# The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology -- John Macpherson



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2008)

_The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology_ (1903) by John Macpherson has been reprinted (November 2007) and is available at Amazon.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> _The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology_ (1903) by John Macpherson has been reprinted (November 2007) and is available at Amazon.



Was that man orthodox?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > _The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology_ (1903) by John Macpherson has been reprinted (November 2007) and is available at Amazon.
> ...



I'll proffer an opinion by Rev. Winzer from a previous thread: "Macpherson tried to rewrite reformed orthodoxy to a certain extent." And it is edited by C.G. M'Crie, grandson of Thomas M'Crie the Elder, who was more liberal than his father and grandfather. 

From the _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_, p. 536:



> MacPherson was thoroughly familiar with the German theology of his century, and translated many volumes into English...His own theology, set out in his _Christian Dogmatics_ (E, 1898), was an Amyraldian...type of Reformed theology, defending the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election and substitutionary atonement. He propounded a realist view of the relation between Adam and mankind, and held that the sources of Christian doctrine were (in descending order) Scripture, the ecumenical creeds and the Christian consciousness.



Macpherson wrote a commentary on the Westminster Confession that I added to the links manager, and edited James Fraster's famous treatise on sanctification. 

Nevertheless, this is an important work worth reading. It was one of the "Chalmers Lectures." To quote from the _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_ again (ibid):



> His _Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology_ (Chalmers Lectures,* E, 1903) is still the standard work on the subject and his edition of the Westminster Confession (Handbooks for Bible Classes, E, 1881) was frequently reprinted well into the twentieth century.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2008)

> Macpherson wrote a commentary on the Westminster Confession that I added to the links manager, and edited James Fraster's famous treatise on sanctification.



Oh yes, I have his commentary on the WCF. Its not the best.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > Macpherson wrote a commentary on the Westminster Confession that I added to the links manager, and edited James Fraster's famous treatise on sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I have his commentary on the WCF. Its not the best.



No, not the best; but actually, I like what he says on WCF 19.4 in particular.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > Macpherson wrote a commentary on the Westminster Confession that I added to the links manager, and edited James Fraster's famous treatise on sanctification.
> ...



I see.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 19, 2008)

This is my note from the list I purchased M from back in the dark ages.Purchased from "A List of Theological Books for Sale" David C. Lachman, Winter 1986.
Description:
"130. Macpherson, John. The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology. Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1903. ix, 227pp. A first-rate introduction, dealing with Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, etc. $25.00"​He "has problems" as noted. In his Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Rutherfurd lays down the position that “there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Polocie, so as men may alter, omit, and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded.” 3 But surely he commits himself to a quite needlessly extreme position when he says “I am obliged to
receive this as Scripture, that Paul left his cloak at Troas; no
lesse than this, Christ came into the world to save sinners, in
regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both.”4
But supposing it were discovered that Paul had made
some mistake about the fortunes of that cloak.5
------------------
4. Ibid, Sect iv. p. 64.
5. Editor: Macpherson in critizing Rutherfurd on this point has departed from the historic orthodox understanding of verbal plenary inspiration.​


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This is my note from the list I purchased M from back in the dark ages.Purchased from "A List of Theological Books for Sale" David C. Lachman, Winter 1986.
> Description:
> "130. Macpherson, John. The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology. Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1903. ix, 227pp. A first-rate introduction, dealing with Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, etc. $25.00"​He "has problems" as noted. In his Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Rutherfurd lays down the position that “there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Polocie, so as men may alter, omit, and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded.” 3 But surely he commits himself to a quite needlessly extreme position when he says “I am obliged to
> receive this as Scripture, that Paul left his cloak at Troas; no
> ...



Someone told me that he denied Biblical Inerrancy; those comments would appear to indicate that he did.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 19, 2008)

I think so; the editorial note is from my edition of MacPherson published in the Naphtali Anthology v5 (1992).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think so; the editorial note is from my edition of MacPherson published in the Naphtali Anthology v5 (1992).



The person who told me that, said that he read it in Rowland Ward's commentary on the WCF.


----------

