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

“It was simply a contradiction. The Scriptures, Collins contended, contained nothing regarding being “outwardly and inwardly in the Covenant of Grace… so that the whole amounts to no more than this, such children they ought to be baptized, because they ought to be baptized. “

Another area in which [Hercules ]Collins made his argument was meaning of being in covenant. The paedobaptists often argued that it was possible to be in the covenant internally or externally. Baptism was the way to covenant externally. Collins replied that “this is to be in the House and out of the House at the same time.” It was simply a contradiction. The Scriptures, Collins contended, contained nothing regarding being “outwardly and inwardly in the Covenant of Grace.” He continued,

If we ask what they mean by Infants of Believers being in the Covenant of Grace? They answer, they are in the External part of the covenant; it you ask, what is that? They say, the Administration of the Covenant; it you ask, what is that? They will tell you it is Baptism; so that the whole amounts to no more than this, such children they ought to be baptized, because they ought to be baptized.

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 296

Buy the book here

“what real spiritual priviledg [do] the Infant-Seed of Believers, as such, have more than the Infant Seed of Unbelievers, if they live also to years of maturity, and by true Faith and Love take hold of God’s Covenant?…”

A subsequent question raised the covenantal argument for infant baptism. [Hercules] Collins first replied that if infants are said to be in the covenant, they must be so absolutely or conditionally. If children are in it absolutely, then they must all be saved. If children are in it conditionally, meaning that at a ripe age they must believe for themselves in order to receive its benefits, then “what real spiritual priviledg [do] the Infant-Seed of Believers, as such, have more than the Infant Seed of Unbelievers, if they live also to years of maturity, and by true Faith and Love take hold of God’s Covenant?”

From “From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)” by Samuel D. Renihan, pg. 293

Buy the book 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