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