "one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument." The orthodox divine, as he moves along in his buckram attire, is so careful to guard the gospel against abuse, that it becomes in his hands almost "another gospel, which is not the gospel of Christ." The evangelic preacher, though aware that " some abuse the grace of God," soars aloft in spite of this, and delivers his message, like the angel of Bethlehem, too full of its gladness to think of measuring his language, while he says, "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people!" (Ibid., pp 421-22)

My personal opinion is that this conclusion is bizarre. Okay, some of Rutherford's writings were drier and more scholastic than Dickson's popular writings, but I doubt that there was any real difference - in terms of devotional warmth - in their preaching.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thomas McCrie is commending Dickson in contrast to Rutherford.

I don't understand the pitting of Dickson and Rutherford without a reference to the Source he implies to be set in the opposite column.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I don't understand the pitting of Dickson and Rutherford without a reference to the Source he implies to be set in the opposite column.

Even were such sources directly cited from Rutherford, the comparison would likely be a fallacious one, as comparing something in Rutherford's controversial writings to something like Dickson's commentaries is silly. For one thing, they are two different genres of writing. It would be similar to the mistake people make when comparing John Calvin's Institutes to those of Francis Turretin. Calvin's work is a handbook to exegesis, while Turretin's is primarily polemical. The different purposes of the works account for the differences in style, not because of some mythical notion that Calvin was a simple Biblicist while Turretin was an Aristotelian scholastic.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Maybe we have another old woman?

Thomas McCrie is commending Dickson in contrast to Rutherford.... My personal opinion is that this conclusion is bizarre.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thank You Daniel. That is what I wanted to point out to Jacob concerning Examination of Arminianism but was at a loss for words. It was a different kind of writing. My thinker doesn't do as well as it use to.

 

[TylerRay]

Thomas McCrie is commending Dickson in contrast to Rutherford. Immediately after the section that I have quoted above, he cites The Sum of Saving Knowledge as an example of the warm evangelism of the likes of Dickson. He then cites a couple of extracts from Hugh Binning's works and contrasts them with Dickson by saying:

Dickson and Binning would no doubt have agreed had they come to mutual explanations, yet neither of them would have been satisfied with the mode in which the other presented the truth. And who does not feel the difference! The instrument is the same — the words are the same — even the music to which they are set is the same; and yet the one performance grates on our ear with harsh dissonance, while the other is like that of "one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument." The orthodox divine, as he moves along in his buckram attire, is so careful to guard the gospel against abuse, that it becomes in his hands almost "another gospel, which is not the gospel of Christ." The evangelic preacher, though aware that " some abuse the grace of God," soars aloft in spite of this, and delivers his message, like the angel of Bethlehem, too full of its gladness to think of measuring his language, while he says, "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people!" (Ibid., pp 421-22)

My personal opinion is that this conclusion is bizarre. Okay, some of Rutherford's writings were drier and more scholastic than Dickson's popular writings, but I doubt that there was any real difference - in terms of devotional warmth - in their preaching.

Having taken a look at the work myself, I'm convinced that he's commending Rutherford and Binning, and criticizing Dickson. Immediately after the quote in the OP, he begins to critique the Sum of Saving Knowledge. "All the great truths of salvation are there, but how strangely put!" He says that, for Dickson, "the penitent becomes a believer with the help of a syllogism!" This is similar to his comment that Dickson "compels [Paul] to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms" in his commentaries.

After his critique of the Sum of Saving Knowledge, he presents Binning's more experimental and less technical exposition of the same doctrine, and sets the two in contrast to one another.

It seems that he reckons Dickson to be the "cold-drawn orthodox" theologian.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Having taken a look at the work myself, I'm convinced that he's commending Rutherford and Binning, and criticizing Dickson. Immediately after the quote in the OP, he begins to critique the Sum of Saving Knowledge. "All the great truths of salvation are there, but how strangely put!" He says that, for Dickson, "the penitent becomes a believer with the help of a syllogism!" This is similar to his comment that Dickson "compels [Paul] to argue in a series of enthymemes and syllogisms" in his commentaries.

After his critique of the Sum of Saving Knowledge, he presents Binning's more experimental and less technical exposition of the same doctrine, and sets the two in contrast to one another.

It seems that he reckons Dickson to be the "cold-drawn orthodox" theologian.

Looking at it again, I think you may be correct. The argument was made in such a strange way, and the extracts given did not seem to say what he alleged they were saying, that I thought he was aiming his barbs in the opposite direction.

 

[TylerRay]

Looking at it again, I think you may be correct. The argument was made in such a strange way, and the extracts given did not seem to say what he alleged they were saying, that I thought he was aiming his barbs in the opposite direction.

I agree. He lays out the quotations and assumes that his point will be evident to the reader. But the methods of the men quoted tend to compliment one another, to my mind, rather than being of a different spirit one to another.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It is just odd as you say. Neither is cold. Dickson's 1628 sermons on Jeremiah's Lamentations are quite good; I hope to publish it as the third in the Naphtali Press Special Editions 2019-20 series sometime early next year. From a new discovered manuscript.