This article begins a short series interacting with a short book. This spring, the notable Reformed Baptist pastor Earl M. Blackburn released the book It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace: A Critique of 1689 Federalism. The reasons for our engagement are threefold. First, the influence of Blackburn on our (Reformed Baptists’) movement is undeniable. This means that his arguments will be both influential for and indicative of a number of those with whom we interact and among whom we minister. Second, Blackburn’s critique is lodged against a system with which we would identify ourselves. We not only hold to the Second London; we believe that the covenant theology that has recently been recovered among Reformed Baptists, often called “1689 Federalism,” is the most faithful reception of the Scripture’s teaching on the topic. Third, friendly, intramural dialog is helpful for presenting our arguments.
Some Preliminary Statements
Before we begin this series, it is important to offer some preliminary statements. First, we do respect Blackburn and appreciate his ministry on behalf of Reformed Baptists over his extensive time as a theologian and pastor. While we are looking critically at his work, we are not seeking to negate this first item. Second, our series will follow his 5 chapters. The entire book is less than 40 pages total. We will simply offer 5 articles of response, one to each of his chapters. That said, there are another nearly 30 pages of appendixes. The first three are simply chapter 7 from the Second London, Westminster, and Savoy. The last two are essays, one by Blackburn on typology and one by pastor Kenneth Glisch on the progressive revelation of the covenant of grace.
The next three statements introduce us to the review of the book. To continue our numbering, third, Blackburn generally fails to engage with “1689 Federalists” directly. His “Select Bibliography” includes neither Samuel Renihan (two key books, Mystery of Christ and From Shadow to Substance), Pascal Denault (The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, which largely set the stage for the recent articulation of the position), nor Richard Barcellos (Getting the Garden Right and, especially, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage). He does, at points, interact with some of these directly in the body of the text, but it is sparse. Fourth, Blackburn largely works around the issues that must be dealt with. He discusses Meredith Kline and the proposal of “republicationism.” He looks at how various Presbyterians have responded to it. He does not, in reality, work thoroughly through the question of whether the proposal of “1689 Federalism” was the representative position of early Baptists, particularly in relation to the old covenant as a covenant of works. He claims, several times, that the position was an oddity in the theology of John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe. This must be demonstrated, but he does not do so. The fifth point refers to the tone of the book. He says, “the 1689 Federalism website mistakenly assumes the LBC teaches Republicationism when it asks the seemingly gracious (but actually condescending) question: ‘Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?’ The answer kindly given is that LBC 7 ‘was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it.’ Their attitude stems from a superior-minded sequence of thought that inaccurately presupposes Republicationism is the actual belief taught in the Scriptures and Confession…” (p. 38). The only reason we bring up this quote is to say that Blackburn’s work drips with sarcasm, condescension, and “superior-mindedness.” The book is not written irenically. While our aim will be to offer a careful and irenic evaluation, Blackburn’s work is not written that way.
Chapter 1: Introduction
After the personal background provided in the preface, this chapter opens with Blackburn’s critique of what he sees as a deficiency in the Confession’s affirmation of the covenant of works (pp. 11-12). He states his desire that the term “covenant of works” had itself been used in the Confession in chapters 6 and 7. This is followed with a taxonomy of two different understandings among Reformed Baptists of the unfolding of the covenants. “The first,” he says, “has been named the Substance Administration view” while “the second regretfully has been named 1689 Federalism.” Why is it regretful? “This name is unfortunate for those (like me), who unswervingly hold to the LBC and are staunch federalists, but strongly disagree with certain points of the 1689 Federalist’s branding” (p. 12). The next page begins with a note that John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe had a unique position that was only taken up again fifteen years ago (i.e., in the emergence of 1689 Federalism).
Next, Blackburn moves into his main discussion, namely, a consideration of the thesis of “republicationism.” Blackburn asks a key question: For the purposes of this monograph, Republication hinges upon this question: Is the Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant a republication of the Covenant of works as it is supposedly taught by 1689 Federalism and a few other Reformed and Calvinistic evangelicals?” (p. 14). This is followed by three clarifications Blackburn wants to make before he engages an answer to the question. First, he says this is an “intramural affair;” second, he says he developed his view from Gill, Calvin, Dagg, Howell, and Pink; and third, he says that he believes the covenants of works and grace flow out of the pactum.
Response
What is our response to this first chapter? Since the first chapter is largely laying the groundwork and providing historical background, there is not a lot to respond to. However, there are a few issues to immediately point out. First, he says, “To my knowledge, few 17th century Particular Baptists wrote on the position taken by (now called) 1689 Federalism.” It may be true that “to [his] knowledge” this is the case, but the content of what he says is not true. The key work he does not interact with in this book is Samuel Renihan’s From Shadow to Substance, which is a standard work for defining the historical origins of 1689 Federalism, nor does he substantively engage Denault’s Distinctiveness. This is closely related to another issue. Blackburn laments the way people speak in sermons or on podcasts, but he never interacts directly with the key published works.
Second, his use of the term “republicationism” conflates some of the issues. It is likely that 1689 Federalists would use the term “republicationism,” but it is not often the case. This is because republicationism tends to be a debate within paedobaptist circles, but, fair enough.
Third, and related to the previous two, there is this statement: “Careful attention should be paid to Richard Gaffin’s observation that Republicationism is, ‘…a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology’” (p. 13). Gaffin’s quotation could be interacted with directly, as some could show that there is precedent for it. However, we want to address the issue of this comment in the context of our Reformed Baptist conversation. Much of the work that has been done recently has demonstrated, not simply asserted, that this view does have precedent. The debate Blackburn is entering into has been labeled by him with the name “Owen-Coxe” view, which indicates precedent. The works named above (Renihan and Denault) seek to demonstrate quite explicitly the precedent for Baptists. Consider, just this quote from no less a Baptist forefather than Benjamin Keach: “The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant, but a Covenant of Works. Thus Mr. Cary argues also. And thus we have proved from God’s Word, and sound Arguments, that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant” (Keach, Rector Rectified, 56–57). This quotation wasn’t “held onto” for this article even. It was taken almost at random. The main point is simply that to treat this as something obscure, or unique to Owen and Coxe, is already to misrepresent the breadth of the position.
Next, we will respond to his very brief second chapter.