“Backus believed missing this point led to carrying over Old Testament elements of “the covenant of circumcision,” where “regenerate and unregenerate were bound together in a national church,” into the New Testament, leading to the theological justification for forming national churches…”

The Baptists held the state church system to be fundamentally odds with the New Testament revelation of the kingdom of Heaven because of the necessary connection between the subjects of the kingdom and the members of the church. If the kingdom was spiritual rather than physical, then entrance into the kingdom and membership in the church must both be spiritual. Backus believed missing this point led to carrying over Old Testament elements of “the covenant of circumcision,” where “regenerate and unregenerate were bound together in a national church,” into the New Testament, leading to the theological justification for forming national churches. “But men…have generally held to the bringing of persons into the kingdom of God by blood, by their own wills, or by the wills of other men; and from thence have come all national churches.”

From “Separating God’s Two Kingdoms” by Ronald Baines
“Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies – 2014“ by IRBS , pg. 38

Buy the journal here

As Edward Hutchinson said, quoted above. “And if our opponents think Dr. O[owen] injured (as they are apt to clamour to that purpose) for our improvement of his words to our advantage . . . we say, that they are at liberty to reconcile his words to his practice if they can…”

In conclusion of this section, wherever Owen’s views logically lead, the Particular Baptists used his insights not simply on the Mosaic covenant, but also the Abrahamic covenant. In light of this, A puritan Theology’s [Beeke & Jones] representation of Owen’s justification of infant baptism may be accurate, but its presentation of the Particular Baptists’ appropriation of Owen and understanding of paedobaptist polemics is not. The Particular Baptists did not miss the location of the justification of infant baptism, nor did they appeal to Owen only on the Mosaic covenant. Thus, pointing out the common use of the Abrahamic covenant as the justification for infant baptism as a reply to the Particular Baptist appropriation of Owen does nothing but make a false implication that the Particular Baptists would not have understood this. As Edward Hutchinson said, quoted above. “And if our opponents think Dr. O. injured (as they are apt to clamour to that purpose) for our improvement of his words to our advantage . . . we say, that they are at liberty to  reconcile his words to his practice if they can.”

From “Dolphins in the Woods” by Samuel Renihan.
“Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies – 2015“ by IRBS , pg. 75

Buy the journal here

“But in the case of the Mosaic covenant, Owen was willing to see far more than a change of outward ordinances. He was willing to see two different covenants. This was a strong and welcome push from an unexpected and much-appreciated ally…”

More than anything, it was Owen’s hermeneutical sensitivity to the dual nature of God’s dealings with Abraham and the nation of Israel that drew such vocal Particular Baptist support. This was significant because the argument that the old and new covenants were one in substance was used over and over again in order to assert that it was only the administration, or outward ordinances, that had changed. Circumcision replaced baptism, etc. The champions of this majority view were not unaware of the duality of God’s dealings with Abraham or the nation of Israel, they simply treated them as external quantitative or accidental differences. But in the case of the Mosaic covenant, Owen was willing to see far more than a change of outward ordinances. He was willing to see two different covenants. This was a strong and welcome push from an unexpected and much-appreciated ally.

From “Dolphins in the Woods” by Samuel Renihan.
“Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies – 2015“ by IRBS , pg. 73

Buy the journal here

“In Coxe’s covenant theology, two distinct covenants were transacted with Abraham and his twofold offspring. The covenant of grace was materially “revealed” to Abraham and “made” with him and his spiritual seed, but the covenant of circumcision was formally established with Abraham and his natural seed…”

In Coxe’s covenant theology, two distinct covenants were transacted with Abraham and his twofold offspring. The covenant of grace was materially “revealed” to Abraham and “made” with him and his spiritual seed, but the covenant of circumcision was formally established with Abraham and his natural seed. This covenant was a national covenant of works, designed to bring about the Messiah. It began with the observation of circumcision and developed into the full complex of the old covenant. Failure to obey meant disinheritance from Canaan. Under the Abrahamic and Mosaic old covenant, the covenant of works was materially revived and remembered, but not formally made. Likewise, the covenant of grace was materially promised and portrayed, but not formally made.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 262

Buy the book here

“When the old and new covenants are compared by their promises, they are distinct covenants. To be God to a people on the basis of federal union with Christ was different from being God to a people on the basis of federal union with Abraham…”

When the old and new covenants are compared by their promises, they are distinct covenants. To be God to a people on the basis of federal union with Christ was different from being God to a people on the basis of federal union with Abraham. The old covenant “had ultimately a respect to spiritual Blessings…in a Subserviency to the Covenant of Grace…yet was it not immediately and directly, a Covenant of spiritual Blessings.” Because of this distinction and relation, “Many to whom the Lord was a God according to the Tenor of the Old Covenant, dyed in their Sins, and were eternally lost; But those to whom he is a God, according to the Tenor of the New Covenant, receive from him, the Blessings of a new Heart, Remission of Sins, and eternal Salvation.”

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 257

Buy the book here

“Coxe asserted that it was necessary to align covenantal membership and a right to the promises of the covenant because “To suppose an Interest in the Covenant without a Right to the Promises thereof, is to introduce a meer Chimera or Fancy, instead of real Covenant-Interest…”

Coxe asserted that it was necessary to align covenantal membership and a right to the promises of the covenant because “To suppose an Interest in the Covenant without a Right to the Promises thereof, is to introduce a meer Chimera or Fancy, instead of real Covenant-Interest.”

Coxe applied these principles in two ways. First, no one could argue that children are in the covenant of grace without arguing at the same time that they are recipients of the promises of the covenant of grace. And second, because the covenant of circumcision included Abraham and his natural descendants and promised them the land of Canaan, if one appealed to Abraham’s covenant for the covenant interest of their children, they must assert that all of its earthly promises likewise apply to their children. He admitted that no one made a claim to Canaan for their children, but his point was that they should if they were to be consistent.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 254

Buy the book here

“He said, “the Right of the remotest Generation, was as much derived from Abraham, and the Covenant made with him, as that of his immediate Seed was; and did not at all depend upon the Faithfulness of their immediate Parents…”

Coxe had already argued that federal headship was the determining factor in covenantal membership, and had illustrated this in the covenant of works and the Noahic covenant. But to establish it here Coxe noted that the covenant was made to Abraham’s seed “in their Generations.” He said, “the Right of the remotest Generation, was as much derived from Abraham, and the Covenant made with him, as that of his immediate Seed was; and did not at all depend upon the Faithfulness of their immediate Parents.” He proved this principle historically from the fact that after the Exodus the disobedient Jews were disinherited from Canaan, but their children were not.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 252

Buy the book here

“[The Abrahamic Covenant] was called “everlasting” in the same way that the Levitical priesthood or the gates of the temple were “everlasting.” The covenant would last until God’s promises in it were fulfilled. …”

As to the covenant of circumcision itself, it was God’s covenant to multiply Abraham’s descendants and to give them the land of Canaan, promises which had been announced previously in Genesis 12, 13, and 15. This covenant was called “everlasting” in the same way that the Levitical priesthood or the gates of the temple were “everlasting.” The covenant would last until God’s promises in it were fulfilled. Coxe argued that “There is therefore, no more Reason to conclude from this Term [“everlasting”], That the Covenant of Circumcision was directly and properly a Covenant of spiritual and eternal Blessings, than there is to affirm that the Land of Canaan and the good things thereof were a spiritual and eternal inheritance.”

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 251

Buy the book here

“A covenant that requires a restipulation of obedience in order to obtain its promised blessing is a formal covenant of works…”

Because the covenant of circumcision was a covenant of works, it was not the covenant of grace. This is Coxe’s entire argument, and again he is operating within his definitions. A covenant that requires a restipulation of obedience in order to obtain its promised blessing is a formal covenant of works. Coxe was not arguing that the presence of obedience in the covenant of circumcision made it a covenant of works. Rather, he was emphasizing that God told Abraham that failure comply with the command of circumcision resulted disinheritance. A covenant that disinherits its members for disobedience is a formal covenant of works.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 248

Buy the book here

“Coxe was careful to distinguish, however, that simply because gospel promises were made known in and through Noah’s covenant and the history-surrounding it, Noah’s covenant was not the covenant grace itself…”

Coxe was careful to distinguish, however, that simply because gospel promises were made known in and through Noah’s covenant and the history-surrounding it, Noah’s covenant was not the covenant grace itself. This was important because the same hermeneutic would be put into practice when dealing with the Abrahamic covenant. Coxe said, “under this Covenant was implyed, and darkly shadowed, the Covenant of eternal Salvation by Christ; even as the promise of the heavenly Inheritance unto Believers, was afterwards couched in the Promise of Canaan to Abraham and his Seed.”

Setting the stage for interpreting the covenant of circumcision was of highest importance for Nehemiah. His comments on covenant relation in general and everything that followed set down a system of covenant theology within which later covenants would receive consistent treatment. Coxe did this in the Noahic covenant, not just through careful typology, but also through discussing federal headship.

Nehemiah noted that the covenant was made with Noah, his sons, their seed, and their perpetual generations. The concept of federal headship meant that so long as the covenant remained active, all later generations had a direct claim to the terms thereof. Covenant interest was not mediated through parents, but through federal headship. He said, “remote Generations…are as much concerned in this Covenant…without any consideration had of their immediate parents.” -The application of this to errors in his day was that “Altho’ the Grace of the New-Covenant was mystically held forth in this Covenant with Noah, which was thus stricken with him for all his Posterity, yet were not the Grace and Blessings thereof by this means intailed upon all Mankind.” Rather, “those Blessings…remain the peculiar Right of those that do by Faith recieve them” upon all Mankind.” Coxe employed the same principles throughout his book.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 241

Buy the book here