# Coxe or Nichols?



## JM (May 4, 2013)

After reading Denault's book I realized how ignorant I am about Baptist covenant theology. I am able to confession the covenant theology of the 1689 but not well. Which book would be more beneficial to me as I wade into Baptist federalism?

COVENANT THEOLOGY FROM ADAM TO Christ by Nehemiah Cox and John Owen

Covenant Theology: A Reformed & Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants by Greg Nichols

Thanks folks.


----------



## Petty France (May 4, 2013)

Given that Coxe is the most likely editor of the confession, start with him. Not having read Nichols, I can't speak with first hand knowledge, but I believe he adopts the substance/administration framework which Coxe (and the confession) reject.


----------



## Herald (May 4, 2013)

Have you ever done a systematic study of the 1689 LBC? If not, Sam Waldron's, "A Modern Exposition: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith" would be a good start. Consider it a prerequisite for studying Baptist federalism.


----------



## JM (May 4, 2013)

Thanks folks. 

I do have Waldron's exposition which has helped but I must admit I haven't referred to it in a while...time to pull it off the shelf.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2013)

They are both probably good but Rich Barcellos put the Coxe book together so I would pick it first. 

Here are a few things I learned about the Nichols book a few years ago. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/reformed-baptistic-perspective-gods-covenants-70004/#post897907

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/reformed-baptistic-perspective-gods-covenants-70004/#post897939

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/reformed-baptistic-perspective-gods-covenants-70004/#post897944


----------



## JM (May 4, 2013)

Ordered the work by Coxe/Owen. 

Thanks folks.


----------



## Steve Paynter (May 5, 2013)

JM said:


> After reading Denault's book I realized how ignorant I am about Baptist covenant theology. I am able to confession the covenant theology of the 1689 but not well. Which book would be more beneficial to me as I wade into Baptist federalism?
> 
> COVENANT THEOLOGY FROM ADAM TO Christ by Nehemiah Cox and John Owen
> 
> ...



I know this is a little late, given that you've already chosen ... and also based on ignorance, as I have not read Greg Nichols book ... but I would add that Denault's book read together with the Coxe/Owen one is probably currently the best introduction to Particular Baptist / 1689 covenant theology. I say that because Coxe's bit is primarily exegesis of the covenants in Genesis, and unless one is well versed in the nuances of the covenant theological debates of the time, it is sometimes difficult to appreciate the significance of the various exegetical choices made. Denault's book is a great commentary because it compares and contrasts Coxe/1689 position with the WCF position, and hence you can contextualise the significance of the positions that Coxe is advocating.

Waldron's commentary on the 1689 adopts a different understanding of the covenants than the 1689, (he adopts - as I understand Nichols also to adopt - the WCF one-covenant, two administrations model of the covenant of grace), which Denault has shown the 1689 does not. However, Denault refers to Waldron's work as having the right explanation of why the 1689 changed the wording of the WCF chapter on the covenant of works, without actually changing the doctrine. Denault summarises Waldron's argument, but Waldron provides more details.

If you are looking for more works on Particular Baptist covenant theology perhaps the best place to go is back to the original sources. Apart from the 1689 and Coxe, Denault refers to the following 17th century Particular Baptist works:


• John Spiilsbury (1598-1668), "A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme", 1643.
• Henry Lawrence (1600-1664), "Of Baptism", 1646.
• Thomas Patient (?-1666). "The Doctrine of Baptism and the Distinction of the Covenants", 1654.
• John Bunyan (1628-1688), "The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded", 1659
• Edward Hutchinson (?-?), "A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism", 1676.
• Nehemiah Coxe (?-1688), "A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Men before the Law", 1681.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704),"The Display of Glorious Grace, or The Covenant of Peace Opened", 1689.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), "The Everlasting Covenant", 1693.


Some of these are practically impossible to find, but some are available freely on the web as pdf files. A painstaking search with Google/Google scholar ought to turn them up. A few have also been republished recently in a "print on demand" edition: Amazon should turn those up.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 5, 2013)

You will find Pink's the Divine Covenants a helpful book too.


----------



## JM (May 5, 2013)

Great advice fellas. 

I have Pink's work, read it a bunch of times and marked it up pretty well. 

I also have Denault's work which spurred me on to learn more. 

Waldron's work is good but I haven't used it much. 

I also have Beddome's exposition of the catechism which I use all the time with my children but Denault's work has given me a _different_ perspective and I realize I need to re-read everything and take more time to digest it. One of the hazards of library work, I work in a library and have for 20 years, is that I read fast, on different subjects and in great volume. This doesn't always work in my favour. 

About Pink's work...what do you guys think about his work on the covenants?



> "The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation" (Thomas Scott).
> 
> The above quotation contains the most lucid, comprehensive, and yet simple analysis of the Sinaitic covenant which we have met with in all our reading.The Divine Covenants





jm


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2013)

Having not read Thomas Scott I can't comment clearly on what he means by National Covenant. But if the is referring to the Mosaic Covenant I believe he is mistaken.



> (Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
> 
> (Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
> (Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
> ...



If the Word and Spirit didn't give faith before Christ came, the Old Covenant was of no effect. There was no regeneration and no one who looked unto the Promises had any hope in them. Just my humble opinion. I believe it is quite evident that men were forgiven and knew God in the Old Covenant just as we are justified by faith in the New Covenant. Even the Church today looks quite like the Old Covenant Church. There are men and women who are living in the Administration of the Covenant of Grace today (or the Church) who are not mixing their faith with the word.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 5, 2013)

JM said:


> About Pink's work...what do you guys think about his work on the covenants?



Brandon Adams has some insightful comments on his blog on Coxe, Owen, Pink etc Contrast | The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it


----------



## Steve Paynter (May 6, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If the Word and Spirit didn't give faith before Christ came, the Old Covenant was of no effect. There was no regeneration and no one who looked unto the Promises had any hope in them. Just my humble opinion. I believe it is quite evident that men were forgiven and knew God in the Old Covenant just as we are justified by faith in the New Covenant. Even the Church today looks quite like the Old Covenant Church. There are men and women who are living in the Administration of the Covenant of Grace today (or the Church) who are not mixing their faith with the word.



As I understand the Petto/Owen position on the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, which would also seems to be compatible with what Thomas Scott was arguing, although the Mosaic covenant itself was a national covenant with Israel and was concerned with physical/temporal blessings of the land, salvation was still possible at that time through faith in the covenant of grace (either previously established or previously promised and revealed). The Law not annulling the promise given over 400 years earlier.

They would agree that the Spirit did give faith before Christ came; that there was regeneration and hope in the promise; and that men (people) were forgiven and knew God ... but that it was _during_ the Old Covenant not _through_ it - it was _through_ the covenant of grace.

I won't touch the idea of "living in the Administration of the covenant of grace" and yet not being regenerate ... that idea is tightly tied to the old well known paedobaptist/Baptist debate over the nature of the church.


----------



## JM (May 8, 2013)

I posted this a while ago and forgot about it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/doctrine-baptism-distinction-covenants-41232/ (with updated link = http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/library documents/Patiens Doctrine of Baptism.pdf )

Notes from the AV:

Thanks very much for the link, JM. Here are my highlights from reading / in some places skimming the paper:

Page 34, Makes an excellent argument from the Davidic Covenant that I think should be emphasized more by Reformed Baptists. Just as with Abraham, God established a "perpetual" covenant with David and his natural seed following in a dynastic line. However, when the Seed (singular) came in the flesh to rule on David's throne, we would be foolish to look any further for natural seed of David to fulfill this covenant. Similarly with Abraham's natural seed -- after Christ's coming, we only recognize those who are in Christ as children of Abraham. While mere natural seed served in that capacity as a "typical" placeholder until Christ, there's no longer any need for that.

Page 40, He argues that the Covenant of Circumcision was purely a Covenant of Works. I suspect I largely agree with his point here (which he expands on through the remainder of the paper). However, I am quite sure that I would put it differently. To the elect, the Law was a wonderful gift from God their Father -- a description of how he wanted them to live in his household, and a picture of the access they had to him by the blood God provided as their Redeemer. But as to many of the Israelites whose eyes remained closed, and ears shut, Thomas Patient is right on, and admirably following the Apostle Paul's distinction between Law and Grace.

Page 49: An excellent point. Who "presumes" the regeneration of an adult servant newly purchased with money and circumcised? Nobody, I hope...

But for that reason, most certain it is, this Covenant of Circumcision is no spiritual covenant. This will appear from the words of the Covenant in Gen. 17:12,13. "And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant."

Here observe that all bought with money must be circumcised. If an Israelite should buy ... the most savage Heathen in the World, he was bound to see him circumcised. Being circumcised, he was now in that covenant. The truth is, circumcision was one of those carnal Ordinances that the Author to the Hebrews, in Heb. 9:9, does speak of as being appointed till the time of Reformation.

The section in pp. 56-57 is dynamite, discussing the requirement of regeneration for seeing or entering (aka membership in) the New Covenant Kingdom of God.

Page 62 -- An explanation I hadn't seen in a while of the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men" from Genesis. It's funny how many of these are floating around out there.

Page 64 -- Covenantal election of the specific line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not including others, until it comes to rest upon the whole nation of Jacob's family. Very important observation -- this external election and covenant succession was not based on who "walked the aisle" in the revival invitation, but rather on God's (outward, not necessarily inward), non-negotiable election. It was not a distinction of profession, nor yet of possession, but of obligation.

Page 66 -- Some dynamite here -- to claim we now still do have a covenant in the flesh is (almost) to deny the Incarnation.

Page 74 -- Interesting, references the Geneva translation.

Page 80 -- More dynamite -- "we know no man after the flesh".

Page 86 -- Salvation by "proxy faith".

Page 99 -- Regulative Principle of Worship.

Page 110 -- Extent and limits of Christian fellowship with unbaptized believers; examples in scripture.​


----------



## Petty France (May 17, 2013)

I know this is a bit late, but to substantiate my mention of Nichols' adoption of the sub/admin framework, here are his own words:



> "The covenant of grace has one immutable essence. Yet it has diverse administration and progressive disclosure. God’s solemn pledge to accomplish and apply redemption is, and ever shall remain, one and the same. Its fulfillment through God’s gospel and covenants supports its essential unity and immutability. Yet it is revealed progressively and administrated diversely under the old and new covenants. Both Confessions state this truth from different vantage points. LCF 7:3 unfolds its progressive disclosure and indispensability. WCF 7:5, 6 affirms its essential unity and diverse administration under old and new covenants. We should retain both perspectives since clearly both are biblical."



His reading of the relationship between the confessions on this point is misguided and misleading. Studying Coxe, Denault, and the other resources Steve mentioned (if you can get your hands on them) will help to clarify the nature of that relationship.


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 17, 2013)

This has been a helpful and interesting thread.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 17, 2013)

Petty France said:


> Studying Coxe, Denault, and the other resources Steve mentioned (if you can get your hands on them) will help to clarify the nature of that relationship.



Sam, what are your thoughts on Pink's 'The Divine Covenants'?


----------



## Petty France (May 17, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Sam, what are your thoughts on Pink's 'The Divine Covenants'?



I have it, but haven't really had the chance to get into it. A brief flip through the pages shows no footnotes which is disappointing. Nevertheless, I've heard good things about it. Do you recommend it?


----------



## Petty France (May 17, 2013)

A slightly slower flipping shows authors referenced by name on occasion, without bibliographic info, which is still a bit disappointing if one wants to engage those sources, etc.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 18, 2013)

Petty France said:


> A brief flip through the pages shows no footnotes which is disappointing.



It is important to remember Pink wrote these articles to ordinary people scattered throughout the world in the mid-twentieth century (part of his 'studies in the scriptures). It was not designed to be an academic work.



Petty France said:


> Do you recommend it?



I enjoyed the work though it is some time since I read it. Someday i will read it again and compare to Coxe and Denault.


----------



## Petty France (May 18, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is important to remember Pink wrote these articles to ordinary people scattered throughout the world in the mid-twentieth century (part of his 'studies in the scriptures). It was not designed to be an academic work.



Good to know, thanks.


----------



## JM (May 18, 2013)

A friend had my copy of Pink's work but he finished with it so I plan to re-read it (again).


----------



## brandonadams (May 20, 2013)

> A slightly slower flipping shows authors referenced by name on occasion, without bibliographic info, which is still a bit disappointing if one wants to engage those sources, etc.



Pink loves to quote Owen at length... though because of the nature of his writings and the editing it's not always clear what is a quotation, paraphrase, and just Pink. And there is almost never a specific reference noted


----------



## JM (May 20, 2013)

Did Pink publish a newspaper, newsletter, booklet? What style did you use for _Studies in the Scriptures_?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 15, 2013)

JM said:


> Did Pink publish a newspaper, newsletter, booklet? What style did you use for _Studies in the Scriptures_?



"Studies" was a newsletter published from the early 20's until Pink's death. He will often quote old writers but almost never cites a page number or even a particular book. This is the case even with _The Sovereignty of God_ which was one of the few books he wrote. With the exception of that one and the early dispensational works that he later repudiated (_The Redeemer's Return _and _The Antichrist_), my understanding is that all of the Pink books were compiled from "Studies" by later publishers and published as separate books. (I.C. Herendeen, who had worked with Pink on "Sovereignty," was responsible for at least some of that.) Murray and Belcher both note this in their respective biographies, with Murray going into more detail and including a chart of which articles ended up in which books. Some of the articles are published in more than one book as well. 

Murray notes that at the time Pink was writing, most of the Puritan and Reformed works he referred to were out of print and practically impossible for most people to access. Hence, Pink's somewhat inadvertent role in the revival of Calvinism from mid-century onward. Murray notes that later in his life Pink became aware that preachers (including Lloyd-Jones) were making use of his material.


----------



## JM (Jun 15, 2013)

Thanks Chris.

I'm currently reading _Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ_.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 15, 2013)

JM said:


> Did Pink publish a newspaper, newsletter, booklet? What style did you use for _Studies in the Scriptures_?



Sovereign Grace Publishers has printed 12 of 17 projected volumes of the complete Studies In The Scriptures, by Arthur W. Pink. I have them and they are very well done, with the exception of the pink cover. I've gotten used to that though. 

Arthur Pink Works - SGPBooks.com, Inc.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 15, 2013)

JimmyH said:


> pink cover



Goal was to accurately reflect the authors name


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 16, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > pink cover
> ...



 Ah,that explains it


----------



## JM (Jun 16, 2013)

Depending on the light...the cover changes colour on my copy of _Covenant Theology_.


----------

