Reviews of John Ball's "A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace"
Here are two recent reviews of our book
A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace by John Ball
1) By David McKay (professor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland's Theological College, and author of The Bond of Love: God's Covenantal Relationship with His Church: Covenant Theology and the Contemporary World)
in the Reformed Theological Journal (2006 edition):
John Ball (1585-1640) is rightly regarded as one of the pioneers of covenant theology in the English speaking world. Indeed the appearance of A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace in 1645 may have exercised a significant influence on the covenantal perspective of the Westminster Divines. It is therefore a particular pleasure to have this facsimile reprint of Ball’s treatise readily available. In the First Part, Ball considers in turn the significance of the word ‘covenant’, the Covenant of Grace in general, and the revelations of the Covenant of Grace to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Israel, David and in the period after the exile. In the Second Part he considers the New Covenant, concentrating especially on the role of Christ as the Mediator of the New Covenant and the fellowship which he provides for his people. Regarding the Covenant at Sinai, Ball departs from the usual Reformed view by arguing that the difference between Old and New Covenants is not that of promise and fulfilment, but simply one of degree and intensity. The nature of the Sinai covenant is an issue that has been widely debated in Reformed circles, with a diversity of views resulting. Ball’s position can now be assessed from the original source. The print in this facsimile is remarkably clear and a little practice will enable the reader to cope with seventeenth century typography.
2) By blogger "Witsius" in Canada in his blog ¡Alarma! Standard :
Despite the trepidation when I began reading this ancient text - I foresaw trouble with the print quality (facsimile), esp. w/side column references, and f/s-type archaisms, etc. I found it, actually, quite easier to read and understand than the McMahon edition of Rutherford (#12, above). Not only that, but I appreciated the original language as, I am sure, most more scholarly (than me) types will. (It seems odd that a 1645 printing would read better than a modernized 1654.)
