'This One Thing I do' John Brown of Broughton Place - XXXVII

Some people die suddenly. Dr. Thomas Chalmers was one day in good health, the next dead. It was not so with John Brown of Broughton Place. No, he died at the end of a long illness. With some people long illness unfits them for all activity, and interrupts their walk with God, with others (and Brown was of this number), it draws them closer to Him in devotion.

He finished his work as Professor in the autumn of 1857. Weak and feeling the burden of years, he tried a vacation, and recovered a little strength. He preached for the last time on the 15th of November of the same year. He almost collapsed during his last sermon, but was able to finish by God's help. Thereafter he was never to be seen in the pulpit again. Some told him that they were sure he would soon recover, But John Brown knew differently. He felt the 'sentence of death' in himself physically, and knew that the end of his course was fast drawing on.

The illness was attended with great pain, and in this intense suffering, Brown prayed not that the sickness might be taken from him, but that God would give him the patience that he needed to bear it. His son, Dr John Brown M.D., was providentially able to care for him, so that his medical attendant was one who cared for him more than any other man could have. Dr. Brown M.D. found that his father's condition was bad. He was suffering from a number of illnesses and ailments, and the medical man knew that this was serious. He called in his brother, Dr. William Brown of Melrose, and the two brothers were assisted by the best doctors in Edinburgh. The verdict was that Professor Brown (as we shall call him to distinguish him from his son) had worn himself out. His tireless labours for the Church had left him unable to resist the ravages of old age, and Dr. John Brown reported: "He became as it were suddenly old, and died twenty years older in constitution than in age."
"It is, I fear, the beginning of the end," the venerable minister said, and he was right.

The sufferings that had marked the end of 1857 found some relief early in 1858, but his strength was almost completely gone. Yet God upheld him. "I do not know that I have ever been closer to the unseen world than at this time," he told his daughter as he lay on his sickbed.

"The sovereign love of God, the infinite atonement of the Redeemer, the Ominpotent power of the Divine Spirit - that is sufficient for any; it is sufficient for me."

He found it hard to lie idle, yet he could do nothing else. When he could, he read and spoke with the friends who came to see him. They found him reading books on old age, from the Classical world to his old tutor, Dr. Lawson. Texts such as "This God is our God for ever and ever" gave him great comfort. The covenant of God could not be broken. He was in Christ, and that was enough. Robert Candlish's exposition of 1 Corinthians 15, Life in a Risen Saviour was a precious work to him at that time.
It was in 1858 that the great revival began in America, and as John Brown waited on the borders of Immanuel's Land, he rejoiced to see the beginnings of this great outpouring of grace. He was able to oversee a reprint of his own little book on Revival that he had first published nearly twenty years ago during the Kilsyth revival of 1839. The book followed Edwards, trying to guard against both fanaticism and quenching the Spirit at the same time. He warned of taking all professions of conversion during such times as true, and also against regarding all revivals with suspicion.
Brown was encouraged that the 1858 revival was not centred on men like Charles G. Finney, and was centred in prayer-meetings, not the sort of protracted meetings that Finney used to play on the emotions. The lack of Finney's 'New Measures' in the work cheered him. This was of God, he felt, not of man.

Spring passed into summer, and Professor Brown was able to drive in the country around Edinburgh. He made use of strength that he knew was only temporary to write a farewell letter to his people at Broughton Place. His next work was to write to his students explaining that they would see him in the Professor's chair no longer. Many plans had to be abandoned, as that measure of health and strength deserted him again. He delighted himself in the reading of John Owen, especially Owen's last work, Meditations on the Glory of Christ.

By October, Professor Brown was obviously dying. It seemed on the 13th of October that he was unconscious, but as his daughter whispered to ask if he was well, he replied, "Wonderfully well."
He died soon after, with his family gathered round. Since his own sons were medical doctors, there was no stranger there to break the family intimacy.

He was buried in the New Calton Burying-Ground on the 20th of October, and thousands turned out to pay their last respects. Ministers who had been his students came, great men, and poor men and women who had known him as their pastor and their friend. And there were many, very many, who knew him also as their father in the Gospel. He was laid beside his wife and child, and on their monument was written: "Looking for the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."

Truly he was a man "In labours more abundant," as his friend John Cairns said of him. By his precious writings he still speaks, and if the message of his writings can be condensed to one text it is this: "Search the Scriptures."

'This One Thing I do' John Brown of Broughton Place - XXXVI

Dr. John Brown published in 1852 a volume entitled Plain Discourses on Important Subjects. As the title suggests, this was a volume of sermons, including two of his 'Canongate Lectures'. These were sermons given to a congregation at the Canongate Mission in a poor part of the city. Though Brown was a brilliant and popular preacher, he never forgot the ordinary folk, and the work of an evangelist. But a more significant volume was his The Three Gatherings, published in 1857. This was a volume of Missionary Discourses on Isaiah 56, originally preached to encourage and inform the wealthy Broughton Place congregation on the matter of missions. Revised for the press, these were, as befitted their author, deeply exegetical, and spoke of missions to both Jew and Gentile, for this was the Scotland of the Bonar Brothers and Robert Murray M'Cheyne, men who had a great love for God's ancient people. We give a sample:

"The question has been agitated as to the priority and connexion of the two gatherings of the Jews and Gentiles, which together are to form the third gathering. Are the Jews or the Gentiles to be first converted? Are the Jews to be the instruments of the conversion of the Gentiles, or the Gentiles of the Jews? Unfulfilled prophecy, generally covered with clouds, gives on these subjects no certain sound. So far as I can discover its meaning, it intimates that both events shall take place, if not exactly contemporaneously, yet during the same epoch; and Gentiles shall be instrumental in the Conversion of Jews, and converted Jews extensively employed in the final in-bringing of the unconverted Gentiles. It is while men are 'Fearing the Name of the Lord from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun,' that 'the Redeemer will come to Zion.' 'The blindness which happened to Israel' continues till 'the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,' or rather till the fulness of the Gentiles shall be gathering, 'and then all Israel shall be saved.'"

Not content with simply dealing with questions of Jewish and Gentile missions, he also answered those who felt that the present manner of evangelism by the preached Word alone would be superseded by a method involving the miraculous. Such anticipations greatly retarded the growth of the modern missionary movement, and it is most likely that the retort to Carey that "When God sees fit to convert the heathen, he'll do it without your help" was not so much the result of hyper-calvinism, but of this mentality that God must bring in a new age of miracles for the world to be converted to Christ.

Dr. Brown was not pre-millennial, though he did not write off pre-millennialism as heresy, simply as a difference of opinion on a secondary matter. He once remarked on his pre-millennial brothers in Christ:

"We do not look for the Saviour so soon as some of our friends do, but if He should come, we shall be very glad to see Him."

Brown was in fact a post-millennialist, looking for the final triumph of Christianity in this age, before the Second Advent. He had little faith in prophetic speculation, saying that the folly of men who dared to set exactly dates was "manifest to all men but themselves." As in all things, John Brown sought to know what the Bible had to say on unfulfilled prophecy, and to keep Bible and newspaper in their proper places.

Brown was no mere theological antiquarian. He laboured in all his writings to address the unchanging Gospel to the people of his age, and to interpret the Bible according to itself, not some artificial system. He was a Calvinist, but a Bible-Calvinist like Martyn Lloyd-Jones, not a System-Calvinist. In this we think he was quite right - as surely should all Christians think! That is, John Brown was a Calvinist because of the Bible, not the Westminster Confession of Faith. He subscribed the Confession because he felt it was Biblical, he did not try to cram the Bible into the Confession.

So, God willing, next time we shall come to the final scenes of Dr. John Brown's life.

'This One Thing I do': John Brown of Broughton Place XXXVI

In his old age Brown was the patriarch of the United Presbyterian Church. During the period in which he wrote his final works his life seemed like the 'Beulah Land' Of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. His health was preserved, his congregation at Broughton Place remained peaceful and the Theological Hall was quietly pursuing its important work of training a New Testament ministry. The denomination itself was peaceful and flourishing.
Just as the United Secession and the Relief had united, so thoughts turned to the uniting of the Free and United Presbyterian Church. This union was not to be, for the Free church stood by the Westminster teaching on the national establishment of religion, while the United Presbyterians, though taking no official position on the question, contained many who were conviced advocates of the Voluntary position that all churches ought to be entirely separate from the state. On this rock the union debate foundered, and it would not be until 1900 when the two churches united on the basis of the United Presbyterian position. Brown himself argued vociferously that this would have to be the basis for union in 1857. These were his principles, no doubt acquired through his contacts with English disenters.

On 6th February 1856 Dr. Brown completed the fiftieth year of his ministry. To make the occasion he preached that day in the great chapel at Broughton Place the sermon that he had preached at the opening of his ministry at Biggar. This same sermon was later published in his Parting Counsels. By doing this he showed that he still held to the same high view of the ministry with which he had begun fifty years before.
John Brown desired no other services commemorating his jubilee in the Christian ministry, but of course this was not to be. The church desired to honour him, and honour him they did in a jubilee service held on the 8th of April 1856. Brown, of course, sought to make this an occasion praising God, not man. Closing his own address he said: "I would feel as if I had neglected a duty did I not ere closing make an acknowledgement of how good a master, for these last fifty years, I have had, and how unprofitable a servant he has had in me. Yes, He has been a good Master, sustaining me in weakness, guiding me in perplexity, comforting me in sorrow... He has given me wages with my work, and wages in my work: all I am, all I have, I owe to Him."

Indeed, and so we must, for the time being, leave Dr. Brown before we return to him, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I do' John Brown of Broughton Place - XXXV

John Brown’s last exegetical work was ‘an Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans’, published in July 1857. For more than forty years, Brown had lavished study on this most complex of Epistles, the Apostle’s great system of Gospel theology. He had intended to write a long and complex exposition for the scholar, but increasing age forced him to abandon the plan and to write a more ‘popular’ commentary as a hint of what he had desired to do.
The book occupied more than six hundred pages, a hint that what we today regard as a popular level work is not quite what passed for such in the Scotland of 150 years ago. It was founded on his pulpit ‘lectures’, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ massive series was.
The book of Romans is The centrepiece of the Pauline theology, so it was only natural that so Pauline an exegete as Dr Brown should have planned an elaborate commentary on it. It has over the centuries attracted the greatest of expositors. Martin Luther’s whole worldview was changed by it, John Calvin wrote on it, Thomas Chalmers’ ‘Lectures’ on the Epistle rank high among his writings. Charles Hodge and Robert Haldane both wrote excellent commentaries on the Romans, and Haldane’s lectures on the book began a revival of the Reformed doctrine in the very city of Geneva itself.
Of Brown’s work, Spurgeon wrote: “Dr. Brown’s work must be placed among the first of the first-class. He is a great expositor.” as Spurgeon was not given to unmerited praise, we may take it that he found the work extremely helpful.

John Brown felt that his commentary on the Romans would be his last exegetical work, and in a way he was right. However, after his death the complete manuscript of a commentary on Hebrews was discovered among his papers, and published . The book had been fully prepared for the press by Brown, so that it did not suffer from the usual deficiencies of posthumous works, and his executors felt that it was too important a work to remain hidden simply because its author had died before it had been sent to the printers. Again we quote Spurgeon’s verdict on the work:
“Dr. David Smith says of this work: ‘There is not a single instance of carelessness in investigating the meaning of a text, or of timidity in stating the conclusion at which the author had arrived.’ What more could be said in praise of any exposition?”

So we have seen how John Brown enriched the world with his commentaries, always rich, warm and evangelical. His Edinburgh home at Arthur Lodge, Newington, provided him with the setting he needed to study, surrounded by the works of dozens of orthodox evangelical expositors.

Whilst a few of his works have fallen into obscurity, many more of John Brown’s writings are in print today. Tentmaker Publications of Stoke-on-Trent publishes his ‘Romans’, and the Banner of Truth Trust his ‘Hebrews’.

Yet his later years were not completely taken up with literary work, and it is to his other labours that we shall next turn, God willing.

'This One Thing I do' John Brown of Broughton Place - XXXIV

John Brown’s next book appeared in May 1853, and it was one of his most elaborate and well-known works, his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. The amount of work that went into it was fantastic, as he cites more than one hundred works on the Galatians in his preparation for the writing of the book. Yet he also kept the treatise within a moderate compass, so that one hardcover volume contains the whole of Brown’s work on the Galatian epistle.
In his Galatians Brown shows an amazing familiarity with the Pauline theology. He is one of the most able expositors of the Apostle’s works, and understood Paul himself. These extracts will give some idea of Brown’s thought:
“Never was there a man more disposed than the Apostle Paul to bear with weak brethren; but never was there a man more determined to expose false brethren.”
“Let us be certain that a man is to be blamed before we withstand him; and when we do so, let it be to his face.”
Like Paul, John Brown was supremely concerned with the Gospel of Christ. He was a peaceable man, but was totally unable to be silent when the Gospel itself was under attack. Thus he saw that Paul had not merely lost his temper writing to the Churches in Galatia. He was writing in deep concern, yes, and he was emotionally affected, but it was out of love for the Galatian Churches, and for the truth of the Gospel. Unlike our present so-called postmodernists, Brown saw that Truth is of vital importance. Truth matters, it cannot be compromised.
So ended John Brown’s second period of authorship. Ten volumes had come from his hand in the course of five years, an average of one volume every six months. He had been pressed by some to write a commentary on the Second epistle of Peter as a companion to his commentary on the first. Since 2 Peter has been the subject of relatively few works, Brown considered the idea, and even began work on it. Increasing age and infirmity, joined with difficulty in understanding the second and third chapters of the book to a level that satisfied him, forced him to stop, however. As he had finished his exposition of Chapter One, which forms a unit by itself, he published that as a volume entitled ‘Parting Counsels’. It was a suitable title for a book written by a man who, at age 72, knew that he would soon be departing to be with Christ, ‘Which is far better.’

But John Brown’s labours were not yet done. Of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I do' John Brown of Broughton Place - XXXIII

Dr. John Brown followed Discourses and Sayings with a volume on Our Lord’s high Priestly Prayer. Entitled ‘An Exposition of Our Lord’s Intercessory Prayer’, it did not enjoy the same sales as ‘Discourses and sayings’, but like all of Brown’s works, it combined accurate interpretation of the Scripture with warmth of devotion. All too often the accurate exposition of the Word is disjoined from devotional warmth, so that preachers who stick by the text seem at times to be more like dispassionate lecturers, and preachers who preach with passion seem to ignore the accurate exposition of the text. Dr. Lloyd-Jones defined preaching as ‘logic on fire’. Too often those who consciously or unconsciously model themselves on the Doctor remember the logic and forget the fire. John Brown had both in good measure.

He note that few expositions have ever been written on Our Lord’s prayer in John 17. The reason for this, Brown felt, was that men reach the chapter, and “the disposition to inquire is lost in the resistless impulse to adore.”

He followed it in December 1851 with a volume entitled ‘The Resurrection of Life’, which was an exposition of 1 Corinthians 15. Like his other books, it was a preacher’s book, a volume of expositions that not only explained the text, but applied it. Brown’s works were all designed to feed the whole man, not simply the intellectual or devotional impulses. The doctrine of the resurrection is of course one of the most important in Christianity. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, and any work that expounds that is welcome. The denial of the resurrection is one of the oldest of heresies, and the influence of Greek philosophies have often tended to make the doctrine one that is little preached. John Brown took it head on.

While John Brown published many books on the Scriptures, it will be easily seen that his area of interest was the exposition of the New Testament. His expository writings consisted almost entirely of expositions of the New Testament. The one exception to this was his next book, ‘The Sufferings and Glories of the Messiah’. This consisted of expositions of Psalm 18 and Isaiah 53. He had been planning the book for more than thirty years, but it was only in 1852 that he finally got it into a form suitable for publication. Again he demonstrated that he was an extremely able exegete, of the Old and New Testaments. He revealed that he had little confidence in his ability to write (as opposed to preach) on the Old Testament. In fact his ability with the Hebrew was very good, just not on a level with his Greek.
The Old Testament witness to Christ is clear, and Isaiah 53 is certainly the plainest testimony to the sufferings of Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Brown declared in this book that Christ is the Old Testament Messiah.

His next book would be one of his greatest, of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXXII

July 1850 saw the publication of the next of Dr. Brown's major works, the three volumes entitled Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This was a study of Our Lord's words in the Gospels, omitting the parables, but dealing with all the main discourses of Our Lord, including the Sermon on the Mount and the lengthy discourses in John's Gospel.

Dr. Brown had been a diligent student of the Gospels for many years. As we have noted, it was his custom to preach expository discourses, or 'lectures', as the Scottish church called them, in the evening services on the Lord's Day. He had preached through John's Gospel between 1807 and 1813. At that time he had consulted mostly English works on John, with only the commentaries of Lampe and Calvin in Latin. Between 1813 and 1850 he consulted many more commentaries, and of course he based his expositions on the Greek text. He explained:

"In preparing these volumes for the press, I have studied the original text of their subjects with all the grammatical and lexical helps I possessed. I have further availed myself of every assistance within my reach, to be derived from versions of, and commentaries on, the passages explained. My aim was not to produce and original work, but a satisfactory exposition of an important portion of Scripture."

In the best tradition of Scottish piety, these works have nothing of the sentimentality so often associated with the Victorian era in them. They are strong, fervent books, written for the whole man, the mind as well as the feelings.

Dr. Brown's intention in writing and publishing these three volumes was to re-emphasise the centrality of the person of Christ in Christianity, and not some ideal person, but the man Christ jesus who lived a real life and died a terrible death. He noted:

"Dr. Owen did good service to the cause of Christianity, two hundred years ago, by showing the pre-eminent place the Person of Christ holds in that religion, in opposition to the British rationalists of the age, who had almost lost sight of Him in speculation about evidences and dogmas and ethics; and... Neander and Tholuck have done a similar service, in opposition to the German rationalists of our times. A personal Deity is the soul of natural religion; a personal Saviour, the real living Christ, is the soul of revealed religion

."
The book sold well, and in 1852 a second edition was called for. It remains an important work for those studying the teaching of Christ in the Gospels.
But Dr. Brown had not yet finished his second period of literary productiveness. Of which more, God willing, next time.

Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord is published today by the Banner of Truth Trust. It is available here for £40 for all three hardcover volumes.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXXI

In 1848 John Brown began his second period of authorship. With the pain of the atonement controversy behind him, Brown began to give his exegetical writings, for which he is still justly famous, to the world. He was in his mid-sixties at the time, and for ten years his pen was that of a ready writer.
In May 1848 he issued the first of these works, his Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter. As the title suggests, they were originally delivered as a series of expository sermons on the book. Brown had spent sixteen years in their delivery, a fact that probably amazes most modern preachers. These were not lectures given in the classroom, but sermons to a mixed congregation. And many of those who had heard the sermons had requested the publication. In a typical remark, Brown said:

"The author would probably never have thought of offering these illustrations to the world, had not a number of much respected members of his congregation earnestly solicited him, before increasing age should make it difficult, or approaching death impossible, to furnish them with a permanent memorial of a ministry of considerable length, full of satisfaction to him, and he trusts not unproductive of advantage to them. Such an application could not be treated lightly; and on weighing the subject, he found that he durst not refuse to comply with it."

It is notable that Brown did not speak with a view to publication, a fact which no doubt contributed to the success of his ministry. There is nothing worse than the preacher whose sermons are intended not to be delivered from the pulpit, but to make up a nice volume for the enjoyment of the reading public.
As the quotation from his preface shows, Dr. Brown saw the three volumes of these lectures as his legacy to his congregation, the legacy of a man whose voice would soon be lost in death. The book is a commentary, but of course it partakes also of the usual character of sermons. It is not therefore academic, but popular, for woe betide the preacher who merely lectures to his congregation! The discussion is not general and abstract, but it is applied with all the force that the great master of exegesis was capable. Brown shows us in his 1 Peter how great learning is the foundation, not the superstructure, of the exposition of the Word. He never indulged in a mere display of learning, but subordinated his learning to the good of his hearers.
Of all the men who had written on the Epistle before him, Brown found most to his taste the work by Archbishop Leighton:

"That very remarkable work teaches a singularly pure and complete theology, a theology thoroughly evangelical in the true sense of that often abused epithet."

As a result of this opinion, Brown often quoted the great Archbishop's commentary in his sermons on the book.
Not surprisingly, the work sold very well, both in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It opened the way for more books from Brown's pen, books that quickly followed.
A story is told of the eccentric United Presbyterian minister, William Anderson of John Street (pictured), Glasgow in connection with these volumes on 1 Peter. One morning Anderson was ministering himself, and the afternoon service was to be taken by the noted Dr. M'Farlane of Erskine Church. Anderson was preaching through 1 Peter, and had reached the section in chapter 3. 1-6 about the duties of wives to their husbands. After reading these verses he told the congregation that he had been consulting Dr. John Brown's Expository Discourses on the Epistle, and had found it put so well by Brown that he felt it would be best for him just to read Brown's sermon to the congregation. As he opened the volume he said with a twinkle in his eye: "You are a favoured people this day; you are to hear Professor John Brown in the forenoon and Dr. John M'Farlane in the afternoon!"

Needless to say, we far prefer this manner of using another's sermon than that most often practiced, which is to do so without any acknowledgment at all.
So Dr. John Brown's last and most productive period as an author began.
Of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXX

The presenting of a 'libel', or formal charge against a man suspected of holding unsound views may appear to some in this modern age to be a form of persecution. Actually it can be a very effective way to clear the air; thus William Robertson Smith actually demanded a libel when he was accused of holding unsound views. It means that all rumours can be dealt with by the voice of the church Speaking with authority.

Dr. Marshall's 1845 libel against Dr. Brown Was set out in Syllogistic form, with five 'heads' of doctrine contrary to Scripture and the Confession forming the major proposition. The minor proposition was that Dr. Brown taught these things, and supplied evidence from his defence with Dr. Balmer in 1843. The Synod accepted the libel and set a date of 29th July for its verdict.
Never before had a Secession Professor been so libeled, and interest was high. The excitement was only heightened by the fact that the Synod's meetings were held in Brown's own church of Broughton Place, the largest Secession church in Edinburgh.
Brown lodged his own answers to the charges brought against him, chiefly consisting of extracts from writings already in print by him, in order to avoid the charge that he had changed his mind and retreated from his position.
The Synod took a slightly unusual method of procedure. Instead of first deciding the relevancy of the charges, in other words whether or not they were really errors, and only then proceeding to the proof, it was decided to consider relevancy and proof together on each charge. The reason for this was that the libel with irregularly drawn. Had it been considered in the normal way, it would just have been thrown out on technical grounds, and the controversy would have been no closer to an end, a result that would have been highly unsatisfactory to all concerned, and most importantly to the church as a body.

Each count of the libel was read by the clerk, supported by Dr. Marshall and answered by Dr. Brown. The proceedings covered four days of impassioned argument.
The first count charged Dr. Brown with denying the immutability of the Divine Decrees. In evidence it was stated that he believed the non-elect were savable in the sense that only their unbelief hindered their salvation. Whilst about a quarter of the Synod felt that the words were capable of being used in an unsound manner, Brown was unanimously acquitted of using them in such a manner.
The second count, dealing as it did with original sin, had no real relevance to the atonement controversy. The third, however, brought up the question of the extent of the atonement. After a very long and difficult debate the Synod concluded that Dr. Brown repudiated the Arminian teaching of universal atonement, which no Calvinist could hold, but that he did not do so in a satisfactory manner if he wanted to be considered to hold to the Westminster Confession.
The fourth charge was very strange. It seemed that Dr. Marshall was saying that to hold that Christ's death needed Divine appintment, independent of its own intrinsic worth, to make it a true atonement, was an error. The Synod dismissed it in astonishment and passed over to the last count, the charge that Dr. Brown held that Christ had died as a substitute for all men. Brown denied this, but again his language was thought to be insufficiently guarded.
The vote, when taken, cleared Brown of all errors. The libel was dismissed, and peace again came upon the denomination. With it came for Dr. Brown the opportunity to enrich the Church universal with the fruits of his pen.

Of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXIX

Meeting in Glasgow in June 1841, the Secession Synod condemned James Morison for his Arminian leanings. Brown's biographer conceded that the Synod saw better than Dr. Brown the direction of Morison's mind. Not contented to rest at the half-way house of Amyraut (pictured), James Morison soon became a full-blown Arminian of the Wesleyan type.
Suspicion then landed on Brown himself. If this was the result of his Amyraldian teaching, then some thought it reasonable to investigate his orthodoxy.
We must always be careful about condemning anyone merely for the 'tendencies' of their theology. After all, few men are logical enough to follow out the implications of their theology. So John Brown could call Andrew Fuller's writings for the support of his own Amyraldianism when Fuller strenuously denied the double-reference theory himself, just as the moderately Arminian Morison could appeal to Brown. Logically, it might be said, Fuller's theology may lead to Amyraldianism. But it is quite unfair to impute Amyraldianism to Fuller himself.
As Morison's remaining Calvinism withered, men thought that they saw in Dr. Brown a threat to the orthodoxy of the Secession Church. After all, was not Brown a Professor in their theological hall? Was he not teaching the future ministers of the Church?
This concern was laudable in itself. Satan often uses seminaries and colleges as his means of entry into sound churches. Thus the professor's chair must be, if anything, guarded with greater care than the pulpit. heresy in the pulpit corrupts one church, heresy in the professor's chair corrupts many pulpits.

In defending himself, John Brown declared that his theological position had not been condemned and quoted yet another stalwart of the eighteenth century, Jonathan Edwards, in his defence, "the highest name in modern Calvinism." In the conclusion to his Freedom of the Will, Edwards wrote: "From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by His death, yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as He intended should actually be saved thereby." This, Brown said, was what he held. Obviously there was no way the Synod was going to condemn Edwards' words, and so Brown was safe from prosecution (we note with interest that at this year's Amyraldian Association (26th-7th March) Dr. Alan Clifford will be giving a lecture with the suggestive title "Jonathan Edwards: Amyraldian?" It ought to be worth listening to in the light of John Brown's use of Edwards to defend the orthodoxy of the Amyraldian view!

It is outside the scope of this series to engage in detailed exegesis. Suffice to say that Brown defended himself with great zeal. Nevertheless, in 1845 Dr. Marshall of Kirkintilloch charged Brown with heresy before the Synod of the United Secession Church.

God willing, next time we shall review the outcome of this charge.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXVIII

The cross of Christ is at the centre of Christianity. It is, as James Denney so rightly said, The "diamond pivot" on which true religion turns. As such it has often been Satan's target. In 1841 a controversy on the subject broke out in the United Secession Church, and in such a way that Dr. Brown was all but at the centre of it.
Brown himself was utterly unfitted for it by the tragic death of his second wife after just over six years of marriage. She died in September 1841 after a decline in health following the birth of a child. John Brown was as devastated as he had been after the death of his first wife, and it was only his deep trust in God that kept Brown going.

The atonement controversy in the United Secession Church was of a relatively mild character. It was not that anyone had denied that Christ had died for sinners, but rather it was over the extent (or rather intent) of the atonement. James Morison, the young pastor of the United Secession Church in Kilmarnock, had become convinced of the Amyraldian view of the atonement and had been preaching and publishing his opinions with great zeal, concentrating on the universal aspect of the atonement to such an extent that many thought he was a full-blown Arminian. Morison had been a student of John Brown's, and the two had become very close friends. Morison himself was a very intelligent man, a gifted preacher and a scholar of no ordinary ability. Nevertheless his teaching on the atonement was held to be contrary to the Bible and to the Confession. he was charged with heresy on several counts, that on the atonement being "that the object of saving faith to any person is the statement that Christ made atonement for that person, as he made atonement for the sins of the whole world; and that the seeing of this statement to be true is saving faith, and gives the assurance of salvation."
The argument of the Amyraldian is substantially that unless Christ has in some sense died for all, then there can be no warrant of faith for any to come to Christ. Further, that if Christ has died for only the elect, then men will have little or no assurance, questioning whether or not they are elect.
That was Morison's argument. It falls down on both points. First, the Amyraldian has to say that Christ's death has a 'double reference', He died in one sense for the elect and in another for the reprobate. So only the Elect will beieve in Him, and He has died in their place only. Secondly, the introspective Christian is still tempted to unbelief, and to doubt if he or she has really believed.
Morison was deposed, but there were those who asked where he had obtained such views. True, Morison had gone further than any of his mentors, but was there a nest of Amyraldians in the Synod? Men whispered that John Brown had taught Morison the views of Moise Amyraut in the United Secession Hall, and Brown felt led to vindicate himself.
He wrote an article for the United Secession Magazine of June 1841 dealing with Faith, human inability, the intent of the atonement and the Sonship of Christ (for Morison was also accused of denying the Eternal Sonship). The great difference on the question of faith between the two men was that Morison held saving faith to be in the proposition 'Christ died for me', whilst Dr. Brown held it to be in the love of God set forth in His sending His Son to die for ruined sinners. Thus he escaped the trap of Morison in founding assurance on an atonement that had in fact made nothing certain.
Brown did believe that the general aspect of Christ's death meant that ministers could call all to believe in Him who died for all, but he denied that Christ died for all equally.
It was only at this point that Brown was led to clearly state his views, using for the first time the two phrases, "general reference" and "peculiar or special reference" in relation to the death of Christ. Brown was no alone in this, his fellow professor Dr. Balmer also held to the Amyraldian scheme. Neither man saw this view as a deviation from strict Calvinism, and so they held and taught it in good conscience. Brown saw this as an intramural dispute between Calvinists on a question that had been left open by the Synod of Dort (this argument is used by Amyraldians today). Brown noted that Amyraut was cleared of heresy by the French Reformed Church, and that they were widely held by most of the Reformed Churches of Europe. What was more, he said, the Westminster Confession could not have intended to exclude Amyraldians. He closed with a plea for peace founded on the words of Andrew Fuller.

What the response to this plea was we shall see, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXVII

The Voluntary controversy we hold to have been in general a bad thing. It divided Scottish evangelicalism at the very time when unity was most important, it led to the overflowing of what one Free Church minister would call an "ignoble sectarian temper", and it weakened the witness of the free churches by diverting men into a political battle that was ultimately vain.
Despite protestations that the Voluntaries were not enemies of the Church of Scotland, their behaviour convinced many inside that denomination that they were. Voluntaries held up the division within the Church of Scotland between the 'Moderate' and 'Evangelical' parties. Only late in the Ten Years' Conflict did the Voluntaries cease their aggressive exertions to spread their views, too late to help the Evangelicals. The government, persuaded that support for Chalmers was low by the opposition to the creation of new parishes and other matters in which the Voluntaries had been deeply involved, split the Church of Scotland. The Voluntaries, ignoring the very real part they had played in bringing the crisis to just such a conclusion.
The Voluntaries had deliberately refused any assistance to the Evangelical party led by Dr. Chalmers, just as their descendants would, a generation later, oppose the abolition of lay-patronage in the Church of Scotland.
Therein lay part of the problem. In the name of religious freedom the Voluntaries at least seemed to desire to restrict the freedom of the Church of Scotland. This could be interpreted as a desire to make conditions in the Established Church so unbearable that its members would seek disestablishment. Chalmers and his party were trying to reform the Church of Scotland, whilst the dissenters seemed to be putting every barrier in their way.
The Ten Years' Conflict ended in 1843 in the Disruption, when nearly half of the ministers of the Church of Scotland seceded in protest over government interference in the settlement of ministers. And John Brown paid his respects to those who left all to follow Christ, glad that so many of his old friends had followed conscience, not money.
Yet we must be careful. Many of those who stayed in the Church of Scotland did so because they thought she was worth saving. They were not all 'Moderates', fox-hunting parsons with a love for the things of this world. Some were true successors of Knox who genuinely believed that the Church of Scotland could secure freedom still.

Unhappily the calls for disestablishment and endowment rumbled on. If the Church of Scotland was bound to the state by law, all too often it seemed that the Free and United Presbyterian Churches were bound to the Liberal party. That John Brown opposed. Separation of Church and state should mean exactly that, he felt. As a citizen it was his right and duty to take a full and active part in the nation's political life. But the Synods and Assemblies were ecclesiastic gatherings for ecclesiastical business, and they ought not to seek to meddle in the affairs of the state.

The next controversy in which Brown was involved was the atonement controversy, and there he was to play a more prominent but no less controversial part, of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXVI

We have seen that, whilst the Scottish dissenters and their English allies campaigned vigorously for Scottish disestablishment (an ultimately fruitless campaign that would last the best part of a century and conclude in failure), the Church of Scotland interpreted the campaign as an attack motivated by sectarian feelings of antipathy to themselves. Coming when it did, it practically cut off Church of Scotland and Free church evangelicals from one another.
With the growth of Scotland's population, especially in the cities, the old Parish system was no longer adequate. Urban parishes were hugely overpopulated and insufficiently supplied with church seatings. Ministers were faced with a parish population too vast to oversee. To supply the need 'chapels of ease' had been built, usually with private funds. These were church buildings without parishes and therefore without elders and the machinery of a parish. This was of course far from ideal, and so Thomas Chalmers and the Evangelical leaders in the Church Of Scotland sought the creation of new parishes.
The Voluntary Associations fought against this measure, which would have involved the government endowing these new parishes. From their side the opposition seems understandable until we realise that the end of these new parishes would have been the better evangelization of the urban poor. At the same time most of these ministers were evangelicals and supporters of Thomas Chalmers. Thus the measure to endow the chapels of ease and transform them into full churches was ironically defeated by a combination of evangelical nonconformists and non-evangelical Churchmen.
Thus the evangelical nonconformists, rather than backing Chalmers, actually contributed to the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 by ensuring that many of Chalmers' supporters were not entitled to a vote in the General Assembly. Ironically the measure passed anyway a few years down the line. The Voluntaries had more zeal than discretion. They never learned to pick their battles, a fact that would eventually turn Scotland against them and ensure defeat in 1929.
One cause that was seen as a real burden by Voluntaries, and that was a battle worth fighting, was the Edinburgh Annuity Tax. This was a tax levied in Edinburgh for the support of the city's Church of Scotland ministry, and many nonconformists though, quite reasonably in our view, that it was highly unfair to tax them to support a ministry that they did not attend on. It was a tax paid by the occupiers of houses within the Royalty, amounting to six per cent. on rental. Lawyers were exempted, but all others, including dissenting ministers, were expected to pay it. The tax supported eighteen ministers in thirteen churches. Some were evangelicals, some were not.
In 1835 John Brown moved inside the Royalty. At first he paid the tax, whilst protesting about the existence of such a tax in the letter column of the Scotsman newspaper. In 1837, however, he changed his mind about the rightness of paying the tax. As a Voluntary he objected to paying a tax specifically for religious purposes. The members of the Edinburgh Church of Scotland congregations were, in his view, responsible for supporting their ministers. He sought the abolition of this tax, and he thought that passive resistance had failed.
Surprisingly Dr. Brown was opposed not by a Church of Scotland minister (this was at the height of the Ten Years' Conflict) but by Robert Haldane, a Baptist and a fellow nonconformist. Haldane himself disapproved of the tax and was a voluntary. Where he disagreed with Dr. Brown was on the non-payment. What Brown's reason for non-payment came down to, Haldane pointed out, was that he disagreed with the tax. Would he then approve of others not paying taxes simply because they disapproved of them? Was it not more Christian to bear with protest the Annuity-Tax rather than to thus rebel against the government by non-payment? He called attention to Romans 13 and the injunction to be subject to the powers that be.
Brown responded in two lectures in which he said that in his opinion Romans 13 only applied to obedience to the magistrate as long as he acted lawfully. Since the Annuity-Tax was unbiblical, it did not come under the injunctions of Romans 13. Furthermore Romans 13 was only telling Christians to remain submissive under a despotism and did not apply under a democracy.
what was still more unfortunate was his comparison of the Annuity-Tax with ancient taxes that supported idolatry, for people easily concluded that Brown was accusing the Church of Scotland of idolatry.
There is a serious question here: is it right for a Christian to withhold payment of a tax or part of a tax that he holds to be going for sinful purposes? Leaving aside the question of whether or not the support of a state church is sinful, what of supporting an educational system that promotes atheism, paganism and immorality?

God willing, next time we shall conclude this brief treatment of the controversy

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXV

The Voluntary Controversy of 1835 to 1843 was probably one of the most tragic incidents in the history of Scottish Presbyterianism. It came on the heels of what was one of the most joyful events in John Brown's life. In June 1835, nineteen years after the death of his first wife, Dr. John Brown, pastor of Broughton Place United Secession Church, married Miss Margaret Fisher Crum, a direct descendant of Ebenezer Erskine. Dr. Brown had known Miss Crum for many years, and their marriage was a cause of delight for both them and their friends. He was to need her comfort and care in the controversy that was to arise.
Voluntaryism is the principle acted on and held by practically all churches without a state connection today. Put briefly it is the principle that the Church of Christ is a voluntary society, that men and women join themselves to the Church freely, and that the church ought to be supported purely out of the voluntary gifts of its members. On the other hand the Westminster Confession, in chapter 23 says:

" [The civil magistrate] has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed"

Originally all of the Scottish presbyterian dissenters held to the 'establishment principle', that it was the duty of the Christian magistrate to support the Church. They protested against false doctrine and abuses in the Church of Scotland, not against the very principle of there being such a body. Indeed the old Reformed Presbyterians and Seceders argued that they WERE the true Church of Scotland, and the Seceders appealed to the first free and reforming Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
But decades of being in the position of nonconformists changed the outlook of the Seceders. Contact with English nonconformists led to some becoming convinced that the old position was false and that the voluntary principle was not only expedient, but also Biblical. Practically, all nonconforming churches have to act as voluntary bodies, and decades of experience with this had convinced many of the Seceders that ties to the state were wrong and even sinful.
The actual controversy began in 1829 when Rev. Dr. Marshall of Kirkintilloch preached a sermon in Glasgow in which he urged as the only defence against state endowment of Romanism the complete disendowment of all religion by the state. In 1832 Voluntary Associations, organisations with the aim of bringing about by political means the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland, began to be formed all over the country. Congregationalists and Baptists joined in these efforts, and English Nonconformists gave their aid.
Whatever we may think about the state support of churches, this move was unwise in the circumstances. It was inevitably seen by the Church of Scotland as an attack upon IT. The call for disendowment was interpreted as a desire by the nonconformist churches to destroy the Church of Scotland, for the endowments of the Church supported education, evangelism and the day-to-day work of the ministry. The evangelical leaders within the Church of Scotland watched in dismay as those whom they had taken as friends seemed to turn against the Church they loved and served.
John Brown was in favour of disestablishment. Unfortunately many voluntaries, by insisting on disendowment as well as disestablishment (rather than seeking a method of severing the ties between church and state that would secure an adequate starting capital, as it were, for the Church of Scotland), made themselves appear as enemies of the Church of Scotland. John Brown however was free of this ignoble sectarian temper. He found the voluntary principle to be Biblical, and felt that reliance on state support actually weakened the Church of Scotland.
So much for the principles. The way that the dissenters worked these principles was, however, extremely unfortunate as we shall see, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXIII

"There are worse ways of spending money than buying books," John Brown once said to a man who had complained that he had 'squandered' a large fortune in buying books. His books were of course tools, necessary to his work as a professor. The first quality he looked for in a commentary was understanding of the Scriptures. Sometimes he noted that men with quite strange ideas in one department nevertheless saw clearly in texts that did not affect their systems. Adam Clarke, for example, was extraordinarily helpful on texts that do not enter into the Arminian controversy.
On the study of the Bible he noted that "Dr. Chalmers has hit the true key-note, not, what thinkest thou? but, what readest thou?" Calvin and Bengel were his models, men whose commentaries are full of both the deepest learning and the deepest religion. His students declared that his lectures were devotional in tone, though academic in content. s a preacher he brought much of his pulpit style to the desk, often bringing striking anecdotes. One was concerning Mr. Jameson, who had lectured on John's Gospel. Another minister congratulated him on expounding it to his people, since John was so simple. "You think John simple; but try him, and you will find him deep as the Dead Sea," Jameson replied. A pithy saying, and full of truth indeed. Another deserves to be given in the context Brown's biographer gives:

"Another anecdote was at the expense of Dr. John Taylor of Norwich, who, as is well known, published a Key to the Epistle to the Romans, which professes to open it, in harmony with the lowest Arminianism [Dr. Taylor was a Unitarian-H.H.]. Dr. Brown used to recite, with much enjoyment, the verdict passed by a contemporary divine on the performance:- 'The poor man gave the key a violent wrench, and behold it moved; but it was not the door that was opened, it was only the lock that was broken.'

Like all the best professors, Brown was 'able to have compassion on them that are ignorant and out of the way,' but had only withering contempt for the lazy, the reckless and the proud. Perhaps because of his own experience as a student he abhorred affectation in his students. Of course he showed love to them, with a yearly party in his home. After dinner the party would withdraw to his study. There he would give an informal lecture upon authors and systems, book after book being taken down from the shelves in illustration.
Nor was this labour of love confined to the stated sessions, for in the winter months he conducted a separate class for divinity students who belonged to his congregation, an opportunity they took up eagerly. But the winds of bitter controversy were never far away, and in 1835 there burst upon the scene a controversy the effects of which are felt to this very day.

Of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXII

Dr. John Brown was fifty years old when he was appointed to the chair of Exegetical Theology in the United Secession Church. He had behind him many years of pulpit experience. His studies had always had a large exegetical component - indeed, all preaching ought to be grounded in sound exegesis - and his old lectures were re-worked for the classroom rather than the pulpit, whilst new Broughton Place lectures were prepared with a view to re-using them in the classroom at a later date. Yet the different nature of the classroom meant that he had to enter into discussions that preachers do not and ought not to enter into in the pulpit. Minute philological questions were raised, the Greek and Hebrew took the place of the English Bible.
Dr. Brown felt more at home as an expositor in the professor's chair. Free from the need to address a mixed congregation, he was able to use all the technical terms that he had rigorously excluded from the pulpit. Not that he ever allowed himself to lapse into intellectualism. He held firmly that all study of Scripture must be in a reverent manner.

"There is something sadly deficient when the Christian system, either in the Bible itself, or in the attempts to reduce it to the order of human science, can be treated in the same manner as a mathematical problem, or an abstract speculation in metaphysics."

He was to write in his last work, an Address to Students.
For twenty-four sessions Dr. Brown taught the students of his denomination, and about a thousand students sat under him. Some were from abroad, some from other denominations, but most came from his own Secession Church. During the session the students heard at least an hour of lectures each day, to which was added another hour in either examinations or hearing exegetical exercises read by the students and criticised by the Professor.
Dr. Brown's true home was in the New Testament. His Greek was like a second language to him, and his reading in critical and lexicographal studies extensive. His Hebrew was good, but he was not a Hebraist of the order of John Gill or John 'Rabbi' Duncan. His personal library contained printed editions of the Scriptures in the original tongues from the Reformation to his own day. Commentaries from the Church Fathers onward occupied other shelves, although it was with the exegetical literature of the Reformation and the seventeenth century that he was most familiar. No Scottish work of Biblical interpretation was unknown to him, not even those he regarded as "worthless and inane." Most English Biblical scholarship was also well-known to him. Modern German scholarship he had little interest in, although of course his favourite Bengel was from that nation.
In fact Brown's library was probably the second largest clerical library in Scotland after that of Principal Lee of Edingurgh. Brown's library was carefully selected and, like Spurgeon, he was familiar with every volume he owned.

God willing, next time we shall have a few further remarks to make about Dr. Brown and his books.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XXI

In 1833 the Rev. Dr Dick, Professor of Theology in the United Secession Church since 1820, died. Dr. Brown was his obvious successor. But times were changing, and the Secession Church was changing too. The old method of a single professor who taught every subject was beginning to be seen as somewhat inefficient. It demanded a succession of geniuses. Thankfully such a succession had been supplied from John Brown of Haddington to Dr. Dick. In 1820, when the Burgher and Aniburgher Synods united, a change had been suggested, but it was not carried through as the Antiburgher professor did not enter the union. The united Synod did, however, set up a committee to consider the question of a second professor. The Church of Scotland had three theological professors in each of its Divinity faculties, teaching Hebrew, Church History and Theology. The idea of multiple Professors was therefore not novel.
In 1822 the Rev. John Jameson of Methven published a pamphlet setting forth a plan to establish a proper theological college for the Secession Church, located in Edinburgh and with a staff of five professors, each teaching a separate year of the five year course. These professors would remain pastors, and the short two month sessions would be retained. Jameson proposed three Systematic Theology chairs, a chair of Pastoral Theology and a chair of Biblical Literature. Needless to say the plan was not adopted. What WAS done was that in 1825 the Rev. Dr. Mitchell was appointed as a second professor with Dr. Dick, teaching Biblical Literature.
On the death of Dr. Dick a further effort was made to reorganise the Hall. Dr. Brown had supported Jameson, and he saw Dr. Dick's death as the opportune moment to press Jameson's scheme on the Synod once more. The Synod appointed a committee to examine the provision for the training of candidates for the ministry. It decided on a system with four professors, Biblical Literature, Exegetical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Pastoral Theology with Church History. Although it was felt that a longer session was desirable, it was recognised that the students had to support themselves, so the August-September session was retained out of necessity.
The committee's advice was adopted by a large majority in April 1834. The next step was to appoint the three professors for the three empty chairs. Dr. Brown was elected to the chair of Exegetical Theology in recognition for his Biblical commentaries. Rev. Dr. Duncan of Midcalder was elected to the chair of Systematic Theology and Dr. Balmer of Berwick to that of Pastoral Theology.
Dr. Brown retained the chair until his death, working with such colleagues as Dr. John Eadie. The new scheme had the great advantage that it sought out men with expertise in a specific area. By doing this it not only reduced the calls the chair made on busy pastors, it also ensured that students were properly trained.
Since Dr. Dick and Dr. Mitchell had both been Glasgow ministers, the Hall had been located in Glasgow during Dr. Dick's lifetime. This continued to be the case in 1834, and Dr. Brown and Dr. Balmer in particular found this difficult, so much so that they considered resigning. Only a petition by the students kept them from resigning, and the Senior Hall (the last three years of the course) was located in Edinburgh.

God willing, next time we shall consider Brown's actual work in the Chair.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XX

John Brown's talents brought him to the attention of many in Edinburgh. In terms of Churches the most important was Broughton Place, the congregation formed after the split of the Rose Street congregation. Dr. Hall, for whom the Broughton Place chapel had been constructed, had died in 1826, and John Brown had preached his funeral sermon. A little over a year later he received a formal call to the pastorate. Although it was set aside by the synod, they renewed the call in 1829.
Brown did not know what to do. His ministry at Rose Street had been greatly blessed, and an effort was being made to build a new, larger chapel for the congregation. On the other hand the Broughton Place congregation was still unsettled. At last his mind was made up to follow the advice of the Synod, even if it meant laeving Rose Street. It did, the synod decided to remove John Brown from Rose Street and translate him to Broughton Place. Not surprisingly many Rose Street members followed Brown to Broughton Place, but the Rose Street congregation continued to exist, and Brown's successor, Rev. John M'Gilchrist, proved a worthy one.

John Brown was inducted at Broughton Place Church (pictured) on 20th May 1829. It was to be his last pastorate, and one that he would hold for nearly thirty years. He was to find it a peaceful church, his trials coming from without, not within, his congregation.
It was shortly after this that Brown received the degree of D.D. from Jefferson College, Pennsylvania. He had not sought the distinction, but it served to distinguish him from his grandfather, who never received the D.D..
Numbers are often deceptive, but it is worthy of record that the membership at Broughton Place grew from 600 to 1000 by the end of 1829. The church seated 1600, and it was invariably full. Since the two churches were in the same city it was not surprising that the profile of the Broughton Place congregation was like that at Rose Street, from the students with their Greek Testaments to the tradesmen in their Sunday best.
Dr. Brown's preaching continued to be expository, and the cause of the Missionary societies continued to be urged on the congregation. In 1835 the church pledged itself to provide the full support for a foreign missionary in Jamaica and employed its own full-time city missionary. The Jamaica Mission was blessed to the founding of a church, which was at first supported by the Broughton Place church until a change in denominational policy brought it under the direct control of the Synod.
In 1832 Dr. Brown lost his father. The godly old minister rejoiced to see his son's ministry so blessed, and as Dr. Brown attended on his deathbed, the old man expressed his full assurance of eternal life in Christ.

ANother death in 1833 was to bring more changes in Dr. Brown's life, as we shall see, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XIX

The transition from Biggar to Edinburgh meant that there were more calls on John Brown's time, and he was unable to publish much during those years. Perhaps the best- known and most useful of the books that he did publish were not original but compilations from the works of others. One was The Christian Pastor's Manual, containing some of the best works on the pastoral task from Puritan writers, the other The Mourner's Friend, a book of comfort for the bereaved. The rest of his work in this period consisted of prefaces to republications of such works as Matthew Henry's Communicant's Companion and Henry Venn's Complete Duty of Man.
The great Apocrypha Controversy of 1828 moved Brown to write once more. The cause of the controvery was this: the British and Foreign Bible Society published and issued Bibles containing the Apocrypha for distribution in Roman Catholic countries. No doubt the intention was good - to remove prejudice against the Society's Bibles. After all, it was argued, the Apocrypha do not contain anything dangerous to true religion. The Articles of the Church of England recommend them for reading.
But here was the problem, particularly for Scots Presbyterians and English and Welsh Nonconformists. The Apocrypha are not inspired, therefore they ought not to be circulated as though they formed a part of the Sacred Volume. What was more, the Roman Catholics claimed to obtain such dogmas as Purgatory from the Apocryphal books. Arguably the Council of Trent had given the Apocrypha the status of Scripture as a direct claim to control over the Bible, and no true son of John Knox would ever yield to Rome in that.
So Edinburgh, the Scottish capital, was the centre of this dispute, and Brown was, as a member of the Edinburgh Society, involved in the controversy.
The whole Edinburgh Society agreed that the plan to publish the Apocrypha with the Bible was a very bad idea, and demanded that it should cease. The problem was, how was this to be done? Should the Continental societies that were responsible for circulating such Bibles be disbanded, or should they be retained? How should the London Committee responsible for allowing such actions apologise, and how far should they be trusted in the future?
Alas the controversy split the Edinburgh Society, although only after the London Committee had withdrawn the offending Bibles. John Brown went with the dissenters who stayed with the London Committee, and it was Brown who wrote the apologia for the group. The aim of his pamphlet was to plead that the British and Foreign Society was basically sound, that it was opposed to Publishing Bibles with the Apocrypha, and that it was worthy of public confidence.
Alas the sides remained apart. More importantly, the split had been along denominational lines, and it represented the beginning of division in Scottish Evangelicalism.

And, on the heels of this controversy, would come another move. Of which more, God willing, next time.

'This One Thing I Do.' John Brown of Broughton Place. - XVIII

John Brown came to Edinburgh cured of all oratorical tricks by his years in Biggar. What he gave the people was the simple Word of God, and that is why the books that grew out of his ministry are still read today.
The scholar was also a pastor, and he visited the people around his church. On some visits he took a copy of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress with him, from which he read aloud, and which he used as a means to preach the Gospel. During the summer he preached in the open air. We know that this is not always practical today, but surely we have enough parks and pedestrianised shopping streets in Britain today to form platforms for the preaching of the Word. If people will not come to our churches, we should go to the people. In the open air BRown preached like another Whitefield, showing men their sins and pointing to Christ as the only saviour for sinners.
John Brown let no day lie idle. He was always 'redeeming the time'. One day of the week would be given over to visiting the sick, a second to brief visits to members of the Church, follwed by an address to the visited families and the catechising of their children when they met in the evening at the Rose Street Session-house, and a third to teaching a large Bible-class of young women. For the rest, he had to prepare sermons and to study, while from 1834 to 1831 he was Clerk of the United Secession Presbytery of Edinburgh.
Of course the cause of missions remained dear to his heart, and as a pastor in the nation's capital he had a wide field in which to promote them. In those earlier days of missionary societies they took up a lot of a minister's time if he supported them, and Brown found that much of his time was eaten up by them. Yet it was not without profit, as it introduced him to other Evangelical ministers outside of his own comparatively small denomination, men like the Haldane brothers and the Church of Scotland evangelical leaders in Edinburgh.
Brown also managed to find time to teach a class on the Greek New Testament, and it was out of this that many of his commentaries grew. Among the members of this class were William Cunningham, later pincipal of New College, David Brown, whom readers of this blog will be familiar with, and John Brown Patterson. Students gathered around him weekly to read through the New Testament in Greek. Here was a preparation also for the time when the call would come to be Professor for his Church.
There were also meetings of more mature men. One was a society for the study of sacred geography, which was short lived. A longer-lived body was the Christian Economic Society, of which Thomas Chalmers was a member. Since Chalmers and Brown did not always agree, the drawing-room discussions of the society were extremely lively!

Next time, God willing, we shall consider some of Brown's literary work at Rose Street.