James Durham (1622-1658): And the Gospel Offer in its Seventeenth-Century Context 9783666550874, 9783525550878, 9783647550879

Citation preview

Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 31

Donald John MacLean

James Durham (1622 – 1658) And the Gospel Offer in its Seventeenth-Century Context

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55087-8 ISBN 978-3-647-55087-9 (E-book) Ó 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: CPI buchbuecher.de GmbH, Birkach Printed in Germany

Contents

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Chapter One: The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds . . . . William Ames (1576 – 1633) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Ball (1585 – 1640) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer” . . . . . . . . . . . . Scotland and the Free Offer before Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

19 21 37 40 43 56 61

Chapter Two: James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology James Durham’s Life and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durham’s Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durham’s Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durham’s Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

63 63 75 78 82 125

Chapter Three: James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel . . . Preaching and Covenant Theology : The Context of the Gospel Offer The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rejection of the Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objections to the Gospel Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

127 127 129 154 155 158 172

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

6

Contents

. . . . . .

173 174 178 197 214 228

. .

255

. . .

259

. . . .

. . . .

260 270 274 283

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

285

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

295

Index of proper names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313

Chapter Four : Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer . . . . . Contemporary Challenges to the Gospel Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Dickson (1583 – 1662) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durham, His Contemporaries, and the Confessional Doctrine of the Free Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Five: Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The New World, Old Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .

List of Abbreviations

Battles

CO CH CTJ CTS CNTC

DPWG DSCHT HTR KJV MAJT NKJV ODNB PTR SCJ SJT WCoF WTJ

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960). John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. (W. Baum et al. (ed.); 59 vols.; Braunschweig, 1863 – 1900) Church History Calvin Theological Journal John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries. 22 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by various. 12 vols. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Directory for the Public Worship of God in Westminster Confession of Faith & c. (Glasgow : Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 369 – 394 Nigel M. Cameron, et al. (eds.) Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993 Harvard Theological Review King James Version (KJV) Mid-America Journal of Theology New King James Version (NKJV), Copyright Ó 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) Cited 29 Oct 2007. Online http://www.oxforddnb.com. The Princeton Theological Review Sixteenth Century Journal Scottish Journal of Theology Westminster Confession of Faith in Westminster Confession of Faith & c. (Glasgow : Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 5 – 126. Westminster Theological Journal

Preface

There are a number of individuals whose support and encouragement deserve acknowledgment. The advice and guidance of the supervisors of my doctoral dissertation on which this work is based, Dr. Gwyn Davies and Dr. William Campbell, enhanced this work immeasurably. It was a pleasure being supervised by them. Particular thanks are due to my primary supervisor Dr. Davies for his warm fellowship and hospitality as well as his academic insight. Special gratitude is also due to my father, George F. MacLean. His theological insight and knowledge of Scottish church history have been an invaluable help. My mother, Mary MacLean, has also supported the work in many ways and has been a great source of encouragement. I also owe a particular debt to my wife Ruth, and my children, Hannah and Jonathan, who have made many sacrifices in support of this project, in particular giving up family time and holidays to see the dissertation, and now this revised study, through to completion. In this revision process the valuable feedback of the anonymous reviewers from V& R is gratefully acknowledged. The support of many other friends, too numerous to mention by name, is also heartily acknowledged. The work is dedicated to the memory of Nana, whom I shall see no more until the day breaks and the shadows flee away.

An sin tha iad ro-ait, air son Gu bheil iad s—mhach beý: ’S gu d’thug e iad do’n chaladh sin, ’S do’n phort bu mhiannach leo. Sailm 107:30

Introduction

The suspicion of God’s decree is daily fostered and augmented, and the afflicted person, not only doubteth of God’s good-will to him, but is tempted unto desperation: By this means the command of God to believe the promises and consolations of the Gospel, seem to him to be offered to him all in vain: the hope of success, or profiting in the use of the means appointed by God, is undermined, so long as this suspicion is entertained…1

David Dickson’s statement above demonstrates that the issue of the offer of the gospel, and its relation to other elements of Reformed theology, were matters of significant pastoral concern in the seventeenth century. The goodwill of God to all and the offer of the gospel were being questioned on the basis that they were inconsistent with the sovereignty of God. Dickson, and other seventeenth-century Reformed theologians, had to consider at the pastoral level the question of “How can this offer of grace to all the hearers of the Gospel … stand with the doctrine of election of some, and reprobation of others, or, with the doctrine of Christ’s redeeming of the Elect only, and not of all and every man?”2 However, the issue of the offer of the gospel was not confined to the pastoral level; it was a profoundly theological concern as well. The Remonstrant challenge to the Reformed orthodoxy of the early seventeenth century, as den Boer has highlighted, included the assertion that “Unconditional predestination and irresistible grace … leads infallibly to the supposition that God is hypocritical in his offer of grace…”3 Similar arguments against a particularist soteriology, founded on the offer of the gospel, persisted with significant seventeenth-century English theologians advancing materially similar arguments. Richard 1 David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 251. 2 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 120. For instance, Paul Archibald notes that “One of the major criticisms brought against the doctrine of limited atonement by opponents from the sixteenth century down to the present, is that it is inconsistent with the ‘free offer’ of the Gospel.” Paul Archibald, “A Comparative Study of John Calvin and Theodore Beza on the Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 210. 3 William den Boer, God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 250.

12

Introduction

Baxter argued that to have any propriety the command for all to believe on Christ presupposed that Christ died for all because “God doth not offer that which he cannot give … But God cannot give Pardon … to any sinful man for whom Christ never satisfied.”4 John Goodwin held that the offer of the gospel was fundamentally inconsistent with strict predestinarian thought and any attempt to combine the two “made God a liar.”5 This recurring issue is highlighted, from a critical perspective, by T.F. Torrance who, in expounding seventeenth-century Scottish theology, stated that “The rigidly contractual concept of God as lawgiver together with a necessitarian concept of immutable divine activity allied to a double predestination, with its inescapable implication of a doctrine of limited atonement, set the church with a serious problem as to its interpretation of biblical statements about the offer of the Gospel freely to all people.”6 Fundamentally, the consistent charge against the offer of the gospel in all of these examples is one of duplicity : Reformed theology entailed a God who “offers in the Gospel that which he has no intention of providing to the reprobate.”7 Despite the significance and persistence of the debates surrounding the offer of the gospel and Reformed theology, the scholarly attention given to this subject has been limited. The most relevant literature consists of two significant essays by Raymond Blacketer and R. Scott Clark. In these essays Blacketer and Clark have examined the history of Reformed thought on the offer of the gospel and reached radically differing conclusions.8 Blacketer’s position is that Reformed theology, while speaking of a universal proclamation and call of the gospel, never embraced a “universal, well-meant offer of salvation”.9 Indeed, to speak of “offers” in connection with gospel proclamation at all is problematic.10 Reviewing 4 Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind By the Lord Jesus Christ (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising-Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 104. 5 John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed: Wherein the Most Glorious Word of the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ is Vindicated against the Encroachments of Later Times (1651; repr., London: Thomas Tegg, 1840), 186. 6 Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996), 137. 7 Archibald, “Calvin and Beza,” 162. 8 Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation,” CTJ, 35:1 (April 2000): 37 – 65; R. Scott Clark, “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer, and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries (ed. David VanDrunen; Phillipsburg, NJ: P& R Publishing, 2004), 149 – 179. 9 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 39. 10 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 40. Certain Reformed theologians have undoubtedly denied the free offer of gospel. One example is John Gill, whom Robert Oliver identifies as teaching “That there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny ; nay, I deny that they are made to any ; no, not to God’s elect”. Robert W. Oliver, “John Gill (1697 – 1771): His Life and Ministry,” in Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697 – 1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation (New York: Brill, 1997), 28. See also the exhaustive study of Gill’s thought on the free offer of the gospel in Curt Daniels, “Hyper-

Introduction

13

largely the same primary literature, Scott Clark argues, in contrast to Blacketer, that classic Reformed theology clearly taught a “well-meant offer of the gospel”.11 Two substantial recent works which have supported the conclusions of Blacketer are Jonathan Moore’s study of John Preston and Patrick Baskwell’s study of Herman Hoeksema.12 Moore argues that any conception of the gospel offer which speaks of a will or desire of God for the salvation of all hearers of the gospel is inconsistent with “mainstream” Reformed thought and is to be regarded as a consequence of a denial of particular redemption.13 Baskwell has similarly supported the argument of Raymond Blacketer that to posit any wellmeant gospel offer to the non-elect is to abandon “the proper interpretation of the Reformed confessions”.14 However, other examinations of this subject have reached similar conclusions to Scott Clark. For instance, J. Mark Beach’s recent essay on John Calvin’s treatment of the free offer of the gospel concludes that Calvin spoke of “fatherly favour, paternal love … goodness and grace directed toward all people” in connection with the gospel offer.15 Additionally, a number of older works, in so far as they broach this issue similarly lend support to the views of Clark. A.C. De Jong, for instance, posits that the proper interpretation of Calvin, and Dort, is that they both teach a “well-meaning offer of salvation”.16 Curt Daniels’s study of hyper-Calvinism and John Gill touches on the offer of the gospel at several

11 12

13

14 15

16

Calvinism and John Gill” (Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh University, 1983). However, the question is: was this also the response of earlier Reformed theology to the “free offer question”? Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 165. Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Patrick Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema: A Theological Biography (Manassas, VA: Full Bible Publications: 2009). Baskwell’s work originated in his doctoral dissertation at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. The free offer of the gospel, while a significant element in both monographs, is not the main focus of either work. For one pertinent criticism of the historical readings of Moore’s work, see Hunter Bailey, “Via Media Alia: Reconsidering the Controversial Doctrine of Universal Redemption in the Theology of James Fraser of Brea (1639 – 1699)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2008), 71 – 72. Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema, 250. J. Mark Beach, “Calvin’s Treatment of the Offer of the Gospel and Divine Grace,” MAJT, 22 (2011): 75. Beach extends his analysis to other theologians, although focusing on the extent of grace rather than the gospel offer per se, in J. Mark. Beach, “The Idea of a ‘General Grace of God’ in Some Sixteenth-Century Reformed Theologians other than Calvin,” in Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma and Jason Zuidema. Eds. Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition (Leiden, Brill, 2013), 97 – 110. A.C. De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer : The Views of H. Hoeksema and K. Schilder (Franker: T. Wever, 1954), 130. See also Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994), 78.

14

Introduction

points, arguing throughout that Reformed theology taught a well-meant gospel offer.17 Given, then, this current state of disagreement, the time is ripe for a fresh examination of the free offer of the gospel in Reformed thought. This is particularly so given the lack of an academic work which focuses exclusively, or even mainly, on this issue.18 This volume, then, will seek to fill this lacuna by focusing on the historical question of whether Reformed theologians have taught a free offer of the gospel, and, if so, what they meant by that term and how they related it to the rest of their theological commitments. In particular, the focus will be on ascertaining the meaning of one of the most significant of the Reformed creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, when it spoke of this matter. The phrase “free offer” itself is drawn from the Westminster Confession 7:3 which states that: “the Lord … freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ (in quo peccatoribus offert gratuito vitam ac salutem per Jesum Christum)”.19 Both the terms “free” and “offer” raise a number of questions which will be investigated in this work. Regarding the term “free” it needs to be ascertained whether this entails an offer that is simply freely presented or is also free to accept. If it is free to accept, is this with a condition which the hearer is capable or incapable of fulfilling? Again, if freely presented is this presentation absolutely universal in its actual human reference, or simply to be indiscriminately preached? In view of these questions explicit consideration will be given to who James Durham, and others included in this study, define as the recipients of the gospel offer to determine if it is “free” in its extent.20 This consideration will be set in the context of their broader covenant theology, and soteriology, with specific attention to the conditional or unconditional nature of the covenant of grace and the inability of any to believe without an effectual call to determine the conditional or unconditional nature of the “offer”.21 17 Daniels, “John Gill,” 52 – 53, 364, 382 – 3, 398, 407 – 8, 438. Daniel’s dissertation differs from the other works cited in this section in arguing extensively that Calvin denied particular redemption. 18 The only work to cover the gospel offer in detail looked simply at the nineteenth-century American theologian James H. Thornwell, namely Craig A. Sheppard, “The Compatibility of the Doctrine of Election with the Free Offer of the Gospel in James Henley Thornwell” (M.Th. diss., Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, 1998). 19 Westminster Confession of Faith & c. (Glasgow : Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 42; G.D. Confessio Fidei in Conventu Theologorum Authoritate Parliamenti Anglicani indicto (Cambridge: Johannes Field, 1656), 21. 20 Specifically this is addressed in the sections of Chapters 3 & 4 below entitled “The Recipients of the Offer,” “The Warrant to Believe” and “Duty Faith”. 21 Specifically this is addressed in the sections of Chapters 3 & 4 below entitled “The Rejection of the Offer” and “Objections to the Gospel Offer” as well as in the sections discussing covenant theology.

Introduction

15

Again, as the brief survey of secondary literature above indicates, “offer” needs defined. Is the “offer” of the gospel a presentation of the truths of the gospel, or is it more akin to an offer as it would be understood today, that is, a proffering of the gospel. If it is an “offer” how does this relate to the divine intention? For instance, is the “offer” hypothetically effectual for all who hear, and made in the genuine expectation that all who hear might actually respond positively? With these questions in mind careful attention will be given to how Durham and his contemporaries defined offer, in order to illustrate in what manner they employed this term.22 The way in which Durham, and others, related the gospel offer to the will of God, and the explicit reasons they gave for a “free gospel offer,” will be considered to determine how they understood the gospel offer in relation to the divine purpose.23 As indicated in the preceding two paragraphs, the teaching of the Confession on these matters will be ascertained largely by means of a case study, examining the teaching and preaching of one of the most respected and representative theologians of the seventeenth century, James Durham. However, before presenting Durham’s life and theology, select aspects of Reformed thought up to and including the time of the Westminster Assembly will be surveyed. Following an examination of Durham’s views, other leading Reformed theologians from around the time of the Assembly will be considered to determine whether there was indeed a consensus Reformed view which could be expressed in the Westminster Confession.24 The study will then conclude by considering the on-going significance of seventeenth-century debates over the free offer of the gospel. Before proceeding, however, some explanation of the choice of James Durham as a representative case study is necessary. He has been chosen for several reasons: First, there is an abundance of material in his works which directly relates to the free offer of the gospel. His sixteen sermons on Isaiah 53:1 largely comprise a detailed consideration of this subject.25 A number of his sermons in The Unsearchable Riches of Christ also explicitly cover the same theme.26 As well as theological reflection and practical illustration of the free offer of the gospel in his sermons, Durham’s commentary on Revelation contains extended theo22 Specifically this is addressed in the sections of Chapters 3 & 4 below entitled “Defining ‘Offer’”. 23 Specifically this is addressed in the sections of Chapters 3 & 4 below entitled “The Offer and God’s Will and Desire,” “Common Grace” and “The Reasons for the Gospel Offer”. 24 Without necessarily entailing that other views are “unconfessional”. 25 James Durham, Christ Crucified: Or, the Marrow of the Gospel Evidently Holden Forth in LXXII Sermons, on the whole 53. Chapter of Isaiah (Edinburgh: Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson, 1683), 1 – 112. 26 E.g. James Durham, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ, And of Grace and Glory In and thorow Him (Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1685), 41 – 76 and Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 130 – 154.

16

Introduction

logical essays on themes related to this subject, for instance, the extent of the atonement.27 Second, Durham expressed his respect for the teaching of the Westminster Standards in connection with the free offer of the gospel. For instance, he commented that “Faith is … well express’d in the Catechism, to be a receiving of Christ as He is offered in the Gospel; this supposes that Christ is offered to us”.28 He evidently expected his congregation to have memorized the Shorter Catechism and spoke of it as “our excellent catechism”.29 Third, Durham was ordained in the year that the Scottish Church adopted the Westminster Confession. He is therefore a good example of how the Westminster Standards were received among the younger generation of theologians who entered a church which was in the process of adopting them. Fourth, Durham co-authored with David Dickson an early summary of the doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, entitled The Sum of Saving Knowledge or a Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, Contained in the Holy Scriptures, and Holden Forth in the Foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms; Together with the Practical Use Thereof.30 This document provides significant insight into the understanding of the Scottish Church of the Westminster Standards’ teaching on the free offer of the gospel. Indeed, Hodges has correctly noted that The Sum “served as a more or less official interpretation of the Westminster Standards.”31 As such it moulded the views of generations of Scottish ministers. Fifth, Durham explicitly set the free offer of the gospel within the framework of covenant theology. This provides a similar context for this subject to Westminster Confession 7:3, making Durham an ideal choice for examining how covenant theology interrelates with the free offer of the gospel in the Westminster Standards. Sixth, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Two, Durham was highly respected

27 James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation (Edinburgh: Christopher Higgins, 1658), 299 – 325. This provides a basis for a consideration of whether a strict particular redemptionist viewed the free offer of the gospel as a concession to universal redemption. 28 Durham, Christ Crucified, 23. See also 31, 82, 419, 446, 467, 474 and Unsearchable Riches, 282. 29 Durham, Christ Crucified, 73, 246, 452, 455, 482. 30 “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 321 – 43. 31 L.I. Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classical Scottish Theology, from John Knox to James Durham” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1975), 499 – 500. Additionally, Torrance argues that it “was long printed together with the Westminster Standards and associated with their authority.” Torrance, Scottish Theology, 112. See also Andrew McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997), 5; J. S, Morrill, ed., The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 48.

Introduction

17

by his contemporaries, including John Flavel and John Carstairs, especially with regard to his preaching of the free offer of the gospel. Seventh, Durham has been used by contemporary writers to expound the Standards in other areas. For instance, Jonathan Moore cites Durham as an example to illustrate the meaning of Westminster Confession 28:5, and Garnet Milne studies Durham’s theology as a help to ascertaining the position of the Westminster Assembly on prophecy.32 John T. McNeill also states more generally that “James Durham (d. 1658) may represent for us the theology of the seventeenth-century Scottish church.”33 Finally, it has been noted that the “secondary material on the theology of James Durham is not plentiful.”34 This statement of Holsteen’s is as true today as it was when he wrote it in 1996. In view of the significance of Durham in the development of Scottish theology, and in Reformed theology in general, this study will contribute to filling that void. James Durham is therefore a suitable case study to determine the meaning of the “free offer of the gospel” in Westminster Confession 7:3. Consideration will now be given to the development of the Reformed doctrine of the free offer of the gospel up to his day.

32 Jonathan D. Moore, “The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Sin of Neglecting Baptism,” WTJ 69:1, (Spring 2007): 76 – 77; G.H. Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 247 – 50. 33 John T. McNeill, “The Doctrine of the Ministry in Reformed Theology,” CH, 12:2 (June 1943): 93. 34 Nathan D. Holsteen, “The Popularization of Federal Theology : conscience and covenant in the theology of David Dickson (1583 – 1663) and James Durham (1622 – 1658).” (Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 1996), 220, fn. 1.

Chapter One: The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

Curt Daniels has stated that: “Reformed history shows that from earliest times the Free Offer was taught”.1 However, in view of the debates surrounding this topic, neither the statement that the free offer has been taught in historic Reformed theology, nor the understanding of what such a free offer entails are selfevident. This chapter, then, seeks to outline the historical development of the free offer of the gospel in seventeenth-century Reformed thought up to the Westminster Assembly. Before examining the history of the free offer in Reformed thought, it is important to highlight some theological distinctions which were common in Reformed theology, and which have a significant impact on the free offer. There are two related points to bear in mind. The first is the definition of two “kinds” of theology, namely theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa, that is, the distinction between theology as God knows it and theology as man know it.2 R. Scott Clark notes that “this distinction became the basis for Protestant theological method.”3 The effect of distinguishing between these two “kinds” of theology was to enable Reformed theologians to develop the “accommodated nature of God’s revelation: God reveals himself not as he is in his infinite majesty but in a form accessible to human beings.”4 This principle of accommodation is important in understanding the tensions inherent in the doctrine of the free offer articulated by Reformed theologians.5 1 Daniels, “Gill,” 515. 2 See Willem Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology : Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in seventeenth-century Reformed Thought,” WTJ 64:2 (2002), 319 – 35; Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725 (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:225 – 238; Willem J. Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (trans. Albert Gootjes; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 123 – 6. 3 Clark, “Janus,” 156. 4 Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:229. 5 Thus Van Asselt asserts that “the archetypa-ectypa distinction … was used to express an insight present in Reformed theology from the very beginning, namely, that finite and sinful

20

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

The second relates to the will of God, and the Reformed understanding of the twofold manner of apprehending the one will of God, that is, the division between the hidden will (voluntas arcane) and the revealed will (voluntas revelata), or, phrased differently, between the will of good pleasure (voluntas eudokias) and the will of approbation (voluntas euarestias).6 Richard Muller highlights the quandary for Reformed theology that led to the recognition of this distinction: “it is clear that God, according to his perceptive will, wills that all people be holy … [however] it can be inferred that the eternal, hidden will or decree of God is not that God will sanctify all people!”7 This distinction was used by Reformed theologians to argue that the contradiction highlighted by Muller is “apparent, not real”, because “it arises only when the revealed will is incorrectly paired with one aspect of the ultimate will of God”.8 G. Michael Thomas comments that “the two wills distinction, adapted from medieval scholastics, was taken for granted in Reformed theology.”9 The importance of this understanding of the will of God for the free offer of the gospel will emerge as specific theologians are considered. In outlining the development of the doctrine of the free offer, consideration will be given to the views of significant individual theologians in this period and also to the creeds of the Reformed churches.10 Constraints of space necessitate that this survey is limited to the seventeenth century. The survey begins by examining two early seventeenth-century creeds, the Irish Articles and the Canons of Dort. Following this, William Ames’ teaching on the gospel offer will be surveyed. Given his intimate connection with the Synod of Dort he serves as a link between Continental and British Reformed theology. Then, after summarising the position of John Ball, an influential figure in the mid-seventeenthcentury English Reformed theology, the Westminster Assembly’s doctrine of the

6 7 8

9 10

man is not capable of fully comprehending divine truth.” Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 125. This reflects the Reformed distinction between God revealed (Deus revelatus) and God hidden (Deus absconditus). Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:460. Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:461. Thus, for example, to state that God willed and did not will the salvation of all men did not entail a contradiction (although it might create a tension) in so far as will might be used in more than one sense. For the importance of the principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis) to Reformed theology see, Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 30. G.M. Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 166. The writings of individual theologians provide the context for the creeds, but not all the views of influential theologians find expression in the creeds. For example, W.G.T. Shedd argued, within the context of interpreting the Westminster Confession, that “the Westminster Confession must be held responsible for only what is declared on its pages. The question is not whether few or many of the members of the Assembly [held a particular view] … but whether the Confession so asserts”. W.G.T Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 69.

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

21

free offer will be outlined. Finally, the development of the free offer of the gospel in Scottish theology, particularly as seen in Robert Rollock,11 will be considered as it presents the most immediate context for the case study of James Durham.12

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds Two significant Reformed creeds written in the early seventeenth century will now be considered, namely the Irish Articles and the Synod of Dort.

Irish Articles (1615) The Irish Articles were an important early Anglican Confession, and are closely related to the documents produced by the Westminster Assembly. The significance of the relationship between the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith has often been noted. Philip Schaff commented that they “were the chief basis of the Westminster Confession”.13 B.B. Warfield similarly argued that the “most important proximate source … of the whole Confession was those Irish Articles of Religion which are believed to have been drawn up by Ussher’s hand, and which were adopted by the Irish Convocation in 1615.”14 More recently, Douglas Kelly has again made the same point.15 It is therefore 11 A more comprehensive discussion of the views of Durham’s contemporaries will be undertaken in Chapter Four. 12 Thus this Chapter considers what Richard Muller regards as the period of Early Orthodoxy (1565 – 1640), and into the beginning of High Orthodoxy (1640 – 1725). Chapters Two through Four focus solely on the period of High Orthodoxy. Chapter Five focuses on one controversy which overlaps the end of High Orthodoxy and the beginning of Late Orthodoxy (after 1725), namely the Marrow controversy, and two other controversies after the effective end of the dominance of Reformed Orthodox theology. 13 Schaff, Creeds, 1:665. 14 B.B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (vol. 6 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield; 10 vols.; 1932; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 169. The role of Ussher in the drafting of the Irish Articles has been challenged. See, for example Jonathan Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dort,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618 – 1619) (Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 164 – 5. 15 Douglas Kelly, “The Westminster Shorter Catechism,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the Westminster Assembly (ed. John L Carson and David W. Hall; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 107. Muller also comments that “Although written with a retrospective glance at the Thirty-nine Articles, the Westminster Confession most clearly echoes the order and contents of the Irish Articles.” Richard Muller, “Scripture and the Westminster Confession,” in Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (ed. Carl R. Trueman; Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward; New Jersey : P& R Publishing, 2007), 40 – 1.

22

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

relevant to consider the teaching of the Irish Articles on the free offer of the gospel. The first pertinent section of the Articles is Article 17: “We must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth unto us in holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.”16 This section employed the distinction between the hidden will (voluntas arcane) and the revealed will (voluntas revelata) outlined earlier in this chapter. The promises of the gospel, then, belonged to the revealed will. Thus the important distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa found expression in the creedal articulations of Reformed theology, insofar as any distinction in discussing the “one and simple” will of God necessarily implies an accommodated mode of speech. There were further incidental references to the free offer of the gospel. Article 36 exhorted its readers to “embrace the promise of God’s mercy”.17 Article 37 spoke of a “particular application of the gracious promises of the gospel” being the essence of justifying faith.18 Article 83 referred to the gospel “bringing joyful tidings unto mankind”.19 However, the clearest statement on the free offer of the gospel is found in Article 81, and is a direct quotation from the Thirty-nine Articles declaring that “everlasting life” is “offered to Mankind by Christ.”20

The Canons of the Synod of Dort (1619) The Synod of Dort was one of the most significant of the Reformed assemblies, drawing its delegates from across Europe.21 It formulated a response to the teaching of James Arminius, as represented by his followers in their Remonstrance.22 The outcome of the Synod of Dort was a reaffirmation of earlier 16 17 18 19 20 21

Article 17, in Schaff, Creeds, 3:529. Schaff, Creeds, 3:533. Schaff, Creeds, 3:533. Article 83, in Schaff, Creeds, 3:541. Article 81, in Schaff, Creeds, 3:540. Schaff noted that the Synod of Dort was “the only Synod of quasi-œcumenical character in the history of the Reformed Churches.” Schaff, Creeds, 1:514. The teaching of the Synod was highly regarded in Scotland, as Guy Richard notes: “Even to the end of the seventeenth century in Scotland these canons [of Dort] were acknowledged to be the quintessence of ‘Scripture Divinity, the Divinity of the Ancients, and the Divinity that right reason doth countenance.’” Guy Richard, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 15. 22 For a translation of the text of the Remonstrance, see Peter Y. De Jong, ed., Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618 – 1619 (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 207 – 209.

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

23

Reformed theology and a rejection of the views contained in the Remonstrance.23 Despite the polemic context of affirming a strict predestinarian system of theology, the Canons of Dort contain the fullest statements regarding the free offer of the gospel of any Confession prior to that of the Westminster Assembly. This is not surprising, since one of the key accusations of the Remonstrants was that predestinarian theology was inconsistent with the free offer of the gospel. For example, Arminius stated that, if redemption was not purchased for all, “faith in Christ is, by no right, required of all, and if it was not obtained for all, no one can be rightly blamed, on account of rejecting the offer of redemption, for he rejects that which does not belong to him, and he does it with propriety.”24 The delegates at the Synod were aware of this charge with the British delegation complaining of the Remonstrants’ “odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical Promises”.25 In the face of these Remonstrant objections David Lachman asserts that the Synod of Dort “taught a full and free

23 Of course the final Canons represented “a laborious theological compromise worked out between the various Calvinist traditions represented at Dort, and not simply the triumph of the most rigid forms of Dutch Contra-Remonstrant thought”. Nicolas Fornerod, “‘The Canons of the Synod Had Shot Off the Advocate’s Head’ A Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dordt” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (Goudriaan and van Lieburg, eds.), 183. 24 James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius (ed. and trans. James Nichols and W.R. Bagnall; 3 vols.; Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853), 3:458. Compare also den Boer, God’s Twofold Love, 234, 250; William Den Boer, “Defence or Deviation? A Re-examination of Arminius’s Motives to Deviate from the ‘Mainstream’ Reformed Theology,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (Goudriaan and van Lieburg, eds.), 30 fn. 28; Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: A Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 78, 115. For other recent surveys of the theology of Arminius, see Richard Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Keith D. Stanglin, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603 – 1609 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); W. Stephen Gunter, Arminius and His Decleration of Sentiments: Am Annotated Translation With Introduction and Theological Commentary (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012); Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 22 – 38. 25 Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 217. Sinnema highlights a number of these challenges. To give one example, at the Gelderland Synod in 1618 the Contra-Remonstrants were accused of teaching that God “invites” the reprobate to “be converted and believe in Christ” but that this was only to “harden and punish them” and yet “the reprobates” were called to “acknowledge this call and invitation of the Lord … as an act of grace and mercy for which they are obliged to thank him.” Donald Sinnema, “The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618 – 19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine” (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 1985), 189. What is interesting is that the Remonstrants clearly saw the Conrta-Remonstrants as viewing the gospel call as an “invitation”.

24

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

gospel offer to all men.”26 The following examination of the canons supports Lachman’s contention.27 The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel The Synod’s teaching on the free offer may be considered in three distinct points: the existence of a free offer, its sincerity, and its extent. It should also be considered against the background of Remonstrant claims that the sovereignty of God “makes God responsible for man’s sin, leaves no room for moral responsibility, and makes a mockery of gospel preaching.”28 The Canons of Dort use language which indicates the existence of an offer of the gospel, speaking of “Christ offered (oblato) by the gospel”.29 They held that the offer of the gospel was a mercy, noting that “God mercifully (clementer) sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom he will, and at what time he pleaseth.”30 The Synod further held that this “offer” was a divine and not merely a human activity, and spoke of “God, who calls men by the gospel (Deo per Evangelium vocante)”.31 In view of Dort’s commitment to an absolute divine decree concerning the 26 David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718 – 1723 (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), 11. Lachman, contrasting Dort with the Westminster Assembly, notes that while both taught a “gospel offer to the reprobate” it was Dort that “placed the greater emphasis on the gospel offer, both in asserting it with vigour and in proclaiming its universal extent.” Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 36. An examination of the two creeds will show that, if anything, the opposite is the case. 27 For studies on Dort, and aspects of its theology, see William Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, Reduced to the Practice (Amsterdam: Successors to G. Thorp, 1631); Thomas Scott, The Articles of the Synod of Dort, (New York: William Williams, 1831); De Jong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches; Sinnema, “Reprobation at Dort”; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 175 – 202; Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 128 – 159; Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort; Goudriaan and Lieburg, Revisiting the Synod of Dort; H.D. Foster, “Liberal Calvinism: The remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618,” HTR, 16:1 (1923): 1 – 37; Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570 – 1623,” Past and Present 114 (Feb. 1987): 51 – 64; S. Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement at the Synod of Dort,” WTJ, 51:1, (Spring 1989): 1 – 23; W.R. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism: the debate on the atonement at the Synod of Dort” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974); Anthony Hoekema, “Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort,” CTJ 7:2, (November 1972): 209 – 220. 28 Peter de Yong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 130. 29 Article 3/4:9 in Schaff in Creeds, 3:566 (English 3:589). “Offer” is also used by Scott, Articles, 107 and Anthony Hoekema in “A New English Translation of the Canons of Dort,” CTJ, 3:2 (November 1968): 150. Some translations use the term “invitation” in Article 3/4:8 and Article 3/4:9 E.g. Scott, Articles, 107; Schaff, Creeds, 3:589. The translation by Hoekema does not use “invitation” at all but rather “call”. Hoekema, “New English Translation,” 150 – 1. Hoekema’s translation is to be preferred in this instance. 30 Article 1:3, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:552 (English 3:581). 31 Article 3/4:9, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:566 (English 3:589).

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

25

salvation of individuals, this naturally raised the question of God’s sincerity in the gospel offer. As well as confessing that there was a gospel “offer”, the Synod taught that God was sincere in offering the gospel, even to those who persisted in rejecting it. The first point Dort made in propounding a sincere offer was that, even though “many who are called (vocati) by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered (oblatæ) by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.”32 This was reiterated later in the Canons, where again it was stated that, though all who hear the gospel were not converted, “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor in Christ offered (oblato) therein, nor of God, who calls (vocante) men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts; that those who are called (vocatis) by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.”33 Thus, the overarching commitment to sovereign predestination did not prevent the Synod from locating the responsibility for unbelief in the unbeliever rather than in the divine decree. The sincere nature of the gospel offer was also explicitly stated: “As many as are called (vocantur) by the gospel, are unfeignedly called (serio vocantur); for God hath most earnestly and truly (Serio enim et verissime) declared in his Word what will be acceptable to him, namely, that all who are called should comply with the invitation (vocati, or call). He, moreover, seriously (serio) promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him.”34 Finally, the Synod did not place a restriction on the extent of the gospel offer, noting that “the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life”, and that this “promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and all persons, promiscuously and without distinction (promiscue et indiscriminatim), to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.”35 Thus the Canons of Dort taught an offer of the gospel that was universal in extent (“free”) and sincere and well-meant in nature. This is not to say that Dort embraced the free offer without any controversy. Michael Thomas notes that two of the deputations to Dort denied that “the benefits accrued by Christ’s death are offered to each and all to whom they are preached.”36 It is apparent from the clear 32 Article 2:6, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:562 (English 3:586). 33 Article 3/4:9, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:566 (English 3:589). 34 Article 3/4:8, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:565 – 6 (English 3:589). Hoekema constantly translates serio as “earnestly.” Hoekema, “New English Translation,” 150 – 1. Schaff, as above, translates it variously as “unfeignedly”, “seriously” and “earnestly.” Schaff, Creeds, 3:589. 35 Article 2:5, in Schaff in Creeds, 3:561 (English 3:586). 36 Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 149. This undoubtedly gave some credence to Arminian claims that the free offer and predestinarian theology are inconsistent.

26

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

wording of the final Canons, however, that this position was not reflective of the majority position at Dort.37 Through British Eyes A further significant insight into the teaching of the Canons on the gospel offer can be gained from a comparison of position of the British delegation at Dort to the final wording of the Canons.38 The stance of the British delegation in ultimately arguing for a form of hypothetic universalism with regard to the extent of the atonement, and their influence on the final form of the Canons, is well known.39 What has been given less attention is the similarity of the language in the British Collegiate Suffrage on the free offer of the gospel to the language used in the Canons. In responding to the second head of doctrine (Of The Death of Christ and the Redemption of Men thereby) the Collegiate Suffrage related the gospel offer to every individual who heard the preaching of the gospel, stating that all were “truly and seriously (vere & serio)” called to “participate in remission of sinnes, and eternal life”.40 The British delegation was particularly at pains to insist there was “nothing false, nothing colourably feigned (nihil falsum aut simulatum subest)” in the gospel, rather everything “offered or promised (offertur aut promittitur)” by the minister of the gospel was also “offered & promised (offertur & promittitur)” by “the Author of the Gospell (autore Evangelii)”.41 The next mention of the gospel offer was to affirm that in the Church “salvation is 37 This, then is supportive of the contention of Milton that “the canons represent a careful and judicious compromise, often surprisingly moderate in their doctrinal formulations.” Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, xliii. 38 See, in particular, Acta Synodi Nationalis Dortrechti habitae anno 1618 et 1619 (Dordrechti, 1620), 2:78 – 83, 2:117 – 136 for the British submission on Second, Third and Fourth articles. These are the most relevant for the free offer of the gospel. The entire collegiate suffrage of the British delegates was separately published as George Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale Theologorum Magnæ Britanniæ de Quinque Contro versis Remonstrantium Articulis (London: R. Young, 1626) and translated as George Carelton et al. The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, Concernign the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries (London: Robert Milbourne, 1629). 39 See, for example Jonathan D. Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (ed. Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 144 – 8; Lee Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her : Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective (ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson; Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 155 – 157; Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church,” 57. 40 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 28; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 46. 41 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 28; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 46 – 47.

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

27

offered (offertur) to all” and that this was accompanied with “an administration of grace (administratio gratiæ)” which was “sufficient (sufficit)” to evidence that it was through “voluntary default” that unbelievers perished and “came short of the benefit offered (oblatum) unto them.”42 In their comments on the third and fourth heads of doctrine (Of the Corruption of Man, his Conversion to God, and the Manner thereof) the British delegation insisted that it could be said of all who heard the Word of God that “those doth he truly and seriously call and invite (serio vocat, & invitat) to faith and conversion.”43 Thus gospel “offer (oblati)” was to be understood from its “nature (natura)” and not from its “abuse, or the event (ex abusu, aut eventu).”44 The nature of the gospel was a “call” to “repentance and salvation” which was often accompanied by the “incitements of divine grace (gratiæ)”. There was nothing “feigned (simulate)” in the gospel offer, as was evident from 2 Cor. 5:20, 2 Cor. 6:1, Gal. 1:6, Rev. 3:20.45 Indeed, if “God should not seriously invite (serio invitaret) all” God would be going about to “deceive many (falleret)” and preachers would be guilty of “false witness (falso perhibiti)”.46 Indeed if the gospel call was not serious it could not leave the hearers of the gospel “unexcusable” for that “which is only exhibited (exhibetur) to this end to make them unexcusable” cannot in reality fulfil that function.47 There is nothing in the Canons contrary to the teaching of the British delegation on the nature of the gospel offer (leaving to one side its relation to the extent of the atonement). Indeed there is much that is positively taught by the Canons. The language of the universal gospel “promise” in Article 2:5 reflects British teaching.48 The British contention that the gospel call and offer was 42 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 29 – 30; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 49. On grace extending beyond the elect, Hughes comments “While the orthodox are emphatic that ‘speciall graces’ are given only to the elect, many of the non elect do receive temporary graces. These ‘initial’, ‘exciting’ or ‘enticing’ graces arise from the preaching of the word and the genuine offering of the gospel.” Se‚n F. Hughes, “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’: English theologies of predestination c. 1580 – 1630” in Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson by his Students (ed. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger ; Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 246. 43 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 43; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 71. 44 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 43; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 71. 45 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 43; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 71 – 72. “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.”; “We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.”; “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel”; “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”(NKJV.) 46 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 43; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 72. 47 Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale, 43; Carelton et al. Collegiat Suffrage, 72. 48 Compare the statement of Lee Gatiss that “British concerns probably did lie behind the

28

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

“serious” is explicitly reflected in Article 3/4:8.49 The fact that the gospel call proceeded from God as well as the preacher is taught in Article 3/4:9. The language of “offer” is used in Article 3/4:9. The fact that the gospel call and offer was described in Article 3/4:9 as being accompanied by other “various gifts (dona etiam varia)” again echoes the British submission. Still further, the insistence that the “fault (culpa)” of unbelievers lies “in themselves” rather than in Christ or in the gospel is another refrain from the British submission echoed in Article 3/4:9. Thus while not everything from the British Collegiate Suffrage finds a place in the Canons (for instance there is no explicit use of “invitation”) there is sufficient overlap to conclude that the final teachings of Dort are conducive to a well meant gospel offer.50 Further light on the understanding of Dort in Britain can be gained from references to Dort’s teaching on the free offer. A full survey of the reception of Dort in England is beyond the scope of the chapter. However, consideration will be given to a select number of references to the teaching of Dort on the free offer of the gospel. This will reveal how leading Divines understood its teaching on the gospel offer. Ezekiel Culverwell has featured largely in recent surveys which have touched on English thought on the extent of the atonement.51 Culverwell is generally taken as a “hypothetic universalist” in these works.52 However, what is of concern here is his teaching on the gospel offer.53 Culverwell maintained that “Christ and

49

50 51

52

53

statement of the gospel promise in Article II.5” Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement,” in From Heaven He Came (ed. Gibson and Gibson), 157. A rejection of hypothetic universalism was no barrier to being “equally insistent that the Gospel could be preached sincerely to all human beings.” Hughes, “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’: English theologies of predestination” in Belief and Practice in Reformation England (ed. Wabuda and Litzenberger), 245. At the very least they are not inimical to it. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 175 – 6, 183 – 84 fn. 56; Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 52 – 57; David Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth Century England,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560 – 1660 (ed. Peter Lake and Michael Questier; Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000), 67 – 74; Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 25 – 26. The exception to this statement is Lachman. See, Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 25. While it is worth noting that Culverwell claimed he had not taught on the extent of redemption in his published writings the evidence that he held to some form of hypothetic universalism seems broadly compelling. Como sees Culverwell’s teaching of an “offer of salvation” that was “in some sense universal” as somehow novel. Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy,” 67. However “controversial” his position on the atonement, on the gospel offer, Culverwell was not saying anything that could not be found in Calvin, or, as will be seen, in the doyen of Scottish Reformed Orthodoxy, Robert Rollock. Indeed, Culverwell’s relation of faith to the gospel offer is almost exactly that of the later Westminster Shorter Catechism. Culverwell stated that “Justifying Faith is a belief of the Gospell, whereby I receive Christ offered unto me in the same.” Ezekiel Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith (1623; repr., London: Printed by J.D. for

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

29

all his benefits for our justification, sanctification, and full glorification is … offered … how can it but be welcome news to hear that there are such things prepared and offered”.54 He taught that “God … freely offers this great benefit of Christ, and all his merites … to all without exception, to whom the Gospell commeth”.55 Utilising Ezek. 33:11 and 2 Pet. 3:9 Culverwell linked the gospel offer to God’s “revealed and approving will” and not his “determining will”.56 At the end of his treatment of the gospel offer Culverwell stated his firm commitment to the inability of any to respond to the gospel offer without the efficacious work of God’s Spirit.57 Despite the relatively uncontroversial nature of his teaching on the gospel offer, Culverwell’s work came under criticism, to which he responded in A Briefe Answer to Certain Objections against the Treatise of Faith.58 One question he faced was “Whether Salvation in Christ, bee in the

54 55 56

57 58

H. Overton, 1648), 13. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states “Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.” Shorter Catechism Q& A 86, in Westminster Confession, 310. Thus, if Culverwell’s position on the gospel offer was heterodox, it soon came to sound much like confessional orthodoxy. Culverwell, ATreatise of Faith, 28. This is very similar to the language used by James Durham, as will be seen later. Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith, 29. Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith, 36. “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’”; “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (NKJV.) Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith, 44. Ezekiel Culverwell, A Briefe Answer to Certain Objections against the Treatise of Faith (1626; repr., London: John Dawson, 1646). “Uncontroversial” because, for instance, it is not clear that Culverwell is going beyond the position of William Perkins. Perkins stated that “the calling of God is twofold. The first is generall, when God calles a whole Nation, kingdome, and countrie, that is when hee offers them salvation in the meanes; as when hee sends his word amongst them, affordes them then the Sacraments … by these meanes the Lord generally calleth men, offering, but often not giving grace offered, in great judgment turning away from a forward people.” This general calling and “offer” was in distinction from “speciall” calling where “grace is not only offered, but given also”. William Perkins, A Godlie and Learned Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude (London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Thomas Man, 1606), 5. Perkins also held that it was God’s revealed will that all who receive the gospel offer should accept it. He stated that God “wills the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approoves it as a good thing in itselfe: in that he commands it, and exhorts men to it: in that he gives them all outward meanes of their conversion.” However, God also (and ultimately) “wills it not, in that he did not decree effectually to worke their conversion.” William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace, And Mans Free Will (Cambridge: Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Universitie of Cambridge, 1601), 44 – 45. Compare also Perkin’s exposition of Rev. 3:20 where he states that this verse teaches Christ has “a hearty desire of their conversion, which hee earnestly seeketh”. This “desire” was capable of being rejected as “the Jews [of Christ’s day] … regarded not when God sent his owne Sonne from his bosome to knocke at the doore of their hearts”. Indeed, Christ gave to all in the visible church a “conditional promise” that any who came to him would receive “mutual communion and

30

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

Gospel, proclaimed and offered in general to all that hear it, or onely to the Elect?”59 Culverwell believed that “by most evident Scriptures” salvation was offered to all who heard the gospel.60 This position he held would be approved by “the Learned” and was indeed the position of “Orthodox defenders of the truth, both ancient and modern.”61 However, what is most pertinent is Culverwell’s assertion that he was simply echoing the teaching of “that famous Synod at Dort, wherein were assembled a great number of Learned Divines, out of the Reformed Churches.”62 He cited in full Articles 2:5 and 2:6, stating that this “shall suffice for my defence in this point.”63 Culverwell also insisted that when he spoke of “enlarge[ing] Christs Merits to all” he was speaking “of the Office only or proclaiming them to all”.64 He defined “offer” as “the outward Calling be the Gospel” which Culverwell thought “none can deny to belong to many that are not chosen.”65 He also referred to the teachings of the Synod of Dort on the question of “universal redemption” stating that he was able to “give my full consent to the Synod of Dort.”66 His treatise on faith had “purposely avoided that question” and he denied “from my heart” that “every man is actually reconciled by Christ” and affirmed that “none have any benefit by Christ but Beleevers and their Seed”.67 Thus any phrases of his such as “God hath made a deede of gift, and grant of Christ to mankinde … excepting none” were to be taken “of Gods dispensation of his mind in and by the Gospel” rather than any decree.68 Culverwell additionally spoke of the gospel as a “conditional” promise to all hearers but an “absolute” promise to the elect, in whom God fulfilled the condition.69 Culverwell then,

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

fellowship with Christ.” Thus within the Church is a universal proclamation of a universal but conditional promise. William Perkins, A Godly and Leearned Exposition or Commentarie upon the three first chapters of the Revelation (London : Printed by Adam Islip for Cuthbert Burbie, 1607), 207 – 211. It is important to remember that, for Perkins, the Church, as cited above, extended to the “whole Nation, kingdome, and countrie”. None of this, however, is to question Perkin’s starkly particularistic supralapsarian theology, as documented, for example, in Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 30 – 47. However, this particularism is not inconsistent with the notion of gospel “offers” of salvation. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 3. (The work is not paginated. References begin at 1 from the first page of text.) Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 4. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 4. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 4. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 6. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 7. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 7. Culverwell relies on Calvin to deny that “world” in John 3:16 can be restricted to the “elect”. In this he differs from many of his particularist contemporaries. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 9. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 15. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 14. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 15 – 16. Culverwell, A Brief Answer, 17 – 18.

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

31

provides clear evidence that Dort was taken by leading English divines to confess a doctrine of a sincere gospel offer. Further interesting references to Dort and the gospel offer are found in the writings of the Westminster divine William Twisse.70 In his The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort Twisse was willing to speak of “God exhorting a man to faith,” which general exhortation was resistible, in that “we confesse, that the grace of suasion and exhortation, though it be made by God, yet may it be rejected by man”.71 This exhortation was equivalent to an offer, for “men are called upon to believe, and promised, that upon theire faith, they shall obteyne … remission of sinnes, & salvation; and these graces may be sayde to be offered unto all, upon condition of faith”.72 That Twisse, as a contemporary of Dort and prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, used the English word “offer” to summarise the teaching of the Synod is a link between Dort’s use of “offer” and the Westminster Confession’s use of “offer”. It is also important to note that Twisse saw a conditional promise to all in the gospel, and described the common exhortations of the gospel as “grace”.73 Further, Twisse spoke of the preaching of the gospel as 70 William Twisse is well known as a supralapsarian, defining, as he did, the object of predestination as massa nondum condita. See, for example, William Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, Clearing certaine Doubts Concerning Predestination together with an Examination Thereof (London: Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646), 41. There Twisse also argues that Dort did not condemn supralapsarianism. Conversely, it is generally accepted that Twisse was also in some sense a hypothetic universalist. This is, for instance, acknowledged by Jonathan Moore in Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement” in Drawn into Controversie, 129 – 30 fn. 22; John Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 195 – 6. Twisse tied his hypothetic universalism to the teaching of Dort, stating that “we may be bold to say, that Christ in some sense dyed for all and every one, that is, he dyed to procure remission of sinnes, and salvation unto all and everyone in case they believe; and as this is true, so may we well say, and the Councell of Dort might well say ; that every one who heares the Gospell is bound to believe that Christ dyed for him in this sense, namely, to obtayne salvation for him in case he believe.” Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 165. See also, Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 144, 152, 170. However, he clearly stated that “Christ made satisfaction for Gods elect, and not of Reprobates.” Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 254. Twisse, deeply respected though he was, cannot be regarded as a universally orthodox figure, to be contrasted to “controversial” figures like Culverwell, as for example in Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy (ed. Lake and Questier), 64 – 87. Allan Strange states that “If Twisse was extreme in any direction, he was a hyper-Calvinst”. Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly” in Drawn into Controversie, 40 fn. 31. Robert McKelvey notes that the position of Twisse on eternal justification was condemned by the Westminster Assembly. Robert J. McKelvey, “‘That Error and Pillar of Antinomianism’: Eternal Justification” in Drawn into Controversie, 242. 71 Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 26. 72 Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 28. See also Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 227. 73 Thus the reprobate are ultimately dammed for “not harkening to his [God’s] gracious admonitions”. Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 122. C.f. also, Twisse, A Treatise of

32

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

“entreating, obtesting, beseeching”.74 Here was no simple proclamation, or mere presentation, indeed “God’s ministers” should “invite all” to come to Christ.75 Twisse was also willing to accept that, in certain senses, God willed all to be saved.76 Thus he was content to speak of a voluntas conditionata, of which it could be said, “God will have all to be saved, to witt, in case they beleeve.”77 He also stated that because God commands all to repent, “consequently, hee may be said, by his revealed will to will the salvation of all.”78 Thus, while there are undoubted differences of emphases in the writings of Twisse and Culverwell, and ultimately differences in certain areas of theology, both are amenable to the language of gospel “offers” and to speak of the revealed will as expressing that God “wills the salvation of all”. One final reference to the teaching of Dort considered here is found in the writings of Westminster Divine Anthony Burgess. In his Vindiciae Legis Burgess considered the teachings of the “English Divines in the Synod of Dort”.79 He noted that they held that God “had a serious will of saving all men, but not an efficacious will of saving all”.80 Thus their teaching was to be distinguished from Arminians on the one hand and from “some” Reformed theologians.81 For Burgess, if “serious will” was to be understood as “will of approbation and complacency, yea and efficiency in some sense” then he had “no question” but that the statement of the British delegation of Dort was true.82 Burgess offers further clear evidence of how Dort, and specifically the teaching of the British delegation, was received in England. In

74 75 76 77 78

79

80 81 82

Mr Cottons, 70. Twiss also insisted that “who ever said, that God offered means of salvation to any to this end, that hee might harden them? … Hardening follows hereupon by accident; but means of grace harden not.” Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 75. This is not to deny that God’s ultimate purpose of “offering the means of grace to many” is to harden them, but this is not the nature of the means of grace themselves. Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 75 – 77. Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 55. Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 56. This is the position of McKelvey, outlined in Robert J. McKelvey, “That Error and Pillar of Antinomianism” in Drawn into Controversie, 250. Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort, 61. Twisse, though, denied this was the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:4. There was, furthermore, no proper sense in which any could impute a conditional will to God. See, e. g. Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 247. Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 60. See also Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 227. However, Twisse is adamant that God does not will the salvation of the all, nor desire it, with reference to his secret will, or will of decree which is he “proper” or ultimate will. See, e. g. Twisse, A Treatise of Mr Cottons, 59 – 62, 79, 98 – 99, 102 – 109, 208, 227, 233. Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis: or, a vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of the papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians (London: James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1647), 107. I am indebted to Dr. Daniel Ritchie for initially directing me to this passage. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 107. William Twisse would be an example of such a Reformed theologian. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 108. This is not, of course, to imply that this was Burgess complete understanding of what the British delegation taught, or that he gave his approval to their teaching, but to show in what sense he could accept their language.

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

33

particular he provides further support to see Dort as compatible with gospel offers, and a revealed will that all be saved. Secondary Scholarship on Dort and the Free Offer A recent study of the teaching of Dort on the subject of the free offer of the gospel has reached a radically different conclusion from that outlined above. In his discussion of Dort’s understanding of the gospel offer, Raymond Blacketer draws a sharp distinction between an “offer” and a “call”, and argues that Dort teaches a universal call but denies a universal offer.83 Specifically, Blacketer argues that the Latin word oblato should not be translated as “offer” but as “present” or “exhibit” in accordance with sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed usage.84 Blacketer is particularly at pains to demonstrate that Dort denied that God, in any sense, desires the salvation of all men, or that there is a sincere and wellmeant invitation and offer in the gospel. For instance, in considering the teaching of Article 3/4:8 he argues that, when Dort stated that “seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him”, this should be interpreted as meaning that “The call is serious in that it truly reveals what the duty of sinful humanity is, namely, repentance and faith in God.”85 This is undoubtedly true, and important, as are Blacketer’s comments relating this teaching to the revealed will of God. However, 3/4:8 talks not simply about the duty of man, but about what is in itself “pleasing” to God, and about the very nature of the call to those who will ultimately reject the gospel (as Article 3/4:9 makes clear some will). Blacketer discusses two theologians in detail in an attempt to demonstrate that his interpretation of Dort is correct. In doing so, it seems that there is an equation of “offer” with “intention”, so that if an author says that God does not intend to save all men, it can be taken as an indication that the individual in question denies that God offers salvation to all men.86 Further, Blacketer appears to assume that anyone who held to particular redemption must of necessity deny that the gospel contained an offer: “how can Christ be offered to the reprobate, when in fact he has not been offered for them?”87 That is a significant theological

83 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 40. 84 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 44 – 45. For a critique of this understanding, see Daniels, “John Gill,” 52 – 53, 382 – 3, 397 – 8. 85 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 43. 86 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 56. 87 Blacketer, “Three Points,” 57. This, as noted above, was the very reasoning of Arminius.

34

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

question, but as a dogmatic assertion it should not be used to derive an a priori assumption regarding what historical figures can and cannot say.88 The two figures whom Blacketer discusses in an effort to determine the meaning of Dort are John Calvin and Francis Turretin (1623 – 87). Blacketer’s reading of Calvin is beyond the scope of this work.89 However, his consideration of Turretin merits review. He argues that Francis Turretin denied both that the gospel is an offer and that God desired in any sense the salvation of all men. Much of Blacketer’s survey is helpful, for instance his clear articulation of Turretin’s views that God does not “intend” the salvation of the reprobate.90 However, more could be said. For instance, Turretin is quoted as follows: “It is one thing to will reprobates to come, i. e. to command them to come … another to will that they should not come, i. e. not to will to give men the power to come.”91 In this quotation four words are omitted from the Giger translation, namely “and to desire it”.92 So that the full quotation runs as follows: “It is one thing to will reprobates to come, i. e. to command them to come and to desire it (et hoc gratum habere)”. Whilst the merits of the Giger translation are open to discussion, in a survey of whether it is possible to speak of Turretin in any sense articulating that God desired the salvation of all men his use of gratum and Giger’s translation need explicit attention. Turretin’s language in expounding Matthew 22:1 – 14 also deserves consideration: “The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1 – 14) teaches that the king wills (i. e., commands and desires (et gratum habere)) the invited (invitati) to come and that this is their duty ; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come.”93 Turretin’s statement here indicates that the gospel can be understood as an “invitation” and that, at the very least, acceptance of the invitation is pleasing to God. Even more pertinently, in directly expounding the Canons of Dort Turretin states that God “wishes” all to be saved. After commenting that “we willingly 88 There is a danger of answering J.I. Packer’s question, “If the doctrines of total inability, unconditional election and effectual calling are true … Are we indeed entitled to make a ‘free offer’ of Christ to sinners at all?” in the negative, and then to proceed to demonstrate a theologian held to total inability, unconditional election and effectual calling and take this as ipso facto evidence they did not hold to a gospel offer. See J.I. Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” How Shall they Hear? (Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1959), 13. 89 For an alternative, and more persuasive, reading of Calvin, see Beach, “Calvin’s Treatment of the Offer of the Gospel and Divine Grace,” 55 – 76. 90 Blaketer, “Three Points”, 59. 91 Blaketer, “Three Points”, 62, citing Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (ed. James T. Dennison Jr.; trans. George Musgrave Giger ; 3 vols.; Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 1992) 2:507 (15.2.16), and in Latin, Francis Turretin, InstitutioTheologiæ Elencticæ (3 vols.; Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847) 2:446. 92 The full Latin is, however, given in the footnote. 93 Turretin, Institutes, 2:509 (15.2.21); Institutio, 2:448 [emphasis added].

The Free Offer in Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Creeds

35

subscribe to the Synod of Dort, which determines that ‘God sincerely and most truly shows in his word, what is pleasing (gratum) to him; namely, that they who are called should come to him’”, he argues that Dort was speaking of “the will of approbation (euarestias), but not of the will of good pleasure (eudokias)”. According to Turretin, therefore, Dort taught that the free offer expressed what “God wishes (vult) to be done by us” but not “what he wills (vult) to do for the salvation of men and of the decree … (which everyone sees belongs to the will of good pleasure [eudokias] and not to that of approbation [euarestias]).”94 Thus there is a sense in which Turretin can say that God “wishes” all men to accept the gospel offer while not intending that they would actually be saved.95 Clearly this needs to be explicated carefully to harmonise with Turretin’s wider theological commitments, and this is not to detract from Blacketer’s contention that, for Turretin, ultimately God wills the salvation of only the elect. However, it is to suggest that in outlining Turretin’s position the breadth of his language regarding the volunta revelata needs to be more fully explored. Blacketer’s reading of Dort is not the only one represented in the secondary literature. Anthony Hoekema’s article, “The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort” presents a different reading of the Canons.96 Hoekema’s key comments come in the context of his discussion of 3/4:8 of the Canons which, he notes, discusses the “well-meant gospel offer”.97 He considers it significant that the Canons use serio vocat to describe the gospel offer in 3/4:8, as at this point they were echoing the language of the Remonstrants in their Sententiae Remonstrantium: “The Remonstrants were here saying: We believe that when God calls anyone to salvation he seriously and sincerely desires that such a person should be saved. In response to this statement, the Synod of Dort said in effect: On this point we have no argument; we agree with you one hundred percent. And thus it happened that the very words of one of the Arminian documents became part of the Canons of Dort!”98 He also argues that the Latin gratum in this section has often been weakly translated, and that it indicates that “the salvation of sinners in response to the gospel call is not just something mildly acceptable to God (suggesting, perhaps, that God isn’t too happy about this turn of events, but 94 Turretin, Institutes, 1:354 (4.17.8) ; Institutio, 1:448 [emphasis added]. 95 Turretin also held that, among other reasons, the gospel offer to the reprobate arose from “the goodness and grace of a Lord (bonitate et gratia Domini) who does not cease to bless the creature (although unworthy and guilty) by showing him the way of salvation”. Turretin, Institutes, 2:505. (15.2.6); Institutio, 2:444. 96 Anthony Hoekema, “Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort,” 209 – 220. See also Peter de Yong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 130 – 2. 97 Hoekema, “Missionary Focus,” 217. Hoekema also entitles his translation of this section of the Canons “The Well-Meant Gospel Call”. “New Translation,” 150. 98 Hoekema, “Missionary Focus,” 217. See also Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 78. For a translation of the Sententiae Remonstrantium see De Jong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 222 – 9.

36

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

is willing to tolerate it), but it is something highly pleasing to Him.”99 Hoekema proceeds to summarize the teaching of Dort with reference to the work of the ministry : “As an ambassador for Christ he should urge men to be reconciled to God, not just because he … desires this, but because this is what God himself desires.”100 More recently, R. Scott Clark has offered an interpretation of Dort that is similar to Hoekema’s, arguing that Dort propounded a “well meant gospel offer”.101 Clark particularly focuses on the contention that “offero” should be translated as “present” or “demand” rather than offer.102 He notes that if it were the intention of those present at Dort to state that the gospel was a “presentation” rather than an offer, they had ways of making this clear, for example by the use of “exhibeo” or “mando”. He concluded that “the semantic range of ‘offero’ as it was used by the orthodox, is closer to ‘invitation’ than ‘demand.’”103 Mark Jones and Joel Beeke likewise understand Dort as teaching a well-meant gospel offer. With reference to Canons 3/4:8 – 9 they state that Dort taught that “there is no insufficiency in God’s willingness to save sinners. The invitation does not lie or deceive; it is a true, rich, full, free invitation. The gospel is a well-meant offer … The call to come to Christ is a well-meant offer of salvation addressed to every human being.”104 This, they believe, represented the “international Puritan and Reformed perspective” on the gospel call.105 Of these two different summaries of Dort’s teaching, the interpretations advanced by Hoekema, Clark, Jones and Beeke appear more in line with the historical evidence, at least as viewed through the eyes of the British delegation at Dort.

99 Hoekema, “Missionary Focus,” 217. 100 Hoekema, “Missionary Focus,” 217. He advances the same interpretation of the Canons of Dort in Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 77 – 78. 101 Clark, “Janus,” 165. Another recent study of the gospel call around the time of Dort is Henk van den Belt, “The Vocatio in the Leiden Disputations (1597 – 1631): The Influence of the Arminian Controversy on the Concept of the Divine Call to Salvation,” Church History and Religious Culture 92 (2012): 539 – 559. However, this article is not focused on the nature of the gospel call as an “offer”. 102 Amongst others, Clark interacts specifically with Blacketer. 103 Clark, “Janus,” 169. 104 Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology : Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 510. 105 Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 510.

William Ames (1576 – 1633)

37

William Ames (1576 – 1633) William Ames was one of Puritanism’s leading theologians.106 He was taught by William Perkins (1558 – 1602) in Cambridge and was deeply influenced by him. According to Jan van Vliet, “much of Perkin’s thought on philosophy, pedagogy, theology and piety … passed on to his prot¦g¦.”107 Ames thus forms something of a bridge between the earlier generation of Puritans and those who would sit at the Westminster Assembly. Ames left England in 1610 for the Netherlands and never returned. He took a full part in the Arminian controversy that raged up until the Synod of Dort and was “one of the foremost proponents of the Contra-Remonstrant cause”.108 He was for a time an advisor to the Synod prolocutor. Ames’ views are important because of his key role in opposing the emerging Arminianism within the Reformed churches, as the question naturally arises whether the internal tensions within the Reformed community led to hesitancy over the free offer of the gospel amongst those who rejected the teaching of Arminius and his followers. They are also significant because of his personal influence. Jan van Vliet argues the case that Ames’ “thought contributed significantly in formulating the marrow of the Reformed Tradition”.109 Durham was obviously familiar with Ames and respected him (even though he rejected Ames’ independency with regards to church government). He linked Ames with George Gillespie and called them “these two worthy Divines”, and he cited Ames’ work Of Conscience and the Cases Thereof on at least two occasions.110 In considering Ames’ views on the free offer of the gospel, three of his key works will be surveyed, namely Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof, 106 For biographical information on Ames, see Jan van Vliet, The Rise of the Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013), 5 – 22; Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972); Keith L. Sprunger, “Ames, William (1576 – 1633)”, ODNB, n.p. 107 van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 6. This meant Ames was “committed to the teachings of Calvinism.” van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 7. 108 Sinnema, “Reprobation at Dort,” 170. For Ames and the Synod of Dort, see Sprunger, William Ames, 52 – 70; van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 18 – 19. 109 van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 268. See also McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 3. 110 For Durham’s linking of Gillespie and Ames, see James Durham, The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland; or, ATreatise concerning Scandal (London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1659), 34. Durham’s two citations of William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof divided into Five Bookes (London: Printed by E.G. for I. Rothwell, T. Slater, L. Blacklock, 1643) are found in Scandal, 34 and James Durham, The Law Unsealed : or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1676), 69.

38

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, and An Analytical Exposition of both the Epistles of the Apostle Peter.111 At the outset it is important to note that Ames worked within the same broad categories as were outlined in the introduction to this survey. He acknowledged the distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa, declaring that: “Now God is the object of faith, not as he is considered in himself, but as we by him doe live well. 1 Tim. 4.10. We hope in the living God, who is the preserver of all men, especially of those that believe.”112 That is, faith was placed not in the unrevealed God but in the God of revelation, a revelation which was accommodated to the capacity of those who receive it. Ames also made use of a distinction between God’s effectual will and his will of command (analogous with the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata).113 Ames defined the free offer of the gospel as follows: “The offer (oblatio), is an objective propounding of Christ, as of a means sufficient and necessary to salvation … The offer (oblatio) of Christ is outward, or inward … The outward is a propounding, or preaching of the Gospel or of the promises of Christ … The promises as touching the outward promulgation, are propounded to all without difference, together with a command to believe them, but as touching the propriety of the things promised… they belong only to the elect”.114 Ames held therefore that the promises of the gospel were offered not only to the elect but to all, and that the promises are “void” unless they are received by faith. It was only where faith was present, namely among the elect, that the substance of the promises was revealed.115 This general call or offer of the promises of the gospel came with powerful motives that the sinner might “be stirred up to embrace the call of God”.116 One 111 Ames, Conscience; William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London: Printed by Edward Griffen for John Rothwell at the Sun in Pauls Church Yard, 1638); William Ames, An Analytical Exposition Of both the Epistles of the Apostle Peter, Illustrated by Doctrines out of every Text (London: Printed by E.G. for John Rothwell, at the Sun in Pauls Church Yard, 1641). Sprunger calls Conscience and the Marrow Ames’ “major contributions to seventeenth-century theology.” Sprunger, William Ames, 77. 112 Ames, Marrow, The First Book of Divinity, 6. See also Sprunger, William Ames, 116. 113 E.g. Ames, Conscience, The Second Book, 6. See also Sprunger, William Ames, 167 – 8. 114 Ames, Marrow, The First Book of Divinity, 110 – 11; William Ames, Medulla S.S. Theologiæ (London, 1629), 132 – 33. This inward offering was equivalent to an “effectual” call which cannot be refused, unlike the outward free offer. However, see Richard, Supremacy of God, 181 fn. 187, for an argument that Ames sometimes spoke of the common work of the Spirit in the general gospel call as internal. Van Vliet speaks of “the apparent inconsistency betweek the gospel offer and particularism” in the context of Ames’ thought. van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 91. 115 Thus van Vliet rightly comments that “the free offer can only be appropriated by … the elect”. van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 91. 116 Ames, Conscience, The Second Book, 12. See also, van Vliet, Rise of Reformed System, 117, 167 – 8.

William Ames (1576 – 1633)

39

of these motives was that he should “also consider what the cause is that moves God to call him, which he shall find to be nothing else but God’s incomprehensible mercy [or, grace] towards his enemy (præter incomprehensibilem Dei gratiam erga fuum inimicum), Rom. 8.10. 2 Cor. 5.10. He must have a heart of Iron, that is not moved with such goodness as this”.117 For Ames, therefore, the call or offer of the gospel was a testimony to God’s mercy and goodness. Ames placed the free offer of the gospel in a close relationship to faith: “[To obtain faith in Christ] … he ought to fasten the eyes of his mind, upon the promises of the Gospel … Christ is neither offered of God (Christus non offertur — Deo), nor can be apprehended by man, but only in the promises of the Gospel (promissionibus Euangelii)”.118 It was important for the first act of faith to take place that “this grace is particularly offered to all those to whom it is preached (gratiam istam singulariter offerri omnibus iis quibus prædicatur), Mark 16.13.”119 That is, the offer of the gospel was not only general; it was also a particular offer to every hearer. This gave a warrant for every hearer to accept the offer. Ames also believed that preaching should aim fundamentally at the conversion of those who hear : “Preaching therefore ought not to be dead, but lively and effectual, so that an unbeliever coming into the Congregation of the faithful he ought to be affected, and as it were digged through with the very hearing of the Word, that he may give glory to God. 1 Cor. 14.25.”120 It is important to note, however, Ames’ reading of certain controverted verses. For instance, in his treatment of 2 Peter 3:9 he asked the question: “Now here ariseth a question… Whether all and every particular man be meant thereby, when it is said, that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance?”121 Ames argued that “the Apostle in this place [2 Peter 3:9] hath special reference unto the elect”.122 However, Ames did not totally reject the possibility that it might be understood of all men: “The patience of God according to its nature hath that use and end, to lead all sinners unto repentance, Rom. 2.14. and in that sense might their interpretation be admitted who understand these words and the like of all and every particular man.”123 Thus particularism was joined with a certain universalism in Ames. 117 Ames, Conscience, The Second Book, 12; William Ames, De Conscientia et ejus Jure, vel Casibus Libri Quinque (Oxford: William Hall, 1659), 58. 118 Ames, Conscience, The Second Book, 13; Ames, De Conscientia, 59. 119 Ames, Conscience, The Second Book, 13; Ames, De Conscientia, 59. 120 Ames, Marrow, The First Book of Divinity, 159. 121 Ames, Exposition of Peter, 244. C.f. Calvin, CNTC, 12:364 – 5; CO, 55:475 – 6. 122 Ames, Exposition of Peter, 244. 123 Ames, Exposition of Peter, 244.

40

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

John Ball (1585 – 1640) John Ball was one of the most influential theologians in the years before the Westminster Assembly, and his views had a significant impact on the final shape of the Assembly documents. Alexander Mitchell notes: “The … most remarkable treatise of Ball, on the ‘Covenant of Grace,’ was published … at the very time the Assembly began to frame its Confession, and it contains all that has been admitted into the Westminster Standards”.124 The importance of Ball’s work to the Westminster Assembly is borne out by its receiving commendations from six Assembly members.125 Given the stature of Ball, and the wide-ranging nature of Durham’s reading, it is highly likely that Durham would have read Ball’s work, although there is no direct evidence for this.126 In any event, given Ball’s influence on the Westminster Assembly, his views deserve consideration.127 Particularly significant is the emphasis Ball places on the idea of covenant, especially in his work A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace.128 This is important, because both the Westminster Assembly and James Durham located the free offer of the gospel within the context of covenant ideas. At the outset it is again important to note that Ball accepted the distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa: “Carnal reasonings have brought forth strange monsters in Divinity… It is good for us to acknowledge the wisdom, justice, goodness, mercy and truth of God in all his ways, though we cannot wade into the depth of his councils.”129 He also distinguished between the hidden will of election and the revealed will of the gospel: “If God make offer of mercy and forgiveness unto us in the ministry of the Gospel, which is the word of truth, the word of salvation, we are bound to receive it, without looking into the book of his election: and if we receive them truly, we shall be saved as the Lord hath spoken.”130 Ball began his discussion of the free offer of the gospel by outlining the object of faith, and in so doing he denied that a universal redemption was necessary for 124 Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly : Its History and Standards (London: James Nisbet, 1883), 337. 125 They were Edward Reynolds, Thomas Hill, Daniel Cawdrey, Anthony Burgess, Edmund Calamy and Simon Ash. 126 See Chapter Two for a survey of the wide-ranging influences on Durham’s theology. 127 For biographical information on Ball, see John Sutton, “Ball, John (1585 – 1640),” ODNB, n.p. 128 John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London: Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster on Ludgate hill neer Fleet-Bridge at the Signe of the Bible, 1645). 129 Ball, Covenant, 249. 130 Ball, ATreatise of Faith Divided into two Parts: The first shewing the Nature, The Second the Life of Faith (London: Printed for Edward Brewster, and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1657), 166.

John Ball (1585 – 1640)

41

the free offer : “Every man called, whether he hearken to God’s calling or not, is bound to believe that Christ is offered to him as Saviour, so as if he believe he shall be saved: but that Christ died for him in particular for the impetration of righteousness … that he is not bound to believe”.131 Nevertheless, for Ball the act of faith was still built “upon this ground, that Christ is an all-sufficient and efficient Saviour, in whose name Salvation is freely offered.”132 This free offer, for Ball, was equivalent to an invitation: “but the invitation is general … the invitation is serious, showing what God is well pleased with, and doth approve in us”.133 In explaining this invitation, he invoked the distinction between the hidden will (voluntas arcane) and the revealed will (voluntas revelata): “The Lord who doth whatsoever he will … in his deep and unsearchable council never intended to make every man actually and effectually partakers of the benefit promised … nevertheless, the invitation is serious, showing what we ought to do, and God doth approve and desire on our parts”.134 He was sensitive to the charge of inconsistency to which this distinction left him open, noting that “They [Arminians] ask what sign doth God show of desire or approval that men should believe, when he gives them not power so to do.”135 He responded that God’s desire, corresponding to the revealed will, was evident because God “commandeth, intreateth, persuadeth them to repent and believe, waiteth with long-suffering and patience for their amendment, promises mercy if they will return”.136 This idea that the free offer of the gospel revealed God’s desire that the hearers would accept was important to Ball: “we are not more desirous to believe, than God is that we should do so.”137 As well as being an expression of God’s desire for their salvation, the free offer was an expression of God’s love to the hearers of the gospel. Expounding John 3:16, Ball noted: “The word World cannot be taken for the elect only : for then it will be as if it had been said, God so loved the elect, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever of them that believe in him should not perish.”138 Therefore the love of John 3:16 was expressed first in the gospel offer : “God manifested so much love to the world … that in the ministry of the Gospel he entreated them to be

131 Ball, Covenant, 222 – 223. What Ball was rejecting here was not that “some effects or benefits of Christ’s death be common to all men” but “whether he died equally for all men, to purchase actual reconciliation for them on God’s part”. Ball, Covenant, 232 – 3. 132 Ball, Covenant, 225. 133 Ball, Covenant, 243 – 4. 134 Ball, Covenant, 244. 135 Ball, Covenant, 245. 136 Ball, Covenant, 245. 137 Ball, Faith, 165. See also Ball, Covenant, 246 – 8. Ball’s position is thus very close to that of Ezekiel Culverwell. 138 Ball, Covenant, 210.

42

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

reconciled.”139 However, this was not equivalent to electing love, for “unto some he bare and manifested more peculiar love, in that he called them effectually and made them heirs of life.”140 Nevertheless it was the case that in the gospel offer “God doth through love intreat us.”141 Ball, like Ames, believed that God “persuadeth with arguments in themselves forceable to move and incite, and what he will perform, if we make good the condition”.142 In this quotation Ball highlighted what had become a staple of covenant theology, namely, its conditional nature. He expanded on this elsewhere: “The promise of remission of sins is conditional, and becometh not absolute, until the condition be fulfilled … This is the word of grace, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved: when doth this conditional proposition become absolute? When we believe.”143 It is important to bear in mind that Ball did not think of the condition as in any sense meritorious.144 He argued that while faith in Christ was indeed the condition of the covenant, nevertheless in the covenant of grace, “God freely promiseth to give what he requireth of his people, and to effect in them what he calleth for at their hands … the condition of the covenant is promised in the covenant itself.”145 Therefore, as the very act of faith itself was a gift of God, it could in no way be thought of as a meritorious cause of receiving the benefits of the covenant. Ball, like Ames, grounded faith in the freely offered gospel promises. This can be seen in his catechism: “Q. What is the ground of faith? A. The free promises of God made in Christ, concerning the forgiveness of sins, and eternal righteousness. Rom. 4.18. Heb. 11.11.”146 The practical syllogism, far from driving sinners inward, turned them outward to the promise: “Assurance that our sins be pardoned is concluded in a practical Syllogism thus; He that truly believeth in Christ hath obtained pardon of his sins: But I believe: Therefore my sins are pardoned”.147 Furthermore, those who thought that there was no mercy for them “should ground their confidence” on this: “God calleth them in his Word, to come unto him, as if he did particularly name them, and promiseth to receive them unto mercy”.148 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

Ball, Covenant, 210. Ball, Covenant, 210. Ball, Faith, 165. Ball, Covenant, 244. Ball, Faith, 86. Ball, Covenant, 133. Ball, Faith, 273. John Ball, A Short Catechisme. Containing the Principles of Religion. Very Profitable for all Sorts of People. (London: Printed by R. Bishop for Robert Bird, at the signe of the Bible in Saint Laurance-Lane, 1637), 15. 147 Ball, Faith, 86. 148 Ball, Faith, 230.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

43

There were, however, some elements in Ball’s work which could, on the face of it, imply a limitation in the gospel offer. On occasion he seemed to restrict the offer only to those qualified by a sense of sin: “God of his grace and mercy in Jesus Christ doth make offer of free and full forgiveness of all sins to every burdened, thirsty and penitent soul.”149 However, Ball was not in reality restricting the gospel offer here, for regardless of people’s spiritual state they were bound to believe that Christ is offered to them: “Every man called, whether he hearken to God’s calling or not, is bound to believe that Christ is offered to him as Saviour.”150 Rather, he was reflecting his belief that only those who have some sense of sin will welcome the gospel offer.151 Ball developed the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel in certain ways, placing it more explicitly in the context of covenant in a way that earlier Reformed creeds did not.152 Accordingly, he gave greater emphasis to the conditionality of the covenant and the covenant promises than Ames. However, the doctrine was fundamentally unchanged, and there is evidence of continuity and development rather than divergence.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer” Having surveyed some of the leading Reformed theologians and confessional documents in the Reformed tradition prior to the Westminster Assembly, it is now appropriate to consider the teaching of the Westminster Assembly itself on the free offer of the gospel. This will be done firstly by setting the Westminster Assembly within its historical context; secondly, by discussing the teaching of the Westminster Standards; thirdly, by considering additional insights from the minutes of the Westminster Assembly and English (or Westminster) Annotations; and finally, by evaluating previous interpretations of the Westminster Standards on the free offer.

The Historical Setting of the Westminster Assembly According to Jonathan Moore, “The teaching of the Confession needs to be understood in its historical context and with due regard to the usage of the English language in seventeenth-century England. Only then can it be reliably 149 150 151 152

Ball, Faith, 210. See also Ball, Faith, 231. Ball, Covenant, 222. On this, see Ball, Faith, 232. However, see the treatment of Robert Rollock later in this Chapter for a discussion of one earlier Reformed theologian who did.

44

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

concluded what the intent of the authors was in formulating its expression of orthodoxy in the way finally agreed upon. The meaning of the Confession is inextricably linked to this historical context”.153 As the history of the Westminster Assembly has often been outlined in detail, a brief recapitulation of its leading features is all that is necessary here.154 On 1st July 1643 the Westminster Assembly met for its first session. Called by Parliament in defiance of Charles I, who had refused to give his sanction, it was designed to be a reforming instrument: the ordinance which called the Assembly spoke of the need for “a more perfect reformation than hath yet been attained” and designated “the present Church-government” as “evil”.155 Those who had attached themselves to the Laudian party of the Church of England during its years of ascendancy were therefore not invited. However, despite this exclusion, there remained significant diversity among the members in the area of church government, with views ranging from Erastianism to Independency. The theological outlook of the Assembly was more united, with Arminianism roundly condemned by all.156 Its first task was to revise the Thirty-nine Articles, which occupied its time until 12th October 1643. The Assembly was called against the background of the Civil War between Parliament and Charles I. In order to bolster Parliament’s cause in the war, it was felt expedient to engage the Scots for their support. In return for this support, the 153 Moore, “The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Sin of Neglecting Baptism,” 63. 154 Fuller surveys may be found in, for example, Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, ed., The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly (5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1:1 – 87; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 7 – 79; Yohan Su, “The Contribution of Scottish Covenant Theology to the Discussions of the Westminster Assembly (1643 – 1648) and its Continuing Significance to the Marrow Controversy (1717 – 1723)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Glamorgan, 1993), 136 – 197; William M. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1856; repr., Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993); John H. Leith, Assembly at Westminster : Reformed theology in the making (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973); Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly ; Warfield, Westminster Assembly, 3 – 151; Schaff, Creeds, 1:701 – 787; Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, New Jersey : P& R Publishing, 2009), 11 – 98; Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 33 – 64. See also the discussion of the historical background in Chapter Two. 155 Westminster Confession, 13. 156 That is not to say that all the divines shared exactly the same soteriology, but that they all held to the same broad anti-Pelagian viewpoint. Some, for example, were more open to positing universal aspects to the atonement than others. See A. Craig Troxel, “Amyraut ‘At’ the Assembly : The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement,” Presbyterion 22:1 (1996): 43 – 55. Again, some held to a supralapsarian ordo decretorum Dei while others held to an infralapsarian view. See Guy Richard, “Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Revealed: a key to the lapsarian position of the Westminster Confession of Faith?” SJT, 59:1 (2006): 27 – 44.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

45

Scots pressed for an ecclesiastical as well as a political union. The result was the Solemn League and Covenant and a revised agenda for the Westminster Assembly, which was now to produce a “confession of faith, form of churchgovernment, directory for worship and catechising” which would promote “uniformity in religion” between “the Churches of God in the three kingdoms”.157 Accordingly, commissioners158 were sent from the Scottish Church to attend the Assembly. The first of the Scottish commissioners arrived on 15th September, and the focus of the Assembly shifted to the production of the documents known today as the Westminster Standards.159 The contents of these documents will now be considered as they bear on the free offer of the gospel.

The Directory for the Public Worship of God The “Directory for the Public Worship of God” (hereafter DPWG) outlines the position of the Westminster Assembly on the free offer of the gospel in the context of pastoral theology.160 The first reference to the free offer of the gospel was contained in the directions for the prayer before the sermon, where the minister was advised in prayer to “acknowledge our great sinfulness … yea, not only despising the riches of God’s goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering, but standing out against many invitations and offers of grace in the gospel; not endeavouring, as we ought, to receive Christ into our hearts by faith.”161 The particular point the DPWG was making here is that the minister is to confess the people’s sin of neglecting the 157 “The Solemn League and Covenant,” in Westminster Confession, 359. 158 It is significant that the Scots were commissioners rather than members. Even though they could not vote, their position gave them greater influence in directing the affairs of the Assembly behind the scenes. 159 Thus Van Dixhoorn notes that “It is a well known fact that the Westminster Assembly produced consensus documents in part, at least, for political reasons. Over the summer of 1643 the English Parliament was losing too many battles to the royalist forces and looked north for help to the equally unhappy Presbyterian Scots. The majority of Scots Presbyterian lairds (but not all) agreed to help the parliamentarians so long as the English would sign a six point treaty entitled, ‘The Solemn League and Covenant’.” Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly : The Making of a Pulpit Theology (M.Th. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000), 49. 160 “The Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in Westminster Confession, 369 – 394. For a recent study of the DPWG, see Rowland S. Ward, “The Directory for Public Worship,” in Scripture and Worship, 85 – 140. Ward notes that the four Scots ministers who went to the Assembly served on the committee to frame the DPWG. Ward and Muller, Scripture and Worship, 90. 161 “Of Publick Prayer before the Sermon,” in Westminster Confession, 376.

46

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

offer of the gospel. However, this section also indicates many positive features of Westminster’s doctrine of the gospel offer. First, the Assembly stated that those who reject Christ still experience divine “goodness, forbearance and longsuffering”. Thus the attitude of God to the reprobate was not one of unremitting hatred. More specifically, one of the ways that unbelievers experienced God’s goodness was through the “offers of grace”. Second, the free offer of the gospel was equivalent to an “invitation”. The reference to “many invitations” suggests the pressing nature of the gospel call. Third, there was an implicit assumption: for the people to be guilty of “standing out against … offers of grace in the gospel”, it was taken for granted that they actually hear the free offer of the gospel as a regular element in sermons. Thus the Westminster divines took for granted that preaching would normally include the free offer. Reference was also made in the DPWG to the “gracious offers in the gospel, that all who repent, and believe with all their heart in God’s mercy through Christ, renouncing their own righteousness, shall have life and salvation in him.”162 The adjective given to the offer of the gospel here is of significance: it was “gracious” (even to those who never believe) and flowed from the goodness of God. The gospel offer was, therefore, understood by Westminster to be an expression of God’s grace.

The Westminster Confession of Faith The first significant statement in the Westminster Confession relating to the free offer of the gospel was as follows: “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ (in quo peccatoribus offert gratuito vitam ac salutem per Jesum Christum); requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”163

The Confession here sets the free offer of the gospel within the context of covenant theology. No previous Reformed creed had made this explicit connection. This section therefore reflects the increasing focus within developing Reformed theology on the doctrine of covenants.164 The significance of this covenantal 162 “Concerning Visitation of the Sick,” in Westminster Confession, 389. 163 WCoF 7:3, in Westminster Confession, 42 – 43; Confessio Fidei, 21. Thus the recognised Latin translation of the Confession uses the same terminology as Dort to express “offer”. 164 The literature on the development of covenant theology is legion. It is helpfully summarized

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

47

setting has been noted briefly in outlining John Ball’s views on the free offer and will be considered further when examining in detail the views of James Durham. This statement also shows that, for Westminster, the free offer of the gospel was made to sinners as sinners and not merely to certain classes of sinners (i. e. those whom later theologians would term “sensible sinners”). There was also a distinction drawn between two groups who received the free offer : only those who are “ordained unto everlasting life” will, in addition to being offered the gospel, be enabled to accept it. The second relevant statement is as follows: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed (oblatam & exhibitam) in it.”165

This section expounds one of the basic tenets of Reformed theology, namely irresistible grace. However, irresistible grace, or, in the terminology of the Westminster Assembly, the effectual call, worked in conjunction with the free offer of the gospel, enabling its acceptance. Fundamental to the Westminster view of the Spirit’s drawing to Christ was, therefore, the prior free offer of the gospel. It was as this offer was made that the elect were irresistibly drawn to Christ.

The Westminster Catechisms The Westminster Assembly produced two catechisms, known as the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism. These contain, perhaps, the fullest statements on the subject of the free offer of the gospel of all the documents of the Westminster Assembly. The Larger Catechism will be considered here, with additional insights from the Shorter Catechism where appropriate. Larger Catechism Q& A 32 outlined how the “grace of God” was “manifested in the second covenant”. One such manifestation was that “he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him (in quantum peccatoribus gratuitý parat off¦rtque mediatorem ac per eum vitam & salutem)”. As in the DPWG, the free offer of the gospel was identified with the grace of God. This section of the Larger Catechism, however, introduced a new concept in connection with the free offer, namely acceptance of the free offer (i. e. faith) as a “condition” of salvation. The non-elect would simply never fulfil this condition, in Carol Williams, “The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption” (Ph.D. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005). 165 WCoF 10:2, in Westminster Confession, 55; Confessio Fidei, 29.

48

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

but with regard to the elect God “promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit … to work in them that faith”. Thus the elect received special grace as well as common grace.166 What precisely the Catechism here meant by “condition” will be explored through the writings of Durham. Larger Catechism Q& A 63 discussed the “special privileges of the visible church”. Among these were “the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel (quûdque singulis ejusdem membris in ministerio Evangelii gratia per Christum offeratur), testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.” This emphasized the idea that receiving the free offer of the gospel was a “privilege”. Even though it may be rejected, to be given the free offer in itself was a privilege and not a curse. The importance of the ministry making the free offer of the gospel was also asserted, for it was “the ordinary means of salvation”.167 Larger Catechism Q& A 67 and 68 expounded the doctrine of effectual calling and its relationship to the non-elect. Effectual calling enabled the elect to “accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein (oblatam & exhibitam)”, while those who were not elected “for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered (oblatæ) to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.” This demonstrated that, in the Catechism’s teaching, there was no difference in the free offer of the gospel between the elect and non-elect. Both received the same offer ; the differentiation came only in relation to the response to the offer. The elect were drawn by the Holy Spirit to accept the offer, while the non-elect experienced only “some common operations” of the Spirit as they were not objects of God’s “free and special love to his elect”.168 Shorter Catechism Q& A 86 covered similar ground but from the perspective of faith, which was defined as “a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel (offertur in evangelio).” Here, when the subject of faith was addressed, the free offer of the gospel 166 Larger Catechism Q& A 32, in Westminster Confession, 142 – 3; Confessio Fidei, 95 – 96. The recognised Latin translation of the Catechisms also uses the same terminology as Dort to express “offer”. Reformed theology distinguished various “kinds” of grace e. g. between gratia particularis sive specialis, gratia universalis and gratia communis. Gratia universalis can be defined as “that grace of God in the universal call of the gospel according to which salvation is offered to all.” See, Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (1985; Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 133. Thus it is not surprising to see the Westminster Standards extend grace (in some sense) beyond the elect. 167 Larger Catechism Q& A 63, in Westminster Confession, 159 – 60; Confessio Fidei, 109. See also Westminster Confession 10:4, in Westminster Confession, 56. 168 Larger Catechism Q& A 67 and 68, in Westminster Confession, 161 – 62; Confessio Fidei, 110 – 11. See also Shorter Catechism Q& A 31, in Westminster Confession, 295 – 6.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

49

was foundational. It was only as Christ was freely offered that he could be “received” and “rested upon”.169 This definition of faith echoed that of Calvin: “Faith embraces Christ as offered to us by the Father (cf. John 6:29).”170 This summary demonstrates that, for the Westminster Standards, the free offer of the gospel was an integral part of their system of doctrine with regard to preaching, effectual calling, faith, common grace, covenant theology, and the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology).

The Westminster Assembly Minutes The most prolonged discussion on the free offer of the gospel in the minutes of the Westminster Assembly occurred in the context of a debate over the extent of the atonement.171 The issue under scrutiny was the warrant for the free offer of the gospel. Edmund Calamy argued that “if the covenant of grace be preached to all, then Christ redeemed, in some sense, all – both elect & reprobate. But it is to be preached to all”.172 He further contended that all of “God’s promulgations are serious & true” and that unless there was, in some sense, universal redemption there would be “noe verity in the universall offer”.173 Calamy sustained his position exegetically from John 3:16 and Mark 16:15.174 His use of these texts is interesting in view of their choice as proof texts for the free offer of the gospel in

169 170 171 172

Shorter Catechism Q& A 86, in Westminster Confession, 310; Confessio Fidei, 215 – 6. Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.8 (Battles, 1:552; CO, 2:404). Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:692 – 701 (Sess. 522 – 524). Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:694 (Sess. 522). Calamy’s views are particularly significant, as William Barker notes that “from the events leading up to the Westminster Assembly on through the outworking of the Assembly’s actions in Revolutionary England, no single figure provided greater leadership for Presbyterians than Edmund Calamy.” William Barker, Puritan Profiles: 54 Influential Puritans at the Time When the Westminster Confession Was Written (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1996), 208. 173 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:694 (Sess. 522). It should be noted that Calamy argued for universal redemption while distancing himself from the Arminians: “I am farre from universall Redemption in the Arminian sense”. Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:692 (Sess. 522). While this was undoubtedly true, in insisting that a universal offer presupposed a universal atonement, he was using reasoning employed earlier by Arminius. Mitchell calls him a “more liberal and cautious Calvinist” than his contemporaries. Mitchell, Westminster Assembly, 121. He thus belonged to the number of Reformed theologians who, whilst defending a particularistic soteriology in the main, posited a certain universality in the redemptive work of Christ. 174 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” “And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (NKJV.)

50

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

Westminster Confession 7:3. He felt that John 3:16 taught “a general love to the reprobate … a general offer, & a general grace, & a general reformation.”175 Calamy’s assertions did not go unchallenged, the response being led by the Scots commissioners. Gillespie argued that John 3:16 could not be speaking of “general love”, and that in interpreting Mark 16:15 Calamy was neglecting the distinction between the voluntas decreti and the voluntas mandati, which Gillespie used to argue that the “command doth not hold out God’s intentions”.176 Rutherford supported Gillespie and similarly asserted that the love of John 3:16 was confined to the elect.177 Other divines joined the Scots in rejecting Calamy’s views and offered alternative reasons for the universal offer. William Price contended for a universal offer on the basis that “we do not know who is elect and reprobate”, while John Lightfoot posited the universal offer on God’s intention to render the wicked inexcusable.178 The debate in the minutes ends inconclusively with no party seeming to have emerged as clear victors. What is of note is that none of the participants in this debate questioned the free offer of the gospel itself; all would have agreed with Thomas Goodwin in asserting that the gospel “must be preached to every creature”.179 Those who argued against universal redemption did not argue against the free offer. What this debate thus reveals is that, while there no dissent over the idea of a free offer of the gospel, there was some diversity regarding the precise grounds and reasons for it.180 The subject of the warrant for believing in Christ was raised again in connection with a proposed catechism which was eventually abandoned and split into the Shorter and Larger Catechisms.181 This catechism asked the question “What Ground or warrant have you, being a sinner, to believe in Christ?” The answer given was: “The ground of my believing in is Gods offer of him in his word to me as well as to any other man, and this commanding me to believe 175 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:696 (Sess. 522). Calamy was not alone in his views; Lazarus Seaman, Stephen Marshall and Richard Vines offered at least tentative support. 176 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:695 – 6 (Sess. 522). This is not to say that Gillespie would deny any general love in God towards the reprobate. 177 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:699 (Sess. 523). As will be considered in Chapter Four, Rutherford did hold to a general love of God to all. 178 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:696 – 7 (Sess. 522). 179 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 3:698 (Sess. 523). 180 David Lachman is therefore partially correct in noting that “there is considerable disagreement, both in terminology and substance, as to the reasons for and the ground and extent of this offer”. Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 36. He rightly observes that the ground of the offer was disputed, particularly whether a universal atonement was the ground, but there seems little evidence that the universal extent of the offer was a matter of disagreement. 181 See Wayne R. Spear “Westminster’s Unfinished Catechism,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God, 259 – 266.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

51

in him as well as to believe or obey any other thing in his word.”182 This section of the minutes demonstrates that the Westminster divines were sufficiently united to agree that the free offer provided a warrant for all to believe in Christ.

The Westminster Annotations A further insight into the meaning of the Westminster Assembly can be gleaned from consulting the Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament produced at the same time as the Assembly.183 Although not a production of the Assembly as such, large portions of the work were compiled by its members, and William Barker notes that the Annotations “can sometimes shed light on how the Westminster divines understood a particular text of Scripture.”184 The key proof texts appended to the Westminster Standards dealing with the free offer of the gospel, namely Matt. 22:14, Mark 16:15, John 3:16 and Rom. 10:6, will be considered as well as additional insights from the Annotations.185 The notes on Rom. 10:6 and Matt. 22:14 do not shed any light on the free offer of the gospel, but the connected commentary on Matt 22:4 shows that the Annotations equate offer with “invitation”.186 The comments on Mark 16:15 are extensive and highlight the universal nature of the offer : the gospel is to go to “every nation … to all mankind without exception.” The “gladsome tidings of salvation … and free remission of sins” were to be “republished unto all the Nations of the world”.187 The exposition of John 3:16 carefully distinguished between a special and a general love of God. There is that general “common love of God” to “all that he 182 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 4:358 (Sess. 753). 183 Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament: This Third, above the First and Second, Edition so enlarged, As they make an entire Commentary on the Sacred Scripture: the like never before published in English. Wherein the Text is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Parallelled, and Various Readings Observed. By the Joint Labour of certain Learned Divines. (London: Evan Tyler, 1657). For a recent study of the Annotations, see Muller, “Scripture and the Westminster Confession,” in Ward and Muller, Scripture and Worship, 3 – 82. 184 Barker, Puritan Profiles, 242. 185 Matt. 22:14: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Rom. 10:6: “But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above).” (NKJV.) 186 Comment in loco, Matt. 22:4, Annotations. Matt. 22:4: “Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner ; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” (NKJV.) 187 Comment in loco, Mark 16:15, Annotations. Mark 16:15: “And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (NKJV.)

52

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

made” which “willeth the conservation of the creature”, but, for the Annotations, that is not what John 3:16 speaks of. Rather, the text relates to “God’s peculiar love to eternal life” which only the elect experience.188 The understanding of John 3:16 expressed in the Annotations is therefore that of Rutherford and Gillespie and not of Calamy. A number of other comments in the Annotations are relevant to the free offer of the gospel. The notes on Rev. 3:20 related this verse to the gospel call and explained that the call is made by “one desirous of admittance”.189 In expounding 2 Peter 3:9 the Annotations provided two alternative understandings without deciding between them. The verse might relate either to the elect or might speak of “mankind, of which number we also are … Not [willing that] any at all [perish]; by his directing and approving will, Ezek. 33:11 … he speaks of God’s approving will, whereby he likes of repentance in any.”190 The Annotations also gave two differing interpretations of 1 Tim. 2:4.191 However, on this occasion the universal interpretation was given priority and the possibility of restricting this verse to the elect appeared as an afterthought: “By as much as appeareth unto us by his will revealed in the Gospel, he excludeth none by name, neither nation nor condition whatsoever, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15. Or, all, may be taken, not pro singulis generum, but pro generibus singulorum.”192 In their views of certain texts the Annotations showed some of the same ambiguity as the minutes. As the debate at Westminster on the atonement demonstrated, so the understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4 in the Annotations indicated that there was lack of consensus on a few issues having some bearing on the free offer. Nevertheless, despite these differences, there would

188 Comment in loco, John 3:16, Annotations. John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” 189 Comment in loco, Rev. 3:20, Annotations. Rev. 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (NKJV.) 190 Comment in loco, 2 Pet. 3:9, Annotations. 2 Pet. 3:9: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (NKJV.) 191 1 Tim. 2:4: “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (NKJV.) 192 Comment in loco, 1 Tim. 2:4, Annotations, n.p. For an alternative reading of this text, see George Gillespie, The Presbyterian’s Armoury : The Works of George Gillespie (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, 1846), 118. Daniel Featley, who wrote the comments for the Pauline epistles, would eventually be expelled from the Assembly for his royalist brand of episcopalianism. However, he was “in theology, strongly Reformed”. Muller, “Scripture and the Westminster Confession,” in Muller and Ward, Scripture and Worship, 76.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

53

have been agreement that God was “rather … ready to pardon than to punish, as his long suffering declareth.”193

Previous Interpretations of the Westminster Standards’ Teaching on the Free Offer of the Gospel The examination of the Westminster Standards and supporting primary documentation has revealed that they teach a free offer of the gospel to all, and that this is interwoven with their understanding of preaching, covenant theology, soteriology and ecclesiology. However, this has not always been recognized; in the words of W.G.T. Shedd, “many assert that the confession contains no universal offer of salvation.”194 A modern example of this position is Herman Hanko, who argues that there is no “free offer” in the Westminster Standards, as “offer” should be read as “exhibit” or “present”.195 In contrast to this, significant studies of the Westminster Standards’ teaching have reached similar conclusions to those outlined above. W.G.T. Shedd himself maintained that Westminster Confession 7:3 taught “an offer of salvation” which was expressive of “common grace” and the “universality of God’s compassion towards sinners.” For Shedd, it was evident that the confession meant to teach that God “desires” that all accept the offer.196 A. A. Hodge similarly argued that the Westminster Standards taught a universal offer of salvation made in “good faith” by God.197 Another nineteenth-century commentator, Robert Shaw, also noted the universality of the gospel offer, adding that it “is made as really to those who eventually reject it, as it is to those who eventually receive it.”198 Alexander Mitchell called it a “reckless assertion” to maintain that the framers of the Westminster Standards could not “preach to 193 Comment in loco, Ezek. 18:23, Annotations, n.p. 194 Shedd, Calvinism, 15. See also Shedd, Calvinism, 102. Shedd’s study, “The Westminster Standards and the Universal Offer of Mercy”, is one of the few focused studies of the Confession’s teaching to date. Shedd, Calvinism, 23 – 28. James Macgregor states that to deny that the Westminster Standards teach the free offer of the gospel is “to give evidence of mere ignorance on the subject”. James Macgregor, Blown in the Wind or Growing by the River? Presbyterians on Trial by their Principles (1890; repr., The Banner of Truth, JulyAugust 1970, Number 82 – 83): 53. Three controversies over the interpretation of Reformed confessional teaching on the free offer of the gospel will be considered in Chapter Five. 195 Herman Hanko, “A Comparison of the Westminster and the Reformed Confessions,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal (November 1986): 16 – 17. 196 Shedd, Calvinism, 26 – 7, 94. 197 A. A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), 174 – 5, 214. 198 Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Glasgow : Blackie and Son, 1857), 91.

54

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

their perishing fellow-sinners the love of God and the freeness of Christ’s salvation”, citing Samuel Rutherford and Obadiah Sedgwick as two who did just that.199 An earlier commentator from the eighteenth century, John Brown, writing on the Shorter Catechism’s understanding of the free offer, explained that it taught that Christ offered himself “to every one that hears the gospel without exception”.200 In this offer, which was equivalent to an invitation, “all the divine persons do offer in the most engaging terms, and with the most powerful motives beseech, intreat and command us to embrace Christ.”201 These words demonstrate that Brown understood the Shorter Catechism to ultimately place the free offer of the gospel as a divine rather than merely human action. The most significant seventeenth-century exposition of the Westminster Standards is found in The Sum of Saving Knowledge by David Dickson and James Durham.202 Charles Bell designates The Sum as “a classic presentation of Scottish Federal theology”.203 No summary of its teachings will be given here as it will be considered in the chapter on Durham’s teaching on the free offer of the gospel. As well as arguing that the Westminster Standards taught the free offer of the gospel, some have posited that in so doing they made a concession to hypothetical universalism, or Amyraldianism. An example here is Philip Schaff, who stated that Westminster Confession 7:3 “looks like a compromise between conditional universalism taught in the first clause, and particular election taught in the second. This is in substance the theory of the school of Saumur, which was first broached by a Scottish divine, Cameron (d. 1625)”.204 There is therefore disagreement in the secondary literature on the Westminster Standards, ranging from those who deny that the Standards teach a free offer to those who believe that in teaching the free offer the Westminster Standards virtually adopted a form of universal redemption or Amyraldianism. In view of these divergent readings of the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the free offer, this area merits further investigation, in particular whether the offer was preached as a presentation or as a sincere and well-meant invitation; how and in what ways covenant theology influenced the free offer of the gospel; 199 Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, 385. The views of both these men are considered in Chapter Four. 200 John Brown, An Essay, Toward an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of The Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Printed by Henry Frick for M’Carty & Davis, 1818), 142. 201 Brown, Shorter Catechism, 142 – 3. 202 David Dickson’s commentary on the Westminster Confession, namely Truth’s Victory Over Error (Edinburgh: John Reed, 1684), did not discuss the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. However, many of his other writings did so, as will be discussed in Chapter Four. 203 Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology : The Doctrine of Assurance (Edinburgh: Handsell Press, 1985), 105. 204 Schaff, Creeds, 1:772 – 3.

The Westminster Assembly and the “Free Offer”

55

and whether the free offer of the gospel was a concession to universal redemption.

The Westminster Standards and Scotland It has long been recognized that the Scottish commissioners at Westminster “exercised an influence entirely out of all proportion to their numbers.”205 As a cursory reading of the Assembly minutes will show, the Scots (particularly Gillespie and Rutherford) were vocal in the debates and they were also active behind the scenes in seeking to influence the deliberations.206 As a result of this influence and pre-existing general theological agreement, it is true that “in the Westminster documents, we have the codification of that same teaching on faith and assurance which we find in Scottish Federal theology.”207 The significance of the Scottish contribution to Westminster is one reason why it is appropriate to study the teaching of the Confession through consideration of a Scottish theologian. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Westminster Standards are primarily English documents, and it is therefore one of the ironies of history that “an Assembly in England composed of English divines, would produce documents which were to play virtually no major role in the English Church, but would become the standard orthodox documents of the Church of Scotland for over 200 years.”208 The fact that the Confession had more significance for the future ecclesiastical life of Scotland than it did in England is another reason why a Scottish theologian is a suitable case study. Finally, the Westminster Standards were accepted simpliciter by the Scottish Church in 1647. The General Assembly commented that the Confession was “most agreeable to the word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline and government of this Kirk”, and therefore pro-

205 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 125. The greatest influence can be seen in the Presbyterian ecclesiology of the Assembly, as opposed to the more purely theological documents such as the Confession and Catechisms where there was more general agreement. 206 A full and balanced account of the influence of the Scottish commissioners at Westminster is found in W. McKay, “Scotland and the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 1 (ed. J. Ligon Duncan; Fearn: Mentor, 2003), 213 – 45. See also, Wayne R. Spear, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013). 207 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 128. 208 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 124.

56

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

ceeded to “agree unto, and approve the said confession”.209 It has been argued by Alexander Mitchell that the Scottish church took subscription to the Standards more seriously than the English: “it may be doubted if the English … meant to require more for their Confession of Faith than that it should be … the norm of public teaching”, whereas the Scots “always required her ministers to regard the Confession of Faith as something more than the norm of teaching to which in their public ministrations they were to conform.”210 Given, then, that adherence to the original teachings of the Confession may have been more exacting in Scotland, a Scottish case study is significant in determining the teaching of the Confession.

Scotland and the Free Offer before Durham To place Durham in the context of the theological development of his own country, it is important to survey the teaching of some leading Scottish theologians on the free offer of the gospel. It is interesting to note at the outset that Donald MacLeod declares that “‘the universal and unlimited offer of Christ to sinners as such’ … was a basic tenet of Scottish theology as early as James Durham.”211 Whilst true, this understates the position as Durham was not the first Scottish proponent of the free offer, far less an innovator in the wider Reformed community. The free offer of the gospel was indeed an important element in Durham’s theological outlook, and he was regarded by his contemporaries as a key exponent of this doctrine, it is not accurate to portray Scottish theology (or Reformed theology in general) prior to Durham as lacking a doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. From its earliest development this issue was a point of focus for Reformed theologians.212

209 “Assembly at Edinburgh, August 27, 1647. Sess. 23. Act Approving the Confession of Faith,” in Westminster Confession, 17. 210 Mitchell, Westminster Assembly, 511 – 2. See also Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation, 262 – 277. 211 Donald MacLeod, “Atonement, The,” DSCHT, 40. 212 Indeed, elsewhere MacLeod makes this same point: “Every one of our theologians, from Knox to Cunningham, regarded the Free Offer as an axiom.” Donald MacLeod, “Dr. T.F. Torrance and Scottish Theology : A Review Article,” Evangelical Quarterly 72:1 (2000): 58.

Scotland and the Free Offer before Durham

57

John Knox (c.1514 – 72) It might be argued that Scottish Reformed theology really began with John Knox (c.1514 – 72).213 The nature of Knox’s works, however, means that it is difficult to piece together his doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. He certainly held that there is an “offer” of God’s word in the preaching of the gospel which can be “received” or rejected.214 His most formal treatment of this subject is found in An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous Cavillations Written by an Anabaptist and Adversary to God’s Eternal Predestination, but the polemical nature of this treatise makes it difficult to ascertain the details of Knox’s own position.215 Most of his statements were nothing more than self-conscious refutations of an almost universalist position with little positive doctrinal development of his own.216 However, a number of points can be briefly summarized. Knox distinguished between a revealed and secret will in God, while holding that the will of God was ultimately “one”.217 In his opinion God’s revealed will 213 James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560 – 1750 (1888; repr., Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), 1. For studies of Knox’s theology, see Richard Kyle, God’s Watchman: John Knox’s Faith and Vocation (Eugene, OR.: Pickwick Publications, 2014); Richard Kyle, The Ministry of John Knox: Pastor, Preacher and Prophet (Lampeter : Edwin Mellen, 2002); Richard Kyle and Dale W. Johnson, John Knox: An Introduction to His Life and Works (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2009); Richard L. Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids: Christian University Press, 1980); James McEwan, The Faith of John Knox (Richmond: John Knox, 1961); Roger A. Mason, ed., John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998); V.E. D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin: A Few Points of Contact in their Theology (Durban, Nadal: Drakensberg Press, 1969); David F. Wright, “The Scottish Reformation: theology and theologians” in David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 174 – 193. 214 John Knox, “The History of the Reformation in Scotland” in The Works of John Knox (ed. David Laing; 6 vols.; Edinburgh, 1846 – 64), 1:126. 215 John Knox, “An Answer to the Cavillations of Adversary Respecting the Doctrine of Predestination” in Works, 5:7 – 468. Thus D’Assonville comments as follows: “From beginning to end it [On Predestination] is written in highly controversial language, with little thetical exposition, since the subject is brought back to the antithetical conflict each time. How different Knox’s work may not perhaps have been, had he been instructed to choose his scheme himself.” D’Assonville John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin, 43. See also Dewey Wallace, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 26 – 27; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 25. For a general study of Knox’s predestinarian thought see Richard Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” WTJ 46:1 (Spring 1984): 53 – 77. 216 Thus Kyle notes Knox “became carried away in the heat of refuting his Anabaptist opponent.” Kyle, “Predestination in John Knox,” 77. The significance of the polemical location of statements on doctrinal positions should not be underestimated. 217 For Knox on the unity and simplicity of God’s will, see e. g. Knox, Works, 5:313, 314, 366, 367, 390.

58

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

was found in all Scripture and not just in God’s commands, but there was such a thing as God’s secret will which was inscrutable.218 This secret will was the reason behind God’s actions and was firmly beyond human comprehension.219 Knox insisted that the divine will was one and that there was no contradiction between the revealed and secret wills, while he also admitted that the two may seem contradictory : “yet may the creatures to whom God doth notify his will by command, rebuke or exhortation, apprehend and understand one thing, and yet it may be that God in his eternal counsel hath determined the express contrary.”220 This meant that humans may be guilty of resisting God’s will revealed to them while, unbeknown to them, fulfilling God’s secret will for them. For Knox, the classic scriptural example of this was Pharaoh.221 Furthermore, it was the revealed will by which they would be judged, for Knox protests: “Why ye should accuse us that we should affirm, that God shall judge the world, not according to Christ’s Evangel plainly revealed, but according to some other secret will, I see neither cause nor reason.”222 Knox understood a number of seemingly universal texts as restricted in scope. 2 Peter 3:9 referred only to the elect.223 Similarly, Ezek. 18:23 was not simply applicable to all.224 Knox, however, clearly acknowledged that “there is a General vocation, by which the world by some manner of means is called to the knowledge of God.”225 This general gospel offer was to be distinguished from effectual calling or God’s “vocation of purpose, which appertaineth to God’s children only.”226 Knox frequently spoke of the refusal of “God’s mercies offered”.227 Additionally, he spoke of “graces and mercies which are common to all.”228 In view of this, and of his direction that it is “Christ’s Evangel plainly revealed”, rather than any hidden decree, that directs our duty, it is reasonable to

218 Knox, Works, 5:304. Knox was unwilling to speak of a revealed will that all be saved, for Scripture has revealed that not all will be saved. Knox, Works, 5:309. An example of the secret will was why some are chosen for salvation and not others. 219 Knox, Works, 5:309 – 11. 220 Knox, Works, 5:314. Knox’s reasoning may be understood as follows: God commands all to repent, this is therefore God’s revealed will. When Knox denied then a will for the salvation of all this ultimately must refer to the secret will (voluntas arcane). 221 Knox, Works, 5:341 – 2. 222 Knox, Works, 5:361. 223 Knox, Works, 5:417 – 8. 224 Knox, Works, 5:406 – 7. 225 Knox, Works, 5:117. 226 Knox, Works, 5:117. 227 Knox, Works, 5:22. See also Knox, Works, 5:42 – 43, 45, 144, 246 – 7. It was the “light of salvation” that was “offered … to the unthankful world.” Knox, Works, 5:22. 228 Knox, Works, 5:87.

Scotland and the Free Offer before Durham

59

state that preaching was, for Knox, “above all a proclamation of the Gospel to the Scottish Nation full of passionate pleading on behalf of the divine mercy”.229

Robert Rollock (1555 – 99) The key figure responsible for the development of Reformed theology in Scotland in its early stages was Robert Rollock (1555 – 99).230 Durham was familiar with Rollock, calling him “famous Master … Divine Mr. Rollock” and citing from his lectures on John 17.231 Sherman Isbell notes that “Rollock was a seminal early exponent of covenant theology in Scotland”.232 M. Charles Bell correctly observes that Rollock’s significance to Scottish theology lay in his development of covenant theology, particularly the covenant of works, and in his teaching that “all of God’s dealings with man take the form of a covenant, so that, apart from a covenant God does not speak to man.”233 Rollock clearly tied the free offer of the gospel to his covenant theology : “The end and use of the promise in the Covenant of Grace is … freely promised and offered (gratis promittitur & offertur) to the believers in the gospel.”234 This offer was indeed conditional, for “God offereth (promittit) righteousness and life under condition of faith.”235 For Rollock, this free offer was the offer of Christ, for “Christ with his benefits is considered as he is offered in the Word and Sacraments (offertur in verbo & sacramentis); that is, as he is offered (offertur) unto us, as in a looking glass.”236 Although the Word and Sacraments offered Christ,

229 Torrance, Scottish Theology, 10. Compare also the statement of Donald MacLeod that “Knox … regarded the Free Offer as an axiom.” MacLeod, “Dr T.F. Torrance and Scottish Theology,” 58. For further information on Knox’s preaching, see Richard Kyle, “The Thundering Scot: John Knox the Preacher,” WTJ, 64:1 (Spring 2002): 135 – 150. 230 For biographical information on Rollock, see Sherman Isbell, “Robert Rollock,” DSCHT, 726. Mullan notes that Rollock “was perhaps Scotland’s pre-eminent theologian during the first eighty years of the Reformed kirk.” Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 19. I am indebted to Marty Foord for discussions on Rollock. 231 Durham, Revelation, 206. 232 Isbell, “Rollock, Robert,” DSCHT, 726. For a study of Rollock’s covenant theology, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, 512 – 39. See also McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 4. 233 M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 52. Bell also highlights that, for Rollock, “when God makes a covenant with man it generally involves a conditional promise.” See also Richard, Supremacy of God, 140. 234 Robert Rollock, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling in Select Works of Robert Rollock (ed. William M. Gunn; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1849), 1:44; Robert Rollock, Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci (Herbornæ Nassoviorum, 1600), 21. 235 Rollock, Select Works, 1:40; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 16. 236 Rollock, Select Works, 1:196; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 177.

60

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

primarily the offer came through Christ “offered in the preaching of the Gospel (in verbo Evangelii oblatum).”237 Rollock warned in his preaching against a “contemning of the grace that is offered”.238 It appears that, for Rollock, behind this urging and warning lay a certain will in God for the salvation of all men. Fairly unusually in Reformed theology, Rollock applied 1 Tim. 2:4 generally to all men.239 He observed that the context of 1 Tim. 2:4 was a command to pray for all men, and that this flowed from God’s will for all men to be saved. From this it followed “that in the publishing of the Gospel, God hath respect not only of all men in common, but also distinctly of every several person (sed etiam distinct¦ singulorum); which regard also he will have us to have in our prayers.”240 Rollock firmly understood the free offer of Christ as the central focus of faith: “it is easily perceived what the special and first object of faith is; namely, Jesus Christ with all his benefits, and even so, as he offereth (offert) himself in the Word and Sacraments.”241 It is in this context that Rollock affirmed that the free offer of the gospel was not an offer that was merely presented to men in general; rather, it was a specific offer and conditional promise to each hearer : “it is to be noted of this object of faith, that it is special, that is, offered to me, to thee, and to every man specially and distinctly (specialiter & sigillatim oblatum mihi, tibi, & aliis singulis hominibus).”242 Although it was true that the promises were framed in general terms, for example whoever believes, yet they were to be understood as if they addressed every hearer in particular, as if by name.243 This particular offer was important for assurance as if mercy was offered specifically to every individual hearer, then everyone who embraced Christ had no reason to doubt, but could be certain mercy was theirs, as it was offered to them in particular.244 Rollock distinguished the free offer of the gospel from the “effectual” call which could not be resisted. On the one hand, he stated that “the promise of the covenant, which is offered (oblatam) unto us in Christ, is of the mere grace of God (ex mera Dei gratia est)… [this] grace may be called the grace of our 237 Rollock, Select Works, 1:208; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 192. 238 Rollock, Sermon XVIII, in Select Works, 1:551. 239 1 Tim 2:4: “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (NKJV.) 240 Rollock, Select Works, 1:215; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 199. Compare also the treatment of this verse in Robert Rollock, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Geneva, 1595), 178. Here Rollock states that God wills (in a sense) even the salvation of the reprobate: “Deus vult omnes homines saluos sieri. I. Tim. 2.4. vult, inquam, salutem etiam reproborum, quia salus creaturæ in se res bona est: ver¾m non decernit eam, imý verý decernit mortem ac perniciem eorum.” 241 Rollock, Select Works, 1:197; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 178. 242 Rollock, Select Works, 1:197; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 178. 243 Rollock, Select Works, 1:214; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 199. 244 Rollock, Select Works, 1:217; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 202.

Conclusion

61

vocation; this grace is common to all that are called, elect and reprobate.”245 On the other hand, however, there was also “grace in our effectual calling [which] may be called the grace of faith, appertaining only to the elect; for it is given only to those that are predestinated to life everlasting to believe.”246 He explained that there were two elements of mercy shown in the covenant. The first was the outward offering of Christ in the gospel. The second mercy shown was in the giving of faith to receive Christ as he was offered. All who heard the preached gospel experienced the first mercy, but only recipients of the effectual call knew the blessings of the full mercy of God.247 Rollock emphasized the centrality of the free offer of the gospel for the ministry and preaching. He noted that the “frail and poor creatures” who held “such a high, excellent, and glorious office” were “to offer salvation to them who before were condemned and castaways … to the end that the gospel and the promises of mercy may profit and edify them.”248 This was expressed elsewhere in the instruction “that they in their ministry might declare, and make manifest the gentleness and long-suffering of God towards all men”.249 In view of this survey, Charles Bell’s comment that, when speaking of the free offer of the gospel, “Rollock means, more precisely, that grace is offered to everyone among the elect” must be regarded as inaccurate.250

Conclusion There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from these Reformed theologians and Confessions. First, they all accepted that there was a free offer made to the hearers of the gospel. There was no limitation in extent to the gospel offer other than the practical consideration that the gospel is not offered where there are no preachers. Second, the free offer of the gospel is a particular invitation to each hearer. Third, the free offer was usually regarded as an expression of a certain revealed willingness and (in some cases) desire on the part of God that it be accepted. That is, the gospel offer was sincere and well-meant. This desire was related to the revealed will (voluntas revelata) rather than the secret will (voluntas arcane).251 Indeed, distinctions between the revealed and hidden will of 245 Rollock, Select Works, 1:269; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 261. Thus Rollock viewed the free offer of the gospel as an expression of God’s common grace. 246 Rollock, Select Works, 1:269 Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 261. 247 Rollock, Select Works, 1:270 – 1; Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci, 263. 248 Rollock, Sermon XVII, in Select Works, 1:531. 249 Rollock, Of the Resurrection of Christ, in Select Works, 2:532. 250 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 55. 251 Some theologians in the British delegation at Dort would go beyond this.

62

The Free Offer of the Gospel in Reformed Theology and Creeds

God were often invoked to help ease the theological tensions created by the free offer and its relationship with predestination. This was done while acknowledging that the will of God was one and simple, implying that in embracing the free offer of the gospel within a predestinarian scheme there was an implicit acceptance of the distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa. Fourth, the free offer of the gospel was a vital component of the work of the ministry. Fifth, the free offer of the gospel lay at the heart of the definition of faith. This was because without a gospel offer to all, none would be able to embrace Christ as Saviour. Sixth, the free offer of the gospel was important to provide a basis for assurance of faith. Seventh, covenant theology and conditionality became increasingly important for expressing the free offer of the gospel. This reflected the general development of Reformed covenant theology over the timeframe considered in this chapter. It is likely then, that these seven points are consistent with, and inherent in, the teaching of Westminster Confession 7:3 that “he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved”.252 However, while these points seem clear from the primary literature, the secondary literature has not always recognised this. As noted above there are those who deny that Reformed theology taught a free offer at all, while others believed that in adopting the free offer Reformed theology embraced a form of universal redemption, be that Hypothetic Universalism or Amyraldianism. An in depth case study of the thought of James Durham will further clarify whether the points identified above are indeed representative of Reformed theology, as it came to expression in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

252 WCoF 7:3, in Westminster Confession, 42 – 43.

Chapter Two: James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

James Durham’s Life and Times In his work on John Owen, a contemporary of James Durham, Carl Trueman emphasizes “the need to interpret individual theologians as existing and working within established theological traditions (exegetical, doctrinal, philosophical, etc.), and to understand specific formulations of doctrine historically rather than dogmatically. This approach simply reflects sound historical methodology”.1 Before consideration is given to Durham’s specific theological views, therefore, time must be taken to set Durham in his historical and theological context. In so doing, the times in which he lived and the leading features of his life will firstly be outlined. Secondly, contemporary and subsequent assessments of Durham’s significance will be considered.

The Scottish Reformation before James Durham Durham lived through turbulent times both nationally and theologically (although in the mid to late seventeenth century the two concepts of nation and religion are more or less intertwined). The Reformation and its theological outlook had really become established in Scotland from 1560 onwards.2 It was 1 Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998), 10. 2 General works which cover some or all of the period from the Reformation until Durham’s rise to prominence include W.R. Foster, The Church before the Covenants: The Church of Scotland 1596 – 1638 (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1975); Maurice Lee Jr, The Road to Revolution: Scotland Under Charles 1, 1625 – 37 (Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1985); Walter H. Makey, The Church of the Covenant 1637 – 1651: Revolution and Social Change in Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1979); Rosalind Mitchison, Lordship to Patronage: Scotland 1603 – 1745 (London: Edward Arnold, 1983); Morrill, The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context; Frances Dow, Cromwellian Scotland, 1651 – 1660 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1979); David Stevenson, Union, Revolution and Religion in 17th-Century Scotland (Aldershot: Ash-

64

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

this year that saw the Scottish Parliament sever ties with the Catholic Church, the drafting of the Scots Confession, and the first meeting of a “General Assembly”. The Scottish Church had a fairly tense relationship with the Crown over the following years, especially during the reign of James VI who was King of Scotland from 1578 to 1625.3 James VI had “no liking for Presbyterian church government or forms of worship.”4 Before he was really established on the throne, the Church and Crown came together in 1581 to produce the Negative Confession (or King’s Confession) which was intended to strengthen the Protestant character of the Scottish church and nation.5 However, in 1584 the Scottish Parliament passed the “Black Acts”, which in effect moved the Scottish Church in an Erastian and Episcopalian as opposed to a Presbyterian direction. This led to conflict between the Church and Crown which was eventually eased in 1592 through the establishing of some elements of Presbyterian government and discipline by means of the “Golden Act”.6 However, this peace was short-lived and the following years were characterized by disputes between James and the Church.7 James effectively restored episcopacy in 1610, and the Acts of 1592 were to all intents and purposes annulled in 1612. A new Episcopal confession of faith was drawn up in 1616. The Five Articles of Perth, ratified by the General Assembly in 1618, were imposed on a reluctant Church and furthered the attempt to move it more thoroughly in an Episcopal direction with regard to worship and the sacraments.8 While the Scottish Church was involved in wrangles over church government and worship, the Dutch Church was engaged in disputes over soteriology which were to have a lasting influence on the theological landscape. As discussed in Chapter One Jacobus Arminius (1560 – 1609), a former student of Theodore Beza and Professor in Theology at Leiden University, began to formulate soteriological propositions which were at odds with what was then received as orthodoxy. Following his death, his followers produced a five point remonstrance in 1610 explaining their position which can be summarized as: “(a) election on the

3 4 5 6 7 8

gate (Variatorum), 1997); David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637 – 44 (1973; repr., Edinburgh: John Donald, 2003); David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644 – 1651 (1977; repr., Edinburgh: John Donald, 2003); Mullan, Scottish Puritanism; R Scott Spurlock, Cromwell and Scotland: Conquest and Religion 1650 – 1660 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2007). 1578 was the end of James’s “formal minority”. For a summary of James VI’s life see K.M. Brown, “James VI,” DSCHT, 441. W. David J. McKay, “Scotland and the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession (ed. J. Ligon Duncan), 214. W.I.P. Hazlett, “King’s Confession,” DSCHT, 459. D.F. Wright, “Golden Act,” DSCHT, 368. James succeeded Elizabeth I on the throne of England and Ireland in 1603, thereby uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. Sherman Isbell, “Perth, Five Articles of,” DSCHT, 654 – 5.

James Durham’s Life and Times

65

basis of foreseen faith; (b) universal atonement securing the salvation of believers; (c) the necessity of regeneration (although with an understanding of human depravity which differed considerably from orthodox teaching); (d) resistible grace (e) uncertain perseverance.”9 A counter-remonstrance was produced and years of theological dispute ensued. Eventually the Synod of Dort was called, with an international representation. The result of the Synod was the condemnation of the Remonstrant position. Despite the minimal Scottish representation at the Synod, Needham asserts that “The Synod of Dort had considerable impact on the Scottish Church, reinforcing its Reformed (broadly Calvinistic) position. The discussions at Dort were well known in Scotland through books and teaching in the divinity faculties … The canons came to be regarded as a test of orthodoxy”.10 In 1625 James VI was succeeded by Charles I. Charles’ attempts to impose further episcopal reforms on the Scottish Church were to prove a step too far. In 1636 he introduced a Book of Canons, which was followed by a new liturgy in 1637. The latter provoked an outbreak of violence and set in train events which would lead to the signing of the National Covenant in 1638 and to the sitting of the Glasgow Assembly that same year.11 These would overturn the Episcopal reforms of James VI and Charles and establish a Presbyterian form of church government. Charles was incensed, and there followed the two Bishops’ Wars of 1639 and 1640 in which the Scots defeated Charles.12 In 1642 civil war broke out in England, and the English Parliament called for Scottish aid in 1643. Following the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, Scottish military aid was forthcoming. One of the concessions the Scots exacted for this aid was that there would be religious conformity between Scotland and England. As a result, Scottish commissioners were sent to the Westminster Assembly which had already begun sitting in 1643.13 It was around this time that Durham began to emerge as a public figure within a Scottish Church which had reasserted its Presbyterian character and which was committed to Reformed theology as outlined by Dort and refined by Westminster. Further consideration of the historical and theological context in which he laboured will be given in an outline of the specific details of his life.

9 Nicholas R. Needham, “Dort, Synod of,” DSCHT, 252. 10 Needham, “Dort,” DSCHT, 252. See also G.D. Henderson, Religious Life in SeventeenthCentury Scotland (1937; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 60 – 76. 11 J.D. Douglas, “National Covenant,” DSCHT, 620; D. Stevenson, “Glasgow Assembly,” DSCHT, 364; Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 56 – 126. 12 J.D. Douglas, “Bishops’ Wars,” DSCHT, 77 – 78. 13 McKay, “Scotland and the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession (ed. J. Ligon Duncan), 216 – 9.

66

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Durham’s Life14 James Durham was born in 1622, the son of James and Helen Durham. His mother was the daughter of John Ramsay, arch-dean of Dunkeld. His father (James Durham of Pitkerro) became director of the rolls of the exchequer15 and held the family estate at Easter Powrie, Angus, which would come to Durham in 1643.16 The information about Durham’s early life is sketchy. He pursued initial studies at the University of St Andrews but left without taking a degree and settled into life as a country gentleman. He appears to have married Anna, daughter of the Laird of Duntarvie, some time before the civil war.17 According to Howie, Durham, through the influence of his family, “did not stand well affected to the presbyterial government”.18 However, on one occasion while with his wife’s family he was persuaded to attend church and was converted under the preaching of Ephraim Melville at a communion season. Following this experience, Durham’s religious convictions changed, and he devoted much of his time to theological study. Christie expresses it as follows: “A new atmosphere now filled Powrie House. The young laird made no secret of his convictions whether 14 In addition to various introductions to his printed works, the main sources of information on Durham’s life are Robert Wodrow, Analecta, or materials for a history of remarkable providences; mostly relating to Scotch Ministers and Christians (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1842 – 1843); Robert Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII.–M.DC.LXII (ed. David Laing; 3vols.; Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1841 – 1842); Archibald Johnson, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Volume II, 1650 – 1654 (ed. David Hay Fleming; Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1919); Archibald Johnson, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Volume III, 1655 – 1660 (ed. James D. Ogilvie; Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1940); John Howie, Biographia Scoticana: Or, A Brief Historical Account of the Lives, Characters, and Memorable Transactions of the Most Eminent Scots Worthies (Glasgow : John Bryce, 1781); George Christie, “James Durham as a Courtier and Preacher”, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, iv (1930): 66 – 80. Brief summaries based on these more extended biographies are found in D.C. Lachman, “Durham, James,” DSCHT, 265 – 266; K. D. Holfelder, “Durham, James (1622 – 1658)”, ODNB. Information from many of these sources has been helpfully summarized in Holsteen, “Popularization.” 15 The information given here agrees with Christie, “James Durham”, 66, and Holsteen, “Popularization,” 190. Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB, has this James Durham as brother of the subject of this study, which seems unlikely. 16 Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB. 17 Wodrow, Analecta, 3:104. Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB. gives the date of the marriage as 1648, which seems implausible as Durham was converted after his marriage. If the marriage was in 1648, he would have impressed David Dickson, trained for the ministry, been ordained and preached for a year prior to this marriage and conversion. Christie, “James Durham”, 66, has Durham marrying in 1642 (which seems more reasonable) and Howie, Biographia Scoticana, 224, states that Durham’s wife died in 1648. 18 Howie, Biographia Scoticana, 221; Wodrow Analecta, 3:104 – 5.

James Durham’s Life and Times

67

in public or private, was zealous in personal devotion and conscientious in family worship, and now interested himself keenly in the welfare of the Church.”19 If Durham was now interested in the welfare of the Reformed Church, there was much to be concerned about, especially in light of the outbreak of the English Civil War in August 1642. In its conflict with Charles I the English Parliament looked to the Scots for aid. The Solemn League and Covenant was signed on the 25th of September 1643, resulting in Scottish military assistance for the parliamentary cause. The Civil War was to have a profound effect on Durham’s life, as it was during this conflict that he was persuaded by David Dickson to go into the ministry. It appears that while Durham was a captain in the army during the Civil War, he was overheard praying with his troops by Dickson, who was so impressed with the prayer that he urged him to consider the ministry.20 Christie ties this event to the battle at Marston Moor on 2nd July 1644.21 Durham was to be a close associate of Dickson throughout his ministry. He studied under Dickson in Glasgow, commencing his ministerial training in 1645 and graduating with an MA on 30th April 1647. He was licensed on 18th May by the Presbytery of Irvine, and became minister of the Blackfriars Church in Glasgow on 2nd December 1647,22 the year that the Scottish General Assembly adopted the Westminster Confession. Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish delegates to the Westminster Assembly, preached and presided over his ordination.23 Durham’s first wife died in 1648, leaving him with one son. Charles I surrendered to the Scots in May 1646 and was eventually handed over by them to the English Parliamentary army early in 1647.24 Charles then tried to make an alliance with the Scottish nobility which resulted in what is known as “The Engagement”.25 This alliance was accepted by the Scottish Estates but rejected by the General Assembly of the Church. No one, on pain of excommunication or deposition, was to be party to it. Those who joined together to form the Scottish army in support of Charles were defeated by Cromwell at Preston in August 1648. Under pressure from Cromwell, the Scottish Parliament 19 20 21 22

Christie, “James Durham”, 67. Wodrow, Analecta, 3:105, 9. Christie, “James Durham”, 67. These dates are consistent with Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB. The date for Durham’s licensing is given as 1646 by Howie, Biographia Scoticana, 223, but this seems to be an error. 23 Florence N. McCoy, Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation (Berkerly : University of California Press, 1974), 114. 24 This information is helpfully summarized in David C. Lachman, “Introduction” in James Durham, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (1659; repr., ed. Chris Coldwell; Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990), v-ix. 25 For a useful overview, see David C. Lachman, “Engagement, The,” DSCHT, 293; McCoy, Robert Baillie, 115 – 124.

68

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

condemned “the Engagement” in January 1649. Charles I was executed in London shortly afterwards, despite the opposition of the Scots. Charles II was soon proclaimed King of Scotland after he was cajoled unwillingly into subscribing to the terms of the National Covenant. The English swiftly despatched an army to deal with this new threat, and the Scottish army was defeated at Dunbar on 3rd September 1650. This defeat shattered Scottish unity, and the divisions remaining under the surface from the debates over “The Engagement” now re-emerged. The position of those who had been excluded from the army by the “Act of Classes” following the defeat of “The Engagers” became a matter of dispute.26 Some argued that, in view of the threat posed by the English, those previously excluded should now be welcomed back into the army. After deliberation, and contrary to the petitions of some Presbyteries, the Commission of the General Assembly, “in view of the great and evident necessity occasioned by the presence of enemy troops in the kingdom, could not oppose the raising of all but the excommunicated … In the ensuing months the Commission urged the Church not to give comfort to the enemy by speaking disrespectfullie of the public, just, and necessarie Resolutions.”27 As a result, the Commission of Assembly approved the repeal of the “Act of Classes” and cleared the way for the army to recruit new members. The following July (1651) the General Assembly, meeting in difficult circumstances and with large parts of the country occupied by the English, had to deal with protests over the Commission’s actions. The outcome of this assembly was to censure those who had submitted the protest, including Samuel Rutherford. During these difficult and turbulent years Durham rose to prominence in the affairs of the Church. Holfelder summarizes his responsibilities in this period as follows: “In August 1649 he was appointed to sit on the general assembly’s powerful standing committee, the commission for the public affairs of the kirk. In 1650 he was called to replace Dickson in the chair of divinity at the University of Glasgow, but was prevented from taking up this charge when he was appointed one of the king’s chaplains.”28 26 See, McCoy, Robert Baillie, 124. 27 Lachman, introduction to Scandal (ed. Coldwell), vii. 28 Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB. For Durham’s appointment to the Commission for the Public affairs of the Kirk, see Alexander Peterkin, Records of the Kirk of Scotland: Containing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies, from the year 1638 downwards, as Authenticated by the Clerks of Assembly, Volume 1 (Edinburgh: John Sutherland, 1838), 549 – 50. For evidences of Durham’s significance see Peterkin, Records of the Kirk, 553, 566, 570. For Durham’s appointment as Professor in Glasgow University, see James Christie and Alexander F. Mitchell, eds., The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh the Years 1648 and 1649 (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1896), 409. The 1650 General Assembly, where Durham was present, appointed him as chaplain to the King. See, McCoy, Robert Baillie, 132.

James Durham’s Life and Times

69

This brief account, of necessity, does not reveal much of the controversy of these years. When Charles II landed at Speymouth on Sunday 23rd June 1650, David Dickson, James Durham, James Guthrie and Robert Burnett were sent by the Commission of Assembly to congratulate and to counsel him.29 They met with Charles on 6th July. Durham then assumed his duties as minister to the king; Robert Blair and George Hutchison were also designated chaplains, but only Durham regularly attended the king.30 Durham’s responsibilities are listed by Christie as follows: “the chief duty of ministering to the Royal Household devolved upon him. He acted also as the constant channel of communication between the King and the Commission, met and consulted with frequent deputations from that body and with Committees of Parliament, carried letters from and to the King and joined in the discussions and orders of the Commission when meeting near the court or when he was sent to it.”31 Durham’s health and finances suffered from the duties of the court and its frequent movements. On the 23rd November 1650 the Commission of Assembly recognised his “present distemper and indisposition” and granted him leave.32 However, within five days, and at the King’s request, the Commission called Durham back to his post.33 Despite this he was again noted as absent from the King due to sickness on 7th January 1651.34 According to Baillie, “one of the grounds on which Mr. James has reason of malcontentment, is the neglect of his maintenance. I think he has his own burdens on his lands, beside that the quarterings this year, and some years bygone, hath made his rent small in itself, near to nothing; he has a numerous family, he has no stipend from Glasgow : I see not how he must not be straitened.”35 The Commission of Assembly on 22nd 29 Christie and Mitchell, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1648 – 1649, 439; Peterkin, Records of the Kirk, 597. 30 For the Commission of Assembly noting Hutchison’s absence, see James Christie, ed., The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh in 1650, in St. Andrews and Dundee in 1651 and in Edinburgh in 1652 (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1909), 44. 31 Christie, “James Durham”, 70. In September 1650 Ephraim Melville and Gilbert Hall were sent to assist Durham for two months. Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 69. Melville was later excused on grounds of illness. Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 116. According to Lovis Hodges, Durham’s work as chaplain “was performed with such majesty and awe that reverence was inspired for him on the part of the court.” L.I. Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classical Scottish Theology,” 452. However, no references were supplied to support this claim. One supporting evidence for this claim might be the evident desire of Charles II to have Durham present at his court. Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 133 – 4. 32 Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 117. 33 Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 133 – 4. 34 Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 234. 35 Baillie, Letters, 3:155. Baillie was Professor of Divinity at the University.

70

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

January 1651 promised to respond to Durham regarding his desire to be given leave from the King, and on 18th March 1651 allowed him six weeks leave to rest and to attend to the financial situation of his family.36 During his time away from the king, Durham preached to Cromwell and did so, in the opinion of Baillie, “graciously and well to the times as could have been desired.”37 Though Durham returned to the royal court he really desired to take up his calling to be Professor of Divinity in Glasgow University.38 However, by now his place at the university had been filled by Robert Ramsay and his proposed return caused much consternation to Robert Baillie. He complained in a letter on 4th April 1651 that “Mr. James Durham is pressing himself in a fair way, directly and at once, I fear many shall press it for him in a boisterous way, to be admitted to actual service in the College presently. We are here in a great strait”.39 Baillie also argued in the same letter that “his deserting of the King hurt his Majesty.”40 He believed that to grant Durham his desired position as professor would be “To wrong Mr. Ramsay, ourselves, and the King, and the public, and, as we conceive and fear, the peace of these parts,” although he also noted that, “we are loath to resist Mr. James Durham’s own desires and his powerful solicitors: we will find it hard enough.”41 Durham himself had written to the rector of the university on the 31st March 1651, stating his willingness to take up a position there, but also to respect the will of the members of the General Assembly if they ordered it otherwise.42 In an undated letter, Baillie responded by trying to pacify Durham. He noted that they had considered Durham’s position as professor and the possibility of his taking up that role, but it was decided that the General Assembly had called Durham to be chaplain to the king instead and so he had no position in the university to which he could return.43 Baillie also protested that he did not know that Durham really desired to take up a professorship at the university.44 He 36 Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 253, 335. See also, Christie, “James Durham”, 71. 37 Baillie, Letters, 3:165. 38 Lachman, “Durham, James,” DSCHT, 266, states that Durham “apparently never returned” to the royal chaplaincy following his initial request. This does not tie in with other biographical accounts and is likely to be an error. On 15th May the Commission of Assembly appointed four other ministers “to be assisting to Mr. James Durhame for performing all ministerial duties” to the King. Christie, Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies, 1650 – 1652, 405. Further, there is a letter from Durham dated 14th July 1651 expressing his intention to go to the king “immediately”. Baillie, Letters, 3:560. 39 Baillie, Letters, 3:146. 40 Baillie, Letters, 3:146. 41 Baillie, Letters, 3:147. 42 Baillie, Letters, 3:148. 43 Baillie, Letters, 3:149. 44 Baillie, Letters, 3:150. It must be noted that, in view of his other correspondence on the matter, Baillie is being rather disingenuous here. Christie is too generous to Baillie in taking

James Durham’s Life and Times

71

explained that, based on the Church’s belief that Durham had given up the professorship to become chaplain to the king and that Durham was supposedly indifferent between the two options, Robert Ramsay had been called to be professor. Noting that some (including Patrick Gillespie) were agitating for Durham to be restored to his post at Glasgow, he wrote to Durham as follows: “I do really judge that your leaving of your present charge were a more eminent hurt to the Churches in all the three Kingdoms, by the clear and certain hurt and grief it would bring to the King and Court; also the great disreputation and sore reflection [that] would by it fall on the King in this time when he has no such need, and great strengthening of their injurious mistakes, who long have been holding out the hypocrisy and misdemeanours of the King.”45 If service in the king’s court really was becoming unbearable for Durham, then Baillie believed that there was a vacant church in Glasgow which might be suitable for him.46 Ironically, with all the controversy this caused, Baillie’s chosen professor, Robert Ramsay, died before he was able to take up his appointment.47 Even more ironically, following Ramsay’s death Baillie was anxious to see Durham installed, having done everything in his power to prevent him previously.48 With these disputes going on in the background, Durham continued his role of chaplain to the king until Charles II decided to lead a surprise offensive into England.49 Durham offered to accompany Charles to England but his offer was not accepted.50 Charles’ army was routed at Worcester in September 1651, and he went into exile.51 Durham was released from his duties as chaplain and became minister of Glasgow High Church, St Mungo’s West quarter. Durham married his second wife, Margaret Mure, the widow of Zachary Boyd, on 14th December 1653. There seems to have been some affection between them prior to Zachary Boyd’s death, as it is alleged that when Margaret suggested to Boyd on his deathbed that he leave something to Durham, he rather caustically commented: “Na, na! I’ll lea him what I cana keep frae him.”52 While there is no

45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

Baillie’s statements at face value when he states that “he was unaware of Durham’s inclination towards a Chair of Divinity”. Christie, “James Durham”, 72. Baillie, Letters, 3:151. Baillie, Letters, 3:152. Durham’s dislike of his role as chaplain is evident in his complaints that the King “was simple and cruel, and that he was ay glaiking [behaving foolishly] at sermons and prayers, in kirk and familye.” Johnson, Diary II, 137. See also Johnson, Diary II, 139. Baillie, Letters, 3:238. See also Johnson, Diary II, 132. Baillie, Letters, 3:312. Christie, “James Durham”, 73. Johnson, Diary II, 105. For a helpful summary of events from the Kirk agreeing to allow individual “Engagers” back into the Army to the ultimate defeat of Charles II, see McCoy, Robert Baillie, 133 – 47. Christie, “James Durham”, 75.

72

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

suggestion of impropriety, Christie comments: “Certainly, her widowhood was of the briefest.”53 Durham remained in the Glasgow High Church for the rest of his life. His work there has been summarized by Holfelder as follows: “He regularly preached three times a week, lectured before his sermons, visited the sick, catechized from house to house, met with his session weekly to consult on matters of church discipline, and attended presbytery and synod meetings. In addition he gave daily public lectures every fifth week, undertook daily catechizing before communion seasons, and spent a considerable part of every day in private devotion, prayer, and study. His labours were increased in late 1656, when, by the importunity of some friends, he was persuaded to publish his lectures on the book of Revelation.”54 Throughout the years following the initial defeat of Charles II in Dunbar on 3rd September 1650, as noted earlier, the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy raged in the Church.55 The Resolutioners supported allowing those who had signed “The Engagement” into the army and favoured the public resolutions to that end, while the Protestors vehemently opposed this policy. Durham attempted to find a middle path that would bring both parties together. Indeed it was largely as an attempt to heal these divisions that Durham wrote his famous Treatise of Scandal. However, even though the conflict between the English and Scottish army was finally ended by the English victory at Worcester, the divisions in the Church endured. In the words of Lachman, “There was no doctrinal difference between the parties, no question of heresy ; but the division once made proved impossible to heal.”56 Howie comments: “His healing disposition and great moderation of spirit remarkably appeared when this church was grievously divided betwixt the resolutioners and protestors; and as he would never give his judgement upon either side … He was equally respected by both parties”.57 Although living in an age when neutrality on theological issues “was scarcely 53 Christie, “James Durham”, 75. 54 Holfelder, “Durham, James,” ODNB. 55 For a recent study of this controversy see Kyle D. Holfelder, “Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion and Occupation of Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester-Resolutioner Controversy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1998). See also William Stephen, ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry Volume 1 (1652 – 1657) (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1921); William Stephen, ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry Volume II (1657 – 1660) (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1930). 56 Lachman, introduction to Scandal (ed. Coldwell), ix. 57 Howie, Biographia Scoticana, 226. In the words of Robert Wodrow, “He was a man greatly for the peace of the Church as his carriage at that time evidenced and his book upon Scandal makes it plainly evident for he said either of the two Publick Resolutions or Protestations was much better than the division they made about it.” Analecta, 3:106.

James Durham’s Life and Times

73

understood and was little appreciated,” Durham still managed to command the respect of both factions.58 Accordingly, both the Protestors and Resolutioners chose him as moderator of their respective groupings of the Synod. However, Durham refused to moderate either faction unless they met together, both parties eventually acquiescing to his demands. This is a clear indication of the respect in which he was held by his contemporaries.59 Combined with respect there was, however, genuine perplexity at his stance. In a letter dated 4th April 1651, and before the 1651 Assembly which sealed the division, Robert Baillie commented as follows: “What Mr Durham minds we know not; in the Synod, and the Committee, wherein his name was always called, and sometimes he sat, he was not against us; but if he had been pleased to have sided any ways with us who were for the Public Resolutions, it might have done us much good.”60 Elsewhere he complains that “Mr. James Durham did refuse to declare his mind pro or contra”.61 Indeed, Baillie argued that Durham’s indifference, far from healing rifts, would “increase our divisions” and that his stance “comforts and strengthens much the faction that profess difference from the Public Resolutions, though he as yet profess[es] none.”62 From Baillie’s point of view, Durham’s position was more dangerous than that of the Protestors: “I fear his accommodations more than all the eight commissioners’ violence.”63 According to Baillie, Durham’s stance was the “chief instrument” that enabled so many Protestors to be found in and around Glasgow.64 Durham, together with Robert Blair, was to spend the years following the 1651 Assembly labouring for unity. He tried to get acceptance for terms of union in 1652 which began with these significant words: “Being still more and more convinced of the necessity of Union among the Ministers of this Church, by the many evils that accompany these differences, [the Synod] do therefore think it expedient, to endeavour some way of healing, [or] at least of preventing the growing, of the same.”65 This did not meet with the agreement of Baillie and those sympathetic to his Resolutioner stance, and he wrote to Durham accordingly.66 This rejection ob58 Christie, “James Durham,” 74. 59 Christie, “James Durham,” 74. Also related in Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 99; John MacLeod, Some Favourite Books (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988), 26 – 27. 60 Baillie, Letters, 3:145. 61 Baillie, Letters, 3:195. Johnston of Wariston agreed with Baillie. Johnson, Diary II, 147. 62 Baillie, Letters, 3:146 – 7. Johnston of Wariston went further complaining of Durham’s “politic halting betwixt two opinions.” Johnson, Diary II, 105. 63 Baillie, Letters, 3:171. This, of course, was the root of Baillie’s opposition to Durham becoming a Professor. 64 Baillie, Letters, 3:222. 65 Baillie, Letters, 3:185. See also Robert Blair, The Life of Mr. Robert Blair (ed. Thomas M’Crie; Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1848), 325 – 6; McCoy, Robert Baillie, 152 – 3. 66 Holfelder comments, “All that Durham and Blair received for their efforts to reconcile the

74

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

viously hurt Durham and he wrote back strongly to Baillie, who replied in kind. Antipathy on this matter continued, and after another abortive attempt to heal the differences in 1653,67 Durham and Blair tried once again to bring about a union of the two factions during 1655.68 Baillie complained in a letter : “Mr. Durham going through Saint Andrews to his house of Powrie, he fell with Mr. Blair to resume his old counsels of a general union with the Remonstrators, by an overture of oblivion of bygones.”69 As before, Durham’s aim of achieving unity came to nothing and he virtually retired to his congregation, ignoring the work of the larger Church. Baillie recorded on 1st September 1656: “Mr. James Durham is independent with me, (which contributes to my peace,) but his grounds are diverse.”70 Wodrow comments that Durham “was very little in Presbyteries or general Sessions. And Mr Douglas, or Mr Blair, when any were going from them to Glasgow, used to say, ‘Remember me to that Independent, Mr Durham!’”71 Durham’s withdrawal from the public affairs of the Kirk led to a rapprochement with Baillie, who wrote: “I did oft repent my opposition of his re-entry to the College, though I remain in the mind I did no wrong; and as things then were, I could not have well done otherwise than I did.”72 In 1656 there seems to have been a proposal to invite Durham to be provost of a college to be set up in Ireland.73 This was not taken forward, however, and by now Durham was suffering from “gravel and melancholic”.74 With the absence of Patrick Gillespie and Robert M’Ward from Glasgow in 1657, a far greater burden fell on him in his church. Extended pastoral duties for over a year, together with preparing his work on Revelation, proved too much for him and by May 1658 he was ill with fever.75 Baillie wrote: “It were a great pity of the man; albeit I have my own differences with him, and sharp reckonings sometimes, yet I love him dearly, and count him one of the best and ablest men in Britain.”76 Durham did not recover and died at the age of thirty-six on the 25th June 1658. Wodrow records Durham’s death as follows: “Mr Durham, on his death-bed, was under some darkness, as to his interest in Christ, and said to Mr Carstairs,

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

rival factions was the opprobrious appellation of ”neuters” – men who lacked the conviction to join with one side or the other.” Holfelder “Factionalism in the Kirk,” 167. Holfelder “Factionalism in the Kirk,” 189. See Johnston, Diary III, 1 – 4, 11 – 19. A detailed record of the union discussions of this period is contained in Stephen, Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh I (1652 – 1657), 90 – 184. Baillie, Letters, 3:279. Baillie, Letters, 3:311. Wodrow, Analecta, 2:140. Baillie, Letters, 3:312 – 3. See also, McCoy, Robert Baillie, 185. McCoy, Robert Baillie,185 – 6. Baillie, Letters, 3:312. McCoy, Robert Baillie, 200. Baillie, Letters, 3:368.

Durham’s Writings

75

‘Brother, for all that I have preached and written, there is but one Scripture I can remember or dare grip to; tell me if I dare lay the weight of my salvation upon it? ‘Whosoever cometh to me, I will in no ways cast out.’’ Mr Carstairs said, ‘Sir, you may depend on it, though you had a thousand salvations to hazard!’”77

Durham’s Writings According to George Christie, “The writings of ‘judicious Durham’ claim a place in Scottish Bibliography simply owing to their great popularity.”78 By way of justification for this comment he notes that “For six generations after Durham’s death his sermons, expositions and devotional writings were a delight and a strength to the religious of the land. The heavy folios were in the back rooms of ministers … Eleven titles stand under Durham’s name, seventy one editions of these have been noted, twenty six printing presses in eight towns of Scotland, England and Holland were engaged upon them, and not one of the decades from his death to the beginning of the last century is without at least one of his books – a century and a half!”79 Eleven works were issued in Durham’s name and one joint production with David Dickson was published anonymously. These works are, in chronological order, as follows:80 – With David Dickson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge. First published 1650.81 – A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation. First published 1658.82 – The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal. First published 1659.83 – Clavis Cantici: An Exposition of the Song of Solomon. First published 1668.84 – A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments. First published 1675.85 77 Wodrow, Analecta 1:136. For other similar accounts see Analecta, 3:106, 297. 78 George Christie, “A Bibliography of James Durham: 1622 – 1658,” Publications of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, 11 (1921), 34. 79 Christie, “James Durham,” 79 – 80. 80 The source for these dates is Christie, “Bibliography,” 35. John MacLeod notes that “until the close of the eighteenth century they [Durham’s books] were part of the regular output of Scottish presses that printed the works of our old divines.” Some Favourite Books, 31. 81 Westminster Confession, 321 – 43. Henderson states this work was “almost as well known to eighteenth and nineteenth-century Evangelicals as the Shorter Catechism.” Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 163. 82 Durham, Revelation. 83 Durham, Scandal. 84 James Durham, The Song of Solomon (Aberdeen: George King, 1840). 85 Durham, Ten Commandments. G.D. Henderson notes the popularity of this work in the seventeenth century. Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 13.

76

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

– The Blessednesse of the Death of these that Die in the Lord. First published 1681.86 – Christ Crucified: Or, the Marrow of the Gospel. First published 1683.87 – The Unsearchable Riches of Christ. First published 1685.88 – Heaven Upon Earth: the Joy of a Good Conscience. First published 1685.89 – The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness. First published 1685.90 – The Great Corruption of Subtile Self. First published 1686.91 – Lectures on the Book of Job. First published 1759.92 The assignation of the anonymous work, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, to Dickson and Durham is largely due to Robert Wodrow : “Mr David Dickson. He and Mr James Durham drew up The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in some afternoons when they went out to the Craigs of Glasgow to take the air, because they thought the Catechism too large and dark; (and, if I be not forgot, my informer, Mr P. S. [Patrick Simson,] was their amanuensis,) and the application was the substance of some sermons Mr Dickson preached at Inneraray, written out at the desire of my Lady Argyle.”93 There seems no reason to doubt this attribution, especially given the unity of doctrine between The Sum of Saving Knowledge and what is contained in Durham’s sermons. Although it is likely that the bulk of the work is Dickson’s, consideration will be given to it as part of Durham’s corpus. The Sum of Saving Knowledge is a significant work for this study in that particular attention is given to the free offer of the gospel in the section entitled “Warrants to Believe”.94 This work is also important in that its common printing with the documents produced by the Westminster Assembly gave it a prominence in excess of most other works produced by individuals.95 Durham’s work The Unsearchable Riches of Christ contains the locus classicus of his thoughts on the free offer of the gospel, namely, his sermon on Matthew 86 James Durham, The Blessednesse of the Death of these that die in the Lord, and more especially in an evil time: excellently discoursed in seven very searching, but very sweet sermons, on Revel. 14. v. 13 (Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1682). 87 James Durham, Christ Crucified. 88 James Durham, Unsearchable Riches. 89 James Durham, Heaven Upon Earth (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685). 90 James Durham, The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685). 91 James Durham, The Great Corruption of Subtile Self (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1686). 92 James Durham, Lectures on the Book of Job (ed. Chris Coldwell; Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2003). 93 Wodrow, Analecta 1:166. See also MacLeod, Some Favourite Books, 27; Torrance, Scottish Theology, 111. 94 Westminster Confession, 332 – 9. 95 Hodges called this work “the foremost articulation of the seventeenth-century Scottish Federal Calvinism.” Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classical Scottish Theology”, 451.

Durham’s Writings

77

22:4, “All things are ready : come unto the marriage” (KJV).96 When Carstairs commends Durham’s presentation of the free offer he highlights “particularly that on Matth. 22”.97 This sermon, and others contained in the same volume, show clearly how Durham put the free offer of the gospel into practice. Durham’s exposition of Isaiah 53, Christ Crucified, begins with several sermons which explain the theological underpinnings of the free offer in his thought. This volume also contains a clear explication of his position on the nature and extent of the atonement and on covenant theology. The contents are therefore very significant in understanding his theology. In the words of John MacLeod, we have “a monument of the preaching of the golden age of the seventeenth century pulpit in this volume from the pen of the judicious Durham.”98 Durham’s Commentary on Revelation is important for three reasons. Firstly, it shows how he expounds key texts related to the free offer of the gospel, such as Rev. 3:20 and Rev. 22:17.99 Secondly, it contains several independent treatises which are Durham’s most overtly theological compositions and which impinge on the free offer of the gospel. Thirdly, he cites many sources, thereby providing an insight into the theologians who shaped and influenced his thought. Richard Muller notes that this work “offers significant access to seventeenth-century Reformed and Presbyterian thought” and that “Durham’s work illustrates the relationship of Scripture with doctrine and piety and dogmatics in seventeenthcentury Reformed thought.”100 John MacLeod further acknowledges the representative nature of this work: “The Commentary on the Revelation gives what, in past days, was the accepted Protestant view of that book”.101 Durham’s other works do not shed much additional light on his doctrine of the free offer and therefore will be referred to only sparingly. His Treatise on Scandal is useful in showing the breadth of theological influences that shaped his thought. A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments is helpful for the same 96 97 98 99

Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 41 – 76. John Carstairs, introduction to Unsearchable Riches, *3. MacLeod, Some Favourite Books, 24. Durham, Revelation, 216 – 7 and 779 – 80. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (NKJV.) and “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (NKJV.) 100 Richard Muller, review of James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, CTJ 36.2 (Nov 2001): 383. See also Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 23. 101 MacLeod, Favourite Books, 29 – 30. Durham’s eschatological views have been examined in Peter Toon, ed., Puritan Eschatology (London: James Clark, 1970), 39 – 41; Michael Wilks, ed., Prophecy and Eschatology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 123 – 9; Bryan W. Ball, A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 (Leiden: Brill, 1975); Jeffrey K. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586 – 1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006).

78

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

purpose, and also gives an insight into his views concerning the covenant of works.

Durham’s Significance As James Durham is being taken as a case study to examine the meaning of one of the clauses in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it is important that Durham was highly regarded by his contemporaries as a faithful representative of their theological outlook. There is ample evidence that this was indeed the case. The two Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly who lived beyond the Assembly, Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie, both regarded Durham very highly. (Of the two other ministerial commissioners from Scotland who attended, Alexander Henderson died in 1646 and George Gillespie in 1648.) Rutherford wrote to Durham as Durham lay on his deathbed, acknowledging that he had well “preached to others the skill of the Guide”, meaning that Durham had well explained to others the way to heaven, and noting that his death would be a “real loss to the church of God.”102 Baillie similarly held Durham in high respect: “Robert Baillie … lived in close association with Durham, having an extremely high opinion of his talents and learning.”103 He acknowledged that Durham’s opinions were held to be “of exceeding great weight deservedly”, and that he was a man “of the greatest authority and parts among us.”104 As Baillie sat under Durham’s ministry, these observations were based on personal experience: “he is the minister of my family, and almost the only minister in this place of whom my soul gets good, and whom I respect in some things above all men I know”.105 Baillie expressed particular respect for Durham’s “Case-Divinity, wherein he is excellent, and daily grows.”106 He further commented: “from the day I [joined in ordaining him] … I did live to the very last with him in great and uninterrupted love, and in an high estimation of his egregious [remarkable] enduements [accomplishments], which made him to me precious among the most excellent Divines I have been acquainted with in the whole Isle. O if it were the good pleasure of the Master of the Vineyard to plant many such noble Vines in this Land!”107 In view of his disputes with Durham

102 Samuel Rutherford, Letters of Samuel Rutherford (ed. Andrew Bonar ; Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1891), 685. 103 Christie, “James Durham”, 68. 104 Baillie, Letters, 3:222; 3:179 – 80. 105 Baillie, Letters, 3:312 – 3. 106 Baillie, Letters, 3:222. 107 Robert Baillie, [Epistle to the] Reader in Durham, Revelation, n.p.

Durham’s Significance

79

over the professorship at Glasgow University, Baillie is being somewhat economical with the truth in his comments here. Other contemporaries of Durham in Scotland also regarded him highly. According to Robert Blair (1593 – 1666), “In my humble opinion, that which was spoken of the vertuous woman, Prov. 30. v.29. may well be applied to the pains this Author hath taken on that Book [Revelation]: Many Writers have done worthily, but thou excellest them all”.108 John Brown of Wamphray (c.1610 – 1679) commended the discussion of the extent of redemption by that “learned and solid divine Mr Durham”.109 Perhaps the most glowing tributes came from his brother-in-law and co-pastor John Carstairs, who called him “great Mr. Durham” and noted that he “had some excellency peculiar to himself in what he spoke or writ.”110 He added that Durham was “famous and deservedly in very high esteem in our Church”,111 as one “from whose pen or mouth, no thing hath hitherto dropped into the press, that hath been unsavoury or unacceptable to the Churches of Christ”.112 Carstairs particularly expressed appreciation of his preaching of the free offer of the gospel, declaring that Durham “spake some way as a man that had been in Heaven, Commending Jesus Christ; making a Glorious display of the Banner of free Grace … bringing the offers thereof very low, wonderfully low … the Rope or Cord of the Offer of Salvation was let down and hung so low to sinners, that those of the lowest stature amongst them all, though but as Pygmees, might have catcht hold of it, who, through Grace, had any mind to do so: and so home, so vehemently and urgently pressed, on so sweet and easie terms to be embraced that I have been sometimes made to wonder how the hearers could refuse or shift them”.113 In line with this, Christie states that “his sermons were not directed to fencing and barring, but inviting and attracting.”114 108 Robert Blair, preface to Durham, Scandal, n.p. Blair intended to cite Prov. 31:29. 109 John Brown, Quakerisme The path way to Paganisme or A View of the Quakers Religion (Edinburgh: Printed for John Cairns and other booksellers, 1678), 190. He also commended Durham’s understanding of faith in relation to justification. John Brown, The Life of Justification Opened or A Treatise grounded upon Gal. 2:11. (n.p., 1695), 303. 110 John Carstairs, introduction to Durham, Ten Commandments, n.p. Carstairs went so far as to compare Durham to Gregory Nazianzus: “it’s reported of Nazianzen, he was of such authority in the Greek Churches, that whosoever durst oppose his testimony, was suspected to be an Heretick: So it may be said of the piously and prudently-peacable, and healingspirited Author, that he deserveth to be of such authority, at least in the Scottish Church, that whoever shall adventure to oppose (as it’s hoped none will) his wise, harmlesse, holy and healing Overtures, may be suspected to be no great friend to the union and peace of this afflicted and rent church.” Carstairs, introduction to Durham, Scandal, n.p. 111 John Carstairs, introduction to Durham, Revelation, n.p. 112 John Carstairs, introduction to Durham, Blessednesse of Death, n.p. 113 John Carstairs, introduction to Durham, Unsearchable Riches, *3. 114 Christie, “James Durham”, 76.

80

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Durham’s contemporaries in England were of a similar opinion. John Flavel (1628 – 1691) regarded him as a “judicious expositor”.115 William Jenkyn (1613 – 1685) commented on “the excellent and useful labours of this worthy author”, and argued that his commendation of Durham’s work was “but an attempt, to make the sun appear more resplendent by the faint and feeble light of a Candle.”116 Perhaps the most significant contemporary commendations came from John Owen (1616 – 1683). He referred to the great “reputation, which the known piety and abilities of its author, have in the Church of God,” adding “And this he hath deservedly”.117 In Owen’s opinion, Durham was “one of good learning, sound judgement, and every way ‘a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.’”118 One of the features of his writings that Owen commends is that “Plainness and perspicuity in teaching seems to have been designed”, and that “all Ornaments of Speech, every thing that diverts from plainness, sobriety, and gravity” were avoided.119 The standard works on Scottish church history have recognized Durham’s influence. John Howie calls him “the eminently pious, learned and judicious Mr. James Durham … whose praise in the gospel is throughout all the churches both at home and abroad. He was a burning and shining light, a star of the first magnitude, and of whom it may be said (without derogating from the merit of any), that he attained unto the first three and had a name among the mighty.”120 James Walker declared that “no Scotchman of that age was more profoundly venerated.”121 William Blackie makes the same point: “It is certain that of all the outstanding preachers and theologians of that age none was spoken of with more respect and reverence by his contemporaries.”122 According to John MacLeod, “among the mighties of his day … [Durham] was among the mightiest of them all.”123 G.D. Henderson recognized that Durham “was one of the most popular preachers and exegetes of the [seventeenth] century.”124 Durham’s influence lasted long beyond his lifetime. In the eighteenth century 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel (6 vols.; London: W. Baynes and Son), 4:19. William Jenkyn, “To the Reader”, in Durham, Ten Commandments, n.p. John Owen, “To the Christian Reader”, in Durham, The Song of Solomon, 19. Owen, “To the Christian Reader”, Song of Solomon, 19. John Owen, “To the Reader”, in Durham, Ten Commandments, n.p. Howie, Biographia Scoticana, 228. Walker, Theology and Theologians, 17. Walker also compared Durham to John Owen: “his [Durham’s] thorough, searching, cumbrous intellect, reminds you not seldom of John Owen.” Theology and Theologians, 18. 122 William G. Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century (1888; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 129. 123 John MacLeod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1974), 94. 124 Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 19. See also Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 85, 103, 202, 205.

Durham’s Significance

81

he was referred to as an authority during the Marrow controversy, the Marrowmen calling him a “great divine”.125 In the nineteenth century he was still being referred to as an authority by both parties in the controversy that was agitating the Free Church of Scotland over union with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland.126 Contemporary scholarship has also recognized his significance. Philip Ryken, for instance, states that “The sermons of James Durham … are typical of Scottish preaching in the middle of the seventeenth century.”127 Donald MacLeod includes Durham amongst those who have produced the standard Scottish expositions of the atonement, and Sherman Isbell accounts his works among those where Presbyterianism “received classic exposition”.128 Given his significance, it is surprising that few works examine Durham’s theology in great detail. The general surveys of Scottish church history noted above, by their very nature, do not engage in thorough theological analysis.129 Those works which discuss Durham’s theology in depth tend to locate him within the ‘Calvinists against Calvin’ school of historiography. Examples of this include Thomas Torrance, Charles Bell, Norma Downie, D.J.M. Corbett and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Nathan Holsteen and L.I. Hodges.130 For instance, Torrance claims that “a bifurcation took place in Scottish Theology, between the federal Calvinism of Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, David Dickson and James Durham, and the teaching of Calvin himself,” thus simultaneously recognizing Durham’s importance while drawing an alleged contrast between

125 John Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated (Canonsburg: Andrew Munro, 1827), 185. See Chapter Five for a consideration of the Marrow Controversy. 126 MacLeod, Favourite Books, 30. 127 Philip G. Ryken, “Scottish Reformed Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), 206. 128 MacLeod, “Atonement, The”, DSCHT, 40 and Sherman Isbell, “Church and State (Theological Questions),” DSCHT, 181. 129 Hunter Bailey’s dissertation also makes a number of references to Durham, which are generally accurate in their understanding of his thought. Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” passim. 130 Torrance, Scottish Theology ; Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology ; Norma F.W. Downie, “The doctrine of assurance in Scottish theology from the Westminster Assembly of 1643 to the Secession of 1733” (M.A. (Theol.) diss., University of Manchester, 1986); Donald John Macrae Corbett, “The Moral Aspect of the Atonement in Scottish Theology from David Dickson to James Denney and H.R. Macintosh” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1965); Holsteen, “Popularization”; Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classical Scottish Theology”. An introductory response to this school of thought can be found in Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy,” CTJ 30:2 (1995): 345 – 75 and 31:1 (1996): 125 – 60.

82

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

earlier and later Reformed theology.131 This study will interact critically with these works at relevant points as Durham’s theology is explored.

Durham’s Theology So far Durham’s life has been outlined in order to set him within the context of the times in which he lived. As his specific understanding of the free offer of the gospel is inseparable from his general theological outlook, it is important to outline the leading features of his theology before considering this one aspect of it in greater detail.

The Sources of Durham’s Theology: Scripture and Church History Durham’s grasp of church history has often received comment. In his own day it was observed that “He was so familiarly acquainted with the Fathers as if [he] himself had been one of them.”132 His appetite for learning was such that he said to his friends at the time of his death that if he had another ten years to live he would study for nine and preach only the tenth.133 More recent surveys of his theology have confirmed this, with George Christie observing that “The most cursory survey of his published works show how wide and deep the foundations of his scholarship were laid.”134 Christie again particularly notes his knowledge of the early church.135 This familiarity with church history, however, did not affect the unique role that Scripture had in forming Durham’s theology. In all theological reflection it was the Word which “is to be acknowledged as the supream rule.”136 Indeed the Word, in his thought, is so far removed from other writings that it would be sinful to read Scripture “even as if ye were to read a common humane History”137 because the Scripture is written by the Spirit as well as by a human author.138 To 131 Torrance, Scottish Theology, 63. 132 Carstairs, introduction to Scandal, n.p. Wodrow also spoke of Durham’s “great learning and reading and knowledge in History.” Analecta, 108. Henderson notes Durham is “never at a loss for a patristic reference and exhibits a remarkable range of historical knowledge”. Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 129. 133 Wodrow, Analecta, 1:168. 134 Christie, “James Durham”, 76. 135 Christie, “James Durham”, 76. 136 Durham, Revelation, 155. See also Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 81, where he speaks of the “special usefulness of his Word” which people are to “esteem highly”. 137 Durham, Christ Crucified, 454. 138 “Be the writer who will, it is the Spirit who is the inditer”. Durham, Lectures on Job, 1.

Durham’s Theology

83

understand Scripture better, Durham commended study in languages, history and science as “useful exceedingly … and necessary for the Church”.139 However, these studies were not to be perverted to overturn Scripture; rather, they were only to “enable men to manage” the old Word better.140 Human learning was undoubtedly useful, but he adopted the traditional protestant maxim that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, stating that “it’s a received Rule for expounding Scripture, to expound more dark places, by places that are more full and clear.”141 In accordance with this limited acceptance of the usefulness of other writings beside Scripture,142 Durham cited, for example, Socrates143 and Josephus.144 In this respect he believed that he was following the apostolic precedent, as “the writings of Heathens have been made use of for good ends by Paul, as his citing of them upon severall occasions cleareth.”145 However, the overwhelming majority of Durham’s references to non-scriptural writings are to authors within the Christian tradition. He quotes and interacts with a wide variety of Christian thinkers.146 From the patristic period the figure most commonly mentioned is, unsurprisingly, Augustine, with 55 references. Other key writers from this period were Chrysostom (20), Eusebius (17), Cyprian (16), Tertullian (12) and Irenaeus (11). Almost all the major figures and events in the patristic period are acknowledged at some point by Durham. The medieval period is more sparingly referenced; however, the opinions of Thomas Aquinas are given attention on ten occasions and those of Duns Scotus on six. Many references are made by Durham to writers from the Reformation to his own day. Unsurprisingly, given his polemic desire to confute Roman Catholicism, the learned Jesuit Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621) received by far the most citations with 51. Other leading Roman Catholics were also mentioned, including the ecclesiastical historian Caesar Baronius (9), the Flemish Jesuit Cornelius a Lapide (7) and Francisco Saures (6). As well as Baronius, Durham turned to the Protestant histories of the “Centuriators of Magdeburg” (11) and Johannes Sleidanus (6) for information on the course of church history. Dur139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

Durham, Revelation, 201. Durham, Revelation, 202. Durham, Revelation, 30. Durham does acknowledge that on occasion the knowledge of history and science play a more major role, e. g. for understanding prophetic works such as Daniel and Revelation. Durham, Revelation, 326. Durham, Revelation, 115. Durham, Revelation, 154, 368, 547, 737. All these references are to the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus. Durham, Revelation, 202. As Curt Daniels notes, “Much can be learned about a writer’s method by examining the sources he employs.” Curt Daniels, “John Gill”, 40.

84

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

ham’s other contemporary references read like a “who’s who” of Reformation and post-Reformation theology. From the Continent mention was made of Luther (13), Calvin (6), Andre Rivet (5), Martin Bucer (4), Theodore Beza (3), Hugo Grotius (3), Peter Martyr Vermigli (3), John Daillie (2), Philip Melancthon (2), Zwingli (2), Bullinger (1), Gomarus (1), Wolfgang Musculus (1) and Jerome Zanchi (1). From England and Ireland Durham included Joseph Mede (13), Richard Baxter (9), William Ames (3), Oliver Bowles (2), Robert Bolton, (2), Richard Greenham (2), James Ussher (2), Jeremiah Burroughs (1), Thomas Goodwin (1), William Perkins (1) and William Twisse (1). From Scotland he referred to John Cameron (5), Robert Boyd of Trochrigg (4), George Gillespie (3), John Davidson (2), David Dickson (2), John Welsh (2), John Knox (1)147 and Samuel Rutherford (1). Durham also mentioned the New England divines Thomas Hooker (6), John Cotton (4), John Norton (4) and Thomas Cobbett (2).148 It is evident, therefore, that while Durham’s theology was self-consciously derived from Scripture, it was nonetheless articulated in the context of a constant interaction with the major thinkers of the Christian tradition, from the patristic period to his own day.149

Durham’s Representative Reformed Theology As noted in the Introduction, Durham’s theological outlook was deeply respected by his peers, one of whom stated that Durham had a “very deep reach in the profoundest and most intricate things in Theology.”150 Having considered 147 The surprising paucity of references to Knox was also a feature of Rutherford’s writings, as Kim observes: “One interesting thing, we must mention is that Rutherford quotes only infrequently from John Knox (1514 – 1572).” Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 29. The reception of Knox among the leading mid-seventeenth-century Scottish Reformed theologians would be a worthwhile study. 148 All in all, the breadth of the references in this list demonstrates Mullan’s contention that “the religious history of Scotland must be studied and presented in an international context: religious thought did not develop in a vacuum, in isolation from English and European influences.” Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 4. 149 What Kim notes of Rutherford is therefore true of Durham as well, and indeed may be predicated of Scottish mid-seventeenth-century Reformed theology as a whole: “The first thing noted here is the international character of his theological research. It is truly not only as a ‘Scottish Puritan’ but in the wider continental context of Reformed scholasticism that we should understand Rutherford’s theological enterprise. But this has never been attempted … Therefore, in order to understand his theology, we have to understand him in the wider context of international Calvinism or Protestant orthodox scholasticism, which was built from various Christian theological traditions, and which has never yet been researched with regard to Rutherford’s theology.” Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 30 – 32. 150 Carstairs, introduction to Revelation, ix.

Durham’s Theology

85

the sources of his thought, it is now appropriate to explore the areas of theology to which he devoted specific (often polemical) attention in his writings. Whilst it has been noted that Durham “here and there differed from some great men”, in general he was a traditional rather than a pioneering Reformed theologian.151 It was observed that he propounded no “new, uncouth or strange thing[s].”152 Indeed, he was in the main opposed to theological innovation, believing that one way to evaluate “new” theological opinions was to see whether they expressed any viewpoints previously condemned in Church history.153 This conservatism was also evident in his use and acceptance of theological terms that he may not have necessarily regarded as most felicitous, stating that “there is no just reason to cast them, the use of them having now of a long time made them to passe in this matter, without mistake”.154 As might be expected from a conservative Reformed theologian in the midseventeenth century, there were certain contemporary errors that Durham believed were particularly damaging and worthy of refutation and to which he devoted significant polemical attention.

Arminianism In common with his Scottish contemporaries Durham was a tireless opponent of the “Enemies of Grace” who made conversion dependent not on the sovereignty of God but “on Man’s Free-will”.155 To his mind it was easy to demonstrate “how dangerous and damnable this Error is”, along with the related errors of universal atonement, common sufficient grace, election on the basis of foreseen faith and the possibility of the loss of salvation.156 The proponents of this view of salvation became known as the Arminians, and, for Durham, deserved to be listed among “the most grosse Hereticks of old and of late.”157 His opposition to Arminianism arose in part from his belief that Arminian tenets “overthrow the design of grace in the salvation of sinners.”158 That is, Arminian doctrines undermined the sovereignty of God in dispensing grace to whom he will, when he will, and how 151 Carstairs, introduction to Revelation, pix-x. 152 Carstairs, introduction to Revelation, pix-x. 153 So, for example he commented that “it is an allowed way of confuting new start-up delusions, to show their agreement, on the matter, with former old acknowledged and condemned Heresies.” Durham, Revelation, 155. 154 Durham, Revelation, 236. This point will be discussed in more depth in relation to Durham’s understanding of the conditionality of the covenant of grace. 155 Durham, Christ Crucified, 101. 156 Durham, Christ Crucified, 101. 157 Durham, Scandal, 188. 158 Durham, Christ Crucified, 227.

86

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

he will.159 This diminished the glory and sovereignty of God, and therefore, for Durham, was to be firmly resisted. In what was to emerge as a common feature of his thought, Durham also had pastoral reasons for rejecting Arminianism, because he believed that it was “destructive to the consolation of God’s People.”160 For him, it removed the security provided by the Reformed system, with its doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and therefore left believers in a state of perpetual uncertainty. It also placed faith and salvation in the hands of the individual, thereby diminishing the glory of the sovereign mercy of God, and correspondingly reducing the sinners’ thankfulness to and dependence on God. Durham’s opposition to Arminianism obviously had implications for his doctrine of the gospel offer. As noted in Chapter One, Arminius alleged that a doctrine of the free offer was incompatible with a firm belief in unconditional election. Due to these, and other, objections, Durham had to consider how his position on the free offer related to his commitment to the sovereignty of God. This is explored in more detail in Chapter Three.

Hypothetical Universalism Related to this opposition to Arminianism, was Durham’s resolute criticism of any attempts from within the Reformed camp to posit a universal salvific significance to the atonement, such as a double reference in the atonement, where Christ died for both the elect and the reprobate but in different senses, or a hypothetical, conditional redemption of all men.161 He acknowledged that, in contrast to the “gross heresy” of Arminianism, the Reformed version of universal redemption was propounded by “Learned men, who in their Writtings do abhor the grossness of the Socinian and Arminian Doctrines concerning Redemption.”162 Nevertheless, any hint of stating that Christ died “only to make reconciliation with God upon the condition of believing and Faith in Christ, possible” was unacceptable.163 Durham was also adamant that if the aim of positing a broad reference to Christ’s work, within an otherwise strictly particularistic soteriology, was rapprochement with Arminian or Lutheran theo159 Further general critical references to Arminianism can be found in Durham, Christ Crucified, 86, 102, 180, 519; Durham, Revelation, 251, 307, 312. These references would be greater in number but for Durham’s unwillingness to bring up Arminian errors too frequently in preaching. Durham, Christ Crucified, 85. 160 Durham, Christ Crucified, 102. 161 Examples include John Cameron, Mose Amyraut and John Daillie. See Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement for a thorough survey of views. 162 Durham, Revelation, 312. 163 Durham, Revelation, 307.

Durham’s Theology

87

logians, it would fail in its aim as the sovereignty of God in election would remain a divisive point.164 This was a key polemical focus of Durham’s writings, evidenced by a 34-page essay on this subject in his commentary on Revelation,165 and will be considered in further detail when discussing his doctrine of the atonement. Again, it is important to note that Durham’s opposition to any form of hypothetic universalism meant he had to consider how the gospel offer could be to all, if Christ did not die for all. This is considered further in Chapter Three.

Socinianism Even worse than the Arminians were the Socinians. It was almost impossible for Durham to excoriate them in strong enough terms. They were “the great Enemies of Christ’s satisfaction”,166 “blasphemers”167 and “wretched.”168 Indeed, so far had they sunk into error that they “are not worthy to be disputed with, nor accounted Christians; but rather to be joyned with, and reckoned among, Heathens, or the followers of Mahomet”.169 In Durham’s opinion, there were two key areas where the Socinians simply abandoned orthodox Christianity. The first related to their anti-Trinitarian Christology, with their denial of the deity of Christ. This led in part to his characterization of them as “wretched Socinians”.170 Their other grave error concerned the atonement of Christ, and in particular their denial that it was a substitutionary propitiation for sin.171 He regarded their reduction of the propitiation of Christ to a mere example as “a blasphemy which is most abominable to be once mentioned.”172 These two errors were linked: once the deity of Christ was denied, it followed necessarily that Christ’s death could not be a satisfaction for sin as it was robbed of its intrinsic merit.173 Durham considered Socinianism a major threat and his sermons on Isaiah 53, while not an explicit polemic against this teaching, so set forth the death of 164 See Durham’s comments in Revelation, 411. 165 ‘Concerning the extent of the merit of Christ’s death, or, if it may be accounted a satisfaction for all men,’ in Durham, Revelation, 299 – 325. 166 Durham, Christ Crucified, 129. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 181, 305. 167 Durham, Christ Crucified, 193. 168 Durham, Revelation, 298. 169 Durham, Revelation, 299. 170 Durham, Revelation, 298. 171 For a study of Socinius’ understanding of the atonement, see Alan W. Gomes, “De Jesu Christo Servatore: Faustus Socinus on the Satisfaction of Christ,” WTJ 55:2 (Fall 1993): 209 – 231. 172 Durham, Christ Crucified, 193. 173 Durham, Revelation, 298.

88

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Christ in terms of propitiation and penal substitution as to convey a strong undercurrent of anti-Socinian thought. He also devoted an entire essay in his commentary on Revelation, namely “Concerning the Nature of Christ’s death or, if it be properly a satisfaction”, to a refutation of the Socinian position on the atonement of Christ.174 Durham’s opposition to Socinianism, while not directly touching on the free offer of the gospel, nevertheless still impinged on points related to the free offer. Insofar as he refused to allow the “rationalistic” arguments of the Socinians against the Trinity or the person of Christ to control his theology it provides evidence that he would not reject the free offer of the gospel on the supposed grounds that it contradicts reason e. g. how can God with sincerity offer salvation to someone who in God’s decree cannot accept the offer?175 Again, in defending a substitutionary atonement against the Socinians Durham clearly defines the content of the gospel, and hence the gospel offer, as the substitutionary death of Christ. Without this death, there would simply have been no gospel to offer.

Antinomianism As might be expected from a seventeenth-century Scottish theologian, the spectre of antinomianism loomed large, partly because of a fear of the everpresent threat of English antinomianism spreading north.176 While there are numerous general critical references to antinomians in Durham’s writings,177 it is possible to draw out three central areas where he took issue with them. The first was the antinomian definition of faith. Here the initial act of faith was made to be a belief of “I am justified” rather than a syllogistic reasoning, “I believe in Christ therefore I am justified”. Assurance of justification for the antinomians therefore ceased to be a reflex act of faith; rather it was regarded as 174 Durham, Revelation, 295 – 9. 175 On Socinianism as a rationalist movement see Turretin, Institutes, 1:24 (1.8.3); Institutio, 1:23 who states that “Socinians … the more easily to reject the mysteries of the Trinity, incarnation and satisfaction of Christ (and others of the same nature in Scripture), contend that reason is the rule of religion of things to be believed, and those things are not to be believed which seem to the mind impossible.” Further see Martin I. Klauber and Glen S. Sunshine, “Jean-Alphonse Turrettini on biblical accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?” CTJ 25:1 (April 1990):13. For a consideration of the extent to which it is fair to label Socinius himself a rationalist see Alan W. Gomes, “Some observations on the theological method of Faustus Socinus (1539 – 1604),” WTJ 70:1 (Spring 2008): 49 – 71. In contradistinction from the Socinians, the Reformed doctrine of the Trinity was “characterised by an unresolved tension between the oneness and the threeness of God”. Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 50. 176 See Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist (London: J.D. & R.I. for Andrew Crooke, 1648). 177 For example, Durham, Christ Crucified, 179; Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 33, 309.

Durham’s Theology

89

being of the essence of faith in a manner Durham found objectionable.178 In his opinion, this definition of faith presupposed a universal redemption. He reasoned that, if the first act of faith was belief in a personal justification, everyone had to have a warrant to believe they were justified. In order to have that universal warrant, the condicio sine qua non of justification, namely the atoning death of Christ, also had to be universal.179 For Durham, as will be seen, it was the gospel offer, rather than any supposed universal atonement, that provided the warrant for faith. The second, and related, point concerned justification itself. Antinomians held that the elect were justified from eternity, in that they were never under God’s judicial wrath against sin. It was because of this belief in “eternal justification” that faith was not the means of justification, as it was for Durham, but simply a realisation of a prior justification. By denying that believers were ever under the wrath of God against sin, the Antimonians were denying the express teaching of Scripture.180 The doctrine of eternal justification has undoubted ramifications for the gospel offer, for if the elect were already reconciled with God, then all that would be offered in the gospel would be a conscious awareness of an already present justification, rather than the offer of a real justification in Christ, conditional on faith. The third, and similarly interlinking point, was the antinomian position on sanctification. In Durham’s opinion, the antinomian insistence on the sinlessness of believers in the sight of God was simply a conflation of justification and sanctification. Believers were indeed declared holy before the tribunal of the justice of God, but making believers actually holy was a life-long and progressive process.181 In denying that believers still fell into sin, Antinomians were “worse than Papists”, because the Roman Catholic Church nowhere said that a believer’s sins were no more sin.182 Associated with their denial of sin in the lives of believers was the Antinomians’ inability to formulate an acceptable doctrine of repentance.183 Durham’s objections to antinomianism will be discussed further when his views on justification are considered.

178 179 180 181 182 183

Durham, Christ Crucified, 419. Durham, Christ Crucified, 478. Durham, Revelation, 236. Durham, Christ Crucified, 481. Durham, Christ Crucified, 254 – 5. Durham, Revelation, 251.

90

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Roman Catholicism Unsurprisingly, another key polemical target for Durham was the Roman Catholic Church. His language here was uncompromising. Papists were “inveterate enemies of the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “that black train that follows Antichrist.”184 There were several areas of Roman Catholic theology which Durham believed were particularly dangerous. High on this list was the Roman doctrine of the mass, which he considered to be a “most horrid Blasphemy”.185 Making the mass in effect a propitiatory sacrifice, while not overturning the satisfaction of Christ as Socinian theology did, was nevertheless a “gros Errour” in that it diminished the once for all nature and perfection of Christ’s satisfaction.186 The office of Christ as priest was undermined not only by the mass but also by the teaching of the intercession of the saints.187 Durham was also highly critical of the Roman doctrine of faith, which “places faith in the understanding” rather than the traditional Reformed view of faith as nota, assentia and fiducia.188 For Durham, and the Reformed tradition in general, saving faith could not simply be in the understanding, as even “the devils also believe and tremble”. (James 2:19, KJV.) It had to involve a “resting [on] and receiving of Christ.”189 It was not only the definition of faith where Durham believed that the Roman Catholic Church erred. He also felt that the whole Roman system of religion with “ceremonies, holy dayes, Doctrine of merit of works … the great yoke of will-worship and superstition … penances, pilgrimages, satisfactions, indulgences, invocations of Saints and Images, and such like” mitigated against any assurance of faith and kept souls “uncertain of Grace 184 Durham, Christ Crucified, 254. For another complementary survey of Durham’s attitude to Roman Catholicism see Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classic Scottish Theology”, 494 – 498. 185 Durham, Christ Crucified, 324. 186 Durham, Christ Crucified, 356. 187 Durham, Revelation, 289, 429 – 30. 188 Durham, Christ Crucified, 475 – 8. Thus Armstrong: “The orthodox doctrine [of faith] was generally discussed as made up of three elements: notitia, assensus, fiducia.” Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy : Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 68. It should also be noted that Durham is mildly critical of some of the Reformed who went too far in their opposition to the Roman Catholicism and made assurance an essential element of faith. Durham, Christ Crucified, 479. See the helpful general discussion in MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 27 – 31. 189 WLC Q& A 72 in Westminster Confession, 165. Armstrong is therefore incorrect in asserting that later Reformed theologians denied the tripartite nature of faith and reduced it to “assent to the propositions of the entire body of Scripture as the true Word of God.” Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 139. Indeed, Holsteen claims that Durham “explodes the notion that faith is simply knowledge.” Holsteen, “Popularization,” 253.

Durham’s Theology

91

and Salvation.”190 Indeed, “nothing doth more natively breed anxiety and spiritual torment than the principles contained in the Popish Doctrine”.191 Again Durham’s pastoral focus is evident. As a Protestant theologian, Durham obviously took issue with the Roman Catholic teaching on justification. In some respects he felt that the Church of Rome was guilty of the opposite error to that of the antinomians. Both were guilty of confusing justification and sanctification, but while Durham considered that the antinomians “make all Sanctification to be Justification”, he believed that “the Papists make all Justification to be Sanctification”.192 In other words, by their doctrine of the sinlessness of believers the antinomians had virtually abandoned a doctrine of sanctification, while by their allowing good works a role in justification Roman Catholics had virtually abandoned justification and made it sanctification. This is not to say that Durham saw nothing to agree with in the Roman Catholic view of justification; on one occasion he listed seven areas of common ground between the Protestant and Catholic teaching on justification before proceeding to the areas of conflict.193 Durham also opposed other elements of Roman Catholic theology, for example, its ex opere operata view of the sacraments,194 its understanding of the intercessions of Christ pertaining to the human nature only,195 and its understanding of repentance.196 It is difficult to overstate Durham’s antagonistic stance towards the Roman Church. At the root of this antipathy was his eschatological belief that “the Pope is the very Antichrist, and the papacy the very antichristian Kingdom”.197 He devoted three essays in his work on Revelation to refuting Popery : Concerning the comfortless grounds that Popery layeth down for the comforting of poor afflicted Consciences; Concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome; Concerning the difficulty of Salvation under Popery.198 In summary, Durham believed that a consistent Roman Catholic “cannot be saved, nor expect Justifi-

190 Durham, Revelation, 440. 191 Durham, Revelation, 439. 192 Durham, Christ Crucified, 481. Durham accused Richard Baxter of approaching the Roman view of justification, albeit unintentionally. Durham, Revelation, 245. 193 Durham, Revelation, 587. 194 Durham, Revelation, 81. 195 Durham, Christ Crucified, 521. 196 Durham, Revelation, 251. Other general critical references are Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 94, 343 and Durham, Revelation, 521. 197 Durham, Revelation, 573. This teaching is consistent with WCoF 26:6 in Westminster Confession, 108. 198 Durham, Revelation, 445 – 6; 454 – 63; 584 – 95.

92

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

cation before God” and that “the Popish Church is no Church of Christ, but is truley Antichristian”.199 As shall be seen, Durham’s thinking about the free offer of the gospel is indissolubly linked to his understanding of the atonement, faith and preaching. His beliefs in these areas underpinned his hostility to Roman Catholicism. English Sects Also on Durham’s theological horizon were the emerging religious groups, particularly in England. Although they do not receive a great deal of attention in his writings, he was aware of the development of sects and criticised “that foolry of Quakers”,200 Anabaptists,201 and Libertines,202 and listed the Family of Love amongst “the most grosse Hereticks of old and late.”203

Key Features of Durham’s Theology In addition to these areas of polemic significance, other key features of Durham’s writings also deserve attention in an account of his theology. A Moderate and Non-Speculative Theologian The first and perhaps surprising point to be made is that Durham was a generally moderate Reformed theologian. Indeed, despite being an ardent proponent of Reformed orthodoxy, there were numerous areas of debate within the general system of Reformed thought where Durham preferred to maintain a dignified silence.204 First, Durham refused to speculate on the subject of the necessity of the death of Christ. This was an area of dispute between John Owen, who in the course of his career changed his mind on the matter, and Samuel Rutherford and William Twisse. Rutherford and Twisse maintained that God could have saved sinners by means other than the death of Christ had he wished. In effect, they argued that vindicatory justice was not essential to God, and that in his sovereignty he could have saved sinners without the necessity of a substitutionary atonement of infinite value. In opposition to this view Owen argued for the absolute necessity of 199 200 201 202 203 204

Durham, Revelation, 585; 510. Durham, Christ Crucified, 102. See also Durham, Heaven upon Earth, 33. Durham, Revelation, 383. Durham, Revelation, 383. Durham, Scandal, 188. For discussion of a number of these debates, see Haykin and Jones, Drawn into Controversie.

Durham’s Theology

93

the atonement, because once God decreed to save sinners there was no other means by which it could be accomplished than the death of Christ.205 Durham was largely ambivalent over this issue, preferring to urge faith in the crucified Saviour as the appointed means of saving sinners, rather than search for other hypothetical ways in which God could have saved them.206 Indeed, he stated that it was a “needlesse, curious, and unwarrantable dispute, whether fallen man might have been redeemed any other way” than the death of Christ.207 He added: “nor is it needful, nor edifying, [to dispute] whether God might have forgiven Sin freely, without any intervenient Satisfaction to His Justice, seeing He has declared His mind concerning that in his Word, Exod. 23.7. I will not justifie the wicked”.208 Where Durham does broach this subject incidentally, it appears that he favoured the views of John Owen, stating that “there must be a Satisfaction, because there is 1. The justice of God that hath a claim by a standing law. 2. The Holiness of God, that must be vindicate[d]. And 3. The Faithfulness of God, that must cause [to] be performed and come to pass what it hath impledged itself for”.209 However, it is possible to read statements like this as descriptive of what is, rather than dogmatically limiting what may be. Another frequently debated area of Reformed thought was the order of the divine decrees, particularly whether the decree to elect was prior to or after the decree to permit the fall, hence supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.210 Whilst a number of contemporary theologians had strong views on the subject, notably his friend Samuel Rutherford, Durham again refused to discuss the matter. He stated in preaching that “We need not here dispute whether they [the elect] were considered as sinful in the Decree of Election, it not being necessary in this place, nor profitable for you”.211 It should not be thought that this, as well as some of his statements on the necessity of the death of Christ, may be dismissed as the words of a preacher guarding his congregation from the discussion of the finer points of theology. Evidence that Durham regarded the discussion of these issues as of little value in general may be gleaned from the fact that, in the more scholastic setting of the theological essays in his commentary on Reve-

205 See Carl R. Trueman, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism.” CTJ, 33 (April 1998): 87 – 103. 206 See, for instance, Durham’s comment that “It’s not our purpose here to dispute whether God in his Justice doth by necessity of Nature punish the Sinner.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 223. 207 Durham, Christ Crucified, 513. 208 Durham, Christ Crucified, 413. 209 Durham, Christ Crucified, 150. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 219. 210 For a helpful definition of these frequently confused terms, see Richard, Supremacy of God, 117. 211 Durham, Christ Crucified, 227.

94

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

lation (where there was ample scope to broach these issues), he remained silent and devoted no space to their consideration.212 Other questions Durham believed to be misguided at best included whether simply one drop of Christ’s blood would have satisfied for sin213 and whether Christ would have become incarnate had man not fallen.214 In general, such questions showed a desire to be “wise without, or beside and above what is written in the Scripture” and that was nothing but “vanity, pride and folly”.215 There was indeed a danger in spending too much time in considering this kind of question: it was a sign of a “deluded conscience” to be “more concerned, and zealous in small and minute things than in those of far greater moment.”216 Instead, the main thing was to “study … to know these things that concern the kingdom of God mainly, and then let inferior, lower, and less necessary things come in, in their own time, and place convenient.”217 Combined with this dislike of overly speculative theological enquiry was a suspicion of theological novelty. Those who thought they had “new opinions” to declare to the world needed to beware of being dogmatic in their presentation, to avoid proselytising, and above all to consider whether the airing of their views was “profitable and edifying” after all.218 Durham’s moderation was also seen in his caution in charging men with error. For instance, he believed that it was not fair to charge people with heresy on the basis of logical deductions from their beliefs, rather than their explicit statements: “men would not charge others with Heresies of an odious name or nature upon prejudice, or upon the mistake of some expression: nay, not upon some seeming consequence, which the Authors do deny, and, it may be, others cannot demonstratively show the inference thereof.”219 This shows his general antipathy to controversy ; indeed, he warned of the dangers of “unnecessarily ingadging [engaging] your selves in the contentious debates, and questions of 212 Holsteen concludes that Durham was an infralapsarian (Holsteen, “Popularization,” 240), as does Daniels (Daniels, “Gill,” 739); but on occasion Durham could speak of the creation of the world as a means of furthering the marriage of Christ to his people, which could easily be taken as a supralapsarian statement. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 47. The most relevant piece of evidence is the Sum of Saving Knowledge, which speaks of God electing “unto life a certain number of lost mankind”. The Sum of Saving Knowledge in Westminster Confession, 324. In that the objects of election here are fallen sinners, this may be understood in an infralapsarian manner, but it is not of itself conclusive. 213 This question is “very needless, too curious, and a little or not at all edifying”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 151. 214 Durham, Christ Crucified, 227 – 8. 215 Durham, Christ Crucified, 228. 216 Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 61. 217 Durham, The Great Corruption of Subtile Self, 76. 218 Durham, The Great Corruption of Subtile Self, 75. 219 Durham, Revelation, 155.

Durham’s Theology

95

this time … I shall only say that they tend little to edification, so very probably they tend much to the fostering and cherishing of corrupt self”.220 An example of this was his comment, already referred to, to the effect that he did not like to have to address Arminian errors in preaching.221 Another sign of Durham’s moderation was his allowance of diversity within defined creedal boundaries. For instance, he believed that the Synod of Dort specified the object of election as fallen man and therefore was infralapsarian.222 However, he observed that “it is not to be thought that all orthodox Divines are of the same mind in all things that are decreed in the Synod of Dort, particularly in reference to the object of predestination”.223 In other words, there are supralapsarians within the Reformed camp. Indeed, he argued that none should be “constrained to acknowledge what is enacted by vertue of such a decision, because such a determination in matter or Doctrine is but ministeriall and declarative”.224 Similarly, no one ought to divide from a Church over the lapsarian position, even if a synod has decided in favour of a particular view, as “he [is] to bear with a Synod and not to divide from them upon that account, he having accesse so to declare his own mind and the reasons thereof, and otherwayes to carry himself free from that apprehended guiltinesse; and so a synod ought to bear with some particular men that differ.”225 Durham argued that “if this forbearance be not allowed, there can never be union in the Church, except we should think that they behoved all to be in the same mind about such things, and there should never be a decision in a Church, but when there is absolute harmony”.226 In view of all this, Holsteen’s comment that Durham showed “decisive opposition to division” is borne out by his writings.227 Given this, it makes Durham a good case study in an attempt to find a “consensus” view of the gospel offer among Reformed theologians.

220 221 222 223 224 225 226

Durham, The Great Corruption of Subtile Self, 74 – 75. Durham, Christ Crucified, 85 – 86. Durham, Scandal, 385. Durham, Scandal, 385. Durham, Scandal, 381. Durham, Scandal, 382. Durham, Scandal, 385. This is not to say that there is not a “right and wrong” on these issues; rather that there is no “diversity in practice, or worship” implied by these differences and therefore no cause for division. See Durham, Revelation, 165 and Durham, Scandal, 381. 227 Holsteen, “Popularization,” 195.

96

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Archetypal/Ectypal theology and the Will of God Although not explicit in Durham’s theology, the distinctions between archetypal and ectypal theology, so foundational for Reformed orthodoxy, are evident in his writings, particularly in his Christological discussions. For instance, in considering how the two natures of Christ can co-exist in one person, he denies that any can know “how … God can be man, and that two natures can be in one person … they are things much above our reach, and not so properly the object of our Faith (I say, as to the how of them)”.228 The Trinity and the incarnation and person of Christ are nothing other than “unsearchable mystery”, and as such “there is a necessity to silence that which our curiosity would propose, for Satisfaction about them, as, namely, how there are, or can be three Persons in the Godhead, and yet but one God?”229 Ultimately these mysteries were beyond comprehension and were simply to be believed as truth rather than explained. This is the essence of the archetypal/ectypal distinction: revelation is limited in what it conveys, and therefore there are elements of theology which simply have to be believed without being understood. Durham’s most explicit statement on this topic is that “we cannot take up divine and misterious things, except they be exprest after the manner of men for our [limited] capacity.”230 Durham also believed that the sovereignty of God in salvation was a “depth which is unsearchable” and an area where “carnal reason cannot reach the grounds of the Lords sovereign proceeding therein”.231 The relation of sovereign election to human responsibility was a “mystery” before which “reason in all its proud Objections” must fall silent.232 This same stance will be seen in Durham’s exposition of the free offer of the gospel, namely, a refusal to let the demands of “carnal reason” determine the teaching of scripture. Beyond these specific examples, Durham held that “God and his works are never thoroughly studied, till they overcome men, and are seen to be far beyond their [understanding], and that not only in light and knowledge, but sensibly, so as men are affected with it.”233 Ultimately, none were capable of comprehending the fullness of God and his revelation, because the finite is not capable of understanding the infinite (finitum non capax infiniti). Durham summed this up as follows: “our carnalness is such that we cannot comprehend God, but must have as it were a glass to take him up by.”234

228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Durham, Christ Crucified, 550. Durham, Christ Crucified, 550. Durham, Christ Crucified, 521. See also Durham, Song of Solomon, 42. Durham, Revelation, 323. Durham, Revelation, 323. Durham, Lectures on Job, 210. Durham, Lectures on Job, 226.

Durham’s Theology

97

Related to the archetypal/ectypal distinction, and therefore foundational for the free offer of the gospel, is the distinction between the revealed and secret will of God.235 That is, although the will of God is one (theologia archetypa) yet it appears as manifold in revelation (theologia ectypa). This revealed will was equivalent to the exhortations of Scripture, and Durham could speak of “the Word and Will of God”.236 It was this revealed will which showed what was “acceptable and well-pleasing” to him.237 Thus it was man’s duty now “to walk according to his revealed will, and not to meddle with his secret will.”238 One example of a duty regulated by the revealed will was prayer. In this context prayers were to seek to match not the secret will of God but “His will revealed in His Word, which is the rule of our duty.”239 This focus on the revealed rather than the secret will is also evident in Durham’s teaching on the free offer of the gospel, as will be seen in Chapter Three.

The Trinity It should also be noted that, despite T.F. Torrance’s critical comments on seventeenth-century Scottish theological engagement with the doctrine of the Trinity, Durham’s theology was explicitly trinitarian.240 Indeed, his first extended theological essay in his commentary on Revelation was “Concerning the Holy Trinity and Object of Worship”.241 Other examples of Durham’s trinitarian focus can be seen in his reflections on the nature of prayer and worship242 and of 235 Two key sections of Durham’s writings which relate this distinction to the free offer of the gospel (Durham, Christ Crucified, 139 – 40; Durham, Revelation, 169 – 70) will be considered in detail in Chapter Three. 236 Durham, Christ Crucified, 40. 237 Durham, Christ Crucified, 383. The context here is the gospel offer, the acceptance of which is a “duty” and therefore “cannot but be acceptable and well pleasing to him [God]”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 384. Durham elsewhere stated: “Consider, that in all actions as they are done or performed, and as circumstantiated, God is either pleased or displeased; If the action be done according to his will, he is pleased. If it be not done according to his will, he is displeased.” Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 157. Here Durham is evidently speaking of the revealed will. 238 Durham, Lectures on Job, 155. 239 Durham, Revelation, 369. Curt Daniels correctly notes that “The secret–revealed scheme has been viewed as contradictory by some critics. Arminians and others ask, how can God will and not will the same thing? Puritan Federalists generally admitted that it was a mystery, an antinomy, and they gave minimal attempts at further explanation.” Daniels, “Gill,” 138. 240 Torrance, Scottish Theology, 78. Torrance here laments (although without specific reference to Durham) the few seventeenth-century Scottish theologians who reflected on the Trinity. 241 Durham, Revelation, 6 – 19. 242 Durham, Christ Crucified, 553.

98

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

justification and sanctification.243 He was also deeply interested in, and familiar with, the trinitarian and Christological debates of the early church. In one section of his work on Revelation he catalogues various trinitarian and Christological heresies. These include Appolinarianism, a denial of the humanity of Christ; Arianism, a denial that Christ is “true God”; Nestorianism, an attribution of two persons as well as two natures to Christ; Eutychianism, a belief that Christ had one nature and one person; Sabellianism, claiming only one Person in the Godhead; and Tritheism, making three Gods of the three Persons.244 Durham was intimately familiar with the creedal history of the early church referring on several occasions to the trinitarian debates of the “first four famous generall Councels”,245 namely Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon which in turn condemned Arianism, Macedonianism (i. e. those who denied the personality of the Holy Spirit), Nestorianism and Eutychianism.246 Justification No study of Durham’s theology would be complete without considering in detail what was for him the articulus stantis, aut cadentis ecclesiae, namely justification.247 This will be done primarily by examining his essay “Concerning the way of Covenanting with God, and of a sinner’s obtaining Justification before Him”,248 although reference will also be made to other references in his writings to justification. Durham began his essay by considering the relation of faith as a condition of the covenant of grace to justification.249 He observed, in line with the teaching of the Westminster Standards, that faith was the “instrumental cause of justification” in that it was faith that received Christ’s righteousness, which was the ground of justification.250 In this respect he called faith “the condition of the Covenant”.251 This instrumental aspect of faith was connected to the free offer of 243 244 245 246 247

248 249 250 251

Durham, Song of Solomon, 110 – 1. Durham, Revelation, 384. Durham, Revelation, 418. Durham, Revelation, 418. Durham, Christ Crucified, 492. Echoing Calvin, Durham also refers to justification as the “hinge” on which the gospel turns: “[justification] the undertaking thereof, being the very hinge of the Gospel, and that wherein, in a special manner the Gospel, and Covenant of Grace differs from the Law, and Covenant of Works”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 424. For Calvin, see Institutes, 3.11.1 (Battles, 1:726; CO, 2:533). Durham, Revelation, 234 – 48. It should be borne in mind that for Durham “this Word Justification is a Legal, Forensick or Judicial Word”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 439. See e. g. Westminster Larger Catechism Q& A 70 in Westminster Confession, 163. Durham, Revelation, 234. See further Durham, Revelation, 240, where he outlines this “twofold peculiarity attributed to Faith,” namely, the condition of the covenant and the in-

Durham’s Theology

99

the gospel, as it was only as Christ was offered in the gospel that faith could rest on him for justification.252 However, Durham made clear that the only “meritorious” ground for justification was the imputed righteousness of Christ.253 He explicitly stated that “Faith justifies by vertue of Christs satisfaction, and as taking hold of it; Faith does not Justifie, as it is an Act of Grace in the Sinner, but as a closing with Christ as the Object of it”.254 Nevertheless, faith, for Durham, was necessary for justification.255 This he affirmed in opposition to the antinomians, who argued that believers were justified, not in time but in eternity. He maintained that this was contrary to the express teaching of Scripture in that it denied that all unbelievers were under the curse of God and rejected the instrumental nature of faith as a condition of justification.256 The antinomians in effect turned faith into a realization of a prior justification, rather than regarding it as the means of a real change of standing before God.257 As a Reformed theologian Durham held that God had decreed from eternity to justify the elect; however, the “actual pardoning of a sinner is no more from Eternity, than his creating or glorifying men, yea, in the same decree, he hath proposed the giving of both Repentance and Pardon, in the method laid

252 253

254 255

256

257

strumental means of justification. It should also be noted that Durham drew no distinction between the act of justification in the Old and New Testaments, observing that “Christ apprehended by Faith, is the Righteousnesse both under the Old and New Testament”. Durham, Revelation, 248. On faith as an instrument, see also Durham, Christ Crucified, 486, 489 – 90; Song of Solomon, 271. See Durham, Christ Crucified, 420, 446 – 7, 481 – 2. Durham, Revelation, 234 – 35. So “a Sinner’s Justification and obtaining the Pardon of Sin, [is] by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 93. Durham also argues “That this Righteousness of the Mediator, is immediately imputed to us, hath also been accounted a truth among the Orthodox hitherto”. Durham, Revelation, 235. This illustrates his respect for historic teaching and his use of Church history as a polemic tool. Durham, Christ Crucified, 498. Repentance (Durham, Christ Crucified, 449) and knowledge of the gospel (Durham, Christ Crucified, 449, 459), being constituent elements of saving faith, were also necessary for justification. It is important to note here that, for Durham, a knowledge, even a perfect knowledge, of the gospel did not constitute justification. It was possible to know all and yet not to trust in Christ savingly. Knowledge was not enough, “but it’s a closing with, a receiving of, and a resting on that Saviour; a singling out of the Promise that makes offer of him … and pitching on that”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 470. He is, of course, here highlighting the importance of fiducia in the Reformed definition of faith. Durham, Revelation, 236. As another sign of his moderation he acknowledged that “there are some Divines that use different expressions here; yet seeing they also oppose the Antinomians, we will not now stick on that.” Durham, Revelation, 236. Substance, rather than terminology, was ultimately what concerned Durham. “And here there is another mistake to be averted to, to think Justification to be the evidence of that which is passed before we were born, yea from Eternity … and therefore take this Advertisement, that Justification is not to be sensible of our Justification, but it is really to be so”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 481.

100

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

down.”258 He could affirm that elect sinners are decreed to be justified but not yet justified by distinguishing between jus ad rem and jus in re or “between a right to the thing, and right in the thing”.259 By virtue of the decree the elect have a right to justification, but until they believe are not in a state of justification.260 Eternal justification was therefore nothing but an “Antinomian presumption”.261 A slight variation on eternal justification, namely that all were justified at the death of Christ, was also dismissed by Durham.262 In this opposition to eternal justification Durham was following the teaching of Westminster Confession 11:4.263 In contrast to the antinomian error of justification from eternity, there were those within the Reformed camp who viewed justification as a continued, rather than a once for all, act. An example of this tendency, although later than Durham, was Wilhelmus — Brakel.264 Durham voiced three objections to this view. First, he argued that justification was that act which freed from curse and brought into fellowship. This was a unique event and therefore could not be a continued act. Second, he argued that as justification admitted to the benefits of the covenant of grace, which was a once for all act, then justification itself could not be a continuous act. Third, he stated that if justification was not perfect and final in its first act, but needed continual renewal, then this removed comfort from believers who needed to be able to fall back on a perfect once for all justification in their struggles in this life – another example of Durham relating theology to pastoral concerns.265 Related to this position of continual justification was a viewpoint which espoused two justifications, one now on the basis of faith, and the other on the day of judgment on the basis of good works.266 Durham rejected this, largely because it turned the covenant of grace back into a covenant of 258 Durham, Revelation, 250. 259 Durham, Christ Crucified, 153. 260 So, “the elect … as soon as they accept of the Covenant, are actually justified … while they are in nature, the sentence still stands, Cursed is he that sinneth and believeth not”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 161. 261 Durham, Christ Crucified, 419. 262 “instantly upon Christs suffering, all cannot be said to be actually justified, nor glorified, more than they can be said all to have really existed”. Durham, Revelation, 307. For his extended critique of eternal justification, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 462 – 4. 263 “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect … nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.” Westminster Confession 7:4 in Westminster Confession, 59. On the opposition of the Westminster Confession to justification at any time prior to faith, see McKelvey, “That Error and Pillar of Antinomianism” in Drawn into Controversie, 223 – 62. 264 Wilhelmus — Brakel, The Christians Reasonable Service (trans. B. Elshout; 4 vols.; Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992 – 5), 2:381 – 91. 265 Durham, Revelation, 242 – 3. He also argues against a continual ongoing act of justifying: “as justifying denoteth the changing of a person’s state, from a state of enmitie to a state of friendship” it was a once for all definitive event. Durham, Revelation, 248. 266 Outlined by Durham in Christ Crucified, 425.

Durham’s Theology

101

works and because it meant that Christ’s death was not sufficient in itself to merit final salvation.267 Nevertheless, whilst strongly rejecting a future justification before God on the basis of works, Durham acknowledged that the “justification of the Saints is also two ways understood, 1. for a righteousness before men, evidencing their justification before God; so it is said (Jam. 2.) that Abraham was justified by his works. 2. For that which indeed justifieth and is the cause of our justification before God”.268 Thus good works demonstrated the reality of faith before men, but were of no value for a justification before God.269 It was not only the antinomians with whom Durham contended; he was also disturbed by the rise of neonomianism in England, particularly through the theology of Richard Baxter.270 In his debate with them Durham made clear again that he was mainly concerned not with terminology but rather with substance. He stated that “there needeth be no great debate for words and terms”.271 However, he also showed that he was a conservative theologian by affirming that “there is no just reason to cast them [common terms e. g. imputation], the use of them having now of a long time made them to passe in this matter, without mistake … much less is their reason to cry down the matter expressed by them”.272 He further expressed his “sadness” that the raising of the “new Questions and Objections” of the neonomians could lead to fundamental errors and was in any event “prejudiciall to edification”.273 He additionally believed that the neonomian dissatisfaction with the current Protestant formulations of justification would bring joy to opponents of the Reformed faith: “will it not be welcome to Papists, to have Protestants speaking in their terms, and homologating them in condemning the former language of the most eminent Reformers?”274 Durham again stated that he did not wish to contend over words; “yet, if under this new model, another matter be comprehended, that formerly

267 For Durham’s extended critique of this position, see Christ Crucified, 425 – 30. 268 Durham, Revelation, 693. 269 Even the future judgement according to works had to be understood carefully in that “it is according to their works, not for their works: Works here, are (to the Elect) the rule, not the cause of proceeding”. Durham, Revelation, 745. 270 For Baxter, see Timothy K. Beougher, Richard Baxter and Conversion (Fern, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007); Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver : Regent College, 1993); J.I. Packer, The Redemption & Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Vancouver : Regent College, 2003); Tim Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). 271 Durham, Revelation, 236. 272 Durham, Revelation, 236. 273 Durham, Revelation, 236 – 7. 274 Durham, Revelation, 237.

102

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

hath been intended by other expressions in the writings of others, it cannot be so easily approven”.275 One particular controversy with the neonomians was concerned with the relation of works to justification, and specifically, whether good works were a condition of the covenant and justification in a similar manner to faith. Durham had two main objections to making good works a condition of the covenant in the same way as faith.276 First, works were the condition of the first covenant with Adam, and so it would obscure the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace to speak of works as a condition of the covenant of grace. Second, if works were a condition of the covenant of grace, then “it doth propose something in ourselves as the immediate ground of our Justification before God.”277 That, for Durham, was simply unacceptable. Even a notion of faith and obedience as an “Evangelick righteousnesse” which entitled believers to “Christ … our legall-righteousnesse” was to be rejected. Scripture spoke only of one righteousness “by Faith apprehended and made ours”.278

Durham as a Covenant Theologian: The Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption, and Covenant of Grace If proof were ever required for James Walker’s statement that Scottish seventeenth-century theology was “a covenant theology”, Durham would certainly provide it.279 So fundamental was covenant theology to his thinking that he argued that “we have no access to Christ but by the Covenant.”280 He adopted a threefold scheme of the covenants of works and grace combined with the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption.281 These three covenants were a fundamental 275 Durham, Revelation, 237. 276 See the discussion of the conditionality of the covenant of grace below for a discussion of whether works can be thought of as a condition in any sense at all. 277 Durham, Revelation, 244. 278 Durham, Revelation, 244. 279 Walker, Theology and Theologians, 73. Hodges notes that “In the unfolding of his theological framework the concept of the covenant is most important for Durham.” Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classic Scottish Theology”, 471. 280 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 207. It should also be noted that the centrality of covenant thought gave Durham’s theology a Christological focus, for he held that “when we speak of this Covenant, it always supposeth and implieth Christ … because he is given for the ground of Covenanting betwixt God and sinners; it being by him and in him, that God and sinners meet”. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 247. 281 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 99. See also Holsteen, “Popularization,” 221. Bailey notes that Durham in some ways clarified “the orthodox Reformed position on federal theology” through his work The Sum of Saving Knowledge. Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 92, fn. 135.

Durham’s Theology

103

element of his theological framework.282 Indeed all “the general truths contained in the gospel” could be summarised within the framework of covenant theology, as illustrated by the following example: “that Adam was made according to God’s image; that he fell, and broke the covenant of works … that we are by that covenant under God’s curse; that Jesus Christ Jesus the Son of God, according to the Covenant of Redemption, entered Himself Cautioner for the Elect; that He really died and payed their Debt; That His purchase is made offer of in the Gospel; and that according to the Covenant of Grace, there is an real absolution from sin, and an eternal happinesse to be had at the great Day, through embracing of Him”.283

However, before considering Durham’s positive teaching on the covenants it is important to correct a misunderstanding put forward by Charles Bell when he criticises Durham for failing to “distinguish this divine covenant from human transactions”.284 This criticism, in general, does not account for the distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa in Durham’s thought, or for the general acceptance in Reformed theology of the accommodated nature of divine revelation.285 It also fails specifically to address his teaching on the subject, as he states that “this way of Covenanting, is borrowed from the practice of man with man, to set forth somewhat of a spiritual nature betwixt God and man”.286 Durham therefore recognizes that his covenant theology represents only “somewhat” of the relationship between God and man. Covenant of Redemption In discussing the covenant of redemption, Durham distinguishes between the parties, matter, rise and occasion, terms, and finally properties of the covenant.287 This therefore seems an appropriate structure within which to set out his understanding of the covenant of redemption, which is undoubtedly the primary covenant in his thought288 and receives by far the greatest attention in his 282 283 284 285

Holsteen, “Popularization,” 284. Durham, Christ Crucified, 475. Bell, Scottish Theology, 99. For example, Calvin’s famous statement that in revelation “God is want in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us.” Calvin, Institutes, 1.13.1. (Battles, 1:121; CO, 2:90). 286 Durham, Revelation, 237. This is in addition to the one instance Bell refers to, namely Durham, Christ Crucified, 157. Further examples of Durham making this same point are Christ Crucified, 188, 229, 521 and Unsearchable Riches, 244. A more careful reading of Durham by Bell would have found these additional examples and might have led him to at least soften his charges. 287 Durham, Christ Crucified, 157 – 60. 288 For a recent and full treatment of the covenant of redemption, see Williams, “Covenant of Redemption”. See also Carl Trueman, “From Calvin to Gillespie on the Covenant: Mythological Excess or an Exercise in Doctrinal Development?” International Journal of Sy-

104

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

works.289 Indeed, it was so important to Durham that he could say, “the Covenant of Redemption … [is] deservedly called the Gospel”.290 It is therefore appropriate to consider this foundational covenant first.291 The Parties of the Covenant In general, Durham identified the parties of the covenant of redemption as on the one side “God” and on the other “the Mediator”.292 However, this was simply shorthand and there are many places in his writings where he spoke in greater detail. When he referred to God he took this as “all the three Persons of the glorious God-head, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are all concurring in this Covenant, it being the act of the determinate counsel of God”.293 When he spoke of the mediator this referred to “Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed, dreadful, and adorable Trinity, personally considered, now becoming the head of the elect…”294 Thus it can be seen that the covenant of redemption was an intra-trinitarian covenant with all persons of the Trinity involved.295 Too often the trinitarian nature of the covenant of redemption in Reformed thought is denied in secondary literature.296 However, Durham was clear that “God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the Party wronged by sin; Jesus Christ, considered personally and as Mediator, is the Party undertaking”, and therefore all three persons of the Godhead were involved in the covenant.297 Further, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were occupied” in “the designing and contriving” of the work of re-

289

290 291

292 293 294 295 296 297

stematic Theology 11:4 (October 2009), 378 – 397; Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680) (Göttigen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 123 – 145; Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 237 – 58. This may in part be due to the exegetical nature of most of Durham’s works. By virtue of his Christ Crucified being an exposition of Isaiah 53, “a compendious Sum of the Covenant of Redemption”, it was natural that this covenant would feature heavily in his works. Durham, Christ Crucified, 502. Durham, Christ Crucified, 351. Also, “The covenant of redemption is that work of Christ’s wherein most eminently the glory of his grace and love to sinners doth appear”. Durham, Song of Solomon, 185 – 6. Durham would have denied accusations that this doctrine of a covenant of redemption was speculative and unfit for any pastoral use: “the nature and terms of the Covenant of Redemption, betwixt God, and the Mediator, is a profitable doctrine, and useful to be understood, and believed by the People of God”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 504. Durham, Christ Crucified, 1 – 2. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 100, 128, 157, 165 – 6, 188, 220 – 1, 229, 510; Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 246, 303. Durham, Christ Crucified, 157. See also Christ Crucified, 153. Durham, Christ Crucified, 157. This is correctly noted in Holsteen, “Popularization,” 225. See Williams, “Covenant of Redemption,” 39. Durham, Christ Crucified, 151.

Durham’s Theology

105

demption.298 Durham therefore spoke of “the concurrence of all the Persons of the Trinity in promoving [advancing] the Work of Redemption of sinners”299 and explicitly included the Spirit as a covenanting party.300 The covenant of redemption, then, was “the fruit of the ancient Counsell of the Blessed and glorious trinity”.301 His occasional references to the parties of the covenant being the Father and the Son (largely confined to The Unsearchable Riches of Christ) do not undermine this trinitarian thrust, as in these instances, when considered in conjunction with his other writings, it is clear that he was simply using the Father as a representative of the three persons of the Trinity and not excluding the other two persons.302 The second person of the Trinity, the Son, was a party on both sides of the covenant. On the one side, considered as the second person of the Godhead simply, he was included as the party offended by sin and requiring satisfaction. On the other side, he was “considered as to be Incarnat and the Head of the Elect.”303 Durham did on occasion speak of a third party to the covenant of redemption and that was “poor Sinners … It’s the elect Sinner”.304 However, while the Father and the Son were the main parties to the covenant of redemption, elect sinners were only “but parties accidentally in this covenant; the covenant being primarily and mainly betwixt God and the Mediator”.305 That is, God and the Mediator were the main covenanting parties, and elect sinners were parties only inasmuch as the covenant was fundamentally regarding their salvation. The elect were considered in the covenant of redemption as “foully and vilely sinful, and with all aggravations of their sins and sinful ways”.306 This meant that the covenant of redemption presupposed the fall; whatever the order of the decrees, the covenant of redemption was, logically, subsequent to the decree to permit the 298 Durham, Christ Crucified, 229. 299 Durham, Christ Crucified, 304. 300 “Look to the Parties Confederating and Covenanting; the Father, Son, and Spirit all are here, And it’s Grace and mercy that they Covenant.” Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 137. 301 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 302. Also, “the eternal council of God” in Durham, Song of Solomon, 185; “the council of the Trinity” in Head II of The Sum of Saving Knowledge in Westminster Confession, 324. Similarly, it was “Father, Son and Spirit, concurring to lay down this way of Salvation” that resulted in the covenant of redemption. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351 – 2. 302 References to the Father and the Son as the parties are in Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 46, 131 – 2, 133 – 4. 303 Durham, Christ Crucified, 188. 304 Durham, Christ Crucified, 166. 305 Durham, Christ Crucified, 169. Durham does not always refer to this “accidental party” to the covenant, claiming on one occasion that “mutable Creatures” are not the parties of the covenant of redemption. Durham, Christ Crucified, 188. 306 Durham, Christ Crucified, 185.

106

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

fall. The references to the elect in relation to the covenant of redemption highlight that, for Durham, this was a discriminatory covenant. It did not encompass all in the world, nor even all in the church, but only the elect of God.307 The Substance of the Covenant In Durham’s view, the essence of the covenant of redemption is “about the satisfying of Justice, and making of peace between God and lost Sinners … the matter about which it is, is the redeeming of the Elect.”308 As already noted, the elect considered in the covenant were “wretched Sinners”309 and therefore needed to be saved from God’s curse and punishment. This salvation was indeed the substance of the covenant of redemption.310 It was therefore to be thought of as “gracious and merciful” and “for the good and Salvation of poor Souls”,311 and “always for sinners behove [benefit]”.312 For Christ, the covenant of redemption was “the ground of his sufferings”.313 However, because of these sufferings “there is a Covenant well ordered, suited, and fitted to promove this great and Glorious end and design of saving sinners”.314 The Rise and Occasion of the Covenant The rise and occasion of the covenant of redemption, for Durham, was threefold. First, as previously noted, the covenant of redemption presupposed the fall and sin of man. Second, the covenant arose from God’s determination not to pardon sin without a satisfaction. Third, there was God’s determination to save his elect.315 It was this third point that Durham expanded on most frequently. The covenant arose from the love of each of the persons of the Trinity to the elect316 307 Durham, Christ Crucified, 220. 308 Durham, Christ Crucified, 158. Bell correctly notes that Durham “never tires in his reminders that the essential business of this covenant has to do with the redemption of the elect.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 99. 309 Durham, Christ Crucified, 154. 310 Again it can be seen that the covenant of redemption is logically subsequent to the decree to permit the fall. In Durham’s language, redemption necessarily presupposes the fall into sin. Durham, Christ Crucified, 188. 311 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 133. This kind of language is often repeated in Durham, e. g. Unsearchable Riches, 137 – 8. 312 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 135. 313 Durham, Christ Crucified, 153. Christ suffered “according to the Covenant of Redemption”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 151. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 525; Unsearchable Riches, 246. 314 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 303. 315 Durham, Christ Crucified, 158; Song of Solomon, 442 – 3. The second point may be read as implying that God could have determined sin without requiring a satisfaction, an interpretation that would align Durham with Rutherford rather than Owen. 316 Durham, Christ Crucified, 173. Indeed, it is not possible to partake of “special love from Christ, but by this covenant.” Durham, Song of Solomon, 186.

Durham’s Theology

107

and as such Durham stated that the fountain from “whence our Lord’s sufferings flowed” was the love of God to the elect as sinners.317 The Terms of the Covenant The covenant of redemption should, like every other covenant, be thought of as having its terms and conditions. These were threefold and may be summarised as follows: “1. God’s offer to redeem Man if his Justice may be satisfied … 2. The Sons accepting of the Offer … 3. The Fathers acceptation of this engagement”.318 The essence of this covenant, then, was substitutionary atonement. The Son as the Holy One was made sin, while the elect sinners were freed from the condemnation due to their sin by the work of Christ.319 It was the covenant of redemption which provided grounds for this substitution.320 In no sense should it be thought that the Son, considered as mediator, was coerced in any way into accepting the terms of the covenant, for “he willingly readily, and cheerfully accepts, and offers to satisfy for them, which in due time he doth.”321 The Properties of the Covenant In one instance Durham listed the properties of the covenant of redemption as justice, faithfulness, freeness and wisdom: just, as satisfaction was made for sin and the justice of God was magnified; faithful, as the terms of the covenant are faithfully fulfilled and honoured by the Father and the Son; free, as it comes to sinners on the basis of the work of Christ and not through their own merit; and wise, as devised in the counsel of the Godhead.322 The aspect of faithfulness is brought out particularly by Durham with regard to the security this covenant gave to the elect. He defined the covenant of redemption as that “wherein it is agreed that Christ shall come into the world, and take on the sins of the Elect”,

317 Durham, Christ Crucified, 179. See also Durham, Song of Solomon, 189. 318 Durham, Christ Crucified, 158. See also Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 134. 319 Durham, Christ Crucified, 165. “the very terms of the Covenant of Redemption, whereby the sinner’s sins are imputed to Christ; whereupon He, as Cautioner, is sentenced and made sin, that His Righteousness may be imputed to us, and so we upon that account made righteous, and that in him”. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 310. 320 “How comes it that Christs Satisfaction becomes a Ransom, and is accepted for such and such a Believer? I answer : It is by vertue of the Eternal Covenant of Redemption, or Transaction made betwixt the Father and the Son; wherein it was agreed that his suffering and satisfying of Justice, should be accepted for believing Sinners”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 166. 321 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 46. 322 Durham, Christ Crucified, 159 – 60.

108

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

and argued that “it were blasphemous to imagine such a covenant, so laid down, and for such an end, and not be most real and effectual for reaching the end”.323 The Westminster Standards and the Covenant of Redemption It has long been acknowledged that the Westminster Standards do not teach an intra-trinitarian covenant.324 Carol Williams argues that for Durham’s close friend, David Dickson, this would have been “a major deficiency in the confession”.325 There is no reason to doubt that this would have been true for Durham as well. The only clear area of difference between him and the Westminster Standards is his insistence on teaching a covenant of redemption. It should not be thought that this teaching, however, was contrary to the Westminster Standards, as, for instance, many of the Westminster divines themselves held to the covenant of redemption. Rather, the covenant of redemption is merely an amplification of their teaching.326

Covenant of Works It has been correctly observed that Durham spent relatively little time developing his doctrine of the covenant of works, and that on the occasions where it was discussed it was largely done so in contrast to the covenant of grace.327 Thus the covenant of works has little focus in Durham’s theology except to provide the background to the historical enactment of the covenant of grace. Nevertheless, there is sufficient material to consider this covenant using the same categories as the covenant of redemption. The Parties of the Covenant The parties of the covenant of works are clear in Durham’s thought: it was a covenant “betwixt God and Adam”.328 Adam entered into this covenant, not simply as a private person but as representative head of the human race. If he should fall into sin that sin would be imputed to all mankind.329 323 Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 347, 396; Unsearchable Riches, 313. 324 See, for example, Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” 107 – 8; Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 126. 325 Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” 184 – 5. 326 Indeed, Mark Jones has recently argued that the concept of a covenant of redemption is implicitly present (at least) in WCoF 8:1. Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 126. 327 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 100; Holsteen, “Popularization,” 221. For a helpful recent study on the covenant of works, see Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 217 – 36. 328 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 245. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 171, 487. 329 Durham, Christ Crucified, 175.

Durham’s Theology

109

The Substance of the Covenant The substance, or centre, of this covenant was the attainment of life, that is, the confirmation of mankind in a state of eternal life.330 This state was to be one of eternal righteousness, given as a reward for the good works of Adam.331 The Rise and Occasion of the Covenant God made this covenant with man “at the beginning”.332 This is not to say that the covenant of works was co-extensive with creation. Rather, as will be seen, it was an act of kindness on the part of God to Adam, subsequent to his creation. The Terms of the Covenant The terms of the covenant of works were clear to Adam, “wherein there was made an offer and Promise of life upon condition of Perfect Obedience; So that if he did that which was Commanded him, he should live”.333 Conversely, if Adam did not exhibit that perfect obedience then he, as well as his posterity, would die spiritually and physically and suffer the wrath of God.334 Thus the condition of the covenant of works was Adam’s own inherent righteousness, his own perfect obedience and holiness, his own doing.335 Had Adam fulfilled these conditions he would have been permitted to partake of the sacrament of the tree of life which would have sealed that eternal life promised to him.336 It should be emphasized here that Durham did not teach that man was able to “merit” eternal life under the covenant of works. Even in this covenant “works have no proper merit, nor proportion unto the things promised … therefore it is called a Covenant of Works: not because of the merit of the works; but in respect of the formality of the condition thereof, to wit, doing”.337 Therefore even in the covenant of works there was a dependence on the sovereign condescension of God. The Properties of the Covenant The main property emphasized by Durham was the perpetual nature of this covenant. Even though it was no longer possible to attain salvation by works, yet the covenant remained in force in its condemning power. Those who did not 330 331 332 333 334 335

Durham, Christ Crucified, 443. Durham, Revelation, 235. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 498. Durham, Christ Crucified, 451. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 245. Durham, Christ Crucified, 116. For works, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 489; for inherent righteousness see Durham, Christ Crucified, 444; for perfect holiness and obedience, see Durham Heaven Upon Earth, 359; for doing, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 487. 336 Durham, Revelation, 81. 337 Durham, Revelation, 244. See also Durham, Revelation, 238 – 9.

110

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

trust in Christ were still “under the covenant of works”338 and its condemnation hung over their heads.339 Another property Durham saw in the covenant of works was the “graciousness” of its provisions. While the covenant of works was not a covenant of grace, nevertheless, “the first Covenant might be called of Grace, because the good promised went far beyond the rent required.”340 That is, as God was owed perpetual and perfect obedience by his creatures, he was under no obligation to reward this obedience with eternal life. Any gift of eternal life was over and above what any of God’s creatures could earn by serving him. This is why Durham denied that works had “proper merit” in this covenant.341

Covenant of Grace The covenant of grace has been called the “central” covenant in Durham’s theology.342 Whilst it was the covenant of redemption which had the pre-eminent focus in his works, nevertheless, “the right understanding of the nature of the Covenant of Grace, doth conduce exceedingly to the clearing of Gospeltruths”.343 Indeed, “to be without the Covenant [of grace] is to be without Hope, and without God and without Christ.”344 The Relation of the Covenant of Grace to the Covenants of Redemption and Works Whilst the covenants of redemption and grace were distinguished in Durham’s thought, it is important to recognize the fundamental unity between them. Durham was clear that “the Covenant of Grace … is not quite an other thing than the Covenant of Redemption”.345 The covenant of grace was to be thought of as the outworking in time of the fruits of the pactum salutis.346 The free offer of the gospel was nothing other than the offer of the benefits of the covenant of redemption in preaching. This meant that the covenant of grace was the outward “administration” of the covenant of redemption.347 Thus the “covenant of Grace 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347

Durham, The Great Corruption of Subtle Self, 99. Durham, Christ Crucified, 466. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 196. Durham, Revelation, 239. Durham, Revelation, 239. Holsteen, “Popularization,” 230. Again, for a helpful summary on the covenant of grace, see Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 259 – 78. Durham, Revelation, 541. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 196. Durham, Christ Crucified, 154. Durham even speaks on one occasion of “the Covenant of Redemption and of Grace”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 2. So Holsteen: “the covenant of redemption is the foundation upon which the covenant of grace rests – the covenant of grace is the result of the covenant of redemption.” Holsteen, “Popularization,” 227. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 134.

Durham’s Theology

111

and Reconciliation is nothing else, but the result of the Covenant of Redemption and the execution thereof”.348 As was noted in the introduction to the covenant of works, Durham sharply distinguished between the covenants of works and grace. They stood, as far as the means of salvation were concerned, in complete antithesis. In one covenant salvation depended on “inherent Righteousnesse” but in the other it depended on “the Righteousnesse of Christ”.349 As the covenant of grace in Durham’s thought is expounded, it will be evident that the means of attaining life by this covenant was diametrically opposed to the covenant of works. The Parties of the Covenant Just as in covenants with men, and as in the covenants of redemption and works, the covenant of grace required two consenting parties.350 In the covenant of grace “the Parties … are God and the sinner.”351 However, Durham also stated that the covenant of grace was “made with Believers in Jesus Christ.”352 Caution therefore has to be exercised in limiting the parties of this covenant in Durham’s thought to “God the Father … and the Sinner” to the exclusion of the Son, considered as mediator of the covenant, as Nathan Holsteen does.353 This language might be thought to raise some doubt concerning Durham’s strict adherence to the teaching of the Westminster Standards. Whilst the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Shorter Catechism are noncommittal on the parties of the covenant of grace, the Larger Catechism defined the parties as God and “Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed”.354 However, while Durham most frequently uses language like this to refer to the covenant of redemption he does speak, as noted above, of the covenant of grace being made “with believers in Jesus Christ.” As such there is no material difference between Durham’s teaching and that of the Larger Catechism. The Substance of the Covenant The covenant of grace was “the making offer of … the benefits contained in it [the covenant of redemption], in the preached Gospel, when Christ sends out his Ambassadours to woo and invite Sinners to Christ, and to bring them to the 348 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 246. 349 Durham, Christ Crucified, 444. The same or similar thought is found in Christ Crucified, 443, 487 – 8, 489, 498; Revelation, 238 – 9, 244. 350 Durham, Revelation, 215. 351 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 245. 352 Durham, Christ Crucified, 487. 353 Holsteen, “Popularization,” 231. 354 WLC Q& A 31 in Westminster Confession, 142.

112

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

application of his Purchase”.355 Thus Durham’s agreement with Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3 can be clearly seen, in that it is in the covenant of grace that “the offer of these Sufferings, and the benefits purchased by them to us … is made”.356 The substance which the covenant of grace offered is salvation in Christ, in all its fullness. In Christ one who “hath spent up and debauched all, and hath not one penny to pay his Debt or Rent with” could find One willing to pay all his debt and free him from his predicament.357 That which could clear the debt was the “external righteousnesse provided, to wit, the satisfaction of the Mediator”.358 In accepting the offer of the covenant of grace, this righteousness was made over to the sinner and all debts were cancelled. The Rise and Occasion of the Covenant The rise and occasion of this covenant must be thought of as being coterminous with those of the covenant of redemption. If one covenant is but the offer of the benefits of the other, their origin must of necessity be the same. The Terms of the Covenant The condition of the covenant of grace is clear in Durham’s thought. Repeatedly he stated that faith was the condition of the covenant of grace.359 This faith was to be thought of not as a bare assent to the truths of the gospel; rather it was a fiducial dependence upon Christ as personal Saviour.360 Faith was, properly speaking, the only condition of the covenant of grace.361 While inherent righteousness was the condition of the covenant of works, faith laying hold on the righteousness of Christ was the condition of the covenant of 355 356 357 358 359

Durham, Christ Crucified, 154. Durham, Christ Crucified, 153. Durham, Christ Crucified, 498. Durham, Revelation, 234. Durham, Christ Crucified, 26, 43, 444, 451, 489; Revelation, 295 – 6, 296, 300, 303, 306, 311, 322; Song of Solomon, 434. Thus Bell: “Like the covenant of redemption, this covenant of grace is bilateral and conditional. A legal union is formed ‘by mutual consent of parties’, and faith is the ‘condition’ on the part of the individual.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 100. See also Holsteen, “Popularization,” 231 – 2. 360 Durham, Christ Crucified, 451. This, as noted earlier, was the error of Popery : “It [Popery] enervateth Faith, excluding altogether that Faith that receiveth Christ and taketh hold on Him, and closeth with the Covenant of Grace, and leaveth no more to a Believer, but a naked assent to the Truth of God, which is in the devils and utterly secludeth faith from any particularity of application in the making of our peace with God in any respect.” Durham, Revelation, 592. 361 “Faith alone is the condition of the Covenant”. Durham, Revelation, 255. Thus the error Richard Baxter, whose neonomianism esteemed “all Graces equally, and gracious acts indifferently to be the condition of the Covenant”. Durham, Revelation, 141.

Durham’s Theology

113

grace.362 This was the foundational difference between these two covenants.363 Nevertheless, while works were in no proper sense a condition of the covenant of grace, yet they were indispensable to salvation.364 For Durham, “Faith and Works are never separat in a Justified Person; sound Faith cannot but work, and put on the study of holiness … We say, although Works concur not in the obtaining of pardon of sin, yet we say they are needful to Salvation, and to folks entry in to Heaven”.365 Durham here was attempting to tread the fine line between the perceived errors of Romanism on the one hand and antinomianism on the other. In designating faith the condition of the covenant, Durham was not stating that faith is the sinner’s righteousness; rather he was simply stating that faith was the instrumental means of obtaining the righteousness of Christ.366 Christ, not faith, was the believer’s righteousness.367 Faith’s role was simply in receiving Christ as he was offered.368 In assigning to faith the role of the condition of the covenant of grace in this way, Durham was being consistent with, and indeed gives insight into the meaning of, the Westminster Larger Catechism which speaks of faith as the “condition” of the covenant of grace.369 However, having said all this it is important to note that, despite his frequent use of the language of conditionality, Durham was not particularly enamoured of the term “condition”.370 Instead of speaking of faith as the “condition” on which Christ’s righteousness became that of the believer, he would rather have spoken of faith as “the mean[s] by which it is apprehended.”371 Additionally, for Durham, faith was to be thought of as the gift of God, as evidenced by his teaching on 362 Durham, Christ Crucified, 489. 363 Durham, Christ Crucified, 444; Revelation, 238 – 9, 243 – 4. 364 There is a sense in which Durham speaks of works as a condition of the covenant of grace but “strictly and formally” or “properly” they are not so. Durham, Revelation, 238. See also Revelation, 253 – 4. He would also accept that repentance may be called a condition in a large sense yet “strictly speaking” it was not the “proper” condition of the covenant. Durham, Revelation, 256. 365 Durham, Christ Crucified, 493. 366 Durham, Revelation, 240. 367 Durham, Revelation, 246. 368 Durham, Revelation, 234. Indeed, sometimes Durham replaced faith with “receiving Christ’s offer” as the condition of the covenant of grace. Durham, Revelation, 255. Bell entirely misunderstands Durham when he states that this emphasis on faith as the condition of the covenant of grace gives “the decided impression that faith is very much man’s act or work in his covenant with God.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 101; see also 105. For Durham, faith was simply a receiving of Christ, and even this faith was worked in the elect by the Spirit. The salvation of the elect, he believed, was both unilateral (the covenant of redemption) and bilateral (covenant of grace) and not simply bilateral as Bell claims. 369 WLC Q& A 32 in Westminster Confession, 142 – 3. 370 His continued use of the term is an example of a point noted earlier in this chapter, namely that Durham believed existing theological terms which had served the Church well should only be abandoned with very good cause. 371 Durham, Revelation, 247.

114

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

effectual calling considered later. This meant that, in the case of the elect, the condition of the covenant was met by means of a direct working of God. Thus the elect’s participation in the covenant of grace was absolute and guaranteed. As Richard Muller has commented, “Later Reformed writers were able to utilize both the monopleuric [unilateral] and the duopleuric [bilateral] definition within a single system as representative of the two poles of Christian life, salvation by grace and human responsibility.”372 The Properties of the Covenant The covenant of grace largely shared the same properties as the covenant of redemption in Durham’s thought. The one specific area worth highlighting is his commitment to the unity of the covenant of grace. He argued that the Church was “materially and in essential things” one in both the Old and New Testament eras.373 For instance, David was saved by the same covenant of grace as believers in Durham’s day.374 He specifically identified the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace, arguing that it is “a Covenant of Grace, that same in substance with the Covenant made with Abraham, and with the Covenant made with Believers now, but differing in its Administration.”375 Durham’s Overall Covenant Theology and the Westminster Standards Durham’s covenant theology is fundamentally consistent with the Westminster Standards. While his development of the covenant of redemption is not explicitly present in the Westminster Standards nothing he advances in relation to this covenant contradicts the teaching of the Westminster Assembly. His doctrine of the covenant of works is squarely in line with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Again his understanding of the covenant of grace agrees with the documents produced by the Westminster Assembly. Given that Westminster Confession 7:3 sets the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel in the context of 372 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 41. Similarly, Von Rohr comments: “the Puritans … affirmed … The covenant of grace was both conditional and absolute.” J. Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 17. Again, “From one perspective the covenant is conditional, but from another it is absolute. It is not, however, as though it were either conditional or absolute. Puritan theology rejected at this point the “either/or” and affirmed the “both/and,” with the connecting link found in the fulfilment of the conditions themselves.” Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace, 81. See also Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 305 – 18. 373 Durham, Revelation, 539. See also Head III in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in Westminster Confession, 325. 374 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 139. 375 Durham, Ten Commandments, 4. Holsteen makes the same point in “Popularization,” 235 – 6. For the diversity of contemporary views, see Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 279 – 91.

Durham’s Theology

115

covenant theology, Durham’s agreement with the Westminster Standards on this point is vital to his suitability as a case study.

Durham as a Predestinarian Theologian Having made general observations regarding Durham’s theology, and having considered the importance of the covenant idea in his thinking, one other significant area of this thought remains to be explored, namely his unflinching commitment to the sovereignty of God. A principle which dominated his approach was that God was the “fountain” and the “efficient cause” of salvation: he designed salvation and covenanted to bring it to pass.376 In considering his commitment to the sovereignty of God, it is natural to do so against the background of the five points debated at the Synod of Dort. At the outset it can be said that he believed that any denial of the teaching of Dort was to alter the “sweet nature” of the gospel.377 Total Depravity/Human Inability For Durham, following the breach of the covenant of works, man was “dead in sins … and unable for any spiritual good”.378 This spiritual deadness was a condition into which all are born: “Men and Women are … born under the Curse of God, and enclined to everything that is evil, born enemies to God”.379 None were free from this curse, not even the elect. This had significant implications for the free offer of the gospel. As all were inclined to evil and dead in sin, none were either able, or willing, to accept the offer. Therefore, it was only by an exercise of God’s special grace that this resistance could be overcome.380 How this is evident in the practice of Durham’s preaching will be seen in Chapter Three. In general, Holsteen is correct to note Durham’s “complete agreement with the theology of the Reformation in this area”.381 More particularly, Durham’s teaching is in harmony with Westminster Confession 6:2,4.382 376 Durham, Revelation, 393. 377 Durham, Revelation, 328. It is therefore somewhat ironic that Torrance charges Durham with “a semi-Pelagian understanding of the Gospel”. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 103. 378 Durham, Revelation, 169. 379 Durham, Christ Crucified, 175. See also Christ Crucified, 149 – 50, 173 – 4; Revelation, 122; Song of Solomon, 430. Durham spoke of the “corruption of nature that man brings with him in the world”. Durham, Lectures on Job, 84. Compare Head I of The Sum of Saving Knowledge in Westminster Confession, 323. 380 See Durham, Christ Crucified, 32, 94, 492. 381 Holsteen, “Popularization,” 241. See also Hodges, “The doctrine of the Mediator in classical Scottish theology”, 455 – 6.

116

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Election One of the foundational truths in Durham’s theology was that “the Lord hath an elect people, or a people chosen to salvation in his eternal purpose and decree”.383 That is, God chose a definite number to salvation before the world was made, and that number is not capable of increase or decrease.384 This choice was based not on foreseen belief, nor on good works (both being made impossible by enslavement to sin), but upon the mere sovereign will of God.385 The image, taken from Rom. 9, was of a potter with power to make what he will of the clay before him.386 Additional evidence of the decree of election was drawn from the scarcity of those who believe: “many are called, but few are chosen.”387 This teaching is in harmony with Westminster Confession 3:5.388 This decree of election, in Durham’s view, preceded, in order of logic, the covenant of redemption. It was only upon the supposition of a decree of election, a purpose to save, that the redemption of sinners became necessary.389 Thus the death of Christ did not cause election, nor did it draw forth the electing love of the Father ; rather, that love was the source of the atonement.390 Nevertheless, the covenant of redemption provided confirmatory evidence for the decree of election, in that it too was made for some and not for all.391 In discussing the decree of election it is impossible not to refer to its corollary, namely the decree of reprobation. It is clear that Durham also held to the decree of reprobation: “the decree of Reprobation must be, even in order of nature, as soon as the decree of Election.”392 This meant that the “absolute” decree of reprobation was also prior to the covenant of redemption. For Durham, it was impossible to conceive of election without reprobation, for “the decree of Election doth necessarily infer the decree of Reprobation; for, where there is an 382 WCoF 6:2,4 in Westminster Confession, 38 – 40. 383 Durham, Christ Crucified, 221. Christ is also God’s “Elect choice Servant”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 398. 384 Thus “the names of such as our Lord hath ordained to Glory … are as definitely and distinctly determined and known by Him, as if they were by name and surname particularly recorded in a Book.” Durham, Revelation, 186. This is consistent with WCoF 3:4 in Westminster Confession, 29. 385 Durham, Christ Crucified, 222; Revelation, 637. 386 “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour?” (Rom. 9:23, NKJV.) See Durham, Christ Crucified, 222. 387 Matt. 22:14, NKJV. Durham, Christ Crucified, 65. 388 WCoF 3:5 in Westminster Confession, 29. 389 Durham, Christ Crucified, 227. 390 Durham, Christ Crucified, 222. This was an important point for Durham, as “the Arminians … overthrow the design of grace in the salvation of sinners … in making Christ’s death to precede Election, and Election to follow it”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 227. 391 Durham, Christ Crucified, 223. 392 Durham, Revelation, 317.

Durham’s Theology

117

Election of some, there is a preterition of others.”393 It is strange, therefore, that Holsteen believed that “Durham wrote with some ambiguity regarding the decree of reprobation.”394 However, there is an important asymmetry to note here between election and reprobation. While the elect were saved because of the decree of election, the reprobate are damned not because of the decree of reprobation but because of their own “impenitence” and “guilt”.395 Again Westminster Confession 3:7 contains similar teaching to the position of Durham on reprobation.396

Particular Redemption Nathan Holsteen has correctly observed that “Durham … vociferously defends an atonement that is vicarious, satisfactory, and limited in extent to the elect.”397 Durham devoted significant time, both in preaching and in his theological essays, to defending particular redemption. As noted earlier, this doctrine was under attack from theologians both outwith and within the Reformed churches, such as Lutherans, Arminians and the more orthodox Hypothetic Universalists.398 It was mainly to the latter grouping, and particularly to the Hypothetic Universalists such as John Cameron and Richard Baxter, that Durham devoted his polemic attention. In outlining Durham’s doctrine of the atonement, it is important to note that he held staunchly to the doctrine of penal satisfaction. Christ “hath really and actually born[e] our Sorrows and Griefs, and removed our Debt, by undergoing the punishment due to us for Sin.”399 Whatever the sins of the elect deserved at the hand of the justice of God, Christ endured so that “there was a proportionableness betwixt the Sorrows that he bore, and the Sorrows they should have endured; he took the cup of Wrath that was filled for us, and that we would have been put to drink, and drank it out himself”.400 This is not to say that Durham posited a strict identification between the degree of Christ’s sufferings and the degree of the elect’s sin, for “if we consider Christ in Himself … His 393 394 395 396 397 398

Durham, Revelation, 317. Holsteen, “Popularization,” 236. Durham, Revelation, 744. WCoF 3:7 in Westminster Confession, 30. Holsteen, “Popularization,” 241. Whether “hypothetic” or “conditional” is the better term is debatable, and may vary between individuals. In any event, Durham acknowledged that this type of position was held and “is diversely expressed by Learned men, who in their Writtings do abhor the grosseness of the Socinian and Arminian Doctrines concerning Redemption.” Durham, Revelation, 312. 399 Durham, Christ Crucified, 131. Durham is here dealing with the Socinian error. 400 Durham, Christ Crucified, 132.

118

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Death, and these Sufferings, are more than if all the Elect has Suffered Eternally in Hell.”401 Christ’s death could be considered under the terms of meriting pardon, satisfaction,402 redemption, powerful annulling, offering, and sacrifice, which all point to penal substitution.403 Durham did not ignore other themes in the atonement, such as Christ as victor,404 but the penal substitutionary theme of Christ’s death dominates and necessarily raises the question: for whom was Christ’s death a penal substitution? Durham’s answer to this question is unwavering: “our Lord Jesus His sufferings were a real Satisfaction to Justice, for the Sins of the Elect”.405 He offered several arguments for this viewpoint which will be considered in turn. Covenant Of Redemption The primary determining factor in Durham’s doctrine of particular redemption was undoubtedly the covenant of redemption. He argued that Christ’s death could never be separated from the covenant according to which he died.406 The covenant of redemption in Durham’s thought “regulated”, as it were, the death of Christ, giving meaning to Christ’s sacrifice.407 Given, then, that the covenant of redemption itself was governed by the prior decree of election and was therefore a discriminatory covenant, it necessarily followed that Christ’s death had reference only to a limited number of individuals co-extensive with those given to Christ in the covenant of redemption.408 Brian Armstrong has correctly observed that “the insistence upon a limited atonement, was thought to be more conclusive by the exposition of the inter-Trinitarian [sic] pact.”409 Intercession Another linchpin in Durham’s defence of particular redemption was his belief that the intercession of Christ was limited to the elect. That is, Christ as mediator 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408

409

Durham, Christ Crucified, 323. See Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 69. Durham, Christ Crucified, 323 – 4. Durham, Christ Crucified, 502 – 9. Durham, Christ Crucified, 497. See also, for example, Christ Crucified, 135, 152, 160, 193, 234, 320, 322. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 32. Durham, Christ Crucified, 327. For further references in Durham’s writings, see Christ Crucified, 191, 220, 236, 327; Revelation, 299, 300, 303, 308 – 9; The Great Corruption of Subtile Self, 45, 79; Unsearchable Riches, 298, 303. So Holsteen: “the atonement must be limited to the elect because only the elect were ‘given’ to Christ by the Father in the covenant of redemption.” Holsteen, “Popularization,” 241. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 141. In his defence of definite atonement Durham’s contemporary, John Brown of Wamphray, placed the covenant of redemption first in his list of arguments. See Brown, The Life of Justification Opened, 530 – 1.

Durham’s Theology

119

prayed only for the elect and not for the world. This was clear both from Scripture (he cited John 17:9) and from the truth that “his Intercession … runs in the channel of the Covenant of Redemption.”410 Given then that “Christ’s intercession and his satisfaction, are of equal extent”,411 here was another argument for particular redemption. Christ interceded only for the elect; Christ interceded for all for whom he died; therefore he died only for the elect.412 Intent Another argument for particular redemption was Christ’s intention in dying. Durham believed that Christ intended to redeem his people and no other.413 Christ died not with the intention merely of making salvation available, but “really, and actually to procure Absolution and Justification before the Throne of God.”414 Thus if Christ died for all, and not all are actually saved, then Christ must have failed in his intention. This was unthinkable for Durham: God’s purposes cannot be “frustrated”, and if Christ intended to redeem all then all would therefore be redeemed.415 Rather, Christ’s death “was purposely intended by Him, and actually accepted by JEHOVAH as a proper price and satisfaction” for the sins of the elect.416 Divine Love Durham also saw a close link between the particularity of redemption and the depth of love that took Christ to the cross. In his view, there was no greater love than the dying love of Christ: “the love of God cannot more shine to one in any thing than in this, that Christ hath died for him”.417 It was therefore inconceivable that God would leave those for whom he had this love without effectual calling and forgiveness. That all do not receive such things was therefore proof, for Durham, of particular redemption. Double Payment Particular redemption was also supported by Durham on the grounds that if Christ died for all and paid the price for their sins, for God then to punish the sinner for the same sin would reflect adversely on “the Justice and Wisdom of 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

Durham, Christ Crucified, 519. Durham, Christ Crucified, 136. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 236 – 7; Revelation, 315 – 6. Durham, Christ Crucified, 230, 235 – 6. Durham, Christ Crucified, 434. Durham, Christ Crucified, 137, 375. Durham, Revelation, 296. See also Revelation, 299. Durham, Revelation, 302. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 237.

120

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

God” and would in effect be extracting a “double payment” for the same sin.418 In Durham’s opinion, that was inconceivable. If Christ had paid the debt and borne the sin, the sin has been dealt with, and absolved.419 He further argued that Christ could not have paid the price for all because some were already in hell.420 Durham’s Attitude to Other Views The prevalence of belief in “conditional” or “hypothetic” universal redemption in the Reformed churches gave Durham particular concern. He mentioned in his writings that some form of universal redemption was held by the Scotsman John Cameron,421 “the learned” Richard Baxter,422 William Twisse,423 and John Dallie.424 These men “are not professed enemies [i. e. Arminians], but in other things deserve well of the Church of Christ, which therefore should be our grief to mention”.425 Their particular view, according to Durham, was that “Christ died conditionally for all hearers of the Gospel.”426 He had no time for this “conditional” redemption, labelling it “absurd”427 for a number of reasons. First, a “conditional Redemption” was a “non-redemption” and an “ineffectual Redemption” and was “never intended at all”.428 A redemption that does not redeem, for Durham, was simply not redemption. Second, he believed that it was meaningless to say that Christ died for all on the condition of belief, because that condition was impossible to meet.429 Finally, this doctrine was absurd because it would fail to bring the desired unity in the Protestant churches. The Arminians and the Lutherans would continue to attack election and other doctrines still held by Baxter and others, and this concession was therefore worthless.430 Ultimately, the purpose of Christ’s death was not simply to “make reconciliation with God upon the condition of believing and Faith in Christ, possible”.431 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431

Durham, Christ Crucified, 237. Durham, Revelation, 313. Durham cites Isa. 53, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13 – 14. Durham, Christ Crucified, 237 – 8. E.g. Durham, Revelation, 308. E.g. Durham, Revelation, 314. Baxter held an absolute redemption of the elect but a conditional redemption of all. Durham, Revelation, 314. For a brief discussion of Twisse on the extent of the atonement, see Chapter One. Durham, Revelation, 320. Durham, Christ Crucified, 240. Durham, Christ Crucified, 240. Durham, Christ Crucified, 238. See also Revelation, 318 – 320. It is also “derogating … to his own glory”. Revelation, 300 – 1. Durham, Revelation, 319. Durham, Revelation, 317. Durham seems unaware that this objection could just as easily be laid at the door of his own doctrine of the gospel offer. This point is also mentioned in Holsteen, “Popularization,” 234. Durham, Revelation, 323, 325. Durham, Revelation, 307.

Durham’s Theology

121

Particular Grace and Universal Grace Durham also rejected the universality of the atonement because it implied the Arminian concept of universal grace. He did not deny common grace in itself. As will be seen in more detail later, he believed that “all men as they are partakers of any mercy, or of common favours, may be said to have grace extended to them.”432 Nevertheless, salvific grace was “extended only to the Elect, for whose sins Christ suffered”.433 As saving grace was particular, so Christ’s atonement was particular. Pastoral Considerations Perhaps surprisingly, Durham also rejected universal redemption because he considered it to be pastorally harmful. He believed that it was discouraging to sinners to be told that there was a conditional redemption available to all, rather than an absolute redemption for all who believe.434 Additionally, he argued that it weakened the ground that believers had to praise God. How could they praise God so fully that Christ specifically died for them under a universal atonement where he also died for many who would go to hell? Further, under the scheme of universal redemption the conviction that “Christ died for me” could no longer bring assurance as he died for all.435 Sufficient for All Having outlined Durham’s defence of particular redemption, it remains to consider his view of the sufficiency of the atonement. If the atonement was efficient for the elect, was it still sufficient for all?436 Whilst Durham does not address this directly, he does admit that it is possible to consider the atonement in two distinct ways. One way has been considered so far, namely the atonement as substitution. However, it was possible to consider Christ’s death “In respect of itself, and as abstracting [abstracted] from the Covenant of Redemption … in which sense, as his death and sufferings are of infinite value & worth, so they are (as Divines use to speak) of value to redeem the whole world, if God in his design and decree had so ordered and thought meet to extend it.”437 As Christ is God, it is simply not possible to limit the intrinsic value of his death: in and of itself the

432 433 434 435 436

Durham, Christ Crucified, 235. Durham, Christ Crucified, 235. Durham, Christ Crucified, 434. Durham, Revelation, 304. In line with the classic scholastic formulation “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis.” 437 Durham, Christ Crucified, 235.

122

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

value of his death is boundless.438 Thus Christ’s death and sufferings, if they had been intended for all, are sufficient to save all.439 Related to this, while Christ did not make satisfaction for the reprobate, yet to a certain extent some of the fruits of Christ’s death such as “common favours and mercies, common gifts and means of grace … common gifts and works of the Spirit” are granted to them.440 Christ’s death is the sine qua non of these blessings, including the “glad tidings” of the gospel offer.441 However, these blessings were “accidental” and were not to be accounted “as the proper effects and fruits of Christ’s purchase”.442 Ultimately, Durham was reluctant to state that these blessings are properly fruits of Christ’s death, because the reprobate abused these gifts and brought greater condemnation on themselves. Durham did not want a theology which had Christ’s atonement procuring greater wrath as one of its proper fruits.443 Despite this doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all, it remains clear that, for Durham, “there is no saving nor eternall mercy procured to any Reprobate by Christs death: and so according to the Scripture-language, it cannot be said that Christ hath redeemed [them]”.444 An examination of whether the Westminster Standards allow for a form of hypothetic universalism is beyond the scope of this study.445 However, what is 438 Durham, Christ Crucified, 435 – 6. 439 Durham, Revelation, 299. Thus Hodges comments that “the native worth and intrinsic value in Christ’s satisfaction is in the fact that the blood shed was the blood of God, and because there cannot be any bounding or limiting of His Person, there can be no limit on the worth or value of His great sacrifice.” Hodges, “Doctrine of the Mediator in Classic Scottish Theology”, 467. 440 Durham, Christ Crucified, 235. This has led Bailey to state that “when it came to the covenant of grace, Durham broadens the parameters of the covenant to include the reprobate at least in some respect.” Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 175. It is undoubtedly true that the outward administration of the covenant of grace extended beyond the elect in Durham’s thought. 441 Durham, Revelation, 309. 442 Durham, Revelation, 310. See also Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 100. However, see also the discussion of Durham’s preaching of particular redemption in Chapter Three. 443 Durham, Revelation, 310 – 11. 444 Durham, Revelation, 309. See also Walker, Theology and Theologians, 83 – 84. 445 Amongst those who argue that the Westminster Standards are compatible with some form of Hypothetic Universalism are Richard Muller (Reformed Dogmatics, 1:76); Garnet Milne (The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation, 135), Alexander Mitchell (Alexander Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1874; repr., Edmonton: Still Water Revival Books, 1991), xx); Jonathan Moore (“The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetic Universalism versus Particular Redemption,” in Drawn into Controversie, 148 – 152) and John Fesko (The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 200 – 3). Amongst those who argue the Westminster Standards are consistent only with strict particularism regarding the extent of the atonement are Benjamin B. Warfield (Westminster Assembly, 142 – 44); William Cunningham (Historical

Durham’s Theology

123

clear is that the strict particularism espoused by Durham is consistent with the Westminster Standards, e. g. Westminster Confession 3:6, 8:5, 8:8; Larger Catechism Q& A 59.446 Effectual Calling Given Durham’s doctrine of “total depravity”, as outlined above, none would believe if left to themselves.447 Therefore, that any believed at all was testament to the “irresistible Power of the Grace of God” which “works Saving Faith in the Elect”.448 This effectual calling was distinguished from the general outward call and offer of the gospel by being a “distinct, inward, peculiar, real, immediate, efficacious, and powerful work of the Spirit of the Lord … to perswade and enable the Soul of the Sinner to embrace and receive Jesus Christ, as He is offered in the gospel.”449 The effectual call met with resistance and reluctance.450 Nevertheless, this was overcome without “any force or violence done to the Will … contrary to its essential property of freedom”.451 This was done by the Spirit moving the will to freely choose Christ and salvation in him.452 Thus, “wherever the Lord applieth the powerful work of his Grace, then necessarily Faith and Conversion follow”.453 The doctrine of effectual calling was further buttressed by the doctrines of God’s decree of election, of the covenant of redemption, and of the general power and wisdom of God.454 In all this Durham was teaching in accordance with Westminster Confession of Faith 10:1 – 2.455

446 447 448 449

450 451 452 453 454 455

Theology, 2:326 – 336); John Murray (“The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith” in Collected Writings 4:255 – 6); Robert Letham (The Westminster Assembly, 119) and Sebastian Rehnman (“A Particular Defence of Particularism,” Journal of Reformed Theology 6:1 (2012): 24 – 34). Westminster Confession, 29 – 30, 49, 50 – 51, 157 respectively. Durham, Christ Crucified, 85. Durham, Christ Crucified, 81. Durham, Christ Crucified, 82. Also “[Effectual calling] is a peculiar work, to differentiate it from what is common to the Hearers of the Gospel … and is applied to none other, but to those in whom He works Faith”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 83. See also Durham, Song of Solomon, 262. Durham, Christ Crucified, 98. Durham, Christ Crucified, 99. Durham, Christ Crucified, 99. See also Durham, Song of Solomon, 82. Durham, Christ Crucified, 98. See also Christ Crucified, 82, 188; Revelation, 501. Durham, Christ Crucified, 100 – 1. WCoF 10:1 – 2 in Westminster Confession, 53 – 55.

124

James Durham: Life, Writings and Theology

Perseverance of the Saints456 As well as upholding the other points promulgated at Dort, Durham also held to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that is, that those who are truly once saved can never finally and fatally fall away from the Christian faith. He again built this truth upon covenant theology and the doctrine of election. He argued from an election which was founded on “nothing in the Creature but on God’s free will, purpose and good pleasure” that “nothing in the Creature [can] dissolve the same” and therefore “on supposition of the Decree of Election … the Elect cannot perish”.457 He also argued from his covenant theology that the covenant of grace “is like a bond to keep the believer near God, glued (as it were) and straitly join’d to him: or it is a cementing with God, to speak so: By this Covenant God and sinners are made near and knit to one another and kept from ever Separating”.458 What was fundamentally at stake, for Durham, when considering the perseverance of the saints, was the faithfulness of God. If the elect were not saved, it would be a “failing” on the part of God and in essence a breach of the promise made to the mediator as part of the covenant of redemption.459 That is, it would be unthinkable for the Father to promise to the Son a people and yet fail to ensure their ultimate salvation. Again, in considering the perseverance of the saints the pastoral focus of Durham’s theology is prominent. He believed that the doctrine was a “most pregnant ground of comfort to the Believer”.460 It enabled believers to remain confident, even in the face of the trials and tribulations of life, that their ultimate salvation was secure, so secure that “The greatest monarch on earth hath not such ground of assurance for his Dinner or Supper, as the poor Believer has for eternal Life.”461 As with his teaching on the other areas related to the sovereignty of God in salvation, Durham’s position on the perseverance of the saints is consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, in this case Chapter 17, “On the Perseverance of the Saints”.462

456 Or, to quote a phrase from Durham, “Perseverance of Elect and Regenerat Saints”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 376. 457 Durham, Revelation, 290 and Durham, Christ Crucified, 229. 458 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 250. 459 On this idea see Durham, Christ Crucified, 375 – 6, 513. 460 Durham, Christ Crucified, 513. 461 Durham, Christ Crucified, 513. 462 WCoF 17 in Westminster Confession, 73 – 75.

Conclusion

125

Conclusion This Chapter has summarized James Durham’s life and theology. In considering Durham’s life it was demonstrated that he was an important figure in pivotal years for the Scottish Church. He was one of the key theologians who popularized the theology of the Westminster Standards and was well respected by the Scottish divines who had attended the Westminster Assembly. In the internecine disputes which divided the Scottish Church following the demise of the dream of covenanted uniformity of religion in the Three Kingdoms Durham played a mediating role. After his historical significance was explored, Durham’s theology was then surveyed. In line with other orthodox Reformed theologians of his times, he defended that orthodoxy against Socinians, Arminians, Antinomians and Catholics. In particular he gave extensive attention to defending the substitutionary atonement of Christ and the Reformed doctrine of justification. In all the significant areas of his thought he was found to be in harmony with the Westminster Standards with his soteriology clearly echoing the teaching of the Westminster Confession. Being a pronounced predestinarian theologian, and espousing particular redemption, Durham had to face Arminian, and hypothetic-universalist objections to the consistency of the free offer with such a theological framework. Durham is therefore a relevant case study to examine how Reformed theologians responded to these challenges. His federal theology, while in some ways developing the teaching of the Westminster Assembly, particularly with regard to the covenant of redemption, was none the less found to be fully consistent with the teaching of the Westminster Standards. With the context of Durham’s general theological beliefs established, it is appropriate now to turn to examine Durham’s explicit teaching on the free offer of the gospel.

Chapter Three: James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

Having considered the history of Reformed thought on the free offer of the gospel and Durham’s general theological position, it is now possible to turn more immediately to consider his teaching on this subject as a case study to understand the meaning of the free offer in Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3.

Preaching and Covenant Theology: The Context of the Gospel Offer As discussed in Chapter One, the covenant of grace provided the context for the free offer of the gospel in the theology of the Westminster Standards. Similarly Durham held that it was in the outward administration of the covenant of redemption, through the covenant of grace, that the preaching of the gospel and the free offer occurred.1 This preaching, further, took place in the context of the visible church which was not to be regarded as comprising only elect believers, for in any “great multitude of professing Members of the visible Church, there are readily many that do not Believe”.2 The visible church might contain adulterers, those in gross error, and reprobates.3 Indeed, Durham believed that there were three clearly discernible classes of individuals in the church: the profane, hypocrites and genuine believers.4 An example where the two former classes dominated would be the church of Laodicea mentioned in Revelation 3. Durham was doubtful if there were any genuine believers there, since the church was described as bereft of the righteousness of Christ.5 Nevertheless, despite its defects God loved the visible church and lavished on it the gospel offer.6 1 For a parallel sentiment, see Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 180, fn. 75. 2 Durham, Christ Crucified, 37. 3 Durham, Revelation, 172; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 43. There were even “bitter heartenemies of godliness who yet live in the church”. Durham, Song of Solomon, 91. 4 Durham, Christ Crucified, 559 – 60. 5 Durham, Revelation, 213. Durham, however, did not categorically state that there may be a church with no believers. See Revelation, 218.

128

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

In view of the composition of the visible church, it was not surprising that the church needed the offer of the covenant. The only way of reconciliation for sinners was “by way of Covenanting … wherein God offereth, and the hearer receiveth and closeth with His offer, upon which followeth God’s acceptation of the person”.7 The believer’s accepting of the gospel offer was the means of receiving pardon and was “the making of the Covenant”.8 As there was no other means of reconciliation with God for a sinner, Durham’s continual plea was for his congregation to “close with Christ in the Covenant”.9 This clearly demonstrated the bilateral element in Durham’s understanding of the covenant of grace. Even as “in the Covenant … there is an offer on God’s side, so there must be a receiving on yours.”10 Nevertheless, this bilateral emphasis is placed in its proper context when, in the case of the elect, the very word that called them became the means to draw them to acceptance: “God makes use of the Word preached, for ingaging [engaging] of Sinners to Christ … in this respect, the Gospel not only offers Life, but through God’s blessing, as a mean begets Life”.11 Also apparent in his preaching were his strongly Christological views of the covenant, as the covenant “alwayes supposeth & implieth Christ … because He is given for the ground of Covenanting betwixt God and sinners; it being by him and in him that God and sinners meet”.12 Indeed, as noted earlier, there is “no access to Christ but by the Covenant”.13

6 “I love my visible church”. Durham, Revelation, 216. Durham cites Prov. 3:12, indicating that God’s discipline of his visible church indicates his love for it. (For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights. (NKJV.)) 7 Durham, Revelation, 591. Indeed, to be in covenant with God and to be reconciled to him were synonymous. Unsearchable Riches, 202. See also his rhetorical question, “Is there any other way to get sin pardoned and the quarrell taken away, but by making sure your Covenant with God?” Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 263. 8 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 196. Again it can be seen that the parties of the covenant of grace were God and the individual sinner. This is also evident in Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 206: “When I speak of entering in Covenant with God I mean of the hearts closing with him by Faith, according as he offers himself in this Gospel”. See also Durham, Song of Solomon, 189. 9 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 200. 10 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 199 – 200. 11 Durham, Christ Crucified, 459 – 60. This was discussed in Chapter Two under “The Terms of the Covenant of Grace”. 12 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 247. 13 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 207.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

129

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham Having placed Durham’s preaching of the free offer of the gospel in the context of the covenant of grace, it is now appropriate to consider his understanding of the free offer of the gospel itself.14 This will be done by defining what Durham meant by “offer” and then by examining several aspects of his positive teachings on the subject.

Defining “Offer” In view of the disputes in the secondary literature over the meaning of the term “offer” in its seventeenth-century context, it is important to begin this survey of Durham’s views on the free offer of the gospel by defining what he meant by the term. First of all, with regard to what was being offered in the gospel, Durham’s answer was quite clear : namely “Christ Jesus Himself, and His benefits”.15 That is, all that the Son had done to redeem sinners was offered, all the benefits of the gracious covenant of redemption were brought and offered to sinners.16 On one occasion Durham listed these benefits as peace, pardon, grace, and glory, even going so far as to say that “all good things” were offered.17 On another occasion he listed remission of sins, the covenant and promises, Christ himself, and eternal happiness as the contents of the gospel offer.18 All the blessings of the covenant of redemption were “by the Gospel brought forth, laid before the hearers of it, and made offer of to them, on most easie and wonderfully condescending terms.”19 The position outlined above was expressed by John Murray

14 No one has studied Durham’s theology of the offer in depth. The most substantial reference is found in Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 33 – 35. Lachman’s discussion is, however, limited to material found in Durham’s polemic essay on the extent of the atonement in his commentary on Revelation, and so does not reflect Durham’s overall views by failing to take account of the breadth of his positive teaching on the subject found throughout his writings and sermons. 15 Durham, Revelation, 215. Bell correctly identified this point too, noting that, for Durham, “This… gospel offer is nothing other than Jesus Christ… we are to believe Christ as he is offered to us.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 101. 16 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 138. Thus “The Gospel doth not, as it were, so much offer to make with you a bargain, as it offers you the benefit of a bargain already made, viz. With Christ”. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 143. 17 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 148. 18 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 323 – 4. 19 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 140.

130

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

as follows: “it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel.”20 In the light of what was offered, it is now important to define what Durham meant by “offer” as such. Is it true that, as has been claimed, “offer” should be understood simply in the sense of “present or set forth”, or did “offer” mean something more than simply a presentation of facts? Were the Reformed in the seventeenth century using offero, and its cognates, simply to denote “present”? This is the assertion of Raymond Blacketer, discussed in Chapter One.21 While it is certainly true that, for Durham, Christ was presented and set forth in the gospel, it is evident from the images he used to explain the word that his conception of “offer” cannot be restricted to the notions of “presenting” or “setting forth”. In explicating the meaning of “offer”, Durham outlined five main “similitudes” which set out his understanding of the term. The similitudes he proposed were wooing, inviting to a feast, selling, standing knocking at a door and commanding.22 These will be considered in turn to elucidate Durham’s understanding of the gospel offer. One of the most common images Durham used to define the expression was that of wooing and beseeching. He explained that “The Offer of this Gospel … [is] set down under the expression of wooing … and supposeth a Marriage, and a Bridegroom, that is by his friends wooing and suiting in Marriage”.23 In understanding his definition of the gospel offer, therefore, it is appropriate to think of a man trying to persuade the woman he loves to marry him. If someone received such a marriage proposal, it would be reasonable to assume that this involved more than a presentation of facts: such a proposal would naturally be accompanied by beseeching, pleading and entreaties.24 This is exactly how Durham urged preachers to go about their preaching: “not only make an offer of Marriage; but request, intreat, perswade, pray and obtest”.25 The aim of this wooing and beseeching was that hearers of the gospel would be drawn to Christ.26 From this one image, therefore, it is clear that “offer” was, for Durham, more than a presentation of facts.27

20 21 22 23

Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:132. Blacketer, “Three Points,” 44 – 45. Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. Durham, Christ Crucified, 8. Also, Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 47 – 48, 55 – 56. On the marriage image, see Unsearchable Riches, 42 – 43. 24 Durham, Christ Crucified, 392. “We make this offer to all of you … We pray, We beseech, We obtest you all to come to the wedding”. Unsearchable Riches, 57. For another use of “beseeching” and “obtesting” (or “begging”), see Unsearchable Riches, 64. 25 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 53. This image of begging is far from unique to Durham. 26 Durham, Revelation, 215 – 6.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

131

Another common image Durham used to explain what he meant by “offer” was that of an invitation:28 “The Offer of this Gospel … [is] set out under the expression of inviting to a Feast, and Hearers of the Gospel are called to come to Christ as Strangers, or Guests are called to come to a Wedding-feast”.29 Particularly significant in considering the dispute over the meaning of the term is his denial that the gospel was simply a proclamation: “[The gospel] doth not only Proclaim, but invite and double the invitation to come … It not only invites, but puts the invitation so home, that People must either make the price … and buy, or refuse the Bargain … [it] cryes, Come, buy, come and enter the Covenant freely : and this it doth by a frank offer, by earnest and persuasive inviting, and by the easy Conditions that it proposeth the bargain on”.30 It appears, therefore, that the contention that by “offer” Reformed theology simply meant proclamation or presentation is inadequate, for the gospel “doth not only Proclaim, but invite”.31 Durham was also clear that here was something more than a “bare” invitation; rather, it was an “alluring” invitation that leaves the recipients in no doubt that they should accept.32 Durham also frequently used the image of selling to convey the meaning of “offer”. He stated clearly that “The Offer of this Gospel … [is] set out often under the similitude or expression of a Market, where all the Wares are laid forth on the Stands”.33 All the benefits of the covenant of redemption “are put to sale in the Gospel to bankrupt sinners upon exceeding easy, low and condescending terms.”34 In using this image, he presented Christ as the seller and stated that “indeed it were a pity that such wares should be brought to the Market, and that few or none should buy : that Christ should (to speak so) open his pack and sell no wares. Therefore let me say a few words to you for perswading you readily and

27 For Durham explicitly distinguishing between a simple statement of facts and the offer of the gospel, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 10. 28 Durham had a whole sermon devoted to this theme, Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 41 – 76. 29 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8. For other examples of the image of inviting, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 122, 428 – 9; Revelation, 265 (with “exhorting, pressing and protesting as unwilling to be refused”); Unsearchable Riches, 57, 58, 99, 133, 159, 257, 261 – 2, 320. 30 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 144 – 5. 31 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 144 – 5. 32 Durham, Christ Crucified, 407. Jonathan Moore takes the image of “inviting” in John Preston as evidence of hypothetic universalism. Given that Durham was one of the most outspoken critics of hypothetic universalism, this contention is certainly not true in general. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 135. 33 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. 34 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 133 – 4. “This good and gracious bargain, thats past betwixt the Father and the Son, which is wholly mercie, is brought to the Market and exposed to sale, on exceedingly easie and condescending termes, and that to bankrupt sinners.” Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 138. See generally Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 138 – 9.

132

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

presently to embrace the offer of this richest Bargain.”35 It would be generally agreed that it would be a poor salesman who simply and dispassionately declared facts about what he was trying to sell. Indeed, the very image of selling contains the idea of a willingness to sell and great effort to ensure that there was a sale. Here, again, therefore, is another image which supports the historical readings of Clark and Beach and runs contrary to the arguments of Blacketer. A further image Durham used to expound the concept of the gospel offer was that of standing and knocking at a door desiring admittance. He stated that “The Offer of this Gospel … [is] set out under the similitude of a standing and knocking … and calling hard at Sinners doors”.36 Unsurprisingly, he took this knocking as evidence that Christ “wanted” an entry in order to gain admittance.37 In addition to these images or similitudes, Durham also regarded the gospel offer as a command. The gospel preacher “commands us to take hold of Christ offered”.38 This implied, of course, that everyone to whom the gospel came was warranted to accept it: if God commanded a course of action all should obey in faith and God would be pleased with that believing obedience. Further, it was everyone’s duty to obey the command of the gospel and trust in Christ. These two ideas of the warrant to believe and the duty of faith are discussed in more detail below. In summary, it is clear that Durham believed that the gospel not only “revealed” Christ but truly “offered” him to all hearers.39 It is evident, therefore, that a restriction of “offer” to “presentation” (and equivalent terms) does not accord with seventeenth-century Reformed theology, where “offer” simply meant offer.40

35 36 37 38 39

Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 145. Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 44, 159. Durham, Christ Crucified, 9. Durham, Christ Crucified, 478. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 53. The Durham states that “righteousnesse is not only revealed therein, but offered thereby”. Durham, Revelation, 234. [Emphasis added.] 40 Jonathan Moore asserts that viewing the gospel offer as anything more than a “bare offer”, i. e. seeing it as an “earnest beseeching”, was evidence of hypothetic universalism, i. e. a denial of particular redemption. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 130. This assertion is not consistent with the position of Durham, and does not accord with the general outlook of his peers.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

133

The Exegetical Basis for the Free Offer Given Durham’s commitment to Scripture as the source and norm of theology, it is appropriate before proceeding further to consider the scriptural basis for the free offer in his thought.41 A key text was 2 Cor. 5:20.42 Speaking of the duties of ministers Durham stated: “It’s their Commission to pray them to whom they are sent to be reconciled, to tell them, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, as it is, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. and in Christ’s stead to request them to embrace the offer of Reconciliation … This is Ministers work, to pray people not to be idle Hearers of this Gospel”.43 This text formed the basis for his ambassadorial conception of the ministry. It also led him to see the offer as central to the work of the ministry and to define that offer as a “praying” or a “beseeching” to receive Christ.44 It does not seem justifiable to assert, as Jonathan Moore does, that this definition of offer arose in Reformed thought as an attempt “to reinstate the impression of full human responsibility under the gospel call.”45 Rather than imputing overarching dogmatic concerns to thinkers such as Durham, it is more balanced to say that their understanding of the gospel offer grew from exegesis of the biblical text. Another important verse was Matt. 22:4.46 Durham stated that “the offer of this Gospel is … set out under the expression of inviting to a Feast; and Hearers of the Gospel are called to come to Christ as Strangers, or Guests are called to come to a Wedding-feast, Mat. 22. 2,3,4. All things are ready, come to the wedding & c. Thus the Gospel calleth not to an empty House that wants meat, but to a Banqueting-house where Christ is made ready as the Cheer”.47 This text there-

41 Henderson believed Durham “was at his best in exegesis.” Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, 212. 42 “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (NKJV.) 43 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 351 – 2; Unsearchable Riches, 247 – 8, 317; Song of Solomon, 429. 44 John Owen also understood this text in similar terms, stating that here the gospel offer “is fully expressed (2 Cor. 5:18 – 20). He has provided them [the terms], he has proposed them, and makes use only of men, of ministers to act in his name. And excuse us if we are a little earnest with you in this matter. Alas! our utmost that we can … comes infinitely short of his own pressing earnestness herein. See Isa. 55:1 – 4. Oh, infinite condescension! Oh, blessed grace!” John Owen, “An Exposition Upon Psalm 130” in The Works of John Owen (ed. W. Goold; 16 vols.; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 6:517. In general, Owen here expresses many of the ideas inherent in Durham’s doctrine of the gospel offer. 45 Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 134. Moore again views such an understanding of the gospel offer as indicative of “hypothetic universalism”. 46 “all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” (NKJV.) 47 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. See also a sermon on this verse in Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 41 – 76 and further references in Revelation, 691; Song of Solomon, 429.

134

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

fore pointed to the content of the gospel offer, namely Christ, and highlighted the satisfying nature of what was being offered. A further text was Isa. 55:1.48 Durham expanded on this verse as follows: “the offer of this Gospel is … set out often under the expression or similitude of a Market, where all the Wares are laid forth on the Stand, Isa. 55.1. Ho every one that thirsts come to the waters, & c. and lest it should be said, or thought, that the Proclamation is only to the thirsty, and such as are so and so qualified; ye may look to what followeth, let him that has no money come, yea, come, buy without money and without price”.49 This text and the verses following provided the primary impulse for Durham to see in the gospel offer the image of selling. Also used evangelistically was Rev. 3:20.50 In mid-seventeenth-century Reformed thought, this verse was understood frequently as a conversionist or evangelistic appeal to unconverted sinners.51 Durham was typical when he stated, “the offer of this Gospel is … set out under the similitude of a standing and knocking … and calling hard at Sinners doors Rev. 3.20. Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man will hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me; … which is an earnest invitation to make way for Christ Jesus, wanting nothing but an entry into the heart; whereby we may see, how Christ comes in the Gospel, and is laid to folks hand.”52 Again, “He says from thence, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man will hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me; I come, (as if he had said), in my Gospel to woo, and if any will consent to take me on the terms on which I offer myself, I will be theirs.”53 Lying behind this view of Rev. 3:20 as a conversionist text was Durham’s ecclesiology, namely his understanding that the visible church comprised those who outwardly profess the true religion and their children rather than the truly regenerate. Although Rev. 3:20 was addressed to a “church”, this did not guarantee that the 48 “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.” (NKJV.) 49 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. In arguing that this text is not only of relevance to “the thirsty”, something of Durham’s anti-preparationist stance is evident. This will be considered in more detail later. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 24; Revelation, 428, 752, 992; Unsearchable Riches, 57. Thus it is not the “standard” Reformed understanding of this text is that it is addressed only to a limited (elect) group of people. 50 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (NKJV.) 51 See, for example, Obadiah Sedgwick, The Riches of God’s Grace Displayed, in the Offer of Salvation to Poor Sinners [Seven Sermons on Rev. iii. 20] (London: n.p., 1658); David Clarkson, The Works of David Clarkson (3 vols.; Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864) 2:34 – 100; John Flavel, Works, 4:1 – 267. 52 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8 – 9. 53 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 44. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 24; Revelation, 216 – 7; Unsearchable Riches, 159, 252 – 3, 325; Song of Solomon, 254.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

135

recipients were a group of saved, or elect, individuals. Indeed, as noted in the first section of this Chapter, Durham argued that they were without the righteousness of Christ.54 It was therefore perfectly natural for him to read Rev. 3:20 as an evangelistic and conversionist appeal.55 Another text was Ezek. 18:31 – 32.56 Durham explained that, “Faith … is well express’d in the Catechism, to be a receiving of Christ as he is offered in the gospel; this supposes that Christ is offered to us, and that we are naturally without Him; The gospel comes and says, Why will ye die, O house of Israel? come and receive a Saviour”.57 It is interesting to see that he tied the meaning of the free offer of the gospel in the Westminster Shorter Catechism to this text. However, his understanding of this text was not the only Reformed interpretation; whilst John Owen admitted that there might be “some colour of universal vocation”58 in these words, he ultimately argued that they were not about the gospel at all but about physical death.59 Durham frequently referred to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 19:41 – 2, namely, Christ’s lament over Jerusalem.60 He used these verses as follows: “Sometimes He complains … and sometimes weeps and moans because Sinners will not be gathered, as Luk. 19.41,42. and Matth. 23.37. can there be any greater evidences of reality in any Offer?”61 He believed that this text demonstrated the sincerity of 54 Durham, Revelation, 213. 55 Moore again regards such an exposition as evidence of hypothetic universalism. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 137. In contrast, James Packer’s comment provides insight into the possibility of reconciling a commitment to divine sovereignty with this understanding of Rev. 3:20: “They [the Puritans’] stressed the condescension of Christ …They dwelt on the patience and forbearance expressed in His invitations to sinners as further revealing his kindness. And when they applied Rev. iii. 20 evangelistically … they took the words ‘Behold, I stand as the door and knock’ as disclosing, not the impotence of his grace apart from man’s cooperation … but rather the grace of His omnipotence in freely offering Himself to needy souls.” Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” 18. 56 “For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies, says the Lord GOD. Therefore turn and live!” (NKJV.) The same words are repeated in Ezek. 33:11. 57 Durham, Christ Crucified, 23. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 321. 58 John Owen, “The Death of Death” in Works, 10:387. 59 John Owen, “The Death of Death” in Works, 10:388. It should be noted, and should be clear from previous comments, that “Unlike John Gill and his hypercalvinist associates of the eighteenth-century, Owen did not disregard the ‘free offer’”. Alan Clifford, Atonement and Justification, English Evangelical Theology 1640 – 1790: An Evaluation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 116. Nonetheless, his exegetical basis for upholding the free offer was more limited than Durham’s. Indeed, it is fair to say that Owen was not always consistent in his handling of these verses, as in “Meditations and Discourses concerning the Glory of Christ; Applied unto Unconverted Sinners and Saints Under Spiritual Decays” in Works, 1:422 he applies this verse evangelistically i. e. in a conversionist appeal. 60 “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it.” (NKJV.) 61 Durham, Christ Crucified, 48. Moore cites James Ussher’s identical use of this verse, and even

136

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

the gospel offer. If Christ was not genuine and well-meant in his offer, why would he weep when it is rejected? In one instance Durham attributed the sentiments of Matt. 23:37 to both the Father and the Son, stating that “[In the gospel offer] the Father and Son are most heartily willing: therefore they expostulate when this Marriage is refused, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem how often would I have gathered you, but you would not: Matth. 23. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem if thou even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace; Luke 19.”62 However, his use of this text was not always consistent. Here he evidently refers the text to Christ’s divinity and even “the Father”, but in Christ Crucified, where he was engaged in a polemic against those within the Reformed tradition advocating universal redemption, he referred the text to the human nature of Christ only.63 This reflects something of the potential influence of polemics on exegesis. When engaged in the work of conversionist preaching the text took on one face; when engaged in polemical theological preaching it might take on another face altogether.64 The final text to be referred to here is Rev. 22:17.65 Durham used this verse as follows: “Grace says, Ho come, and Rev. 22. 17. Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely, it’s not only, to say so with reverence, those whom He willeth, but it’s whosoever will”.66 He saw particular significance in this verse being one of the last in Scripture. He believed that it showed that God wished to “press the offer of the Gospel and leave that impression as it were, upon record amongst the last words of this Scripture … wherein Christ aimeth much to draw souls to accept it”.67 Durham also referred more briefly to other texts to bolster his teaching on the offer of the gospel. Ps. 81:1068 and Isa. 5:469 demonstrated the sincerity of the

62 63

64 65 66 67 68 69

his very linking of it to the gospel offer, as evidence of his denial of particular redemption. However, Durham provides clear evidence that proponents of particular redemption used this verse in a similar way. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 184. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 52. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 42, 335; Unsearchable Riches, 318; 321. Durham, Christ Crucified, 519. Perhaps Mullan’s words are appropriate: “The danger here, of course, is that of expecting a preacher to be consistent; the rhetorical demands of that occupation can lead him along a number of different vectors.” Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 75. However, Durham was clear that this verse applies not only to the elect but also to “visible professors of the Church, who refuse to listen to the call of the gospel”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 335. “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 47. Durham, Revelation, 780. See also Durham, Revelation, 428; Unsearchable Riches, 57. “Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 47. “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 48.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

137

offer ; Ps. 81:11 portrayed the willingness of God that the offer be accepted;70 Isa. 1:18 – 19 evidenced the heartiness of the offer ;71 Acts 13:38 showed the closeness of the offer to every hearer ;72 Rom. 10:21 outlined how pleased Christ is when sinners come to him;73 Prov. 1:20, 8:1 – 2, Luke 14:32 and 1 John 3:23 all demonstrated Jesus’ desire for the salvation of sinners;74 Mark 16:15 provided warrant to preach the free offer to all;75 Acts 2:39 revealed that the gospel offer was a general promise to all;76 Luke 15 (the prodigal son) illustrated how welcome a positive response to the offer was;77 Deut. 5:29 showed that it was a “sad matter” when the offer was refused78 ; Deut. 30:19 demonstrated the seriousness of the matter of accepting or refusing the offer.79 There is no doubt, therefore, that Durham believed that the free offer of the gospel had a solid basis in Scripture.80 70 “But My people would not heed My voice, And Israel would have none of Me.” (NKJV.) Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 52 – 3. 71 “Come now, and let us reason together, Says the LORD, Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow ; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land.” (NKJV.) Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 325. 72 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins.” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 72. 73 “All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (NKJV.) This verse is a citation of Isa. 65:2. Durham, Christ Crucified, 352; Unsearchable Riches, 321. 74 “Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.”; “Does not wisdom cry out, And understanding lift up her voice? She takes her stand on the top of the high hill, Beside the way, where the paths meet.”; “Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.”; “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.” (NKJV.) Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 321. John 6:37 also shows this desire. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 319. 75 “And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 417 – 8. 76 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (NKJV.) Durham, Christ Crucified, 459. Isaiah 45 also shows that the offer is a promise of salvation to those who accept. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 319. 77 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 54; Song of Solomon, 194 – 5, 335. 78 “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!” (NKJV.) Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 290. 79 “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.” (NKJV.) Durham, The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness, 33. 80 It is interesting to note the occurrence of many of these texts in Murray, “Free Offer,” 4:113 – 132. One key omission from this group of texts may be John 3:16, but Durham believed that the “world” in this verse was best understood as the “elect world”. See Durham, Revelation, 320 – 1. However, Durham does refer John 3:16 to the gospel offer on occasions e. g. Christ Crucified, 344; The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in Westminster Confession, 329.

138

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

The Person Making the Offer Having defined Durham’s views regarding what was being offered in the gospel, namely Jesus Christ and all the benefits of the covenant of redemption, and having defined what was meant by an offer, the next question that naturally arises concerns the person making the offer.81 From Durham’s general view of preaching the answer is fairly clear : the preacher was simply an ambassador, without any words of his own. All the preacher did was relay the words of his master. Thus, although audibly the preacher was offering Christ, it was in reality God who was offering Christ. The preacher’s words were the Word of God. There is ample evidence for this understanding of Durham’s beliefs in his own statements. For instance, he maintained that “God in the gospel sets forth as in a Mercat [market] to Sinners, rich and rare Wares … at very low and easie Rates”.82 He expanded on this elsewhere: “Consider the Offer that is made in the Gospel to Sinners, which is the object of our Faith … it’s Gods Offer in the Gospel … He [God] warrants them to go and make it known to all to whom they shall Preach, that there is remission of sins to be had through Faith in Christ”.83 Thus, in the gospel offer, “upon the one side, the offerer is the Prince of the Kings of the earth … our blessed Lord Jesus, who maketh offer of Himself to sinners, and saith, Behold Me, Behold Me … [on the other side] these to whom the offer is made … wretched, poor, miserable, & c.”84 It was “God’s call” and “God’s offer”.85 Indeed, “it’s as really Gods offer, as if audibly he were speaking to you from Heaven.”86 The party doing the inviting was the “Lord Jehovah”.87 This is an important point in expounding Durham’s understanding of the offer. That it was a divine offer meant that he was not able to avoid several 81 This is one of the areas where Blacketer accuses the twentieth-century Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof of incoherence, arguing that he equivocated over whether the preacher or God is properly offering. See Blacketer, “Three Points,” 40 – 1. For a consideration of Berkhof ’s position on the free offer, see Chapter Five. 82 Durham, Christ Crucified, 24. [Emphasis added.] This teaching was by no means novel. For example John Owen stated: “It is God himself who proposes these terms, and not only proposes them, but invites, exhorts and persuades you to accept of them. This the whole Scriptures testify unto.” John Owen, “An Exposition Upon Psalm 130” in Works, 6:517. 83 Durham, Christ Crucified, 417 – 8. [Emphasis added.] The language of God as the offerer is ubiquitous. See Christ Crucified, 8, 24, 57, 369, 392, 428; Revelation, 215 – 17, 262, 264 – 5, 591, 780; The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness, 77; Unsearchable Riches, 44, 48, 51, 52, 54 – 60, 65, 92, 145, 159, 172, 248, 257, 259, 263 – 267. 84 Durham, Revelation, 215. 85 Durham, Revelation, 305. 86 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 247. 87 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 261. Again Moore takes this position of the real offerer being God as evidence of hypothetic universalism. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 130 – 1. Durham, again, is one clear counter example.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

139

difficult related questions. For instance, he could not simply dismiss the question of the sincerity or well-meant nature of the gospel offer. He could not state that the gospel was simply preached by those who did not know who among their audience was and was not elect and so on this basis preached to all. In a real sense, for Durham, the offerer was God; ministers were simply ambassadors who relayed God’s offer. The voice might be theirs but the offer was Christ’s.88 Thus the question was, how can God offer salvation to those whom he purposefully has not elected to life and yet be sincere? Durham’s answer to this question will be considered later. It is sufficient to note at this stage that he was so convinced of the sincerity of God’s offer that to reject it was tantamount to counting “God a Liar in all His Offers”.89 His position can be summarised again in the earlier quotation from John Murray : “it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel.”90

The Recipients of the Offer Having defined the free offer of the gospel in Durham’s thought and considered the biblical basis he adduced for his position, it is appropriate now to turn to the matter of the recipients of the offer. Durham was clear and explicit on this point: “where the Gospel comes, it makes offer of Jesus Christ to all that Hear it.”91 In

88 “Christ taketh on Him the place of an Wooer, Ministers are his Embassadours, the Word is their Instructions, wherein He bids them go tell Sinners, that all things are ready, and to pray them to come to the Marriage, or to marry and match with Him … In the Bargain of Grace, something is offered by God, and that is Christ and his Fulness.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 24. 89 Durham, Christ Crucified, 57. 90 Murray, “Free Offer” in Collected Writings, 4:132. [Emphasis added.] See also Murray, “Faith” in Collected Writings, 2:257. Durham was not unique in this. For instance, John Brown of Wamphray commented that “God … invited both by his servants the prophets, and his courtesies, most tenderly and affectionately, as a loving father or mother stretcheth out their arms to imbrace their dauted children; and this he did not once or twice, but with great patience and longanimity all day long… he was weary in shewing kindness to them (all this is metaphorically spoken, the more to convince us both of his tender affection and long suffering)”. John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, with Large Practical Observations; Delivered in Several Lectures (Edinburgh: David Patterson, 1766), 423 – 4. [Emphasis added.] 91 Durham, Christ Crucified, 45. Also, “His Satisfaction is offered in the Gospel … to all the Hearers of the Gospel”, Christ Crucified, 45; “to any man”, Christ Crucified, 529; “the offer of the gospel runs on an universality, and excludes none”, Christ Crucified, 529; “no sinner that heareth this Gospel” is excluded Revelation, 216; “are there any, but the Lord hath been offering peace to them”, Unsearchable Riches, 172; “who can exempt or exclude themselves from the offer or bargain”, Unsearchable Riches, 320. Further, “Old hypocrites have access to God’s mercy, if they will seek it in time … So broad is mercy ; God bars the door of mercy on

140

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

other words, all who heard the gospel received the offer of Christ; there were no exceptions. He refused to put any beyond the reach of the gospel offer.92 He further noted that the gospel, when it was preached, made offer of Christ not simply to the generality of hearers but to every individual hearer particularly : “The person called to this, is expressed thus, if any man, & c. which putteth it so to every hearer, as if it went round to every particular person, if thou, and thou, or thou & c. … because where the Lord saith any man, without exception, who is he that can limit the same”.93 The gospel offer thus was a particular invitation to every individual, with no hearer excluded. This is in contrast to the assertion in David Lachman’s work on the Marrow Controversy that while “earlier Reformed divines held this gospel offer to be a particular offer of Christ to each individual … Later theologians [i. e. post Dort], extending the doctrine of particular redemption to the gospel offer, spoke of the offer as general and indefinite.”94 Holsteen takes issue with the consistency of Durham’s theology at this point. He admits that Durham taught that “the call to respond to the offer of the covenant of grace is directed at every person.”95 Nevertheless, Holsteen argues that this was impossible, given Durham’s doctrines of a particular redemption and total depravity coupled with a covenant of redemption that was only for the elect. Objections to Durham’s doctrine of the offer will be considered in detail later ; it is important now only to note that, any other theological commitments notwithstanding, Durham clearly held to a gospel offer that was to every hearer.96 It was to all regardless of their current condition; even “atheists” who did not believe in God, far less sin, still received the gospel offer : “we make this offer to all of you, to you that are Atheists, to you that are Graceless, to you that are Ignorant, to you that are Hypocrites, to you that are Lazy and Luk-warm, to the Civil and to the Prophane; We pray, We beseech, We obtest you all to come to the

92 93

94 95 96

none, nay not on hypocrites. It is not the hypocrite as such, but continuing such, that puts him from mercy.” Durham, Lectures on Job, 46. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 58 – 59. Durham, Revelation, 217. Also, “this Gospel and Word of Salvation is preached to you in particular”, Christ Crucified, 72; “This Gospel comes to every one of your Doors, and sayes to you, will you be obliged to Christ for Life? Will ye be his Children?”, Christ Crucified, 345; “to every one of you in particular”, Christ Crucified, 392; “by making His offer particular, as it were, bringing it to every mans door”, Revelation, 216; “the offer of this marriage comes to you”, Unsearchable Riches, 55; “the call comes to all and every one of you in Particular”, Unsearchable Riches, 57; “the general offer in substance is equivalent to a special offer made to every one in particular”, The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in Westminster Confession, 329. Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 11. Holsteen, “Popularization,” 235. This is admitted by Torrance. See Scottish Theology, 121.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

141

wedding … we do most really offer him to you all, and it shall be your own fault if ye want him and go without him.”97 Durham also explicitly rejected any idea of preparationism, stating that, “Grace stands not precisely on forepreparations … as that ye have not been so and so humbled, and have not such and such previous qualifications … Nay someway it excludes these, as offering to bring money and some price, which would quite spoil the nature of the Market of free grace; nay yet [let] me further, if it were possible that a soul would come without sense of sin, Grace would embrace it”.98 In considering texts which might appear to limit the gospel offer to those who are “thirsty” (Isa. 55:1), Durham pointed out that following that text those without money are invited to come. If “thirsting” were required before coming, that would imply that “money” were required before coming. The thirst is descriptive of those likely to come, rather than a prerequisite to coming.99 In any event, no church could be as devoid of “preparations” as Laodicea, and yet it received the full and free gospel offer.100 This is not to say that Durham never spoke of the gospel as addressing “sensible sinners”. He did this on several occasions.101 However, where he spoke 97 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 57 – 58. Also, the offer is to “strangers to God”, Christ Crucified, 370; “Strangers to Christ”, Christ Crucified, 378; “utterly carelesse, and indifferent”, “a Prophane Company”, Christ Crucified, 421; “such as have never taken with their Sin”, “these, who think they have nothing to do with this Doctrine”, “such as never knew any inward Work … of the Spirit”, Christ Crucified, 422; “Formal, and Hypocritical”, Christ Crucified, 423; “secure Atheists”, Christ Crucified, 514; “loathsome, luke-warm, desperate hypocrite”, Revelation, 216; “Poor and rich, high and low, holy and profane”, Unsearchable Riches, 57; “the most graceless and Godless”, Unsearchable Riches, 59; “Prophane … and self-righteous”, Unsearchable Riches, 60; “Atheists and Profane Wretches”, Unsearchable Riches, 65; “the most Prophane, the most Ignorant and Graceless wretch, the most Hypocriticall dissembler”, Unsearchable Riches, 70; “Poor, proud, vain, Hypocritical”, Unsearchable Riches, 320; “sinners, enemies, and at feud with God”, Unsearchable Riches, 323. 98 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 150. Lachman accurately observes that Durham “does not require such preparations as being humbled or other such qualifications” prior to conversion. Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 60. Norman Pettit defines preparationism as insistence on “a [long] period of prolonged introspective meditation and self-analysis in the light of God’s revealed Word. In this process man first examined the evil of his sins, repented for those sins, and then turned to God for salvation.” Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), 17. This is not to say Durham, or his contemporaries denied the general importance of preparatory conviction of sin, but that is not necessarily preparationism. See, Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God’s Ordinary Way of Leading Sinners to Christ (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013). 99 Durham, Christ Crucified, 9. 100 Durham, Christ Crucified, 9. 101 Durham, Christ Crucified, 379, 406, 466, 491, 508, 515. He also adduced steps that can be taken to make faith and conversion more likely, but this is not preparationism in the sense

142

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

in language like this he is best understood simply to be stating that a sense of sin and need “disposeth them to make use of grace.”102 So far was he from making a certain degree of “sensibleness” of sin a condition of receiving the gospel offer that he argued that there “is one great Prejudice that the devil Laboureth deeply to possess the minds of wakened sinners with, even to make them think that it’s Presumption for them … to come to Christ and by Faith to close with Him, unless they be so and so qualified”.103 Lachman correctly observes that Durham sums up the general orthodox stance on preparationism “as succinctly as anyone”.104 Durham further argued that the gospel was for the whole world: “the marriage must be proclaimed through the world by the Preached Gospel, the contract must be opened up and read and sinners consent called for.”105 As an example of this, believers were to pray for the salvation of those under the tyranny of Popery.106 Indeed, if a minister were to meet a heathen, i. e. someone outside the visible church, his duty was to preach the free offer of the gospel to him.107 This points to the ultimate scope of the gospel, which was “to all that dwell on the earth … to all sorts of People of whatsoever Kindred, Tongue or Nation”.108 Lachman, therefore, has misunderstood Durham when he claims that “Durham is careful to restrict the offer to members of the visible church.”109 What Lachman fails to convey is that, while Durham restricted the gospel offer in practice to the visible church, he did not believe that the gospel was restricted to the visible church in principle.110 In rejecting preparationism, Durham was not undermining the importance of the law, or of conviction of sin. Rather, he was arguing that conviction of sin does not somehow qualify, or give a warrant, to come to Christ.

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

that the gospel offer is restricted to those who have undergone these steps. Durham, Christ Crucified, 50 – 52, 109 – 111. Durham, Revelation, 762. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 228. See also Unsearchable Riches, 132, 142 – 3, 217 – 8. Lachman, “Marrow Controversy,” 60. Durham would have regarded genuine “preparationism” as Popish. Durham, Revelation, 445. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 50. Durham, Revelation, 444. Durham, Revelation, 110. Durham, Revelation, 579. Compare again, Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 50. Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 35. Lachman states that this is in contrast to the position of Owen, who makes no such restriction. On this see the “On Prayer Before the Sermon” in Directory for Public Worship in Westminster Confession, 377. J.A. Caiger comments that in this section of the Directory “The horizon then widens as prayer is offered for the spread of the Gospel and Kingdom of Christ to all nations.” J.A. Caiger, “Preaching – Puritan and Reformed” in Press Towards the Mark (Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1961), 48.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

143

The Reasons for the Offer The most frequent reason Durham gave for the gospel offer was God’s intention to save sinners. For instance, he stated that it “is the Great designe of the Gospel to have sinners closing with Christ on his own Terms.”111 So important was this aspect of the motivation for the gospel offer that Durham held that it was of “no purpose to speak of Christ and of Faith in Him, except He be received”.112 He believed that it was the great design of preaching to save all the hearers.113 Indeed, he would go so far as to say that it was impossible to think of the free offer of the gospel without being drawn to the truth of God’s willingness to receive sinners.114 God’s design in giving the gospel was to bring people to faith in Christ.115 If this were God’s great design, then the obvious question, given Durham’s commitment to divine sovereignty, is why do all not accept? In the first place, it is important to note that on numerous occasions Durham warned his hearers: “O do not frustrat the Grace of God”.116 He also stated that unbelievers “do, in so far as they can, thuart [thwart] with God’s Design.”117 Unbelief was simply a contradiction of the revealed purpose of the gospel.118 This points to the fact that Durham was speaking here of the revealed design of preaching, which is to save sinners, rather than the hidden decree and intention of God which can never be frustrated. What Durham was saying in effect was that it has been revealed that Christ died to save sinners, and that all who refused to come to Christ were ultimately refusing to count themselves sinners for whom Christ died. This points to Durham’s teaching that Christ’s death made reconciliation “attainable” 111 112 113 114 115

Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 314. Durham, Christ Crucified, 26. Durham, Revelation, 265. He believed that this was also the aim of Christ’s preaching. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 317. See also Unsearchable Riches, 304. Durham, Christ Crucified, 12, 19, 25 – 26, 43, 209, 307; Revelation, 342, 780; Unsearchable Riches, 201, 268, 302 – 3. 116 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 314. “[Unbelief] strikes against His Grace, and frustrates that; when Christ is not received, some sort and degree of despite is done to the Spirit of Grace”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 43. John Owen used similar language, noting that God “declares it is our duty to believe, or we frustrate the end of his revelation”. Owen, “An Exposition Upon Psalm 130” in Works, 6:504. 117 Durham, Christ Crucified, 349. For similar wording, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 346. Also, “lest we be found, as far as we can, thuarting with, and running Crosse unto God’s good Will and design in it, notwithstanding, all the Favour and Grace He has made Offer of to us”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 352; “Is it not think ye, great Ingratitude to Him, and great Cruelty to your selves, that when the Lord hath Designed such a thing, by the laying down of his Life; That ye should, as far as ye can, stand in the way of it?” Christ Crucified, 344; “ye Scorned and Disdained (to speak so, with reverence, in such a Subject) to satisfy God that far, as to yeeld to Christ, to be of His Seed, that, that Promise might have had it’s accomplishment in you.” Christ Crucified, 349. 118 Durham, Christ Crucified, 43.

144

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

and life “possible” for all on condition of believing, which will be considered in more detail later.119 The ultimate purpose and intention of the offer was to save the elect. Nevertheless, a universal offer was still a necessity, as Durham argued that, given the nature of God’s covenant, nobody could be saved if the offer were not to all. In the covenant administration none were told that they were elect, as this belonged to the secret will (voluntas arcane) of God. Therefore, if the offer were only to the elect no one would be able to accept it, having no means of discerning that it was applicable to them. As such, the offer was to all, that the elect might be saved.120 However, this insistence on the priority of the elect in the gospel offer was not to deny a general love revealed in the offer. Durham stated that the offer was to all “to commend the Grace and Love of God in Christ Jesus, when the Invitation is so broad, that it is to all; it speaks of the royalty of the Feast, upon which ground 2 Cor. 6.1 it’s called Grace, the Offer is so large and wide.”121 The final purpose of the general gospel offer was to leave the reprobate inexcusable.122 However, this was an accidental effect of the gospel rather than its primary aim. Durham insisted that this “is not his great and proper Designe, in sending of His Son; For He could have had His glory that way [in condemning impenitent sinners], though he never sent Him into the World”.123 The condemnation from rejecting the offer did not flow “causally” from the gospel offer. In itself the gospel offer was good; it was only as it was rejected and despised that

119 Durham, Christ Crucified, 328, 344. It did much more than this, of course, hence Durham’s doctrine of particular redemption. 120 Durham, Christ Crucified, 11. 121 Durham, Christ Crucified, 11. See also his exhortation “Let the Fathers, and Christs love to you be welcome in it’s offers”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 303. A general love of God to all distinct from electing love was a common theme in Reformed thought. For instance, John Owen stated that “Love towards all mankind in general, is enforced upon us by the example of Christ’s own love and goodness which are extended unto all.” Owen, “A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace and Unity,” in Works, 15:70. Owen further stated that “God is good to all men, and bountiful … and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them.” Owen, “Vindicæ Evangelicæ,” in Works, 12:552. 122 Durham, Christ Crucified, 11 – 12. This purpose was not to be the primary motivation behind preaching: “This indeed is a fountain qualification of a Preacher, to be travelling [travailing] in birth till Christ be formed in hearers; and so to Preach to them, as hungering and thirsting for their Salvation… nay, not only his own exoneration, and the justifying of God by making his hearers inexcusable; but a single serious desire to have them gathered and espoused to Christ”. Durham, Revelation, 334. Compare Durham, Song of Solomon, 144. 123 Durham, Christ Crucified, 344. “And our blessed Lord Jesus loves not (to speak so) to pronounce woes, but to bless His People, yet when they have the offer of Life through Him, and will not receive it, He pronounces woe after woe upon them”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 41.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

145

it became the accidental cause of condemnation.124 On his part God was content to do good, and it was only when the offer was rejected that judgment followed.125 In view of this, it was possible to say that the unbeliever’s ruin was self-inflicted.126

The Warrant to Believe Given that all hearers of the gospel were offered Christ by Durham, it is important to note that he believed that they had a warrant to accept this offer. Special reference here is given to the Sum of Saving Knowledge, as this work contains a section specifically devoted to this matter.127 The first warrant outlined by Dickson and Durham in the Sum of Saving Knowledge was “God’s hearty invitation, holden forth, Isa. 55:1”.128 That is, because God invited sinners to come to him, there was an abundant warrant for all to do just that. The invitation provided a “sufficient warrant” for any to accept the gospel offer.129 This was particularly the case when it is recalled that the invitation was not simply general but was specific to each individual hearer.130 Durham believed that any objections that may have arisen from his doctrine of particular redemption could be answered by this warrant.131 The second warrant adduced in the Sum of Saving Knowledge was “the earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to him in Christ; holden forth, 2 Cor. 5:19,20,21”.132 If an invitation was not enough warrant to come to Christ, then there was God’s earnest request that sinners accept Christ freely offered to them. Durham’s reasoning appears as follows: “How can any doubt that they have a right to come to Christ when God is earnestly beseeching them to do just 124 Durham, Revelation, 310. Durham noted that it was only through “their enmity and corruption” that the truths of scripture became a savour of death. Durham, Christ Crucified, 105. See also Christ Crucified, 59, 421. 125 Durham, Revelation, 343. 126 Durham, Christ Crucified, 465. This is not to deny that, for Durham, God would delight in justice. See Durham, Revelation, 584. It was rather that comparatively God’s delight was in mercy rather than justice. 127 For another summary of the teaching of the Sum of Saving Knowledge on the warrants to believe, see Daniels, “Gill,” 484 – 5. For a general commentary on the Sum of Saving Knowledge, see John MacPherson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1886). 128 “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 332. 129 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8. See also Christ Crucified, 14, where the offer of the gospel is said to provide “warrant” to come to Christ. Compare Christ Crucified, 46 – 49, 418. 130 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 261. 131 Durham, Christ Crucified, 459. This will be considered in more detail later. 132 “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 334.

146

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

that?” Aligned to this is the fact that God has confirmed his promise to all in the gospel by making an oath “for this very end, that the hearers of the gospel may know, that they who receive Christ offered therein, shall have Life”.133 For Durham, this demonstrated just how earnest God was in the offer. The Sum of Saving Knowledge offered a third warrant, namely, “the strait and awful command of God, charging all the hearers of the gospel to approach to Christ in the order set down by him, and to believe in him; holden forth, 1 John 3:23”.134 All could be sure that they had a warrant to come to Christ because God commanded all to come to him for salvation. Durham and Dickson commented that “if any man shall not be taken with the sweet invitation of God, nor with the humble and loving request of God, made to him to be reconciled, he shall find he hath to do with the sovereign authority of the highest Majesty ; for ‘this is his commandment, that we believe in him.’”135 The command “takes away all controversy” over whether every individual has a warrant to accept the offer.136 Durham also discussed, but not in the specific section of the Sum of Saving Knowledge considered above, the relation of the death of Christ to the warrant to believe. In the first place, without the death of Christ there would have been no “warrant to speak of Life to you”. However, because Christ has suffered and died “it gives us Ground to make this Proclamation to you.”137 This could simply be taken as stating that, without the death of Christ, there would be no gospel to preach. More specifically, Durham took as one of the warrants to believe “The Fullness and Sufficiency of the Mediator Jesus Christ, in whom all the Riches of the Gospel are treasured up … who wants nothing that may fit Him to be a saviour, who is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.”138 Because of the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s death, all could come in the assurance that he was able to cleanse from sin. However, it should be clear from the preceding discussion on the extent of the atonement that, for Durham, the belief 133 134 135 136

Durham, Christ Crucified, 15. See also Christ Crucified, 351 – 2. “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 336. “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 336. Durham, Christ Crucified, 48. See also Christ Crucified, 10. The command of God is his revealed will, which the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches is the warrant for accepting the gospel offer. “The real question here is as to the warrant, or warranting ground of that offer. The Confession shows as warrant … the declared will of God, now commanding all men everywhere to repent.” MacGregor, Blown by the Wind, 55. 137 Durham, Christ Crucified, 343. 138 Durham, Christ Crucified, 46. Durham’s contemporary, John Brown of Wamphray, stated that “The soul must know, that He [Christ] is not only an able and sufficient mediator; but that also he is willing and ready, to redeem & save all that will come.” John Brown, Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Or a Short Discourse. Pointing forth the way of making use of Christ, for justification, and especially and more particularly, for Sanctification in all its parts from Johan. XIV; Vers. VI (Rotterdam: Printed by H.G. for John Cairns, book seller in Edinburgh, and to be sold there, 1677), 49.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

147

that “Christ died for me” could form no part of the warrant to accept the free offer.139 He could go no further than to “assure Hearers that whosoever believeth shall partake of life and of the benefits of Christs Redemption; and by virtue of the generall Call and Warrand[t] which we have in the Gospel, we may invite them to believe in Christ; require Faith of them.”140 Specifically, then, the gospel gave all a warrant to accept the free offer and the conditional promise of salvation, but it did not give a warrant to apply the death of Christ explicitly to the individual until the individual had first believed.141

Duty Faith Not only were all warranted to accept the offer ; in Durham’s opinion, all were required to accept the offer. This was an area of controversy in later centuries with some arguing that if the hearers of the gospel lacked the ability to accept the offer it could never be their duty to do so.142 In contrast to this teaching, Durham stated that “Men and Women are not only warranded to come, but required and commanded to come, the great Duty the Gospel calls for is Believing”.143 Believing savingly in Christ was an “obligation” that lay on all.144 Clearly, then, it was also a “very great Sin” not to receive Christ as he was offered in the gospel.145 Durham put forward several reasons for faith being a duty : the gospel was a command; it was a command particularly left to ministers to impress on hearers; God was displeased with those who do not accept the offer. Indeed, inherent in the very nature of the gospel offer made by Christ was that “the great thing called for, is the receiving of it, which is nothing but Believing”.146 The fact that all were now unable (or unwilling) to perform the duty commanded by God and accept Christ did not alter the fact that it was still their duty. Although not specifically addressed by Durham, it is clear that he would have acquiesced with 139 140 141 142 143

Durham, Revelation, 305. Durham, Revelation, 324. Durham, Christ Crucified, 14. See Daniels, “John Gill,” 421 – 424. Durham, Christ Crucified, 16. See also Christ Crucified, 3, 14, 16, 32, 71; The Great Corruption of Subtile Self, 46; Unsearchable Riches, 42 – 43, 53. Hodges comments correctly that for Durham, “Faith is depicted as the great duty of the people, an absolute necessity, and as the condition of the offer of the gospel.” Hodges, “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classic Scottish Theology,” 488. John Owen similarly stated that “This offer is neither vain nor fruitless, being declarative of their duty”. John Owen, “The Death of Death,” in Works, 10:301. 144 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 322. Also, “The great Duty … required of the Hearers of the Gospel; it’s Believing in Christ savingly, or Saving Faith”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 19. 145 Durham, Christ Crucified, 40. Durham classes this sin as greater than adultery and murder. 146 Durham, Christ Crucified, 16.

148

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

the sentiments of John Brown of Wamphray who stated that “Though faith be not in our power, yet it is our duty : Our impotency to perform our duty, doth not loose our obligation to the duty.”147

The Offer and God’s Will and Desire Having considered so far Durham’s teaching that in the free offer God earnestly invited all the hearers of the gospel to come to Christ, the question of his teaching on the sincerity of the gospel offer naturally follows. That is, did God want all hearers of the gospel offer to accept Christ? To express it more starkly, did God desire the salvation of all hearers of the gospel? These are important theological questions. In the words of John Murray, “It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.”148 It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Durham taught, in some sense, that God desired the salvation of all, or, more restrictively, all the hearers of the gospel, in the light of his explicit comments: “God the Father, and the Kings Son the Bridegroom are not only content and willing, but very desirous to have sinners coming to the Marriage, they would fain (to speak so with reverence) have poor Souls espoused to Christ.”149 This teaching was not simply one isolated slip of the tongue in preaching. Durham elsewhere declared: “as our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ hath Purchased this Redemption and Remission, so he is most willing, desirous, and pressing that sinners, to whom the Gospel is offered, should make use of his Righteousness and of the Purchase made thereby, for this end, that they may have Remission of sins and eternal life … He is (to speak so with reverence) Passionately desirous that sinners should endeavour on good ground to be sure of it in themselves. Therefore he … makes serious offer of it, and strongly confirms it to all that embrace it.”150 Again, commenting on the verse, “Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out”, he stated: “The word is doubled in the Original I will not, Not, to show how the holy passionatness of our Lords desire, and his exceeding great willingness to have sinners closing with him; So Isaiah 45. Salvation is promised even to a Look, look unto me, all the ends of the Earth, and be Saved”.151 Indeed, he could go so far to say that “we know not a truth of the Gospel that hath mo[re] confirmations than this hath, viz. That Christ the Mediator is very willing and desirous, that sinners close with Him, and 147 148 149 150 151

Brown, Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, 65. Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:113. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 42. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 304. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 319.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

149

get the good of his Purchase.”152 Christ, in Durham’s opinion, wanted to have sinners saved.153 Durham was clear that to deny the serious, or well-meant, nature of the gospel was not appropriate: “To have a gracious offer from God, and to fear at it, as if he were not in earnest, is very unbecoming the Gospel; when ever he Pipeth, it becomes us well to dance; and to Believe and Credit him, when he speaks fair and comfortably.”154 Accordingly, the accepting of the offer was “most Welcome, and Acceptable,”155 “well pleasing,”156 “most pleasing,”157 “most delightsome.”158 It also brought “contentment” to God.159 Following the language of the Canons of Dort, Durham also designated the offer as “serious”, and indeed “very serious.”160 This again pointed clearly to the well-meant nature of the offer. God was not mocking any hearers of the gospel; he was true in all his dealings.161 Allied to this “desire”, Durham spoke of the willingness of God to save sinners, as the following lengthy extract demonstrates: “Christ the Bridegroom & his Father are very willing to have the match made up and the marriage compleated … The evidences of his willingness are many … as, that he hath made the feast … and prepared so for it, and given himself to bring it about, and keeps up the offer and Proclamation of the Marriage, even after it is slighted … the Father and Son are most heartily willing: therefore they expostulate when this Marriage is refused, O! Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you, but you would not: Matth. 23. O! Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace; Luk 19. All these sad complaints, that Israel would not hearken to his voice, and his people would have none of him. Psal. 81.7 [sic], That he came to his own, and his own received him not Joh. 1.11. And that they will not come to

152 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 316. See also Unsearchable Riches, 320 – 1. In this reference the desire of Jesus to save sinners is drawn from, among other texts, Ezek. 18:31 – 32. 153 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 317. In contrast, Christ weeps when sinners do not come to him. Unsearchable Riches, 318. With reference to Preston, Moore again labels this teaching “hypothetic universalism,” as a concept of God’s desire for salvation for any apart from the elect is contrary to Reformed teaching. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 131. In some cases this type of language is undoubtedly tied to an extent of the atonement which reaches beyond the elect, but, as Durham carefully defines his position, it is not the case for him. 154 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 92. 155 Durham, Christ Crucified, 349. 156 Durham, Christ Crucified, 350. 157 Durham, Christ Crucified, 352. 158 Durham, Christ Crucified, 384. See also Heaven Upon Earth, 373. 159 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 249, 260, 262. 160 Durham, Christ Crucified, 369, 392. 161 Or “earnest”. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 372 – 3.

150

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

him that they might have life. Joh. 5.40, make out his willingness abundantly and undeniably.”162

In thus linking the Father and the Son, Durham was making the point that the one should not be considered more or less willing than the other in the matter of saving sinners.163 In evaluating Durham’s teaching on the desire of God that hearers would accept the gospel offer, or the willingness of God to save sinners, it is not possible to understand him as simply using indefinite terms (such as “sinners”) and by these terms meaning ultimately “the elect”. Aside from the strange inconsistency that this would create with his own definition of the gospel offer as a particular invitation to every individual hearer (how could a particular invitation be indefinite in its object?), there is his own clear statement in which he affirmed the willingness of God to save every one of the hearers of the gospel: “This word which we now Preach, Nay, these stones shall bear witness against you, that our Lord Jesus was willing to save you and every one of you, and ye would not”.164 162 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 52 – 53. Again the similarity of the textual basis here to those used by John Murray in “Free Offer” is evident. Also: “a Saviour willing to make Sinners welcome” Christ Crucified, 178; “an able Saviour … A willing Mediator … A willing Jehovah … The Partie offended is willing to be in friendship with the offending Partie” Christ Crucified, 302 – 3; “As He is Faithful so is He Willing to be imployed” Christ Crucified, 371; “in earnest and very willing” Unsearchable Riches, 48; “the Father is ready, having declared his willingness to give his consent … the Son is ready to take all by the hand that will embrace Him … the contract is ready, and on offer of it made on the Bridegroom’s side”. Unsearchable Riches, 51; “Christ the Bridegroom & his Father are very willing to have the match made up and the marriage completed: therefore doth he send forth his servants with a strict commission, not only to tell sinners that all things are ready, but to bid them come to the Marriage … he not only wills them to tell that all things are ready, and to invite them, but to compel them … to come in … the Father and the Son are most heartily willing: therefore they expostulate when this marriage is refused” Unsearchable Riches, 52; “the Lord Jesus is willing to match with you” Unsearchable Riches, 58; “seriously willing” Unsearchable Riches, 320. John Brown of Wamphray also argued from the sorrow of Christ over those who reject him to his willingness to save: “his expressed sorrow & grief over such as would not come to him, his upbraidings & objurgations of such, as do obstinately refuse, and the like, put his willingness to save such as will come to him, out of all question.” Brown, Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, 49 – 50. 163 See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 304, 315, 350. Again Moore sees any teaching that God is “willing” to save all as evidence of hypothetic universalism. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 131 – 2. 164 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 324. [Emphasis added.] Compare the words of John Murray : “In other words, the gospel is not simply an offer or invitation but also implies that God delights that those to whom the offer comes would enjoy what is offered in all its fullness.” Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:114. There is one strange inconsistency in Durham on this issue. In his commentary on Revelation, when discussing the two natures of Christ he stated that although Christ has a human nature and a divine nature, and therefore two wills, these wills cannot be “opposite”. Therefore, “what He may be conceived in His will and pity to us as man, that same must be conceived to be made effectual to us as He is

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

151

However, having noted this aspect of Durham’s understanding of the offer, it is important to clarify in what sense he spoke of God’s desire for the salvation of the hearers of the gospel and of his willingness to save all. In reference to this it is vital to realize again that Durham distinguished between the secret will (voluntas arcane) and the revealed will (voluntas revelata).165 Basing his thoughts on John 6:39 – 40, he stated that in these verses there were “two wills, to say so.”166 Verse 39, “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing”, referred to “the secret paction of redemption” while verse 40, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life”, referred to “the revealed will, pointing to our duty.”167 The secret will was not to be “searched into at the first hand”; rather, “his revealed will belongs to thee, and that is, to see that thou believe”.168 The gospel offer was “contained in Gods revealed Will”169 and it was only in the sense of this revealed will that any could speak of God’s will to save all gospel hearers: “if the Lords willing of men (at least such as are under His Ordinances) to be saved be thus understood, as including only the duty that God layeth upon men, and the connexion that He hath made between it and Salvation in His word, It may be admitted: but if it be extended to any antecedent will in God Himself, distinct from that which is called His revealed will, This place and such like will give no ground for such an Assertion [a universal saving will].”170 He rejected any “assertion of the Lords having a will and desire of the salvation of all men,

165

166 167 168 169 170

God.” Durham, Revelation, 412. This appears to state that if Christ as man wills and desires the salvation of all, then God would have to enact that. Durham himself on one occasion taught that, as man, Christ willed the conversion of Jerusalem but, as the Second Person of the Trinity, did not, leading him into the very contradiction he here claimed was impossible. Durham, Christ Crucified, 519. Von Rohr called this distinction a “fundamental factor in Puritan theology itself” and described the difference as follows: “On the one hand there is God’s commanding and forbidding will… It is the will of God as known in God’s word, the will that prescribes and promises… It is thus the known will, the will of the conditional covenant, the revealed will of God… On the other hand there is the will of God’s good pleasure… This is the predestinating will, the will of God’s private purpose. It is the will of the absolute covenant… It is the secret or the hidden will of God.” Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace, 130. Durham, Christ Crucified, 140. Durham also used these verses to make the same point in Unsearchable Riches, 74 – 75. Durham, Christ Crucified, 140. Durham, Christ Crucified, 140. Durham, Revelation, 305. See also Revelation, 321 for another explicit linking of the gospel offer to the revealed will, with Durham stating that “the offer of the Gospel made unto them … it is the revealed will of God.” Durham, Revelation, 169 – 70. In the context here, Durham states that he would rather speak of God’s revealed will that all men repent, than that all men be saved. However, this statement, occurring again in a polemic against those in the Reformed tradition who were positing universal aspects to Christ’s atonement and God’s saving will, does not seem to have been borne out in Durham’s own sermons.

152

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

besides His signifying of what is acceptable to Him as considered in itself, by His Word.”171 This also showed that, when he spoke of God’s desire to save all, he was relating this to the revealed will.172 Thus Durham’s position supports Curt Daniels’ contention that “The Puritan Federalists claimed that God, in the revealed will, wills the salvation of all men, though God does not intend universal salvation in the secret will.”173 Despite this bifurcation in considering the will of God, Durham maintained that obedience to God’s revealed will was always acceptable, and he was clear that it was possible to speak of God’s desire or delight for the salvation of those who “will never believe” in that it would be pleasing to him.174 This was because “the Lord has a speciall Complacency ; and hath evidenced in His Word Comparatively a greater delight in Sinners closing with Christ, and in their accepting of Life through Him than in many other things” and because Christ displayed sadness when sinners do not believe.175 However, there is some difficulty in reconciling this with Durham’s absolute commitment to divine sovereignty, which is why he, acknowledging that he is dealing in theologia ectypa, confesses the danger of being “carnal in speaking his mind” and the necessity “to speak thus with reverence of this Divine Mystery.”176

Common Grace Connected to this teaching that God desired the salvation of all by his revealed will (voluntas revelata) was Durham’s teaching that the gospel offer was an 171 Durham, Revelation, 212. 172 R.A. Finlayson’s words, originally reflecting on the position of Calvin, capture this well: “It would seem clear that God wills with genuine desire what he does not will by executive purpose. This has led theologians to make use of the two terms, the decretive will and the perceptive will of God, or His secret and revealed will … The position could thus be more clearly put as meaning that God desires all men to be righteous in character and life and to use the means he has appointed to that end. It is in harmony with the revealed will of God that without the use of means appointed by Him the end shall not be attained. As a holy God, the Creator commands all his moral creatures to be holy, and He cannot be conceived as in any way obstructing their pursuit of holiness by His decree.” R.A. Finlayson, “Calvin’s Doctrine of God” in Able Ministers of the New Testament, (Papers read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1964), 16. 173 Daniels, “Gill,” 140. 174 Durham, Christ Crucified, 350. Indeed what God calls for and commands in the revealed will “cannot be conceived, but to be pleasing to God.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 350. 175 Durham, Christ Crucified, 350. This greater “comparative” delight in the salvation of sinners than in their destruction one basis for the gospel offer, as Durham continues, “Therefore it is that he calleth for this [acceptance of the revealed gospel offer] so pressingly.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 350. [Emphasis added.] 176 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 59, 138.

The Free Offer in the Theology of Durham

153

expression of God’s common grace: “We beseech you (saith he) that ye receive not this grace in vain; [2 Cor. 6:1] which is not meant of saving Grace, but of the gracious offer of Grace and Reconciliation through Him.”177 Again, “Why will God have Christ in the Offer of the Gospel brought so near the Hearers of it? …Because it serves to commend the Grace and Love of God in Christ Jesus, when the invitation is so broad, that it is to all; it speaks out the royalty of the Feast, upon which ground 2 Cor. 6.1. it’s called Grace, the Offer is so large and wide.”178 The gospel offer was not the only common grace which unbelievers enjoyed. They received “common favours” which evidenced God’s “care and kindnesse”.179 Additionally, they experienced the work of the Holy Spirit; indeed, all common grace was a fruit of the Spirit’s work.180 These common works of the Spirit could restrain sin,181 enlighten the mind,182 bestow gifts,183 and convict of sin.184 Durham warned of the great danger of neglecting these common operations of the Spirit, even to the extent that to do so was to “mar the work of your own Conversion and Salvation”.185 Perhaps these common operations of the Spirit were the reason why he believed that the image of God had not been totally lost by man.186 In any event, recalling the previous discussion on the extent of the atonement, common grace may be said to flow from the work of Christ on the cross, albeit only indirectly.187 It is important to note that Durham drew a very sharp distinction between saving and common grace, positing that, while common grace was indeed wrought by the Spirit, the difference between the two was “in kind” and not

177 Durham, Christ Crucified, 8. That Durham held to a doctrine of common grace is acknowledged in Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 175, fn. 55. 178 Durham, Christ Crucified, 11. Also Durham, Blessed Death, 28, where sermons are listed as “mercies” and “favours”. On the gospel offer as “grace”, see Christ Crucified, 49, 352, 370, 423, 430, 447; Unsearchable Riches, 92, 133, 141, 263 – 4, 322. All this while Durham was a staunch opponent of any Arminian concept of common sufficient grace. Durham, Christ Crucified, 85 – 86. 179 Durham, Christ Crucified, 466. See also Durham, Lectures on Job, 195 – 6. 180 Durham, Revelation, 130. Again Moore understands this position as hypothetic universalist. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 136. 181 Durham, Revelation, 658: “He withdraweth grace … to oppose that tentation, and so they yeeld.” 182 Durham, The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness, 72: “[In unbelievers] There may be a good measure of illumination, even supernatural, though but by a common work of the Spirit, not at all sanctifying”. 183 E.g. the gratia gratis data. Durham, Revelation, 178. 184 Durham, Scandal, 174: the “common convictions of the Spirit”. 185 Durham, Christ Crucified, 96. See also Christ Crucified, 88; Blessed Death, 69; Song of Solomon, 254. 186 Durham, Christ Crucified, 92. 187 Durham, Christ Crucified, 235.

154

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

simply “in degree”.188 His reasoning here was largely pastoral. If, he argued, there was no significant difference between God’s common and God’s saving grace, none could be assured that they were recipients of God’s saving grace, because even though an experience appeared to be saving grace it would appear no different if it was merely a fruit of common grace.189

The Rejection of the Offer Given all this, it is hardly surprising that Durham thought that the free offer of the gospel was “the greatest News, the gladdest Tydings, and the most excellent Report, that ever came, or can come to a People … These are the good Tydings, that Jesus Christ is come, and that he is the Saviour by Office.”190 Why then did not all accept the offer? First, Durham concluded that many saw no need to accept the offer because they believed that they were already saved.191 This to him was dangerous presumption and led to his focus on discerning who were true and false believers. It was not limited atonement or unconditional election that gave his theology a focus on “who was saved”, but a pastoral desire to ensure that his congregation were not guilty of presumption and had actually seen their need to accept the offer. Secondly, Durham believed that many undervalued Christ. Some did not believe him to be God192 while others felt his sufferings were insufficient.193 Thirdly, some simply did not believe the genuineness of the offer.194 Lying behind all these, however, was the doctrine of total depravity and people’s natural unwillingness and inability to accept Christ.195

188 Durham, Revelation, 123 – 5. Durham is here confuting the teaching of Richard Baxter. See also Christ Crucified, 98. Thus Bailey correctly notes that “Durham, in accordance with many other Westminsterian particularists, taught that there were common graces which flowed to the nonelect through God’s covenant, yet he strongly rejected the notion that this common grace should be equated with the benefits of redemption.” Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 93, fn. 141. 189 Durham, Revelation, 128, 144. There is a sense, then, in which saving grace is “true grace”. Durham, Revelation, 135. 190 Durham ¸ Christ Crucified, 3. The doctrine of Christ being Saviour “by office” was to provoke significant debate during the Marrow controversy. On the gospel offer as good news, see Christ Crucified, 13, 19, 378; Heaven Upon Earth, 357; Revelation, 579; Unsearchable Riches, 54 – 55. 191 Durham, Christ Crucified, 61, 67 – 68. 192 Durham, Christ Crucified, 217. 193 Durham, Christ Crucified, 121 – 5, 393. 194 Durham, Christ Crucified, 508; Unsearchable Riches, 145. 195 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 50, 147 – 8.

Objections to the Gospel Offer

155

Objections to the Gospel Offer Durham’s doctrine of the gospel offer did not go unchallenged. The challenges he responded to arose largely in the context of his pastoral labours as his congregants struggled to reconcile his teaching on the sovereignty of God with his teaching on the free offer of the gospel. In particular, hearers felt that total depravity, election and particular redemption contradicted the free offer of the gospel.196 These were similar to the objections raised against the free offer by Arminian and hypothetic universalist opponents of Durham’s strict particularism, so his responses to his congregants’ difficulties also serve to demonstrate how he would have responded to more overtly theological objections to his doctrine. With regard to total depravity, Durham knew that “some hearing of the Impotency of Nature … are ready to think that they need do nothing, alleging, that if Grace undertake the work, it will be wrought, and if not, it will not be wrought”.197 This fatalism Durham regarded as nothing but “Atheism” and “Prophanity”, which “perverted” and “abused” the “sweet Doctrine of Grace”.198 In general, he responded to this objection by pointing to the will. The inability to believe in the face of an abundant warrant to do just that was not to be rooted in “I can not” but “I will not”.199 God’s anger was aroused not because people cannot believe but because of their own sin and guilt in refusing to believe. He was willing but they were not.200 This unwillingness could be seen in neglecting the means of grace, not using them with enthusiasm, wilfully rejecting Christ, and resisting the common operations of the Spirit. Further, Durham observed that God made man holy and that it is only through man’s sin that he has this

196 These in essence are what De Jong calls “the large questions” relating to the free offer “which have long been part of the reformed heritage.” see De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 34. 197 Durham, Christ Crucified, 104. See also Christ Crucified, 94 – 5, 105; Unsearchable Riches, 70 – 72. 198 Durham, Christ Crucified, 104 – 5. 199 Durham, Christ Crucified, 11. This matches the position of John Owen, who stated that “the way [to salvation] is open and prepared, and it is not because men cannot enter, but because they will not, that they do not enter.” Owen, “An Exposition Upon Psalm 130,” in Works, 6:529. 200 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49 – 50. Also: “it’s not, I cannot, but I will not, it’s a wilful and some way deliberate rejecting of the Gospel, that is the ground of Folks not Believing; and what excuse, I pray, can ye have, who do not believe the Gospel, when it shall be found that ye maliciously and deliberately choosed to reject it?” Christ Crucified, 96; “It will be no excuse, I assure you, it will be no plea, nor apology for you in the great day, to allege, that ye could not do it; since he offered himself a fountain to wash at, and to wash you all in particular that hear me this day, and is doing so very seriously just now”. Heaven Upon Earth, 373.

156

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

inability to believe. Consequently this inability itself comes not from God but from man.201 Durham also responded by saying that, as it would be absurd to apply this line of fatalistic reasoning to any other sphere of life, so it would be absurd to apply it here. He argued that there was no duty that could be performed apart from God’s help, but no one refused to do any other activities on this ground. This case was no different.202 People who refused to perform this duty ultimately judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.203 If these answers were not sufficient, Durham ultimately fell back on his belief that it was not proper to expect God to satisfy “carnal Reason and Curiosity”.204 On the subject of election, Durham faced the objection that “I wot not if I be in the Covenant and Contract of Redemption, I know not if I am one of Gods elect.”205 He responded by noting that no one knew they were elect until they believed. No one ever knew their election a priori but rather a posteriori, upon believing. They know they are elect by having believed.206 In any event, none would be condemned for being non-elect, but rather for unbelief.207 For Durham, this objection proceeded on a mistake regarding the nature of the gospel, which was like a bridge over a river. Its purpose was to take people safely across the river. It was not the fault of the bridge if people refused to make use of it and thereby drowned themselves.208 Durham further pointed away from the secret will to the revealed will that all are commanded to believe. In the gospel offer the hearer had nothing to do with the secret will (who is or is not elect) but “his revealed will belongs to thee, and that is, to see that thou believe”.209 Durham argued: “Is not that his revealed will to you? I protest in his name, this is the thing that ye are called to: and will ye make an exception where he has made none? Or 201 Durham, Christ Crucified, 95 – 96. John Brown concurred, stating that there was “no impediment lying in the way, but their own unwillingness.” Brown, Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, 50. 202 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49. See also Christ Crucified, 66. 203 Durham, Christ Crucified, 50. 204 Durham, Christ Crucified, 95. Ultimately, Durham’s position agrees with James MacGregor’s summary of the Confession’s teaching: “How it is possible for God sincerely to offer to all sinners a salvation which he purposes to bestow on only some, the Confession makes no endeavour to explain… In relation to the divine sovereignty to creative agency, the … [Westminster Confession 3:8] recognise[s] an adorable mysteriousness which (Rom 11.33,34), to our finite intelligence constitutes a difficulty of incomprehensibility.” MacGregor, Blown in the Wind, 54. 205 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 73. 206 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49. Also: “Hath he said to them, believe, for ye are elected: but his method is thus, believe, and ye shall know in due time that ye are Elected.’” Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 74. 207 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49. See also Christ Crucified, 139. 208 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49. See also Christ Crucified, 11, 437. 209 Durham, Christ Crucified, 140. See also Unsearchable Riches, 74 – 75.

Objections to the Gospel Offer

157

will ye shift obedience to a clear command, upon a supposed decree, which you cannot know but by the effects? Will ye reason so in the matter of your eating and drinking? … Will ye this day not take your dinner … because ye know not if God hath appointed”.210 This objection somewhat frustrated Durham, and he complained that “there is no end of cav[a]illing”,211 labelling this disputing “trifling” and “whining”.212 He argued that God would refuse none who come to him because they were not elect. Rather, God’s response to this objection would be, “How often would I have gathered you.”213 The final significant objection Durham considered was that from particular redemption, that is, “the person … knoweth not whether he ought to believe or not, because he knoweth not whether he be redeemed or not: and this thought may also follow him, if he be not redeemed, can his believing be usefull to him?”214 His response was similar to that to the objection raised on the basis of election, namely that the warrant for faith did not come from the secret will (for whom did Christ die?) but from the revealed will, which is “Gods call, requiring faith of him, and Gods offer and promise knitting life to the performance of that condition of believing called-for.”215 He believed that the conclusion that “Christ died for me” should be derived a posteriori, upon believing.216 Accordingly, the

210 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 73. Thus Von Rohr : “one should turn from the hidden will to the revealed will of God. Here should be adequate satisfaction, for this is the disclosure of God’s enacted goodness, and determined way… Here is the covenant of grace, with its conditions and consequences. Here is the Word, with its Christ of mercy freely offered.” Covenant of Grace, 131 – 2. 211 Durham, Revelation, 323. 212 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 73. 213 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 74. This provides further evidence that Durham’s standard explanation of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem is that it is refers to the divine revealed will in the gospel offer. 214 Durham, Revelation, 305. 215 Durham, Revelation, 305. Thus Durham sought to divorce the free offer from the extent of the atonement. J.I. Packer sums up the seventeenth-century response to this issue well: “The persons invited and commanded to believe are sinners, as such. The Saviour is freely offered in the gospel to all who need Him. The question of the extent of the atonement does not therefore arise in evangelism, for what the gospel commands the unconverted man to believe is not that Christ died with the specific intention of securing his individual salvation, but that here and now the Christ who died for sinners offers Himself to this individual sinner, saying to him personally, ‘Come unto me… and I will give you rest’ (Mt. xi. 28). The whole warrant of faith – the ground, that is, on which believing becomes permissible and obligatory – is found in this invitation and command of the Father and the Son.” J.I. Packer “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” 19. For another perspective, see Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 112. 216 Durham, Christ Crucified, 137 – 8. See also Revelation, 306. This, of course, is the much criticised syllogismus practicus. See Holsteen, “Popularization,” 263 – 4.

158

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

extent of the death of Christ is not the warrant to believe; rather, it is the invitation, command and promise to all in the gospel offer.217 Whatever objections were brought, Durham believed that they were answered by simply preaching the free offer of the gospel faithfully and directing people away from the secret will to the revealed will: “Say now, what more ye have to say ; lay out your scruples; this word all things are ready, will answer them all: the garment is ready to be put on, yea Jesus Christ is your Wedding Garment; take and put him on: He is the cure for all your diseases, apply him for the cure of them all”.218 At this point the words of John Coffey ring true: “To comprehend the orthodox Calvinists we must remember that they were ‘combining furious opposites by keeping them both, and keeping them furious’ to borrow a phrase from G.K. Chesterton.”219

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching Durham’s Theology of Preaching The free offer of the gospel is ultimately a practical doctrine, for it occurs in the general context of preaching.220 Key to a comprehensive understanding Dur-

217 Durham, Christ Crucified, 241. Also see Revelation, 306. Further, see the helpful discussion on this point, with some reference to Durham, in Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 94. Durham sought to keep the extent of the gospel offer entirely separate from the extent of the atonement, believing that there was a sufficient warrant for all to accept the gospel offer without the need to posit a universal redemption. 218 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 73. Thus Mullan comments, “Free grace was given only to a few, but this crude fact lay in the background; the continued offer of grace was the essential theme”. Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 110. 219 John Coffey, Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 139. In the words of Mullan, the Scottish Puritans were “attempting the impossible, affirming both the eternity of causality (the first cause of human resistance) and the seriousness of history and human activity.” Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 242. 220 David McWilliams helpfully comments that “The question of whether the gospel is offered to all to whom it comes is one of immense pastoral importance. The question itself involves … the matter of purpose and direction in preaching … How is the preacher to think of his hearers? Is he to preach with the decree of God as a principle of differentiation at the forefront of his thinking? How is the preacher to feel toward those to whom he preaches? If in preaching the minister is to reflect God’s heart, what is God’s heart on the question of the gospel offer? From the hearer’s perspective, is the Fatherly character of God demonstrated in the words and demeanor of the minister of the Word?” D.B. McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2000), 408.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

159

ham’s doctrine of the free offer of the gospel, then, is an understanding of his doctrine of preaching. Authoritative The foundation on which Durham’s theology of preaching was built was the concept of the preacher as an ambassador.221 This clothed the preacher’s office with great authority, as the words spoken in preaching were to be understood not simply as the voice of the preacher but also, in a real sense, as the words of God. He observed that “the King [God] … speaks to you by us, and we speak to you in his name.”222 It was therefore God who spoke by the voice of the preacher in the gospel.223 Thus he affirmed that, in general, preaching was clothed with the same authority as the preaching of Isaiah and Paul: the authority depended not on the person of the preacher but on the commission from God.224 This teaching was not unique; it is found also in the Second Helvetic Confession, which stated that the preaching of the word of God is the word of God.225 This understanding of preaching has clear implications for the free offer of the gospel: if the voice of a preacher freely offers Christ to all, in reality, it is God who is offering and not simply the human preacher. This is in line with the explicit statements of Durham on who was offering the gospel discussed earlier in this chapter. With this high view of preaching, it is unsurprising that Durham believed “the publick Ministry … [is] the great gift which he [God] hath given for the edifying of his body”.226 For Durham, God reveals his mind first to ministers and they then relate this to the congregation, who receive the word of God mediately through the preacher.227 Clearly, then, the state of the ministry is of great im221 For this image see Durham, Christ Crucified, 24, 154; Revelation, 52; Unsearchable Riches, 258, 317. Van Dixhoorn notes this was the most commonly held understanding of preaching at the Westminster Assembly : “It is the metaphor of ambassador that most seems to awe and grip the divines when they think about preaching and preachers.” Van Dixhoorn, “Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly,” 118. 222 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 55 – 56. 223 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 257. 224 Durham, Christ Crucified, 6. Additionally, ministers are “the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Corinth. 4.1. and Ambassadors for Christ, 2 Corinth. 5.20. & c. because they have their Authority and Commission from Him, and He peculiarly is their Master and owner.” Durham, Revelation, 104. 225 “Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.” Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1, in Schaff, Creeds, 3:832. 226 Durham, Christ Crucified, 533. 227 Durham, Revelation, 67.

160

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

portance for the Church. If the ministry is lukewarm, so will the congregation be, while if the minister is spiritual, so will the congregation be.228 Christ-centred Given Durham’s understanding of the ministry as fulfilling the role of an ambassador, it is important to consider the message he believed that he, as an ambassador, had been commissioned to preach. Firstly, he saw his mission as profoundly Christocentric. He argued that the “great subject of Preaching and Preachers great errand is, to report concerning Jesus Christ, to bring tydings concerning Him.”229 The “very proper work” of a minister, then, is to make Christ known.230 In Durham’s view, Christ stood in a fourfold relation to preaching. First, all preaching was to explain Christ. Second, Christ was the foundation of preaching: all preaching was to build on the truths of his person and work. Third, Christ was the end or the goal of preaching: all preaching was to point to him, and have as its aim the glorification of Christ. Fourth, it was Christ who provided the power of preaching and gave it life: any success or appreciation that preaching met with was due to Christ and not to the preacher himself.231 Durham believed that much of the failure of the pulpit to influence for good was due to its lack of focus on Christ.232 The Aim of Preaching In Durham’s opinion, the purpose of preaching Christ was the conversion of sinners: “The end that Ministers should have before them in preaching Christ and the Gospel, is, That the Hearers of it may be gained to Jesus Christ… it’s in a word, to gain them to saving Faith in Christ.”233 Beyond doubt, “The great work of the Ministers of the Gospel is to invite unto and to endeavour to bring this Marriage betwixt Christ and Souls to a close”.234 It was for this very end that 228 Durham, Revelation, 66 – 67, 42. 229 Durham, Christ Crucified, 2 – 3. 230 Durham, Christ Crucified, 3. Also: “the great work of the Ministry, is, to propose and make Christ known to a People.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 32. 231 Durham, Christ Crucified, 4. 232 Durham, Christ Crucified, 4, 233 Durham, Christ Crucified, 7. “That is the end of a Ministrie, to bring souls in subjection to Christ”. Revelation, 342. This understanding Durham shared with his frequent theological sparring partner, Richard Baxter. See Beougher, Richard Baxter and Conversion, 99. 234 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 53. “This is the great errand of the Gospel, to propose to People Jesus Christ, as the Object and Ground of Faith, to lay Him down to be rested on for that very end”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 7. “… this is the scope of … all our Preaching, that

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

161

Christ commissioned his ambassadors, namely, “to woo and invite Sinners to Christ, and to bring them to the application of his Purchase.”235 In all this the minister was simply following the example of Christ himself.236 These beliefs placed the free offer of the Gospel squarely at the centre of Durham’s conception of the ministry. He could even state that “the End for which God appointed the … Ministry in His Church” was “to make the Offer of Christ and Life through Him”.237 The free offer of the gospel was no trifling addendum to Durham’s theology ; it was the very mainstay of his preaching ministry. He also believed that simply to preach the offer was not enough. The preacher had a “greater work” of getting the offer accepted. The aim was not “so much to get a word to say, as to get the Word believed”.238 If Durham was asked, “What is all this we would be at?” he would reply, “We would have you receiving Christ … embrace Him, yield to Him”.239 Therefore, the preacher was not simply to lay an offer dispassionately before his congregation. Rather, the “fountain qualification of a Preacher” was, following Christ, that “He is zealous to get His message received; and, in sum, to get them saved: therefore weightily doth He follow it, inviting, exhorting, pressing and protesting as unwilling to be refused…. so to Preach to them, as hungering and thirsting for their Salvation… nay, not only his own exoneration, and the justifying of God by making his hearers inexcusable; but a single serious desire to have them gathered and espoused to Christ”.240 This kind of preaching brought Christ into close contact

235 236 237 238 239 240

when Christ and Remission of Sins through Him, is preached to you, ye would by Faith receive Him, and rest upon Him”. Christ Crucified, 45. “… be exhorted to give Him the Credit of your Salvation, by making Use of His Righteousness … This is the End of all our Preaching”. Christ Crucified, 371. “This is the very Sum of the Gospel, to pray you to be reconciled to God, to admit of the Mediator”. Christ Crucified, 407. “The great shot of all Preaching would be driven constantly, both in publick and in private, to wit, the edification and salvation of the people, and the forming of Christ in them by travelling [travailing], as it were, in birth for that effect.” Revelation, 197. “When the Master sends out his servants in his name, their great work is to invite to the wedding and to close the marriage.” Unsearchable Riches, 42. “There are two great works that the Ministers of the Gospel have to do; one is to engage People to Christ, and to persuade them to receive him and close with him; The other is to induce them to walk worthy of him.” Unsearchable Riches, 80. “This is the great design of all preaching, to bring them within the Covenant, who are without: and to make those who are within the Covenant, to walk suitably to it”. Unsearchable Riches, 273 – 4. “Make use, O make use of this Propitiation for sin and for procuring your Pardon and peace … for indeed it’s our great work, and the very scope of all our Preaching”. Unsearchable Riches, 323. Durham, Christ Crucified, 154. Durham, Revelation, 262; Song of Solomon, 445. Durham, Christ Crucified, 15. Durham, Christ Crucified, 25. Durham, Christ Crucified, 44. Durham, Revelation, 265. Durham believed that many preachers were failing in this duty : “Many Ministers are not travelling [travailing] in birth to beget souls, and to have successe

162

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

with the hearers of the gospel. Indeed, as “He [Christ] is brought even to their Hearts, and to their Mouths, so near that (to speak so) People have no more to do, but to stoup and take Him up … yea, it bringeth Him in to their very Heart, that they have no more to do but to bring up their Heart to consent to close the Bargain”.241 Where the gospel did not bring conversions, it was not producing its “proper” or native fruit.242 Thus the proper end of the gospel is conversion and salvation, and it is only an indirect property that it brings condemnation on those who reject it.243 As Durham believed the preaching of the free offer of the gospel to be the central work of the preacher, it is no surprise that he himself claimed that the gospel offer was preached to his congregation “every day”.244 He was convinced that making the gospel offer during stated preaching on Sundays was particularly important, as he could not assume that his hearers would live to hear another sermon.245 In terms of his exegetical practices, he held that any text could be turned to provide some focus on the gospel offer without being guilty of mishandling the text.246 Nevertheless, despite this flexibility in getting from text to gospel offer, Durham considered that it was important in choosing what to preach on that, if there were competing options, the text chosen should be the one which was most “edifying and profitable as lying neer the great end of the Gospel, to wit, the engaging of souls to Christ, and the conforming of them to Him”.247 The preaching of the free offer of the gospel was not, however, the only aim of preaching recognized by Durham. For instance, preaching was also to help believers know how to keep a good conscience in their walk before God.248 In

241 242 243 244

245 246 247 248

as to the Salvation of many, as well as outward fruits; but are at best studying to exoner themselves as having being diligent in their duty.” Durham, Revelation, 180. Durham, Christ Crucified, 7. Durham, Revelation, 342. For Durham, even the accidental end of condemnation brings glory to God. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 314. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 51. He did not believe that insisting on the same truth frequently in preaching was wrong. Durham, Revelation, 475. Thus J.I. Packer : “The Puritans did not regard evangelistic sermons as a special class of sermons, having their own peculiar style and conventions; the Puritan position was, rather, that, since all Scripture bears witness to Christ, and all sermons should aim to expound and apply what is in the Bible, all proper sermons would of necessity declare Christ and so be to some extent evangelistic… The only difference was that some sermons aimed more narrowly and exclusively at converting sinners than did others.” Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” 13. Durham, Revelation, 263. Durham, Revelation, 263. The allowable ways to get from text to gospel offer were “Reason, Use, Mean, Motive, Question, or other ways”. Durham, Revelation, 473. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 99.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

163

addition, ministers were to “instruct, convince … comfort” the hearers.249 Preaching was also to focus on justification, and in particular to ensure that duties and good works would not be relied upon for justification.250

Application In Durham’s opinion, preaching was not simply to rest in doctrine and teaching but to go on from there to apply the doctrine to the situation of the hearers and their daily lives. The ability to do this was one of the “main” qualifications of the preacher.251 Application was the very life-blood of preaching.252 Instead of preaching about the most recent doctrinal controversies – “the more obstruse Questions of the schools” – he aimed at encouraging repentance, self-examination, and zeal, while exposing hypocrisy, presumption and self-confidence.253 This application was to be tailored to every church and indeed every person, and as a result a generic application was not sufficient.254 This focus on application was one of the reasons that the free offer of the gospel received such prominence in his thought. Durham believed that the majority of his congregation were unsaved,255 and the great and primary application of any sermon to the unsaved was the message of the gospel, namely that Christ was offered freely as Saviour, and that their great duty was to accept him.

Plainness Durham held that preaching was to be marked by its plainness. His aim was to present the “Truths of God” in a style as simple as possible, so that they were presented “naked” to the hearers.256 Indeed, he believed that it took “true learning” to preach so that the “simplest hearer” could understand.257 In terms of 249 Durham, Revelation, 61. 250 Durham, Revelation, 262 – 3. Here Durham emphasises the Law/Gospel distinction stating that “As it is a great practice in a Christian, to give the Law and Gospel their due place in practice; so it is a main qualification of a Gospel-Minister, rightly to ridd marches between the Law and the Gospel.” Durham, Revelation, 262. 251 Durham, Revelation, 260. 252 Durham, Revelation, 265. 253 Durham, Revelation, 261 – 2. 254 Durham, Revelation, 260. 255 See the section entitled “Preaching and Covenant Theology : The Context of the Gospel Offer” above for more detail on this point. 256 Durham, Revelation, 200. 257 Durham, Revelation, 202. The preacher “will lay aside his Learning, Eloquence, and Humane Wisdom, and make the preaching of Christ crucified his great work and study”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 4.

164

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

his own preaching it was recognised that he achieved his aim; John Carstairs, for example, commented on Durham’s “plainnesse of speech”.258 Related to this plainness was Durham’s conviction that preaching should be strictly exegetical.259 If the preacher was to have the authority of an ambassador, then he must be sure that the words spoken were in accordance with Scripture.260 This exegesis of Scripture was an important task; preaching was therefore to be “serious” and, echoing his view of theology in general, was to eschew novelty.261

Results Given the care that a faithful preacher should put into his work, it is not unsurprising that Durham believed that the preacher should carefully observe the results of his labours.262 It has to be said, however, that this did not necessarily give him great joy. On at least two occasions he complained of members of his congregation sleeping through sermons.263 Whatever was the exact result in Durham’s case, he was convinced that a lack of conversions would bring great grief and sorrow to “a tender Minister”.264

Durham’s Preaching of the Free Offer So far consideration has been given to theological aspects of Durham’s understanding of the free offer of the gospel, and his general view of preaching. It has been demonstrated that by the free offer he meant far more than simply to exhibit or present, indeed, it was regarded as a heartfelt divine plea to sinners everywhere, whatever their condition, to repent and accept Christ by faith. These points are further confirmed by considering several practical features of his preaching.

Exhortations to come to Christ A key feature of Durham’s preaching was his repeated and frequent appeals to his congregation to come to Christ for salvation. He regularly exhorted and 258 259 260 261 262 263 264

Carstairs, Introduction to Revelation, n.p. Durham, Revelation, 474 – 5. Durham, Revelation, 473. Durham, Christ Crucified, 52; The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness, 3. Durham, Christ Crucified, 53. Durham, Christ Crucified, 59, 192. Durham, Christ Crucified, 53. See also Christ Crucified, 3.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

165

beseeched his congregation to trust in Christ. A typical example of his pleading is as follows: “Our blessed Lord Jesus is wooing you … our Lord Jesus is not far to seek, he is here waiting on to close the bargain with you: This is our errand to proclaim these glad tidings to you … Is not the Father ready? He hath given his consent; is not the Bridegroom ready, when he hath done so much and is waiting on your consent? the Feast is ready, and the Garments are ready … the contract is ready … He is ready to accept of you, if ye will accept of him; our blessed Lord Jesus says that He is content to marry you … there is in effect nothing wanting but your consent, and let that not be wanting, I beseech you.”265

This extract highlights the earlier themes of this chapter, namely a willing Saviour, a willing Father, and a sincere and open offer of salvation to all. It also shows Durham’s approach to preaching such a message, namely his pleading with his hearers that it would be accepted.266 He frequently told his hearers that they had the gracious offer of the gospel, and beseeched them not to receive that grace in vain.267 Further, he taught that eternal life was attainable for all through accepting the offer of salvation.268 He clearly saw that his role as a preacher was to persuade sinners to come to Christ.269 Durham further preached the gospel as a conditional “promise” to all.270 All who believed on Christ were promised reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. He believed that it was “loving” of God to give such a promise, and that the bestowing of eternal life on those who accept the conditional promise was “most pleasing” to God.271 Therefore, all who believed would be saved.272 In speaking this way Durham was echoing the language of Westminster Confession 7:3, “He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved.”273 and Larger Catechism Q& A 32 which states that God “freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and 265 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 56. Moore views such language as “an accommodation to the hypothetic universalist system”. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 124 – 5. However, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Four, this language was common among strict adherents of particular redemption. 266 For exhorting, see Durham, Blessed Death, 36; Christ Crucified, 25, 26, 328. For beseeching, see Durham, Blessed Death, 36; Christ Crucified, 345, 352, 370, 464; Heaven Upon Earth, 353; Unsearchable Riches, 264. For entreaty, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 12, 484. For praying, see Durham, Christ Crucified, 58, 328, 352. 267 Durham, Christ Crucified, 49, 104, 352, 370. 268 Durham, Christ Crucified, 328. 269 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 145. 270 Durham, Christ Crucified, 351. For the conditional element, see Christ Crucified, 484; Unsearchable Riches, 144 – 5. 271 Durham, Christ Crucified, 352. 272 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60. 273 WCoF 7:3 in Westminster Confession, 42.

166

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him”.274 Thus for Westminster, as for Durham, there was a requirement for faith, on which the freely offered salvation was suspended. Again echoing previous themes, in his preaching Durham presented Christ himself as “pleading” and “beseeching” all to come to him for salvation. Christ was not indifferent to the response to preaching but “when He is so very serious in Beseeching and Intreating, it should, no doubt, make us more willing to grant Him what He seeks.”275 Since saving sinners was pleasing to Christ, all who came to him would be “dearly welcome”.276 It is evident from these exhortations that Durham embraced something of the sentiments of John Brown of Wamphray : “So dearly should all ministers love, and so earnestly should they desire the salvation of such as are under their charge … that they should be content to be at any loss imaginable and profitable, for the procuring of the same, and should think nothing too dear for that effort.”277 Hell Durham also used his belief in hell as a motivation to drive sinners to Christ. He frequently warned his hearers that, if they rejected Christ as he was offered in the gospel, they would end up in hell. He advised them to “Consider what will come of this, if ye do not believe the Gospel … Are there not many this day cursing in Hell, under the Wrath of God, that they let slip and passed over so many golden Opportunities of the Gospel without improvement?”278 Every person outside Christ was, for Durham, in danger of hell. This led him to seek to persuade his hearers to embrace Christ, thereby turning from hell and death and choosing heaven and life.279 His preaching on hell arose partially from the desire to provide additional encouragement to sinners to come to Christ. If preaching the good 274 275 276 277 278 279

Larger Catechism Q& A 32 in Westminster Confession, 142 – 3. Durham, Christ Crucified, 392. See also Unsearchable Riches, 48, 52 – 53. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 75. John Brown, Romans, 342. Durham, Christ Crucified, 72. See Durham, Christ Crucified, 116, 344; Heaven Upon Earth, 372 – 3; The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness, 33. Fundamentally his exhortations ran as follows: “Our Lord Jesus poured out His Soul unto Death for Souls; He values Souls so much, that He gave His precious Life for them … If He esteemed so much of Souls, what will it be thought of when ye waste your Souls, and ye know not whereon? He bought Souls dear and ye sel[l] them cheap … what an unsuitableness is here betwixt Christs estimation of Souls, and yours, betwixt His buying them at so dear a rate, and your casting them away, for that which is very vanity … It’s a wonderful thing, that when Christ esteems so much of Souls, that Sinners should esteem so little of them; Is it not just that such Souls go to hell, when they esteemed them so little worth?” Durham, Christ Crucified, 515 – 6.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

167

news of a Saviour would not bring sinners to Christ, perhaps the bad news of hell would drive them to him.280 Conviction of Sin Related to his preaching on hell, Durham also connected the rejection of the free offer of the gospel with great and significant sin. Such rejection was to sin “against Grace, and the Mediator Interposing for sinners, and manifesting love to them”.281 Consequently, this sinning in rejecting the gospel offer was greater than any other sin committed against the law, and would be punished in hell more severely than any other sin.282 There was a danger of becoming hardened in this sin of rejecting Christ’s offer. This was because, for Durham, the word preached did not leave sinners unaffected: either they accepted Christ or they rejected him and their consciences were hardened against him.283 However, in hell that conscience would be reawakened and would condemn sinners for their rejection of Christ.284 All this was preached by Durham in order to persuade sinners to accept the offered salvation rather than reject it.

Doubting Discouraged Despite Durham’s emphasis on depravity and conviction of sin, he was insistent that “I am not preaching Desperation to you as some mutter”.285 This accusation from his hearers was not entirely surprising, given that he preached that “it is a Truth, that the most part of the Hearers of the Gospel will Perish” and that he did not hide his convictions regarding election and particular redemption from his congregation.286 Nevertheless, his general aim in preaching was to seek to avoid discouraging his congregation, even to the point of explicitly criticising those who thought it was appropriate to be in a constant position of doubt over 280 Durham, Christ Crucified, 134; Heaven Upon Earth, 374. 281 Durham, Christ Crucified, 146. 282 For Durham on the use of law in preaching, see The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in Westminster Confession, 326 – 9. 283 Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 93 – 94. “[They] have taught themselves a way of sleeping over their conscience; and this provoketh God to give them up to a reprobate mind, to do things which are not convenient. They harden themselves by resisting the Challenges of the Word of God, and Rod of God, and their own Conscience; and are judicially hardened”. See also the similar comment on Heaven Upon Earth, 120 and Durham, Christ Crucified, 421. 284 Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 369; Unsearchable Riches, 147, 263 – 4. 285 Durham, Christ Crucified, 73. 286 Durham, Christ Crucified, 372.

168

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

salvation and never come to assurance.287 No one was entitled to despair as long as they had the free offer of the gospel.288 This gospel offer testified that it was pleasing to God to save the chief of sinners; there was therefore no need that any should despair of their own salvation. Particular Redemption in Preaching One of the most interesting features of Durham’s preaching is the manner in which he proclaims his doctrine of particular redemption and its relation to the gospel offer. It is obvious from the discussion in Chapter Two that he was deeply committed to a redemption that was particular to the elect. In view of this, he exhibited a degree of flexibility in the language used in preaching that may be thought surprising. On a number of occasions he expressed the object of Christ’s death in as broad and indefinite terms as he possibly could, speaking, for example, of Christ’s death for sinners289 and for man’s sins.290 Even beyond this, he spoke of Christ’s death to his congregation as “for our sins”.291 This is further evidence of his willingness to use the breadth of scriptural language in preaching.292 Durham spoke of the rejection of the gospel offer in vivid terms related to the death of Christ. To reject Christ was to make him “a sufferer again” and to “grieve him by your unbelief”.293 It was indeed to “tread the Son of God underfoot” and to count his blood “an unholy thing”.294 He also charged unbelieving hearers with refusing to admit the benefit of Christ’s death into their lives and failing to “make right use of His sacrifice”.295 He further entreated his congregation to think of “the Bleeding Bowels of Christ” and to give Christ pleasure by making use of his blood to the saving of their souls.296 Similarly, Durham was not slow to charge gospel-resistant listeners that, as far as it was in their power, they “stood in the way”,297 “marred the design of”,298 “thwart[ed] with”299 and “frustrate[d]”300 the 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298

Durham, Christ Crucified, 75. Durham, Christ Crucified, 495. See also Christ Crucified, 178, 515. Durham, Christ Crucified, 249. See also Christ Crucified, 346, 367. Durham, Christ Crucified, 369. Durham, Christ Crucified, 121. Durham did use the phrase on one other occasion to a mixed congregation. See Durham, Christ Crucified, 386. Durham, Christ Crucified, 119. On “suffering again”, see also Christ Crucified, 393. Durham, Christ Crucified, 119. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 370, 393; Unsearchable Riches, 323. This could be a verbatim quotation from John Preston and would be regarded by Moore as hypothetic universalism. Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 134. Durham, Christ Crucified, 325. Durham, Christ Crucified, 344. Durham, Christ Crucified, 344. Durham, Christ Crucified, 344.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

169

end of the death of Christ, namely the saving of sinners, even “though it cost Him His Heart-blood, to bring it about.”301 In a surprising passage he goes even further, beseeching his flock not to let the death of Christ be for “nought” and not to make Jesus “rue his sufferings”.302 Those who did not accept the gospel offer were guilty of doing “what they can to make Him repent that ever He became Man, and Suffered so much” for a rejection of the gospel offer was to “refuse to Satisfie Christ for His Soul-travail, and do what in you lyes to marr, and defeat the End and Design of His Sufferings”.303 These and like statements cannot be dismissed on the grounds of Durham using general and indifferent terms, for in the middle of a similar passage he stated that Christ “intreats every one in particular to Satisfie Him.”304 This is not to suggest that he taught that the ultimate aim and purpose of God could be thwarted; rather, it reflects the seriousness with which he portrayed the rejecting of the revealed end of Christ’s atonement. Further, using language perhaps more typically thought of as belonging to the hypothetic universalists, Durham taught that Christ’s death had made salvation “attainable” for all.305 Christ’s death provided access to life for all who would accept the offer. He also clearly held that the death of Christ made eternal life possible for all; indeed, he preached that Christ “hath been content to lay down His Life to make Life possible to you”.306 This is not to detract from his commitment to a particular atonement, but to draw out, in a way not recognised in other studies of his thought, that there was flexibility in the way he presented the “accidental” benefits of Christ’s death in preaching. Indeed, speaking “something more generally to them that are Strangers to Christ”, he stated that “this same Gospel that is Preached to you, is a Fruit of the Travail of His Soul; and that in making the Covenant of Redemption, this same was a part of the Indenture (to speak so) That these good News might be Published in this same place and these glad Tydings spoken of among you”.307 That Durham here made the preaching of 299 Durham, Christ Crucified, 346, 348. 300 Durham, Christ Crucified, 509. See also Unsearchable Riches, 314 – 5. 301 Durham, Christ Crucified, 346. Moore accounts the use of phrases such as these as evidence of hypothetical universalism and a denial of particular redemption. That such a repeated, and strict, advocate of particular redemption as Durham can use these phrases without embarrassment should cast some doubt on Moore’s conclusions. Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, 108 – 9, 134. 302 See also “O! give Him [Christ] the Satisfaction He calls for [by believing], and let Him not be put to say, as it is, Isai. 49. 4. I have laboured in vain, and spent my strength for naught, and in vain.” Durham, Christ Crucified, 391. 303 Durham, Christ Crucified, 386. 304 Durham, Christ Crucified, 392. 305 Durham, Christ Crucified, 328. 306 Durham, Christ Crucified, 344. 307 Durham, Christ Crucified, 378. John Owen also made the sufficiency of the death of Christ the basis for the gospel offer. Lachman notes correctly that “Owen clearly makes the

170

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

the gospel to all an “indenture” of the covenant of redemption, even to the lost, is further indication of his aim in preaching to portray his theological convictions in as wide and as generous a manner as possible. In view of the evidence surveyed here, it should be reiterated that Durham did indeed preach particular redemption, and did so frequently. A large number of the citations in the section of Chapter Two outlining Durham’s doctrine of particular redemption came from sermons. However, because he adopted the practical syllogism concerning the appropriation of the death of Christ, in relation to the first act of faith he pointed away from questioning whether Christ died for any individual, but rather urged the reasoning, “Christ died for sinners, I am a sinner, and therefore will accept the gospel offer.”308 Thus, the warrant for faith was not Christ’s death for the individual, but the universal offer of the particular redemption accomplished by Christ.309 Urgency Another key feature of Durham’s preaching, and further evidence of his antipreparationist stance, was his insistence on an immediate response to the gospel offer. No delay was allowable: the only acceptable course of action was an instantaneous acceptance of Christ.310 A typical exhortation following a gospel offer would be as follows: “Ye must do this presently ; for the Lord doth not allow us to give you an hour, or to promise to treat with you one hour after this; It’s now, come and let us join ourselves to the Lord”.311 Indeed, for Durham it was impossible to hear the gospel offer and not make a response, either positive or negative.312 The Nature of Saving Faith and Gospel Preaching Even though Durham demanded a response from his hearers, he did not intend by this to deny that it was only the effectual grace of God in regeneration that would enable any sinner to embrace Christ in faith.313 Nevertheless, despite the lack of ability, it was still just for God to demand faith, as man remained a responsible creature and, as Durham frequently noted, the inability to come to

308 309 310 311 312 313

sufficiency of Christ’s death the ground of the gospel offer to all mankind.” Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 34. Durham, Christ Crucified, 153, 501. Durham, Christ Crucified, 478. See Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 63 – 64, 65, 257, 267. See Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 267. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 261, 325. “Without God’s special and powerful guiding, ye cannot believe, nor exercise Faith”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 32.

The Free Offer in Durham’s Preaching

171

Christ in faith, could more properly be described as an unwillingness.314 Further, although faith was the gift of God, it remained, in the words of John Murray “the activity of the person and him alone.”315 Therefore it remained appropriate that sinners were exhorted to do their duty and Durham repeatedly called his hearers to faith in Christ. He utilized the incident of Jesus and the man with the withered hand to explain the nature of saving faith.316 Christ asked the man to stretch out his hand, even though he could not, and yet, in the act of trying to stretch out his hand in obedience to the command, it was healed. So too there was “a promise of Grace, that though your hand [or faith] be as it were withered, if ye mint and essay, you shall be enabled to stretch it forth.”317 There was nothing meritorious about faith. It was simply a coming to rest and receive Jesus Christ as Saviour.318 Summary Durham’s general approach to the method of gospel preaching is summarized in his exposition of the epistle to the church at Laodicea. Here he observed that the proposing of the free offer of the gospel encompassed four general steps. The first was to expose the sinfulness of his hearers. The second was to point to Christ as the only Saviour for sinners. The third was to make clear that it is only by embracing Christ as Saviour that sinners can be saved from the anger of God against sin. The final step was that Christ “doth most sweetly, and yet most vehemently presse it [the gospel offer]: partly, by condescending friendly to counsel and intreat; partly, by making His offer large, free, and particular to any man that will open”.319 All in all, an examination of Durham’s preaching demonstrates that it belongs to that “intense style of extemporary conversionist preaching” common in Scotland in his time.320

314 315 316 317 318

See e. g. Durham, Christ Crucified, 11. Murray, “Faith” in Collected Writings, 2:263. See Matt. 12:9 – 14 and Mark 3:1 – 6. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 71. “Faith is … that sinners, in the sight and sense of their lost condition, would flee unto Him, receive and rest upon Him, and his Satisfaction, for Pardon of Sin, and making of their Peace with God”. Durham, Christ Crucified, 45 – 46. 319 Durham, Revelation, 262. 320 Coffey, Samuel Rutherford, 39.

172

James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel

Conclusion This survey of Durham’s teaching on the free offer demonstrates his general consistency with earlier Reformed theology and creeds. Further he set the gospel offer explicitly within the context of the covenant of grace. This placed the gospel offer in the same context as Westminster Confession 7:3, making Durham a relevant and suitable figure for examining the meaning of that section of the Confession. In considering Durham’s own teaching on the gospel offer it was first noted that he defined offer as much more than simply a “presentation”, rendering unconvincing the interpretations of Blacketer and others that the Westminster Standards spoke simply of a presentation of the gospel, and adding weight to the arguments of Clark and Beach. Durham’s exegetical basis for the gospel offer was then set forth, demonstrating that he did not deduce his teaching from an isolated number of texts, but from a broad range of scriptural teaching. It was then seen that Durham understood the gospel offer fundamentally as a divine offer, rather than simply the offer of a human preacher. Further, Durham was shown to believe that the gospel was offered to all, without exception. The purpose of this universal offer was to save the elect, to render unbelievers inexcusable, and to demonstrate the truth of God’s willingness to save sinners. Following this, it was established Durham held that all had a warrant, and indeed a duty, to accept the gospel offer and embrace Christ as Saviour. Behind this universal offer was a willingness on the part of God, and indeed a desire, that the gospel offer be accepted by all who heard it. This willingness and desire belonged to the voluntas revelata (or voluntas euarestias) rather than the voluntas arcane (or voluntas eudokias). Related to this, the gospel offer was an expression of the common goodness and grace of God. Durham responded to rejections of the gospel offer, and theological objections to its consistency with other elements in his theology, by pointing away from the voluntas arcane to the voluntas revelata, that is, rather than give heed to “carnal reasonings” the plain teaching of scripture concerning the gospel offer was to be embraced. Durham’s practical preaching of the free offer was then studied. It was seen that Durham saw the proclamation of the free offer of the gospel as the primary function of the preacher. This was evident in Durham’s own practice, with his own preaching replete with exhortations to come to Christ and appeals for an immediate embrace of Christ as saviour. In view of the suitability of Durham as a case study of the teaching of the Westminster Assembly on the free offer of the gospel, there is a strong presumption that this also summarizes the Westminster Assembly’s understanding of the gospel offer. Whether this is indeed the case will now be explored further by examining the teaching of some of Durham’s contemporaries on the gospel offer.

Chapter Four: Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

From Durham’s own teaching and practice it is clear that he understood the free offer of the gospel as a well-meant and sincere expression of God’s revealed desire that all hearers be saved. Given his prominent position within the Scottish Church, it is evident that this position was accepted as within the bounds of the doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession. However, the question remains whether Durham’s views were mainstream or whether those who maintain that in the mid-seventeenth century the offer simply referred to the bare presentation of the gospel are correct? To provide an answer, consideration must be given to other significant theologians, and Durham’s views must be weighed against theirs. For the purposes at hand two important theologians from England will be considered, namely Obadiah Sedgwick and Thomas Manton, and two leading theologians from Scotland, namely, David Dickson and Samuel Rutherford. Sedgwick has been chosen as a leading Presbyterian, covenant theologian and Westminster divine; Manton has been selected because he was also a leading Presbyterian, preacher, author of the “Epistle to the Reader” before the Westminster Confession and one who signed a statement that “never did any age of the Church enjoy such a choice help [Confession and Catechisms] as this of ours.”1 Dickson has been chosen as a leading Scottish theologian, author of the first commentary on the Westminster Confession, an infralapsarian, and a resolutioner ; Rutherford has been selected as another leading Scottish theologian, a Westminster divine, a supralapsarian, and a protestor. These figures taken together represent a fairly broad and representative sample of the spectrum of Reformed views of their day. However, before examining their views it is appropriate to sketch further the challenges to the Reformed view of the free offer in the seventeenth century, as the doctrine remained under contemporary pressure from both Arminians and Hypothetic Universalists.

1 “The Epistle to the Reader” in Westminster Confession, 7.

174

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Contemporary Challenges to the Gospel Offer One of these challenges came from Durham’s frequent polemic opponent, Richard Baxter.2 In an imaginary dialogue with Arminian theology, Baxter stated that “the common Protestant doctrine is, That Christ by his death hath procured the universal conditional Gift of Pardon and Life.”3 This placed Baxter among the Hypothetic Universalist challengers of Durham’s doctrine of the free offer. Without this universal aspect of the death of Christ Baxter believed that it would be “impossible for any man to believe in Christ at first, by a true and rational faith.”4 He further maintained that a strict interpretation of particular redemption prevented ministers “rationally” preaching the gospel to all, because “if Christ died for none but the Elect, and no Minister know the elect, they know not whom to offer and preach Christ to.”5 Baxter stated that “the being of the Gift is before the offer of it in nature.”6 That is, the gospel offers only what Christ has definitely procured; salvation cannot be offered to any unless it has been purchased for them. Baxter argued that nothing “is to be offered to men, but a Christ that was already offered to God for them.”7 This universality is consistent with Baxter’s conception of a universal covenant of grace, namely that the “covenant of grace being a conditional pardon of all the world, is universal in the tenor or sense of it.”8 If Christ has not made a satisfaction in some sense for the non-elect, then they could not be accused of rejecting their redeemer, or refusing his offered mercy. But, for Baxter, they were guilty of both.9 He argued that “If the satisfaction were given and accepted for the Elect only, it could not in the Benefits which wholly presuppose it, be so offered to the Non-Elect, and they judged for 2 For Baxter, see Beougher, Richard Baxter and Conversion; Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn; Packer, The Redemption & Restoration of Man; Cooper, Fear and Polemic in SeventeenthCentury England; J. William Black, Reformation Pastors: Richard Baxter and the Ideal of the Reformed Pastor (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2006). 3 Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification of Dogmatical Word-Warriors (London: Robert White, 1675), 62. Baxter’s accuracy in his representation of the “common” Protestant position is open to question. 4 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 62. Baxter further argued here that “no man in his first act of Faith is bound to believe that he is Elect, or that Christ dies for him any more than for lost Mankind. But … he must first believe that Christ by his Death hath so far satisfied and merited for Mankind in general, as to procure the universal conditional Gift of Christ, Pardon and Life.” 5 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 63. 6 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 63. 7 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 63. This “offering of Christ for them” would not be met simply by the intrinsic sufficiency of the death of Christ; it had to be an intended or ordained sufficiency. See his explicit arguments against John Owen’s position in Baxter, Universal Redemption, 139 – 141. This kind of sufficiency was, according to Baxter, “useless … and no foundation at all for our general offer of Christ.” Baxter, Universal Redemption, 142. 8 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 46. 9 Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind, 56.

Contemporary Challenges to the Gospel Offer

175

refusing a benefit of a satisfaction never made for them.”10 To have any propriety the command to believe on Christ therefore “presupposeth that Christ died” for them.11 This is because “God doth not offer that which he cannot give … But God cannot give Pardon … to any sinful man for whom Christ never satisfied.”12 Christ could be offered as a Redeemer and Saviour only to those he had redeemed, was Baxter’s simple logic.13 He also reasoned from the command to believe, and from the corresponding duty of all to exercise saving faith, that Christ must have died for all, because “God will never make it any Mans duty to rest for Salvation on that Blood that was never shed for him.”14 Likewise God’s promises would be false if he promised life and salvation, on condition of believing, to those for whom there was no salvation.15 Baxter went so far as to parody the pastoral counsel offered by those like Durham who held to particular redemption, believing their answers to doubts over the sincerity of the gospel offer to be of no help at all.16 He also alleged that certain “Calvinists”, because of their commitment to the sovereignty of God, denied that the gospel was evidence of a common grace to all17 or that God showed mercy to the non-elect.18 Another significant challenge came from the “Arminian” Puritan John Goodwin.19 He believed that the free offer of the gospel was an area of significant weakness for his predestinarian opponents and attacked them on this issue.20 Coffey claims that Goodwin detected “a profound and unsustainable tension” in the writings of the sixteenth-century Reformed theologians:21 “On the one hand, they taught absolute (even double) predestination, the bondage of the will, and the inevitability of the saints’ perseverance” but “on the other hand, they wrote as if God loved all his creatures and longed to save them; as if Christ died for everyone; as if all sinners had the capacity to repent and believe; as if people who

10 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 56. For his extended argument in favour of this proposition, see Baxter, Universal Redemption, 90 – 109. 11 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 56. This is the only “true ground” for belief. Baxter, Universal Redemption, 57. Baxter, however, also insisted that Christ did not die with the “intent” of saving the non-elect. Baxter, Universal Redemption, 63. 12 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 104. 13 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 104. 14 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 117. 15 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 125. 16 Baxter, Universal Redemption, 226 – 8. 17 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 140. 18 Baxter, Catholick Theologie, 141. 19 For a recent study of Goodwin, see John Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in Seventeenth-Century England (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2008). 20 Most particularly in Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 177 – 86. 21 Coffey, John Goodwin, 213.

176

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

had experienced genuine conversion could fall from grace.”22 Coffey observes that “Goodwin noted the same feature in the preaching of English Puritan divines.”23 In his works, he tried to bring out this incompatibility and thereby overthrow predestinarian thought. Goodwin held that it was evident that “salvation is held forth and promised to all by God unto all, without exception, that shall believe; yea that it is offered and promised unto all men, upon condition of believing, whether they believe or no.”24 This was relatively uncontroversial and his predestinarian opponents would have accepted such a summary of gospel preaching. However, Goodwin moved to build a series of deductions from this uncontroversial starting point which he believed posed challenges to the coherence of the predestinarian theological structure. He argued that, if God promises salvation to all who believe, God had to bestow salvation on them. Therefore, for God to be able to provide a conditional promise of salvation to all, that salvation must be there for them in Christ, in case they believe. Further, for that salvation to be there, “Christ must needs have bought and purchased it for them with his blood.”25 A universal offer therefore necessitated a universal atonement, which was, of course, denied by predestinarian theologians. Goodwin was aware of the potential evasion that a particular redemption could support a universal offer, because God knew who would believe, and there genuinely was a redemption for all who would fulfil the condition. But he branded such an offer as “without truth or honour” and as “little other than ridiculous”.26 He gave the illustration of a man with £1,000 offering anyone in the crowd who would come to him and ask of him £100,000, secure in the knowledge that no-one would take up his offer. He believed that all would conclude that this was an offer made without honour. Further, he branded the conditional promise to all, namely believe and you will be saved, as false. He argued that “if Christ died not for him, there is no more salvation for him, in case he should believe, than there would be in case he should not believe, there being no salvation … unless Christ hath purchased it for him by his death.”27 He regarded the conditional if as simply untrue, “it being certain, upon the aforesaid supposition of Christ’s non-dying for him … that he could be saved, no not though he should believe.”28 He was aware that his arguments so far could be rejected on the grounds that he failed to account for the sufficiency of the atonement in the thought of the strict predestinarians, that is, that the limitation 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Coffey, John Goodwin, 213. Coffey, John Goodwin, 213. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 177. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 178. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 178. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 179. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 180.

Contemporary Challenges to the Gospel Offer

177

of the atonement was not in its nature (the atonement was in itself sufficient for all) but in the intent. Goodwin’s illustration might be understood along these lines: the supply of money held by the offerer was infinite, but the intention was to pay out only a certain, limited, amount. Were that limited amount (somehow) to be exceeded, there remained an infinite supply to pay out more. He regarded the distinction between “Christ dying sufficiently for all men, but not intentionally” as “ridiculous and unworthy from first to last of any intelligent or considering man”.29 Goodwin expended significant polemic effort against Samuel Rutherford’s early work Exercirtationes Apologeticae pro Divina Gratia, particularly the view that God offered salvation to all, but without an intention to give salvation to any but the elect.30 In opposition to this he argued that “when God offers eternal life unto all” his intention was “that they should have eternal life upon their faith, or in case they should believe.”31 He believed that to adopt Rutherford’s position was to say in effect that “if Christ should offer eternal life unto any more than only the elect … he must do it besides his own and his Father’s intention.”32 For Goodwin, the free offer was basically inconsistent with strict predestinarian thought, and any attempt to combine the two “made God a liar.”33 As can be seen from the positions of Baxter and Goodwin, the fundamental objections to the free offer of the gospel were based on its inconsistency with particular redemption and election.34 As all the theologians below espoused particular redemption and unconditional election, in their responses to hypothetical universalists they had to respond to these challenges. It is possible in considering these challenges that they might have adopted a position similar to that of Blacketer, and repudiated any notion of a free offer. It is also possible that they might have maintained both their commitment to a predestinarian system and a well-meant gospel offer, confirming Durham’s views as the mainstream Reformed position and the position of the Westminster Confession. Their beliefs will now be examined in some detail in order to determine their actual convictions and responses.

29 30 31 32 33 34

Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 180. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 180. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 181. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 185. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 186. These were the challenges noted and responded to by Durham. They were also the basis for the Arminians’ criticisms of Reformed theology and the gospel offer.

178

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658) Obadiah Sedgwick was a leading member of the Westminster Assembly, took a prominent part in its debates, and was one of the most respected and influential of the English Presbyterians. Barbara Donagan comments that Sedgwick was “an original and assiduous member of the Westminster assembly.”35 Evidence of his importance can be seen not only from his position at the Assembly, but also in his frequent preaching before Parliament and his appointment as a trier and an ejector of ministers during the Protectorate. In addition, his works are replete with teaching on the free offer of the gospel, including one focused explicitly on the subject: The Riches of Grace Displayed In the offer and tender of Salvation to poor Sinners.36 A study of his theology is also worthwhile because there have been few attempts to survey his thought.

General Theology Sedgwick’s general theological outlook was essentially covenantal and Augustinian and therefore was similar to that of Durham. The relevant elements of Sedgwick’s thought will be discussed in turn. Covenant Theology Sedgwick held to the same threefold covenantal scheme as Durham. He outlined this in detail in The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant.37 He distinguished between two major types of covenant, namely a fœdus absolutum (or a unilateral covenant) and a fœdus hypotheticum (or a bilateral covenant).38 It was this latter category which, for Sedgwick, encompassed the fœdus operum (covenant of works) and the fœdus gratia (covenant of grace).39 He also 35 Barbara Donagan, “Sedgwick, Obadiah (1599/1600 – 1658), Church of England clergyman”, ODNB. For brief summaries of Sedgwick’s life, see also Barker, Puritan Profiles, 130 – 2; Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 516 – 19; James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (2 vols.; 1811 – 1815; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 2:141 – 45; Francis Bremer, “Sedgwick, Obadiah (1600 – 1658),” in Francis Bremer and Tom Webster, eds., Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (California: ABC-CLIO, 2006), 229. 36 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace. 37 Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London: Printed by Edward Mottershed, for Adoniram Byfield, 1661). 38 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 6. 39 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 6. It is, however, interesting to see Sedgwick place elements of the covenant of grace in the category of fœdus absolutum, namely, the promise of persevering grace to the elect.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

179

posited a separate covenant of redemption “between God the Father and his Sonne Jesus Christ”, distinct from the covenant “betwixt God and every believing person.”40 In contrast to the covenant of works Sedgwick defined the covenant of grace as “a new compact or agreement, which God made with sinful man, out of his own mere mercy and grace, wherein he promiseth that he will be our God, and that we shall be his people; and undertakes to give everlasting life, and all that conduceth thereunto, unto all who believe in Christ.”41 In discussing the covenant of grace he frequently used the language of conditionality. In an attempt to minimize controversy he made two important clarifications concerning the way he was using the work “condition”. First, any condition required in the covenant of grace is “freely worked” by God in the hearts of those whom he has decreed to save.42 Second, the fulfilling of any condition did not in itself “merit” anything from God43 but was simply “a means by which we come certainly to enjoy that which God is pleased graciously to give.”44 For Sedgwick, faith was the condition of the covenant of grace.45 This faith was itself the gift of God, thereby securing the gracious nature of the covenant,46 and brought union with Christ from which all the other blessings of the covenant, including justification, flowed.47 Faith was defined as nothing other than a “receiving all from Christ, and resting on Christ”.48 Therefore, even though faith is a condition of the covenant, “yet it is such a condition which God himself doth promise to give unto the sinner : As it is a condition on our part so it is a gift on God’s part: we are to have it, but God is to give it according to his promise.”49 40 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 3. 41 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 13. Again, “Forgiveness of sins is only promised in the covenant of grace, in no covenant but this; not in the covenant of works, for that is a letter of death and condemnation unto the sinner.” Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 378. 42 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 126, 182. 43 So, for example, faith is not a work which “earns” salvation from God. 44 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 126, 182. With these two points granted, Sedgwick felt free to say that “every kind of condition is not opposed to grace” and that “the Covenant of grace can admit of a condition … such a condition as is graciously given, and … which will in the nature and use of it exalt all the grace of God.” Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 126, 183. 45 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 183. Thus faith “stands as a necessary means in the way of participation of all our saving good”. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 291. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 126, 131, 284, 404. As Sedgwick spoke of the covenant as conditional, so the promises of the covenant may also be thought of as conditional. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 188 – 9. 46 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 183. 47 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 185. 48 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 188. 49 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 207. Therefore “The giving of faith is commensurable with the election of God … and indeed is the fruit and effect thereof”. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 291.

180

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Soteriology As with Durham, there is plentiful evidence that Sedgwick was a strict particularist in his soteriology. He clearly affirmed the doctrine of total depravity, including the inability of any to believe in the Gospel apart from effectual calling.50 All are “dead” under sin,51 and accordingly believers are “passive” in the first act of entering the covenant of grace.52 Sedgwick further taught unconditional election.53 He emphasised the particularity of the decree of election, believing that in Rom. 9 “The Apostle … doth purposely handle the doctrine of Election and Preterition; that election he proves to be particular, and not universal … [Rom. 9 teaches] That God should love one and hate another ; chose one, and pass by another ; shew mercy to some, and leave others to be hardened; the reason of this is, his own will”.54 He also proclaimed the doctrine of effectual calling.55 The effectual call was the particular work of the Holy Spirit as it was the Spirit who “break[s] your hard h[e]arts, and … rescue[s] and deliver[s] you from the powers of darkness.”56 Without this effectual call none would be saved, for, as a result of the fall, all would “stand out against Christ” and “refuse to close

50 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 110. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 111, 201 – 2, 205, 207; The Fountain Opened, 52 – 3; The Parable of the Prodigal, 236. He called the denial of this “original sin” one of the “more notorious” of the “false and erroneous opinions” of his day. Obadiah Sedgwick, The Nature and Danger of Heresies (London: M.F. for Samuel Gellibrand at the Brazen Serpent in Paul’s Church Yard, 1647), 32. Total depravity followed from Adam’s breach of the covenant of works, which left man “ship wrecked”, “ruined”, “undone”, “broken” and “impotent.” Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 121. For the federal headship of Adam, see Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 251. For a detailed exposition of the impact of total depravity on the “heart” of humanity, see Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 528 – 32. 51 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 253. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 256 – 8. It is important to note that that Sedgwick distinguished between “natural”, “political” and “theological” life. Man was not dead concerning “natural” life, i. e. there remained the ability to reason, will, understand etc. Nor was man dead concerning “political” life, i. e. there remained the ability to take part in commerce, trade etc. But spiritually, man was “plane mortuus, stark dead.” Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 255. 52 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 110. Thus he denied common sufficient grace. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 9 – 12. 53 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 150. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 471 – 2, The Parable of the Prodigal, 281. 54 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 292. He included a denial of the discriminatory nature of the love of God in election in his list of the “more notorious” of the “false and erroneous opinions” of his day. Sedgwick, The Nature and Danger of Heresies, 32. 55 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 466 See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 18. In this latter reference Sedgwick attempts also to safeguard free moral agency. 56 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 62. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 205. In line with opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisia sunt he also makes effectual calling the work of the Son. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 178.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

181

with Christ in his offers.”57 Further, he also propounded the perseverance of the saints.58 Sedgwick discussed the much debated question of the extent of the atonement in significant detail. He devoted thirty-two pages in his work on the covenant of grace to answering the question, “Whether Jesus Christ as Mediator died for all, and every man? Redeemed all? Reconciled all? Purchased Salvation for all?”59 He described his own position as belief that “Christ Jesus did effectually die for all the elect … and all the benefits of his death do reach unto every one of them … there was such a sufficiency of price and redemption by Christ, that if any sinner whatsoever comes by faith unto Christ, he shall receive all the benefits and fruits of redemption by the death of Christ … the death of Christ was never actually effectual for the Redemption, Reconciliation, Expiation, and salvation of all the Sons of Adam”.60 Sedgwick therefore espoused the doctrine of particular redemption,61 explaining that “The death of Christ as Mediator was not effectual for all; it was not an universal effectual Redemption, Expiation, Reconciliation and Salvation for all sinners, and for every particular sinner.”62 In his opinion, the doctrine of particular redemption, as well as being derived from exegesis, was a necessary corollary of the doctrine of election. He spoke of the “subordination of the redemption of Christ to Election” and believed that universal redemption would “absolutely overthrow the doctrine of election.”63 As well as being “limited” by the decree of election, he also held that the particular nature of the satisfaction of Christ could be seen in the limited extent of the covenant of 57 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 299. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal (London: D. Maxwell, 1659), 53. 58 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 47. Again a denial of the perseverance of the saints is included in his list of the “more notorious” of the “false and erroneous opinions” of his day. Sedgwick, The Nature and Danger of Heresies, 32. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 53, 72, 151, 153, 155, 157, 158; The Riches of Grace, 172 – 4, 177, 210; The Fountain Opened, 245, 466. 59 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 280. 60 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 282. 61 This is not to say that Sedgwick eschewed the language of Christ dying for all as long as it was used in one of five limited senses, namely, 1) Christ died for all as regards the “valour, sufficiency, or dignity of him that died.” 2) Christ died for all who are elect and who will believe. 3) Christ died for all in the sense that “all who are redeemed and saved, they are redeemed by Christ.” That is, Christ is the only one in whom salvation can be found by any. 4) “We may hold it [the death of Christ] to be general as to the Gospel Annuntiation (as Musculus speaks) or offer as we speak: although the grace and virtue of Christ’s redemption reacheth not unto all, yet the offer and invitation of it by the Gospel is unto all”. 5) Christ died for all “kinds of men” though not “every individual of those kinds.” Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 282. None of these senses appears contrary to a particular, or limited, efficacy in the intent of Christ’s death. When Sedgwick occasionally appears to use universalist language with respect to the death of Christ in preaching, it is in the context of sense four above. 62 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 285. 63 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 300.

182

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

grace, in the intention of Christ to lay down his life only for his sheep, and in the nature of the Gospel proclamation that it is only those who believe who know forgiveness of sins.64

The Free Offer of the Gospel Defining the Offer Sedgwick frequently spoke of the gospel as an “offer”. This is not to say that he did not speak of the gospel presentation in other ways; for example, he clearly spoke of the gospel as a command.65 Nevertheless, his gospel presentation was dominated by the language of offers.66 Like Durham, Sedgwick believed that the gospel offered Christ in the fullness of his person: “the Gospel offers the whole Christ at once; it offers (at once) Christ the Saviour, and Christ the Head, Christ the Redeemer (that is) the Person of Christ consisting of both Natures”.67 There was no aspect of the work of Christ that was not offered; indeed, all Christ’s “merits, and gifts, and benefits, promises and comforts” were offered in the gospel.68 These spiritual blessings offered included love, peace, liberty, blessedness, and mercy.69 Sedgwick illustrated the meaning of offer by means of images similar to those used by Durham. He frequently spoke of the gospel call as a “gracious invitation”.70 He referred to the invitations in the gospel as “Earnest … Serious … General … Gracious”.71 However, his most common image to explicate the idea of “offer” was undoubtedly that of “beseeching”.72 Taking this image further he spoke of “A saviour begging of that sinner to be saved.”73 In his opinion this image showed the tenderness of God in his dealings with sinners.74 He also used 64 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 383. 65 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 68. 66 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 68, See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 384, 606; The Riches of Grace, 30; The Parable of the Prodigal, 55; The Fountain Opened, 329, 380. 67 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 197. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 56; The Fountain Opened, 381, 401. 68 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 34. 69 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 338 – 9, 321 – 2. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 203 – 4. 70 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 111, 563 – 4. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 406; The Fountain Opened, 63, 80, 114, 210, 382. 71 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2. 72 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 57. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 219; The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9, 382; Everlasting Covenant, 204. 73 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 270. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 15; The Fountain Opened, 402. 74 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 204.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

183

mercantile language to describe the offer, paraphrasing it as an invitation to “come and buy.”75 In this image Christ presented himself as a salesman urging those to whom the gospel comes to accept it.76 Continuing this theme, Christ was often pictured by Sedgwick as standing at the doors of sinners’ hearts, knocking and seeking admittance.77 Finally, he also saw the gospel offer as a command in which Christ demands that those who hear the offer accept.78 Ultimately, all these images taken together convey Sedgwick’s understanding of the offer.79 They all point to his defining offer as something much more than a presentation of facts.80 Indeed, the very concept of an offer contained the idea that the one offering desired that those to whom the offer was made should accept it.

The Exegetical Basis of the Free Offer Sedgwick self-consciously rooted his doctrine of the gospel offer in his exegesis of Scripture and used a wide range of texts to argue his position. A number of the texts referred to were also used by Durham. This suggests the presence of an exegetical tradition within seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy relating to the free offer.81 Two texts occur very frequently in Sedgwick’s presentations of the gospel, namely Rev. 3:20 & Matt. 23:37 (c.f. Luke 19:41 – 2).82 He was clear that Rev. 3:20 in its context was not addressed to believers, but rather to a church which was destitute of the saving righteousness of Christ.83 And yet with regard to this group of impenitent unbelievers Christ “calls to them, and offers himself to them, to all of them, to every one, he excepts not a man; but if any man will, 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83

Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 114, 212, 218, 397 – 8; Everlasting Covenant, 204. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 15, 270 – 1; Everlasting Covenant, 204, 533. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 563 – 4. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 297 – 8, 402; Everlasting Covenant, 427. See Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 98, where he uses them all interchangeably. The gospel did not simply “make known a Saviour” but much more than that it “doth offer the goodness of this Saviour unto me.” Sedgwick, The Humbled Sinner Resolved. What he Should do to be Saved. Or Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the only way of Salvation for Sensible Sinners. (London: T.R. & E.M. for Adoniram Byfield at the Bible in Popes-head Alley, neere Lumbard Street, 1656), 37. This will become clearer as other figures are considered. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (NKJV.) and “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 13 – 14. “These Laodiceans (of whom the text expressly speaks) they were poor, and blind, and naked, and wretched, and miserable … they had no riches of worthiness, no eyes of knowledge, no garment of righteousness … they were so wretched, and miserable, that they had no ability to buy these, but stood … as mere, impotent, undiscerning objects.” Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 115. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 438.

184

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

& c.”84 Here again the importance of ecclesiology can be seen. That a verse is addressed to a church is no proof that it is addressed to a gathered body of believers, far less to the decretively elect. Christ’s lament over Jerusalem likewise related to those who were hard in heart and who had rejected the gospel offer.85 It was over these very individuals who had rejected his offer of salvation that Christ grieved and wept.86 The next most frequently mentioned texts were Matt. 22:4 and Ezek. 18:31 (c.f. Ezek. 33:11).87 Matt. 22:2 – 5 demonstrates that “God the Father, who is King of Kings, he would marry his son Jesus Christ to sinners … he provides all only on the cost of his free grace, and sends unto sinners, offers all and intreats them to come unto Christ, and to enjoy all, and yet (many times) many sinners they will not come”.88 Sedgwick clearly applied Ezek. 18:31 and 33:11 to spiritual repentance and eternal blessing.89 He further used these texts to demonstrate that the preaching of the gospel was a “great mercy” from God,90 and that the “expostulations” contained in these verses were expressive of God’s wishes.91 He related Durham’s most common “gospel offer text,” 2 Cor. 5:20, only once to the free offer, noting that it presented Jesus Christ, as it were, falling on his knees and begging sinners to be reconciled to him.92 Sedgwick referred to a number of other texts as holding forth the gospel offer : Isa. 5:4,93 Isa. 55:2,94 Hosea 6:4,95 Mark 16:15 – 16,96 John 6:37,97 Rom. 10:6 – 8,98

84 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 115. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 533; The Fountain Opened, 315 – 6, 381; The Riches of Grace, 15. 85 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 540; Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9. 86 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 540. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 236, 282, 381, 446; The Parable of the Prodigal, 49 – 51. 87 “all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” (NKJV.) and “For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies, says the Lord GOD. Therefore turn and live!” (NKJV.) 88 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 278 – 9. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284; The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9, 337. 89 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 393. 90 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 177. 91 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 50. 92 “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 402. He did, however, use 2 Cor. 5:20 as a picture of the preacher’s function. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 383. 93 “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 50. 94 “Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284; The Fountain Opened, 395. 95 “O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

185

Rom. 10:21,99 2 Peter 3:9.100 This illustrates the breadth of his exegetical basis of the free offer. All these texts served to show God’s longsuffering, mercy, goodness and willingness to pardon.101 The Person Making the Offer For Sedgwick, as for Durham, the offer of the gospel was fundamentally a divine offer : “God offers … all good, and freely … O how good is God to offer spiritual good to sinners! O how patient is God even to sinners, who neglect the offers of his Grace! O how kind is God, to offer peace and mercy more than once, to unworthy and unkind sinners … and this renewed treaty … is very vehement … is very persuasive”.102 However, more particularly the gospel offer was made by Jesus Christ, through the preaching of the word. In general Sedgwick thought of preaching as the very words of Christ and therefore when any offer was made by a preacher of the gospel “Christ then offers himself to you”.103 Given, then, that the gospel offer was made by God, he had to face the questions related to the sincerity of the God offering salvation to sinners whom he did not intend to save.

96 97 98

99 100

101 102 103

like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 50. “And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284; Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 371. “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284. “But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach).” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 165. “But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.’” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 381 – 2; The Parable of the Prodigal, 49. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (NKJV.) Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 49 – 50. However, Sedgwick believed that the love of John 3:16 and the will of 1 Tim. 2:4 applied only to the elect, and that 1 Tim. 1:10 spoke of “preserver” rather than of “saviour”. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 302 – 5. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 49 – 50. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 56. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 297 – 8. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 3, 210 – 2, 218 – 9, 237, 278 – 9, 315 – 6, 329, 381, 397 – 8, 400, 449; The Parable of the Prodigal, 214; The Riches of Grace, 15.

186

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Recipients of the Offer Sedgwick was clear that all who heard the preaching of the gospel received an offer of Christ.104 He notes on a number of occasions that the gospel is offered “indefinitely” to all.105 In addition, however, the gospel offer comes to every “particular” hearer of the gospel.106 Thus, salvation was offered to every individual hearer, and not simply to a general and indifferent mass, out of which the elect would be gathered. He also clearly taught that the gospel offer came to many who ultimately reject it. This gets to the heart of the distinction in Sedgwick (and Reformed theology generally) between the effectual call and the external call. The latter is much broader in scope than the more limited internal and effectual call.107 The external call can be, and in many cases is, “slighted and refused”.108 Nevertheless, there are a number of passages in Sedgwick’s writing which prima facie suggest that the gospel offer is restricted to a sub-group of hearers, namely thirsty sinners, or those who are already under conviction of sin. He stated that the gospel offer in Isa. 55:1 was made only to those who are “throughly sensible of his spiritual wants, and earnestly and constantly longing after the waters of life.”109 This is contrary to Durham’s understanding of this verse.110 In this same context Sedgwick advised his hearers to examine themselves “whether we be spiritually thirsty sinners or no”.111 He even went so far as to state that he knew “no Gospel call, nor news of mercy, no hopes of help, until we be brought into a spiritual, needy, and distressed condition…”112 He also spoke of thirsty sinners being “sufficiently conditioned and qualified to come to Christ”113 and urged his hearers to “strive to be such thirsty sinners”.114 In response to this teaching some hearers naturally became introspective and began to question whether they had any right to the gospel offer, as they were afraid they were not thirsty enough.115 His immediate answer did little to dissuade any tendencies to introspection. However, this restriction of the offer appears to be a relatively isolated aberration in Sedgwick’s teaching. Elsewhere 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 111. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 112, 284. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 76 – 7. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284, 310. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 299. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 3. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9, 412. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 7. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 40, 88; The Riches of Grace, 250; Everlasting Covenant, 204. Durham, Christ Crucified, 9. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 9. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 91. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 63, 114. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 38. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 24. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 16.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

187

he used the words in Isa. 55:1, “Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price”, to explicitly disclaim that any “thirst” or “desire” was necessary prior to coming to Christ.116 On other occasions, he referred to those “who are not spiritually thirsty at all” and to whom still “Christ is offered, and mercy is offered, and pardon and life is offered, and they refuse it.”117 This demonstrated that the gospel offer was not restricted to the thirsty per se, and is contrary to his apparently preparationist pronouncements outlined immediately above. Rev. 3:20 was also used by Sedgwick to demonstrate that the gospel came to those who were “blind” concerning their spiritual need.118 Despite, then, some suggestions of preparationism, Sedgwick’s overarching teaching was that the gospel offer was to all and he insisted that “The Gospel puts no conditions of Ante-grace … Or worthiness, but offers freely.”119 He even stated that if someone wanted to believe in Christ without experiencing prior conviction of sin, Christ would not turn them away.120 This fairly reflects the balance of his teaching. Further, in the context of the doubts of those who were burdened over sin, he disclaimed any idea of preparationism, namely a sense of sin being a warrant to come to Christ. He stated that “a personal worthiness,” that is, finding enough conviction of sin within the heart to warrant coming to Christ, “is inconsistent with a Covenant of grace; for a Covenant of grace … is a freely giving covenant”.121 The covenant of grace was by definition a covenant where the believer does not bring anything, not even conviction of sin, but only receives what is freely given.122 Indeed, for Sedgwick, it followed as a corollary of total depravity that no unconverted sinners could prepare themselves for grace.123

116 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 116 – 7. 117 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 9 – 10. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 27, where he speaks of the gospel as being offered to unbelievers, having delineated unbelief as evidence of a lack of spiritual thirst. Again, in Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 336 – 7, he defined those to whom the gospel was offered as pursuing “vain and unprofitable things” rather than thirsting after Christ who they “wholly neglect”. 118 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 115. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 144 – 5. 119 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 284. 120 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 124. He calls this a “strange truth”. This explains something of Sedgwick’s apparent preparationism. Only the thirsty will come to the water offered in the gospel (e. g. “The full soul despises the honey comb, any bit is sweet to the hungry ; the Wells of water are nothing to him that is already filled; but a drop of water is precious to the thirsty”. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 8), but not only the thirsty are warranted to come. 121 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 107. 122 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 108. 123 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 258.

188

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Reasons for the Offer Sedgwick maintained that the main reason for the gospel offer was the saving of sinners. He believed that “the intention and aim of Jesus Christ” in the gospel offer was to demonstrate to all the hearers that he was willing to save, pardon and show mercy to sinners.124 The gospel offer showed Christ’s “compassion” and “pity” and how he “yearned” for the salvation of sinners.125 This purpose of the gospel offer was to be in the forefront of preaching, as preaching should aim to bring the hearers to salvation126 in line with Christ’s commission to preachers to “preach the gospel to every creature”.127 This did not always have to be done explicitly, but every sermon should at least have some implicit aim at the conversion of sinners.128 As well as aiming at the salvation of sinners, the gospel was also offered to all in order to leave the reprobate inexcusable, so that Jesus Christ could “clear himself against all the cavils and complaints of sinners; that every mouth may be stopped.”129 Unlike Durham, however, Sedgwick does not explicitly link the gospel offer with the intent to save the elect in so many words. Nevertheless, given his commitment to effectual calling, the salvation of the elect must be an essential intention of the gospel offer.

The Warrant to Believe The gospel, for Sedgwick, in and of itself provided sufficient warrant for all who heard it to believe. In exercising faith, “the heart takes ground and encouragement for this from the Offers, and Invitations, and Commands of the Gospel”.130 Related to this, the promises contained in the gospel (e. g. “whoever comes to me I will in no wise cast out”) warranted and encouraged all who heard the gospel to accept it.131 Therefore, any doubts could be sufficiently answered by the promises and commands of the gospel.132 He explicitly denied that any “personal worthiness” was necessary prior to believing and coming to Christ.133 In contrast to the warrant found in the gospel offer, any attempt to ground the warrant of 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 392. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 113. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 329. Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 67. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 371. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 372, 383. Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 67. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 387. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 408. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 143, 204; The Fountain Opened, 260 – 1. 131 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 204. 132 Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 47. 133 Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 189.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

189

faith in feelings was but to “weave Penelope’s web”, to go through an endless cycle of doubt and hope, of belief and despair.134 No warrant was to be found in a “secret intention” or decree of God. Sedgwick held this, by its very nature, was unable to provide the hearer with any encouragement to believe. Instead, he directed them to the invitation and offer of grace revealed to all in the gospel.135 Thus questions and disputes concerning whether “Christ died for me” were not relevant to the warrant to believe. The gospel did not reveal for whom Christ died, but simply declared that Christ died for sinners and that he offers himself to all sinners, to be their Saviour. And that was the warrant for faith.136 Duty Faith In Sedgwick’s opinion, not only were all warranted to believe, but all had a duty to believe. He held that “it is not only a duty, but it is also a reasonable duty, for sinners to hearken unto Christ”.137 This flowed from the nature of the gospel command. Even as the gospel “doth command every one to believe on Christ (i. e.) to receive him, and trust on him alone for life”,138 so it is a duty of all hearers of the gospel to obey, and receive Christ as Saviour. Sedgwick is not abandoning here his belief in total depravity and human inability ; rather, he made a distinction between ability and duty, stating that “I do not say that the sinner can open his door to Christ but that he ought to open it: the ability is one thing, the duty is another.”139 The Offer and God’s Will and Desire Sedgwick clearly held that, while it was permissible to speak of God’s desire to save all, yet it was not God’s ultimate intention to save all. He argued that, if there was a decretive intention to save all, then God would have given all the means of salvation, namely the preaching of the gospel.140 In explicating the Arminian position on the extent of Christ’s redemption, he noted that they believed that “there was a serious affection in God, by which he was yet mercifully affected to love all and every man [alike] so as seriously to desire the salvation of all men, 134 135 136 137 138

Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 58 – 59. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 111. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 308. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 427. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 113. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 308. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 310, 402; The Riches of Grace, 57. 139 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 78. 140 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 290.

190

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

and of every particular man … so that there was not any one man, whose salvation God did not will.”141 In this context it is important to clarify that he did not deny that God desired the salvation of all. Rather, he did deny that God loved all alike and, in the sense of his decretive will, willed and desired the salvation of all. Indeed, Sedgwick clearly taught that the offer of the gospel expressed the desire of the offerer that it be accepted. Noting that Christ offered to hearers of the gospel “all saving good”, he went on to observe that in this offer “Jesus Christ hath opened the kindness of his heart, and the desire of his soul unto you.”142 This desire was that each hearer of the gospel offer should accept it and “hearken” to Christ.143 The fact that Christ repeatedly offered the gospel to those who persisted in rejecting it was evidence that he meant well to the hearers of the gospel and “really desired” their salvation.144 Related to this was his insistence that the gospel offer was sincere, and made in earnest. Christ was “very earnest and importunate” that all who heard them accept his offers.145 Christ, then, was “serious” in his offers.146 The gospel offer was no charade or illusion: it was real. As such it was expressive of the love and kindness of God. Sedgwick used the image of a man who suffered shipwreck at sea, lost all his goods, and was left destitute. But one of his friends, who was rich, came and invited him to his home, saying, “Everything that I have is yours”. Would not this be an act of mercy, and great kindness, Sedgwick argued? Accordingly the gospel offer had to be seen as a great mercy and kindness.147 This offer also expressed the love of God. Speaking of the gospel offer, he stated that “here is love indeed.”148 That God would offer salvation to those who persisted in rejecting him, could be explained in no other way than as an act of love. This love flowed from the very nature of God, which “delighted rather to show mercy, and which is slow to wrath, and of much long-suffering.”149 In addition, Sedgwick spoke of the will of God to save all. He paraphrased the 141 142 143 144 145

146 147 148 149

Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 295. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 287. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 287. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 387. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 409. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 3. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 235, 380, 401. Indeed, the title of Chapter 10 in this volume is “Jesus Christ doth not only make gracious offers unto sinners, nor doth he only renew gracious offers unto them, but also he is very earnest and importunate with sinners seriously to hearken unto him in his gracious offers.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, -1 (i. e. 1 page before page numbering starts). Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 204. The language here echoes that of Dort. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 116. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 315 – 6. Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 54. See also Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 167.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

191

gospel offer as “I am willing to be yours, I am content to take you as I find you.”150 His understanding of the nature of the gospel offer implicitly carried within it the idea that God was willing to save all the hearers of the gospel. For, if the gospel offer could be pictured under the image of a salesman trying to sell goods, then undoubtedly it was legitimate to say, “Christ is willing to sell himself unto you.”151 It is interesting that Sedgwick argued that Christ was willing to save, not because he was man, but because he was God. He stated that ”Christ is God, and because he is God he is merciful, willing to show mercy to sinners in misery, and unwilling to destroy them…”152 Thus, in respect of the gospel offer, Christ reveals the Father, rather than his actions being simply expressive of his humanity. So, when Sedgwick described Christ as follows, he provided an insight into the attitude of God in the gospel offer : “his [Christ’s] breast is full of pity, and his eyes full of tears, and his hands full of mercies, and his mouth full of entreaties, do you not hear him lamenting over you, will no love and kindness work upon you, will no offers of grace and life be received by you?”153 He believed that this teaching on the willingness of God to save was of vital pastoral importance. He knew that there were many who doubted God’s willingness to save them, and he therefore emphasised the willingness of Christ to save and the assurance given of this fact in the gospel offer.154 In short, he taught that “Christ is a thousand times more willing to come to thee, than thou art to come to Christ”, and that Christ had an “earnest desire” for saving entry into every heart.155 Further evidence of Christ’s willingness to save could be seen in his laments over unbelief. Christ “weeps over sinners for their slighting of him and the good which he offers to them.”156 Indeed in every offer of the gospel the heart of Christ 150 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 204. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 388 – 9; The Riches of Grace, 22, 28. 151 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 237. Indeed, “Never had any man such grounds of encouragement, and confidence to buy of another, as the poor sinner hath to come and buy of Christ.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 235. 152 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 49 – 50. He continued: “God is a long suffering God, and so is Christ; He is a much-suffering Christ, and a long suffering Christ. 2 Peter 3.9 The Lord is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. It is the greatest of mercy to be willing to pity or pardon sinners, and it is the greatest of goodness, to offer help unto them, And it is the greatest of patience to wait long on them.” It is interesting to note the universal application of 2 Peter 3:9, rather than the restricting of the text to the elect. 153 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 240 – 1. 154 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 245. 155 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 4 – 5. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 122; The Parable of the Prodigal, 287. 156 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 282. The exegetical ground for this is given as Christ’s lament over Jerusalem. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 540, where he notes that

192

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

was laid bare such that Christ begged for admittance, waited for acceptance, and even wept with desire for his offer to be accepted.157 In sum, in the gospel offer Christ “hath stood at thy doors with promises in his mouth, and with tears in his eyes; he hath stood at thy door with heaven in his fingers, and sorrow in his soul; with arms of mercy to clap thee, if thou openest; with floods of compassion to bewail thee, if thou refusest.”158 Sedgwick’s understanding of the will of God and the desire of God in relation to the gospel offer makes sense only against the background of the commonplace distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata. He could criticise Arminian language that sounded very similar to his own, because he felt they were speaking of the voluntas arcane, or at least failing to distinguish the various senses of the will of God. In contrast, Sedgwick’s language, like Durham’s, referred to the voluntas revelata and thus did not involve, in his understanding, any real contradiction with the sovereignty of God and his own particularistic soteriology.

Common Grace The existence of “common” gifts of the Spirit, which even those who ultimately “perish” may experience, was acknowledged by Sedgwick.159 For him, this was part of God’s universal “kindness, bounty and pity” which all his creation enjoyed.160 To say that common grace was universal did not imply, however, that all experienced it equally. Some knew more of the non-saving workings of the Spirit than others.161 Indeed, resisting the common workings of the Spirit could “cause the Spirit of God to withdraw, to desert the sinner who doth desert his counsel”.162 Thus even for any one given sinner the influence of common grace ebbed and flowed. Common grace demonstrated itself in various ways. In one respect it could be thought of as restraining the sinfulness of man. People were not as sinful as they could be, because the Spirit restrained them.163 Other common gifts mentioned included education and art, all of which may be practised and enjoyed by those

157 158 159 160 161 162 163

Christ “shed tears and wept over the hardness of Jerusalem.” See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 236. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 329. For further comment on Christ’s pity see also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 235. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 44 – 45. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 62. He explicitly denied that he was teaching the Arminian concept of common sufficient grace. Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 9 – 12. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 382. See Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 500, 508. Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 143 – 4. Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 506.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

193

who are “spiritually dead”.164 Common grace was also evident in the daily blessings of life. Food, clothes, and health were all evidences of the “goodness and mercy” of God.165 Common grace also accompanied the preaching of the gospel. Wherever the gospel was preached the Spirit was joined with the word, so that for every hearer “the Spirit doth by the Gospel earnestly deal with his heart to believe and receive Christ.”166 This activity of the Spirit included conviction of sin and applying the truths of the gospel to the soul; therefore, those who remained in unbelief were guilty of “wilfully opposing and resisting the Spirit in his working”.167 As such, unbelief was never the fault of God; rather, the reason for unbelief lay in the deliberate unwillingness of the sinner to believe, even in the face of the common operations of the Spirit.168 Sedgwick explicitly declared that the external call of the Gospel was “an act of Grace”,169 a demonstration of the “goodness of God”,170 a “mercy”,171 and an expression of “love”.172 Given all this, those who have rejected the gospel offer had to confess the justice of God in their condemnation, and the final removal of any further mercy.173

The Rejection of the Offer Sedgwick spoke of those who rejected the gospel offer as “excluding themselves” from salvation.174 This they did even though God had treated them with “mercy 164 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 269, 264 (pagination irregular). 165 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 563. 166 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 207. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 182; Everlasting Covenant, 563. 167 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 207. 168 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 207. 169 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 62. He also spoke of “this loving and gracious offer.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 317, 321 – 2. For further discussion on “gracious offers”, see Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 218 – 9, 380, 397 – 8. For the gospel offer as an “act of grace”, see Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 390. 170 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 540. For further discussion on the gospel offer as an expression of God’s “goodness”, see Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2, 210, 379 – 80. 171 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 9. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 227, 563. It is “the greatest mercy to find Christ in our hearts, but yet it is a great mercy to find Christ still at our doors, that Christ still is offering mercy … yet Christ calls upon us, return and live, hear and live, I am willing to forgive you, to accept of you, to save you. O consider this incomparable love, kindness, mercy, goodness, and graciousness of Christ.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 392. 172 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 379 – 80. See also Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 38. 173 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 55 – 6. For other examples of his references to the possibility of the rejection of the offer, see Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 264 – 5, 361, 406; Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 116, 217 – 9, 358. 174 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 105.

194

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

and grace”.175 The simple fact that the offer could be rejected shows that it extended beyond the elect.176 For Sedgwick, the rejection of the gospel offer was the greatest sin imaginable.177 It involved the despising of the kindness of Jesus Christ,178 of the love of God,179 and of God’s goodness shown in the offer of the gospel.180 In short, the spurning of the gospel overturned all the “glorious designs, and counsels, and thoughts of God’s Wisdom, and Love, and Mercy, and Goodness”.181 It rejected the good news of the gospel, made God a liar, and condemned the sinner’s own soul.182 Such was the seriousness of refusing the gospel that, for those who despised Christ, it would have been better if they had never heard of him.183 Despite the greatness of the sin, no-one was forced into unbelief. It was a voluntary choice: it was “of their own accord” that sinners rejected God.184 This left the sinner inexcusable before God, and rendered the judgement of unbelief perfectly just. God was “innocent” of any causation of the sin: the sinner alone was “guilty”.185 There were therefore no grounds for complaint against God’s judgment.186 Indeed, Sedgwick believed that the proper effect of the preaching of the word was to “soften” or to convert the hearers. The fact that the word on occasion “hardened” those who heard was due not to the word itself but simply

175 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 106. This expression, of course, is further evidence of Sedgwick’s adherence to a doctrine of common grace. 176 “Indeed there cannot be a refusal where there hath not been an offer…” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 287. 177 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 28. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 264. He called it a “sordid contempt” of Christ. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 480 – 1. 178 Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 28; The Fountain Opened, 222 – 3, 264, 265, 277. 179 Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 88 – 89. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 41, 222, 264, 280, 291; Sedgwick, Humbled Sinner, 162. 180 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 41. 181 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 222 – 3. See also Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 533; The Fountain Opened, 291. Indeed “Every one of God’s gracious attributes may indite you”. Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 291. 182 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 223. Rejecters of Christ “trample underfoot the blood of Christ, and the throne of grace.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 291. 183 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 321 – 2. 184 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 9. God did not compel or cause anyone to reject him; this rejection was as a result of the free choice of man. 185 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 9. 186 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 42. So: “Of the just cause of a sinners damnation: It is of and from himself: never lay it on God’s decrees, or want of means and helps. What could I have done more for my vineyard, & c? Isa. 5. So what could Christ do more? he calls, and crys, and knocks, and entreats, and waits, and weeps, and yet you will not accept of him, or salvation by him? … I was offered Christ and grace, I felt him knocking by his Spirit but I slighted him, grieved him, rejected him, and now it is just with God to shut the door of mercy against me…” Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 55 – 6.

Obadiah Sedgwick (1599/1600 – 1658)

195

to the “pride and perverseness of the hearts of men” who reject it and pervert its natural effect.187 This rejection of the gospel was regarded by Sedgwick as “folly”188 and “absurd”.189 Christ offered all that was good and was yet rejected.190 On the one hand was a willing Saviour and on the other side damnation, and yet many chose damnation rather than come to Christ.191 To Sedgwick, this demonstrated the unreasonableness of unbelief. This foolishness arose in part from a lack of selfknowledge: sinners simply did not understand (or acknowledge) their need for salvation, and therefore despised the offered salvation in Christ.192 Some attempted to justify their unbelief by raising objections to the gospel offer. These objections echoed those raised by Baxter and Goodwin and were largely related to Sedgwick’s doctrines of election and total depravity. A number of his hearers argued that the gospel offer was meaningless, as Christ might not be intended as (nor decreed to be) their Saviour. Others complained that, as they were “dead” in their sins, the gospel offer was meaningless because they could not respond to it. Sedgwick replied to the first objection by pointing out that, conversely, no one could conclude that Christ was not intended for them.193 Indeed, the opposite was true, for to remain in unbelief entailed a rejection of and resistance to the common operations of the Holy Spirit which in and of themselves worked on the sinner to believe.194 Therefore, regardless of any decree, the cause of unbelief could not be imputed to God, but rather lay at the door of the unwillingness of the impenitent sinner.195 Sinners had an invitation “by name” to come to Christ and so had no reason to doubt that Christ was intended for them.196 In response to the criticism based on moral inability to believe, Sedgwick pointed out that unbelief was not something imposed externally on sinners; 187 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 582. 188 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2, 344. This folly was likened by Sedgwick to a man who was stranded on a desert island with no provisions and no means of escape. Then a ship laden with provisions came and anchored by the island. The captain called out, “Do you want me to give you any provisions, I have food and wine to spare and will give it freely?” And the man said, “No, begone, I would rather die here.” Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 211 – 2. 189 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 286. 190 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 344. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 2. 191 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 286. 192 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 100. See also Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 304, 338 – 9. 193 “… no sinner can know his eternal Reprobation, this is a secret counsel which is reserved in the bosom of God”. Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 286. 194 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 533. 195 Sedgwick, Everlasting Covenant, 207. 196 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 48 – 9. Sedgwick here has in mind that the “name” of all sinners under conviction of sin is “thirsty”, and so texts like Isa. 55:1 “name” them.

196

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

rather, it was their personal choice. In their rejection of God’s common grace sinners hardened their own hearts and willingly chose their sins over the gospel because these were what they loved.197 Sedgwick called this line of disputing against the gospel offer “foolish unworthy reasonings”.198 Rather than laying complaints at God’s door, sinners were to “set upon the work of repentance” and they were assured that they would find God full of “loving kindness, and great mercies.”199 The reason for their failure to do so was their unwillingness. This was evidenced in the fact that those who used total depravity as an excuse for unbelief did not even do what they could, namely attend diligently on the means of grace.200 In making this choice they made void their complaint against the futility of the gospel offer. These objections were often coupled with a professed despair of finding mercy, and a complaint that God would rather hate and damn sinners than save them. Sedgwick believed that to have this attitude was a “heinous sin”,201 because it slandered God, turned his promises into lies, and questioned God’s attribute of mercy, his kindness and his willingness to save.202 If God really hated sinners, or delighted in their destruction, would they not be struck down and consigned to hell immediately? Instead God had spared even wilful sinners and continually offered the gospel to them. This demonstrated that God had no desire to destroy sinners; rather his patience was a result of his mercy and evidence that he would delight in their conversion.203 Much of Sedgwick’s teaching on the gospel offer is captured in this expostulation with sinners not to reject Christ: “1. That all the good which Christ doth offer, and all the gracious terms upon which Christ doth offer, are yet sometimes slighted and refused by some sinners … the Lord Jesus offers … all saving good, and he offers this upon most gracious terms … but all this is neglected and refused. The Sinners who might have the bread of life freely, they pass it by, and spend their money and their labour for that which is not bread, and for that which satisfies not … [Matt 22:2 – 5] Here is no less than a marriage feast … the 197 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 59. 198 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 177. This is similar to Durham’s complaints over “carnal reasonings”. Durham, Revelation, 323. 199 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 177. 200 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 523. 201 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 174. To speak like this was evidence of being a “foolish and senseless sinner, who pleasest thyself with the arguings of an unbelieving spirit.” Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 177. 202 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 174. On questioning Christ’s willingness to save, see Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 33. He additionally counselled against despair by urging his hearers to “Consider, there is yet a possibility of attaining to this communion… as long as thy life and the Gospel last; as long as the invitation doth last.” Sedgwick, The Riches of Grace, 269. 203 Sedgwick, The Parable of the Prodigal, 177. He refers here to Ezek. 33:11.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

197

meaning is this, that God the Father, who is King of Kings, he would marry his son Jesus Christ to sinners … he provides all only on the cost of his free grace, and sends unto sinners, offers all and intreats them to come unto Christ, and to enjoy all, and yet (many times) many sinners they will not come”.204

Conclusion Sedgwick maintained substantially the same doctrine of the free offer of the gospel as Durham. In the crucial point of the definition of “offer” and the relation of the offer to the revealed will and desire of God, their views were almost identical. There were, however, some differences over the textual basis underlying the offer, most notably Isa. 55:1. This difference manifested itself in the occasional tendency of Sedgwick to limit the offer to those who had received some form of preparation such as conviction of sin. This issue, while undeveloped in Sedgwick, would become a major area of dispute in later centuries, including the Marrow Controversy in Scotland.205

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677) Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677) is a neglected figure as far as academic studies of Puritan theology and practice are concerned. A brief survey of his life will reveal that Manton had no less influence politically and ecclesiastically than John Owen, and yet whilst at least ten (and growing) British academic dissertations have focused on Owen, not one has considered Manton.206 Perhaps he has been neglected because of the entirely sermonic nature of the material found in his collected writings,207 but that is precisely what makes him an appropriate figure for the study of the practical doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. Manton was born in 1620.208 Both his father and grandfather were ministers. 204 Sedgwick, The Fountain Opened, 278 – 9. 205 This controversy is discussed further in Chapter Five. 206 However, there has been one American dissertation on Manton: Derek Cooper, “The Ecumenical Exegete: Thomas Manton’s Commentary on James in Relation to its Protestant Predecessors, Contemporaries, and Successors” (Ph.D. diss., Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008). 207 Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (22 vols.; London: James Nisbet, 1870 – 5). 208 Sources of biographical information on Manton include Edmund Calamy, The Nonconformist’s Memorial: Being An Account Of The Ministers, Who were Ejected or Silenced after the Restoration, particularly by the Act of Uniformity, which took Place on Bartholomew-day, Aug. 24, 1662. Containing a concise View of Their Lives And Characters, Their Principles, Sufferings, and Printed Works, Volume One (ed. Samuel Palmer ; London: W. Harris, 1775),

198

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

He went to Oxford University in 1635, graduated in 1639, and was ordained to the diaconate shortly thereafter by Joseph Hall (Bishop of Exeter).209 Manton’s first congregation was in Stoke Newington, Middlesex; he began his pastorate there in 1642 and remained for seven years. During this time he was often called on to preach in London, including before Parliament. On one occasion he preached to Parliament against the execution of Charles I. He was also a scribe to the Westminster Assembly. When Obadiah Sedgwick retired from his charge in St Paul’s Covent Garden, Manton, Sedgwick’s son-in-law, took his place. Although Manton, by his tacit support for the royal cause (he preached the funeral sermon of Christopher Love, whom Parliament had condemned to death for supporting the royal family in exile), did little to ingratiate himself with the government, he was highly favoured during the Protectorate. He was asked to pray at the installation of Oliver Cromwell to the Protectorate, was one of Cromwell’s chaplains, and was made an examiner of candidates for the ministry. After the death of Cromwell and the subsequent demise of the Protectorate, he was influential in the restoration of Charles II and was chosen as one of his chaplains. He was one of the Presbyterian delegates at the failed Savoy Conference (1661) which sought to reconcile the competing factions in the English Church. On the effective failure of the Puritan and Presbyterian cause with the implementing of the Act of Uniformity on 24th August 1662, he was ejected from the ministry of the Church of England. After this date he preached in his home and was imprisoned for a period in 1670. Manton continued to preach, protected for a time by the Royal Declaration of Indulgence, until his death on 18th October 1677.210 In his own day Manton was known as “the King of Preachers” and his funeral was “attended with the vastest number of ministers of all persuasions, & c. that ever I saw together in my life.”211 He was, in the words of Beeke and Pederson, “a 138 – 41; William Harris, Some Memoirs of the Life and Character of the Revered and Learned Thomas Manton D.D. (London: J. Darby, 1725); Derek Cooper, Thomas Manton: A Guided Tour of the Life and Thought of a Puritan Pastor (Phillipsburg, NJ.: P& R Publishing, 2011); Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 407 – 13; E. C. Vernon, ‘Manton, Thomas (bap. 1620, d. 1677)’, ODNB, n.p; David Appleby, “Manton, Thomas (1620 – 1677)” in Puritans and Puritanism, 163 – 4. 209 Manton received no further ordination, believing this one sufficiently qualified him as a preacher. 210 For the sermon preached at his funeral, see William Bates, The Complete Works of William Bates (4 vols., London: James Black, 1815), 4:203 – 37. 211 Ralph Thoresby, The Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. Author of the Topogrophy of Leeds (1677 – 1724.) In Two Volumes. Vol. 1 (ed. Joseph Hunter ; London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1830), 7. Archbishop Ussher accounted Manton one of “the best preachers in England” and Stephen Charnock called him “the best collector of sense of the age”. Harris, Memoirs, 18. For a recent study of Manton’s preaching, see Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: The Age of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 299 – 312.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

199

model of consistent, rigorous Calvinism.”212 He was a convinced but irenic Presbyterian, overseeing the reprinting of Smectymnuus in 1653.213 J.C. Ryle stated that “if there was one name which more than another was incessantly before the public for several years about the period of the Restoration, that name was Manton’s.”214 Additionally, Manton was chosen to write the preface to the documents of the Westminster Assembly, again emphasizing the respect in which he was widely held.215 As a large part of this study seeks to delineate the teaching of the Westminster Assembly on the free offer of the gospel, Thomas Manton is clearly a suitable theologian for study.

General Theology Some controversy has arisen over Manton’s theological stance because of his appreciation of Richard Baxter. Manton stated that “he thought Mr. Baxter came the nearest the apostolical inspired writers of any man of the age”216 and that “he did not look upon himself as worthy to carry his Books after him.”217 Given Baxter’s deviation from the standard Reformed stances on the topics of justification and atonement, and his position on the free offer of the gospel outlined above, did Manton’s respect for Baxter extend to an appropriation of his controversial theology? David Field considers this question briefly and concludes that, while he “theologically … went half way to Baxter” and “may have stood theologically nearer to Baxter … than he did to Owen”, nonetheless his “treatment of justification is fully in line with the Westminster Confession … and he strongly asserts particular redemption over against an Amyraldian understanding of the atonement.”218 The following brief outline of Manton’s theology confirms the accuracy of that assessment.219 Covenant Theology Like most Reformed theologians Manton recognized the centrality of covenant in God’s dealings with man, noting that “God hath ever delighted to deal with his 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 407. Manton’s preface to this volume is found in Works, 5:502 – 3. J.C. Ryle, “An Estimate of Manton,” in Manton, Works, 1:n.p. Thomas Manton, “Mr Manton’s Epistle to the Reader,” in Westminster Confession, 9 – 12. Calamy, The Nonconformist’s Memorial, 3:409. Harris, Memoirs, 44. David P. Field, Rigide Calvinisme In A Softer Dresse: The Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe, 1630 – 1705 (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2004), 169 – 70. 219 However, it is questionable to what degree Manton represents a “half way house” between Owen and Baxter.

200

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

creatures in the way of a covenant.”220 Again, like Durham and Sedgwick, he held to the threefold covenantal structure of the covenants of redemption, works and grace. Regarding the covenant of redemption, he believed that “the business of man’s salvation was transacted by way of a covenant between God and Christ.”221 This was the “everlasting covenant” by which God the Son had consented to come into the world and be “obedient to the death of the cross” and God the Father had promised in return to give the Son a redeemed people.222 The first temporal covenant was the covenant of works made between God and Adam, by which God promised life to Adam, and his posterity in him, on condition of perfect, sinless obedience.223 The covenant of works was broken when Adam fell and all his posterity were left in the “miserable” condition of being born under its curse.224 In order for there to be any salvation, therefore, another covenant, not of works but of grace, was necessary. The covenant of redemption undergirded this covenant of grace; indeed, Manton called the pactum salutis the “foundation” of the covenant of grace.225 He describes the covenant of grace in terms redolent of the language of the Westminster Confession: “Because the first covenant was broken on our part, God was pleased to enter a second, wherein he would manifest the glory of his redeeming grace and pardoning mercy to fallen man … Man needeth such a covenant, and God, appeased by Christ, offereth it to us.”226 In this covenant “pardon and life” are offered to sinners on condition of their believing the gospel.227 There is, therefore, nothing in Manton’s covenant theology to suggest anything other than a strict adherence to Westminster’s covenant theology. Soteriology Manton clearly affirmed the doctrine of total depravity ; he was even selected to preach a sermon as part of a series by London ministers on “Certain Chief Heads 220 221 222 223

224 225 226 227

Manton, Works, 5:462. Manton, Works, 3:376. Manton, Works, 3:380 – 1. Manton, Works, 16:438. That is not to say that the covenant of works was not gracious. He notes that “For God to enter into a covenant with the creature … was an act of condescension … The first covenant, it was grace for God to make it. It was the grace of God to accept of man’s perfect obedience … It was of grace that God would at all covenant and enter into bonds with man, who was not his equal … It was grace that endowed man with original righteousness … Grace engaged the reward. There was no more merit in Adam’s obedience than in ours: Luke xvii.10”. Manton, Works, 8:372. Manton, Works, 16:438. See also Manton, Works, 4:227. Manton, Works, 3:381. Manton, Works, 5:462. C.f. Westminster Confession 7:3 in Westminster Confession, 42 – 43. Manton, Works, 5:463 – 4.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

201

and Points of the Christian Religion” to prove the doctrine that “man, fallen, is destitute of all power and means of rising again, or helping himself out of that misery into which he hath plunged himself by sin.”228 Out of this corrupt and fallen mass of humanity he clearly held that “there are certain persons before all time elected of God according to his mere good pleasure and grace.”229 Election to life inevitably resulted in the effectual calling of the elect in time.230 God’s purposes, being immutable, entailed that his decree could not be frustrated, and so the elect are always brought to faith in Christ.231 Faith is therefore the gift of God.232 He also firmly held that “the perseverance of the saints, or their conservation in a state of grace is sure and certain.”233 Given Manton’s close association with Richard Baxter, it is necessary to consider his position on the extent of the atonement more closely. Manton affirmed that “only the sins of the elect are laid on Christ.”234 However, he did this in terms that were as flexible as possible. He noted, for instance, that Scripture spoke very generally regarding the extent of Christ’s atoning death, namely that is was for “all” and for “the world”.235 He defended these general references to Christ’s atoning death on six grounds. First, all men derive some sort of benefit from the death of Christ. Manton held that all the common mercies of food and health, and of postponement of judgment for sins, flowed from the death of Christ. Indeed, he could say that “all their mercies come to them [“the heathen”] swimming in the blood of Christ; so [too] the word, ordinances, covenant, and outward graces to the church.”236 In respect of these common mercies Christ’s death may be said to be for “all”. Second, Christ’s death was sufficient to redeem all if God had intended Christ’s death as an atonement for every individual. In language echoing that of the Synod of Dort, he observed that “those that perish do not perish out of any defect or insufficiency in the merit of Christ.”237 Third, Christ had died for all kinds and conditions of men, whether poor or rich, Jew or Gentile.238 Fourth, God had not “pointed out by name those to whom he intended Christ” so that no stumbling block was set before any, as an excuse for their 228 Manton, Works, 5:475 – 84. See also Manton, Works, 1:138, 142, 419; 5:478; 20:361. 229 Manton, Works, 12:295. See also Manton, Works, 12:295 – 6. He explicitly rejected foreseen faith as the basis for election. See also Works 20:326, where he explicitly used Rom. 9:11 to deny foreseen faith as the basis for election. 230 For an extended discussion of effectual calling, see Manton, Works, 12:288 – 92. 231 Manton, Works, 12:295 – 6. See also Works, 12:314 – 5. 232 Manton, Works, 20:361. 233 Manton, Works, 10:300. See also Manton, Works, 10:301 – 6. 234 Manton, Works, 3:328. 235 Manton, Works, 3:328. 236 Manton, Works, 3:329. 237 Manton, Works, 3:329; Article 2:6, in Scott, Articles, 100. 238 Manton, Works, 3:329 – 30.

202

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

unbelief.239 Fifth, Christ had died for a “world” of sinners, an innumerable company, a vast multitude, his elect.240 Sixth, there was only one way of salvation for all the world, and that was the death of Christ. All these reasons led Manton to believe that it was appropriate to speak of a strictly particular redemption in wide and seemingly universal terms. Nevertheless, “there was the intent of God and Christ that Christ should die only for those of his own flock.”241 This intent could be seen in Christ’s refusal to pray for the world prior to his death. A profound particularism therefore runs through his treatment of the atonement. Thus, despite their friendship, Manton had to consider the objections against the gospel offer from those like Baxter who denied particular redemption.

The Free Offer of the Gospel Defining the Offer Manton frequently preached on “the offers of grace”.242 In common with the other theologians included in this study he saw the gospel offer as equivalent to an “invitation”.243 However, it was no simple invitation. Rather, it was one that had to be delivered “affectionately”,244 “earnestly”,245 “compassionately”246 and “passionately”.247 He believed in setting forth the gospel in the same manner as Christ while he was on earth.248 Thus, like Sedgwick, his preaching was deliberately and self-consciously modelled on the preaching of Christ, particularly as it related to the subject of the free offer of the gospel. The offer, then, was equivalent to a “beseeching”, a “praying”, a “supplication”, an “entreating”.249 As such, it was to be presented with “love and sweetness” in an attempt to “woo” sinners to Christ.250 However, the gospel was also a command, an image which 239 Manton, Works, 3:330. 240 Manton, Works, 3:330 – 31. 241 Manton, Works, 3:333. This is not to deny, of course, that God also intended the infinite sufficiency of the value of the atonement, but rather that, considered as a propitiation, the death of Christ was intended only for the elect. 242 Manton, Works, 20:357. See also Manton, Works, 1:104, 180, 488; 2:81, 188; 9:266, 394; 13:282, 286, 312. 243 Manton, Works, 2:343 – 4; 5:67; 12:288; 13:290; 14:64. 244 Manton, Works, 13:290, 293; 20:358. 245 Manton, Works, 20:358; 2:365. 246 Manton, Works, 2:365. 247 Manton, Works, 7:116. 248 Manton, Works, 13:293. 249 Manton, Works, 13:293. 250 Manton, Works, 13:293. See also Manton, Works, 5:67.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

203

carried with it the idea of an obligation on all hearers to accept the offer.251 The gospel itself offered “the favour of God and reconciliation with him by Christ”.252 Indeed, in Christ, all the blessings of the covenant of grace were offered to sinners.253 The Exegetical Basis of the Free Offer Manton utilised a rich and varied Scriptural base to develop his doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. Like Durham he saw 2 Cor. 5:20 as capturing the essence of the gospel ministry and demonstrative of the “affectionate” nature of the gospel offer.254 That God was willing to beseech sinners through his ambassadors was evidence of the sincerity of the gospel message.255 Manton also saw these features of the gospel offer in Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem.256 Christ’s lament was over the rejection of the “outward” offer of the gospel.257 Luke 19:41 also showed Christ’s ongoing attitude to the gospel offer, for even though “now he is in heaven, how doth his free grace go a mourning after sinners in the entreaties of the gospel.”258 One of the texts most frequently used by Manton to illustrate the gospel offer was Ezek. 33:11 (c.f. Ezek. 18:23).259 This text demonstrated that the gospel offer was equivalent to a beseeching and entreaty, and was not simply a “bare” offer.260 It showed that God delighted in people accepting his offer, rather than being indifferent over the matter.261 Manton used a range of further texts to make the same point, the prime examples being Deut. 32:29, Deut. 5:29, Hos. 11:8, Ps. 81:13.262 Rather than understanding these texts as mere anthropopathisms, 251 Manton, Works, 18:230; 3:333. 252 Manton, Works, 13:302. Also, “Christ and his benefits are offered to us, and left upon our choice.” Manton, Works, 2:38. 253 Manton, Works, 13:302 – 3. For some of these blessings, see Manton, Works, 2:259 – 60; 5:463; 11:208. 254 “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 20:357 – 8. For further discussion on 2 Cor. 5:19 – 20, see Manton, Works, 2:156, 243 – 4; 11:476; 15:59; 21:470. 255 Manton, Works, 3:334. 256 See Manton, Works, 20:358; 3:334 – 5; 8:421; 15:242; 21:468 – 70. 257 Manton, Works, 3:334 – 5. 258 “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 8:421. 259 “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’” (NKJV.) 260 Manton, Works, 3:334. 261 Manton, Works, 2:365; 3:334; 18:227; 21:463 – 4. 262 “ Oh, that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would consider their latter end!”; “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all

204

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Manton saw in them genuine expressions (albeit patterned “after the manner of men”) of the attitude of God in the gospel offer. Unlike Durham, Manton saw the will spoken of in 1 Tim. 2:4 and the love referred to in John 3:16 as having universal application, rather than having reference only to the elect.263 Manton saw the “all men” of 1 Tim. 2:4 as being a reference to all mankind. “All are invited” to Christ by the gospel offer, and as such, “God would not have any one to perish by his directive and approving will.”264 Similarly, John 3:16 contained an “invitation to seek after God” which did not exclude any.265 Other texts Manton used to support his teaching on the gospel offer included Isa. 55:1 – 2,266 Matt. 22:14,267 Mark 16:15,268 Luke 4:18,269 John 5:40,270 Rom. 2:4,271 Rom. 10:21,272 2 Cor. 6:1,273 Rev. 3:20,274 and Rev. 22:17.275

263 264 265 266

267 268 269

270 271 272 273 274

My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!”; “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred.”; “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 21:468 – 70. See also Manton, Works, 7:116. “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”; “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 18:226 – 7. See also Manton, Works, 3:333; 18:227. In contrast to his understanding of 1 Tim. 2:4, Manton believed that 2 Peter 3:9 referred most naturally to the elect, Manton, Works, 18:226 – 7. Manton, Works, 2:243 – 4. See also Manton, Works, 2:160. “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 3:333; 7:116. “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 12:288. More generally on the wider parable, see Manton, Works, 16:11. “And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 3:333. This is of special interest as the proof texts appended to the Westminster Confession on the free offer of the gospel include Mark 16:15. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor ; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 11:418. “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 2:365. “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 7:242. “But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.’” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 21:475. “We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.’” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 14:4; 15:59. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

205

The Person Making the Offer Manton was clear that the gospel offer was not simply a human act; rather, the person primarily offering the gospel was God.276 He stated that “God maketh an overture of his mercy.”277 The gospel was “God’s call”.278 It was offered in actuality by ministers, but they were acting in God’s “name and stead”,279 and proclaimed “God’s word” so that it was “God’s message” that was sent out.280 This is consistent with Manton’s understanding of the preacher as an ambassador, who had no message of his own, but was simply charged with proclaiming his master’s will. The Recipients of the Offer The gospel offer, in Manton’s thought, was to all.281 He held that the same gospel was preached to the elect and reprobate, arguing that God “dealeth in common with mankind in the external means, showing no more favour to the one [elect] than to the other [reprobate]. They both, it may be, live under the same ministry, yet one is taken and the other is left.”282 Christ was offered to those who persisted in unbelief just as truly and really as he was offered to the elect, and all the fullness of gospel blessings were set before them in the same manner.283 Indeed, the gospel offer was a particular invitation to every individual hearer, as if by name.284 This universality of the gospel offer was a frequent theme in Manton’s preaching.285

275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285

come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 12:288; 21:457, 471 – 2. “And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (NKJV.) Manton, Works, 3:333. Manton, Works, 2:350. See also Manton, Works, 1:51, 491; 5:67, 71, 140, 218; 6:446; 7:116, 398; 8:146, 319; 10:262 – 3; 11:20, 218; 12:135; 13:301; 14:79, 116, 171. Manton, Works, 21:475. See also Manton, Works, 20:357. Manton, Works, 20:358. Manton, Works, 13:290. Manton, Works, 13:292. Manton, Works, 1:501; 11:302. Indeed, “none are excluded”. Manton, Works, 5:467. Manton, Works, 18:230. See also Manton, Works, 12:313. Manton, Works, 20:357. Manton, Works, 5:290 – 1. Manton, Works, 2:348; 3:334; 20:357.

206

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Reasons for the Offer One reason for the gospel offer was to leave those who rejected it inexcusable before the justice of God.286 That God freely offered salvation on gracious terms, and even added to this his “common grace”, should have “prepared them for further good”.287 However, that they rejected the gracious gospel offer made their condemnation more just.288 It was an undoubted truth for Manton that all who heard the gospel had the “means” to repent. They were not immediately cast into hell as their sins deserved; they had the command to repent, and yet these mercies they rejected. This was a sin of “vile ingratitude and obstinacy, which hath no cloak and colour of excuse”.289 Another reason was that the gospel offer was necessary for the salvation of any. Without this general offer of Christ and intimation of his goodness and willingness to save, none could come to salvation. The gospel offer alone dispelled fears sinners have about God’s desire to save them. He believed that his hearers had a tendency in their hearts to see God as “harsh, severe, and envious”, and therefore needed the gospel offer to give them “good thoughts of God” which were “necessary to draw us to repentance”.290 Accordingly, “The great business of the ministers of the gospel is to persuade men to reconciliation with God.”291 Thus, Manton shared Durham’s view that the preaching of the gospel offer was central to the life of the ministry. The Warrant to Believe Manton believed that the great “warrant” for faith was God’s commands, or “asseverations”.292 So clearly did God’s command to believe give all a warrant to come for salvation, that if any stood back from coming to God through Christ they “maketh God a liar.”293 God’s offer of Christ to all in the gospel also gave a warrant to all to accept him as saviour.294 Indeed, the receiving of Christ by faith presupposed that he was genuinely offered.295

286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293

Manton, Works, 20:356. See also Manton, Works, 13:300. Manton, Works, 20:359. Manton, Works, 20:359. Manton, Works, 18:231. Manton, Works, 21:463. Manton, Works, 13:295. See also Manton, Works, 13:301. Manton, Works, 4:120. Manton, Works, 4:120. See also Works 4:128: “The command for our warrant, the promise for our encouragement”; Works 4:166: “Your warrant is the command.” 294 Manton, Works, 11:21. 295 Manton, Works, 11:145.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

207

Duty Faith All who heard the gospel, Manton argued, had a duty to believe savingly in Christ. Indeed, the “great duty” that God required of all was “faith in this Saviour that is given.”296 The doctrines of election and particular redemption, and the whole structure of a predestinarian theology, were not to interfere with the duty implied in the command of God to accept Christ as he was offered in the gospel. Utilizing Deut. 29:29, Manton argued that the revealed duty was to believe, and that this could not be overridden by the “secret” (i. e. unknown and unknowable) purpose of election.297 He stated that “God may do what he pleaseth, but we must do what he hath commanded.”298 Thus Manton relied on the distinction between the voluntas revelata and the voluntas arcane to defend his belief that faith was indeed required of all.

The Offer and God’s Will and Desire The gospel offer, more than simply laying on all a duty to believe, expressed God’s desire that all would be saved. Sometimes Manton expressed this negatively, stating that God did not desire the damnation of sinners.299 He believed this followed from God’s attribute of mercy, positing that it would be inconsistent with mercy to simply desire the destruction of a creature. God could and did delight in justice, and in punishing the demerit and sin of a creature, but even then, relatively, for, according to Manton, God desired mercy, not judgment. He argued that “we ought to conceive of him [God] that he can have no pleasure in our death, for mercy is an attribute that inclineth God to succour them that are in miseries. How then can our destruction be more acceptable to God than our salvation?”300 Indeed, he regarded justice as God’s alienum opus, Isa. 28:21, his “strange work”.301 Rather poetically, he expressed it as follows: “Mercy, like live 296 Manton, Works, 20:356. See also Manton, Works, 18:230 – 1; 13:294. Manton, like Durham, linked faith, covenant and the gospel offer, stating that “Faith is an acceptance of Christ, or an entering into a covenant with God by him … Receiving, respects God’s offer. God gives Christ, and we receive what God giveth”. Manton, Works, 1:391. 297 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (NKJV.) 298 Manton, Works, 12:233. 299 For instance he represents God as declaiming in Ezek. 18:13 that “Ye know it is evident that I have no such desire, no such pleasure. It dareth not enter into your thoughts that I should take pleasure in the bare destruction of the creature.” Manton, Works, 21:463 – 4. [Emphasis added.] 300 Manton, Works, 21:468. On this point Manton referred to Prov. 12:10, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” He argued that if a good man cared for the animals under his supervision, how much more did God care for his creatures. Manton, Works, 21:467. 301 Manton, Works, 21:465.

208

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

honey, droppeth of its own accord. He is forced to the other [justice]; it is wrested from him.”302 Because of this he believed it to be true that “God’s primary end is the conversion of a sinner ; his secondary end the honour of his vindictive justice.”303 Manton also stated positively that the free offer of the Gospel, or God’s “overture of mercy”, demonstrated and evidenced “a desire to pardon you”.304 He used the image, drawn from Rom. 10:21, of someone inviting and holding out his hands all day in a posture of willing acceptance. This image could mean nothing other than that the one inviting desired that all would accept the invitation; as God had chosen that very image to represent his attitude in the free offer of the gospel, it followed as a matter of course that he desired that all to whom the offer came should accept it. The same conclusion could be drawn from Christ’s tears over Jerusalem in Luke 19:41. If Christ did not desire the salvation of the city which rejected him, why did he weep at its rejection of the gospel?305 That God desired the salvation of the hearers of the gospel was a simply corollary from the fact that the gospel offer was sincere. God’s offer was serious, and earnest, and in no sense was it “made to you fraudulently, and with an intent to deceive.”306 From the very fact of the gospel offer it was evident that “it suiteth more with his [God’s] delight that you should take hold of these offers and not refuse them.”307 It was therefore clear that God took “pleasure” in “the conversion [rather] than in the destruction of the creature”.308 This was because repentance was pleasing to God while disobedience was not, and, as God loved his creatures, so their life was more pleasing than their death.309 This common love to all was given expression in the gospel offer ; indeed, the gospel offer as a loving invitation contained the message that “God doth not hate you, and therefore you need not flee from him as a revenging God: He ‘so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.’”310 Further, Manton believed that there were seven clear evidences that demonstrated that God “taketh pleasure in our conversion rather than in our ruin and 302 Manton, Works, 21:465. 303 Manton, Works, 21:465. See also Manton, Works, 2:203 where he states, “Here is the end and purport of his [Christ’s] coming; not to take vengeance … but he comes to bless”. 304 Manton, Works, 21:475. 305 Manton, Works, 8:421 – 2. 306 Manton, Works, 3:334. Indeed, God was “mighty solicitous and earnest”. Manton, Works, 3:335. See also Manton, Works, 15:60. 307 Manton, Works, 3:334. 308 Manton, Works, 21:464. 309 Manton, Works, 21:464. Ezek. 18:32 is offered as proof for this assertion. 310 Manton, Works, 2:343 – 4. This understanding of God’s attitude in the gospel offer was necessary for faith, as “it must be a loving, reconciled God, that is willing to forgive, that can be propounded as an object of faith and love”. Manton, Works, 2:157. Indeed, “The goodness of God is the great motive and invitation to repentance”. Manton, Works, 7:242.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

209

destruction.”311 First was the fact that God warned sinners of the danger of their position. God could have left them unaware of their danger ; he could have justly condemned all without any prior warning. However, God took “pity” on sinners and warned them of their fate.312 God would not have done this if he preferred sinners’ destruction to salvation, argued Manton. Second, God not only warned sinners that they were in danger but also provided the “means of escape” from danger in the free offer of the gospel. Manton noted that “God would not have … found out such a way for our recovery, but that he taketh pleasure in our conversion rather than our destruction.”313 Third was the provision of a Saviour for sinners: “If he delighted in the death of sinners, he would not have been at such cost to save them.”314 Fourth, the manner of the gospel offer demonstrated God’s pleasure in the conversion of sinners. The free offer was not some bare command or indifferent offer. Rather, Manton called his hearers to consider with “what passionateness and meltingness of expression he [God] wooeth men to return.”315 God bore such an affection for sinners “that he expostulates, prayeth, entreateth that we would return and be reconciled.”316 Fifth, God had sent ministers with the commission of proclaiming the free offer to sinners. This he would not have done if he delighted in sinners’ destruction.317 Sixth, God’s common mercy in providence pointed to the truth that God delighted in salvation, not judgment.318 Finally, God’s ready acceptance of all repentant sinners demonstrated his pleasure in the salvation of sinners.319 Underlying Manton’s teaching on the desire of God for the salvation of all was an important distinction, referred to earlier, in his understanding of the will of God. He held that “God may be said to like the salvation of all men, yet not to 311 312 313 314 315

316 317 318 319

Manton, Works, 21:468. Manton, Works, 21:468 – 9. Manton, Works, 21:469. Manton, Works, 21:469. See Manton, Works, 21:469 – 70. Manton referred to Deut. 5:29: “Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it may be well with them, and with their children for ever;” Hosea 11:8: “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me; my repentings are kindled together;” Isa. 57:16: “For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made;” Ps. 81:13: “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” Matt. 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee ! how often would I have gathered thy children together, as an hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?” and Luke 19:42: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes.” (KJV.) Manton, Works, 21:470. Manton, Works, 21:470. Manton here refers to 2 Cor. 5:20. Manton, Works, 21:470. Manton refers to Rom. 2:4. Manton, Works, 21:470 – 1. Manton refers to the parable of the prodigal son.

210

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

intend it with an efficatious will … [yet] he is unfeignedly pleased with the salvation of men.”320 Here he was drawing a distinction between the voluntas præcepti (or will of his command) and the voluntas beneplaciti (or the efficacious will and decree of God).321 The gospel offer related to the will of command and was an “intimation of what he [God] would have us do, than what he intendeth we shall do”.322 The universal preaching of the gospel was founded on God’s will of command, but the salvation of any sinner also required God’s hidden intention and purpose to save.323 Manton believed that distinguishing this “twofold” will in God was vital to the right understanding of the free offer of the gospel and election, or indeed the relationship between any of God’s commands in Scripture and God’s decree. He called the offer of the gospel, or the command of God, the voluntas signi (or voluntas præcepti) in distinction to the decree of God, or his purpose of what would come to pass, which was the voluntas beneplaciti.324 On occasion the voluntas signi (revelation of what should be) and the voluntas beneplaciti (decree of what will be) agree, for example in the conversion of any individual sinner. On other occasions, however, they are opposed to one another : the crucifixion of Christ, for instance, was forbidden by the voluntas signi but in full accordance with the voluntas beneplaciti.325 Manton knew that this distinction was “scoffed” at by some, for example John Goodwin, but he believed that it was “as evident as daylight”.326 Relating it specifically to the gospel offer, he held that “God would not have any one to perish by his directive and approving will … Yet will not have all to be saved, not all by his secret and appointing will.”327 The fact of the secret will of election was no excuse for unbelief. Reprobation was a “sealed book”; none could know its contents. Indeed, it was illegitimate to seek to pry into matters of God’s decree. Instead people were to “look to the revealed will of God – to directions in the scriptures, not to the secret that is in God’s bosom.”328 To draw from election an excuse for unbelief would be to “suck poison out of the sweetest flower”.329 Manton argued that to like and approve is distinct from necessarily choosing and resolving; therefore “God may be said to like the salvation of all men, yet not 320 Manton, Works, 21:465. Thus, “The ground of the offer is good-will”. Manton, Works, 5:71. 321 Manton, Works, 3:334. 322 Manton, Works, 3:334. Manton quotes Isa. 55:1 and Rev. 22:17 as being the “gospel offer” he has in mind here. 323 Manton, Works, 3:334. 324 Manton, Works, 18:226 – 7. 325 Manton, Works, 18:227. 326 Manton, Works, 18:227. 327 Manton, Works, 18:227. 328 Manton, Works, 3:333. 329 Manton, Works, 21:475.

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

211

to intend it with an efficacious will.”330 God accordingly willed the salvation of all with a will of “complacency” but not with his “efficacious” will.331 Manton considered this under three images. The first image was that of an absolute lord. Whatever the lord said was done, and came to pass. This was God’s decretive will. The second image was that of a lawgiver. When a lawgiver sets down legislation and rules, it is with the intention that they will be obeyed. The laws show what is pleasing to the one making them. Manton argued that “the lawgiver first and principally aimed at is the obedience of his laws. He doth not desire that men should incur the penalty ; that is only to bind the laws that he hath made for the common good.”332 Thirdly, he presented the image of a judge. A judge punishes laws which are broken, and in this sense God delights in the exercise of his justice. These three images explained to a great degree God’s attitude to the gospel offer. He has not decreed that all will accept it, yet he offers Christ to all, indicating that this is his good pleasure and desire. However, if those who reject the offer persist in so doing, although this is but an accidental effect of the offer, God will take pleasure in the exercise of his justice.333 Common Grace As well as holding that God desired the salvation of all men in reference to his revealed will, Manton also believed that the gospel offer was an expression of God’s “common grace”. He explicitly stated that God had not only given “outward means” but also “much common grace to help them [unbelievers] nearer to the state of salvation”.334 Those who “live[d] within the hearing of the gospel” had the “strivings of the Spirit” which accompanied the gospel.335 Others received “a further degree of common grace”, namely “knowledge of God’s will, the sense of sin, fear of punishment, thoughts of deliverance, and some hope of pardon.”336 This common grace tended to lead to repentance. Manton posited that all unbelievers should reason as follows: “for wherefore should he defer vengeance, and forbear so long to punish thy sinful course, but only that thou mayest bethink thyself and make thy peace? He could destroy thee in an instant; and why doth he not, but to see if thou wilt yet repent, and love him, and serve 330 Manton, Works, 21:465. Thus he could preach that “God is willing to communicate his goodness, therefore why should we be satisfied with other things?” Manton, Works, 7:116. 331 Manton, Works, 21:465. 332 Manton, Works, 21:466. 333 Manton, Works, 21:466 – 7. 334 Manton, Works, 20:359. All had reason to “bless God for his forbearance and long-suffering, and to acknowledge it as a great mercy ; for his longsuffering tendeth to repentance, either the beginning or the perfecting of it.” Manton, Works, 12:234. 335 Manton, Works, 20:359. 336 Manton, Works, 20:359.

212

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

him?”337 Manton believed that every mercy God bestowed on man, “food, raiment, friends, house, liberties, health, peace”, all “invited us to God.”338 Much like an owner’s provision for, and care of, his animals drew them to trust and care for their master, so God’s goodness should induce his creatures to return to him.339 This common grace shown to man was in contradistinction to that shown to the angels. Angels were in termino, in their final state either confirmed in glory or damnation. Man, however, was still in via, in the way, and God showed much mercy and grace in not condemning man immediately as he had done the fallen angels.340 If any perished for their sins, it was not because there was no remedy ; rather, their condemnation was for “rejecting the means tending to recover them”.341 That there was such a thing as common grace shown to all ultimately rendered unbelievers more inexcusable in their rejection of God.342

The Rejection of the Offer Manton was clear that the cause of unbelief lay not in God but in the sinner.343 God offered a saviour to all in the gospel. He “bringeth salvation to our doors, leaving it at our choice.”344 Any rejection of salvation is therefore the fault of the sinner, and could only be regarded as “rebellious conduct”.345 Manton explicitly stated that “God is not the cause of man’s destruction”, and he believed that “From first to last we may plead the cause of God with you.”346 Taking Isa. 5:4347 as his point of departure, he urged that, when considered as lawgiver (rather than as a sovereign dispenser of grace), God had done all he could towards the salvation of sinners. He had created man holy. When man fell into sin, God sent his Son to die for sinners, and the salvation wrought by Christ was offered freely 337 338 339 340 341 342

343 344 345 346 347

Manton, Works, 18:231. Manton, Works, 12:231. Manton, Works, 12:231 – 2. Manton, Works, 18:231. Manton, Works, 18:231. Manton, Works, 18:230. Manton argues that “though men have an impotency of nature, and cannot convert themselves without the internal efficacy and power of the Holy Ghost, yet the impotency of nature doth not necessitate men to wallow in a course of sin against the light of conscience, and to put away the means by which they might be reformed.” Manton, Works, 18:231. See also Manton, Works, 12:233. Manton, Works, 20:357. Manton, Works, 20:357. Manton, Works, 20:357. He stated that “no persons are in so dangerous an estate as those that have peace offered and despise it”. Manton, Works, 1:502. Manton, Works, 21:471. “What could I have done more to my vineyard that I have not done to it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes.”

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677)

213

to all. More than that, God reasoned with sinners, besought them to come to Christ, knocked at their hearts by the common operations of his Spirit. Manton asked rhetorically, “What shall God do more?”348 The answer to this question was, of course, nothing. Unbelief was the fault of the sinner, not of God.349 Manton addressed this point in his writings because he saw that in the church “this conceit possesseth many men’s hearts, that God is harsh and severe, and delighteth more in our ruin than salvation, and therefore they cast off all care of their soul’s welfare.”350 Because of this “monstrous picture” that men had of God, Manton had to labour to demonstrate that unbelief was not the fault of God: indeed, “God standeth upon his justification and vindication from so foul a surmise. Here you have a part of his purgation; ‘Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God?’”351 Ultimately the rejection of the offer furthered the condemnation of the impenitent sinner.352 However, this was not the “nature” of the gospel offer, merely the result of the “sinner’s abuse” of it.353 The nature of the gospel offers remained the same, as “in their own nature they have a fitness and tendency to recover men to the love and service of God.”354 Manton also responded to the reasoning that a general gospel offer was incompatible with the inability of any to believe apart from divine grace.355 He stated first, that a general gospel offer was useful because the elect were saved by it. Yet, the gospel offer was also a “benefit” to the non-elect.356 It was a blessing to the extent that is convicted them of their sin, and even if it did not ultimately lead to salvation, it still acted as a restraint on their wickedness.357 Manton also highlighted, like Durham, that the inability to believe was not so much to be rooted in “I cannot” as “I will not”. Unbelief was therefore “voluntary” and not forced.358 In any event, God as sovereign Lord still had the right to demand obedience, whatever the current power or ability of the creature to obey. In general any objections to performing a known duty on the basis of the hidden decree of God were met by Manton with the words of Deut. 29:29, “The secret 348 Manton, Works, 21:471 – 2. 349 Exegetically Manton referred to Ps. 81:11, “Israel would none of me;” Luke 19:14, “We will not have this man to reign over us;” Jer. 2:17, “Hast thou not procured this to thyself, in that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God when he led thee by the way?” Manton, Works, 21:471 – 2. 350 Manton, Works, 21:463. 351 Manton, Works, 21:463. See also Works, 2:342. 352 On the justice of God’s condemnation of unbelievers, see Manton, Works, 10:98. 353 Manton, Works, 12:232. 354 Manton, Works, 12:232. 355 Manton, Works, 1:142 – 4. 356 Manton, Works, 1:144. 357 See Manton, Works, 1:144; 5:481. 358 Manton, Works, 1:143. See also Manton, Works, 5:481.

214

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us”.359 (NKJV.)

Conclusion Manton’s doctrine of the free offer of the gospel again stands in line with that of Durham. His exegetical base for the free offer was somewhat wider than Durham’s, in that he did not limit texts such as 1 Tim. 2:4 to the elect. In his understanding of such texts he was closer to Baxter, but he rejected the key element of Baxter’s understanding of the free offer, namely that it presupposed a universal atonement. Manton thus provides further evidence of a consensus among leading particular redemptionists that there was a sense in which God desired the salvation of all.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662) David Dickson (1583 – 1662) was one of the most significant theologians in the mid-seventeenth-century Church of Scotland.360 After a period of ministry in Irvine, he was successively Professor of Divinity in Glasgow (1641 – 51) and Edinburgh (1651 – 1662) Universities. He held a position of profound influence in the Church of Scotland from the 1630s onwards; in the words of John MacLeod, “in his own time there was no man who was held in higher esteem or carried greater weight than Dickson did in the councils of the Church.”361 As well as influencing a generation of ministers through his personal teaching, he was Moderator of the General Assembly on several occasions and a member of the standing committee of the Assembly. Dickson’s significance for this study does not simply arise from his influence in the Scottish Church. Rather, as noted in Chapter Two, he was a close friend and 359 Manton, Works, 13:188. 360 There are several sources of biographical information on David Dickson. In addition to the introductions to his published works the main sources are: Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 668 – 672; MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 83 – 87; Blakie, The Preachers of Scotland, 102 – 108; Wodrow, Analecta, passim; Baillie, Letters, passim; K.W. Tweedie, ed., Select Biographies: Edited for the Wodrow Society, Chiefly From Manuscripts in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1845 – 7), 2:5 – 16; K.D. Holfelder, “Dickson [Dick], David (c.1583 – 1662)” ODNB; L.I. Hodges, “Dickson, David (c.1583 – 1662), DSCHT, 243; Howie, “Biographia Scoticana,” 279 – 287; Holsteen, “Popularization,” 89 – 101; Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” 3 – 9. 361 MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 83.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

215

admirer of Durham.362 Dickson’s teaching on the free offer, then, will help shed light on Durham’s views, as well as going some way to establishing whether there was a uniform understanding of the gospel offer among leading Scottish theologians of the time. Further, in addition to Dickson’s co-authorship with Durham of the Sum of Saving Knowledge, he produced another work expounding the teaching of the Westminster Confession, Truth’s Victory over Error. This is the first complete commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and reveals Dickson as an early and enthusiastic proponent of the theology of the Westminster Standards who mediated their teaching to the Scottish Church.

General Theology The theological framework espoused by Dickson was explicitly covenantal and profoundly anti-Arminian. This is laid out in detail in the works of Williams and Holsteen, and will be summarized only briefly here.363 Covenant Theology As well as being committed to the sovereignty of God in salvation, Dickson also firmly held to, and in some ways pioneered, the federal theology common in seventeenth-century Scotland.364 The theology of the threefold covenants of works,365 grace366 and redemption367 influenced his whole approach to the gos362 Tweedie, Select Biographies, 2:11. 363 Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” passim; Holsteen, “Popularization,” 134 – 82. 364 For Dickson’s covenant theology, see Holsteen, “Popularization,” 134 – 46. For his possible pioneering role relating to the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), see Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” passim. But see Mark Jones’s comments in his book on Goodwin pointing to earlier references to a covenant of redemption. Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 124 – 6. 365 For Dickson on the original intent of the covenant of works, see Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 137 – 9. 366 “The covenant of grace is a contract between God and men, procured by Christ upon these terms, that whosoever in the sense of their own sinfulness shall receive Christ Jesus offered in the Gospel, for righteousness and life, shall have Him and all the benefits purchased by Him, according to the covenant of Redemption; and that God will be his God, and the God of his children.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 126 – 7. Dickson summarized the covenant of grace as “whosoever do acknowledge their sin, and fly to Jesus Christ for relief from sin and wrath, shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 166. 367 “This Covenant of Redemption then may be thus described. It is a bargain, agreed upon between the Father and the Son designed [as] Mediator, concerning the elect (lying with the rest of mankind in the state of sin and death, procured by their own merit) wisely and powerfully to be converted, sanctified and saved, for the Son of God’s satisfaction and obedience (in our nature to be assumed by Him) to be given in due time to the Father, even

216

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

pel.368 He believed that the broken covenant of works demonstrated “how guilty we are of manifold sins, and how impossible it is for us to be justified by our works, or to escape condemnation.”369 This laid the foundation for the proclamation of the covenant of grace concerning “the Gospel and covenant of gracious reconciliation by faith in Jesus Christ.”370 The intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption was that “whereupon the covenant of grace offered in Christ is grounded.”371 This order of proclamation, namely law then gospel, was, for Dickson, the “right order”, and the covenant of grace would be valued only by those who understood their need as a result of a broken covenant of works.372 The covenant scheme of Dickson was neither simply bilateral nor unilateral, but was both simultaneously.373 Although highly critical of this “bilateral” covenant theology (as he perceived it), Bell correctly, but perhaps accidentally, notes that Dickson’s theology contains two elements. First, there is the conditional, or bilateral, element: “Faith is that condition which Christ requires of us for our salvation.”374 Second is the unconditional, or unilateral, element: “It is also a gift from God which is bestowed only on the elect.”375 The former can be seen in the demand for a response of faith to the gospel, the latter is evident in his doctrine of the effectual call.376 Faith, for Dickson, was the condition of the covenant of grace, but was itself is a fruit of the effectual call.377

368

369 370 371 372 373

374 375 376

unto the death of the cross.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 24 – 5. For a more Trinitarian explanation of the covenant in the same context, see Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 25, where he speaks of “one God in three Persons agreeing in the Decree.” He also states that “we do not seclude the Son and holy Spirit from being the Party offended; but do look upon the Father, Son and Spirit, one God in three Persons, as offended by man’s sin; and yet all three contented to take Satisfaction to divine justice for man’s sin in the Person of the Son.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 24. Holsteen declared that it “affected the outworking of every aspect of Dickson’s systematic as well as pastoral theology.” Holsteen, “Popularization,” 134. Dickson himself stated that “the healing of the sicknesses of the conscience cometh by a right application of divine Covenants about our salvation”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 22. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 211. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 211. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 211. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 151. On the impossibility of salvation by the covenant of works, see Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 212 – 3. Thus Williams comments: “Dickson maintained that the heavenly contract of grace has both unilateral and bilateral dimensions.” Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” 158. See also p.249 where Williams states that, for Dickson, “The covenant of grace is both unilateral and bilateral, without confusion.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 94. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 94. For instance, it is hard to conceive of a statement which more fully emphasizes the unilateral aspect of the covenant than the following: “Both the covenant of Redemption made with Christ in the Redeemer’s name, and the covenant of Reconciliation made with us through Christ, are of God’s making, and so must stand, and cannot be dis-annuled for ever.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 237.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

217

Soteriology It is possible to summarize Dickson’s soteriology in his own statement that “The main thing we must take heed to in this work [of salvation], is to give to God entirely the glory of His Grace and Power and Wisdom, so that the glory of man’s regeneration be neither given to man, nor man made sharer of the glory with God, but God may have the whole glory of His free grace, because out of His own good-will, not for any thing at all foreseen in man, He lets forth His special love on the redeemed”.378 Here his concern for the sovereignty of God in salvation is evident. This is further seen in his commitment to a particularistic soteriology. As there is no controversy in the secondary literature over Dickson’s commitment to particularism, it is necessary to discuss his soteriology only briefly. Firstly, he affirmed unconditional election.379 In relating election and reprobation to the order of the divine decrees (ordo decretorum Dei) he is most naturally read as having taken an infralapsarian stance.380 This distinguished him from the teaching of his contemporary Samuel Rutherford. Dickson’s infralapsarianism did not hinder him from believing that the doctrines of election and reprobation should be preached, but when they were preached it had to be with care that they did not lead people into speculation over whether they were elect or not; rather, such preaching had to keep the hearers’ focus on the duty of all to repent and “flee to Christ offered unto them”.381 He was conscious that the preaching of election, and more generally the sovereignty of God, could lead to “despair” on the one hand or to “presumption” on the other, although he did not

377 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 102, 337. 378 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 11. 379 Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 32 – 33. For a discussion of this subject see Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 31 – 36. See also Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 92. It is puzzling to see Holsteen claiming that Dickson “never mentions double predestination.” Holsteen, “Popularization,” 148. 380 Bell and Holsteen identify Dickson as holding infralapsarian views. See Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 92, and Holsteen, “Popularization,” 147 – 8. He designated the objects of the decree of election as those who were “among the rest of men, lying with them in the state of perdition by their own procurement”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 34. See also Therapeutica Sacra, 24 – 25, where he speaks of the covenant of redemption as “a bargain, agreed upon between the Father and the Son designed Mediator, concerning the elect (lying with the rest of mankind in the state of sin and death, procured by their own merit)”. Again, the elect who were “given to Christ” were “considered and looked upon as now fallen by their own fault, and lying by their own merit in sin and misery, enemies to God, and altogether unable to help themselves.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 34 – 35. Dickson also fundamentally linked the incarnation with his doctrine of election, noting that Christ agreed “for the elect’s sake to become man, and to take the cause of the elect in hand, to bring them back to the friendship of God, and full enjoyment of felicity for evermore.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 24. 381 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 148.

218

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

believe that these were necessary or proper inferences to draw from the doctrine.382 Dickson clearly taught a particular redemption.383 Among the reasons he gave for denying a “universal redemption”, foremost was his belief in a covenant of redemption. This covenant undergirded the entire scheme of salvation and was concerned only with the elect.384 Any doctrine of “universal redemption” was therefore “contrair to Scripture, because contrair to the Covenant of Redemption”.385 He further taught that sinners were dead in their sins, and as such unable and unwilling to respond to the gospel.386 Therefore a work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling was necessary before any could embrace the gospel.387 He also believed that those who were effectually called could never finally fall away from their faith, stating that “it be certain from Scripture, that the regenerat [e] shall not perish, and that their state in grace is unchangeable, and that their perseverance in the faith is established by Christ’s undertaking to make them persevere”.388

The Free Offer of the Gospel Defining the Offer The phrases “offer of the gospel”, “offer of grace” or “free offer” (and similar) were frequently utilized by Dickson.389 Like Durham, he understood this gospel offer to be a “sweet invitation”.390 As it was an invitation, so it was also an 382 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 148. 383 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 64. See also Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 31 – 32. Bell correctly notes this. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 93. 384 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 25. 385 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 123. Thus Williams correctly states that “Rejection of universal redemption and any conditional decree of God regarding the identity of the redeemed also follow from the covenant of redemption.” Williams, “Decree of Redemption,” 220. 386 So-called “total depravity”. See Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 64 – 66. 387 So-called “irresistible grace”. See also Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 68 – 77; Therapeutica Sacra, 88. He believed that conversion could occur only “when the holy Spirit doth powerfully and effectually move and turn the Will of the man to embrace the sweet and saving offers of Christ’s grace in the Gospel, and maketh him deliberately choose this blessed way of salvation, and to renounce all confidence in his own, or any others worth or works, He doth not destroy, but perfect the liberty of the Will”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 17. 388 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 241. See also Dickson, Truth’s Victory, 125 – 7. 389 David Dickson, “The Epistle Dedicatory” in A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms (London; Printed by T.M. for Ralph Smith, 1653); n.p.; Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 351; David Dickson, A Brief Explication Upon the Other Fifty Psalms: From Psal. 50. To Psal. 100. (London; Printed by T.M. for Thomas Johnson, 1653), 348; Therapeutica Sacra, 14 – 16, 19, 88, 93, 132 – 3, 148 – 9, 248, 284. 390 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 15. The reference in the immediate context is to the elect only,

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

219

expression of God’s “good-will”.391 This immediately distinguishes Dickson from any attempts to define “offer” as simply a bare declaration of facts. Further, he believed that “the Lord’s invitation of all men” could be described as a “promise.”392 However, the promises in the gospel offer were conditional and the condition was that those to whom the gospel came embraced Christ in faith.393 The gospel, it is true, contained promises that were “absolute”.394 These were made to the elect, and guaranteed their salvation. However, in addition to these there were the general promises made to all, for example, that if anyone believes, that individual would be saved.395 Dickson explicitly distanced his conditional gospel promise to all from any concept of a conditional decree of God. He made a distinction between a “conditional decree” and a “decree upon a condition”.396 The former was inconsistent with the sovereignty of God; the latter was simply a means of executing an inviolable decree.397 This element of conditionality in the gospel promise flowed from the bilateral element of Dickson’s construction of the covenant of grace. He related the concept of the gospel offer closely to his covenant theology, speaking of “the Covenant of Grace, and on Christ offered therein”.398 He believed that all the benefits of the covenant of grace were offered in the gospel to all,399 and summarized the content of the gospel offer as “Christ with His Benefits”.400 As well as being an offer the gospel call was also, for Dickson, a “command”.401 This emphasized that the gospel offer was not something which could be met with indifference; rather, there was an obligation to accept the offer.

391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401

but the preaching is not restricted to them, and Dickson is clear that all, elect and reprobate, receive the same external offer. See also the reference to “sweet and saving offers of Christ’s grace in the Gospel”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 17. For further references to the gospel offer as an invitation, see Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 92, 143, 171, 339. Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 184. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 143. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 117. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 335. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 335. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 125. See Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 124 – 7. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 322. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 101 – 103, 211, 368, 451. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 87. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 100. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 478; David Dickson, A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew, (Glasgow : George Anderson, 1647), n.p. (comment in loco, Matt. 22:1 – 7). Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 4, 69, 340.

220

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Exegetical Basis of the Free Offer The scriptural basis Dickson used to outline the free offer was similar to that evident in Durham. Like Durham he believed that 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 referred to the elect and that the love spoken of in John 3:16 was saving love to the elect.402 Again, similarly to Durham, great emphasis was placed by Dickson on 2 Cor. 5:19 – 20 to illustrate his view of the free offer.403 These verses, for Dickson, summed up the whole gospel message.404 They taught that “God in Christ hath committed unto His Ministers the word of reconciliation, that they, with authority, may offer reconciliation and friendship with God unto the hearers of the Word of the Gospel.”405 This ambassadorial role involved “exhorting” and “requesting” hearers to embrace the offered salvation.406 This gospel was to be offered in a spirit of sympathy and love so that “everyone would more heartily accept the reconciliation offered of God (reconciliationem — Deo oblatum).”407 Rev. 3:20 also spoke of the gospel offer. In this verse Christ “standeth knocking at the Door of luke-warm Laodicea, with an Offer of coming in to them, and supping with them, that shall open to Him, notwithstanding they have slighted Him long in their senselessness of Sin, Nakedness and Misery.”408 Other verses Dickson used included Ps. 24:7 – 10,409 Ps. 81:13,410 Isa. 5:4,411 Isa. 45:22,412

402 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 35 – 36. “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth;” “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance;” “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (NKJV.) Compare also, David Dickson, Expositio Analytica Omnium Apostolicarum Epistolarum (Glasgow : George Anderson, 1645), 514, 756 – 7 for further expositions of 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 which restrict the reference to the elect. 403 “That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (NKJV.) 404 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 235 – 6. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 102, 256, 339. 405 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 236. 406 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 236. 407 David Dickson, An Exposition of All St Pauls Epistles Together with an Explanation of those other Epistles of the Apostles, St James, Peter, John & Jude: Wherein the Sense of every Chapter and Verse is Analytically unfolded, and the Text enlightened. (London: R.I. for Francis Eglesfield, 1659), 80; Dickson, Expositio Analytica Omnium Apostolicarum Epistolarum, 251. 408 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 248 – 9. 409 “Lift up your heads, O you gates! And be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in…” (NKJV.) Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 138. 410 “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!” (NKJV.) Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255. 411 “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then,

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

221

Isa. 55:1,413 Matt. 11:28,414 Rom. 10:21,415 and Rev. 22:17.416 Beyond these specific texts he believed that all the examples of sinners receiving God’s mercy in the Old and New Testaments were there to “invite” others to “embrace the offer of grace and reconciliation, tendered unto them in the Gospel.”417 The Person Making the Offer Like his friend Durham, Dickson taught that the gospel offer was fundamentally and really God’s offer. It was God who “called by the preaching of the Gospel…”418 It was “the Lord” who “hath commanded to repent and turn unto him (offering reconciliation in Christ).”419 He frequently spoke of Christ as the one who offers himself in the gospel.420 Preachers who make the offer do so “in God’s name”421 and “in the Name of Christ”.422 The Recipients of the Offer In outlining the extent of the gospel offer Dickson was clear that it extended beyond the elect. Although he admitted that, as a matter of fact, the offer was not made to everyone in the world,423 nevertheless those to whom salvation was tendered were “many in comparison of [to] those who find grace in the eyes of the Lord, to accept the offer of Grace tendered unto them in Christ Jesus; for

412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423

when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?” (NKJV.) Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 338. “ Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” (NKJV.) Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 102. “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.” (NKJV.) Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 339. “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (NKJV.) Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 339. “But to Israel he says: ‘All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people.’”(NKJV.) Dickson, Expositio Analytica Omnium Apostolicarum Epistolarum, 85; St Paul’s Epistles, 27. “And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (NKJV.) Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 339. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 248. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 88. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 256, 268 – 9. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 4. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 14, 102, 132, 149. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 236. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 93, 236. “…and for his dispensation, experience in all ages sheweth, that the grace of the Gospel, is not offered to all and every one, and so they cannot be said to refuse the condition, who never have the offer of grace upon condition”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 126.

222

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

many are called, but few chosen”.424 To be precise, the recipients of the gospel offer were all those included in the visible church.425 Everyone within the church, at least in an outward sense, had “entered into covenant with God” and therefore the “offer of grace made to the Church” was made to them “so particularly, as if the indenture were passed between God and that soul by name”.426 The importance of covenant theology for the understanding of the free offer of the gospel is again evident in the teaching of Dickson. He was explicit that, as the covenant made with Israel included “the elect Fathers and reprobat, with the believers and unbelievers”, it was evident that those who “rejected the covenant of Grace” still received the “offer of Righteousness by faith”.427 It was his repeated conviction that “There is indeed an offer to be made to all the hearers of the Gospel.”428 This universal offer was important for pastoral reasons. That the offer was to all should prevent any from “stumbling” or being “hindered from embracing the offer.”429 The Lord’s “secret decrees” concerning election and reprobation were not revealed to any ; rather, “the offer of grace and declaration of Gods goodnesse is so laid out in common, that whosoever doth not embrace the same, is made inexcusable”.430 Thus Dickson also embraced the distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata. Indeed, the whole free offer was designed to point the hearers of the gospel away from speculations regarding the decrees to the revealed will which contained “the Lord’s invitation of all men to take heed what he is to say.”431 Because no one was excluded from the free offer, “all and

424 Dickson, “The Epistle Dedicatory” in First Fifty Psalms, n.p. 425 Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 138 (on Ps. 24:7 – 10). See also Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 240. This covenant included the children of believing parents, “in the common offer of grace and reconciliation by Christ, he makes the promise jointly to the parents and the children…” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 88. He explicitly denied that the visible church consisted only of “regenerate persons”. See Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 104 – 6. 426 Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 296. Initial rejection of this covenant offer did not lead to being cut off from the covenant or gospel offer. Rather, the offer was repeated time and again. See Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 345. It is important to note that he also spoke of the gospel offer as “made to all indifferently.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 127. This simply recognizes the wide nature of the gospel offer, and does not deny that it is a particular offer to each hearer. 427 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 136. On a number of occasions he used God’s covenant with Israel to demonstrate that the gospel offer was to all, elect and reprobate. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 92, 104, 142. Other textual proofs offered to demonstrate that the offer was given to the non-elect included Matt. 10:13 – 15; Acts 13:46,52; John 1:11 – 12. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 125. 428 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 124. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 115. 429 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 127. 430 Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255. 431 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 143.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

223

every one whom God shall externally call, may safely accept the offer of grace, and join themselves to Jesus Christ.”432 While the gospel offer was to all, Dickson believed that there was a certain order relating to salvation: the law first convicted of sin; then, given conviction of sin, there was an embracing of salvation offered in the gospel; and thirdly, following the embracing of the gospel offer came an a posteriori deduction of assurance of salvation.433 Accordingly, on occasion, he spoke of the gospel as offered to “all self-condemned Sinners”, namely, those who had already undergone conviction of sin and knew their need of salvation.434 He was aware of the potential pastoral problems that this “model” of conversion could create, namely, that sinners might debate whether they have been convicted sufficiently concerning the gravity of their sins, and therefore might hold back from coming to Christ, feeling their unworthiness to do so.435 Indeed, he believed that there was the potential for some to be “driven to Despair”,436 or worse, to “secretly import and insinuate a sort of Merit” in conviction of sin, and therefore see themselves as earning a right to Christ.437 In response to this, he stated that even those who could not convince themselves that they were sufficiently convicted of sin should not be kept back or dissuaded from coming to Christ.438 Rather, they were to be “exhorted not to linger any more but fly to Christ.”439

432 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 140. He insisted that God did not “particularly manifest any mans reprobation”. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 95. Therefore hearers of the gospel offer should look to the revealed will rather than concern themselves with hidden decrees. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 127. Further, pastors were not to judge any man reprobate, but to continue to offer the gospel to all. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 168 – 9, 171. 433 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 152 – 3. He believed that God was not “bound” to this order, but it was nevertheless the ordinary way of God’s dealing with sinners. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 17. 434 See, e. g. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 133, 244 – 5. 435 See, e. g. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 157 – 8, 228 – 231 261, 262 – 3. 436 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 157. He also felt that there was an alternative danger, namely that if conviction of sin was not sufficient a sinner might come to Christ, “with his lips only, when his heart is far from him,” and thus not be a true convert at all. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 157. 437 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 229. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 230, 261 – 2. 438 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 228 – 9. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 230 – 1. Thus it is not quite correct to call Dickson a “Reformed preparationist”. Philip Ryken, Thomas Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1999), 152. 439 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 262 – 3. He went on to state that “Christ hath not put such a measure of sorrow, whereof we are speaking, to be the condition of the covenant of Grace, he doth not sell his precious wares, nor his gifts of grace, for the price of mens tears.” See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 334 and especially 149.

224

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Reasons for the Offer Dickson did not expand as much as Durham on the reasons for the universal gospel offer. All that can be gathered from his writings is that the gospel is preached “to a mixed multitude of elect and reprobate[e] … for the conversion of the elect, and bringing to light the hatred of the reprobate[e] against God, and the offer of his grace.”440 That the reprobate received the offer also rendered them “inexcusable” and took away from them the potential objection that “if they had gotten the offer, then would they have believed and repented.”441 The Warrant to Believe The most explicit teaching on the “warrants to believe” in Dickson’s corpus is found in the Sum of Saving Knowledge.442 This work has previously been discussed in Chapter Three (under James Durham’s views on the “warrants to believe”). Dickson also echoed these warrants in his own writings. For instance, he stated that the truth “I should believe” can be deduced from “the offer of the Gospel and of free grace” and from the “command to believe in the Son of God, Christ Jesus”.443 Duty Faith The duty of all to trust savingly in Christ was espoused by Dickson. He held that, given “the Lord hath commanded to repent and turn unto him (offering reconciliation in Christ) … therefore it is my duty so to do.”444 Christ required faith of those he called to himself and to whom salvation was conditionally promised.445 Dickson was aware of the tension created by his avowal of “duty faith” while at the same time holding that no one was able to, of themselves, exercise saving faith. In response to this he argued that the fairness of this situation did not depend upon man’s current ability, but on the ability given to Adam to obey.446 440 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 129. Divine hatred and love were not mutually exclusive in the Reformed tradition. See, e. g., Calvin’s approving quotation of Augustine. Calvin Institutes, 1:507 (2.16.4). 441 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 126. See also Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255. 442 “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in Westminster Confession, 332 – 6. 443 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 408. 444 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 4. 445 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 101 – 2. 446 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 113. He also invoked Deut. 29:29, namely that “the secret things belong unto the Lord,” and urged his readers to “go about thy duty” rather than despairing over the interrelation of divine intention and human responsibility. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 132.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

225

The Offer and God’s Will and Desire The distinction between the decretive and the revealed will of God was important for Dickson’s articulation of the gospel offer. He defined the latter as the revelation in Scripture of “what we should believe, and what we should do.”447 Dickson believed it was “madness … to pry in upon the secret counsel of God, and to neglect his revealed will set down in Scripture.”448 To those tempted to do this he applied Deut. 29:29, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but these things that are revealed belong unto us and our Children for ever, that we may do all the words of this Law.” (KJV.) That there was a decree of election and reprobation had indeed been revealed. However, the names of the particular objects of that decree belonged to the class of “secret things,” while the command to believe the gospel was revealed to all, and the promises in the gospel were offered to all, to show each and every person their duty to believe savingly.449 Dickson spoke explicitly of “the revealed will of God, about mens salvation.”450 This revealed will was that all “repent and imbrace the grace of Christ.”451 As touching any person’s salvation, from the individual’s perspective it was only the revealed will of God that mattered.452 Unlike Durham, Dickson did not explicitly speak of this revealed will as a desire for the salvation of all. However, the same underlying language may be discerned. For instance, Dickson spoke of “God uttering his wishes for the conversion of his people, and lamenting that his Word is not believed, and that his offer of grace is not received”.453 In this context it is important to bear in mind that Dickson is not speaking of “God’s people” in terms of the decretively elect, but rather of those in Israel, elect and reprobate, who received the gospel offer and outward covenant. He held that every hearer of the gospel could deduce from statements such as “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me”454 God’s “wish” for their conversion.455 He also believed that this verse demonstrated the “earnestness” and “fairness” of God’s exhortations and requests in the gospel.456 God’s revealed will went so far in the Gospel that, for Dickson, Isaiah could say with justice, “Isa. 5. 4. what [more] could be done in outward means and offer-making of grace which is 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456

Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 4. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 2, 318. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 252. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 252 – 3. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 243 – 4. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 90. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 143. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 250 – 1. Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255. Citing Psalm 81:8. Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 128.

226

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

not done?”457 It is interesting that Dickson described “Christ’s sweet offer of grace and salvation” to the Jews, who rejected it in “the obstinacy and rebellion of the[ir] hard hearts,” as being made in a “gently and loving way”, and asserted that the rejection of the offer “affected and moved his tender heart with grief.”458 Even making appropriate allowance for the humanity of Christ, as Dickson sought to do, this seems inevitably to point to the gospel offer being a reflection of a general, non-electing, love of God. Additionally, Dickson explicitly taught, taking up the language of Ezek. 18:23, that “God hath declared in His Word, that he delighteth not in the death of a sinner, but that he should repent and turn to God and be saved.”459 Common Grace With regard specifically to “temporal matters”, Dickson affirmed God’s “bounty and kindnesse to all men, how unkind and wicked soever they be”.460 In addition, he also believed that God showed his goodness to all in extending his mercy by preserving them and not executing judgment immediately for their sins.461 Furthermore, with specific reference to the gospel, Dickson believed that there were “sundry common operations and effects of God’s spirit” which were not limited to the elect.462 He enumerated these as including the gifts of “illumination, moral persuasion, historical, dogmatical and temporary faith, moral change of affections, and some sort of external amendment of their outward conversation.”463 All these blessings from God Dickson designated common grace, arguing that “Sometime Grace is taken for every gift or good bestowed by God upon the ill deserver : in which sense, gifts, common to elect and reprobate, are called by the name of Grace. Rom. 1. 5. Ephes. 4. 7.”464 This common kindness and goodness of God should encourage all to seek forgiveness from him and embrace the gospel offer.465 Dickson was explicit that those who rejected God’s offer of salvation were guilty of “rejecting his grace (repudiatæ gratiæ)”.466 457 458 459 460

461 462 463 464 465

Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 338. Dickson, Matthew, comment in loco, Matt 11:16 – 17. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 504. Dickson, “The Epistle Dedicatory” in First Fifty Psalms, n.p. This is in contrast to “the matters of salvation” where God “useth not to extend his special love so largely…” By implication God’s “bounty and kindness” to all men therefore express a common love of God to all men. See also Dickson, First Fifty Psalms, 239. David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the Last Fifty Psalmes, From Ps. 100 to the end (London: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Tho. Johnson, 1654), 350. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 18. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 515. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 92. He noted that this common grace was in specific contrast to “Saving Grace being the special Gift of God to His own.” Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 87. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 253.

David Dickson (1583 – 1662)

227

The Rejection of the Offer In line with his doctrine of the inability of natural man to believe Dickson staunchly maintained that the rejection of the gospel offer by reprobates was, in one way, inevitable. They could simply do no other.467 Nevertheless, he also believed that no one was forced to reject the offer, indeed; every rejection of the offer was wilful and deliberate.468 Because of this, for any who ultimately rejected the gospel offer, “the meritorious and culpable cause of their perdition is in themselves.”469 The objection that if the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ was only for the elect, and if there is no free will, then the free offer of the gospel was unfair and not in earnest was explicitly considered by Dickson.470 He provided a fourfold answer to this objection.471 First, he pointed to God’s complaints that his offer was rejected, quoting Ps. 81:11, “but my people would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none of me.” [KJV.] In view of this, whatever objections might be raised, it was evident to Dickson that Scripture presented the offer as genuine, in that God was displeased when it was rejected. Second, he argued that the universal gospel offer is the means of saving the elect, and also of demonstrating that the reprobate wilfully reject the gospel of their own accord. Third, the universal offer, where some rejected and some accepted, humbled man and demonstrated the sovereignty of God in salvation, for without his effectual call all would reject the offer. Fourth, the preaching of the “conditional Promises and Exhortations” to all the hearers of the gospel served to draw in the elect while not setting up any barriers to any who would believe. This is a point that Dickson frequently pressed home. He argued that, whatever had been decreed concerning an individual’s salvation, the decree was executed in such a way in time that no one had their election or reprobation directly revealed to them while “the offer of grace and declaration of God’s goodnesse is so laid out in common, that whosoever doth not embraceth the same, is made inexcusable”.472 No one was excluded from “embracing the covenant; but, on the contrair, he opens the door to all that are called … and so he doth not particularly manifest any mans repro466 Dickson, Expositio Analytica Omnium Apostolicarum Epistolarum, 85; St Paul’s Epistles, 27. 467 Dickson, Matthew, comment in loco, Matt. 11:16 – 17. See also Dickson, Matthew, comment in loco, Matt. 22:14. Conversely, “by the Grace of God” others will inevitably accept the offer. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 103. 468 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 144. 469 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 144. 470 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 127 – 8. The same objection is also considered in Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 120 – 2. There Dickson affirms that this is God’s practice, and therefore it must be just. 471 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 128 – 31. 472 Dickson, Second Fifty Psalms, 255.

228

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

bation.”473 Indeed, no one was to regard themselves as reprobate, and exclude themselves from mercy. This was to pry into the “secret” counsel of God, while neglecting the revealed will that all should come for salvation.474 Further, all who heard the gospel were to avoid any thoughts that God was implacable and unwilling to save; rather, he was to be thought of as “merciful, long-suffering and bountiful, both to the kind and the unkind, as they shall find, if they will seek him.”475 For Dickson, thoughts of being reprobate and beyond God’s mercy were to be disregarded as a satanic temptation.476 None, then, had any reason to reject the offer, for to do so was to despise God’s goodness, and to resist the “common operations” of the Spirit,477 and was to be regarded as a greater sin than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.478

Conclusion The understanding of the gospel offer found in Dickson’s writings is, unsurprisingly, similar to that of Durham. Where there is a difference it is in the clarity with which Durham spoke of the desire of God for the salvation of all the hearers of the gospel. This is not as explicit in Dickson, although the substance of the points Durham made was also present in Dickson.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)479 Rutherford is called the “prince of the federal theologians” by Bell,480 and the “leading theological writer of his day in Scotland” by Walker.481 Torrance de473 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 94 – 95. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 127; where the same point is made. 474 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 132. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 151 – 2, 252 – 3, 504 – 5. 475 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 160. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 146, 184 – 5. 476 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 160. See also Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 251: “The suspicion of God’s decree is daily fostered and augmented, and the afflicted person, not only doubteth of Gods good-will to him, but is tempted unto desperation: By this means the command of God to believe the promises and consolations of the Gospel, seem to him to be offered to him all in vain: the hope of success, or profiting in the use of the means appointed by God, is undermined, so long as this suspicion is entertained”. 477 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 18. 478 Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 248. 479 For biographical information on Rutherford, see John Coffey, Samuel Rutherford; K.G. Rendell, Samuel Rutherford: A New Biography of the Man and His Ministry (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2003); R. Gilmore, Samuel Rutherford: A Study Biographical and Somewhat Critical in the History of the Scottish Covenant (Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

229

clares that he “was undoubtedly one of the greatest and most influential theologians in the Calvinist and Presbyterian tradition of the Post-Reformation Kirk.”482 Ordained to the parish of Anworth in 1627, having previously served (prior to his dismissal for misconduct) as Professor of Humanities at Edinburgh University, Rutherford’s pastorate was marked by strident anti-Episcopalianism (he was cited to the Court of High Commission for lack of compliance with the Perth Articles) and anti-Arminianism (he published Exercitationes Apologeticae Pro Divina Gratia in 1636). As a result he was eventually banished to Aberdeen, but he returned to prominence in 1638 as the ecclesiastical tide turned and was appointed Professor of Divinity at St Andrews University. He attended the Westminster Assembly as one of the Scottish commissioners, and had the longest attendance record of any Scottish divine (from November 1643 to November 1647), exercising significant influence on the Assembly’s debates. He returned to his work in St Andrews and, as an indication of his international reputation, was twice (1648 and 1651) offered professorships at Dutch universities, which he turned down. As the Scottish Church fractured during the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy, he was an outspoken Protestor. With the restoration of Charles II in 1660, Rutherford once again found himself out of favour. His Lex Rex was publicly burnt and he was charged with treason, but died before he could answer the charge. Rutherford, then, is a figure of significance for mid-seventeenth-century Reformed theology. On account of his importance as a theologian and his influence at the Westminster Assembly, it can safely be argued that his understanding of the gospel offer helped shape mid-seventeenth-century Reformed thought. In addition, studying his views will assist in determining whether there was indeed a Reformed consensus on the gospel offer. This is particularly true of Scotland, as if there was to be dissent from the Durham/Dickson view of the gospel offer, Rutherford would be a likely source. Rutherford was from the “Protestor” party in the Scottish Church, whereas Dickson was from the majority “Resolutioner” party and Durham occupied the sparsely populated “middle ground”. Again, Rutherford was a supralapsarian, Dickson an infralapsarian, and Durham (relatively) non-committal. By including Rutherford, therefore, the various competing factions committed to the Westminster Standards in the Scottish church will each have had their leading theologian & Ferrier, 1904); Rutherford, Letters, 1 – 30; MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 68 – 78; Blakie, Preachers of Scotland, 112 – 8; S. Isbell, “Rutherford, Samuel” (1600 – 1661), DSCHT, 735 – 6; Barker, Puritan Profiles, 101 – 6; Reid, Westminster Divines, 2:345 – 62; Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 721 – 32. 480 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 70. 481 Walker, Theology and Theologians, 9. 482 Torrance, Scottish Theology, 93.

230

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

examined, and, at least concerning the ordo decretorum Dei, the breadth of “acceptable” views in the Scottish church will have been represented in this study. Further, examining Rutherford’s understanding of the gospel offer is important because exactly what he taught in this area is disputed. For instance, Coffey asserts that Rutherford has been seen as both a “source of hyper-calvinism” and, conversely, as a “moderate Calvinist”.483 Some have simply argued that his belief in limited atonement militated “against evangelism and the free offer”.484 Others have accused him of hopeless inconsistency, stating that Rutherford “the theologian appears to be at variance with Rutherford the preacher”485 and that “Rutherford’s faithfulness to the Gospel message could be stronger than his logic … Christ clothed with the Gospel is greater than the covenant.”486 In contradistinction to this it will be argued that Rutherford believed his doctrine of the free offer to be internally consistent with his other theological commitments (at least insofar as a theologia ectypa needed to be), and that his position on the free offer is consistent with that of his fellow adherents of particular redemption. Theological, ecclesiological, and political works, together with transcripts of sermons, all appeared from Rutherford’s pen marking him out as a prolific author.487 For the purposes of examining his views on the free offer of the gospel, the most relevant works are Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, The Covenant of Life Opened, The Trial and Triumph of Faith, Fourteen Communion Sermons, and Quaint Sermons of Samuel Rutherford Hitherto Unpublished.488

General Theology There have been several recent works on Rutherford, notably Coffey’s intellectual biography, Richard’s study of Rutherford’s theology, and Kim’s doc483 484 485 486 487 488

Coffey, The Mind of Rutherford, 139, fn.134. Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 329. Rendell, Samuel Rutherford, 83. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 107. For a complete listing of his works, see Coffey, The Mind of Samuel Rutherford. Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (repr., Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1727); Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1655); Samuel Rutherford, The Trial and Triumph of Faith (Edinburgh: Committee of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the Publication of the Works of Scottish Reformers and Divines, 1845); Samuel Rutherford, Fourteen Communion Sermons (Glasgow : Charles Glass & Co., 1877); Samuel Rutherford, Quaint Sermons of Samuel Rutherford Hitherto Unpublished (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1885). Other works will be referred to where appropriate.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

231

toral dissertation.489 These make an in-depth review of his theology unnecessary, and therefore only a brief introduction to his covenant theology and soteriology, as they relate closely to his doctrine of the free offer, will be presented here. Covenant Theology490 Covenant was a vitally importance concept for Rutherford. He held that God is not “simply as God ours, but God as it were coming down in Christ to us Covenant-wayes as God incarnate, to make out his goodnesse, grace, mercy to and for us.”491 Thus covenant, for Rutherford, forms the link between Deus absconditus and humanity, between the hidden and unknowable God and his rational creatures.492 Rutherford clearly taught a covenant of works between God and Adam, arguing that through it “Adam … [could] merit ex pacto life eternal…”493 Upon “perfect obedience … to the Covenant of Works… Adam should have merited life eternal, so he had never fallen.”494 Indeed, he stated that the “sum” of the covenant of works was that “God promiseth to us life everlasting, and we are obliged to keep the law by the strength of our nature.”495 The covenant was made with “Adam and with all mankind in him”, and therefore the breach of the covenant by Adam’s sin did not simply affect him but brought all into a state of sin.496 A covenant of redemption distinct from the covenant of grace is clearly outlined in Rutherford’s writings; in particular he presents in his Covenant of Life Opened eleven separate arguments for it.497 Richard has posited that 489 Coffey, The Mind of Rutherford; Richard, Supremacy of God; S.D. Kim, “Time and eternity”. 490 For a study of Rutherford’s covenant theology, see D. Patrick Ramsey, “Samuel Rutherford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology in Scotland,” The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009): 115 – 26. 491 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 55. Bell has correctly noted that “Rutherford thinks of man as related to God only by covenant.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 72. 492 See, e. g., Richard, Supremacy of God, 139. Thus Kim rightly states that, while covenant is not a “central dogma” from which other doctrines are deduced or even an “organising principle” per se, it does form the bedrock of Rutherford’s theology and is the “biblical and historical means of expressing the divine-human relationship in the work of salvation.” Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 286. See also Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 288. 493 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 196. 494 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 320. 495 Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherfurd’s Catechism,” in Alexander Mitchell, ed., Catechisms of the Second Reformation (London: James Nesbit & Co., 1886), 175. 496 Rutherford, “Rutherfurd’s Catechism,” in Mitchell, ed., Catechisms of the Second Reformation, 175. 497 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 290 – 302. These are summarized (although he claims twelve reasons) by Kim in “Time and Eternity,” 76. On one occasion Rutherford spoke of “three, bargains, or covenants, so to speak.” These were the covenant of grace, the

232

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Rutherford added the covenant of redemption to his federal framework later in his career, “most likely as a result of the influence of David Dickson and James Durham (1622 – 1658).”498 Whilst there may be some merit in noting the influence of Dickson and Durham, there is no direct textual evidence which explicitly supports this hypothesis. Whatever its origins in his thought, the covenant of redemption played an important role in Rutherford’s ultimate theological system. For Rutherford the covenant of grace stood “as the only way under heaven, by which sinners may be saved…”499 The parties to the covenant of grace are God and believers, where believers are those who have been chosen to life in Christ.500 These two points, an unconditional election to salvation in Christ and faith as a condition of the covenant, are constant refrains in Rutherford’s exposition of the covenant of grace. The unconditional element is “the principle property of the Covenant,” namely, “the graciousnesse and freedome thereof … it is made with sinners without hire or price … The whole Gospel is the word of Grace.”501 Nevertheless, he insists that “the condition of the covenant [of grace] is faith … This do was the condition of the covenant of works. This believe, is the condition of this covenant; because faith sendeth a person out of himself … that in Christ he may have his righteousness.”502 While Rutherford taught (in explicit contrast to those he labelled antinomians) that faith related to the covenant of grace as a conditio federatorum, non federis, he held that “conditions wrought in us by grace, such as we assert, take not one jot or title of the freedom of grace away.”503 Thus Kim is correct in summarizing Rutherford’s understanding of the covenant

498

499 500

501 502 503

covenant of redemption, and additionally “The Man, Christ, bargains with the Divine nature. The human nature says, I love man, and I will die for him: the Divine nature says, now I shall hold Thee up under Thy sufferings, and Thou shalt overcome death.” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 252. This is usually considered an element of the covenant of redemption, and the idea of this third covenant does not appear in his other writings. Richard, Supremacy of God, 147. The addition of the covenant of redemption may not be as late as Richard posits, as Rutherford appears to refer to the “covenant of redemption” in a sermon dated by Bonar as from 1630. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 49. However, it is true that some of Rutherford’s discussions do not distinguish the covenants of redemption and grace, e. g. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 75 – 86. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 215. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 137. As the parties are only those chosen in Christ, Rutherford can say that “there is no ground at all, nor truth in what Arminians say, that the Covenant of Grace is made with all and everyone of mankind, as was the Covenant of Works.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 119. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 216. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 87. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 152, 311. Bell correctly comments that “Faith most certainly is required of us as a condition, and Rutherford will not yield the point.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 76. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 587 – 8. Rutherford used this reasoning to explicitly distance himself from what he viewed as an “Arminian” or “Popish” use of condition. See Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 93.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

233

of grace as “‘unilateral in its initiation’ by God’s sovereignty and ‘bilateral in its administration’ by God to humanity.”504 Soteriology Torrance has claimed that all of Rutherford’s “thinking was within a framework of strict federal and predestinationist principles … and was characterized by a concentration on individual election and particular redemption.”505 How accurate this characterization is may be questioned; indeed, Torrance himself concludes that “Rutherford’s doctrine of God was ultimately of a merciful and gracious God.”506 Nonetheless, Rutherford’s commitment to divine sovereignty in salvation is unquestioned. He held that “the natural man cannot come to Christ”,507 drawing this teaching most significantly from John 6:44.508 He believed that “election is the decree of free-grace, setting apart certain, definite, individual, and particular men to glory”,509 and marshalled significant exegetical support for his position, including Matt. 22:14, John 10:26,29, Eph. 1:4, Rom. 9:11, Gal. 3:16 – 18 and Gal. 4:22 – 23. Explicit and vocal in his rejection of the Arminian understanding of election, he argued forcefully that it was unconditional.510 He espoused a supralapsarian understanding of the decree of election, arguing that “God’s electing of us cannot be after the consideration of our creation and fall.”511 A trenchant opponent of universal redemption, he declared that “I know no article of the gospel, that this new and wicked religion of Universal atonement doth not contradict.”512 He held that “no Scripture warranteth us to say that Christ died for all with one intention to apply his death to the elect, and with another to apply no death at all to the reprobate.”513 In this respect Rutherford was opposing not only the followers of Arminius but also the 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511

512 513

Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 289 – 90. See also Richard, Supremacy of God, 140. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 93. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 94. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 266. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 429. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 232; Rutherford, Christ Dying, 540. E.g. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 308. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 434 – 506, offers a detailed refutation of Arminianism, particularly universal atonement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh Library, La.II.394, 5. See Richard, “Samuel Rutherford’s supralapsarianism revealed,” 27 – 44. Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 174, argues that Rutherford was supralapsarian. However, they also both (Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 176 – 7) posit that his supralapsarianism was of a moderate variety. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 461. See Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 229 [margin] for a similarly strong statement. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 237 [margin]. He called any notion of universal redemption “a dream”. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 239.

234

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

hypothetic universalists. He specifically opposed Davenant when he stated that “it cannot be said, that Christ hath died to make all mankinde saveable.”514 His antagonism towards universal redemption arose partly from his understanding of the nature of Christ’s death as a penal substitutionary atonement. He argued that “God in justice cannot exact from us that same satisfactory punishment that Christ hath suffered from our sins”,515 and so all for whom Christ died would be delivered from the judgment of God: “the intrinsicall end of Christ’s dying consisteth not with the perishing of these for whom he died.”516 Given his belief in the bondage of the will, he held that “Omnipotency of grace can only convince the will” to believe in Christ.517 He believed that the love of election drew “strongly and irresistibly : Christ never woo’d a soul with his free love, but he wins the love and heart.”518 Rutherford also held that God gave his people “persevering grace and so the influence of grace to persevere is promised in the Covenant of Grace.”519 Thus God’s love to his people, and Christ’s death for them implied that God would never cease to love them, and would bring them safe to glory.520 Rutherford and Mystery One important feature of Rutherford’s theology worth noting in detail was his acknowledgment of the finiteness of his beliefs, namely his acceptance that ultimately his knowledge was limited. He explicitly recognized, for example, the incomprehensibility of the incarnation. He confessed that the unity of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, with the person of Christ suffering but the divine nature being free of suffering, “must be a mystery.”521 The incarnation was riddled with impenetrable “mysteries”.522 He held more generally that “the knowledge we have … is but the twilight, or the day-star’s glimmering of sinful men.”523 This thought is captured well by Richard:

514 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 183. He did, however, believe that “All within the visible church have means sufficient in their kind, in genere mediorum externorum, to save them.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 426. 515 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 249. 516 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 256. 517 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 215. 518 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 328. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 362, 365, 576. 519 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 195. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 119. 520 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 87. 521 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 10. 522 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 17 – 18. 523 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 213.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

235

“in … revealing himself to his creatures, God has not … ceased to be Deus absconditus. The creator-creature distinction, in Rutherford’s thinking, necessitates that, while God knows himself perfectly and comprehensively, his creatures – who are ontologically derivative – know him only imperfectly and incompletely. Ultimately, God remains incomprehensible for them.”524

Richard goes on to note that this is the fundamental “scholastic distinction between theologia archetypa and ectypa … The discipline of theology can never portray God as he is really and in himself – Deus absconditus or theologia archetypa. It is limited to Deus revelatus or theologia ectypa … In revealing himself to his creatures, God has accommodated himself to their capacities.”525 Richard believed that this distinction “helps to explain the element of mystery that exists in Rutherford’s theology.”526 Therefore “the sovereignty of God and human free will can both be subscribed to by Rutherford at the same time without any necessity of resolving the relationship between them philosophically.”527 These elements of theological prolegomena are obviously of significance for the discussion of the free offer of the gospel, as noted in Chapter One.

The Free Offer of the Gospel It has been claimed that Rutherford’s “supralapsarian theology in no way blunted the sharpness of his evangelistic appeal or weakened the call for moral effort on the part of his hearers.”528 The following survey of his teaching on the free offer of the gospel confirms this to have been the case. Defining the Offer Rutherford had no difficulty with the language of offer, using it repeatedly in his writings.529 Stating matters as plainly as possible, he preached that “Christ’s offer is really an offer.”530 He believed that the gospel offered Christ and all his ben524 Richard, Supremacy of God, 26. 525 Richard, Supremacy of God, 26 – 27. Richard notes that the denial of this distinction was a hallmark of later Arminian theology. Richard, Supremacy of God, 42. 526 Richard, Supremacy of God, 102. 527 Richard, Supremacy of God, 102. Again Richard notes that this contentment with “mystery” is in opposition to Arminian theology. 528 Rendell, Samuel Rutherford, 33. 529 See, e. g., Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 14, 79, 88, 341, 347; Rutherford, Christ Dying, 20, 297 – 9, 509 – 10; Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 29 – 30, 62, 66 – 67, 82 – 83, 119, 337 – 8, 350; Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 90, 129, 299 – 303. 530 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 303.

236

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

efits.531 More particularly, he taught that this offer consisted in the promise of Christ to all in the covenant of grace, the promise being upon condition of belief.532 He understood this promise as “He that believes has life everlasting”, and held that in the gospel offer Christ “comes to the conscience of every man in particular and says, “Wilt thou believe? Will ye quit yourselves and be Christ’s wholly?”533 In speaking of the conditional nature of the gospel offer and promise, Rutherford was not denying that the gospel offer was a real promise. Rather, the promise itself was “absolute”; upon belief in Christ, everlasting life would follow.534 The conditional element entered only because the gospel blessings promised were “bestowed only conditionally, if they believe.”535 He distanced himself from any potential association with Arminianism by holding that, in addition to the general gospel promise to all, certain gospel promises applied only to the elect, namely that God would give “a new heart and grace to believe”.536 This corresponds to the unilateral/bilateral elements of Rutherford’s understanding of the covenant of grace and demonstrates the interrelatedness of covenant and gospel offer in his thinking.537 In addition to defining offer as a promise to all, Rutherford also understood it as an invitation. He believed that Christ was “most compassionate to sinners, inviting them to come.”538 This invitation included “obtesting” (begging someone earnestly) and “praying,” and so was obviously intended to be un531 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 79, 88. 532 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 77, 79, 88. As will be discussed later, Rutherford is explicit that this “promise” is made to the reprobate. See Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 88. 533 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 350. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 186: “the promises are conditionally to all within the Visible Church, but so as the condition relates only to the benefits promised, we shall have remission and life, if we believe, but not otherwise…” 534 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 91 – 92. 535 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 91 – 92. The reprobate were therefore truly in an external covenant with God, as recipients of his conditional promises: “A conditional Covenant hath the compleat essence & nature of a Covenant, and they are truly in Covenant that are under it.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 90. He believed that these gospel promises were ultimately turned to the reprobate’s condemnation because they did not believe. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 199. 536 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94. 537 Rutherford here was attempting to tread the fine line between two of his common polemic opponents, namely Arminians and Antinomians. Against the Arminians he opposed any “decree of election to glory, upon condition of faith”. Against the Antinomians he insisted upon the reality of the importance of faith as a condition, but a condition which was worked in the hearts of the elect by God. See Rutherford, Christ Dying, 301 – 2. See also Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 332 – 8 for a further discussion. 538 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 358. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 63, 64.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

237

derstood as sincere.539 Further evidence of this is that the invitation was issued with the cry, “Come, welcome, welcome, sinners, ye will be welcome to sup with the Lord”,540 and delivered by one with outstretched arms, waiting to welcome all who came to him.541 It was not just a solitary invitation that was issued; rather, even to those who refused, the invitation came again and again, emphasizing its reality and seriousness.542 Indeed, Rutherford understood the gospel offer to include an element of begging: “It is ordinary for a man to beg from God, for we are but His beggars; but it is a miracle to see God beg at man. Yet here is the Potter begging from the clay ; the Saviour seeking from sinners.”543 The Exegetical Basis of the Free Offer There are certain texts which Rutherford did not use evangelistically. He presented extended arguments for the common Scottish view that the love spoken of in John 3:16544 and the saving will referred to in 1 Tim. 2:4545 referred only to the elect. He also held that 2 Peter 3:9 spoke of God’s electing will.546 Nevertheless, he used a vast array of texts to support his doctrine of the gospel offer. Matt. 11:28 – 29 and John 7:37 showed that Christ was “most compassionate to sinners, inviting them to come.”547 Matt. 23:37 and Luke 19:41 – 2 demonstrated how Christ “wept and shed tears” at the rejection of the gospel and the destruction that would follow.548 These verses therefore implied that Christ “would 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547

548

Rutherford, Christ Dying, 20. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 356 – 8. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 65. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 66 – 67. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 82 – 83. Ultimately, however, there would come a time when no further invitations would be issued. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 254. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 484 – 8. “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 493 – 5. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 494. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 306. “Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls”; “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 358. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”; “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 358. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 512.

238

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

have them [unrepentant Jerusalem] turn and live.”549 Luke 19:10 revealed how intimately the free offer was related to Christ’s mission to come into the world to “seek and to save the lost.”550 Isa. 55:1 was a “sweet evangelic invitation.”551 It could be paraphrased as “Wo is me, alas, that thirsty souls should die in the thirst, and will not come to the water of life, Christ, and drink gratis, freely and live.”552 Christ’s “good-liking to save sinners” was expressed in texts such as Deut. 5:29 and Ps. 81:13.553 Ezek. 18:23 was also a figure of the gospel offer containing “the Lord’s expostulations” with sinners.554 The parallel text of Ezek. 33:11 Rutherford paraphrased as “I desire you may repent and live.”555 Prov. 1:20 was a picture of the gospel offer and represented a group of texts which expressed “Christ’s desire to save sinners”.556 Luke 14:16 – 24 was a great picture of the Lord “offering mercy in the gospel.”557 Isa. 5:4 spoke of all the external means of salvation that God had bestowed on people in the gospel.558 Isa. 65:2 revealed that God held out his arms all the day long in the gospel.559 2 Cor. 5:20 showed Christ pleading “For My blood, and My wounds’ sake, come”.560 Rev. 3:20, spoke of “God’s outward calling, in respect of the word and sacra-

549 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 67. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 356. 550 “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 358. 551 “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. 552 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. 553 “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!”; “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 513. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 357. 554 “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 513. 555 “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 515. 556 “Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Christ Dying, 513. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 67. 557 “Then He said to him, “A certain man gave a great supper and invited many…” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 62, but see all of 60 – 88. 558 “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 66. 559 “I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, According to their own thoughts.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 66 – 7. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 357. 560 “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 356.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

239

ments… the Lord is without knocking for admittance”.561 Rom. 10:8 demonstrated that “there is a commandment laid upon the humbled sinner : Come, O weary and laden sinner to Christ, and be eased.”562 The Person Making the Offer In common with the other theologians examined in this chapter, Rutherford believed that it was really God who made the gospel offer. It was Christ who “turneth his smiling face to me, in calling, inviting, obtesting, praying, that I would be reconciled to God.”563 Thus, although the preachers of the gospel were men, they were simply delivering “writs signed under his excellency’s [Christ’s] hand” which said “come and meet me, [any] who will, and be saved.”564 He was not simply thinking of Christ according to his human nature, for he also spoke of the gospel offer where “God calls men”565 and stated that in the gospel offer “God is crying, shouting and casting out His arms.”566 Indeed, in expounding the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:16 – 24, he takes the invitation to be from the “Lord”, and this thought runs through his whole discourse.567 The Recipients of the Offer David Lachman has argued that, for Rutherford, in the gospel call no distinction was made between elect and reprobate in that all received the same warrant to believe and none were given occasion to despair over their salvation.568 Conversely, Charles Bell has raised the issue of preparationism, suggesting that the gospel offer is applicable only to those who have undergone prior conviction of sin.569

561 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 70 – 71. See also Rutherford’s unpublished manuscript sermon on Revelation 3:20 in Papers of Robert Douglas, Edinburgh University, DC.5.31, 191 – 4. 562 “But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach).” (NKJV.) Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 300. 563 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 20. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 350. 564 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. 565 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 70. 566 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 67. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 356 – 8. 567 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 60 – 88, but especially 62 – 64. 568 Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 32 – 33, citing Rutherford, Christ Dying, 509 – 10. 569 He argued that in so doing Rutherford had placed “preparation for faith in his ordo salutis, thereby subordinating grace and gospel to law … In answer to the question of whether there is any ‘preparatione befor Godis effectuall calling?’ Rutherford states ‘Yes, God casteth us downe with the terrours of the law, making us see our miserable estait.’” Bell, Calvin and

240

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

It is undeniable that there are two strands to Rutherford’s thought that are not easy to reconcile. First, as will be seen, there is the belief that the gospel is offered to all.570 Second, there is a strong emphasis on a gospel offer to those convicted of sin. It may be suggested, however, that these are not necessarily inconsistent, the latter representing God’s habitual way of salvation and recognizing that only those who feel they need a Saviour will value one, while the former represents the truth that Christ is in fact offered to all, despite the reality that only those who feel their need will accept him. Rutherford, then, is clear that the gospel is offered to all.571 The conditional gospel promises are “preached and annunciated to all within the Visible Church.”572 He is explicit that these promises are “propounded to the reprobate”.573 This is in contrast to the reprobate devils, who receive no gospel.574 This understanding of the gospel offer being to all dovetails with Rutherford’s understanding of the covenant of grace. Just as God made a covenant with the nation Israel in the Old Testament which granted the “word of the gospel” to everyone within Israel,575 so “the external Church Covenant and Church right to means of grace is given to a society and made with Nations under the New Testament.”576 Thus he held that, within the overarching external covenant made with nations, there were two types of individuals. There were those who were only in the covenant externally, and therefore had only a conditional right to the things promised, and there were those who were in the covenant internally and

570

571 572 573

574 575 576

Scottish Theology, 77 – 78, citing Rutherford, “Rutherfurd’s Catechism” in Mitchell, Catechisms of the Second Reformation, 201. Bell is correct in noting that, although salvation is offered to all, God, in Rutherford’s thought, actually intends to save only the elect. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 71 – 72. Richard also comments: “Rutherford believes that God extends his external call to all people without exception. All who hear the gospel preached … are thereby called externally to respond to the Lord in faith.” Richard, Supremacy of God, 181. See also Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 341. “He offereth, in the gospel, life to all…” Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 129. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 7. Rutherford accepts that “the church” consists “of mixed persons, good and bad, elect and reprobate”. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 52. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 8. These promises are “materially Evangelick promises,” but it still need to be considered that “the Lord hath decreed to deny the grace, by which they may or can fulfil the condition of the promise.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 8. One reprobate to whom the gospel was offered was Esau. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 90. Rutherford also spoke of mercy being offered to those who ultimately rejected it: “mercy is fully holden out to us, and laid open to us, and we have trodden it under foot.” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 338. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 14. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 78. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 83. He did not believe that the gospel was restricted per se to covenanted nations, stating that “One that hath the Tongues may preach the Gospel to the Nation he comes unto.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 242 [Margin]. For further discussion on this see Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 344 – 5.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

241

really, as those who had embraced Christ by faith.577 As part of being in covenant with God externally, “the word of the Covenant is preached to you, an offer of Christ is made in the preached Gospel to you.”578 Thus the gospel was to be offered not only generally but also particularly to every individual hearer.579 Therefore Rutherford held that “it cannot be denyed, but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the Visible Church whether they believe or not, for Christ is preached and promises of the Covenant are preached to Simon Magus, to Judas and all the hypocrites who stumble at the Word”.580 He explained this by looking at the covenant in two ways.581 First, he considered it “in abstracto and formally … as a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe, so all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace.”582 This was simply the conditional promise. Second, he considered it “In the concrete, as the Lord carries on the Covenant … commensurably with the decrees of Election and Reprobation; As the Lord not only promises, but acts and ingraves … so the Elect only are under the Covenant of Grace.”583 Rutherford was hesitant to relate the in abstracto consideration of the covenant to the death of Christ, as “Christ undertakes in his 577 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 72. The reprobate within the visible church are therefore, to an extent, under the covenant of grace. See Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94. “Rutherford makes a distinction between the visible church and external covenanting, and the invisible church and internal covenanting.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 75. 578 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 87 – 88. 579 “The Lord comes to the conscience of every man in particular and says, “Wilt thou believe? Will ye quit yourselves and be Christ’s wholly?” … So then, ye see, when the word of the Gospel is preached ye are obliged in a special manner to come to Christ.” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 350. 580 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 88. He stated that “It were nonsense to say to men under the externally proposed Covenant … there is no promise made to you, nor to your seed and children, until first you believe.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 89. To say that no conditional promise was made to all would have been to “ignorantly confound the promise, and the thing promised; the Covenant, and the benefits Covenanted.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 90. Again, “So the Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe, to these that are only externally in the covenant. And yet he promiseth both to the elect.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94. He explicitly denies that passages such as Hebrews 8 say everything that is to be said about the new covenant. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 347. He did hold that the “the special and principall Covenanted blessing” was promised only to the elect, and therefore on occasion he felt it was appropriate to say, “the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the Reprobate.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 92. 581 This corresponds to the distinction between the external gospel call, and the internal effectual call: “There is a twofold calling. 1. There is one external, or outward, whereby God calls men who obey not… 2. There is an inward calling … Romans viii. 30”. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 70. 582 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94. 583 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94.

242

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

bargain, only for the elect.”584 However, he does state that “he procures to many hypocrites, for whom, and for whose Redemption, he undertakes not, that the Covenant shall be preached by concomitancy, because they are mixed with the elect, not as an undertaker for them, but for Church Discipline, Christian Societies, and to render such unexcusable.”585 He nonetheless declared that as “The parties contracters in the Covenant Preached are God, and all within the Visible Church, whether Elect or Reprobate, and their seed … its a rich mercy that Professours are dwelling in the work house of the Grace of God, within the Visible Church…”586 It is evident that Rutherford taught that the gospel offer was to all within the visible church. Notwithstanding this, he was equally clear that it is usual for “preparations … of grace … [to go] before saving grace, and the soul’s being drawn to Christ”,587 and that “God ordinarily prepares men by the law, and some previous dispositions, before they be drawn to Christ.”588 However, he allowed for exceptions to this rule, believing that “Christ comes to some … and snatcheth them out of hell, without these preparations; at least he works them suddenly … God … can make dispensations to himself, so in the ways of grace, we cannot find him out.”589 At times Rutherford seemed to forget qualifications like this, and could state that “sinners thus and thus qualified, are to believe; that is humbled, wearied, and self-condemned sinners only, are to believe, and come to Christ.”590 Again, “Hence, Christ actually calleth and saveth but those who are such and so prepared”.591 Even here, however, preparation simply amounted to knowledge that “I am a needy sinner”, and was not designed to be a statement that “I am fitted for mercy and humbled.”592 In aiming at producing this sense of sin in his hearers, he believed that he was following apostolic example, citing Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and Rom. 3:9 – 19.593 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591

592 593

Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 339 – 40. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 339 – 40. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 340. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 275. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 282. See also Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 148 – 9. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 282. See Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 61, for his comments on this passage. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 152. In all this Rutherford has the antinomians in his thoughts, e. g. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 288. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 148. Compare also the statement that “Omnes jubentur credere, sed tamen certo ordine. (All are commanded to believe, but, however, fixed order.)” Samuel Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ pro Divina Gratia (Franeker : Johannis Dhüiringh, 1651), 250. And again “tantum onusti peccatis immediatie invitantur ad Christum (only those burdened with sins receive immediate invitation to Christ).” Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 249. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 294. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 287. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 295.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

243

Notwithstanding this there are denials in Rutherford’s writings that the gospel was offered to “sinners, as sinners”.594 However, on other occasions he accepted the phrase in the sense that “they be sinners, and all in a sinful condition, to whom the promises are holden forth”, adding that “this is most true and sound.”595 Reflecting on this, he stated that the gospel did not promise rest and joy to the hardened and resolute sinner, if they remained in that condition, but to those who are grieved over sin.596 This was not to deny that “to all within the visible church, Christ is offered without price or money”, but was to emphasize that the gospel offer was “to be received after Christ’s fashion and order, not after our order ; that is, after the soul is under selfdespair of salvation.”597 Again this could be understood as insisting on a series of steps before coming to Christ, but that is not what Rutherford is speaking of.598 What he was guarding against was perceived antinomian errors, namely encouraging people to believe on Christ as Saviour without a realization that they truly needed to be saved, or a lack of realization that a coming to Christ involved forsaking sin and any thoughts of self-sufficiency.599 Indeed, on another occasion Rutherford urged his hearers, “Ease yourselves, and lay the burden upon Christ; and yourselves also … O! if all who are in this house would come just now, as fast as they could win forward, and hang all about Him”.600 In summary, Rutherford’s comments relating to “preparations” do not take away from his fundamental conviction concerning gospel offers and promises to all, but simply indicate the general way he understood that believers came to appropriate the gospel offers for themselves.

The Reasons for the Offer There were three main reasons offered by Rutherford to explain why the gospel was offered to all. The first was for the salvation of the elect. Even though salvation was offered to all, the actual benefit was “decreed and intended in the Preached Gospel to none but to the elect.”601 The second reason was that a 594 595 596 597 598

Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 152, 294. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 297. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 298. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 298. For instance, he stated that “I grant, in regard of time, sinners cannot come too soon to Christ, nor too early to wisdom.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 298. 599 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 298 – 9. What Rutherford believed was the pressing pastoral problem undoubtedly influenced the emphasis he placed on preparations. Compare the pastoral counsel in Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 296 – 300, with Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 147 – 53. 600 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 131. 601 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 341.

244

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

universal offer rendered all inexcusable, in that it revealed man was unwilling to come to God for salvation.602 Third, mercy was offered to all because, “If you consider Christ’s nature and offices, ye will see that He behoved to give an offer of mercy to those who spat in His face.”603 Because Christ was man, it was appropriate for him to show mercy and, because Christ was God, he was infinitely merciful. Therefore, “God’s infinite mercy upon Christ’s tender heart, bound Him that He could not go away and leave … Christ is infinite (even mercy running over the banks) in His nature. Christ said to Justice, “Stay till I woo my bride: for … justice would have been at us to slay us … So mercy comes to sinners through Christ.”604

The Warrant to Believe The problem posed by particular redemption and election for the warrant to believe was considered by Rutherford. First, he urged that no one was called upon to believe their election a priori. The election or not of any individual was nowhere revealed in Scripture and so could not be the object of faith; rather, it was revealed a posteriori, upon believing.605 Second, the command was for all sinners to come to Christ. Rutherford urged that no more warrant than this was required.606 The third warrant was the frequent declaration of the prophets that the Lord was merciful.607 This should have been enough to encourage hope of acceptance. The fourth warrant was the gospel offer. In particular, he asserted that if the offer was rejected it was not rejected on Christ’s part. It was rather that “unbelief breaketh with Christ first, before Christ break with the unbeliever.” The gospel offer, even to the reprobate, was a “treaty of peace”.608 Given this offer, then, all had a warrant to believe. His fifth warrant to believe was that the gospel 602 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 426. Compare also Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 93 – 94 where the “words” “promises” and “threats” render “the reprobate without excuse”. 603 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 29. 604 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 29 – 30. The context is Christ’s offering the gospel to the Jews who rejected him; this passage cannot therefore be restricted to refer only to the elect. 605 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 300. Rutherford was clear that the object of faith is not the decree of God, not the intention to save any individual, but rather in the word of promise and Christ promised and exhibited. Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 251 – 2 Hence Bell’s comment that “Assurance of salvation is gained, then, from self examination and syllogistic deduction.” Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 82. However, Rutherford’s pastoral counsel could be much simpler : “if ye truly believe in Him as He is offered to you in the everlasting gospel, there is no fear that He cast you off or that ye shall not be saved.” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 119. 606 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 300 – 1. 607 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 302. Rutherford cites as examples Jer. 3:12; Joel 2:13; John, 4:2. 608 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 302.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

245

offer showed “real love”. Even though it was no guarantee of electing love, nevertheless those who received the offer could “expound love by love, and lay hold of the promise and be saved.”609 Rutherford also responded in many other places in his writings to the problem of relating election to the universal warrant to believe. He argued that “God keepeth up in his mind, the secrets of election and reprobation, till he, in his own time, be pleased to reveal them”, but in the mean time “the Lord hath framed the gospel-offer of Christ in … indefinite words, and … general.”610 This left the reprobate without “ground to quarrel at the decrees of God; tho they be not chosen, yet they are called, as if they were chosen; and they have no cause to quarrel at conjectures, they have as fair a revealed warrant to believe, as the elect have; they are men, sinners of the world, to whom Christ is offered: why refuse they him upon an unrevealed warrant?”611 He argued that the object of faith was “that mother-promise of the gospel, John iii. 16. and v. 25. that gospel-record, 1 John v. 10, 11, 12. He that believeth, hath life eternal; and Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. i. 15. To seek and to save the lost, Luke xix. 10. That he came to save me in particular, is apprehended by sense, not by faith”.612 Duty Faith As all had a warrant to believe, so all had a duty to do so. Rutherford held that the command to believe laid a “real obligation” on his hearers.613 Further, the promise of the gospel “imposes an ingagement and obligation upon such [as receive it] to believe the promise.”614 He concentrated more on the command of God as imposing a duty to believe savingly than on the offer itself. Even as Abraham was obliged to follow God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac, so all God’s commands were to be obeyed. In particular, he maintained that unbelief and rejecting of Christ was against the clear command of God and therefore was sin.615 All then were “under condition of believing, and tyed to believe, so as the 609 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 303. Of this list of warrants to believe only one gives weight to Bell’s statement cited above. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 82. 610 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 509. 611 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 510. The “Marrow Men” in eighteenth-century Scotland were to use this quotation in defence of their doctrine. See Chapter Five for an examination of this controversy. 612 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 520. Thus “& sic verbum Dei revelatum est fidei objectum (and the revealed word of God is the object of faith)”. Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 246. 613 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 92. 614 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 92. Further, “all that hear the gospel are … to receive Christ by faith, as if God intended to save them.” Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 151. Bell acknowledges this element of duty faith in Rutherford. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 72. 615 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 188.

246

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

wrath of God abides upon him, he shall not see life, nor be justified if he believe not…”616 Rutherford was aware that all having a duty to believe could be regarded as inconsistent with his soteriology, in particular the inability to believe apart from divine grace, or particular redemption. His response was to affirm that all were to believe on Christ, and not to enter into debates about the reasonableness of the command to believe, as to do so was to pit “carnal reason” against the revealed will of God.617 He even taught that any person who felt guilty of committing “that sin against the Holy Ghost” should not despair, but was rather “obliged to believe the power of infinite mercy to save him, and to hang by that thread, in humility and adherence to Christ.”618 He was willing to confess an element of “mystery” here: “I must profess ignorance.”619 Nevertheless, he insisted on “the duty of their [unbelievers’] fiducial adherence and heart-resting in Christ, as they would be saved” even though “the Lord never purposed to work their hearts.”620

The Offer and God’s Will and Desire It has been argued by Bell that Rutherford uniformly denied any will or desire in God that all would be saved.621 Coffey has also posited that Rutherford’s opposition to Moises Amyraut led him to deny that “God desired the salvation of all men.”622 Conversely, it has been stated by Richard that Rutherford taught that “God desires, approves, and commands many things to be done, which he decrees not to be done in actuality.”623 Clearly, there is no scholarly consensus on the relation of the free offer to the will of God, and a further examination of Rutherford’s views is called for. There are a number of statements in Rutherford which would appear to support Bell and Coffey. In his heated polemics against Arminians he often denied that it was “a part of the goodness and bounty of God to will and desire every one to be saved, and not to institute such a dispensation, as all and everyone should actually be saved.”624 He parodied the Arminian position as 616 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 344 – 5. Those who hear the gospel are “obliged in a special manner to come to Christ.” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 350. 617 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 109. 618 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 131. 619 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 522. See also Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 131. 620 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 522. See also Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 130 – 1. 621 Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 72. He correctly asserts that Rutherford denied it was the intention of God to save all. 622 Coffey, Rutherford, 121. 623 Richard, Supremacy of God, 103. 624 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 14 – 15. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 304; Rutherford, Christ Dying, 551.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

247

representing God passionately desiring to save all alike and therefore being sorrowful and mournful because he was unable to bring his will to pass.625 As well as appearing to deny a desire of God for the salvation of all, he also denied a universal saving will, stating that, “God so far forth willeth, desireth, intendeth, that all and every one, within, and without the visible church [be saved] … We deny, Arminians affirm.”626 God, for Rutherford, “no more wills all and every man to be saved … than he wills all and every one to be damned.”627 Nevertheless, to stop here would be to miss important emphases in Rutherford’s teaching; indeed, by focusing simply on his anti-Arminian statements Coffey and Bell misrepresent his overall position. Significantly, neither Coffey nor Bell discuss in the context of the gospel offer and the question of “desire” the different senses in which Rutherford referred to the voluntas Dei.628 Rutherford spoke variously of the will of God as distinguished between the approving and commanding will, the will of precept and the efficacious will, the will of purpose, the will of pleasure.629 Using more scholastic language to express the same concepts, he distinguished between the voluntas signi and the voluntas bene placiti.630 The former pointed to duty and indicated what God approved of as morally good; the latter represented what God had actually decreed and intended would come to pass.631 Rutherford could speak of the voluntas bene placiti as “the essential faculty of desiring or willing in God”, and it was in this sense that he denied the Arminian contention of God desiring the salvation of all.632 Rutherford, however, explicitly placed the visible, preached gospel within the

625 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 57. See Rutherford, Christ Dying, 536 – 9, for an extended parody of the Arminian presentation of the gospel. This destroyed “the power of grace and restrains the outgoings of free-love.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 57. 626 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 426. See also Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 240. 627 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 495. A command to believe did not automatically infer that it was God’s decree that believing should actually occur. See Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 241 – 4. 628 Whatever distinctions Rutherford made within the one will of God the will of sign and will of good pleasure were not “contrary” or “contradictory”. Samuel Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia Variis Praelectionibus (Edinburgh: George Anderson, 1649), 4. 629 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 30, 94, 340, 341 [margin], 341 – 2, 343; Christ Dying, 405. See also Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 88. 630 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 161. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 483; Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 213 – 38; Disputatio Scholastica, 3 – 11, 605, 611 – 20. 631 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 341 [margin], 341 – 2; Christ Dying, 161; Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 246. 632 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 405. This was God’s “proper” will. See Rutherford, Christ Dying, 479 – 80. See an extended discussion in Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticæ, 249 – 70.

248

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

context of the revealed will.633 Therefore, “if Judas repent and beleeve, he shall be saved according to the will of precept, and yet according to the Lord’s will of purpose, neither did the Lord decree or intend the repenting and saving believing of Judas.”634 Because of this twofold consideration of the will of God, Rutherford could speak of sin, such as that of Judas in rejecting Christ, as “contrary to his holy and most righteous will”, all the while believing that sin was within the decree of God.635 He was aware that his distinctions within the voluntas Dei risked making God appear contradictory, but insisted that the revealed and secret wills were not in opposition. Rather, while “it is clear they differ much … they are not contradicent, more than the decree of God, and the moral obligation of men are contrair.”636 It was to the righteous revealed will that Rutherford directed attention.637 As noted earlier, he warned against obtruding “carnal reason” in these matters, demonstrating that he was aware of the tension of maintaining these distinctions without falling into open contradiction.638 Indeed, he ultimately resorted to the category of “mystery”, confessing it “is a great mystery, how there be no double-dealing in the gospel, and two contrary wills in God… He offereth, in the gospel, life to all … and God mindeth to work faith, and intendeth to bestow life on a few only”.639 Undoubtedly, however, Rutherford felt that his careful definitions of the revealed and secret will guarded him as much as possible from accusations of inconsistency.640 In the sense of the voluntas signi, then, Rutherford could speak of God’s will for all to embrace the gospel.641 He declared to all that Christ willed them to come 633 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 94. Thus sin is contrary to the will of sign (voluntas signi) revealed by the Gospel. Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica, 6. 634 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 244 – 5. 635 Rutherford, Christ Dying, xii. 636 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 132 – 3. 637 See, e. g., Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 6; Rutherford, Christ Dying, 177, 606. 638 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 109. For instance, Abraham was commended for not disputing over the contradiction between God’s command to kill Isaac and his promise to give him a multitude of descendants: “Abraham did well to leave the supposed contradiction to God, and believe both”. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 49. 639 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 129. He also stated that “one of the deepest mysteries of God’s counsel” was that there is a twofold calling. 1. There is one external, or outward, whereby God calls men who obey not… 2. There is an inward calling … Romans viii. 30”. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 70. 640 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 130. Kim is therefore probably going too far in speaking of “a deep and uncomfortable dualism in his theological mind, which makes itself clear in his discussing the necessity of atonement and the doctrine of predestination with regard to the extent of the free offer of the Gospel.” Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 92. 641 Robert McKelvey notes that William Twiss utilized this same distinction in the will of God to “assert that God can will (according to the voluntas signi) and not will (according to the voluntas beneplaciti) the salvation of one man at the same time without contradiction.” McKelvey, “That Error and Pillar of Antinomianism” in Drawn into Controversie, 250.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

249

to him.642 In addition he also spoke of God’s desire that all would embrace the gospel. He interpreted Isa. 55:1 “as if the Lord were grieved, and said, Wo[e] is me, alas, that thirsty souls should die in the thirst, and will not come to the water of life, Christ, and drink gratis, freely and live.”643 Because of the way in which the verse was expressed, he felt that it showed “A vehemence, and a serious and unfeigned ardency of desire [on the part of God], that we do what is our duty ; and the concatenation of these two, extremely desired of God, our coming to Christ, and our salvation: this moral connection between faith and salvation, is desired of God with his will of approbation, complacency, and moral liking, without all dissimulation, most unfeignedly.”644 Here he spoke explicitly of the revealed will as expressing a desire, namely that all would come to know salvation according to God’s appointed means.645 Rutherford was explicit that he was speaking only of the voluntas signi which showed that “God loveth, approveth the believing of Jerusalem”, that is, the Jerusalem which rejected Christ and crucified him.646 The desire for the salvation of all was a “desire of approbation” and was an “abundantly sufficient closing of the mouth of such as stumble at the gospel, being appointed thereunto; and an expression of Christ’s good-liking to save sinners.”647 God, Rutherford was clear, could say, “As I live, I delight not (so as you slanderously, and blasphemously say) in the death of a sinner ; by my life, I desire you may repent and live.”648 He preached that God “would have them [sinners] turn and live. But as it is true of the Jews, so it is of us … Jesus craves no more for all His pains, but only that His friends come to the banquet and eat and be merry ; and if ye come, Christ will pay all the reckoning … Alas! alas! that the unhappy world will not eat heartily, since Christ pays for all.”649 642 643 644 645 646

647 648

649

Rutherford, Christ Dying, 20. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. The Arminians opposed Rutherford’s position here, arguing that he made “counterfeit, feigned, and hypocritical desires in God.” He responded by simply stating that they “calumniate and cavil egregiously, as their custom is.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 511. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 512. He was not speaking of what “God intendeth, decreeth, or purposeth in his eternal counsel”, and once again denied “what Arminians say of Christ’s intention to die for all, and every one; and of the Lord’s intention and catholic good-will, to save all and every one.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 512. The textual basis cited is Deut. 5:29, Ps. 81:13, Ezek. 18:31 – 32, Prov. 1:20, Lam. 2:19. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 515. He is explicitly paraphrasing Ezek. 18:32 and 33:11. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 356 – 8, where he states that God is “serious in … [calling for] the conversion of a sinner”, and that “Christ has also an earnest desire that we should come…” Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 67. The textual bases cited included Isa. 5:4, Matt. 22:37 and Luke 19:40.

250

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Richard’s conclusion, therefore, is fundamentally correct, namely that in “the voluntas signi … [God] makes known to his creatures all that he approves of, as being ‘morally lawful and noble, even if the future actuality of … [those] good thing[s] may never by decreed by God.’ In this way God desires, approves, and commands many things to be done, which he decrees not to be done in actuality … For example Rutherford says that God ‘desires the obedience of Judas and Herod and Pilate’, by his approving, commanding and revealed will, and ‘yet he decreed [by his hidden or decretive will] that they should crucify the Lord of Glory’.”650

Common Grace Rutherford also believed in common grace and in a common love of God to all. He held that “it is a state of common grace to be within the visible church.”651 Simply to be in an external covenant with God was a favour from God, expressive of his common grace652 and mercy.653 Those who were in a national visible church654 experienced “some concomitant favours of the Gospel, as the Preaching thereof … Common grace, inward warnings … Protections of providence and forbearance, in regard they are mixed with the Elect.”655 Rutherford was clear that the gospel offer “is of Grace, and so Grace.”656 Any degree of conviction of sin, or other work of the Holy Spirit, was to be regarded as part of “the common and general restraining grace of God”.657 Even those outside the visible church experienced something of the common grace of God. All had cause to give thanks to God for his preservation from illness, violence, etc.658 To be alive was to experience mercy, because God could in justice have “destroyed the world and all mankind.”659 Rutherford further stated 650 Richard, Supremacy of God, 103. Emphasis added. 651 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 107. To be within the church was to know “real blessing”. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 103. See also Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 65. This common grace was not designed or intended to be effective for salvation. See Kim, “Eternity and Time,” 282. 652 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 107. He cites Ps. 147:19 – 20; Deut. 5:1 – 2; Mat. 21:42 – 43; Luke 14:16 – 21. 653 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 340. He explicitly includes here “all within the Visible Church, whether Elect or Reprobate”. 654 “So the external Church Covenant and Church right to means of grace is given to a society and made with Nations under the New Testament”. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 83. 655 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 14. See Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 71. 656 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 107. 657 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 275. See also Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 152. 658 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 18. 659 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 422.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

251

that there was “No man living on earth, but he is beholding to Christ (tho many know him not) for common helps of providence; and experiences do teach him some more of God by nature.”660 In addition to common grace, Rutherford also maintained a universal love for all. He believed that there were three degrees of love that God showed. First, there was a love to “all that he had made”.661 Thus God upheld and preserved all his creation. Second, there was a love to God’s rational creatures, “yea, even his enemies”.662 Citing Matt. 5:43 – 48, Rutherford stated that evidence of this love was that God “makes the sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors.”663 Further evidence of this love was that God “sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance, and, with longanimity and forbearance.”664 But this love was not electing love and was not intended to secure the salvation of any. The third and highest degree of love was “a love of special election to glory”.665 Focusing on the second degree of love, it is evident that, as well as being expressive of God’s revealed desire, the gospel offer also spoke of God’s love. Rutherford, while explicitly restricting saving love to the elect, declared that “Christ’s offer is really an offer, and in so far, it is real love…”666 To reject the gospel was to “spurn against the warm bowels of love, to spit on grace, on tenderness of infinite love.”667 Indeed, all who received the gospel offer did so “not because elect, but because freely loved of such a God and without merit called … they are in a state of grace: but so are all within the Visible Church.”668 Rutherford could affirm, “Here indeed is love itself, the Lord inviting us to embrace the gospel!”669

660 661 662 663 664 665 666

Rutherford, Christ Dying, 422 – 3. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 549. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 550. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 550. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 550. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 550. Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, 303. Rutherford is not always necessarily consistent, stating that all that God communicated directly to the reprobate flowed from the hatred of God. See Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 71. But see Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 236, who argues that “To call reprobates is not unreasonable, because God is absolutely free to do so, for He feels pity, and is able, as it pleases Him, even to call many reprobates.” 667 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 20. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 268. His statement that “The scripture nowhere speaks of any love of God in Christ to man, but such as is efficacious in saving” (Rutherford, Christ Dying, 475) must be understood as speaking of the third kind of love described above, or else it is not consistent with his other statements. 668 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 107. 669 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 64.

252

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

The Rejection of the Offer Rutherford frequently responded to the objection that the gospel offer was rendered insincere because of the decrees of election and reprobation.670 He offered a number of responses to this difficulty. First, he urged, as he did in outlining the warrants to believe, that the intention of God to save this or that particular individual was not the object of faith. The only command was to rely on Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour, which he was.671 Second, he emphasized that no one was to judge themselves a reprobate, since God was dealing kindly with them in the offer of the gospel.672 Third, he counselled his readers to “move no curious question of that fruition of God. Christ will solve all these doubts, to the quieting of your mind, when ye come up thither.”673 The only way to ultimately remove all doubts was, then, simply to come to Christ. Fourth, the particular reprobation of any individual was not revealed. None then had any reason to despair.674 Fifth, the reprobate had just as much outward warrant to claim Christ as the elect: they “have as fair a revealed warrant to believe, as the elect have; they are men, sinners of the world, to whom Christ is offered: why refuse they him upon an unrevealed warrant?”675 It was a grand mistake, for Rutherford, to “conceive of the decree of God, as of a deep policy and a stratagem and snare laid for us.”676 Rather, God did not secretly intend the gospel to destroy any, nor did he lie in wait longing for the ruin of the hearers of the gospel.677 On the contrary, “the gospel, as the gospel, revealeth not any decree or intention of God, touching the salvation or damnation of men, intended from eternity … the gospel revealeth nothing but the Lord’s complacency, approbation, and good-liking of the sweet connexion be670 See e. g. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 525 – 6, 529. 671 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 524. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 526. He stated that “unbelievers are not to believe that God decrees and intends to them the thing promised, and grace to perform the condition, but only to believe their obligation to fiduciall relying upon, and Gospel faith in God, revealed in the Mediator.” Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 8 – 9. It is unclear how this fits with his statement that God “taketh ways which he knoweth shall be utterly ineffectual for the salvation, justification, and conversion of all these reprobates, and yet commandeth them to believe that he decrees and intendeth their salvation and conversion, with no less ardency and vehemency of serious affection, than he doth intend the salvation and conversion of all that shall be glorified. Sure this we would call double-dealing in men; and the scripture saith, He is a God of truth, Deut. xxxii. and the Lord who cannot lie.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 524 – 5 [emphasis added]. 672 Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 95. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 552; Communion Sermons, 216; Trial and Triumph of Faith, 152. 673 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 407. 674 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 506. 675 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 510. 676 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 522. 677 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 522. See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 525.

Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661)

253

tween faith and salvation.”678 It was therefore to the gospel, rather than to any hidden decree, that unbelievers were to look. The objection related to particular redemption was also rejected by Rutherford. He summarised the objection as: “But believing is fruitless, and unpossible, if I be excluded from the number of those that Christ died for ; for then I am to believe remission of sins without shedding of blood; and Christ shed no blood for me.”679 His response was similar to his reply to the objection raised by election: “You are neither to lay such a supposition down, that either you are excluded from the number of those that Christ died for, or included in that number ; neither of the two are revealed to you.”680 Rather, no particular intimation had been given regarding the exclusion of any specific individual from the benefits of the death of Christ. Because of this, and because every sinner had need of Christ and was commanded to believe in him, nothing should prevent the application of the death of Christ to any individual.681 He regarded the correct manner of thinking of understanding for whom Christ died as “for all that lean to Him, be who they will.”682 Some were troubled over a misunderstanding of Rutherford’s view of preparations for coming to Christ, and objected that “I find nothing in me, that may qualify me for Christ.”683 He acknowledged that “obstinate and proud” sinners were not to “immediately” believe on Christ, as it was a “physicall incompatibility” for someone who loved and adamantly purposed to persist in their sins to want a Saviour.684 However, he protested that he was not exhorting any to hold back from embracing Christ because they were not sufficiently prepared; rather, he urged sinners to come as they were to Christ.685 Rutherford also emphasized the seriousness of refusing to accept the gospel offer. To reject the gospel was to “break the gospel-covenant”.686 The covenant of grace could not be broken in its essence, but visible covenanters could nevertheless fall away.687 It was also to sin against “the commanding love and authority of our Immanuel”.688 In his opinion, one of the reasons for rejecting the gospel was pride. He believed that sinners who stood apart from Christ thought they could “fend without Christ” and that they had a “stronger Castle to run to than 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688

Rutherford, Christ Dying, 522. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 555. [Italics as original.] See also Rutherford, Christ Dying, 437. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 555. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 555. Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 303. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 553. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 553. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 554. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 188. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 188 – 9. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 188.

254

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

Christ”.689 To reject Christ was to sin against “deep gospel-love”, “surety-love”, and “marriage-love”, and to die having rejected Christ was to have “trampled-on covenant-love”.690 To such Christ would say, “I would have saved you, and ye would not be saved.”691 This points to the truth that the “culpable and moral cause” why any people are not saved is their “actual resistance, and corruption of nature”, not the decree of God.692 Moral inability is found “in the womb of will; it is not weakness only, but also willingness, Mat. xxiii. v. 37. I would have gathered you, (saith Christ) ye would not.”693 Further, Rutherford spoke of rejecting the gospel as resisting “the gospeldrawings of Christ’s arm”, as “resisting the operation of grace”, and as meeting Christ’s love with “hatred and disdain”.694 In some of his most colourful language he stated that “when Christ is burnt up with love, and sick of tender kindness; to cast water on this love, by resisting it, is the highest gospel sin that can be, except despising of the Holy Ghost.”695 Christ offered himself to the Jews, but even as “He held the cup of His blood to them, but they did cast it all back in His face again.”696 Similarly, to reject Christ offered in the gospel today was to “trample under foot the blood of the new covenant.”697 To stand apart from the gospel was also to make Christ a “false promiser”;698 it was to disbelieve the words of the Saviour and therefore make him a liar.699 This language is striking in its similarity to that used by Durham.

689 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 332. 690 Rutherford, Christ Dying, xiii. 691 Rutherford, Christ Dying, xiii. Rutherford made himself quite clear : “blame thyself if thou be poor, when many are enriched. 1. Hath not Christ knocked at the door of thy soul, with a rainy head, and frozen locks, and thou hadst rather he should fall into a swoon in the streets, as open to him, and lodge him; and hast had open back-doors for harlot-lovers? O be ashamed of slighting freelove. 2. Despised love turneth into a flame of gospel-vengeance; a gospel-hell is a hotter furnace, than a law-hell.” Rutherford, Christ Dying, 556 – 7. 692 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 359. “The Lord’s working in us the condition of the covenant of grace, such as faith is, by his efficacious grace, doth not free us from sin, when we believe not; nor involve God in the fault, when he worketh not in us to believe”. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 585. 693 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 608. See also Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 241. 694 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 571. 695 Rutherford, Christ Dying, 571 – 2. 696 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 135. 697 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 350. 698 Rutherford, Communion Sermons, 12. 699 Rutherford, Trial and Triumph, 83. It was to go so far as to be one who “frustrateth Christ’s undertaking in the covenant”, in so far as the revealed will was concerned.

Durham, His Contemporaries, and the Confessional Doctrine of the Free Offer

255

Conclusion Despite being a committed supralapsarian, Rutherford’s understanding of the gospel offer was very similar to that of Durham. Like his contemporary, Rutherford believed that the gospel offer expressed common grace and a revealed desire that all would be saved. Their exegetical basis for the gospel offer was also nearly identical. In addition there was a clear relation of the gospel offer to covenant theology, and particularly an emphasis on two ways of relating to the covenant of grace, namely, internal and external covenanting. However, there was a greater tendency in Rutherford to emphasize preparations prior to coming to Christ, an issue that would give rise to heated debate in eighteenth-century Scottish theology.700 Rutherford also gave more explicit attention to the gospel offer as ultimately a mystery in the way in which it related to the decrees of God. He did not believe that the two were contradictory, but his language is reminiscent at times of those who spoke of the reconciliation of the two as “ineffable”.

Durham, His Contemporaries, and the Confessional Doctrine of the Free Offer This chapter began by highlighting the pressures Reformed theologians were under when articulating their doctrine of the free offer of the gospel. Both Arminian theologians and Reformed theologians who denied particular redemption, for instance Richard Baxter, alleged the free offer of the gospel to be incompatible with the strict particularism of Reformed theology. All the theologians considered in this chapter responded to these challenges firmly, and all the while held fast to the free offer of the gospel without renouncing any other element of their creed. While there are different nuances of thought to be discerned in each theologian, there is a remarkable unity over the gospel offer evident, both among themselves and with James Durham. Supralapsarians and infralapsarians, protestors and resolutioners, Scots and English, all essentially held the same views of the free offer of the gospel. First, they agreed with Durham that “offer” could not be understood simply as equivalent to “presentation”. This is evident from the images they used to explicate the meaning of offer, such as inviting, beseeching, begging, wooing and selling. Taken together with the teaching of Durham, this warrants the conclusion that it is not possible to reduce the language of the Westminster Con700 The Marrow Controversy, considered in Chapter Five.

256

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

fession of Faith 7:3 to refer merely to a presentation of gospel facts. Rather, when the Confession speaks of offer it has to be understood as speaking of an earnest well-meant invitation, because this is how prominent Reformed preachers and theologians of the time understood the Confession’s language. The arguments of Clark and Beach, rather than Blacketer and others, are therefore sustained by the primary literature. Second, while some theologians utilized a slightly different exegetical base for the free offer from others (for example, Manton’s use of John 3:16 is materially different from Rutherford’s) there is evidence of a remarkable exegetical harmony within the Reformed tradition when defining and defending the free offer of the gospel. All the figures considered here took Rev. 3:20 to speak of this matter. Similarly, Christ’s lament over Jerusalem was understood as testifying to the reality of its seriousness. Ezek. 18:23 and the parallel statement in Ezek. 33:11 were likewise understood as speaking of the well-meant gospel offer. 2 Cor. 5:20, with its image of an ambassador pleading with the people to whom he was sent to embrace the offered reconciliation, was taken as a picture of the preacher offering Christ to sinners. A number of other texts which referred to God as grieved over disobedience, such as Deut. 5:29, Ps. 81:13, Isa. 5:4, Rom. 10:21, were all taken as expressive of the divine attitude in the gospel offer, namely that it was sincere and in earnest. The proof texts for the gospel offer appended to Westminster Confession 7:3, namely John 3:16, Mark 16:15 – 16 and Rom. 10:6,9, were not used as frequently as might be anticipated, particularly by the Scottish divines.701 Third, the four figures surveyed in this chapter all agreed that fundamentally and really the gospel offer was made by God himself. It was God who offered Christ in the gospel to sinners. This was the same position taken by Durham, which indicates a consensus on this point among leading Reformed theologians closely associated with the Westminster Standards. Fourth, there was unanimity that the gospel offer was made to all to whom the gospel came, and not just some suitably “qualified” subset of hearers. Whilst there was language used, particularly by Sedgwick and Rutherford, which tended potentially to limit the gospel offer, such as “thirsty sinners” or “sensible sinners”, this stood together in their writings with explicit affirmations that the gospel was offered to all without exception. Indeed, while there were differences in the understanding of some texts (with Sedgwick on occasion limiting Isa. 55:1 to those qualified by a conviction of sin but Durham insisting that there was no 701 Indeed, Sedgwick stands out in relating all three texts to the gospel offer in his works. With that being said, however, “The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge” written by Dickson and Durham, expands on John 3:16 in relation to the gospel offer. “The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge” in Westminster Confession, 329.

Durham, His Contemporaries, and the Confessional Doctrine of the Free Offer

257

limitation on the application of this verse), there was no difference over the fundamental point that the gospel was offered to all. The seeming limitations on the extent of the gospel offer can be understood in context as conveying the truth, agreed on by all the theologians under consideration here, that only those who were convinced of their need of a Saviour would value the gospel offer and embrace Christ. Therefore there is strong evidence that when Westminster Confession 7:3 speaks of the free offer of Christ, it means the free offer of Christ to all who hear the gospel. Fifth, there was also agreement over the reasons for the gospel offer. The gospel offer in general demonstrated the willingness of God to save sinners. In particular, the gospel offer was intended by God to save the elect. At the same time, it also rendered inexcusable those who rejected his grace, and established the justice of his judgment. These reasons again are similar to those presented by Durham and testify to a general agreement amongst Reformed theologians. Sixth, all affirmed that every hearer of the gospel had a warrant to embrace Christ and that all had a duty to do so. The warrant comprised the universal offer of the gospel and the command of God to embrace the gospel offer. The preachers under consideration here repeatedly urged their hearers against looking for any warrant in themselves, or any warrant in the decree or intention of God, but simply to do their duty and heed the universal call of the gospel. Seventh, these theologians understood the concept of the gospel offer to include a certain willingness and desire on the part of God that the hearers of the offer embrace Christ and accept the offer. This, to a degree, is inherent in the very definition they provided of the gospel offer. If it is really an invitation, and if it is accompanied with beseeching and begging, then it follows that the offer is wellmeant, sincere, and implies a willingness and desire that it be accepted. Given that the offerer is God himself, then these things must be reflective of the divine attitude in the gospel offer. The “desire” and “willingness” of God to save all the hearers of the gospel, was related by these theologians to the voluntas revelata, rather than to the decree or intention of God. Nevertheless, with this crucial distinction in focus, these men joined Durham in affirming that God desired the salvation of, and was willing to save, each and every individual hearer of the gospel. Related to this, these four theologians taught that there was such a thing as common grace and a common love of God shown to all, in distinction to saving grace and the love that was limited to the elect. The gospel offer was in itself a mercy and therefore expressive of that common love and grace. This again is in line with the teaching of Durham. The unity on this point of these leading theologians, who all embraced strict particularism with regard to the extent of the atonement, is strongly suggestive that when the Westminster Confession spoke of the free offer, it also entailed that it was appropriate to speak

258

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Free Offer

of the revealed will and desire of God that all be saved, and that this was an expression of God’s common grace and love. Eighth, all these theologians considered in detail the standard objections to the consistency of the universality of the gospel offer with the particularity of their soteriology. In arguing for the consistency of a universal gospel offer with election and particular redemption, all four theologians responded in similar ways, pointing away from the secret will (voluntas arcane) or decree to the revealed will (voluntas revelata) contained in the gospel offer. Ultimately, however, as exemplified by Rutherford, they did not feel the need to resolve all difficulties, confessing as they did that their theology was but theologia ectypa and that their God and his ways were beyond all human comprehension. These eight points are representative of the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the gospel offer. However, this has not always been recognized. Three ecclesiastical disputes over the correct interpretation of the Confessional meaning of the gospel offer will now be considered to shed further light on the historic understanding of the gospel offer.

Chapter Five: Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

So far, consideration has been given to the teaching of Reformed theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with special focus on James Durham and the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This study has concluded that both Durham and his leading contemporaries stood within a Reformed tradition, embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which understood the free offer of the gospel as a sincere and well-meant invitation from God, to all the hearers of the gospel, to come to Christ for salvation. In particular, that wellmeant offer expressed the revealed will of God and his desire for the salvation of all the hearers of the gospel message. However, the influence of Durham, and particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith, extended far beyond the confines of the seventeenth century. As the free offer of the gospel touched on key areas of federal theology, soteriology and ecclesiology, so the teaching of the Westminster Confession became an area of dispute in subsequent centuries. This is not surprising, for as has been considered throughout this work, the free offer raises significant theological questions when set alongside a particularistic theology.1 The interrelation of a particular redemption with a universal gospel offer, and the consistency of election and the need of regeneration to be able to believe with a well-meant gospel offer, are undoubted points of tension which have been the cause of controversy through the centuries. Three particularly significant controversies centring on the interpretation of the Reformed confessions will now be considered to demonstrate the ongoing significance of the free offer of the gospel. There have been other controversies 1 Thus Bailey notes: “Some theologians view the message of Christ’s redemption as an open statement: ‘Christ died for you.’ Others argue that such a declaration is unwarranted, believing this statement communicates something of God’s divine and secret purpose, rather than simply issuing a general promise of Christ’s sufficiency. Consequently, debates have arisen throughout the centuries regarding how Christians can fulfil their obligation to preach the gospel of reconciliation while at the same time remain faithful to the content of that message.” Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 42.

260

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

relating to the free offer,2 but these three have been chosen as they hinge on the interpretation of its meaning in the Reformed confessions, and in particular the Westminster Standards, which is the focus of this study. The first dispute to be considered regarding the correct understanding of the Westminster Confession’s teaching is the early eighteenth-century debate in Scotland known as the “Marrow Controversy”. The second is the late nineteenth-century conflict in America over the nature of subscription to the Westminster Standards and the meaning of the Westminster Confession, together with the relative clarity of its teaching, on the free offer. The third and final occasion of strife considered here arose in the 1920s within the Christian Reformed Church in North America, with the focus in this ecclesiastical conflict more on the meaning of the Canons of Dort.

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland In the early eighteenth century a dispute erupted in the Scottish Church over The Marrow of Modern Divinity (hereafter, The Marrow), a book originally published during the time of the Westminster Assembly.3 This work was largely a compendium of quotations from earlier Reformed theologians, cast in the form of a dialogue.4 It engendered no real controversy at the time of its original publication.5 However, when it was republished in Scotland in 1718, with the assistance of James Hog, a disturbance arose over the faithfulness of The Marrow to Reformed theology, and in particular to the Westminster Confession of Faith.6 2 A number of these are noted in the final chapter. 3 E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: Printed by R.W. for G. Calvert, at the BlackSpread Eagle near Pauls, 1645). For studies of the Marrow Controversy and its aftermath, see Lachman, The Marrow Controversy ; William VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Atonement, Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718 – 1799) (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 139 – 166; David Lachman, “Marrow Controversy,” DSCHT, 546 – 8; Donald Beaton, “‘The Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy,” PTR 4:3 (1906): 317 – 338; Joseph Hall, “The Marrow Controversy : A Defence of Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” MAJT 10 (1999): 239 – 57; John J. Murray, “The Marrow Controversy – Thomas Boston and the Free Offer,” in Preaching and Revival (Westminster Conference, 1984), 34 – 56. 4 The participants being Evangelista, a gospel minister, Nomista, a legalist, Antinomista, an antinomian, and Neophitus, a young believer. For the list of Reformed authors cited, see Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of Thomas Boston (ed. Samuel M’Millan; 12 vols.; London: William Tegg and Co., 1854), 7:164. 5 For some negative seventeenth-century responses, see VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition, 17, fn. 34. 6 E.F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The Ninth Edition Corrected (Edinburgh: John Mosman

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland

261

The Scottish Church had seen many changes since the death of James Durham. With the end of the Protectorate and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, episcopacy was reimposed on Scotland in 1662. The majority of the Scottish ministers conformed, while a sizable minority were forced to leave their congregations. After approximately thirty years of episcopacy in 1690, following the “glorious revolution” Presbyterianism was re-established by William of Orange and in the 1707 union with England the government of the Church of Scotland was settled as Presbyterian. It did not take long for the free offer to become a matter of dispute in the revolution settlement Kirk. The origins of the discord lay in what was known as the “Auchterarder Creed”.7 This was drawn up by the Presbytery of Auchterarder and stated that “I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach, that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ, and instating us in Covenant with God.”8 This statement was debated and condemned as antinomian by the General Assembly of the Scottish Church in 1717. In the context of the debate over the Creed Thomas Boston remarked on the usefulness of The Marrow (in particular of its teaching on the free offer9) to a fellow minister, which led to its reprinting. A pamphlet dispute over the orthodoxy of The Marrow ensued, with the result that it was condemned by the General Assembly in 1720. A group of ministers, who later became known as the “Marrow Brethren”, petitioned the 1721 Assembly to overturn this decision. Their appeal met with little success, and the 1722 Assembly reaffirmed the condemnation of The Marrow. Although the initial spark of the Marrow Controversy was a concern over the perceived danger of antinomianism expressed in the Auchterarder Creed, the free offer of the gospel eventually became a central area of dispute. As The Marrow touched on areas relating to saving faith, assurance, and the warrant to believe the gospel, and did so in fairly stark terms, this is not surprising.10 The General Assembly proceeded to condemn the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel in The Marrow as necessarily teaching “universal atonement and pardon”.11 In particular, the Assembly objected to the statement that “The Father

7 8 9 10 11

and William Brown, 1718). The definitive edition of this work became that which included the notes of Thomas Boston on The Marrow, namely, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes in Boston, Works, 7:143 – 489. See David Lachman, “Auchterarder Creed,” DSCHT, 45. As cited in David Lachman, “Auchterarder Creed,” DSCHT, 45. Boston, Works, 12:291. See e. g. Boston, Works, 7:256 – 78. Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 130. Thus McGowan states, “In the Marrow Controversy … the great issue was the relationship between the extent of the atonement and the offer of the gospel. That is to say, if Christ died only for the elect could the offer of Christ in the gospel be made to all without exception.” McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 37. See also McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 54, 175, 206 – 7. A key opponent of the Marrow was James Hadow. See, in particular James Hadow, The Record of God and Duty of

262

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, That whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish” and that there was a gospel warrant to “go tell every man without exception … Christ is dead for him.”12 In contrast to a universal gospel offer the Assembly tended towards a preparationist position, with the gospel offer being made only to the “prepared or sensible sinner”.13 Thus it combined an opposition to antinomianism with a related fear that the gospel would look too unconditional, cheap and easy if it was offered too freely.14 As well as answering the charges of being antinomians, in response to these condemnations by the Assembly the “Marrow Men” sought to “defend the free offer of the gospel over against a misguided and misinformed hyper-Calvinism.”15 Two key sources for their defence of The Marrow will now be examined, namely their answer to questions put to them by the Assembly,16 and Thomas Boston’s marginal notes on The Marrow itself. These responses will be evaluated for their fidelity to the teaching of the Westminster Confession and James Durham. Answering the accusation of the Assembly that The Marrow’s statement that “The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, That whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish” implied universal atonement, the “Marrow Men” petitioned the Assembly stating that the condemnation of this phrase was “surprising”.17 They felt this inasmuch as the latter half of the citation was a verbatim quotation from Scripture, and the former half simply presented the revealed will of God offering Christ to all, and giving all a

12 13 14

15

16 17

Faith Required Therein (Edinburgh: John Mosman, 1719); The Antinomianism of the Marrow of Modern Divinity Detected (Edinburgh: John Mosman, 1721). For brief studies of Hadow’s theology, see Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 170 – 7; VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition, 36 – 42. Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 130. Lachman, “Marrow Controversy,” 547. The assembly criticized The Marrow over five specific areas. Of these the first two mentioned related to the free offer of the gospel, “Concerning the Nature of Faith”, and “Of Universal Atonement and Pardon”. The other three related to charges of antinomianism. The Assembly also gathered six antinomian paradoxes from The Marrow, and condemned various of its other statements which they judged tended towards antinomianism. Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 129 – 32. Hall, “The Marrow Controversy,” 240. The “Marrow Men” were Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine, Gabriel Wilson, Henry Davidson, Thomas Boston, James Hog, John Williamson, James Kid (Queensferry), John Bonar (Torphichen), James Bathgate, William Hunter and James Wardlaw. For biographical information on these men see Brown, Gospel Truth, 38 – 127. Largely drawn up by Ebenezer Erskine and Gabriel Wilson. Beaton, “The Marrow of Modern Divinity,” 326. Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 139. Thus Hadow questions “how can Ministers of the Gospel tell every man, as the Truth of God, that Christ is dead for him, without the supposition of an universal Redemption?” Hadow, The Record of God, 27.

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland

263

warrant to accept him as Saviour.18 The Assembly’s citation of this verse appeared to the “Marrow Men” to deny the warrant for all to come to Christ.19 The Assembly replied by requiring the “Marrow Men” to answer several questions largely focusing on antinomianism, but including some related to the gospel offer, namely “Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, offering a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrant to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father’s making a deed of gift or grant unto all mankind? Is this grant made to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether is it absolute or conditional?”20 The “Marrow Men” responded to this question by stating that they held to particular redemption; nothing in their doctrine of the free offer of the gospel, they felt, led them to deny a definite atonement.21 They did not believe that the universal offer of the gospel was hindered by particular redemption, as “ministers … are authorised and instructed to go to preach the gospel to every creature i. e. to make a full, free, and unhampered offer of him, his grace, righteousness, and salvation, to every rational soul”.22 They argued that this position was faithful to the Reformed tradition, citing Samuel Rutherford as teaching that “The reprobate have as fair a warrant to believe as the elect have.”23 In defending this position they used a textual base to defend the free offer of the gospel in this context, namely John 3:16, John 6:32 and 1 John 5:11. This did not reflect the most common biblical evidence for the gospel offer used by earlier theologians.24 Nevertheless, in maintaining a universal warrant for faith in Christ, they were simply echoing the Reformed theology that preceded them.25 18 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 139. 19 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 139. 20 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 144. Hadow himself did not appear to have any difficulty with the specific terminology of “offer”. See, for example, Hadow, The Antinomianism of the Marrow Detected, v, viii-ix. It was therefore the “Marrow Men’s” exposition of “offer” rather that the word itself that he found problematic. 21 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 177. In their own words, they held to “the purchase and application of redemption” that was “peculiar to the elect”. Beaton comments that “it is evident from their [i. e. the “Marrow Men’s”] writings that they strongly held the doctrine of a definite atonement; and it could easily be shown that while steering clear of Arminianism they managed to steer no less successfully past Amyraldianism.” Beaton, “Marrow Controversy,” 333. 22 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 177 – 8. 23 Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 180. See Rutherford, Christ Dying, 510. 24 1 John 5:11 was, however, the text used by Hadow as the basis for his attack on the Marrow. His sermon printed as The Record of God and Duty of Faith was an exposition of this verse. Hadow, The Record of God, passim. 25 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16, NKJV.) “Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (John 6:32, NKJV.) “And this is the testimony : that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” (1 John 5:11, NKJV.) This is not to say that

264

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

VanDoodewaard is therefore justified in concluding that their response to the Assembly “evidenced an understanding of the gospel offer bound to a consistent, particularist Calvinism and cogently reflective of their federal theology.”26 More can be gleaned from Thomas Boston’s notes on these phrases in his annotated edition of The Marrow and his other writings.27 Boston defined the “deed of gift and grant to all mankind” as simply “the authentic gospel offer”.28 This gospel offer, he argued, was to all, without exception.29 His position is consistent with the teaching of the Westminster Confession and all the Reformed theologians studied in this volume. It is important to note that both the disputed phrases in The Marrow occur in response to the question, “hath such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?”30 At the heart of the debate, then, was the extent of the gospel offer, as well as its nature. Was the gospel offer of itself sufficient to provide a warrant for all men to believe in Christ? Boston believed clearly that the gospel offer was to all, and that this was necessary to provide the basis for anyone to believe. Without a gospel offer to all, he argued, there was no basis for belief, for how could people be certain that they fulfilled the conditions required (whatever they were) to be recipients of the offer?31 In contrast to this he argued for “the good old way” of providing sinners with a warrant to believe, namely the universal gospel offer as a particular invitation to each individual hearer.32 This offer, while in no way implying a “universal atonement or redemption”, did include reference to the sufficiency of Christ.33 Again, Boston here was not stating anything differently from the other Reformed theologians studied earlier. In defence of his understanding of the gospel offer, Boston explicitly cited the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3 and Westminster Larger Catechism Q& A 63, which highlights the fact that the interpretation of the Westminster Standards

26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33

they neglected the texts considered earlier in this study ; rather, they did not make specific use of them in this immediate context. See, e. g. Boston, Works, 7:269, for an exposition of 2 Cor. 5:20 – 1; Boston, Works, 7:275, for an exposition of Rev. 3:20. VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition, 67. Boston is considered here as he has the “reputation of being the theologian of the Marrow brethren”. VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition, 76. For brief discussions of Boston’s views of the gospel offer, see Lachman, “The Marrow Controversy,” 135 – 6, and VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition, 86 – 91. For more general studies of Boston’s theology, see Ryken, Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State; McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston. Boston, Works, 7:263. Boston, Works, 7:263. Boston, Works, 7:262. See Boston, Works, 7:266: “whosoever pretends to believe on him [Jesus Christ], without believing that this grant or offer belongs to himself particularly, does but act presumptuously, as seeing he has no warrant to believe on Christ”. Boston, Works, 7:263. Boston, Works, 7:263.

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland

265

was a key area of dispute in the Marrow Controversy.34 He also quoted the Canons of Dort, referring to 2:5 and 2:6.35 Further, he made use of Durham and Dickson’s work, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in particular the section entitled “The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge”, which states that “This general offer, in substance, is equivalent to a special offer made to every one in particular, as appears by the apostle making use of it, Acts xvi. 31. The reason of which offer is given, John iii. 16.”36 The use of John 3:16 in this quotation was particularly important for Boston, as The Marrow was expounding John 3:16 when it spoke of the “deed of gift or grant”. Boston argued repeatedly that neither phrase, “deed of gift or grant” nor “Christ is dead for you”, implied a universal atonement.37 Both spoke only of “the warrant sinners have to believe in Christ, namely, that the offer of Christ is general.”38 He drew a sharp distinction between the phrases “Christ died for you” and “Christ is dead for you”.39 The former implied a universal redemption, whereas the latter simply pointed to the universal offer of the gospel. He understood “Christ is dead for you” as consistent with the invitation in Matt. 22:4, “come, for all things are ready”. This meant no more than that there “is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and 34 Boston, Works, 7:263. In referring to Westminster Confession 7:3, Boston was no doubt aware that the proof texts annexed to this section of the Confession included John 3:16 and Mark 16:15. Both the offending phrases in The Marrow were glosses on these texts; by referring to the Westminster Confession 7:3 Boston was thus making the point that to utilize these texts as referring to the gospel offer was in line with the Confession. John J. Murray correctly notes that “Boston’s teaching was firmly grounded on the Westminster Confession of Faith.” John J. Murray, “The Marrow Controversy,” 50. 35 Boston, Works, 7:263. 36 Boston, Works, 7:263. See also another citation in Boston, Works, 7:270. There is a further quotation from the “Practical Use of Saving Knowledge” to support particular redemption in Boston, Works, 7:266. The “Marrow Men” had a strong respect for Durham, citing him twice in their response to the General Assembly. See Brown, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated, 153, 182. For the influence of Durham on Boston specifically, see Ryken, Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State, 17 – 18. Boston possessed as least four of Durham’s works. See Ryken, Thomas Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State, 315. Durham remained highly regarded within the theological tradition associated with them. See Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 93, fn. 137. 37 This has been challenged by Jonathan Moore in his work on John Preston (Moore, English Hypothetic Universalism, passim). The phrase “Christ is dead for you” in The Marrow was a citation from John Preston, and Moore argues that Preston held to a form of universal redemption. Regardless of the meaning of this phrase in its original context, and see Chapter Three for some evaluation of Moore’s definition of universal redemption against the background of Durham’s understanding of the gospel offer, it cannot be doubted that Boston understood these phrases in a manner consistent with particular redemption. (The phrase “deed of gift or grant” was a quotation from Ezekiel Culverwell. For a brief survey of his views on the gospel offer, see Chapter One) 38 Boston, Works, 7:264. 39 Boston, Works, 7:264.

266

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

partake of freely.”40 The exposition of this verse could be regarded as a verbatim quotation from Durham, and indicates the uniformity of the views of the two men. However, while denying universal redemption, Boston did hold that The Marrow taught that the universal offer was a “fruit” of Christ’s death.41 Again, this concession is unremarkable, as Durham had taught that the death of Christ was the sine qua non of the gospel offer, and that while Christ did not die for all, nevertheless many benefits from the death of Christ flowed to all. The Marrow also placed the gospel offer in the context of the “revealed will” of God.42 This was in contrast to the outworking of election and reprobation, which was secret and hidden. If any were inclined to reject the gospel offer on the basis of election, The Marrow urged them to not make the “secret things” (Deut. 29:29) a rule of faith, but to give attention to the express revealed will of God in the gospel offer.43 This gospel offer both commanded all to believe savingly on Christ (1 John 3:23), and promised to all salvation on coming to Christ (John 3:16).44 With the warrants to embrace the gospel consisting of universal gospel offers, commands and promises, for The Marrow it was beyond doubt that all had a “duty” to come to Christ.45 In placing the warrant to believe in the offers, commands, and promises of the gospel,46 The Marrow was squarely in line with the teaching of James Durham. Further, in expressing its belief in “duty faith” The Marrow again was consistent with standard Reformed theology. The Marrow explicitly considered the question of preparationism, condemning any such notion. In response to a question from Nomista asking whether “Christ requires a thirsting, before a man come unto him”, Evangelista replies that the gospel proclamation is not simply “let him who is athirst come” but also “whosoever will”, so that thirsting is not a limitation of the gospel offer, or of the warrant to come to Christ.47 Boston agreed with the teaching of The Marrow, commenting that in Isa. 55:1 and Rev. 22:17 the mention of thirsting 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47

Boston, Works, 7:267. Boston, Works, 7:264. Boston, Works, 7:268. Thus The Marrow embraced the syllogismus practicus, where the order of reasoning was: all who believe in Christ are elect, I believe in Christ, therefore I am elected. Boston, Works, 7:268. Boston, Works, 7:268. “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.” (1 John 3:23, NKJV.) Boston, Works, 7:268. These promises of acceptance were vitally important for Boston, as he believed that “no man can ever receive and rest on Christ for salvation, without believing, in greater or later measure, that Christ will accept of him to justification and salvation.” Boston, Works, 7:274. Again, Boston was not stating anything new, or different from the theology of the Westminster Standards. Boston, Works, 7:278.

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland

267

“did not in any way restrict the offer.”48 Further, he rejected any claim that the thirsting in these texts referred in any way to a particular mourning over sin as “thirsty, sensible sinners”.49 Rather, he argued that the texts referred to a “thirst after happiness and satisfaction” which was common to all.50 In so saying, he was not denying the importance of conviction of sin, or of preaching the law, but was rather declaring that a sense of sin did not itself comprise the warrant for embracing Christ as Saviour, or restrict the scope of the gospel offer.51 Boston himself held that the free offer of the gospel was indeed well-meant; it was sincere and expressive of the desire and willingness of God to save the hearers of the gospel.52 This is seen clearly in his series of sermons on Matt. 11:28, entitled “Christ’s Invitation to the Labouring and Heavy Laden”.53 Here Boston stated that “sinners are welcome to come to Christ … Christ is ready to receive you on your coming.”54 He gave eight points in support of this doctrine. The first was the reason for Christ’s coming into the world, namely to seek and to save the lost.55 The second and third arguments related to the incarnation of Christ, and his death for sinners. In an argument reminiscent of that of Durham, Boston effectually posed the question to his hearers, whether in so far as it lay with them, they would frustrate the revealed end of the death of Christ, which was to save sinners.56 His fourth argument was that Christ had ordained ministers to plead with sinners to come to him, which he would not have done if he was unwilling to receive them.57 The fifth reason to prove the willingness of Christ to save was that “he heartily invites you to come to him.”58 Boston referred to Isa. 55:1 and Rev. 3:20 to support the concept of a hearty invitation.59 Both 48 Boston, Works, 7:278. “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.” (Isa. 55:1, NKJV.) “And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17, NKJV.) 49 Boston, Works, 7:278. See also Boston, Works, 9:173 – 5. 50 Boston, Works, 7:278. 51 Boston, Works, 7:277. 52 Thus McGowan comments “It may be today we have great difficulty in understanding how these two truths – the gracious invitation and … predestination – can be held together, but … Boston … was able to hold these scriptural truths in tension.” McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 15. 53 Boston, Works, 9:169 – 219. “Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28, NKJV.) 54 Boston, Works, 9:210. 55 Boston, Works, 9:210. 56 Boston, Works, 9:210. Boston no more intended this line of reasoning to conflict with particular redemption than did James Durham. 57 Boston, Works, 9:210 – 1. 58 Boston, Works, 9:211. 59 Boston, Works, 9:211. Rev. 3:20 is mistakenly cited as Rev. 3:2. “Behold, I stand at the door

268

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

these texts were frequently referred to by Durham. The sixth reason was that the invitation was not simply a bare invitation, but rather was characterized by earnestness and would brook no refusal.60 He referred to Luke 14:23, Isa. 55:1 and Ezek. 33:11 in this context.61 Again, these texts were all used by Durham in a similar light. His seventh argument that Christ was ready to receive sinners was deduced from Christ’s complaints when sinners did not come to him for salvation.62 Boston here cited John 5:40, Isa. 49:4 and Christ’s lament over Jerusalem, Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41 – 2.63 He stoutly denied that this lament applied only to Christ in his time on earth, rather caustically commenting that “Sure he has lost no … compassion by going to heaven”.64 The use of these texts is further evidence of the uniformity of Boston’s exegesis with that of Durham. Finally, Boston posits that sinners can be sure that Christ wants them to come to him because he commands them to do so, citing 1 John 3:23, John 6:29 and Mark 16:16.65 It is quite evident that Boston, in line with Durham and from an almost identical exegetical base, taught the willingness of Christ to save sinners. In addition, he taught that God desired the salvation of sinners, and again from a very similar textual foundation. In his sermon, “Gospel Presentations are the Strongest Invitations” preached from Matt. 22:4, Durham stated that “God the Father, and the Kings Son the Bridegroom are not only content and willing, but very desirous to have sinners coming to the marriage, they would fain (to speak

60 61

62 63

64 65

and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” (Rev. 3:20, NKJV.) Boston, Works, 9:211. “Then the master said to the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” (Luke 14:23, NKJV.) “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’” (Ezek. 33:11, NKJV.) Boston, Works, 9:211. “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:40, NKJV.) “Then I said, ‘I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and in vain.” (Isa. 49:4, NKJV.) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37, NKJV.) “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.” (Luke 19:41 – 2, NKJV.) Boston, Works, 9:211. “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.” (1 John 3:23, NKJV.) “Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (John 6:29, NKJV.) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16, NKJV.)

Of Marrows and Men: The Free Offer in Early Eighteenth-Century Scotland

269

so with reverence) have poor Souls espoused to Christ.”66 Preaching from the parallel passage in Luke (Luke 14:23), Boston stated that “Sinners are desired to come in. They not only have leave to come in, but they are desired by the Master of the house to come in.”67 This desire was evident from the very nature of the gospel offer, for “If ye were not desired, why would he send his servants to compel you to come in?”68 This teaching led Beaton to claim that “Never before, perhaps, in Scottish preaching was such stress laid on the free offer of the Gospel to every sinner of the human race.”69 While there is much in Boston to justify the comment of Beaton, given the similarity of his doctrine with that of Durham, it is doing a disservice to earlier theologians, as it is doing an injustice to Boston himself, to claim that he was an innovator. Rather, in maintaining a gospel offer that was “as full and free, as earnest and pressing as he could make them”, Thomas Boston and the “Marrow Men” were following in the footsteps of classic Reformed theology.70 The controversy over the theology of Boston, the “Marrow Men”, and The Marrow itself, should not have resulted in their condemnation, for when their theology of the free offer is compared with that of earlier Reformed theologians, such as Durham, no significant divergence is evident. Indeed, it is possible to go so far as to say that their doctrine of the gospel offer is the doctrine of the Westminster Standards.71

66 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 42. “Again, he sent out other servants, saying, Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” (Matt. 22:4, NKJV.) 67 Boston, Works, 6:287. Boston, in the context, does not limit this desire to the elect, but does limit it to those who hear the preached gospel. “Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” (Luke 14:23, NKJV.) 68 Boston, Works, 6:287. 69 Beaton, “Marrow Controversy,” 331. 70 Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 136. 71 This challenges the conclusions of Bell and Torrance, who posit significant differences between the “Marrow Men’s” understanding of the gospel offer and that of their “federal” predecessors. Torrance, Scottish Theology, passim; Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, passim.

270

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

The New World, Old Controversies Disputes over the free offer of the gospel and the Westminster Confession of Faith were subsequently transplanted to American soil. A particular period of disagreement occurred during the creedal revision controversies in the Northern Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, hereafter PCUSA) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is not possible to cover here the vast scope of literature relating to this controversy, or to discuss the many issues underlying the drive for confessional change which eventually resulted in the 1903 revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Suffice it to say that there was general dissatisfaction with the teaching of Westminster Standards on the part of those leading the drive for revision. They believed that “the evolution of Christian life and thought” and “the advancing tide of Christianity” had rendered much of the teaching of the Confession inadequate.72 The Confession was regarded as a testament to “logical deductions” and “speculative theology” and therefore should be replaced by the emerging biblical theology of the day.73 Virtually no element of the Confession was spared. Its doctrine of the Trinity was attacked as deficient; it was alleged to have failed to capture the glory of the attributes of God; its doctrine of creation of necessity failed to account for nineteenth-century developments in science; and in anthropology and Christology, the Confession was challenged as inadequate.74 The Westminster divines were also alleged to have given disproportionate emphasis to the doctrine of the divine decree, to have erred in teaching the damnation of those who die without hearing the gospel, and to have failed to give sufficiently extensive and specific teaching on the Holy Spirit.75 However, for the current purpose, which is to demonstrate the ongoing significance of the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of the free offer of the gospel, it is necessary only to examine briefly the views of those who advocated confessional revision, and two figures, namely W.G.T Shedd and B.B Warfield, who opposed it, specifically as their views relate to the free offer, for this issue and the related themes of particular redemption and election lay at the heart of many of their debates. Charles Briggs (1841 – 1913)76 was a prominent professor at Union Theo72 Charles Briggs, “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” The Andover Review, 13 (January 1890): 45. 73 Briggs, “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” 46. 74 Briggs, “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” 56 – 60. 75 Briggs, “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” 60 – 64. 76 For a brief biographical sketch of Briggs, see Trevor Morrow, “Infallibility as a Theological Concept: A Study in the Use of the Concept ‘Infallible’ in the Writings of B.B Warfield and C.A. Briggs” (PhD. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 197 – 202.

The New World, Old Controversies

271

logical Seminary, New York, from 1874 to 1904. He was a controversial figure in the Presbyterian Church, and was a key advocate for confessional revision. He was eventually suspended from the Presbyterian ministry in 1893 because of his teachings on the nature of Scripture, and ultimately joined the Protestant Episcopal Church. His suspension was the catalyst for Union Seminary to break its ties with the PCUSA. Briggs’s support for confessional change was evident in his publications Whither? ATheological Question for the Times, “Revision of the Westminster Confession” and “The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Confession”, the latter both published in The Andover Review.77 There was also a significant publication edited by Briggs, namely How Shall We Revise the Westminster Confession of Faith?78 In this last-named work it was argued that there was an “absence from the Confession in any fullness or emphasis” of “the offer of salvation to all men, without distinction, on the ground of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.”79 The “love of God, the free offer of salvation and the duty of the church to preach the Gospel to every creature,” it was felt, were present in the Confession only “by inference [rather] than by direct and emphatic expression.”80 In arguing for a revision of the Confession, Philip Schaff maintained that it denied “the universal intention and offer of salvation … restricting it to the ring of the elect.”81 That those advocating revision had genuine theological differences with the Westminster Confession is obvious. Schaff, for instance, poured opprobrium on the distinction between the revealed and secret will of God, stating that “this would put an intolerable contradiction into the being of God, and charge him … with falsehood and deceit.”82 Nevertheless, the assertions of the revisionists that the Confession neglected the free offer of the gospel were open to question, and were attacked by those wishing to retain the Confession in its entirety. Chief among the defenders of the Confession was W.G.T. Shedd, a colleague of Charles Briggs at Union Theological

77 Charles Briggs, Whither? ATheological Question for the Times (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889); Briggs, “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” 45 – 68; Charles Briggs, “The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” The Andover Review, 18 (August 1892): 124 – 38. 78 Charles Briggs, ed., How Shall We Revise The Westminster Confession? A Bundle of Papers (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1890). As editor of the volume Briggs was responsible for the choice of papers included in the volume, and, as such, expressed his approval of them. 79 Briggs et al., How Shall We Revise The Westminster Confession?, 133. 80 Briggs et al., How Shall We Revise The Westminster Confession?, 185. 81 Philip Schaff, “Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” The Presbyterian Review, 10:40 (October 1889): 537. This is an unfortunate conflation of ideas. The Westminster divines denied that God intended with the will of decree to save any but the elect, but they maintained, nonetheless, that God sincerely offered salvation to all. 82 Schaff, “Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” 542.

272

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

Seminary.83 In explicit opposition to those seeking revision, Shedd strenuously denied that the Confession failed to teach with clarity the free offer of the gospel.84 In his view, Westminster Confession 7:3 expounded two truths.85 First, there was a universal offer of salvation to all; second, there was a work of the Holy Spirit making the unwilling willing to believe. This work was confined to those “ordained to eternal life”, namely the elect, while the gospel offer itself was universal.86 Shedd argued that “it is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call.”87 The free offer taught by the Confession was sincere, and revealed God’s desire for the salvation of all the hearers of the gospel. Indeed, the very idea of a free offer of the gospel in itself carried with it the implication that for every hearer of the gospel “God loves his soul and desires its salvation.”88 As well referring to as Westminster Confession 7:3, he pointed to numerous other place in the Westminster Standards which taught God’s universal compassion, namely, Westminster Confession 2:1, 15:5 – 6, 21:3; Larger Catechism Q& A 63, 95, 159, 160.89 In view of these clear declarations in the Westminster Standards relating to the free offer, Shedd felt that the Confession was being unfairly “wounded in the house of its friends”.90 Despite Shedd’s appeals, the Westminster Confession was eventually revised, and the revisionists’ desire that “there should be a statement of ‘the sufficiency of the atonement and the free offer of salvation to all men’” was fulfilled.91 The results of the movement for confessional change were the amendments to the Confession approved by the General Assembly of 1903.92 These changes sought

83 For a review of Shedd’s life, see John DeWitt, “William Greenough Thayer Shedd,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 6:22 (1895): 295 – 322. For a recent study of Shedd’s soteriology, see Oliver D. Crisp, An American Augustinian: Sin and Salvation in the Dogmatic Theology of William G. T. Shedd (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007). 84 See particularly Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 24 – 29, 96 – 106. For Shedd’s own views of the gospel offer, see, W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (3d ed.; ed. Alan Gomes; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003), 750 – 4. 85 “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” Westminster Confession, 42 – 43. 86 Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 28. 87 Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 28; see also 96 – 97. 88 Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 28. 89 Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 24 – 29. 90 Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 29. 91 Briggs, “The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” 188. 92 For the text of these amendments, see B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings: Benjamin B.

The New World, Old Controversies

273

to clarify the Church’s understanding of several chapters in the Confession, resulted in the addition of two new chapters, and made a number of other minor alterations. Of particular interest is the declaratory statement regarding chapter 3 of the Confession (“Of the Decree of God”) and the new chapter “Of the Love of God, and Missions.” Although an opponent of confessional revision, B.B. Warfield, long-time professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, regarded the changes in a surprisingly positive light.93 In the end he believed that the changes finally adopted in no way altered the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. Thus, he was able to give them his support. The declaratory statement relating to Chapter 3 of the Confession declared that belief in the decree of election did not contradict “the doctrine of his [God’s] love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it” or deny that “God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all.”94 This statement can undoubtedly be understood in a manner inconsistent with the Reformed teaching of, for example, James Durham. For instance, no explicit distinction is drawn between the love of election which is particular to the elect, and God’s general love to mankind. Again, no exposition is given of the scriptural language of Christ being a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and so there is nothing to prevent an interpretation of this phrase which supports universal atonement. However, Warfield laboured to show that there was a sense in which it was possible to regard them as being in harmony with Reformed teaching. He drew evidence from the writings of Calvin, Twisse, Turretin and others to demonstrate that God displayed a universal love of benevolence to all mankind, and that he did not desire the death of any sinner.95 The new chapter entitled “Of the Love of God, and Missions” similarly stated that “In the gospel God declares his love for the world and his desire that all men should be saved”.96 In reference to this chapter Warfield argued that it expressed “the common-

93

94 95 96

Warfield. (ed. John Meeter; 2 vols.; 1970 – 73, rept., Phillipsburgh, N.J.: P& R, 2001), 2:370 – 410. For a recent study of Warfield’s thought, see Fred Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010). For Warfield’s opposition to revision of the Confession, see, e. g., B.B. Warfield, “The Presbyterian Churches and the Westminster Confession,” The Princeton Review, 10:40 (October 1889): 646 – 57; B.B. Warfield, “Proposed Reply to the Recommendations of the Assembly’s Committee on the Revision of the Confession of Faith Proposed to the Presbytery of New Brunswick, Oct. 6, 1891. The Final Report of the Committee on Revision of the Confession.,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3:10 (1892): 322 – 30; B.B. Warfield, ed., Ought the Confession of Faith to be Revised? A series of papers by J. DeWitt, H. J. VanDike, B. B. Warfield, W. G. T. Shedd (New York: n.p., 1890). B.B. Warfield, Shorter Writings, 2:375. B.B. Warfield, Shorter Writings, 2:378 – 9. B.B. Warfield, Shorter Writings, 2:389.

274

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

places of the Reformed doctrine” and that “it would scarcely seem necessary” to have to prove that.97 This chapter, then, while making a statement not explicitly in the existing Confession, was simply expanding on what was “crisply contained” in Westminster Confession 7:3. Warfield held that God’s desire for the salvation of all, and a universal love of benevolence for all, while made more explicit by the confessional revisions, were consistent with the existing system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. Warfield and Shedd, as those who resisted revision to the Confession of Faith, both held that the Confession taught that God desired the salvation of all men in its conception of the free offer of the gospel. In this respect they were in harmony with the “Marrow Men” in eighteenth-century Scotland, and also with James Durham and earlier Reformed theology. The proponents of confessional change also believed in the language of “desire”, but it is to be doubted whether they were satisfied with the traditional understanding of that language as referring to the revealed will of God in the gospel offer, and in their enthusiasm for expression of a universal atonement they went beyond anything that particular redemptionists could legitimately embrace.98

Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer American disputes over the free offer of the gospel were not confined to the Presbyterian churches. Those denominations tracing their origins to continental Europe also faced disputes over the free offer. This was particularly true of the Christian Reformed Church (hereafter CRC) which in 1924 adopted “Three Points” relating to common grace.99 The first touched on the free offer of the gospel and stated that, “it is certain, according to Scripture and the Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen to eternal life, also a certain favour or grace of God which he shows to his creatures in general. This is evident from the quoted scripture passages [Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:35,36; Acts 14:16,17; 1 Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezek. 33:11; Ezek. 18:23] and from the Canons of Dort, II, 5 and III and IV, 8 and 9, where the general offer of the Gospel is discussed”.100 To this the prominent CRC minister 97 B.B. Warfield, Shorter Writings, 2:389. 98 While Warfield’s understanding of the revised Confession is plausible, there is nothing to prevent an interpretation much more in line with Arminian theology. 99 For the full text of the “Three Points” see C. Van Til, Common Grace (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972), 19 – 22. Blacketer, “Three Points,” 37 – 65 considers them inconsistent with traditional reformed theology. See Chapter One for a consideration of Blacketer’s arguments as they relate to the free offer of the gospel. 100 Van Til, Common Grace, 19.

Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer

275

Herman Hoeksema (1886 – 1965) violently objected, and on his refusal to submit to this teaching he was deposed from its ministry.101 Hoeksema and a small group of followers left the CRC to form the Protestant Reformed Churches in North America, which adopted a dogmatic stance against the free offer of the gospel.102 In so doing, they claimed that they were following the teaching of the Reformed confessions. Hoeksema’s theology is set out in various places, most notably his Reformed Dogmatics and his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, The Triple Knowledge.103 However, some of his clearest statements on the free offer of the gospel are in shorter studies, such as A Power of God Unto Salvation or Grace Not an Offer, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper, ATriple Breach, Whosoever Will, and The Clark Van Til Controversy.104 In particular, he understood the “Three Points” to 101 For studies of the thought of Hoeksema, see De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer ; Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema; McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method”; Silversides, “The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards,” 62 – 84; Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 149 – 179; Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 68 – 79; John Bolt, “Herman Hoeksema Was Right (On the three Points That Really Matter)” in Leder, Arie C. and Muller, Richard A., eds. Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation in the Reformed Tradition: Essays in Honor of James De Jong (Grand Rapids, Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 295 – 318. Of these, Baskwell and bolt offer apologies for Hoeksema, while the others are more critical in their appraisals. 102 For a history of the PRC written by one of its theological professors, see Herman Hanko, For Thy Truth’s Sake: A Doctrinal History of the Protestant Reformed Churches (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2000). 103 Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1973); Herman Hoeksema, The Triple Knowledge: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism (repr., 3 vols., Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1990). For comments on the free offer see, for example, Hoeksema, The Triple Knowledge, 2:206 – 7 where he states that “The preaching of the gospel … can never be a well meant offer of salvation. The promise must be preached. It can never be offered …Never do we find in all the word of God that the gospel is offered … preaching is never an offer of salvation to all men.” Compare also the statement that “Neither on the part of God who, Who causes the gospel to be preached unto them, nor on the part of hearers … can it be called grace when a reprobate is under the calling of God through the gospel. Grace is never general, but always particular.” Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 470. The contrast between this and, for example, the statements of Rutherford considered in Chapter Four is evident. 104 Herman Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation or Grace not an Offer (trans. Homer Hoeksema and Cornelius Hanko; Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1996); Herman Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper – A Comparison, n.p. Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_87.html; Herman Hoeksema, ATriple Breach in the Foundation of Reformed Truth: A Critical Treatise on the “Three Points” adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1924, n.p. Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/ pamphlet_76.html; Herman Hoeksema, Whosoever Will (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945). Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http://www.prca.org/whosoever_will/index.html#toc; Herman Hoeksema, The Clark Van Til Controversy (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2005).

276

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

teach “that God, loving the reprobates and earnestly desiring their salvation, offers them salvation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, and to this he had a “serious objection”.105 He defined the idea of “gospel offer” as including four key components.106 First, there was an earnest desire that the offered salvation would be accepted. The second feature was that what is offered is actually possessed by the one offering and available to those to whom the offer is made. In the context of the gospel offer, Hoeksema understood this as entailing that Christ had died for all, for without a universal atonement God could not offer salvation to all. Third, God himself must be said to offer the gospel, and, as such, God, and not simply the preacher, must be said to desire that all would accept the gospel. Finally, Hoeksema stated that an offer must not be made on the basis of a condition which the hearer of the offer could not fulfil. That is, an offer of Christ could not be made to those who were unable to receive him. Hoeksema lampooned the notion of a gospel offer, in a manner reminiscent of Richard Baxter and John Goodwin, stating that if the language of “offers” is accepted it leads to offering Christ to those for whom he did not die, and who, further, were incapable of believing in him. To offer what was not possessed would be called a “dishonest bluff”; as Christ did not die for all, to offer him to all in the gospel was a fraud.107 He also likened the gospel offer to inviting a starving man who was tied down to get up and come to the table to enjoy a wonderful meal, stating that this was nothing other than “mockery”.108 This form of critique had long pedigree in the writing of the opponents of Reformed doctrine, as can be seen in Arminius, Richard Baxter and many others.109 While holding that the gospel offer was sincere, Reformed theologians denied that, in order to make this so, Christ had to die for all, or that sufficient grace had to be given to all to enable them to believe. To Hoeksema, the doctrine of the free offer was nothing but “pure Arminianism”.110 This is understandable, given his view of the very nature of “offer” 105 Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. 106 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 1 – 2. In Hoeksema’s terminology here he speaks of the offer of grace rather than the offer of the gospel. See also De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 43. 107 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 1. 108 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 2. 109 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 1 – 2. 110 Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. Thus John Murray’s views on the gospel offer stood “in flagrant contradiction to the entire system of Reformed truth.” Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:9 (1st February 1957): n.p. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/free-offer-2. Indeed, Hoeksema maintains that Murray flatly contradicted the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith and that while professing to be a “Calvinist” was in fact an “Arminian”. Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:11 (1st March 1957): n.p. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-free-offer-2-question-box-1.

Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer

277

as presupposing a denial of particular redemption, human inability to believe, and irresistible grace.111 (He was aware that those who drew up the “Three Points” felt that they were simply repeating traditional Reformed orthodoxy, but believed that they were fundamentally mistaken.112) Hoeksema appealed to Calvin, citing his teaching on Ezek. 18:33, and concluding that “the Reformer, denies … a general offer of salvation … a manifest desire to save all, a revelation of a certain general or common grace.”113 This, however, does not appear to sit easily with many of Calvin’s own explicit statements such as: “God desires nothing more earnestly (nihil magis cupere) than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety.”114 Hoeksema also denied that Calvin would accept doctrines which appeared on the face of it contradictory, namely that God might will the salvation of all (revealed will), and yet will only the salvation of the elect (will of decree).115 He stated that “Calvin must have nothing of … mystery, that God wills and that He does not will the same thing with respect to the same persons at the same time … [It is alleged] this is a deep mystery, and that we must simply believe it, though we cannot understand. But Calvin replies, that only men untaught of God, not understanding these things, can speak of such a twofold will in God … God does not at all profess to will that which in reality He does not will.”116 However, while acknowledging the will of God to be “one and simple” Calvin does teach that it is necessary to conceive of that “one” will as revealed and secret.117 Hoeksema 111 Thus McWilliams notes that “Hoeksema’s theological method as a whole will leave no room for a concept of the free offer.” McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 411. 112 Hoeksema, A Triple Breach, n.p. 113 Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. See also Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 18 – 21. 114 CTS, 12:246; CO, 40:445. 115 Hoeksema himself regarded this as “detrimental” and as having “wrought untold harm in the Reformed Church”. Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:9, n.p. 116 Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. McWilliams notes Hoeksema’s distaste of mystery, or paradox, in theology. McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 411 – 2. 117 Compare Calvin’s statement that “Even though his will is one and simple (una et simplex) in him, it appears manifold (multiplex) to us because, on account of our mental incapacity we do not grasp how in diverse ways (diverso modo) it wills and does not will something to take place … the light in which God dwells is not without reason called unapproachable [1 Tim 6:16].” Calvin, Institutes, 1.18.3. (Battles, 1:234; CO, 2:171). Therefore although “some discrepancy may appear (appareat dissidii) between his secret counsel (arcanum eius consilium) and what he requires of us” if the “smallness of the human intellect (mentis humanae)” is acknowledged then it will be “easily understood how God … always wills the one thing, though in different ways.” Thus it was a “wicked lie” to say Calvin posited two wills in God. John Calvin, The Secret Providence of God (ed. Paul Helm; trans. Keith Goad; Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 93; Calumniae nebulonis de occulta Providentia Dei cum responsione, CO, 9:302. Compare also the discussion in John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal

278

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

further alleged that Calvin agreed with him in asserting that in his lament over lost Jerusalem, Jesus spoke only according to his human nature.118 Again, however, far from “receiving no support from John Calvin”,119 Hoeksema’s opponents and the first of the “Three Points” had explicit support from the writings of Calvin, who stated that “Christ is speaking in the Person of God (Christum loqui in Dei persona) and I mean that these words really belong to his eternal Godhead.”120 Hoeksema further argued that even though the word offer (offere) could be found in Calvin, “offer does not convey the meaning it would seem to express in our present day English. It is a translation of the Latin: offere, which means: to set forth, to bring to the attention of someone.”121 This line of

118

119 120

121

Predestination of God (trans. J.K.S Reid; Repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 182 – 5; CO, 8:364 – 6. However, while the voluntas arcane is the “ultimate” will of God by which he “controls all things”, in relation to human actions it is “God’s other will” (alia Dei volunta i. e. the voluntas revelata) that showed what was pleasing to God and which was the guide for life. Calvin, Institutes, 3.20.43. (Battles, 2:906; CO, 2:668). Thus the voluntas revelata cannot simply be disregarded as unimportant compared to the voluntas arcane for “when he commands or forbids, God does not pretend (simulat), but his nature is sincerely (sincere) disclosed.” Calvin, The Secret Providence of God, 95; CO, 9:303 – 4. Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. See also Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 13 – 17. On the wider point of whether the gospel is offered simply by human preachers or by God himself, De Jong notes: “it makes no difference in our problem whether a human, fallible preacher makes this offer of grace or God makes this offer. In the current discussions in the Protestant Reformed Churches Hoeksema is trying to use this argument … This distinction between noetically-limited heralds and noetically-perspicuous God serves to obscure the real questions involved. In addition such a distinction neglects the truth that God speaks in and through the instrumentality of the preacher.” De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 123. Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. CNTC, 3:69; CO, 45:643. In commenting on Matt. 23:37 Calvin stated highlighted that “God’s grace (gratia) had been rejected at Jerusalem” and that “God’s approach to the Jews had been to attract (allicere) them with gentleness and friendship (comiter et blande), and His kindness (benignitate) brought Him no success.” (CNTC, 3:68; CO, 45:642.) To this people who “had spurned kind gestures of more than a mother’s love” Christ “offered a wonderful and incomparable proof of love (incomparabile amoris documentum) that He did not mind coming down to endearments to win rebels to His service.” (CNTC, 3:68; CO, 45:642.) Indeed whenever the “Word of God” was put before Israel, “He bares His breast to us with maternal kindness (materna dulcedine)… [and] the humble affection of a hen fostering her chicks.” (CNTC, 3:68; CO, 45:642.) To this rebellious people God “daily held out His hands to embrace (amplexandum) [them]” and yet he “gained nothing”. (CNTC, 3:68; CO, 45:643.) If this display of grace and kindness to (ultimately reprobate) Israel was not enough, “to us today His invitation (invitat), through His Son, is far more familiar and kind (familiarius et suavius).” (CNTC, 3:68; CO, 45:643.) It was against this background of the rejection of gospel invitations expressive of love and grace, that Christ lamented over a lost people. Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. John Bolt accepts this position, as it relates to Calvin and to the Synod of Dort. See, Bolt “Herman Hoeksema,” in Leder and Muller, eds., Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation, 302. Bolt does not interact with the counter arguments of Mark Beach or R. Scott Clark.

Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer

279

reasoning however is not plausible in the light of the teaching of Reformed theologians considered in the earlier chapters of this volume. At least in the seventeenth century “offer” meant much the same as it does today, namely, an earnest invitation.122 Hoeksema also believed that the Synod of Dort offered no support to the free offer of the gospel.123 He argued, as he did when considering Calvin, that where the Canons of Dort spoke of Christ as “offered” in the gospel,124 by this they meant “present”.125 This potential understanding of Dort was considered in Chapter One, and the arguments of Scott Clark that this was not the most natural reading of the Canons were found persuasive. The wide variety of images used by Reformed theologians to explain what they meant by “offer” renders this explanation implausible. Hoeksema also denied that canons 2:5, 2:6 or 3/4:8 referred to a free offer of the gospel.126 He followed a similar line of reasoning with regard to the Westminster Confession, stating again that where offer appeared it should be read as “present”.127 Underlying his opposition to the free offer of the gospel was a profound commitment to the belief that “God’s grace is always particular, for His people, the elect only.”128 This is related to his position on the covenant of grace, which 122 Hoeksema’s understanding was that “Reformed theologians and the Reformed Churches do not speak of a proffered overture or of an invitation given, but of the calling.” Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:12 (15th March 1957): n.p. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-free-offer-2-questionbox-0. To regard the gospel offer as an invitation was “Arminian”. Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:16 (15th May 1957): n.p. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-free-offer-2-persecution-hungary-3-gospel-invitation. However, compare Mark Beach’s study of Calvin’s use of the idea of gospel offers, J. Mark Beach, “Calvin’s Treatment of the Offer of the Gospel and Divine Grace,” MAJT, 22 (2011): 55 – 76. 123 McWilliams rightly states that it is “very difficult to understand how Hoeksema can claim the Canons in support of his position on the free offer of the gospel.” McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 459. Indeed, he goes on to say that “Hoeksema has proposed an interpretation of the Canons that contradicts the very position the Canons themselves plainly teach.” McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 467. See also Daniels, “John Gill,” 397 – 8. 124 Article 3/4:9, in Scott, Articles, 107. 125 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 42. 126 Hoeksema, A Power of God Unto Salvation, 37 – 41. See also McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 419. 127 Hoeksema, Clark Van Til Controversy, 52. McWilliams rightly notes that in the debates at Westminster “none of the Calvinistic divines questions the legitimacy of the concept of the gospel offer and no one objected to the use of the term “offer” in the discussions.” McWilliams, “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method,” 461. 128 Hoeksema, A Triple Breach, n.p. De Jong rightly states that “It is not amiss to conclude that Hoeksema believes that every act of God upon the reprobate is an act purposefully designed to prepare this person for eternal damnation.” De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 45.

280

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

tended to ignore the outward administration of the covenant, and insisted that “the number of the elect is the exact number of persons included in the covenant. Thus the covenant is for the elect alone…”129 It was impossible therefore for him to regard the preaching of the gospel as, in some sense, expressive of common grace. Common grace as a category simply did not exist. He further believed that in the gospel there was “no general promise to all without distinction.”130 Again, this statement is at variance with the Reformed theologians considered earlier, who maintained that in the gospel there was a general promise to all. In line with this reasoning, Hoeksema restricted texts which spoke of “the thirsty” or the “heavy laden” to the elect.131 Baskwell has attempted to defend Hoeksema’s position on the free offer of the gospel as consistent with Dort and Reformed theology, but in so doing he largely goes over the same ground in Calvin as Hoeksema and he does little to advance the discussion.132 Hoeksema’s position is critiqued by De Jong, who rightly observed that “Hoeksema claims that it is impossible to maintain the decree of election-reprobation and still speak of a well-meant offer of the gospel to all who hear”.133 This “either/or” dualism was the basis of the critique of the free offer utilized by the Arminians at Dort, and, as was discussed in Chapter Four, the same charge of the incompatibility of the free offer with election (or particular redemption) was levelled by John Goodwin and Richard Baxter later in the seventeenth century. One of Hoeksema’s chief opponents was the well-known Reformed systematic theologian, Louis Berkhof. Hoeksema called him “father or if not one of the foster-fathers” of the “Three Points” of common grace.134 Berkhof defended both common grace and a well-meant gospel offer. He defined the gospel offer as “the presentation and offering of salvation in Christ to sinners, together with an earnest exhortation to accept Christ by faith, in order to the forgiveness of sins 129 Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema, 66. This is of course at variance with the federal theology of Durham, Rutherford and Dickson, to take but three examples. Further, Hoeksema’s covenant theology had no room for any conditional element, with the result that he was unable to hold to a conditional gospel offer. See Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema, 75, 223, 305. De Jong is therefore correct to note that “Hoeksema’s … vigorous and consistent repudiation of a well-meant offer of grace can be adequately understood only in the light of his views of the covenant.” De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 36. 130 Hoeksema, A Triple Breach, n.p. 131 Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 39:9 (1st February 1963): n.p. Cited 27th October 2011. Online: http://sb.rfpa.org/printarticle.cfm?article=10143. 132 Baskwell, Herman Hoeksema, 237 – 46. 133 De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, 45. 134 Hoeksema, Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper. And for Hoeksema “so-called common grace and the Arminian [i. e. the views of John Murray] presentation of the gospel are closely related.” Herman Hoeksema, “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:14 (15th April 1957): n.p. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/free-offer-1.

Hoeksema, the Christian Reformed Church and the Free Offer

281

and life eternal.”135 Berkhof taught that there were three key elements in the definition of the biblical offer,136 namely a presentation of key facts of the gospel,137 an earnest invitation to come to Christ in true repentance and belief, and a promise of salvation on condition of coming to Christ in faith. Having so defined offer, he proceeded to expound that offer as both universal and bona fide. By the former he meant that the gospel offer is made to all who hear the gospel, and in particular that it is not confined to “spiritually qualified sinners” or to “the elect”.138 In stating that the gospel offer was bona fide, he meant that “when God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this”.139 For Berkhof, any denial of the well-meant nature of the offer was an attack on the truthfulness of God. If God called sinners to come to him, and at the same time “did not desire it in any sense of the word”, then God would be guilty of “equivocation and deception”.140 Berkhof recognized that there were objections raised against a well-meant gospel offer, not least by Hoeksema. In particular, he considered the objection that it is inconsistent for God to offer salvation to those whom he does not intend to give the special grace to receive it. Berkhof admitted that there was “real difficulty” at this point, but no more so than that involved in reconciling the decree of God with his commands (revealed will), in that it could just as easily be asked, why does God command good, but decree that evil shall be done?141 He believed that the solution lay in the direction of a correct apprehending of the distinction between the revealed and secret will of God, that salvation is not offered unconditionally but is dependent on the condition of faith, and that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, though not intended for all. Despite the difficulty of rationalizing the free offer of the gospel, Berkhof believed that it was vital to maintain a well-meant offer because it demonstrated important truths. As well as evincing that God still maintained his claims over man despite the fall, and in addition to being the means of saving the elect, the gospel offer displayed God’s “goodness and compassion” to all.142 Berkhof was clear that the gospel offer itself was a “blessing” to those who received it, and not, as Hoeksema argued, a curse.143 To be sure, it could be perverted into a curse, but 135 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1958; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 459. 136 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 459 – 60. 137 Berkhof was clear that this alone “does not yet constitute the gospel call.” Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 459 – 60. 138 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 461. Berkhof explicitly referred to the Marrow controversy at this point. 139 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462. 140 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462. 141 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462. 142 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 463. 143 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 463.

282

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

the gospel itself remained a revelation of “the divine compassion”.144 It also served to attest the justice of God in the eventual condemnation of those who rejected the gospel offer.145 Berkhof used a wide textual base to defend the well-meant offer.146 He saw the idea of a gospel offer in, amongst other texts, Mark 16:15 – 16 (proof text for Westminster Confession 7:3) and Matt. 22:2 – 14 (the basis for Durham’s key sermon on the gospel offer).147 He drew his understanding of the gospel offer as an invitation, from 2 Cor. 5:20, one of Durham’s favourite images of the gospel offer.148 The universal nature of the gospel call, Berkhof believed, was taught by, among others, Isa. 55:1, Isa. 45:22, Matt. 11:28, and Rev. 22:17.149 Again, this is a series of texts that could be lifted from Durham’s writings. That the gospel offer was well-meant, Berkhof taught from Ezek. 18:23,32, Ezek. 33:11, Matt. 21:37, Ps. 81:13 – 16, amongst others.150 These texts, again, were all used by Durham in expounding the gospel offer. (It is worth noting that, although he does not cite Durham directly on the free offer, Berkhof does refer to him in his discussion of the related topic of the extent of the atonement and its relation to the blessings the reprobate enjoy.151) It is clear, then, that in maintaining a well-meant gospel offer, and in his 144 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 463. 145 For Hoeksema’s treatment of some of these texts, see Hoeksema, A Power of God unto Salvation, 24 – 30. 146 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 463 – 4. 147 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 459. “And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15 – 16, NKJV.) 148 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 460. “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. 5:20, NKJV.) 149 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 461. “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.” (Isa. 55:1, NKJV.) “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” (Isa. 45:22, NKJV.) “Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28, NKJV.) “And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17, NKJV.) 150 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462. “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? says the Lord GOD, and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23, NKJV.) “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies, says the Lord GOD. Therefore turn and live!” (Ezek. 18:32, NKJV.) “Say to them: As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11, NKJV.) “Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, They will respect my son.” (Matt. 21:37, NKJV.) “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways”. (Ps. 81:13 – 16, NKJV.) 151 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 398.

Conclusion

283

textual base for doing so, Berkhof was substantially faithful to the Reformed confessions, while in so far as he denied such, Hoeksema abandoned this aspect of their teaching.

Conclusion This chapter has shown that the exact nature of the confessional Reformed doctrine of the free offer of the gospel was the subject of disputes in the centuries following the writing of the Westminster Confession. The Church of Scotland in the early eighteenth century, in the context of disputes over antinomianism, questioned the free offer of the gospel and its compatibility with particular redemption. In so doing it came to embrace, drawing on the language rather than the intent of some earlier theologians, a limitation of the gospel offer to those who had been sufficiently prepared by prior conviction of sin. In contrast to the majority of ministers in the Kirk, Thomas Boston and the other “Marrow Men” self-consciously fought to maintain what they believed was the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel contained in the Westminster Standards. They denied that a well-meant gospel offer necessarily entailed universal redemption. And they did this while holding to a gospel offer which was to all and which was expressive of a revealed will and desire that all to whom the offer came should accept it. Boston argued that he was following the teaching of the Westminster Standards and The Sum of Saving Knowledge. In defending his teaching he depended heavily on the same exegetical base as that used by Durham and the theologians surveyed in Chapter Four. In particular, Christ’s knocking on the door of sinners hearts (Rev. 3:20), Christ’s lament over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41 – 2), and Ezek. 33:11 were all seen as expressive of the free offer of the gospel. This is evidence that in Boston and the other “Marrow Men” the exegetical tradition of the seventeenthcentury Reformed theologians lived on. Nevertheless, the “Marrow Men” failed to convince the Church of Scotland to embrace their views. However, subsequent historical surveys have served to demonstrate that the “Marrow Men” were faithful to historic Reformed thought in their teaching.152 In late nineteenth-century America the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the free offer of the gospel was again called into question. However, in this instance, the concern was not over the compatibility of the free offer with particular redemption, or whether there should in fact be a free offer of the gospel. Rather, the debate centred on the point that, given there must be a wellmeant gospel offer, whether the Westminster Standards taught the free offer 152 E.g, Lachman, The Marrow Controversy ; Hall, “The Marrow Controversy”.

284

Later Controversies concerning the Free Offer of the Gospel

clearly enough and with sufficient weight of emphasis. Underlying this desire was a general unrest over historic Reformed theology, and a denial of certain commonplaces of Reformed thought, such as the distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata.153 A number of leading theologians in the PCUSA attempted to defend the Westminster Standards against the accusation that they lacked a clear presentation of the well-meant gospel offer. They argued that embedded in confessional statements such as Westminster Confession 7:3 was the idea of a common love of God to all, and a desire and will of God that all hearers of the gospel be saved. However, like the “Marrow Men”, they failed to carry their denomination with them. In the disputes in the CRC in the early twentieth century it was finally declared that the Reformed confessions taught a well-meant gospel offer. Herman Hoeksema raised the perennial objection against the free offer, namely that it was inconsistent with a particularistic soteriology. He further argued that as the reformed confessions taught, for example, unconditional election, they could not teach a free offer of the gospel. Underlying these objections was his rejection of the theologia archetypa/ theologia ectypa distinction. Hoeksema’s position was rejected by the leading theologian of the CRC, Louis Berkhof, who argued for a well-meant gospel offer on a textual basis very similar to that of the seventeenth-century Reformed theologians and the “Marrow Men”. The CRC declared that Berkhof ’s position was the Confessional view, and Hoeksema was eventually deposed from the ministry. These controversies illustrate the ongoing significance of the free offer of the gospel for the life of the Church. In different contexts and cultural settings the pressure of relating the sovereignty of God to the free offer of the gospel raised important issues such as the attitude of God to his creatures, the sincerity of the gospel offer and the nature of gospel preaching. Thus, for several centuries after they were written the exact teaching of the Reformed confessions on the gospel offer was a matter of dispute. Not all the controversies were determined in the same way, or for the same reasons. Nevertheless this chapter has served to highlight that those who maintained the Reformed confessions, and in particular the Westminster Standards, embraced a well-meant gospel offer were substantially correct, while their opponents, even if they achieved victory in their day, at root rejected traditional Reformed teaching.

153 A distinction of vital importance for the articulation of the Reformed doctrine of the free offer.

Conclusion

This study set out to examine “whether Reformed theologians have taught a free offer of the gospel, and, if so, what they meant by that term and how they related it to the rest of their theological commitments.” In particular, attention was focused on the meaning of Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3: “the Lord was pleased to make a second [covenant], commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved.”1

Reformed Thought up to the Westminster Assembly In Chapter One, Reformed thought up to and including the Westminster Assembly was considered. It was noted that mention was made of a gospel offer in the Irish Articles. The teaching of the Synod of Dort on the gospel offer was considered in more detail. This gathering of theologians was particularly relevant as Arminius denied the compatibility of strict predestinarian theology with a universal gospel offer. It was found that, although a small minority of the delegates at Dort denied it, the Canons themselves affirmed a universal gospel offer, broadly equivalent to an invitation, which was sincere and well-meant. The secondary scholarship on Dort and the gospel offer was surveyed, noting a disparity of views on the teaching of Dort. It was argued by some, such as Raymond Blacketer, that although Dort spoke of “offer” in the English translation, the Latin oblato was better translated as “present” or “exhibit”. Others, however, and particularly Scott Clark, held that Dort indeed spoke of the gospel offer in the commonly understood sense of the term. This latter interpretation was found to be more in accord with the general teaching of Dort and earlier Reformed theology, particularly when viewed in the light of the British delegation at Dort. 1 Westminster Confession, 42 – 43.

286

Conclusion

As a link between Dort and the Westminster Assembly the views of William Ames and John Ball were considered. Ames taught a gospel offer to all and embraced the distinctions between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa and those between voluntas arcane and voluntas revelata. Ball also embraced these distinctions, but his writings demonstrated development in Reformed thought as he explicitly placed the free offer within the context of the covenant of grace. This did not fundamentally alter the doctrine of the free offer, but enabled Ball to give a more prominent place to the conditional nature of the gospel offer and promises. The teaching of the Westminster Assembly was then reviewed. The Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Westminster Confession, and both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms all included references to the free offer of the gospel. The free offer was related to a number of other areas of theology, including faith, effectual calling and ecclesiology. Perhaps most importantly, following Ball, Westminster Confession 7:3 firmly placed the gospel offer in the context of covenant theology. The minutes of the Westminster Assembly demonstrated some disagreement over the reasons underlying it, but evidenced no dispute regarding the fact of the free offer of the gospel. However, the secondary literature contained significant disagreement over whether the Assembly in reality taught a gospel offer, and, if it did so, whether this was a concession to those who held to some form of universal redemption. Further study was therefore required to establish the exact teaching of the Assembly, and this occupied the remainder of the volume. Separately, and to set James Durham in his Scottish context, the teaching of John Knox and Robert Rollock on the gospel offer was considered. Knox’s views were hard to determine. He limited the reference of certain texts, such as 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezek. 18:23, to the elect. Nevertheless, he held that there was a universal gospel offer to all. Rollock’s views were much more clearly stated in his writings. He held that there was a universal gospel offer which was expressive of God’s common grace. He also set it in the context of covenant theology, in a manner similar to the later work of Ball in England. Thus, in considering Reformed theology up to and including the Westminster Assembly, a consistent picture emerged. The theologians and confessions surveyed all taught and defended a sincere offer of the gospel.

The Life and Theology of James Durham Having surveyed Reformed thought up to the writing of the Westminster Standards, in Chapter Two James Durham’s life and general theology were examined. It was demonstrated that Durham was a pivotal figure in the Scottish

Conclusion

287

Church in the years immediately after the adoption of the Westminster Confession, and that he played a key part in popularizing its theology, for example through The Sum of Saving Knowledge. The high regard in which Durham was held by his contemporaries and the importance accorded to him in surveys of Scottish Church history were noted. Durham’s theology was then examined. It was observed that he framed his theology against the backdrop of various threats, as he saw them, to Reformed theology. Of particular relevance for the free offer of the gospel was his opposition to Arminianism and to any form of hypothetical universalism. Despite the strength of language seen in some of his polemics, Durham was a generally moderate and non-speculative theologian. He did not particularly engage in the debates which lay within the bounds of the Reformed Confessions, such as that between those holding the supralapsarian or infralapsarian ordering of the divine decree(s), or whether the atonement was a strict necessity in order for God to forgive sin. However, standard features of Reformed theology, such as the distinctions between archetypal and ectypal theology and between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata, were common themes in his writings. These distinctions were of vital importance for his doctrine of the gospel offer. James Durham was beyond doubt a federal theologian. He clearly articulated his belief in the threefold covenantal structure common in mid-seventeenthcentury Scotland, namely, the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. In addition Durham held to a strictly particularistic soteriology. He vehemently opposed any form of universal redemption, and repeatedly affirmed unconditional election and the inability of any to accept the gospel offer without the effectual grace of God. Both his covenant theology and his soteriology echoed the teaching of the Westminster Standards. His soteriology naturally raised a number of questions relating to the free offer of the gospel, such as, if no one can believe how is it possible to genuinely offer salvation to them; and if Christ did not die for all, how can he in reality be offered to all? These questions were considered in the chapter on Durham’s teaching on the gospel offer.

Durham’s Understanding of the Gospel Offer Having considered Durham’s general theology and demonstrated its consistency with the Westminster Standards, in Chapter Three an in-depth study of his teaching on the gospel offer was conducted to explicate the meaning of Westminster Confession 7:3. Firstly, it was noted that, as a federal theologian, Durham placed his doctrine of the free offer in the context of the covenant of grace. This provided an initial point of contact with the teaching of the Westminster Standards. Durham’s definition of “offer” was then examined with the

288

Conclusion

purpose of determining what the Westminster Confession meant when it used that term. In particular, this was to establish whether it was possible to conclude, as Blacketer and others did, that by “offer” the Westminster Standards meant “present” or “exhibit”. Given the imagery Durham used to define offer, such as inviting, wooing, beseeching, selling and standing at a door knocking and seeking admittance, it was evident that the word could not be restricted to a presentation of facts. The contentions of Blacketer are therefore not in accord with Durham’s position. Durham was then shown to have drawn his understanding of the free offer from a wide and varied textual base. Among the key texts he used were 2 Cor. 5:20, Matt. 22:4, Isa. 55:1, Rev. 3:20, Ezek. 18:31 – 32, Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41 – 42 and Rev. 22:17. Utilizing these texts and others, Durham argued that the gospel offer was in reality a divine offer. This meant that he could not avoid questions over the sincerity of the offer, as it was not simply a preacher, ignorant of who the elect were, who was making the offer, but God himself. This question of sincerity was particularly pertinent as, for Durham, the gospel offer was to all; it provided all hearers with a warrant to embrace Christ, and meant that they all had a duty to trust savingly in Christ. He clearly and repeatedly affirmed the sincerity and well-meant nature of the gospel offer. For him it was expressive of the revealed will and desire of God that all to whom the gospel comes embrace it. Fundamental to his understanding was his distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata. He could speak in this manner only concerning the revealed will of God, and resisted any concept of a universal saving will or desire which extended beyond this. Further, the gospel offer flowed from God’s common grace. Durham considered three main objections to the consistency of the gospel offer with his belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation and particular redemption. These related particularly to the inability of any to believe without the sovereign saving grace of God, the sovereignty of God in election, and the supposed incongruity of offering Christ to all as Saviour when he had not died for all. To the first objection Durham argued that it was not so much an inability to believe that kept any from Christ, but a determined unwillingness to believe. The other two objections Durham answered by means of the distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata. It was the voluntas revelata with which any sinner had to do. Any consideration of election or the extent of the atonement occurred a posteriori, after believing, and not a priori, before believing. Thus Durham gave priority to the revealed will over the secret will in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. Durham’s preaching of the gospel offer was found to be consistent with his theoretical views. He believed that proclaiming the free offer was the single most important calling of a gospel minister. It was therefore a regular feature of his preaching. He frequently exhorted all in his congregation to come to Christ,

Conclusion

289

pleading with them and beseeching them to embrace the Saviour. He warned them of the depth of their sin, and of the danger of hell, in order to emphasize the urgency of accepting Christ without delay. This was the practical outworking of his understanding of the gospel offer as a universal well-meant invitation, expressive of the revealed will and desire of God that all receive the salvation there is in Christ.

Durham’s Contemporaries and the Gospel Offer Durham’s suitability as a case study notwithstanding, there is always the possibility that his views, or at least some of his particular emphases, were unique to him. Therefore, in Chapter Four, four of his leading contemporaries were considered with the aim of examining whether there was a common Reformed position on the gospel offer. These theologians were found to be in substantial agreement with Durham’s views. Those chosen, namely Obadiah Sedgwick, Thomas Manton, David Dickson and Samuel Rutherford, all held to the federal theology and the soteriology contained in the Westminster Standards, spoke frequently on the gospel offer, and held very similar views to Durham regarding this matter. Despite differences in the nuances of their theology and in their modes of expression, they all fundamentally articulated a consistent doctrine of the gospel offer. Their definition of “offer”, as for Durham, included inviting, wooing, beseeching, selling and standing at a door knocking and seeking admittance. They too, therefore, did not restrict the meaning of offer to a presentation or exhibition of facts. They also used a very similar textual base to explicate their understanding of the gospel offer. Among the key texts used were 2 Cor. 5:20, Rev. 3:20, Ezek. 18:31 – 32, Matt. 23:37 and Luke 19:41 – 42. This provides strong evidence that there was an established exegetical tradition in the mid-seventeenth century among Reformed theologians relating to the gospel offer. All these theologians again agreed that the gospel offer was a divine offer. They further held that it was to all, and provided all with a warrant and duty to embrace Christ. Again, they all believed that it embodied the revealed will and desire of God that all embrace the gospel offer. Further, it demonstrated God’s common grace. They related these views to their soteriology and federal theology by the same route followed by Durham, namely a distinction between the voluntas arcane and the voluntas revelata. Given these theologians’ propagation of the same views as Durham, it renders it all the more likely that Durham’s teachings on the gospel offer were reflective of the Westminster Standards. Like Durham, these Reformed theologians faced many objections to their teaching on the gospel offer. These objections were again largely concerned with how it related to other aspects of their theological system, most commonly

290

Conclusion

human inability to believe, election, and particular redemption. They responded in two ways. First, there was again recourse to the distinction in the will of God between the voluntas arcane and voluntas revelata. The free offer of the gospel fell within the scope of the revealed will, while election, or the extent of redemption, in so far as it related to any individual, came within the purview of the secret will. The duty of every individual was to pay heed to the revealed will. Therefore, any disagreement with the free offer on these grounds was rejected on the basis that this was to intrude on the “secret things” which belong only to God. This points to the second response to these objections, namely that reconciling the free offer with these other biblical teachings that are at first glance inconsistent with it was ultimately, to use the language of Calvin, “ineffable”. The Reformed theologians, while endeavouring to reconcile seemingly opposite truths, did not shy away from utilizing the category of “mystery”. In so doing, they recognized that their theology was theologia ectypa and was therefore finite and limited. In responding to these objections, they did not waver in their commitment to the well-meant gospel offer.

Ongoing Controversies Concerning the Gospel Offer In Chapter Five the ongoing significance of the free offer of the gospel was then demonstrated by a consideration of three controversies ranging from the early eighteenth century to the early twentieth century. This chapter focused on these controversies as they involved disputes over the meaning of the Reformed confessions in their teaching on the gospel offer. It is important to acknowledge that there were other controversies concerning this issue in the same period, particularly in England. The rise of the overt denial of gospel offers is charted in Peter Toon’s The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, while Iain Murray analyses disputes related to this question in English Baptist circles in the nineteenth century.2 Both the emergence of objections to the language of “offers”, dramatically seen in Joseph Hussey’s God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of His Grace,3 and the ongoing development of this stream of thought merit further attention. In particular, the interrelation of developments in federal 2 Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity (1967; repr., Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2011); Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995). See also Ian J. Shaw, High Calvinists in Action: Calvinism and the City – Manchester and London c. 1810 – 1860 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Peter J. Morden, Offering Christ to the World: Andrew Fuller and the Revival of Eighteenth Century Particular Baptist Life (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003). 3 Joseph Hussey, God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace (Printed by D. Bridge, and are to be sold by Tho. Parkhurst; by J. Robinson; by N. Hillier; and by W. and J. Marshal, 1707).

Conclusion

291

theology and ecclesiology with the denial of the free offer are worthy of further study. However, to pursue these lines of investigation would be beyond the scope of this study, which is focused on the meaning of the Westminster Confession’s teaching on the gospel offer. In surveying the Marrow Controversy in eighteenth-century Scotland, it was noted that questions arose in the Scottish Church concerning the free offer of the gospel and its compatibility with particular redemption. The result was that the Church effectively limited the gospel offer to those who had been sufficiently prepared by prior conviction of sin. Thomas Boston and the other “Marrow Men” argued that this was contrary to the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel contained in the Westminster Standards and in Durham and Dickson’s The Sum of Saving Knowledge. Boston, in contrast to the majority of his fellow ministers, held that the gospel offer was a well-meant invitation to all to come to Christ for salvation. In defending his teaching he relied heavily on the same exegetical base noted in Durham and his contemporaries. This gives weight to the conclusion that Boston and the “Marrow Men” were faithful to historic Reformed thought, and in particular to the Westminster Confession, in their teaching.4 In nineteenth-century America, controversy concerning the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the free offer of the gospel centred on whether they taught the free offer clearly enough. In seeking to defend the Confession, W.G.T. Shedd and B.B. Warfield argued that it unmistakably taught a common love of God to all, and a desire and will of God that all hearers of the gospel be saved. The final dispute considered was that in the Christian Reformed Church (hereafter CRC) in the early twentieth century. Here the debates focused on the Canons of Dort, but the Westminster Standards were referred to in the discussions. The common objection to the free offer was raised within the CRC, namely its inconsistency with a particularistic soteriology. Given this starting point, it was then argued that, as the Reformed confessions teach clearly the sovereignty of God in salvation, they could not therefore teach a free offer of the gospel. This position was rejected by the CRC, which came to the conclusion that the Canons of Dort taught a well-meant gospel offer. Louis Berkhof, the leading theologian in the CRC, argued that the gospel offer was a sincere invitation on a textual basis very similar to that of the seventeenth-century Reformed theologians and the “Marrow Men”. These controversies served to demonstrate that debate concerning the free offer was no minor matter, confined to one location and restricted to one short period in the history of the Church. They also highlight the fact that a number of later Reformed theologians (Boston, Warfield, Shedd, Berkhof) who were ecclesiastically committed to the Reformed confessions, and in particular the 4 E.g., Lachman, The Marrow Controversy ; Hall, “The Marrow Controversy”.

292

Conclusion

Westminster Standards, embraced a well-meant gospel offer. In doing this they were in harmony with the seventeenth-century theologians considered in this volume.

Conclusion In conclusion, it is apparent that orthodox Reformed theologians and preachers taught a gospel offer that was full, free and well-meant. As one of the most significant Reformed confessions, the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the other documents comprising the Westminster Standards, is fully in accord with this teaching. Despite being assailed by Arminians and Hypothetical Universalists on the one hand, and deniers of gospel offers on the other hand, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the theological tradition it represented were concerned to be faithful to Scripture in maintaining a free offer of the gospel rather than abandoning it in the face of objections based on human logic. The free offer of the gospel itself had a vital place in the wider theological system of Reformed thought. Bringing together federal theology, soteriology and ecclesiology, it provided the authority or warrant for faith.5 The ground of saving faith was that individuals were invited and commanded to come to Christ for salvation, and promised that if they did so they would find that salvation. This universal warrant for faith did not entail a denial of particular redemption. The object of faith was not the extent of the atonement, but rather Christ himself as the one in whom full and complete salvation was to be found.6 In this respect, John Murray is correct in maintaining that “the doctrine of limited atonement place[s] no fence around the free offer. The free offer comes from the heart of God’s sovereign will unto salvation, and it is definite atonement that grounds the kind of overture proclaimed in the gospel.”7 Reformed theology has often been accused of rigidity, harshness, and coldness.8 Whenever the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel has been ignored or neglected among Reformed theologians, such accusations may contain an element of truth. However, it is questionable whether “Reformed” theology which does not give appropriate attention to the free offer of the gospel is indeed 5 See, e. g., Murray, “Faith,” in Collected Writings, 2:255 – 7. 6 Compare the comment of Bailey that “God’s revealed will declares what God is ready to do, not what he has done … faith clings to the offer, not the knowledge of Christ’s intentions in his redemption.” Bailey, “Universal Redemption in Fraser of Brea,” 54. 7 Murray, “Faith,” in Collected Writings, 2:257. 8 Compare, T.F. Torrance’s assertion that it “was the imposition of a rigidly logicalised federal system of thought upon Reformed theology that gave rise to many of the problems which have afflicted Scottish theology…” Torrance, Scottish Theology, x-xi.

Conclusion

293

classically Reformed. From Dort up to and including the Westminster Assembly, this offer was an important element in mainstream Reformed teaching; it occupied a similar position in the lives and ministries of James Durham and his Reformed contemporaries, and subsequently in those of such representatives as Thomas Boston, W.G.T. Shedd, B.B. Warfield, and Louis Berkhof. It was, however, more than a doctrine to be explained or defended; it was also to be conveyed earnestly through heartfelt pleading with sinners to come for salvation to a freely offered Saviour. To quote Durham once more: “we earnestly exhort you … to receive this Gospel, to submit to the Righteousness of Faith, to open to Him that is knocking at the Door, to yield to Him, and to give Him the Hand, that bygone Quarrels may be removed, and taken out of the way”.9 Durham held to a strictly federalist theology and particularistic soteriology but he also believed no less resolutely in the free offer of the gospel: “We know not a truth of the Gospel that hath mo[re] confirmations than this has, viz. That Christ the Mediator is very willing and desirous, that sinners close with Him, and get the good of his Purchase.”10 And in this respect he was not devising any new doctrine or making any significant change of emphasis. Rather, he was merely echoing the simple and clear teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “the Lord … freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved”.11

9 Durham, Christ Crucified, 26. 10 Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 316. See also Unsearchable Riches, 320 – 1. In this reference the desire of Jesus to save sinners is drawn from, among other texts, Ezek. 18:31 – 32. 11 Westminster Confession, 42 – 43.

Bibliography

Primary Sources ___________, Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament: This Third, above the First and Second, Edition so enlarged, As they make an entire Commentary on the Sacred Scripture: the like never before published in English. Wherein the Text is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Parallelled, and Various Readings Observed. By the Joint Labour of certain Learned Divines. London: Evan Tyler, 1657. ___________, Acta Synodi Nationalis Dortrechti habitae anno 1618 et 1619 (Dordrechti, 1620). — Brakel, Wilhelmus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Translated by B. Elshout. 4 vols. Ligonier, PA.: Soil Deo Gloria, 1992 – 5. Ames, William. Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof divided into Five Bookes. London: Printed by E.G-. for I. Rothwell, T. Slater, L. Blacklock, 1643. Ames, William. De Conscientia et ejus Jure, vel Casibus Libri Quinque. Oxford: William Hall, 1659. Ames, William. Medulla S.S. Theologiæ. London, 1629. Ames, William. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity. London: Printed by Edward Griffen for John Rothwell at the Sun in Pauls Church Yard, 1638. Ames, William. An Analytical Exposition Of both the Epistles of the Apostle Peter, Illustrated by Doctrines out of every Text. London: Printed by E.G. for John Rothwell, at the Sun in Pauls Church Yard, 1641. Arminius, James. The Works of James Arminius. Edited by James Nichols. Translated by W.R. Bagnall. 3 vols. Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853. Baillie, Robert. The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.XXXVII.–M.DC.LXII. Edited by David Laing. 3 vols. Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1841 – 1842. Ball, John. A Short Catechisme. Containing the Principles of Religion. Very -Profitable for all Sorts of People. London: Printed by R. Bishop for Robert Bird, at the signe of the Bible in Saint Laurance-Lane, 1637. Ball, John. A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. London: Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster on Ludgate hill neer Fleet-Bridge at the Signe of the Bible, 1645. Ball, John. A Treatise of Faith Divided into two Parts: The first shewing the Nature, The

296

Bibliography

Second the Life of Faith. London: Printed for Edward Brewster, and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1657. Bates, William. The Complete Works of William Bates. 4 vols. London: James Black, 1815. Baxter, Richard. Catholick Theologie Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification of Dogmatical Word-Warriors. London: Robert White, 1675. Baxter, Richard. Universal Redemption of Mankind By the Lord Jesus Christ. London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising-Sun in Cornhill, 1694. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 1958. Repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998. Blair, Robert. The Life of Mr. Robert Blair. Edited by Thomas M’Crie. Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1848. Boston, Thomas. The Complete Works of Thomas Boston. Edited by Samuel M’Millan. 12 vols. London: William Tegg and Co., 1854. Briggs, Charles. Whither? A Theological Question for the Times. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889. Briggs, Charles. ed., How Shall We Revise The Westminster Confession? A Bundle of Papers. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1890. Briggs, Charles. “Revision of the Westminster Confession,” The Andover Review, 13 (January 1890): 45 – 68. Briggs, Charles. “The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” The Andover Review, 18 (August 1892): 124 – 138. Brown, John. Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Or a Short Discourse. Pointing forth the way of making use of Christ, for justification, and especially and more particularly, for Sanctification in all its parts from Johan. XIV; Vers. VI. Rotterdam: Printed by H.G. for John Cairns, book seller in Edinburgh, and to be sold there, 1677. Brown, John. Quakerisme The path way to Paganisme or AView of the Quakers Religion. Edinburgh: Printed for John Cairns and other booksellers, 1678. Brown, John. The Life of Justification Opened or A Treatise grounded upon Gal. 2:11. n.p., 1695. Brown, John. An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, with Large Practical Observations; Delivered in Several Lectures. Edinburgh: David Patterson, 1766. Burgess, Anthony. Vindiciae Legis: or, a vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of the papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. London: James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1647. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. 22 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by various. 12 vols. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Translated by J.K.S Reid. Repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Calvin, John. De aeterna dei praedestinatione = De la pre´destination e´ternelle. Editors. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Olivier Fatio. Ioannis Calvini opera omnia. Series 3, Scripta ecclesiastica, v.1. Gene`ve: Droz, 1998. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 1559 edition. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by W. Baum et al. 59 vols. Braunschweig, 1863 – 1900.

Primary Sources

297

Calvin, John. Letters of John Calvin. Edited by Jules Bonnet. Translated by David Constable. 4 vols. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858. Calvin, John. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius. Edited by Anthony N. S. Lane. Translated by G. I. Davies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Calvin, John. The Secret Providence of God. Edited by Paul Helm. Translated by Keith Goad. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. George Carelton et al., Suffragium Collegiale Theologorum Magnæ Britanniæ de Quinque Contro versis Remonstrantium Articulis. London: R. Young, 1626. George Carelton et al. The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, Concernign the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries. London: Robert Milbourne, 1629. Christie, James and Mitchell, Alexander F. eds. The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh the Years 1648 and 1649. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1896. Christie, James. ed., The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh in 1650, in St. Andrews and Dundee in 1651 and in Edinburgh in 1652. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1909. Clarkson, David. The Works of David Clarkson. 3 vols. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864. Culverwell, Ezekiel. A Briefe Answer to Certain Objections against the Treatise of Faith. 1626. Repr. London: John Dawson, 1646. Culverwell, Ezekiel. A Treatise of Faith. 1623. Repr., London: Printed by J.D. for H. Overton, 1648. Dickson, David. A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew. Glasgow : George Anderson, 1647. Dickson, David. An Exposition of All St Pauls Epistles Together with an Explanation of those other Epistles of the Apostles, St James, Peter, John & Jude: Wherein the Sense of every Chapter and Verse is Analytically unfolded, and the Text enlightened. London: R.I. for Francis Eglesfield, 1659. Dickson, David. Expositio Analytica Omnium Apostolicarum Epistolarum. Glasgow : George Anderson, 1645. Dickson, David. A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms. London; Printed by T.M. for Ralph Smith, 1653. Dickson, David. A Brief Explication Upon the Other Fifty Psalms: From Psal. 50. To Psal. 100. London; Printed by T.M. for Thomas Johnson, 1653. Dickson, David. A Brief Explication of the Last Fifty Psalmes, From Ps. 100 to the end. London: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Tho. Johnson, 1654. Dickson, David. Therapeutica Sacra. Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664. Dickson, David. Truth’s Victory Over Error. Edinburgh: John Reed, 1684. Durham, James. A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation. Edinburgh: Christopher Higgins, 1658. Durham, James. Christ Crucified: Or, the Marrow of the Gospel Evidently Holden Forth in LXXII Sermons, on the whole 53. Chapter of Isaiah. Edinburgh: Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson, 1683. Durham, James. Heaven Upon Earth. Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685.

298

Bibliography

Durham, James. Lectures on the Book of Job. 1759. Repr. Edited by Chris Coldwell. Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2003. Durham, James. The Blessednesse of the Death of these that die in the Lord, and more especially in an evil time: excellently discoursed in seven very searching, but very sweet sermons, on Revel. 14. v. 13. Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1682. Durham, James. The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland; or, A Treatise concerning Scandal. London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1659. Durham, James. The Great Corruption of Subtile Self. Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1686. Durham, James. The Great Gain of Contenting Godliness. Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685. Durham, James. The Song of Solomon. Aberdeen: George King, 1840. Durham, James. The Ten Commandments. Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1676. Durham, James. The Unsearchable Riches of Christ, And of Grace and Glory In and thorow Him. Glasgow : Robert Sanders, 1685. F(isher), E(dward). The Marrow of Modern Divinity. London: Printed by R.W. for G. Calvert, at the Black-Spread Eagle near Pauls, 1645. F(isher), E(dward). The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The Ninth Edition Corrected. Edinburgh: John Mosman and William Brown, 1718. Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel. 6 vols. London: W. Baynes and Son, 1820. G.D. Confessio Fidei in Conventu Theologorum Authoritate Parliamenti Anglicani indicto. Cambridge: Johannes Field, 1656. Gillespie, George. The Presbyterian’s Armoury : The Works of George Gillespie. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, 1846. Goodwin, John. Redemption Redeemed: Wherein the Most Glorious Word of the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ is Vindicated against the Encroachments of Later Times. 1651. Repr., London: Thomas Tegg, 1840. Hoeksema, Herman. A Power of God Unto Salvation or Grace not an Offer. Translated by Homer Hoeksema and Cornelius Hanko. Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1996. Hoeksema, Herman. “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of Reformed Truth: A Critical Treatise on the ‘Three Points’ adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1924”. No pages. Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http://www.prca.org/ pamphlets/pamphlet_76.html. Hoeksema, Herman. “Calvin, Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper – A Comparison”, No pages. Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_87.html. Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:9 (1st February 1957) No pages. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/free-offer2. Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:11 (1st March 1957). No pages. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-freeoffer-2-question-box-1. Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:12 (15th March 1957). No pages. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-freeoffer-2-question-box-0. Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:14 (15th April 1957). No pages. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/free-offer-1.

Primary Sources

299

Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 33:16 (15th May 1957). No pages. Cited 29th September 2012. Online: http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/1-freeoffer-2-persecution-hungary-3-gospel-invitation. Hoeksema, Herman. “Editorial,” The Standard Bearer, 39:9 (1st February 1963). No pages. Cited 27th October 2011. Online: http://sb.rfpa.org/printarticle.cfm?article=10143. Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1973. Hoeksema, Herman. The Clark Van Til Controversy. Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2005. Hoeksema, Herman. The Triple Knowledge: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism. 3 vols. Repr., Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1990. Hoeksema, Herman. “Whosoever Will”. No pages. Cited 26th October 2011. Online: http:// www.prca.org/whosoever_will/index.html#toc. Johnson, Archibald. Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Volume II, 1650 – 1654. Edited by David Hay Fleming. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1919. Johnson, Archibald. Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Volume III, 1655 – 1660. Edited by James D. Ogilvie. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1940. Knox, John. The Works of John Knox. Edited by David Laing. 6 vols. Edinburgh, 1846 – 64. Manton, Thomas. The Complete Works of Thomas Manton. 22 vols. London: James Nisbet, 1870 – 5. Milton, Anthony. ed. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort. Vol. 13 of Church of England Record Society. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005. Mitchell, Alexander. ed. Catechisms of the Second Reformation. London: James Nesbit & Co., 1886. Mitchell, Alexander and Struthers, John, eds. Minutes of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874. Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by W. Goold. 16 vols. 1850 – 3. Repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991. Perkins, William. A Godlie and Learned Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude. London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Thomas Man, 1606. Perkins, William. A Godly and Leearned Exposition or Commentarie upon the three first chapters of the Revelation. London: Printed by Adam Islip for Cuthbert Burbie, 1607. Perkins, William. A Treatise of God’s Free Grace, And Mans Free Will. Cambridge: Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Universitie of Cambridge, 1601. Peterkin, Alexander. Records of the Kirk of Scotland: Containing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies, from the year 1638 downwards, as Authenticated by the Clerks of Assembly, Volume 1. Edinburgh: John Sutherland, 1838. Rollock, Robert. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos. Geneva, 1595. Rollock, Robert. Select Works of Robert Rollock. Edited by William M. Gunn. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1849. Rollock, Robert. Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci. Herbornæ Nassoviorum, 1600. Rutherford, Samuel. A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist. London: J.D. & R.I. for Andrew Crooke, 1648.

300

Bibliography

Rutherford, Samuel. Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself. Repr., Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1727. Rutherford, Samuel. Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia Variis Praelectionibus. Edinburgh: George Anderson, 1649. Rutherford, Samuel. Exercitationes Apologeticæ pro Divina Gratia. Franeker : Johannis Dhüiringh, 1651. Rutherford, Samuel. Fourteen Communion Sermons. Glasgow : Charles Glass & Co., 1877. Rutherford, Samuel. Letters of Samuel Rutherford. Edited by Andrew Bonar. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1891. Rutherford, Samuel. Quaint Sermons of Samuel Rutherford Hitherto Unpublished. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1885. Rutherford, Samuel. Unpublished Sermon on Revelation 3:20 in Papers of Robert Douglas, Edinburgh University, DC.5.31, 191 – 4. Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1655. Rutherford, Samuel. The Trial and Triumph of Faith. Edinburgh: Committee of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the Publication of the Works of Scottish Reformers and Divines, 1845. Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. 3 vols. Harper and Row, 1931. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant. London: Printed by Edward Mottershed, for Adoniram Byfield, 1661. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Fountain Opened: and the Water of Life Flowing forth to thirsty sinners. Wherein is set out, Christ’s earnest and gracious invitation of poor dinners to come unto the waters. London: T.R. and E.M. for Adoniram Byfield, 1657. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Humbled Sinner Resolved. What he Should do to be Saved. Or Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the only way of Salvation for Sensible Sinners. London: T.R. & E.M. for Adoniram Byfield at the Bible in Popes-head Alley, neere Lumbard Street, 1656. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Nature and Danger of Heresies. London: M.F. for Samuel Gellibrand at the Brazen Serpent in Paul’s Church Yard, 1647. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Parable of the Prodigal. London: D. Maxwell, 1659. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Riches of God’s Grace Displayed, in the Offer of Salvation to Poor Sinners [Seven Sermons on Rev. iii. 20]. London: n.p., 1658. Stephen, William. ed. Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry Volume 1 (1652 – 1657). Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1921. Stephen, William. ed. Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh and Some Other Brethren of the Ministry Volume II (1657 – 1660). Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1930. Shedd, W.G.T. Calvinism Pure and Mixed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893. Shedd, W.G.T. Dogmatic Theology. 1st ed. 1888 – 94. 3rd ed. Edited by Alan Gomes. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003. Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 1992. Turretin, Francis InstitutioTheologiæ Elencticæ. 3 vols. Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847. Twisse, William. A Treatise of Mr Cottons, Clearing certaine Doubts Concerning Predesti-

Secondary Sources

301

nation together with an Examination Thereof. London: Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646. Twisse, William. The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, Reduced to the Practice. Amsterdam: Successors to G. Thorp, 1631. Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. ed., The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Van Til, C. Common Grace. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972. Warfield, B.B. Selected Shorter Writings: Benjamin B. Warfield. Edited by John Meeter. 2 vols. 1970 – 73. Repr., Phillipsburgh, N.J.: P& R Publishing, 2001. Warfield, B.B. ed. Ought the Confession of Faith to be Revised? A series of papers by J. DeWitt, H. J. VanDike, B. B. Warfield, W. G. T. Shedd. New York: n.p., 1890. Warfield, B.B. “The Presbyterian Churches and the Westminster Confession,” The Princeton Review 10:40 (October 1889): 646 – 657. Warfield, B.B. “Proposed Reply to the Recommendations of the Assembly’s Committee on the Revision of the Confession of Faith Proposed to the Presbytery of New Brunswick, Oct. 6, 1891. The Final Report of the Committee on Revision of the Confession,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3:10 (1892): 322 – 330. Westminster Confession of Faith & c. Glasgow : Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994.

Secondary Sources Books Armstrong, Brian. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Ball, Bryan W. A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Bagchi, David. and Steinmetz, David C. eds. The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Barker, William. Puritan Profiles: 54 Influential Puritans at the Time When the Westminster Confession Was Written. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1996. Baskwell, Patrick. Herman Hoeksema: A Theological Biography. Manassas, VA: Full Bible Publications, 2009. Bell, Charles. Calvin and Scottish Theology : The Doctrine of Assurance. Edinburgh: Handsell Press, 1985. Beougher, Timothy K. Richard Baxter and Conversion. Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007. Beeke, Joel R. and Jones, Mark. A Puritan Theology : Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Beeke, Joel R. and Pederson, Randall J. Meet the Puritans. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006. Beeke Joel R. and Smalley, Paul M. Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God’s Ordinary Way of Leading Sinners to Christ. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013.

302

Bibliography

Black, J. William. Reformation Pastors: Richard Baxter and the Ideal of the Reformed Pastor. Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2006. Blaikie, William G. The Preachers of Scotland from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century. 1888. Repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001. Boersma, Hans. A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy. Vancouver : Regent College, 1993. Bremer, Francis and Webster, Tom. eds., Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia. California: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Brown, John. An Essay, Toward an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of The Shorter Catechism. Philadelphia: Printed by Henry Frick for M’Carty & Davis, 1818. Brown, John. Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated. Canonsburg: Andrew Munro, 1827. Calamy, Edmund. The Nonconformist’s Memorial: Being An Account Of The Ministers, Who were Ejected or Silenced after the Restoration, particularly by the Act of Uniformity, which took Place on Bartholomew-day, Aug. 24, 1662. Containing a concise View of Their Lives And Characters, Their Principles, Sufferings, and Printed Works, Volume One. Edited by Samuel Palmer. London: W. Harris, 1775. Cameron, Nigel M. et al., eds. Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. Carson, John L. and Hall, David W., eds. To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the Westminster Assembly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994. Clausen, Marc. A Study of Scottish Hermeneutical Method from John Knox to the Early Twentieth Century from Christian to Secular. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. Clifford, Alan. Atonement and Justification, English Evangelical Theology 1640 – 1790: An Evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Coffey, John. John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in Seventeenth-Century England. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2008. Coffey, John. Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Cooper, Derek. Thomas Manton: AGuided Tour of the Life and Thought of a Puritan Pastor. Phillipsburg, NJ.: P& R Publishing, 2011. Cooper, Tim. Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Crisp, Oliver D. An American Augustinian: Sin and Salvation in the Dogmatic Theology of William G. T. Shedd. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. 2 vols. 1882. Repr., Edmonton: Still Water Revival Books, 1991. D’Assonville, V.E. John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin: A Few Points of Contact in their Theology. Durban, Natal: Drakensberg Press, 1969. De Jong, A.C. The Well-Meant Gospel Offer : The Views of H. Hoeksema and K. Schilder. Franker : T. Wever, 1954. De Jong, Peter Y., ed. Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618 – 1619. Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968. den Boer, William. God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Dow, Frances. Cromwellian Scotland, 1651 – 1660. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1979.

Secondary Sources

303

Duncan, J. Ligon., ed. The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 1. Fearn: Mentor, 2003. Engelsma, David. Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994. Fesko, John. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights. Wheaton: Crossway, 2014. Field, David P. Rigide Calvinisme In A Softer Dresse: The Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe, 1630 – 1705. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2004. Foster, W.R. The Church before the Covenants: The Church of Scotland 1596 – 1638. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1975. Gilmore, R. Samuel Rutherford: A Study Biographical and Somewhat Critical in the History of the Scottish Covenant. Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1904. Goudriaan, Aza and van Lieburg, Fred. eds. Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618 – 1619). Leiden: Brill, 2011. Greaves, Richard L. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox. Grand Rapids: Christian University Press, 1980. Gunter, W. Stephen. Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: Am Annotated Translation With Introduction and Theological Commentary. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012. Hanko, Herman. For Thy Truth’s Sake: A Doctrinal History of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2000. Hanko, Herman. The History of the Free Offer. Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989. Harris, William. Some Memoirs of the Life and Character of the Revered and Learned Thomas Manton D.D. London: J. Darby, 1725. Haykin, Michael A. G., ed. The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697 – 1771): ATercentennial Appreciation. New York: Brill, 1997. Haykin, Michael A.G. and Jones, Mark. eds. Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Henderson, G.D. Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland. 1937. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Hetherington, William M. History of the Church of Scotland from the Introduction of Christianity to the Period of the Disruption in 1843. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1881. Hetherington, William M. History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. 1856. Repr., Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993. Hodge, A. A. A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869. Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994. Howie, John. Biographia Scoticana: Or, A Brief Historical Account of the Lives, Characters, and Memorable Transactions of the Most Eminent Scots Worthies. Glasgow : John Bryce, 1781. Hussey, Joseph. God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. Printed by D. Bridge, and

304

Bibliography

are to be sold by Tho. Parkhurst; by J. Robinson; by N. Hillier; and by W. and J. Marshal, 1707. Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Jue, Jeffrey K. Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586 – 1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006. Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Kyle, Richard. God’s Watchman: John Knox’s Faith and Vocation. Eugene, OR.: Pickwick Publications, 2014. Kyle, Richard. The Ministry of John Knox: Pastor, Preacher and Prophet. Lampeter : Edwin Mellen, 2002. Kyle, Richard and Johnson, Dale W. John Knox: An Introduction to His Life and Works. Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2009. Lachman, David. The Marrow Controversy 1718 – 1723. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988. Lake, Peter and Questier, Michael, eds. Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560 – 1660. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000. Leder, Arie C. and Muller, Richard A., eds. Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation in the Reformed Tradition: Essays in Honor of James De Jong (Grand Rapids, Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). Lee Jr, Maurice. The Road to Revolution: Scotland Under Charles 1, 1625 – 37. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1985. Leith, John H. Assembly at Westminster : Reformed theology in the making. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973. Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly : Reading its Theology in Historical Context. Phillipsburgh, New Jersey : P& R Publishing, 2009. McCoy, Florence N. Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation. Berkerly : University of California Press, 1974. McEwan, James. The Faith of John Knox. Richmond: John Knox, 1961. McGowan, Andrew. The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997. MacLeod, John. Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1974. MacLeod, John. Some Favourite Books. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988. MacPherson, John. The Sum of Saving Knowledge with Introduction and Notes. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1886. Makey, Walter H. The Church of the Covenant 1637 – 1651: Revolution and Social Change in Scotland. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1979. Mason, Roger A. ed. John Knox and the British Reformations. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Milne, G.H. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Milton, Anthony. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618 – 19). Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005. Mitchell, Alexander F. The Westminster Assembly : Its History and Standards. London: James Nisbet, 1883.

Secondary Sources

305

Mitchison, Rosalind. Lordship to Patronage: Scotland 1603 – 1745. London: Edward Arnold, 1983. Moore, Jonathan. English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Morden, Peter J. Offering Christ to the World: Andrew Fuller and the Revival of Eighteenth Century Particular Baptist Life. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003. Morrill, J. S., ed. The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Mullan, David George. Scottish Puritanism 1590 – 1638. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Muller, Richard. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Muller, Richard. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Muller, Richard. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. 1985. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Muller, Richard. God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Muller, Richard. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Muller Richard A. and Ward, Rowland S. Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship. New Jersey : P& R Publishing, 2007. Murray, Iain H. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995. Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976 – 1982. Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: The Age of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004. Cited 29 Oct 2007. Online http://www.oxforddnb.com. Packer, J.I. The Redemption & Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter. Vancouver : Regent College, 2003. Pettit, Norman. The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Rainbow, Jonathan. The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1990. Reid, James. Memoirs of the Westminster Divines. 2 vols. 1811 – 1815. Repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982. Rendell, K.G. Samuel Rutherford: A New Biography of the Man and His Ministry. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2003. Richard, Guy. The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009. Ryken, Philip. Thomas Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1999.

306

Bibliography

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1858 – 1910. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Scott, Thomas. The Articles of the Synod of Dort. New York: William Williams, 1831. Shaw, Ian J. High Calvinists in Action: Calvinism and the City – Manchester and London c. 1810 – 1860. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Blackie and Son: Glasgow, 1857. Silversides, David. The Free Offer : Biblical and Reformed. Kilsyth: Marpet Press, 2005. Snoddy, Richard. The Soteriology of James Ussher : The Act and Object of Saving Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Spear, Wayne R. Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013. Sprunger, Keith L. The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972. Spurlock, R Scott. Cromwell and Scotland: Conquest and Religion 1650 – 1660. Edinburgh: John Donald, 2007. Stanglin, Keith D. Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603 – 1609. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Stanglin Keith D. and McCall, Thomas H. Jacob Arminius: A Theologian of Grace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Stebbins, Ken. Christ Freely Offered. Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 1996. Stevenson, David. The Scottish Revolution, 1637 – 44. 1973. Repr., Edinburgh: John Donald, 2003. Stevenson, David. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644 – 1651. 1977. Repr., Edinburgh: John Donald, 2003. Stevenson, David. Union, Revolution and Religion in 17th-Century Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate (Variatorum), 1997. Thomas, G.M. The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Thoresby, Ralph. The Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. Author of the Topogrophy of Leeds (1677 – 1724.) In Two Volumes. Vol. 1. Edited by Joseph Hunter. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1830. Toon, Peter. ed. Puritan Eschatology. London: James Clarke, 1970. Toon, Peter. The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity. 1967. Repr., Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2011. Torrance, Thomas F. Scottish Theology. Edinburgh: T& T Clark 1996. Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998. Trueman Carl R. and Clark, R. S. eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Tweedie, K.W., ed. Select Biographies: Edited for the Wodrow Society, Chiefly From Manuscripts in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1845 – 47. VanDoodewaard, William. The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Atonement,

Secondary Sources

307

Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718 – 1799). Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. Van Asselt, Willem J. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. van Vliet, Jan. The Rise of the Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013. Venema, Cornelis P. Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Von Rohr, J. The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Wabuda, Susan and Litzenberger, Caroline, eds. Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson by his Students. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Walker, James. The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560 – 1750. 1888. Repr., Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982. Wallace, Dewey. Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Warfield, B.B. The Westminster Assembly and Its Work. Vol. 6 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. 10 vols. 1932. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. White, Peter. Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wilks, Michael., ed. Prophecy and Eschatology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Wodrow, Robert. Analecta, or materials for a history of remarkable providences; mostly relating to Scotch Ministers and Christians. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1842 – 1843. Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Zaspel, Fred. The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Articles and Chapters in Books Beaton, Donald. “‘The Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy.” The Princeton Theological Review 4:3 (1906): 317 – 38. Blacketer, Raymond A. “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation.” Calvin Theological Journal, 35:1 (April 2000): 37 – 65. Beach, J. Mark. “Calvin’s Treatment of the Offer of the Gospel and Divine Grace,” MidAmerica Journal of Theology, 22 (2011): 55 – 76. Beach, J. Mark. “The Idea of a ‘General Grace of God’ in Some Sixteenth-Century Reformed Theologians other than Calvin,” Pages 97 – 110 in Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma and Jason Zuidema. Eds. Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Leiden, Brill, 2013.

308

Bibliography

Christie, George. “A Bibliography of James Durham: 1622 – 1658.” Publications of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, 11 (1921): 34 – 46. Christie, George, “James Durham as a Courtier and Preacher.” Records of the Scottish Church History Society, iv (1930): 66 – 80. Caiger, J.A. “Preaching – Puritan and Reformed.” Pages 46 – 61 in Press Towards the Mark. Papers Read at the Puritan & Reformed Studies Conference, 1961. Clark, R. Scott. “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer, and Westminster Theology.” Pages 149 – 80 in David VanDrunen. ed. The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries. Phillipsburg, NJ: P& R Publishing, 2004. DeWitt, John “William Greenough Thayer Shedd.” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 6:22 (1895): 295 – 322. Finlayson, R.A. “Calvin’s Doctrine of God.” Pages 3 – 18 in Able Ministers of the New Testament. Papers read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1964. Foster, H.D. “Liberal Calvinism: The remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618.” Harvard Theological Review 16:1 (1923): 1 – 37. Gatiss, Lee. “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement.” Pages 143 – 64 in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her : Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective. Edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013. Gomes, Alan W. “De Jesu Christo Servatore : Faustus Socinus on the Satisfaction of Christ.” Westminster Theological Journal 55:2 (Fall 1993): 209 – 231. Gomes, Alan W. “Some observations on the theological method of Faustus Socinus (1539 – 1604).” Westminster Theological Journal 70:1 (Spring 2008): 49 – 71. Hall, Joseph. “The Marrow Controversy : A Defence of Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 (1999): 239 – 57. Hanko, Herman. “A Comparison of the Westminster and the Reformed Confessions.” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal (November 1986): 3 – 18. Hoekema, Anthony A. “A New English Translation of the Canons of Dort.” Calvin Theological Journal, 3:2 (November 1968): 133 – 61. Hoekema, Anthony A. “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching.” Calvin Theological Journal 2:2 (November 1967): 133 – 61. Hoekema, Anthony A. “Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort.” Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972): 209 – 20. Klauber Martin I. and Sunshine Glen S. “Jean-Alphonse Turrettini on biblical accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?” Calvin Theological Journal 25:1 (April 1990):7 – 27. Kyle, Richard. “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox.” Westminster Theological Journal 46:1 (Spring 1984): 53 – 77. Kyle, Richard. “The Thundering Scot: John Knox the Preacher.” Westminster Theological Journal 64:1 (Spring 2002): 135 – 50. Lachman, David C. “Introduction.” Pages iii-xii in Durham, James. A Treatise Concerning Scandal. 1659. Repr. Edited by Chris Coldwell. Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990. Lake, Peter. “Calvinism and the English Church 1570 – 1623.” Past and Present 114 (Feb. 1987): 32 – 76. Lillback, Peter A. “The Continuing Conundrum: Calvin and the Conditionality of the Covenant.” Calvin Theological Journal 29:1 (April 1994): 42 – 74.

Secondary Sources

309

Macgregor, James. Blown in the Wind or Growing by the River? Presbyterians on Trial by their Principles. 1890. Repr., The Banner of Truth, 82 – 83 (July-August 1970): 53 – 58. MacLeod, Donald. “Dr. T.F. Torrance and Scottish Theology : A Review Article.” Evangelical Quarterly 72:1 (2000): 57 – 72. McNeill, John T. “The Doctrine of the Ministry in Reformed Theology.” Church History 12:2. (June, 1943): 77 – 97. Moore, Jonathan D. “The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Sin of Neglecting Baptism.” Westminster Theological Journal 69:1 (Spring 2007): 63 – 86. Muller, Richard A. “A Tale of Two Wills? Calvin and Amyraut on Ezekiel 18:23.” Calvin Theological Journal 44:2 (November 2009): 211 – 225. Muller, Richard A. “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy.” Calvin Theological Journal 30:2 (November 1995): 345 – 75 and 31:1 (April 1996): 125 – 60. Muller, Richard A. Review of James Durham, Commentary on Revelation. Calvin Theological Journal 36.2 (Nov 2001): 383. Murray, John J. “The Marrow Controversy – Thomas Boston and the Free Offer.” Pages 34 – 56 in Preaching and Revival. Papers Read at the Westminster Conference, 1984. Packer, J.I. “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel.” Pages 11 – 21 in How Shall they Hear? Papers read at the Puritan & Reformed Studies Conference, 1959. Ramsey, D. Patrick. “Samuel Rutherford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology in Scotland.” The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009): 115 – 26. Rehnman, Sebastian. “A Particular Defence of Particularism.” Journal of Reformed Theology 6:1 (2012): 24 – 34. Richard, Guy. “Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Revealed: a key to the lapsarian position of the Westminster Confession of Faith?” Scottish Journal of Theology 59:1 (2006): 27 – 44. Schaff, Philip. “The Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith.” The Presbyterian Review 10:40 (October 1889): 529 – 552. Silversides, David. “The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards.” Reformed Theological Journal 9 (November 1993): 62 – 84. Strehle, S. “The Extent of the Atonement at the Synod of Dort.” Westminster Theological Journal 51:1, (Spring 1989): 1 – 23. Troxel, A. Craig. “Amyraut ‘At’ the Assembly : The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement.” Presbyterion 22:1 (1996): 43 – 55. Trueman, Carl R. “From Calvin to Gillespie on the Covenant: Mythological Excess or an Exercise in Doctrinal Development?” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11:4 (October 2009): 378 – 97. Trueman, Carl R. “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism.” Calvin Theological Journal 33:1 (April 1998): 87 – 103. Van Asselt, Willem. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology : Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64:2 (Fall 2002), 319 – 35. Van den Belt, Henk. “The Vocatio in the Leiden Disputations (1597 – 1631): The Influence of the Arminian Controversy on the Concept of the Divine Call to Salvation.” Church History and Religious Culture 92 (2012): 539 – 559.

310

Bibliography

Venema, Cornelis P. “Heinrich Bullinger’s Correspondence on Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, 1551 – 1553.” Sixteenth Century Journal 17:4. (Winter 1986): 435 – 50. Wright, David F. “Calvin’s Accommodating God.” Pages 3 – 19 in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Edited by W.H. Neuser and B.G. Armstrong. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997.

Unpublished Dissertations Archibald, Paul. “A Comparative Study of John Calvin and Theodore Beza on the Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement.” Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1998. Bailey, Hunter. “Via Media Alia: Reconsidering the Controversial Doctrine of Universal Redemption in the Theology of James Fraser of Brea (1639 – 1699).” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2008. Cooper, Derek. “The Ecumenical Exegete: Thomas Manton’s Commentary on James in Relation to its Protestant Predecessors, Contemporaries, and Successors.” Ph.D. diss., Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008. Corbett, Donald John Macrae. “The Moral Aspect of the Atonement in Scottish Theology from David Dickson to James Denney and H.R. Macintosh.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1965. Daniels, Curt. “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983. Downie, Norma F.W. “The doctrine of assurance in Scottish theology from the Westminster Assembly of 1643 to the Secession of 1733.” M.A. (Theol.) diss., University of Manchester, 1986. Godfrey, W.R. “Tensions within International Calvinism: the debate on the atonement at the Synod of Dort.” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974. Hodges, L.I. “The Doctrine of the Mediator in Classical Scottish Theology, from John Knox to James Durham.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1975. Holfelder, Kyle D. “Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion and Occupation of Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester-Resolutioner Controversy.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1998. Holsteen, Nathan D. “The Popularization of Federal Theology : conscience and covenant in the theology of David Dickson (1583 – 1663) and James Durham (1622 – 1658).” Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 1996. Kim, S.D. “Time and Eternity : A Study in Samuel Rutherford’s Theology, with Reference to His Use of Scholastic Method.” Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 2002. Morrow, Trevor. “Infallibility as a Theological Concept: A Study in the Use of the Concept ‘Infallible’ in the Writings of B.B Warfield and C.A. Briggs.” PhD. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983. Sheppard, Craig A. “The Compatibility of the Doctrine of Election with the Free Offer of the Gospel in James Henley Thornwell.” M.Th. diss., Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, 1998.

Secondary Sources

311

Sinnema, Donald. “The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618 – 19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine.” Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 1985. Su, Yohan. “The Contribution of Scottish Covenant Theology to the Discussions of the Westminster Assembly (1643 – 1648) and its Continuing Significance to the Marrow Controversy (1717 – 1723).” Ph.D. diss., University of Glamorgan, 1993. Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. “Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly : The Making of a Pulpit Theology.” M.Th. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2000. Williams, Carol. “The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption.” Ph.D. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, 2005. McWilliams, D.B. “Herman Hoeksema’s Theological Method.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2000.

Index of proper names

— Brakel, Wilhelmus 100 a Lapide, Cornelius 83 Ames, William 20, 37 – 39, 42, 43, 84, 286 Amyraut, Moises 86, 246 Appleby, David 198 Aquinas, Thomas 83 Archibald, Paul 11, 12 Arminius, James 22, 23, 33, 37, 49, 64, 86, 233, 276, 285 Armstrong, Brian 90, 118 Ash, Simon 40 Augustine 83, 224 Bailey, Hunter 13, 81, 102, 122, 127, 153, 154, 158, 259, 265, 292 Baillie, Robert 66, 67, 69 – 71, 73 – 74, 78 – 79, 214 Ball, John 20, 40 – 43, 47, 286 Barker, William 49, 51, 178, 229 Baronius, Caesar 83 Baskwell, Patrick 13, 275, 280 Bates, William 198 Baxter, Richard 11 – 12, 84, 91, 101, 112, 117, 120, 154, 160, 174 – 5, 177, 195, 199, 201 – 2, 214, 255, 276, 280 Beach, J. Mark 13, 34, 132, 172, 256, 278, 279 Beaton, Donald 260, 262, 263, 269 Beeke, Joel R. 36, 104, 108, 110, 114, 141, 178, 198 – 9, 214, 229 Bell, Charles 54, 55, 59, 61, 73, 81, 102, 103, 106, 108, 112, 113, 122, 129, 216,

217, 218, 228 – 9, 231, 232, 239 – 41, 244, 245, 246 – 7, 250, 251, 269 Bellarmine, Robert 83 Berkhof, Louis 138, 280 – 3, 284, 291, 293 Beza, Theodore 64, 84 Black, J. William 174 Blacketer, Raymond A. 12 – 13, 33 – 36, 130, 132, 138, 172, 177, 256, 274, 285, 288 Blaikie, William G. 80 Blair, Robert 69, 73 – 74, 79 Boersma, Hans 101, 174 Bolton, Robert 84 Boston, Thomas 261, 262, 264 – 9, 283, 291, 293 Bowles, Oliver 84 Boyd, Robert 84 Boyd, Zachary 71 Bremer, Francis 178 Briggs, Charles 270 – 1, 272 Brown, John (Haddington) 54 Brown, John (Wamphray) 79, 118, 139, 146, 148, 150, 156, 166 Brown, John (Whitburn) 81, 261 – 5 Bucer, Martin 84 Bullinger, Heinrich 84 Burgess, Anthony 32, 40 Burnett, Robert 69 Burroughs, Jeremiah 84 Caiger, J.A. 142 Calamy, Edmund 40, 49 – 50, 52 Calamy, Edmund (Younger) 197, 199

314 Calvin, John 13, 14, 28, 30, 34, 39, 49, 81, 84, 98, 103, 152, 224, 273, 277 – 9, 280, 290 Cameron, John 54, 84, 86, 117, 120 Carelton, George 26 – 27 Carstairs, John 17, 74 – 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 85, 164 Cawdrey, Daniel 40 Christie, George 66, 67, 69, 70 – 73, 75, 78 – 79, 82 Chrysostom, John 83 Clark, R. Scott 12 – 13, 19, 36, 132, 172, 256, 275, 278, 279, 285 Clarkson, David 134 Clifford, Alan 135 Cobbett, Thomas 84 Coffey, John 158, 171, 175 – 6, 228, 230 – 1, 246 – 7 Como, David 28, 31 Cooper, Derek 197, 198 Cooper, Tim 101, 174 Corbett, Donald John Macrae 81 Cotton, John 84 Crisp, Oliver D. 272 Cromwell, Oliver 67, 70, 198 Culverwell, Ezekiel 28 – 31, 32, 41, 265 Cunningham, William 56, 122 – 3 Cyprian (of Carthage) 83 D’Assonville, V.E. 57 Daillie, John 84, 86 Daniels, Curt 12 – 13, 14, 19, 33, 83, 94, 97, 145, 147, 152, 279 Davenant, John 234 Davidson, John 84 De Jong, A.C. 13, 155, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280 De Jong, Peter Y. 22, 24, 35 den Boer, William 11, 23 DeWitt, John 272 Dickson, David 11, 16, 54, 66 – 69, 75, 76, 81, 84, 108, 145 – 6, 173, 214 – 28, 229, 232, 256, 265, 280, 289, 291 Donagan, Barbara 178 Douglas, J.D. 65 Douglas, Robert 74

Index of proper names

Dow, Frances 63 Downie, Norma F.W. 81 Duns Scotus 83 Durham, James 14, 15 – 17, 21, 29, 37, 40, 47, 48, 54, 56, 59, 62, 63 – 125, 127 – 172, 175, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 196, 197, 200, 203, 204, 207, 213, 214, 215, 218, 220, 221, 224, 225, 228, 229, 232, 254, 255 – 7, 259, 261, 262, 265 – 9, 273, 274, 280, 282, 283, 286 – 9, 291, 293 Eusebius

83

Featley, Daniel 52 Fesko, John 31, 44, 122 Field, David P 199 Finlayson, R.A. 152 Flavel, John 17, 80, 134 Fornerod, Nicolas 23 Foster, H.D. 24 Foster, W.R. 63 Gatiss, Lee 26 – 28 Gill, John 12 Gillespie, George 37, 50, 52, 55, 78, 81, 84 Gillespie, Patrick 71, 74 Gilmore, R. 228 Godfrey, W.R. 24 Gomarus, Franciscus 84 Gomes, Alan W. 87, 88 Goodwin, John 12, 175 – 7, 195, 210, 276, 280 Goodwin, Thomas 50, 84, 215 Goudriaan, Aza 21, 23, 24 Greaves, Richard L. 57 Greenham, Richard 84 Grotius, Hugo 84 Gunter, W. Stephen. 23 Guthrie, James 69 Hall, Gilbert 69 Hall, Joseph 260, 262, 283, 291 Hall, Joseph (Bishop) 198 Hanko, Herman 53, 275

315

Index of proper names

Harris, William 198, 199 Haykin, Michael A.G. 12, 26, 92 Hazlett, W.I.P. 64 Henderson, Alexander 78 Henderson, G.D. 65, 75, 77, 80, 82, 133 Hetherington, William M. 44 Hill, Thomas 40 Hodge, A. A. 53 Hodges, L.I. 16, 69, 76, 81, 90, 102, 115, 122, 147, 214 Hoekema, Anthony A. 13, 24, 25, 35 – 36, 275 Hoeksema, Herman 13, 274 – 84 Hog, James 260, 262 Holfelder, Kyle D. 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 214 Holsteen, Nathan D. 17, 66, 81, 90, 94, 95, 102, 103, 104, 108, 110 – 2, 114 – 5, 117, 118, 120, 140, 157, 214 – 7 Hooker, Thomas 84 Howie, John 66, 67, 72, 80, 214 Hughes, Se‚n F. 27, 28 Hussey, Joseph 290 Hutchison, George 69 Irenaeus 83 Isbell, Sherman

59, 64, 81, 229

Jenkyn, William 80 Johnson, Archibald 66, 71, 73 Jones, Mark 26, 36, 92, 104, 108, 110, 114, 215 Josephus 83 Jue, Jeffrey K. 77 Jyle, John C. 199 Kelly, Douglas 21 Kim, S.D. 84, 230 – 3, 236, 240, 247, 248, 250, 251 Knox, John 56, 57 – 59, 84, 286 Kyle, Richard 57, 59 Lachman, David C 23, 24, 28, 50, 66 – 68, 70, 72, 129, 140 – 2, 169, 170, 239, 242, 260 – 2, 264, 269, 283, 291

Lake, Peter 24, 26 Lee Jr, Maurice 63 Leith, John H. 44 Letham, Robert 44, 123 Lightfoot, John 50 Love, Christopher 198 Luther, Martin 84 Macgregor, James 53, 146 MacLeod, Donald 56, 59, 81 MacLeod, John 73, 75 – 77, 80, 81, 90, 214, 229, 260 MacPherson, John 145 Makey, Walter H. 63 Manton, Thomas 173, 197 – 214, 289 Marshall, Stephen 50 Mason, Roger A. 57 McCall, Thomas H. 23 McCoy, Florence N. 67, 68, 71, 73, 74 McGowan, Andrew 16, 37, 59, 261, 264, 267 McKay, W. David J. 55, 64, 65 McKelvey, Robert 31, 32, 100, 248 McNeill, John T. 17 M’Ward, Robert 74 McWilliams, David .B 158, 275, 277, 279 Mede, Joseph 84 Melancthon, Philip 84 Melville, Ephraim 66, 69 Milne, G.H. 17, 56, 122 Milton, Anthony 23, 24, 26 Mitchell, Alexander F. 40, 44, 49, 53 – 54, 56, 68, 69, 122, 231, 240 Moore, Jonathan 13, 17, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 43, 44, 122, 131 – 3, 135, 136, 138, 149, 150, 153, 157, 165, 168, 169, 265 Morden, Peter J. 290 Morrill, J. S. 16, 63 Morrow, Trevor 270 Mure, Margaret 71 Mullan, David George 59, 64, 84, 136, 158 Muller, Richard 19 – 21, 23, 48, 51, 52, 77, 81, 114, 122 Murray, Iain H. 290 Murray, John 123, 129 – 30, 137, 139, 148, 150, 171, 276, 280, 292

316 Murray, John J. 260, 265 Musculus, Wolfgang 84 Nazianzus, Gregory 79 Needham, Nicholas 65 Norton, John 84 Old, Hughes Oliphant 198 Owen, John 63, 80, 92, 93, 106, 133, 135, 138, 142 – 4, 147, 155, 169, 174, 197, 199 Packer, J.I. 34, 101, 135, 157, 162, 174 Perkins, William 29 – 30, 37, 84 Peterkin, Alexander 68 – 69 Pettit, Norman 141 Preston, John 13, 131, 149, 168, 265 Price, William 50 Ramsay, Robert 70 – 71 Ramsey, D. Patrick 231 Rehnman, Sebastian 123 Reid, James 178, 229 Rendell, K.G. 228, 230, 235 Reynolds, Edward 40 Richard, Guy 22, 38, 44, 59, 93, 231 – 5, 240, 246, 250 Rivet, Andre 84 Rollock, Robert 21, 28, 43, 59 – 61, 286 Rutherford, Samuel 50, 52, 54, 55, 68, 78, 81, 84, 88, 92, 93, 106, 173, 217, 228 – 254, 255, 256, 258, 263, 275, 280, 289 Ryken, Philip 81, 223, 264, 265 Saures, Francisco 83 Schaff, Philip 21, 22, 25, 54, 271 Scott, Thomas 24, 201, 279 Seaman, Lazarus 50 Sedgwick, Obadiah 54, 134, 173, 178 – 197, 198, 200, 202, 256, 289 Shaw, Ian J. 290 Shaw, Robert 53 Shedd, W.G.T. 20, 53, 270 – 4, 291, 293 Sheppard, Craig A. 14 Silversides, David 275

Index of proper names

Sinnema, Donald 23, 24, 37 Sleidanus, Johannes 83 Snoddy, Richard 28 Socrates 83 Spear, Wayne R. 50, 55 Sprunger, Keith L. 37, 38 Spurlock, R. Scott 64 Stanglin, Keith D. 23 Stevenson, David 63 – 65 Strange, Alan D. 31 Strehle, S. 24 Su, Yohan 44 Tertullian 83 Thomas, G.M. 20, 24, 25, 86 Thoresby, Ralph 198 Thornwell, James H. 14 Toon, Peter 77, 290 Torrance, Thomas F. 12, 16, 59, 76, 81, 82, 97, 115, 140, 228 – 30, 233, 269, 292 Troxel, A. Craig 44 Trueman, Carl R 63, 93, 103 Turretin, Francis 34 – 35, 88, 273 Tweedie, K.W. 214, 215 Twisse, William 24, 31 – 32, 84, 92, 120, 273 Ussher, James

21, 84, 135, 198

Van Asselt, Willem J. 19, 20, 88 Van den Belt, Henk 36 Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. 44, 45, 49 – 51, 159 van Vliet, Jan 37, 38 VanDoodewaard, William 260, 262, 264 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 84 Vines, Richard 50 Von Rohr, J. 114, 151, 157 Walker, James 57, 80, 102, 122, 228, 229 Wallace, Dewey 57 Ward, Roland 45 Warfield, B.B. 21, 44, 122, 270, 272, 273 – 4, 291, 293 Welsh, John 84

317

Index of proper names

White, Peter 23, 24 Williams, Carol 47, 103, 104, 108, 214 – 6, 218 Wodrow, Robert 66, 67, 72, 74 – 6, 82, 214 Woolsey, Andrew A. 44, 59 Wright, David F. 57, 64

Zanchi, Jerome 84 Zaspel, Fred 273 Zwingli, Ulrich 84