© Timothy J.

Bertolet Bertolet 1

Covenant Theology in Baptist Life

By Timothy James Bertolet

In fulfillment of the requirements for

Founders Study Center Course:

Baptist Identity
January 2008
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 2

Covenant Theology in Baptist Life

I. Introduction

Addressing a pastor’s college conference in 1891, Charles Haddon Spurgeon said, “The doctrine of the

covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between

the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes

which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the

covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction

on this vital subject.”1 It is sad that such a vital doctrine in the history of Baptist life is either neglected entirely or

relegated to obscurity in contemporary Baptist life. It is often assumed rather than substantiated that since

paedobaptism validates itself within the framework of Covenant Theology and since Baptists reject paedobaptism

they must have also rejected the larger framework of Covenant Theology. This paper will attempt to show that early

Baptists held to the major framework of Covenant Theology.

II. A Matter of Definition

Before one can begin a study of covenant theology in Baptist Life it is helpful to outline the basics of Covenant

Theology. Covenant theology holds to three basic theological covenants as the overarching structure to the various

covenants we find made in the Bible (e.g. Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenant).2 For Covenant

theology, or federal theology, these three covenants are as follows: First is the covenant of redemption (pactum

salutis). This is the covenant between God the Father and God the Son that takes place before the foundations of the

world in eternity past where the Father promises to the Son to grant success to the ministry of the Son by giving Him

and people and securing that the Son’s sacrifice will effectually redeem this people. “The Father elects a people in

1
C.H. Spurgeon “The Covenant” Sermons of the Rev. C.H. Spurgeon of London. Ninth Series (New York: Robert Carter and
Brothers, 1883), 172. Accessed Online 1/29/08. http://books.google.com/books?id=PlPJCaB-OsoC&printsec=toc#PPA7,M1
2
By “theological covenants” we do not mean that these covenants are not sustainable through careful exegesis. Rather, quite the
opposite, careful attention to the text itself causes us to organize the Biblical theological outworking of the various covenants
(e.g. in Eden, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and the New Covenant) under an ordered framework. It will be beyond the
scope of this paper to defend Reformed Covenant theology but we simply not that this covenant theology should be relegated to
‘systematic theology’ and separated from what is commonly called ‘Biblical theology’. For some common introductions to
Covenant Theology one might consult: O Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1980); Gerhardus Vos “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” Redemptive History and Biblical
Interpretation (Philipsburg, N.J., 1980) 234-267; Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker, 2006). For a Baptist Covenantal position briefly stated, see Francis Malone The Baptism of Disciples
Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2003), xxxii-xxxv.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 3

the Son as their mediator to be brought to saving faith through the Spirit.”3 Second, in Covenant Theology there is

the Covenant of Works (foederus naturae). This covenant is made between God and Adam in the garden prior to the

fall. Adam is the federal representative of all humanity. The covenant promises blessings for obedience and curses

for disobedience. It establishes that if Adam obeys the covenant stipulations, he will receive eschatological blessings

and move from his temporary probationary period to the security of glorification whereby he is secured in

righteousness and holiness not able to fall into sin.4 Adam, of course, broke the covenant and was prosecuted

receiving the curse sanctions of the covenant. This establishes the need for another covenant, whereby the

requirements of the first covenant might be fulfilled while the curse is simultaneously removed. Third, the covenant

of grace (foederus gratiae) is that covenant made between God and His people whereby He promises to redeem

them in Jesus Christ based upon His work as the Suffering Servant. He both negatively bears the curse wrought by

the sanctions of the broken covenant and positively fulfills the Law/Covenant of Works meriting righteousness for

His people. “Thus, in the covenant of grace, God restores in his new creation what was lost in the old creation and

could not be recovered according to the original principle that was established in nature.”5 In this covenant Christ is

the second Adam and stands as the federal head of His people, all those in union with Him. Like Adam, He

represents His people. These are the standard tenants of covenant theology.

It is important to understand that when Reformed paedobaptists defend their doctrine with respect to baptism,

they work within a framework of covenant theology.6 Particularly, they carry over Genesis 17 as the sign of the

Abrahamic Covenant into the New Covenant using passages such as Colossians 2:11-12. The fact that this defense is

so wedded to Covenant Theology leaves many to erroneously assume that Covenant Theology and paedobaptism are

synonymous (Chart A, below). Thus, many conclude that Baptist theology and Covenant Theology are mutually

exclusive (Chart B, below). However, as we examine early Baptists and their use and defense of Covenant Theology

3
Horton, God of Promise, 78.
4
Had Adam obeyed the Covenant of Works, he would have moved from what Reformed Theology considers to be the ‘first state
of man’ (innocence) to the ‘fourth state of man’ (eschatological perfection). In the fourfold states of man, the second state is man
in bondage to sin, experienced by all humanity after the fall, while the third state is the regenerate man who is able not to sin but
still experiencing the presence of sin. In a postlapsariun situation, the fourth state is only experience in union with the ‘eschatos
Adam’—Jesus Christ; and only then when the eschaton is ushered in at the resurrection. For example, see Vos, “The Doctrine of
the Covenanat” esp. pp.242-245.
5
Horton, God of Promise, 106,
6
The literature both historical and contemporary that one could site here voluminous. But for introduction and a popular level
exposition see John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, N.J., 1980) and Francis Schaeffer, Baptism (Wilmington, Del.:
Trimark, 1976).
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 4

we find that the issue of baptism should be seen as a subset of Covenant Theology (Chart C, below).7 Early Baptists

will indeed use Covenant Theology to unabashedly defend credo-baptism and markedly reject paedobaptism. Their

arguments establish and maintain that credobaptism is more faithful to covenant theology and the covenant structure

in Scripture. In short, there are theologians and pastors who will fall on either side of the issue of baptism but both

affirm Covenant Theology.8 This should cause contemporary Baptists to reappraise the Biblical and theological

veracity and indispensability of Covenant Theology.

Chart A: Chart B: Chart C:

Cov. Theology Baptist Theology Covenant Theology

=
Paedobaptism Credo-baptist Paedo-baptist
Covenant Theo.

III. Covenant Theology in Key Baptist Confessions

The first place to look for a Covenant Theology is in Baptists Confessions. A confession is meant to be a

summation of theological beliefs around which the group commonly unites. If Covenant Theology was important to

early Baptists and if it structured their theology in any meaningful fashion, then we should find Covenant Theology

articulated in their confessions. Simply put, those things most important and most distinctive to a particular group

find their way into confessions precisely because the framers hold them as central. Baptists articulate a Covenant

Theology in their confessions.

A. First London Baptist Confession.

The First London Baptist Confession, written in 1644, does not have the pronounced Covenant Theology that

the Second London Baptist Confession would have, nevertheless, there are several important references to the

Covenant that suggest the framers were working within the larger category of Covenant Theology.

7
This really is only considering the relationship of Covenant Theology to Reformed paedobaptism not Lutheran, Roman
Catholic, or Greek Orthodox forms of paedobaptism. Just as there are Baptists who reject covenant theology there are
paedobaptists of various stripes that reject the Covenant theology of Reformed orthodoxy. Paedobaptism is not monolithic in its
understand of what baptism does and/or symbolizes.
8
Reformed paedobaptists would argue that Baptist Covenant Theologians do not work out the implications of a serious covenant
theology. Such arguments should not be given by paedobaptists alone, indeed they have not. Following a long line of Baptists
like Spilsbury and Coxe, Francis Malone has argued extensively that it is credobaptism and not paedobaptism that is more
faithful to a covenantal structure (The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus
Paedobaptism [Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2003]).
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 5

First, if we consider Articles ten, eleven and twelve together we find the basic concepts that are vital to

Covenant Theology although we do not find the language (e.g. ‘pactum salutis’ et al). Article 10 states the

following:

Article X: Touching his Office, Jesus Christ only is made the Mediator of the new Covenant, even
the everlasting Covenant of grace between God and Man to be perfectly and full the Prophet,
9
Priest and King of the Church of God for evermore.

Important to this reference is the combined usage of “New Covenant” and “Covenant of Grace between God

and Man”. This role of mediation worked out by the threefold office of Christ as our prophet, priest and king is

essential for Covenant Theology.10 At this point, the confession is not as precise on distinguishing the covenant

between the Father and the Son from the covenant between God and man. But like all Reformed Covenant Theology

it does see the basis of God’s work of redemption as worked out progressively in history to be grounded on an

everlasting Covenant made in eternity past. This becomes crucial then for Christ’s role as mediator. As Vos notes,

the structure of the covenant is essential for the application of redemption as Christ serves as the mediator of the

Covenant (prophet, priest and king) and the believer is united to Christ to receive the benefits of the covenant.11 It is

of no mean significance then the First London Confession argues from Covenant (Art. 10) through Mediation by

virtue of a threefold office (Art. 13-20) to climax in the believers reception of benefits through union with Christ

(Art. 27-29).12 This is essentially the move of a Covenant Theology. The driving thrust towards redemption in the

New Covenant that is evidenced in the First London Baptist Confession, is essentially the move that Covenant

Theology makes. It is true that if this is all we had in this Confession the connections would be somewhat tenuous

and could accounted for as simply arising from the study of the same Scriptures rather than the Confession having a

nascent Covenant Theology. But the First London Baptist Confession is more explicit.

Second, the First London Baptist Confession affirms a Covenant between the Father and the Son. This is

substantially the same as the Reformed “Covenant of Redemption/ pactum salutis.” The Confession is specific that

the Father makes a Covenant with the Son to establish accomplish redemption. Article 11 and 12 state:

Article XI: Unto this Office hee [sic] was fore-ordained from everlasting by the authority of the
Father, and in respect of his Manhood, from the womb called and separated, and anointed also

9
William Lumpkin Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1959) 159.
10
We should note that this specifically articulation of this threefold office can be traced back to John Calvin Institutes, II.15.
11
Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant” 248 and 256.
12
Art. 27 grounds the believers adoption and status as co-heir with Christ in the unity and union of the Godhead whereby we
receive the promises of eternal life. Art. 28 specifically speaks of a believer’s union with Christ. Art. 29 that all redemption is
worked through the “bloud [sic] of the everlasting Covenant”.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 6

most fully and abundantly with all gifts necessary, God having without measure poured the Spirit
upon Him.
Article XII: In this Call the Scripture holds forth two special things considerable; first, the call to the
Office; secondly, the Office it self. First, that none takes this honour but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron, so also Christ, it being an action especially of God the Father, whereby a special
covenant being made, he ordaines [sic] his Sonne [sic] to this office: which Covenant is,
that Christ should be made a Sacrifice for sin, that he shall see his seed, and prolong his
days with the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper his hand; which calling therefore contains in
itself choosing, foreordaining, sending. Choosing respects the end, foreordaining the means,
sending the execution itself all of mere grace, without any condition foreseen either in men, or in
Christ himself.13

Given the manner in which the First London Baptist Confession displays the unity of God the Father and God

the Son in their covenantal agreement to establish redemption and the structure in which the confession articulates

redemption being effected if read within the Reformed and Puritan context of 1644, it is difficult to see how this

confession does not contain the elements of Covenant Theology. It is important to note that at this point Covenant

Theology itself was developing still in Reformed Theology. The works of John Ball (Treatise on the Covenant of

Grace, 1645), Johannes Cocceius (Summary of the Doctrine Concerning the Covenant and Testament, 1648) and

Herman Witsius (The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, 1648) were all as of yet unpublished. It

will become even clearer with the progress of history and the publication of the Second London Baptist Confession,

early Baptists did not oppose Covenant Theology but, indeed, affirmed and defended it.

B. Second London Baptist Confession

Even more clearly than the First London Baptist Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession (SLBC) of

1689 affirms the basic structure of covenant theology. As in many places in the SLBC, chapter 7 “Of Gods

Covenant” essentially follows the Westminster Confession of Faith (see appendix).

In comparing and contrasting the SLBC with the WCF, we first note the similarities of 7.1 for both and 7.3

WCF with 7.2 SLBC. At this point the SLBC affirms a basic covenant structure as essential for God’s dealing with

humanity. In 7.2, the SLBC does not refer to Adam breaking a covenant of works but rather breaking the Law. Here

they are clarifying but it is clear from the later statements of the confession that they believed that the Law Adam

broke was a covenant of works:

Article 19.6 “Although true Believers be not under the Law, as a Covenant of Work, to thereby be
Justified or condemned…what blessings they [believers] may expect upon the performance
thereof, though not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works”

13
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 159. Emphasis added.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 7

Article 20.1 “The Covenant of Works being broken by Sin, and made unprofitable unto Life; God
was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ…”14

Second, the SLBC uses the clear language of the Covenant of Grace between God and humanity effected by the

work of Christ. Article 7.2 expresses that it is this Covenant of Grace which saves believers. The Covenant of Grace

is further worked out under Article 8 where one finds the same three-office structure that is in the FLBC.

Article 8.1 “It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to chuse [sic] and ordain the Lord Jesus his
only begotten Son, according to the Covenant made between both, to be the Mediator between
God and Man; the Prophet, Priest, and King; Head and Savior of his Church, the heir of all things,
and judge of the world: Unto whom he did from all Eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be
15
by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified.”

Third, the SLBC is even more explicit than the WCF that there is an eternal covenant between the Father and

the Son. As in all robust Covenant Theologies, this covenant grounds the activity and accomplishment of

redemption that is carried forth under the Covenant of Grace. The SLBC boldly pronounces both its belief in and

defense of the sovereignty of God within its Covenant Theology by statements such as, “and it is founded in that

Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is

alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a

blessed immortality…”16 Clearer words of a Covenant Theology can hardly be found.17

Fourth, the SLBC focuses less on the administration of the covenant than the WCF. The SLBC omits 7.5 and

7.6 as found in the WCF. The SLBC will articulate their theology of the ordinances at a later point in the document.

The SLBC does see the ceremonial Law pointing to Christ (19.3). They do see the ordinances of God as important

for the life of the church body (28-30) yet they do not in the Confession articulate these ordinances with explicit

reference to the Covenant.

C. The Orthodox Creed

While not a Particular Baptist Confession, the Orthodox Creed, written by General Baptists also describes a

Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. Article 13 is on the first Covenant. According to the Confession, if

Adam had obeyed he would have “attainted to eternal life without faith.”18 This is clearly the notion of a covenant of

14
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 277-78.
15
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 260.
16
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 260.
17
Ironically, these words are not found in the WCF but unique to SLBC.
18
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 306.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 8

works. In Article 16, we find that when this covenant was broken God instituted and offered “a second, or new

covenant of grace.”19 In Article 17, we find the concept of a pactum salutis:

Article 17: It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, the chuse [sic] and ordain the Lord Jesus
Christ, his only begotten son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be alone
the mediator between God and man…

The Article continues to expound the role of Christ and his mediatorship. He is granted an inheritance. He is the

mediator of the elect only. As mediator, His three offices are prophet, priest and king. We should be clear to

reiterate, however, that despite this covenant structure the confession argues for conditional election based upon

foreseen faith (Article 10) and not unconditional election like Calvinism and Particular Baptists. Despite this clear

difference, Article 9 expounds its view of election around the covenants.

Article 9: …And God the father gave this his elected and beloved son, for a covenant to the
people, and said, that his covenant shall stand fast stand fast with him; and his seed shall endure
for ever…And tho’ Christ came from Adam, as Eve did, yet not by Adam…Therefore without any
stain of sin, and this second Adam, being by God’s eternal decree, excepted out of the first
covenant…Christ, the second Adam, was a fit mediator between God and men, to reconcile both
in him self [sic], by shedding and sprinkling of his blood, according to God’s eternal purpose in
electing of Christ, and of all that do, or shall believe in him, which eternal election or covenant
20
transaction between the father and son is very consistent with his revealed in the gospel…

The Orthodox Creed clearly believes that God made a Covenant with Adam (a covenant of works), after the fall

God established a Covenant of Grace, and before the foundations of the world there was a covenant between the

Father and the Son for the election of a particular people.

IV. Covenant Theology in Key Baptist Figures

Having briefly examined three important Baptist Confessions and their articulation of Covenant Theology, we

now turn our attention to a selection of Baptist individuals to whom the covenant was important. This selection is

merely an attempt to be representative from early Baptists down through to early Southern Baptists. We will not

delve into the theological differences and distinctives of the men rather we will attempt to focus on the commonality

of Covenant Theology. Our treatment is by no means exhaustive of all Baptists who affirmed Covenant Theology.21

19
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 307.
20
Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 302-3.
21
Two notable Baptists that we could have included would be John Spilsbury and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Tom Nettles says
of Spilsbury “Spilsbury’s presentation of believers’ baptism by immersion of necessity engaged covenant theology. He approved
covenant theology; he argued, however, that the spirituality of the new covenant in Christ eliminated the possibility of an infant’s
participation in it.” (The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming A Baptist Identity; Volume 1 Beginnings in Britain [Ross-
shire, Scot.: Christian Focus, 2005] 167.) Francis Malone notes that other Southern Baptists such as Basil Manly Sr., William
Bullein Johnson and P.H. Mell also held to a Covenantal Theology (The Baptism of Disciples Alone, xxxii).
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 9

A. Benjamin Keach

Benjamin Keach was a British Baptist who lived from 1640-1704. Tom Nettles has said, “The covenant and all

its accompanying blessings are the driving force in, and give coherence to, Keach’s entire theological scheme.”22

His major works on the Covenant include “The Display of Glorious Grace: or, the Covenant of Peace, Opened in

Fourteen Sermons lately preached, in which the errors of the present Day, about Recociliation and Justification, are

detected” and “The Everlasting Covenant.” We should note that this covenant theology was important enough to

Keach to put it into his catechism.23 God made a covenant of works with Adam that demanded perfect obedience

(Q&A. 16). In Adam’s transgression, because of the covenant of works, all men fell (Q&A. 20). This is the federal

headship important to Covenant Theology. God entered a Covenant of Grace to save a people through Christ the

Redeemer (Q&A. 24). The ordinances, including Baptism, are signs of the New Covenant and the Covenant of

Grace (Q&A. 99-100).

Keach clearly believes there was a Covenant of Works between God and Adam:

Proposition: That the Breach betwixt God and Man, was occasioned by the violation of the First
Covenant which God had entered into with Adam, as the Common or Public Head and
24
Representative of all Mankind; which Covenant was a Covenant of Works.

Like other Covenant theologians Keach holds that this Covenant of Works was republished to Israel in the Ten

Commandments.25 Adam, prior to the fall, could have obeyed this covenant and secured justification through his

work.26 Once the Covenant was broken no human could restore it; yet the representative and Mediator of the

Covenant needed to be human to repair the breach between God and man. Hence, Christ entered into the office of

Mediator.

Keach holds that the eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son is the very thing worked out in

redemptive history between God and His people with Christ serving as the Mediator:

And from hence it appeareth, That the Covenant of Peace is the Covenant of Grace. For though
the Covenant of Peace, in respect to Christ, as our Mediator, Head and Surety, was upon the
Condition of His Merits; yet as to the Design, End and Purpose of it, in respect to us, it was only
an act of pure Grace…And as the Covenant of Peace is the Covenant of Grace; so it results from
God as an act of Infinite Mercy; It is therefore a merciful Covenant; it was not made with Man

22
Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Volume 1, 167.
23
Catechism are by their nature designed to teach the basic truths of the gospel and the Christian life to the believer. A presence
of a particular doctrine in the Catechism gives further indication of the importance to Keach.
24
Benjamin Keach The Display of Glorious Grace: or, the Covenant of Peace, Opened in Fourteen Sermons lately preached, in
which the errors of the present Day, about Reconciliation and Justification, are detected, (London: S. Bridge, 1698) p.14.
Accessed online 1/29/07. http://www.oldfaithbl.org/pdf_files/Keach%20The%20Covenant%20of%20Peace%20Opened-1.pdf
25
Keach, Display, 15.
26
Keach, Display, 16
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 10

considered in his State of Innocence…There was no need of Peace had there not been War, or a
fearful Breach between God and us; and that this Covenant results from God’s great Mercy…27

Keach’s treatment in the fourteen sermons will expound upon the role of Christ in His threefold office. This

mediation is effected by the cross of Christ. His treatment will also explore the eternal aspect of the Covenant and its

application in history with reconciliation and justification.

B. Nehemiah Cox

Nehemiah Coxe’s key work on Covenant Theology is entitled Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ.28 Coxe

affirms Covenant Theology but in his work he refutes Joseph Whitson’s Infant Baptism Plainly Proved. Chapter one

of Coxe’s work gives a general introduction and definition to the notion of covenant. Chapter two defends the notion

of a Covenant of Works between God and Adam. Coxe’s main thesis is:

From these things it is evident that God dealt with Adam not only on terms of a law but by way of
covenant. This transaction with him was of a federal nature although it is not in Scripture explicitly
called a covenant. Yet it has the explicit nature of a covenant and there is no reason for niceties
about terms where the thing itself is sufficiently revealed to us. There is no explicit mention of a
covenant of grace before Abraham’s time and yet the thing is certain and clearly revealed in
Scripture, namely, that all who were saved before his time were interested in such a covenant
29
and saved only by its grace.

In the context, both before and after this quote, Coxe gives ample evidence that God made a covenant with

Adam. In the following chapter, he also gives evidence of a Covenant of Grace prior to Abraham to defend his

claims here. The promise of redemption given to the seed of the woman was a covenant treaty.30 The majority of

Coxe’s work goes on from here to argue based upon a covenant structure that baptism of infant is improper and

should not be based upon circumcision of infants. What is important for our argument here is that Coxe does not

refute a Covenant Theology and paedobaptism as if they are synonymous (chart A above) but argues against

paedobaptism from within Covenant Theology (e.g. chart C above).

C. John Gill

John Gill expounds Covenant Theology in chapters VII through XV in Book II of A Body of Doctrinal

27
Keach, Display, 20,21.
28
Nehemiah Coxe Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. (Ed. Ronald Miller; James Renihan and Francisco Orozco;
Palmdale, CA.: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005).
29
Coxe, Covenant, 48. In this quote, Coxe recognizes and refutes some of the common critiques against Covenant Theology. The
two common critiques are (a) the word covenant is not mention in Genesis 1 and 2 in reference to Adam and (b) covenant is not
explicitly used to describe the grace that God promises to the seed of the woman until we have the Abrahamic Covenant. In
exegetical response, Coxe displays a capable wedding of Biblical theology and systematic theology.
30
Coxe, Covenant, 55-56.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 11

Divinity.31 After treating the everlasting council of God in chapter VI, Gill turns to the covenant of grace which is

founded in this council. Gill defines the covenant of grace as “a compact or agreement made from all eternity

among the divine Persons, more especially between the Father and the Son concerning the salvation of the elect.”32

In chapter VIII and IX, Gill will expound in detail upon the distinct roles of the Father and the Son in this covenant.

This is part of the contract involved in the making of covenants. It is not until chapter XIV that Gill will discuss the

role of the Spirit in this covenant.

Gill distinguishes God’s grace in freely and unconditionally giving the covenant from all eternity from the

covenant of works which is conditional and based upon obedience of the covenant stipulations.33 In Book III,

chapter VII, Gill describes the nature of the Law Covenant made between God and Adam prior to the fall. In this

covenant Adam is the federal head. “The law given to Adam, as it had the nature of a covenant, it contained a

promise in it, and had a sanction annexed to it.”34 Thus, if Adam obeyed he would be rewarded with the

eschatological gift and if he disobeyed he would be punished. This activity would be for all Adam’s posterity due to

his federal headship.35

In Book IV, Gill explains how God mediates this one covenant of grace through the various covenants from just

after the fall, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and finally the New Covenant. For example, Gill is quite clear

that “it was never designed that the first administration of the covenant of grace should continue always in that

form.”36 The first covenant is replaced by the second or new covenant. For Gill, the first administration lasts from

Adam to Christ and the second from Christ until the second coming. The ordinances of the second covenant (the

Lord’s Supper and Baptism) are “more spiritual than the ordinances of divine service under the first covenant, which

were carnal.”37 Gill, like other Baptist, defends his view of credobaptism precisely because of his view of Covenant

Theology. What is essential for our point here is that Gill defends a robust Covenant Theology.38

31
John Gill A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007).
32
Gill, A Body, 214.
33
Gill, A Body, 248.
34
Gill, A Body, 314.
35
Gill, A Body, 315.
36
Gill, A Body 361.
37
Gill, A Body, 366.
38
Gill does not distinguish the ‘covenant of redemption’ (pactum salutis) from the ‘covenant of grace’ (foederus gratiae) but he
clearly distinguishes aspects of the covenant of grace with a covenant between the Father and the Son in eternity passed worked
out in redemptive history culminating in the mediation of Christ. This is the essential structure of Reformed Covenant theology
while not the precise formal language. Gill (A Body, 217) acknowledges the covenant of peace or the covenant of grace which is
“by some divines called the covenant of redemption”. Gill states that the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are
not two covenants (A Body, 217). For Gill the covenant between the Father and the Son has the elect in view so that they might
receive grace and eternal happiness.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 12

D. John L. Dagg.

John L. Dagg is quite clear in his Manual of Theology that there is an eternal covenant between the Father and

the Son in eternity past.39 Dagg grounds this covenant in the intertrinitarian relationships of the Godhead:

In the work of salvation, the divine persons co-operate in different offices; and these are so
clearly revealed, as to render the personal distinction in the Godhead more manifest, than it is in
any other of God's works. Beyond doubt, these official relations are severally held, by the perfect
agreement of all; and, speaking after the manner of men, the adjustment of these relations, and
the assignment of the several parts in the work, are the grand stipulations of the eternal
40
covenant.

It is because of this covenant that the Son becomes Mediator and takes on human flesh. Dagg also explains the

role of the Holy Spirit in carrying out this covenant. Dagg grasps the Trinitarian implications of the covenant. The

Godhood works in unison while each person carries out various roles and offices in this covenant. It is the Triune

God who plans, accomplishes and effects redemption:

The reconciliation between God and men is provided for by the covenant engagement between
the Father and the Son; the Father acting as the representative of the Godhead, and the Son as
the representative and surety of his people. The Holy Spirit concurs in this arrangement, and
takes his part in the work, in harmony with the other persons of the Godhead. His peculiar office
is necessary to complete the plan, and to reward the obedience of the Son by the salvation of his
41
redeemed people.

Following the move of a Covenant theologian, Dagg distinguishes between the eternal covenant and new

covenant. The New Covenant is not the same as the eternal covenant. The new covenant concerns God and man

while the eternal covenant is within the Godhood. Dagg, states, “In the eternal covenant, promises are made to the

Son, as the representative of his people: in the new covenant, these promises are made to them personally, and, in

part, fulfilled to them.”42

Dagg describes the fall of the first man as coming under the Covenant of Works.43 He, like others defends the

notion that a Covenant idea is contained in Genesis. He also turns to Hosea 6:7 for explicit reference to a covenant

broken by Adam.44 Dagg clearly embraces Covenant Theology.

E. R.B.C. Howell

R.B.C. Howell, the second president of the Southern Baptist Confession, wrote a little book entitled The

Covenants.45 He argues that the covenants “enter into the very nature, and pervade with their peculiar qualities, the

39
Dagg, Manual, Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08 http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/all.html
40
Dagg, Manual, Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c2.html
41
Dagg, Manual, Online Version Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c2.html
42
Dagg, Manual, Online Version Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c2.html
43
Dagg, Manual, Online Version Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk4c2.html
44
Dagg, Manual, Online Version Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch22.html
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 13

whole system of divine grace.”46 Particularly relevant for the present state of Baptist life, Howell laments those who

do not recognize the covenants as important for this system of grace. Howell argues for three manifestations of the

covenant of grace which “were direct in their reference to Christ, and were substantially one covenant, made known

in the gospel, as “the new and everlasting covenant…”47 This is ‘gospel’.48 There are also three manifestations of the

law.

In chapter two, Howell argues that there is a covenant of works given to Adam from God in the garden of Eden

prior to the fall. This covenant demanded perfect obedience, which was possible in Adam’s innocence.49 Howell

calls the covenant that begins in Genesis 3:15 as ‘the covenant of Eden’. By this term, Howell is designating what is

commonly called ‘the covenant of grace.’ It is the promise of the Messiah to be a Mediator and redeem His people.

In chapter four, Howell argues that there is a covenant of redemption takes place before the foundations of the

world. “It was the design of this covenant, therefore, to bring into perfect harmony the salvation of God and man.”

The parties involved in this covenant are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.50 Other promises in

this covenant are also given to God’s people.51 While Howell does not use the language of pactum salutis and

foederus gratiae, he does clearly distinguish the two: “This [the covenant of redemption] was the covenant upon

which was predicated the announcement in Eden of the Deliverer from sin, under the power and penalty of which

man had fallen, by a violation of the provisions contained in the covenant of works.”52

F. James P. Boyce

James P. Boyce was the founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his work

Abstract of Systematic Theology, Boyce holds to the basic tenants of covenant theology.53 In chapter twenty-two

section three. Boyce clearly articulates a two covenant structure:

“Theologians are accustomed to speak of two especial covenants, the one of works, the other of
grace…The two covenants of works and grace are spoken of in Gal. 4: 2~31, and are called "the
two covenants" in verse 24. That of grace is the covenant of redemption made by God with his
elect, or more properly with Christ, the second Adam, as their representative. That of works, is

45
R.P.C. Howell, The Covenants (Conrad, Mont.: Triangle Press, No date).
46
Howell, Covenants, 1.
47
Howell, Covenants, 5.
48
Howell is point to the “Law” and “Gospel” distinction that undergirds Reformed Covenant Theology.
49
Howell, Covenants, 12.
50
Howell, Covenants, 36-40.
51
Howell, Covenants, 41.
52
Howell, Covenants, 42.
53
James P. Boyce Abstract of Systematic Theology. Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08.
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 14

the covenant of the law entered into between God and all mankind through the first Adam, their
natural head and appropriate and appointed representative.54

In this section however, Boyce focuses primarily on the Covenant of Works. He defends that this is a real

covenant although it is not explicitly called a covenant. He argues there are clear requirement and stipulations with

resulting punishments and rewards for disobedience and obedience respectively. Had Adam continued to obey, he

would have received the rewards of the covenant.

In chapter twenty-four, Boyce explains the federal headship of Adam. There is a connection between Adam and

his posterity. Adam’s sin caused all his posterity to fall into sin. Boyce connects this federal headship of Adam to

the federal headship of Christ, the second Adam. He is “our federal head in salvation” and “the fall under the federal

headship of Adam corresponds our salvation under the federal headship of Christ.55

While Boyce does not delve deeper into Covenant Theology, he does maintain the basic structure with both

explicit reference to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace along wedded with an extended defense of the

headship of Adam and Christ respectively. Boyce does discuss election and the plan of God from eternity past but he

does not describe it using the language of covenant. Boyce’s work is an “abstract” highlighting the cores of doctrine

not a full orbed defense of every aspect.

V. Relevance to Contemporary Baptist Life

Just as many Baptist today are unaware of the Calvinisitc heritage of early Baptists so also, and perhaps more

pronounced, many contemporary Baptists are unaware of the strong heritage of Covenant Theology in Baptist life

and theology. This is particularly true in some circles of Baptist life where Dispensationalism and Baptist are

considered virtually synonymous. Unfortunately, in today’s theological circles it is primarily Reformed and

Presbyterian paedobaptists who hold and defend Covenant Theology making a sort of perfect storm against

Covenant Theology gaining a foothold in many areas of Baptist life. Of course, there continues to be Baptists who

understand their heritage and recognize the Bible does indeed teach both credobaptism and Covenant Theology. But

given the widespread neglect this topic is particularly relevant to today.

First, if Baptists examined their heritage and founders, they would find a robust defense of Covenant Theology.

Second, if contemporary Baptists would examine their heritage they would find robust defense of credobaptism

54
Boyce, Abstracts Online Version. Accessed 1/29/07. http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch22.html
55
Boyce, Abstracts Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08. http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch24.html
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 15

based upon God’s outworking of redemptive (i.e. covenant) history. Third, if Baptists returned to a strong Covenant

Theology, God willing, the doctrines of grace would once again have high priority in the life of the church. Howell

writes, “How vividly do these covenants illustrate the grace of God in your redemption; the miserable condition of

men in their fallen state; the love, and goodness of our Lord and Saviour [sic] Jesus Christ.”56 This would perhaps,

in turn, lead to a greater priority of gospel preaching and evangelism (the covenant proclaimed), baptism of believers

(the covenant sealed), and regenerate church membership (the covenant people guarded).57 Given the general decline

of these areas in Baptist life one cannot but wonder if a good shot of Covenant Theology is precisely what the doctor

ordered. Fourth, most importantly, Covenant Theology is Biblical and should be embraced by all Christians.

Embracing it would clarify much of the muddled thinking between the relationship of God’s acts in eternity past and

the outworking of redemption in history. If we heed the warnings of Spurgeon, a reinvigoration of Covenant

Theology would root out the legalism and the moralistic therapeutic preaching that pervades our church life and our

pulpit. Indeed, grace might again mean GRACE.

VI. Conclusion

It is not inconsistent in the least for the Baptist to affirm a covenantal structure to God’s revelation. The

covenant is a concept based upon God’s revelation to us. It is the covenant that unifies all of Scripture. It also moves

to a climax as the shadow of the Old Covenant gives way to the New Covenant, the full manifestation of the

covenant of grace. Behind this activity in history is the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son to redeem a

group of people to themselves. As Christ purchases a people in the fullness of time on the Cross, we also ascends

into heaven from where He sends the Spirit to effect the benefits of this covenant.

For those who think that the covenant is strictly a construct of Presbyterianism, one would do well to consider

the early Baptists. Unfortunately, in our day Baptists are less aware of their history then say for example,

Presbyterians. In one sense, one could argue that Presbyterian must keep the covenant central to uphold their view of

baptism. One could also point to the high priority of doctrinal fidelity in Calvinistic circles. Nevertheless, this is no

excuse for the dismissal of the covenant within Baptist theology. The Church of God, wherever it is found, has the

responsibility to preach and proclaim those doctrines contained in the Word of God. The confessional heritage of

56
Howell, Covenants, 112.
57
Howell says, “The teachings of the covenants, truly interpreted, give us, secondly, important aid in determining the character,
and form of the visible Christian church” (114).
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 16

Baptists shows a warm and welcomed embrace of Covenant Theology. Throughout her history, Baptist heirs have

had in their systematic theologies and key works the essentials of Covenant Theology. This paper has sought to

introduce us to this history through examining several confessions that contain Covenant Theology in them. It then

examined the lives of six men: Benjamin Keach, Nehemiah Coxe, John Gill, John L. Dagg, R.B.C. Howell and

James P. Boyce. All of these men held to Covenant Theology.

The Covenant is not some doctrinal grid imposed upon Scripture but comes from reading the whole of Scripture

in light of the office of Christ and understanding that all of God’s relationships to his people are covenant. If we

would see in Scripture the unity of God’s redemptive purposes, along with a exegesis of key texts in the Old

Testament, Paul’s two-Adam Christology, and particularly Hebrews—at the end of the day, we find a full-orbed

covenantal theology. Baptists in history in their confession and their theology have recognized the importance of this

covenant structure and the Biblical nature of Covenant Theology.

Let us hope that in the coming generation of Baptists the covenant fairs better than it has in the most recent

generation of Baptists.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 17

Appendix

*RED = Difference; BLACK = Same wording.

Westminster Confession of Faith:
7.1. “The distance between God and the creature is so
great, that although reasonable creatures do owe
obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could
never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and
reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's
part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of
covenant.”
7.2. “The first covenant made with man was a covenant
of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him
to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal
obedience.”
7.3. “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life
by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a
second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein
he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus
Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be
saved, and promising to give unto all those that are
ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing
and able to believe.”
7.4. “This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the
Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the
death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting
inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein
bequeathed.”
7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the
time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the
law it was administered by promises, prophecies,
sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other
types and ordinances delivered to the people of the
Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for
that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation
of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in
the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission
of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old
Testament.
Second London Baptist Confession:58
7.1 “The distance between God and the Creator is so
great, that although reasonable Creatures do owe
obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could
never have attained the reward of Life, but by some
voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath
been pleased to express, by way of Covenant.”
7.2 “Moreover Man having brought himself under the
curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a
Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto
Sinners, Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of
them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and
promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto
eternal Life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and
able to believe.”
7.3 “This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all
to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the seed of the
woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full
discovery thereof was completed in the new Testament;
and it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction,
that was between the Father and the Son about the
Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of
this Covenant, that all the posterity of fallen Adam, that
ever were saved, did obtain life and a blessed
immortality; Man, being now utterly uncapable of
acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam
stood in his state of innocency.”

7.6. “Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was

exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is
dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the
administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and
administered with more simplicity and less outward glory,
yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and
spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;
and is called the New Testament. There are not,
therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance,
but one and the same under various dispensations.”

58
Lumkin, Baptist Confessions, 259-260.
© Timothy J. Bertolet Bertolet 18

Works Cited

Boyce, James P. Abstract of Systematic Theology. Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08.

http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html

Coxe, Nehmiah. Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. (Ed. Ronald Miller; James Renihan and
Francisco Orozco; Palmdale, CA.: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005).

Dagg, John L. Methods of Theology, Online Version. Accessed 1/29/08.

http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/all.html

Gill, John. A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Paris, Arkansas: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007.

Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 2006.

Howell, R.P.C. The Covenants. Conrad, Mont.: Triangle Press. No date.

Keach, Benjamin, Catechism.

Keach, Benjamin, The Display of Glorious Grace: or, the Covenant of Peace, Opened in Fourteen
Sermons lately preached, in which the errors of the present Day, about Recociliation and
Justification, are detected, (London: S. Bridge, 1698) p.14. Accessed online 1/29/07
http://www.oldfaithbl.org/pdf_files/Keach%20The%20Covenant%20of%20Peace%20Opened-1.pdf

Lumpkin, William, Baptist Confessions of Faith. Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1959.

Malone, Francis. The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus
Paedobaptism. Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2003.

Murray, John. Christian Baptism. Phillipsburg, N.J., 1980

Nettles, Tom. The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming A Baptist Identity; Volume 1 Beginnings in
Britain. Ross-shire, Scot.: Christian Focus, 2005.

Robertson, O Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980.

Schaeffer, Francis. Baptism. Wilmington, Del.: Trimark, 1976.

Spurgeon, C.H. “The Covenant” Sermons of the Rev. C.H. Spurgeon of London. Ninth Series (New York:
Robert Carter and Brothers, 1883), 172. Accessed Online 1/29/08.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PlPJCaB-OsoC&printsec=toc#PPA7,M1

Vos, Gerhardus. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Redemptive History and
Biblical Interpretation. Philipsburg, N.J., 1980; 234-267.