James Durham (1622-1658) And The Free Offer Of The Gospel

By Donald John Maclean

Richard Mouw has observed that the issue of the gospel offer “has been fiercely debated in just about every context where Calvinism has flourished. [1] Indeed, it has probably stirred up more passions than any other theological topic within the Calvinist camp.” [2] Whatever the hyperbole in this statement, it is certainly true that the gospel offer has been a controversial subject.

The Free Offer—An Area Of Debate

External critics of the Reformed faith have long argued that, given the Reformed commitment to divine sovereignty, no genuine free offer of salvation is possible. R. L. Dabney phrased their objection as follows: “If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, will certainly reject them and perish, and whom he immutably purposes to leave without effectual calling, how can his power and wisdom be cleared, save at the expense of his sincerity? or his sincerity at the expense of his wisdom or power?” [3] A similar form of objection was also encountered in pastoral practice among Reformed churches where parishioners could struggle to reconcile sovereign unconditional election with the free offer. For instance, in his classic seventeenth-century Scottish work of pastoral counsel, Therapeutica Sacra, David Dickson considers the objection, “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?” [4]

The free offer of the gospel was not only a source of dispute in centuries past; recent literature provides plentiful evidence that the gospel offer is currently a source of controversy within the Reformed churches themselves. Several books have emerged which are broadly critical of the free, or well meant, offer. Examples here include Herman Hanko’s The History of the Free Offer, David Engelsma’s Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, and George Ella’s The Free Offer and the Call of the Gospel. [5] Partly in response to these a number of works have emerged which largely defend the free offer. Examples here are John Murray’s The Free Offer of the Gospel, Ken Stebbins’ Christ Freely Offered, David Silversides’ The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed, and David Gay’s The Gospel Offer is Free. [6] This debate is not confined to these stand-alone volumes but is also found in more general works. For instance, Robert Reymond’s recent Systematic Theology criticizes John Murray’s position on the free offer of the gospel as potentially leading to the conclusion that Christ “did after all die savingly for those whom…he had decreed not to save” and as “imputing irrationality to God,” [7] while Scott Clark’s essay in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine [8] argues Murray’s position is scriptural.

The key area of dispute in these works lies in the question of whether we can meaningfully speak of a free offer of the gospel, or whether we ought rather to speak of a presentation of the facts of the gospel. And if we can use the terminology of “offer,” is that offer sincere or well meant? Other related issues are also raised, such as: how is the gospel offer related to common grace and a universal love of God to all men (if such things exist)?

It is important to note that part of this contention within the Reformed community lies not simply within the realm of systematic theology, but within the sphere of historical theology. Herman Hanko may stand as an example when he states, “The weight of history is surely behind those who deny that the free offer is the teaching of scripture.” [9] However, in contrast to this, Scott Clark argues that classic Reformed theology taught a “well meant gospel offer.” [10]

Clearly then, given this current state of disagreement, the time is ripe for a fresh examination of the free offer of the gospel in Reformed thought. Rather than consider both the current Reformed theological and historical disagreements over the free offer of the gospel, this essay will focus on the historical question of whether Reformed theologians taught a free offer of the gospel, and if so, what precisely they meant by that term. This question will be answered by means of a case study, examining the teaching and preaching of one of the most respected and representative Presbyterian divines of the seventeenth century, James Durham. [11]

Durham’s General Theology

Before considering Durham’s specific views of the free offer of the gospel, it is worth pausing to briefly sketch out the leading features of his theological thought. This will place his teaching on the free offer of the gospel in its proper context.

Durham As A Theologian

Durham’s life (1622-1658) spanned some of the most eventful years of the Scottish Church. He lived through the times when the Episcopacy which had been imposed on the Church of Scotland was swept away, and he was ordained the year the Scottish Church approved the Westminster Confession of Faith. He rapidly rose to prominence in the Church and after an initial pastoral ministry was appointed to be Professor of Divinity in Glasgow. However, before he took up his post he was appointed chaplain to Charles II. His time as chaplain ended with the success of Cromwell and the fleeing of Charles. He spent his remaining days in pastoral ministry. Durham died at the age of thirty-six as the Scottish Church was enduring the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy. [12]

Durham as a theologian was profoundly respected in his day. William Blackie observes: “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.” [13] These contemporaries include Samuel Rutherford, David Dickson, and George and Patrick Gillespie. [14] John Carstairs, his co-pastor, wrote that he had a “very deep reach in the profoundest and most intricate things in Theology.” [15] It is therefore fair to say that Durham was a respected and representative Reformed theologian. [16]

Durham’s Covenant Theology

Covenant theology was central to Durham’s thought. Indeed, if proof were ever required for James Walker’s statement that Scottish seventeenth-century theology was “a covenant theology,” Durham would certainly provide it. [17] So fundamental was covenant theology that it shaped Durham’s entire doctrine of salvation. He argued, “We have no access to Christ but by the covenant.” [18] The threefold scheme of the covenants of works and grace combined with the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption were a fundamental element of Durham’s theological framework.

The covenant of works laid the foundation for Durham’s presentation of the gospel. It was one of the “general truths contained in the gospel” that “Adam was made according to God’s image; that he fell, and broke the covenant of works.” As a result of the Fall, the curse of a broken law now rests on all and the life that was once attainable under this covenant is no longer for the condition of “perfect holiness and obedience” can now never be fulfilled. [19] To obtain eternal life now, people must be turned from the covenant of works to the covenant of grace “that provided a cautioner to pay the sinner’s debt.” [20]

An appreciation of this covenant of grace is vital according to Durham, as “the right understanding of the Covenant of Grace, doth conduce exceedingly to the clearing of Gospel-truths.” [21] This covenant, as opposed to the covenant of works, is designed for sinners: to be righteous by the covenant of works required doing, but to be righteous by the covenant of grace requires no works, only believing. [22] In the covenant of grace there is “the offer of these sufferings [of Christ], and the benefits of them to us.” [23] In the covenant, God offers sinners salvation in Christ and the sinner must receive and close with Christ. [24] The parties in the covenant of grace, therefore, “are God and the sinner.” [25] To enter into the covenant of grace is defined as “the heart’s closing with Him by faith according as He offers Himself in this gospel.” [26] This closing with Christ, or, by faith resting on Him, is often called by Durham “the very proper condition of the covenant of grace.” [27] The language of conditionality had led to Durham, among other things, being accused of “distorting the nature of grace.” [28] Aside from ignoring Durham’s teaching on the unconditional promise and gift of faith to the elect, this criticism betrays a lack of understanding of Durham’s own nuancing of his position. [29] For instance, he expresses some dissatisfaction with the language of conditionality itself, noting: “I had rather call it [faith] the means by which it [Christ’s righteousness] is apprehended.” [30] He also defines in what sense he uses the word condition, meaning no more than faith is the “instrumental cause of our Justification…Faith…doth receive Him…and…by this receiving, He becometh our righteousness, upon which our Justification is grounded.” [31]

The covenant of grace is the outworking in time of an intra-Trinitarian covenant—the covenant of redemption. It is important not to posit too great a distinction between these two covenants in Durham’s thought as “the covenant of grace…is not quite another thing than the covenant of redemption, but the making offer of it, and the benefits contained in it, in the preached gospel.” [32] Indeed, the covenant of grace is only accessible to sinners because of the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace is ultimately “nothing else but the result of the covenant of redemption and the execution thereof.” [33] Nevertheless, the covenants of grace and redemption are distinguished in the thought of Durham and significant attention is given by him to outlining the leading features of the covenant of redemption. In considering this covenant, Durham defines the parties as “upon the one side is God essentially considered, or all the three Persons of the glorious Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are all concurring in this covenant, it being the act of the determinate counsel of God,” and “upon the other side, the party engaging to make satisfaction, is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed, dreadful, and adorable Trinity, personally considered, now becoming Head of the elect....” [34] This covenant is about the salvation of the elect [35] and so may be considered as the Father (on behalf of the three Persons of the Godhead) [36] offering to redeem the elect on condition of the Son satisfying divine justice. Thus the covenant of redemption is “the fountain whence our Lord’s sufferings flowed.” [37]

Durham The Predestinarian Theologian

Intertwined with this threefold covenant structure—a broken covenant of works, a covenant of grace in which life was offered to sinners, and the covenant of redemption which in eternity laid the basis for the covenant of grace—was a strictly particularistic soteriology. Indeed, Durham was a stout defender of an orthodox Reformed soteriology against attacks from Rome, Socinians, Arminians, Antinomians, and various other groups. His general thought may be summarized in his own words: “Salvation is ascribed to God, as the foundation and efficient cause, in whose Counsel the work of salvation was bred, and was concluded.” [38]

Flowing from his covenant theology, Durham espoused total depravity. As a result of the broken covenant of works, man was under the “curse” of that covenant. [39] Man is therefore spiritually dead and inclined to evil, even as the threatened death of that covenant has come upon mankind. [40] Because man is spiritually dead, “the preaching of the gospel cannot beget faith, without the powerful work of God’s grace.” [41] Underpinning Durham’s covenant theology was a firm belief in unconditional election: “As the potter has power over the clay, and makes of the same lump one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour, as he pleases; so the Lord acts most sovereignly in the decree of election.” [42] This decree of election was prior to the covenant of redemption “in order of nature.” [43] It was as a result of the decree of election that a covenant of redemption was necessary at all. Further, the decree of election defines the particular and discriminatory nature of the covenant of redemption. Durham also clearly held to effectual calling: “wherever the Lord applies the powerful work of his grace, then necessarily faith and conversion follow.” [44] This flowed from the covenant of redemption which guaranteed the salvation of those given to Christ; indeed, “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 [of the elect’s salvation].” [45] Particular redemption is a repeated theme in Durham’s writings and an extended essay in his commentary on Revelation is devoted to its defense. [46] Key to Durham’s defense of particular redemption is the covenant of redemption, as he argues that “the people who were transacted for in the covenant of redemption, and that were given by the Father to the Son, to be redeemed by him; it was for their sins, even for the sins of the elect, that our Lord Jesus was stricken.” [47] Finally, Durham also held to the perseverance of the saints: “all things relating to the salvation of the elect, are so sicker [sure] and firm, that there is no possibility of the misgiving or failing of whatever is here transacted upon.” [48] Again, this is related to the covenant of redemption, as, if the promise to give a seed to Christ is to be sure, the final salvation of His people must be guaranteed.

So, clearly, Durham affirms all of what are commonly known today as the five points of Calvinism. It is important to note this to demonstrate Durham’s orthodox theology and to guard against the dismissal of his views on the free offer by claims he was somehow deficient and less than sound in his theology.

Durham’s Teaching On The Free Offer

In his own day, James Durham was not simply known as a gifted Reformed theologian but also, and perhaps particularly, as a preacher of the free offer of the gospel. For instance, Durham’s co-pastor, John Carstairs, expressed appreciation of Durham’s preaching as follows: “[he] spoke some way as a man who had been in heaven, commending Jesus Christ, making a glorious display of the banner of free grace.… He brought the offers thereof very low, wonderfully low,… the offer of salvation was let down and hung so low to sinners that those of the lowest stature among them all, though but as pygmies might catch hold of it, who through grace had any mind to do so. He so vehemently and urgently pressed home on so sweet and easy terms to be embraced that I have been sometimes made to wonder how the hearers could refuse or shift them.” [49]

The Term “Offer”

From Carstairs’s quotation immediately above, it is already clear that Durham and his contemporaries were content with the terminology of “gospel offer.” There is little room for doubt or debate as to whether Reformed theology used the term “offer.” [50] The area for examination, then, is not simply whether the Reformed used the term “offer,” but what they meant when they spoke of the “free offer of the gospel.”

In considering this, the first thing that needs to be defined is what exactly is being offered in the gospel? In summary, Durham stated that “Christ Jesus Himself, and His benefits” is what is offered. [51] That is, all the Son had done to redeem sinners is offered in the gospel: “This good and gracious bargain that is made between the Father and the Son, which is wholly mercy, is brought to the market and exposed to sale on exceedingly easy and condescending terms, and that to bankrupt sinners.” [52] To expand on this: “peace and pardon, grace and glory, even all good things [are] offered to you freely!” [53] Or to phrase it differently, “Tell me, what is it that you would have? Is it remission of sins? ’Tis here. Would you have the covenant and promises? Here they are: Is it Christ Himself that you would have.… Here He is. Or would you have heaven and be eternally happy? ’Tis also here.” [54] So Christ Jesus and all that He has done for the salvation of His people and the fruits of His death are offered in the gospel. The position outlined above is expressed by John Murray 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.” [55]

Having seen what is offered, namely Jesus Christ and His benefits, it is now important to define what Durham meant by “offer.” Is it true that, as has been claimed, we should understand “offer” simply in the sense of “present or set forth,” [56] or does “offer” mean something more than simply a presentation of facts? Is it true that the Reformed in the seventeenth century used offero, and its cognates, simply to denote “present”? This is the assertion of Raymond Blacketer who posits that oblato should not be translated as “offer” but as “present” or “exhibit” and that this accords with sixteenth- and seventeeth-century Reformed usage. [57] This assertion has been called into question by Scott Clark who argues that “the semantic range of ‘offero,’ as it is used by the orthodox, is closer to ‘invitation’ than ‘demand.’” [58] What of Durham—how does he define the term? And does his definition support the historical definitions of Blacketer or Clark? It is certainly true that, for Durham, Christ is presented and set forth in the gospel, but it is evident from the images he used to explain and define “offer” that, for him, it is not simply equivalent to “present” or “set forth.”

One of the most common images Durham uses to define “offer” is that of wooing and beseeching. He explains that “[t]he offer of the gospel…is set down under the expression of wooing…and supposes a marriage, and a bridegroom, that is by his friends wooing and suiting in marriage.” [59] So, in understanding what the gospel offer is, it is appropriate to think of a man trying to persuade the woman he loves to marry him. This image, of course, carries with it more than a simple presentation of facts. It would be an absurdity for a man to try and win the affections of a woman simply by presenting a few facts about himself. No, the image carries with it the idea of an attempt to win the girl by earnest persuasion. And so it is with the gospel where Christ “doth beseech and entreat, etc. that thereby hearts may be induced to submit cheerfully to Him.” [60] We can “[c]onsider further how our Lord Jesus seeks and presses for this satisfaction from you; he sends forth his friends and ambassadors, to woo in his name, and to beseech you to be reconciled.… He pleads so much and so often, and entreats every one in particular when he is so very serious in beseeching and entreating, it should, no doubt, make us more willing to grant him what he seeks.” [61] From this one image alone it is clear that to “offer” is, for Durham, more than a presentation of facts.

Another common image in Durham to explain what he means by “offer” is inviting. Durham comments that “[t]he 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.” [62] He also states that “the gospel comes to invite men to the wedding.” [63] Particularly significant in considering the dispute over the meaning of the word offer is Durham’s denial that the gospel is simply a proclamation. He states that the gospel “not only proclaims, but invites; and doubles 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] cries, ‘Come, buy! Come and enter the covenant freely.’ And this it does by a frank offer, by earnest and persuasive inviting, and by the easy conditions that it proposes the bargain on.” [64] So it appears that the contention that by “offer” Reformed theology simply meant proclamation or presentation is inadequate, for the gospel “not only proclaims but invites.”

Durham also frequently uses the image of selling to convey the meaning of “offer.” “The offer of the gospel is…set out often under the similitude or expression of a market where all the wares are laid forth on the stand.” [65] Another example of this is Durham stating “that there is a good and excellent bargain to be had in the gospel, and on very good and easy terms. ’Tis a market day, and indeed it would be a pity that such wares should be brought to the market and that few or none should buy; that Christ should (so to speak) open his pack and sell no wares. Therefore let me…persuade you readily and presently to embrace the offer of this richest bargain.” [66] Again, considering this image, it would be generally agreed that it would be a poor salesman who simply 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 is a sale.

This, then, is Durham’s understanding of “offer”—not simply a presentation of facts, not simply a command but wooing, beseeching, inviting, and selling. [67] Clark and Daniels presented the understanding which best accords with the theology of Durham.

Who Is Offering?

Having defined what is being offered, namely Jesus Christ and all good things in Him, and having defined what is meant by an offer, the next question naturally arises—who is doing this offering? [68] Whose offer is being spread abroad in the gospel? Is it simply the preacher who is offering the gospel, or is it God Himself who offers Christ in the gospel?

For Durham the answer is clear—God Himself makes the offer, not simply the preacher. He states that “God in the gospel sets forth to sinners, as in a market, rich and rare wares…at very low and easy [rates]….” [69] Durham expands on this elsewhere: “Consider the offer that is made in the gospel to sinners, which is the object of our faith…. It is God’s 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; and that there is a ground to faith, when God makes offer of Christ’s satisfaction in the gospel, on condition that we believe, and accept of him.” [70] So 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, [while] those to whom the offer is made [are] wretched, poor, miserable etc.” [71]

This is an important point. Due to construing the gospel offer as God’s offer, Durham cannot simply dismiss the question of the sincerity or well-meant nature of the gospel offer (which we will consider later) by pointing to the men who are preaching and their ignorance of the divine decree of election, i.e., these men do not know who the elect are among their hearers. No, in a real sense for Durham the person offering is God. Ministers are simply ambassadors who relay God’s offer. The voice may be theirs, but the offer is Christ’s: “Christ takes on the place of a wooer. Ministers are his ambassadors; the word is his 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 fullness.” [72]

This position of Durham can be summarized again by the earlier quote 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.” [73]

The Scriptural Basis For The Offer

It is appropriate before proceeding further to consider the scriptural basis for the free offer in Durham’s thought. What exegetical basis did Durham use to justify his definition of the free offer of the gospel?

Some key texts are as follows:

• 2 Corinthians 5:20. [74] For instance, speaking of the duties of ministers, Durham states: “it is their commission to pray them, to whom they are sent, to be reconciled; to tell them that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (as it is 2 Cor. 5:19-20), and in Christ’s stead request them to embrace the offer of reconciliation.… This is ministers’ work, to pray people not to be idle hearers of the gospel.” [75]
• Matthew 22:4.76 Durham states: “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 (Matt. 22:2-4). All things are ready, come to the wedding, and etc. Thus the gospel calls not to an empty house that [lacks] meat, but to a banqueting house where Christ is made ready as the cheer.” [77]
• Isaiah 55:1. [78] Durham expands on this verse, “The offer of the gospel is…set out often under the similitude or expression of a market where all the wares are laid forth on the stand (Isa. 55:1; Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, etc.). And lest it should be said, or thought, that the proclamation is only to the thirsty, and such as are so and so qualified; you may look to what follows, and he that hath no money come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” [79]
• Revelation 3:20. [80] In mid-seventeenth-century Reformed thought, Revelation 3:20 was understood almost universally as an evangelistic appeal to unconverted sinners. [81] Durham is typical when he states, “The offer of this gospel is…set out under the similitude of a standing and knocking and calling hard at sinners’ doors,…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’ hands.” [82] Or again, “He says from there, ‘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.’ It is as if he had said, ‘I come 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.’” [83] Lying behind this view of Revelation 3:20 as an evangelistic text is Durham’s ecclesiology, namely, his understanding that the visible church comprises those who outwardly profess the true religion and their children, rather than equating the visible church with the regenerate. Just because Revelation 3:20 is addressed to a church does not guarantee that it is addressed to a group of saved, or elect, individuals. Durham believed in general that of the “great multitude of professing members of the visible Church” there were “many that do not believe.” [84] In particular, regarding the Church of Laodicea, he argued that they “were without the Righteousness of Christ.” [85] It was therefore perfectly natural for him to read Revelation 3:20 as an evangelistic and conversionist appeal. [86]
• Ezekiel 18:31-32. [87] Durham explains, “Faith…is well expressed 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 you die, O house of Israel? Come and receive a Saviour.’” [88]
• Matthew 23:37, Luke 19:41-2, or Christ’s lament over Jerusalem. [89] Durham uses this verse as follows: “Sometimes he complains (as John 5:40), Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life; and sometimes weeps and moans, because sinners will not be gathered (as Luke 19:41-42 and Matt. 23:37). Can there be any greater evidences of reality in any offer?” [90] Another example of Durham’s use of this verse is his statement that “[in the gospel offer] the Father and the Son are most heartily willing; therefore they expostulate when this marriage is refused, ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,... how often would I have gathered thy children together,... and ye would not!’ (Matthew 23:37). ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou, even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace!’ (Luke 19:42). All these sad complaints, that Israel would not hearken to His voice, and His people would have none of Him (Psalm 81:11), that He came to His own, and His own received Him not (John 1:11), and that they will not come to Him that they might have life (John 5:40), make out His willingness abundantly and undeniably.” [91]
• Revelation 22:17. [92] Durham uses 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 is not only, to say with reverence, those whom he wills, but it is whosoever will.…” [93] Another typical use of this verse is: “This is our Lord’s farewell, that He may press the offer of the Gospel and leave that impression as it were, upon record amongst the last words of this Scripture; and His scope is to commend this Book and the offers He hath made in it, as most free and on terms of grace, wherein Christ aimeth much to draw souls to accept it.” [94]

This is a sample of the biblical basis Durham adduces for the free offer of the gospel. [95]

To Whom Is The Gospel Offered?

Having defined the free offer of the gospel in Durham’s thought and seen some of the biblical basis he adduces for his position, it is appropriate to now consider who, in his thought, the gospel is offered to. Is it offered to all men or is it only offered to a certain class of hearers of the gospel, e.g., sensible sinners, or those who are convinced of their sins? Durham is clear on this point. He states: “where the gospel comes, it makes offer of Jesus Christ to all that hear it.” [96] Durham notes that gospel preaching offers 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, etc. which putteth it so to every hearer, as if it went round to every particular person, if thou, and thou, or thou etc.…because where the Lord saith any man, without exception, who is he that can limit the same?” [97]

The gospel offer is to all regardless of their current condition; even those who do not believe in God, and those who live in sin, still receive the gospel offer: “We make this offer to all of you, to you who are atheists, to you who are graceless, to you who are ignorant, to you who are hypocrites, to you who are lazy and lukewarm, to the civil and to the profane. We pray, we beseech, we beg you all to come to the wedding.… We will not, we dare not say, that all of you will get Christ for a Husband; but we do most really offer Him to you all, and it shall be your own fault if you lack Him and go without Him.” [98]

He also explicitly rejects any idea of preparationism: “Grace does not stand precisely on forepreparations…such as saying that you have not been so and so humbled, and have not such and such previous qualifications.… Nay, in some way it excludes these, as offering to bring money and some price, which would quite spoil the market of free grace; nay yet, I say further, if it were possible that a soul could come without sense of sin, grace would embrace it.” [99] Durham further argues that the gospel is 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.” [100]

In rejecting preparationism, Durham is not undermining the importance of the law or of conviction of sin, but he is arguing that conviction of sin does not somehow qualify someone to come to Christ.

What Warrant Do Men Have To Accept The Offer?

Given that all hearers of the gospel are offered Christ, what warrant do they have to accept the offer of Christ, especially since conviction of sin is not that warrant? Durham argues that all men have a warrant to accept Christ freely offered to them for, among others, the following three reasons.

1. “The first whereof is God’s hearty invitation, holden forth, Isa. 55:1.” [101] Because God invites sinners to come to Him, there is an abundant warrant to do just that: to come to Him for salvation.
2. “The second Warrant and special Motive to embrace Christ, and believe in him, is the earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to him in Christ; holden forth, 2 Cor. 5:19, 20, 21.” [102] As if an invitation were not enough warrant to come to Christ, there is God’s earnest request that sinners receive Christ freely offered to them. Can any doubt that they have a right to come to Christ when God is earnestly beseeching them to do just that
3. “The third Warrant and special Motive to believe in Christ, is 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” [103] Sinners can also be sure that they have a warrant to come to Christ because God commands us to come to Him for salvation. Durham comments 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.’” [104]

These are the three main warrants to which Durham refers most frequently. In arguing that all hearers of the gospel have warrant to come to Christ, Durham lays the foundation for his strong and uncompromising upholding of “duty faith.” He clearly asserts that “The…great duty…required of the hearers of the gospel is believing in Christ savingly, or saving faith.” [105]

Is The Gospel Offer Sincere?

Having considered so far that God earnestly invites all the hearers of the gospel to come to Christ, the question naturally arises as to the sincerity of the gospel offer. That is, does God want all hearers of the gospel offer to accept Christ, or to express it differently and starkly, does God desire the salvation of all hearers of the gospel? This is an important theological question and Professor John Murray states: “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.” [106]

What does Durham make of this question? Does he teach that God desires the salvation of all men? It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Durham would answer this question in the affirmative [107] given his comments: “God the Father, and the King’s Son the Bridegroom, are not only content and willing, but very desirous to have sinners come to the marriage. They would fain (to speak with reverence) have poor souls espoused to Christ.” [108] This teaching is not simply one isolated slip of the tongue in preaching, as Durham elsewhere notes, “As our Lord Jesus Christ has purchased this redemption and remission, so he is most willingly desirous, and pressing that sinners to whom it is offered should make use of his righteousness and of the purchase made thereby, to the end that they may have remission of sins and eternal life.… He is (to speak with reverence) passionately desirous that sinners should endeavour on ground to be sure of it in themselves. Therefore he…makes offer of it, and strongly confirms it to all who embrace it.” [109] Again commenting on the verse, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37), Durham states: “The word is doubled in the original: ‘I will not, not [cast him out]’”; to show the holy passion of our Lord’s desire and His exceeding great willingness to have sinners close with Him. In Isaiah 45, salvation is promised even to a look: “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved.” [110] Indeed, he can go so far as to say that “I do not know a truth of the gospel that has more confirmations than this has, that Christ the Mediator is very willing and desirous that sinners close with him, and get the good of his purchase.” [111]

Durham is clear that to deny the serious and sincere nature of the gospel is 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. Whenever He pipes, it becomes us well to dance, and to believe and credit Him when He speaks fair and comfortably.” [112]

Allied to this, Durham speaks of the willingness of God to save sinners, as the following extract demonstrates:

Christ the Bridegroom and His Father are very willing to have the match made up and the marriage completed.… The evidences of His willingness are many…as, that He has made the feast…and prepared so for it, and given Himself to bring it about, and keeps up the offer and proclamation of marriage even after it is slighted…the Father and the Son are most heartily willing; therefore they expostulate when this marriage is refused, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you, but ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37). “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou, even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace!” (Luke 19:42). All these sad complaints, that Israel would not hearken to His voice, and His people would have none of Him (Ps. 81:11), that He came to His own, and His own received Him not (John 1:11), and that they will not come to Him that they might have life (John 5:40), make out His willingness abundantly and undeniably. [113]

In noting Durham’s teaching on the desire of God that hearers would accept the gospel offer, it is not appropriate to understand him as simply using indefinite terms (such as “sinners”) and by these terms meaning “the elect.” Aside from the strange inconsistency this would create with Durham’s own definition of the gospel offer as a particular invitation to every individual hearer (how could a particular invitation be indefinite in its object?), Durham clearly affirms the willingness of God to save everyone who hears the gospel: “This word 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.” [114]

To quote Professor John Murray again: “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.” [115]

Connected to this is Durham’s teaching that the gospel offer is an expression of God’s common grace: “(2 Cor. 6:1) We beseech you (he says) that ye receive not this grace in vain; which is not meant of saving grace, but of the gracious offer of grace and reconciliation through him.” [116] And 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 of the royalty of the feast, upon which ground (2 Cor. 6:1) it is called grace, the offer is so large and wide.” [117]

However, having noted all this, it is important to clarify in what sense Durham spoke of God’s desire for the salvation of the hearers of the gospel and of His willingness to save all. Central to this is Durham’s distinction between the secret will and the revealed will of God. [118] Basing his thoughts on John 6:39-40, he states that here we “have two wills to say so.” [119] Verse 39 (“This is the Father’s will that sent me that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing”) refers to “the secret paction [contract] of redemption” while verse 40 (“And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life”), refers to “the revealed will, pointing to our duty.” [120] The secret will is not to be “searched into at the firsthand” but rather “his revealed will belongs to you, and that is to see that you believe.” [121] This revealed will shows what is “pleasing and delightsome” to God—indeed, what God “commands, calls for and approves” cannot be conceived of, but as “pleasing to God.” [122] It is only in the sense of this revealed will that we can speak of God’s will to save all gospel hearers. As Durham argues, “if the Lord’s willing of men (at least men that are under His ordinances) to be saved be thus understood, as including only the duty that God layeth upon men, and the connection 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].” [123] Durham rejected any “assertion of the Lord’s having a will and desire of the salvation of all men, besides His signifying of what is acceptable to Him as considered in itself by His Word.” [124] This also shows that when Durham spoke of God’s desire to save all, he was relating this to the revealed will. [125] Similarly, in discussing common grace, Durham draws a sharp distinction between saving and common grace, arguing that while common grace is indeed wrought by the Spirit, the difference between the two is “in kind” and not simply “in degree.” [126]

Objections To The Free Offer

Durham dealt with various objections to the free offer of the gospel in the course of his preaching. While his answers to these objections are largely pastoral in aim, they also shed light on how Durham would have responded to more theological critiques of the free offer.

One objection considered was that the free offer was futile because of election or because of particular redemption. Durham phrases the objection as follows: “It may be some will say, that the covenant is not broad enough, because all are not elected.” [127] “It stands in the way of some to hinder their believing, as they suppose, that Christ has died for some, and not for all; and they know not if they be of that small number.” [128] He argues in response that “whoever perish, it is not because they were not elected, but because they believed not.… I would ask, would you overturn the whole course of God’s administration, and of the covenant of his grace? Did he ever…at the first hand, tell folks that they were elected? Who ever got their election at the very first revealed to them?… God’s eternal purpose or decree is not the rule of our duty, nor the warrant of our faith, but his revealed will in his Word.” [129] And again: “We are invited by his command and promise, and we are not first called to believe that Christ died for us, but we are called first to believe in him that is offered to us in the gospel. That is our duty; and folks are not condemned because Christ died not for them, but because, when he offered the benefit of his death and sufferings to them, they slighted and rejected it.… The Word bids all believe, that they may be saved; and such as neglect this command, will be found disobedient.” [130] So he points sinners away from the hidden decree to the revealed will of God in the gospel offer.

Another objection was that the free offer was futile because of total depravity and the consequent inability to believe. Durham phrased the objection as follows: “What use is the offer as ‘we cannot receive the offer?’” To which he responds: “Whose fault is this that you [lack] ability? It is not God’s fault. You have a sure ground to believe. His word is a warrant good enough. The promises are free enough; the motives sweet enough.” Durham proceeds: “The gospel brings Christ so near them, that they must either say, yea or nay; it is not so much, ‘I cannot,’ as ‘I will not believe’; and that will be found a wilful and malicious refusal.” [131] So he points sinners to the root of their inability which is their own sinful and willful rejection of Christ’s offer. He further argues: “This is a most unreasonable and absurd way of reasoning; for if it be given way to, what duty shall we do? We are not of ourselves able to pray, praise, keep the Lord’s Day, nor to do any other commanded duty; shall we therefore abstain from all duties? Our ability or fitness for duty, is not the rule of our duty, but God’s command.” [132]

The Free Offer And Preaching

Having summarized Durham’s teaching on the free offer, the question remains—how significant was this doctrine in the theological framework of James Durham? In particular, how was this doctrine reflected in his practical theology?

First, what was the relationship between the free offer of the gospel and the work of the ministry in the opinion of Durham? Well, for him, preaching the free offer was the great work of the ministry: “When the Master sends out His servants in His name their great work is to invite to the wedding and to close the marriage.” [133] He further states, “The great work of the ministers of the gospel is to invite unto, and to endeavour to bring this marriage between Christ and souls to a close.” [134] For Durham, this preaching of the free offer is the proper work of the ministry: “Jesus Christ and what concerns him (the glad and good news of a Saviour, and the reporting of them), is the very proper work of a minister, and the great subject of a minister’s preaching. His proper work is to make him [Christ] known…and [to] make him known, in the way by which sinners…may come to have him to themselves.” [135] Durham would have been in perfect harmony with the aim of Robert Bolton: “[The Lord Jesus Christ] is offered most freely, and without exception of any person, every Sabbath, every Sermon, either in plain, and direct terms, or impliedly, at the least.” [136]

Now this is not to suggest that, for Durham, teaching and instructing the people of God was unimportant; rather, he clearly teaches that ministers have to instruct and edify God’s people. But the point here is to emphasize Durham’s insistence on the necessity of a soul-winning ministry, a ministry where the free offer of the gospel was central.

Second, Durham’s practice shows his belief in the urgency of the free offer. He emphasizes the importance of closing with Christ immediately: “You must not delay to come and close the bargain; you must not put it off till tomorrow, nay, not an hour. All things are ready. Just now, now is the accepted time: here stands the blessed Bridegroom.… We dare not be answerable to our Master, nor can we be answerable to our trust and commission, if we shuffle by or thrust out any of you if ye do not thrust out yourselves…. Let me beseech and beg you to come to the wedding.” [137] Or again: “We cannot allow you an hour’s time to advise…close with Him presently, or you may never have the like opportunity.… The King is on His throne…His servants invite in His name. Come, therefore; come without further lingering.” [138]

Conclusion

This consideration of the teaching of James Durham on the free offer of the gospel has demonstrated that those who maintain that Reformed theology has denied the sincere gospel offer are mistaken. Instead, this case study of a well-regarded seventeenth-century Scottish theologian and preacher at a high point for Scottish Presbyterianism and Puritanism has provided evidence to support the historical claims that the term “offer” meant far more to orthodox Calvinists than simply to exhibit or present. Indeed, the term was historically understood as a heartfelt divine plea to sinners everywhere and in whatever condition to repent and receive Christ by faith.

Notes

1. This is an amended version of a lecture given at the Inverness branch of the Scottish Reformation Society in November 2008. My thanks are given to Rev. Maurice Roberts and the Committee for their kind invitation to speak. Thanks are also due to George MacLean for comments on the draft of the lecture prior to its original presentation in Inverness and for comments on this updated version.
2. Richard Mouw, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 45.
3. Robert L. Dabney, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related to his Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity” in Discussions (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1982-1999), 1:282.
4. David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 170-171.
5. Herman Hanko, The History of the Free Offer (Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989); David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994); George Ella, The Free Offer and the Call of the Gospel (Eggleston: Go Publications, 2001).
6. John Murray, “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976-1982), 4:113-132; Ken Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 1996); David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed (Kilsyth: Marpet Press, 2005); David Gay, The Gospel Offer is Free (Biggleswade: Brachus, 2004).
7. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 693.
8. 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), 149-180.
9. Hanko, History, 5. See also Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation,” Calvin Theological Journal, 35 (2000), 37-65.
10. Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 165.
11. 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, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1841-1842); Robert 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, together with various introductions to his printed works. Brief summaries based on these more extended biographies are found in David C. Lachman, “Durham, James,” in Nigel M. Cameron, et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 265-266. Information from many of these sources has been helpfully summarized in 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).
12. This controversy and the historical context for Durham’s life in general is helpfully summarized in David C. Lachman, introduction to A Treatise Concerning Scandal, by James Durham (ed. Chris Coldwell, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990), v–ix.
13. William G. Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland From the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 129.
14. E.g., Charles Bell’s comment, “The federal theology…realised its finest hour in the preaching and teaching of men such as Samuel Rutherford, David Dickson, James Durham, Patrick and George Gillespie, and through its inclusion in the Westminster documents” (M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance [Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1985], 70).
15. James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation (repr., Willow Street: Old Paths Publications, 2000), ix, Carstairs intro.
16. For instance, in John Owen’s opinion Durham was “one of good learning, sound judgement, and every way ‘a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.’” (John Owen, To the Christian Reader, The Song of Solomon, by James Durham [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982], 19).
17. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750 (repr., Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), 73.
18. James Durham, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ and of Grace and Glory In and Through Him Diligently searched into, clearly unfolded, and comfortably held forth in fourteen rich gospel sermons preached on several texts at communions in Glasgow (repr., Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), 215. It should also be noted that the centrality of covenant thought gave Durham’s theology a Christological focus, for Durham held, “when we speak of this covenant, it always supposes and implies Christ…because He is given for the ground of covenanting between God and sinners. It is by Him and in Him that God and sinners meet” (Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 256).
19. James Durham, Christ Crucified: Or, the Marrow of the Gospel in Seventy-Two Sermons on the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah (repr., Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2001), 572. James Durham, Heaven Upon Earth (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685), 359.
20. Ibid., 534. Bell correctly notes that what Durham has to say on the covenant of works “is mostly by way of comparison with the covenant of grace. This is because of Durham’s primary pastoral goal of convincing people of the necessity of acting faith on Jesus Christ for salvation…” (Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 100).
21. Durham, Revelation, 688.
22. Durham, Christ Crucified, 586.
23. Ibid., 249. An important connection is made here between covenant theology and the gospel offer.
24. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 207-208.
25. Ibid., 255.
26. Ibid., 213-214.
27. Durham, Christ Crucified, 101. See also Christ Crucified, 120, 535, 544, 589; Revelation, 296, 300, 311, 322, etc.
28. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 9.
29. Indeed, it betrays a misunderstanding of Puritan theology in general. Von Rohr has convincingly demonstrated that “In the terminology of the Puritans the covenant of grace is both conditional and absolute” and that “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” (J. Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 53, 81).
30. Durham, Revelation, 311.
31. Ibid., 295-296.
32. Durham, Christ Crucified, 250.
33. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 255.
34. Durham, Christ Crucified, 254. Durham is conscious of the limitations of covenantal language in speaking of this intra-Trinitarian agreement, noting “it is called a covenant in Scripture, and we call it so, not strictly and properly, as if all things in covenants among men were in it, but materially and substantially it is so, and the resemblance will hold for the most part” (ibid., 290). He also observes that “These things [are] spoken after the manner of, and borrowed from the bargainings or transactions that [are] among men” (ibid., 337).
35. And so, for Durham, the covenant of redemption is preceded by the decree of election (ibid., 255).
36. When Durham spoke of the Father as the contracting party with the Son, this was not to exclude the Spirit. Durham’s construction of the covenant of redemption does not ignore the Spirit, as the preceding quotes demonstrated. Indeed, he states that “the covenant of redemption…holds out the love of God, Father, Son, and Spirit, towards elect sinners” (ibid., 273).
37. Ibid., 279. It is probably because of this Durham can say that the covenant of redemption is “deservedly called the Gospel” (ibid., 428).
38. Durham, Revelation, 499. It is therefore highly ironic that T. F. Torrance charged Durham (among others) with giving “rise to a rather moralistic and indeed a semi-pelagian understanding of the Gospel” (T. F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: from John Knox to John McLeod Campbell [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996], 103).
39. Durham, Christ Crucified, 205.
40. Ibid., 275.
41. Ibid., 180.
42. Ibid., 330.
43. Ibid., 335. See also Durham, Revelation, 400 where he also adds that the decree of reprobation was prior to the covenant of redemption.
44. Ibid., 184.
45. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351.
46. “Concerning the extent of the merit of Christ’s death, or, if it may be accounted a satisfaction for all men” (Durham, Revelation, 378-412).
47. Durham, Christ Crucified, 327.
48. Ibid., 455.
49. John Carstairs, introduction to The Unsearchable Riches of Christ, by James Durham (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), vii.
50. Curt Daniels observes: “It cannot be debated that the word was employed with all regularity throughout the Puritan era.” Curt Daniels, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 398.
51. Durham, Revelation, 271.
52. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 144.
53. Ibid., 155.
54. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 333.
55. Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:132.
56. Hanko, History, 89.
57. Blacketer, “Three Points,” 44-45.
58. Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 169. Curt Daniels rejects arguments, similar to Blacketer’s, put forward by Herman Hoeksema in reference to the definition of offer. See Daniels, “John Gill,” 398.
59. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80.
60. Durham, Revelation, 272.
61. Durham, Christ Crucified, 475-476.
62. Ibid., 80.
63. Ibid., 213.
64. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 151 (emphasis added).
65. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80.
66. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 152.
67. So David Silversides is correct to note that the “term ‘offer’ did not mean merely to ‘exhibit’ or ‘present’ in a manner bereft of the connotation of an overture addressed personally to the hearers for their acceptance” (Silversides, The Free Offer, 65).
68. This is one of the areas where Blacketer accuses Louis Berkhof of incoherence, arguing he equivocated over whether the preacher or God is properly offering. See Blacketer, “Three Points,” 40-41.
69. Durham, Christ Crucified, 98-99 (emphasis added). This teaching is by no means novel; e.g. John Owen states, “It is God himself who proposes these terms, and not only proposes them, but invites, exhorts and persuades” (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. W. Goold [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 6:517).
70. Durham, Christ Crucified, 505 (emphasis added).
71. Durham, Revelation, 271.
72. Durham, Christ Crucified, 98.
73. Murray, “Free Offer” in Collected Writings, 4:132 (emphasis added).
74. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” For ease of comparison with the actual quotations in Durham’s works, Scripture references are from the KJV.
75. Durham, Christ Crucified, 79. See also ibid., 429; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 256-257, 327.
76. “All things [are] ready: come unto the marriage.”
77. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80. See also a sermon on this verse entitled “Gospel Presentations are the Strongest Invitations” in Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 43-79.
78. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”
79. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80. In arguing this text is not only of relevance to “the thirsty” we see something of Durham’s anti-preparationist stance which will be considered in more detail later. See also ibid., 98-99; Durham, Revelation, 544, 992; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60.
80. “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
81. 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 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988) 2:34-100; John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1968) 4:1-267.
82. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80.
83. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 46. See also Christ Crucified, 98; Revelation, 273; Unsearchable Riches, 165, 261, 334.
84. Durham, Christ Crucified, 113.
85. Durham, Revelation, 269.
86. James Packer’s comment is helpful, “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 at the door and knock’ as disclosing, not the impotence of his grace apart from man’s cooperation (the too-prevalent modern interpretation), but rather the grace of his omnipotence in freely offering himself to needy souls” (J. I. Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” in How Shall they Hear [Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1959], 18).
87. “Why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.”
88. Durham, Christ Crucified, 96-97. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 330-331.
89. “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it.”
90. Durham, Christ Crucified, 125.
91. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 55. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 119, 410. Durham’s use of this text is not always consistent. Here he evidently refers the text to Christ’s divinity and even “the Father.” However, in Christ Crucified, when engaged in a polemic against those within the Reformed tradition advocating a greater universal reference to the atonement than Durham would allow, he refers the text to the human nature of Christ only. He states that it was “when he preached as a man, and as a minister of the circumcision” that he spoke these words (Durham, Christ Crucified, 623).
92. “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
93. Ibid., 125.
94. Durham, Revelation, 992. See also ibid., 544; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60.
95. It is interesting to note the occurrence of many of these texts in John Murray’s “Free Offer,” 4:113-132.
96. Durham, Christ Crucified, 122.
97. Durham, Revelation, 274. This is in contrast to the assertion in David Lachman’s magisterial work on the Marrow Controversy that while “earlier Reformed divines held this gospel offer to be a particular offer of Christ to each individual, the offer could therefore be apprehended with an assurance that Christ would be gracious. Later theologians [i.e. post Dort], extending the doctrine of particular redemption to the gospel offer, spoke of the offer as general and indefinite” (David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723 [Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988], 11).
98. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60. Lachman observes that Durham sums up the general orthodox stance on preparationism “as succinctly as anyone” (Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 60).
99. Ibid., 156-157.
100. Ibid., 52. Thus when Lachman notes “Durham is careful to restrict the offer to members of the visible church” (Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 35), this should only be understood as a practical limitation rather than a principled point, i.e., the gospel is only in practice offered where there are preachers but it should still in theory be offered to all.
101. “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,” in The Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 332. The attribution of the Sum of Saving Knowledge to James Durham and David Dickson 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…” (Robert Wodrow, Analecta, 1:166).
102. “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in The Westminster Confession, 334.
103. Ibid., 336.
104. Ibid.
105. Durham, Christ Crucified, 92.
106. Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:113.
107. For the sense in which this is the case, see the further discussion below.
108. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 44.
109. Ibid., 313-314.
110. Ibid., 329.
111. Ibid., 325. So Durham would confirm Ken Stebbins’ belief that the language of God’s desire for the salvation of all hearers of the gospel has been “used by nearly all reformed theologians from Calvin down to the present day” (Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered, 20).
112. Ibid., 96.
113. Ibid., 55. Again, the similarity of the textual basis here with those used by John Murray in The Free Offer of the Gospel is evident.
114. Ibid., 333 [emphasis added].
115. Murray, “Free Offer” in Collected Writings, 4:114.
116. Durham, Christ Crucified, 79.
117. Ibid., 83.
118. 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).
119. Durham, Christ Crucified, 233. Durham also uses these verses to make the same point in Unsearchable Riches, 78.
120. Ibid., 233.
121. Ibid., 233-234.
122. Ibid., 427.
123. Durham, Revelation, 214. In the context here, Durham states he would rather speak of God’s revealed will that all men repent, rather 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.
124. Ibid., 268.
125. R.A. Finlayson’s words, although 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 preceptive 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).
126. Durham, Revelation, 158.
127. Durham, Christ Crucified, 127.
128. Ibid., 350-351.
129. Ibid., 127.
130. Ibid., 350-351. Packer’s comments are helpful: “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’ (Matt. 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” (Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” in How Shall they Hear, 19).
131. Ibid., 83.
132. Ibid., 127-128.
133. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 44-45.
134. Ibid., 55.
135. Durham, Christ Crucified, 74. So we see the corroboration of Caiger’s statement regarding the Puritans, “They burned with zeal for the salvation of souls, and they gave themselves to a ministry which promised healing for the broken hearted, and which could set at liberty those that were bruised” (J.A. Caiger, “Preaching—Puritan and Reformed,” in Press Towards the Mark [Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1961], 55).
136. Robert Bolton, Instructions for a Right Comforting Afflicted Consciences (n.p., 1640), 185.
137. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 66-67.
138. Ibid., 68.