Chapter 1

The first argument may be taken from the nature of the covenant of grace, which was established, ratified, and confirmed in and by the death of Christ. That was the testament of which he was the testator, ratified in his death — which is why his blood is called the blood of the new testament (Matthew 26:28). No effects of the covenant can be extended beyond its compass. But now this covenant was not made universally with all, but particularly only with some — and therefore those alone were intended in the benefits of the death of Christ. The assumption appears from the very nature of the covenant itself, described clearly in Jeremiah 31:31-32: 'I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.' And Hebrews 8:9-11: 'Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.' Wherein, first, the condition of the covenant is not said to be required of them — it is absolutely promised: 'I will put my fear in their hearts.' And this is the main difference between the old covenant of works and the new covenant of grace: in the former, the Lord only required the fulfillment of the prescribed condition; in the latter, he promises to effect it himself in those with whom the covenant is made. Without this spiritual efficacy the new covenant would be as weak and unprofitable for the end of a covenant — the bringing and binding of us to God — as the old. For in what did the weakness and unprofitableness of the old covenant consist, for which God in his mercy abolished it? Was it not in this — that by reason of sin we were in no way able to fulfill its condition, 'Do this and live'? The connection remains true: he who does these things shall live. But are we of ourselves any more able to fulfill the condition of the new covenant? Is it not as easy for a person by his own strength to fulfill the whole law as to repent and savingly believe the promise of the gospel? This then is one main difference between these two covenants: in the old the Lord only required the condition; in the new, he will also effect it in all the members of the covenant to whom this covenant is extended. If the Lord were only to exact the obedience required in the covenant from us and not also to work and effect it in us, the new covenant would be a show to increase our misery, not a sincere imparting and communicating of grace and mercy. If then this is the nature of the new testament, as appears from its very words, and might be abundantly proved — namely, that the condition of the covenant shall certainly by free grace be worked and accomplished in all who are taken into covenant — then no more are in this covenant than those in whom those conditions of it are effected. But it is apparent that this is not the case with all, for all people do not have faith; it belongs to God's elect. Therefore the covenant is not made with all, nor is its compass to be extended beyond the remnant that are according to election. Indeed, every blessing of the new covenant being certainly shared and to be communicated to all the covenant members, either faith is not one of those blessings, or all must have it, if the covenant itself is general. But some may say that God does promise to write his law in our hearts and put his fear in our inner parts — but upon condition. Name that condition, and the argument will be conceded. Is it 'if they believe'? Nothing else can be imagined. That is: if they have the law written in their hearts (as every believer has), then God promises to write his law in their hearts. Is this likely? I cannot then be persuaded that God has made a covenant of grace with all — especially with those who never heard a word of covenant, grace, or its condition — much less received grace for fulfilling the condition, without which the whole would be altogether unprofitable and useless. The covenant was made with Adam and he was acquainted with it (Genesis 3:15); renewed with Noah and not hidden from him; again established with Abraham, accompanied with a full and rich declaration of its chief promises (Genesis 12) — which is most certainly not to be effected toward all, as will afterward appear. Indeed, that first distinction between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is sufficient to overthrow the pretended universality of the covenant of grace. For who dares affirm that God entered into a covenant of grace with the seed of the serpent? Most apparent it is, then, that the new covenant of grace and all its promises are of distinguishing mercy, restricted to the people whom God foreknew — and therefore not extended universally to all. Now the blood of Jesus Christ being the blood of this covenant, and his offering intended only for the procurement of the good things intended and promised in it — for he was the surety of that covenant (Hebrews 7:22) and of that alone — it cannot be conceived to have respect to all, or to any but those who are intended in this covenant.

If the Lord intended that Christ should — and that by his death he did — procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and every person, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they believe, then this good will and intention of God, with this purchase on their behalf by Jesus Christ, ought to be made known to them through the word, so that they might believe. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:14-15). For if these things are not made known and revealed to all and every one who are concerned in them — that is, to whom the Lord intends them and for whom he has procured so great a good — then one of these things will follow. Either, first, that they may be saved without faith in and knowledge of Christ (which they cannot have unless he is revealed to them) — which is false and has been proved so. Or else, second, that this good will of God and this purchase made by Jesus Christ is plainly vain and frustrated in respect of those persons — indeed a plain mockery of them, which will neither do them any good to help them out of misery, nor serve the justice of God to leave them without excuse. For what blame can fall on them for not embracing and making good use of a benefit they never heard of in their lives? Does it befit the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for people that they might be saved, and never cause these people to hear of any such thing — and yet to purpose and declare that unless they hear of it and believe it they shall never be saved? What wise person would pay a ransom for the deliverance of captives who he is certain shall never come to know of any such payment, and so shall never benefit from it? Is it consistent with the goodness of God to deal thus with his poor creatures — to hold out toward them all in pretense the most intense love imaginable, beyond all comparison, as his love in sending his Son is set forth to be, and yet never let them know of any such thing, but in the end to damn them for not believing it? Is it consistent with the love and kindness of Christ toward us to assign to him at his death such a resolution as this: 'I will now by the offering of myself obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the high heavens — even for all these poor, miserable, wretched, condemned creatures who every hour ought to expect the sentence of condemnation. And all these shall truly and really be communicated to them if they believe. But yet I will so order things that innumerable souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them, shall never be persuaded to believe, nor have the object of faith proposed to them, whereby they might possibly come to partake of these things.' Was this the mind and will, the design and purpose of our merciful high priest? God forbid. It is the same as if a prince were to proclaim that there being a number of captives held in severe bondage in some place, and he having a full treasury, he is resolved to redeem every one of them — so that every one who will thank him for his goodwill shall come out of prison — and in the meantime never takes any care to let these poor captives know his mind and pleasure, being fully assured that unless he himself accomplishes it, it will never be done. Would this not be conceived a vain and ostentatious flourish without any genuine intent toward the poor captives? Or as if a physician were to say that he has a medicine that will cure all diseases and intends to cure the diseases of all, but lets very few know his mind or anything of his medicine — and yet is assured that without his informing them it will be known to very few. Shall he be supposed to desire, intend, or aim at the recovery of all? Now it is most clear from scripture and the experience of all ages — both under the old and the new dispensation of the covenant — that innumerable people, whole nations, have for long seasons been passed by in the declaration of this mystery. The Lord did not procure that it should by any means in the least measure be made known to all. They never heard so much as a rumor or report of any such thing. Under the old testament, 'In Judah is God known; and his name is great in Israel. At Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion' (Psalm 76). 'He showed his word to Jacob, and his judgments and statutes to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them' (Psalm 147:19-20). Hence those designations of the heathen and those imprecations, as in Jeremiah 10:25: 'Pour out your fury upon the heathen that know you not, and upon the families that call not upon your name.' Of these you have a full description in Ephesians 2:12: 'without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.' And under the new testament, though the church has extended her cords and strengthened her stakes, and many nations have come to the mountain of the Lord — so many as to be called 'all people,' 'all nations,' indeed 'the world' and 'the whole world' in comparison with the small area of the Jewish church — yet now also scripture and experience make clear that many are passed by. Indeed millions of souls never hear a word of Christ or of reconciliation through him. Of this we can give no other reason but: 'Yes, O Father, because it seemed good to you' (Matthew 11:25-26). For in scripture, Acts 16, the Holy Spirit expressly forbade the apostles to go to certain places with the word, but sent them another way — corresponding to the former dispensation in some particulars, in which he allowed all people to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16). And for experience, without multiplying particulars — ask any of our brothers who have at any time been in the Indies, and they will readily confirm the truth of this.

The exceptions against this argument are poor and frivolous, and are reserved for a reply. In brief: how is this good will of God revealed to those thousands of offspring of unbelievers whom the Lord cuts off in their infancy, that they may not overrun the world, persecute his church, or disturb human society? How is it revealed to the parents Paul speaks of, who by the works of God might be led to knowledge of his eternal power and godhead — yet to know anything of redemption or a Redeemer was utterly impossible for them?

The first argument may be drawn from the nature of the covenant of grace, which was established, ratified, and confirmed in and by the death of Christ. That was the testament of which He was the testator, ratified by His death — which is why His blood is called the blood of the new covenant (Matthew 26:28). The effects of the covenant cannot extend beyond its scope. But this covenant was not made universally with all people, but specifically with some. Therefore only those were in view in the benefits of Christ's death. The premise is clear from the very description of the covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-32: "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them." And Hebrews 8:9-11: "Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them." Notice first: the condition of this covenant is not required of them — it is absolutely promised: "I will put My fear in their hearts." This is the main difference between the old covenant of works and the new covenant of grace: in the former, God only required the fulfillment of the prescribed condition; in the latter, He promises to accomplish it Himself in those with whom the covenant is made. Without this spiritual efficacy the new covenant would be as weak and useless for the purpose of a covenant — bringing and binding us to God — as the old. In what did the weakness and unprofitableness of the old covenant consist, the covenant God in His mercy abolished? Was it not this: that because of sin we were completely unable to fulfill its condition, "Do this and live"? That connection remains true: he who does these things shall live. But are we on our own any more able to fulfill the condition of the new covenant? Is it not just as impossible for a person by his own strength to repent and savingly believe the promise of the gospel as it would be to fulfill the whole law? This then is one main difference between the two covenants: in the old the Lord only required the condition; in the new, He will also work and accomplish it in all the members of the covenant. If the Lord were only to demand from us the obedience required by the covenant and not also to work it in us, the new covenant would be a display designed to increase our misery, not a sincere imparting and communicating of grace and mercy. If then this is the nature of the new covenant — as its very words show, and as could be abundantly proved — namely, that the condition of the covenant shall certainly by free grace be worked and accomplished in all who are taken into it — then no more are in this covenant than those in whom those conditions are effected. But it is evident that this is not the case with all, for not all people have faith; faith belongs to God's elect. Therefore the covenant is not made with all, nor should its scope be extended beyond the remnant chosen by grace. Indeed, since every blessing of the new covenant is certainly shared and to be communicated to all covenant members, either faith is not one of those blessings — or all must have it, if the covenant itself is universal. But some may say that God does promise to write His law in our hearts and put His fear within us — but on condition. Name that condition, and the argument will be conceded. Is it "if they believe"? Nothing else can be imagined. That would mean: if they have the law written in their hearts (as every believer has), then God promises to write His law in their hearts. Is that plausible? I therefore cannot be persuaded that God has made a covenant of grace with all — especially with those who never heard a word of covenant, grace, or its condition — still less that they received grace for fulfilling the condition, without which the whole arrangement would be entirely useless. The covenant was made with Adam and he was acquainted with it (Genesis 3:15); renewed with Noah and not hidden from him; established again with Abraham with a full and rich declaration of its chief promises (Genesis 12) — promises which are certainly not to be fulfilled for all, as will appear later. Indeed, that first distinction between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is sufficient by itself to overthrow the supposed universality of the covenant of grace. Who would dare to claim that God entered into a covenant of grace with the seed of the serpent? It is therefore plainly evident that the new covenant of grace and all its promises are a distinguishing mercy, restricted to the people whom God foreknew — and therefore not extended universally to all. Now the blood of Jesus Christ being the blood of this covenant, and His offering intended only to secure the good things promised in it — for He was the guarantor of that covenant (Hebrews 7:22) and of that covenant alone — it cannot be conceived as having reference to all people, or to anyone other than those included in this covenant.

If the Lord intended that Christ should — and that by His death He did — procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and every person, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they believe, then this goodwill and intention of God, along with this purchase made by Jesus Christ on their behalf, ought to be made known to them through the word, so that they might believe. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:14-17). If these things are not made known and revealed to all and every one who are involved — that is, those for whom the Lord intends this good and for whom He has made so great a purchase — then one of the following must be true. Either, first, that people may be saved without faith in and knowledge of Christ — which they cannot have unless He is revealed to them — and this has been shown to be false. Or else, second, that this goodwill of God and this purchase by Jesus Christ is plainly vain and frustrated in relation to those people — indeed a plain mockery of them. It will neither do them any good by helping them out of misery, nor serve God's justice by leaving them without excuse. For what blame can fall on them for failing to embrace a benefit they never heard of in their lives? Does it befit the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for people so that they might be saved — and yet never cause them to hear of any such thing — while also determining that unless they hear of it and believe it they shall never be saved? What sensible person would pay a ransom for captives who he knows will never learn of the payment, and who will therefore never benefit from it? Is it consistent with the goodness of God to deal this way with His poor creatures — to hold out to all of them in pretense the most intense love imaginable, beyond all comparison, as His love in sending His Son is described to be — and yet never let them hear of any such thing, and in the end to condemn them for not believing it? Is it consistent with the love and kindness of Christ toward us to attribute to Him at His death such a resolve as this: "I will now by the offering of Myself obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the heights of heaven — even for all these poor, miserable, wretched, condemned creatures who every hour should expect the sentence of condemnation. And all these things shall truly and really be communicated to them if they believe. But yet I will so order things that countless souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them, shall never be urged to believe, and shall never have the object of faith set before them, by which they might possibly come to share in these things." Was this the mind and will, the design and purpose of our merciful High Priest? God forbid. It is the same as if a prince were to proclaim that certain captives were held in harsh bondage, and that since he has a full treasury he is resolved to redeem every last one of them — so that every one who thanks him for his goodwill may come out of prison — and in the meantime he takes no care at all to let these poor captives know his intention, being fully aware that unless he himself does it, it will never be done. Would this not be considered a vain and showy display with no genuine intent toward those captives? Or as if a physician were to say that he has a medicine that cures all diseases and intends to cure the diseases of all — but lets very few know his mind or anything about his medicine — while knowing that without his informing them it will be known to very few. Would he be thought to genuinely desire, intend, or aim at the recovery of all? Now it is most clear from Scripture and the experience of all ages — both under the old and new dispensations of the covenant — that countless people, entire nations, have for long periods been passed over without any declaration of this mystery. The Lord did not arrange for it to be made known to all, not even in the smallest degree. They never heard so much as a rumor or report of any such thing. Under the old testament: "In Judah God is known; His name is great in Israel. His tabernacle is in Salem; His dwelling place also is in Zion" (Psalm 76:1-2). "He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them" (Psalm 147:19-20). Hence those descriptions of the nations and those prayers for judgment, as in Jeremiah 10:25: "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You, and on the families that do not call Your name." These same nations are fully described in Ephesians 2:12: "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." And under the new covenant, though the church has extended her reach and many nations have come to the mountain of the Lord — so many as to be called "all peoples," "all nations," indeed "the world" and "the whole world" in comparison with the narrow bounds of the Jewish church — yet now also Scripture and experience show clearly that many are still passed over. Millions of souls never hear a word of Christ or of reconciliation through Him. Of this we can give no other reason than: "Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight" (Matthew 11:26). In Scripture, Acts 16 records that the Holy Spirit expressly forbade the apostles to go to certain places with the word, but directed them another way — corresponding in some particulars to the former administration, in which God permitted all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16). And from experience — without multiplying examples — ask any of our fellow believers who have at any time been in the Indies, and they will readily confirm the truth of this.

The objections against this argument are weak and trivial, and will be reserved for a response later. In brief: how is this goodwill of God revealed to the thousands of descendants of unbelievers whom the Lord cuts off in infancy — so that they may not overrun the world, persecute His church, or disturb human society? How is it revealed to the people Paul speaks of — who from the works of creation might be led to a knowledge of God's eternal power and divine nature, but to whom any knowledge of redemption or a Redeemer was entirely out of reach?