This is tape 2 of Covenanted Uniformity, the
Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being chapter 3 of
Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics, narrated by Larry Berger.
Please note that this entire book is free
on Stillwaters Revival Books website, www.swrb.com.
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters,
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at 780-450-3730
or by email at swrb at swrb.com.
These tapes are not copyrighted and we therefore
encourage you to copy and distribute them to
any and all you believe would be benefited.
We continue our reading.
John Guthrie, faithful minister of Christ, one of
the four hundred ministers banished by the king
in 1660, explains the importance of recognizing that
God is a party in the solemnly in
covenant.
Quote, but these lands are one party and
the God of heaven is the other party.
Therefore, though England should break, should Scotland also
break the covenant?
It is not after this tenor, we will
endeavor reformation in these lands, but if you
break, we will break also.
No, it is each man swearing for himself
that he shall, in his place and station,
endeavor reformation, so that if it were left
all to one man, he must endeavor reformation.
For consider the last words of the article.
Each of them for himself did lift up
his hands to the Most High, and so
these three lands are one party and the
other party is the God of heaven.
Consider seriously upon it, for it is the
thing that you must either suffer for or
sin, ere it be long, without remedy.
Whatever England and Ireland have done in breaking
the covenants, we say they justly must smart
for it, according to the word of God,
if God in mercy prevent it not.
Nevertheless, as long as there are in these
lands any who keep the covenant, we are
bound to keep it, and suppose there are
many who had rather suffer for it than
sin, as witnessed the many scattered flocks and
shepherds in these lands, and supposing this were
not, though both England and Ireland should quit
it, yet Scotland is bound to it.
And that's from John Howey, Sermons Delivered in
Times of Persecution in Scotland, page 668.
Further on in the same sermon, Guthrie continues,
quote, Now a word to that which I
mentioned before.
What shall we do, since these lands have
broken covenant with God?
I tell you that Scotland is bound to
keep it, although England and Ireland have broken
it, and although Scotland break it, yet Ireland
and England are bound to stand to it.
Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let
not Judah offend, that is to say, as
for you at this present time, though England
and Ireland have broken, yet let not Scotland
do so too.
Suppose there were but one family in these
lands that would stand to it, and if
all that family should turn their back upon
it except one person, truly that person is
bound to stand to it.
Choose you whom you will serve, but as
for me and my house, we will serve
the Lord.
Here is but a family, so that if
all the kingdom should forswear the covenant, yet
so long as I am master of a
family, I must serve the Lord.
I must not serve other gods, that is
to say, we should not serve popes nor
prelates and so forth.
But what if it comes to this, that
there be no man to bide by it
at all but one man?
That man is bound to keep it, according
to the Scripture.
I have been very jealous for the Lord
God of hosts, because the children of Israel
have forsaken my covenant, thrown down mine altars,
and slain my prophets with the sword, and
I, even I only, am left.
From these words I conclude, though England has
forsaken, yet Scotland is bound, and though Scotland
should forsake, yet England is bound, and though
both forsake, yet one family is bound to
stand to it.
Therefore study to know your duty, lest the
wrath of God come upon you and your
posterity.
Believe these things, for our king and princes,
nobles and ministers, and all the people, and
our posterity are bound to it.
So I leave it to you with this.
Happy is that man that shall be steadfast
in the covenant, though all the rest should
forsake it.
But as to the persons who shall continue
steadfast, God has reserved that to himself as
a piece of his sovereignty.
Again, we hear not tell of a public
covenant ever sworn and broken, but God visibly
plagued the breakers thereof.
What could extend and transmit an obligation to
posterity if swearing an everlasting covenant with God
on behalf of posterity fails to accomplish the
task?
The evidence already presented must forcibly lead the
reader to understand that the obligations of the
covenants are extended far beyond the original covenanters.
Mr. Bacon disputes with Thomas McCree.
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon wrote to
Pastor Price, Are you seriously suggesting that not
aligning ourselves with a 17th century document is
sinful?
That seems to be what I've read thus
far in both your overture and your posts.
If so, then you have made that 17th
century document the rule of faith and practice.
Necessity is not laid upon me to hold
the traditions of men, else God shares the
throne of my conscience with mortals.
Thomas McCree replies, If there is any truth
in the statements that have now been made,
the question respecting the obligation of the British
covenants is deeply interesting to the present generation.
The identity of a nation as existing through
different ages is, in all moral respects, as
real as the identity of an individual through
the whole period of his life.
The individuals that compose it, like the particles
of matter in the human body, pass away
and are succeeded by others, but the body
politic continues essentially the same.
If Britain contracted a moral obligation in virtue
of a solemn national covenant for religion and
reformation, that obligation must attach to her until
it has been discharged.
Have the pledges given by the nation been
yet redeemed?
Do not the principal stipulations in the covenant
remain unfulfilled to this day?
Are we not as a people still bound
by that engagement to see these things done?
Has the lapse of time canceled the bond,
or will a change of sentiments and views
set us free from its tie?
Is it not the duty of all friends
of reformation to endeavor to keep alive a
sense of this obligation on the public mind?
But although all ranks and classes in the
nation should lose impressions of it, and although
there should not be a single religious denomination,
nor even a single individual in the land,
to remind them of it, will it not
be held in remembrance by one with whom
a thousand years are as one day, and
one day as a thousand years?"
That's from Thomas McCree's Unity of the Church,
page 200.
Yes, Mr. Bacon, I am seriously suggesting that
you align yourself with these 17th century covenants,
and you do not have to bind your
conscience to the rules of men to do
it.
You only have to keep a promise and
own an obligation intended for your good, made
by those who represented you in an everlasting
covenant with God.
This promise is one that God will require
of you, even if 354 years have passed
since it was sworn.
Have you forgotten Saul and the Gibeonite oath?
And Joshua made peace with them, that is,
the Gibeonites, and made a league, or covenant,
with them to let them live.
And the princes of the congregation swear unto
them, Joshua 9.15. Then there was a
famine in the days of David three years,
year after year.
And David inquired of the Lord.
And the Lord answered, It is for Saul
and for his bloody house, because he slew
the Gibeonites.
And the king called the Gibeonites and said
unto them, Now the Gibeonites were not of
the children of Israel, but of the remnant
of the Amorites.
And the children of Israel had sworn unto
them, and Saul sought to slay them in
his zeal to the children of Israel and
Judah.
2 Samuel 21, verses 1 and 2.
Scripture says that Saul, in his zeal and
with the best of intentions, broke an approximately
400-year-old covenant made between Joshua and
the Gibeonites.
God was far more than seriously suggesting.
Rather, he was definitely requiring that Saul keep
a 400-year-old promise made by his
forefather Joshua.
God sorely punished Israel, and the whole nation
had to endure a three years famine for
Saul's covenant-breaking zeal.
Is the PRCE seriously suggesting that God will
hold us to a 350-year-old covenant
made by our forefathers?
Yes.
What will Mr. Bacon and his children have
to suffer before he admits his sin and
repents?
Will his whole house have to suffer before
he realizes his error?
What will this covenant-breaking nation have to
suffer before they mend their perfidious ways?
God is not changed, and he will require
us to pay our vows, whether they were
made in the seventeenth century or in 1997.
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men.
Though it be but a man's covenant, yet
if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or
addeth thereto.
Galatians 3.15. Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord thy God in vain,
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless
that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20, verse 7.
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the
Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to
pay it, for the Lord thy God will
surely require it of thee, and it would
be sin in thee.
But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it
shall be no sin in thee.
Deuteronomy 23, verses 21 and 22.
D.
Who are the posterity referred to in the
covenants?
Since Mr. Bacon claims that he is not
intrinsically bound by these everlasting covenants, it is
very important to answer this question.
Who were the posterity to whom the covenanters
intended this everlasting covenant to apply?
Are we in Canada and the United States
included in these everlasting covenants with God?
This is settled beyond all doubt when the
General Assembly says that they originally intended to
swear an everlasting covenant for settling and preserving
peace in all His Majesty's dominions.
Obviously this raises yet another question.
Who were included among the dominions of Charles
I or Charles II at the time this
covenant was sworn?
Canada and the United States were part of
His Majesty's dominions when the covenant was sworn,
and consequently we are morally and formally bound
to own, renew, and adopt these everlasting covenants.
I would like to thank Pastor Greg Price
for allowing me to use the following draft
from his forthcoming book entitled A Peaceable Plea
for Worldwide Protestant Unity in response to this
particular question.
And Mr. Price's quotation begins here, and it
extends for several pages.
Since we acknowledge that we are the individual,
ecclesiastical, and national posterity of the covenanted kingdoms
of Scotland, England, and Ireland, we confess it
to be our solemn duty not only to
own the obligation of the national covenant and
the solemn legion covenant, but also to renew
as a public testimony our sworn duty to
these covenants as God's people.
For the sake of any who would question
that those individuals and families of British descent
or those churches that have descended from the
Presbyterian churches of the Second Reformation in Great
Britain, or those nations, colonies, or territories that
have directly descended from Great Britain are morally
and formally bound by these solemn covenants, we
offer the following brief testimony.
1.
The Westminster Assembly, the Church of Scotland, and
the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland swore
the solemn legion covenant on behalf of not
only their living posterity, but also on behalf
of all their individual, ecclesiastical, and national posterity
for all ages to come.
We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers
of the gospel, and commons of all sorts
in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland,
by the providence of God, living under one
king, and being of one reformed religion, after
mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into
a mutual and solemn legion covenant, whereby we
all subscribe, and each one of us for
himself, with our hands lifted up to the
Most High God, do swear, we shall each
one of us, according to our place and
interest, endeavor that they may remain conjoined in
a firm peace of union to all posterity.
Notice who the all posterity, as mentioned in
the solemn legion covenant, includes in a letter
written by the Westminster Assembly and sent to
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
in 1644.
Those winds which for a while do trouble
the air, do withal purge and refine it,
and our trust is that through the most
wise providence and blessing of God, the truth
by our so long continued agitations will be
better cleared among us, and so our service
will prove more acceptable to all the churches
of Christ, but more especially to you, while
we have an intentive eye to our peculiar
protestation and to that public sacred covenant, that
is the solemn legion covenant, entered into by
both the kingdoms, and Mr. Price notes Ireland
is not formally omitted here, but is omitted
only because this English Assembly is addressing the
Scottish General Assembly, that is entered into both
the kingdoms for uniformity in all His Majesty's
dominions, that's taken from the Acts of the
General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, pages
231 and 232.
B.
Not only did the Westminster Assembly understand the
all posterity bound by the solemn legion covenant
to be all His Majesty's dominions, but the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland also
officially declared the same to be true in
their letter, 1648, to Charles the First.
As we do not oppose the restitution of
your majesty to the exercise of your royal
power, so we must needs desire that that
which is God's be given unto him in
the first place, and that religion may be
secured before the settling of any human interest,
being confident that this way is not only
most for the honor of God, but also
for your majesty's honor and safety, and therefore
as it was one of our desires to
the High and Honorable Court of Parliament that
they would solicit your majesty for securing of
religion and establishing the solemn legion covenant in
all your dominions, and Mr. Price notes, the
solemn legion covenant having been sworn and made
law by the parliaments of England and Scotland,
it was required that Charles the First swear
to establish it and to enforce it in
all his dominions before he would be allowed
to exercise his royal authority, and again that's
from the Acts of the General Assemblies of
the Church of Scotland, page 439.
C.
Fondly, observe that not only did these ecclesiastical
bodies, namely the Westminster Assembly and the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, interpret the
all posterity bound by the solemn legion covenant
to be those who lived within the bounds
of all his majesty's dominions, but it was
likewise interpreted to be the case by the
Parliament of Scotland, February 17, 1649.
Furthermore, this Parliament identifies the national covenant and
the solemn legion covenant to be laws that
constitute the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, which
cannot be made null and void.
Quote, as likewise the manifold Acts of Parliament,
the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, anent or
concerning the king's oath at his coronation, which,
judging it necessary that the prince and people
be of one perfect religion, appointeth that all
kings and princes, at the receipt of their
princely authority, solemnly swear to observe in their
own persons, and to preserve the religion as
it is presently established and professed, and rule
the people committed to their charge according to
the will of God revealed in his word,
and the lovable constitutions received within this kingdom,
and do sundry other things which are more
fully expressed therein, and withal pondering their manifold
solemn obligations to endeavor the securing of religion
and the covenant before and above all worldly
interests.
Therefore they do enact, ordain, and declare, that
before the king's majesty, who now is, that
is, Charles II, or any of his successors,
shall be admitted to the exercise of his
royal power, he shall buy and attour the
foresaid oath, that is, the coronation oath, assure
and declare by his solemn oath, under his
hand and seal, his allowance of the national
covenant, and of the solemn legion covenant, and
obligations to prosecute the ends thereof, in his
station and calling, and that he shall consent
and agree to acts of parliament establishing Presbyterian
church government, the directory for worship, confession of
faith, and catechisms, as they are approved by
the general assembly of this kirk, and parliament
of this kingdom, in all his majesty's dominions,
and that he shall observe these in his
own practice and family, and that he shall
never make opposition to any of these, or
endeavor any change thereof.
And that's from John Thorburn's Vindiciae Magistratis, or
The Divine Institution and Rite of the Civil
Magistrate Vindicated, page 67.
Naturally, since both of the kingdoms of England
and Ireland, in their national and ecclesiastical capacity,
also swore the solemn legion covenant in 1643,
the solemn legion covenant legally became a necessary
element of the fundamental constitution of those kingdoms,
in all his majesty's dominions as well.
2.
Is it possible to know which nations were
solemnly bound as the all posterity by the
solemn legion covenant, and thus included in all
his majesty's dominions?
Clearly it was all the subjects and the
dominions under the crown of Great Britain, including
the United States and Canada, both of which
were then designated as the dominions in America.
A.
The first colonial charter issued by the English
crown, 1606, was for the settlement of Jamestown
in Virginia.
Here it is noted that the colony of
Virginia is declared to be one of the
king's dominions as much as any other royal
dominion, and its members are considered by James
I, I believe that should be James VI,
to have the same rights as those living
in the realm of England.
It provided that all persons, being our subjects,
i.e., subjects of the crown of England,
which shall dwell and inhabit within any of
the said colonies and plantations, and every one
of their children which shall happen to be
born within any of the limits and precincts
of the said several colonies and plantations, shall
have and enjoy all liberties, franchises, and immunities
within any of our other dominions, to all
intents and purposes, as if they had been
abiding and born within this our realm of
England, or any other of our said dominions.
That is cited by Clarence Carson in Basic
American Government, page 126.
B.
In 1663 Charles II granted a charter to
eight English gentlemen who had helped him regain
the throne of England.
The charter document contains the following description of
the territory, then designated Carolina, which the eight
lords' proprietors were granted title to, QUOTE, ALL
THAT TERRITORY OR TRACT OF GROUND SITUATE LYING
AND BEING WITHIN OUR DOMINIONS IN AMERICA, and
that was cited on the World Wide Web
page entitled State Library of North Carolina.
C.
On November 11, 1743, at Middle Octorara, Pennsylvania,
Reformed Presbyterians under the leadership of Reverend Alexander
Craighead renewed the National Covenant and the Solemn
League and Covenant.
They did so because they realized the colonies
in America were His Majesty's dominions, as referred
to by the Westminster Assembly, the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, and the Parliament
of Scotland, see above, and they also realized
that they were a constituent part of the
all-posterity included in the Solemn League and
Covenant.
Therefore they were bound to own and to
renew these covenants as God provided the occasion
to do so in His wonderful providence.
Quote, There never was any nation but the
nation of the Jews and this realm, note
that these Reformed Presbyterians understood the colonies to
be within the realm of Great Britain and
therefore bound by the national covenants of Great
Britain, that's from Mr. Price, that were so
highly honored as for the whole nation to
enter into covenant with the Lord, and yet,
alas, how little does the generality of this
nation think of this unspeakable dignity?
How many slight it?
Yea, how many look upon our national covenants
as a yoke of bondage, as if it
were a bondage to come under the most
solemn vows imaginable, to appear for God and
His cause and against His enemies?
That which our renowned forefathers gloried in as
their greatest honor and happiness, we in this
corrupt age do grievously despise, which discovers what
base spirits we are of that delight more
to be in league with the avowed enemies
of God's glory than with Himself.
And thus our holy covenants, national and solemn
league, discover themselves to be perpetual and of
constant obligation upon this realm, including the colonies
of America.
Number one, by their being national in their
nature, as is plain from themselves, and so
had the power of the nation to confirm
them.
Two, by the terms of them, as appears
from several sentences in the covenants, first, the
national covenant towards the latter end of it,
which is as follows, and finally being convinced
in our minds and confessing with our mouths
that the present and succeeding generations in this
land are bound to keep the aforesaid national
oath and subscription inviolable, again, we therefore faithfully
promise for ourselves, our followers, and all under
us, both in public and in our particular
families and personal carriage, to endeavor to keep
ourselves, and so forth.
Second, from the first paragraph in the solemn
league and covenant, which is as follows, that
we, in our posterity after us, may, as
brethren, live in faith and love, and that
the Lord may delight to dwell in the
midst of us.
Third, that these covenants are perpetual and of
a constant binding power over this realm is
further evident by their agreeableness to the holy
word of God, that they are so, few
who call themselves Presbyterians deny, yea, we know
of none that ever did or can prove
them to be otherwise, and that's from Reverend
Alexander Craighead's renewal of the covenants, pages 12
and 13.
D, it is certainly worthy of note that
the faithful body of reformed Presbyterians designated as
the reformed Presbytery of Scotland issued a public
testimony entitled the act declaration and testimony for
the whole of our covenanted reformation, which testimony
was originally admitted in 1761 of the fact
that in one of the dominions of his
majesty, namely Canada, Great Britain had violated its
covenant obligations by permitting potpourri to be established
as a religion within Quebec.
This reformed Presbyterian body, the Scottish heirs to
the covenanted reformation, as articulated by the Westminster
assembly, clearly understood Canada, a dominion of Great
Britain to be bound by the same covenant
obligations as was Great Britain herself.
Quote, there has of late been a very
singular instance of the same kind occurred, that
is an instance of the exercise of tyrannical
civil power in the course of administration, which
the Presbytery cannot forbear to take notice of,
but must embrace the present opportunity to declare
their sense of and testify against, and especially
as it is one that carries a more
striking evidence than any of the former of
our public national infidelity and licentiousness and of
our being judicially infatuated in our national councils
and given up of heaven to proceed from
evil to worse in the course of apostasy
from the cause and principle of the reformation.
We particularly mean the instance of a late
bill or act, which has been agreed upon
by both houses of parliament, and which also,
June 1774, was sanctioned with the royal assent
entitled, An Act for Making More Effectual Provision
for the Government of the Province of Quebec
in North America, by which act not only
is French despotism or arbitrary power settled as
the form of civil government, but, which is
still worse, potpourri, the religion of Antichrist, with
all its idolatries and blasphemies, has such security
and establishment granted it, as to be taken
immediately under the legal protection of the supreme
civil authority of these nations in that vast
and extensive region of Canada, lately added to
the British dominions of North America.
How disgraceful and dishonorable is this public act
in favor of potpourri, even to the nation
itself and its representatives who are the authors
of it!
How palpably inconsistent is it with our national
character and profession as Protestant, and with our
national establishments, civil and ecclesiastical, both which are
professedly built upon reformation from potpourri, to come
and to take that idolatrous religion under our
national protection, and become defenders of the Antichristian
faith!
Nay, were it competent for the presbytery, as
a spiritual court and spiritual watchman, to view
this act in a civil light, they might
show at large that it is a violation
of the fundamental national constitutions of the kingdom,
and reaches a blow to
the credit of the legal security granted to
the Protestant religion at home.
We need not here mention how contrary this
act is to the fundamental laws and constitutions
of the kingdom of Scotland, which
are now set aside, but it is contrary
to, and a manifest violation of, the revolution
and British constitution itself, contrary to the claim
of right, yea, to the oath solemnly sworn
by every English and British sovereign upon their
accession to the throne, as settled by an
act of the English Parliament in the first
year of William III, by which they are
obliged to profess and to the utmost of
their power maintain in all their dominions, the
laws of God, the true profession of the
gospel, and the true reformed religion established by
law.
But these things the presbytery leave to such
whom it may more properly concern.
Let it, however, be observed that the presbytery
are not here to be interpreted as approving
of the aforesaid oath, as it designably obliges
to the maintenance of the abjured English hierarchy
and Popish ceremonies, which might better be called
a true reformed lie than the true reformed
religion.
Nevertheless, this being the British coronation oath, it
clearly determines that all legal establishments behoove to
be Protestant, and that without a violation of
said oath, no other religion can be under
protection of law but what is called the
Protestant religion only.
As from the Act Declaration and Testimony, pages
82 and 84.
E.
In a document written by Thomas Jefferson entitled
A Summary of the Rights of British America,
the following brief reference to an act from
King George III demonstrates that even those living
in America understood they were a dominion of
His Majesty.
Quote, One other act passed in the sixth
year of his reign, that is George III's,
entitled An Act for the Better Securing Dependency
of His Majesty's Dominions in America upon the
Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.
And that is from a worldwide web page.
F.
The following excerpts occur in the newspaper that
Benjamin Franklin published in Philadelphia.
That was the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser,
wherein reference is made to colonies in what
is now Canada and the United States as
being dominions of the Crown.
Quote, In considering of these questions, perhaps it
may be of use to recollect that the
colonies were planted in times when the powers
of Parliament were not supposed so extensive as
to be able to as they are become
since the Revolution.
That they were planted in lands and countries
where the Parliament had not then the least
jurisdiction.
That, excepting the yet infant colonies of Georgia
and Nova Scotia, none of them were settled
at the expense of any money granted by
Parliament, that the people went from hence by
permission from the Crown, purchased or conquered the
territory at the expense of their own private
treasure and blood.
That these territories thus became new dominions of
the Crown, settled under royal charters that formed
their several governments and constitutions on which the
Parliament was never consulted or had the least
participation.
That's January 6, 1766, and again cited from
the web page.
Again, quoting Franklin, the colonies had, from their
first settlement, been governed with more ease than
perhaps can be equaled by any instance in
history of dominions so distant.
February 1773.
We would further affirm that just as the
lawful covenant of a father binds all his
children presently living, as well as those yet
to be born, why do we deal treacherously
every man against his brother by profaning the
covenant of our fathers, Malachi 2.10?
Likewise, the lawful civil covenants of national parents
bind their national progeny.
For if one is willing to grant that
the lawful covenant of a father can bind
any of his descendants, he must be willing
to grant that the same lawful covenant binds
all of his descendants for the same moral
obligation that rests upon any one descendant rests
upon all descendants.
Thus it follows that the United States and
Canada, as nations and all other national descendants
of Great Britain, are children of Great Britain
and are bound by the lawful covenant, that
is the solemn legion covenant, of their national
father solemnly sworn with uplifted hands to the
living God in 1643 and renewed on various
occasions in Scotland and the United States by
reformed Christians.
Samuel B.
Wiley, 1773 to 1852, pastor of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, noted the personal ecclesiastical
and national obligations binding those living in America.
He cogently responds to several objections raised concerning
the formal obligations of covenants made by the
fathers on behalf of their posterity.
Objection two, but these covenants, that is the
national covenant and the solemn legion covenant for
which you contend were only oaths of allegiance
to Scotland and Britain and consequently can have
no obligation when you're removed to a foreign
land.
Answer, it will be admitted that they were
oaths of allegiance, but it was primarily to
the governor of the universe and secondarily to
the government.
With respect to the first, let us examine
whether any of those circumstances which can dissolve
allegiance to God has actually taken place.
Allegiance may cease by any of the three
following means.
First, by the dissolution of the dynasty or
government when things revert to an original state
of nature.
Second, by emigration, allegiance and protection being reciprocal
when the latter is no longer necessary, the
former of consequence ceases.
Third, by breach of the mutual compact on
the part of the government, this compact being
necessarily involved in the relation between the governor
governed and the governor ceases to bind the
former when violated and broken through the latter.
Has any of these things taken place to
dissolve our allegiance to the supreme ruler?
The oath of allegiance to the government of
Britain, even if it even were it morally
constituted, however, ceases and Pastor Price notes, because
we have met the second condition mentioned of
above, namely that of emigration from Great Britain
to another nation.
The conditions on which it was entered into
no longer exist.
Seeing we have emigrated from that country, the
obligation, of course, is null and void.
But our relation to God still remains the
same.
And even by that part of the covenant
which respects allegiance to government, we hold ourselves
still so far bound that whenever we find
legitimate rulers in the land where we live,
we will consider the duty of subjection for
conscience sake, not only as a moral duty
required by the divine law, but also as
a duty unto which we are bound by
covenant.
Objection three, but these covenants were local and
required the performance only of local duties and
consequently are not obligatory in other lands.
Answer.
The objection is virtually answered in removing the
one immediately proceeding that is objection to just
stated.
It is admitted there are local peculiarities connected
with the substance of these covenants for these
local peculiarities.
We do not contend in our terms of
communion adapted to existing circumstances in the United
States.
When recognizing the obligations of these covenants, we
declare that quote, this obligation is not to
be considered as extending to those things which
are peculiar to and practicable only in the
British Isles, but only to such moral duties
as are substantially the same in all lands.
Close quote.
Whatever things in these bonds were of a
circumstantial nature, as we have hinted above may
vary with the change of circumstances, but our
relation to God is not a circumstantial or
local thing.
Love to God and our neighbor will still
continue obligatory.
Those some circumstances connected with the expression and
exercise of it may, and often do vary.
Objection five, these covenants were national and so
have no obligation on individuals when they cease
to be members of the national community who
entered into them.
Answer had the duties contained in these covenants
been only of a temporary local or circumstantial
nature, this objection would be relevant, but we
have endeavored above to show that these bonds
contemplated the duties of the moral law, which
is obligatory upon all men.
But here we might inquire of what is
a nation composed?
Is it not of individuals?
Can a nation be nationally bound and the
individuals not be individually bound?
To what is the nation nationally bound?
Is it not to yield a cheerful obedience
to all God's holy and divine commandments in
their national character?
Is not the individual individually bound to do
the same in his individual character?
If he is thus bound in Britain, does
the soil of Columbia loose him of all
obligation to and make him independent of the
moral governor?
And as far as this moral obligation is
concerned between national and personal covenanting, there is
only a numerical difference.
In the latter, one individual is personally bound
in the former three, four or five millions
of individuals are personally bound.
If individuals are not personally bound, they are
not bound at all.
To talk of an individual being only nationally
bound would be a solicism.
That is an error worthy of the greatest
blunderer.
And that's from Samuel B.
Wiley's Sermon on Covenanting, pages 109 to 112.
Reverend John Cunningham, a reformed Presbyterian minister from
Scotland, also drew attention to the perpetual obligation
of the solemn league and covenant upon the
nations and churches descending from Scotland, England, and
Ireland.
Quote, being scriptural in its matter and not
yet implemented.
And besides having been acquiesced in by the
civil power, it, the solemn league and covenant
is to this day binding on the nations.
To this day, it binds the churches in
the three kingdoms, the church of Scotland and
all those who have seceded from it as
an establishment, as well as those Presbyterians who
never were connected with that church since the
revolution.
And that's referring to the revolution of 1689,
in which William and Mary came to the
throne of Britain.
That's from Cunningham's Ordinance of Covenanting, pages 374
and 375.
The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
North America, at its meeting in 1855, clearly
elaborated the binding obligation of the national covenant
and the solemn league and covenant upon the
posterity in the United States.
Although the Reformed Presbyterian Church had by this
time defected from some of the testimony of
its forefathers, the Arkansas renovation and the act
declaration and testimony as terms of communion.
Nevertheless, it yet maintained at this point in
time, a faithful testimony to the binding obligation
of these covenants.
These federal deeds that is the national covenant
of Scotland and the solemn league and covenant
of the three kingdoms, we hold to be
moral in their nature and scriptural in their
character, and that they descend with unabated obligation
from the original covenanters to their posterity who
were represented in the taking of them.
And whilst we abjure any fealty or subjection
to the government of that nation with which
they were originally connected, that is Great Britain,
we now joyfully own and take for ourselves
the God honoring and God honored place, which
such obligations impose as the priceless legacy of
our pious ancestors, whose faith we would follow
and whose noble example we would imitate.
We approve, moreover, the devotion and faithfulness of
our pious predecessors who, amidst weakness and reproach
from time to time, renewed these sacred bonds
and so contributed to perpetuate and transmit them
to us, their posterity.
Deploying, therefore, the sin of the profane rejection
of these covenants and their subsequent widespread neglect,
desiring to be free from any participation in
its guilt, seeking to confirm our own souls
and a godly purpose of devotion to the
service of our God Most High, and to
encourage all who shall follow us in our
testimony to hold fast in His ways, we
resolve to renew the national covenant and solemnly
in covenant in all their obligations, not peculiar
to the church in the British Isles, but
applicable in all lands and essentially interwoven in
the immutable law and word of our God.
And that's from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
North America's Form of Covenant Renovation, pages 8
and 9.
Pastor Thomas Houston, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church in Knockbracken, also confirms the perpetual obligation
of these solemn covenants upon posterity when he
writes, On the ground of the moral character
of our Father's federal deeds, that is, the
national covenant and the solemnly in covenant, they
may be regarded as, in some sort, obligatory
upon other churches and nations besides those that
can trace their descent directly from the original
covenanters, and certainly those who have sprung from
the same stalk, and who in America, or
in the distant colonial dependencies of Britain, owe
much of the scriptural light and freedom which
they enjoy to the principles developed in the
sacred vows of Britain, and to the blessing
that is remarkably rested upon a nation which
was married to the Lord, have peculiar reasons
to view these covenants as worthy of all
admiration and devoted regard, and that's from Houston's
Memorial of Covenanting, page 68.
And finally, we would draw the attention of
our readers to the following words which demonstrate
the attitude of faithful Reformed Presbyterians in the
United States as it relates to their moral
obligation to own formally the national covenant and
the solemnly in covenant.
To some it may appear strange that a
church located in the United States of America
should give such prominence as it did to
the British covenants.
Living in another continent and having no political
connection with Britain, on what grounds was this
matter embodied in the testimony and acknowledgement of
the covenants made obligatory on the members, that
is, the members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
which was established as its own church court
in 1798?
In answer to this, it will be sufficient
to quote the fourth term of communion as
adopted by the American Church.
It is to this effect, an acknowledgement that
public covenanting is an ordinance of God to
be observed by churches and nations under the
New Testament dispensation, and that those vows, namely
that which was entered into by the Church
and Kingdom of Scotland, called the national covenant,
and that which was afterwards entered into by
the three kingdoms, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and
by the Reformed churches in those kingdoms, usually
called the solemn legion covenant, were entered into
the true spirit of that institution, and that
the obligation of these covenants extends to those
who were represented in the taking of them,
although removed to this or any other part
of the world, insofar as they bind to
duties not peculiar to the Church in the
British Isles, but applicable to all lands.
This amounts, we presume, simply to this, that
the essential principles of the covenants concerning liberty
and religion, the reciprocal duties of nations and
rulers, and the obligation which both owe to
Christ as governor among the nations, were binding
on American churches and on American citizens who
were of British origin.
And that's cited in Matthew Hutchison, The Reformed
Presbyterian Church in Scotland, pages 406 and 407.
This ends Pastor Price's faithful contribution to this
particular question.
This writer would like to publicly thank him
for his assistance in this regard.
Next, Mr. Bacon claims he is only morally
bound to the covenants, and that these covenants
have no formal obligation in and of themselves,
while the PRCE affirms that we are morally
and formally bound to the covenants.
In his defense departed, Mr. Bacon says, So
then, we account the solemn legion covenant an
edifying historical document, which contains in it several
moral duties, but we deny that the existence
of moral duties within a document binds subsequent
generations of the church to the historical and
accidental aspects of the document.
As Calvin said, these things should be accommodated
to the varying circumstances of each age and
nation.
It should further be noted that whatever in
a document is a moral duty is a
moral duty so far and only so far
as it is a direct application of God's
moral law.
My people have been lost sheep, their shepherds
have caused them to go astray, they have
turned them away on their mountains, they have
gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten
their resting place.
Thomas McCree replies, Some of the principles on
which it has been attempted to loose this
sacred tie are so opposite to the common
sentiments of mankind that it is not necessary
to refute them, such as that covenants, vows,
and oaths cannot superadd any obligation to that
which we previously are under by the law
of God, and that their obligation on posterity
consists merely in the influence of example.
Regarding the necessity of formally taking the solemn
legion covenant, Mr. Bacon shows how he judges
this covenant to be little more than a
godly example and an edifying historical document, materially
applicable only to the seventeenth century, but not
formally binding upon us today.
So the Steelite turns that which was good
and useful and lawful for the Church of
Scotland to use in a time of national
and ecclesiastical distress to that which is nothing
more than the imposition of traditions upon the
conscience.
Here Mr. Bacon alleges that the covenants were
sworn simply to provide a remedy for a
temporary and national emergency.
Thomas McCree replies to this common objection, saying,
The permanent obligation of the solemn legion results
from the permanency of its nature and design,
and of the parties entering into it, taken
in connection with the public capacity in which
it was established.
The emergency which led to the formation of
the covenant is one thing, and the obligation
of the covenant is quite another.
The former might quickly pass away, while the
latter may be permanent and perpetual.
Nor is the obligation of the covenant to
be determined by the temporary or changeable nature
of its subordinate and accessory articles.
Whatever may be said of some of the
things engaged to in this solemn league, there
cannot be a doubt that in its great
design and leading articles it was not temporary,
but permanent.
Though the objects immediately contemplated by it, religious
reformation and uniformity, had been accomplished, it would
still have continued to oblige those who were
under its bond to adhere to and maintain
these attainments.
But unhappily there is no need of having
recourse to this line of argument.
Its grand stipulations remain to this day unfulfilled.
e.
The Essence of Covenants, Intrinsic Obligation Mr. Bacon
asserts, Whether we speak of the moral duties,
the moral and perpetual obligations, or the moral
substance, we refer only and always to that
which is binding on the conscience because it
is from God's moral law.
Defense Departed Pastor Greg Price responds, We affirm
that we are not only morally bound to
own and renew the national covenant and the
solemn league and covenant because they are agreeable
to the word of God, but we acknowledge
that we are formally bound to own and
renew these biblical covenants as well because they
were made on our behalf.
In other words, we are not only bound
by these covenants because what is contained within
them is agreeable to God's moral law, but
we are further bound to these covenants because
they were sworn on our behalf as their
posterity.
For if only the fathers who originally made
the covenant were formally bound by the terms
of the covenant, then the posterity could never
be accused of having broken the covenant of
their fathers.
They could only be accused of breaking God's
moral commandments.
But time and time again the posterity are
accused of breaking not only the moral commandments
of God, but also of breaking the covenant
of the fathers.
That is simply to say that if the
covenant of our fathers only morally binds us,
then we are only guilty of transgression of
the law of God contained therein.
However, if the covenant of our fathers both
morally and formally binds us, then in addition
to our transgression of God's law we are
guilty of perjury as well.
Thus we have seriously aggravated our guilt by
formally breaking the covenant of our fathers.
That it is true that national covenants made
with God formally bind the posterity is evidenced
from scripture.
And that's taken from Greg Price's draft from
a forthcoming Stillwaters publication entitled A Peaceable Plea
for Worldwide Protestant Unity.
Archibald Mason adds, quote, The lax and prevailing
sentiment by which this truth of solemn covenant
obligations is opposed is the following.
Religious covenants are not formally, but only materially
or morally binding.
They have no real obligation in themselves, but
we are bound to the duties therein because
these duties are required in the moral law.
And Barrow adds, is this not Mr. Bacon's
exact argument?
This dangerous opinion appears to be imbibed by
many professed witnesses for the covenanted reformation, by
the influence of which they seem to be
precipitated into the gulf of public apostasy from
these principles which they formally espoused.
It is impossible for a person to believe
it without entertaining a secret contempt of religious
vows, oaths, and covenants.
And it is impossible for him to act
upon it without being involved in a practical
opposition to them.
If this opinion were true, the house of
Israel and the house of Judah could not
be charged with breaking the covenant.
They might be charged with breaking the Lord's
law, but he could not have said, they
have broken my covenant.
If Israel's covenant with God did not bind
them by an intrinsic obligation, their iniquity could
not be a breach of the covenant, but
only a transgression of the law.
Nor could it be any way criminal from
the relation it had to the covenant, but
only from the reference it had to the
law.
We may easily know what to think of
an opinion which necessarily renders the charges the
Lord brings against his backsliding people absurd and
unjust.
Were this opinion true, there could be no
such thing among the children of men as
the sins of perfidy, that is, breach of
promise, covenant breaking, or perjury.
Though we may pledge our veracity by religious
promises and vows unto God, if there is
no formal obligation in them, there can be
no perfidy or breach of faith in our
disregarding them.
Though we may join ourselves to the Lord
in a solemn covenant, if that deed brings
us under no obligation to fulfill it, the
sin of covenant breaking can have no existence.
Though we should enter into an oath to
walk in the Lord's law, if this oath
is not binding in itself, how can the
sin of perjury or despising the oath of
God be charged upon us?
We are certain that these sins are mentioned
in the word of God and that they
are committed by men, but this opinion destroys
them forever.
Were this sentiment right, then all the solemn
acts of believers as individuals and of the
church as a body are rendered void and
useless to all intents and purposes.
Of what use are promises, vows, oaths, and
covenants if there is no obligation in them?
If obligation to performance is refused to them,
their very essence is destroyed.
The mind cannot think on any of those
transactions without considering an obligation to do as
we have said, vowed, or sworn as essential
to their being.
Promises without an obligation to fulfill them, vows
without an obligation to pay them, oaths without
an obligation to perform them, and covenants without
an obligation to keep them are monsters both
in divinity and in morals which are created
by this more monstrous opinion.
It is also the native import of this
doctrine that Christians are under no other obligation
to duty after they have promised, vowed, and
sworn unto the Lord, or covenanted with Him,
than they were before they engaged in these
solemn and holy transactions.
The man who, like Mr. Bacon, can believe
this, there is great reason to fear, is
actuated by a desire to break the bands
of the Lord and his anointed, and to
cast away their cords from him.
These things both show the gross error of
this sentiment, and serve to confirm the truth
of the contrary doctrine.
And they rejected his statutes and his covenant
that he made with their fathers, and his
testimonies which he testified against them, and they
followed vanity and became vain, and went after
the heathen that were round about them, concerning
whom the Lord had charged them that they
should not do like them.
They are turned back to the iniquities of
their forefathers, which refused to hear my words,
and they went after other gods to serve
them.
The house of Israel and the house of
Judah have broken my covenant which I made
with their fathers, Jeremiah 11.10. Moral obligation
without formal obligation is precisely what Mr. Bacon
pleads for.
This, in essence, destroys the whole concept of
covenanting.
In a December 18, 1996, email correspondence with
Pastor Price, Mr. Bacon tells us exactly what
he considers to be the moral and perpetual
obligation of the solemn league and covenant.
As far as the moral and perpetual obligations
of the solemn league and covenant, I find
them fully spelled out in the documents produced
by the assembly, including the confession, catechisms, form
of presbyterial church government, and directory for the
public worship of God, and so forth, and
I adhere completely to those moral and perpetual
obligations, attainments if you prefer.
It is notable that Mr. Bacon failed to
include the acts of general assembly in his
list, but I will deal with that distinctly
in the forthcoming misrepresentations.
For now, we must observe that Mr. Bacon
has failed to acknowledge that swearing of the
solemn league and covenant in and of itself
created an intrinsic obligation, real and distinct, though
not separated nor separable from the law of
God.
Samuel Rutherford observes that swearing such a covenant
is a moral duty and that the omission
of it is sinful.
To lay bands of promises and oaths upon
a backsliding heart is commanded in the third
command and is not Judaical, Genesis 14.22,
Genesis 28.20, Psalm 132.2, Psalm 76
.22, and this is sinful omission of a
morally obliging duty and morally obliging one man,
so it obligeth a nation, as affirmative precepts
do, and this smells of anabaptism to cry
down all gospel vows.
That's from Rutherford's survey of the survey of
that sum of church discipline, page 482.
Though a man may live and die a
Christian without ever swearing or owning a particular
national covenant, Rutherford explains that failing to do
so in a covenanted land is a sin
of omission against the third commandment.
The sin is committed when one fails to
do all that can be done to restrain
a backsliding heart, be it individual or national.
To illustrate the error Mr. Bacon is promoting,
I ask the reader to consider the following
hypothetical situation.
A certain man finds himself backsliding and given
over to misrepresenting the beliefs of others.
He knows that this is a violation of
the ninth commandment, and he desires to repent
of these foul deeds.
He has learned that a lawful remedy to
such sin can be found in making a
personal covenant with God.
Consequently, he swears an oath to God, promising
to endeavor to carefully read and listen to
his opponent's arguments before publicly assaulting and misrepresenting
them.
Having done this, he recognizes that he has
laid a new obligation upon himself that is
real and distinct, though not separated or separable
from God's law.
God, by means of the third commandment, has
instructed him that he would be negligent in
not doing everything possible to keep himself from
this sin.
Understanding this, he views his personal covenant as
a way of restraining himself from sin by
using the means God has prescribed in his
law.
Thus, his personal covenant is neither separated nor
separable from God's third commandment.
Next, this man knows that he was already
bound by the ninth commandment before he took
his personal covenant.
What, then, did he accomplish by personally swearing
to bind himself to something he was already
entirely bound to keep?
He voluntarily engaged himself to a specific duty
required in God's law and called upon God
himself to witness his self-engagement.
By this act, he formed a new and
distinct moral and perpetual obligation which did not
exist before his swearing of the covenant.
He super-added an obligation that is subordinate
to God's law because it depended upon following
the third and ninth commandments.
It is for this reason that we can
say that this covenant is real and distinct
from God's law.
A new perpetual and moral obligation was formed
that could either distinctly be kept or broken.
Prior to making his personal covenant, this man
would be guilty of breaking the ninth commandment
every time he misrepresented someone.
However, after making this self-engagement, he would
be guilty of adding covenant-breaking and perjury
to the crime of bearing false witness.
A greater band has now been laid upon
him to restrain him from wantonly committing this
crime.
A greater chastisement will follow the violation of
his promise, and conversely a greater reward will
attend his faithful keeping of it.
Thomas Houston explains, The grand and fundamental ground
of a religious covenant is the moral law.
The law of God alone can bind the
conscience.
No oath or bond is of any force
that is opposed to it.
The obligation of the law of God is
primary and cannot be increased.
That of a voluntary oath or engagement is
only secondary and subordinate.
By the divine law, we are obliged to
the performance of duty whether we choose it
or not.
By covenants, we voluntarily bind ourselves.
Where the vows made respect duties enjoined by
the law of God, they have an intrinsic
obligation of the highest and most constraining kind.
Returning to the previously noted hypothetical situation, we
see in light of Thomas Houston's concise explanation
that the vow taken by the man given
over to misrepresenting others is no new rule
of duty, but a new bond to make
the law of God his rule.
This intrinsic obligation of covenanting applies to all
lawful covenants made by man, and it is
the very essence of all covenants.
Once a new bond is sworn, an additional
obligation is formed that can either be kept
or broken.
This is what happened when the solemn legion
covenant was sworn.
This intrinsic obligation is what Mr. Bacon is
attempting to avoid when he says it is
not necessary to take the covenant of the
three kingdoms.
He says he is willing to be bound
by the law of God, but he sees
no reason to actually own a seventeenth-century
covenant any further than that.
He believes this covenant to be an edifying
historical document that lawfully served its purpose for
that particular situation and time.
He believes it to be a faithful example,
but sadly to him it serves only as
a mere acknowledgment and reminder that God's law
requires obedience, and perhaps that extreme circumstances call
for more drastic remedies.
I think it is safe to say that
Mr. Bacon does not think the swearing of
the solemn legion covenant has added any new
obligation to himself personally or to the Reformation
Presbyterian Church corporately.
The same moral and perpetual obligations that existed
before the solemn legion covenant was sworn are
precisely the same moral and perpetual obligations to
which he is bound after it was sworn,
no less, no more.
By his reckoning, the swearing of the solemn
legion covenant was simply a restatement of already
existing moral obligations sworn in an agreement only
applicable to the then existing generation.
To Mr. Bacon, no new, real, and distinct,
superadded perpetual obligation was formed when the solemn
legion covenant was sworn.
By his reckoning, there is no way for
Mr. Bacon or anyone else in 1997 to
break the actual solemn legion covenant itself.
This is what he is saying when he
says that it is not necessary to take
the covenant of the three kingdoms.
Commenting upon the distinct nature of superadded covenant
obligations, Thomas Houston explains the error of Mr.
Bacon's position.
But moreover, religious covenants have an obligation distinct
and peculiar.
Although the authority of God expressed in his
law and speaking through his word is supreme
and cannot possibly be increased, there may be
a superadded obligation on a man's conscience to
respect and obey his authority arising from his
own voluntary oath or engagement.
This is easily illustrated.
We are bound at all times to speak
the truth and to fulfill our promises in
federal engagements.
If an oath is taken to declare the
truth, this adds nothing that is true to
the authority of the law, but it brings
the person swearing under an additional obligation to
speak the truth.
This does not increase the original obligation, and
yet it may be properly regarded as a
new and different obligation.
An oath is enjoined by divine authority and
cannot therefore be useless.
When properly taken, it is important and valuable.
Before the oath was taken, if a person
deviated from the truth, he was simply guilty
of lying.
But afterward, if he speaks falsely, he is
added to his sin, the crime of perjury.
In the former case, he rebelled against the
authority of God.
In the latter, he violates both the authority
of God and repunes the obligation of his
oath.
The usages of all civil society confirms the
doctrine of superadded obligation arising from oaths and
voluntary engagements, and regards perjured persons and covenant
breakers as aggravated criminals.
It has been justly observed that a covenant
does not bind to anything additional to what
the law of God contains, but it additionally
binds.
Taken from William Symington's Nature and Obligation of
Public Vowing, page 22.
This superadded obligation of vows, oaths, and covenants
is plainly recognized in Scripture.
See Numbers 30, verse 2, Deuteronomy 23, 21,
Ecclesiastes 5, 4 and 5.
Divine threatenings distinctly specify as a separate ground
of punishment, breach of covenant, in addition to
the transgression of God's law.
Again, from the Memorial of Covenanting, pages 29
and 30.
The PRCE believes that a superadded obligation was
formed when the solemn legion covenant was taken.
As a result, this obligation, superadded and subordinate
to God's law, could now be either broken
or kept.
By entering into this everlasting covenant, our covenanted
ancestors voluntarily engage themselves in their posterity to
God, and thus we now must formally own,
adopt, and renew both the national covenant and
the solemn legion covenant.
The obligations intrinsic to both covenants cannot be
ignored without violating our forefathers' agreement with God.
This is the reason we say, contrary to
Mr. Bacon, that it is necessary to take,
own, and renew the covenants of the three
kingdoms.
Please understand that swearing a covenant is not
making a new law, neither is it more
directly placing ourselves under the law of God,
which is impossible, nor is it establishing ourselves
in some new relation to God's law.
God has strictly commanded us to keep His
entire law, and it would be foolish to
infer that a mere man, by swearing a
covenant, could add some new relation to the
law of God which he has not already
required.
To imply such a thing is to strike
at the perfection of the law of God,
at the perfection of God Himself, and consequently
at the perfectly finished work of Jesus Christ.
We, like our representative forefathers, are not inventing
a new rule of law.
Rather, we voluntarily engage ourselves to make God's
law our rule.
Understanding the nature of our voluntary engagement and
the intrinsic moral perpetual obligation of covenants is
critical to understanding why we, and all moral
persons represented in the covenants, must uphold both
covenants in 1997.
Mr. Bacon errs when he teaches that it
is not necessary to take the covenants of
the three kingdoms because he has not properly
considered their intrinsic obligation.
His understanding of the fundamental concept involved in
all covenanting lies at the heart of his
error and is one of the prime causes
of his gross misrepresentation of our position.
As long as Mr. Bacon continues in his
present misapprehension of this truth, he will fall
under the faithful censure of the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, and we will
faithfully honor their ruling and remain withdrawn from
him.
On July 27, Session 27, 1649, the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland declared, Albeit
the legion covenant be despised by the prevailing
party in England, and the work of uniformity
through retardments and obstructions that have come in
the way be almost forgotten in these kingdoms,
yet the obligation of that covenant is perpetual,
and all the duties contained therein are constantly
to be minded and prosecuted by every one
of us in our posterity.
Similarly, on August 6, 1649, they say, It
is no small grief to us that the
gospel and government of Jesus Christ are so
despised in the land, that faithful preachers are
persecuted and cried down, that toleration is established
by law and maintained by military power, and
that the covenant is abolished and buried in
oblivion.
All which proceedings cannot but be looked upon
as directly contrary to the oath of God
lying upon us, and therefore we cannot eschew
his wrath when he shall come in judgment
to be a swift witness against those who
falsely swear against his name.
In 1643, the solemn legion covenant was sworn,
and a superadded obligation was formed.
This obligation bound the moral persons of church
and nation for the duration of their existence.
Consider the following argument framed by John Brown
of Haddington as he explains how the intrinsic
obligation of the covenants constitute their very essence,
and how these obligations are real and distinct,
though not separated or separable from God's law.
When our nation's ministers understand the implications of
this point, they will be much closer to
mending their covenant-breaking ways.
And note that this citation is quite lengthy.
The intrinsic obligation of promises, oaths, vows, and
covenants which constitutes their very essence or essential
form is totally and manifestly distinct from the
obligation of the law of God in many
respects.
One, in his law, God, by the declaration
of his will as our supreme ruler, binds
us, Deuteronomy 12.32. In promises, vows, covenants,
and promissory oaths, we, as his deputy governors
over ourselves, by a declaration of our will,
bind ourselves with a bond, bind our souls
with our own bond, our own vow, Numbers
30, Psalm 66, 13 and 15, and 119,
106, and so forth.
Two, the obligation of our promises, oaths, and
covenants is always subject to examination by the
standard of God's law, as both to its
matter and manner, 1 Thessalonians 5.12, but
it would be presumption, blasphemous presumption, to examine
whether what we know to be the law
of God be right and obligatory or not,
James 4, verses 11 and 12, Isaiah 8
.20, Deuteronomy 5.32. Three, the law of
God necessarily binds all men to the most
absolute perfection in holiness, be they as incapable
of it as they will, Matthew 5.48,
1 Peter 1.15 and 16.
No man can, without mocking and tempting of
God, bind himself by vow or oath to
anything but what he is able to perform.
No man may vow to do anything which
is not in his own power, and for
the performance of which he hath no promise
of ability from God.
But no mere man since the fall is
able, in this life either in himself or
by any grace received from God, perfectly to
keep the commandments of God, Ecclesiastes 7.23,
James 3.2. While God remains God, His
law can demand no less than absolute perfection
in holiness.
While His word remains true, no mere man
since the fall in this life can possibly
attain to it, and therefore ought never to
promise or vow it.
The least imperfection in holiness, however involuntary, breaks
the law of God, and is even contrary
to the duty of our relative stations of
husbands, parents, masters, magistrates, ministers, wives, children, servants,
or people, 1 John 3.4, Romans 7
.14, 23, 24.
But it is only by that which is,
in some respect, voluntary sinfulness that we break
our lawful vows.
Nothing can more clearly mark the distinction of
the two obligations than this particular.
There is no evading the force of it,
but either by adopting the Arminian new law
of sincere obedience, or by adopting the popish
perfection of saints in this life.
4.
The law of God binds all men forever,
whether in heaven or hell.
No human law or self-engagement binds men,
but only in this life, in which they
remain imperfect and are encompassed with temptations to
seduce them from their duty.
In heaven they have no need of such
helps to duty, and in hell they cannot
be profited by them.
The obligation of lawful promises, oaths, vows, and
covenants, as well as of human laws respecting
moral duties, however distinct, is no more separable
from the obligation of God's law than Christ's
two distinct natures are separable the one from
the other, but closely connected in manifold respects.
In binding ourselves to necessary duties and to
other things so long and so far as
is conducive thereto, God's law is the only
rule to direct us how to glorify and
enjoy Him is made the rule of our
engagement.
Our vow is no new rule of duty,
but a new bond to make the law
of God our rule.
Even Adam's engagement to perfect obedience in the
covenant of works was nothing else.
His fallibility in his state of innocence made
it proper that he should be bound by
his own consent or engagement, as well by
the authority of God.
Our imperfection in this life and the temptations
which surround us make it needful that we,
in like manner, should be bound to the
same rule both by the authority of God
and our own engagements.
It is in the law of God that
all our deputed authority to command others or
to bind ourselves is allotted to us.
The requirement of moral duties by the law
of God obligeth us to use all lawful
means to promote the performance of them, and
hence requires human laws and self-engagements and
the observance of them as conducive to it.
Nay, they are also expressly required in His
law, as His ordinances for helping and hedging
us in to our duty.
In making lawful vows, as well as in
making human laws, we exert the deputed authority
of God, the supreme lawgiver, granted to us
in His law, in the manner which His
law prescribes, and in obedience to its prescription.
In forming our vows as an instituted ordinance
of God's worship, which He hath required us
to receive, observe, and keep pure and entire.
Psalm 76, verse 11, and 119, verse 106,
and 66, verse 12, and 56, verse 12,
Isaiah 19, verses 18 and 21, and 45,
verses 23 and 24, and 44, verse 5,
and Jeremiah 50, verse 5, and 2 Corinthians
8, verse 5, we act precisely according to
the direction of His law and in obedience
to His authority in it.
Binding ourselves with a bond, binding our soul
with a bond, Numbers 30, verses 2 through
11, binding ourselves by that which we utter
with our lips, verses 2, 6, and 12,
binding ourselves with a binding oath, binding ourselves,
binding our soul by our own vow, our
own bond, verses 4, 7, and 14.
In forming our own vow, we, according to
the prescription of His own law, solemnly constitute
God, who is the supreme lawgiver and Lord
of the conscience, the witness of our self
-engagement, and the guarantee graciously to reward our
evangelical fulfillment of it and justly to punish
our perfidious violation of it.
The more punctual and faithful observation of God's
law, notwithstanding our manifold infirmities and temptations, and
the more effectual promotion of His glory therein,
is the end of our self-engagements as
well as of human laws of authority.
And by a due regard to their binding
force, as above stated, is this end promoted,
as hereby the obligation of God's law is
the more deeply impressed on our minds, and
we are shut up to obedience to it,
and deterred from transgressing it.
In consequence of our formation of our vow,
with respect to its matter, manner, and end
as prescribed by God, He doth and necessarily
must ratify it in all its awful solemnities,
requiring us by His law to pay it
as a bond of debt, to perform and
fulfill it as an engagement to duties and
an obligation which stands upon or against us.
Numbers 30, verses 5, 7, 9, and 11,
with Deuteronomy 23, verses 21 through 23, Psalm
76, 11, 50, 14, Ecclesiastes 5, 4, and
5, Matthew 5, 33.
In obedience to this divine requirement, and considering
our vow in that precise form in which
God in His law adopts and ratifies it
and requires it to be fulfilled, we pay,
perform, and fulfill it as a bond wherewith
we, in obedience to Him, have bound ourselves
to endeavor universal obedience to His law as
our only rule of faith and manners.
Whoever doth not, in his attempts to obey
human laws or to fulfill self-engagements, consider
them as having that binding force which the
law of God allows them, he pours contempt
on them as ordinances of God and on
the law of God for allowing them a
binding force.
Thus, through maintaining the superadded but subordinate obligation
of human laws and of self-engagements to
moral duties, we do not make void but
establish the obligation of God's law.
The obligation of a vow by which we
engage ourselves to necessary duties commanded by the
law of God must therefore be inexpressibly solemn.
Not only are we required by the law
of God before our vow was made, but
we are bound in that performance to fulfill
our vow as an engagement or obligation founded
in the supreme authority of His law warranting
us to make it.
We are bound to fulfill it as a
mean of further impressing His authority manifested in
His law upon our own consciences, as a
bond securing and promoting a faithful obedience to
all His commandments.
We are bound to fulfill it in obedience
to that divine authority by derived power from
which we as governors of ourselves made it
to promote His honor.
In those or like respects, our fulfillment of
our vows is a direct obedience to His
whole law.
We are moreover bound to fulfill it as
a solemn ordinance of God's worship, the essential
form of which lies in self-obligation and
must be received, observed, kept pure and entire,
and wholely and reverently used, and so in
obedience to the first three commands.
We are bound to fulfill it as an
ordinance of God in which we have pledged
our own truth, sincerity, and faithfulness, and so
in obedience to commands 9, 1, 2, and
3.
We are bound to fulfill it as a
solemn deed or grant in which we have
made over our persons, property, and service to
the Lord and His church, and so in
obedience to commands 1, 2, and 8, nay,
in obedience to the whole law of love
and equity, Matthew 22, 37, 39, and 7,
12.
We are bound to fulfill it from regard
to the declarative glory of God as the
witness of our making of it, that He
may appear to have been called to attest
nothing but sincerity and truth, and so in
obedience to commands 1, 3, and 9.
We are bound to fulfill it from a
regard to truth, honesty, and reverence of God
as things not only commanded by His law,
but good in themselves, agreeable to His very
nature, and therefore necessarily commanded by Him, and
from a detestation of falsehood, injustice, and contempt
of God as things intrinsically evil, contrary to
His nature, and therefore necessarily forbidden in His
law, and thus in authority in His whole
law as necessarily holy, just, and good.
We are bound to fulfill it from a
regard to the holiness, justice, faithfulness, majesty, and
other perfections of God as the guarantee of
it, into whose hand we have committed the
determination and execution of its awful sanction, as
the gracious rewarder of our fidelity, or the
just revenger of our perfidy, and hence in
regard to our own happiness as concerned in
that sanction.
In fine, we are bound to fulfill it
in obedience to that command of God which
adopts and ratifies it, requiring us to pay,
fulfill, or perform our vow, oath, or covenant.
Psalm 50, 14, 76, 11, Ecclesiastes 5, 4,
Deuteronomy 23, 21, and 23, and Matthew 5,
33.
In violating such a vow, we do not
merely transgress the law of God as requiring
the duties engaged before the vow was made,
but we also rebel against and profane that
divine warrant which we had to make our
vow.
We profane that authority over ourselves in the
exercise of which we made the vow, and
consequentially that supreme authority in God from which
ours was derived, and so strike against the
foundation of the whole law.
We manifest a contempt of that law which
regulated the matter and manner of our vow.
We profane the vow as an ordinance of
God's worship appointed in His law.
By trampling on a noted mean of promoting
obedience to all the commands of God, we
mark our hatred of them and prepare ourselves
to transgress them, and endeavor to remove the
awe of God's authority and terror of His
judgments from our consciences.
We blasphemously represent the Most High as a
willing witness to our treachery and fraud.
We pour contempt on Him as the guarantee
of our engagements, as if He inclined not
or durst not avenge our villainy.
Contrary to the truth and faithfulness required in
His law and pledged in our vow, we
plunge ourselves into the most criminal deceit and
falsehood.
Contrary to equity, we rob God and His
church of that which we had solemnly devoted
to their service.
Contrary to devotion, we banish the serious impression
of God's adorable perfections.
Contrary to good neighborhood, we render ourselves a
plague and curse and encourage others to the
most enormous wickedness.
Contrary to the design of our creation and
preservation, we reject the glory of God and
obedience to His law from being our end.
Meanwhile, we trample on the ratification of our
vow by the divine law in all its
awful solemnities and manifold connections with itself and
requirement to pay it.
It is manifest that our covenanting ancestors understood
their vows in the manner above represented.
They never represent them as mere acknowledgments of
the obligation of God's law or as placing
themselves in some new relation to God's law
or more directly under any command of it,
but declare that a man binds himself by
a promissory oath to what is good and
just.
It cannot oblige to sin, but in anything
not sinful being taken, it binds to performance.
By a vow we more strictly bind ourselves
to necessary duties.
And in expressions almost innumerable, they represent the
obligation of their vows as distinct and different,
though not separable, from the law of God.
They no less plainly declare that no man
may bind himself by oath to anything but
what he is able and resolved to perform.
No man may vow anything which is not
in his own power and for the performance
of which he hath no promise or of
ability from God.
And in their several forms of covenant, they
never once pretend to engage performing of duties
in that absolute perfection which is required by
the law of God, but sincerely, really, and
constantly to endeavor the performance of them.
That's taken from John Brown of Haddington's Absurdity
and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration, pages 120
through 127.
This concludes Take 2 of Covenanted Uniformity, the
Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being Chapter 3 of
Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics.
Again, please note that this entire book is
free on Stillwaters Revival Books' website, www.swrb
.com.
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters,
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at 780-450-3730
or by email at swrb at swrb.com.
And again, these tapes are not copyrighted, and
we therefore encourage you to copy and distribute
them to any and all you believe would
be benefited.