Introduction
In this series of articles, I am seeking to trace out how covenant theology is an integral part of Baptist theology and history. In Part 1 of this series, I set forth the premise of how early Baptists, through their confessions of faith and catechisms along with other writings, expounded a robust covenant theology that was distinctively Baptistic. In Part 2, I laid out the foundations of covenant theology by defining some of the key theological terms and biblical concepts. Some might concede that Baptists in Britain held to covenant theology yet seek to argue that Baptists in America, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, did not. However, the historical record shows not only Baptists in America championing a distinct covenant theology (like Isaac Bauckus), but the early leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention were covenant theologians. Let us consider a few of these men and statements they made regarding covenant theology.
R.B.C. Howell (1801-1868)
One of the first books published by Southern Baptists was R.B.C. Howell’s “The Covenants” in 1855. As I previously noted in part 1, Howell considered an understanding of the biblical covenants to be crucial in possessing a perfect knowledge of the gospel. In his work, Howell consistently uses the terms “covenant of redemption” and “covenant of grace” interchangeably. He affirms that the covenant of redemption must be seen as a covenant made within the Trinity. Howell walks through the conditions and pledges made by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The covenant of redemption was, therefore, brought into being before the creation of the world. The purpose of the covenant is expressed by its name; it looked to the redemption and salvation of men. The plan, however, by which these results were to be gained, must necessarily be such as would, at the same time, glorify the purity and justice and honor alike, of all the persons of the adorable Trinity. Any arrangement which would fail of these ends, it is impossible he could have devised or approved. Had man been restored to happiness without meeting these demands, God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, would have been dishonored. It was the design of the covenant, therefore, to bring into perfect harmony the salvation of men, and the glory of God.1
No salvation would exist for mankind if it were not for this sovereign covenant arrangement within the Trinity.
Howell also affirms and expounds upon the covenant of works made with Adam. Our fallen condition is rooted in Adam’s failure to keep the covenant of works.
The covenant, while observed, guarded their holiness, their happiness, and their life. By its violation, that guard was removed, and all was lost. They stood before God, guilty and ruined! And so, for any thing man can do, they, and their posterity must stand forever…Our first parents had sinned. They were cursed. Penitence for their crime could not change the fact. No subsequent good action could expiate their guilt. What hope had they? The covenant, the only law of which they had any knowledge, could not save them, because it contained no provisions for pardon; because it was a faithful reflection of God’s own holy character, and must be enforced; and because with sin came depravity, for the removal of which it provided no method. What blessing could this violated covenant now confer? It could only repeat perpetually, and it ever continues to repeat, guilty; guilty; guilty! In this attitude did they stand before God; and thus out of Christ, do we all stand before God; criminal, and helpless, and lost!2
Howell devotes significant attention to the covenant of grace as being distinct from the old covenant that governed Israel. Howell, following the pattern of the 17th century Baptists, shows how the ethnic Israelite nation and the new covenant church of Christ are not of the same substance.
The Jewish church which rejected, and cast out the Christian church, could not be substantially that very Christian church which it cast out, and rejected. The Jewish church into which its members were born by natural birth, could not be the same church with the Christian into which none can lawfully enter but such as are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). Was the church which contained the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees, the most open, determined, and malignant enemies of Christ, the same church with that into which none can enter, but those who love Christ with all their soul, and mind and strength? The church of Israel, was the nation of Israel, and, as a whole, could no more be the church of Christ, in the New Testament sense of that phrase, than the American nation, can be called the church of Christ.3
Howell summarizes this distinction elsewhere:
Of the law, and the gospel, —the Old, and New covenants, —Paul speaks in language which can hardly be misunderstood. He characterizes them, not as one covenant, developing itself in different forms… Thus have we seen that the old covenant, or law, was fulfilled, and superseded by the new covenant, or gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.4
The Baptist emphasis on covenant theology is vitally important when it comes to soteriology and ecclesiology. While Baptists have much unity with their paedobaptist brethren on the soteriological aspects of covenant theology, there are significant differences when it comes to ecclesiology. R.B.C Howell’s work on the covenants shows that Southern Baptists still grasped that biblical ecclesiology, as well as soteriology, came out of covenant theology.
John L. Dagg (1794-1884)
John L. Dagg’s “A Manual of Theology” was the first systematic theology book produced by a Southern Baptist and was published in 1857 by The Southern Baptist Publication Society, like Howell’s volume. Dagg deals with the charges that the term “covenant” is not found in Genesis 2 and notes passages like Hosea 6:7 as affirming this was a covenant.
As the term covenant is sometimes applied to a free promise, in which no condition is stipulated; it is proper to characterize that which was made with Adam as a covenant of works. It was a law, with a penalty affixed.5
Dagg also explains how the covenant of grace is the eternal covenant of redemption. He, like Howell, sometimes uses the terms interchangeably. However, he does hint at a distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption.
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 personally6
Dagg echoes much of what Howell wrote in describing the unity of the Triune God and the different redemptive offices and functions each member of the Trinity undertakes in the salvation of sinners.
The salvation of men is a work of God, in which the divine persons concur. It is performed according to an eternal purpose; and in this purpose, as well as in the work, the divine persons concur; and this concurrence is their eternal covenant. The purpose of the one God, is the covenant of the Trinity.7
In this first systematic theology published by a Southern Baptist, a distinctive covenant theology forms a critical part of Dagg’s theology.
James P. Boyce (1827-1888)
A generation later, James P. Boyce, the first president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, published a systematic theology entitled “Abstract of Systematic Theology.” Boyce not only affirms the covenant of works and that Adam was on a probationary test, but he also does a masterful job in dealing with the headship of Adam.
The Scriptures teach that the fall of Adam involved also that of his posterity. In the covenant, under which he sinned, he acted not merely as an individual man, the sole one of his kind, or one isolated from all others of his kind, but, as the head of the race, for his posterity as well as himself. The condition of mankind shows that they have all participated with him in the evils which resulted. The Scriptures teach that this is due, not merely to his natural headship, but to a representative or federal headship, because of which his act of sin may justly be considered as theirs, and they may be treated as though they had themselves done that act, each man for himself.8
Boyce works through the biblical and theological data as to how a failure to understand Adam’s role as a federal head will totally undermine the work of Christ in imputing His righteousness to us as our federal head in the covenant of grace. Boyce then gives a summary statement concerning the covenants:
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. 4:22-31, 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 the covenant of the law entered into between God and all mankind through the first Adam, their natural head and appropriate and appointed representative.9
Conclusion
While this does not cover all that these men stated about the covenants, it does provide a glimpse into the covenant theology that Southern Baptists believed not only in the early days of the convention, but even into the subsequent generation. Howell, Dagg, and Boyce demonstrated that Southern Baptists held to the covenant theology that had marked Baptists for over 200 years. The works of these men exhibit that to be a Southern Baptist meant that you were a covenant theologian. In the fourth and final article of this series, I will consider some of the practical implications of covenant theology for Baptists.
Bibliography
Boyce, James P. Abstract of Systematic Theology. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006.
Dagg, John L. A Manual of Theology. Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982.
Howell, R.B.C. The Cross and the Covenants. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1994.
Jake Stone pastors New Testament Baptist Church in Biloxi, MS. He has served there since August 2011. He is a graduate of William Carey University in Hattiesburg, MS.
