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

“If Reconciliation and Salvation by Christ were to be obtained only under the Old Covenant, but by vertue thereof , then be the same for substance with the New. But this is not so; for no Reconciliation with God, nor Salvation could be obtained by vertue of the Old Covenant, or the Administration of it…”

Through typology, the old covenant portrayed salvation in Jesus Christ, but it did not offer salvation in Jesus Christ in and of itself. Owen distinguished between being saved “under” the old covenant, and “by vertue” of the old covenant, affirming the former and denying the latter. “If Reconciliation and Salvation by Christ were to be obtained only under the Old Covenant, but by vertue thereof , then be the same for substance with the New. But this is not so; for no Reconciliation with God, nor Salvation could be obtained by vertue of the Old Covenant, or the Administration of it.”

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 210

Buy the book here

“Many of the Particular Baptists’ opponents appealed to the phrase “I will be their God, and they will be my people” to connect Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31. The Particular Baptists replied that this was a general covenant formula, and the specific promises of the covenant had to be brought into consideration…”

Owen’s precision extended even to the common argument used by paedobaptists to equate the Abrahamic and new covenants. Many of the Particular Baptists’ opponents appealed to the phrase “I will be their God, and they will be my people” to connect Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31. The Particular Baptists replied that this was a general covenant formula, and the specific promises of the covenant had to be brought into consideration. Here again, Owen was their ally. He said, “This is the general expression of any Covenant-relation between God and men; He will be unto them a God, and they shall be a people unto him. And it is frequently made use of with respect unto the first Covenant, which yet was disannulled.” for Owen, this covenantal formula was used in the Mosaic covenant, a covenant that did not promise salvation in itself; thus the covenant of grace could not be reduced to this promise.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 206

Buy the book here

“Particular Baptists used this same argument to counter the claim that all post-fall covenants are the covenant of grace. It was the nature of the promises of a given covenant that had to be examined…”

Owen reduced all covenants to their promises, which made every covenant gracious, in a sense.“There is infinite Grace in every Divine Covenant, inasmuch as it is established on Promises.” Particular Baptists used this same argument to counter the claim that all post-fall covenants are the covenant of grace. It was the nature of the promises of a given covenant that had to be examined, Owen and the Baptists argued for example, the promises of the covenants of works and grace were “diametrically opposite” Though both covenants were founded on promises, the promises of the covenant of grace were “efficaciously assumptive” but not “remunerative.” The promises of the covenant of works were remunerative, “respecting an antecedent Obedience in us.”

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 206

Buy the book here

“In the family tree of English Puritanism, John Owen’s experience and doctrine made him [the Particular Baptist’s] closest relation….”

In the family tree of English Puritanism, John Owen’s experience and doctrine made him [the Particular Baptist’s] closest relation. The same is true in the area of covenant theology. Owen argued that the old covenant was not the new covenant; the two covenants differed in substance. The old covenant was a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan, reviving the original covenant of works and directing sinners to the covenant of grace.

By the time Owen expressed these views in his third commentary on Hebrews, such assertions were not new to the Reformed world or to Owen. This stream of thought flowing through Olevianus, Cameron, and many others had been well-established in Reformed literature.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 196

Buy the book here

“But Owen did not simply espouse the principles advocated by the particular Baptists. He even stated their conclusion… Owen’s words indicated that the Church consists of those who have actual faith and are thus interested in the promises.”

In light of the authors and arguments covered in this treatise, it is clear why Hutchinson appealed to Owen. Dividing the seed of Abraham into his natural offspring, whose privilege was to cease at Christ’s coming, and the elect who believe was the consistent argument of the Particular Baptists. Owen laid this out and declared it to be plain and straightforward.

But Owen did not simply espouse the principles advocated by the particular Baptists. He even stated their conclusion. He said, “Now it is evident, that it is the second Priviledge and spiritual seed, wherein the Church to whom the Promises are made is founded, and whereof it doth consist, namely in them, who by faith are interested in the Covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or no. Owen’s words indicated that the Church consists of those who have actual faith and are thus interested in the promises. What more could the Particular Baptists want?

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 158

Buy the book here

 

“Such promises aforesaid are only made to the Elect, as Dr. Owen on the Hebrews, 3d. Vol. page 256…”

Such promises aforesaid are only made to the Elect, as Dr. Owen on the Hebrews, 3d. Vol. page 256. “The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God, the Church of the Elect,” page 291. “The New Covenant is made with all, who effectively and eventually are made partakers of it; and if they are not so with whom the new Covenant is made, it comes short of the Old in Efficacy, who were actual partakes of the Benefit of that”

From “Sandy foundation of Infant Baptism shaken (1695)” by Hercules Collins, page 7

Read the ebook here

John Owen: “The judgment of most Reformed divines is…”

The judgment of most Reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new. Although the essence and the substance of the covenant consist in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but a different administration of it.

[6 pages later]

To that end we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended. [read the full quote here]

From “Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ”, by Jown Owen – page 181 and 187. (Originally from his commentary on Hebrews 8:6)

Buy the book here

 

John Owen: “To that end we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant… If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only by the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant”

 To that end we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely,to be intended. We must, I say, do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretense of reason, for it is that which is the sole foundation they build on who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, “That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation be the same under both, then indeed are they for the substance of them but one.” And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only by the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under [the mosaic covenant]

From “Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ”, by Jown Owen – page 187. (Originally from his commentary on Hebrews 8:6)

Buy the book here