David Silversides on the Warrant of Faith and the Free Offer of the Gospel in the Westminster Standards

(b) The warrant of faith is the free offer of the Gospel addressed to sinners as such

“....wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (WCF VII/III). The term ‘offer’ or ‘free offer’ also appears in the Catechisms (Larger An. 32, 63 and 68, Shorter An. 31 and 86). The usage in An. 68 of the Larger is of special interest in that it puts beyond all doubt that the offer is addressed to non-elect sinners; “...who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Christ.” The term ‘offer’ also appears in the Three Forms of Unity.²⁰

(c) The Meaning of ‘offer’

Professor Hanko maintains that the term ‘offer’ can mean no more than ‘to exhibit’ or ‘to present’. He suggests that this was the intended meaning not only in the Three Forms of Unity but also in the Westminster Standards.²¹ It is more customary to regard the term as implying a gracious overture of mercy, an invitation to sinners in general which reflects God’s favour and kindness to all who hear the Gospel, a favour and kindness which is one part of what became known later as ‘common grace’. Hoeksema’s and Hanko’s denial of the doctrine of common grace in general and the concept of a gracious overture in particular raises serious questions.

(i) The Person of Christ

If the anti-common grace position were correct, then Christ as God in no sense loved the reprobate even while they were in this world. As a man ‘made under the law’ the command, “thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” applied to Christ. Only two options are open. The first is an heretical division of the person of Christ, by maintaining that Christ loved only the elect in His divine nature but loved all men in His human nature. Clearly this must be rejected. The alternative is to say that Christ, in both natures, loved the elect only and that our obligation to love all men is due to our ignorance of who the elect are. This means that we are required to love those whom God does not. Moreover, Scripture bases our obligation to love all men not on our ignorance of God’s mind, but the knowledge of it that we should have our duty to be patterned after Him (Matt. 5:43–48).

(ii) The Preaching of the Gospel

Are we to have compassion on all those to whom we preach reflecting our concern for their spiritual welfare (Rom. 9:1–3 and 10:1)? If so, do we express this compassion as ministers of Christ, acting “in Christ’s stead” (2 Cor. 5:20), or do we cease to act in that capacity at this point?

We submit that the tears of Christ over Jerusalem were the human tears of a Divine person and reflected divine compassion and that the Scriptures warrant the preaching of a gracious overture of mercy to all who hear the Gospel. We also submit that this was the overall position of the Westminster Divines. In support of this we offer the following five lines of evidence.

Firstly, the Minutes of the Assembly.

“Resolved upon the Q., These two questions and answers, Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ? A. Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation but only such as are members of the Church invisible. Q. What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind? A. Besides much forebearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ as Lord of all, they by Him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the Gospel, and are under such dispensations of providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance.”²²

“Ordered—Q. Are all they saved by Christ who live within the Visible Church and hear the Gospel? A. Although the Visible Church (which is a society made up of such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children) do enjoy many special favours and privileges whereby it is distinguished from other societies in the world and the Gospel where it cometh doth tender salvation by Christ to all, testifying that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, and excludeth none that come unto Him; yet none do or can truly come unto Christ, or are saved by Him, but only the members of the Invisible Church, which is the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one unto Christ their head.”²³

“Resolved upon the Q. ‘Q. What is it to believe in Christ? A. To believe in Christ is to receive Christ according to God’s offer, resting on Him alone for pardon and all grace and salvation.’ Resolved upon the Q. ‘Q. What ground or warrant have you, being a sinner, to believe in Christ? A. The ground of my believing in Christ is God’s offer of Him in His word to me as well as to any other man, and His commanding me to believe in Him, as well as to believe or obey any other thing in His word.”²⁴

Secondly, the Directory for Public Worship.

In the prayer before sermon in this Directory which the Westminster Assembly produced, we read, “Yea, not only despising the riches of God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, but standing out against many invitations and offers of grace in the Gospel...”

Thirdly, the use of the term ‘goodness’ in the Shorter Catechism.

God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth (S/C Ans. 4).

That God shows goodness to all men can scarcely be denied (e.g. Rom. 2:4, Ps. 145:9). The question is whether “goodness” or “doing good” implies Divine favour or lovingkindness. Hoeksema, having acknowledged that goodness sometimes indicates mercy, grace and compassion, goes on to say, “Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten that this benevolence of God is not common, and that it may not and cannot be separated from His goodness as perfection. Only as the ethically perfect One is God the benevolent One. And because this is true, His goodness reveals itself as wrath and anger, as a consuming fire, to those that love iniquity.”²⁵

By applying this sense of “goodness” to God’s dealings with His creatures, the way is open to evacuate all reference to God’s goodness towards men in general of the idea of benevolence, mercy, grace and kindness, except in the case of the elect who, because of their supposed justification from eternity past are at no point among “those that love iniquity” in the sight of God, even though they do love iniquity prior to their effectual call. John Murray on Romans 2:4 comments,

It needs to be noted that the apostle does not think of this restraint as exercised in abstraction from the riches of God’s goodness, the riches of his benignity and lovingkindness...It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies.²⁶

When we turn to the Westminster Standards, we find the term ‘goodness’ in An. 4 of the Shorter Catechism replaces the terms “most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness...” in the Westminster Confession (II/I) and the Larger Catechism (An. 7). The Shorter Catechism has sometimes been criticized for not mentioning God’s grace or love in An. 4, but we must realize that whatever differences there may be in these various terms, the Westminster Divines saw God’s goodness as a basic umbrella term for them. This being so, since God is undoubtedly good to all, we submit that the Westminster Divines as a whole held to what became known as the doctrine of common grace in the sense that the Lord, in a variety of ways, displays His favour and lovingkindness even to the non-elect in this present life, without being pleased to regenerate them. The preaching of the Gospel and the overture of mercy which it includes is one part of that display of lovingkindness.

Fourthly, individual Assembly members.

Rutherford says, “He offereth in the Gospel, life to all...” He then calls this

God’s moral complacency of grace, revealing an obligation that all are to believe if they would be saved; and upon their own peril be it, if they refuse Chfrist...Christ cometh once with good tidings to all, elect and reprobate.²⁷

Thomas Goodwin states, “God now in this life offers to deal with thee upon terms of friendship...”²⁸ and speaks of “an invitation to come into the Ark, like to Christ’s inviting sinners to come unto him.”²⁹

In 1657, a series of free offer sermons by Obadiah Sedgwick was published.³⁰ Jeremiah Burroughs wrote a recommendation to Edward Fisher’s “Marrow of Modern Divinity” which featured so much in the defense of the free offer in Later Scottish Church history.³¹

If time permitted, so far as the members of the Assembly have left their views on record, we believe it could be shown that the free offer position was the norm among them.

Fifthly, the Puritan period in general.

The free offer or gracious overture position seems to have been held generally among the 17th century Puritans with little dissent. John Flavel preached a series of free offer sermons.³² John Owen has a relevant sermon on “a vision of unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners.”³³ Erroll Hulse in his useful booklet on the subject gives appropriate quotations from Brooks, Charnock, Sibbes, etc.³⁴

In Scotland, William Guthrie in his “Christian’s Great Interest,” published in 1658, makes references throughout to “gracious invitations,” etc.³⁵ David Dickson and James Durham, around 1650, wrote their “Sum of Saving Knowledge” which if often printed with the Westminster Standards in Scottish editions. It has a whole section on “warrants to believe” and includes a treatment of Isaiah 55:1–5, saying that the Lord “maketh open offer of Christ and His grace by proclamation of a free and gracious market of righteousness....He inviteth all sinners...” On 2 Corinthians 5:19–21; “The earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to Him in Christ...”³⁶ That whole section is worthy of study.

Taking all this into account, we feel justified in concluding that the Westminster divines and the Puritans went further than merely issuing the command. They besought men and did so as an expression of divine lovingkindness.

(d) John Calvin

From time to time the charge has been made that the Westminster Standards represent a significant departure from the position of Calvin. Usually, the charge is in the form that the Westminster position is more rigorously Calvinistic then Calvin. However, occasionally, the accusation is in the other direction. Were the Westminster divines at odds with Calvin in their view of the free offer of the Gospel? We suggest not. The following are samples from Calvin’s commentaries.

On Acts 13:46

He accuseth them (the Jews) of unthankfulness, because, whereas they were chosen by God out of all people, that Christ might offer himself unto them, they refused so great a benefit maliciously....because they do so willingly cast from them so grace a grace.³⁷

On Heb. 2:12

Hence we conclude that the Gospel is offered to us for this end, that it may lead us to the knowledge of God by which His goodness is made known among us....This is what Paul says (2 Cor. 5:20) that he and others act as the ambassadors of Christ and exhort us in the name of Christ.³⁸

On Heb. 3:13

The particle ‘so long as’ implies that the opportunity will not always be there if we have been slow to follow when God was calling us. God is now knocking at our door. If we do not open to Him, it will come about that in turn He will close the door of His kingdom to us. Then those who despised the grace offered today will find their groans are too late. Therefore, since we do not know whether it is God’s will to continue His call into tomorrow, let us not put off. He calls today; let us answer as soon as possible.³⁹

On 2 Pet. 3:9, Calvin does not restrict the phrase “not willing that any should perish” to the elect. Rather he says

This is His wondrous love toward the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety. We must notice the order, that God is prepared to receive all men into repentance, so that none may perish. These words indicate the means of obtaining salvation, and whoever of us seeks salvation must learn to follow in this way. It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His lovingkindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world.⁴⁰

Practical points:

1. We are to treat non-Christians as recipients of divine favours, including material blessings and gifts as well as the preaching of the Gospel. It is because they are real blessings (Gen. 17:20) that their ingratitude renders them so guilty. Unthankfulness relates to blessings not curses (Rom. 1:21). The fact that, in the case of the reprobate, these blessings become the occasion of greater guilt in accordance with the decree of God, does not mean they are not in themselves expressions of the free favour and mercy of God. We can therefore point out to the unbeliever that God has been merciful to him and the danger of abusing His mercies and “treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5).

2. We must do more than issue the Gospel command. We must exhort men to come to Christ, not in a “take it or leave it” fashion, but conveying to them that it is a matter of intense concern to us that they heed God’s sovereign and gracious overture of mercy and embrace in faith the Saviour whom they so much need. (There should be no confusion that it is they who need Christ and not vice versa as is sometimes the case in the Arminian presentation today).
_______________
20. Canons of Dort, Heads 3 and 4, Article 9.
21. H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal, op. cit. Nov. 1986, op. cit. 16–17.
22. Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (William Blackwood and Son, 1874), p. 369.
23. Op. cit. 393.
24. Op. cit. 309.
25. H. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 92.
26. John Murray, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 59.
27. S. Rutherford, op. cit. p. 129ff.
28. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 6, Banner of Truth, 1979, p. 150.
29. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 8, James Nichol, Edinburgh, 1864, p. 166.
30. Obadiah Sedgewick, The Fountains of Life Opened (1657).
31. See Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1722 edition, p. 14.
32. John Flavel, Works, Vol. 4, Banner of Truth, pp. 3–306.
33. John Owen, Works, Vol. 8, Banner of Truth, pp. 2–41.
34. Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer (Carey Publishing Ltd., 1973).
35. William Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), pp. 122–127, etc.
36. The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, published in the Westminster Confession of Faith etc., Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1967, pp. 326–329.
37. John Calvin, Commentaries, Vol. 10, A.P. + A., p. 1152.
38. John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews and I & II Peter, Oliver & Boyd, p. 27.
39. Op. cit., p. 41.
40. Op. cit., p. 364.

David Silversides, “The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards,” The Reformed Journal 9 (November 1993): 74–81.

In his conclusion, Silversides noted:

Herman Hoeksema was undoubtedly a great theologian, nevertheless, his distinctive views are significantly at variance with the Westminster Standards. The root of the problem seems to be a misapplication of the doctrine of the immutability of God. Hence, the elect can never be really under condemnation prior to effectual calling. Similarly, God cannot show grace or favour to the reprobate in this life since He does not in the next. (This view, though held to defend the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, actually sets limits upon that sovereignty by saying that God’s grace or favour must be unto eternity or nothing, whereas if He is free to show mercy as and when and how He pleases, He may indeed show favour to the non-elect for a time in this life and withdraw that favour in the eternal world). Finally, the concept of condition is seen as casting doubt upon the immutability of God’s decrees.

Ibid., 81.

David Silversides on Matthew 23:37

Matthew 23:37

‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’ (cf. Luke 13:34).

In this verse, Jerusalem evidently refers to the people of that city. It may have the leaders (denounced in the previous verses) especially in mind, but they were not solely responsible for the death of the prophets, or even of Christ himself; nor did the judgment fall only on them, as many ordinary people perished in the fall of Jerusalem.

The gathering can only be the reception of sinners by Christ, as the God-man Redeemer, the reception promised in Matthew 11:28, ‘Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ John Murray tells us:

What needs to be appreciated is that the embrace of which Jesus here speaks is that which he exercises in that unique office and prerogative that belong to him as the God-man Messiah and Saviour. In view of the transcendent, divine function which he says he wished to perform, it would be illegitimate for us to say that here we have simply an example of his human desire or will.⁴⁴

The gathering envisaged is to Christ as one person in two distinct natures; it is that gathering which issues in forgiveness of sins, peace with God and rest unto men’s souls.

Next, the term thy children needs careful interpretation. Opponents of the free offer have striven to make the children refer to the elect of God who were actually gathered by Christ through efficacious grace. For example, Angus Stewart writes:

However, “how often” simply tells us that the religious leaders (“Jerusalem”) opposed Christ’s gathering His elect (“Jerusalem’s children”) many times...Yet Christ the king gathers all Jerusalem’s children by His irresistible grace.⁴⁵

This view is untenable for several reasons:

i) It is arbitrary, imposed on the text and cannot be drawn out from it.

ii) It is contrary to normal usage. The ‘children of Edom’ (Psa. 137:7) are the people of that place. The many references to the ‘children of Israel’ refer simply to the people of Israel.

Likewise, the children of Moab, Ammon etc. When used metaphorically, such expressions indicate likeness to the parent body—for example, ‘sons of the mighty’ (Psa. 29:1, AV.mg.), ‘children of Belial’ (Deut. 13:13 etc.), ‘children of light’ (Eph. 5:8)—not contrast, as Stewart would have us believe, thus making Jerusalem’s children contrast with Jerusalem itself.

iii) It conflicts with the singular and plural terms in the text. The older English pronouns of our Authorized Version (reflecting the singular and plural distinctions of the Greek) are helpful here. The word thy (singular) clearly relates to Jerusalem (singular). The children (plural), represented as chickens, are in view in the phrase ye (plural) would not, where the English reflects the plural of the Greek verb. Stewart wishes the plural verb, ye would not, to refer to the singular Jerusalem, which is most forced. It is the children that would not be gathered. Jerusalem is simply a collective description of the city and its people, as a body. The children of Jerusalem are nothing more complicated than those same people considered as a collection of individuals.

iv) It is inconsistent with the use of the term elsewhere. The term thy children is used with reference to Jerusalem and in a similar context, immediately after the record of Christ's weeping over the city, in Luke 19:44, ‘...And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.’ It is clear that the children are those who died in the destruction of Jerusalem. These cannot be the elect. The believers took heed of Christ’s warning concerning the fall of Jerusalem in Matt. 24:15–20 and fled. It was the unbelieving and self-righteous Jews, believing that Jerusalem would never be destroyed, who stayed and perished within her.
_______________
   44. ‘The Free Offer of the Gospel’ in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol.4, (The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1982), p. 120.
   45. Covenant Reformed News, Sept. 2004, vol. X, Issue 5, (Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship, Ballymena, Northern Ireland), p. 4.

David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed (Glasgow, Scotland: Marpet Press, 2005), 50–52.

Iain Murray’s Review of David Silversides’s Book on the Free Offer

The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed

David Silversides; Foreward: J. J. Murray Marpet Press, 16 Edward Street, Kilsyth, Scotland G65 9DL, 128 pp., £7.95.

This is a valuable addition to literature demonstrating that the gospel is good news for every hearer. It is more particularly oriented to answering the teaching of the Protestant Reformed Church of America (PRC)—encouraged in Britain through the British Reformed Fellowship—that the ‘free offer’ only means that the gospel is to be preached to all; it is no expression of love in God for all. So the preacher must not individualize the message to convey to his hearers the belief that the gospel is sent for their salvation; he must rather confine himself to generalities (not knowing who the elect are). The reasoning behind this belief is that God only has love for the elect and so the love revealed in the gospel can only have reference to them. Contrary to this position, Mr Silversides argues that ‘The overtures of the gospel are an expression of God’s love’, and he sets out to prove that, in addition to saving love, there is a love in God for all men. We believe he succeeds and he does so without any of the rancour that has sometimes disfigured disagreement among Christians.

The orientation of the argument as a response to PRC writers makes this work of value chiefly to those who have been influenced by the supposition that the PRC teaching represents the purest Calvinism. It is to counter that idea that the author makes effective use of many Reformed authors from the Reformation and Puritan periods, showing that divine love is not to be confined to the elect alone. The scriptural case is foremost but, for those unconcerned with the historical, the book is somewhat specialist. It is not impossible that the other side may also produce 17th-century quotations which appear to contradict those here given. The fact is that it was not until the eighteenth century that hyper-Calvinism really became prominent, and earlier Reformed writers were more concerned with answering Arminianism.

In order to keep what he considers the main point clear, Mr Silversides does not argue that the free offer proves that God desires the salvation of all to whom the message comes. But can the divine love, that the author wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved? To side-line the question of desire will not, we think, blunt the hyper-Calvinist’s claim that a free-offer, expressive of love to all, attributes two wills to God—fulfilled in the case of the elect and unfulfilled in the case of all others. But that charge needs to be met (as the author to some extent does) on other grounds. We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God’s desire secondary. In the words of Professor 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’ (Collected Writings, vol. 4, p. 113). Further on this point, see the chapter by John Piper on ‘Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to be Saved’ in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, T. Schreiner and Bruce Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). We hope and believe that David Silversides’ thorough work will be of help to many on this important issue.

Iain H. Murray

From the “Book Reviews,” in Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005): 22.

Note: Observe carefully that Iain Murray, like Phil Johnson, appeals to Piper's article, but Murray explicitly does so to answer the issue of hyper-Calvinism on the primary subject of God's desire for the salvation of all men. Phil Johnson links to the same article in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, but wants to make the issue of God's universal saving desire secondary (in order to protect his friend James White from the charge), explicitly contrary to Murray. There is some difference between Murray and Johnson on this particular subject. Johnson is more with Silversides in making the matter secondary, unfortunately.

Moreover, Murray thinks God's universal love necessarily entails that God desires the highest good (i.e. the eternal salvation) of all men in the revealed will, therefore he says: "But can the divine love, that the author [Silversides] wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved?" In addition to refuting Silversides (as Murray does), this also answers the Gillite position that God loves all merely in a temporal sense, but doesn't desire their highest good, or in the sense of their eternal salvation. As mainstream Calvinism teaches, God's benevolent love for all is necessarily associated with His desire to eternally save all in His revealed will.

The Wooing Note

In the Foreward that John J. Murray wrote [on November 30th, 2004] to David Silversides book dealing with the free offer of the gospel, he makes these interesting comments:

Although brought up in the Reformed heritage, I came to a personal appropriation and appreciation of the doctrines of grace in the mid 1950's. The godly preachers I was privileged to hear in my youth held firmly to the doctrines of grace but at the same time preached a full and free gospel and pleaded with sinners.

Over the intervening years we have witnessed a widespread recovery of the doctrines of the Reformed Faith throughout the UK and further afield. During that time, although the gospel offer has not been consciously denied, the wooing note of former times has been lacking. Critics accuse Reformed men of not being able to preach the gospel effectively to sinners.

David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed (Glasgow, Scotland: Marpet Press, 2005), 4–5.

The "wooing note" diminishes or disappears [along with "pleading with sinners"] when gospel preachers are not persuaded that God really wants all of their unbelieving hearers to believe and be saved. My blog thoroughly documents the strong "wooing note" that is present in the Reformers and in the Puritans. So long as that note is lacking today, we will not see Reformation or Revival in the United States, in the UK, and elsewhere. It was certainly strong in the evangelism of George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd and Andrew Fuller. May Christ give his church a renewed understanding of his revealed will. This is my prayer, and to that end I labor on this blog.

Thomas Manton (1620–1677) Affirms Common Grace

There is a common and inferior sort of grace, which is made known to all the world. The whole earth is full of his goodness, but this grace that bringeth salvation, that is peculiar to the elect, to a few poor base creatures in themselves, a little handful whom God hath chosen out of the world; John 14:22, ‘How is it that thou wouldst manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?'

Thomas Manton, “Several Sermons Upon Titus II: 11–14: Sermon I,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, D.D., 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet, 1874), 16:48.

Bio:  
Wiki
 
Notice the connection he makes between God's goodness and common grace. He rightly interprets the sense of the Psalms and the overall biblical witness. His "goodness" is not merely speaking of God's delight in ethical purity in the way he treats all of humanity, but it speaks to his loving interest in their well-being. David Silversides, in his criticism of Hoeksemian doctrine, notes that:

It must also be borne in mind that elsewhere Hoeksema's definition of the word 'goodness' is very different from the meaning commonly given to it by Reformed writers [such as Manton above] and, more particularly, its usage in the Westminster Standards. For example, in Answer 4 of the Shorter Catechism, we read, 'God is a Spirit, infinite eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth'. The Shorter Catechism has been criticised by some at this point for not using the terms 'grace, mercy, love', but it must be recognised that in the minds of the Westminster Assembly the term goodness included all of these. This explains why the term 'goodness' is expanded in the Larger Catechism as equivalent to 'most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness' (Ans. 9) and in the Westminster Confession as 'most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness...forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him...' (ch. II,i).

The terms 'good' and 'goodness' (Heb. tob) are consistently linked to God's mercy or faithful love (Heb. chesed), for example in Psalms 23:6, 25:7-8, 86:5, 100:5, 145:9 etc., and when Psalm 34:8 is referred to in 1 Peter 2:3, the term is rendered 'gracious' (Gk. chreestos: A.V. 'kind'). No doubt this explains why the term is rendered 'gracious' in the 1650 Metrical Psalter⁷ rendering Psalm 86:5.
_______________
7. This version, though known as the 'Scottish Psalter', was initially the work of the Westminster Assembly and sent to the Scottish General Assembly for scrutiny and finalisation.

David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed (Glasgow, Scotland: Marpet Press, 2005), 16–17.

William Perkins (1558–1602) Quotes from David Silversides’s Book on the Free Offer

The benefits proper unto men are of two sorts: some are common to all men both good and bad, and some proper to the elect and faithful.

‘An Exposition of the Creed,’ in The Works of That Famous and Worthie Minister of Christ, in the Universitie of Cambridge, M. W. Perkins, (John Legat, Cambridge, 1605), 324; also in William Perkins, “An Exposition of the Symbol, or Creed of the Apostles,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 5:309.

…but the bond is conditional, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace: for we are bound to believe in Christ, if we would come to life everlasting…

‘A Discourse of Conscience,’ Works op. cit., 628; also in William Perkins, “A Discourse of Conscience,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 8:24. The editors of the 2019 edition noted that in the 1631 edition of his Works, the following paragraph is included: “I answer again that whatsoever a man is bound to believe is true, yet not always in the event, but true in the intention of God who binds. Now the commandment of believing and applying the gospel is by God given to all within the church, but not in the same manner to all. It is given to the elect, so that by believing they might indeed be saved, God enabling them to do that which He commands. To the rest, whom God in justice will refuse, the same commandment is given not for the same cause, but to another end, that they might see how they could not believe, and by this means be bereft of all excuse in the day of judgment. God does not always give commandments simply that they might be done, but sometimes for other respects, that they might be means of trial, as the commandment given to Abraham of killing Isaac. Again, that they might serve to keep men at the least in outward obedience in this life, and stop their mouths before the tribunal seat of God.”

and seriously bethink thyself of Christ, as he is revealed in the history of the Gospel, and as he is offered to thy particular person, in the ministry of the word and sacraments.

‘A Declaration of the True Manner of Knowing Christ Crucified,’ Works op. cit., 751; also in William Perkins, “A Declaration of the True Manner of Knowing Christ Crucified,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 9:5.

Q. But to whom will this blessed King communicate all these means of salvation? A. He offereth them to many, and they are sufficient to save all mankind; but all shall not be saved thereby, because by faith they will not receive them.

‘The Foundation of Christian Religion,’ Works op. cit. p. 768; also in William Perkins, “The Foundation of Christian Religion Gathered into Six Principles,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 5:499.

There is but one will in God: yet doth it not equally will all things, but in divers respects it doth will and nill the same thing. He willeth the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approveth it as a good thing in itself: in that he commands it, and exhorts men to it: in that he gives them all outward means of their conversion. He wills it not, in that he did not decree to effectually work their conversion.

‘A Treatise of God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will,’ Works op. cit. p. 876. Or see William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace, and Man’s Free Will (Cambridge: Printed by John Legat And are to be sold at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Churchyard by Simon Waterson, 1601), 44–45. Also in William Perkins, “A Treatise on God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 6:403.

…the desolation of Jerusalem may be a glass to every one of us, who in these days of God’s merciful visitation, set the ministry of the Gospel at naught.

William Perkins, ‘A Treatise of God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will,’ Works op. cit. p. 900; also in 

These quotes can be found in David Silversides’s book The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed (Glasgow, Scotland: Marpet Press, 2005), 94–95; also in William Perkins, “A Treatise on God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will,” in The Works of William Perkins, 10 vols., ed. Ryan Hurd, Joel R. Beeke, and Derek W. H. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 6:441.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

One may gather from these quotes that Perkins believed:

1) God gives some “benefits” to all mankind, even the non-elect. This is the idea of common grace.
2) The covenant of grace is conditional, because we must believe to gain eternal life, i.e., faith may be called a condition.
3) Christ is “offered” through the Gospel to all those that hear it proclaimed, even to the non-elect.
4) The means of salvation, which must include Christ’s sacrifice, is “offered” to all and is “sufficient to save all mankind.”
5) There are distinctions in God’s will, such that he can be said to both will and not will the same thing in different respects.
6) God willed the “conversion” of all of Jerusalem, which included the non-elect Jews.
7) The gospel is God’s “merciful visition” to all that are exposed to it.
8) Some “set the ministry of the gospel at naught.”

Observe the following points as well:

9) While Perkins says God’s will is “one,” there is complexity in it, such that it does “not equally will all things.”

10) God is said to both “will and nill the same thing,” but in different senses, i.e., he wills and also nills the conversion of Jerusalem.

11) Perkins says that God wills “the conversion (which is the same as salvation) of Jerusalem,” and he does not think of all in that group as elect, since he says God “did not decree to effectually work their conversion.”

12) God does not merely command their conversion, but he exhorts them to it, and gives outward means in order to convert them.

Nota Bene: God himself is the ultimate or remote cause (by willful permission) of the inefficacy of his revealed will, but disobedient men are the immediate and blameworthy cause; that is to say, God willfully decrees to permit men to act contrary to his preceptive will.