Which Puritan writings should we avoid?

Not open for further replies.
My own opinion on the Marrow Controversy is that both sides made some valid points and got some things right, and some things wrong, and that it is best to learn from both.
I think Thomas Boston is a very fine author. No contest there.
The Marrow itself, I think, is a mediocre book, with some relatively minor errors. In terms of the relationship between the law and the gospel, the Westminster Divines did a better job in their writings on Antinomianism and Covenant Theology. I don't think the Marrow is out and out Antinomian heresy, but it probably has some antinomian tendencies, and so I recommend other books.
John Flavel's A Blow at the Root of Antinomianism is probably the best shorter book on the matter, and Rutherford and Burgess's longer works are also very good.
Hadow's The Snake in the Grass is available here. It's a pretty quick read.
I did read a few of the remarks the other day following Charles' comment. To be frank it seemed as though the book of 'The Marrow' was being uncharitably misrepresented (at least in part) - take the first remark as an example, asserting the writer was mocking the doctrine of repentance and reformation. Is this really the case?

Nevertheless, there is plenty of food for thought from it.
Also, I think the author of 'snake in the grass' is unknown/anonymous. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Relating to the Marrow Controversy, including the various positions held and the impact on the doctrine of assurance, this thesis may be of interest - https://cdn.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Chrisco-Theology_of_Assurance.pdf

I also came across Charles' article including 1. a comparison between Hadow's writing and Samuel Rutherford's in his 'Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself', and 2. criticism of Sinclair Ferguson's assessment of the opposition material to the Marrow Men, or rather lack thereof (as mentioned in the thread..). https://delatinized.wordpress.com/2020/12/21/assurance-and-the-marrow-controversy/
Not only has he not mentioned "all of them by name", he hasn't footnoted any of them, and it shows, because I've compared Ferguson's assertions on their teaching to their actual teaching, and there are significant differences..
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.